Who is stealing California's water?

[ensho]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/gleick/detail??blogid=104&entry_id=50681


Someone is stealing our water. Many someones. But who and how much? No one knows today, mostly because the agency responsible for keeping an eye on water rights and use--the State Water Resources Control Board--is blind, deaf, and dumb.

-snip-

What do I mean by stealing water? I mean people extract water from our rivers and streams without a right to do so. Legal water rights are managed by the State Board. Water rights permit and license holders are required by the California Code of Regulations to file reports with the State Water Board on their water diversion and use amounts. Fewer than 70 percent of permit holders actually submit these reports. There is no penalty for failure to file a report and, worse, no verification of the numbers reported. Further, information is not available to compare face value of water rights to actual use. Some, perhaps many, rights holders are likely taking more than their right allows.

Moreover, the State Board does not have authority over the earliest water rights claims--so-called Pre-1914 rights--and the Board estimates that there are approximately 1,600 unreported Pre-1914 and riparian diversions in the Delta. How much water are these diverters taking? No one knows, or looks, or measures. The story is even worse for groundwater. Percolating groundwater is not subject to the State Water Board's permitting system (as though it was magically different from surface water. It isn't.) and, in most of the state is not regulated by any other public agency. How can we sustainably manage what we don't even measure? Where is our groundwater going? What is the effect of this groundwater use on surface flows? Who knows?

As bad as things are for understanding existing rights and use, there are thousands of water users extracting water with no rights at all. Or so we think. Why don't we know?

Water Number: Eight. There are only eight people statewide with responsibility for policing water theft and rights violations at the State Water Resources Control Board, and even they have other demands on their time. Republicans (and some Democrats), in the recent debate over water legislation, opposed increasing that number to around 30, and also opposed more stringent requirements that water uses be measured and reported.

-snip-
--------------------------


wow! armor up! sunlight is being let in. this is large.

[CanSocDem]

1. The "farmers"...

...are shipping it north and east , disguised as lettuce.

.

[ensho]

3. lol - but do you agree trouble is coming?

nt

[CanSocDem]

7. Indeed.

From years of hauling fresh produce out of California I have seen the steady depletion of your water resources. It wasn't that long ago when a farm in Ca was cited for irrigating with...I hesitate to say 'sewer water'....because, who really knows how many times water is re-used in Cal's number one industry.

You need to pick between a sustainable ecology or an industrialized food industry.

.

[XemaSab]

58. Lettuce isn't even in the top 4 of water sucking crops

n/t

[CanSocDem]

73. You're right.

But from a nutritional perspective it is mostly water. My larger point was the amount of resources spent to produce and deliver what is essentially placebo food.

.

[depakid]

108. Rice on the other hand....

and alfalfa... ;-)

[Ian David]

2. I think it's Noah Cross. n/t

[MadHound]

4. Funny how the thieves are wondering who is "stealing" from them

Sorry, I have very little sympathy for California's water problems. They brought it on themselves by settling in areas that were little better than deserts, then trying to change them into paradise through the massive diversion of water from the rest of the country. The Colorado river and a couple of major aquifers that are supposed to provide water for the Midwest have or are being sucked dry by California.

Sorry, this may sound cold and cruel, but Californians need to learn to live within the environment that is really, truly Californian, which for much of the state means semi-arid. Otherwise in their continued quest for more and more water they will make the rest of the country into a desert.

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. LOL beat me to it

Not a bit of sympathy for California here either.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Flaneur]

59. Regional chauvinism is ugly, and hardly progressive.

I'll have to remind myself of that next time tornados devastate a Kansas town.

[CreekDog]

84. i didn't settle in a dry area

are you telling me that you have no sympathy is someone who has settled in a desert steals water that is either meant for our wildlife or for urban dwellers not in a desert but in an urban core that otherwise would have plenty of water for responsible use?

when a tornado or whatever hits your town, maybe me and my state's 50 billion in taxes which go out of state never to come back, perhaps we should tell you and your state to take a hike and get lost.

