Implicit in your questionnaire on water supply is the simple fact that we are growing beyond our means. Growth is a hot issue, but outgrowing our watershed is probably the most crucial of growth issues. Water supply is already a major issue in many parts of the world and will be THE defining factor of life in the future as humans continue to use water faster than sources are being replenished.

I've lived through a drought and know how precious water is, and how foolhardy it is to take it for granted. A Sudanese, however, put our "drought" in perspective. What we considered a "drought:" not being served water at restaurants, not flushing every time, taking "navy" showers, and letting our exotic landscaping die. His definition: waiting days for a donkey carrying water drums to be given a few gallons to live on for a week. As population grows exponentially all over the planet, such situations will not be uncommon.

Should we have a backup water source? Sustainability requires that every area live within its watershed, including providing for the water needs of all other species. This is a very obvious, realistic limit to population growth. As other communities in the area are also growing, they too, will be seeking to augment their water supply, creating the grounds for big political battles. Though Oregonians are smug about our water supply [and wishing we had less this soggy May] there have been droughts in various parts of the state in the last few years, and we are not only facing the demands of a growing population, we are facing major climate changes. Global warming IS here, greatly exacerbated currently by El Niño. Global warming means extreme weather conditions, ricocheting from flood to drought conditions, too much to too little. We're already seeing this. Makes any planning rather difficult.

Thus, not only should each area live within its watershed, but people should become more self-sufficient -- earthquake preparedness advises keeping a water supply. Bring back rain barrels. Wells would be an obvious, excellent choice except for many questions that arise in a highly populated area -- how contaminated is the water? How could wells be protected from contamination? How many wells can the groundwater table reasonably handle? We know the Willamette is polluted, full of deformed fish, and no doubt getting more so as population and industry increases.

Would I be willing to pay more for water? Nature provides in abundance for all her creatures, but humans have "locked up the food," [to quote Ishmael] -- and the water. So on one hand, one could argue that basics ought to be free -- or at least cheap. On the other hand, as water is absolutely essential to life, it is most precious -- priceless, in fact. But we have learned to take it for granted, waste it profligately, and resent paying for it, preferring to spend our money on the plethora of toys developed to distract us from life -- like, say, the automobile, the major producer of greenhouse gases that are changing the climate and affecting water supply.

Would I support a bond to fund future capacity? Hmmm -- how many millions of gallons of fresh, clean water did you say Hyundai uses per day? EWEB said it would have no problem providing Hyundai what it wanted. Now there seems to be a problem. Once again, we need to live within the limits of our watershed, and the choice was made to use the water supply for computer chips. I do not support a bond.

But, let's face it. The elephant in the middle of the living room that everyone refuses to talk about is -- too many people. Exponential population growth and exponential demand on all resources are killing the planet. Eben Fodor has done an excellent job of laying out many of the costs of population expansion in his Costs of Growth report, but there are many, many more costs. These must be brought out and discussed by community leaders such as yourselves. In this instance, more people means reaching beyond our watershed into someone else's territory.

Hen Cackles

©Wanda Ballentine, 1998