HomeNewsFeature  }

Thirsty? Dirty? Sorry.

We've failed to adequately respond to the drought. The consequences may be dire.

30 JAN 2008  •  by Cat Warren



Under Durham's emergency drought plan, residents will have to buy bottled water for drinking, cooking and possibly bathing. Model: Jermaine Landon
Photo by Derek Anderson
Summertime, and the living's not easy. The fish are dying. The taps have run dry. The checkout lines at Food Lion are deep, and the waiting is longer. The pyramids of bottled water evaporate as people frantically load them into carts. The scenes are the same everywhere: Harris Teeter, Kroger, Wal-Mart.

The official North Carolina emergency drought plan has the beauty of simplicity, if not feasibility. If the faucets in Durham, Raleigh or any city in North Carolina start to spit out non-potable water, this is what we'll do: Buy bottled water. You might be able to score Aquafina or Dasani or Le Bleu, filled, ironically, with water from several North Carolina cities. That's if the grocery stores don't run out. They probably will, though.

The odds of this worst-case scenario happening depends on whom you ask, but increasingly, water experts are less sanguine. "It is highly unlikely the reservoirs are going to be full this spring," says Jerad Bales, director of U.S. Geological Survey's North Carolina Water Science Center. "Consider the scenario between now and when it starts heating up in May and June. Stream flows will in all likelihood be low, the ground-water system will almost certainly not have recovered enough to provide sustained base flows, and so with business as usual, the reservoirs will indeed fall rapidly."

Climatologists say there's just a 5 percent to 10 percent chance the reservoirs will recover over the next six months. We don't exactly know how much groundwater is available, but if stream flows are any indicator, there's not much—some North Carolina rivers are experiencing the lowest stream flows in recorded history—and state environmental agencies don't have the regulatory power to monitor who is pulling how much out of the ground.

In Durham and Raleigh, city councils and administrators appear either dazed or falsely optimistic about the chances North Carolina will rebound quickly from the drought. Thus, there is no plan in place spelling out the levels of rationing before the taps supply only non-potable water. And if rationing is possible, how does one ration, short of turning off the system?

"The logistics of this are very interesting," says Sydney Miller, water resources program manager for Triangle J Council of Governments. His tone is thoughtful. "If we get to the point of rationing, how would that actually be accomplished?"

Certain emergency services such as hospitals and fire protection require water to function. At a recent Orange County Sewer and Water Authority meeting, a representative from UNC Hospitals said, "Running out of water is not an option." The N.C. Forestry Division is forecasting more wildfires this summer. And if that's not enough, older portions of the water and sewer systems could collapse if there's not enough water pressure—like aging veins with no blood running through them.

Cities "should be thinking worst-case scenario and making a little effort to understand what they would have under that scenario," adds Jeff Hughes, director of the Environmental Finance Center at UNC.

The emergency plan is starting to develop, but inconsistently and mostly behind closed doors. The North Carolina Department of Emergency Services, depending on which official you ask, says that each person will need either one gallon or five gallons of bottled water per day to survive. (Federal Emergency Management Agency rules provide for one gallon; Durham Deputy City Manager Ted Voorhees says five gallons.) If you want to bathe, you'll need more: According to the United Nations, each person requires about 13 gallons of potable water daily for drinking, cooking and basic hygiene.



At Lake Michie, a boat dock sits in the dry lake bed, now covered in grass.
Photo by Jeremy M. Lange
But whether one or five or 13 gallons, it'll be up to the market to mete. The state of North Carolina has signed a contract not to compete with retailers, and the Retail Merchants Association has assured the state that it'll fully stock its member markets.

How much water will our retail stores be able to provide? Steven A. Sloan, chief of logistics for the North Carolina Division of Emergency Management, had to demur. That number is withheld as "strategic information." Sloan was nonetheless able to honestly answer the question that should be on everyone's mind: "It's going to be extremely difficult to provide bottled water for everyone. Our focus is on the functionally fragile population.

