Discuss Detroit » Archives - July 2008 » Who wants to let our water go away? « Previous Next »
Top of pageBottom of page

Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup

Post Number: 4506
Registered: 06-2004
Posted on Sunday, June 22, 2008 - 1:47 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Please make note so that they don't get elected again:

http://blog.mlive.com/kzgazett e/2008/06/former_michigan_gove rnors_will.html
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 5014
Registered: 02-2005
Posted on Sunday, June 22, 2008 - 10:35 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Interesting-- on one hand, it appears everyone is in favor of the multistate compact keeping the Great Lakes water from outsiders, but the debate is over regulating the amount of water that people in Michigan (businesses and farms, really) can take for themselves. Like that one rep. points out, the common law is to allow property owners to take the water they need if they have it on or adjacent or under their property.

But I think he is being too simple and ideological, because when you talk about 2 million gallons per day being taken out by a water bottler, i.e. (and sent around the world), that's a little different than watering a farm field or running a factory. Quantity does matter, and a reasonable law requiring as little bureaucracy as possible should probably be created for Michigan.

(Message edited by mackinaw on June 22, 2008)
Top of pageBottom of page

Diehard
Member
Username: Diehard

Post Number: 543
Registered: 03-2005
Posted on Sunday, June 22, 2008 - 6:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I thought there was some provision that water could only be withdrawn within the Great Lakes watershed, meaning it drains back into the lake eventually. That seems like a reasonable guideline, doesn't it?
If you start pumping it out of the Great Lakes basin, the issue goes far beyond whether it's good or bad for Michigan's economy; we're talking about a whole ecosystem you'd be messing with.
You'd also have to get Canada's permission, and that's a long shot.
Top of pageBottom of page

Goblue
Member
Username: Goblue

Post Number: 2084
Registered: 03-2007
Posted on Sunday, June 22, 2008 - 7:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ya'll need to talk to Dubja...during the last election he gave a speech in Phoenix talking about a pipeline from Lake Michigan to the SW...I about died laughing at the fool. It would be good to ask George W. McCain what he thinks about the idea...espcially since he claims to be from Arizona.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup

Post Number: 4508
Registered: 06-2004
Posted on Sunday, June 22, 2008 - 7:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Diehard, Michigan hasn't signed the new compact yet. The bills being debated are meant to accompany signing of the compact to give the state some teeth to enforce it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scottr
Member
Username: Scottr

Post Number: 882
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Sunday, June 22, 2008 - 11:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well, I for one won't be voting for Robertson when he's up for reelection, and I'll be encouraging my neighbors and coworkers to vote against him. (Yes, I'm in his district). I see NO excuse for this.

I mean seriously, 2 millions gallons a day? If you're taking that much, we SHOULD know what you're using it for and where it's going. Without requirements for permits, what good would any of these laws do? Personally, I think the 2 million gallon threshold is much too high! If we really want to protect the Great Lakes, and prevent them from the same fate as the Ogallala aquifer, we need STRONG legislation, not just a sentence that says the lakes should be protected, which seems to be the gist of what some of our representatives want.

And I think it's absolutely pathetic how long it has taken our legislators to pass these bills. This state should have been the first to sign the compact, and the first to enact water use legislation. The lakes are our defining characteristic, more so than our industries or products, more than our cities and buildings. Our elected representatives should be first in line to protect them, yet instead, we get this? Pathetic.
Top of pageBottom of page

Themax
Member
Username: Themax

Post Number: 892
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Monday, June 23, 2008 - 8:45 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I wonder if the lower water levels due to evaporation was taken into account.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10 /22/nyregion/22oswego.html?_r= 1&oref=slogin
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 5020
Registered: 02-2005
Posted on Monday, June 23, 2008 - 9:40 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The climate effect on water levels clearly dominates. You can see how the weather has an effect, too. We had normal/above normal snow around the state this winter, and a very rainy May and June, and the levels have been higher.

Even with these clear effects, I know some long-time lakefront residents who are convinced that something else is going on to mess with our water table.

The truth is that their is more demand on great lakes water (i.e. sprawl and larger water systems, i.e. large bottled water company facilities), and less input (lack of precipitation, especially at the top of the chain in the L. Superior basin). So both ends of the story are true. Some legislation might help on one end, and more rain will help on the other.

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.