 
Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo
Post Number: 490
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 12:42 pm: |    |
"States like Wisconson" are suffering from periodic water issues as well, as is the entire Great lakes region. This creep gets into office, expect several 60" high pressure mains across the US. aggravating an already mounting problem. These people move into naturally inhospitable areas for better temps and expect the rest of the nation to make it possible, while we dodge chuckholes and shovel snow. And I'll lump the gulf coast and Fla folks in here as well. Why should the country be responsible for these tropic wannabe's and hurricane damage every few years? Move em the hell off the coast. Same goes for New Orleans. Build a city below sea level, asking for disaster. Obviously jerk Richardson isn't familiar with the Salton sea disaster. |
Oliverdouglas
Member
Username: Oliverdouglas
Post Number: 147
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 12:42 pm: | |
I'm not familiar with the Saragasso Disaster either - hope this doesn't make me a jerk! |
Elsuperbob
Member
Username: Elsuperbob
Post Number: 84
Registered: 03-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 1:04 pm: | |
It's funny he mentions Wisconsin since that state has very little of its area within the Great Lakes Basin. There are communities only 20 miles or so from Lake Michigan asking for water diversion since they're situated outside the basin. So I guess he'd make some of those places happy, too, with talk like that. |
Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 4292
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 1:32 pm: | |
As a teenager in the Brookfield suburb of Milwaukee, I (with my parents) lived about 1/3 mile from the crest of the Subcontinental Divide (Niagran Escarpment) separating the Atlantic from the Gulf of Mexico watersheds. We were on the Atlantic side, so our water would have returned to the Atlantic. But, most communities in Wisconsin have their own wells, along with most of the homes. So the above post is a nonissue, as very little water is diverted, if any, for the most part.
Also, there's a bogus assumption about the supposedly tiny area of Wisconsin's watershed. The limits to Wisconsin extend for the length of its shorelines roughly into half of Lake Superior and Lake Michigan--a considerable area, nonetheless. It's always a good idea to consider what might not be so obvious before one interjects a falsehood.
(Message edited by LivernoisYard on October 11, 2007) |
Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok
Post Number: 5492
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 1:49 pm: | |
LY, thanks for the Deja Vu. 15 years ago I remember driving I-94 from Milwaukee to Madison, and just beyond Brookfield I remember the crest that the freeway had to go over before passing thru Waukesha WI. Of course it never dawned on me back then that I was passing from one watershed into another.
So Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York and Ontario also have crests between 2 watersheds (either the Great Lakes/St. Laurence or Atlantic/Gulf of Mexico/Hudson Bay). That would make Michigan the only state/province entirely within the Great Lakes basin.
Interesting...
(Message edited by Gistok on October 11, 2007) |
Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 4294
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 1:59 pm: | |
Brookfield (starting at the Waukesha County line--124th Street) is roughly 36 square miles--except for the one or two square miles of even more posh Elm Grove village carved out of it. Poor old Mister Clark (oil guy) only had a six-car garage back then on his few acre mansion in EG. It made Val Blatz's place (next door?) look like a slum house!
So, Gary could not have driven past Brookfield to get to the Divide because the Niagran Escarpment is only about 2 or 3 miles into the east part of six-mile-long Brookfield. |
Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok
Post Number: 5493
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 2:06 pm: | |
15 years ago... 2 or 3 miles east or west... whatever... |
Jdkeepsmiling
Member
Username: Jdkeepsmiling
Post Number: 299
Registered: 01-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 2:11 pm: | |
I would line up with a rifle and undertake domestic terrorism to keep our water from being exported to the desert Southwest. Seriously. You want our water, move here. End of story. |
Jelk
Member
Username: Jelk
Post Number: 4689
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 2:35 pm: | |
I love good old-fashioned calls to arms. Nothing warms my heart more than peasants taking up pitchforks and torches but there is an unpleasant truth that needs to be addressed. The population growth in the Sun Belt has been ongoing for several decades. One needn't a PhD in environment policy to see the issues of water would be coming to a head.
There should be a national water policy. There should be a national dialogue on this issue. What there shouldn't be is a diversion of water from the Great Lakes. Shifting water around the country will have grave ecological and economic impacts. It's really a bad idea.
Perhaps if Great Lakes leaders raised the issue it would be more likely that a national water policy would be favorable to the Great Lakes. It's a shame Michigan leadership (along with Wisconsin, Ohio, New York, etc) dropped the ball on this and allowed the western states to raise, and therefor, frame the issue.
