Great Lakes Key Front in Water Wars

While the West burns and the Southeast bakes, there is little to suggest a large-scale, climatological catastrophe playing out any time soon in the Midwest. In fact, farmers in Iowa and Minnesota had trouble last week harvesting their corn and soybean crops because there had been too much rain.

But potentially huge battles over water are looming in the Great Lakes region as cities, towns and states near and far fight for access to the world’s largest body of fresh surface water, all of it residing in the five Great Lakes.

Call them water wars, with the Great Lakes states hunkering down to protect what they see as theirs.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democratic candidate for president, gave voice to his water lust early this month by suggesting that water from the Great Lakes could be piped to the rapidly growing — and increasingly dry — Southwestern states.

“States like Wisconsin are awash in water,” Richardson told the Las Vegas Sun.

Richardson soon backed off after swift protests from the Midwest, including a resounding “No” from Michigan’s Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm.

That won’t be the end of it. The fires in Southern California, the prolonged drought in the Southeast and the shrinking flow of the Colorado River, which feeds seven Western states, have underscored the importance of water supplies in rapidly developing regions and the determination of a handful of states to hold on to a resource they see as key to their economic future.

With fresh water supplies dwindling in the West and South, the Great Lakes are the natural-resource equivalent of the fat pension fund, and some politicians are eager to raid it. The lakes contain nearly 20 percent of the world’s surface fresh water.

“You’re going to see increasing pressure to gain access to this [water] supply,” said Aaron Packman, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Northwestern University. “Clearly it’s a case of different regional interests competing for this water.”

Eight Great Lakes-area states, from Minnesota to New York, and two Canadian provinces have proposed a regional water compact that would, among other things, strengthen an existing ban on major water diversions outside the Great Lakes Basin, home to 40 million Americans and Canadians. That proposal still has to work its way through several legislatures, and then it must go to Congress, where the political balance of power has been tilting west and south for decades.

Coveting Great Lakes water is not a recent development. In the past two decades, governors have effectively resisted attempts to divert water outside the Great Lakes Basin. For instance, they joined forces with Canada in 1988 to block an effort by then-Illinois Gov. James Thompson to tap into the Great Lakes to help free up drought-stalled barge traffic in the Mississippi River.

Those are the loud fights, conjuring images of enormously expensive pipelines delivering billions of gallons of water daily to distant, parched lands.

But there also are smaller but no less significant frictions among the states trying to protect the water, notably in the Milwaukee suburb of Waukesha, which wants to pipe Lake Michigan water into its community because its drinking water wells show high levels of cancer-causing radium. The Waukesha conflict stems from the city’s being outside the vast Great Lakes Basin, which means the Lake Michigan water it would use would not be returned to the lake; it would be lost, draining into the Fox River and ultimately down the Mississippi and into the Gulf of Mexico.

Waukesha is a small but important example of the potential precedent-setting nature of diverting water to a city or state outside the Great Lakes Basin.

“There’s a concern that the thirsty in the Great Lakes region will set the precedent locally, even though they may be 5 or 10 miles outside the basin. But 20, 30 or 50 years from now, that precedent could be used to send water to far-flung reaches of the continent,” said Peter Annin, author of “The Great Lakes Water Wars.”

“If you make the exception at 15 miles, what about 30 or 50 or 500 miles? That’s the fear,” Annin said.

Chicago River precedent

Of course, a glaring precedent was set a century ago when Chicago reversed the flow of the Chicago River. The Supreme Court repeatedly upheld the legality of the Chicago diversion and, in 1967, opened the door to Chicago suburbs to receive Lake Michigan water, even though those communities are outside the Great Lakes Basin.

But in an age of water wars, Waukesha may be the most visible line drawn in the sand.

Water levels of the Great Lakes are down substantially, and while that may be part of the historic cycle of ups and downs, water managers argue the region must jealously guard what is here. At the same time, more communities are discovering contamination of their drinking-water supplies, which already has increased the pressure to obtain Great Lakes water. A recent report forecast water shortages in northeast Illinois by 2020.

“We are the water belt of the nation, and we have a real opportunity to not only do the right thing environmentally but also have a sustainable management policy that makes tremendous economic sense for the region,” said Todd Ambs, water division administrator for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

“I wouldn’t say we are awash in water, but there’s certainly enough [water] to have a strong economic driver,” Ambs said, to lure back businesses that left the region.

In Michigan, Granholm fought with Nestle Waters North America over the company’s pulling millions of gallons from Lake Michigan for its Ice Mountain bottled-water franchise. The state has negotiated limits on the amount the company can pump.

‘We’re going to be stealing it’

When he was House majority leader, then-U.S. Rep. Dick Armey (R-Texas) warned a gathering in Michigan that federal control of Great Lakes water would not be in the state’s interest.

“We’re not going to be buying it. We’re going to be stealing it,” Armey said in 2000. “You’re going to have to protect your Great Lakes.”

That’s the incentive behind the proposed water compact. David Naftzger, executive director of the Council of Great Lakes Governors, said he is optimistic that the water compact will be adopted by the eight states and approved by Congress.

“It’s our water, and there’s an interest in ensuring that it is used sustainably,” Naftzger said. “If we don’t have a good framework in place, we’ll start to see shortages and conflict.”

Noah Hall, who specializes in environmental and water law at Wayne State University, said there is an urgency to get the compact to Congress before the next census, because the eight states involved could lose 10 to 15 seats in Congress.

Hall said Congress is inclined to approve regional water compacts, but noted there is “no way for the Great Lakes states to prevent the U.S. government from taking the water if the federal government wants to do so.”

Northwestern’s Packman said the issue that needs to be addressed is “how many people do you want living in those [water-short] areas and how much agriculture do you want to support?”

History suggests that question will be ignored in favor of scrambling for new sources of water.

“It doesn’t make economic sense to send Great Lakes water to the High Plains or the Southwest,” Annin said, “but we know the thirsty will be calling.”

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

44 Comments so far

Mijari October 28th, 2007 12:54 pm

Having been born in Michigan, having lived in the Southwest for almost 13 years, having lived in the Northwest for 11 years, then returning to Michigan, I’ve seen both sides of the argument. And I fall squarely in the camp of protecting the Great Lakes from being exported beyond the Great Lakes Basin.

I’ll keep my comments mainly focused on the landscape portion of water usage, since that’s probably the most egregious example of wasted water.

Here, in the Detroit metro area, in the state with the most fresh water resources in the world, let alone the country, we have water conservation rules in effect during the summer. Odd addresses are only to water their lawns on odd numbered days, and even addresses on even days. We don’t take our water for granted, so we’re damn sure not going to let others do so.

There shouldn’t be a single blade of non-native grasses anywhere, but in arid regions it makes absolutely zero sense. Native non-engineered grasses and plants should be the only ones allowed. I know for a fact that in Arizona and California, almost every home has the benefit of an under lawn sprinkler system, which only encourages wasting water. People who move to the Southwest shouldn’t expect to have anything other than native plants surrounding them. Why the hell would they want anything else, since the native plants are so beautiful anyway?

I loved taking trips to the natural desert when I lived in the Phoenix and San Diego metro areas. And you rarely see a home out there with a lawn. 99% native vegetation and gorgeous! If you live in the Southwest, and parts of the Northwest, you live in the desert. Period. There is no “let’s go out to the desert” as residents of those areas are fond of saying. Just because it has green lawns and imported shade trees doesn’t make it not the desert!

So, if the states, regions, or whoever, want The Great Lakes’ water, let them first outlaw any non-native species being planted, and make the law retroactive. Tear up all their lawns, cut down their orchards, let Napa Valley, the San Joaquin Valley and all other areas growing foods and raising livestock, in what is essentially the desert, go native. We should be buying the majority of our food locally anyway, which would also cut down on all the water wasted and water polluted by the run-off from giant agri-corps industrial feedlots and farms. And, as an added benefit, make the country as whole much healthier and less susceptible to the diseases of an industrialized society.

After doing all that, then we might consider letting you drink from our well.

That’s my 2¢, or 1.9044562¢ Canadian for our Great Lakes neighbors in Ontario and Quebec.

gnken1 October 28th, 2007 12:58 pm

The States surrounding the Lakes will pass the proper legislation, but when it goes to Congress those in the know may see it as a means to get more water, and Fox News will talk it up on how it does not belong to the States Surrounding the Lakes but to the U.S. as a whole and if Bush is still President he will Veto any law protecting the water rights to States surrounding the Great Lakes. Hillary may do the same. Oil, Water, it’s all about money, and a Govt. that knows the ramifications of Climatic Change and wants to continue to say it doesnt exsist. If and when it comes to severe water shortages and rationing, I hope to be able to laugh at the “goofs” that thought it couldnt happen to them, and laugh why I am dieing of thirst.

