However, as is typical of such news reports, the article does not directly deal with the elephant in the room — rapid population growth in the Southwest — except to take continued growth as given. It merely says “40 million people also depend on the river and its tributaries, and their numbers are rising rapidly.”
Is it not appropriate to openly ask two questions: What is a sustainable population in the Southwest, considering its water resources, and what policies could eventually limit population growth there?
The bottom line is almost certainly the cost of water. It is expensive to dam the river, pump water out of it, and send it off to reservoirs where it will be treated and then consumed. People use water more efficiently as its cost rises, and more conservation is the most reasonable way to spread the same or lower amount of water around a growing--albeit it a slower rate than in the past--population. Professor Becker notes with seeming approval the building of a desalination plant in San Diego, but that is not a real alternative because the cost of energy is so great and there are serious environmental issues near the plant. Indeed, it is reasonable to suggest that the inland areas of the southwest are as dependent upon air conditioning as they are on water, and as the cost of energy rises (even with alternative sources such as solar and wind) that may be as much a retardant to population growth as will be scarcity of water.
No comments:
Post a Comment