[CreekDog]

85. you're in f***** Kansas lecturing me?

have you looked at the subsidies going to your state paid for by coastal states like my own, California?

and you're lecturing me, us in California?

next time a tornado, flood or terrorist or whatever hits your town, until you change your attitude, go pitch a tent and just sulk in your own medicine.

for Pete's sake. so much for the golden rule.

what is the matter with Kansas anyway? :eyes:

[DRoseDARs]

88. WHAT'S THAT?! I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE HOWLING WINDS OF THE DUST BOWL OF 1935-1940...!!

Considering half of Kansas was essentially desert...










You should probably read up on your local state history, learn how very fragile your climate there is, and how little it would take to return to the conditions of 70 years ago. Frankly, with global climate change, you're screwed way worse than California is. The North American breadbasket climate (specifically based on wheat-growing conditions) will shift northward, pushing into Canada and leaving the United States almost entirely by 2050 by some estimates. Although expensive currently, Californians have the option of desalinization to combat a drying Southwest. You get dust. Better hope Texas and Oklahoma are willing to pipe desalinized water up from the Gulf of Mexico through their states...



And yes, I'm well-aware I live in Nevada. We do have non-desert regions that rely on whatever rainfall that doesn't fall victim to the rain-shadow effect of the Sierra Nevadas and they will likely suffer as the climate gets hotter. But our economy was never built on farming because this was never good land for that, more suitable for ranching. Mining was always the bigger industry than general agriculture, which mostly produces food for ranch animals rather than food for Humans. Water has always been an issue here, and we're constantly trying to find ways around it, but don't think you're safe there in Kansas. Like I said, you're screwed. Very, very screwed.

[comrade snarky]

89. Cool, I'll be sure to remember that

Next time you have a drought and dust-bowl.

Or we could just decide not to be dicks, your choice.

[Le Taz Hot]

111. Wow!

That was classy. :wtf:

[itsrobert]

8. Do you know what you are talking about?

"The Colorado river and a couple of major aquifers that are supposed to provide water for the Midwest have or are being sucked dry by California."

The Colorado river doesn't run anywhere close to the Midwest. And there are no major aquifers from the Midwest providing water to California.

Just another attack on California by jealous fly over country folks.

[underseasurveyor]

12. ++1

[proud2BlibKansan]

13. At least we fly over country folks are smart enough to live in a place where we have rivers

The above ground full of water kind of rivers. LOL

[itsrobert]

20. And sometimes those rivers are above your houses

As you Midwesterners continue to build in floodplains.

Why do we need to provide federal flood insurance for these people? :sarcasm:

[proud2BlibKansan]

22. Most people in floodplains can't get federal flood insurance

And those who have it are denied coverage - just like after Katrina.

Your tax dollars aren't helping anyone in a flood plain. Not to worry.

You also ought to read up on climate change and 150 year floods. We have those oh about once a decade now. And the folks north of us who dammed the river for recreation areas aren't helping either.

[itsrobert]

26. North of you?

The Canadians? or do you mean more....wait for it....MIDWESTERNERS?

[proud2BlibKansan]

57. Last time I checked the Dakotas weren't in the Midwest or in Canada

[itsrobert]

64. A midwest geography lesson for you

http://geography.about.com/library/misc/blmidwest.htm

This lesson is free of charge. No reimbursement of course fees necessary.

[proud2BlibKansan]

71. I live in the midwest

The Dakotas are upper central, sometimes referred to as upper midwest. But they are not midwest.

[underseasurveyor]

44. Guess I shouldn't feel too bad

The next time a tornado rips through tornado alley. Silly people living in a place that's known for numerous tornadoes. And every year too.

:eyes:

This whole argument about how dumb people are because of where they choose to or are stuck living in is ludicrous. Too many people seems to be the major problem not where people live. The earth can only sustain so many.

[XemaSab]

61. You're right, there are no rivers in California

:eyes:

[Garbo 2004]

76. Factual info re: CA's water resources is readily available. For ex:

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

82. Wasn't Kansas part of the dustbowl? (nt)

[CreekDog]

86. then why do you need subsidies?

massive subsidies to midwestern farm states?

you got your own rivers, then why do you need our rivers of money?

frankly, i don't want to play this game, i prefer to have us all put our money in and let it go where it is needed, but i'm apt to change my mind when some rube tells my state to go fuck itself when my state is providing money to the state that's telling us to get lost.

