 
Patrick
Member
Username: Patrick
Post Number: 4604
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 27, 2007 - 8:12 pm: |    |
Water woes
Sunday, June 24, 2007JAMES L. SLACK
While a promise of drought relief may quench our immediate fears, a report in The News recently indicates Alabama shortages will become increasingly routine as existing sources fail to provide sufficient fresh water to match residential and commercial growth by the year 2025.
http://www.al.com/opinion/birm inghamnews/index.ssf?/base/opi nion/1182674823207300.xml&coll =2 |
Jb3
Member
Username: Jb3
Post Number: 31
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 27, 2007 - 8:30 pm: | |
No kidding they want our water. Last year or so there was a proposal to ship Great Lakes water all the way to Phoenix, Vegas and the southwest. Not enough they take all of our talent and eager young minds, they want our natural resources as well. They're not gonna get it though. why the hell do you think i preach about innovative and progressive developments so much. We need to lead the charge in the next evolution of Cities and desirable places to live. I'm not going to sit idle while china and the middle east outdo us. We are sitting on the largest reserve of what will soon become the worlds most valuable commodity. I think it high time to reevaluate our place in the world and start to live up to it. But that's a different animal, for a different day  . |
Izzadore
Member
Username: Izzadore
Post Number: 42
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 27, 2007 - 8:42 pm: | |
Not sure if it's possible but...
Ive always thought that the Army Corp of Engineers would spec something like this out. And while they were at it they could figure out how to replenish the lakes with flood waters from Texas, the Rockies and the Mississippi. |
Waz
Member
Username: Waz
Post Number: 91
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 27, 2007 - 8:43 pm: | |
Very interesting article. The water deprivation of the southwest is more obvious to us, but I never thought that the South could be faced with a water shortage, too.
Maybe Michigan's (and the Midwest, including Canada) best natural resource could be used to feed the rest of the country. This would require a consortium of governments, which I haven't seen yet after much talk. It would also require very, very careful conservation.
The stakes are high, but the payoff could be rich for an area (not just Michigan, but much of the Midwest) that has seen economical devastation over recent years.
Then again, people probably wouldn't travel to see our massive bottling and pipeline operations, so we could write off tourism. Not that that has helped us much before. |
Ray1936
Member
Username: Ray1936
Post Number: 1566
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 27, 2007 - 9:00 pm: | |
As a resident of my adopted home in Las Vegas, please be advised that there has never been any serious proposals to acquire Great Lakes water. I've been here for 23 years now, and have not once read of such a thing in the local papers nor seen any such commentary on TV. There currently is an active plan to tap into an aquifer in central Nevada which should be completed within ten years.
But have no fear for your fine Great Lakes water from us. Besides, after each year's Jobbie Nooner, we really don't even want it. |
Elsuperbob
Member
Username: Elsuperbob
Post Number: 5
Registered: 03-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 27, 2007 - 9:35 pm: | |
Why should we fund their blind growth. Perhaps they should have considered the lack of something as vital as water and planned their growth more intelligently. And no matter how much water we sell we would still be in the red. Unless we charged an insanely high price for the loss of our water.
I had to write the following letter to the author.
Your editorial on June 24 fails to consider several things. It's so simplistic and the only parties to benefit from your idea would be Alabama and the Sunbelt. It's not that we despise the "Sun Belt" it's that our economies depend heavily on the continued existence and health of the Great Lakes.
The editorial doesn't take into consideration the delicate balance of replenishment in the Great Lakes basin. In fact lake levels are expected to drop in the coming decades. Lake Erie alone could drop 32 inches by 2050 and see its surface shrink by 15 per cent.
On top of that the entire region depends on the Great Lakes continued existence for a multi-billion dollar tourism industry. With lower lake levels algae blooms could expand killing off the fish stock and driving away sports fishermen. Shorelines could become marshy or desolate stretches of beach driving away recreational tourism. Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan are in the top five states for per capita boat ownership. Boats that, with shrinking lakes and receding shorelines, could become useless driving away recreational boating. Billions lost.
Additionally if lake levels were to drop vital shipping channels would be lost cutting off important ports as Detroit, Chicago and Duluth and the resources that travel through them. Every inch drop results in over 200 tons less cargo on a ship. Iron that is now cheaply shipped by water from Duluth would have to be moved by more expensive rail. The same thing with the vast amounts of grain brought in from the upper midwest. Again billions of dollars lost.
