Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Beyond the headlines on jobs and consumer protection
Next Post: Congrats are definitely in order
Posted in:
* The setup…
Heralded since its 1900 completion as the city’s greatest engineering feat, the reversal of the [Chicago River] kept sewage out of Lake Michigan, providing clean drinking water for Chicago to grow.
Republican Kirk wants to keep the river flowing backward. But Democrat Giannoulias wants a massive federal project to re-reverse it to its natural course.
“We lose about 500 million gallons of purified water because of the way the river flows,” Giannoulias said at the Metropolitan Planning Council’s annual luncheon downtown Monday.
“Long-term, it’s smart to try to re-direct that water, to clean it up first and redirect it into Lake Michigan.”
The project would split the Chicago River from its link to the Mississippi River, blocking the route of Asian carp, which threaten Lake Michigan’s $7 billion fishing industry, supporters say.
But Kirk — also speaking at the luncheon — said “we should not reverse the direction of the Chicago River so that it dumps into the source of our water supply.”
* The Question: Which side has the better argument here? Explain.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 12:42 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Beyond the headlines on jobs and consumer protection
Next Post: Congrats are definitely in order
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Kirk’s argument was pedantic, based on his historical appreciation of (reverance for?) the problem. Giannoulias’ seems more aware of the financial and infrastructural benefits. Alexi’s a dope, but I’d say he’s right on this one.
Comment by Pants Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 12:46 pm
I have not heard of anyone with credentials argue the issue from a professional’s position.
Without the flow of water, the entire section of the Chicago Sanitary Ship Canal would be lost to barge and other commercial traffic.
What are the long term consequences. So far it seems like a sound byte with no basis. Remember how loud everyone screamed when Michigan wanted the locks closed?
Comment by Plutocrat03 Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 12:53 pm
I have to go with Kirk. We are not losing 500 million gallons of “purified” water (I guess he means per day) because the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District only treats the water — it does not purify the water — that is a very big difference.
Comment by Just Observing Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 12:54 pm
to reverse the course of the river would be horrifically expensive, and pollute Lake MI with even more filthy water during heavy downpours…Chicago currently sends it’s wastewater downstream, where it becomes cleaner as it approaches the gulf of Mexico via the IL River and the MI…the rub is water flowing to the Gulf picks up agricultural runoff as it flows south, and is responsible for Gulf hypoxia, or more simply put: is eroding the marshes in the State of LA destroying habitat and the shipping industry…neither candidate has the “best” idea here…it’s too complicated an issue for a simple answer, besides, Daley told the Obama administration to take a hike when it comes to disinfecting Chicago water supplies by saying, “Go swim in the Potomac”….
Comment by Loop Lady Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 12:56 pm
If you split the Chicago river from the Mississippi are you not also causing a bit of a navigation impact and this is going to sound really cold warish, but isn’t there a bit of a national security impact with that? (A bit of a stretch I would agree).
Also how do we lose “500 Million gallons of purified water”? Is that cleaned water from the reclamation district that is flowing downstream? It’s not like that water is lost, it just is not returned to Lake Michigan.
Finally I suspect the other users of the Great Lakes are likely not going to be thrilled with the idea.
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 12:56 pm
oops MS River, not MI…
Comment by Loop Lady Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 12:56 pm
The way the question is framed generally in the media makes it seem like a yes-no choice. I would first want to know more about how this looping the water thru some processing thing would work.
The Great Lakes are about 16 cm shallower than they should be, for the time of year and anticipated rainfall… according to something I read a while back.
Google Image Search the term “Aral Sea” and see what can happen without very strong and sensitive water management.
The topic is worth more than fast and easy jokes.
Comment by Gregor Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 12:58 pm
Does Chicago have a shortage of “purified drinking water” that I’m not aware of? “Chicago River” and “purified drinking water” are two phrases that don’t belong in the same sentence. Wouldn’t cutting off routes to the Illinois River also cut off some shipping lanes? Seems to me just an excuse to poor billions of government money at a project to fix something that isn’t broken. Asian Carp should be stopped, but there are cheaper ways to do it that won’t disrupt other industries.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 12:58 pm
Sewage treatment has improved greatly since 1900, it may not be purified but it is treatable just like the water that comes out of the lake now. Or does Kirk fetch a pail of fresh lake water each morning? I would say in the future it should be returned to its natural course.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 1:02 pm
Capt Fax
is this the best you can do to promote the CommandoKirk sagging campaign? Which way should the river flow?
How about which part of the resume isn’t a lie?
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 1:03 pm
Where is the money going to come from for this fine project? Without that being laid out, how can there be an argument?
Comment by Sueann Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 1:05 pm
This is immensely complicated for a simple answer, but I have to ask: why are we considering this? Is it just in response to stopping the Asian carp? If so, I don’t think that’s a good enough reason to spend billions of dollars.