[blue_onyx]

27. Isn't that nice

"Just another attack on California by jealous fly over country folks."

Hundreds of millions of people CHOOSE to not live in California. The idea that the rest of the country is sitting around being jealous of California is absurd. I've see that self-centered, "fly over" mentality expressed by other DUers. It's disappointing.

[itsrobert]

31. They reap what they sow

Unjustified attacks will get you just that.

[blue_onyx]

35. So you throw around more unjustified attacks?

Writing off the rest of country as "jealous" and "fly over country" is no different.

[proud2BlibKansan]

60. Telling the truth is an unjustified attack?

Who knew? :shrug:

[CreekDog]

92. you are telling falsehoods

and lecturing people about where they live, that goes both ways.

does your state pay more into the treasury than it gets back? mine, California, pays more.

as soon as you answer that, i might listen to your lectures.

[CreekDog]

90. Most of us didn't "choose" to live in California --we were born here

unless you are suggesting I should move away from the family and friends and community I grew up in.

:grr:

[blue_onyx]

100. You may want to re-read my comment

I was replying to someone who said the rest of the country is jealous of California. I was saying that millions in this country, including me, are perfectly happy not living in California and choose to live elsewhere. I'm not jealous of California or Californians in anyway.

[CreekDog]

101. then reread my comment

because I didn't say you were jealous.

just pointed out that many of us, perhaps the majority didn't "choose" to come to California but woke up here on our first day.

[blue_onyx]

102. Seriously?

I never said you claimed I was jealous. My original comment that you replied to was directed at a person who said that the rest of the country was "jealous fly over country folks."

My comments had nothing to do with Californians and whether they chose to live there or were born there. It was simply pointing out that not everyone wants to live in California.

[Enthusiast]

40. Not just an attack.

Population growth and actual water resources limits can no longer be ignored.

For the entirety of human history the natural carrying capacity of the land has determined human population levels. Some seem to believe water supplies will increase without limit.

Water supplies have now reached and even exceeded their limits. In some areas prehistoric aquifers have been depleted. It would not be wise to ignore this.

[Thothmes]

87. Nore does it run into California.

[CreekDog]

93. That's true if you ignore than 100 miles it runs through California

which means it's not true. :eyes:

[Thothmes]

110. The Colorado River does not run "throught" California

it forms the border between California and Arizona. By the time the river reaches the Gulf of Baja, it is reduced to a small stream.

[CreekDog]

112. it goes through California, half that river is in California

nevermind that the distinction you are making is perhaps the stupidest one ever made.

[amandabeech]

56. The Colorado river does not nor was it ever intended to supply water to the Midwest,

unless you believe that the Midwest extends past the continental divide.

The Ogalala (sp) aquifer in the plains and western Midwest does not supply water to California.

Otherwise, I agree with your post.

[Warpy]

6. Water supplies will get tighter

as drought continues in the west, reducing snowpack in the Rockies and runoff into rivers and streams, which is where California gets its water.

Water is going to be the biggest issue out west in the coming years. Water rights that were settled decades ago will be refought.

It's not going to be pretty, folks.

[Are_grits_groceries]

29. Yo! Water problems are happening across the US.

SC and NC are fighting over water in the PeeDee River that flows from NC to SC. There is a lawsuit in the courts now.

Georgia and Tennessee are fighting over water in the Tennessee River. The river flows almost on the state line in one place. Atlanta needs the water badly. Georgia has gone so far as to claim there was an error that occurred in 1818 marking the state line. The TN River should have been the line, and if it was then both states could use it.

The Ogallala Aquifer runs under 8 states: South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas. They are fighting over the amount that each state can extract. It is disappearing.

All of these problems are exacerbated by drought and other conditions. These are just 3 other areas besides CA. If you google other areas with the words 'water rights' or 'water problems', you will find many places that are in trouble or squabbling.

[Warpy]

52. No shit

I live in NM, and a lot of the water in the Rio Grande (well, what little there is) is promised to farmers in Texas.

We've recently diverted part of a river across the continental divide to make sure all the farmers get their water.

