Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday August 28 2015, @01:46AM   Printer-friendly
from the sign-of-things-to-come dept.

The city of Waukesha, Wisconsin proposes taking water from Lake Michigan to deal with contamination in their local aquifer. The city is just outside the drainage basin from the lake and thus the Great Lakes Compact of 2008 comes into play, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/26/us/waukesha-plan-for-lake-michigan-water-raises-worries.html?_r=0

This might be a landmark case to test the Compact which requires approval of all eight governors of the surrounding states before large quantities of water can be taken outside the lake drainage area. Here is one article on the 2008 law: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/world/americas/24iht-24lakes.16429199.html.

From the bottom of the first article:

So far, the compact has proved ironclad. New Berlin, a suburb of Milwaukee, received a small diversion in 2009, but that was seen as fairly routine because part of the suburb sits within the lake’s basin, a circumstance contemplated in the compact as a relatively simple exception.

The strength of the compact is offering hope to some officials in the Midwest who see Great Lakes water not just as something to cling on to, but also as a powerful draw for a region that has had much of its population head to the Sun Belt.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @01:50AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @01:50AM (#228809)

    What's that, a make-up mirror for fat chicks?

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Thexalon on Friday August 28 2015, @02:11AM

    by Thexalon (636) on Friday August 28 2015, @02:11AM (#228813)

    (My bias: I live within a stone's heave of one of the Great Lakes)

    I'm pushing for a no-go on this: The thing that worries me is that it really does seem like a potential slippery slope, and what needs to happen but still hasn't is for water to be actually priced the way the market should be pricing it (which is far more expensive than the current prices). I understand the concern about low-income folks, so what I'd recommend places with water usage problems do is price it along the lines of $X for the first 10,000 gallons per month (typical household), $X+$Y for the next 200,000 gallons (typical restaurant / small business), $X+$Y+$Z above that (agriculture and industry).

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by canopic jug on Friday August 28 2015, @02:55AM

      by canopic jug (3949) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 28 2015, @02:55AM (#228821) Journal

      It seems that community is one of many just outside of the watershed that has used or contaminated more water than it has available and now it is pulling up contaminated water from the ground. Whatever they're doing, and however they're doing it, they're using way too much water and have to both cut back and become more efficient. Stealing water out of the water shed is just going to drain the lakes and screw over other communities. I know that misery loves company and all but that is preventable by saying no now with this first case.

      --
      Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
      • (Score: 4, Informative) by Adamsjas on Friday August 28 2015, @04:13AM

        by Adamsjas (4507) on Friday August 28 2015, @04:13AM (#228843)

        This compact, the provisions of which were approved by both branches of congress and the administration, as provided by the constitution** is an immensely valuable agreement to the states involved. With approval, by the federal government, as mandated by the constitution, I can't imagine why the compact would be anything but iron clad.

        The agreement essentially defines the natural watershed that feeds into the lakes as the boundary defining the area that can draw upon lake waters.

        So regardless of what drought may occur elsewhere, the lake can't be drained away, to irrigate Kansas, or process ore form some mine five states away.

        If only states around California has thought protect their water sources a hundred years ago before California started encumbering them with divide and conquer contracts.

        ** Under Article I, Section 10, Clause 3, of the U.S. Constitution, "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress … enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State."

        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by albert on Friday August 28 2015, @06:22AM

          by albert (276) on Friday August 28 2015, @06:22AM (#228863)

          the lake can't be drained away, to irrigate Kansas, or process ore form some mine five states away

          What if I move there and start a bottled water company? Can I not do that?

          Suppose I start a company that makes snow globes. These are clear plastic containers filled with plastic "snow", a liquid, and usually some sort of winter scene related to Christmas. I sell huge numbers of these to a company in California that then empties them out to irrigate almond trees. They of course send back the damaged snow globes for recycling.

          Suppose I grow fruit. Anything will do, even poison ivy berries. I ship it out of state to a company that will freeze-dry it. Of course, they save the resulting water.

          Maybe I'll just offer the water for free to airline passengers, on condition that they pee into a particular toilet when they land. The pee will of course be distilled to recover the water.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @12:09PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @12:09PM (#228946)

            Unlike some states, the Great Lakes region sets limits on water usage. This isn't California where all is sunny and bright year round. This is a region where "winter is coming" isn't just a GOT reference.

