Are the Great Lakes the answer?
Here is an article in today’s Detroit Free Press about the concern of northern states that we’re going to try to get some of their water.
It’s not a far-fetched fear. Various states have proposed pipelines from the Great Lakes to their part of the country, going back many years. Of course, the Great Lakes have their own problems and are near record low levels (down a few feet in most cases).
Michigan is trying hard to get legislation passed quickly that will protect their water. With more and more people moving south, Michigan is losing seats in the House of Representatives. The more seats they lose, the harder it will be to protect their water.
January 7th, 2008 at 10:47 am
I think it’s a great idea. The pipeline can bypass Atlanta and pipe water directly into the Apalachicola bay since the water is needed so badly down there. We have plenty of water here if we didn’t have to send so much south.
January 7th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Michigan’s not alone. Minnesota’s worried too. The low lake levels on Superior have become a problem for shipping, even though they are only down a couple of feet. A couple of feet less cargo in a laker (ships that only ply the great lakes and don’t head out to the ocean, in contrast to the salties, which visit the great lakes ports via the St. Lawrence Seaway) raises the cost of shipping iron ore, grain, cement, and other bulk cargos considerably.
The Great Lakes, as great as they are, have one thing in common with Lake Sid Lanier. They have a very small watershed when compared to the size of the lake. Global warming is supposed to warm the north far more than the south, depriving Superior of what ice cover it gets, and accelerating evaporation. There is a lot of concern (at least among people who are paying attention) as to what the future will bring for the lakes. They are also under a lot of pressure from invasive species, mostly carried in by the salties. Zebra mussels get the most press (these are most certainly NOT endangered).
Even though we are all in this together, I don’t think the lakes are a good answer. The Tennessee or Mississippi/Missouri Rivers seem a better solution to me, with their massive watersheds. Much more reliable.
Good luck.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Don’t forget that we share sovereignty of the Great Lakes with Canada (except for Lake Michigan). If you thought tapping into Tennessee’s water was problematic…
January 7th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Current court precedent mandates that any water withdrawn from the Great Lakes watershed be returned to the watershed. The only two exceptions are at the St Lawrence River and Chicago, where the outflow is heavily regulated.
The miles of pipeline and infrastructure it would take to even get water from there would probably make desal from the Atlantic cheaper.
Yes, the Great Lakes do have their problems, but even the levels of those lakes fluctuate a few feet every decade. The fact that they contain 20% of the world’s and 98% of the US’ surface fresh water is not to be ignored.
January 7th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
I don’t think the great lakes are the answer to our problem - too far away. But I find it interesting that the states bordering them are that protective of the water. It seems to me that there is so much water there that almost no amount of human activity could dent them.
If that is true, then why would the water be guarded so jealously? It seems that those who have plenty might willingly share with those who have less when it doesn’t hurt them at all.
January 7th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Yes, Rich, so that way Atlantans can keep their lawns watered up to covenant standards, their Tahoes spit-polished and their swimming pools full. It’s the waste that takes place which makes people “jealous” of their water…
January 8th, 2008 at 1:02 am
No the Great Lakes states have nothing to fear. Canada has way more water, than they need or use, so US must make agreements to purchase water from them and build pipelines down to Southeastern and Southwestern United States.
January 8th, 2008 at 10:03 am
I live in Buffalo. You guys build the pipeline and pumping stations, and we’ll be glad to let you have water at around $1.00/gal. Still be cheaper than Dasani.
January 8th, 2008 at 11:55 am
The simple answer is we should not be building cities when you do not have a reliable source of water. Most people who live in Atlanta are not from there originally, and are only there for work. Businesses should think about water when they make decisions to build somewhere.
I think Atlanta has reached its peak in population.
January 8th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
I’m still not sure I understand all the animosity toward Atlanta. What I’m getting is all across the board. People are furious because -
A. Atlanta was built in an area without a major river?
B. Atlantans want to wash their cars and water their lawns?
C. Atlanta population has grown too much?
D. Atlanta should have built more reservoirs?
E. Georgia elects republicans?
These are the basic things I am seeing repeated. I don’t understand how any of them merit the anger I see directed toward Atlanta. Could someone please help enlighten me?
January 8th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Rich, you’re not getting it. Nobody has ADS (Atlanta Derangement Syndrome). The simple fact is you don’t overbuild and overdevelop when you don’t have the infrastructure to support the development. There are too many people in Atlanta and there’s not a big enough water source. Just like you don’t have more children when you can’t support the ones you have. Just like you don’t keep charging your credit card when you can’t pay the bills. What is so hard for you to understand about this? What does this have to do with Republicans?
