You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #158: What is needed is tertiary water treatment along with conservation. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
seasat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-31-08 03:56 PM
Response to Original message
158. What is needed is tertiary water treatment along with conservation.
Climate change will bring about changes in water distribution. Some areas that were previously wet may be dry and some dry areas may have more precipitation. Lowering consumption of fossil fuels will require greater urban densities resulting in greater demands on water supplies in those areas. The best solution is conservation and tertiary water treatment. Tertiary water treatment means taking the waste water and treating it until it becomes potable tap water. Conservation means no grass lawns watered with hundreds of gallons of water along with other community measures.

It's a shame that the presidential candidates aren't really addressing this important issue. The only one that talked about water issues was Governor Richardson. However, when discussing creating a cabinet position to deal with water issues before a Las Vegas crowd, he mentioned that "Wisconsin is awash in water." In the context of his speech and proposals in his platform, he was using it as an example of how negotiations might be better between states with a national water policy and a central federal mediator instead of the hodge podge of agencies that we have now. His proposals were heavy on conservation with no mention of forcing states to share water. Unfortunately, some folks with an agenda to push, immediately interpreted that comment as Richardson supporting running a giant pipeline or aqueduct running 1200 miles from the Great Lakes to Las Vegas. Richardson immediately issued a statement restating his position that water rights remained within the area of the basin and that he did not support changing that.

Never mind the fact that a 1200 mile water transport system would cost probably over 50 billion dollars and be an environmental disaster with little net gain for the parched region. Only an idiot would consider such a plan viable. While prone to sticking a foot in his mouth occasionally, Richardson is not an idiot. He also has the best environmental credentials of any of our 2008 candidates. The way his statement was taken completely out of context and lied about, pretty much shut down any talks about water policy by the candidates. It was already a politically volatile issue to address and the way Richardson was raked over the coals for saying we need a national water policy, reinforced the fears that the other candidates had on addressing the issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC