If the Great Lake states can't stop the Feds hopefully Canada can and will.

I live in Michigan. My state touches 4 of the Great Lakes. It won't take large water diversions to ruin the Great Lakes. We in the region are doing our best to destroy it before anybody else does.

Unfortunately, Michigan is also going through a dry spell. Warmer temps have led to greater evaporation on the Great Lakes, which combined with less snow/rain have contributed to record low lake levels.

Water tables throughout the State are extremely low as well. Many local streams in my area go bone dry in the summer where they used to flow all year.

I've seen somewhere that nowhere in the US is withdrawing water at a rate equal to or below the regeneration rate. The situation in the Southwest is a preview of things to come.

I do take comfort knowing my water comes from a very large lake. And even more knowing that our outlet is upstream from our intake so I hope that means our treatment is nearly sustainable from a water quality standpoint, if not for chemical and resources use.

On the other hand, I can't say I'm too bothered by some water shortages. Water is too cheap when people move to the desert and keep a green lawn.

The story fails to draw a distinction between the gross amount of water present in the lakes (a significant portion of the world's fresh water) and the availability of water from the Great Lakes (GL) - assuming that we don't want an Aral Sea-type debacle befalling us here.

True, the lakes are large. However, they are not resilient to harm; it takes a lot to cause severe problems in the GL, but once they happen, they do not quickly recover.

Bill Richardson forgot a few things about the GL (or was not informed of them beforehand). First, no one "owns" the waters of the states. Unlike in the West (from where Mr. Richardson hails), the "waters" of these states are held in trust by the state, based around the riparian rights system of governance that pervades many states east of the Mississippi River. By stating that he would want to have GL waters shared with the rest of the country, he has effectively committed political suicide in the upper Midwest (and throughout eastern states, if people read the implicitness of water ownership into his statements).

Another thing Mr. Richardson forgot was that the GL are an interconnected set of lakes which we share with Canada (yes, even L. Michigan is connected to Canadian waters via the Straights of Mackinaw). If we start diverting large amounts of water out of the GL (more than we do via the Chicago Diversion - which is its own major political hot potato), we will have a serious foreign relations problem on our hand, therefore any further major diversion to be planned, it will have to be as an international treaty with Canada.

Large scale water withdrawals from the GL will cause many municipalities to be held liable against the Clean Water Act (CWA); will negatively affect commerce; increase costs of operating fisheries; decrease property values; increase eutrophication along coastal waters; increase erosion of rivers flowing into the lakes; as well as other conditions we do not yet know.

For people who are interested in learning more about the GL water "wars" (nothing compared to those out West), then pick up a copy of "Great Lakes Water Wars".

An interesting read is 'Cadillac Desert'. The west is and always will be starved for water, in the long term. I recall one water manager planning to dam the Columbia at the delta and diverting the fresh water east. Somebody else was coveting the Mississippi and wishing for a project to divert some of it to west Texas. There are engineers that consider any fresh water flowing to the sea a waste. They won't be satisfied until all US rivers are bunged up like the Colorado.

Somebody forgot to tell Richardson that his state is a desert. Hard cheese. If I were Wisconsin I wouldn't sell them a drop. What has NM ever done for them? Money is worthless when compared to water.

As long as folks choose to live in a desert, they should be willing to pay an appropriate amount for water. This isn't impossible. The sea levels are rising. One merely needs to build a huge desalinization plant, then pipe it to the people who live in the desert. If they want lush green lawns, they can pay for the desalinization and pipeline. Then, they will be making their appropriate contribution.

Maybe it's also an indication that there's too many people living there and the land can't support the population.

Cheerio!
A.

Any diversion plans that get approved will be at the disapproval of Canada. The Ontario government has always been opposed to any and all diversions from the great lakes so you can gaurantee that if it gets approved US side it did not consider its treaty with Canada at all.

And with the conservative federal government being so big militarizing our northern borders to protect our sovereignty anything big like this happening to the great lakes may get them involved. Really this could end up turning bad really fast if the leaders from desert states start taking from others.

If you life in the desert, you live in the desert. Not enough fresh water? maybe you should look elsewhere, like population control. Less people, less water needed.

Bill Richardson you live in a desert.If you want our water move here.Along with all your constitutes.Other wise pipe in sea water and remove the salt.Stay away from it.Move here or shut the [deleted] UP!!!!

In the Southwest and well as the Southeast US, property values are directly controlled by water availability. A dried up county is an economically worthless one. Mega-Homes in the the suburbs become worthless, stranded investments at the same time that a public health crisis encompasses the region.

Hence, the first battle is to preserve property values with a Federal promise of pipeline solutions. There's no way, as a practical matter, such a solution can be delivered in time to avert a catastrophic ,sustained drought. A mass migration to the GL states will almost certainly be in the offing in this scenario. My personal guess is that poor people with no property to leave behind will come first - the opposite of conventional wisdom.

In addition to the political and regulatory and social constraints so well captured by Unlud's comments, there is one more deal breaker that almost no politicians seem aware of.

Example: The hydraulic balance of Lake Michigan is actually quite stable, with very little surplus of water passing into it on an average year A swing to the negative would rapidly deplete it. Here's why: the theoretical replacement time of Lake Michigan's entire volume is approximately 100 years: that's how long it takes inflowing water, on average, to replace the exisiting volume. A high rate of additional withdrawal for export is absolutely certain to cause a rapid lowering of the GL's. That would have severe impacts on public water intakes all around the shoreline. It would not be permitted plain and simple.

The only real question is: how well prepared are the GL states to handle a major influx of climate displaced people from the drought destroyed regions of the US and also from Norther Mexico.

