Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Water Crisis Rocks LA, Mexico City; Who's Next?
WASHINGTON -- Water, water hardly anywhere. Water crises are rocking two of the world's largest cities as Mexico City starts a 36-hour water cutoff and Los Angeles is in the midst of a water dearth.
A resident looks on while a city worker delivers her weekly water ration in containers at a low-income neighborhood in Mexico City, Thursday, April 9, 2009 The Mexican capital, one of the most densely populated cities in the world, cut in water supply to a historic fall in reserves, a measure that affects at least five million people, according to authorities. (AP Photo/Eduardo Verdugo) The problem, however, is far wider than two of the most populous
cities in the Western Hemisphere. Beijing, the capital of China, has a
serious water shortage. The Israelis and the Palestinians are at
loggerheads over control of the key aquifers west of the River Jordan
that are vital to sustain both peoples. An unprecedented world
population of 6.8 billion people -- more than three times that of 80
years ago -- and the inexorable reality of global climate change are
guaranteed to make the long-term crisis worse.
The cutoff in Mexico affects about a quarter of the capital city's residents -- 5 million people. Mexico City instituted a five-month rationing plan in January with the Thursday-Friday cutoff this week deemed necessary to fix a leaky supply system and to ease -- somewhat -- a supply problem that began when the lakes that once flooded the city were drained 40 years ago.
The leaks problem is not small. Half of Mexico City's water supply is lost through lousy infrastructure alone -- primarily through leaking pipes.
The change in weather patterns over the North American continent has taken its toll too, just as it did in Los Angeles.
Mexico's National Water Commission said that the capital city's water supply system is at its lowest level -- less than 50 percent capacity after low rainfall totals last year and the leaky delivery system.
In Los Angeles, the City Council unanimously turned back a rationing plan Wednesday that had been put together by the city's Department of Water and Power, which is caught between the council and a statewide order from California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to cut usage 20 percent.
If the city fails to take action, the agency that supplies the bulk of water to Los Angeles could impose rationing.
The plan the council voted down -- so it could be studied further -- would have mandated by June 1 much higher rates for water users who exceed a monthly limit, which itself would be lower than current water usage.
U.S. cities are going to be hugely vulnerable to water shortages within the next five to 10 years. There is a huge aquifer under several states in the Midwest. The aquifer, tapped primarily for agriculture, has been hugely depleted over the past couple of decades and is a future crisis waiting to happen.
Almost no one in the United States -- or anywhere else in the industrialized world -- takes the crisis seriously or realizes how directly it threatens them. About 70 percent of Earth is covered by deep oceans, but all the water in the oceans is heavily saline, with high quantities of salt that make it impossible to drink.
The unprecedented global population growth and the demands of industry and modern agriculture for gigantic amounts of water have depleted aquifers around the world. Nitrate fertilizer is universally used to maintain crop yields at levels that would have appeared magical a century ago. But nitrate fertilizer, based on an industrial process to "fix" nitrogen out of the atmosphere developed by German chemists Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch before World War I, seeps through soil to poison water tables everywhere and make them unusable.
The United States embarked on a binge of dam building to preserve water starting in the 1930s as part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal and continuing in the 1950s under President Dwight D. Eisenhower. But later presidents slashed funding. Under President George W. Bush and his four Congresses -- three Republican-controlled and one Democrat-controlled -- the problem got vastly worse.
On Thursday CNN cited a recent American Society of Civil Engineers report that concluded more than 1,800 U.S. dams are now in urgent need of reconstruction work and pose a significant risk of being breached. That is up from around only 360 dams at such risk in 2001.
Even the drowning of New Orleans in 2005 -- which came about after the Bush administration and recent Congresses neglected maintenance funding for the levees protecting the city -- did not translate into a wider wake-up call to protect and upgrade the national water-reservoir infrastructure.
The ASCE report concluded that it would take $8 billion to repair those 1,800 dams. But there are another 2,200 dams that also need maintenance work. The bill for repairing all 4,000 dams in all could come to almost $50 billion.
That sounds like a lot of money. But the current Democrat-controlled 111th Congress has just pushed through a gigantic $787 billion stimulus spending package, of which little more than $80 billion, or around 11 percent, was actually stimulus spending. So far, the current ruling Democrats in Congress have proved as ignorant and irresponsible about the need to repair dams and pipes and prioritize the U.S. water infrastructure as their Republican predecessors.
Repairing dams and leaky pipes is not sexy. It is not cutting-edge technology. It doesn't carry dreams of putting two or three American astronauts back on the moon or providing an astrodome defense against nuclear-armed missiles. It is only a matter of life and death for 300 million Americans.
The water shortages now hitting Los Angeles and Mexico City now "only" threaten around 40 million people. If the U.S. and Mexican governments don't get their acts together, the problem will only get far worse.
63 Comments so far
Show AllWars for water will be next on the agenda! Wait and see!
Low interest rates combined with an unregulated financial market enabled electrical power price manipulation in 2000, the housing bubble 2002-2006, food and petrochemical price manipulation 2008, and now that same flawed monetary policy is being perpetuated by Obama and the Federal Reserve to enable control water prices.
The speculation bonanza of 2001-2008 affected most real and imaginary commodities from calories to copper to credit creating most of the economic turmoil that creates hardship for the bottom 90% of humans and the rest of the biosphere. Commodities speculation tripled from $13 billion at the end of 2003 to $317 billion as of July 2008 causing retail prices to double.
As in credit default swaps, commodity futures trading was sold as insurance for producers (lenders and farmers, and all the rest) but the big line was crossed when non-producers were allowed to "buy insurance", i.e. turn it into a speculation casino with commodity index funds. All of this was encouraged by top Washing-town law-breakers including Senators O'Bamba, Clintok, and the rest.
Basic food commodity prices increased on average 25% due to US oil war and another 25% due to speculators trying to exploit the geo-political turmoil. In effect, Darth Viper managed to expand executive power, oil/war profiteering, and casino royale all under a single ideological banner, and achieved several tens of millions of votes for his hard work.
In greed-stricken self-interest, airline executives publicized speculation as having grown from 1/5th to 2/3rds of petro-futures trading in the past two decades according to ipsnews.net. The counter argument was about as bogus as it gets: The Intercontinental Exchange cited regulation of onion market speculation in the 1950s as the cause of wild onion price swings this decade. It's amazing that hundreds of millions of people submit themselves to rule by chimps that spew such non-sense.
Those chimps control congress, as illustrated (ipsnews.net, jul 08): "[Senator] Lieberman had favored prohibiting institutional investors from taking positions in the futures markets. The bill introduced last week contains no such ban, however, because he was persuaded the idea would not garner enough support to succeed."
Warring Buffett compared the speculators to cinderella at the ball, getting in one last dance before turning into a pumpkin, but cinderella didn't dance on the backs of hundreds of millions of people severely affected by price turmoil in the real economy. CNN gladly profited from the attention paid.
Resource Investor, a publication by and for petro-speculators, argued that instead of worrying about speculation we should as T. Bone Pickens suggested, worry about the benefits of high oil prices to those with the oil, who use the profits to buy weapons to use against Exxon's Pentagon.
The people didn't demand 3.5 ton SUVs and truckloads of meat and other highly resource-intensive commodities until those were pushed into the markets, which requires a lot of central planning in all the wrong areas. Leave it to the elites to deliver the supply that wasn't demanded. Speculation is the injury added to the injury. We have to replace plunderous supply with enlightened demand if we want security, stability and sustainability.
Move near one of the Great Lakes.
they already ARE on the agenda.
Wars for water are already on the agenda. We don't have to wait.
Water issues are nothing new to Southern California (it did inspire a great Roman Polanski file, "Chinatown"). What is new is the potential for a permanent state of water rationing for Angelenos: good bye lawns, hello cactus gardens. A potential side effect for California could be a new drive by relatively water rich Northern California for secession.
