New NASA data show how the world is running out of water

[SecularMotion]

Source: Washington Post

[center][/center]

The world’s largest underground aquifers – a source of fresh water for hundreds of millions of people — are being depleted at alarming rates, according to new NASA satellite data that provides the most detailed picture yet of vital water reserves hidden under the Earth’s surface.

Twenty-one of the world’s 37 largest aquifers — in locations from India and China to the United States and France — have passed their sustainability tipping points, meaning more water was removed than replaced during the decade-long study period, researchers announced Tuesday. Thirteen aquifers declined at rates that put them into the most troubled category. The researchers said this indicated a long-term problem that’s likely to worsen as reliance on aquifers grows.

Scientists had long suspected that humans were taxing the world’s underground water supply, but the NASA data was the first detailed assessment to demonstrate that major aquifers were indeed struggling to keep pace with demands from agriculture, growing populations, and industries such as mining.

“The situation is quite critical,” said Jay Famiglietti, senior water scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California and principal investigator of the University of California Irvine-led studies.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/16/new-nasa-studies-show-how-the-world-is-running-out-of-water/

[Gregorian]

1. That's not a water problem. That's a population problem.

All of the water that has been on earth is still here. The same volume is still here. Granted, we're sucking out the fresh water, and we can't drink salt water, but the water has not gone from the universe in which it has always existed.

So why are we calling it something other than what it is? When do we start talking the truth?

[7962]

2. I was thinking the same thing. And water moves around.

Right now Texas has too much; California has too little.

[mindwalker_i]

4. CA needs a really long straw

Unfortunately Rick Perry is in Texas, so the water would get sucked the wrong way.

[alfredo]

5. Potable water. We can drill the deeper aquifers, but how many of them are saline?

[daleanime]

7. Every thing breaks down to that.....

but how would you deal with it?

[Gregorian]

12. Education

No one can force people to do anything. When people are conscious of the problems, they are mostly responsible. Modern society is rather new.

There is an alternative: to do nothing. But as energy and resources fail to keep up with population growth that growth will slow down, and that phrase "slow down" is too nice sounding for what it is. It's everything from scarcity to war. That's why it behooves us to start talking about something we've never had to think about.

[MisterP]

20. heck, El Salvador's dirt farmers were driven by their macho boyfriends to the abortionist's

that meant one abortion per four live births in the 70s, in a climate where you got shot for trying to learn to read and both left and right were so anti-choice that they'd've added treason charges to that woman given 30 years for miscarrying

they don't need to be equal, educated, or out of poverty to seek abortion

[SoLeftIAmRight]

8. Thank you

so true

[calimary]

10. Indeed. We have to manage our population much better!

THAT is the biggest issue of them all. Too many humans. More than can be sustained on this planet. We're fouling our own nest.

[yurbud]

37. there are very easy, non-coercive ways to reduce population: education, raising standard of living,

and urbanization all tend to reduce family size.

Unfortunately, the richest want the rest of us as poor as possible to keep labor cheap and to have lots of consumers to buy their stuff.

[calimary]

40. Indeed. And making sure our girls and women are well-educated.

[billhicks76]

18. Not Recycling Should Be A Crime

In every state and every country. Undo all the drug law crimes and focus on really helping society.

[delrem]

19. Climate change is rapidly redistributing water.

Of course the laws of physics rule.

It's happening radically fast, as in a transition of epochs.
There's no way for us to predict how this will end.
The lives of humans are like that of mayflies compared to that of species, and epochal changes in Earth's climate.

[yurbud]

36. there's a way we use it problem--to grow crops we feed animals that we then eat

[longship]

3. Thankfully there is plenty of bottled Nestle corporate water at the grocers.

So I won't die of thirst... as long as I have the money to buy it.

I find myself holding my tongue in the grocery line when somebody in front of me has a cart full of bottled water. Myself, I live in the midst of the National Forest in Michigan. My water comes from two artesian wells. It has a bit of minerals, which stops up the screens on the faucets a bit. But my morning coffee is absolutely delish, as is ever glass of water I drink.

Meanwhile, several miles down the road a huge plant is sucking up water from the same aquifer to sell in bottles. And stupid fools buy it.