Hyrdo-electricity is a major source of energy, mainly from the Niagara Falls region. Millions in the U.S. and Canada are powered by water flow through the river. And it's not just nearby cities like Buffalo or Toronto that benefit but cities as far as New York and beyond. With less water in the lakes less water could be diverted to the power plants while leaving the falls (a major tourist attraction) "turned on". Once again billions of dollars lost.
On top of that you would have the politicians there seek federal funding for a pipeline. So in other words we would end up funding our own demise. And all because you blindly recruited industries and populations without any kind of planning or thought to the future handling of the most vital resource, water. So potentially billions more of our tax money diverted to an insane pipeline project.
So considering the losses to our vital economic sectors are you really ready to pay a fair market price for our water? |
Lowell
Board Administrator
Username: Lowell
Post Number: 3930
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 27, 2007 - 11:40 pm: | |
Sunbelters, welcome! Come by my house. I am selling water for $3.15 a gallon.
Better yet, how about if swap it for your gasoline even steven? |
Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok
Post Number: 4686
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 12:02 am: | |
I somehow seriously doubt that Ohio and Indiana will want huge pipelines running thru their states! |
Jerome81
Member
Username: Jerome81
Post Number: 1526
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 1:56 am: | |
I doubt this would happen. I would guess de-salinization(sp?) would be used before they start pipelining or shipping great lakes water.
Beyond that (and I'm not going to get in to global warming or lake cycles or any of that stuff) it is important the system stay "self filling" if that is the proper term. Currently nearly all the water taken from the great lakes eventually finds its way back in. The one big exception is the City of Chicago where fresh water is taken from lake michigan and waste water is pumped into the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and I do not believe eventually drains back into the great lakes but instead into the Mississippi River system. This, while not ideal, is probably not a HUGE problem at this time. I want to say it is a lot of water, but in the grand scheme is probably not enough to get worked up about. However, if it got bad enough, I could see Chicago being able to fix the CSSC issue and release treated waste back into the great lakes basin.
However, if you start pulling out water and shipping a ton of it out of the area, guaranteed that you're going to create serious issues with lake levels (again, ignoring natural cycles, global warming-human or natural, etc). This just will not be acceptable.
Of course while the midwest will fight it, do we really have enough people in the federal government to stand up for us? I would guess not right now. If someplace besides the "flyover" areas needs the water, I could see them forcing the midwest to give it up. Hell, look how they love to screw those evil detroit automakers. The midwest just doesn't have crap for clout in the government these days, and this could be a big problem. A state like Alabama or Georgia has a lot more, unfortunately. And it is all backed up with "growth" and "population increases", etc. Same thing that they use to justify freeway expansion. Nobody ever stops to think about taking care of the problem by not moving someplace if the population can't be supported. I feel the same way about people in CA (earthquakes), I am one of them, and people in hurricane country. While nobody deserves to lose their home, if you move to problem-prone areas, it is your responsibility to carry the insurance to protect your property. It is not the government or the taxpayers problem to pay to rebuild your home or pay for you to have drinking water. You wanna live in a dangerous area or where water is scarce? Then you better have the $$ to take care of yourselves.
Instead a lot of Americans want to live where they want to live and have everyone else pay for them to be able to do so. This is a prime example of that.
We don't always get what we want. The good news? There will be enough states and enough population around to really stand up and stop this from happening. We are talking, what, 10 or so states that would be affected by the loss of great lakes water? MN, WI, IL, IN, MI, OH, PA, NY? Not to mention Canada will have a say in this too.
Won't happen as long as the government doesn't make all americans subsidize the ability for some to live in parched areas or in earthquake or hurricane zones. |
Jerome81
Member
Username: Jerome81
Post Number: 1527
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 2:04 am: | |
Oh, and it wouldn't surprise me if that SE drought of the past couple years fixes itself in the next few.