          • (Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Friday August 28 2015, @08:22PM

            by Hyperturtle (2824) on Friday August 28 2015, @08:22PM (#229170)

            Your answer is "It Depends".

            There are rules -- and restrictions -- and it depends on where you are located as you bottle the water, and how much you take.

            http://www.greatlakeslaw.org/blog/bottled_water/ [greatlakeslaw.org]

            They have indeed considered the option of someone draining the lakes at a profit via selling bottled water to people experiencing watering restrictions due to the very same lakes experiencing levels low enough to apply restrictions and fine people for flouting them. But not selling the water at a profit...

            So, your points are valid--it is a concern, and they've considered it, but there is no great consensus going to any deep granularity. If you were to blast the water into space to never return, that may get you in trouble, but if you bottle and distribute cola/soda throughout the region, you are probably OK as long as you document (loosely) your use.

            I personally have wondered why there is not a water pipeline built from Canada to California, instead of an oil pipeline. CA needs the water today and will need it going forward; the oil is intended for international sale anyway. If whisky is for drinking and water is for fighting, then a pipe like that could prevent us from having to annex Canada in 2077 (unless we wanted their oil, of course).

            There is likely not as much money behind the bottled water industry as there is behind the fossil fuel industry, though, so perhaps that is why we haven't heard about it. Considering the amount of lakes that have been impacted in Canada as a result of resource extraction, it would have made sense to sell that water to us Yanks before they poisoned it. I guess they still can; water treatment exists to reclaim sullied water, but once oil is burned you can't get that back.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @07:14AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @07:14AM (#228876)

          there is a similar structure regarding the Colorado River watershed as well. Just ask Mexico about that. Washington, Idaho, Oregon and British Columbia sort of have one, but it is more about defining water and power allocations between the US and Canada. it might be good for this region to revise it with terms similar to the Great Lakes Compact, defining the "owners" as the states and provinces that contain the columbia& Snake River watersheds, before California turns the Columbia Basin (back) into a giant Owens Valley.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Friday August 28 2015, @04:27AM

      by frojack (1554) on Friday August 28 2015, @04:27AM (#228846) Journal

      for water to be actually priced the way the market should be pricing it (which is far more expensive than the current prices).

      First, you have to adhere to the compact. Waukesha needs to find their own sources. They aren't in the watershed. No sale.

      As for pricing water, you have to remember that the users of the water are supposed to be within the watershed. So after use, it all flows back into the lakes. So presuming a proper waste water treatment, the water is recycled. There is really no reason to get mercenary on the pricing. Its a community resource, like roads.

      Just don't send the water outside the watershed, and problem solved.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by lentilla on Friday August 28 2015, @05:23AM

        by lentilla (1770) on Friday August 28 2015, @05:23AM (#228852)

        Just don't send the water outside the watershed, and problem solved.

        Maybe they could do a two-for-one deal: for each gallon of water we send, you return two gallons of sewerage? (No, I'm not being serious.)

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @06:59AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @06:59AM (#228869)

      so youre going to tax everyone who uses well water too then, right? for people who have wells (aka aquifer water), the perception is this water truly free. the sunk cost is the well & pump, the operating costs are the electricity to run the pumps. by pricing surface water "economically", youre giving well water (and cities like Portland, OR, that meet most or all of their water needs from self-refilling, sole source surface water systems) users a huge advantage.
      in many ways it will also enable forcing those communities and regions that thru location or good planning that are self-sufficient and enjoy a surplus to forcibly have to share with those who don't plan, won't accept physical limits, etc., a form of interstate eminent domain action to seize resources from far away regions because they simply believe they deserve it more.
      and you thought the "Fuck California!" sentiment in the pacific NW was just trite parochialism...

      • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday August 28 2015, @06:50PM

        by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 28 2015, @06:50PM (#229117) Journal

        My grandfather has a well in the San Joquin valley. He used the water from that well for both domestic and agricultural uses. Every year he had a bill for water usage that he paid to some state agency. So, NO, well water is not free. Perhaps in other areas of the country it works differently, however.

        --
        Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @08:00PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @08:00PM (#229154)

      That didn't go too well for a city in California's Orange County (state law).

      The 4th District Court of Appeal ruled April 20 that the tiered rates approved by the San Juan Capistrano City Council in 2010 violated Proposition 218, which requires government fees be set in accordance with cost.

