3 ms·

Why you're getting downvoted is beyond me. Because yes, same point. It's a water resource that's being exported at a potential unsafe rate compared to it being

Why you're getting downvoted is beyond me. Because yes, same point. It's a water resource that's being exported at a potential unsafe rate compared to it being replenished. Which can have devastating impact on the environment. We already have sinkhole problems here in Florida. Hell, look at water exported for LA and Las Vegas. Actually, just look up water exportation in general and see a lot of the problems it develops. It's not just an American thing.

MereInterest 7y ago
I tend to figure that all posts will have some amount of downvotes, and that if I complain about them, it would just add noise to the conversation. I think most differences arise from the source of water that is present, and how that affects people's thinking of water usage. With rivers, water is seen as a resource that replenishes at a certain rate. Whether you use it for irrigation or let it flow into the sea, it is lost. Therefore, if water usage is restricted, the end result is a loss of fresh water. Maximal usage implies maximal societal benefit. The Great Lakes are a rather unique situation, because they are the among the largest freshwater bodies in the world. So long as water being returned to the lakes is properly treated, you can use as much water as is desired without affecting the storage of water. So long as it stays within the Great Lakes watershed, rivers will quickly bring the water back to the lakes. The only way that the water will decrease substantially is if it is exported outside of the watershed entirely. Maximal societal benefit is gained by maximizing water usage within the watershed, and minimizing water usage outside. It is these two mentalities that are in conflict, more than anything else. From the perspective of those using river water, the Great Lakes looks like hoarding, rather than appropriate management of a finite resource.

MereInterest 7y ago

I tend to figure that all posts will have some amount of downvotes, and that if I complain about them, it would just add noise to the conversation. I think most differences arise from the source of water that is present, and how that affects people's thinking of water usage. With rivers, water is seen as a resource that replenishes at a certain rate. Whether you use it for irrigation or let it flow into the sea, it is lost. Therefore, if water usage is restricted, the end result is a loss of fresh water. Maximal usage implies maximal societal benefit. The Great Lakes are a rather unique situation, because they are the among the largest freshwater bodies in the world. So long as water being returned to the lakes is properly treated, you can use as much water as is desired without affecting the storage of water. So long as it stays within the Great Lakes watershed, rivers will quickly bring the water back to the lakes. The only way that the water will decrease substantially is if it is exported outside of the watershed entirely. Maximal societal benefit is gained by maximizing water usage within the watershed, and minimizing water usage outside. It is these two mentalities that are in conflict, more than anything else. From the perspective of those using river water, the Great Lakes looks like hoarding, rather than appropriate management of a finite resource.