January 8th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Rich, I don’t “hate” Atlanta per se, but it is a representation of the new attitude in this country that says “I want mine, even if it’s not sustainable.” In fairness, Phoenix and Las Vegas are even more ridiculous examples of unsustainable growth.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
It’s inconceivable to me that Atlanta can’t adapt to this situation and continue to grow. Believe me, I think I can match my bona fides for being a great “Atlanta-hater” with the best of them. Liberal, from the far north (Minnesota), transit rider, small urban home, free-trade coffee drinker, against lawn irrigation, pay our utility for wind energy only, and I can go on.
That said, I think Atlanta has plenty of hope, and plenty of room to grow. If people take this situation seriously, there are a bizillion ways to maintain economic growth and population growth within the available resources. A lot of those ways have already been discussed on this site.
1. Lawn irrigation is done for. If the plant doesn’t survive, don’t plant one of those again, plant more of the ones that lived. In Minnesota, we are used to having yards with six kinds of plants because only six kinds of plants (used to) survive our winters. Dandilions are included as one of the six.
2. Septic systems have got to go. Get on the city sewer, and the water goes back in the river. Your household use helps keep the mussels wet down farther south.
1A. (Sorry for getting a bit out of order) Get one of those cool Australian water fences. The fence is built of 2″ PVC pipes, that run the length of your yard boundary, and it’s connected at the top to your roof gutters, at the bottom to your garden hose. Self pressurizing, self-refilling when it does rain, and holds hundreds of gallons of garden watering goodness. You cover it with strings and the vines grow on it. Kudzu would work great, I guess (we don’t know a lot about that Kudzu, only that it seems to grow real good!).
4. Fix the leaks in the pipes. Both the mains and the sewers (see 2 above). Both of these are consumptive uses of water, the worst kind.
5. Be thoughtful about industrial and agricultural use. If it uses the water and puts it back, go for it, the mussels don’t care. That ethanol plant - probably a pretty bad idea, maybe better someplace else.
If Fulton County can cut water use by 19 percent without any of these long-term type solutions in place, just think what two or three years planning and implementation time could allow.
Good luck!
January 8th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Scott, great list of ideas, don’t forget water catchment tanks (i.e. cisterns) for toilets and bathing, and grey water systems for the yard. And ditch ethanol– it’s a lousy idea for a lot of reasons, yet alone its water consumption.
January 8th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
I can’t find much disagreement with you Scott. Sounds pretty rational to me.
Carol - “What does this have to do with Republicans?” How about these posts (Thanks Mickey for the better search feature)
A Republican governor just prays instead of actually providing real … I guess Republicans will spin trucking in water as real man’s work and good for you, …
Georgians elect Republican morons and get what they deserve.
Or have you all just been drinking the Republican kool-aid for to long? … It is a established fact that Republicans are less informed and slower to change
January 10th, 2008 at 1:24 am
As for the great lakes they are really dirty forms of fresh water, eating a fish from lake michigan is like drinking the water for 100 years, draining them would only make this problem worse.
They people that live there are not sure about anything, they want to build cars but only for $50/hour plus lifetime healthcare. They want to drill for oil in Alaska but keep their water and they want to move to AZ of FL to retire but I will find water when I get there.
We don’t need more resources just better planing and that requires a internation outlook. Just by learning what we have in the last year we can enlighten many more communities to the comming plite.
January 10th, 2008 at 10:18 am
I think we should consider making adjustments to the laws to allow situations that “import” water from places that have an abundant supply.
This makes much more sense than depleting rivers that can’t possibly sustain millions of people.
The Tennessee River or Great Lakes could be a good options.
There would have to be conservation measures to qualify. But, the laws now are somewhat arbitrary and are going to have a negative impact on the entire region.
I read somewhere that Lake Superior can cover the entire US in like 4 feet of water.
Also the Tennessee River is very close to the GA, so why wouldn’t this be close enough to qualify as shared resource if there are reasonable restrictions?
Urban sprawl is also a problem. Atlanta has been the fastest growing city in the nation, so they can’t expect to sustain that kind of growth, without responsible planning.
I think we should learn to better manage our resources and learn to live within our limits.
January 10th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
No way, absolutely not. We’re not going to let you ruin the Great Lakes so you can water your lawns and fill your fracking swimming pools. If you want to start a new civil war, just try taking it - we in the North will defend our water by force of arms. You built there, you’re letting Atlanta sprawl all over creation, you solve your own problem. Desalination plants spring to mind.
January 10th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Terminus > nobody from the South is going to come take your water with an army. Someday water pipelines might be built from Canada to the Southeast to supply our water needs.
January 10th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Terminus is right.