Besides we've all be whistling past the graveyard for many years on this issue as private companies already bottle and export Great Lakes water. The camel's nose is under the tent. I hope we can come up with a solution to this problem better than heading for the hills and shouting WOLVERINES!
(Message edited by jelk on October 11, 2007) |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 3690
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 2:42 pm: | |
In the words of Booger from "Revenge of the Nerds"
"I say we blow the fuckers up." |
Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 4295
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 2:48 pm: | |
Governor Thompson said over a decade ago that Wisconsin would divert all the water the other states wanted--in the form of its beer... |
Jelk
Member
Username: Jelk
Post Number: 4690
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 2:52 pm: | |
Before anyone starts building pipe bombs and follows Osama Bin Gentleman and the Ayatollah Keepsmiling on a jihad through the western United States, keep this in mind: the 8 states that border the Great Lakes account for 141 electoral votes and there are 7 additional states that border the Mississippi River (which would no doubt be impacted by water diversion from the Great Lakes) which account for 58 electoral votes. So anyone offering a national water plan that diverts water from the Great Lakes would risk writing off 199 electoral votes. Moreover, the Great Lakes states would also have natural allies in New England because of Lake Champlain and the mid-Atlantic because of the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
In other words, proactive engagement in the public policy process could win the day for the Great Lakes. We have numbers too. And as much as I don't like most you people, going to a Las Vegas on a suicide bombing run is probably not advisable. |
Rb336
Member
Username: Rb336
Post Number: 2813
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 2:54 pm: | |
I remember reading, back in the days Blanchard was gov. and Illinois wanted to pump millions of gallons to float barges down the Mississippi, that there is some sort of clause in the agreement that would allow use of force to prevent that divergence. I never was able to ascertain if that was true, but i remembered Jimbo threatening the guy from illinois |
Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 4296
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 2:56 pm: | |
It's not necessary for any states' intervention against diversion on account of the Canadian treaty. Canada will never budge and allow diversion. That treaty even includes Lake Michigan.
Besides, both major political parties could collude and both sell out the Great Lakes states on this issue. A case in point, consider how the two parties in the Senate colluded on the illegal immigration/amnesty issue. That'll keep happening in the future, too.
(Message edited by LivernoisYard on October 11, 2007) |
Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 2912
Registered: 06-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 4:51 pm: | |
If this starts to happen all the Great Lakes states, including at least western New York, should secede and join Canada. |
Ray1936
Member
Username: Ray1936
Post Number: 2076
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 5:09 pm: | |
Hey, I vacation on Grand Traverse Bay every summer, and wouldn't think of taking Great Lakes water for Nevada.
But I keep thinking that for a fraction of what this damn war in Iraq has cost us, we could have built numerous desalination plants along the Pacific coast and gone a long way into solving the water problem of the southwest. |
Lowell
Board Administrator
Username: Lowell
Post Number: 4223
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 5:18 pm: | |
"Whiskey is for drinking; water is for fighting over." [attributed to Mark Twain] |
Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1
Post Number: 10473
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 5:25 pm: | |
quote:But I keep thinking that for a fraction of what this damn war in Iraq has cost us, we could have built numerous desalination plants along the Pacific coast and gone a long way into solving the water problem of the southwest.
I don't like my tax dollars going to this war but I certainly doubt would not want them going to spur growth in the desert. |
Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 2913
Registered: 06-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 5:39 pm: | |
sorry, Jt, they already do - Nevada may have only got $0.65 back on their federal tax dollar, but New Mexico got $2.03 - highest return in the country. Arizona got $1.19 for each dollar paid in.
http://taxfoundation.org/taxda ta/show/266.html#fedspend_per_ taxesbystate-20071009 |
Scottr
Member
Username: Scottr
Post Number: 798
Registered: 07-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 8:14 pm: | |
At one time, most cities began on some sort of waterway, because people were smart enough to realize that it was a vital resource that you could not live without. It was necessary for life, for transportation, for industry, and people realized this.
Now we've got a bunch of idiots that have moved dry areas (not necessarily just desert states), clearly not thinking ahead, and now that they've realized their blunder, want to take our most precious resource away from us, often while taking our jobs as well? Screw that! (my real words are not as family friendly) Over my dead body! As PG said, this issue is worth going to war over.
Ray, the 'idiot' comment isn't directed at you, it is aimed at those who DO want our water. I'm glad to know you aren't one of them. However, even if the only requirement for water is normal HUMAN consumption (not lawns and swimming pools), I doubt that even then would the desert states have enough water for their growing populations. But I thank you for not making the problem worse.
