We should all stop sharing our states' resources...

[cynatnite]

Some here advocates not sharing water with others because they happen to live in an area which doesn't have as much. So, let's do this for more than just water.

Majority of states have some sort of resource that gets exported to other states. Logging in the northwest. Should not be exported to other states. Keep that resource in Oregon, Montana, Idaho and other states that have the trees. Same goes for agriculture. Wheat, barley, corn and other food items should stay in those states.

What else should not be shared by other states? What about countries? Why should we share our resources with other countries and why should they share theirs with the US?

If you're stupid enough to live in a place that doesn't have a lot of trees, a lot of water, a lot of land able to support crops or where ever you might need a resource that has to be imported to your state or country...well, then you're out of luck. Some folks here at DU who call themselves progressive agree with that statement. If you live in Arizone or New Mexico then you deserve to do without water.

Many of the raw material needed to make whatever product you care to name are imported from other states and countries. Should we just stop doing that?

Of course not. Not only is it economic suicide, it's also selfish. All societies operate on a give and take kind of system. Whether it's money or barter, people need each other in order to survive. When there is a problem in providing a resource due to overextending that resource, then it's time to find a better way of meeting those needs. In the case of water, it's not just people drinking too much. Climate change and pollution have contributed to the problems of the Great Lakes. Many lakes all over the world are facing similar problems. It's time to solve the problems and not cut people off from those resources they need.

You can't blame them for where they live anymore than you can blame the victims of Katrina and another others who had the misfortune to be hit by a catastrophe. It's like blaming a teenage girl for getting pregnant and not helping her because it is her fault as far as you're concerned.

Not only should we all share our resources out of necessity, but also out of caring for our fellow human being.

[BlooInBloo]

1. I hear there's some crazy skinny black guy who thinks different....

Pfft - he'll never get anywhere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RpVplSMO8E

[Mojorabbit]

2. I don't see anything wrong with

protecting environmental resources within an area. Every place in this country is going to have to take a hard look at what they have to work with and how best to manage it. It is like saying let's destroy every bit of our pristine areas to suck up the last bit of oil or drill in the ocean where the chance of destroying fish and shellfish nurseries so we can continue to drive suvs. It makes no sense.
We can't just use everything up. We need to be smart at managing what resources we have.

[cynatnite]

3. I completely agree...

We need to be responsible with our resources and manage them intelligently, but we also shouldn't hoard them to the degree that other people suffer needlessly.

I do believe it is possible for the planet to support the current population if our resources are managed correctly and treated with care. I also feel that we need to be always looking for newer and better ways to take care of what we have.

As our resources are being done now...no, I think the planet will come to the point where it can't sustain humanity unless we stop our destructive habits.

[malakai2]

10. Not pumping GL water uphill and across a continent isn't hoarding

It's acknowledging physical limits. As far as I am aware, nobody in the southwest and intermountain west is suffering needlessly, or at all, from water shortages. I am aware that water rights laws and water use laws in those states are outdated and inadequate to deal with true drought conditions, and those states seem to be disinterested in addressing those shortcomings. By encouraging more settlement in an arid area and making it dependent on a tenuous supply line, we would be increasing the risk of people suffering needlessly, and I for one want no part of it.

If the people who choose to live there are okay with that and pay for the resource and distribution line, then assume all the risk, they are free to do as they choose. They are adults, free to do as they choose. Not without cost of course, but that's how America works.

[Muttocracy]

4. I'm not a fan of draining the Great Lakes for golf courses in the desert. nt

[alittlelark]

5. If we here in CA were to hoard - the 'internets' would be in a sad state,

and food would be scarce outside our state. We have enough $ to build desalinization plants if need be (as the world's 6th largest economy). All we would need to do is stop paying US taxes, declare our independence, and ............................


We either work together or we are lost.

[BlooInBloo]

6. Talk about threatening the other states might not be the best way to foster teamwork.

[Rosemary2205]

14. California does not "share" it "sells".

How freakin big would your "6th largest economy" be if Michigan demanded you "share" rather than "sell".

[malakai2]

7. Okay, barter

Mineral ore, wood products, food, all that stuff is purchased and shipping costs are incorporated into the cost. The resource at issue on the other thread is necessary not just for local drinking water and agriculture, but also for international shipping and some valuable fisheries, and which also supports higher property values along it's shores, not to mention the ecological value the resource represents. There is no distribution network in place to move this resource, and to build one, maintain it, and operate it would be quite expensive. I'm guessing the southwest isn't eager to pay for all this.

