|
Water-supply problems plague
much of nation
By Joan Lowy
Scripps Howard News Service
Along with backyard barbecues and family
vacations, drought and water shortages have increasingly become
a rite of summer for many Americans.
Damaged crops, dead landscapes, stinky
water, higher water bills and, in some areas, mandatory water
restrictions have become all too common.
This summer, much of the Southeast, the
Southwest, parts of Texas and Hawaii are in the throes of moderate
to severe drought. Conditions in Georgia, north central Florida,
and parts of Louisiana and Alabama are especially harsh.
“For parts of the Southeast, this
was as bad a drought as they’ve ever experienced,”
said Michael Hayes, a climate specialist with the National Drought
Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska.
In Texas and northern Mexico, the difficulty
is not so much the severity of the current drought, but the cumulative
impact of drought over five of the last six years. In the parched
Rio Grande Valley, reservoirs have dropped to a record low of
19 percent of capacity.
Most climatologists, environmentalists
and water experts agree it is becoming more difficult and expensive
for many communities to meet increasing demands for water created
by population growth and economic development. In times of drought,
meeting those demands becomes even tougher.
“There is no question that we, as
a nation, are taxing the available water resources that we have,”
said Doug Marsano, a spokesman for the American Water Works Association,
which represents local water utilities. “Without widespread
conservation efforts and better monitoring, the impact of droughts
when they hit will be more intense and insure more hardship.”
Although nearly three-quarters of the earth’s
surface is covered with water, only 3 percent of the world’s
water is fresh. Two-thirds of that is frozen.
By global standards, the U.S. is water
rich. It has 4 percent of world’s population, but 8 percent
of its fresh water. But the availability of fresh water varies
widely by region and several trends have combined to make it
increasingly difficult for many communities to expand existing
supplies.
More people, less water
Nearly all the nation’s easily and
cheaply accessible fresh water is already spoken for. And shifting
population growth in recent decades to more arid Sunbelt communities
has increased water demand in the regions least able to meet
those demands.
“That makes them more vulnerable to
a drought situation than they might otherwise be,” Hayes
said. “In some areas of the country we are definitely heading
toward a point where it will take just a minor drought to cause
major problems.”
Rapid population growth in Sunbelt cities
such as Atlanta and Phoenix taxes not only the water supplies
in those urban centers, but also in neighboring states and communities
who compete with them for water.
With new water sources harder to obtain,
communities and water utilities are increasingly stressing conservation
as the main solution to coping with supply.
Water demand in Los Angeles, for example,
has remained flat despite increased population for the past two
decades primarily because of conservation, said Steven Erie,
an expert on water supply issues in Southern California.
“The problem is that we’re now
talking about adding two and a half new Chicagos to Southern
California,” he said. “Just the sheer numbers are going
to drive up demand even with all the conservation that we’ve
had.’’
As a consequence, thirsty communities in
Southern California, Colorado and elsewhere are increasingly
buying up water currently used for agriculture.
Nationally, less than 10 percent of water
use is residential. About 35 percent is agricultural and 55 percent
is industrial, including power generation. But in California,
80 percent of the water used irrigates crops.
“What we’ll see in the U.S. is
what we have already begun to see, that is, a reallocation of
water. I do not think we can continue expanding the supply as
we have in the last 50 to 100 years,” predicts Sandra Postel,
director of the Global Water Policy Project and author of Pillar
of Sand: Can the Irrigation Miracle Last?
Some farmers are also conserving more water
using recent innovations in irrigation. Instead of sprinklers
that spray water into the air with significant evaporation losses,
more farmers are using drip irrigation and special sprinklers
that target particular areas and keep water closer to the ground.
Serious consequences
Sometimes water transfers from agriculture
to cities have serious consequences. In eastern Colorado, when
water has left prairie farms, the land has dried up and farm
communities have evaporated.
For years, Southern California has been
significantly overdrawing water from the Colorado River —
5.1 billion acre-feet of water instead of the 4.2 billion acre-feet
the state is permitted under interstate water agreements. Seven
states and parts of northern Mexico rely on water from the river,
which often runs dry before reaching the ocean.
An acre-foot equals 325,851 gallons, enough
water to supply three households of four people each for a year.
One potential solution that is being given
greater consideration is desalting seawater. But desalinization
has serious drawbacks. Plant construction is expensive, the process
consumes vast amounts of energy, and disposal of leftover salt
is an environment concern.
Still, advances in technology have brought
the price of desalinization down. Some coastal communities are
beginning to plan desalinization plants.
“It reminds me of the way we thought
about nuclear power 30 years ago — that it would become
too cheap to meter,” Postel said. “Of course, it never
happened.’’
Another serious supply problem is ground
water depletion. The Ogallala Aquifer, which spans parts of eight
states — South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming,
Oklahoma and Texas — is one of the world’s biggest
aquifers. But with the introduction of powerful centrifugal pumps
after World War II, farmers and communities have been draining
water from the aquifer far faster than it can be recharged.
That has caused water levels to drop precipitously,
making water withdrawal more difficult and more expensive.
As a result, in some parts of the aquifer
— particularly northwest Texas — farmers have begun
to shift to more dryland farming, to less thirsty crops or to
abandoning farming altogether.
