Mikie Member Username: Mikie
Post Number: 99 Registered: 06-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 1:10 pm: | |
"Bill Richardson retreats on sharing Midwest water" From the Free Press today. http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs .dll/article?AID=2007710160402 |
Lefty2 Member Username: Lefty2
Post Number: 413 Registered: 07-2007
| Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 8:59 pm: | |
maybe we can send them Detroit bottled water at .75 a bottle. in fact i may do this myself, any investors out there? |
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise
Post Number: 283 Registered: 09-2007
| Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 9:01 pm: | |
Yeah, Ice Mountain. |
Detroitbill Member Username: Detroitbill
Post Number: 344 Registered: 09-2006
| Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 9:22 pm: | |
Ummm, quite frankly , Canada is involved in this whole issue on bordering waters as much as the U.S. . Nothing can be done about any water ownership, diversion, selling etc unless you have the Canadians agree. I still say this whole area should use this to its advantage the same way the sun states used it to attract business and population, In the long run what do you want, a warm January or water to live with. |
Lefty2 Member Username: Lefty2
Post Number: 415 Registered: 07-2007
| Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 9:58 pm: | |
Michigan should not start using geopolitic threats in determining our best interests in the water debate. What should be done by our great legislators is to have a stricter law enforced on riparian water rights and quantify the drainage from our state. This is a 100% legal form of protecting Michigan's assets. It confounds me that no action has been taken a lot sooner on this issue. ( well i guess big business giving donations may ascend that) WE also have Wisconson, Canada, Illinois, Ohio New York to deal with. Jokingly i say, Why don't we divert the water ourselves in Michigan to a MASSIVE lake reservoir and then resell it to the most desperate state for a huge profit before the other states can steal it! |
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise
Post Number: 285 Registered: 09-2007
| Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 10:21 pm: | |
"WE also have Wisconson, Canada, Illinois, Ohio New York to deal with." Don't Forget Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Indiana. |
Lefty2 Member Username: Lefty2
Post Number: 420 Registered: 07-2007
| Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 10:35 pm: | |
not MORE states, what a legal wrangle. imo, screw all of em, it's out water now. |
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 2949 Registered: 06-2004
| Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 10:42 pm: | |
Today one of the newschannels had a reporter standing in what used to be Lake Lanier, Atlanta's water reservoir. There was talk of potentially having to restrict large scale commercial users of water if the situation doesn't improve soon. I wonder if Coca-Cola has an unusually large bottling operation there. |
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise
Post Number: 286 Registered: 09-2007
| Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 10:46 pm: | |
"I wonder if Coca-Cola has an unusually large bottling operation there." Who cares. Michigan is the only state where Coke Doesn't outsell anyone. It sucks anyway. Naturally, I would assume since their headquartered in Atlanta that they would have a huge presence there. However, it's only a small percentage of their market I'm sure. |
Danny Member Username: Danny
Post Number: 6691 Registered: 02-2004
| Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 10:47 pm: | |
Yeah! If other states want our water, they better move to Michigan and live here. All the fresh clean water you can drink. The Great Lakes belong to Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York City and Canada and no one is going to bring a big pipe and suck our water dry. |
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise
Post Number: 287 Registered: 09-2007
| Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 10:49 pm: | |
"Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York City and Canada" Don't forget Minnesota :-) |
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise
Post Number: 288 Registered: 09-2007
| Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 10:52 pm: | |
Oh, and let me poin tout. CANADA doesn't own the Great Lakes, but technically only Ontario does. I believe we can sucker them in pretty easily if we needed something. |
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul
Post Number: 1838 Registered: 10-2006
| Posted on Thursday, October 18, 2007 - 9:10 am: | |
"They need to do some enforcement, like timed meters on major users." The City of Charlotte water police have issued about 1,000 tickets since restrictions began about 2 months ago. First fine is $100, second is $300, and third is $500. After the fifth one, they shut off your water. BTW, all of the fines are applied directly to your water bill. "Naturally, I would assume since their headquartered in Atlanta that they would have a huge presence there. However, it's only a small percentage of their market I'm sure." yeah, it is their corp. HQ, but their bottling takes place in other areas of the country. |
Ray1936 Member Username: Ray1936
Post Number: 2111 Registered: 01-2005
| Posted on Thursday, October 18, 2007 - 1:15 pm: | |
I'm currently in metro Detroit from Vegas to steal your water. However, I found Lakes Michigan, Huron, Superior, and Erie so well guarded that I could not drop the pipeline in. So I'm off to Lake Ontario and will pump it out from there. I'm sure that will meet with the approval of folks in Michigan. Man, that pipe is heavy! |
