triangle.com | Home

The 2/1/08 N&O Editorial, Our Views, was an excellent reading on the N&O's, the media's in general, as well as local and state governments' mind-sets about the drought and water supply situation in Raleigh and North Carolina.

use is creeping up.
the time for drastic steps has come.
backsliding from their conservation ways.
demand near or exceeding...
the lake has fewer than 110 days...
cities...aren't issuing the...dire warnings...called for.
drought experts...using the term catastrophic.
conservations needs to be a household rule.
neither Raleigh nor Durham has imposed...strictest...limits.
Raleigh City Council...declined...surcharge...intended to cut consumption.
ban on irrigation and pressure washing.
water savings would be worthwhile as an emergency measure.
...every new home...means more demand on scarce water supplies.
...the region may look back on these days as a water conservation opportunity down the drain.

and tucked into the middle of the conserve, conserve, conserve diatribe was this almost-accidental comment: "The point is not to lay blame but to act as a reminder that users and suppliers --- residents and governments --- each have a vital part to play if a catastrophe is to be avoided."

Well, folks, there you have it: we've got a problem here, and the solution is conservation.

Dozens of words, phrases and column-inches, month after month, exhorting us to conserve, conserve, conserve.

Two and a half years ago, I suggested the idea that future water shortages might not be as severe if the organizations allegedly responsible for SUPPLYING our water were to take some actions in the direction of INCREASING SUPPLY.

The N&O chose to not publish my letter. Two years later, an appliance salesman volunteered the idea to me, as a chatty customer, that "maybe they should try to dredge Falls Lake so it can hold more water!" and I cracked up. Neat idea, man... wish I'd thought of it sooner!

The real bottom line is that everyone remotely associated with the process of supplying water to the City and State has failed miserably.

Suggestions which in any way are directed towards increased supply are met with excuses like "costs too much" or "takes too long" or "that's controlled by the Army Corps of Engineers" or some other remote and untouchable organization.

So the people and organizations which we have trusted to supply us with a "utility" as basic as water now supply us with exhortations to conserve, conserve, conserve, instead of giving us any hope that they at ANY time in the future might be able to carry through on the most basic goals of their reason for existing: delivering drinking water to us.

Failure.

Can they be voted out of office? I don't think so. Is there anyone in State of Local Government willing to say, "you guys have failed, and we're not going to accept your excuses any more: improve the supplies of water so that it's not a limiting factor for our growth... or showers or dish-washing."

If the electric companies deliver brownouts, everybody is all over their case. Heads roll, laws are passed, thumbscrews are tightened.

What if the gas companies said that everyone would have to cut back their heating and cooking and hot water heating because, well... we don't have enough natural gas for ya...?

Civil rebellion.

So, please explain to me why our water supplies are handled by organizations for which the only solution is: "conserve, conserve, conserve."

I've had people remind me that the City of San Francisco has essentially no local water supplies. The water for San Francisco is delivered through a network of pipes and reservoirs from the Sierra Nevada Mountains, about 200 MILES' DRIVE AWAY!

Without Hetch-Hetchy Reservoir and a couple hundred miles of pipes and several more reservoirs, San Francisco could not exist as it does today.

No, creating those reservoirs and pipelines wasn't cheap. I'm not saying our solution will be inexpensive, either.

What I'm objecting to is the lack of discussion of other "solutions" to meeting our water needs, besides, "conserve, conserve, conserve."

If you're in the business of supplying water, tell us what it would cost to deliver as much as we WANT, and on a regular, no-shortages basis.

Let US decide how much we're willing or able to cough up to pay for increased supplies.

Don't just offer an ongoing "solution" of "conserve, conserve, conserve."

That leads to an inevitable end: either growth in our region MUST come to ZERO some time in the near future, OR, if growth is limited to X per cent per year, we must, then REDUCE our water consumption... each and every consumer... by at least X per cent per year..... forever.

Think about it.

Alan Falk

North Raleigh