Edward1793 October 28th, 2007 1:01 pm

Instead of trying to steal water from the Great Lakes they should look at conserving what they have. If those states were allowed to pipe as much water as they wanted from the Great Lakes a person would only have to look at the waste of water in Las Vegas to see that the western states would not conserve but continue and probably increase the use of water that goes on today.
If people want water, don’t steal it from us, move here, live here, you can have all the water you want then.

White Rose October 28th, 2007 1:11 pm

The current water levels are going down. This has been observed by everybody who lives by or near the lakes. At the current rate of depletion it should be easy to calculate when it will all be consumed. As in the concept of peak oil the Great Lakes are over the their peak and are now visibly in decline. It’s simple really, we must reduce the amount taken out today to get back to normal shipping levels.

We should dissolve the international boundaries the way they are now, and organise on the basis of watersheds. Every watershed to be an autonomous region cooperatively joined to all other watersheds.

We also need to address the rampant gluttony of consumers, the greed and base lust of the elites, and the power grab of the corporate board rooms. Obviously capitalism as we know it has got to go. These changes will be accomplished through liberal universal free education to all, to be funded by the claw back of private wealth. The amount clawed back by the public would be anything in excess of a cap amount which is arrived at through forensic analysis of where the wealth in question came from.

Time for another revolution, I say.

Hear Iz Kilroy October 28th, 2007 1:12 pm

One major item that is not mentioned is we are polluting the waters we have with chemicals and atomic waste. One prime example is in Tennesee, don’t drink the water or eat any fish or swim in the rivers downstream from the atomic plants. Our major aquifers from the east coast to the west are in serious trouble from pollution also.

Arvy October 28th, 2007 1:15 pm

I can see a replay of the War of 1812 coming up shortly as those subhuman Canuck ‘terrorists’ attempt to assert sovereignty and interfere with the unquestionable God-given right of the U.S. to extract whatever resources it thinks it may need from other people’s territories. Fortunately, however, the current Canuck PM and his entire neocon-north government has been fully bought and paid for.

ezeflyer October 28th, 2007 1:44 pm

The more people, the fewer available resources, the more wealth concentration, the fewer resources shared. It’s not rocket science.

annabelle October 28th, 2007 1:51 pm

Edward, right on! Before they start sucking the Great Lakes dry People living in the dry states need to think about conserving the water they do have. In Michigan, even surrounded by water, it is still important to conserve but I don’t think the conservation methods will be enough to stop the effects of global warming. When the oil has fizzled out the new wars with be the water wars. My neighbors visist their second (Maybe third) home three to four weeks every year, but they fertilize their yard and irrigate it daily with water from the lake. That’s just plain stupidity. Paint the golf balls green and let the greens dry up.

Parallax October 28th, 2007 1:52 pm

With you, ezeflyer …
One child per family for the next two or three generations.

Gene Therapy October 28th, 2007 2:17 pm

The political bigwigs of the Southwest were warned decades ago about the fact that they were drawing their aquafers down at a rate greater than recharge. Even books have been written about the fact that the dry West could not grow beyond its water resources (starting with “Cadillac Desert”). But it was full speed ahead with growth, growth, growth …. eeeee haaaaa! Growth for its own sake, as Edward Abbey reminded is “the ethic of the cancer cell”.

The fact that Western “planners” were perfectly happy to develop in a manner incompable with the larger environment does not obligate those in the Great Lakes Basin to do likewise in order to compensate for Western stupidity.

Ferency October 28th, 2007 2:32 pm

Water wars: just another sign of the failure of so-called civilization. Humans were better off as hunter/gatherers. Everything since then has been a steady decline.

B Payne-Economist October 28th, 2007 2:34 pm

ECONOMICS OF WATER

There’s nothing like a water shortage to bring economics front and center.

In economics, a “shortage” means demand exceeds supply at the current price because excess consumption occurs at the lower price. If the price is allowed to rise, it will eventually correct the shortage.

If the price is not allowed to rise, ration controls for specific types of water use must be used to restrict use and alleviate the shortage.

A third solution is to cut off certain users entirely as illegitimate because they have no property rights and therefore no rights of access to the water.

Water costs and prices are starting to rise like electricity prices and getting the attention of all sorts of wasteful use encouraged by prices that are too low.

The conflict caused by these rising prices can come to serious blows, including war in some part of the world.

One area to watch closely are the special deals obtained by large industrial and commercial users of water through secret manipulation of the regulators and politicians. They generally use phony economics to justify getting lower rates than small users, which is a subsidy for their business.

But it’s easy to demonstrate that beyond certain metering and related cost unique to small users, the economic cost for water at the margin, per gallon, is generally the same for everyone.

Another area to watch are attempts by private entities to buy out public systems. Because it’s the purest of monopolies - there’s no substitute for water - the prices won’t look anything like competition absent forceful regulation.

Many rate-price schedules for water are avaible on line for one’s water provider, sometimes from the state utility regulatory commission.

What’s suprising is some of these rates still encourage the excess use of water with prices that are too low. Even at the residential level, some rates are a “declining block rate”.

That means the more water used, the lower it’s price per gallon, which encourages users for example to wash more cars and water more lawns.

In general, it’s the large-volume water users (or illegal users) who are causing the problem and if rising prices are used correctly to reflect to them the cost of this use, their total bills will rise much more than those of the small-volume users.

kittyladyoregon October 28th, 2007 2:39 pm

Gene: It is not western stupidity at all. It is simply GREED. The developers and their ilk including the bankers acquired land cheaply because there was no water and sold it to unsuspecting rubes fro the east and midwest for homes. Used to be in Arizona, they had to guarantee a 100 year supply of water before they could build on a piece of land. Today, no problem - it is the buyers problem now if there is no water. Nothing is guaranteed. That is why they build the homes out of chicken wire and stucco - they won’t have to last until the mortgage is paid offbecause the water will be gone before then.

locust October 28th, 2007 3:19 pm

“It’s our water”

Well, the air belongs to me (I bought it on the Internet). Anyone who breathes owes me.

Since sunlight goes through my air to reach you, I am making plans to lease it.

My ultimate goal is to own the future. I’m thinking time-shares.

two rivers October 28th, 2007 3:48 pm

As a Michigan native living abroad, but who has also visited family members originally from Michigan but now living in the Phoenix area, I agree with the first commentator. That said, what I saw in Arizona astounded me: ONE set of solar panels on one rooftop of THOUSANDS we’d passed by (in my relatives’ SUV!!!!!), zero environmental-mindedness, a huge artificial fountain surrounded by permanently green chemically-treated lawn, an ICE RINK, strip malls galore, hardly any sidewalks or footpaths. Everybody seemed to be sucking down soda-pop (what’s the ratio of fresh water needed to create this junk anyway?), with ice-cubes of course, and the kind of clothes-washing machines that are not only energy-INefficient, but also shred your clothes. Of course, people there seem to all use CLOTHES DRYERS instead of line-drying (in a DESERT!!!). Finally, people there washed their dishes first by hand in a FULL sink of water, then washed them AGAIN in the dishwasher — FULL CYCLE (THEY said it’s more sanitary that way). I’d travelled to and from Arizona by train and was treated like an oddball for doing so! Comparing this kind of extremely wasteful life “style” with those of the Bedouin, the Touaregs or those of Arizona’s native peoples until only recently makes me feel that their request for and threats to steal the water in the Great Lakes region are absolutely atrocious and horribly greedy. My relatives and probably many other transplants to the Southwest left because they couldn’t stand the North’s snow and Siberian-style winters, yet they now want to literally suck us dry.

redjeff October 28th, 2007 3:54 pm

A piping of water out of the Great Lakes to benefit further growth in the southwest would further impoverish the Midwest, economically and environmentally, without helping the Southwest.
The problem is that the population of the southwest has exceeded the natural carrying capacity of the land for decades.
the Colorado River has been reduced to a trickle due to aqueducts syphoning away its waters to feed the burgeoning metropolises of Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles. Aquifers in the Plains states and the West are being drawn down by both urban and rural users.
What causes this is what causes all resource depletion here and worldwide–the capitalist urge for everyone to always get more. In a world of finite resources, this is like driving a race car ever faster toward a brick wall. We know that our way of life cannot be sustained, much less expanded around the world. But this is the only life we know, and it’s too scary to contemplate all the changes that must be made, let alone make them.
But that is what will have to happen, either on our terms or on Nature’s. Most likely the latter.

