why bill richardson just fell down a notch

i haven't made up my mind who i'd like to support for president in 2008 yet, but this article in the lansing state journal just gave him a HUGE number of demerits in my mind.

here's the money quote:

"I want a national water policy," Richardson told the paper. "We need a dialogue between states to deal with issues like water conservation, water reuse technology, water delivery and water production. States like Wisconsin are awash in water." (emphasis mine)

ask anyone from michigan (like me) or the other great lakes states (and ontario)--there is concern that the rapidly growing southwest is going to sneak in a pipeline and drain the lakes for their own use.

plain and simple, continued growth (especially given the current growth patterns) in places like vegas, phoenix, tucson, and albequerque is not sustainable, and richardson is advocating for another lifeline that will help perpetuate this irresponsible growth.

i only hope that the governments of the great lakes states (and ontario) and get together and finally pass the water laws needed to protect the lakes and keep the water from superior, huron, michigan, erie, and ontario from supporting the ridiculous growth in the southwest.  because eventually, the pressure in the southwest will become too great, and without well thought-out safeguards, the great lakes will be at risk of becoming nothing more than a huge reservoir for the southwest.

read here also.

•  tips? flames? comments? have at it

  by IMGoph on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 06:44:17 PM PDT

  •  Atlanta

    and Charlotte might gaffle that water first.  We're kind of screwed down here.

    by kismet on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:30:32 PM PDT

    •  what's going on? say more n/t

      by invisiblewoman on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:47:43 PM PDT

      •  Major drought.

        Atlanta just announced Level  4 restrictions.  

        by kismet on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 09:46:01 AM PDT

  •  At least he raised the issue into the discussion

    Water needs to be discussed. So does (gmo) food, (clean) air, and wind (power).

    But especially water rights and private control.

    You might be right in being concerned about his solutions-- but few have raised it.

    Unfortuneately, it'll probably be lost and forgotten with the next cackle, affair rumor, or lack of lapel pin.

    by doinaheckuvanutjob on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 08:57:34 PM PDT

    •  too true

      it's a shame that substantial, worthwhile issues have a hard time getting a fair discussion these days anywhere on the campaign trail.

      by IMGoph on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 08:58:52 PM PDT

•  Yes, the growth in the Southwest is really stupid

  by DemocraticLuntz on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 06:46:35 PM PDT

•  You bring up a good point

  about the southwest's need for water and the need for water laws to protect our natural resources. We also need to enforce the fed. environmental statutes that are on the books. Conservation and environmental protection have been slaughtered by this admninistration.

  by byteb on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 06:48:28 PM PDT

•  okay, as long as

  you promise not to burn any of our natural gas to keep your house warm in future winters.

  Deal? Or does that put a new perspective on it for you?

  Maybe a little support for the state and local orgs in the southwest who are already fighting the mindless sprawl that's runing our communities would be a more positive approach to take.

  by PhoenixRising on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 06:51:39 PM PDT

  •  i'll agree with you...

    you're right, better planning in the southwest would be a great start.

    and FYI, my parent's house (i'm no longer in michigan myself, just a michigander at heart) is heated with a geothermal heat pump system, so, to the best of my knowledge, they aren't burning anyone's natural gas to heat the house.

    by IMGoph on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 08:57:35 PM PDT

•  Seems like just yesterday...

  (or no more than a couple of months ago) that Texas was 'awash' in water - flooding everywhere. Ogalalah, anyone?

  by va dare on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 06:55:41 PM PDT

•  Oh bloody hell no.

  Not that I was going to get to vote for him in the primary, anyways, but I had been kind of seriously considering him - but no. No. NO.

  If the people of the desert southwest want Great Lakes water, they should move here.

  by Cathy Willey on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:00:29 PM PDT

  •  Sell Them The Water...