I am amazed how unified this forum is on this issue. I really shouldn't be, since we all realize and appreciate how important the lakes are to our state, but to see such complete agreement among those who are normally nearly at each others' throats is impressive. Count me in for that war, should it ever have to come to that.
I hope not, however, i'd rather see it solved through common sense, preferably, beginning with putting an end to the sprawl in areas with a limited water supply. |
Milwaukee
Member
Username: Milwaukee
Post Number: 1337
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 8:24 pm: | |
HELL NO! NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! Yeah I had to go a little Danny for a second. Its not going to happen ever. I don't see this as an issue. But if it ever did become an issue, I would be willing to join an armed revolt to protect the most beautiful lake region in the world. |
Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 4313
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 8:46 pm: | |
Chicago's been diverting Lake Michigan water for eons. So, it's already happening.
That same water leak is allowing foreign animal species to invade the Great Lakes from the Gulf of Mexico watershed. It's a two-way street. The Gulf watershed probably gets the Great Lakes lamprey and Eurasia milfoil, too. |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 3701
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 8:49 pm: | |
Doing some research I found that the Ontario government tried to allow an Asian company to take 50 tankers full of water from Lake Superior in 1998. It was stopped but it shows we can't trust the Canadians on the issue.
From what I am reading the protection provided by NAFTA and the WTO is weak, we all remember the Canadian garbage problem. I am looking into getting involved in some groups that are taking action on this issue, here is one:
http://www.greatlakesforever.o rg/index.html |
Ray1936
Member
Username: Ray1936
Post Number: 2079
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 9:00 pm: | |
The distribution of Colorado River water is very strictly distributed by federal law and treaty with Mexico. What most people fail to realize is that only a third of the diverted water is used for normal human consuption. Two thirds is diverted for agriculture, mostly in California but some in Arizona. And what's one of the biggest crops coming out of California?
Avacados.
Well, some folks just gotta have their guacamole. |
Clark1mt
Member
Username: Clark1mt
Post Number: 98
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 9:21 pm: | |
I'm surprised that no one has yet mentioned the problems we already have regarding water levels on the Great Lakes. You start taking that water thousands of miles away, that problem isn't going to get any better. |
Detroitrise
Member
Username: Detroitrise
Post Number: 218
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 9:31 pm: | |
Well let's think about this. Michigan allows Bottled Water Companies (I believe Ice Mountain) to drain their water from our lakes. I wouldn't be surprised if they let the folks from the SW in to drain our water. Of course, these people frequent bottled water pruchases. So in reality, they've been drinking our water in the SW for decades. I agree, it's wrong, what what are we going to do about it? Last time I check, the Great Lakes state only gave these Bottled Water companies a slap on the wrist. That's like giving a teenage boy a slap on the wrist and expecting him to straighten up.
(Message edited by Detroitrise on October 11, 2007) |
Scottr
Member
Username: Scottr
Post Number: 799
Registered: 07-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 10:00 pm: | |
quote:Richardson's comments drew an angry response from Governor Jennifer Granholm. When WZZM 13 asked for her response Thursday, Granholm said, “Hell No. That's my response. This is exactly why we need someone in the White House who understands Michigan's concerns. The minute someone starts talking about a national water policy, watch your lakes. That's all I can say."
Granholm says, “I'm sure I would be joined by 10 million Michigan citizens who would stand in the way of anyone coming to put a pipe in or haul out our water. This is a great national resource. We're not going to be sending it to the Southwest."
http://www.wzzm13.com/news/new s_article.aspx?storyid=82169
I'm not particularly a fan of Granholm's, but on this I agree 100%. And the vast majority of those on the Freep forums, another group I tend to roll my eyes at, also echo the sentiments here on DYes. (the few who don't appear to be from out of state). From a state that can't agree with itself over nearly anything, this is one issue that we appear to be united against. |
Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 4317
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 10:45 pm: | |
But Granholm is supporting Clinton, who has been on record several times in saying that the government will take from you for the public good. [For those in Rio Linda, that means socialism, nothing less.]
So, what if Granholm becomes Interior Secretary? Would or could you believe anything she says now when she's already been caught lying even more frequently than Algore did? |
Milwaukee
Member
Username: Milwaukee
Post Number: 1338
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 12:27 am: | |
I understand that it is already happening. As I understand it, the most water taken out is for the Chicago Shipping Canal. The water then enters the Mississippi River watershed. I'm not positive but there are other areas where water is taken out of the watershed but is sent back.
Milwaukee has an issue with this as the Lake Michigan watershed becomes a very narrow strip of land in the south of the state. This leaves old Milwaukee county in but fast growing Waukesha out. Now Waukesha is going to have to find a new water source as many of its wells are polluted with Radon. Anyway, Waukesha and the western suburbs want water but this Lake contract does not allow it.
Can water be only be taken out as long as it is sent back? I think that is the issue in our region. The demands were that Waukesha give back the same amount of water they took out.
I'm against anymore water being taken out of the lakes, whether it be for local metropolitan areas or to the southwestern states.
If you want water then live in an area that has it. |
Charlottepaul
Member
Username: Charlottepaul
Post Number: 1806
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 9:28 am: | |
The Southeast might be on the side of the Southwest in the fight. It has been very dry down here. Driest and Hottest August every recorded. Some of the local lakes (reservoirs) used for drinking are at their lowest levels ever recorded. There weren't many tropical storms or hurricanes this summer that have hit the SE. Now we are entering the dry season. It will be interesting to see what happens in the ATL where their water supply is predicted to run out in 3 months if trends continue. http://abcnews.go.com/search?s earchtext=atlanta%20drought&ty pe=
The irony of the SE being in a worse drought than the SW is interestingly real:
http://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/ monitor.html
It is hardly an issue of living where there is water, but rather an issue of locations that are exceptionally behind on their average rainfall. |
Upinottawa
Member
Username: Upinottawa
Post Number: 992
Registered: 09-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 9:41 am: | |
With regards to trusting the Canadians....
There is a huge anti-bulk water export lobby in Canada. The fear is that under NAFTA if Canada permitted bulk water exports to the United States then Canada would be under a legal obligation to continue such bulk water exports (i.e. would not be able to turn off the taps due to certain NAFTA provisions). This lobby more than has the ears of governments at all levels in Canada.
Also, that 1998 Conservative government has long been turfed out of office. |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 3710
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 9:46 am: | |
Actually Stephen Harper is a conservative but whatever. |
Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 2917
Registered: 06-2004
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 9:54 am: | |
There can be drought conditions where there are lakes and rivers, too. All the more reason not to export what water we have nearby to usual desert areas. |
3420
Member
Username: 3420
Post Number: 143
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 10:09 am: | |
I was watching the weather channel this morning and they were talking about the drought in Atlanta. The Army Corp of Engineers say Atlanta will run out of fresh water in 3 months. Shirley Franklin mayor of Atlanta asked residents to be considerate of using water. I find all this very interesting about the south. |
Upinottawa
Member
Username: Upinottawa
Post Number: 993
Registered: 09-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 10:36 am: | |
PG: Harper is a federal Conservative but whatever. |
Track75
Member
Username: Track75
Post Number: 2642
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 11:06 am: | |
When Granholm spoke about taxes recently she said that those who have more have a responsibility to "give" (forcibly via taxation) some of that to those in need who have less.
Does that apply to our water too? |
Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 2918
Registered: 06-2004
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 11:18 am: | |
No - water is not a renewable resource
If it's used within its basin of origin it will return to its basin - that's as far as it should be shared
(Message edited by lilpup on October 12, 2007) |
Track75
Member
Username: Track75
Post Number: 2643
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 11:31 am: | |
I agree, Lilpup. But last I checked money wasn't a renewable resource either, it doesn't grow on trees.
Just pointing out a little hypocrisy where it suits Granholm's purposes.
BTW, there's been a lot of resistance to bottled water leaving our basin, but what about Faygo, beer, other bottled sodas, juices, teas, and Michigan wines? Why no hullabaloo about these and so much on the water? |
Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 2919
Registered: 06-2004
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 12:09 pm: | |
"But last I checked money wasn't a renewable resource either, it doesn't grow on trees"
this comparison is so far off base it's pathetic
but if you really want to go that route - we already send them a ton of money via the Feds why should they get our water, too?
(Message edited by lilpup on October 12, 2007) |
Jiscodazz
Member
Username: Jiscodazz
Post Number: 63
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 12:13 pm: | |
Phoenix and Las Vegas will be giant ghettos and ghost towns in the future. Global warming, water shortages, shitty construction, sprawl. It will all lead to their downfall. Mark my words! |
Burnsie
Member
Username: Burnsie
Post Number: 1174
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 11:42 pm: | |
Gistok wrote, "That would make Michigan the only state/province entirely within the Great Lakes basin."
Almost. There's a small area in the southwestern part that ultimately drains into the Mississippi. |
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.