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul
Post Number: 1839 Registered: 10-2006
| Posted on Thursday, October 18, 2007 - 1:52 pm: | |
Well if you won't give us all water down here in the SE, at least send some rain! (Message edited by charlottepaul on October 18, 2007) |
Detroit_stylin Member Username: Detroit_stylin
Post Number: 5189 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Thursday, October 18, 2007 - 2:05 pm: | |
quote:While that might be popular in Nevada, it struck a nerve in the Midwest. "Hell no," Gov. Jennifer Granholm said Friday. <<<laffin You go Jenny... |
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1
Post Number: 10532 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Thursday, October 18, 2007 - 2:08 pm: | |
I would expect an elected official to be a little more diplomatic with a response. |
Umcs Member Username: Umcs
Post Number: 201 Registered: 06-2007
| Posted on Thursday, October 18, 2007 - 2:36 pm: | |
Frankly, I liked the response. |
Jerome81 Member Username: Jerome81
Post Number: 1634 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Friday, October 19, 2007 - 1:28 am: | |
I think I feel differently about Atlanta than I do Phoenix or Las Vegas. There's no water in the SW. Its the desert. Everyone knows this. With Atlanta, it isn't like that part of the country doesn't get rain/water. They get plenty of it, usually. Its just that for some reason that area isn't getting it right now and they're in a huge problem. But I would suspect that the rain will eventually come back, fill the lakes back up, and things will be OK again. There isn't ever gonna be enough rain in Phoenix or Las Vegas to meet their needs. With that said, I think I'd be open to assisting the Southeast on a temporary basis. Just until the drought ends. But never a permanent, pipeline type solution. Of course not only is political clout shifting south and west, that's already where most of the tax money goes anyway. Most of the states that get more in taxes back than they pay are S and W. Most of the states paying more than they get are in the N and E. Maybe if we had some of that money we could rejuvenate the economy, or improve quality of life issues, or hire more cops or have better transit, etc. I do think it is a stacked deck and awfully hypocritical that there are states with gleaming new infrastructure and low local tax rates while we pay and get less for it. then on top of that, the gleaming infrastructure and low-taxes are incentives to attract even MORE people from our areas and to theirs. Talk about win, win, win for them and lose lose lose for us. Guess it ties back by saying they have increasing political clout, more money, are known for "growth and opportunity" while we up north are "dying, declining, and getting poorer". With that said, I think there is WAY WAY too much clout up here and in Canada for them to ever be able to do anything meaningful to get our water. Add too it we might actually get the support of environmentalists from California and elsewhere and I think we should be okay. Though what about those environmentalists living in Phoenix.....hmmmm.....that's a real Al Gore-big-house-fancy-plane-or- global-warming type dilemma there |
English Member Username: English
Post Number: 592 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Friday, October 19, 2007 - 1:36 am: | |
Global warming and peak oil will take care of all this, folks. Stay tuned! |
Gazhekwe Member Username: Gazhekwe
Post Number: 827 Registered: 08-2007
| Posted on Friday, October 19, 2007 - 9:10 am: | |
There was a big drought in the southeast in the 80s, too. I remember the UP farmers sent hay down for the livestock. It was so dry they couldn't even grow hay down there. |
Peachlaser Member Username: Peachlaser
Post Number: 133 Registered: 08-2006
| Posted on Saturday, October 20, 2007 - 7:39 pm: | |
Have been reading another interesting and great thread on this site. Question? Can any of the Lakers and Saltys haul fresh water? : ) |
Jimaz Member Username: Jimaz
Post Number: 3566 Registered: 12-2005
| Posted on Saturday, October 20, 2007 - 8:05 pm: | |
I thought they use water as ballast. Hence the invasive species problem. Wait. Are you suggesting we go into the water business? Hmmmm. |
Gistok Member Username: Gistok
Post Number: 5543 Registered: 08-2004
| Posted on Saturday, October 20, 2007 - 10:27 pm: | |
Maybe they should set up a pipeline near where the St. Lawrence River empties into the Atlantic, and share the revenue with the states and provinces that border the Great Lakes (including Quebec). With the warming of the polar ice caps, too much fresh water is getting into the oceans anyway. That way they could get Great Lakes water just before it empties into the ocean, thus not affecting the already low lake levels. On the minus side... that idea requires a much longer pipeline from the northeast to the southwest. |
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg
Post Number: 1230 Registered: 12-2005
| Posted on Sunday, October 21, 2007 - 1:41 am: | |
Capital and operating costs for pumping Great Lakes water long distances through pipelines would be better spent on building seawater desalination plants closer to the needy users and pumping the output over much shorter distances and lower elevations. |
Ray1936 Member Username: Ray1936
Post Number: 2123 Registered: 01-2005
| Posted on Sunday, October 21, 2007 - 4:37 pm: | |
What Mikeg just said. Couldn't agree more. At the DetroitYes meeting I attended Thursday night, I told the gang I was in town to take water back to Vegas. And they all agreed I could take all I could carry. |
