Fresh water in peril

Investments are needed to stave off climate-induced water crisis 13

To me, loss of freshwater supplies is the scariest impact of climate change. After all, I can imagine adapting relatively successfully to a warmer world. I cannot imagine adapting to a world with less freshwater. That view was reinforced by a great article on water in The New York Times Magazine. Read it and then forward it to all of your friends.

Over on inkstain, John Fleck also has a bunch of terrific blog entries about the ongoing water crisis in the Southeast U.S. In his latest entry, John points out that the drought there, while bad, is not that bad from a historical perspective.

So why is Georgia suffering so much? The reason is that as the region's population grew, they did not make appropriate investments in infrastructure, such as water supply. The result is that a drought of fixed size is a much bigger problem today than it was several decades ago.

New Orleans, of course, is the poster child for insufficient infrastructure. They knew a hurricane would swamp them, and that such a hurricane was just a matter of time, but they still didn't spend the money to provide the necessary protection. They look pretty stupid now.

Because we are not making adequate investments, our society is becoming less resilient to climate variability. I probably don't need to point out that this is the wrong direction. As climate changes, we need to become more resilient. That means that we need to spend money on infrastructure. Hat tip to John Fleck (and commenter Dano, who was channelling Roger Pielke, Sr.) for making this point in this blog entry.

So what investments do we need to make now to head off problems that we know are coming down the pike? Turns out that's an easy question to answer. We need to make coastal developments resilient to sea-level rise (even if that means restricting coastal development) and we need to make just about every spot in the U.S. resilient to reductions in freshwater. There are other things too, including enhancements in public health infrastructure, energy infrastructure, food infrastructure, etc.

If we don't do this now, people in the future will look back on us and conclude we were pretty stupid. They would be right.

Andrew Dessler is an associate professor in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M University; his research focuses on the physics of climate change, climate feedbacks in particular.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. Sam Wells Posted 9:06 am
    22 Oct 2007

    On RO and ShippingI really like the idea of reverse-osmosis for making freshwater from briny water but the massive amounts of power required for the pumps have me rather baffled - any thoughts there?  There's a joke that to install a giant RO plant you need a huge power plant next to it!  Uh-oh, more GHG...
    As to the shipping perspective, except for a few ports our harbors are rapidly rising - as in getting full of silt.  It is an unseen thing, ships being turned away because they cannot come into a port because their draft is too deep, and because there's no money to dredge the channels.  About 1,300 miles of inland waterways are going this way right now, never mind the Great Lakes.
    I predict even stranger things in the future ...

    Onward through the fog

    Permalink

  2. elbarto Posted 9:32 am
    22 Oct 2007

    Water scarcity in Australia, tooIf you want to see "water stress" in a rich country, come to Brisbane, Australia's third largest city. Expanding population and below average rainfall in the last 5-10 years has seen the city's water supplies drop to a total of 20% of full capacity. Current projections see this running out in a year or two depending on whether or not summer rains return this year.
    Local goverment has enacted severe water restrictions that require each person to use less than 140 litres per day or risk fines. Use of hoses outdoors is banned. Garden watering or car washing must be done by hand-held bucket and only on certain days. Consistently exceeding your allotment can result in the water authority clamping your homes water supply to a tiny trickle - enough for drinking and cooking but not much else!
    To alleviate the situation a water network is being constructed to bring water from other supplies, a new dam is being constructed and a pipeline is being built to recycle treated sewage back into the supplies.
    The new dam will inundate many productive family farms and potentially destroy a pristine river. Communities attached to the other water supplies are not happy with the city "stealing" their water and of course we will basically be "drinking our own poo" when the treated water recycling commences.
    The water restrictions have generaly been embraced - people have voluntarily reduced their consumption to 130 liters per day, and most are confident that the recycled water will be safe given the level of treatment it is given.
    Many households are installing water tanks to collect rainwater from roofs to provide a degree of water freedom - the government subsidises their installation.
    I wonder if other rich countries like the US and those in western Europe will be ready for such measures as we have in Australia on a large scale to preserve water supplies?

    Permalink

  3. Sam Wells Posted 9:56 am
    22 Oct 2007

    Rainwater collectionMy friends over in the Abacos, Bahamas all have cisterns to collect rainwater.  That's how they live. There are no public drinking water systems or water wells in the Out Islands.  
    I suppose this area of the NW Bahamas is blessed with periodic thunderstorms although some droughts have been bad - but they're happy as can be with what they have.  
    The best homebrews I ever made were with rainwater by the way, a Belgian ale and a honey mead. Without all the chemicals in the water the yeast sure seemed to do its thing.  

    Onward through the fog

    Permalink

  4. solar greg Posted 10:33 am
    22 Oct 2007

    TreesI think that not enough has been done around the world about reforesting and foresting new areas. Trees are natures solution to keep rain water from evaporating and running off and eroding topsoil.