"Only when the water on the shelf runs out can the state intervene," Sloan adds. Yes, only when there's no bottled water left on Wal-Mart's shelves can the city or state step in. And the state has stockpiled just 50,000 gallons of water in two warehouses. That will cover just one quarter of the population of Durham. For one day.

Meanwhile, Durham's repeated concern about poor people bearing the financial burden of tiered conservation rates seems quaint when you consider they may not have water at all. Durham, as Voorhees explained somewhat testily at a packed public forum Jan. 8, "is not going to be in the business" of helping provide water to citizens if the taps are turned off.

"I think there's enough infrastructure in the retail capacity of our marketplace to provide enough drinking water for folks to drink. Now if you want to take a bath, that's another matter."

But, when pressed at the meeting for additional details, he suggested that any further questions about the feasibility of providing citizens with sufficient amounts of bottled water be directed to the state or to FEMA. Which is going to be hard, since FEMA has thus far declined to become involved in drought crises. The only time in its history that it was willing to intervene in a drought was in Micronesia last March.

Hope Taylor, executive director of Clean Water for North Carolina, was sitting in the audience, listening to the city's presentation. "'Let them drink bottled water.' That's what Voorhees is telling Durham residents," she said. "'We don't have any responsibility to conserve to prevent such a scenario, and we'll just throw you into a market where water's a thousand times more expensive when we run out.'"

Maybe more like 3,000 times more expensive, the estimated markup of the cost of Raleigh tap water—the same tap water used in Aquafina, produced by one of Raleigh's biggest municipal water users, Pepsi Bottling Ventures. Nothing like reverse osmosis to multiply the price. Pepsi, No. 1 in the bottled-water market, generated $2.17 billion nationwide in sales of Aquafina in 2006.

I don't want to just hype Aquafina here; other brands will be available, too. Like Coca-Cola's Dasani. That's Charlotte, not Raleigh, municipal water. With a bit of salt added for flavor. Or Le Bleu from Davie County. Le Bleu has also contracted with the state to provide water if the shelves of retail outlets are emptied out. Besides the big three, North Carolina has a total of 28 bottling plants, pulling out of municipal systems or out of the groundwater.

Raleigh, meanwhile, refuses to reveal exactly what amount Pepsi or their other largest users are pulling out of the municipal system—citing an exemption in the public records law. "The records you requested are enterprise billing records and not available to the public," wrote Raleigh City Attorney Thomas McCormick.

This is what it means to be in the water business: the conflict of interest between the notion of water as a public trust, and water as an enterprise, income for the city's wallet. Notes North Carolina Press Association General Counsel Amanda Martin: "We are in the middle of an extreme drought, and we are not even entitled to know which users are consuming inordinate amounts of water.  It's a travesty, if you ask me, but unfortunately it is the law."



At Lake Michie, a boat dock sits in the dry lake bed, now covered in grass.
Photo by Jeremy M. Lange
North Carolina, which has been drier-than-normal since 1998, should have been ready for an exceptional drought. Yet, Mayor Bill Bell told Durham citizens earlier this month, "Last January, no one could have predicted that we would have a drought so severe." With all due respect to the mayor, who is at least trying to start a firmer conversation about water conservation, that's utter nonsense. Durham was in its last major water crisis in December 2001, just as Bell was being sworn in his first term as mayor. On Jan. 5, 2002, Durham was just 17 days away from running out of premium water. Then it snowed a foot in early January, and finally rained and rained. So the city apparently decided not to do much after it won that particular round of water roulette.

"What the hell have we done since 2002?" asks Durham City Councilman Eugene Brown, who has grown increasingly frustrated with both Durham city administration and his fellow council members over the lack of concrete action in this crisis.

In terms of conservation planning, the city's not done much. So six years later, we are contending with another drought crisis.

