There are analysts in Canada, according to this website posting from north of the border, that have looked at their nation's natural resource use for various exports to the US and don't like what they see.

Note the linkage to the production and export of Canadian tar sand crude oil - - a process that uses substantial amounts of water, which like oil is also a finite resource.

And the tar sands provide the crude oil that will supply the expanded refining capacity on the US Great Lakes at Whiting, Indiana (British Petroleum) and Superior, Wisconsin (Murphy Oil).

It takes three gallons of water to produce a barrel of crude oil for export, with polluted wastewater to deal with in Canada, experts say.

Then it takes more water to refine that crude oil, and produces more waste that has to be dealt with by the refinery - - on the Great Lakes.

It's been almost five months since then-Wisconsin Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager issued a 20-page opinion on how and when certain Wisconsin communities could apply for permission to divert water from Lake Michigan.

 The ruling barred bureaucrats in the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources from administratively approving such a diversion request, and also said efforts in 2006 by the City of Waukesha to ask Gov. Jim Doyle for permission without getting the unanimous consent of the other seven Great Lakes states were also out of bounds.

 You'd think, as hot as this issue is in southeastern Wisconsin, and across the Great Lakes where the first regional test cases for new diversion efforts are brewing, that the AG opinion would be big news.

Nope. Hasn't been reported on in the traditional media, but you can read about it, access the full document and see a Wisconsin law firm's analysis here.