Public sentiment around the global water scarcity crisis is predominantly negative, expressing deep concern, frustration, and urgency. Commenters blame human greed, corporate interests, and government inaction for worsening the crisis. Although there is a yearning for innovative solutions and personal responsibility, many feel pessimistic about the readiness for meaningful change. Despite some favorable mentions of educational efforts, the overall mood reflects despair and a strong call for immediate action to address the alarming situation.

Governments

Corporations

Local Communities

Environmental Organizations

Fresh water scarcity is a highly localized issue.  You could say that many of the localized problems are the result of man-made scarcity, but those problems (specifically with water usage) don't seem to be affecting the water supply of other areas of the world.  Take the [great lakes](https://www.in.gov/dnr/water/files/07WaterLevelGraph1918-2002HistoricLakeMichigan.pdf), their water level has been quite consistent over the last 100 years.  If you look at the other larger freshwater lake in the world, the Caspian Sea, researchers concluded that it's actually been most affected by evaporation rates recently though they speculate that global warming trends could accelerate that problem [link about the Caspian Sea](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL073958/full).  So from what I can tell it is not a serious global crisis because water shortages only directly affect the local region, and local policies would be able to handle those shortages.

tikevin83

One of the interesting things about fresh water scarcity that a lot of people don't realize, is that while global warming will exacerbate the problem in some places, particularly the leeward side of mountain ranges in rain shadows, it will actually increase the amount of fresh water in other places, and will on aggregate increase the total amount of precipitation in the world because precipitation is caused by convection, and convection is caused by heat.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-change-could-increase-global-fresh-water-supply-mit-18124

Beej67

In an article, Michael Burry (played by Christian Bale in The Big Short) responds to a question regarding the end text of the movie that says he is investing in water after the crash:

"The last line of the movie, printed on a placard, is “Michael Burry is focusing all of his trading on one commodity: Water.” It sounds very ominous. Can you describe this position to me?
Fundamentally, I started looking at investments in water about 15 years ago. Fresh, clean water cannot be taken for granted. And it is not — water is political, and litigious. Transporting water is impractical for both political and physical reasons, so buying up water rights did not make a lot of sense to me, unless I was pursuing a greater fool theory of investment — which was not my intention. What became clear to me is that food is the way to invest in water. That is, grow food in water-rich areas and transport it for sale in water-poor areas. This is the method for redistributing water that is least contentious, and ultimately it can be profitable, which will ensure that this redistribution is sustainable. A bottle of wine takes over 400 bottles of water to produce — the water embedded in food is what I found interesting."

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/12/big-short-genius-says-another-crisis-is-coming.html

skinnyJay

&gt; What solutions are best for it, if any?

Some farmers elected to put a tax on ground water they were using and it provided a financial incentive to invest in water saving technologies and they saw a [30% decrease in ground water usage.](https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/11/18/562912732/to-save-their-water-supply-colorado-farmers-taxed-themselves)

[California lets a huge amount of freshwater pour into ocean](https://ww2.kqed.org/science/2016/02/29/california-reservoirs-are-dumping-water-in-a-drought-but-science-could-change-that/) simply because it doesn't have space in reservoirs for storm water. [Billions of gallons of rainwater wash down drains](https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashoka/2015/04/15/why-does-california-let-billions-of-gallons-of-fresh-water-flow-straight-into-the-ocean/#5875e222517c) to the ocean because people don't/can't capture and use it. 

[Nestle bottled 36 million gallons of California water](http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36161580)

America could save a huge amount of water by installing grey water systems where toilets, laundry, and yard watering comes from recycled water used in your sinks and showers. This would require some changes in regulations and probably decoupling water/sewage charges on your bill.

geak78

I can’t speak to the global issue because my study was more regional (American Southwest regions that depend on the Colorado river so Southern California, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, etc.) if there is interest I could go more into detail with that later as I am at work right now. 

Desalination is costly and currently the price of water does not justify the costs for a large scale desalination initiative, but if the problem becomes large enough the cost of water will increase justifying the desalination plants and an increased costs to consumers. Water transfer plans (such as water banking) are effective but still depend on natural rainfall. Another transfer plan such as the Central Arizona Project built canals to get water across large distances. It was expensive and there is waste due to seepage into the ground water or evaporation from it traveling so many miles.  

Gotta get back to work but let me know and I’ll dig up my old paper on the Colorado River Compact and water conservation in the west and get some more info on the region along with sources. 

Edit: adding a quick source to keep within policies 

[Water and the West: The Colorado River Compact and the Politics of Water in the American West](https://www.amazon.com/Water-West-Colorado-Politics-American/dp/0520260112)

It’s actually a very interesting read on all the policies surrounding the Colorado river including the story of John Wesley Powell who was the first to float the river from its origin to the end on the other side of the Grand Canyon. 

NOTcreative-

Urbanization and rural flight is really what is driving this and not climate change or anything else.  The effects of climate change are just too small and take too long to manifest in comparison to the population increases these cities have seen in the last 50+ years.

You just can't move millions of people into some small geographical area and not expect finite resources, like water, to run out.

Example:  In LA county, from 1910 to 2010, the population increased 20x from 500,000 to 10 million while global warming has not had an impact of causing water resources to dwindle by 20x.  In fact, [the impact of global warming on rainfall is imperceptible.]
(http://www.laalmanac.com/weather/we13.php)

raxical

[deleted]

Since I haven't seen it mentioned yet, [atmospheric water generators](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_water_generator) could become a thing in the near future. We're steadily marching towards a renewable energy future, and as we do, I'd expect energy costs to come down. With climate change, we'll likely see a large increase in atmospheric water ([7% increase for ever degree Celsius to be exact](http://time.com/4931586/irma-hurricane-season-climate-change/)). 

I don't foresee them being cost efficient for many years to come, but it's a technology we should consider, especially for areas that don't have direct access to waterways.

zachalicious

Well, it would appear that I am going to get back up on my soapbox.

**Hydrological Impact**

[Deforestation - Wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation#Environmental_effects) 

This something that I have brought up multiple times in regards to global warming, because of it's significant impacts in how it alters the planet's climate.

The wiki's section is really well sourced, and far more extensive/accurate then I can do. The wiki-link and it's many subsequent links are a rabbit hole you can disappear down for hours or even days, if you are interested. This is a heavily and thoroughly studied field, and has tons of evidence to support these concepts.

Here is a solid quote to get things started, as it is incredibly relevant to this discusison.

&gt;Tropical rainforests produce about 30% of our planet's fresh water.

and this quote is a nice TLDR.

&gt;Deforestation disrupts normal weather patterns creating hotter and drier weather thus increasing drought, desertification, crop failures, melting of the polar ice caps, coastal flooding and displacement of major vegetation regimes.

**Content of Trees**

[Actual Science Article](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14967)

[News Article based off research](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/09/02/scientists-discover-that-the-world-contains-dramatically-more-trees-than-previously-thought/?utm_term=.f8b8cec1f8ae)

There are approximately 3 trillion trees on the planet, and while this sounds really awesome. The numbers estimate that this is half of what it was before the human race existed. So originally 6 trillion.

&gt;The U.S. had 319 million people in 2014, but 228 billion trees. That’s 716 trees per person. Brazil had 301 billion trees (1,494 per person), Canada 318 billion (8,953 per person), and China 139 billion (102 trees per person). Among highly populous countries, India (population, 1.267 billion) had a tree population of only 35 billion, leading to just 28 trees per person.

This quote is interesting, because it helps focus the problem in better. Canada is more than OK, but India and China are both in pretty deep trouble. Brazil looks good at the moment, but they have some of the most significant deforestation on the planet.

The news article has a very nice visual for this piece. [Here](https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2015/09/WorldTrees1.jpg&amp;w=1484) where it does a nice job showing about half of the trees probably reside in the rainforests.

When you remember the earlier number, we can quickly see how the total percentage of fresh water can easily reach 60% of the worlds fresh water, and that is with half of the trees having been cut down.

Note 1: I reside in China, and the links are being difficult at this time. So I am having trouble sourcing this piece properly. 

taldarus

Israel has made significant progress with desalination technology.

One of the main drawbacks of desalination is cost, but that is decreasing because of improved technology. Solar energy costs are also decreasing which also makes it more viable.
There's an environmental drawback of desalination: it makes local waters saltier which can affect marine life, but this depends on tides and local ocean water turnover.