Thankfully Lake Michigan is 50 miles away, so my wells will not likely be sucked dry by such stupidity. But one never knows for sure. One thing I've learned in my 67 years, there's one commodity the USA has no shortage of... stupidity.

[daleanime]

6. kick, kick, kick....

[alfredo]

9. "The Water Knife" by Paolo Bacigalupi is about a dried out southwest.

All water is owned by robber barons, so they call the shots.

http://www.npr.org/2015/05/28/408295800/the-water-knife-cuts-deep

The federal government has been severely weakened by corporate influence; the drought-stricken Western states have formed their own militias and shut down their borders. In the midst of this poverty and tragedy, though, massive resorts are being constructed across the parched landscape, ones that flaunt their water-wealth in the face of exploited workers and gross ecological disparity.

[Little Tich]

11. Access to clean water is a very basic human right.

Something has to be done.

[madville]

13. Don't live in a desert

Many parts of the Southwest US will be new ghost towns in our lifetimes.

[Chicago1980]

14. I'm glad I live next to a Great Lake.

I wonder how much of the depletion in the United States has to do with fracking and pumping out water to fill plastic bottles in drought stricken areas?

[yurbud]

38. Would you drink from a Great Lake? I went wading in Lake Michigan once in Chicago

it burnt my legs.

[shrike]

39. It's called a water treatment plant

Many, many communities rely on Lake Michigan for their water supply.

[Chicago1980]

43. Well..

It sounds like you have overly sensitive skin.

[yurbud]

44. it was at Great Lakes Naval Training Center. Maybe there's some nasty pollution source nearby

or they were dumping chemical weapons in the lake.

[secondwind]

15. Can fracking be causing a problem here...... n/t

[jtuck004]

16. 33 recs. Maybe lots of people are watering their lawns. n/t

[jwirr]

17. What surprises me is that some areas that are the closest to depletion are not in highly populated

areas. Thinking about Russia and Poland area. That is if I am reading the map correctly.

And this map shows clearly why we need to keep the Keystone pipeline away from the Ogalala. There is still water there. The CA and TX coast areas have used most of theirs up - probably fracking in Texas. Definitely population in California. Africa and northern Asia seem to be in the biggest trouble.

Thank you for the information.

[mahina]

21. Until the glaciers melt, and Peru, India, and other areas lose their fresh water sources.

[JudyM]

22. K&R n/t

[happyslug]

23. You have to compare that to average rainfall.

http://www.climate-charts.com/World-Climate-Maps.html#rain

For Example the American South gets 725 to 974 mm of water each year, thus the loss of its aquifer while bad is not the end of farming in the South.

On the other hand, in the Great Plains the loss of water in an area with less then 474 mm of rain each year may make the area unfarmable when the aquifer is gone.

Saudi Arabia's depletion will be fatal, rainfall of less then 224 mm and in some areas less then 124 mm of rainfall each year. North Africa is worse, with rainfall of less then 24 mm each year (74 mm as you near the Atlantic.

Russian is a limited concern, with rainfall of less then 724 mm each year but the Ganges river area is less of a concern with its 725 to 2474 MM of rainfall each year.

[csziggy]

30. The American South is not immune to water shortages

Many places in Florida have historically used ground water as a source but with intermittent droughts over the last few decades a lot of those (admittedly shallow) wells have run dry. My Mom lives in Polk County in the middle of the state and for nearly a decade, since 2005, the year they had three hurricanes cross the county, their rainfall has been low. For a lot of those years they had water restrictions such as using city water to keep lawns green. Mom's house had a ground water well to water the lawn and garden - it ran dry about 2008 or 2009.

2007 and 2008 we had a drought here in North Florida that extended into South Georgia. Large areas of South Georgia caught on fire and we had thick smoke hanging over the area around Tallahassee for over a month. Our pastures still have not recovered from the drought - what used to be thick grass, too thick for a bush hog mower, is now too thin to count on for supporting our horses.

There have already been disputes between states over water usage. The Atlanta area is using immense amounts of water and the agricultural areas of Georgia and Alabama rely on the water from the rivers that end up in North Florida. The oyster industry of Apalachee Bay needs sufficient flow from the Ocklochnee and Apalachicola Rivers to maintain the proper water balances. If Georgia and Alabama draw the rivers down too much, the Bay becomes stagnant and the oysters don't grow. (Though since the BP oil spill the oysters have not done well anyway so water flow may be irrelevant.)

[happyslug]

31. Neither is any other part of the globe

Droughts occur everywhere. When droughts kick in people turn to wells and Aquifers. I remember the 1999 Drought that saw the Youghiogheny River Lake disappear to its pre dam level:



http://old.post-gazette.com/magazine/19990107bridge3.asp

Here is a photo showing the old bridge, that has been under water except for the droughts of 1999 and 1979 since 1943:



http://swpare.blogspot.com/2011/01/youghiogheny-dam-and-forgotten-town-of.html

The new bridge can be seen in the background, most of the time the water level is just below the road bed. thus you can see how much water was missing during that drought. The Youghiogheny Dam and Lake was built to control flooding in Pittsburgh but also to supply water to the locks and dams of the Pittsburgh area, on both the Monongahela and Ohio Rivers. I remember 1999, the rivers were as smooth as glass as no water was being released through the locks and dams EXCEPT when a barge or other boat went through a lock.

Thus everywhere in the world you can have a drought (even in the desert, most deserts gets so much rain each year, but some years less then normal so they go into drought). In most of the world, the main source of water is rain or rivers that themselves are fed by rain. The problem is those areas whose main source of water is Aquifers not rain. While the south is drawing more water from their Aquifers then what is entering such aquifers, the main source of most water used in the South is still Rain. That is NOT true of the Western Great Plains OR the Imperial Valley of California. In those areas of the US, the Aquifer is the main source of water, and as such is a limited resource slowly, but steadily being depleted with no prospect of any other source of water. Thus my comment that while the South is using its Aquifers quicker then those Aquifers can be refilled, the South has an alternative source of water most of the time, unlike the Western Great Plains, the Imperial Valley of California, and the Sahara Desert of North Africa.

[csziggy]

32. But the South does not get enough rain to serve the people and agriculture

And the rain water in much of the area only replenishes the ground water - the aquifer is filled from water in North Georgia which is now being used up by the people there. Unless we plan NOW we will be as bad off as the American Southwest and California.

Unfortunately, many don't want to plan until the need is desperate. Florida has water management districts but Rick Scott has tried to reduce their authority and they are in a constant fight with big agriculture. Most of the drinking water in the state now comes from the aquifer - that is why it is being depleted.

All it takes is a minor shift in climate and the American South will be a dry land. It was during the Pleistocene while the oceans were lower. I haven't researched periods when the oceans were higher to see what the prospects will be in our future.

The point I am really trying to make is that everyone everywhere needs to learn how to more efficiently use the fresh water we have and to recycle it to preserve our environments. We can't take any of our resources for granted especially something as important as potable water.

[happyslug]

41. The South averages 28-38 inches of rainfall each year.

And that is NOT expected to change with climate Change (if anything the rain in the South is expected to INCREASE).

LA Averages just under 15 inches per year and this is expected to DROP with Climate Change, thus LA meets the bare definition of desert:

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/02/local/me-annual-rain-graphic2

San Francisco averages just under 24 inches of rain per year:

http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate.php?location=USCA0987

California as a whole follows those two cities, Southern California is a lot dryer then norther California, as you move inland, the dryness of Southern California increases. You see the same pattern in Northern California but the drop is less severe.

As you near the Oregon Border, the annual rainfall increases.

http://www.currentresults.com/Weather/California/average-yearly-city-precipitation.php

Climate change includes not only an increase in temperature but changes in rainfall.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/dec/15/climate-change-rainfall

The Sahara Desert appears to be in retreat after decades of advancing southward and this is believed to be due to Climate Change:

http://www.rtcc.org/2015/06/22/sahel-gets-surprise-rainfall-boon-from-climate-change/

Northern Europe and Eastern US are expected to see an INCREASE in rain:

http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-effects/rain-and-snow.html

http://www.climatehotmap.org/

While the Eastern US gets wetter, the Great Lakes will slowly dry out as it evaporates (The Great Lakes gets most of its water from Canada, something like 90%). Most of this increase evaporation will be off set by increase rain fall in Eastern Canada, but exactly how this two actions will interact only time will tell.

The general rule of thumb is wetter regions will get wetter, dryer regions will get dryer. The most notable exception will be the Sahara, it is believed the Sahara was HOTTER 10,000 years ago and that increased heat pulled in moisture from the South. An increase in temperature will lead to that increase in water in the Sahara.