"May you be cursed to live in interesting times."
What's the big problem?
The international water companies can just sell these people bottled water, or better yet, genetically modified high fructose soft drinks.
Yes, you are right: it's a nice opportunity to raise some good cash and in the process make a profit and help the economy! Who woulda thunk it?
"The Israelis and the Palestinians are at loggerheads over control of the key aquifers west of the River Jordan that are vital to sustain both peoples. "
No, they're not "at loggerheads." Israel has been stealing both land and water from the Palestinians for decades, and when the Palestinians try to resist with their homemade rockets, Israel slaughters them with all the newest in weaponry available from the U.S.
Confiscation of almost all West Bank wells was one of the first military orders of the occupation and until 1982 the military controlled West Bank waters. Now, the Israel water company, Mekerot, is in charge. Management has deeply discriminated against Palestinians and has been wasteful of water when it concerns Jewish settlements. No new Palestinian wells have been permitted for agricultural purposes since 1967 and very few for domestic purposes. Israel has set quotas based on 1968 usage of how much water can be drawn by Palestinians from existing wells. When supplies are low in the summer, Mekerot closes the supply valves to Palestinian towns and villages, but not to the illegal Israeli settlements. Settlers continue to fill swimming pools and water lawns while Palestinians lack water for drinking and cooking. Furthermore, settlers receive heavy subsidies for water to promote agriculture while Palestinian farmers pay the same amount for irrigation water as for drinking water. Twenty-five percent of West Bank Palestinian villages are not connected to water service. When tensions are high and closures common, it is almost impossible for water tankers to enter Palestinian areas and for villagers to get to nearby wells.
--Marie Kennedy, "Israel's War for Water"
According to most estimates, Israel uses 73% of the water available from West Bank aquifers, West Bank Jewish settlers use another 10% and West Bank Palestinians are left with 17%. Israelis get about 350 liters of water per person per day while Palestinians get 70 liters--less than the 100 liter minimum standard of the World Health Organization. About a quarter of all of Israel's water comes from the Western Aquifer and over a third comes from the Jordan Basin. The occupied West Bank sits on top of 90 per cent of the replenishment area feeding the Western Aquifer, which flows underground from the highlands of the West Bank to the lowlands of Israel. A separate Palestinian state on top of the Western Aquifer would give them upstream claims to the lion's share of this water. Israel would have downstream water rights, but those rights would be like Mexico's water rights to the Colorado River. And, if the eastern border of a Palestinian state was along the Jordan River, Palestine would have downstream water rights to the Jordan. Such considerations no doubt led former Agriculture Minister Rafael Eitan to declare that relinquishing control over water supplies in the Occupied Palestinian Territories would "threaten the Jewish state." --Marie Kennedy, "Israel's War for Water"
The route of the wall ((Israel's "security" wall that annexes Palestinian land)) matches that of water resources, the latter being conveniently located on the Israeli side. --Elisabeth Sime, a director of CARE International in the Gaza Strip and West Bank
The Coastal Aquifer, Gaza's only natural freshwater supply, was at one time providing about 18% of Israel's water. Serious overpumping from this rather shallow aquifer has allowed salt from the Mediterranean and other nearby saline aquifers to be introduced. Salting, along with pollution from pesticides, fertilizers and fecal matter (the latter mainly from the refugee camps, most of which have no proper sewage control) have rendered the this water unfit for drinking in many areas and citrus, the traditional main crop of Gaza, is highly salt-intolerant and is becoming infeasible. One wonders to what extent the lack of potable water figured in Israel's decision to pull out of Gaza. --Marie Kennedy, "Israel's War for Water"
We all know that Israel's goal is the total extermination of all Palestinians. It is no surprise that they are stealing all the water.
I remember as I traveled through Israel in 2000 to see that Israeli cities had continually flowing fountains spraying gallons upon gallons of water 10 to 20 feet high in the desert air, while Palestinians did not have enough water to cook, wash, drink,or irrigate!
