Great Lakes water....to southwest?? (Chicago, Washington: insurance, house, earthquakes)

[Bluefox]

Originally Posted by coldwine

Alternatively, let the entire southwest die.

That statement conveys a false sense of animosity. I am quite calm and comfortable with the idea of the western half of the United States burning to death, dying of thirst, or being lost to any of the volcanoes or fault lines that render an already uninhabitable wasteland that much more dangerous.

Phoenix, for example, simply should not exist. Strict water conservation efforts in Phoenix are like matches in an avalanche.

Finally, it does not matter whether or not the wasteland states want access to the Great Lakes. It would literally be cheaper to build a bike path to Venus. Moving water is and always has been humanity's most expensive endeavor for the simple reason that we cannot beat physics.

Either which way, wildfires will have reclaimed the desert from the American Southwest (and much of the west coast) long before it comes to this.

I don't really buy the whole "it's not natural to live in a desert argument", not because it's not true, but because it can be applied to any number of naturally deviant things humans do. Let's face it, if we're not living in wigwams and hunting and gathering to subsist, we aren't really being "natural" humans in a natural world, and even that is pushing it.

That being said, I do think that there is an inherent assumption of the risk when one chooses to relocate to an area with known vulnerabilities, and if and when those risks come to fruition, well, we told ya so. If the Cascadia Subduction Zone ruptures and my home is destroyed in an earthquake, well, I don't expect people to feel particularly sorry for me because I knew about the hazard beforehand and chose to relocate to the Pacific Northwest anyway. It's a gamble, it always is.

And yes, the cost of engineering and building such a project would be astronomical. We are talking tens of billions minimum. Who is going to pay for that? Federal tax dollars? For the benefit of just one part of the country? That's not going to be a popular proposal anywhere outside the Southwest, if it's coming out of everyone else's pockets. People in the Northeast won't like it. People in the Northwest won't like it. People in the South won't like it. On the other hand, if we make the southwestern states foot the bill, all of a sudden costs for those people go way up in an area many moved to, at least in part, for the reasonable cost of living.

To say nothing of the fact that there is statutory law in place already to prevent this very thing from happening. Can the law be challenged? Yes. But from what I've seen it looks pretty bulletproof and it would be an uphill battle to get the Supreme Court to accept any kind of argument that it's unconstitutional. IMHO.

In the end, water issues in the Southwest will not likely become acute overnight. It will most likely be a slow process probably reflected in increasing costs to consumers in that region, if at all. When there are more feasible options like desalinization that can be explored further, why go to all the legal, financial and logistical lengths to forward what would undoubtedly be a nationally (and internationally - heyy Canada) unpopular proposal? I think no stone should be left unturned in finding alternative water sources for the Southwest, because this would really be a last resort option.

[damba]

Originally Posted by Bluefox

I don't really buy the whole "it's not natural to live in a desert argument", not because it's not true, but because it can be applied to any number of naturally deviant things humans do. Let's face it, if we're not living in wigwams and hunting and gathering to subsist, we aren't really being "natural" humans in a natural world, and even that is pushing it.

That being said, I do think that there is an inherent assumption of the risk when one chooses to relocate to an area with known vulnerabilities, and if and when those risks come to fruition, well, we told ya so. If the Cascadia Subduction Zone ruptures and my home is destroyed in an earthquake, well, I don't expect people to feel particularly sorry for me because I knew about the hazard beforehand and chose to relocate to the Pacific Northwest anyway. It's a gamble, it always is.

And yes, the cost of engineering and building such a project would be astronomical. We are talking tens of billions minimum. Who is going to pay for that? Federal tax dollars? For the benefit of just one part of the country? That's not going to be a popular proposal anywhere outside the Southwest, if it's coming out of everyone else's pockets. People in the Northeast won't like it. People in the Northwest won't like it. People in the South won't like it. On the other hand, if we make the southwestern states foot the bill, all of a sudden costs for those people go way up in an area many moved to, at least in part, for the reasonable cost of living.

To say nothing of the fact that there is statutory law in place already to prevent this very thing from happening. Can the law be challenged? Yes. But from what I've seen it looks pretty bulletproof and it would be an uphill battle to get the Supreme Court to accept any kind of argument that it's unconstitutional. IMHO.

In the end, water issues in the Southwest will not likely become acute overnight. It will most likely be a slow process probably reflected in increasing costs to consumers in that region, if at all. When there are more feasible options like desalinization that can be explored further, why go to all the legal, financial and logistical lengths to forward what would undoubtedly be a nationally (and internationally - heyy Canada) unpopular proposal? I think no stone should be left unturned in finding alternative water sources for the Southwest, because this would really be a last resort option.

It's not as simple as 'it's not natural to live in a desert'. More accurately, only so many people using our current methods of acquiring freshwater may be accommodated in such dry locales.

Understand, even increased costs can only push so many people to re-use grey water when the initial water is very scarce as it stands. These are very hard limits.

[mapleguy]

Once again.........


The Great Lakes are NOT the property of the United States !


The Great Lakes are a SHARED body of water. SHARED by Canada AND the USA.


Can we stop talking about "we are all Americans ' ? Canadians are NOT Americans.


Get it straight, please ?


XXX.

[deeman7]

Originally Posted by mapleguy

Once again.........


The Great Lakes are NOT the property of the United States !