Douglas Barnes October 28th, 2007 4:11 pm

When the Southwest stops looking at rainwater as a problem (engineering storm drains to carry the “waste” water away as quickly as possible) and uses it as a resource and then runs out, we in the Great Lakes watershed will consider maybe giving some to that region. Until that day, Governor Richardson and his ilk can go take a dive into an evaporated New Mexico swimming pool.

Considering just the city of Tuscon, Arizona, their current demand for water could be met twice over from their yearly rainfall, if they would but harvest the resource in a sensible manner. Instead, they increase their salinisation problem by using the Central Arizona Project Aqueduct to unsustainably pipe in water from the Colorado River. At the same time, they have managed to turn the formerly tree-lined Santa Cruz River into a treeless erosion gully that no longer has a year-round flow.

After seeing the way these people have treated water, I think it would be very irresponsible to give them any of ours.

outsider October 28th, 2007 4:13 pm

Taking water from the Great Lakes is just a bigger version of the 1930’s plan to pipe water into Los Angeles from the middle of California. Eastern Ca. has been sucked dry to fill Paris Hilton’s swimming pool. I’ll bet you that the average citizen of Barstow uses 1/10th the water of an L.A. resident simply because the water is just not there. Water will be the new oil in a couple of decades from now, so invest in utilities who will control its distribution. If you think the Iraq war is expensive, wait ’til the invasion and occupation of Canada for water. Canada won’t allow any bulk water exports, because under NAFTA, once it starts, there’s no limit on how much can be sucked from the north. I guess emptying the Great Lakes is stealing Canada’s water thru the back door.

grandma October 28th, 2007 4:17 pm

Anyone know how many nuclear plants are on the Great Lakes? I know of three just on Lake Ontario, but I also know there are more on the other lakes.

thundermoon October 28th, 2007 4:20 pm

They’re lakes, not storage basins for perceived needs of other regions. And they do not replenish themselves. The Great Lakes were put there by glaciers, and can only recoup 1% per year from rain and snowfall. Richardson spoke of the water in this region the way you’d talk about a gallon of gas you put in your car. Go to google maps sometime and look at satellite maps of southwest cities. You see a sea of green in the midst of the desert.

2lyons October 28th, 2007 5:05 pm

Global warming hasn’t taught these people anything, has it? Mess with mother nature and she bites you back. We’ll all be doomed if and when this thievery happens.
Go to the water, don’t bring the water to you. I learned that in season 1 of LOST.

Dr. Zimmerman Robert October 28th, 2007 5:29 pm

It is well passed the time for the Great Lakes states to join the Canadian Federation. For years and years the Great Lake states have paid too dearly for its membership in the US of A.
These states with well educated populations are farming, industrial and post-industrial states that through economic union with Canada can better fulfill the needs of their people.

kengarjagalouski October 28th, 2007 5:46 pm

great lake folks might want to check out a view of mono lake..
this was a local fight about water for the los angeles basin..
the fight is over as the lake is pretty much drained..

have a 65 yr old sister whom has lived in the phoenix
area since the late 60’s..she is convinced phoenix will be
a ghost town before she is dead..

with the exception of a few pacific coastal areas
the 11 western states are all desert..

given a chance the folks of the west will look
the other way
while the great lakes are drained dry

boom time mentality runs strong in the west–
exploit the resource
move on..

in the past mostly the west has
provided the labor while
the profit was trucked east..

destruction is our way of life!!
ken

fazzbot October 28th, 2007 6:31 pm

Got water? We do! It should be a slogan to lure business to the Great lakes region again.
I know that business is a bad word to some of you who read and contribute to this site, but as a lifelong Cleveland resident, I have always wondered why this area always got shit on, after all, we have WATER. I have heard that the water we have should be considered a national asset and used to help other regions, those who already took our jobs, and for that matter, our country, (yeah you, you bible belt, bible thumping, christian taliban, Bush lovin’, fascist sons of bitches!) whew!
Where were those politicians clamoring for nationalisation of assets when Alaska oil revenues were shared out to residents of Alaska? Did the south give reparations to the states they stole businesses from? For giving tax breaks to companies to relocate to the good ol’ south and west? NOPE. Hey, there is sun in the west, does anybody think energy from parabolic mirrored energy or solar collection will be considered a national asset? NOPE.
I know I may have a different take than many of you, but in this matter, which can result in a realigment in global politics, it is a very important matter. Canada, and the Great Lakes states may end up closer than anybody could think possible. We are already seeing the Pacific Northeast of the US and Canada linking up, and we wil see the Maritime provinces, Ontario, Quebec, and the US northeast and the Great Lakes area joining in another powerful political group.
I was in Georgia last week, their Republican governor, Sonny Perdue elected in 2002 because his party is anti taxes, etc, killed a plan to build new reservoirs becaust the building industry would be hurt. (They SHOULD be hurt, they are building CRAP down there, no water conservation whatsoever, but man are there plenty of baptist megachurches, all with great big fountains, and beautifully watered lawns, and by the way… do they pay taxes?) Anyway, I have been accused of being all over the place in my contributions to this blog and rightfully so, but there is so much wrong with stealing our water I am very upset.
I agree that cisterns and other water conservation methods should be practiced. But California should not be the vegetable grower of the country, Rice should not be grown on irrigated desert land either.
Here is an idea. Close the St. Larwence seaway, dig reservoirs all around the Great Lakes region, some enterprising farmers then should duplicate the success of Ontario in their use of resources and creation of a region of greenhouses now numbering more than than the total of all greenhouses in the US. it is time to act before the regular suspects ruin this opportunity for a better America. Energy and water is what we have here, lets do it right.

genaman October 28th, 2007 6:40 pm

I thhought I heard somewhere that Lake Supireor is actually starting to dry up already without sending it through pipelines.
The lakes are still very polluted. Better then they were decades ago but still polluted.

Then you have all those alien fishes and plants in them which is screwing up all the lakes ecology.

I like Bill Richerson but his idea to take water from the Great Lakes I am against.
The southwest was never suppost to be overpopulated . It is time we realise that.

And shall we talk about how The water of The Colorado river goes to California.
The RIo Grande is but a mud puddle.

And that boondoggle Thing Old Mo Udall push for southern Arizona . Did it ever work? Or did it just rob water from other sources?

Anybody, Why is Las Vegas so big?
What do they do but gamble in that city? Shall we waste water on a vice like that?

REuse water Now for soon it will become a law
genaman

merryoldsoul October 28th, 2007 7:20 pm

Being from Michigan and living there for 48 of my 50 years, I have seen the changes, the recklesness of our mindless addiction to rolling on wheels, the Great Lakes are already at an all time low, (brings to mind the Aral Sea)…walking where there was once water, and seeing the St Marys river, between Lake Superior and Huron, not freeze,in several of the last winters, was an eyepopper even to the centarians, that were around the Sault Ste Marie- Bay Mills Eastern U.P. area, yes pipe the water to the south west, speed our demise…J-sus is coming, and save us from our recklessness,in fact lets bomb Iran, isn’t that where Armeggedon (I”mageeton outa here) starts??? Lets make a deal, pay the Michiganders like the Alaskans for the oil that was suppose to be for AMERICANS ONLY…not given to the Japanese,for the garrenteed Price of 25 dollars a barrel (still getting) for their partcipation in Gulf (police action) war ONE,,, Yes and now living in Montana, and seeing the amount of Irrigation used??? as well as what I here about the Oglala Aquifier running out, it won’t be long,,,,every resevoir in the High Plains is at an alltime low, get use to it , as the Dept. of Defense Study says ,,,WATER WARS are in the future,,,not so distant, as we have the oil grab going on, whats next???
Merger Mania
corporate wave
your new job subscription
Slave…
Media mindlessness
foolish knave
your democracy is
Bought and Paid.

toophat October 28th, 2007 8:32 pm

Instead of using words like cooperation we have started accepting the word war in this context. This is not surprising coming from Corporate culture and socitety.

Cooperation has many benefits. Including keeping a country together ,even though it has ignorant policies on fresh water use.

Would you rather set a standard on how water from great lakes be used or innundate cities near the water to be overrun by more people creating concentrated pollution near the drink?

War is for Oil , Cooperation with water.

Our societies now demands co-operation.

