AlterNet: Will Thirsty States Get Great Lakes Water?

[marmar]

Will Thirsty States Get Great Lakes Water?

By Dave Dempsey, AlterNet. Posted August 26, 2008.

A new compact protecting the Great Lakes is set to pass Congress, but there are a few green critics with serious concerns.



For 25 years, residents around the Great Lakes have worried that thirstier regions (or even countries) would make designs on their water. The lakes' bounty as the single largest freshwater source in the world (holding 18 percent of the Earth's available surface freshwater) has inspired the eight surrounding states to try to formulate a legal shield ensuring their water stays in their own backyards.

Now, a quarter-century of fitful but fruitful work to come up with a common, enforceable agreement that would ban the export of Great Lakes water in (among other things) pipelines and railroad cars is just one house of Congress away from final federal consent. The long regional nightmare of Great Lakes drained to green golf courses in Arizona is almost over. Business, government and environmental advocates are singing the praises of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact.

But a few voices scattered across the region are charging that the compact, as written, will actually facilitate the commercial export of Great Lakes water.

One of the most vocal voices has been Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich. He fired off letters to the U.S. trade representative, the Department of State and the International Joint Commission (a U.S.-Canadian body that administers the Boundary Waters Treaty, which covers the Great Lakes), asking them to comment on the potential for sale of Great Lakes water.

"Ratifying the compact could allow Great Lakes water to no longer be held within the public trust and instead be defined as a product for commercial use," says Stupak, whose huge northern Michigan district contains more than 1,500 miles of shoreline on Lakes Superior, Huron and Michigan. "I want to thoroughly understand the lasting impact this compact could have on Great Lakes water for years to come. It took the governors more than three years to get this done, so it is not unreasonable for Congress to take the time necessary to make sure we are not opening the door for the commercialization (of) Great Lakes water." ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/water/96079/will_thirsty_states_get_great_lakes_water/

[greenman3610]

1. short answer: Over Great Laker's dead bodies

that is all

[hedgehog]

2. Did it ever occur to anybody that the energy required to pump

Great Lakes water to dry places might be better put to use running desalinization0on plants?

[phantom power]

3. A pump will get a lot more fresh water / erg than a desalinization plant.

That isn't to say it's a good idea. But if you take the same ammount of energy and put it into desalinization, less fresh water is going to come out.

[Nihil]

9. A pipeline is much easier to sabotage though ...

... and bearing in mind the passions being aroused by the ongoing
desire to "steal" freshwater from other states, I wouldn't be at all
surprised if it not only happened but was tacitly approved by a large
part of the host state ...

(And no Agent Mike, I am not advocating "terrorism" as a means of
resolving the problems created by uncontrolled/undisciplined populations
and corrupt politicians!)
:hi:

[The2ndWheel]

4. And desalinization plants will increase the impact we have on the planet

I like the way we try and stop climate change by changing the climate.

[hedgehog]

5. How about a wave powered or solar powered desalinization plant ?

I hear it never rains in California...

[phantom power]

6. Depends on what kind of impact you want to have.

[The2ndWheel]

7. What difference does it make?

Desalinization is the human machine going into another eco-system and changing it to fit its needs. It's more that it is done, as opposed to how it is done.

[XemaSab]

10. It never rains in California?

Um... no. Parts of the state get a LOT of rain. Snow, too.

Rain records (for California):

Greatest 1 Hour Rainfall
4.7 inches
Mt Palomar
Aug 13 1992

Greatest 24 Hour Rainfall
26.12 inches
Hoegees Camp
Jan 22 1943

Greatest 1 Month Rainfall
81.90
Camp 6
Dec 1981

Greatest 1 Season Rainfall
257.9 inches
Camp 6
1982


Snow records (for the whole US):

In 1 month (U.S.): 390" Tamarack, Calif. Jan. 1911
In 24 hours (N. America): 76" Silver Lake, Colo. April 14–15, 1921
In one storm (N. America):189" Mt. Shasta Ski Bowl, Calif. Feb. 13–19, 1959
In one season (N. America): 1,140" Mount Baker, Wash. 1998–1999

[amandabeech]

8. I'm with Stupak. We should take no chances on commercializing Great Lakes water!

Give an ounce, give a gallon with industry.

The Lakes ecosystem will collapse if water is diverted. We're already having problems with low water levels thanks to years of reduced rainfall and warmer weather (at least until this year).

If businesses and individuals need water and are prepared to clean it after use, then they are welcome to relocate anywhere within the Great Lakes basin--I'm sure the locals would do anything to help. And housing is very, very cheap.

I'm with an earlier poster, though. Water goes out of the basin Over My Dead Body!

From a Michigan ex-patriot who happily would repatriate for a decent job!

[happyslug]

11. have you ever looked at the route a pipeline would have to go?

First thing is you find the Mississippi River in the way. The Upper Mississippi is LOWER in evaluation then the Great Lakes, so you have to pump the water over, under or through the Mississippi River. You then have th to carry the water up along the Missouri and Plate Rivers to get to a point you can pump it over the Rockies (An alternative way may be a pipeline to the Plate but that means going overland which has lower costs to purchase land, but higher costs to dig and then pump).

An alternative method is to use the Red River, but then you have to pump over the Upper Rio Grand River in New Mexico, the Highest in evaluation river in the US, and then over the Continental Divide to the area where water is needed. For the amount of water needed the costs just to pump the water is high.

A more realistic approach is to use the Great Lake Water to replace taken from the Mississippi. i.e. Divert the Great lakes into the Mississippi, then reverse flow the Missouri and Plate Rivers. This cut out the costs pf pumping TILL YOU GET TO THE ROCKERS, at which point you have to pump. Huge cost to reverse flow the Missouri and Plate but once built no further costs. The problem is you end up with an even steeper grade to climb over the Continental divide to get the water to the South West.

Remember we are NOT taking about a normal pipeline, but some sort of huge water canal to replace water lost in the Colorado River and Gila Rivers. Furthermore if the Colorado River Gets the water, The Rio Grand river Basis will also demand the water, and the cost to the Rio Grand is less then getting the water to the Colorado(The Rio Grand is on the same side of the Western Continental Divide as is the Great lakes, but starts much higher up in the Rocky Mountains).

Previous Discussion on this topic (With References to the Plate and Rio Grand Rivers(\):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x119963#120315