Recently, local mayors have tried to emphasize increasing conservation, seemingly to little avail. Raleigh City Council tabled Mayor Charles Meeker's recent call for a surcharge on Jan. 22. And while Mayor Bell, to his credit, is finally trying to get up to speed, he's been tootling in the slow lane for months, if not years, on this issue. The Durham City Council mostly sits silent when the water crisis is raised, although some members occasionally roll their eyes or whisper to one other like junior high school students when councilmember Brown—the conscience of the city on this issue—tries to discuss it.

In Durham, "When the drought is over" is the wishful term de jour. A rare rain elicited scattered nervous clapping and cheery quips of "fingers crossed!" at a Durham city government retreat in mid-January. Durham, in a misbegotten parody of the self-esteem movement, also continues to congratulate its customers on how much they've conserved— 40 percent! Well, not so much. Even this math-challenged French major can decode the actual reductions: Durhamites have cut back a little less than 12 percent over the same time period last year, when we weren't in exceptional drought. That's pathetic, though typical when you simply ask people to be good citizens and save water. Durham claims the conservation is mandatory, but the city has issued a grand total of one fine for non-compliance.

"It's what we keep coming back to," says Southern Environmental Law Center Senior Attorney Michelle Nowlin. "It's a lack of leadership. This is one of the defining issues for our region. The thing that bothers me is that people are no longer leading; they're waiting around. This should be an issue in the gubernatorial campaign. It should be an issue for all the city council positions."

So Raleigh and Durham wait to institute stricter conservation measures, and don't even tackle the easy green measures that could nonetheless make both a short- and long-term difference: distributing significant numbers of free showerheads or offering major rebates on low-flow toilets. They resist calls for surcharges that might help conserve water, quietly worry about AAA bond ratings if they institute conservation plans, and publicly brag about how bigger pipes and higher dams and deeper dredging will keep us safe into the future.

However, not all area institutions are in slow motion. Duke University and Cree Industries in RTP, both big municipal water users, have been investing time and millions of dollars to reduce their water use, from low-flush toilets to water treatment. Durham County and GlaxoSmithKline are doing the same. Cree has reduced its water use by 50 percent since 2006, and expects to reduce it by a total of two-thirds in the next year, using both water recycling and condensation collection. Says Cree's director of investor relations Raiford Garrabrant, "It's important to our business to keep our factory operating."



A river doesn't run through it: The American Tobacco Campus in Durham
Photo by Derek Anderson
While these institutions have stepped up to the water table challenge, Durham has provided us with Wayne Drop, the skinny-legged, tear-dropped conservation mascot. The other night, he was standing there, nodding gently and handing out showerheads to the few citizens who attended the city council meeting. That's only, of course, if they brought their evil old showerheads with them.

"There's a big problem," said Bill Holman, senior fellow at Duke's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions. "[Cities] are in the water sales business and this is a big change. They're being asked to change their corporate culture very rapidly ... without strong leadership, and it's very hard to do that."

And what about the future? Can we limp through the next year without resorting to the break-out-the-bottled-water scenario? Is this a mega-drought?

Probably not, climatologists and global warming experts say. We're in a dry period, but we'll get rain in the long run. Climate change models show a drier Southwest, a wetter Northeast—and an uncertain Southeast. Not necessarily a more parched Southeast. But certainly one that has more variable rainfall and hotter temperatures.

And more people. People will move here and raise families. Layering the effects of global warming on top of more people complicates the models.

"You don't have to invoke a thousand-year drought for us to act," says Rob Jackson of Duke University's Nicholas Chair of Global Environmental Change. "We need water for the people who are here, and we'll need more water for the people who are coming, and we'll need more water as the temperatures warm."

The long-term answer to this current drought does not lie in new reservoirs or bigger pipes or the strange and recent invocation by two gubernatorial candidates, Beverly Perdue and Fred Smith, of creating desalination plants as an answer to the drought.

We need to get past this crisis if we can, and learn to reduce our current profligate use of fresh water. We need to learn a brand new discipline: water stewardship. We need to take seriously the notion that bad stuff can happen quickly. In Europe, 32,000 people died in the heat wave of 2003.

