The Tribune published an article about how DuPage County is considering building its own pipeline to Lake Michigan, which could also serve other suburbs whose aquifers run dry in coming decades (“DuPage County studies cutting city water pact,” May 30). Then it published another article on costly energy-intensive desalination plants built for Barcelona, Spain (“Costly desalination quenches thirst,” May 31). Barcelona’s metro population is growing faster than that of stagnant metro Chicago and with a third less annual precipitation, its need for desalination is understandable, though long-term energy sustainability is questionable. The anticipated emptying of aquifers in metro Chicago seems surprising, based on the higher precipitation and slow-growing populace here.
Fortunately, we have the bountiful supply of Great Lakes water here for our use, but the growth of other cities worldwide without such access to an abundance of freshwater clearly means it is only a matter of time before many of them become water-challenged. The perils of global warming are heavily covered by the Tribune. But the unsustainable use of finite resources by a growing human population needs to be given equal coverage as global warming. Population matters.
— J.D. Colwell, Chicago
I wholeheartedly agree that Chicago and surrounding suburbs should work together to take advantage of the wonderful resource next door — Lake Michigan water. Providing water to citizens should not be a profit center for any municipality. It is an essential service to be provided to residents at the least possible cost. No one owns the water in lake; just the means and facilities to deliver to customers.
Additionally, I read all the time how climate change is causing the lake level to rise, eroding away the shorelines, resulting in millions of dollars, probably billions, in damages. I would love to water my lawn and flowers during this May drought, but if I do, my water bill will hit $400 to $500 per month. How about Chicago and Naperville reduce water cost during summer and encourage usage? It will lower the water level in the lake to reduce erosion. Sounds like a win-win to me.
— Bill Adamson, Naperville
A.D. Quig provided some interesting reporting about DuPage County and Lake Michigan water. I have questions.
Chicago sells water to myriad entities, including Glenview where I live, and many communities in Lake County and beyond. So, why would Chicago allow DuPage County to tap directly into the lake? One possible route mentions Glencoe. It is in proximity and affects my community. Glencoe sits on the lake and therefore has a legitimate claim to water. But under what authority would Glencoe allow construction of that pipeline to benefit DuPage? What incentive is DuPage offering to the communities the pipeline would traverse for approval to dig up their land, snarl traffic and disturb ecosystems?
Those questions are just for openers from an old retired guy with too much time on his hands!
I’m confident Quig will have many more questions to ask, and I look forward to reading about what she discovers.
— Len Levy, Glenview
Mary Tyler’s May 29 op-ed (“Illinois needs to ensure rise of electric vehicles won’t hamper infrastructure funding”) contains several flaws. She feels owners of electric and hybrid vehicles are passing an unfair tax burden onto drivers of gas vehicles. However, she overlooks the fact that most owners of electric vehicles charge them at home, thus paying more in electric bills. They also pay a premium on the purchase price of the vehicle, resulting in higher sales tax revenue to the state.
What if I choose to buy a gas-using but fuel-efficient car like a Prius? Should I get penalized because I get 50 mpg? One of the reasons consumers buy fuel-efficient cars is to save money at the gas pump, not to have the state of Illinois devise ways to suck more money out of their wallets via new tax revenue. That defeats the purpose of going for higher mpg.
Illinois can trim expenses elsewhere, such as eliminating some of its 7,000 units of government, or reducing that tax burden, which causes residents to leave the state, resulting in a reduced tax base.
— Gary Katz, Long Grove
In her op-ed, Mary Tyler makes the point that the loss of gasoline tax revenue could starve the state of needed funds to maintain roads and bridges.
This makes sense. But what doesn’t make sense is the fact that for decades, the damage that motor vehicle pollution has caused to our global climate and public health has not been covered in the cost of those fuels. In fact, part of the damage to roadways and other infrastructure can be attributed to the gradual increase in weather extremes tied to global warming. These effects are subtle and complex, but very real. Potholes are only one kind of damage done by motor vehicles.
The Citizens’ Climate Lobby advocates for a national fee on fossil fuel carbon, increasing annually, with all revenue then divided up among all Americans as “carbon cashback” payments. This would not only compensate families for the impacts of climate pollution but also would incentivize both businesses and consumers to seek out cheaper alternatives for just about everything. The net effect would be a steady decline in climate-warming emissions along with other types of air pollution.
Tyler is correct that the dependence of highway maintenance on gasoline consumption no longer makes sense. A mileage-based levy would be more appropriate, perhaps combined with a vehicle weight component to reflect the effect of bigger, heavier vehicles. But the benefits of vehicle electrification for the health of our economy, ecosystems and lungs should not continue to be ignored. We need to price fossil carbon pollution as 46 other countries are already doing.
In past years, Illinois federal lawmakers have sponsored equitable, effective national carbon pricing. Please urge them to do so again and support them if they do.
— Rick Knight, research coordinator, Citizens’ Climate Lobby, Brookfield
Join the conversation in our Letters to the Editor Facebook group.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
Letters: We are lucky to have Lake Michigan for our water needs. But challenges abound across the world.
11
0
04.06.2023
The Tribune published an article about how DuPage County is considering building its own pipeline to Lake Michigan, which could also serve other suburbs whose aquifers run dry in coming decades (“DuPage County studies cutting city water pact,” May 30). Then it published another article on costly energy-intensive desalination plants built for Barcelona, Spain (“Costly desalination quenches thirst,” May 31). Barcelona’s metro population is growing faster than that of stagnant metro Chicago and with a third less annual precipitation, its need for desalination is understandable, though long-term energy sustainability is questionable. The anticipated emptying of aquifers in metro Chicago seems surprising, based on the higher precipitation and slow-growing populace here.
Fortunately, we have the bountiful supply of Great Lakes water here for our use, but the growth of other cities worldwide without such access to an abundance of freshwater clearly means it is only a matter of time before many of them become water-challenged. The perils of global warming are heavily covered by the Tribune. But the unsustainable use of finite resources by a growing human population needs to be given equal coverage as global warming. Population matters.
— J.D. Colwell, Chicago
I wholeheartedly agree that Chicago and surrounding suburbs should work together to take advantage of the wonderful resource next door — Lake Michigan water. Providing water to citizens should not be a profit center for any municipality. It is an essential service to be provided to residents at the least........
© Chicago Tribune
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Andrew Mitrovica
Belen Fernandez
Tafi Mhaka
Marwan Bishara
Timotej Milanov
