As aquifers dry up, some Midwest communities are looking to the region’s natural resources.
See full article...
See full article...
Illinois city plans to source its future drinking water from Lake Michigan
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Some here are making it sound like Joliet had no other options. They actually had a few. The Kankakee and Illinois rivers were options they turned down. They also considered getting Lake Michigan water from Hammond, Indiana before choosing Chicago. I don't understand how that would have been legal. Joliet is getting lake water form Chicago under the Lake Michigan Diversion Supreme Court Consent Decree. AFAIK that only allows Joliet to get water from Chicago's allotment, not from Indiana.
Last edited:
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Is that really cruel? We're not talking about letting people die, we're talking about letting cities where there isn't a local source of water for the city that they can legally access, die, because, you know, maybe there shouldn't be a city where there's not enough water for the population.
The people and businesses could relocate to other locations, again, nobody is suggesting letting people die.
But, really, is any city truly so important that it can't wither and die? Many, many towns and villages have had that happen over time - not because of water, so much (although maybe that's happened sometimes too), but because of things like resource driven boom and bust cycles. The mining and oil/gas industry are notorious for this - a mine will open, for a decade or two, there will be jobs aplenty, many people move into a little burg and it booms, then the mine runs out of metal or whatever, or the oil/gas wells go dry, the company packs up and leaves town to go find a new deposit elsewhere, and the town dies because everyone leaves because there's no jobs left.
The counter argument though, seems to me, is if everyone leaves Joliet and goes to other cities within the basin, and starts using the Lake Michigan water ANYHOW, how is that any better than just piping the water to Joliet?
Seems kind of dumb to tell people that instead of allowing water to be moved to where the people are, the people need to move to where the water is, and they use the water anyhow. Although, getting back to a previous discussion where several people mentioned that if you are using water in the basin, it will be returned to the basin after treatment - but it sounds like Joliet will be doing that too, so what's the diff?
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
As noted, the Great Lakes watershed is remarkably narrow in a lot of places. I live and grew up in eastern Wisconsin, and never really thought about it until one day it occurred to me that you don't need to go very far west to get to rivers that discharge into the Wisconsin River, which discharges into the Mississippi. And then you think about Chicago, and how just a few miles from downtown you have rivers that connect to the Mississippi system (naturally- disregard the Chicago River), so obviously somewhere between the lakeshore and there the watershed changes. Most of the US states bordering the lakes are like this- the Mississippi river network is so vast, and has so many tributaries that are themselves major rivers (like the Ohio) that it sucks up almost all the water that falls on land in the Midwest and inland east. I think Michigan must be the notable exception here- almost the entire state probably drains to the Great Lakes. Maybe some of the western UP near the WI border goes to the Mississippi.
In general, I agree with the notion that when it comes to a community in a Great Lakes state, within shouting distance of the lakes, it's not unreasonable to make more exceptions than for a remote community with no connection to the lakes. Yes, hydrologically speaking as it concerns Lake Michigan, Joliet may as well be in Kansas. And for that reason, I do think consideration should be given to replacing (most of) the water in the watershed from which it was taken. Most simply, that would mean returning the treated wastewater back to the Lake Michigan watershed. That could be kind of a litmus test for other communities just outside the watershed that want to pull from the lakes. "You want to use lake water? Fine, but you will need to build infrastructure not only to get the good water, but also to send it back when you're done with it. Still worth it to you?" Of course some water doesn't return to the wastewater system (irrigation, etc.), so it would need to be agreed that you need to return some percentage of whatever you take. And that percentage could be variable depending on conditions- a few years ago Lake Michigan was so high that getting some of that water out of the system wouldn't have been so bad. When it's dry and lake levels are falling like 10-20 years ago, you better send back almost all of what you take.
In general, I agree with the notion that when it comes to a community in a Great Lakes state, within shouting distance of the lakes, it's not unreasonable to make more exceptions than for a remote community with no connection to the lakes. Yes, hydrologically speaking as it concerns Lake Michigan, Joliet may as well be in Kansas. And for that reason, I do think consideration should be given to replacing (most of) the water in the watershed from which it was taken. Most simply, that would mean returning the treated wastewater back to the Lake Michigan watershed. That could be kind of a litmus test for other communities just outside the watershed that want to pull from the lakes. "You want to use lake water? Fine, but you will need to build infrastructure not only to get the good water, but also to send it back when you're done with it. Still worth it to you?" Of course some water doesn't return to the wastewater system (irrigation, etc.), so it would need to be agreed that you need to return some percentage of whatever you take. And that percentage could be variable depending on conditions- a few years ago Lake Michigan was so high that getting some of that water out of the system wouldn't have been so bad. When it's dry and lake levels are falling like 10-20 years ago, you better send back almost all of what you take.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
I suspect that once people realize how bad climate change is about to get, midwest cities are going to start seeing major population inflow.
Certainly it's better to have those people living in Illinois than to have them living in Florida and getting bailed out by taxpayers every few years each time their homes are destroyed.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
One of the biggest problems that would need to be addressed is quantifying that recharge rate. We can measure how much water comes down as precipitation with decent accuracy. Figuring out how much precipitation actually reaches your target aquifer is another matter. Plants get in the way and intercept some of the water, evaporation removes some as well, and water can only infiltrate so quickly into the subsurface before it turns to runoff. Trying to quantify all those different influences is a very active area for scientific research. And that's not getting into the geology portion that tries to identify where recharge is even happening.
Personally the bigger problem is that generally as a species, we are terrible at properly managing our resources. We use and use and use and use until there is nothing left. Then we move on to the next thing. My observation is that such tendencies are from being short sighted and greedy. Until we do something about those two tendencies, these sorts of problems are going to persist and become even more common than they already are.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
It's a good job large infrastructure projects so rarely overrun, otherwise there might be a potential issue with the timing here.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
That was Chicago's solution in the 1800's. Since then they added sewage treatment, along with everybody else.
The canal is now more useful for trade than anything else. A lot of barges go thru the canal, as it connects the Great Lakes to the Mississippi system. There was talk of closing it (mostly to stop Asian carp from getting into the Great Lakes), but it would be a huge economic hit. Instead they put in electric barriers that seem to be preventing the carp from spreading.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Agreed. There has been some suggestion that the IL-MI area will get increased rainfall as a result of global warming. We have had the occasional drought and the occasional flooding, but overall it hasn't been unusually dry in northern Illinois.
The problem is supporting that many residents long-term on an aquifer that has a limited recharge rate.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Actually there is water available - Joliet is on a river and could just treat that water, but I guess Lake Michigan water is cheaper to treat? Or maybe better quantity, especially in the occasional drought.
Chicago has an exemption. Ever since they built the canal and reversed the Chicago River, that water is flowing into the Illinois River and into the Mississippi, not the Great Lakes basin. So there is an important difference.
The main reason this water is still being diverted isn't so much because of sewage (Chicago added sewage treatment like everybody else in the 1900's) but this canal is used for barge traffic between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River system.
Last edited:
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
I work in an office building in the Chicago area and can attest by looking out the window, it indeed appears to be very flat here.
However, there is a gradual rise, about 250-300 feet average in 30 miles, then it starts dropping back down, again rather gradually. There are some local "hills" (generally less than 50 feet high), but nothing dramatic.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Joliet is on the Des Plaines River. The city of Des Plaines is also on the Des Plaines River. They get their drinking water from Lake Michigan through Chicago. And Des Plaines the city is upstream form where Chicago dumps its treated sewage, while Joliet is downstream. I can't find any documentation form any town getting drinking water form the Des Plaines River, or why they don't.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
I live right on Lake Michigan and our water comes from the lake about a quarter mile from our house. It is expensive, water and sewer is about $100 a month for normal use.
Upvote
-1
(0
/
-1)
Frankly, we should make it damn clear that after a point, there will be no bailouts. If you can't afford to build something that will withstand storms and flooding, then you can't afford to live in most of Florida. I do think people who've been there a long time, and who bought in before the risks of climate change were clear should probably get a bailout. Maybe track it and say every property in the state can get a one time bailout, and then that's it.
You can use your bailout to rebuild, and build a better, stronger building that can withstand climate change effects, or you can sell the property to some developer who will, and you can use your bailout money + proceeds from selling the lot, to buy somewhere else. Your choice. The only problem I can think of with this idea is, some speculator (wealthy individual, private equity firm, REIT, or corp) buying up lots of properties before any bailout bill like this is passed into law, so that they can sit on the properties, possibly rent them out to renters in the meantime with intentionally crappy buildings instead of updating them, just so that when a storm wipes them out, collect millions or billions in those one time bailout funds across tends of thousands of homes.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Upvote
-3
(1
/
-4)
Well, there's another aspect to be considered here as well. The Compact assumes that the water is, for the most part, staying within the basin. So after the water is used, it returns to the same water system (or evaporates into the same weather system).