Our potable water comes from deep wells to an aquifer a mile down.

[GoCubsGo]

68. They're also fighting over the Chatahoochie River

It's a battle between Georgia, Florida and Alabama. I think Tennessee might be involved, as well. We'll be fighting internal water wars long before any wars over depleted oil supplies begin.

[Xithras]

37. delete

posted in wrong spot

[KamaAina]

42. California's runoff comes from the Sierras

the Rockies are a few hundred miles east.

[Warpy]

48. Um, the Colorado originates in the Rockies

and So. Cal. gets water from it.

Drought has been happening all over the west, not just in the Rockies. Snowpack in the Sierras has been decreased, too.

[KamaAina]

74. It's mostly the San Diego area that does

L.A., of course, gets its water from Owens Valley in the Sierras, as depicted in the classic movie "Chinatown".

[CreekDog]

94. Yes, California gets water from the Colorado, which runs through California

through the Colorado River compact, California gets water from the Colorado River and Orange County and San Diego County get water from there.

Not LA, not SF, not Sacramento, etc.

[robinlynne]

55. i think we (CAlifornians) get most of our water from the colorado river.

[XemaSab]

70. California's water system delivers 40,000,000 acre-feet a year

4,400,000 of which comes from the Colorado.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_in_California

[Garbo 2004]

75. No, most of the state's water comes from CA and specifically, NorCal. nt

[CreekDog]

95. Wrong. Most of our water does not come from the Colorado

Why would you think that?

[shintao]

97. Ohh, time for Nuclear Power & Desalination Plants!

Sounds like it is time to start building nuclear plants to run desalination plants, to flood California and the Western States via pipelines.

[Trajan]

9. One thing this thread has taught me ....

Some serious hatred of California and it's people here in DU ....

Kinda weird ....

[mike_c]

15. just the opposite....

Well, on my part, anyway. I live in California and I LOVE it here. But let's face it-- California has a checkered water rights history, to say the least. It takes a whole lot more than just the sierra snow melt to make this state one of the nation's premier breadbaskets and to keep all those socal lawns green.

[proud2BlibKansan]

17. No it's not about hating California

It's about calling out hypocrisy.

[itsrobert]

21. And I just called out your hypocrisy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6902090&mesg_id=6902306

Bashing California for asking for federal help with water while taking federal handouts for building on floodplains.

[proud2BlibKansan]

23. And you are wrong

But gloat all you want. It's actually kind of cute.

[itsrobert]

24. You're wrong!

funny how that works.

[XemaSab]

63. The feds have been in charge of California's water for at least 80 years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Valley_Project

[CreekDog]

96. yes, about calling out hypocrisy of some schmoe from Kansas

:eyes:

[mike_c]

10. pot, meet kettle....

I mean, come on. California is calling foul about water use? :rofl:

Ironically, my California county has quite a bit more water than we can consume. It's a complicated story, but all that water falls to the ground here-- it isn't diverted from somewhere else.

[Are_grits_groceries]

11. They better find out, and

do something about it. If the aquifer system becomes too depleted, there is a point where it can't recover or it takes forever.

BTW crops are used as a way to exchange water between countries, and to try to maintain a global balance. Below is a summary of a paper about this method. The rest of the paper is worth reading too.

Summary
Many nations save domestic water resources by importing water-intensive products and exporting commodities that are less water intensive. National water saving through the import of a product can imply saving water at a global level if the flow is from sites with high to sites with low water productivity.

The report analyses the consequences of international virtual water flows on the global and national water budgets. The assessment shows that the total amount of water that would have been required in the importing countries if all imported agricultural products would have been produced domestically is 1605 Gm3/yr. These products are however being produced with only 1253 Gm3/yr in the exporting countries, saving global water resources by 352 Gm3/yr. This saving is 28 per cent of the international virtual water flows related to the trade of agricultural products and 6 per
cent of the global water use in agriculture.

National policy makers are however not interested in global water savings but in the status of national water resources. Egypt imports wheat and in doing so saves 3.6 Gm3/yr of its national water resources. Water use for producing export commodities can be beneficial, as for instance in Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana and Brazil, where the use of green water resources (mainly through rain-fed agriculture) for the production of stimulant crops for export has a positive economic impact on the national economy.

