Faced with limited water supplies, many throughout the US are finding themselves forced to adopt new habits for usage and consumption. From the Midwest, where floodwaters have contaminated potable water sources, to parts of California, where residents were told to reduce consumption by 19 percent…or else, water reduction requirements have become more than a suggestion. They are a necessity.
Many conservationists point out that while oil is a much-publicized resource, it is primarily a convenience. Water is essential and irreplaceable.
The “duh” factor is pretty high when it comes to needing water to survive. Yet few actively work toward conserving on a daily basis. Some consumers argue that those who supposedly need the water most—the agricultural industry, for example—are rarely the ones to reduce their usage. Others complain that they have been aiming to conserve all along—making the latest round of restrictions, well, too restrictive.
The question, for some, is how we ended up in this position in the first place.
While rainstorms may not be preventable, failing levees could be. In fact, after Katrina raged ashore alarms sounded throughout the US announcing the need to repair or upgrade various levee-systems. But droughts are a little more complicated.
A Drought is a Drought—Or is it?
According to the Department of Water Resources of the State of California, no universal definition exists for when a drought begins or ends. Unlike most natural disasters, droughts occur gradually, over a period of multiple years. When one begins depends greatly on the impact on water users. Since users have different water suppliers, what constitutes a drought for one area may not be considered a drought for users in another location.
Add to this the fact that individual water suppliers, or local government agencies, may vary drought indicators to determine conditions. Some may use “rainfall/runoff, amount of water in storage, or expected supply from a water wholesaler to define their water supply conditions” (Dept. of Water Resources). But other potential indicators include: “the Palmer Index (a drought-severity index), in stream flows, historical data on the present and anticipated needs for water, the degree of subsidence or saltwater intrusion, the potential for irreversible adverse effects on fish and wildlife, and reservoir or ground-water conditions relative to the number of days of water supply remaining” (USGS).
The effect of a dry year, like 2007, is compounded by any lack of precipitation in the years that follow. The Dept. of Water Resources points out that “statewide precipitation for…2008 is only about 15 percent below average” but overall runoff is reduced by the depletion in soil moisture from 2007. The combined impact is also visible in area reservoirs. All of which led Governor Schwarzenegger to sign Executive Order S-06-08 on June 4. And thus, a statewide drought was proclaimed, which led to voluntary, then mandatory water restrictions.
Many native Californians remember the long drought from 1987-1992. Some restaurants in San Francisco still practice the “please ask for water” restrictions. (Convenient since they could be requested to do so again in the near future.) As a result of that drought period, the state government California established Drought Emergency Water Banks to oversee the distribution of water to areas in need.
This motion demonstrates how, throughout drought history, governments have been reactive rather than proactive. In fact, according to the USGS, “Most State governments have not passed legislation providing for additional drought planning beyond slight modifications in their water laws.” And local governments are “are not permitted to allocate surface water and groundwater among competing users” (USGS).
Imposing water-conservation measures is not a popular move at any level of government, so officials are reluctant to lay down law, which compounds the need and the problem.
USGS water-supply paper 2375 boils down the obstacles to planning for drought as:
- -Specificity (the need for a clear definition to determine when droughts start/end);
- -Randomness (frequency and severity are unknown, so it almost makes sense for governments to react rather than plan);
- -Drought phenomenon (those really in need during a drought have few options for dealing with water shortages, the action must be collective, when the tendency is for a community to resolve its own needs, “without regard to its neighbors”);
- -Cost of droughts (losses occur over a longer period of time than with other natural disasters, and many are indirect costs, which are difficult to track or quantify);
- -Political considerations (public memory is short, analysis of effect is lacking in public sphere, and political attention shifts quickly, leading public to visage droughts as being “affordable, although inconvenient”—without public support, leaders will not take aggressive action in planning).
Yet, these obstacles haven’t deterred other countries from taking action. England’s Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs presented a Future Water strategy report to Parliament in February 2008. Recognizing average water use in England to be approximately one ton of water per week, the report calls for consumers to reduce water consumption by 20-30 liters per person by 2030. The report outlines how technological developments, water companies, and the industrial and commercial sectors can come together to provide cost effective measures. It also highlights water saving tips for consumers.
Carmen Revenga, a senior freshwater scientist with the Nature Conservancy’s Center for Global Trend, believes “the next big idea in freshwater conservation is to treat water as an economic good and price it accordingly to reflect its true cost.” Supporters feel the price of water should reflect the cost of supplying, distributing and treating the resource—as well as cover the cost of “sustaining healthy ecosystems and species.” Revenga points out that price increases in Indonesia have reduced consumption by 30 percent.
Opponents to the idea claim that access to water is a fundamental human right, not a commodity. Treating it as such could cause markups out of reach of the poor and marginalized. But, Revenga adds, “This issue can be addressed by implementing subsidies for the poor or a tiered rate structure based on ability to pay that ensures that all have water for their basic needs.”
Since January 2003, Victoria, Australia, has seen an overwhelming response to its water conservation program. This is primarily due to the more than 177,000 rebates already given out and the increasing list of products that fall into the rebate scheme.
Along the same lines, many US water suppliers currently offer rebates on the installation of water saving appliances or systems.
What You Can Do
While some conservation options are relatively cheap, others can get rather costly and not be all that realistic to achieve in the near future. If you happen to be remodeling portions of your home or at the starter’s line of a landscape design project, you are in the position to make choices that can yield long-term benefits. The Virtual House feature on the California Urban Water Conservation Council website demonstrates a range of options for improving water usage throughout the household. But quick fixes are also possible.
For more info, see “Quick Fixes” and “Long Term Changes” for options compiled from various web sources with many common suggestions.