We do need to complete the Deep Tunnel reservoirs, but NIMBY issues keep that on hold. We also need to do a better job of treating storm run-off before we consider emptying that waste into the lake.
Finally, there is an international treaty governing water issues in the Great Lakes watershed. I’m not sure this can be done unilaterally.
As far as invasive species, let’s remember that the Asian Carp is only the most recent threat. The sea lamprey, zebra mussel and other species have already damaged the ecosystem. I don’t hear anyone calling for the closure of the St. Lawrence Seaway to stop new invaders.
I’m going to reluctantly agree with Kirk but acknowledge Giannoulias for addressing an important topic with a thoughtful answer.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 1:06 pm
Where does Alexi get the Idea that Lake Michigan water is purified. I would like to see Alexi go drink some purified water straight from Lake Michigan. I bet one of his mob buddies is just the contractor for the job.
Comment by Fed up Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 1:08 pm
Kirk, if only by virtue of the fact that Alexi’s “plan” doesn’t answer enough questions. Chief among those in my mind: where exactly will the river water be “cleaned up” before being redirected in to the lake? Until he provides better explanation of that process, the status quo wins by default.
Comment by grand old partisan Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 1:09 pm
=500 million gallons of purified water=
Alexi, I double dog dare you to drink some of said water.
It is not purified, as noted above, it is treated. Big difference. River/barge transportation is a very efficient means of moving stuff. The economy would suffer greatly. Not just for the bargemen but for all of us. Things would cost more since shipping costs would rise. I don’t know the annual tonnage of freight moved but try to add that to the already busy highways and rail in the corridor and you could see major problems result.
The idea that you can prevent the spread of the asian carp by closing the canal connection to Lake Michigan ignores the other ways that the fish could make it into the lake. I am an avid boater on Lake Michigan and am quite concered about the invasive species that have wreaked havoc on the Great Lakes but am not convinced that closing off the lakes from the canal would stop that progression.
As for Kirk’s claims re the drinking supply, the treated sewage would have to be piped quite a ways out into the lake to prevent any back flow to the cribs. When that doesn’t work things get bad fast. Epidemics of disease were a serious problem before the river was forced into a backward flow. Can you say cholera? How many epidemics have occured either in Chicago or downstream since? None. Don’t fix what ain’t broke.
C’mon, Alexi, drink up. 5 bucks says you pass.
Comment by dupage dan Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 1:09 pm
Isn’t the entire plumbing infrastructure of Chicago built around the current flow of the river? We’d be talking about billions and billions of dollars to change the direction when you include second and third effects. Doesn’t sound like a well-thought out plan. What does Mayor Daley say?
Comment by southwest sally Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 1:11 pm
16cm shallower…
So here are the numbers
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/now/wlevels/plots/mic_lvl.gif
Currently below the mean but above the low.
Using 500 Million gallons (and making it a per day number)
182.5 Billion gallons of water a year.
or about 23,725,000,000 cubic feet of water.
Lake Michigan contains 1,180 cubic miles of water (wikipedia) or about 173,693,583,360,000 cubic feet of water (174 Trillion).
So 24 Billion CF of water in a body of water that contains 174 Trillion CF of water (please note lakes Huron and Superior should also be included in this calculation but I am taking a pass on that) would equal next to nothing in terms of a change about .0001%
So it isn’t going to do anything when it comes to lake levels. (it’s a big lake)
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 1:15 pm
Even if we eventually clean the river to a point that reversing the flow will not affect Lake Michigan water quality, you still have the runoff problem during floods. Deep Tunnel isn’t a solution. It just helps.
Also, we have 100 years of infrastructure both in Chicago and surrounding communities that is predicated on water flowing away from the lake. Who pays for all their changes? The costs would be staggering.
Comment by Joe McCarthy and the Red Scarecrows Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 1:16 pm
Loop Lady,
I would add that many of the delta problems can be traced to the levee system that has been in place for many years downriver from St Louis to New Orleans. This has the effect of accelerating the river which prevents the normal run off from re-silting the delta insuring continued replenishment. Agricultural run off is definitely a problem as you mention.
47th Ward is right on to mention the international treaty - I think it would be a hard sell even with the new fangled treatment protocol STL believes is sufficient. There have been many strategies tried to prevent the invasive species coming in from the seaway. It is unclear whether or not they have worked. Clearly problems exist and more are likely to come. Closing the seaway would have a similar effect on the transportation network in the busy mid-west. Try moving all that taconite, gravel, grain, cement, coal and various other products on the roads or railways after you close the canal(s). We could run the superhighway right by STL’s living room. Make him feel like he lives in Chicago without all the high taxes.