Weather goes in cycles. |
Jb3
Member
Username: Jb3
Post Number: 32
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 6:12 am: | |
Ray, i realize that there was never a serious proposal for an 'alaskan pipeline' water supply to the southwest. It was just the mere thought of it that sparked my interest and discomfort. It raised the question that Elsuperblob asked ' why should the rest of the country fund uncontrolled growth. The answer i'm afraid was that because all of us are extremely guilty of uncontrolled growth (barring portland of course) and we need to recognize the impact we are having on our environment. Not wanting to get into Global Warming or even energy concerns, just simply our mentality of 'growth mania' is having serious consequences on the near future. Every time we tap into an aquifer or reroute a river or stream were messing with natural watersheds and ecosystems, for what? A short term solution to a bigger problem that we are to stubborn to address? Or is it simply that we can't accept responsibilty for our own actions and make the lifestyle choice to NOT have a lawn in a desert.
I'll make you deal, you get your local building policy to rewrite the codes out there that all new construction be energy independent by harnessing your plentiful supply of solar power. Once a critical mass comes about and you can produce enough energy to supply our coal and nuclear powered city with energy, i'll stop complaining how stupid desert people have no business owning lawns in a environment never meant to support them. |
Danny
Member
Username: Danny
Post Number: 6121
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 7:36 am: | |
So the booming sunbelt has drought problem. HAH! They would not have our great lakes to quench their thrist those folks on desertland better go ask Gay-Canada for their fresh water. There's plenty of it at the north poles. Or better yet go to Antartica and get some fresh water there. The Great Lakes belongs to the People of Michigan, Illinois, Gay-Canada, Ohio, Indians, Wisconsin, New York and Pennsylvania and we will protect all of it in any means necessary. |
Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg
Post Number: 975
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 8:07 am: | |
Didn't anyone read the penultimate sentence in that opinion piece from the Birmingham (AL) News:
Is it cheaper to bring the water here or move everything there?
The writer was never serious about bringing Great Lakes water to the Deep South, he is using an over-the-top proposal to get folks down there to consider the true price of their subsidized industrialization campaign. |
Jdkeepsmiling
Member
Username: Jdkeepsmiling
Post Number: 267
Registered: 01-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 9:05 am: | |
I would honestly join a militant campaign to stop the selling of Great Lakes water to the Southern States. You move to a desert, you have to deal with the consequences. I am am generally a very kind and caring person, but you cannot ignore the reality of placing 2 million people on an aquifer that can only support 10,000. If there is no water there, well that's just tough, you chose to move there, deal with it. |
Danny
Member
Username: Danny
Post Number: 6123
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 10:20 am: | |
I was wondering why Phoenix and its fast booming suburbs of Mesa, Scottsdale, and Glendale has over millions of people while poor ol' Detroit and its suburbs lost thousands of people every day? What kind of excellent job base do they have over there? Is it luring more Illegal Mexicans from our weak "Hadrian Wall" so that confined themselves to the American desert and ghetto-ize it? You white-folks and any other folks should have learn your lesson not to mess the Desert southwest and turning to into Vegas like, Golf coursesque atmosphere you need to expand further and tap down the aquafers. You all killing what's left of the trees and plant and animal life in the desert anyway. The enviroment is very hot and day every year and when monsoon season comes, the some areas would be flooded because most of desert top soil has been deleted due to all that digging for more aquafers and building more houses and sprawl-mart and exploiting innocent American people. Now you folks in the desert southwest want our Great Lakes. NO WAY!!! You all people made a desert our the desert southwest so go live in it and pay the price. |
Ray1936
Member
Username: Ray1936
Post Number: 1572
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 12:15 pm: | |
"i'll stop complaining how stupid desert people have no business owning lawns in a environment never meant to support them."
Jb3 -- Here's my back yard in Vegas. The front yard is similar. What lawn???????
|
Goblue
Member
Username: Goblue
Post Number: 100
Registered: 03-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 1:29 pm: | |
Bush made a speech here in Arizona sometime in the last year or two about how water could be pipelined here from the Great Lakes. Some of the locals actually believed him...I was rolling on the ground laughing at his pathetic pandering. The MI National Guard...assuming they're back from Iraq...would be called out!! |
Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok
Post Number: 4695
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 2:37 pm: | |
It's amazing how the Colorado River, the great river of the southwest, empties into the Gulf of California (at the Mexican border) as a trickle of water. Most of it gets sucked up by dams, cities and agriculture along the way. |
Goblue
Member
Username: Goblue
Post Number: 101
Registered: 03-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 2:55 pm: | |
Gistok: Amazing and real scary! Here in Northern AZ we're dependent on wells into aquifers which are being tapped at an ever increasing rate. The Verde River is a major supplier of water to the Salt River which in turn is a primary water source for Phoenix. If the aquifers that feed the Verde are depleted by the over development here in the north there will be a major eruption. Ranchers and developers control the AZ legislature and the local politicos. They have been able to prevent any meaningful controls on development. |
Jdkeepsmiling
Member
Username: Jdkeepsmiling
Post Number: 268
Registered: 01-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 3:21 pm: | |
I encourage everyone here to read a book called "When the River's Run Dry" by Fred Pearce. It is an excellent book and will leave you thankful that you live in the Upper Midwest.
JD |
Goblue
Member
Username: Goblue
Post Number: 102
Registered: 03-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 4:34 pm: | |
JD: Is that book going to scare the hell out of me???....cuz, I'm already pretty damn worried...we've begun to look at moving back East...maybe western VA or western NC...sold the snow blower so MI is not on the short list! |
Jb3
Member
Username: Jb3
Post Number: 33
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 5:32 pm: | |
Ray, you're a diamond in the rough. Of course, i'd be happier if you're whole house were built underground to temper those insane energy costs of cooling that place. I'd reccomend a green roof, but then you'd have to water it. Do you guys ever get any rain there? Kudos on the lawnlessness. |
Jdkeepsmiling
Member
Username: Jdkeepsmiling
Post Number: 272
Registered: 01-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 5:32 pm: | |
It is slightly scary, but more it gives you an idea of how worldwide this issue is. We actually have much less of a problem then China and India. I firmly believe that with global warming and massive water shortages MI will be the place to won land in about 100 years. Unfortunatly I will not be around to cash in. |
Ray1936
Member
Username: Ray1936
Post Number: 1577
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 6:10 pm: | |
"Do you guys ever get any rain there? Kudos on the lawnlessness."
Thanks, Jb. Yeah, the rain here is a good news, bad news kind of thing.
The good news is we only get four inches of rain a year.
The bad news is that it all comes on the same day. |
Ravine
Member
Username: Ravine
Post Number: 1058
Registered: 01-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 6:49 pm: | |
Maybe I really do over-simplify things, but it seems to me that, if you need and want water, you shouldn't try to live in the desert. |
Jiminnm
Member
Username: Jiminnm
Post Number: 1304
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 7:19 pm: | |
Thanks for the sane posts Ray1936, here is our "lawn" in the high desert of NM:
We are in an area water coop, with 100-150 years before water becomes a serious concern for our area of 1,000 or so homes. We get 8-10 inches of rain per year, and 8-10 inches of snow (so long as you don't count the 4-5 years' worth of snow we got this past winter). We use much less water than when we lived in Michigan.
Other places, like Santa Fe and Albuquerque, have implemented conservation programs that have greatly reduced consumption. The long term solution for us here in NM is desalination. NMSU is testing a promising neighborhood or subdivision sized project for desalinating brackish deep water well water. Others are testing larger scale desalination in Baja California. |
Goblue
Member
Username: Goblue
Post Number: 103
Registered: 03-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 7:26 pm: | |
There is water here...plenty of water for a limited population...keep in mind that I'm talking about northern Arizona which is high mountain desert...not of the type found in the southern part of the state.
The real problem here is over development...combined with drought. We're in the 12th year of a protracted drought period...there are data to indicate that about 700 years ago there was one that lasted 60 years. There is virtually no regulation on well drilling which means that developers can punch holes into the aquifers whenever and wherever they choose...local politicians who are in bed (in a few cases...literally) with them cooperate by building more and wider roads and by reducing legal lot sizes down to 2 acres so that land further out can be developed and sold at huge profits.