It might be more cost effective for those states to try some local alternatives first. Step one would be a recalculation of discharge rates with a broader historical data set, because the water rights guaranteed under older laws do not reflect recent climatic conditions. How about ranking residential uses above agricultural uses? Perhaps ordinances or laws to reduce waste, waste like lawns, golf courses, swimming pools, public fountains, and the like in the desert? Has all that been done? No? Then how could current conditions be considered a water shortage? If an arid region has enough water to waste it on evaporative loss, lawns, and golf courses, then it isn't really suffering from a shortage.

If you want a reason why this is a bad idea, beyond the financial outlay, energy cost, and all that, how about some consideration for what happens when a physically limiting factor is augmented by a fragile resource shipped in from elsewhere? More people settle in the area right up to the next physical limit until that limit is artificially breached, and then up to the next physical limit until it is breached, and so on. What happens when that augmentation of a fragile resource suddenly goes away? Disaster, if the shortage can't be filled from an alternate source. The settlement pattern in the desert is not sustainable now, we shouldn't be encouraging an increase in the settlement rate. We should be encouraging a reversal of the recent settlement rates and redistribution of the population into locales where the resource they crave is not limiting.

If you can't see how this differs from a true victim situation, I'm not sure I can help you. Arid regions are known for water shortages, they are known for droughts, and these things can be planned for in ways that an assault, an earthquake, a rape, a hurricane with subsequent abandonment by the Federal government, cannot. If the desert states and cities expect that this water will be given to them, whatever the costs to the source locales, whatever the cost to landowners who will lose property to pipelines, whatever the cost to taxpayers nationwide to construct and operate the delivery system, with the resource all flowing one way for their singular benefit, they will be disappointed, and-AND-their disappointment will make them victims of nothing more than unrealistic expectations.

[Selatius]

8. I think states would give up water if other states that need water give something back in trade.

Like, farms in the south could send some of their crops north in exchange for water being piped down to drought stricken states like Georgia.

If that can't be agreed to, oh well. Have fun fighting each other over rare resources.

[Romulox]

9. I'm not aware of any resources "shared" by the States; How about *purchasing* water @ $133/barrel?

Just like people in Michigan have to purchase California crops, Texas oil, or Tennessee coal. :think:

[riverdeep]

11. Maybe because all those items you mention aren't created equal.

Equal in their ability to be moved, the damage to the local environ in their removal, or for that matter equal in their necessity. Most people could live without strawberries in March, not many people could go without water.

It's more like saying you live in Iowa but like the Rocky Mountains so they should chop some of them up and transport to your flat state. Continuing to squander a precious resource by encouraging unsustainable growth won't actually help anyone in the long run. And if water is in such a short supply maybe having green lawns in a desert shouldn't be your first priority.

Until people's actions are connected to the results, they will continue to act out of a 'me first and tomorrow doesn't matter' disregard.

BTW, water rights in the Southwest is nothing new. Just ask the Pima Indians. Their culture was pretty much destroyed when access to water they had for generations was directed elsewhere for growth of the region.

[taterguy]

12. Most people on this site would love it if my state stopped exporting its major resource

I live in tobacco loving NC

[Rosemary2205]

13. The word you are looking for is "sell" not "share".

If you want fountains and golf courses in the west and Michigan has more water than it needs then knock yourself out and buy it --- you know, like they buy your lettuce.

[ColbertWatcher]

15. I'm disturbed by the idea that everything is a commodity...

...that someone can own.

Like air or electricity or water. Because if it can be owned, then it can be sold, and if it can be sold then there are trades who will manipulate its price.

I understand the idea of someone being a steward of the lake or river or whatnot, but I don't like the idea of something being privatized.

BTW, I live in CA and I remember all too well what the GOP did the last time they privatized something.

Oh, and don't think they aren't fixing the price of oil now. And food, and everything else that is suddenly overpriced.

[Rosemary2205]

18. I understand but disagree.

If California can sell it's crops grown due to natural resource of the favorable weather conditions there, then I see no reason why Michigan can't sell it's natural resource of fresh water once those water rights are established. If they want to lease out the right to deliver the water to California to a private entity I see no problem with that as long as the people of Michigan are the ones to reap nearly all the benefit.

[Marrah_G]

16. Sorry- if you move to the desert, plan on living in a desert.

Expecting others to turn the desert into an Oasis for you is a bit absurd.

It is progressive to value our environment and to keep natural resources from being depleted even more by human foolishness.

[SidDithers]

17. Water is not a state's resource...

Even if MI and PA wanted to sell "their" Great Lakes water, they couldn't.

You see, there's this little thing called the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact. It's an International agreement, so Ontario and Quebec get a say in what happens to Great Lakes water.

And why the hell would we agree to the draining of the Great Lakes to make sure Arizona golf courses stay green?

Sid

Edit: oh, and remind me again what the deserts in the US southwest are "sharing" with the rest of North America?