Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why didn't Obama support the keystone pipeline? [View all]LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)41. Perhaps you are not familiar with the Ogallala Aquifer.
Make no mistake. You screw with the Ogallala Aquifer and you screw with this nation's heartbeat. Twenty percent of the irrigated farmland in the United States depends upon it. Pumping the water from it is all that has kept the Dust Bowl from coming back, year after year. Any damage to it fundamentally changes the lives of the people who depend on it, their personal economies, the overall national economy, and what we can grow to feed ourselves. Absent the aquifer, and the nation's breadbasket goes back to being a prairie, vast grasslands that the people who first crossed them referred to as a desert. You end up with dry-land corn and some dry-land wheat. And the aquifer is far easier to empty than it is to fill. The technology to fully exploit it has existed only since the 1950's, and portions of it are already dangerously low. It won't be fully recharged until the next Ice Age.
Water is the next big fight in this country. By now, we are used to the big fights over energy reserves, over coal and oil. There are even some new ones, over fracking for natural gas and over things like the XL pipeline, which we will get to shortly. But there haven't been serious fights over water for a while. Now, they seem to be coming thick and fast. A report by the Congressional Budget Office as far back as 1997 said that, particularly in the West, conflicts over water would take many forms farmers vs. cities, sportsmen vs. developers, environmentalists vs. practically everyone else. The report concluded:
First and foremost, western rivers provide water to agriculture to grow crops. They also help cities meet municipal and industrial needs for water and generate electricity. Other benefits that rivers provide such as habitat for fish and wildlife, recreation, and cultural values for Native Americans were historically ignored in the water equation but increasingly are considered legitimate and valuable uses. Demand for water by existing agricultural and urban users outstrips available supplies in many cases, however, so demand for water for public purposes or for increased urban supplies necessarily conflicts with existing patterns of water use.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/ogallala-aquifer-6531527
Water is the next big fight in this country. By now, we are used to the big fights over energy reserves, over coal and oil. There are even some new ones, over fracking for natural gas and over things like the XL pipeline, which we will get to shortly. But there haven't been serious fights over water for a while. Now, they seem to be coming thick and fast. A report by the Congressional Budget Office as far back as 1997 said that, particularly in the West, conflicts over water would take many forms farmers vs. cities, sportsmen vs. developers, environmentalists vs. practically everyone else. The report concluded:
First and foremost, western rivers provide water to agriculture to grow crops. They also help cities meet municipal and industrial needs for water and generate electricity. Other benefits that rivers provide such as habitat for fish and wildlife, recreation, and cultural values for Native Americans were historically ignored in the water equation but increasingly are considered legitimate and valuable uses. Demand for water by existing agricultural and urban users outstrips available supplies in many cases, however, so demand for water for public purposes or for increased urban supplies necessarily conflicts with existing patterns of water use.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/ogallala-aquifer-6531527
He made the right call. But you just keep on keeping on, bless your heart.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
59 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
That pipeline was to move oil to the gulf to ship overseas from Canada. n/t
Bonhomme Richard
Sep 2012
#3
They just need to move the portion in Nebraska so that it's not over the Sandhills
tammywammy
Sep 2012
#9
It seems to be a misconception among many here that Obama doesn't support it
tammywammy
Sep 2012
#16
I am going to go out on a limb here and say you don't worked in the oilfields.
Arctic Dave
Sep 2012
#15
This isn't over yet. I've already made the prediction that if it's close or PBO's behind...
cherokeeprogressive
Sep 2012
#18
The fact that it's leaving doesn't matter much when what's exported isn't US-produced anyway
Spider Jerusalem
Sep 2012
#29
Right now Canadian Oil goes to US refineries. The pipeline would let us export it.
NutmegYankee
Sep 2012
#28
Thinking you missed the speeches. Actually, under Obama we have MORE US oil production
progressivebydesign
Sep 2012
#53
There is a stupendous amount of information out there available at the click of a mouse.
Ikonoklast
Sep 2012
#49
He wouldn't push it through without environmental, engineering and safety reviews
bhikkhu
Sep 2012
#50
Obama didn't support the pipeline because America took all the liability of a spill....
DrewFlorida
Sep 2012
#54