U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-29-2008, 03:39 PM
 
Location: Cleveland Suburbs
2,554 posts, read 5,998,613 times
Reputation: 619
I was in Chicago a few months ago for a meeting. Later that evening they had something on the local news about how the SW needs the Great Lakes water. Recently most of the Great Lakes states have signed an agreement to keep that water here, so that states in the SW do not get their hand's on it.

Currently the Great Lakes Region holds 90% of the nation's surface freshwater.

What is your thought on this situation? From people in the Great Lakes to the Southwest.......

As a Great Lakes resident I think the SW needs to find another way of getting their water. The Colorado river is now down 75 feet from current decades. You can clearly see this when you go to places such as the Hoover Dam, and look at the white cliffs where the water once use to be. A lot of people in the SW are originally from Midwest or the NE where the water is. The area is growing so fast, but can not meet with other needs like the water.

So what do you think............
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-29-2008, 03:48 PM
 
Location: Middleton, Wisconsin
4,229 posts, read 15,412,741 times
Reputation: 2294
I personally think that the SW should look at more water purify facilities. I don't like the idea of losing our water here in the Upper Midwest to the SW. As you said op the Colorado River has went down drastically. It's a wake up call! I think that wastewater plants need to look at more re-using etc.

This should be interesting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2008, 03:48 PM
 
Location: West Hollywood
2,223 posts, read 4,136,478 times
Reputation: 1767
I think if they really care about water that bad, they should move back to where there's water.

No way should the Great Lakes give up ANY of their water. None, zero, zilch, zippo!!!

Tax payers shouldn't have to pay for the shipping in Illinois, and if we give the SW the water then the same thing will happen here. It's their fault for deciding to live in the SW, so they all should either deal with it or leave! Nobody's holding a gun to their head, lol.

So in response to your question, again, no.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2008, 03:49 PM
 
Location: Middleton, Wisconsin
4,229 posts, read 15,412,741 times
Reputation: 2294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nafster View Post
I think if they really care about water that bad, they should move back to where there's water.

No way should the Great Lakes give up ANY of their water. None, zero, zilch, zippo!!!

Tax payers shouldn't have to pay for the shipping in Illinois, and if we give the SW the water then the same thing will happen here. It's their fault for deciding to live in the SW, so they all should either deal with it or leave! Nobody's holding a gun to their head, lol.

So in response to your question, again, no.

Exactly!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2008, 03:52 PM
 
Location: Cleveland Suburbs
2,554 posts, read 5,998,613 times
Reputation: 619
Thank you for your replies.

Just to mention the states that signed the agreement were as of today, Ohio being the last one to sign it, as follows..... Minnesota, Indiana, Illinois, New York, Wisconsin, and Ohio. Michigan and PA are passing it through their senates. Also Canada has been brought into the mix. Two Canadian provinces signed the agreement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2008, 03:58 PM
 
Location: Ca2Mo2Ga2Va!
2,736 posts, read 5,953,958 times
Reputation: 1788
Too bad it can't be used from so many of the areas that flood all the time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2008, 04:00 PM
 
2,506 posts, read 7,758,743 times
Reputation: 828
Why should someone else's state be environmentally and economically penalized because of other peoples' bad decisions? Seeing as you chose to live in a desert, you can stop defying nature and learn to live like you are in a desert. Don't complain when you can't flush your toilet, shower, water your lawn or water your golf courses because that was the risk you took in moving to your city. In the great scheme of things, the fruit they grow in Southern Calif. is more important than your right to water. It will always have riparian rights that will preempt yours. If you decide to try some desalination plant, you are welcome to pay for it yourself. You can all go repopulate Detroit, they have a lot of water and would love to have you desert folk.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2008, 04:03 PM
 
Location: Cleveland Suburbs
2,554 posts, read 5,998,613 times
Reputation: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minnehahapolitan View Post
Why should someone else's state be environmentally and economically penalized because of other peoples' bad decisions? Seeing as you chose to live in a desert, you can stop defying nature and learn to live like you are in a desert. Don't complain when you can't flush your toilet, shower, water your lawn or water your golf courses because that was the risk you took in moving to your city. In the great scheme of things, the fruit they grow in Southern Calif. is more important than your right to water. It will always have riparian rights that will preempt yours. If you decide to try some desalination plant, you are welcome to pay for it yourself. You can all go repopulate Detroit, they have a lot of water and would love to have you desert folk.
Look at all that water Vegas uses for its casinos. The Bellagio has a great water show, but I mean come on, you are in the Desert, and water in in short supply.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2008, 04:07 PM
 
3,326 posts, read 7,752,281 times
Reputation: 1973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nafster View Post
I think if they really care about water that bad, they should move back to where there's water.

No way should the Great Lakes give up ANY of their water. None, zero, zilch, zippo!!!

Tax payers shouldn't have to pay for the shipping in Illinois, and if we give the SW the water then the same thing will happen here. It's their fault for deciding to live in the SW, so they all should either deal with it or leave! Nobody's holding a gun to their head, lol.

So in response to your question, again, no.
Agreed.
Live in the desert, expect desert problems.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2008, 10:25 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
5,608 posts, read 20,723,022 times
Reputation: 5347
I think this whole thing of the southwest "stealing" the Great Lakes' water is nothing but a straw man argument. I've never heard a single person other than ignorant easterners even propose that idea. How on earth would you construct an aquaduct several thousand miles long pumping water in large quantities upstream several thousand feet in elevation across the plains then going up and down numerous mountains, valleys, and deserts on its way to the final destination. If you find it entertaining coming up with such fantasies, than dream on. Just building the Central Arizona Project canal, which pumps water upstream from the Colorado River at Lake Havasu several hundred miles to Phoenix and Tucson was a monumental project taking decades to construct and decades of legislation and Supreme Court battles before it was ever able to materialize. And the truth is, I don't know how water issues is the southwest is some kind of "situation." Water in this part of the country always was and always is an issue. This region naturally goes through cycles of years of drought with wetter than normal years in between. There is no such thing as "average" weather. Undoubtedly conservation will play a much more important role in the years to come. I also find it amusing how cities like Phoenix, Tucson, and Las Vegas take all the blame when Los Angeles and San Diego are in just as a precarious situation when it comes to water, and yet somehow people never complain about the future of LA's water issues.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top