The Great Lakes are a SHARED body of water. SHARED by Canada AND the USA.


Can we stop talking about "we are all Americans ' ? Canadians are NOT Americans.


Get it straight, please ?


XXX.

Technically Canada and the USA stole the great lakes from the Indians so by finders-keepers rules, the Indians are the rightful owners.

[BIG CATS]

Originally Posted by coldwine

Alternatively, let the entire southwest die.

Great outlook, buddy. Wish death upon innocent, fellow countrymen? You're not related to Stalin by chance, are you?

Originally Posted by coldwine

That statement conveys a false sense of animosity. I am quite calm and comfortable with the idea of the western half of the United States burning to death, dying of thirst, or being lost to any of the volcanoes or fault lines that render an already uninhabitable wasteland that much more dangerous.

Should those of us in the West wish you all died in floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, or simply be frozen to death? Natives lived and thrived here in the Southwest long before we came along. How is that "uninhabitable"? Our climate is more survivable than yours.

Originally Posted by coldwine

Phoenix, for example, simply should not exist. Strict water conservation efforts in Phoenix are like matches in an avalanche.

Yeah, Phoenix should not exist. Riiiiiight. I guess you should wipe out Jerusalem, Dubai, Johannesburg, Abu Dhabi, all of Australia, etc, too? I mean, they are desert environments, too.

Originally Posted by coldwine

Finally, it does not matter whether or not the wasteland states want access to the Great Lakes. It would literally be cheaper to build a bike path to Venus. Moving water is and always has been humanity's most expensive endeavor for the simple reason that we cannot beat physics.

If we can put men on the moon, travel at supersonic speeds, launch missiles hundreds of miles from their targets with pinpoint accuracy, have self-driving cars, etc, we can surely move water.

Originally Posted by coldwine

Either which way, wildfires will have reclaimed the desert from the American Southwest (and much of the west coast) long before it comes to this.

Wildfires are a part of life, yes. But theyre dealt with. And any idiot knows wildfires bring forth new life, not destroy things permanently.

[Chicago76]

Originally Posted by BIG CATS

If we can put men on the moon, travel at supersonic speeds, launch missiles hundreds of miles from their targets with pinpoint accuracy, have self-driving cars, etc, we can surely move water.

We can do all of those things. But we don't need to do all of those things, for there is a much simpler solution: the people living in the southwest should move. Short of developing teleportation technology, water would need to be shipped by vehicle over long distances. And even if you got your water consumption down to 20 gallons/day (and you can't, short of not bathing regularly), that is ridiculously expensive.

Don't know if you realize this: but you guys, even with your conservation efforts, consumer more H2O per capita than Midwestern urban areas do. Because it's hot. And water is needed to hydrate and cool things.

Contrary to any claim you have made, living in a temperate to subtropical climate with plenty of water is most conducive to human habitation. The history of civilization shows this to be true as these are the areas with the most dense patterns of settlement dating back thousands of years. Sure, Native Americans have lived in the desert southwest for a long time. The Innuit have lived in Artic environments as well.

Being able to scale civilization in various environments is important.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by BIG CATS

There is sooooo much water in the Great Lakes, even if some was diverted, you'd never even notice I bet. At the end of the day, we're all Americans. We all need to help one another out whether its through resources or physical help. If we were invaded today, Arizonans would be fighting alongside Illinoisans. Wisconsinites would be fighting alongside Californians. New Mexicans would be fighting alongside Iowans. If every region of this country was selfish with its resources, America would be a horrible place to live.

We can help keep Austin weird! God knows we're helping them with jobs with our tax structure and business climate, so why not this?

[Nafster]

Nah, don't do that.

If the situation is so dire, people can move to Chicago and the Great Lakes cities and revive them.

Spending billions of dollar on a pipeline for people who choose to live in drought prone areas is dumb.

[edsg25]

Of course the effect of diverting Great Lakes water to parched regions of the US would have a totally disastrous effect on the Great Lakes states (and Ontario). We live in a very fragile, divided, nation, in some ways pulling apart at the seams.

If the US could and did force something like this diversion, it would very much be in the interest of the Great Lakes states to pull a South Carolina and secede from the union; it indeed would have been a deal breaker. Sounds crazy, no? Well, it isn't. The history of the United States has been that our area, our front print, always grows and never recedes, just as it was with every empire. And yet they all do contract and, yes, they all.....everyone of them.....disappear.

If you think the map of the United States and is now etched in stone (unless, of course, we can annex Canada and Mexico), you're sadly mistaken.

[doodlemagic]

Originally Posted by BIG CATS

There is sooooo much water in the Great Lakes, even if some was diverted, you'd never even notice I bet. At the end of the day, we're all Americans. We all need to help one another out whether its through resources or physical help. If we were invaded today, Arizonans would be fighting alongside Illinoisans. Wisconsinites would be fighting alongside Californians. New Mexicans would be fighting alongside Iowans. If every region of this country was selfish with its resources, America would be a horrible place to live.

I agree to some extent, however if you choose to live in the desert than you need to realize your living in a desert.

I would liken diverting our water would be similar to saying we should all pay to help rebuild people's houses who choose to live near the ocean after a hurricane.

You want to live on the beach I don't blame you the water is beautiful, however I'm not going to pay to fix your house after a hurricane comes.