Do you think the federal government should force states with an abundance of water to provide water to states?

Question

like Georgia, North Carolina and tennessee who are experiencing droughts, or should they let the local government deal with the issues themselves?

Answer 1

No they shouldn't.  I live on the Great Lakes and often hear of attempts to divert the water to the southeast.  This water is one of the advantages our area enjoys.  

If industry and individuals were so shortsighted that the moved into areas with limited water that is their problem.  Why should the be rewarded to a poor decision by the government spending millions to dig canals to get water to them.  

If there isn't enough water in those areas either live with it or move to an area with an abundance of water......

Answer 2

For water rights, let the states manage the water resources.  Nobody tells the Texans and the Alaskans that they need to share the oil wealth.

Please leave nature as is...if people and businesses in Georgia, NC, Tennessee, etc. want cheaper water, move to Michigan and Wisconsin.  There's plenty of land available for you.

Answer 3

In the event of an emergency feds could get involved. In the meantime how about the people in Georgia pick up those tires and other trash the receding water has revealed

Answer 4

Droughts happen!  We also are in the midst of a drought and we are handling it ourselves.  One doesn't water the lawn or wash their cars and when we take a shower we wet our body, turn the shower off then soap up and then turn the shower back on until the soap is washed off. It saves a lot of water.  We have many farms here and the water going to them has been curtailed a great deal and most crops will not make it.  We have not asked for other states to supply us with their water.  But other states have tried in the past to get ours. If you can't handle it --move somewhere else.  You can expect many more years of it with the change in climate and robbing other states of their water won't help.

Answer 5

Nope, and we should stop putting 50,000,000 people in CA. and stop building more and more houses in Malibu.

Did your Governments know, that California is dessert?

Answer 6

in 50 years we will all be fighting over clean, fresh, potable water. Great Lakes States will be rich like the oil nations in the middle east and will be willing to fight for their water.

Answer 7

That is an interesting question and certainly a shared responsibility.

The funny thing is that I saw that someone was pushing for Alabama to give up water to GA.  Alabama is also experiencing a water shortage this year so that's not really a solution.

I'm not an expert on water sources but I would say there are better solutions which could include a temporary desalinization facility on the Georgian coast.  That would seem to be more cost efficient than shipping Great Lakes water in.  And I know that's a possibility because I saw temporary facilities of the same type in Kuwait during Desert Storm.

Another problem is the lack of water re-utilization.  Today we use potable water to flush our toilets when we could have dual water supply systems in our houses.  If you look at Tampa FL, they purify sewage water to the extent that it is potable (i.e. drinkable) and water the golf courses with it because some consider it unpalatable.  But the fact is that sewage water is dual purpose, it actually fertilizes as well as waters.

Answer 8

You're talking to someone from the arid West, so water here is a very touchy subject. NO! The government doesn't need to get into water issues. Stop the nanny c**p. People need to solve their own problems. Here's a few suggestions! They work out here.

Start with no car washes, no washing parking lots (try sweeping) no washing dogs, let the grass and flowers in the parks, golf courses and medians die. Replant later. Food producing plants need to be saved if possible, and gray water (from the dishwasher, clothes washer, shower or bathtub can go a long way toward saving producing fruit trees and vegetables.) Recycle sewage water. Collect water off roofs.

Find every possible way to save water, then start negotiating with the neighbors who have extra water. Yup, they're probably going to charge you for it and charge you good, but the next time it's dry in their area, you'll make all that money back, by overcharging them, I'm sure.

Water is precious. Use it wisely - food production, health care (showers, clean clothes) - forget the golf courses, parks, and clean cars. That's just stupid in drought conditions.

Answer 9

SLA's answer is pretty good except for one unfortunate fact. Most Americans won't do it. Voluntary programs won't work. I live in a drought-striken state in the west and people still wash their driveways with the hose. The reason? No incentive not to.

Only 36 of the 50 states even has a Drought Plan and all of these are reactionary; they only go into effect in the presence of a drought. What is needed is a comprehensive plan for the APPROPRIATE allocation of water which actually is in short supply in every state in the union except for Alaska. The main reason for this has been population growth and mal-use of water.  The Federal Government should devise guidlines (as requested by 10 western state governors) for reasonable and fair water policy.

A complete rethink of water use needs to be made with an eye to use and reuse.

The only realistic solution is in conservation and this will not be successful if voluntary. Perhaps Americans should have to pay the FULL cost of the water they so carfreely waste.

Here is an analogy from energy use that has application here.: In the late 1960's planners in Washington (state) realized that with the continued population growth that was experienced @ that time it was determined that the region would run out of hydro-electric generated electricity. To meet this expected increased demand the state created WPPSS (Washington Public Power Supply System, prounounced whoops). This agency sold bonds to finance the building of five nuclear power plants. But something happened between the letting of the bonds and the completion of the plants; the Arab-Israeli war of 1973 that led to the oil embargo and the "energy crisis ". Because of the need for drastic conservation Washingtonians discovered triple pained windows, R-50 insulation and a host of other conservation measures (mandated by the State of Washington). As a result, to this day Washington, despite accomodating more immigration than originally predicted continues to have a SURPLUS of electricity. Oh, and since the five reactors weren't needed one was mothballed and the others cancelled and WPPSS defaulted.

Answer 10

I think that the local government should help their residents conserve the little water that they have. Maybe this will help them realize that there are alot of things we take for granted and our natural resources are included in that. If the local government reaches out to other states that would be fine but it is not the resposibilty of the feds to enforce it.

Answer 11

It is kind of a slippery slope. The Federal government should stay out of State matters, but if it is an emergency then the Federal government should step in if the State cannot handle the situation. The problem is determining what incidents a State cannot handle.

Answer 12

I think the federal government needs to stick to the constitution and the states need to take some responsibility.

Answer 13

No they should not.  That would set a very dangerous precedent for nationalizing resources and distributing them as some bureaucrat see fit.