In the meantime, Hughes and Miller continue to work on the medium- and long-term issues of conservation water rates and interconnections.

"I would urge Durham to start to educate the public," Hughes said. Clear information on water and sewer bills. A clear message that water costs will go up, and that customers will not necessarily be rewarded with lower bills when they lower their consumption.

Water conservation groups, like Clean Water for North Carolina, are calling for statewide plans and coordination, including a utility dedicated to the issue of conservation. Too many water utilities, say Hope Taylor and other water conservationists, are torn between making sure the city bills are paid and a conservation ethic that would take us in a more sustainable direction. Bills win.

"A totally new approach is needed to free up cities to choose conservation approaches instead of the new reservoirs and big pipes that will only increase their debt," Taylor says.

But whether our governments will wake from their trance in time to help stop this chancy game of water roulette is as unpredictable as the weather right now.

Even if your daddy's rich, and your mamma's good lookin'? That's not gonna' help those taps to flow.

For more drought stories, see "When short showers aren't enough" (Jan. 2), "Water wars" (Jan. 2), "Drought tolerance" (Dec. 19, 2007), "Lawn lovers, local officials ignore drought" (Oct. 10, 2007).

15 COMMENTS

Kudos to Cat Warren, Lisa Sorg and Bob Geary for sticking it right-in-your-face regarding the current water shortage. With so-called drought conditions becoming the norm, I seriously question whether we should even be using the word "drought," which implies a once in a while kind of scenario, a temporary shortage, if you will. The truth is that North Carolina has few natural fresh water sources, and the amount of average rainfall is becoming steadily less--that's not a drought; that's a new reality. That bottled water companies are allowed to continue draining what is a necessity for life itself, for private profit, is absurd when the possibility is real that we will literally run out of water. Equally absurd are the comments of David Lee of Bland Landscaping (quoted in Sorg's piece, page 15): "[He] feels singled out"! Why? He's a landscaper and feels that "it's easy to pick on people watering their lawns"? Well, yes, I do feel it's easy to criticize those who would water their lawns when I consider that my children may not have enough water to sustain their lives. Am I picking on landscapers? Too bad. People who think that their right to have lush lawns are equal to the rights of human beings to have potable water flowing from their taps deserve to be "picked on." (And what a choice of words! Picked on? As though, what? The feelings of landscapers are hurt by some unjust criticism? Please.) I'd like to see some real muscle put into dealing with what is becoming a permanent situation--no more bottled water companies buying water dirt cheap from municipalities, cleaning it up a bit and selling back at outrageous profits to those who can afford it; no more car washes offering "super" "ultimate" or "super ultimate" washes for those who just cannot stomach the idea of a bit of dirt on their precious cars; and no more new water hook-ups until developers can find ways to offset their "water footprints" in some "green" and sustainable manner. Maybe when we have to start buying water from some far-off state, a la southern California pumping water in from the Colorado River, we'll all start to take it more seriously. Cat Warren used the word "pathetic" to describe the percentage of water conservation thus far; it's a perfect word to describe the attitude of most of the people regarding this new reality. It's just pathetic, isn't it?
by kagrant Cary 2 Feb 2008, 9:35pm Report this comment
Excellent article. However, fresh water consumption is broken down as follows: 7% residential, 23% industrial use, and 70% agricultural, according to several web sources. That means: if every person in the Triangle stopped using ANY WATER for drinking or bathing, etc, the impact on local reservoirs would be minimal. Upstream agribiz and farmers pump free water for irrigation from the rivers and streams which feed the our urban water supplies . One acre of tobacco, for example, requires enough water to cover it 4 to 6 inches deep or 110,000 to 165,000 gal during its growing season. And tobacco is considered a drought resistant crop ! Plus, downstream agriculture must also be supplied with water from local reservoirs as well. I recall that the Falls Lake Dam is required to release a minimum of 60M gals per day, an amount which exceeds the daily use of the City of Raleigh. I would like to suggest that your next article takes a look at the whole water use pattern for this area. It is a very complex issue which needs more scrutiny and public education. Thanks again for your excellent reporting.
by TimH Durham 3 Feb 2008, 9:26am Report this comment
Thanks to both responders for their thoughtful comments. This piece was only a beginning in what is an enormously complex story. But it always helps to hear reaction. I am in complete agreement with Tim about the overall issue of agricultural use and industrial use of water: We need to know a great deal more than we do about those practices. The "informal check list" for legislators linked off the page is an important part of this story: Almost every water person I talked to was frustrated about the degree of information we DON'T have from those two categories of users. And it is hugely complicated. Power plants use of water,for instance, varies widely; agriculture as well. We have farmer friends who use water in an completely sustainable fashion, and if we don't have good local food, we're in trouble. But of course, we also know very little about what is happening with Big Ag. I was pleased to see that ABC11 Eyewitness News went through Raleigh's bond package and managed to get numbers of gallons used by the top 10 -- it's a piece of work I didn't have time to do, but it's critical that we have good, public data as a start to tackling these issues. ABC11 has been doing some of the top reporting locally on this.
by Cat Warren (cat_warren@earthlink.net) Durham 3 Feb 2008, 10:21am Report this comment
I agree that the water shortage is a serious problem that we need to work on, but in your response you mention power plants. Just to make sure we're not mixing apples and oranges, my understanding is that water usage at power plants in North Carolina has no impact on any city reservoirs. Rather they use either seawater or man-made dedicated lakes. Is that not the case?
by JohnD Raleigh 4 Feb 2008, 11:29am Report this comment
Not in all cases, John D. Cliffside, Duke Energy's coal-fired power plant in the southwestern part of the state, uses water from the Broad River for the plant's cooling towers. It then discharges some water, which is much warmer and can impact aquatic life, back into the river. In addition, the Broad River Basin, according to the NC Division of Water Resources, is in exceptional drought.
by Lisa Sorg, Indy Editor (lsorg@indyweek.com) Durham 4 Feb 2008, 12:30pm Report this comment
Cat: This story is certainly helpful in calling attention to the issue and to showing how difficult it would be for any utility to deal with completely running out of water. Of course that was only a very small part of the meeting at Duke, where my candid remarks were made, and then used quite selectively by you to sensationalize the story a bit. All's fair in journalism I suppose. What the story does not do is accurately portray any of the many things the City of Durham is doing to deal with the situation. I'm sure some folks would like to know more about what we are doing. Unfortunately, getting that message out is a challenge. I do get tired of "what the city should do" statements from folks who don't know that we already do many of those things and have been doing them for years. As with most things governmental, we do what we can with the limited resources provided. As I write this, we have over 200 days of raw water supply and we do not plan to run out. We continue to work to increase our access to Jordan Lake, implement tiered rates with monthly billing, and promote conservation. We will continue to work together with community partners to increase our awareness of water as a valuable and limited resource, promote conservation, and increase our access to raw water supplies. We appreciate all consumers who do their part to conserve regardless of what anyone else is doing. The more people who share that attitude, the better off our community will be. Ted Voorhees, Deputy City Manager
by Ted Voorhees (theodore.voorhees@durhamnc.gov) Durham 4 Feb 2008, 6:46pm Report this comment
I have to say, reading things like this: "Recently, local mayors have tried to emphasize increasing conservation, seemingly to little avail. Raleigh City Council tabled Mayor Charles Meeker's recent call for a surcharge on Jan. 22. And while Mayor Bell, to his credit, is finally trying to get up to speed, he's been tootling in the slow lane for months, if not years, on this issue. The Durham City Council mostly sits silent when the water crisis is raised, although some members occasionally roll their eyes or whisper to one other like junior high school students when councilmember Brown—the conscience of the city on this issue—tries to discuss it." makes me want to go to a Durham City Council meeting and crack some people's heads together. Eye-rolling isn't going to solve the problem, children. LOLcat macros probably aren't either, but if my city council is going to act like junior high kids, maybe it'll get their attention: That image is one of a series that my husband took of Jordan Lake from the Hwy. 751 bridge, back in November 2007. LOLcatted via ROFLbot. Pictures are all (c) Paul Cory. As a side note -- I haven't paid much attention to the Lt. Governor's race here in North Carolina because I'm not all that familiar with the plethora of candidates as of yet, but Dan Besse has just released a comprehensive water management plan that gives him a major boost in my book.
by Angry Grrl Durham 6 Feb 2008, 9:03pm Report this comment
Fantastic article - I think we're all exasperated about how long it's taken for the officials to escalate our conservation efforts. I'm anxious to hear everyone's take on the newest pipe-dream fix of using the aquifer water wasted by PCS Phosphate's mining operation in Aurora. (shameless plug) For those who missed it, you can read a blog entry about it at greenertriangle.blogspot.com (shameless plug). The nutshell version is the construction of a 160 million dollar pipeline from the coast, utilizing the 58 million gallons of water that PCS is currently dumping into the Pamlico. Price tag aside, I'm pretty certain the time frame for such a project will likely far exceed our constraints.
by GNethercutt Raleigh 11 Feb 2008, 11:30pm Report this comment
Kagrant mentions that our region has few natural fresh water sources, and says, basically, we're going to have to make due with what we can get from our current infrastructure from here on out. Michael Bacon, in a comment on a local blog (http://dependableerection.blogspot.com/2008/01/impressions-of-drought-forum.html) thinks we have plenty of untapped reservoirs within a 50-mile radius that will eventually come into play (they are man made, and I don't know if this distinction matters to the argument Kagrant makes, but water is water as far as I'm concerned): "Even with the drought, we're still a ridiculously wet region, and there are plenty of major cities in the west that would kill to have our 2007 rainfall levels. The problem is we use too much of it and have very minimal infrastructure. Tiered rates would help, of course, but also, in the long run, there's still plenty of water around if we try a little harder. For one thing, there's the comparatively huge Mayo and Hyco lakes in N. Person county, just 20 miles away. And if we somehow managed to overtax those, there's the three Roanoke River reservoirs, each of which dwarfs both Jordan and Falls Lakes. Sure, the furthest of those would be 50 miles away, but hey, the LA aqueduct is well over 200 miles long."
by Lavon J NC 15 Feb 2008, 10:51am Report this comment
What we are experiencing is not a drought, it is a water shortage. There is not enough water to support the population growth and development in the triangle. Why isn't anyone talking about slowing, and eventually halting development which is probably one of the most important things we can do in the long run as a society to conserve water (and the environment in general!). Nobody wants to face up to the fact that sprawl is a pattern of growth that embodies all that is wrong in our relationship with the Earth.
by KCiampa Durham 18 Feb 2008, 9:06pm Report this comment
KCiampa, growth is good. If you've ever spent time in a third world country, or even a town in America's rust belt where populations are decreasing, it quickly becomes clear that the alternative to growth comes with much bigger problems (unemployment, stagnating wages, good teachers and other professionals fleeing for high-growth areas and better pay, just to name a few). Growth is not the enemy here. The enemy is the myth that water isn't a product. Water is just like anything else you buy, but for some reason (namely, government monopoly and price controls), the price doesn't do what it's meant to do when the supply goes down and the demand goes up. Instead, it stays the same. The only incentives to conserve for anyone who uses water are some fluffy sentiments about civic responsibility and random fines, which have done nothing but take us closer to a tragedy of the commons. What if the price of water were allowed to float (above a certain usage-level, since someone will inevitably say 'what about the poor?'), and everyone had a real incentive to conserve? Individuals would have to choose between using a lot of water, or buying a 42" plasma. And amazingly, people have proven time and again that they can make that kind of decision better than any government regulations can. Better yet, get government out of water altogether. Water is too important to allow professional politicians (ie, fools and liars) to manage any aspect of it. Government doesn't manage our grocery supply, yet somehow we're having no problems finding more and better things to eat every day.