Live Simply So That Others May Simply Live
It's not that abundant water isn't available to Los Angeles. It's just that most of the abundant water was promised at giveaway rates to the rich people and their descendants forever who organized the nearby water-wasting farms.
Like watering lawns in LA isn't wasteful?
Living in Southern California in the 80's there were water shortages so water for lawns was restricted. Natural indigenous plant gardens of cactus, jade, and other dry climate plantings took their place in many suburbs... and each was incredibly unique and beautiful. I never understood when the water bans were lifted why anyone would return to the generic uselessness of grassy lawns.
What is it about humanity?
p.s. Purely a Rhetorical question.
Live Simply So That Others May Simply Live
This all part of the same underlying strategy as articulated by think tanks and persons such as Grover Norquist.
Governments are shifting TRILLIONS of dollars from the tax payer (read Government) coffers over to the bankers and Investor class. This means that infrastructure will remain neglected as Governments plead poverty and an inability to repair the same without massive tax increases.
The only persons with the financial resources able to deal with this crisis in infrastructure will be the very people the Governmnet now gives trillions of dollars to in these various schemes.
Those INVESTORS will then be given the opportunity to "Save America" and rescue her from their plight using those same taxpayer dollars which are being shifted to them.
In so doing those INVESTORS will own all that infrastructure and the supplies of water from which they can make profit.
It a massive con game of proportions so large the people can not grasp what is going on.
The United States of America is being Privatized and Corporatized and the wealthy are buying her up lock stock and barrel with Money the Government of the USA is giving to them.
You are being sold down the river.
After we are done going down the river, we are going to be sitting in a dry creek bed in the middle of nowhere.
In a chain-gang..... breaking rocks..... for the crime of taking a secret shower..... now under the watchful glare of a armed trooper who has you tasered every fifteen minutes just so you don't get any funny ideas about forming a Union or writing a book about this nightmare.....
"Sweet-Looooooow......... Coming Forth to Carry Me Home......"
It just keeps getting better, doesn't it?
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
wow. excellent, terrifying comment. i'm sure you are right. it's already happening, as states sell off turnpikes, etc. stuff built at taxpayer expense being handed over to private biz b/c the state "needs money."
There is a huge amount of water being wasted in New York City in public restrooms alone. Many of the toilets in the libraries, the Amtrak station, the Port Authority building, some of the Parks Department buildings, senior centers, and elsewhere, flush vigorously every other minute or so whether anyone has actually flushed them or not. Sometimes they flush repeatedly within a single minute without any apparent cause. I do not know how many gallons of water go into a single flush, but I would guess it is a substantial number. If you multiply that number by countless flushes per toilet per day, and then multiply that by the number of facilities throughout the city participating in excess flushing, given enlightened leadership imagine what New York City alone could do to alleviate water shortages elsewhere in the country! And if there are other cities similarly profligate within the U.S., and undoubtedly there are, imagine how much relief they could provide throughout the world! Is there a reason such a solution has not been proposed yet?
This is a great point. Last year my office building replaced our automatic flushing toilets for this reason - because malfunctions cause them to flush needlessly. The water savings at our location is 8,275,700 gallons of water over a 12-month period.
-Hazz
If your office building is using that much 'common' water, whether through a corporate owned or public utility,as in N.Y. city where you may be only average in usage, then there is a well defined problem with large corporate structures imprint on the welfare of humanity beyond their fascism.
But I am not surprised at the numbers. It is the numbers over all similar structures in N.Y. and all the major cities with the same content.
It is this strangling of the 'commons' that is not being computed or even discussed in the arguments of corporate personhood or the pre-negotiated contracts on the local scale.
What are we going to do??? everything is wrong!! We need to liberate ourselves from these bankers and end the usery.
NO MORE USERY!!!! We must make an example of them, I know this is domestic terrorism, but what choice have they left us???
Sioux Rose
A back-to-work program that built desalination plants in coastal cities seems like a worthwhile project to begin NOW. "Water, water, everywhere and not a drop to drink" need not be the 21st century mantra, especially for a high tech nation like the U.S.