Best of Luck in making the choice.

yohocoma October 29th, 2007 1:21 am

Like most of our problems, this is largely the result of too many f*cking people. Neuter and proselytize. The time is long past for politeness.

truthteller October 29th, 2007 2:05 am

I heard talk 30 years ago that the water resources of the Midwest would stand to be their salvation from economic ruin when water resources became scarce in the so-called “sunbelt”. If you want water resources, go live where the water is. You shouldn’t be able to make Vegas look like Central Park, just because you want to, if it wastes scarce resources. The Midwest/Canadian compact needs to stand firm on this. This is revenge for all the jobs being sucked away for the last 40 years. Gonna force everyone to come back and put up with good ‘ol lake effect snow so they won’t die of thirst!

bill peppin October 29th, 2007 4:08 am

Fortunately, things are not quite so bad as they appear in terms of the availability of the water resource. In California, something like 30 million acre-feet per year (versus Niagara, 144 million acre-feet per year, Colorado River perhaps now as low as 10 million acre-feet per year and puny 0.15 million acre-feet per year from the Owens Valley) is captured in reservoirs and used for urban and agricultural uses. Guess how much the 25 million people in SF and LA/San Diego use of this total? 15% or so, notwithstanding the extremely wasteful use in the LA basin for lawns, pools, and golf courses. Where does most of the rest go? To subsidized huge agribusiness users in the southern San Joaquin Valley, a de facto desert, very hot in the summer with annual rainfall down to 5″ at the south end. So if we actually charged huge agribusiness a fair price for the water that Calif taxpayers paid to move from north to south, the problem would vanish for the foreseeable future. Since water is so cheap for the agribusiness users, they use it very wastefully. In general, municipal water use round the country is far less than that used for irrigation, except in the areas east of the 100th meridian in the U.S. So at least in the US, the resource is large enough for municipal use if we are much more careful with how the water is used for irrigation, except in the Rocky Mountain states and those which include flat ground west of the 100th meridian. (Places like Phoenix, Denver, and Las Vegas are looking at some serious trouble in the not so distant future.) If more emphasis were placed on growing food locally, this diversion of water would probably not impact California food prices that much. Solutions are available to us, even though some scary suggestions of future water wars, a very real political possibility, are out there and surely have some probability of happening. Very good source on these matters is Marc Reisner “Cadillac Desert,” very thorough, well-written.

MeAlsoToo October 29th, 2007 6:56 am

I’d not worry overmuch regards anyone ’stealing’ Michigan’s Great Lakes in the future. Given the Army Corp of Eng long-habit of, and penchant-for, dumping barrels of radioactive and other high-level/dangerous waste into Western Lake Superior and Lake Michigan, the amounts of agricultural run-off and industrial-waste that has ‘flown-in’ over time, the amount of acidic&mercury-laden precipitate that has fallen-into these catch-basins, and varied-other pollutions — the FDA could not approve much any-of-it for ‘human consumption’, soon.
Michigan already warns local-fishermen not to eat their catch more than maybe once-or-twice a month (and suggests children not eat _any_). Other warnings abound, btw, regards eating Michigan’s deer, meats&dairy, and local-produce. [And the State has every-reason, economically, to ‘present a best-case-scenario’…]

Prior to all those ‘lost job-holders’ abandoning their states, they pretty-much “poisoned the well”. Also…no one there really “wants them back” (let them befoul some-other nest — the ‘jobs lost’ are currently destroying Asia and ‘points-South’).

marlee October 29th, 2007 7:19 am

In Granholm’s words…”HELL NO!”

freia October 29th, 2007 10:49 am

Like hell will we let our Great Lakes water go to the Southwest so they can wash their cars and water their grass. Our water tables here in Wisconsin are dropping to. People should not be watering grass or washing cars even here in WI, but it is absolutely unconscionable that they are allowed to do it in the drought-ridden Southwest.

mr. d. October 29th, 2007 10:54 am

Hey, if water is not piped out from the great lakes, how are the golf courses going to be kept green? Let’s get our priorities straight. Someone told me that there are more thatn 300 golf courses in and around Phoenix desert country. Golfers are people too, you know!

vaudree October 29th, 2007 11:10 am

Speaking of US interests trying to usurp Canada’s water supplies, did you hear about the latest controversy concerning Disney, the State Department and Homeland Security Department’s Customs and Border Protection agency concerning Niagra Falls?

U.S. annexes Canadian landmark in new video
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071028/ustourism_video_071028/20071028/

You also know that there is a movement to get Lake Winnipeg labeled as one of the Great Lakes.

And, of course, you know about the Garrison Project (or whatever they call it now) which pits Manitoba and Minnesota against North Dakota. Seems that North Dakota’s flood prevention plan involves introducing foreign objects into Lake Winnipeg via the Red River - and in violation of international treaties. Of course, the US is not very big on treaties at the moment.

Mijari says: I loved taking trips to the natural desert when I lived in the Phoenix and San Diego metro areas.

What about the natural desert in Spruce Woods Manitoba? And while you are at it visit the statue of Sara the Camel in nearby Glenboro (I’m not kidding!). Just because the Winnipeg Jets moved to Phoenix doesn’t mean you have to go there to see a desert.

Also note that the Province in Canada that receives the least rainfall is Alberta. My guess as to why? All these years of shooting water underground to get the oil out and reduced greatly their surface water. One needs evaporated water to produce rain.

I only keep my lawn to the quality where it keeps my lawn mowers happy. Their names are Shadow and Lil’ Sister and they are Guineapigs.

gnken1 says: Fox News will talk it up on how it does not belong to the States Surrounding the Lakes but to the U.S. as a whole and if Bush is still President he will Veto any law protecting the water rights to States surrounding the Great Lakes.

Their “freedom fries” propaganda had little effect with trade with France (which actually went up during that time period). The Governors surrounding the Great Lakes and Premiers (ie like Governors only Canadian) are definitely getting together to come up with a game plan over this issue. And, if I know Doer, he has probably got the Assembly of First Nations (Canada) and the National Congress of American Indians involved so that they can assert their sovereignty rights as well.

Edward1793 says: If those states were allowed to pipe as much water as they wanted from the Great Lakes a person would only have to look at the waste of water in Las Vegas to see that the western states would not conserve but continue and probably increase the use of water that goes on today.

It is private interests in those states that are pushing for control of the water - and, like everywhere else, when they get it, cost for it is going to go way up.

White Rose says: The current water levels are going down. This has been observed by everybody who lives by or near the lakes.

This is true. However, dissolving the boundaries (which they are trying to do under the SPP) is not the answer. All that will do is give the Corporations powers to curcumvent government intervention.

Arvy says: I can see a replay of the War of 1812 coming up shortly as those subhuman Canuck ‘terrorists’ attempt to assert sovereignty and interfere with the unquestionable God-given right of the U.S. to extract whatever resources it thinks it may need from other people’s territories.

Not with Harper in charge.

B Payne, there are a few articles on rabble concerning water and the SPP.

JohnR October 29th, 2007 11:39 am

Water, like any other gifts from nature, belong to those who can bring the most force to bear. I laugh when I hear, “It is ours.”
Such wonderful hubris. whoever has the most money and guns will get that water.
There are too many people consuming too much of everything. They are ruining the earth for the sake of becoming obese, diabetic, ridden with cardiovascular disease and cancer. What’s the point of any of it?

vaudree October 29th, 2007 12:03 pm

outsider says: Taking water from the Great Lakes is just a bigger version of the 1930’s plan to pipe water into Los Angeles from the middle of California. Eastern Ca. has been sucked dry to fill Paris Hilton’s swimming pool.

Seems that the present dryness of California greatly contributed to the fire situation. Who is paying for that now?

outsider says: If you think the Iraq war is expensive, wait ’til the invasion and occupation of Canada for water. Canada won’t allow any bulk water exports, because under NAFTA, once it starts, there’s no limit on how much can be sucked from the north.

You are talking about Chapter 11 of NAFTA? The SPP is NAFTA on steriods and water is definitely on the table at the SPP meetings. There was a leaked memo saying that water was definitely on the table for the SPP meeting.

http://www.canadians.org/media/DI/2005/14-Feb-05.html

Catherine Bell is the NDP Natural Resources critic:

“Catherine Bell’s speech in the House of Commons debate May 31, 2007 regarding concurence on the Report of the Committee on International Trade instructing the Government of Canada to “quickly begin talks with its American and Mexican counterparts to exclude water from the scope of NAFTA”.”

http://www.catherinebell.ndp.ca/page/309

mlo October 29th, 2007 1:56 pm

Ok, little known fact: The Federal governments of the U.S. and Canada do not have full dominion over the Great Lakes.

What does that mean? Doesn’t matter what either Federal government plots because there is a treaty that gives voting and control to the provinces and states surrounding the Great Lakes full power over the lakes - beyond that of either Federal government.

So, Richardson can say any stupid thing he wants - even if elected president, he can’t touch the water.

Pax,

MLO

vaudree October 29th, 2007 2:15 pm

mlo, do those (other than the US or Canada) who have partial dominion over the Great Lakes have the money for lawyers. There is a certain amount they can get away with unless someone puts up a court challenge.

