Although that's not mentioned anywhere in the article, subby, the chances of the west stealing water from the rust belt are pretty small. Although, who knows, maybe MI would jump at the chance to be less broke.

stjohn: Although that's not mentioned anywhere in the article, subby, the chances of the west stealing water from the rust belt are pretty small. Although, who knows, maybe MI would jump at the chance to be less broke.

As a Michigan native, the people would just as much stay broke than watch our one remaining point of pride, the State's natural beauty, raped for the sake of making sure some golf club can exist in Arizona.

Actually it's the farmers that waste all the water in the Eest, not the lawns and golf courses.

This may have something to do with the absurdly low prices they pay for it.

surrrrrreeeeeee
we will sell our water to CA
but we wnt it up front in CASH
wait, CA is broke cause they are too stupid to raise taxes to match spending
(got to love binding referendums which dictate spending but not how to pay for it)fark em, let them burn

I'm currently watering my California desert lawn, so I'm really getting a kick out of these replies.

I live in Wisconsin near Lake Michigan and this would be Declaration of War. If the Democratic Congress votes YES on this I will vote straight ticket (R) in 2010 and 2012.

The Democrats will pay dearly for this if it's passed. They will lose every state that touches the Great Lakes for a generation.

If they would like to lose the White House and Congress in 2012, this would be a good way to start. I will vote for anybody that runs on a platform of defending the Great Lakes no matter what else they stand for.

ilambiquated: Actually it's the farmers that waste all the water in the Eest, not the lawns and golf courses.

This. You guys with your talk of lawns and golf courses forget that California grows a lot of the fruits and veggies produced in the US. Arizona uses treated waste water on golf courses (the signs that tell you not to drink the water -- and why -- are pretty funny).

Some numbers:

The Golden State retained its ranking as the nation's leading dairy producer by a wide margin, producing 22 percent of the U.S. milk supply.

400 different commodities. Among these, the state produces about half of U.S.-grown fruits, nuts and vegetables

California has 75,000 farms and ranches -- less than 4 percent of the nation's total. Yet, the Golden State's agricultural production represents 12.8 percent of the nation's total value. California's top 20 crop and livestock commodities accounted for more than $30 billion in value

So it's not raping your natural beauty. It's so you can eat tomatoes and lettuce and anything else that's not corn or soybeans. And in any case, CA will probably continue getting its water from the Colorado river. So no fear: nobody will be denying your flying insect population a home.

Exodus2001: I live in Wisconsin near Lake Michigan and this would be Declaration of War. If the Democratic Congress votes YES on this I will vote straight ticket (R) in 2010 and 2012.

The Democrats will pay dearly for this if it's passed. They will lose every state that touches the Great Lakes for a generation.

If they would like to lose the White House and Congress in 2012, this would be a good way to start. I will vote for anybody that runs on a platform of defending the Great Lakes no matter what else they stand for.

But you have so much water. Is it really fair for 1% of the population to have 30% of the water? You need to pony up your fair share.

/sarc

The U.S. is welcome to all the water they want....$1.00 a bottle-Pay up biotches!

Just move. No one is forcing you to live in California. If you want plentiful water, move. Otherwise shut-up, accept the costs of where you live, and stop believing that everyone else has to subsidize your way of life.

Leave the water where Cthulu put it, don't fark with water tables, don't transport water over the continental divides.

wee: And in any case, CA will probably continue getting its water from the Colorado river. So no fear: nobody will be denying your flying insect population a home.

Good luck with that... (new window)

Lost Thought 00: Just move. No one is forcing you to live in California. If you want plentiful water, move. Otherwise shut-up, accept the costs of where you live, and stop believing that everyone else has to subsidize your way of life.

Californians subsidize others. Sorry.

He_Hate_Me: wee: And in any case, CA will probably continue getting its water from the Colorado river. So no fear: nobody will be denying your flying insect population a home.

Good luck with that... (new window)

Well there go my plans to raft down it before I die.

I love how this instantly becomes a thread about "lol stupid californians suck lol!" even though their standard of living still seems to be higher than the state that houses Detroit.

Here, why not argue about the possibility that California will steal the water by being water pirates.