GW NORTH: Your points about privatization are right-on. Isn't it beyond the pale that the banks extorted for themselves the taxpayers' money through which to buy the assets they will rent back to us at usurous interst rates? Say it ain't so, Huck...
I agree Souix Rose. Desalination Plants need to develop in a serious way, starting yesturday.
"The unprecedented global population growth and the demands of industry and modern agriculture for gigantic amounts of water have depleted aquifers around the world."
If unprecedented global population growth is the problem, why not resolve it humanely instead of tiptoeing around it and letting mother nature kill us slowly and painfully?
You're suggesting a humanely managed die-off? How would that work?
I'm suggesting planned parenthood. A humanely managed die-off is optional.
Actually, overpopulation is making having more children costlier as resources deplete and become more costly.
Here is a humane way: Make having fewer children profitable.
Cap wealth by yearly referendum and make the cap inversely proportional to the birth rate. The lower the birth rate, the higher the cap and vis.
Can't we mention euthanasia? In Texas and most states, the only legal euthanasia is the death penalty. Of course, that way you get two (or more) for the price of one.
This still does not address the issue that the nations WITH Birth Control and or shrinking populations , not only have the most water but use that very water at 20 and thirty times the rate of those poorer nations that see their populations grow.
What is needed first and foremost is a dismantling of our system of capitalism. Birth control without addressing the issues of poverty in the third world is not "humane".
All that earns many of these people an income is their own children.
I would point out that even in the wealthy west we have people without children who upon reaching the age where they can no longer work, are forced to sleep in the streets because there little to no social support for them.
I don't think you can support that opening statement logically. There are many nations considered 3rd world who could have ample water, who should have ample water but the governments do not do what needs to be done to 'save' it. Even here in the SW of the U.S. you see rain water not being corralled or allowed to seep into aquifers or even old wine barrels at the end of residential roofing gutters, but only to run to the ocean or disappear into the sand with evaporation.
Eastern Washington has so much water, and low population, there are two sources for residences. One is 'potable' and the other is not for irrigation. The irrigation to residences is free. I am not sure what it costs the large ag. lands. But remember, Washington is a huge source of foodstuffs, including hops and grapes.:)
That humor is not the conclusion. What matters is what power structure, what legal ruling, what wealth is required to disrupt something that on the face is beneficial to all? In the sense of restricted use for residences there so that water can be shunted southward or southeastward that are also high desert and desert? Especially in states like Arizona that have converted cactus desert to agriculture based on old notions of water rights and corporate land buy ups of grandfather water rights that are dubiously legal.
I could go on ...
Your point is often overlooked by those of us who have some form of 'social security'. The countries that have none turn to their children to support them in old age. Mexico and India are among those.
The Pope is a real nuisance in this matter, with his incessant anti-contraception rap. I propose that he be placed under permanent house arrest.
Birth control in this country was not solely based on a woman's right to choose. In that was the idea that a woman may not want to contribute to a population increase as a valid reason. I know because I'm 62. And it is still a valid reason. However the courts at the time would not accept that as a reason for 'standing' for abortion rights, so personal choice via control of one's body, and health of the mother, rape etc. became causal 'legal standing.'
It is the lunatics that pursue 'right to happiness' as having 6 kids going to church on Sunday be the qualifier.
And I agree that there should be some tax incentive. However, it is a fact that children are more than a tax deduction, fodder for the machine, etc. But people who don't want them, don't have them, because it interferes with their sky-diving, surfing, bungie jumping, snowboarding or other entertainment certainly have no room for their opinions that affect national policy. Yeah, I know what constitutes happiness.
But happiness based on the superficialities as entertainment is hardly qualifies. That is what is meant by short term thinking.