Phil Fontaine has his work cut out for him.

mlo October 30th, 2007 12:33 am

From my wayward memory, only the U.S. and Canada have any rights to the Great Lakes. And only one of the Great Lakes is entirely within the U.S.A. The Great Lakes treaties were set up in order to protect the lakes from outside interests. They did approve the bottling of water (bad move as it is depleting the water table, but that is a whole other story.) They are not perfect, but wholesale piping of water is not likely to happen. The problem is that the shipping interests are very active in all the states and provinces as well as the Federal governments and they line the pockets of the delegates as well. They know that the governors and congress critters who are not active don’t matter.

The much bigger threat to the lakes is the invasion of non-native species such as the zebra mussel and the various chinese fish that are killing off our native species. We have no way to know what is going on with the water supply from that.

The lake levels, btw, are cyclical and similar to what they were in the 1930s. I expect all the homes that have been built along the new coastlines to be underwater in about 30 years.

There are several local landowner and farming concerns in the Great Lakes areas (agribusiness is not as in control here as elsewhere) that have vested interests to sue. The problem in MI is the current make-up of the MI Supreme Court. All Theocratic Republicans. Remember, Blackwater came from MI Militia types making an unholy alliance with the Grand Rapids Religious Nutters. They consistently rule that even those with vested interests (farmers whose crops are endangered) do not have authority to sue. Um… crops threatened by bottled water plant taking too much is a legitimate concern to many, unfortunately, our legislature is also completely made up of Religious Nutter Republicans. I have no kind words for them. They have destroyed a once vibrant state by not finding the proper balance between corporate and personal interests.

Sorry about the tirade, but their idiocy makes me insane. I get the news in Ontario and they don’t have it much better. Ohio is a lost cause. New York is iffy. Wisconsin is OK. Minnesota has common sense - really. And well, the rest is up in the air as far as I know.

The problem with the Great Lakes is that they have a series of treaties that only an attorney well-versed in maritime law would actually be able to keep straight - I’m not one. The author would be well-served to seek one out and question about the legal ramifications of the pumping of water. NAFTA may not even trump the current Great Lakes Pact.

It really is as complicated as Enron accounting.

Pax,

MLO

vaudree October 30th, 2007 3:26 am

The only other party I can think of that might have a claim on the Great Lakes besides Canada and the US are the First Nations (you call them Native Americans).

mlo says: NAFTA may not even trump the current Great Lakes Pact.

Here’s hoping.

vaudree October 30th, 2007 7:19 pm

What do you guys know about Walkerton? Seems that the townsfolk have not fully recovered yet.

workreno October 30th, 2007 11:34 pm

Read “Harvest for Hope” Jane Goodall for a clearer picture of what has happend to the water supplies of not only the American West and Mid West ,but also countries like India where the Multi National Corps. have and are draining us dry.

Don’t buy bottled water or beef.

Pablodius October 31st, 2007 11:29 am

Being from the suburb of chicago, i think that the people that live in the southwest and complain about no water need to leave the southwest.

Mijari October 28th, 2007 12:54 pm

Having been born in Michigan, having lived in the Southwest for almost 13 years, having lived in the Northwest for 11 years, then returning to Michigan, I’ve seen both sides of the argument. And I fall squarely in the camp of protecting the Great Lakes from being exported beyond the Great Lakes Basin.

I’ll keep my comments mainly focused on the landscape portion of water usage, since that’s probably the most egregious example of wasted water.

Here, in the Detroit metro area, in the state with the most fresh water resources in the world, let alone the country, we have water conservation rules in effect during the summer. Odd addresses are only to water their lawns on odd numbered days, and even addresses on even days. We don’t take our water for granted, so we’re damn sure not going to let others do so.

There shouldn’t be a single blade of non-native grasses anywhere, but in arid regions it makes absolutely zero sense. Native non-engineered grasses and plants should be the only ones allowed. I know for a fact that in Arizona and California, almost every home has the benefit of an under lawn sprinkler system, which only encourages wasting water. People who move to the Southwest shouldn’t expect to have anything other than native plants surrounding them. Why the hell would they want anything else, since the native plants are so beautiful anyway?

I loved taking trips to the natural desert when I lived in the Phoenix and San Diego metro areas. And you rarely see a home out there with a lawn. 99% native vegetation and gorgeous! If you live in the Southwest, and parts of the Northwest, you live in the desert. Period. There is no “let’s go out to the desert” as residents of those areas are fond of saying. Just because it has green lawns and imported shade trees doesn’t make it not the desert!

So, if the states, regions, or whoever, want The Great Lakes’ water, let them first outlaw any non-native species being planted, and make the law retroactive. Tear up all their lawns, cut down their orchards, let Napa Valley, the San Joaquin Valley and all other areas growing foods and raising livestock, in what is essentially the desert, go native. We should be buying the majority of our food locally anyway, which would also cut down on all the water wasted and water polluted by the run-off from giant agri-corps industrial feedlots and farms. And, as an added benefit, make the country as whole much healthier and less susceptible to the diseases of an industrialized society.

After doing all that, then we might consider letting you drink from our well.

That’s my 2¢, or 1.9044562¢ Canadian for our Great Lakes neighbors in Ontario and Quebec.
gnken1 October 28th, 2007 12:58 pm

The States surrounding the Lakes will pass the proper legislation, but when it goes to Congress those in the know may see it as a means to get more water, and Fox News will talk it up on how it does not belong to the States Surrounding the Lakes but to the U.S. as a whole and if Bush is still President he will Veto any law protecting the water rights to States surrounding the Great Lakes. Hillary may do the same. Oil, Water, it’s all about money, and a Govt. that knows the ramifications of Climatic Change and wants to continue to say it doesnt exsist. If and when it comes to severe water shortages and rationing, I hope to be able to laugh at the “goofs” that thought it couldnt happen to them, and laugh why I am dieing of thirst.
Edward1793 October 28th, 2007 1:01 pm

Instead of trying to steal water from the Great Lakes they should look at conserving what they have. If those states were allowed to pipe as much water as they wanted from the Great Lakes a person would only have to look at the waste of water in Las Vegas to see that the western states would not conserve but continue and probably increase the use of water that goes on today.
If people want water, don’t steal it from us, move here, live here, you can have all the water you want then.
White Rose October 28th, 2007 1:11 pm

The current water levels are going down. This has been observed by everybody who lives by or near the lakes. At the current rate of depletion it should be easy to calculate when it will all be consumed. As in the concept of peak oil the Great Lakes are over the their peak and are now visibly in decline. It’s simple really, we must reduce the amount taken out today to get back to normal shipping levels.

We should dissolve the international boundaries the way they are now, and organise on the basis of watersheds. Every watershed to be an autonomous region cooperatively joined to all other watersheds.

We also need to address the rampant gluttony of consumers, the greed and base lust of the elites, and the power grab of the corporate board rooms. Obviously capitalism as we know it has got to go. These changes will be accomplished through liberal universal free education to all, to be funded by the claw back of private wealth. The amount clawed back by the public would be anything in excess of a cap amount which is arrived at through forensic analysis of where the wealth in question came from.

Time for another revolution, I say.
Hear Iz Kilroy October 28th, 2007 1:12 pm

One major item that is not mentioned is we are polluting the waters we have with chemicals and atomic waste. One prime example is in Tennesee, don’t drink the water or eat any fish or swim in the rivers downstream from the atomic plants. Our major aquifers from the east coast to the west are in serious trouble from pollution also.
Arvy October 28th, 2007 1:15 pm

I can see a replay of the War of 1812 coming up shortly as those subhuman Canuck ‘terrorists’ attempt to assert sovereignty and interfere with the unquestionable God-given right of the U.S. to extract whatever resources it thinks it may need from other people’s territories. Fortunately, however, the current Canuck PM and his entire neocon-north government has been fully bought and paid for.
ezeflyer October 28th, 2007 1:44 pm

The more people, the fewer available resources, the more wealth concentration, the fewer resources shared. It’s not rocket science.
annabelle October 28th, 2007 1:51 pm

Edward, right on! Before they start sucking the Great Lakes dry People living in the dry states need to think about conserving the water they do have. In Michigan, even surrounded by water, it is still important to conserve but I don’t think the conservation methods will be enough to stop the effects of global warming. When the oil has fizzled out the new wars with be the water wars. My neighbors visist their second (Maybe third) home three to four weeks every year, but they fertilize their yard and irrigate it daily with water from the lake. That’s just plain stupidity. Paint the golf balls green and let the greens dry up.
Parallax October 28th, 2007 1:52 pm

With you, ezeflyer …
One child per family for the next two or three generations.
Gene Therapy October 28th, 2007 2:17 pm

The political bigwigs of the Southwest were warned decades ago about the fact that they were drawing their aquafers down at a rate greater than recharge. Even books have been written about the fact that the dry West could not grow beyond its water resources (starting with “Cadillac Desert”). But it was full speed ahead with growth, growth, growth …. eeeee haaaaa! Growth for its own sake, as Edward Abbey reminded is “the ethic of the cancer cell”.