Moving on, I'm pretty sure California doesn't have grass lawns in the desert. I believe their problem is keeping grass lawns alive, when they are supposed to die every summer and bloom when monsoonthe rainy season starts again.

Hate to break it to you, subby, but California gets its water from the Pacific Northwest (Washington, Oregon, Northern California) and the Colorado River. This is one issue the country can't lay at our feet.

Obdicut: Lost Thought 00: Just move. No one is forcing you to live in California. If you want plentiful water, move. Otherwise shut-up, accept the costs of where you live, and stop believing that everyone else has to subsidize your way of life.

Californians subsidize others. Sorry.

So that gives them the right to plunder the other states as they see fit? Californians can't even balance their own budget.

One of the more hilarious trollmitted headlines in a while. Bravo!

Lost Thought 00: So that gives them the right to plunder the other states as they see fit? Californians can't even balance their own budget.

You weren't burdened with an overabundance of schooling, were you?

You claimed Californians were subsidized. As a state, we contribute more to the fed than we get. Therefore, there are other states 'plundering' us.

The ability of a state to balance their budget has nothing to do with their contributions to the fed, either-- except that our budget would be more in balance if we didn't subsidize other states, that is.

So kind of the opposite of what you said, silly man.

wee: It's so you can eat tomatoes and lettuce and anything else that's not corn or soybeans.

California's farmers could probably produce the same stuff with a lot less water.

Nooooo, not while Harper is in power. :..-(

Yeah, fark California and their agriculture. Fark their lettuce, avacados, citrus, artichokes, tomatos and squash. Eating nothing but corn and wheat makes a man strong.

/and fat
//and diabetic

It doesn't matter how much agriculture there is California, pumping water there from the Great Lakes is still a retarded idea.

Add to that how much will get diverted to water lawns in areas where people should be content with a desert patch for a yard because they were stupid enough to move there.

"We're having water problems in this area. I know, let's f*ck with the water tables on a continental scale!"

Shadowknight: stjohn: Although that's not mentioned anywhere in the article, subby, the chances of the west stealing water from the rust belt are pretty small. Although, who knows, maybe MI would jump at the chance to be less broke.

As a Michigan native, the people would just as much stay broke than watch our one remaining point of pride, the State's natural beauty, raped for the sake of making sure some golf club can exist in Arizona.

Seconded.

ilambiquated:
wee: It's so you can eat tomatoes and lettuce and anything else that's not corn or soybeans.

California's farmers could probably produce the same stuff with a lot less water.

Working on water conservation, infrastructure and crop management to use less water is a high growth business right now too. Lots of potential money in there, along with GM crops and hybrid breeding to require less water, but maintain the same amount of food stuff per acre. Of course some crops are better than others for dry environments and it would help if we adopted them more often, than drain the water tables to eat what we are used too.

Obdicut: The ability of a state to balance their budget has nothing to do with their contributions to the fed.

Sure it does. It means they shouldn't be trusted to manage other states resources for them. Just like you wouldn't hire AIG to manage your company for you.

Oh, and fark lawns, everywhere. If you have to so much as turn on the hose to get a green lawn in your front yard, you are wasting water. It doesn't matter if it browns a little during the hottest point in the summer or has a bare patch. Gtf over it.

ilambiquated: Actually it's the farmers that waste all the water in the Eest, not the lawns and golf courses.

This may have something to do with the absurdly low prices they pay for it.

Plus which, the most wasteful community I know of when it comes to a sense of entitlement regarding over-watered lawns is heavily Republican, California-hating, McCain-loving Phoenix. You'd think a quarter acre of Bermuda had its own special amendment to the Constitution.

namatad: surrrrrreeeeeee
we will sell our water to CA
but we wnt it up front in CASH
wait, CA is broke cause they are too stupid to raise taxes to match spending
(got to love binding referendums which dictate spending but not how to pay for it)fark em, let them burn

Every time California's situation comes up, somebody regurgitates the Democrat's spin that it's due to the voters having encumbered the state with "spending mandates". Other than Proposition 98 that requires that we spend 40% of the budget on schools, there aren't any restrictions/mandates of any significance. The money for the occasional bonds that Californians have voted for amount to a drop in the bucket compared to the overall state budget, and even many of them came with taxes to fund them.

