WATER  
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 3

We Must Stop Ignoring the Role of Population in Our Water Problems

Addressing water problems comes down to three choices: increase the water supply, decrease the water demand per person, or change the number of people.
October 14, 2009  |  
 
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Water headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 

Population discussions raise lots of hackles. And they bring the crazies out of the woodwork like termites when the Orkin Man appears. But I hope to post a series of pieces on population and water because we must stop ignoring the role of population in our environmental and water problems.

The amount of water on Earth is fixed. We're not losing it to space and we're not getting more (with negligible exceptions). The amount of water in a river basin or watershed is fixed. It goes up and down with natural variability, and it may change over time due to climate changes, but water is a renewable resources and our use of it does not affect the amount we get next year.

But population is not fixed. It is growing, and growing rapidly in some places. As a result, the amount of water available per person ("per capita") is declining. Here is a simple example: assume that the average flow of water in a river basin is 10 million acre-feet per year and the population using that water is 20 million people. Then on average, the water available for use is around 450 gallons per person per day, if you could use it all (which would, of course, destroy the river ecosystem, but that's another topic). If the population of the basin doubles to 40 million, the water availability per person drops in half, to around 225 gallons per person per day. If the population doubles again, water availability drops to just over 100 gallons per person per day.

The math is easy, but the consequences can be severe: abundance can become shortage. In simple terms, addressing water problems in the face of population growth come down to three choices: (1) increase the water supply, (2) decrease the water demand per person, or (3) change the number of people. Water policy in the past century focused only on increasing supply. Most of the work of the Pacific Institute has focused on the second because we believe the options for new supply in most places are increasingly limited, expensive, and environmentally damaging, and we see enormous potential for reducing demand. Almost no discussion, anywhere, focuses on the third choice. But the failure to address population in the long run will be disastrous. And the "long-run" is no longer so far away.

Water (Population) Numbers: While total water availability remains fixed, the population of the United States has grown from around 150 million in 1950 to over 305 million today. The population of California in 1950 was 10.5 million; today it is around 37 million. The population of the state of Georgia in 1950 was under 4 million; today it is approaching 10 million. The population of Jordan in 1960 was around a million; today it is 6 million. The population of Israel in 1960 was just over 2 million; today it exceeds 7 million. The population of Iraq in 1960 was around 7.3 million; today it exceeds 31 million.

Is it any wonder that California's, or Georgia's, or the Middle East's water problems have worsened?

In a recent paper, Richard Seager of Columbia and his colleagues analyzed the recent drought in the southeastern United States. This drought led to water use restrictions, depleted flows in the major river basins of the region, and growing political tensions over water sharing between Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. The authors of this paper concluded that the recent drought in the Southeast was not climatologically different from past droughts, but was felt more severely largely due to the growth in population in the region. In July, a Federal judge ruled that Atlanta had to fundamentally change the way it obtains its water, and noted that

"Too often, state, local, and even national government actors do not consider the long-term consequences of their decisions. Local governments allow unchecked growth because it increases tax revenue, but these same governments do not sufficiently plan for the resources such unchecked growth will require. Nor do individual citizens consider frequently enough their consumption of our scarce resources, absent a crisis situation such as that experienced in the ACF basin in the last few years. The problems faced in the ACF basin will continue to be repeated throughout this country, as the population grows and more undeveloped land is developed. Only by cooperating, planning, and conserving can we avoid the situations that gave rise to this litigation." (emphasis added)

Climate change is going to cause serious impacts on water resources, but even without it, we are running up against water constraints that will worsen if we continue to ignore the population elephant in the room


Dr. Peter Gleick is president of the Pacific Institute, an internationally recognized water expert and a MacArthur Fellow.
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Water headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: water, population


Comments are closed-

I appreciate what you are saying but....
Posted by: spiritof1877 on Oct 14, 2009 5:09 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's really all about how water is used. We must stop using potable water for insane things like making soft-drinks, flood irrigation, golf courses, toilets, cows, aluminum production, ad nauseum. We also do stupid things like making rain catchment,or humanure composting illegal. When these things are sorted out, I'll bet this population argument will finally fade away. Lets keep Malthusian arguments in the 19th century where they belong.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

