Investing in Infrastructure – A National Aqueduct

I live in the United States desert southwest. As the name “desert” broadcasts, our major resource headache is water—or, rather, the lack of water. Because of the amount of sun we receive, those of us in the “desert” states also grow more produce than many generally suppose (I know it always surprises me). Unfortunately, with the increasing warming problem and extended periods of drought, we are fast approaching a situation where the effect on national food supplies as well as population health could become an issue.

The nation needs a major building project: a national aqueduct system capable of moving the massive amounts of fresh-water runoff so much of the north and northeastern states must worry about each spring, and transport them to California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and the surprisingly water-poor areas in the Midwest. Letting all of this precious resource simply wash back to the ocean seems such a waste (of course a fair amount MUST be allowed to flow through in order to preserve the natural downstream environment). With proper treatment, we might also be able to use the flood-waters due to massive storms that create misery in many areas every year.

How much will this cost to build? A lot. How much to maintain? A lot. How much will it cost if we don’t build it? A lot more. How much will it cost if we wait to build it when energy costs for vehicles, materials, and ore refining rise? A whole lot more.

This nation needs to start addressing the true physical crises that will be with us well after the always transient theological/ideological/economic battles are put in their proper place. It is soon going to boil down to survival. The prime currency? Water. This simple molecule is the single most precious commodity on the planet. We are no different than any multi-celled species in our requirement for it, and if we have any hope of artificially managing our access to it, we need to start soon before it becomes too expensive to try.

Ranchers hate to hear this, but the fact is that unless some large-scale water-movement system is put into place, the economics of raising animals for food are going to have to change. Unbiased research from either side of the debate is difficult to find, but from what I’ve been able to suss out, it takes about 100-times more water to grow a pound of beef than to grow a pound of vegetables (all consumable veggies averaged). Chicken, in contrast, only seems to take about 3-to-5 times more water than an equivalent amount of vegetables. Clearly, beef is not efficient at all, and we need to be mindful of that.

Not that vegetables are a free-ride, either. For example, a pound of rice uses 30-to-40 times the water as an equivalent amount of corn/maize. Soybeans a tad more than maize. However, corn agriculture contributes mightily to soil-erosion while soybeans put necessary nitrogen back into the soil thus reducing the need for manufactured fertilizers. (Keep in mind, for comparison, that a pound of beef still uses about 40-to-60 times the amount of water as soybeans.)

What about conservation? Certainly, there is room there, also. Personally, I think grass-filled golf courses in the middle of the desert are really dumb. Municipalities can’t honestly expect their public to tighten their water belts when these low-use grasslands (honestly…how many individual golfers actually use these acres) soak up and evaporate embarrassingly large amounts of potable H₂O.

I’d argue that the push to the low-volume toilets is well-intended, but poorly executed. Many of these 6 liter (1.6-gallon) models need more than one flush to be effective. While the old 26.5 liter (7-gallon) toilets were definite water hogs, it seems that the compromise was sped past before it had a chance to mature. I’m thinking that an 11.4 liter (3-gallon) flush toilet would solve both the multiple-flush problem while also reduce water use. In fact, there should also be a separate flush on these toilets for low-water-use urine elimination. I mean really…

It’s time that the nation comes to grips with the water shortages we already have but are ignoring. Reasoned conservation methods need to be enacted and a lessening of food-animal subsidies to let true market-value dictate water use are good first steps. Even so, in the long term, the United States can ill-afford to experience another dust bowl. To avoid that, large reservoirs to hold excess fresh-water from natural runoff and delivered via a national aqueduct system for apportioned use seems a reasonable use of our national infrastructure dollars.

(Originally published as “Water Woes” on January 4, 2006)