“While they have been doing a good
job of improving their efficiency, they are still not in a balance
situation with the aquifer,’’ Postel said. “They
are still depleting it, and in a drought year they have to pump
even more.’’
A flood of water woes
Water woes are not limited to the Sunbelt.
The record-shattering drought that crippled Middle Atlantic states
last year has focused more attention on water supplies and conservation.
The Northeast is also beginning to experience
the kind of legal battles over water that have been commonplace
in the arid West for decades.
The town of Waterbury, Conn., was successfully
sued by residents concerned that plans to increase water withdrawals
from the Shebaug River would harm streamflows, fisheries and
recreation. Boston’s plans in the mid-1980s to divert more
water from the Connecticut River were abandoned in favor of greater
conservation after protests from environmentalists.
The bottom line, said Hayes, is that “droughts
have always been a problem. They are problem now and they will
continue to be a problem regardless of what the climate is going
to be in the future. So we need to take steps to prepare for
that.”
Contact Washington Bureau writer Joan
Lowy at lowyj@shns.com. Check
out our Web site at www.waterwoes.com
|
State strives to implement
water law
By Anna M. Tinsley
Scripps Howard Austin Bureau
AUSTIN — Texas lawmakers had tried
and failed more than six times to pass a statewide water plan
by the time Senate Bill 1 was proposed in 1997.
Many thought SB 1, designed to ensure the
state has enough water in the 21st century, would also fail.
It was, after all, a politically sensitive
topic that pitted urban districts against rural districts, and
addressed the contentious issue of transferring water from one
part of the state to another.
But many underestimated the perseverance
of former Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock.
Bullock, who died last year, initiated
work on the bill, gave it the priority title of Senate Bill 1,
testified for the bill in a committee hearing and pushed lawmakers
to find a compromise.
“Our very survival depends on this,’’
Bullock said when the bill was introduced.
At the time, Texas was one of the few states
with no drought-management plans. Lawmakers passed the legislation
in the waning days of the ‘97 legislative session.
Some hailed it as the most significant
legislation passed that year.
The 1997 success laid the groundwork for
more legislation in 1999 — and potentially for more water
legislation next year, observers say.
The bill included more than 300 pages of
rules designed to make sure Texans have enough water.
Among the requirements:
- Developing a statewide water conservation
plan.
- Making interbasin transfers more difficult,
although some transfers were protected, such as Abilene’s
plan to build a pipeline and pump water from O.H. Ivie Reservoir
in Coleman County.
- Designating the Texas Water Development
Board as the lead agency for adopting a comprehensive state water
plan every five years.
- Requiring data collection to better monitor
levels of local water supplies and to give tax exemptions for
manufacturers that install water conservation and recycling equipment.
“Bob Bullock was the driving force
behind this,’’ said state Rep. David Counts, a Knox
City Democrat and chairman of the House Natural Resource Committee.
“This was his legacy. It’s going to prove for many
years to be the right thing to do.’’
Low expectations
But Bullock wasn’t even sure the measure
could pass.
He thought lawmakers could lay the groundwork
for the water bill in 1997 and then pass it in 1999, said Mike
Hailey, a former Bullock aide who’s now a spokesman for
the Texas Democratic Party.
“For 40 years, water agencies developed
water plans. And then they’d sit on the shelves, gathering
dust, waiting for legislative action,’’ Hailey said.
“Nothing ever happened.
“Bullock thought 1997 was the time
to do this. He thought if we didn’t have vision and foresight,
then one day our grandkids were going to turn on the faucet and
nothing would come out.’’
The controversial Senate Bill 1 was sensitive
to negotiate because it limited interbasin transfers. But it
also established regional water planning groups and required
communities and the state to develop comprehensive water plans.
State Sen. J.E. “Buster” Brown,
R-Lake Jackson, took the lead in the Senate and state Rep. Ron
Lewis, D-Mauriceville, took charge of the bill in the House.
Knox City’s Counts chaired the House
committee that worked on the bill.
“Senate Bill 1 was absolutely a must.
We had to pass it,’’ Counts said. “It was almost
ridiculous that we hadn’t mapped out a plan for Texas, inventoried
our water sources and had no real data to go forward with.’’
Lasting legacy
State and local officials are still implementing
provisions of SB 1.
By October, the 16 Texas regional planning
groups must turn in drafts of regional water plans to the Texas
Water Development Board, spokeswoman Janice Cartwright said.
The final plans are due Jan. 5. Then the
water board has one year to incorporate the 16 plans into a statewide
water plan.
The statewide plan will analyze water supplies,
project population fluctuations and determine if there will be
enough water in each region for the next 50 years. And if there
isn’t, the plan will identify water management strategies
to meet the deficit, Cartwright said.
When lawmakers passed SB1, Bullock called
it the most significant legislation in the last 25 to 30 years.
Others later called it one of the final gifts Bullock gave Texas.
“Senate Bill 1,’’ Agriculture
Commissioner Susan Combs said at the time, “will serve as
a lasting testament to his foresight and commitment to agriculture
and to this great state.’’
Contact Scripps Howard Austin Bureau
writer Anna M. Tinsley at (512) 478-9644 or tinsleya@scripps.com.
|
