[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by justjim

Whose water is it in the Great Lakes? I hear Arizona and other western states want water piped out west so they can use it to expand more and more. And a Supreme Court just might decide that the water in the Great Lakes belongs to the United States and not just those bordering the Lakes.

The Canada province of Ontario borders four of the five Great Lakes, a couple with the international border running THROUGH the lake. I'm sure they'd have something to say about sending Great Lakes water to other American states.

It is also prohibited by law: actually two laws. "pulling any large amount of water from the Great Lakes is illegal. Water diversions from them are barred by the Great Lakes Compact, an agreement between the eight surrounding states, along with a similar agreement between the United States and Canada." (USA Today)

[xcaligirl]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

9 years, 4 months, 16 days.

I'll take your answer. Mine was about a month shorter!

[daniel200]

I do not see an issue. It has been already confirmed there will be a Cosco here soon.

[Randall55]

Originally Posted by airstreamingypsy

Bottled water is tap water in a bottle......

Remember pet rocks? Too funny! People will buy anything if you package it.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by daniel200

I do not see an issue. It has been already confirmed there will be a Cosco here soon.

Cant wait

[Wilharm]

Flood waters should be stored and sent where needed. Presently flood waters are sent to the gulf or the oceans.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by Wilharm

Flood waters should be stored and sent where needed. Presently flood waters are sent to the gulf or the oceans.

Think it would be cost prohibitive to send water far away

[justjim]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

The Canada province of Ontario borders four of the five Great Lakes, a couple with the international border running THROUGH the lake. I'm sure they'd have something to say about sending Great Lakes water to other American states.

It is also prohibited by law: actually two laws. "pulling any large amount of water from the Great Lakes is illegal. Water diversions from them are barred by the Great Lakes Compact, an agreement between the eight surrounding states, along with a similar agreement between the United States and Canada." (USA Today)

What you say may be true, however, that could all change by a Supreme Court Ruling.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by justjim

What you say may be true, however, that could all change by a Supreme Court Ruling.

I'm not sure how that would work. First, the function of the Supreme Court is to rule on constitutional issues. As far as I know it cannot void a law already on the books by any other means than declaring it unconstitutional. First the case would have to be brought before the Court. Second they'd have to decide to hear it (they hear about 150 cases per year out of over 7,000 brought before it). Third, they'd have to declare the law (laws, in this case: the Great Lakes compact between the American states bordering the Great Lakes, as well as the international compact between the U.S. and Canada, both of which prohibit large amounts of water being withdrawn from the lakes) unconstitutional, and I am at a loss to understand exactly on what basis they'd do that.

Fourth, the U.S. Supreme Court has no authority over Canada or individual Canadian provinces, so if Canada opposed it (and I'd bet the farm that they would) we'd be acting in contravention of an international agreement between us and them, which could very well cause a VERY tense atmosphere. There've been armed conflicts between the U.S. and Canada before, and despite our ordinarily pretty good (though not always) relationship with our neighbor to the north, there is no guarantee that such conflict could not happen again.

I know there are lawyer types who post here. Comments from any of them about how, or even if, the SCOTUS could be involved in this?

[Wilharm]

Would the billions we give to foreign countries help?

[Wilharm]

The Romans had aqueducts.

[Randall55]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

I'm not sure how that would work. First, the function of the Supreme Court is to rule on constitutional issues. As far as I know it cannot void a law already on the books by any other means than declaring it unconstitutional. First the case would have to be brought before the Court. Second they'd have to decide to hear it (they hear about 150 cases per year out of over 7,000 brought before it). Third, they'd have to declare the law (laws, in this case: the Great Lakes compact between the American states bordering the Great Lakes, as well as the international compact between the U.S. and Canada, both of which prohibit large amounts of water being withdrawn from the lakes) unconstitutional, and I am at a loss to understand exactly on what basis they'd do that.

Fourth, the U.S. Supreme Court has no authority over Canada or individual Canadian provinces, so if Canada opposed it (and I'd bet the farm that they would) we'd be acting in contravention of an international agreement between us and them, which could very well cause a VERY tense atmosphere. There've been armed conflicts between the U.S. and Canada before, and despite our ordinarily pretty good (though not always) relationship with our neighbor to the north, there is no guarantee that such conflict could not happen again.

I know there are lawyer types who post here. Comments from any of them about how, or even if, the SCOTUS could be involved in this?

When two countries are involved, it is under the jurisdiction of international law. Apparently, there is a treaty agreed upon by USA and Canada regarding the Great Lakes. (I never read it) When a treaty is signed, both countries are required to do what they agreed upon as it is outlined in the treaty. If one country falters, the other country can do something as simple as go into talks and renegotiate, all the way to sanctions, breaking off ties, or even war.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

is the rapid building here in central rural florida threatening the water supply?

Cape Coral homeowners dealing with dried-up wells - WINK News

There was rapid building when I got here 9 years ago and there will be rapid building after I’m gone. Population keeps growing. Will there be limit? Yes, but when?

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by Wilharm

The Romans had aqueducts.

And the empire failed even with aqueducts…

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by Wilharm

Flood waters should be stored and sent where needed. Presently flood waters are sent to the gulf or the oceans.

Flood water are stored, if not there would no outrageous population in desert.