Stop the Monstrous Water Gridzilla! (Houston, Dallas: moving, best, expense)

[Jack Lance]

Originally Posted by KathrynAragon

Well, the metroplex already owns 50 percent of Lake Palestine, which is five minutes from my house. All I can say is I'm glad that we didn't buy lakefront property.

Dallas also tried to get the water rights to Toledo Bend but the state of Louisiana was too smart to fall for that. So then they turned their attention north to Oklahoma and evidently that plan has failed as well. So I guess their last resort is to try to bully the water out of East Texas we'll see if that works for them.

[Jack Lance]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

Basically, there are two different approaches to water redistribution/supply control:
- The inter-regional model, which involves large-scale redistribution from areas with 'excess' water to areas with 'limited' water. The excess and limited water designation is based on current demand. For example, if the population of Nevade/Colorado were to increase by 200 or 300 percent, then a lot of that excess water would no longer be excess. Conversely, 150 years ago, CA did not need all that water and there water was not limited.
- A regional model, which essentially captures water within a basin (or several basins) and distributes it within the same region, generally via lakes, but more recently including some piping. This is currently what Texas does.

I do NOT want to end up where CA is - increasing the supply of water way, way beyond the 'normal' ability to supply water from a regional model. OTOH, I can see maintaining regional water supplies at historical 'levels' by moving water from regions with above historical levels. But there is an obvious advantage of shifting NE TX floodwaters to fill up lakes in drought areas. I would support such a system with SEVERE restrictions on when it could occur, or limited the total amount shifted. I don't want to see the desert watered or ecological systems destroyed just so Austin or SA can grow.

Re: your 'straw man' complaint, though, the water pumping in the panhandle is a good comparison - the water does not fall there, the water is not accessible without 'technology', but it is currently used for vast amounts of farming (the leading cotton producing region in the world?). That would seem to fall into your 'taboo' activity - transferring water (from underground) to support an area way beyond its own sustainable level.

Without East Texas reservoirs Houston itself would not be able to exist in its current form, so I am not opposed to using Technology to improve standards of living, that is the strawman argument I was protesting. Houston used to get the vast majority of its water from underground wells as well and found it caused subsidence and many areas sank as much as 10 feet and when you were only about 40 feet above sea level to begin with that is significant. Point is there are consequences for every action. I like your idea about moving excess water but what I see coming from this is a mass conveyance scheme that is more for the benefit of developers in central and north Texas than some farmers growing cotton outside of Lubbock.

[Midessan]

Originally Posted by Jack Lance

If this is going to turn a profit why does the state have to study it ? Let the private sector develop a plan....

Do you think the government would let the private sector do it's own plan? Not a chance. With something as complicated and emotional as water, the government will be involved for better or worse.

[Midessan]

Originally Posted by Jack Lance

Just as many if not more people have left the rust belt for humid areas like Houston and Florida. Most of the South and much of Texas as well are humid mosquito infested swamps as you put it once so this argument is a dud.

What about the a/c argument? Northerners often argue that we shouldn't "waste" electricity to live in a warm climate like Houston or Florida. Move where the water is. Move where its cool. Same thing.

Originally Posted by Jack Lance

I will also ask you the same question I asked the Alabama guy, should we pipe in water from the Great Lakes or where ever to accommodate people who want to live in lifeless wastelands just so they can avoid some bad hair days ?

That is impossible because of treaties with Canada, but for the sake of argument, if the voters of the U.S. and Canada wanted to move some that Great Lakes water to other areas I wouldn't have a problem with it.

[Jack Lance]

Originally Posted by Midessan

What about the a/c argument? Northerners often argue that we shouldn't "waste" electricity to live in a warm climate like Houston or Florida. Move where the water is. Move where its cool. Same thing..

That's ridiculous on a couple of levels. One it takes more energy to warm a house than it does to cool it, so the northern argument, as you call it, is moot on that basis alone. Secondly though it is not the same argument, temperature is not a commodity like water or even oil. There are economic reasons cities develop where they did, one is economic opportunity and the other is availability of water. People should live where there is economic opportunity that is based on fundamental economics and not false economies based on personal idiosyncrasies.

Originally Posted by Midessan

That is impossible because of treaties with Canada, but for the sake of argument, if the voters of the U.S. and Canada wanted to move some that Great Lakes water to other areas I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Why wouldn't Canada agree to such a scheme ? Maybe because you would be conveying water to another location that will not be available for the future use of Canada ? Maybe those Canucks aren't so dumb after all ?

[Jack Lance]

Originally Posted by Midessan

Do you think the government would let the private sector do it's own plan? Not a chance. With something as complicated and emotional as water, the government will be involved for better or worse.

Right, it is going to be a political gang bang. Central and North Texas are going to gang up on poor ole East Texas and use political extortion to steal their water resources... And considering the disparaging attitudes that people in Central and North Texas have towards East Texas now there is just no justice in the world. I just wonder how nice people in Austin and DFW will be towards those regions while this "debate" is going on, just to revert back to thier condescending tripe once the dirty deeds have been done...

BTW, I thought you said you had no dog in this hunt ?

[Midessan]

Originally Posted by Jack Lance

Right, it is going to be a political gang bang. Central and North Texas are going to gang up on poor ole East Texas and use political extortion to steal their water resources... And considering the disparaging attitudes that people in Central and North Texas have towards East Texas now there is just no justice in the world. I just wonder how nice people in Austin and DFW will be towards those regions while this "debate" is going on, just to revert back to thier condescending tripe once the dirty deeds have been done...

BTW, I thought you said you had no dog in this hunt ?

I don't have a dog in the Dallas/Austin vs. Houston fight. But a statewide water system does concern me just like it does every Texan.

I don't see it as ganging up on East Texas so much as helping East Texas develop a new market for a resource they have in abundance that other areas are willing to pay for.

[Midessan]

Originally Posted by Jack Lance

Why wouldn't Canada agree to such a scheme ? Maybe because you would be conveying water to another location that will not be available for the future use of Canada ? Maybe those Canucks aren't so dumb after all ?

Actually there was a plan once to transport water from Alberta to Lake Meredith near Amarillo. The government of Alberta was ok with the plan since the water would come from uninhabited areas of north Alberta, but the central government of Soviet Canukistan stopped it.

[Jack Lance]

Originally Posted by Midessan

I don't have a dog in the Dallas/Austin vs. Houston fight. But a statewide water system does concern me just like it does every Texan.

I don't see it as ganging up on East Texas so much as helping East Texas develop a new market for a resource they have in abundance that other areas are willing to pay for.

Ahh I'm from the Government and I am here to help.... The Bill passed the House and it looks like it will pass the Senate too so I guess we get to see the "East Texas benevolent water conveyance plan" soon, Oh boy! I also see you avoided answering the statements about the disparaging attitudes that people in Central and North Texas have towards East Texas, you know that mosquito infested swamp>>>>

Originally Posted by Midessan

Actually there was a plan once to transport water from Alberta to Lake Meredith near Amarillo. The government of Alberta was ok with the plan since the water would come from uninhabited areas of north Alberta, but the central government of Soviet Canukistan stopped it.

Or maybe Canada realized that once that water starts flowing out you can't just cut it off because people have become dependent on it elsewhere and have built their lives around it and you then become satin for trying to turn off the drinking water for those families. Not to mention you never know what your water needs will be in the distant future. Louisiana wouldn't do it and it looks like Oklahoma ain't going to do it either.

BTW I'd like to see some link to that scheme I bet it was a douzy.....

[wpme]

Originally Posted by Jack Lance

East Texas, you know that mosquito infested swamp>>>>

Yep, that is how we see it, glad you said it