At least now more and more are mentioning population and its effect on livability on this planet. We are overpopulated, we are crowded, and we are congestion. Some people apparently like to be shoved together as in a sardine can. What ever the reasons it is so obvious that many of the problems we are facing today are due to population pressures. Its also obvious that while euthanasia would work. It is also true that neutering would work in some areas of the planet although it is doubtful that some would not agree to the procedure. Here in the developed world what would probably work would be to tax children No tax for one kid, 10,000 a year for the second kid, 20,000 a year for the second, 30,000 a year for the third and so on. With no chance of deductions. Call it a fee for adding pressures on society. Maybe even jail time for having more than one kid could work. Such draconian measures are going to be necessary if we are going to improve life now. The constant mantra of growth is leading us over the edge to total break down of all systems as we know it. Water is just one of the problems.
A wealth cap is also needed to prevent the extreme power centralization that follows extreme wealth concentration in a small segment of the population.
In other words, a wealth/power cap prevents the formation of oligarchies and hegemonies. That's why it should be established by referendum instead of by corruptible representatives of the oligarchies and hegemonies themselves, politicians.
Here's a strange concept that might elude some of you brighter members of CD but, why not try stabilizing and then, over time, lowering food production? Every person on the planet is made of food. You increase the food supply and you increase population. This is fact. We don't need to starve any one or cause a rapid die-off. Combine birth control with legalized, self-administered euthanasia and stopping all increases in food production and you would see, over time, that the population would start to drop off.
You have a direct correlation between the 'green revolution' and a huge increase in human population. Stop stealing food from the '3rd World' for exporting and that'll solve most problems with food production there. Stabilize food production across the board and then set goals to reduce the food supply over time. Watch as population decreases and do it naturally and humanely.
Food production follows population, it does not drive population. In the developed world, fertility rates are at or below replacement levels. Population growth here is a result of immigration, and outside the developed world it is a function of a countries poverty. The poorer countries have more kids, the wealthier countries have less kids.
In the US, we are a net exporter of food, 30% of our crops are exported.
Reducing food production and suggesting euthanasia to reduce population is tantamount to genocide, only a true neo-malthusian would even think of it. There is no evidence that the global population is a problem, except for the claims of those behind the green revolution. The higher numbers in the 3rd world are offset by their poverty which prevents them from consuming much. Increase their living standards and population would quickly stabilize, as it did in the developed world.
The US has one of the lower population densities in the world, and except for the fact we are exporting jobs while allowing immigration to increase population, our population would not be a problem. More than enough land, even though the government owns 1/3 of it.
You are correct that our involvement in trade policies and food production in 3rd world countries is a big part of the problem for the 3rd world. But thats what free trade and Globalization is all about, to make every country dependent and eliminate independence. That way every country can be controlled.
Don't confuse land that is BLM and National Forest and National Park with bombing ranges and military bases and ammo dumps. If you aren't, which I know you are by the 1/3, then go back and re-think your statement.
As for 'I think I am a Genius' 'Black...' You have no solution. Your claim of 'humane' is neither. It is fascist.It is the logic of the 'Industrial Revolution' that was not a revolution, but a change in the way ideas control the mass of humanity. Medicine and the production of food helped create the population we have today, not washing machines. The distribution of food was not an issue until corporations decided to own all necessities of life for profit that exceeds any humanitarian instinct. How else could shrimp from Thailand be cheaper than shrimp on the west coast or even the east coast.
You childish costume is boring and your constant appearance here with your childish 'logic' causes me to think you are not being supervised by your parents.
So, I'm a fascist, huh? Aside from your ad hominem, I'll do my best to address your points in a logical fashion, as my parents wouldn't want me to do otherwise. Food production drives population growth. As one of the later posters here stated, even yeast, placed in a solution full of food with no competition, will eat until they drown in their own waste, as their population increases based on the availability of food. This is pure science, not my conjecture.
How can anyone deny the simple and obvious assertion that every human being on this planet is made from food? Without food, they would die and this wouldn't be an issue. So, while their food may be sparse and even sub-standard (who sets that standard, btw), it's there and that is what they subsist upon. Whether exported or imported, food is what's driving population increase.