The fact that Western “planners” were perfectly happy to develop in a manner incompable with the larger environment does not obligate those in the Great Lakes Basin to do likewise in order to compensate for Western stupidity.
Ferency October 28th, 2007 2:32 pm

Water wars: just another sign of the failure of so-called civilization. Humans were better off as hunter/gatherers. Everything since then has been a steady decline.
B Payne-Economist October 28th, 2007 2:34 pm

ECONOMICS OF WATER

There’s nothing like a water shortage to bring economics front and center.

In economics, a “shortage” means demand exceeds supply at the current price because excess consumption occurs at the lower price. If the price is allowed to rise, it will eventually correct the shortage.

If the price is not allowed to rise, ration controls for specific types of water use must be used to restrict use and alleviate the shortage.

A third solution is to cut off certain users entirely as illegitimate because they have no property rights and therefore no rights of access to the water.

Water costs and prices are starting to rise like electricity prices and getting the attention of all sorts of wasteful use encouraged by prices that are too low.

The conflict caused by these rising prices can come to serious blows, including war in some part of the world.

One area to watch closely are the special deals obtained by large industrial and commercial users of water through secret manipulation of the regulators and politicians. They generally use phony economics to justify getting lower rates than small users, which is a subsidy for their business.

But it’s easy to demonstrate that beyond certain metering and related cost unique to small users, the economic cost for water at the margin, per gallon, is generally the same for everyone.

Another area to watch are attempts by private entities to buy out public systems. Because it’s the purest of monopolies - there’s no substitute for water - the prices won’t look anything like competition absent forceful regulation.

Many rate-price schedules for water are avaible on line for one’s water provider, sometimes from the state utility regulatory commission.

What’s suprising is some of these rates still encourage the excess use of water with prices that are too low. Even at the residential level, some rates are a “declining block rate”.

That means the more water used, the lower it’s price per gallon, which encourages users for example to wash more cars and water more lawns.

In general, it’s the large-volume water users (or illegal users) who are causing the problem and if rising prices are used correctly to reflect to them the cost of this use, their total bills will rise much more than those of the small-volume users.
kittyladyoregon October 28th, 2007 2:39 pm

Gene: It is not western stupidity at all. It is simply GREED. The developers and their ilk including the bankers acquired land cheaply because there was no water and sold it to unsuspecting rubes fro the east and midwest for homes. Used to be in Arizona, they had to guarantee a 100 year supply of water before they could build on a piece of land. Today, no problem - it is the buyers problem now if there is no water. Nothing is guaranteed. That is why they build the homes out of chicken wire and stucco - they won’t have to last until the mortgage is paid offbecause the water will be gone before then.
locust October 28th, 2007 3:19 pm

“It’s our water”

Well, the air belongs to me (I bought it on the Internet). Anyone who breathes owes me.

Since sunlight goes through my air to reach you, I am making plans to lease it.

My ultimate goal is to own the future. I’m thinking time-shares.
two rivers October 28th, 2007 3:48 pm

As a Michigan native living abroad, but who has also visited family members originally from Michigan but now living in the Phoenix area, I agree with the first commentator. That said, what I saw in Arizona astounded me: ONE set of solar panels on one rooftop of THOUSANDS we’d passed by (in my relatives’ SUV!!!!!), zero environmental-mindedness, a huge artificial fountain surrounded by permanently green chemically-treated lawn, an ICE RINK, strip malls galore, hardly any sidewalks or footpaths. Everybody seemed to be sucking down soda-pop (what’s the ratio of fresh water needed to create this junk anyway?), with ice-cubes of course, and the kind of clothes-washing machines that are not only energy-INefficient, but also shred your clothes. Of course, people there seem to all use CLOTHES DRYERS instead of line-drying (in a DESERT!!!). Finally, people there washed their dishes first by hand in a FULL sink of water, then washed them AGAIN in the dishwasher — FULL CYCLE (THEY said it’s more sanitary that way). I’d travelled to and from Arizona by train and was treated like an oddball for doing so! Comparing this kind of extremely wasteful life “style” with those of the Bedouin, the Touaregs or those of Arizona’s native peoples until only recently makes me feel that their request for and threats to steal the water in the Great Lakes region are absolutely atrocious and horribly greedy. My relatives and probably many other transplants to the Southwest left because they couldn’t stand the North’s snow and Siberian-style winters, yet they now want to literally suck us dry.
redjeff October 28th, 2007 3:54 pm

A piping of water out of the Great Lakes to benefit further growth in the southwest would further impoverish the Midwest, economically and environmentally, without helping the Southwest.
The problem is that the population of the southwest has exceeded the natural carrying capacity of the land for decades.
the Colorado River has been reduced to a trickle due to aqueducts syphoning away its waters to feed the burgeoning metropolises of Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles. Aquifers in the Plains states and the West are being drawn down by both urban and rural users.
What causes this is what causes all resource depletion here and worldwide–the capitalist urge for everyone to always get more. In a world of finite resources, this is like driving a race car ever faster toward a brick wall. We know that our way of life cannot be sustained, much less expanded around the world. But this is the only life we know, and it’s too scary to contemplate all the changes that must be made, let alone make them.
But that is what will have to happen, either on our terms or on Nature’s. Most likely the latter.
Douglas Barnes October 28th, 2007 4:11 pm

When the Southwest stops looking at rainwater as a problem (engineering storm drains to carry the “waste” water away as quickly as possible) and uses it as a resource and then runs out, we in the Great Lakes watershed will consider maybe giving some to that region. Until that day, Governor Richardson and his ilk can go take a dive into an evaporated New Mexico swimming pool.

Considering just the city of Tuscon, Arizona, their current demand for water could be met twice over from their yearly rainfall, if they would but harvest the resource in a sensible manner. Instead, they increase their salinisation problem by using the Central Arizona Project Aqueduct to unsustainably pipe in water from the Colorado River. At the same time, they have managed to turn the formerly tree-lined Santa Cruz River into a treeless erosion gully that no longer has a year-round flow.

After seeing the way these people have treated water, I think it would be very irresponsible to give them any of ours.
outsider October 28th, 2007 4:13 pm

Taking water from the Great Lakes is just a bigger version of the 1930’s plan to pipe water into Los Angeles from the middle of California. Eastern Ca. has been sucked dry to fill Paris Hilton’s swimming pool. I’ll bet you that the average citizen of Barstow uses 1/10th the water of an L.A. resident simply because the water is just not there. Water will be the new oil in a couple of decades from now, so invest in utilities who will control its distribution. If you think the Iraq war is expensive, wait ’til the invasion and occupation of Canada for water. Canada won’t allow any bulk water exports, because under NAFTA, once it starts, there’s no limit on how much can be sucked from the north. I guess emptying the Great Lakes is stealing Canada’s water thru the back door.
grandma October 28th, 2007 4:17 pm

Anyone know how many nuclear plants are on the Great Lakes? I know of three just on Lake Ontario, but I also know there are more on the other lakes.
thundermoon October 28th, 2007 4:20 pm

They’re lakes, not storage basins for perceived needs of other regions. And they do not replenish themselves. The Great Lakes were put there by glaciers, and can only recoup 1% per year from rain and snowfall. Richardson spoke of the water in this region the way you’d talk about a gallon of gas you put in your car. Go to google maps sometime and look at satellite maps of southwest cities. You see a sea of green in the midst of the desert.
2lyons October 28th, 2007 5:05 pm

Global warming hasn’t taught these people anything, has it? Mess with mother nature and she bites you back. We’ll all be doomed if and when this thievery happens.
Go to the water, don’t bring the water to you. I learned that in season 1 of LOST.
Dr. Zimmerman Robert October 28th, 2007 5:29 pm

It is well passed the time for the Great Lakes states to join the Canadian Federation. For years and years the Great Lake states have paid too dearly for its membership in the US of A.
These states with well educated populations are farming, industrial and post-industrial states that through economic union with Canada can better fulfill the needs of their people.
kengarjagalouski October 28th, 2007 5:46 pm

great lake folks might want to check out a view of mono lake..
this was a local fight about water for the los angeles basin..
the fight is over as the lake is pretty much drained..

have a 65 yr old sister whom has lived in the phoenix
area since the late 60’s..she is convinced phoenix will be
a ghost town before she is dead..