Comment by dupage dan Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 1:20 pm
The vast majority of Chicago uses combined sewers, resulting in both stormwater and wastewater being treated by the MWRD for discharge into the CS&S Canal and the IL River. There is very little untreated stormwater entering the lake, especially since the TARP is working.
With that said, everything about what AG is proposing has HUGE impacts to the region. For example, if that water is returned to the lake, the Supreme Court decision limiting the amount of water that can be used by IL would need to be re-evaluated. There is still access to the lake through Lake Calumet and the Cal-Sag Channel if the CS&S is abandoned. Whose land is it when the canal is filled? Or does it stay as a tourist spot? The IL River is used to having all of that water in it–what happens to it when 500 million gallons a day dries up? (It’s already filling up with sediment and is dredged regularly to keep the shipping lanes open.)
I could go on and on.
Based on the threat to the fishing industry and the new availability of water to sell, economically AG’s idea might not be a bad idea. I haven’t heard of the idea from my EPA and DNR friends so I don’t know where he got it from. Kirk was grasping at straws and playing contrarian–the river will not effect the lake’s water quality very much.
BTW, this country could use about $5 trillion to just take care of all of the roads, bridges, and water treatment facilities that need work. I don’t see the money coming for it any time soon.
Comment by Lefty Lefty Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 1:22 pm
Didn’t Kirk single handed reverse the course of the river while on duty? I suppose if he wants to change it, he should just do it again himself.
BTW I think it should be reversed. Just like many of the dams in the USA should be dismantled. It’s never ‘good’ to try and alter Mother Nature.
Comment by How Ironic Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 1:25 pm
Dupage Dan - I never said the water coming from the sewers was ready to drink. Its clean enough that it can be treated just like the water already in the lake. Do you think the water goes directly from the lake to the faucet? And I’m so impressed with your knowledge of barge transportation, I’m sure any massive project to return the river to its natural route probably wouldn’t even factor that in. You’re so smart.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 1:26 pm
Actually, researchers have found that the bottom portion of the Chicago River still flows towards Lake Michigan. I think it’s time to look at the river as more than just a conveyance for treated sewage, industrial waste and commercial shipping. Let’s take the long-term view and explore all options, especially if they would deal with invasive fish species along with improving recreational opportunities and providing for a healthier river habitat.
Comment by Going nuclear Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 1:28 pm
So the question boils down to;
Do we dump our polluted water on ourselves. Giannoulias’s idea, and possibly keep the asian carp out of Lake Michigan?
Or do we dump our polluted water on downstaters, Kirk’s idea, and risk the chance of asian carp getting into the Great Lakes and devastate the fishery and every job based on that fishery.
I like Giannoulias’s idea, it’s about time Chicago kept it’s waste and quit sending it downstream.
Asain Carp is downstate Illinois revenge on Chicago.
Comment by Irish Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 1:29 pm
Lefty-lefty. The issue wouldn’t have to be the quality of the entire lake, just a couple of miles offshore where the intake cribs are.
Today when there are heavy rains they have to close beaches. Imagine what it might be like if the river flowed into the lake. Also recirculation takes a really long time compared to other bodies of water.
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 1:31 pm
Actually Irish, the question boils down to: do we change what has worked for 100 years, not only the river but the infrastructure built around it, that will come with a huge price tag and replace what problems currently exist with new, perhaps larger problems….or do we keep doing what has worked, save money, and find a cheaper way to keep Asian Carp out of the Lake?
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 1:34 pm
How Ironic - That would have been funnier if you hadn’t gotten Kirk’s position wrong while trying to make the joke.
Comment by grand old partisan Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 1:46 pm
Of course Mark Kirk doesn’t want the Chicago River to once again flow into Lake Michigan — Mark Kirk and Paul Bunyan reversed the river’s flow back in aught-seven!
Why, I remember it like it was just yesterday. Babe the Blue Ox had come up missin’ and Paul asked his hero, Mark Kirk, for help…
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 1:47 pm
If the river discharged into the lake at 500 million gallons a day, it is equal to an area about a quarter mile on a side and 40 feet deep. Plenty of mixing going on there.
The rains cause the bird, dog, squirrel, and raccoon poop to get into the lake. It’s not coming from the MWRD. There are very strict standards for coliform in discharges, maybe even zero.
Plus, Aurora and Elgin are drinking Fox River water, much poorer water quality than the lake under any circumstances.
Comment by Lefty Lefty Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 1:49 pm
When has the issue of the flow of the Chicago River become such a hot button issue for either candidate or is this just another “high school debate” exercise by “Jump Shot” Giannoulias and Cmdr Kirk to avoid addressing the problems that face the U.S in the 21st century and how average Americans will survive in the new economy.
Comment by WRMNpolitics Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 1:50 pm
MrJM, Alexi claims his experience on the Board that decided to give Kirk and Bunyan the right to do that is enough cred to counter Kirk’s opposition.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 1:52 pm
Lefty Lefty
I live in Aurora and remember when we were told we couldn’t drink the water without boiling it for over a week (9 Days) due to fecal chloroform.
http://www.semp.us/publications/biot_reader.php?BiotID=68
It had a major impact on a lot of business in the city as well as day to day life.
Just imagine if that happened to the city of Chicago.
You want to take that risk?
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 2:02 pm
Alexi has announced he was first tommorrow he will tell us which first.
Comment by Fed up Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 2:03 pm
STL,
All I was doing was pointing out that the issue is more complex than just treated water. I never said you had declared the water safe to drink - I only pointed out that the city was unlikely to be able to reverse the course of the river without the approval of the other 7 states bordering on the Great Lakes as well as Canada. There is that pesky international treaty don’t ya know?
Didn’t say I was all that up on barge transportation. I ain’t no boat nerd.
Comment by dupage dan Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 2:04 pm
@Grand Old Partisan
Yep, you are right I had my Kirk joke backward. Oh well, I tried.
Comment by How Ironic Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 2:09 pm
I gotta agree with Kirk on this one just like I did when he voted for cap and trade. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Comment by Bill Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 2:11 pm
Alexi’s out of his mind. Reversing the Chicago River made the city what it is today — one of the greatest cities on the planet, despite the best efforts of the cheap hustlers and conmen.
Where did this come from? Was this a big issue? I missed it.
Just how weird is this race going to get? Thank God, whoever wins, he’ll just be one of 100. Lightweights, both of them.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 2:15 pm
asian carp are NOT revenge from downstate IL…they have invaded the great lakes in part due to the MS flooding of 1993…carp were used at catfish farms in the south to eat pond scum/algae…they escaped captivity after the big rains of 93 and started traveling north…they were intentionally brought to the US…it still unclear where the few traces of carp dna have come from in the Chicago region…the pols should not banter about this subject, but leave it to the scientists and wildlife experts…
Comment by Loop Lady Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 2:18 pm
- All I was doing was pointing out that the issue is more complex than just treated water. -
No kidding? I guess I didn’t feel like writing a thesis about the issue on this blog. I was responding to the setup in which Kirk was concerned with the fresh water supply. Post your address and I’ll mail you a copy of my award winning documentary called “Everything Dupage Dan Needs To Know About Water”.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 2:18 pm
OneMan:
The coliform is already in the lake. That’s what the swimming bans are for. Aurora’s plant must have gone down for a while and a batch of bad water got out of the system.
The MWRD discharge would add very little to this risk, I think, but that would be part of the evaluation done once the blog-posting is over and AG is the senator spearheading the $6 kazillion effort to reverse the reversed course.
As far as the flow of the river making Chicago one of the greatest cities in the world–it did stop the diseases back before there were treatment options like RO and chlorination, but now there might be a benefit to sending the water back to the lake. If IL adds 500 million gallons of water a day to the basin, can we have it back to provide to customers where the groundwater is threatened? Can we sell it to the other Great Lakes states and Canada? Fascinating to think about, at least for this water guy.
Comment by Lefty Lefty Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 2:31 pm
Chicago sits on a continental divide, it’s river didn’t flow, it rotted. During heavy rains, the river naturally reversed itself at Portage, flowing west. The Chicago River needed help if it wasn’t going to become a cesspool ruining the City. Before it’s reversal, Chicagoans got sick and the City was hampered with the River’s poor drainage.
The problem was fixed. I guess Giannoulais needs a few history lessons to be reminded why this incredible water project was undertaken. I guess Giannoulais needs to be reminded what Chicago is like sitting in it’s own filth. Someone should take him to the Back of the Yards and take a swim so he can get a clue.
There isn’t a “problem” here that Giannoulais needs to address. Just as Amsterdam shouldn’t return to pre-canal days in order to harmonize with it’s original environment, Chicago shouldn’t either. Or there wouldn’t be a Streeterville. There wouldn’t be those fine beaches Giannoulais’ voting bloc enjoys. There would be no “curve” on Michigan.
I’m not certain why anyone would think returning to the 19th Century would be a good idea, environmentally. Giannoulais is having a fantasy disconnected from any of reality’s tethers. His suggestion sounds to me as an attempt to appease environmental Luddites. They are out there.
So Kirk wins, just because he isn’t suggesting we borrow billions we don’t have to undo one of our City’s greatest feats of environmental engineering which resulted in it’s 20th Century Golden Age.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 2:44 pm
Lefty-Lefty
No the plant did not go down, they never did find out the source for sure but it wasn’t because “the plant went down”.