However, export of 28 Gm3/yr of national water from Thailand related to rice export is at the cost of additional pressure on its blue water resources. Importing a product which has a relatively high ratio of green to blue virtual water content saves global blue water resources that generally have a higher opportunity cost than green water.

http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Report17.pdf

Blue water is river discharge and groundwater.

Green water is water in the soil that stems directly from rainfall.

[ensho]

16. very interesting, thanks

nt

[XemaSab]

62. Interesting article, thanks

:hi:

[shintao]

98. Cool post!!

In Central California, the San Joaquin Valley is one of the richest grown produce areas, and salt water intrusion is all the way to the center of the valley, for lack of ground water. A lot of water from the Central Valley is pumped to LA, instead of going underground,

[AllentownJake]

14. California's government makes PA's government look responsible

and we got some dumbasses in PA state government.

[ensho]

19. who owns Pa. water? is it as complicated as Calif.?

just wondering

[AllentownJake]

30. The Northeast doesn't have as many dry areas

but water is more of a municpal issue than a state issue. The water in my area is controlled by the county governments. Since we live in a wetter climate, people fight about it less. The state handles disputes.

In fact Lehigh County sells water to Nestle which bottles it directly selling it as spring water to idiots in New Jersey, New York, and the Philadelphia suburbs.

The water in Lehigh County keeps our taxes down, so we do a good job protecting our interest.

[pipi_k]

18. Hey, the clouds dropped it on my land this past summer

It rained for weeks.

California's water is now in my well.


tough titties....let them come find it


:7

[underseasurveyor]

47. LOL

I'm loadin' up my buckets... :-)

[Statistical]

25. There is virtually unlimited water in CA

via desalination plant.

The only "problem" is it costs more (about 3x as much).

So there is no water crisis in CA there is a cheap water crisis in CA.

Demand has outstripped the artificially low cost water. Rather than accept reality raise rates and buld de-sal plants there is all this teeth gnashing about the CRISIS.

The crisis is that the govt was more than happy to let 50 million people build homes in a desert because that generated massive tax revenue but they aren't happy with the reality that "cheap water" is over.

It will likely take CA another decade of trying to find non-existent cheap water before they accept reality and build mass desalination plants.

[ensho]

28. won't ten years be too late?

nt

[CanSocDem]

32. About 10 years ago....

....I hauled a truckload of bottled drinking water from B.C. to L.A. It was, of course, premium CANADIAN mountain water....

.

[TankLV]

53. Why were all the bottles labled with "Labatts" and "Molsens"?

[CanSocDem]

72. No.

The customers name was on the label. Y'know....like a book of matches?

.

[Statistical]

34. No because I think it will take a true crisis before anything changes.

When someone turns on the tap and air comes out THEN AND ONLY then will the public be mad enough at govt to start building desalination plants.

Of course desalination isn't cheap but if you live in an area without adequate water paying substantially more for water should be a shock.

Likely some form of slowly reducing govt subsidies will be required so there isn't a shock of water bill increasing 300%+.

[Are_grits_groceries]

33. The plants also create other problems.

They have a problem with the brine they produce. There is also a problem with the intake water from the ocean and the organisms that are killed.

[hayu_lol]

36. Some people here sure like bashing California...

they never seem to grasp that probably half of the current California population is from another state.

The obvious message is for the rest of you to stay home and not move to CA. The huge growth came right after WWII...it used to be said that over 1000 people a DAY moved to California...and this went on for years.

A 30s era native Californian living as a refugee in Oregon from that massive influx of people.

[Are_grits_groceries]

39. I wasn't trying to bash CA.

I have another post about problems in a lot of areas of the country. If you thought my post was a slap at CA, it wasn't. I was pointing out the problems with desalinization plants no matter who builds them.

[hayu_lol]

43. Grits, I wasn't pointing anyone out...

Case in point...Ronnie Raygun was from the midwest...the Gropenator is an Austrian Nazi...and the list goes on. There may be as many New Yorkers in LA as there are in NYC. My last encounter with them was that there is no place like NYC. The list is endless.

