Turning down an opportunity to export one of our state’s most valuable and abundant resources in such tough economic times might seem like a foolish decision at first glance.

It’s hard to imagine we would applaud a similar decision if instead of water we were talking about other precious resources, such as oil or something else in demand. Any endeavor that brings money into Michigan and has the potential to create jobs seems like a worthy investment but there’s more to think about than that.

As a child, I practically grew up on the beaches of Lake Huron. The lake is where I learned to swim and fish and spent entire days lying on the beach. However, when I return to the same sandy beaches where I used to spend my lazy summer afternoons, I now find a lot more beach than I remember.

For the past decade, water levels in the Great Lakes have been decreasing dramatically. Studies by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concluded that the water level on Lake Michigan, for example, is down 44 inches last summer from 1998.

After 2008’s harsh winter and heavy snows, water levels are expected to rise anywhere from 5 to 8 inches — but the lakes still aren’t what they used to be.

Now isn’t the time to drain even more water from the recovering lakes for the sake of watering lawns and taking extra-long showers out West.

Exporting water would undoubtedly bring in much-needed revenue to our struggling state, but even more money would be lost if the lakes ceased to exist entirely. The Great Lakes are arguably the biggest attraction bringing tourists to the state.

Jet-Skiing the Straits of Mackinac, lounging on the beaches of Grand Traverse Bay, taking a boat tour past Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore on Lake Superior — none of these things are possible in other states and none would be possible here without the lakes.

Every water sport, lakeside vacation or day trip to the beach generates tourism dollars, even if it’s only a portion of your paycheck spent on a tank of gas and a meal at a local restaurant.

It might seem like an insignificant amount of money to spend (or maybe not, depending on how big your gas tank is) but the more people that decide to take a simple trip to the coast, the more it adds up.

Exporting water from the Great Lakes isn’t just an issue of preserving Michigan. Bringing water into areas that are typically dry poses serious environmental implications.

In the arid climates of the West, you can’t blame the residents for getting thirsty or needing showers. Those things are essential parts of life.

The problems come when those people want to water expansive lawns and even golf courses. Importing water to irrigate fields of grass for the sake of appearances is not only unnecessary but unnatural.

Bringing in the amount of water it takes to keep grass green in a hot climate would create heightened levels of humidity in areas characterized by their “dry heat.” A hot summer day in Michigan can have as much as 70 percent humidity or more. A day in Arizona at the same temperature might have 10 percent humidity or less.

Changing the climate so dramatically will cause plants and animals adapted to dry climates to suffer.

An 18-hole golf course or lush front lawn isn’t worth wiping out entire species.

Michigan’s legislators made the right decision. Reserving the water of the Great Lakes for local use will preserve Michigan and the rest of our country for future generations.

Whitney Gronski is the State News opinion editor. Reach her at gronskiw@msu.edu .