Yes it’s in the lake, but you don’t want to potentially discharge more of it if you don’t need to.
You want to increase the risk of something like this….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milwaukee_Cryptosporidium_outbreak
Killed 54…
If it isn’t broke why spend Billions upon billions to fix it.
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 2:52 pm
STL,
I was responding to others posts. I thought that was what we did here. Didn’t know you were the moderator.
I already saw your documentary on youtube.
I gave it 1 star.
Comment by dupage dan Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 2:52 pm
I think the point here is that the river needs to be cleaned up and restored to it’s full use. By treating the over 100 year old solution to the dumping of raw sewage into the lake as sacrocanct, we give up on newer and better solutions. As Debra Shore reminded us last year at the Field Museum, the 1889 decision to reverse the river was made mostly because it was the cheapest solution. The original problem of raw sewage dumping was essentially solved not long after the reversal with new treatment methods. So, we’re sending water down to the Gulf of Mexico needlessly–now to be contaminated by BP. I’m surprised Kirk is taking such an old fashioned point of view on this when in the past he prided himself on his work to clean up the great lakes.
Comment by Ellen Beth Gill Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 2:52 pm
===Chicago sits on a continental divide===
No it doesn’t.
===environmental Luddites===
What?
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 2:53 pm
== The original problem of raw sewage dumping was essentially solved not long after the reversal with new treatment methods. So, we’re sending water down to the Gulf of Mexico needlessly–now to be contaminated by BP. I’m surprised Kirk is taking such an old fashioned point of view on this when in the past he prided himself on his work to clean up the great lakes.
==
How does adding a really small amount of volume to the lake accomplish one thing in terms of ‘cleaning it up’?
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 3:00 pm
If I’m not mistaken, Alexi’s cousin is a MWRD Commissioner.
Comment by Just wondering Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 3:13 pm
Chicago sits on a continental divide
Water flows east from Chicago towards the North Atlantic, and west down the Mississippi to the Gulf.
That would be a Continental Divide.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 3:14 pm
OK VM, Wiki agrees with you so I stand corrected.
But what’s with the name calling? Can’t you make an argument without calling the opposition Luddites?
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 3:17 pm
VM is correct: http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/geology/a_continentalDiv.html
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 3:17 pm
Alexi really didn’t make his case from what I read. Its always possible that he laid out a logical case that wasn’t picked up by the news reports; but I doubt it.
The issue of treating the water is largely independent of the reversal. But if the water goes into Lake Michigan it becomes more critical to treat it for bacteria, etc. because the water won’t be cleaned as it goes down the river.
The issue of Asian Carp and other eco-system threats is serious, but I don’t think reversing the flow of the Chicago River will solve the problem due to the Cal-Sag canal. And other less expensive barriers should be available. I also wonder about the value of Lake Michigan fishing industry being billions of dollars.
I don’t think there is a serious issue of Lake Michigan losing water. If there is, I would think it would be much cheaper to restore the water by cleaning it and then piping it back into Lake Michigan.
If I was Alexi, I would clarify that this was just one possible solution to a long-term issue. There is a need to understand when the problem will require being addressed and the most cost-effective solutions.
Comment by Objective Dem Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 3:20 pm
Cap Fax trying to get Kirk elected? lol
DIdn’t Daley just scoff at the EPA suggesting he clean up the Chicago river?
Kirk is right
Comment by Wumpus Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 3:24 pm
Reversing the flow and shutting off the Great Lakes from the Mississippi River would be an economic boondoggle. The Port of Chicago sees $30 billion of commerce annually which would be shut down or rerouted to highays. Each barge equals 80 semi-trucks on the road.
It impact agriculture, steel, metal recycling, fuel, road salt, and many other things.
Plus, studies have shown that it would greatly increase flooding problems around the Chicago region.
Comment by 4 percent Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 3:30 pm
Clarification: The Continental Divide is a longitudinal geographic divide that runs through the Chicago region and is responsible for directing water east to the Atlantic Ocean, or west to the MI River…if you would like to see a sign demarcating the Divide in the Chicago area, check out the one on Chicago Avenue in Oak Park east of Oak Park Avenue on north side of Chicago Avenue…I will now return to reading Scientific American…
Comment by Loop Lady Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 3:31 pm
Elevated levels of ammonia decreased the ability of chlorine to disinfect the water in Aurora. Crypto has never been documented in Chicago drinking water.
How does the “small amount of volume to the lake” (your words) from the river cause coliform and crypto outbreaks?
And, if all of this water is in such poor shape, why is it OK to send it to Peoria?