Our "lawn" is crushed rock. We have a few native plants...mostly cactus...for decoration. I have a small (12x12) vegetable garden with a couple tomato plants, etc. that is watered with a soaker (non-spray) hose a couple of times a week during the night. Our three horses guzzle about 20 gal. each per day in hot weather. What drives me crazy is to see people with lawn sprayers going full blast at mid-day in the wind and using their hoses to wash down driveways. Water use can be done responsibly but there are those...often from CA or the midwest who think they can make the desert look like "back home". |
Jimaz
Member
Username: Jimaz
Post Number: 2467
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 7:26 pm: | |
Another weird thing about Phoenix is how the geology is reacting to the draining of the water table beneath the city. Phoenix is in a valley surrounded by mountains and as the water table drops, the desert floor sinks and peels back from the mountain bases causing large fissures to open.
There have been cases where these fissures destroyed the land value of homeowners who weren't warned about them before purchasing their land.
There was another case a few years ago where they had to temporarily close I-17 south of Phoenix to repair a fissure that was threatening to damage that freeway. |
Goblue
Member
Username: Goblue
Post Number: 104
Registered: 03-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 7:36 pm: | |
Jimaz: Interesting. Do you have information about why the water table is dropping beneath Phoenix...the city doesn't get its water from wells...it comes from the Salt and Colorado rivers. According to my understanding the two sources (rivers and aquifers) aren't related...except insofar as aquifers fuel springs which feed the rivers. |
Jimaz
Member
Username: Jimaz
Post Number: 2468
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 7:55 pm: | |
Goblue, I believe it was blamed on agriculture in the articles I read at the time. |
Janesback
Member
Username: Janesback
Post Number: 355
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 8:10 pm: | |
Trust me, we have had so much rain here in Texas, that we will give anyone who wants it to the for free. We had 20 inches yesterday, and 5 more today
..we aren't a bunch of pathetic panty waists;, hell, if you want it, we'll let you have as much as you want........
Sounds like a lot of sour grapes on this forum.........Good luck , Jane |
Jb3
Member
Username: Jb3
Post Number: 35
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 8:23 pm: | |
Here's a good audio clip on the southwests 'water wars'.
http://www.onpointradio.org/sh ows/2007/06/20070620_a_main.as p
it appears that 80% of the water usage out there goes straight to agriculture. |
Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok
Post Number: 4699
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 10:21 pm: | |
I had to laugh when I read about a Colorado commercial about taking showers... they frowned up taking daily showers. Their motto... "Wash only the dirty parts." |
Ray1936
Member
Username: Ray1936
Post Number: 1579
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 11:45 pm: | |
Pretty shot, Jiminnm. Y'know, if we want to throw stones at folks back east (and we don't, of course), one might say what's wrong with you folks dumping bags and bags and bags of fertilizer on your turf, only to have it wash off and fill the beautiful inland lakes with algae and seaweed??? I spent a week with friends in a new housing subdivision this month, and in my porch sitting there, I came to the conclusion that all those folks did was go to work and come home and work on their lawns. I should buy some John Deere stock.
I love my desert landscaping. The plants get eight minutes of drip irrigation per day, and my only yard work is checking for a stray weed a couple of times a month. |
Goblue
Member
Username: Goblue
Post Number: 105
Registered: 03-2007
| | Posted on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 12:06 am: | |
Ray1936: Amen!! I sold the lawnmower at the same time that I sold the snowblower! Once a month or so I walk the property to pull weeds. The fertilizer runoff is destroying those beautiful lakes of the midwest. |
Jb3
Member
Username: Jb3
Post Number: 36
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 12:21 am: | |
Yeah, great shots guys! I'm a little jealous. But welcome to my world and the fertilizer debacle. Grass and other ground cover was growing here long before we brought our Brit lawns here. I haven't watered or fertilized in years and there is nothing wrong with my lawn, its still green. I laugh my ass off when we go for a dry spell and all the people that have over watered and conditioned their lawns to have shallow root structures get scorched. The only time i water anything is when it's been traumatized as a new planting. I also use a reel mower which is supposed to be healthier for the grass as it actually shears like scissors and doesn't tear at it like a rotary gas mower. Not to mention the pollution we are spewing from millions of gas mowers with no emmission controls, but whatever.
