Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
socialpyramid
6644 Followers
NewsMeBack
6468 Followers
Chip Etier
2723 Followers
Brian Molidor
4781 Followers
jimfeetFeb 9, 2012
Water is not an unlimited resource. Water from underground aquifers should be treated no differently than surface water. (FWIW, my residential water supply is from a 900' private well that cost me over $20k to drill more than ten years ago.)
particleman420Feb 9, 2012
Maybe Rick Perry should pray harder.
publiclurkerFeb 9, 2012
Last time he tried that they got a drought. Maybe he should switch to a different god, as the current one seems to be pissed at him.
sloppyjoes7Feb 9, 2012
"In Texas, a bastion of the free-market Tea Party, such a rule is hard to fathom."
What an utterly ignorant statement. Large aquifers are a natural resource, where one person's actions can have a severely negative impact on his neighbors. It is a public policy issue, and Tea Partiers completely understand this.
miklkitFeb 9, 2012
But but but that is Socialism! Just like taxes.
And that Keystone XL pipeline will go right over it.
sloppyjoes7Feb 10, 2012
That's not Socialism. At all.
Maintaining natural resources that cross multiple property lines, and even State lines, is obviously a public policy issue.
Socialism is taking wealth from some and redistributing it to others.
The differences are obvious.
publiclurkerFeb 9, 2012
It's only important to tea-baggers if they feel that they will be on the screwd side of reality. As long as morally challenged idiots like you are the screwers, it's hands off.
sloppyjoes7Feb 10, 2012
No, it's important whenever there's an externality.
publiclurkerFeb 10, 2012
that affects you personally. You have demonstrated many times that you have no problems screwing over other people for your own personal benefit.
sloppyjoes7Feb 10, 2012
I have never said anything close to that.
faucondemaiFeb 9, 2012
Sounds like you might be reasonable (although a bit defensive) about the need to limit water use from the Ogallala aquifer. You do fail to show that the average tea partier believes the same or even has any awareness of the problem.
The tea partiers were in favor of letting the XL Pipeline go right over the Ogalla aquifer. It isn't like anything could go wrong? right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents#2000s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents#2010s
TransCanada's first experience building an oil pipeline is Keystone 1, which crosses eastern Nebraska and has had 12 leaks. The last leak was discovered by a landowner in North Dakota when he saw a geyser of oil shooting 60 feet in the air; 500 barrels of oil spilled.
I mean just because 25000 miles of pipeline go over the aquifer now means there is no reason not to increase the risk? right?
Lets see, the Ogallala Aquifer crosses South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas. Typical Tea Party screed involves gutting
Do me a favor, would you? Show me a link where Tea Party actually says "I want the government to regulate how much water I can use from my land"....thanks.
sloppyjoes7Feb 10, 2012
So, if the alternative is importing oil from the Middle East, vastly INCREASING the distance that petroleum is transported, and significantly raising the probability of a spill, which option makes more sense?
The big picture is important, my friend.
publiclurkerFeb 10, 2012
not using any oil at all for silliness like burning for fuel would make the most sense, but you wouldn't be able to profit from that, would you?
sloppyjoes7Feb 10, 2012
"Not using any oil" is not an option, unless you want to eliminate 90% of the world's population.
stubearFeb 9, 2012
Global Climate Change is a real bitch, ain't it?
dougnic55Feb 10, 2012
it is about time...global warming is kicking their butts...and i can't think of a better place for it to happen...