[buffoon]

Originally Posted by pyritechips

Umm, you're not bursting my bubble. You have either misquoted me or misunderstood what I said. I am not doubting the size of Lake Baikal (if you are going to refer to something it is at least proper to name it. A size and link would be even better). At 23,600 cubic Kilometers it is huge, but that is only one lake. Look here and look at the Great Lakes system (which is one large lake geologically, if not by nomenculture) then add in such lakes as Great Bear and Great Slave in Northern Canada. Use Google Earth to zoom over Canada and see how the landscape is literally spotted with lakes, both large and small, all due thanks to our last Ice Age. There has already been talks concerning the sale of Canadian water to the drought-ridden American South West. That area has reduced the mighty Colorado to a trickle at its mouth.

Since whacko Jacko I steer well clear of any "bubbles" and to pick a nit is an alien concept to me, but if you emptied Baikal and filled it with the great lakes you'd still have room for Bear and Slave and then some.
All of which is totally irrelevant to the topic of course.

I dunno whether there has been any improvement recently but your analogy of the Colorado remind me that the Rio Grande would not have reached the Gulf some years ago,if it hadn't been fed by the Concho from the Mexican side.

I'm travelling right now but will be home in about two days. Then I'd like to pick up on water's properties as a commodity just like oil. 'cept that it's not taken and sold like oil is but its development is where the buck lies.
To the point that a new multi-national corporate colonialism takes over a country's water sources, enhances them, empowers itself in its distribution (to the affluent of that country), creams of the profits and leaves the poor without access (of course with the aid of the inefficient government of that country).

I commented on this some while ago in another thread but have only limited internet access right now (both in time and speed) so I'll look it up when I get home.

[CADude12]

Originally Posted by iltos

for the life of me, i cannot understand how government co-operation isn't one component of this issue: it would seem to benefit both free enterprise and society alike....their symbiotic relationship looks undenyable, regardless of any disparities of wealth or progress.

this is how i interpret tom's point about "developing a perspective"

It depends on what role the government decides to play... earlier you referred to:

like allowing 13 million people to inhabit an area where the available fresh water sources can maybe sustain half of that (southern california)?

So, the government failed long ago to curtail the problem. Today, either we force people out (a Stalin-like approach), or we force them out by limiting their choices and raising their costs (Obama style), or we come up with another way to deal with it.

Tom's point seems to be that we haven't had the time to evolve (oh, there's that dirty word again) our approach, and taking the time to think of a real solution, instead of a knee jerk reaction of "of course water is a right", and then trying to implement that. Or, "no it isn't -- pay up or get out".

Right now, we have the other Stalinist approach to the problem - "To each according to his need, from each according to his means...." And the Colorado runs dry, so I can take a shower every day, just like the 13 million others.

Golf courses, people with lush green lawns, etc. are also sucking up the water, in an unnecessary way, IMO. But they are paying for it.... I forgot, it's all about money. If you're paying for it, it's OK. I don't think so. This is where the government could have a constructive role.

[buffoon]

jmosmith argued some days back that water is a human right by deduction of life being a (declared) human right (water being of absolute necessity for its sustenance).

Trouble is that a lot of things are declared and when all is said and done that's what we have (as usual a lot said and nothing done).

Leaving aside the basic right to life for the minute, wrt to water (and other issues of resource) a coupla things seem to have gotten themselves lost time and time again, one of them being that with rights come responsibilities. From each according to his means and to each according to his needs (Marxism BTW, not Stalinism) is a nice sounding concept but does not address reality (of which humankind constitutes part), which is why communism has consistently failed.

What has really gotten itself lost in this respect is the individual understandiung of water within large parts of Western population. It ain't just coming from the tap. And when we have either government or private enterprise handling its supply we invariably have two entitities which do not understand it either (their perspectives are limited to their today's agenda and maybe theirs of tomorrow).

[wacor]

Originally Posted by buffoon

when we have either government or private enterprise handling its supply we invariably have two entitities which do not understand it either (their perspectives are limited to their today's agenda and maybe theirs of tomorrow).

That is a very good observation. Also thrown into the mix are eco-nut groups with extreme agendas who muck it up with junk science. Makes it quite a mess to sort out. And unfortunately the govt sides with them which further creates a divide between the public and private entities.

[buffoon]

WRT to government vs. private enterprise one can have it this way:

quote
........ one of those misconceptions as water is very much a commodity exploited in corporate colonialism by those same corporations. And it's gonna get worse.

In 1998, local councils had begun taking steps to commercialize their waterworks by forcing residents to pay the full cost of drinking water. But many of the millions of people living in the tin-roof slums of the region couldn't afford the rates. Cut off at the tap, they were forced to find water in streams, ponds and lakes polluted with manure and human waste. By January 2002, when the worst cholera epidemic in South Africa's history ended, it had infected more than 250,000 people and killed almost 300, spreading as far as Johannesburg, 300 miles away.

The seeds of the epidemic had been sown long before South Africa decided to take its deadly road to privatization. They were largely planted by an aggressive group of utility companies, primarily European, that are attempting to privatize the world's drinking water with the help of the World Bank and other international financial institutions.

The three water biggies are Vivendi Environnement and Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux of France and (this one's for you RSM) Thames Water of UK. But they're meanwhile owned by Germany's RWE so I guess some opportunities weren't utilized in '45.

In case anyone is still feeling comfortable across the pond, this is how a Monsanto strategy paper nicely states it:

We are particularly enthusiastic about the potential of partnering with the International Finance Corporation (IFC) of the World Bank to joint venture projects in developing markets. The IFC is eager to work with Monsanto to commercialize sustainability opportunities and would bring both investment capital and on-the-ground capabilities to our efforts.

I'll translate that. They're actually viewing the crisis of water depletion and pollution as a business opportunity.

"sustainable development" is conversion of an ecological crisis into a scarce resources market.

And on the premise that population growth (and economic development) will create increasing pressure on natural resources (markets) they are, of course, quite right.
unquote

taken from http://forums.techguy.org/6694200-post47.html
........which shows the problems to go far beyond whether Canada can ever be pressurized to supply the US's SouthWest with water for the golf courses

[wacor]

Invalid link

This issue is why there was a Great Lakes compact. To control the waters in the Great Lakes from being taken by other areas

[buffoon]

or this way:

My microscopic view comes from a country's area where water is scarce and always has been. I live halfway up a valley which in winter and in winter only has a river running that is fed from the Sierras. There are two villages further down and two villages further up. All had a tradition of branching off so much water for their own use that anyone further down got a trickle at best. Warfare erupted but it fortunately confined itself to the use of flails, cudgels and pitchforks (but broken bones were not uncommon).

So a council was convened (as in all other parts of this large country) and the water rights were regulated. Which meant that everybody got a certain time of it (to open the little sluice gates for letting water onto his fields) Woe betide anybody (even from one's own community) who took a minute more than allocated. No government was involved, neither local mayor nor higher up, although the mayor's voice was heard but only as one of many.

Long since we have formed an enterprise that has drilled wells high up in the sierras which give abundant supply. It is not a private enterprise from which we buy water. We buy the right to water by buying a share of the enterprise. We own it, the enterprise and the water. Those that are not shareholders have to see how they cope. Any one of us may sell his share and thus his water right. But by unanimous consent of all other shareholders only. Which is why past ventures to set up, for instance, a large rural hotel complex for the bloody snowbirds who find the coast more and more unattractive have been soundly thrashed.

No water for hotels here, ye money grabbing scum arrrghh!! And if you wanna talk golf courses up here you better be wearing suits of Kevlar.

A socialist model??? Hardly. Those of us that have seen socialism at work know that such common sense and socialism would have excluded one another.

The shares are still counted in time by the way. You don't have so and so many shares but a quarter, a half or two hours etc. Dates back to the old rights of sluice gate time although those are long since defunct.

And what does government do??? Everytime the drought gets bad and the hotels on the coast and the golf courses look like running out they try to file for legislation in the state capital. To take our water.

It hasn't come to pass yet. We all have shotguns up here, legally. And I'm not saying what else we have.

Overpopulation IS a big issue. But PEOPLE are the problem, even in areas not overpopulated.

WE understand water, THEY down there don't.

[buffoon]

Originally Posted by wacor

Invalid link

This issue is why there was a Great Lakes compact. To control the waters in the Great Lakes from being taken by other areas

Sorry, I've edited it in my post and here it is again http://forums.techguy.org/6694200-post47.html.

It is somewhat OT in that it dealt with treatment of water in 3rd world countries but it exemplifies IMO the problems that occur if water is understood as just another produce.

There's a lot of stuff one can sell without actually understanding its nature
(real estate, toxic bonds etc.) but with water the ignorance of the handlers, government or private enterprise, should get them removed from the field completely.

[buffoon]

Originally Posted by wacor

That is a very good observation. Also thrown into the mix are eco-nut groups with extreme agendas who muck it up with junk science. Makes it quite a mess to sort out. And unfortunately the govt sides with them which further creates a divide between the public and private entities.

I don't mind any "green" coming up with some constructive ideas on better efficiency of use, transport, furthering and conserving. But he'd better have grown up with it as the locals have. Wild theorizing on something learned in college is all very well but if it clashes with the realities on hand, go play on somebody else's lawn.

Governments have learned that "green" is an issue which sells well with the public. So out of completely populistic motivations they have begun to not only side with the ideas but to actually take them over (greens here originally got quite a lot of votes which the more established parties have now taken). Trouble is that siding with populistic notions does not automatically bring wisdom. Ignorance on the topic can only be overcome by learning about the topic. But then they have to be more concerned with making vote-grabbing statements. After all, THEIR water DOES come out of a tap.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by buffoon

What has really gotten itself lost in this respect is the individual understandiung of water within large parts of Western population. It ain't just coming from the tap.

just a little tidbit thrown in here....seems so darn obvious in hindsight that i feel foolish never having considered it.....
but almost without exception -the few notable ones are in 3rd world nations undergoing rapid industrial development- water for household use and water for industrial use are right around 10% each per country, regardless of a nation's economic status......
80% goes to food production.
for those few exceptions, water for industrial use pushes 20%.

And when we have either government or private enterprise handling its supply we invariably have two entitities which do not understand it either (their perspectives are limited to their today's agenda and maybe theirs of tomorrow).

most reports i've seen point this out.....there is no long range planning....always the ghost in the machine.

[buffoon]

Originally Posted by wacor

anybody who thinks there will be govts cooperating with each other has not paid attention to mankind. We have at least a couple thousand years of known history to show what to expect.

You guys act like the water disappears. It ends up back in the ground. The problem is we have population growth, irrigation and now bottled water that removes if from its natural place. As I said it either gets shifted to another area where it ends up returning to the ground or if it stays local it takes longer to return to aquifers than it is removed.

A good example of a problem I know of is a little village nearby. For years south of one road there was a percentage of lots that could not perk so there were no homes built on several lots. Then the village decided there were problems with too many septic systems so they had a pressure sewer installed. I am not sure but I think most people were forced to hook up to the pressure sewer. Anyway since now there was no issue with perk tests any longer probably 5% more homes were added which filled up all the lots in this area that is a mile wide and about 1/3 mile deep on lots that probably ranged from 1/2 to one acre or larger.

During a couple of very severe drought periods the water table dropped and some wells were impacted. All but a couple homes they were able to lower the pumps and maintain the water flow. So what happened is two fold. A location that was ok with what was available prior now had a serious problem during severe droughts because .. (a)more homes and water usage (b)sewage was not returned into the ground directly as in the past so that recharge was lost. I should add that the idiots took no measures to curb their irrigation usage. These spoiled rich folk did not want their precious lawns to look anything less than spectacular. With reasonable conservation of merely limiting irrigation to every other day the problem likely would have been alleviated.

I've been travelling so could look in only occasionally but made a note of this one to address.

It is just one of many examples that we could both give, I reckon.

Microcosmic they may appear but they can easily be extrapolated onto the larger picture.

If access to water is ever to be (maintained or gained) a public right, then I maintain my position that with rights come responsibilities. Of all.

The planners, the developers, the estate agents, the buyers, the whole bloody lot. On village scale, town scale, city scale, wordl scale.

OK, a utopian thought, I know. So I don't have much hope.

But on the topic of water being a human right (I don't like the concept at all since it seems to preclude practicalities, of water, not of rights) I propose that unless anyone is a 8th generation Bedouin or Apache (I trust them with having common sense in abundance), they don't have any rights to live in the desert AND have more water than they need per day to keep from dehydrating.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by buffoon

If access to water is ever to be (maintained or gained) a public right, then I maintain my position that with rights come responsibilities. Of all.

The planners, the developers, the estate agents, the buyers, the whole bloody lot. On village scale, town scale, city scale, wordl scale.

OK, a utopian thought, I know. So I don't have much hope.

at this point, the battle seems to be developing those responsbilities on a local scale....without that, anything larger can't help but become subject to the confluence of planning and free enterprise -developers- who i have nothing but cynicism for

[buffoon]

Originally Posted by iltos

just a little tidbit thrown in here....seems so darn obvious in hindsight that i feel foolish never having considered it.....
but almost without exception -the few notable ones are in 3rd world nations undergoing rapid industrial development- water for household use and water for industrial use are right around 10% each per country, regardless of a nation's economic status......
80% goes to food production.
for those few exceptions, water for industrial use pushes 20%.

most reports i've seen point this out.....there is no long range planning....always the ghost in the machine.

I'll have to look up how much water goes into a PC (not actually but used in the production of)

But yup, we gotta eat as well, not just drink and wash

Trouble is when we get disparities like Spain supplying Northern Europe with fruits well ahead or well after the time that that stuff grows up there anyway (Not a 1st-3rd world problem but a North South disparity with only a coupla thousand kilometres in between).

There are plastic film greenhouses to the East of here which cover the coast all the way to the hills. Three, four crops a year. The wells drilled to supply the necessary irrigation have dropped the groundwater level to the point that the sea's salt water is encroaching underground. Almeria has the only hot desert in Europe and it's growing (virtually no rainfall, the aquifers are fed from the inland mountains up north).

The farmers get a pittance for their pains compared to the prices fetched up north and along the way by dealers and agents.

The place is disgusting to look at (less important), an ecological disaster (of far more pertinence) and the problem will solve itself eventually by it becoming uninhabitable. As king of the world I'd like to close it down now but what would I tell the farmers? That it's their fault?

This one is not an overpopulation problem. It's a people problem. A mind problem.

And once again one arrives at the same spot, which happens when going round in circles.

Legislate?? Leave to to the free market powers?? What??

The question is sincere 'cos I truly have no answer myself (if I did I WOULD be king of the world)

[iltos]

Originally Posted by buffoon

This one is not an overpopulation problem. It's a people problem. A mind problem.

And once again one arrives at the same spot, which happens when going round in circles.

Legislate?? Leave to to the free market powers?? What??

most of what i've read points to the free market system OR local agencies as being the more efficient manager of water as a resource....but seeing as how free enterprise brings buckets of money to the table, the influence it exerts over nation state policies is probably the hinge......

so my idealism points to those big political units as the handlers of the responsibility...which is kinda depressing.

[buffoon]

Originally Posted by iltos

at this point, the battle seems to be developing those responsbilities on a local scale....without that, anything larger can't help but become subject to the confluence of planning and free enterprise -developers- who i have nothing but cynicism for

Yeppers. That is what I observe as well (including the take on developers).

Just as an observation, I've seen city slickers here actually learn to turn of the tap while brushing their teeth and the shower while lathering the soap and to turn on in both cases only for the purpose of rinsing only.

If that's what rationing water supply to a coupla hours per week in summer and having to revert to whatever receptacles does, maybe we ought to introduce it in the cities.

We may well have to anyway, educational function or not (but WHEN we have to it will be VERY educational indeed).