but..
Posted by: Andrew_S on Oct 15, 2009 2:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the bionomics support the argument. One of the greatest economic tools and predictors of how cultures will develop is based on natural resources. While at the moment water is viewed just as that, good old no value water it is actually a very powerful resource. Global offsets by industrialization, i.e. Water as weaponized economics is historically a well practised hidden tool of global politics. China for it's industrialized model is willing to pay a high human and envoirenmental price as would many other nations. The argument for Malthus offered in the post by our venerable nay sayer is interesting, and I believe incorrect. Soft peddling eugenics under any guise is an interesting self evident phenomena. From my perspective we need to plant trees, lots of them and we need to fertilize them with all those who have a detached views of the world and natural reality. More especially those who would profit from being irresponsible not just for our sakes, but for the sake of the future and our children. Now go out to the mall and shop to within an inch of bankruptcy, we like those high interest payers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Ice vs Liquid
Posted by: femtobeam on Oct 17, 2009 7:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article states that the water supply stays the same. What must also be taken into account is water trapped as ice.

As the ice caps and glaciers melt, the water amount rises and becomes part of the ecosystem, eroding coastal areas with rising tides, due to global warming. This is caused by a combination of pollution in the upper atmosphere which traps heat and ozone layer thinning which exposes the earth to high levels of radiation.

As ice melts the weight is heavier with the liquid than the ice and large volumes of water on or in ice cause pressure, which cracks and melts ice further.

Another point is the declining biomass on earth. Algae blooms happen when ice melts and also when there are no fish due to overfishing. When the algae dies it produces toxins, killing healthy ocean life and declining the earths oxygen levels, while producing toxic gas, also released into the atmosphere.

As a result there is also a rise in CO2 in addition to that created by polluting industry, as plants are less available to absorb it for life growth.

This in turn, decreases oxygen supply in an increasing oxygen using population.

Deforestation leaves less than 10% of Earths forests and the life that depends on them. http://storyofstuff.com

http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/ (remove this) water/dramatic_melt_in_arctic_icecape.htm

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

I appreciate what you are saying but....
Posted by: spiritof1877 on Oct 14, 2009 5:09 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's really all about how water is used. We must stop using potable water for insane things like making soft-drinks, flood irrigation, golf courses, toilets, cows, aluminum production, ad nauseum. We also do stupid things like making rain catchment,or humanure composting illegal. When these things are sorted out, I'll bet this population argument will finally fade away. Lets keep Malthusian arguments in the 19th century where they belong.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

but..
Posted by: Andrew_S on Oct 15, 2009 2:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the bionomics support the argument. One of the greatest economic tools and predictors of how cultures will develop is based on natural resources. While at the moment water is viewed just as that, good old no value water it is actually a very powerful resource. Global offsets by industrialization, i.e. Water as weaponized economics is historically a well practised hidden tool of global politics. China for it's industrialized model is willing to pay a high human and envoirenmental price as would many other nations. The argument for Malthus offered in the post by our venerable nay sayer is interesting, and I believe incorrect. Soft peddling eugenics under any guise is an interesting self evident phenomena. From my perspective we need to plant trees, lots of them and we need to fertilize them with all those who have a detached views of the world and natural reality. More especially those who would profit from being irresponsible not just for our sakes, but for the sake of the future and our children. Now go out to the mall and shop to within an inch of bankruptcy, we like those high interest payers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Ice vs Liquid
Posted by: femtobeam on Oct 17, 2009 7:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article states that the water supply stays the same. What must also be taken into account is water trapped as ice.

As the ice caps and glaciers melt, the water amount rises and becomes part of the ecosystem, eroding coastal areas with rising tides, due to global warming. This is caused by a combination of pollution in the upper atmosphere which traps heat and ozone layer thinning which exposes the earth to high levels of radiation.

As ice melts the weight is heavier with the liquid than the ice and large volumes of water on or in ice cause pressure, which cracks and melts ice further.

Another point is the declining biomass on earth. Algae blooms happen when ice melts and also when there are no fish due to overfishing. When the algae dies it produces toxins, killing healthy ocean life and declining the earths oxygen levels, while producing toxic gas, also released into the atmosphere.

As a result there is also a rise in CO2 in addition to that created by polluting industry, as plants are less available to absorb it for life growth.

This in turn, decreases oxygen supply in an increasing oxygen using population.

Deforestation leaves less than 10% of Earths forests and the life that depends on them. http://storyofstuff.com

http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/ (remove this) water/dramatic_melt_in_arctic_icecape.htm

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

 
Advertisement
From The Blog
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS