Scott Stantis by Scott Stantis

Scott Stantis

Comments (18) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. omQ R

    omQ R said, 3 days ago

    To be fair, Canada has a stake in them lakes, too, not just the US states of Wisconsin & Michigan.

  2. piobaire

    piobaire said, 2 days ago

    Simple science: Species exist where they can obtain resources like water. If people want water, they should live and set up lifestyles which can be supported by the available supply.

    It doesn’t make sense to mess up one area’s ecology to support another’s.

  3. twclix

    twclix GoComics PRO Member said, 2 days ago

    Simple science. The human species is highly adaptable to many conditions. Rapid adaptation is the province of bacteria and humans, as well as certain other “life” forms such as viruses. We adapt using our brains. They adapt through evolutionary response to mortal stimuli. A priori, there is no terrestrial environment where we cannot live as a species. Maybe Antarctica. So this notion that we should only be living where the resources exist would have you believing that we never migrated out of Africa. And that is a view that’s not on,y obviously wrong, but is also not even remotely like simple science.

  4. cjr53

    cjr53 said, 2 days ago

    If the majority of the nation’s food supply is produced in California and there isn’t enough water to do it, doesn’t anyone think we all have a stake in it? (I’m not in California.)

  5. fatchance

    fatchance said, 2 days ago

    Yes, humans can live almost anywhere. There are some places (like deserts) that will support only limited numbers of us. I think that we are reaching the limit in some areas.

  6. WiseOrator

    WiseOrator said, 2 days ago

    @omQ R

    There are a total of seven states that border the Great Lakes, not just two. Even with just the closest and largest Great Lake, Lake Superior there are three. And yes, in addition there is the nation of Canada and the sole Province of Ontario.
    Independent of that correction there is the Great Lakes Compact prohibiting diversion of the Great Lakes to any region not within the watershed and the economic, geographic, techological and topographical issues. Not the least of which is the Rocky Mountains.

  7. Michael Wme

    Michael Wme said, 2 days ago

    In one of the cradles of civilization (the only one I was taught about in school, but it turns out there were others further east), the water was in places that were not suitable for farming, so they built deep underground pipelines that channeled the water from where it was found to where it was easy to farm, and they’ve been doing this for about 3,000 years now.
    If California indeed produces (as I’ve read) more than 50% of all the food eaten in the US, it might make sense to run pipelines to California from where there’s lots of water but it’s not as good a place to farm.
    But realistically, a country that can’t maintain its bridges and says the kind of people who can’t afford to take their own helicopters from their estates to where they want to go just have to take their chances every time they have to drive over one of those bridges isn’t going to be able to build and maintain the kind of network for water that was built here 3,000 years ago (and still requires annual maintenance).

  8. omQ R

    omQ R said, 2 days ago


    Thanks for the correction ;-) But I was limiting myself to an “M” and a “W” on that bloke’s hat. I suppose Minnesota could have been one of the "M"s but my local geographical knowledge of North America is rather limited and coincidentally, I’ve been on the shores of Lake Michigan from Chicago (Illinois) and from Ludington, (Michigan); closer to my backyard, of the African Great Lakes (the looser definition), I’ve only ever visited Lake Malawi (and I was too small to remember).

    More interesting about your post is the fact that you point out there is a “Great Lakes Compact”.. Talking about a very long straw is therefore a moot point.

  9. piobaire

    piobaire said, 2 days ago

    Look at where people live. Yes, they live in almost every portion of the globe, from deserts to high mountains to the arctic. However, they are concentrated where food and water are located. I stand by my earlier statement.

  10. superposition

    superposition said, 2 days ago

    @Michael Wme

    “But realistically, a country that can’t maintain its bridges …”

    The middle class does penance through austerity for their not working hard enough to be wealthy and giving aid to the poor.

    If only more would put down their science books and pray for rain, it would come.

  11. dzw3030

    dzw3030 said, 2 days ago


    Tell that to the city of Los Angeles. They sucked the Owens Valley dry with a pipeline. LA has nice swimming pools, though.

  12. ron2nips

    ron2nips GoComics PRO Member said, 2 days ago

    Wouldn’t that be great to have all the States and Canada to trade the water for California produce or other products?

  13. piobaire

    piobaire said, 2 days ago

    As some of the posters above have pointed out, humans living in areas that gradually lost or used up their water supplies had to adapt. They used technology (such as aqueducts or tunnels) to continue as they had. Others learned to make do with less water. This may include the people who lived in what are now the Sahara and the Middle East. Other people moved.
    California supplies a lot of America’s food, yes. Food can be produced in other areas of the country, and it may, on balance, be cheaper to do that than to build a series of pipelines across the country. Who pays for the pipelines, how it would affect taxes and food prices, and the effects of taking water from the east affecting the ecology there all need to be considered.
    Naturally, the people of the Southwest would be glad to have the water, preferably at a low cost, with infrastructure paid for by taxpayers from across the country. Just as naturally, people of the Great Lakes would like to see their resources attracting investment. The population of the Northeast has been declining. Will this be the factor that reverses that trend?

  14. WiseOrator

    WiseOrator said, 2 days ago

    @omQ R

    I think the “MW” stood for Mid-West as states in this area usually are referred to as the Midwest. However I can see your point, good eye and quick uptake. I admire your thought process.

  15. exoticdoc2

    exoticdoc2 said, 2 days ago

    CA has absolutely no right to anyone else’s water. If someone else CHOOSES to allow some, then CA should pay through the nose for it. If you want to live in a desert, then you’ll have come up with your own water. Try desalination plants. A good start would be using that money you are flushing down the sewer on that non-high-speed rail, or are spending on ilegal aliens, or are paying out in overblown salaries, pensions, and benefits to government workers. CA has plenty of money to address its problems, its moronic leader, elected by equally moronic voters, simply choose to waste it rather than use it wisely. So no sympathy.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (3).