One thing that's going right in Indiana

May 27, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a state where the parade of bad news—education levels, income shortfalls, poor health—never seems to end, an issue that’s huge news in other parts of the world is all but irrelevant.

Water is about as plentiful as air in Indiana. With a few exceptions, the state is blessed with an abundance of both surface and ground water.

If anyone would know about shortages, it would be Mark Basch, who has been tracking water levels for the Department of Natural Resources for a quarter century. So let’s put it this way: If Basch needed emergency-based adrenaline rushes to stay interested in his job, he’d have quit a long time ago.

“It doesn’t appear we’re seeing this long-term trend in water levels dropping,” Basch says. “We don’t see an overall lowering of groundwater levels in the state.”

Indiana gets so much rain that even after the drought of 1988, aquifers drawn down by agricultural irrigation refilled within a year or two.

The Indianapolis area is little different than other parts of the state, he says. During dry stretches, some wells on the south side of the city are drawn down a few feet, but that’s about all.

Basch won’t speculate on the state’s water capacity. But he emphasizes it’s a lot more than current usage.

That beats areas of the world where rivers dry up before reaching the ocean and aquifers are dwindling with little hope of recharge. The issue promises to spark more conflicts as populations rise.

Any thoughts on water? Is it so plentiful that we Hoosiers are inclined to waste?
 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • What about water quality?
    Water may be plentiful, but what can we do to clean it up? Most Indiana waterways are not safe for fishing or swimming, due to run off from factory farms and lawns. Let's work together to de-pollute Indiana's water assets.

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.

ADVERTISEMENT