Comment by Lefty Lefty Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 3:32 pm
Regardless of the particulars that have been hammered here, how exactly would we pay for Alexi’s River Project? Does he have some more State of Illinois buildings to sell to pay for it? Or maybe he has a can’t miss investment!
Hoenstly, is this a serious debate?
Clearly Kirk wins this one and if you are confused VM did a great job of explaining how and why.
Comment by A.B. Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 3:32 pm
I trust/believe little of what Daley says on the subject (or any other subject for that matter) - still, we should leave well enough alone. Is the current situation perfect? No. Is it necessary? Not likely. Can it be undone? Technically, yes. Politically, very tough. Would it have major impact on the lives of working people? Yes.
Kirk is right, but for the wrong reason. Alexi is pandering, and wrong. The cost would be enormous (far more complex and costly now than if they had done it the “right way” per EBG in 1889)
Life is not perfect. We should just get on with it.
Comment by dupage dan Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 3:35 pm
This is out of my area of expertise, but when a 13 million metro area watershed develops to the point of today based on an engineering solution that has stood the test of a century, I am very skeptical of a “fix”, but would be open to hearing arguments based on solid research and reason. I am a believer in letting things remain or to be returned as close to their natural state as practical in a developed world, because most times when man fights nature instead of adapting to it, nature exacts revenge. There are exceptions, and this may be one. I would submit that there are at most a handful of posters here who are qualified to speak from environmental and civil engineering knowledge on this issue.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 3:35 pm
Clarification 2: It is actually a subcontinental divide. The Continental Divide is in the Rocky Mountains. The diversion of the Chicago River moved the subcontinental divide east to the lakefront. It used to be in the west suburbs. I don’t think that sign in Oak Park is accurate since, if the rain drains to the Chicago River watershed, it goes southwest. I think Oak Park and the vast majority of the city proper) is in this area.
Comment by Lefty Lefty Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 3:38 pm
== Elevated levels of ammonia decreased the ability of chlorine to disinfect the water in Aurora. ==
About an hour ago you said it was because “the plant went down” now it’s elevated levels of ammonia. You sure about that?
==Crypto has never been documented in Chicago drinking water ==
If anything I think that makes my case, not yours. They don’t reverse the flow of any rivers in Wisconsin’s largest city and they have had the problem.
== And, if all of this water is in such poor shape, why is it OK to send it to Peoria? ==
Because a trip of at least 131 miles makes a big difference, additional run-off, evaporation and time all have a significant impact on water purity.
Again what is the reason for doing this besides creating a huge public works program?
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 3:44 pm
VM can call informed people Luddites all he wants. He can also let these people decide, based on facts, whether there are better solutions than the one from the early 20th century for the region’s drainage and water supply issues.
But not without pontificating here first.
Comment by Lefty Lefty Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 3:44 pm
Sorry, first a guess on the coliform source, then some actual research. You’re welcome. You still haven’t addressed the fact that there is already coliform in the lake. Or that the lake is a huge mixing zone on a scale dwarfing the Illinois River. Or that there are a significant number of industrial and municipal discharges along the 131 miles of river.
I already gave you potential reasons to do this. I also said it would cost $5 kazillion and “might not be a bad idea.” So take that for what it’s worth.
Comment by Lefty Lefty Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 3:53 pm
== Sorry, first a guess on the coliform source, then some actual research. You’re welcome. ==
I guess I am the only one who is going to provide links. I am glad I could encourage you do look stuff up instead of just assuming you knew the correct answer.
== You still haven’t addressed the fact that there is already coliform in the lake. ==
Well there is also coliform in the Fox River and thanks to other things that appeared it became a problem.
If you are a ‘water guy’ and don’t see the difference in flow and hydrology between a river and a lake.
You would discharge the Chicago river fairly close to the intakes that one of the largest fresh water systems in the world use to provide water to it’s treatment plant. This discharge would be into a part of the lake that has at times, really poor surface currents.
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/glcfs/glcfs.php?lake=m&ext=sfcur&type=N&hr=00
(take a look 0.0 knots estimated for today, now that’s slow)
or here
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008GeoRL..3521604B
The late averages 2 CM a second or about 1.2 M per minute, not exactly a strong flow.
So bottom line, you are going to put water that is less clean into the lake at the bottom of the lake where the circulation is poor. That is most likely a net negative.
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 4:23 pm
Lefty Lefty,
If we were to prioritize the major issues of the day, where would this fall? We must consider the economic cost in its’ totality - many here have highlighted some of the issues. I think it is a great thing to debate but not so important that we have to put it on any serious wish list covering the next 50 years. There are those who write here who think we should undo what we have done. How far do we take that? I read history and learn that hydro-electric dams were touted as a wonderful way to harness nature and get “free” electricty. We now know that there is a cost to that technology. We have also become dependent on that technology. I am all for making this world as clean as we can but there is a limit, I think, to what we should do to undo.
