Comments on: Peter Gleick: Population and Water

By: erin zinck

erin zinck — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 05:13:23 +0000

of course I agree with you…especially if you consider global trade and how most people do not know where the stuff they consume comes from. however, i dont see certain states agreeing with you so quickly.

By: Fern

Fern — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:39:39 +0000

I don’t know about local levels , but in the end, we need start adressing this in a global, long-term planning manner. It is a difficult subject, but I think it is time.

By: Erin Zinck

Erin Zinck — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:33:06 +0000

I don’t know if my last comment was posted but I do not think the math is as easy as you think. State planning boards review local comprehensive plans in terms of land use (how much land is needed to support a growing and higher consuming population). Often this is a legislated process that is less than coordinated. Coordination in some states only begins after growth has been accounted for/planned for. Land needs is confused with land wants. As we all know, fresh water flow can be diverted via land use changes with the destruction of wetlands or the concentration of population in one area where water supply can become scarce. It is not to say population should be ignored but it should not be the primary basis upon which land use should be controlled within a given locality. It is true the fifth amendment has much sway on how much control a local or state govt can have. Growth should not be diverted into certain places. Nevertheless, using population projections as the basis of local government comp plan review is not optimal for the water lovers of the world over space and time. There should be more coordination with water managers and land use planners if the judges commentary on conservation and planning is going to work. A spatial mismatch of water related problems will be recurrent if this is continually ignored by states. How else do you explain interbasin (i mean within the state) transfers occurring nowadays the south?

By: Fern

Fern — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:56:14 +0000

Dr. Gleick,
Thank you for this article. 4 years ago, when I was trying to figure out my PhD project, I wanted to go with water, population growth, population control. My committee’s reaction: I don’t think so. They told me it was a difficult and controversial subject and it should be left for a post doc. I was surprised and very disappointed, because I could not see a more important subject.
But really, it is simple math. Maybe it is so obvious that it would not be a valid thesis? I hope now that I am done I will be able to work on this subject.