CNN has an interesting piece up right now regarding the water usage in the Southwest and its effects on Lake Mead. You can view the piece here:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/02/17/echavez.lake.mead.in.jeop...
Given that both the Southwest and the Southeast are facing severe droughts, I thought this would be an opportune time to discuss water conservation as it stands today. According to the Climate Prediction Center of the National Weather Service, the majority of the United States will face drought in some form or fashion throughout the spring (http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/expert_assessment/season_drought.gif). According to monitors at the University of Nebraska - Lincoln, the Southeast is suffering from exceptional drought, which one can assume is only as bad as it sounds (http://www.drought.unl.edu/DM/monitor.html).
In the face of what one would think would be a serious natural disaster at hand, the obvious question is to what do about it. I propose 3 solutions, which I would prefer to think of as steps, to the growing drought problem.
1) Pray -> This is the least concrete and most basic response to bad weather conditions. Many would argue that this is a waste of time, though I think differently for spiritual and practical reasons. Case in point: In November, Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue held a prayer vigil on the steps of the state capitol in Atlanta (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/13/southern.drought.ap/index.html). I see nothing inherently wrong in this display, though apparently the Atlanta Freethought Society thought differently. At face value this is a waste of time in that it didn't rain during the service. However, anyone of any faith can tell you that reliance on a higher power is comforting and many depend on higher powers for many things. So, worst case scenario, prayer benefits the public by lifting their spirits
2) Conservation -> This is the most obvious solution, and differs from my third step in its passive nature. Many states like Georgia and Nevada have restricted water use. Both offer incentives for conservation as well as deterrents for wasting water. I'm onboard for both methods, though I had a friend offer up taxing water as a solution to the problem. This could work if executed correctly though I would venture to say that most taxes would end up being regressive taxes at best. You could make a progressive tax perhaps by taxing water above a certain threshold, though I can't imagine setting the price of the tax high enough so that the water users at this level would be willing to reduce consumption.
3) Harvesting -> I like this step the best because of its proactive nature. Already you can find websites that provide instructions for creating (and in some cases sell) "water harvesters." See: http://aquamor.tripod.com/page3.html. My favorite variation on this theme is desalination. This process, which turns seawater into fresh water, apparently takes place frequently in the Middle East, though is catching on the U.S. as well (http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/dec/22/na-applause-at-last-for-desalina...). An obvious problem with this would be looking for a source of money to pay to build this things. The Tampa plant cost roughly $158 Million, which is roughly the rumoured cost of an F-22 Raptor (http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080204-081.pdf). This could also be funded through taxes on water consumption, and this cost should be mitigated to some extent by the amount of jobs created in the establishment and maintenance of such a plant. I'm interested to see how effective the Tampa plant turns out.
With a combination of these, I would feel confident in America's water supply.