Comment by dupage dan Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 4:28 pm
One Man,
Keep it up! Great stuff.
Comment by dupage dan Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 4:29 pm
== As far as the flow of the river making Chicago one of the greatest cities in the world–it did stop the diseases back before there were treatment options like RO and chlorination, but now there might be a benefit to sending the water back to the lake. If IL adds 500 million gallons of water a day to the basin, can we have it back to provide to customers where the groundwater is threatened? Can we sell it to the other Great Lakes states and Canada? Fascinating to think about, at least for this water guy. ==
Highly doubtful we would be able to do much of anything with the water we would ‘return’.
Why? Well, at one point thanks to various leaks we were taking out more than we were allowed. That is one of the reasons they did the fixes they did creating DuSable harbor and changing the breakwaters and other work near the locks to reduce the ‘extra’ water going out.
Ok, but lets say Chicago was able to ’sell’ that new found return.
The Jardine Water Purification Plant processes about a billion gallons of water a day
http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/membersonly/may01/features/wetwork/wetwork.html (confirmed via other sources).
So you are getting less than half of what is used every day back (there is a second water plant south that serves a host of folks as well).
Illinois in 2006 used 1.96 Billion gallons of water a day from the Great Lakes
http://glc.org/wateruse/database/pdf/2006%20Water%20Use%20Report.pdf (page
numbers for various states include hydroelectric uses which is trivial for Illinois.
Of the 1.96 Billion just about 50% went to public supply (page 20 of the above pdf) 1% went to nuclear and 35% went to fossil fuel generation.
If you look at ‘public supply’ it appears that we are the biggest user period. So I doubt that we are going to be able to increase that much..
But lets say you could…
Option 1 would be able to find a buyer.
Well increasing the use for industrial and/or fossil fuel use would be problematic due to political and global warming issues.
A public source buyer would be hard to find because of the costs of building the filtration and infrastructure needed to pull it off. Also Chicago is by far the largest metro area on a Great Lake and Lake Michigan water goes all the way out to Naperville now. Sending it much further in any direction by any state would require a huge public works project.
You can’t send it to Texas…
So even if you could ’sell it’ odds of finding a buyer a bit challenging…
But again, the if you could see it is a BIG IF.
Great Lakes inflows and outflows are covered by a international agreement and I am sure the Canadians would not be thrilled with the option of us selling it.
Also I suspect if anything Michigan’s use has gone down over the years due to population reduction and a smaller industrial base. If anyone would have ‘water’ to sell it would be them.
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 5:01 pm
Here’s some customers:
http://www.lakecountyil.gov/lakemichiganwater/default.htm
Comment by Lefty Lefty Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 5:15 pm
Here’s the IDNR summary of the situation:
Issue Summary
Lake Michigan service population to increase by 817,000 between 2009-2030
Lake Michigan water use will continue to be legally constrained by the Decree
What about the ~1.1 million new residents outside L.M. service area?
What about the ~1.5 million additional population between 2030-2050?
To sum up, there’s 2.5 million more people coming our way that need water, and there’s not enough groundwater. Some of them might want some of the water.
Comment by Lefty Lefty Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 5:20 pm
Sorry, I did the math too fast. Potentially 3,417,000 more customers.
Comment by Lefty Lefty Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 5:21 pm
Lefty, Lefty:
I don’t understand why you keep saying ‘coliform’ is already in the lake? Of course it is, it’s from poop. When it rains, bacteria from animal poop runs into the lake. If we send the current MWRD effluent to the Lake there would be a huge increase in the bacteria from human poop going into the Lake.
In addition to the unfathomable cost of the engineering feet of cutting off the connection between Lake Michigan and the Chicago River, every MWRD customer who supports Alexi’s plan must be prepared to accept the $600 million cost of disinfecting the effluent to kill the bacteria first we ever want to swim in Lake Michigan.
Comment by JLW Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 6:28 pm
Lefty, Lefty: Also, the bacteria dies off on the way to Peoria before it reaches any drinking water supplies. That’s the difference between sending it to the Illinois River and Lake Michigan.
We should be very careful about assuming that our allocation of Lake Michigan water for drinking would automatically increased if we stopped sending wastewater through the Chicago River system.
Comment by JLW Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 6:32 pm
Fecal coliform in the Illinois River at Peoria 1970-1976:
http://www.isws.illinois.edu/pubdoc/RI/ISWSRI-93.pdf
From Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Illinois Integrated Water Quality Report and Section 303(d) List – 2006 (Clean Water Act Sections 303(d), 305(b) and 314. IEPA, Springfield, IL.