With these places outside the basin, a question I've got is: where does the used water go? Do they have a post-treatment basin return planned, or is this all going to flow somewhere else, like was done with Chicago? Because that will change the rate calculations and be outside of what the Compact planned for.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
"said Dave Strifling, director of the Water Law & Policy Initiative at Marquette University Law School. “What makes this particularly controversial is that Joliet is outside the Great Lakes basin. There is no dispute about that.”
That's not unique. There are plenty of suburbs of Chicago getting Lake Michigan water for decades and they are outside the basin, even outside a "straddling county". This include historic standards (before the S&S Canal was built). But Joliet would be the farthest one out.
That's not unique. There are plenty of suburbs of Chicago getting Lake Michigan water for decades and they are outside the basin, even outside a "straddling county". This include historic standards (before the S&S Canal was built). But Joliet would be the farthest one out.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
In the case of the one approved diversion (Waukesha, WI) the water is returned to the basin. Also in the case of Akron, OH, which straddles the watershed divide and is an approved exception, the used water is returned to the basin. The situation with Illinois, not just Chicago but the whole state, is that it is governed by a 1967 consent decree and not the compact. The decree forms the justification that Joliet used to purchase water from Chicago's allotment of 3200 cfs.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
The objective of nearly every regulation related to development is not to prohibit it but instead to influence and/or direct how it is done. A regulation that stops development entirely is a taking, and that is problematic for governments. Furthermore, local governments--where nearly all planning for development occurs--is expected to grow the community through development, not stop it. It is the rare community that is "okay" with what they have and doesn't want or work for more.
Yes, a coldly logical argument can be made, knowing what we know now, that certain communities may not be "worth" keeping in their current locations and it would be "better" if the residents relocated. And perhaps we might argue that the "free market" should decide; if one can't afford to insure the property--assuming you can even find an insurer--then that is at their risk. Seems fair? Only in a vacuum that ignores long-standing US policy, financial institutions, wealth distribution, historical injustices, etc.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
It was onĺy 2-3 years ago another city in Wisconsin 40 miles away got permission because they had new business coming in. Its the exactly same argument that Joliette is using now. It's not going to get any better. Chicago will start selling water ro cities farther and farther away.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
I'm curious about the cause of Joliet's big increase in water consumption. Generally, agriculture is far and away the dominant consumer of water. I can't imagine there is a farmland boom in the area. Has there been a major change in crops? Some other industry consuming a lot of water?
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
It shows how perilously close the great lakes were/are to dumping out into the Mississippi River Basin instead of the St. Lawrence.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
I'd assume just general population growth water use (domestic and the associated everyday commercial/industrial users that come with more population). Agricultural practices vary widely region to region- while agriculture, specifically crop irrigation, may be the dominant water consumer in the arid west, large scale irrigation is much less common in the upper midwest. There are areas where, due to soil types (extremely sandy so it doesn't hold water) and/or crops (vegetables mostly), it is somewhat common but, in general, only a small fraction of the vast corn and soybean fields in places like Illinois are irrigated. Really, the big problem is often getting rid of water- much like most farmland in the west is irrigated, a huge amount in the midwest is drain tiled to help dry things out.
Animal agriculture uses large amounts of water- in dairy, for example, 90-ish% of every gallon of milk is water that the cow needs to drink, plus several times more that is disposed of in "other" ways. But still, that pales in comparison to the acre-feet of water used in places like AZ, CA, etc. for crops, and in any event I don't think new dairy farms in Joliet are driving consumption.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Is there any breakdown on why it's so expensive?
Although, to be honest, my apartment in Cincinnati runs me $60-80/mo for whatever for two people and a couple cats (water use by the cats, of course, is pretty minimal - just about one bowl of water per day; I would say our largest water uses are, in this order: showers, toilets, laundry, dishes, cooking).
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
He may be in one of the few communities that use a privatized water supplier.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Joliet population is only 155,000. So the $1B project costs $6000+ for every man, woman, and child in Joliet. WOW, $24,000+ for a family of 4 !!
If you pay for it with 30yr bonds paying 5% interest then a family of 4 will pay $173 a month extra on their water bill for 30Y to pay for this project!!
Environmental destruction is expensive, folks!
If you pay for it with 30yr bonds paying 5% interest then a family of 4 will pay $173 a month extra on their water bill for 30Y to pay for this project!!
Environmental destruction is expensive, folks!
Last edited:
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Did you mess up the quote while editing? I don't think that second quote was me.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)