The once wide open spaces between LA and San Diego is now like one giant subdivision. Orange County was all orange and lemon orchards and berry farms when I was a kid...it is solid people now.

What used to be some of the finest farming soil is now covered with asphalt and concrete.

How much available water would Kansas have for example, if 1000 people per day moved in?

I repeat...these threads are mostly to bash California. Some people appear to enjoy doing that.

[Bluenorthwest]

49. For the last few years many more people have left CA

than have moved to CA.

[amandabeech]

65. Kansas doesn't have huge amounts of water.

However, if you spread the New Yorkers over the entire State of New York (which all those NYC dwellers would hate) there would probably be plenty of water to go around. Upstate NY, as you may know, even has housing that could be rehabilitated in such places as Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and Utica.

Of course, in my home state of Michigan, which is in the Midwest, there are plenty of vacant houses and plenty of water. However, we do require that used water be cleaned up before it is returned to the system.

[NickB79]

79. Only if you use non-carbon forms of energy to run the desal. plants

Otherwise you will just make things worse if those plants use energy from fossil fuels, because global warming is driving the Southwest droughts. Luckily, California has plenty of sun for solar, but that also makes the energy provide more expensive.

[Xithras]

38. Groundwater will not, and cannot, be regulated.

I have a glass of water sitting next to me that came out of my tap about 3 minutes ago. About five minutes before that it came out of the tank alongside my well, about 25 feet from my house. Sitting about 50 feet from the back of my house is a second 4 inch well, unused today but once utilized to pump water into the cherry orchard that the previous owner once had on the property. About 30 feet in another direction is my neighbors water well, which dates back to the 1940's and which once had a windmill straddling it. Aside from replacing the electric motor, it's an unchanged piece of history. There are millions of other private water wells in California just like then (most larger, actually...mine are relatively small at 3 inches). Passing laws requiring them to be registered and limiting their draw would be a political fight from hell. Actually getting people to register them would be even harder (are you going to check every property in the state for wells?) Catching people who registered their wells but overpump would simply be impossible...it would require hundreds of inspectors to manually check the wells on any sort of regular basis, and this isn't the sort of thing a tipline is going to help with.

There's a reason why well water is unregulated. It's unregulatable.

[Are_grits_groceries]

41. It can be regulated.

Google groundwater regulation. There are many law and methods to use. It may not be easy, but it can be done. Of course, some will slip through. However, a lot of extraction can be measured and thus regulated.

[Xithras]

45. Perhaps for the larger wells...

But nobody on the planet has ever attempted to limit groundwater extraction on either the numeric or geographic scale that would be required to regulate all of the wells in California. Any attempt to do so would fail miserably. The second well on my property is covered by a simple plywood box surrounded by weeds. Nobody could find that, and most private wells are similarly remote.

On second thought, though, regulating wells of this type may not actually be needed. Small wells like the 3 inchers on my property generally only output a few gallons a minute and aren't where the problems are coming from. Confining regulation to commercial, industrial, and agricultural wells with flows over a certain cutoff would cover 90% of the problem and be far less contentious. By covering home wells, you create the reality that any attempt to do so is going to be facing commercials featuring 95 year old women crying about how the state is trying to take money from her and take away her drinking water. Not a wise political move.

[bridgit]

46. Dr. Gleick is bringing this up at the right time, there are going to be changes one way or the other

[Nikki Stone1]

50. K & R--and for those who don't care because it's CA, WATER is the next big thing

Remember Atlanta's water shortage? This is the next big infrastructure issue.

[Cleita]

54. And I was always told by Northern Californians that it was the Southern

Californians who were stealing all their water. :shrug:

I'll bet it's Dick Cheney. He's proved himself adept at stealing other people's natural resources.

[shintao]

99. How much is enough??

Northern Cal ships 370 m3 (13,000 cu ft) per second of fresh water into LA. I hope they enjoy their showers. Of, course they are doing environmental things in LA, and deserve credit for their efforts.

[Cleita]

104. Most of the water you get is flowing from the Sierras.

A lot of it is being diverted to the Central Valley for agriculture. A lot of it flows south. However, if not, it would just flow into the ocean. You guys up north don't seem to get the concept. But it could be sold to foreign interests. Is that what you want? Is it possible that this is what is happening?

