Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Haven't representatives of the Great Lakes states already been discussing what to do to protect their water rights in case of massive, prolonged water shortages in the American Southwest? That is, so their precious lake water doesn't end up becoming the next "Colorado River"? And, if so, can there really be any assurance that the federal government won't tap the lakes anyway? After all, just think of the $$$$ that will be allocated to contractors for such a huge undertaking--maybe even dwarfing the Chinese Three Gorges project on the Yangtze River.
Don't forget that the Great Lakes are all interconnected and that 4 of the 5 are also Canadian Waters. To draw off water from any of them for the SW would need not only the Gov't of the US to say yes, but also the Canadian Gov't. I doubt that would ever happen, even if our lame administrations sold us down the proverbial river.
Since 2000, Houston has been the fifth-fastest-growing city in the country, and its presence in an area with high drought likelihood makes it an immediate risk for serious water shortages.
It's a slow link, here are the cities listed (usual suspects, and surprisingly Texas cities..didn't know)...
10- Orlando, FL
9- Atlanta, GA
8- Tucson, AZ
7- Las Vegas, NV 6- Fort Worth, TX
5- San Francisco Bay, CA
4- San Antonio, TX
3- Phoenix, AZ
2- Houston, TX
1- Los Angeles, CA
at least they should have gone into the lack of alternatives. Just because people talk about aquifer levels does not mean we have no alternatives to the aquifers.
The city of Houston actually responded to the factual errors in the article on their public works website:
A recently published article entitled “The Ten Biggest American Cities That Are Running Out Of Water†contained factual errors, citing our “Major Water Supply†sources as the Jasper Aquifer, Lake Houston, and Lake Conroe.
• Houston’s major water source is Lake Livingston through the Trinity River, not Lake Houston or Lake Conroe.
• Houston has access to more than 1.2 billion gallons of water per day of surface water rights to meet demands through the year 2060.
• The City of Houston is currently working to secure an additional 840 million gallons a day of water rights to meet our projected demands beyond this century.
• Houston Drinking Water Operations currently produces and distributes more than 146 billion gallons of water each year.
• Houston does not take any water from Lake Conroe and uses Lake Houston for less than 10% of total surface water supply.
• Houston has secured surface water rights, not affected by precipitation, to ensure a reliable supply of water well into the future.
come on article author. Houston is in a very wet area of the country. It is easily the wettest of top 20 metros. Classifying Houston into the southwest because it is in Texas is deceiving the readers.
Minneapolis isn't located on a Great Lake (or close to one), and Detroit is between lakes. Maybe you included them because Minnesota touches on a small part of Lake Superior, and Detroit is in Michigan, which is surrounded by Great Lakes?
Detroit is on the Detroit River, which is attached to both Lake Huron by way of Lake St. Clair, and Lake Erie. Detroit may have its problems, but water supply will never be one of them.
For the same reason that you guys in Arizona are taking all of our water as well.
Your water? Colorado state?
If you guys own all the water that flows out of your state then I guess Arizona,Utah,California, and Nevada aren't allowed to use Colorado River water that flows through their borders. While you're at it, cut off New Mexico and Texas from the Rio Grande, and Kansas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas from the Arkansas River too.
Haven't representatives of the Great Lakes states already been discussing what to do to protect their water rights in case of massive, prolonged water shortages in the American Southwest? That is, so their precious lake water doesn't end up becoming the next "Colorado River"? And, if so, can there really be any assurance that the federal government won't tap the lakes anyway? After all, just think of the $$$$ that will be allocated to contractors for such a huge undertaking--maybe even dwarfing the Chinese Three Gorges project on the Yangtze River. (Just ask defense contractors how big money is made in Washington.)
The governors of all Great Lakes states, along with the US Federal Government and Canada laid out pretty strict laws over 50 years ago that NO water may be removed from the Great Lakes basin. Basically if you take water from any of the Great Lakes, your city/town has to physically be within the natural drainage basin for the area. That way when you use the water and return it to the system it stays within the lakes themselves.
Only about 1% of the volume of the lakes is refilled each year from rainfall, so it's not just an endless supply of water.
I believe Chicago is the only major area where the water is taken from the lakes and not returned. Back 100 years ago the river was diverted away from the lake, and Chicago's wastewater is put into a canal that dumps into the Mississippi River. A lock has been placed at the mouth of the river though, so water no longer just gushes out of the lake free flowing. It only really moves during the periods the locks are opened to let boats in or out.
There are a few rivers north of lake Superior that are diverted from the Hudson Bay watershed to the Great Lakes watershed. Because of this, more water actually enters the lakes up in Canada than is taken from them down in Chicago. At this point though, no one is allowed to sell or divert any water. You'd have to have permission from each of the Great Lakes governors, as well as Canada and the US. That's never going to happen.
Building a city of 5 million in a desert is almost as foolish as building one below sea level.
Serious water issues have been tackled elsewhere in the world.
Considering that 70% of Saudi Arabia's domestic water supply needs are produced by desalination, there is no reason why such a thing isn't possible for cities like Phoenix and Tucson. Phoenix does not need it. I don't know about Tucson.
In the case of Riyadh (population 5 million or so), water has to be elevated 3000 feet and pumped 300 miles. Apparently Saudi Arabia has contracted for a new desalination plant that will be capable of desalinating a billion liters a day, opening in a few years.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)...
