Pipelines and band-aids

These "solutions" to Denver's water crisis get crazier and crazier. It's one thing to expect water consumption patterns can continue at the same rate as time goes on. Add population growth to the equation and it's even more laughable. But the idea that we should build a $7 billion, 600-mile pipeline through pristine habitat to allow water wastefulness to continue is a travesty. 

Photo credit: http://ow.ly/mfclO

As Chuck Howe says in his High Country News piece, the real solution "should include greater water conservation in our cities, increased agricultural efficiencies, and a more innovative approach to the operation of our water markets so that the water we have can be reallocated as economic conditions and population change over time."

The water debate draws many parallels to fracking. While everyone agrees we need to wean ourselves off foreign oil, fracking is many environmentalists' greatest fear, and not just because of the pollution, water use, and habitat destruction that accompany extraction. But because it makes us blind to the real solution: changing our consumption. 

We must ask ourselves: is buying a little extra time through water pipelines or fracking wells a wise strategy? It's as if we admit our cities have an expiration date. In the long run, does it really matter if we procure ourselves 100 more years of water, or fuel, if the problem will just come up again when that runs out? We put too much trust in the assumption that future generations will be smarter and more resource-savvy. 

We have been able to get away with driving so much and keeping green lawns in the desert because we are borrowing from our future supplies of oil and water. No matter how long resource will take to run out, if the trajectory of supply and demand will eventually converge it should not be considered a viable solution. We're spending on credit when we should only be trusted with a debit account.