    Has anybody thought about spreading seeds from high altitude? Even if a small percentage of seeds prosper, I think it's better than manualy planting, and it reaches inaccesible lands.

    Permalink

  5. Sam Wells Posted 12:31 pm
    22 Oct 2007

    Well maybe ...But my idea is to get rid of water guzzlers like the Mountain Juniper, Eucalyptus, and other invasives first.  In areas where's these loads of invasives or no rain at all, I think you'd just be spreading tree seeds for no good. I've volunteered with the Forestry Service and it was always planting small trees about 12 inches high because it worked better with less die-off, but I have an open mind.  Depends on what patch of land you're talking about, I guess.

    Onward through the fog

    Permalink

  6. riverguy Posted 12:58 pm
    22 Oct 2007

    That's not exactly rightThe author's depiction that New Orleans knew it was in trouble, but was unwilling to spend the money to protect itself isn't accurate.  The author is right on the point that many people in New Orleans did know the city was vulnerable.  Unfortunately, making the city safe required and still does much more than what New Orleans, or event the state of Louisiana could do alone.  First, the levees in New Orleans were built by the federal government, not the City. Most importantly, however, the reason New Orleans is so vulnerable to hurricanes is that much of its surrounding coastal wetlands have disappeared.  Those wetlands act as a buffer for hurricane storm surge.  People have long recognized that the vanishing coast in Louisiana could have massive repercussions when a hurricane struck.  However, the solution is to restore the coast, which requires billions of dollars.  Not exactly an easy fix for the poor City of New Orleans.  
    The author should stick to his great point that communities in the southeast haven't been planning well when it comes to water supply and he shouldn't say uninformed things like, "they look pretty stupid now."  Yes, it might have been possible to prevent the disaster that was Katrina, but it wasn't some simple fix that New Orleans could have accomplished alone.  It would have required foresight within all levels of government, which didn't exist and continues to be a problem.  

    Permalink

  7. Biodiversivist's avatar

    Biodiversivist Posted 1:24 pm
    22 Oct 2007

    Luckily, you don't need water to grow biofuels....Oh, wait a minute. My bad.

    In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

    Permalink

  8. Andrew Dessler Posted 1:29 pm
    22 Oct 2007

    Good pointRiverguy-
    You make a good point, and I fully agree that protecting New Orleans was not then and is not now and easy endeavor.  However, had they built the infrastructure necessary before Katrina, it would have cost far, far, far less than it's going to cost for us to a) build the infrastructure after the storm and b) rebuild the city, too.  I think that my fundamental point that it is cheaper to solve problems before they occur is as true with New Orleans as it is anywhere else.
    And as far as your point that "It would have required foresight within all levels of government, which didn't exist and continues to be a problem," that is exactly the point of this post.  That foresight to head off problems before they occur still does not exist and we should all be working to change that.  

    Permalink

  9. meander Posted 3:59 pm
    22 Oct 2007

    No new taxes pledgesUnfortunately for those who hope for a more stable future, it is almost a requirement for Republican candidates to sign "no new taxes" pledges during their campaigns.  This short-sighted rigidity is already showing up in failing infrastructure (falling bridges, urban sinkholes, leaking water systems) and deferred maintenance.  In California we have been getting around the no new taxes requirement of the state GOP by selling bonds, conveniently forgetting that someday they will need to be paid off (with interest).

    ---

    meander

    Permalink

  10. GreyFlcn Posted 4:48 pm
    22 Oct 2007

    What water quality?Luckily, you don't need water to grow biofuels....

    Oh, wait a minute. My bad.
    What in the world could biofuels have to do with water?
    http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/10/noaa-initiates-.h ...

    Permalink

  11. Green Granny's avatar

    Green Granny Posted 10:45 pm
    22 Oct 2007

    It takes LOTS of water to grow corn. . .

    "We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi

    Permalink

  12. solar greg Posted 1:06 am
    23 Oct 2007

    aerial forestingI think spreading seeds with a coating to help them out and in some places even dropping (carefully) sharpenned sticks, (like darts) so that they plant themselves. It may be a crazy idea but these are crazy times. The way I see it you can reach areas that are innaccesible or too dificult to reach and plant. In some counties there is land that has been leveled off and then abandoned. This would be a way to plant without asking for permision. I know it might sound invasive but we would only be helping nature speed up it's reclaiming of the land.

    Permalink

  13. riverguy Posted 1:57 am
    23 Oct 2007

    I agreeYour point that it is more expensive to deal with the problem now than before Katrina is definitely true.  Almost everything is more expensive in a hurricane zone afterward.  The larger issue is that  most of the money for the Katrina response has focused on dealing with the problems caused by Katrina, not in preventing another Katrina.  Of course we need money to help people who have been affected, but in general, it seems that when we do have disasters that are at least partly human-caused, we tend to focus on responding to the disaster, not the cause of the disaster.

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement