  Spaceman_spiff Member Username: Spaceman_spiff Post Number: 66 Registered: 02-2006 |
INTRO: Comments in the Forbes thread really sparked my interest in a topic which I feel has great relevence to Detroit. Rather than threadjack, I thought I might start my very first thread. BACKGROUND: If I am not mistaken (and please correct me if I am)there is a tier system of water rights. The Fed. Gov't has supreme rights of navigation for commerce and defense, then the States bordering a water body have rights held in trust for their citizens (recreation, swimming, other uses). The public has rights of access and use. The landowners of adjoining property have rights of wharfing and limited uses that do not impair the higher rights. QUESTIONS: In light of population growth in other states, and in light of the fact that we share these resources (the Great Lakes) with Canada, how do these competing rights work out when others need water? How should they work out? How will it affect the city of Detroit in the near and distant future? IMO, water is not, and should not be, owned by anyone. It is a vital resource which needs to be carefully managed internationally. I just don't know how this could be best accomplished. -Spiff | ||
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies Post Number: 2670 Registered: 10-2003 |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W ater_right | ||
Mcp001 Member Username: Mcp001 Post Number: 2797 Registered: 11-2003 |
I would disagree. If we don't have any say on the water in, practically, our own back yard, then property rights on a whole are meaningless. If other areas in our country cannot provide water to sustain their own residents, then they should've thought about that before building up that particular area. | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 982 Registered: 12-2005 |
International Joint Commission | ||
Spaceman_spiff Member Username: Spaceman_spiff Post Number: 67 Registered: 02-2006 |
Thanks for the responses, I found both links quite informative. As is usually the case however, I just have more questions. What do you think the best position on water right would be for Michigan, and the City of Detroit specifically? If water is property, can it be alienated, i.e. sold, by a state? Would a states refusal to sell trigger constitutional issues of state protectivism? Would its willingness to sell trigger public trust issues with the citizens of our state? Most importantly, would Detroit be better off, in the long run, with one understanding of water rights over another? Sorry for the barrage of questions, I just wanted to get an idea of where people stood on the issue. -Spiff | ||
Mcp001 Member Username: Mcp001 Post Number: 2802 Registered: 11-2003 |
I don't see the residents as being too willing to sell our water as it it. We can use it though to get people to move back into the state, though (yes, I realize that there are a few bugs to work out with everything else wrong right now...but it's a start). | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 983 Registered: 12-2005 |
If you are limiting the discussion to the Great Lakes and their connecting waterways, water may be drawn from them as long as the user is located within the Great Lakes watershed, per agreements signed by Ontario and the bordering US states. The IJC controls the flow rate between Lakes Superior and Huron/Michigan and Lakes Erie and Ontario. | ||
Spaceman_spiff Member Username: Spaceman_spiff Post Number: 68 Registered: 02-2006 |
That's interesting Mikeg, So depending on where your facility is located within a Great Lakes state, it may or may not currently be allowed to draw water. If I read the page right the line is counties which have part of the watershed within their borders? So distant counties cannot withdraw but near ones can? It's interesting to me that they chose a compromise between a natural line (the watershed) and a political line (the county). Definitely a beneficial arrangement for Michigan, then. -Spiff | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 984 Registered: 12-2005 |
I believe it is the actual watershed line that is the cutoff point. For example, the Milwaukee suburb of Waukesha sits just 15 miles west of Lake Michigan but is outside the Great Lakes watershed because of a natural divide of the land. Local officials fear the growing community will face severe water shortages if it is cut off from nearby Lake Michigan.(source) That same article talks about an agreement that still needs ratification by the state legislatures and Congress to extend the prohibition of exporting Great Lakes waters outside the watershed to include all waters within the watershed. However, it is unlikely to ratified. | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 750 Registered: 01-2005 |
Water rights, including the extraction thereof, access thereto, and navigability is a fertile field for litigation. The law is being developed as we speak. As to subsurface water, the historic view is that the law of capture applies; that is, if one drills for it on one's property and finds it, one can extract it, subject to reasonable State regulation. Same as oil and gas. These property right principles are being tested in MI courts by Nestle, which is extracting large volumes of water from subsurface aquifers up north. The environmental nazis are after them. The price of bottled water is going to go way up, folks. |