I think alot of people find tending to their lawns actually relaxing and not like work at all. I hope you took a picture of your friends new lawn and are posting it here as well for me to complain about, unless it's here back east, and then i can only complain on how they bought a new house in a sprawling neighborhood development. But at least they got their Mcmansion that won't hold it's resale value and now they are over mortgaged with no hope of ever getting any equity out of the place...you should buy john deere stock. cheers! |
Jb3
Member
Username: Jb3
Post Number: 37
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 12:29 am: | |
It's not just runoff from lawns though, its runoff from our hundreds of thousands of parking lots that feed right into the storm system. Blows my mind. I was thinking that though it isn't cost efficient to use permeable pavers that we could use the pavers as the stripes in a parking lot, instead of toxic paints. the parking lanes would still be demarcated, but it would actually let the ground breath a little while serving to leech off some of the oil and gas before it gets to the streams and rivers and stuff. Of course, i just opened the door for some poor sap to claim how effective our storm water treatment system is...blah blah. |
Ray1936
Member
Username: Ray1936
Post Number: 1582
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 1:30 pm: | |
"I think alot of people find tending to their lawns actually relaxing and not like work at all."
I'm gonna have to back down and give you that one. My old partner in the DPD who now lives near Elk Rapids says there is nothing more relaxing than to climb on to his tractor with a big mug of coffee and to start driving through the back forty. He truly enjoys it. But he really doesn't have a lawn, he just cuts the natural growth. |
Goblue
Member
Username: Goblue
Post Number: 108
Registered: 03-2007
| | Posted on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 3:54 pm: | |
The second story on the front page of the Arizona Republic this morning was "Worries Increase as River Runs Dry"...the San Pedro river which is the last river in AZ without a dam has all but run dry east of Tucson and SE of Phoenix...drought and groundwater pumping are blamed...in other words over development...Tucson has done a good job with water conservation procedures while Phoenix is in denial and the rest of the state has bought into the marketing BS that the developers put out..."Why thar's a hunnert yar supply of water."...stated with thumbs tucked in giant belt buckles and spurs jangling...More and more we're thinking that its time to hit the road again. |
Buzzman0077
Member
Username: Buzzman0077
Post Number: 87
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 5:28 pm: | |
I would literally take up arms against any action by the south to steal our water for there F***ing lawns. If they want water come move to someplace that has it. |
Goblue
Member
Username: Goblue
Post Number: 109
Registered: 03-2007
| | Posted on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 5:53 pm: | |
Buzz: Like I said earlier...I was rolling on the ground laughing when I read that Bush had proposed a water pipeline from the Great Lakes to the SW in a speech in Phoenix...what a fool...I wouldn't blame you at all for defending Michigan's water rights however it takes...its disgusting to see green well-watered lawns all over Phoenix...and more golf courses than you can dream of...they built a new country club course about 5 miles from us...they're pumping a million gallons a day to keep it green...residential wells around it have started to go dry...as that kind of stuff spreads the s*** will hit the fan...Arizona has developed far beyond the ability of native Arizonans to manage it...when some politician brags about how they've lived in Arizona their whole life I know who NOT to vote for. |
Jimaz
Member
Username: Jimaz
Post Number: 2481
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 6:04 pm: | |
That little mountain range called the Rockies is no speedbump. |
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 1124
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 6:53 pm: | |
Yes, let's pump our water to the rest of the country. They will respect the use of it and never ever abuse it. Nope, you'll get the same sensible use you do with subsidized gasoline. Great idea. |
Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok
Post Number: 4708
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 6:58 pm: | |
Good point Jimaz,
In Roman times they used gravity to work their aqueducts. Today to get water from 580 feet above sea level (circa the level of Lake Michigan) to west of the continental divide would take enormous amounts of energy for pumps.
Even the Mississippi valley (circa St. Louis) is 100-200 feet below the level of the Great Lakes. So water would have to move down and back up the long incline thru the Great Plains before hitting the Rockies. |
Jimaz
Member
Username: Jimaz
Post Number: 2487
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 8:40 pm: | |
My guess is that such a pipeline would better circumvent the southern Rockies through New Mexico but it would still be absurdly inefficient, not unlike those plans to tow icebergs.
I recently saw a report that mapped the largest cities in the U.S., then and now. There's been a lot of migration away from the Great Lakes but I suspect it will boomerang back. |
321brian
Member
Username: 321brian
Post Number: 380
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 8:47 pm: | |
The lakes are Michigans big chip in the game.
Once people and companies realize that water is the worlds greatest natural resource, air conditioning is more expensive than heat, and summers are not meant to be spent indoors they will slowly realize that living in the desert isn't for humans.
Michigan and the rest of the GreatLakes states must not allow a drop of water to be shipped from the great lakes to the western states!!
Make them move to the water and not let the water come to them. |
Goblue
Member
Username: Goblue
Post Number: 110
Registered: 03-2007
| | Posted on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 9:17 pm: | |
A water pipeline would be no more than another engineering feat...they built an oil pipeline across 1000 miles of Alaskan wilderness with mountains and rivers in the winter...they built the AlCan "Highway" in a matter of a few months...they could build a pipeline from Lake Michigan to Phoenix if the price was right.
Living in the desert is fine for humans...again, there is desert and there is high desert...the ecology is very different and the water sources are very different. Natives have lived here for 10,000 years...the question is how many humans...and how they choose to live...the desert cannot support unlimited human development with midwestern water lifestyles...but if the development is controlled and lifestyles are adjusted to the desert the problems can be managed.
About 15-20 years ago a guy named T. Boone Pickens was a major player in oil...about that time he started pulling out of oil and started buying water rights all over TX, NM, AZ, CO, UT, NV...haven't heard from him yet but I'm betting when the price of water is right...he'll be there.
I remember when I was a kid growing up on the Eastside in the '40's & '50's there was water rationing in the city. We could only water our 50 sqf lawn on even numbered days, etc. I have no idea why that was the case...a production issue? It sure couldn't have been availability. |
Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok
Post Number: 4710
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 11:59 pm: | |
Goblue, yes but the Alaska pipeline was an 800 mile oil pipeline. The oil is already hot (180 degrees) when it emerges from the ground. And since its' completion in 1977 about 15 billion barrels of oil have been shipped thru the pipeline in the last 30 years (500 million per year).
Now think of the amount of water that would be needed, many many times that amount along a path at least twice as long. And think about the cold Midwestern, Great Plains and Rocky Mountain winters... a LOT of energy would be needed to keep the water and pipes from freezing in the cold weather months. |
Goblue
Member
Username: Goblue
Post Number: 111
Registered: 03-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, June 30, 2007 - 12:43 am: | |
Gistok: You're over simplifying the Alaska pipeline...its literally necessary to witness the magnitude of the wilderness...the Brooks Mt. Range is beyond imagination...the pipeline moves through it...it can't be done with a tourist visit. I lived there in the late '80's and was able to visit Prudhoe Bay...somewhere I have a picture of me leaning against mile 0 of the pipeline in August wearing a down filled coat with a fur hood. The immensity of it all is staggering.
Clearly, the amount of water that would be necessary would dwarf the amount of oil that has been transported...my point is simply that once the price of water has made it economically feasible another fool like George Bush will be proposing the concept. All I'm saying is that its just another engineering problem that can be solved for the right price. Especially by U-M engineers!! Go Blue!! lololol |
Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok
Post Number: 4711
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, June 30, 2007 - 1:56 am: | |
Oh I agree Goblue, I was reading up on all the trouble they had to go thru to prevent the Alaska Pipeline from melting the permafrost, etc.
Quite amazing.
Figures Trainman (he's obsessive compulsive about public transportation issues) would somehow squeeze his comments onto this thread). |
Trainman
Member
Username: Trainman
Post Number: 430
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, June 30, 2007 - 2:49 am: | |
Gistok. My post has to do with water and SEMCOG is in charge.
So, learn to read English.
Or, learn french and post in a french blog and leave the DY'ers like myself who really truly care about southeast Michigan's water supply alone.
Or, maybe someday you will turn your faucet on and no water will come out.
Then maybe you will remember Livonia is a suburb of Detroit, U.S.A. and not Paris, France. |
3rdworldcity
Member
Username: 3rdworldcity
Post Number: 753
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, June 30, 2007 - 9:35 am: | |
Gistok, You're correct that pipelining water has different engineering problems than oil, especially in winter. However oil does have to be heated at certain points on the Alyeska (Trans-Alaska) pipeline during the winter. Overall, constructing a water pipeline would be far less expensive than it cost to build the Alyeska. The Alyeska is insulated and the friction of the oil passing through the pipeline creates enough heat to keep the oil fluid most of the way, even through the Brooks Range.