January 11th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
I live in Atlanta, but I don’t think piping in water from elsewhere is a solution - it’s just making the problem worse (and as others have pointed out, the Great Lakes have their own water level issues these days). I stopped watering my lawn early in the summer (long before the watering restrictions went into play) and it stayed green - heck, it didn’t grow as fast and I spent less time mowing! There are folks in my subdivision that were watering in the heat of the afternoon because they didn’t know how to change the schedule on their sprinkler systems. Why should we pipe in more water just to see it evaporate because some idiot doesn’t know how to water his lawn? There is SO much that could be done to get by with what we have. Restricting growth is anathema to politicians, but it would probably be a smart thing until we get a handle on the situation.
Leave the water in the Great Lakes and find REAL solutions. Someone in Phoenix once told me that the water would be used SOMEWHERE, so why does it matter if they choose to pipe it to the desert and use it there? Watching a golf course in Phoenix a few months ago watering its greens in the middle of the day, imagining how much evaporates into the air in the desert vs. providing for the grass, his argument seemed really… dumb… to me. Using the water near it’s source, your effluent goes back into the local system, making it more sustainable. Piping it for use far away hurts both locations in different ways.
January 11th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Terminus - please keep your water and your hate up north. Just curious though. How much would it take out of lake Superior to refill lake Lanier? A centimeter? You would go to war over a centimeter of water instead of sharing it with fellow Americans? Shame on you and people like you. You disgust me.
January 12th, 2008 at 5:32 am
Hahahaha… I agree with Terminus. It’s just hyperbole, tho. We’ll keep our water up here and you guys can keep the sunnier weather. I always thought the Canadian neighbors would make it impossible to unilaterally move Great Lakes water too.
January 13th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
I’m not sure how Canada would have any right nor any means to stop the U.S. from using the water in the Great Lakes any way it wanted. Nor would the U.S. be able to stop Canada from doing the same.
Pretty much the only things that could be done are taking up arms, economic sanctions or U.N sanction (which the U.S. would of course veto). Other than international uproar, there isn’t much that could happen. Hypothetical of course - at least in Georgia’s case. If we were going to pipe water in, there would be closer places to get it from.
January 19th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
One point that seems to keep getting missed… most of the reason for the shortage of water is the once in a 100 year drought. The other is that despite this once a century event, the Army Corps of Engineers continues to manage the lakes as if we have “rains a plenty” and it was only after Lake Lanier and Lake Allatoona hit record lows that they started to slow their reckless releases.
Guess what happened once the ACOE slowed their releases and a little rain fell? Answer: The lakes began to slowly rise, although they are still quite low. Allatoona is actually at what is termed “full winter pool”.
So demand isn’t the real problem when supply is managed well and is seen at normal levels.
January 25th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Lots of opinions and perspectives here; but darn few facts. Try these out for size.
Lake Michigan has hydrologic replacement time of over 100 years. That means the cumulative inflow- is very close to outflow-rate, which is why water levels fluctuate so with small changes in cloud and ice cover. Replacement time is even larger for Superior. Exporting significant water volumes from the Great Lakes would have very significant adverse consequences. It may not even be physically sustainable, depending on how big the “pipes” would be.
A pipeline over a thousand miles long, as this GL pipe would be, would require frequent pumping stations to be installed and consumer large amounts of energy to operate. The construction of such a line across multiple state and county boundaries would require extensive use of eminent domain to take property and run power lines. Consider the time that it would take to design, gain legal authorizations (think Supreme Court appeals) budget for, acquire materials, and build such a pipeline and to provide for power supplies? My guess would be on the order of 6 to 15 years for completion. This will not help in a drought emergency over the next three years.
The USA has an historical example of people responding to severe regional drought: The Dust Bowl. Listen to the music of Woody Guthrie if you want to get some idea of how it would feel to be forced to migrate to, say, Buffalo NY, with hat in hand, leaving a worthless home and saddened community behind.
There will be no GL pipeline magic bullet. Part of the answer lies in life style changes that are going to be painful to accept. Another part lies in water conservation technology and better planning.
February 18th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Yes yes, look at the lifestyles first in the drought striken areas of the country before even considering GL pipeline and yes, the red tape issues would take years to unravel before the 1st drop hit the south/southwest so I hope no one is standing around with a hose in hand in Raleigh or Vegas waiting to fill a pool!
Also, not to sound like sour grapes, but HANDS OFF! So much of the water shortage can be traced to unprecedented growth is the drought locations that are mainly comprised of transplants for the water-rich north…can’t have it all folks! Learn to conserve in your sunny, hot locales…I myslef live in the valley between two fresh water, brimming fill finger lakes (NY) and with the water shortages becoming the next natural resource battlefront, I’ll stay put right here, visit the warm areas when needed and enjoy my water-rich location!
April 10th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Even if you atlantians want a pipe from the lakes then what would happen when you use it all. If we do that, then in 15 years, we’ll all be screwed