You paint a very grim picture, are you trying to scare even us hydrologists off the job? I haven't read the book yet so I don't know whether it quantifies the challenges or just offers microcosms. Low water quality may currently be the largest environmental impediment in developing regions that we can do something about.

Thanks -- I'll put it on my reading list.  And if you really want to be a giant water nerd, I'd recommend that you put Marc Reisner's Cadillac Desert on yours.  It's a little older and focuses on the American West (i.e., west of the Mississippi), but it offers a meticulously researched in-depth history.  And it's also very scary.

We have been earing about floods, etc. which leads the ordinary person, who derives all of their knowledge from the almighty evening news, to believe that there is no shortage, howe could there be if we are flooding.  But there is.  We take away too much farmland to build homes.  WE don't use the proper irrigation techniquest when we do farm, and then we pollute the only sources of water we have with unhealthy habits.  I recently heard of a homeowner in the San Joaquin Valley who built a multi-million dollar home, but could not obtain potable water, not even by drilling, because it isn't there.  He had a large parcel of land, but only a small, small pocket of water to draw from.  People just don't think, research or consider all of the alternatives before they act.  

No one seems to recognize that the intense overstocking of our National Forests has helped to deplete both surface water and aquafirs. The disaster of the San Bernardino National Forest should have been a wake-up call but, even 12 million deads trees (including ancient old growth trees that have survived worse droughts) hasn't had enough of an impact. Even the people who study tree rings seem to not have a "fudge factor" to correct for tree densities when they say "tree rings show that global warming and drought are a certainty". Now, I'm NOT saying that global warming isn't a fact. I'm just saying that this seemingly obvious effect on tree rings SHOULD be factored in, because today's crowded forests have trees stealing water from each other, resulting in reduced growth and smaller tree rings.

Returning forests back to historical densities would certainly have major effects on the health of our forests, the amounts of ground water available, the productiveness of springs and increased stream and river flows. However, this will NOT make up for the massive amounts of water our greedy and wasteful society needs to "live long and prosper".

One thing I saw in the news a while back that scares me is a study that was commissioned in Wyoming to see how much water would be freed up by cutting most of the trees in large parts of the state. Why anyone would even consider such a thing and spending money to find out boggles my mind. Fortunately, there will be no debate over this particular potentiality, because no significant amount of new water would be realized for any length of time, as the study concluded. Now, before you all have a collective sigh of relief, there ARE parts of the country where this technique MIGHT yield significant amounts of "new" water. We must NEVER allow such a thing to happen, especially when eliminating our intensely wasteful water habits can go a long, long way towards wild Western survival. (One of my big pet peeves, amongst many, is the planting of water-loving redwood and alder trees in landscaping, instead of native dry-adapted oaks,  in hot, dry cities like Sacramento.)

The thought that more trees in a forest is better needs to be realized as false. "Natural" densities with adapted native trees is the way to go. The thought that more trees will change rainfall patterns within a forest is also false, resulting in quite the opposite effect. Trees act as big water pumps, turning groundwater into water vapor. This water vapor ends up being lost to mankind (and our ecosystems) in most of our western forests.

We MUST be successful in balancing our ecosystems if we are to enjoy a high quality of life. We're obviously not doing a very good job of that in this day and age.

of the worlds water being fresh water and two percent of this locked in glaciers. we need to all we can to protect this vital resource for our very survival!

peace

having fun at this thing called life! Go Kayaking!

"...there is no shortage, howe could there be if we are flooding."

One of my favorite paradoxes in water management policy.

I think that all the wetlands, that restore aquifers and are a huge carbon sink, should be fed with every flood.  By gates in the sides of levies.  A much better way to manage flood and drought than a dam.

And an even better way to get hydro-electric power is with underwater turbines, similar to wind turbines, mounted in the gates.  The environmental opposition to dams is justified and prevents the exploitation of most hydroelectric power.

This kind of system would not interfere with the residents of the rivers like dams do, preventing fish from spawning.  So it would allow a lot more of the energy to be harvested.

Restore the wetlands with every flood and the aquifers along with them!  

I would even go so far as to install large water pumping wind mills to pump flood waters up into wetlands further away from rivers to replenish aquifers. Water is vital to all life on the planet and it is worth it to replace dams with systems like this.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

You know water is too cheap when people waste it by irrigating their senseless grass lawns (hey, why not grow some FOOD, idiots).

But my favorite is the assholes who use their water hoses as some sort of dirt broom on their driveway. You know the ones who "wash" their driveway with gallons and gallons of water, for no apparent reason?

If water reflected it's true cost and value, people would be a lot less inclined to waste it. Not that I particularly want to pay more, but I think $0.50 a gallon is reasonable.

I'm not sure what it amounts to with current average prices in the U.S., but when people can get away with wasting it left and right all day long and still only pay $30 a month -- well that's just retarded.

Then again, I also think gas should be $5 a gallon so people would stop wasting it so much.

Anywho, there is another good book on water crisis called "Cadillac Desert", about the American west. I've only read the first bit of it, but I should be finishing it soon. So far so good.