Meeting the Water Shortage

Aside from skiiers and incorrigible winterphiles, about the only people happy with this winter's deluge of snow are those concerned with the water shortage--which, of course, now encompasses just about everybody in the East. The snow, however, is not enough. Last summer, for example, New York's reservoirs were down to less than 36 per cent of capacity. Even Old Man Winter is not expected to fill this gap. Four straight years of water shortage have at least forced the federal government to consider taking an active role in planning for the future. President Johnson has already set up a Water Resources Council to study U.S. water needs, and in addition has set aside $275 million for research on seawater conversion.

Water shortages are not uncommon in the United States, nor are water surpluses in the form of floods. But the present panic stems not from the fact that shortages exist in the desert states or the prairie states, or even in a city like Los Angeles where the limitations of nature have been brushed aside. These shortages are expected. The present problem concerns the Northeast, where water was apparently as abundant as the concentrated masses who live there. Now, after four seasons of chronic drought, New Yorkers, and to some extent New Englanders, have become as water-conscious as Arizonians. That such a situation should have arisen is, of course, alarming; that such a situation should continue in the future shows a lack of public concern.

Thus far, the emphasis in dealing with the water shortage has been to restrict usage. This has been done on an honor system, backed up by threats of water meters and stopgap measures like the rationing of water for air-conditioning units. There is, of course, nothing wrong in advocating economical use of existing water supplies, particularly when it is coupled with a sincere effort to stop leaks in the water system. What is fatal, however, is the assumption that these temporary measures are the final solution. No one would like to see tax-burdened New Yorkers saddled with another tax of questionable necessity. Even if the aqueduct system were to be completely rid of leaks (which hardly seems likely judging from past attempts) there is still an ever-growing need for water, a need which will surpass the one that already overstrains supply. In 20 years it is estimated that Americans will consume 245 billion gallons more than their present rate of 355 billion gallons a day.

Where is the water, then? The obvious answer is that it is in the sea. Desalinization, especially through atomic power, seems to be the imaginative answer. But for the East, at least, there is not yet a need for such expensive measures. The water is here. New York, with its Hudson River, is perhaps the modern-day embodiment of "water, water everywhere but not a drop to drink." Billions of gallons flow daily to the sea alongside the city, none of which can be used because of pollution. There is no law compelling industry to reveal how much or what kinds of wastes they dump into our streams. There is nothing in America to compare with the progressive Ruhrverband in Germany where the industrial re-use of water has saved a major river of pure water for consumption and recreation. The pollution of our lakes and rivers has been noted and criticized for years. At present they are still being polluted. Proposals have been made for New York to secure its water from as far away as the St. Lawrence, Boston from the Connecticut River. Yet both cities lie in areas where vast amounts of fresh water are currently wasted or polluted.

Desalinization may be the answer of the future; it is most certainly the only answer for some parts of the world. But the Northeastern States have a far more logical and beneficial challenge to meet. Industrial re-use, measures to prevent waste in present systems, the cleaning up of rivers and lakes--none of these are cheap, but all are desirable and necessary. Because our polluted rivers do not observe state boundaries and because of the vast expenditures involved, only the federal government will be able to handle this problem with the uniformity and thoroughness required. The time is rapidly approaching when we shall have to pay a far greater price for the water conservation that should be taking place now. Unless, of course, it just keeps snowing or raining all year round.