The problem is our misotheric (animal hating) belief that because we're the pinnacle of evolution, that we're better than the rest of the species on this planet; that the laws of nature do not apply to us. We are wrong.
For all of the vaunted human ability to 'consciously' choose our way, we would rather allow mental inertia to consign the vast majority of people to a death that we would gladly euthanize our pets to protect them against. We need to gently and humanely stabilize food production and then, gently and sustainably, reduce it to all our population to decrease naturally, over time. Any other plan which doesn't allow for this to occur is the equivalent of spitting into a strong wind and next to useless.
If each couple chose to have only one child, and the following generation followed suit, etc...
Within a couple generations, Mankind's current 6.7 billion would be halved to 3.35 billion and then halved again to 1.67 billion, etc...
At some point, Humanities deleterious effects on the planet become inconsequential, solving all our most worrisome issues.
The most fearsome issue being that we may have to live as our great-great-grandparents did. If it was good enough for them, our own ancestors, is it not good enough for us?
Grasshopper
Copenhagen,
Your statement "Food production follows population, it does not drive population" is not accurate. History proves that when a people increase their ability to produce food - their population grows to exceed the new resource.
That America exports food is purely economic - not about exceeding need. Millions in America go hungry just as in other lands where access to food supplies are determined by government and profit.
While I agree that we should not intentionally reduce food production, it would be wise if we severely restricted or better, eliminated chemical fertilization and the diversion of common water sources for agriculture. A return to organic methods of agriculture would be a huge step in restoring sustainable family farming as opposed to corporate ownership and abuse of natural resources. The ecosystems would determine sustainable levels of population and the overall health of environments, species diversity, and humanity would be improved...
That said, I can not imagine bureaucrats choosing any such course. Individually we can show the way by, buying locally produced food, growing our own, shunning prepackaged pap, and giving up lawns as a poor use of soil and water.
Live Simply So That Others May Simply Live
Aren't we really no different than Brewer's Yeast, consuming sugars, reproducing ourselves and polluting our environment until we poison ourselves? Simply manufacturing some toxic analogue of alcohol without restraint?
Tell me that we are intelligent enough to avoid the destiny, that without exception, every colony of yeast, in every batch of Beer to date, has been unable to avoid? We are smarter than yeast aren't we?
Grasshopper
"We are smarter than yeast aren't we?" Nope.
THE ANSWER
http://www.carlsbad-desal.com/
IF ALL OF OUR PROBLEMS WERE THIS EASY TO SOLVE.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said of ocean desalination: "We need it. It's not a choice."
San Diego Union Tribune, 7/27/2006
News
Featured News
San Diego Union-Tribune: Carlsbad desalination plant virtually...
more
California Farm Bureau Federation: Commentary: Desalination—A piece of the...
more
Get All the News
Overview
The project is slated to be operational as early as 2011.
It would use state-of-the-art reverse osmosis water treatment technology manufactured in the San Diego region.
It would be located adjacent to the Encina Power Station
It would provide up to 56,000 acre-feet per year - enough for 300,000 residents of San Diego County.
Ocean desalinization is expensive and will use a lot of energy.
excellent post petrkrop...,
...thanks very much. Hopefully soon people's eyes will open to see the perspective, reality, and cruelty of what this occupation of the West Bank is costing the indigenious Palestinian people. Many thanks to people like Marie Kennedy, Anna Baltzer, and yourself.
Don't worry about spontaneous die off, as soon as strategic water sources are contaminated with enough pesticides and sewage run off, the situation will correct itself, just as in the outer nature, little bugs will take charge of eliminating the weak.
Clostridium and cancer aside, the inherited propensity to distance ourselves from our environment will cost us the price of all errors; everyone who flushes and gushes will be penalized.
The rest of us will have to resort to watering our vegetable gardens with gray water and boil water from rain barrels for potable usage.
The responsibility is still ours for now, mount a grass-root campaign for immediate restrictions of water use. "Cactus-root" laws could be written to limit privatization of aquifers, com'on start showering lawmakers with liquid advice, write, phone one keystroke at a time....
q