Jiminnm Member Username: Jiminnm
Post Number: 1467 Registered: 02-2005
| Posted on Sunday, October 21, 2007 - 6:32 pm: | |
There are many desalination projects underway here in the SW. Here in NM, we're looking at smaller projects (local community or subdivision sized) to desalinate brackish ground water from several hundred feet down. Initial tests have been successful. Texas is planning a large desalination project on the Gulf coast, and Arizona and California have test projects on Baja, all designed to serve large areas in their states. I don't know where Nevada is in all of this. Our illustrious Governor put his foot in his mouth with his stupid comments. He continues to slip further and seems now to be contending for the VP nomination (or Secy State if a Dem is elected). |
Hornwrecker Member Username: Hornwrecker
Post Number: 1912 Registered: 04-2005
| Posted on Sunday, October 21, 2007 - 8:15 pm: | |
Here's an in depth NYT article about the water situation out West: The Future Is Drying Up |
Lefty2 Member Username: Lefty2
Post Number: 443 Registered: 07-2007
| Posted on Sunday, October 21, 2007 - 8:32 pm: | |
i guess our wonderful governor is too blind to take advantage of this business opportunity |
Gazhekwe Member Username: Gazhekwe
Post Number: 837 Registered: 08-2007
| Posted on Sunday, October 21, 2007 - 8:38 pm: | |
Business opportunity, it is not. To do away with the region's water would be to limit its potential. Those who want to live where there is no water must learn to live within their water means. They have already managed to hijack water from distant regions while maintaining water gardens, golf courses, lawns and swimming pools in the desert. It is time for a national policy of responsibility for environmental conservation, and encouraging each region to develop along the environmental limitations of the area rather than relying on forcing other regions to give up water that their environment depends upon. |
Jiminnm Member Username: Jiminnm
Post Number: 1469 Registered: 02-2005
| Posted on Sunday, October 21, 2007 - 9:21 pm: | |
This is an account of the Colorado River issues: http://ag.arizona.edu/AZWATER/ arroyo/101comm.html This is about Rio Grande river issues: http://academic.emporia.edu/sc hulmem/hydro/TERM%20PROJECTS/C orley/geowat.html We also have concerns here in NM because, under 60 year old agreements and Supreme Court cases, we owe Texas a share of the water from our watersheds. There are also uncertainties about what water the Navajo Nation and some Pueblos are entitled to receive (although some of those were settled earlier this year). It is exceedingly difficult to convince folks to change the way they have irrigated their crops for hundreds of years. |
Lefty2 Member Username: Lefty2
Post Number: 451 Registered: 07-2007
| Posted on Sunday, October 21, 2007 - 10:28 pm: | |
Gazhekwe - agreed, but, (btw whats gazhekwe?) the Biz Opp i am referring to is drawing businesses that have to depend on a steady supply of h20 witout worry or interruption; kind of like Auto companies need steady supply of labor to kick out cars. Has anyone noticed how LOW Lake St Clair is now? Way lower than at the beginning of summer. Is someone skimming Michigan's water profits without us knowing about it??? I think this need a full blown blue ribbon task force investigation at the highest levels. i saw the hoover dam, the water levels on the rock walls, you could see them like tree rings, were so f-ing low, at least 100 feet from before was wild. (Message edited by lefty2 on October 21, 2007) |
Gazhekwe Member Username: Gazhekwe
Post Number: 838 Registered: 08-2007
| Posted on Sunday, October 21, 2007 - 10:57 pm: | |
The Georgian Bay Association has sponsored a study that found the dredging of the St. Clair River without appropriate baffles to slow the flow has contributed to increased drainage through there. Of course, it is being disputed but they are pursuing a petition to add baffles to slow down the loss. Gazhekwe = catwoman, or maybe not. |
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 2971 Registered: 06-2004
| Posted on Sunday, October 21, 2007 - 11:02 pm: | |
quote:the Biz Opp i am referring to is drawing businesses that have to depend on a steady supply of h20 without worry or interruption Such as? Remember, the water has to stay in the Great Lakes basin. |
Lefty2 Member Username: Lefty2
Post Number: 462 Registered: 07-2007
| Posted on Monday, October 22, 2007 - 1:07 am: | |
With all due respect I disagree. The Dept of army corps of engineers dredged the St Clair river so that it doubled the amount of water flowing out of the great lakes. They dredged past the clay bottom which caused massive errosion in our Great Lakes. What has our government done about this NOTHING!http://www.treehugger.com/file s/2007/08/update_on_lake.php John coined that name for the former Lake Superior in his earlier post on its falling water levels; now the New York Times tells us why. It appears that it may not be climate change or declining snow melt in Canada, but the Army Corps of Engineers, renowned also for their levee design and maintenance in New Orleans. Starting in the mid sixties, they dredged and widened the St. Clair river between Lake Huron and Lake Erie. The Times says: The flow may be eroding the riverbed. The erosion may in turn result in increased outflow, more than can be replenished by rain or snowmelt, according to a study by a group of Canadian coastal engineers. If the new estimates are correct, 2.5 billion gallons a year are being lost through the expanded parts of the St. Clair, roughly the equivalent of the amount diverted annually for Chicago’s needs. |