“Similarly, while not new, the issue of pathogenic bacteria and viruses in surface and groundwater is important. For example, fecal coliform contamination is listed as the number one cause of streamwater impairment in Illinois (IEPA, 2006).”
Comment by Lefty Lefty Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 7:53 pm
Also JLW: I didn’t assume anything. Everything I stated is clearly not definitive statements on my part.
Comment by Lefty Lefty Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 7:55 pm
Well it’s interesting that you seem to focus on one thing (fecal coliform) in terms of the contaminates.
The Trib did a story about prescription drugs in the water supply
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-chicago-water-testapr17,0,6323835.story
And found they appear to be in treated Chicago drinking (not waste) water. So if one can assume that water coming out of a waste treatment plant is not any cleaner than drinking water delivered to the public. I don’t see how putting this treated water into the bottom end of Lake Michigan (which recirculates very slowly) is going to do anything but increase the levels of these compounds being found in drinking water.
Also it would seem to me instead of trying to make an argument with a large international body (the Great Lakes Compact) that treated water returned to the lake should somehow benefit that which returned it, why not use those resources to reduce the fossil fuel generation use (35% of Illinois total draw, see earlier post).
That would be a lot easier to argue IMHO with the compact.
Nice that you reference a study that includes a period of time that was before the clean water act in terms of a single contaminat.
Using research from the 21st century
http://www.geography.siu.edu/geography_info/research/NE_IL_GPCD_Use_-_Final_Report_August%2025_2009.pdf
You can see that water usage rates have been going down (pages 9 and 10) about .7% a year with steeper declines in some areas.
When you look at the usage rates for various communities, at the top of the list are Chicago suburbs that are on the wealthier side (Oak Brook, Glencoe and Lake Forest) that have significantly higher rates of usage. (Page 11)
Most likely this comes from lawn irrigation. This is borne out by the numbers (page 21 of the
pdf)
So the very folks you are looking to add to a Chicago water system are likely folks who will have the highest usage rates. Heck of a plan.
So basically it is still…
Lets spend what would likely be BILLIONS of dollars to undo something that basically gets the job done with a low incremental cost. So there is an off chance we can perhaps convince several states and another country to let us draw more drinking water out of Lake Michigan.
BTW, we could reduce the fossil fuel draw on the lake by the state for less money and reduce greenhouse gasses.
Also we would have to pray we never would have to dump a large amount of untreated sewage directly into the Chicago River system
Oh yeah wait we still do…
http://www.macalester.edu/environmentalstudies/students/projects/urbanwastewaterwebsite/chicago.html
TARP was certainly an effective method to mitigate dumping of raw sewage into Chicago’s waterways. However, despite the gleaning reports from its advocates, greater Chicago still dumps huge amounts of wastewater in overflows every year. For instance, in 2004 alone, the greater Chicago area dumped over 1 billion gallons of untreated combined sewage in 15 separate overflow events (MWRDGC PS Activity). The year 2005 was slightly better, with just over 700 million gallons dumped in just 4 overflow events (MWRDGC PS Activity). While Chicago’s discharged waste no longer flows directly into Lake Michigan, it does flow down the (redirected) Chicago River
So after 30 years and 3 Billion on Deep Tunnel we are still having to put raw sewage into the Chicago River system, just imagine what it will be like when that flows about 7 miles into Lake Michigan to the cribs…
Excellent.
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 10:29 pm
But here it is in a nutshell.
Deep water drilling was considered safe until one big accident caused huge devastation in Gulf.
You willing to take that sort of risk with only source of clean water able to support a metro area the size of Chicago.
Seems like a huge risk to me with a very small reward.
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Jun 22, 10 @ 10:31 pm
I’ve done a lot more study and interviews than most when it comes to this specific problem. In the next day or so there will be an in-depth interview with Terry O’Brien centering on this subject and bring up extremely legitimate concerns that are not addreeesed on 70 some posts here. Go to http://www.youtube.com/user/sonnyhtv and look for the 527-1 with Terry O’Brien which will be up in the next day or do.
Comment by Avy Meyers Wednesday, Jun 23, 10 @ 2:56 am
The treated effluent leaving the MWRD plants is 95% - 98% clean. The combined sewer overflows and leaking aging infrastructure called inflow/infiltration are what cause the most damaged water to enter the Chicago Area Waterway System. The system sits on the “subcontinental” divide. The short portion that went east was the only section reversed. Whoever above said it was created to stop rotten cess-pooled water is correct. If a gazzilion billion dollars are to be spent… the most reasonable use of that money would be to fix combined sewer overflows, and the aging infrastructure I/I problems. Quick sound bites for the candidates to cause conversation where most people have only knee jerk responses continues to be a ploy the public should not stand for.
Comment by Waterlady Thursday, Jun 24, 10 @ 9:57 am