by LSL Raleigh 19 Feb 2008, 10:02am Report this comment
I believe Fountain Valley, Orange County has built the country's first municipal treatment plant that can convert waste water into tap water. Eventually North Carolina cities will most likely have to do the same. Its expensive, but clean water is our most precious commodity. Since the region is called Research Triangle its time that the state spend some money on a decent water infrastructure . Relying on rain is not going to be the answer anymore.Southern California survives because of Pat Brown's jerry Brown's dad had the vision to build the aqueducts to distribute water from the North to the South.Its raining here tonight. We still waste water here and need new investments but California has about 35 million people and I believe North Carolina has about 8 million.Those that pay taxes are going to have to get serious about building a better water distribution system that you currently have.
by Modernist Durham , Southern California 22 Feb 2008, 5:03am Report this comment
LSL, are you a developer? I have spent time in third world countries. There are also many historic and current cases of growth destroying entire cultures and civilizations. not to mention what's good for economics isn't always what's good for the environment. I am not from around here but this has been the wettest drought I have ever experienced. It seems to me that this is not a water problem, it's a people problem. We have a growth, management and use problem. The demand for water is larger then the source. We are not going to solve this problem by not serving water in restaurants, while we continue to build massive developments of 4,000 square foot homes with lawns and swimming pools, and strip mall, after strip mall. Not to mention population growth is the root of almost all environmental problems, including global warming, and all of the causes of global warming. Maybe if people were a little more aware of this fact we could get to the root of that problem too. Yes we would have to rethink our whole social welfare and economic system but what are the alternatives, a bunch of short term band-aids? Geoengineering? A Prius? What consumers don't understand is that we can't buy our way to a cleaner planet.
by KCiampa Durham 23 Feb 2008, 12:58pm Report this comment
No, KCiampa, I'm not a developer; I simply advocate individual liberty and I happen to read a lot. Developers wouldn't be building if they didn't expect people to buy those homes in the future. So what you're really trying to say is that you hate people for wanting to move to Raleigh (like you did) and want them to stop. But you have no right to prevent people from coming to this area simply because you happened to get here first. You also have it wrong about urban sprawl. As of 2005, All of the developed land in this country amounted to less than 5% of total (SPRAWL: A Compact History, by Robert Bruegmann, Univ. of Chicago Press 2005). And I guess you were vacationing in those 3rd world countries, because you apparently missed the part about how many people don't particularly like living in poverty/ disease/ tyranny/ fear, and would like to change their countries or leave. Civilizations, by the way, are not constant -- they change. There's not necessarily some 'destroying' hand involved. And economic output doesn't necessarily coincide with environmental decay. Anyone who flew into LA 25 years ago flew through a thick, nasty haze of pollution. LA's air is comparatively crystal clear today, even though LA has more people, more business, more cars, etc. And that's not the exception to the rule. You are correct only in stating that local demand for water is out-pacing current water supply, but because there's little incentive for reducing demand (like higher water prices), demand hasn't slowed. And I'm not sure what your 'solution' to population growth would be. Would you start with forced sterilization or eliminating baby girls? A lot of sociologists think that we're heading for a decline in global population, anyway, since family sizes are shrinking, and more people are using birth control (without any totalitarian or Keynesian population management). Arbitrarily blaming growth (and trying to slow it) for government's failure in this instance is like tossing the baby out with the bathwater.
by LSL Raleigh 24 Feb 2008, 11:05am Report this comment
Ok why bother conserving, if we do, then we get hit with increased costs from the water company because they didnt sell enough water, screw it , Ill use as much as I need and not give it a thought. So theres coruption here, well your not doing on my back, we;ll all run out togather I say
by gohot NC , Anson Co. 21 Jun 2008, 10:42am Report this comment
Add to the discussion
Post your comment
Add to the discussion
Post your comment
 
return to top