Last updated on 2013.10.22
Hot on the bootheels of bemoaning all the "unneeded, duplicative, and wasteful" Washington spending that has arisen since 1910, Intern Kristi Noem comes out in favor of more Washington spending for her thirsty South Dakota constituents. The Congresswoman tells KJAM that the Lewis and Clark Regional Water System is "extremely vital."
Extremely vital—I guess that's Noem code for, "The people I'm visiting today really, really want it, so I'd better not mention my support for the earmark ban that set Lewis and Clark back again."
Noem spoke to KJAM as she visited Madison for what is billed as a "community listening event" at which our interning Congresswoman was able to "hear what our community's concerns are" from more than 20 businesspeople and government leaders... because in Madison, the community's concerns are what the businesspeople and governemnt leaders say they are.
Is the Lewis and Clark water project "vital"? Madison's current water supply is a bit heavy on chloroform, but are we running short? Are we rationing? Are we growing too fast for our water supply? What real hydrological need can so compel Noem to abandon her deficit hawkery and advocate opening the federal fiscal taps for little old Madison?
In related news (really! hang with me here!), Noem's Washington pal Senator John Thune (hey, is he the one signing her internship papers?) was in the neighborhood Monday checking out flooding around Lake Thompson. Senator Thune wants more federal money to improve drainage from the burgeoning lake. As always, draining water out of wet areas is a great idea until someone asks, "Drain it to where?"
And then it hits me: why not drain it straight to Madison? Why don't we drink Lake Thompson? Instead of busting our hump (and the federal checkbook) piping water uphill a hundred miles from the Missouri River, why not pipe water just 25 miles across mostly flat ground from Lake Thompson to Madison's taps?
The argument remains to be made whether we really need added water capacity. But in front of an select audience of Madison leaders and potential campaign donors, Intern Kristi did the expected: promise the pork and ignore the contradictions.
When Kristi is done with her first term I'd like to see how she voted differently than SHS would have.
I'm pretty sure Russ Olson is saying to Kristi: "I can't believe you won the primary and changed your cell phone number. I thought we were friends until you didn't give me your new number. You're so self absorbed."
Corey,
Thune actually is right about the need for drainage of Lake Thompson and the rest of northeastern South Dakota for that matter. I was initially skeptical until I realized farmland is a development in need of drainage just like a city. Land in the eastern United States has had drainage modifications for over 150 years. In South Dakota we're just waaay behind in this area as well. Imagine that. As to where it goes, roads with inadequate bridges and culverts are blocking the flow everywhere one looks. They need to be revamped to allow more flow. On a regional level, the Sioux, Vermillion and James Rivers as well as major tributaries are in need of levy development to handle the increased flow.
The public needs to realize there are alternatives to flooding other than taking it or dumping it on your neighbor and support comprehensive drainage as necessary infastructure development.
I don't begrudge farmers around Lake Thompson their land. But there may be limits to how well we can engineer the land (and how much we can spend) to suit more development. Do we want to tile all of our waterfowl-supporting wetlands out of existence so we can grow more corn? Can we re-engineer the entire James-Vermillion-Sioux river system to drain our prairie pothole quickly without flooding anyone out? Some will argue that the high water we're seeing now is in part due to all the drainage we've already done, moving water off some land and too quickly onto other land. We do appear to agree that we need a comprehensive plan for drainage, not just a couple backhoes at Lake Thomspon that pull their plug and wash out Oldham or whoever lies downstream. But I'm open to the argument that instead of trying to terraform all of East River, we may invest our resources just as efficiently (maybe more so) in leaving the wetlands wet, maybe even restoring some drained areas, and accepting limits to where we can farm and put up country houses.
But how about drinking it? We pipe it over farmland, no damage to the immediate downstream areas, use it here in town, and process it just like our current water. Using that reservoir now could take pressure off our existing wells and give us room to grow for years even without Lewis and Clark. Anyone game for laying some pipe? Self-reliance?
The irony of pumping aquifers of fossil water to irrigate crops with negative return while bringing suitable drinking water through pthalate-saturated PVC pipe over great distances is crazy-making.
A couple of issues: 1. Farmers are not allowed to drain certified wetlands. By some peoples defintion if I have a pothole in my graveled driveway and I fill it in I am destroying a wetland. 2. Tiling allows water to drain off over a longer period of time allowing the soil to act as a sponge when excess moisture is recieved. Once the soil is completely saturated any moisture that falls runs off and that is where the real problem lies. 3. What about the cities that as they grow have more asphalt and concrete, where do you think the storm drain water ends up. What are they doing to mitigate how much goes into the rivers, creeks and streams.
Initial ASCS mapping had a puddle next to a Quanset-type building marked as a wetland. The system also marked some wild plumb thicket as wetlands. We did get that corrected however.
I see the video at KELO with water running over roads and through and next to culverts. That suggests as does a previous poster that many more culverts and bridges and raised grades should be made to reduce future disaster funding for problems produced by mediocre road engineering.
When you vote for candidates who in turn vote for extending tax cuts for the rich, you end up giving up your claim for Lewis and Clark federal funding. Tax cuts is federal spending. When you spend more than you take in, adjustments are in order. Funding defaults for water projects is part of the fallout. If we don't favor big government like we say we do, then perhaps we pay the full freight in higher water rates to fund our water projects. I quess it's what we call being responsible. Time to get the check book while redoing your personal budget. Maybe we find out it's just one less coke drink every day. Oh, that's right, we just spent that one less coke-now what was that on?