The comments are on the strong side - and this is Americans needing/wanting water from other Americans!
Personally, I think the right thing to do is to help your neighbours (in the short term) once they've decided to invest in their long-term water security (desalination).

so... folks in the desert are the only people wasting water?

so... GL doesn't want their water diverted but they want a population boom that will surely tax their water supply?

which is worse? the governor who wants water for his people or the people who hoard their water while others suffer?

what about the tourists who flock to Santa Fe to ski? what about the native people living there? i guarantee that the people of NM are way more connected to water conservation that most others in this country.

i live neither place and so i wonder if the better conversation has less to do with mine and yours (with amazing amounts of hostility) and more to do with viable, sustainable solutions in both places.

Consider moving to Greenville, Pennsylvania,
USA - lovely quiet small town - tough on crime.
Near 4 lakes. New kayak dock on the Shenango River so you can paddle / glide from Pymatuning Dam south as far as you want to go. Plenty of green, green open space and woodland / forests. Industries have fled south so lots of good, inexpensive housing available. Good horse country. Near Amish settlements with their horsehandlers, blacksmiths, cooks / bakers,
buggy builders, leather workers, carpenters, organic farmers, etc..
Email me at cfiler@columbus.rr.com for more
information.
M.E.Filer

"The comments are on the strong side - and this is Americans needing/wanting water from other Americans!"

So let me get this straight... the Northeast has endured 20-30 years of watching the South and West raid our industries (on the way to full globalization), remove opportunities for our young people, and thumb their noses at our "bad economies" up here... and now we're supposed to just meekly give you our water as well?

FORGET IT! We're trying to survive, and have been trying to survive a hell of a lot longer than Southerners and Westerners have. We never had any "dot com boom" up here. Our governments have been mocked for being "business-unfriendly" as we had environmental policies designed to protect our lands and waters, while you guys rape yours with out-of-control development.

And now you want the water? Say WHAT??? "We're all Americans"? Well, you weren't singing that tune when the corporations brought our industries and jobs down to the South and West in search of cheap non unionized labor! The Northeast, particularly the Rust Belt that HAS all this water, was left to die on the vine!!!

We'll give you water, all right... but you're going to pay for it. The federal government is not just going to sashay in here and take it. This is an international issue and we feel more allied with Canadian provinces than we do with water-greedy U.S. states.

And you can call that mean spirited if you want. As we were told when you stole our jobs in the 70s and 80s, "That's just the way things are going." Well.... same to you.

Politics aside, what about the environmental impact of this. Whenever us humans tinker with Mother Nature we inevitably screw it up!

I can't see any reason why our water should end up in a massive hotel in somewhere like Las Vegas, especially as a Canadian. Perhaps we all have the right to respectful use of this water, but it should stay where it is!

We should all do our part to take the water issue seriously and treat it as the precious resource that it is. That means living more in harmony in our natural surroundings.

Watering lawns does not fall into this category... particularly in the desert! During a water shortage in Arizona I once saw a city worker hosing down a sidewalk. I couldn't believe it! When will we take this seriously?

As someone who does live here in the northeast, I just have to respond to Rebecca who says she doesn't and proves it through her comments. so here goes.

so... folks in the desert are the only people wasting water?
Of course not. They've just been doing the most and the worst of it for decades, with zero regard for our neighbors to the south.

so... GL doesn't want their water diverted but they want a population boom that will surely tax their water supply?
Non sequitur, straw man argument. The GL basin has it's own challenges to face in the future regarding environmental degradation and conservation. It doesn't need to be compounded by all the Kentucky bluegrass in New Mexico and the fountains in Las Vegas. You want fountains? Pay for the fountains. You want MORE development? Wake up and smell the dehydrated coffee. They can't maintain as it is. It seems the epitome of hubris. If they got all that was here, the migration would still occur.

which is worse? the governor who wants water for his people or the people who hoard their water while others suffer?
Apples and oranges. Properly stated: Which is worse, a governor who wants water to sustain and maintain continued expansion and growth in an area where it's never been viable to live, or governors who are trying to deal with very real supply contingencies of a finite and fragile resource while not repeating past mistakes of bad planning?
Others suffer? Show me suffering that's not self imposed.

what about the tourists who flock to Santa Fe to ski? what about the native people living there? i guarantee that the people of NM are way more connected to water conservation that most others in this country.
They've had to be. Water supply has been an issue in the southwest since the first wagon trains rolled across going west, yet some just thought it would be a peachy place to stay. But you can't expect unlimited growth and prosperity for the same reason most life doesn't exist in the desert in the first place. There's not enough water! The Colorado river hasn't reached the ocean in many years, it just peters out into a dry river bed some miles from the coast due to reduced flow. Where's the mention of how we've screwed Mexico? Like they weren't using the river in any way before we came. So much for your us vs. them statement that follows... it's moot if it's not all of us. We are the family of man. If you want to nationalize the argument, then Canada certainly has at least as much right to contest and deny water rights as we had to tap the Colorado dry with no thought of Mexico.

i live neither place and so i wonder if the better conversation has less to do with mine and yours (with amazing amounts of hostility) and more to do with viable, sustainable solutions in both places.
There is no viable, sustainable way to live in a desert with any economy. The only solution is water, and there is no cheap water solution. That being said, everybody make a choice. If you want to live in a desert, be prepared to have an inordinate amount of economy around water. We all have our own sense of value, so if it's worth it to you bon chance mon ami. But to expect the GL states and Canadian provinces to just jump right into continuing the waste and bad (non) planning that precipitated this makes no sense. The better conversation has to do with exactly how much of this disaster of foresight can be sustained at all.
Imagine the St. Lawrence river not reaching the Atlantic anymore. We'd rather not see that thank you.