Another exception is the East Antarctic Ice Sheet. Warmer temperatures will bring with it more moisture to the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, increasing its size even after the West Antarctic Ice Sheet Collapses and raises world wide sea levels 15-20 feet. There is a possibility that the Collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet may open up various ice steams and water steams from the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, thus leading to even more increase, but right now the best guess is 15-20 feet.

Thus the South will see an increase in Rain over the next 50 years, the only exception would be Texas. East Texas (Houston area) will see an increase in rain, but West Texas (i.e. El Paso) and the northern Panhandle (Amarillo) will see a drop in rain fall. The big question is will present "line" between the "Dry West" and the "Wet East" remain roughly where it is, or move closer to Houston and the Mississippi River?

The Present 20 inch rainfall line:



http://shade-trees.tripod.com/hardiness_map.html



http://www.geog.nau.edu/courses/alew/gsp220/text/chapters/ch8.html

One big question is the area of the country where 90% of the land is on farms, will be the area that will be the border between the dry west and the wet east:



Notice, the South, except for Texas, Oklahoma, Kentucky AND along the Mississippi river, has less then 50% of their land in farms.

Just pointing out that the South, except for a general increase in temperature, humility and rain, will NOT become California.

Now this has to do with the prevailing currents. The Japanese Current pulls water from the Pacific and into the Northwest. The water then turns south and around LA, turns westward pulling water water is in Southern California out to sea.

The South is just north of the Gulf of Mexico and the prevailing current dumps water into the Gulf from the South, which in turns helps push the Gulf Stream up the east coast of the US. This two movements forces rain clouds into the area from East Texas to Minnesota and eastward. Climate Change will increase this water movement.



http://www.seos-project.eu/modules/oceancurrents/oceancurrents-c02-p03.html

Now some speculation suggest that the currents may slow down and even stop due to climate change, but most scientists believe the currents will only slow down, it is hard to stop a flow of water due the the water behind the water you are trying to stop (the water is being pushed by the water behind it, this the water has to go somewhere, thus a shift in the current is more likely then any actual stoppage). The biggest fear is the Gulf Stream will go south, freezing out Norway, Ireland and Great Britain. It will have little if any affect on the American South.

Thus Climate Change MAY solve the problem of a shortage of Southern Water with increase rain fall while at the same time making Southern California a true dry desert.

[csziggy]

42. Thank you for the detailed information

I haven't had the time to investigate what the projections are for the future. I've just been going from what I've seen in the past fifty years.

Even with increased rain we won't have enough potable water if we are careful.

One thing - there are large areas of the Southeast that used to be farmland that are no longer used for agriculture. In my part of North Florida and in South Georgia a lot of the acreage that was productive plantation land is now in hunting plantations and in timberland. While I love seeing the trees if too much farmland is lost to drought as is projected in the maps you posted, a lot of the land that has been unframed for 150 years could be returned to cropland use.

Thanks!

[Gregorian]

24. I'm posting to rebut my own post, above. I was wrong.

I have a friend who is now a managing engineer at the Sonoma water district. Today we were talking about some new water regulations that are going to be implemented in the next few weeks. We also discussed the cycle of fresh water.

What I did not know is that we indeed have less fresh water now than we did in the recent past. Some of what I said above is not true. One example is the Marin wastewater treatment plant. The way fresh water is collected, it comes in contact with salt water. When the conductivity of water increases, it becomes prohibitively difficult to change it back to fresh water. It essentially is lost forever. Even when it rains, there are diversions in places like Florida whereby the fresh water flows back to salty areas and increases in it's ionic content.

So it is an issue based on the amount used, but also how we are using it. And it does look like we're headed for some big trouble in terms of fresh water for future generations.

[restorefreedom]

25. unless we deal with the elephant in the room

we will never conquer this issue. 80% of u.s fresh water goes to agriculture. a cornell university study showed that to produce a pound of animal protein for human consumption requires 100 times more water than producing a pound of grain protein. a meat-based diet for this world's population is simply not sustainable.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full

[chernabog]

26. You are correct

Most people here don't wanna here it though. Very sad since this is a supposed progressive forum.

[restorefreedom]

27. it isn't just here though.

how many environmental organizations do we hear coming out on this issue? few to none, even organizations that are normally very outspoken. they are afraid of alienating big money donors who are not ready to hear this message. but reality is catching up fast.

edited for spelling

[Codeine]

28. Even DU doesn't like to hear that one.

I guess bacon trumps everything.

[restorefreedom]

29. i know it is a high hill to climb

but the future of the planet literally depends on people taking it seriously and being willing to make changes. if not for themselves, then maybe for their kids or grandkids.

if bill clinton, the guy who used to stop on runs to grab a burger, can turn vegan, i would say anybody can.

[happyslug]

33. So what is the problem, most cattle are raised in water surplus areas OR areas to dry for grain.

The main area of cattle raising is Texas to Chicago. Grain tends to be grown on the northern Great plains, with what is called "range raised beef" let to graze on land to dry to farm (and this is mostly Central Texas westward). Thus Cattle and grain rarely compete for the same water and when they do, it is in the form of feed lots, i.e. where cattle are penned and fattened before being slaughtered.

Thus you see Cattlemen complaining of wild horses, Elks and other non domesticated animals competing for the graze they need for their cattle, NOT fights with farmers raising grain crops.

In traditional farming, Cattle was only permitted to graze on areas held fallow, and such fallow fields were done so that the Cattle could deposit nutrients into the soil, nutrients needed by crops. Grains were developed from wild grains that evolved in an area where animals grazed, thus to a limited degree such grains need to be grazed (just like the return of the wolf to Yellowstone return Yellowstone to a more natural balance for the plants and animals of Yellowstone evolved with the presence of wolves and the lack of wolves brought with it imbalances in the Yellowstone Eco system).

http://www.missionwolf.org/page/trophic-cascade/

http://www.yellowstonepark.com/2011/06/wolf-reintroduction-changes-ecosystem/

Report on "Mixed Farmings":

http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/y0501e/y0501e03.htm#P74_17109



How America turned farms into Factories:

http://www.factoryfarmmap.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/FactoryFarmNation-web.pdf

I do not have the time to do more research, but animals and plants have long worked together in the natural world and thus work together well on traditional farms. The problem has been such farms are rare today, most farms concentrate on one crop, be it corn, wheat, cattle, sheep etc. Worse whole areas of the US concentrate on one crop for that is what people buy as a crop from that area. This cut down man hours per crop produced, but at the cost of not only the environment, but any ability to plant more then one crop per farm (and even less production then in any "three crop" system, where you plant more then one crop per acre, such multi crop farming increases overall food production, but at the cost of decrease production of each crop per acre. i.e. instead for example purposes only. instead of 2 bushels of corn per acre, a mix crop system could produce one bushel of Corn, one bushel of beans and an equivalent amount of pumpkins, thus three crops per acre, but only 1 bushel of corn per acre as oppose to 2 bushels of corn if just corn was planted).

Just a comment that eliminating cattle may NOT be the "Solution" to any upcoming food shortage and given present day grain production, we may have a long wait before grain consumption comes close to grain production AND when that day comes we have alternatives better then giving up on cattle.

[restorefreedom]

34. the issue is not one of location only but resources

raising animals for human consumption is extremely resource intense...not just the grazing space but the WATER (that is the huge one) ....so much more is needed to raise animals to kill...not to mention the higher pollution aspect, waste runoff, etc etc....a meat based diet is a bad deal for the planet, and in this time of water loss the earth just can't sustain it anymore. i appreciate your well thought out presentation and i agree with you.....stopping cattle raising isn.t the only solution. but i think it is a critical component. farming methods as we know them will also have to change as you pointed out.

plus, many landowners out west want to eliminate wild horses, wolves, etc because of the competing interests. and that is a whole ' nother issue. but not the one we are talking about.


🌻

[davidpdx]

35. This is no big surprise to me

Certain parts of the world are going to be in critical shortage of water in the near future. Where I live in South Korea is not one of the 37 largest, but I can tell you that we have been getting less rain (or snow) in the past 11 years that I have been here. Monsoon season has been a bust the last few years. The second year I lived here I can remember it rained so hard for weeks on end during the Monsoon season. We'll have to see what this year has in store. Only about a week or so before it begins.

[Kennah]

45. CNN reports too close to call