The maximum capacity of the Alyeska is almost 2 million bbls/day as I recall, or around 80,000,000 gallons. There would have be many such pipelines to move meaningful amounts of water to the Southwest.
Goblue: You're right, the Alyeska is awesome. I've flown over it for several miles at 300 feet, hiked next to it, and checked out one of the maintenance stations.
There are at least 3 well-written books about its construction. It was originally costed out at $800 million but ended up costing $8+ billion. It was the most corrupted construction project in history. For several years Alaska was virtually controlled by a Seattle Teamster's Union local and a Tulsa Pipeline Welder's Union local.
At the prices people are willing to pay for bottled water (several times the cost per gallon of crude oil and gasoline), the economics may work when folks in AZ get thirsty enough.
You mentioned T. Boone Pickens. As you pointed out, he's a very smart guy who has made billions of dollars. He's truly committed to the acquisition and development of rights. I'd bet with him any day.
The water resources of the Great Lakes states could turn out to be as valuable, or more so, than oil. Manufacturers that need lots of it may move here when they can't get it elsewhere.
And, when the time comes, we WILL sell it to the Southwest and other areas that will desperately need it. |
Janesback
Member
Username: Janesback
Post Number: 358
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, June 30, 2007 - 10:58 am: | |
20 inches of rain so far and counting.....not to worry folks, Texas has more than enough rain for everyone. We are also aware that we could get another week of rain as a Low is on the top of the Lone Star State and its not moving for about 10 days or so, so we are batting down the hatches as I write this......
Oklahoma is now getting pounded as we speak.
We will swap you our precious oil if we get to a point where we need help. The Edwards Aquifer has enough water for a 100 year drought, so don't get your panites in a bunch, we dont need your water..Jane |
Lowell
Board Administrator
Username: Lowell
Post Number: 3942
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 30, 2007 - 1:49 pm: | |
No matter what happens, one would think the diversion would be limited to the annual outflow of the basin. In other words they can't drink the lakes down; we can only sell what nature provides every year.
If diversion comes, one would think that there be pipeheads below Quebec City in the St. Laurence Sea, at some point where, if not collected, fresh water is lost mixing with Atlantic salt water. |
Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok
Post Number: 4712
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, June 30, 2007 - 2:04 pm: | |
Just because you have lots of rain Janesback, doesn't necessarily mean that you have unlimited water resources. Not every drop of water goes into an aquifer. There's also that nasty thing called runoff...
And as far as the Edwards Aquifer goes, it looks like there's some trouble abrewing, since other drier parts of Texas want to tap into it as well:
http://www.aquiferalliance.org /p_Overpumping_and_Rule_of_Cap ture.cfm
Something tells me that that aquifer couldn't even support the water needs of the entire state of Texas (which last time I checked was around 20 million people and growing), let alone the needs of other drier states to the west.
I bet that the political will is even less in Texas (where water is there but mostly underground) than in the Great Lakes states, where we are surrounded by it... to sell it to other states. |
Goblue
Member
Username: Goblue
Post Number: 113
Registered: 03-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, June 30, 2007 - 4:15 pm: | |
Good point Gistok...if you can't see it...its easier to sell...its hard to not be conscious of water when you live in Michigan. The first time I moved from the state...to B'ham, AL...it felt really weird to not be living on a peninsula where boundaries were determined by the lakes. Another good point was that rain does not automatically translate into availability of usable water although right now we're hoping real hard for some rain soon.
I think that the water of the Great Lakes states plus Canada will be worth more than oil in time...and will be the driving force of Michigan's economy.
Water is weird...and I'm not a hydrologist...we have a more than ample flow here at our home...ten miles away wells are running dry...obviously the aquifers don't link...the City of Prescott is getting ready to punch a 2000 ft. well into the aquifer that feeds the Verde River and pipe it 30 miles or so...but no one knows exactly where that aquifer runs...it makes us nervous. When I lived in Dexter, MI I think our well was no more than 100 ft. deep...here its 385 ft and needs good filters to trap the sand that comes with it. I kick myself regularly for not buying a couple of lots just a block off the beach in South Haven in the late '80's...guy wanted $10K apiece for them...I told him too much...dumb, dumb, dumb! |
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.