[cmd]

66. Sitting here in the rust belt surrounded by fresh water

and am enjoying this thread. The Great Lakes states have had the foresight to preserve our greatest natural resource. You're all welcome to settle here. We'll share our water with you, but we won't be sending it out of state.

[underseasurveyor]

67. You are very kind

and thank you but you might want to rethink asking people to settle there. That's when the troubles begin.. too many people.

[Are_grits_groceries]

69. The Great Lakes area has its own problems.

The Great Lakes Water Wars
<snip>
The greatest fear of the Great Lakes’ terrestrial neighbors is that their waters will be stolen outright, diverted to irrigate golf courses in Las Vegas, fill swimming pools in Phoenix, and supply condos in San Diego. That’s not sheer paranoia. The driest parts of the nation are also the fastest-growing. And over the years a number of elaborate proposals have been floated to get the Great Lakes flowing southwest.

<snip>
Those episodes and others confirmed what was already pretty obvious: to the people in the eight states and two Canadian provinces that border the Great Lakes, the smallest diversion of water outside the watershed is to be vigilantly avoided. Even a trickle, they fear, would eventually open the floodgates of diversion and suck the lakes dry. Having seen the damage wreaked by mismanagement, they are not about to submit their lakes to the same fate as that of Russia’s great Aral Sea.
<snip>
But water-management difficulties stem not merely from outside threats, but also from the challenge of defining and reconciling the often clashing interests of multiple governments, residents, and industrial communities in the waters they each claim but must share. The Great Lakes drainage does not respect political boundaries.

Case in point: Waukesha, Wisconsin, a western neighbor and now suburb of Milwaukee, wants to replace its current system of wells with a connection to the bigger city’s water mains, which draw from Lake Michigan. The proposal looks like a straightforward matter of plumbing. Yet Waukesha’s effluent goes into the nearby Fox River, which drains into the Mississippi—not into the Great Lakes—so even the simple joining of pipes represents a diversion with international repercussions.

http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/251123/the-great-lakes-water-wars

Diversion is something that may not happen. However, as the author points out, Waukesha is a local problem.

[ellie]

77. Yes!

I am in Toledo. We are right on the Maumee River which empties into Lake Erie. We have plenty of water and it is very, very cheap to live here. But, it is Toledo. So there's that.

[Mendocino]

91. The Maumee has the largest watershed by area

of any Great Lakes river system. I know this, I live in WATERville!:D

[boppers]

78. Psst. There's an Ocean of water there. Literally.

Land locked states seem unconcerned about California's water woes, for some reason?

[KamaAina]

80. Psst. It's salt water.

Desalination might work for very small, very dry, and very wealthy places like Dubai, but on that large a scale? No way.

[boppers]

107. Whhaaa. De-salination is HARD!

Welcome to the rest of the world, where life is not handed out on a silver platter.

When Californians wonder why they're mocked, this kind of thinking is why.

[KamaAina]

81. Let me see if I've got this straight. Ahh-nuld threatened to veto every single legislative bill

if he didn't get his water deal. Now we find out that we don't even know who's using the water in the first place?

For all I know, the Chinese could have bought up half our water rights by now. :eyes:

[LeftyMom]

83. Southern Californians!

You live in the fucking desert! Deal! :grr:

[Cleita]

106. A lot of that water from the Sierras is diverted south, true.

The fact is, otherwise it would flow into the ocean benefitting no one. No one seems to understand that. The real problem is that the water rights evidently have been sold to foreign interests like most of California and frankly most of the USA. Also, we have more green in California than desert. People get that idea because movie and TV productions companies like to film in the desert areas.

[LeftyMom]

113. "benefiting no one" = keeping salt water from destroying delta farmland, sustaining species

[Xithras]

114. The environment is irrelevant, donchaknow.

Who needs those pesky farms, wetlands, and fish anyway.

[glinda]

103. Same people that are stealing from the Great Lakes, I suspect.

[shanti]

105. on a related note...

http://www.sacbee.com/business/story/2054723.html

[elleng]

109. Colorado, of course!