    ...after the Leinenkugel, Point, Pabst, Miller or even Budweiser label has been affixed to the bottle!

    by howardpark on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:37:50 PM PDT

•  Economics

  Let's think about it.  If the Southwest is running out of water to sustain its population and the Great Lakes region and the Southwest cannot secure other water sources then it follows that the Southwest will cease to grow.  Then they hydraulic effect kicks in-- that is, all the people who otherwise would've moved to the Southwest will instead move to places, such as Wisconsin, that can sustain them.  The result?  The lakes still get drained but Family X is draining it from Wisconsin instead of from Arizona.  

  I agree that it would be a shame to lose the Great Lakes-- as it is a shame to lose any natural resource-- but the problem is over population and poor conservation efforts not people in another state needing water.

  I live in South Dakota... inbetween the Great Lakes and Southwest.  I guess I'm just saying that I'm not bias.

  by Tetris on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:02:15 PM PDT

  •  Or people live where they live

    and ban Home Owner Associations which require people to have green lawns in the DESERT!!

    It is not as simple as you suggest.

    by thepdxbikerboy on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:13:56 PM PDT

    •  Yeah, Phoenix

      especially seems really dumb about that.  Tucson at least allows xeroscaping and rockscaping.

      by kismet on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:34:12 PM PDT

    •  Requiring green lawns? That's obscene. n/t

      by Fiona West on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:45:02 PM PDT

      •  Oh yeah! They even have a little color chart

        and drive around in golf carts and fine you if your lawn is not an acceptable shade of green.

        Can't find the story right now, but it was in the news a month or so ago.

        by thepdxbikerboy on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:54:32 PM PDT

  •  All the water 'drained' by Lake Michigan

    locally is bound by law to be cleaned and returned to the lake.  There is a case pending right now where a suburb of Milwaukee is trying to be able to use the water from lake Michigan and divert it into the Missippi river instead of the lake.  I hope this doesn't go through.  Up until now, however, the 'draining' does not happen.  

    I would be fine with anyone using water in from lake Michigan if they accepted the same policy, BTW.  If the southwest uses it, they need to clean it and bring it back!  

    by invisiblewoman on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:37:20 PM PDT

    •  more

      If the suburb gets clearance from the DNR to award Milwaukee a million dollars (as if Milwaukee has the right to give this away!) to be able to pipe water to this suburb without demanding that it be returned to the lake, then Richardson's statement will be true.  
      If a suburb of Milwaukee can go around this law, then there is nothing stopping any other state from doing the same.  

      by invisiblewoman on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:46:29 PM PDT

•  This is a big issue in Oregon, as well,

  though it doesn't get much coverage lately. Periodically, California tries to steal rights to Oregon water, and it takes big political mojo to keep it from happening.

  And Oregon generates most of its energy with water -- hydroelectrically. And most petroleum product comes from Canada and Alaska.

  The Southwest is making its own bed. Let it lie in it or work out legitimate arrangements for sources, instead of attempting through legislation to steal water from other parts of the country.

  by Vico on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:03:24 PM PDT

•  okay, as long as

  you promise to pay full market value for the water, the same amount as you pay at the grocery store.  That would be expensive, just do the math.

  Agree on the sprawl, we have it here too :(

  by detroittrader on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:04:30 PM PDT

•  I totally agree. To say that they are "awash"

  in water, is to suggest that they have more than "they need." Which is absolutely ridiculous.

  States have the water they have. That's nature.

  As I've said with other topics, it's so unfair it's fair.

  They've got the water. It theirs.

  The whole Vegas thing; don't get me started. That place should dry up and blow away. It is an environmental tumor. Sorry to those who live there, but it's a desert. There is hardly a better monument to the hubris of the United States than Las Vegas.

  I totally agree. Richardson continues to dig himself into a hole that I've no interest in rescuing him from.

  by thepdxbikerboy on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:11:19 PM PDT

•  I posted something similar at Prairie State Blue

  His comment raised my eyebrows as well.

  We have tourism issues as well in the Midwest and we depend on the Lakes to move commerce too.   Personally, I think Nevada and Arizona have too many golf courses.  I like golf, but draining the Colorado for them isn't prudent either.

