Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Recycled Water-Would You Drink It?

Recycled water Rejected Out Of Fear, Say Critics

In the video I will link below, the people in it claim they wouldn't mind drinking recycled water... well, that is because they can still go in a store and buy a bottle of Evian if they so desire. They can say they would drink it only because they really don't have to drink it. And also notice in this video that not one person stated that they would work on conserving the water they use now for showers, etc. Just give them the quick fix so they don't have to bother about changing the way they live their lives. I don't know, perhaps they will change their tunes when their new water bills come in and they see how much those recycling plants are going to cost them, especially when they waste as much of that now as they are wasting the water they already have. The Howard government sure will be making out on this drought, won't they?

In my view, recycled water is a good proposal for industrial/commercial use, but for agriculture and drinking no way. However, if the people in Australia really do wish to have it, then how about shipping all of the Evian that is making corporations billions in profits to the people in Africa and other under developed countries who could really use it because all they have to drink is feces infected toxic water that is not treated? Let's see how many people change their minds about putting their lips to a glass of it when they have no other choice.

Video/Recycled Drinking Water, Anyone?

About Reclaimed Water

The reason this type of water is now going to be pumped into faucets is clear: It is cheaper and in the case of Australia in an election year, it makes Howard look good. However, the longterm health effects of drinking recycled water must be taken into account as well as viruses and organisms that can get into the water even with a filtration process. As always, conservation is the best answer now as is addressing the burning of fossil fuels that is in part causing the conditions for drought. However again, it doesn't seem as though human nature is yet ready to admit that it has any responsibility in what it is reaping by its own actions.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Montana Sues Wyoming Over Water Rights





















Montana Sues Wyoming Over Water Rights

Montana sues Wyoming over water rights By MATTHEW BROWN, Associated Press Writer
Thu Feb 1, 1:18 PM ET

BILLINGS, Mont. - Montana sued Wyoming in the U.S. Supreme Court Thursday over water rights in two shared rivers, which Montana claims are running dry due to Wyoming's overuse.

The lawsuit over the Tongue and Powder rivers, which flow from northeastern Wyoming into southeastern Montana, marks a sharp escalation in an acrimonious water fight between the states.

The lawsuit alleges Wyoming is ignoring Montana's "senior" water rights by taking more water from the rivers than allowed under the 1950 Yellowstone River Compact. That includes water diverted and stored for irrigation and groundwater pumped from beneath the surface during coal-bed methane production.

"We're running out of water," said Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer. "It's getting worse every year as Wyoming is using more and more water. ... Our farmers and ranchers who depend on this water for irrigation are having difficulty raising their crops."

Wyoming Attorney General Pat Crank rejected claims his state is taking too much water. "We believe Wyoming has correctly allocated water pursuant to the compact and will continue to do so into the future," he said.

The 1950 compact calls for disagreements to go straight to the Supreme Court for resolution.

Both states have suffered from a prolonged drought dating to 1999. Wyoming State Engineer Patrick Tyrell said that in recent years due to the drought, only a "small fraction" of Wyoming's water users in the Powder and Tongue river basins received the water they needed.

But Montana officials say their state is bearing the greater burden. Montana Natural Resources and Conservation Director Mary Sexton said anyone flying over the border region last summer would have seen a sharp contrast: green on the Wyoming side, brown in Montana.

Montana officials could not quantify how much water they believe the state is owed.
The lawsuit also names North Dakota as a defendant, but only because that state also is part of the water compact. Montana officials said the lawsuit seeks no relief from North Dakota.

Montana officials said they were forced into Thursday's legal action by Wyoming's refusal to answer prior requests for more water from the rivers in 2004 and 2006.In December, Montana took its case to the three-member Yellowstone River Compact Commission. But Wyoming blocked Montana's resolution on the issue, prompting the state to sue.
end.
~~~~
Reference:

Yellowstone River Compact 1950

These compacts made between states 50 plus years ago did not account for the affects of global climate change in regards to the economy and population growth. If a consensus cannot be agreed to, it might just be more amicable to rescind the compact and write a new one that meets the needs of the states more fairly taking into account 21st Century circumstances. However, looking at this from a moral standpoint, for Wyoming to have refused to give Montana more water when they are suffering through a drought just because of a piece of paper is in my view meanspirited. But then, that is what fighting over water does to people.

Humanitarian Disaster in the Sahara

Algeria has stranded 13,000 migrants in the Sahara forcing them to walk across it in response to EU directive to North Africa to lessen mi...