Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Cheryl kirkpatrick's avatar

NO, NO, AND MORE NO! Don’t you get it? The deals are already made, and that is why they didn’t want you/us to know until it was too late to stop it. Why would you believe anything these politicians and corporate people are NOT telling you? We can’t trust Purdue (well certainly not the president, who has said openly he is FOR the deal), when we pay a TEXAS firm to tell us the truth? As if we would trust anyone saying anything form the horrible state of texas, which is on par with Putin and the great country of Russia. Again I ask why the corporation is NOT going to be in tippecanoe county where the water is? Then there would be no need for the pipeline! And someone would not make a ton of $ off this deal. Why don’t our questions get answered? Because if you knew the real deal, you would never allow it. Wake up city and county officials and protect the people who trusted you and elected you, not to sell us down the river.

Expand full comment
Noemi's avatar

"The plan would have 'minimal impacts'" on the people downstream. So, there will BE impacts; they already know that. Exactly what??

"Taking it a step further, David Rosenberg, (WHO JUST HAPPENS TO LIVE IN THE AREA GETTING THE WATER) Indiana’s new secretary of commerce, called the work an investment “to support the growth of Indiana as a whole” that “will have a transformational return for generations to come.”"

I'm pretty sure that's what the people moving water around out West thought, and maybe still think. But they're in a world of hurt after overdeveloping areas that didn't have enough water to support the development. Is Indiana REALLY hellbent on ignoring the lessons learned out West??

Again, it's stupid to create this kind of water-hungry development where there isn't enough water, when our state BORDERS a Great Lake, where there would be plenty. And in an area that could use high-tech development.

Expand full comment
8 more comments...

No posts