      The ruling didn’t declare tiers in general illegal, but the court said they must be based on the actual cost of providing water and can’t be artificially inflated to discourage water use. [ocregister.com]

      The situation in SoCal was also a bit different from what you outlined and was instead trying to discourage the affluent from watering huge lawns and golf courses.

      -- gewg_

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @02:12AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @02:12AM (#228814)

    He will collect All the water and give you water when He decides you deserve water.

    • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @02:43AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @02:43AM (#228820)

      He will collect All the water and give you water when He decides you deserve water.

      He will collect All the water, so far so good, can't fault you; can't fault Him neither, you deserve to have your water collected, you emit way too much g-ass

      After that, it's all wrong! What He will do is
      * first walk over All the water,
      * then make it inTo wine,
      * and then and only then He will give it to you... to drink it as His blood.
      Ethanol-fuelled, rejoice! Just don't kiss Him on His chIck, de'tsa nono

      Don't tell me it's impossible, there are precedents. And He can do it, Yes, He can [20min.ch]. A pity you cun't together with Him.

      • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by mhajicek on Friday August 28 2015, @03:33AM

        by mhajicek (51) on Friday August 28 2015, @03:33AM (#228834)

        I think there was a mistranslation. Instead of turning water into wine, it should have been turning Windows into W.I.N.E.

        --
        The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
  • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday August 28 2015, @06:23AM

    by tangomargarine (667) on Friday August 28 2015, @06:23AM (#228864)

    They mention that New Berlin is a suburb of Milwaukee and on the borderline of the watershed.

    Waukesha is also a suburb of Milwaukee, just FYI (I live in the greater Milwaukee area myself).

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday August 28 2015, @06:25AM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Friday August 28 2015, @06:25AM (#228865)

      I assume that whichever side of the decision is more reasonable, our Governor Walker will be against it, too. He seems to delight in pissing people off.

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @02:01PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @02:01PM (#228977)

        He'll do everything to help Waukesha because it is the Neocon enclave that first gave him the county executive election win on his way to the governership and keeps Paul Ryan in the House. It's the cornerstone of GOP southern Wisconsin gerrymandering policy and needs to be kept solidly republican or the GOP will become as irrelevant in WI as they are in any election isn't true popular vote.

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday August 28 2015, @09:49AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 28 2015, @09:49AM (#228913) Journal

      They mention that New Berlin is a suburb of Milwaukee

      Doest it have a new Adolf as well? The old one... well, some God won him, can't use any more his character on a forum.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday August 28 2015, @04:18PM

        by tangomargarine (667) on Friday August 28 2015, @04:18PM (#229049)

        No, and native Germans very much don't appreciate Hitler jokes, I've been told. I have no idea what you're trying to say with the rest of your post.

        Annoyingly, people keep telling me that the suburb is pronounced New BER-lin instead of the normal way Ber-LIN the German city is pronounced.

        Looking it up on Wikipedia, apparently it's named after New BERlin, New York, which was named after BERlin, Connecticut. String of idiots who don't know how to pronounce German.

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Gravis on Friday August 28 2015, @02:07PM

    by Gravis (4596) on Friday August 28 2015, @02:07PM (#228979)

    http://wi.water.usgs.gov/gwcomp/find/waukesha/susceptibility.html [usgs.gov]

    Our activities on the land can contaminate groundwater - most contaminants originate on the land surface and filter down to the groundwater.

    whatever they are doing to contaminate their groundwater needs to be rectified before they get a drop of water to supplement it. if you dont do this then you are just enabling people who are the problem!

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @04:58PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @04:58PM (#229069)

    Technically, while Michigan and Huron have separate names, the lakes are a single body of water. There is no separation between them as there is between the other Great Lakes (E.g. Erie and Ontario are connected by the Niagara River and are not a common body)

    That means water extracted from Michigan is extracted from Huron and that body of water is governed by both the US and Canada. This is not something that should be up to the US to decide. It is an international issue.

    But the US won't see it that way. Surprise!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 29 2015, @12:35AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 29 2015, @12:35AM (#229263)

      Except, of course, that the compact is the manner in which the states implement an agreement which includes Ontario and Quebec. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lakes_Compact [wikipedia.org]