with the exception of a few pacific coastal areas
the 11 western states are all desert..

given a chance the folks of the west will look
the other way
while the great lakes are drained dry

boom time mentality runs strong in the west–
exploit the resource
move on..

in the past mostly the west has
provided the labor while
the profit was trucked east..

destruction is our way of life!!
ken
fazzbot October 28th, 2007 6:31 pm

Got water? We do! It should be a slogan to lure business to the Great lakes region again.
I know that business is a bad word to some of you who read and contribute to this site, but as a lifelong Cleveland resident, I have always wondered why this area always got shit on, after all, we have WATER. I have heard that the water we have should be considered a national asset and used to help other regions, those who already took our jobs, and for that matter, our country, (yeah you, you bible belt, bible thumping, christian taliban, Bush lovin’, fascist sons of bitches!) whew!
Where were those politicians clamoring for nationalisation of assets when Alaska oil revenues were shared out to residents of Alaska? Did the south give reparations to the states they stole businesses from? For giving tax breaks to companies to relocate to the good ol’ south and west? NOPE. Hey, there is sun in the west, does anybody think energy from parabolic mirrored energy or solar collection will be considered a national asset? NOPE.
I know I may have a different take than many of you, but in this matter, which can result in a realigment in global politics, it is a very important matter. Canada, and the Great Lakes states may end up closer than anybody could think possible. We are already seeing the Pacific Northeast of the US and Canada linking up, and we wil see the Maritime provinces, Ontario, Quebec, and the US northeast and the Great Lakes area joining in another powerful political group.
I was in Georgia last week, their Republican governor, Sonny Perdue elected in 2002 because his party is anti taxes, etc, killed a plan to build new reservoirs becaust the building industry would be hurt. (They SHOULD be hurt, they are building CRAP down there, no water conservation whatsoever, but man are there plenty of baptist megachurches, all with great big fountains, and beautifully watered lawns, and by the way… do they pay taxes?) Anyway, I have been accused of being all over the place in my contributions to this blog and rightfully so, but there is so much wrong with stealing our water I am very upset.
I agree that cisterns and other water conservation methods should be practiced. But California should not be the vegetable grower of the country, Rice should not be grown on irrigated desert land either.
Here is an idea. Close the St. Larwence seaway, dig reservoirs all around the Great Lakes region, some enterprising farmers then should duplicate the success of Ontario in their use of resources and creation of a region of greenhouses now numbering more than than the total of all greenhouses in the US. it is time to act before the regular suspects ruin this opportunity for a better America. Energy and water is what we have here, lets do it right.
genaman October 28th, 2007 6:40 pm

I thhought I heard somewhere that Lake Supireor is actually starting to dry up already without sending it through pipelines.
The lakes are still very polluted. Better then they were decades ago but still polluted.

Then you have all those alien fishes and plants in them which is screwing up all the lakes ecology.

I like Bill Richerson but his idea to take water from the Great Lakes I am against.
The southwest was never suppost to be overpopulated . It is time we realise that.

And shall we talk about how The water of The Colorado river goes to California.
The RIo Grande is but a mud puddle.

And that boondoggle Thing Old Mo Udall push for southern Arizona . Did it ever work? Or did it just rob water from other sources?

Anybody, Why is Las Vegas so big?
What do they do but gamble in that city? Shall we waste water on a vice like that?

REuse water Now for soon it will become a law
genaman
merryoldsoul October 28th, 2007 7:20 pm

Being from Michigan and living there for 48 of my 50 years, I have seen the changes, the recklesness of our mindless addiction to rolling on wheels, the Great Lakes are already at an all time low, (brings to mind the Aral Sea)…walking where there was once water, and seeing the St Marys river, between Lake Superior and Huron, not freeze,in several of the last winters, was an eyepopper even to the centarians, that were around the Sault Ste Marie- Bay Mills Eastern U.P. area, yes pipe the water to the south west, speed our demise…J-sus is coming, and save us from our recklessness,in fact lets bomb Iran, isn’t that where Armeggedon (I”mageeton outa here) starts??? Lets make a deal, pay the Michiganders like the Alaskans for the oil that was suppose to be for AMERICANS ONLY…not given to the Japanese,for the garrenteed Price of 25 dollars a barrel (still getting) for their partcipation in Gulf (police action) war ONE,,, Yes and now living in Montana, and seeing the amount of Irrigation used??? as well as what I here about the Oglala Aquifier running out, it won’t be long,,,,every resevoir in the High Plains is at an alltime low, get use to it , as the Dept. of Defense Study says ,,,WATER WARS are in the future,,,not so distant, as we have the oil grab going on, whats next???
Merger Mania
corporate wave
your new job subscription
Slave…
Media mindlessness
foolish knave
your democracy is
Bought and Paid.
toophat October 28th, 2007 8:32 pm

Instead of using words like cooperation we have started accepting the word war in this context. This is not surprising coming from Corporate culture and socitety.

Cooperation has many benefits. Including keeping a country together ,even though it has ignorant policies on fresh water use.

Would you rather set a standard on how water from great lakes be used or innundate cities near the water to be overrun by more people creating concentrated pollution near the drink?

War is for Oil , Cooperation with water.

Our societies now demands co-operation.

Best of Luck in making the choice.
yohocoma October 29th, 2007 1:21 am

Like most of our problems, this is largely the result of too many f*cking people. Neuter and proselytize. The time is long past for politeness.
truthteller October 29th, 2007 2:05 am

I heard talk 30 years ago that the water resources of the Midwest would stand to be their salvation from economic ruin when water resources became scarce in the so-called “sunbelt”. If you want water resources, go live where the water is. You shouldn’t be able to make Vegas look like Central Park, just because you want to, if it wastes scarce resources. The Midwest/Canadian compact needs to stand firm on this. This is revenge for all the jobs being sucked away for the last 40 years. Gonna force everyone to come back and put up with good ‘ol lake effect snow so they won’t die of thirst!
bill peppin October 29th, 2007 4:08 am

Fortunately, things are not quite so bad as they appear in terms of the availability of the water resource. In California, something like 30 million acre-feet per year (versus Niagara, 144 million acre-feet per year, Colorado River perhaps now as low as 10 million acre-feet per year and puny 0.15 million acre-feet per year from the Owens Valley) is captured in reservoirs and used for urban and agricultural uses. Guess how much the 25 million people in SF and LA/San Diego use of this total? 15% or so, notwithstanding the extremely wasteful use in the LA basin for lawns, pools, and golf courses. Where does most of the rest go? To subsidized huge agribusiness users in the southern San Joaquin Valley, a de facto desert, very hot in the summer with annual rainfall down to 5″ at the south end. So if we actually charged huge agribusiness a fair price for the water that Calif taxpayers paid to move from north to south, the problem would vanish for the foreseeable future. Since water is so cheap for the agribusiness users, they use it very wastefully. In general, municipal water use round the country is far less than that used for irrigation, except in the areas east of the 100th meridian in the U.S. So at least in the US, the resource is large enough for municipal use if we are much more careful with how the water is used for irrigation, except in the Rocky Mountain states and those which include flat ground west of the 100th meridian. (Places like Phoenix, Denver, and Las Vegas are looking at some serious trouble in the not so distant future.) If more emphasis were placed on growing food locally, this diversion of water would probably not impact California food prices that much. Solutions are available to us, even though some scary suggestions of future water wars, a very real political possibility, are out there and surely have some probability of happening. Very good source on these matters is Marc Reisner “Cadillac Desert,” very thorough, well-written.
MeAlsoToo October 29th, 2007 6:56 am

I’d not worry overmuch regards anyone ’stealing’ Michigan’s Great Lakes in the future. Given the Army Corp of Eng long-habit of, and penchant-for, dumping barrels of radioactive and other high-level/dangerous waste into Western Lake Superior and Lake Michigan, the amounts of agricultural run-off and industrial-waste that has ‘flown-in’ over time, the amount of acidic&mercury-laden precipitate that has fallen-into these catch-basins, and varied-other pollutions — the FDA could not approve much any-of-it for ‘human consumption’, soon.
Michigan already warns local-fishermen not to eat their catch more than maybe once-or-twice a month (and suggests children not eat _any_). Other warnings abound, btw, regards eating Michigan’s deer, meats&dairy, and local-produce. [And the State has every-reason, economically, to ‘present a best-case-scenario’…]

Prior to all those ‘lost job-holders’ abandoning their states, they pretty-much “poisoned the well”. Also…no one there really “wants them back” (let them befoul some-other nest — the ‘jobs lost’ are currently destroying Asia and ‘points-South’).
marlee October 29th, 2007 7:19 am

In Granholm’s words…”HELL NO!”
freia October 29th, 2007 10:49 am

Like hell will we let our Great Lakes water go to the Southwest so they can wash their cars and water their grass. Our water tables here in Wisconsin are dropping to. People should not be watering grass or washing cars even here in WI, but it is absolutely unconscionable that they are allowed to do it in the drought-ridden Southwest.
mr. d. October 29th, 2007 10:54 am

Hey, if water is not piped out from the great lakes, how are the golf courses going to be kept green? Let’s get our priorities straight. Someone told me that there are more thatn 300 golf courses in and around Phoenix desert country. Golfers are people too, you know!
vaudree October 29th, 2007 11:10 am

Speaking of US interests trying to usurp Canada’s water supplies, did you hear about the latest controversy concerning Disney, the State Department and Homeland Security Department’s Customs and Border Protection agency concerning Niagra Falls?