California is in the fix that it is because of one thing: wild overspending. Not a lack of taxes; we pay the highest or nearly the highest in every category with the exception of property taxes (thank God for Prop 13), where we're in the middle. The state doesn't have an income problem, it has a spending addiction problem, and it's the Democrat-infested legislature's fault, along with Governor Schwarzenegger-Schriver, not the voter's. Well, it's the voter's fault for electing and reelecting those dopes, but other than that ...

Lost Thought 00: Sure it does. It means they shouldn't be trusted to manage other states resources for them. Just like you wouldn't hire AIG to manage your company for you.

Okay. You were entirely wrong to say Californians require subsidies. You are, apparently, under the impression that California routes water from the Great Lakes over the Rockies-- it doesn't. You are saying nothing remotely accurate, or relevant to the article. You might want to stop before the whole foot is down your throat.

You appear to not like California. That's fine. Don't move here.

Exodus2001: I live in Wisconsin near Lake Michigan and this would be Declaration of War. If the Democratic Congress votes YES on this I will vote straight ticket (R) in 2010 and 2012.

The Democrats will pay dearly for this if it's passed. They will lose every state that touches the Great Lakes for a generation.

If they would like to lose the White House and Congress in 2012, this would be a good way to start. I will vote for anybody that runs on a platform of defending the Great Lakes no matter what else they stand for.

I agree. I would vote for anyone who would campaign for the great lakes regardless of party line.

stjohn: Although that's not mentioned anywhere in the article, subby, the chances of the west stealing water from the rust belt are pretty small. Although, who knows, maybe MI would jump at the chance to be less broke.

You bet your ass we would at this time. The problem is, we have a "Great Lakes" Czar appointed by Obama who can pretty much arbitrarily decide to give it away free if he wanted. He only answers to the President; so I'm kind of curious to see how this goes and who is actually behind all of the negotiations.

/I mean the guy can't focus on Suckerfish all the time right?

Begun, the Water Wars have.

So I live in Michigan currently but I am from southern Arizona.

Grass lawns are few and far between. We have rock lawns, full of colorful rocks and desert designs. We use a lot of waste water that's been treated for non drinking purposes. We have technically been in a drought for the last 20 something years and have restrictions on water usage.

/Miss home
//it's summer here and I still have to wear a hoody in the morning and it's going to be cold again in three months. If people were meant to live in the north they would have fur pelts.

Shadowknight: As a Michigan native, the people would just as much stay broke than watch our one remaining point of pride, the State's natural beauty, raped for the sake of making sure some golf club can exist in Arizona.

Speaking from North Carolina, I salute you.

ilambiquated: Actually it's the farmers that waste all the water in the Eest, not the lawns and golf courses.

This may have something to do with the absurdly low prices they pay for it.


Which may have something to do with the absurdly ok prices you pay for food.

Or do you eat grass?

Many people here in Michigan already think that our water is being stolen. And no, nobody is willing to sell it. A lot of people are blaming Illinois.

I haven't heard any evidence of a pipeline, but it is widely believed.

No one is going to pump water over the Rockies. Do you have any idea how much that would cost in both infrastructure and the in massive daily energy requirements? It would be cheaper to desalinate.

dasqoot: One of the more hilarious trollmitted headlines in a while. Bravo!

I second that.

pnjunction: Nooooo, not while Harper is in power. :..-(

Exactly what I was thinking. Say what you will about the Conservative Party on most issues, but when it comes to negotiating with the Americans, all they do is ass-kiss 'til we're allowed to use some lube.

Say what you will about the Liberal Party, but at least they understand that we're a separate country from the US and are not legally required to hand the White House whatever the fark it asks for.

/personally, I like the Greens
//if only because they're too impotent to have become corrupted

rczeien: Many people here in Michigan already think that our water is being stolen. And no, nobody is willing to sell it. A lot of people are blaming Illinois.

I haven't heard any evidence of a pipeline, but it is widely believed.

Everybody knows that the water is stolen with black helicopters under the direction of Randex Corp in conjunction with the Saucer People.

ilambiquated: wee: It's so you can eat tomatoes and lettuce and anything else that's not corn or soybeans.