  And Richardson hasn't been to Wisconsin in awhile.  The Wisconsin River is way down.

  http://www.prairiestateblue.com/...

  by benny05 on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:19:44 PM PDT

•  Seems unlikely

  I am finding it hard to believe that it could be economical to transport water from the Midwest to the West.

  by mattinjersey on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:26:18 PM PDT

  •  Dehydrated H2O -

    Is cheaper to ship - - ;-)

    by johnnygunn on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 08:32:36 PM PDT

•  This is already happening

  Perrier, using the brand ‘Ice Mountain’ has been bottling water from a massive underground aquifer hydrologically connected to Lake Michigan for the past year. It pumps 200-400 gallons per minute and has a potential profit of $1.8 million dollars per day. While earning huge amounts it only cost Perrier US$85 to get the permit to suck water out of the ground. To lure the company to Michigan the former governor awarded tax abatements exceeding US$9.5 million over a ten-year period. The plant has promised to create 30-60 jobs. At best each job is subsidized with $160,000 tax dollars per job; at worst it's doubled.

  (from Public Citizen)  

  We DO need a national water policy, but not what Richardson is saying.  We need to declare them nationally protected ecosystems.  We also need to get federal help to clean them up!  

  Funny... I was looking at his ads today and liking him for his wit.  I was thinking he deserved another look.  

  by invisiblewoman on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:29:39 PM PDT

  •  He has a lot of intelligence and ability in the

    foreign relations area -- he's been nominated for the Nobel peace prize 4 times.  I hope whoever becomes (Democratic) president makes use of his talents as a diplomat.  But may be not in water policy, hmmm?

    by Fiona West on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:44:15 PM PDT

•  It's Time to Sell the Water In Wisconsin...

  ...after the water is combined with hops, yeast & barley, brewed, aged & bottled!

  by howardpark on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:29:42 PM PDT

•  Billy Dickson

  is about as low as you can goi in my book anyway

  by Salo on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:43:49 PM PDT

•  Seriously, any massive water diversion would be..

  ...from Canada, not the Great Lakes if geography & economics come into play.  This is a major, emerging issue that may dominate regional politics by mid-century.  

  by howardpark on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:46:11 PM PDT

•  Water Flows Uphill - -

  Towards money.

  by johnnygunn on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 08:18:41 PM PDT

•  Thanks to Bill Richardson!

     Some of the Great Lake states have been slow to approve the regional and international compact with Canada to protect the watershed of the Great Lakes. Now that Richardson has expressed the desire of western politicians to tap into the lakes, maybe the local legislators will get the message and act soon.  I now live in Michigan but have some sympathy for the southwestern cities having lived in beautiful San Diego for 15 years. However, the southwest will need to seriously look toward conservation, recycling and desalinzation for future growth. When I lived there, all they had were pilot projects.    

  by marvyt on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 08:29:08 PM PDT

•  Speaking as a Wisconsinite with a real concern

  about water quality, since I get my water from a well, I actually agree with Richardson...but for other reasons.  Right now our water table is being lowered due to city growth & water bottling plants (an utter waste of resources if there ever were one).  And we ask states in the SW to store our spent nuclear fuel.  So it seems fair to me that a national policy be developed on these issues of resource use (and waste storage), bearing in mind that it's foolish to expand agriculture and human population in areas which wouldn't naturally support it.

  by skrekk on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 08:31:12 PM PDT

•  While we're distracted by regional conflict over

  water (a valid issue requiring fairness) let's not lose our eye on the ball that there's a bigger issue of large, ruthless corporate entities buying up water rights and reselling water at exorbitant prices. They do it in the 3d world, but it's quietly happening here.

  In fact, Bill Clinton warned about it before he left office, as has Gorbachev and others.

  Don't lose sight of this.

  Our candidates should be questioned on their views of this as well as regional water distribution fairness.

  by doinaheckuvanutjob on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 09:01:32 PM PDT

•  Fall down?....

  ....this finishes Richardson in the Great Lakes midwest....stick a fork in him...he's done...

  by LakeSuperior on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 09:52:40 PM PDT