U.S. annexes Canadian landmark in new video
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071028/ustourism_video_071028/20071028/

You also know that there is a movement to get Lake Winnipeg labeled as one of the Great Lakes.

And, of course, you know about the Garrison Project (or whatever they call it now) which pits Manitoba and Minnesota against North Dakota. Seems that North Dakota’s flood prevention plan involves introducing foreign objects into Lake Winnipeg via the Red River - and in violation of international treaties. Of course, the US is not very big on treaties at the moment.

Mijari says: I loved taking trips to the natural desert when I lived in the Phoenix and San Diego metro areas.

What about the natural desert in Spruce Woods Manitoba? And while you are at it visit the statue of Sara the Camel in nearby Glenboro (I’m not kidding!). Just because the Winnipeg Jets moved to Phoenix doesn’t mean you have to go there to see a desert.

Also note that the Province in Canada that receives the least rainfall is Alberta. My guess as to why? All these years of shooting water underground to get the oil out and reduced greatly their surface water. One needs evaporated water to produce rain.

I only keep my lawn to the quality where it keeps my lawn mowers happy. Their names are Shadow and Lil’ Sister and they are Guineapigs.

gnken1 says: Fox News will talk it up on how it does not belong to the States Surrounding the Lakes but to the U.S. as a whole and if Bush is still President he will Veto any law protecting the water rights to States surrounding the Great Lakes.

Their “freedom fries” propaganda had little effect with trade with France (which actually went up during that time period). The Governors surrounding the Great Lakes and Premiers (ie like Governors only Canadian) are definitely getting together to come up with a game plan over this issue. And, if I know Doer, he has probably got the Assembly of First Nations (Canada) and the National Congress of American Indians involved so that they can assert their sovereignty rights as well.

Edward1793 says: If those states were allowed to pipe as much water as they wanted from the Great Lakes a person would only have to look at the waste of water in Las Vegas to see that the western states would not conserve but continue and probably increase the use of water that goes on today.

It is private interests in those states that are pushing for control of the water - and, like everywhere else, when they get it, cost for it is going to go way up.

White Rose says: The current water levels are going down. This has been observed by everybody who lives by or near the lakes.

This is true. However, dissolving the boundaries (which they are trying to do under the SPP) is not the answer. All that will do is give the Corporations powers to curcumvent government intervention.

Arvy says: I can see a replay of the War of 1812 coming up shortly as those subhuman Canuck ‘terrorists’ attempt to assert sovereignty and interfere with the unquestionable God-given right of the U.S. to extract whatever resources it thinks it may need from other people’s territories.

Not with Harper in charge.

B Payne, there are a few articles on rabble concerning water and the SPP.
JohnR October 29th, 2007 11:39 am

Water, like any other gifts from nature, belong to those who can bring the most force to bear. I laugh when I hear, “It is ours.”
Such wonderful hubris. whoever has the most money and guns will get that water.
There are too many people consuming too much of everything. They are ruining the earth for the sake of becoming obese, diabetic, ridden with cardiovascular disease and cancer. What’s the point of any of it?
vaudree October 29th, 2007 12:03 pm

outsider says: Taking water from the Great Lakes is just a bigger version of the 1930’s plan to pipe water into Los Angeles from the middle of California. Eastern Ca. has been sucked dry to fill Paris Hilton’s swimming pool.

Seems that the present dryness of California greatly contributed to the fire situation. Who is paying for that now?

outsider says: If you think the Iraq war is expensive, wait ’til the invasion and occupation of Canada for water. Canada won’t allow any bulk water exports, because under NAFTA, once it starts, there’s no limit on how much can be sucked from the north.

You are talking about Chapter 11 of NAFTA? The SPP is NAFTA on steriods and water is definitely on the table at the SPP meetings. There was a leaked memo saying that water was definitely on the table for the SPP meeting.

http://www.canadians.org/media/DI/2005/14-Feb-05.html

Catherine Bell is the NDP Natural Resources critic:

“Catherine Bell’s speech in the House of Commons debate May 31, 2007 regarding concurence on the Report of the Committee on International Trade instructing the Government of Canada to “quickly begin talks with its American and Mexican counterparts to exclude water from the scope of NAFTA”.”

http://www.catherinebell.ndp.ca/page/309
mlo October 29th, 2007 1:56 pm

Ok, little known fact: The Federal governments of the U.S. and Canada do not have full dominion over the Great Lakes.

What does that mean? Doesn’t matter what either Federal government plots because there is a treaty that gives voting and control to the provinces and states surrounding the Great Lakes full power over the lakes - beyond that of either Federal government.

So, Richardson can say any stupid thing he wants - even if elected president, he can’t touch the water.

Pax,

MLO
vaudree October 29th, 2007 2:15 pm

mlo, do those (other than the US or Canada) who have partial dominion over the Great Lakes have the money for lawyers. There is a certain amount they can get away with unless someone puts up a court challenge.

Phil Fontaine has his work cut out for him.
mlo October 30th, 2007 12:33 am

From my wayward memory, only the U.S. and Canada have any rights to the Great Lakes. And only one of the Great Lakes is entirely within the U.S.A. The Great Lakes treaties were set up in order to protect the lakes from outside interests. They did approve the bottling of water (bad move as it is depleting the water table, but that is a whole other story.) They are not perfect, but wholesale piping of water is not likely to happen. The problem is that the shipping interests are very active in all the states and provinces as well as the Federal governments and they line the pockets of the delegates as well. They know that the governors and congress critters who are not active don’t matter.

The much bigger threat to the lakes is the invasion of non-native species such as the zebra mussel and the various chinese fish that are killing off our native species. We have no way to know what is going on with the water supply from that.

The lake levels, btw, are cyclical and similar to what they were in the 1930s. I expect all the homes that have been built along the new coastlines to be underwater in about 30 years.

There are several local landowner and farming concerns in the Great Lakes areas (agribusiness is not as in control here as elsewhere) that have vested interests to sue. The problem in MI is the current make-up of the MI Supreme Court. All Theocratic Republicans. Remember, Blackwater came from MI Militia types making an unholy alliance with the Grand Rapids Religious Nutters. They consistently rule that even those with vested interests (farmers whose crops are endangered) do not have authority to sue. Um… crops threatened by bottled water plant taking too much is a legitimate concern to many, unfortunately, our legislature is also completely made up of Religious Nutter Republicans. I have no kind words for them. They have destroyed a once vibrant state by not finding the proper balance between corporate and personal interests.

Sorry about the tirade, but their idiocy makes me insane. I get the news in Ontario and they don’t have it much better. Ohio is a lost cause. New York is iffy. Wisconsin is OK. Minnesota has common sense - really. And well, the rest is up in the air as far as I know.

The problem with the Great Lakes is that they have a series of treaties that only an attorney well-versed in maritime law would actually be able to keep straight - I’m not one. The author would be well-served to seek one out and question about the legal ramifications of the pumping of water. NAFTA may not even trump the current Great Lakes Pact.

It really is as complicated as Enron accounting.

Pax,

MLO
vaudree October 30th, 2007 3:26 am

The only other party I can think of that might have a claim on the Great Lakes besides Canada and the US are the First Nations (you call them Native Americans).

mlo says: NAFTA may not even trump the current Great Lakes Pact.

Here’s hoping.
vaudree October 30th, 2007 7:19 pm

What do you guys know about Walkerton? Seems that the townsfolk have not fully recovered yet.
workreno October 30th, 2007 11:34 pm

Read “Harvest for Hope” Jane Goodall for a clearer picture of what has happend to the water supplies of not only the American West and Mid West ,but also countries like India where the Multi National Corps. have and are draining us dry.

Don’t buy bottled water or beef.
Pablodius October 31st, 2007 11:29 am

Being from the suburb of chicago, i think that the people that live in the southwest and complain about no water need to leave the southwest.

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)