California's farmers could probably produce the same stuff with a lot less water.

Yeah, when you are paying hundreds of dollars an acre foot, paying for a huge water conveyance system, or the highest water pumping electricity rates in the country, the is no incentive to minimize water use.

I'm surprised none of these huge multimillion agribusiness in CA have thought of that.

"This fall, in an unmarked office in the subbasement of the Minnesota state capitol, a team of resource-management planners is fine-tuning the biggest water-diversion project in the history of mankind and the largest transfer of wealth since Cortes acquired the Aztec empire.

Its code name is Excelsior, and the preliminary plan alone fills a portfolio the size of a breadbox. If all goes according to plan, the Governor of Minnesota will stand on a platform in Duluth and pull a golden lanyard, opening the gates of the Superior Diversion Canal, a concrete waterway the size of the Suez. Water from Lake Superior will flood into the canal at a rate of 50 billion gal. per hour and go south.

It will flow into the St. Croix River, to the Mississippi, south to an aqueduct at Keokuk, Iowa, and from there west to the Colorado River and into the Grand Canyon and many other southwestern canyons, filling them up to the rims--enough water to supply the parched Southwest from Los Angeles to Santa Fe for more than 50 years.
.
.
.
What will Excelsior mean? It means that America's Sunbelt retirees will be able to shower, flush toilets and have lush, green lawns for decades to come.

And it means that Minnesota will earn pots of money. Typically, residents of the Southwest today pay up to $45 per 1,000 cu. ft. of water. That price may rise as the aquifers of the Western plains recede and more rivers are diverted to irrigation. But assuming the price remains at $45 per 1,000 cu. ft., the value of Lake Superior would be an astounding $20 trillion. In addition, Minnesota would receive current market prices for the fish."

Minnesota's Sensible Plan (new window)

Reading through some of the comments on that site makes fark seem a bastion of intellect and reason

Now this is what I love in a Fark discussion: you're all arguing about something that doesn't exist because some submitter somewhere wrote gibberish on the internet bathroom wall.

It's called the Great Lakes Compact. The water belongs to the Great Lakes states, Quebec and Ontario. Bush signed it last year. Read it. It's in the book, that we wrote.

Parthenogenetic: Minnesota's Sensible Plan (new window)

14 year old article is 14 years old.

I don't see it happening.

I'm still astounded by the lack of concern over water conservation in Arizona though. Other states with much more water (some of which goes to Arizona) raise awareness regarding water conservation much higher, have more incentives for citizens to save water (thanks for the rebate when I bought my washer, BTW) and are quicker to enforce water restrictions.

Arizonans (many of them anyway) flood their lawns straight out of the water that comes from their taps. Some use effluent water, but not everyone does.

meat0918: Reading through some of the comments on that site makes fark seem a bastion of intellect and reason

Here's a good one:

The great lakes used to be filled with dead fish 40 years ago. It was so polluted it would spontaneously combust locally. Its the headwaters for all US north south rivers such as Illinois and Mississippi. I figure the US is getting set to drain them.

Yeah, they're not the headwaters for either of those rivers. The Mississippi comes form Lake Itasca and the Illinois forms in Central Illinois.

Canadians need more maps and such as.

mud_shark: Parthenogenetic: Minnesota's Sensible Plan (new window)

14 year old article is 14 years old.

I don't see it happening.

The fact that it was written by Garrison Keillor might have something to do with its plausibility.

AmazingRuss: Which may have something to do with the absurdly ok prices you pay for food.

Remember, raising the wage of farm labor will vastly increase the cost of fruit and vegetables. So much so that people will be unable to afford them. Raising the cost of the water used to irrigate the fields will have on such effect. The key point is that when brown people make more money, we all suffer.

Shadowknight: stjohn: Although that's not mentioned anywhere in the article, subby, the chances of the west stealing water from the rust belt are pretty small. Although, who knows, maybe MI would jump at the chance to be less broke.

As a Michigan native, the people would just as much stay broke than watch our one remaining point of pride, the State's natural beauty, raped for the sake of making sure some golf club can exist in Arizona.

This. Was just going to say "Michigan would rather starve than sell the Great Lakes to the west."