If you are near the ocean and have a plentiful supply of relatively cheap energy then desalination can supply a lot of water. That can be combined with conservation and water recycling to improve fresh water access.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/israel-proves-the-desalination-era-is-here/

jpmvan

We may have enough water today, but in my opinion fresh water is our most important resource, as all others depend on it.  I agree with what others are mentioning about it being a local issue, as how it is approached depends on local circumstance.  Returning to more traditional techniques is effective in some places such as [India](http://www.ecoideaz.com/expert-corner/water-conservation-methods-india) and in the northwestern part of North America, this is done naturally by the re-introduction of [beaver and wolf populations](https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wolf-reintroduction-changes-ecosystem).

pyrrhios

**/r/NeutralPolitics is a curated space.** 

In order not to get your comment removed, please familiarize yourself with our [rules on commenting](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules) before you participate:

1. Be courteous to other users.
1. Source your facts.
1. Put thought into it.
1. Address the arguments, not the person.

If you see a comment that violates any of these essential rules, click the associated *report* link so mods can attend to it.

However, please note that the mods will not remove comments reported for lack of neutrality or poor sources. There is [no neutrality requirement for comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_neutral-ness) in this subreddit — it's only the *space* that's neutral — and a poor source should be countered with evidence from a better one.


musedav

The world will always have plenty of water. The world will always have plenty of fresh water for the human population needs.

The issue is 100% logistics. Getting the available fresh water from places that have an abundance to the places that don't have enough is the challenge.

Dicktremain

Earth is 70% water. We will never run out of water. 

At some point fresh water shortages will become enough of a problem for desalination to become more prevalent as the solution. 

But yeah, we aren’t running out of water.

MikePettine

Theres many examples of water scarcity and solutions.
But piping water costs money and people build cities in places with limited water, see Phoenix or Vegas have taken drastic action and water costs a lot. 
 From ancient Roman Aqueduct and oasis this is nothing new. Entires cities have vanished when their springs went dry. to mostly conflicts like overuse, contamination, sharing between irrigation vs cities, water wars, ghost towns, etc. It's extremely regional. Fresh usable water will always be reliable in certain places or can get piped elsewhere to a limit. We know in tens of years entire water tables that took thousands to fill will be depleted. This happens in places like California's San Joaquin valley. Places like the Saharan desert grows by miles of a year but have deep water tables

We are not going to run out of water in general, what will happen is that in some places we won't have as much fresh water as needed.

Factors like population growth and increase in agriculture and industry mean that some places require more and more water. At the same time climate change and other factors mean that rainfall may become more erratic in some areas.

In some areas even now we see nations and states that share a river argue about who gets to use how much of the water flowing through it. This is unlikely to result in outright violence among rich developed nations and even less likely among states of the same nation.

In less rich and developed regions things may be a bit more dicey though.

The worst case scenario is in countries already teetering on the edge right now, where poverty, corruption, ethnic and religious strife are big problems and where it will only take a small upset to push them over the edge.

It may only take one more droughts to push some are over the edge of instability and into outright violent conflict.

This sort of thing can spiral out of control very fast as those sort of situation lead to populists leaders promising easy solutions and presenting scapegoats to complex problems. They tend to make things worse.

It also leads to refugees trying to escape hunger and violence. They might end up pushing neighboring countries over the edge too as they overtax what system they have to offer. 

In the end some people may try to seek refuge in richer countries like Europe which, will push populist parties there and increase instability because populists don't know how to actually improve things, just how to convince idiots that they have all the answers.

The domino effect from a multi year drought in some place in Africa may reasonably lead to fascist gaining power in Europe and destroying pan European insinuations making them ripe for an eventual takeover by Russia or similar.

This is not really technological problem but a political one.

We can put desalination plants on the coast of California or South Africa, but that won't help much against general instability in places like the horn of Africa.

In rich countries the effects of water scarcity will be more muted and easier o deal with. There will be public service announcements asking people to use less water, while at the same time orders of magnitude more water is wasted on agriculture produce that is destined for export.

In places like California they are currently growing fruit that are 99% water in what would naturally be almost a desert only to export them to Asia while telling ordinary people that water scarcity is their responsibility. This is not a viable long term strategy.

Technological solutions to do the same thing with less water in industry and agriculture exists but they will not be cheap to implement and they are in many ways attempts to solve what is a political problem with technological solutions.

Viable solutions would have to overcome the vested interest of people with money who benefit in the short term from staying on a course that drives us all over the edge.

Loki-L

Hey guys, I wrote this post when I should have been studying for exams. Thanks for keeping me distracted.

Lemminkainen-pl

Although this is far from a comprehensive answer, there is already a looming war over it:

 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G\_8X8tbjqjg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_8X8tbjqjg) 

 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_BCY0SPOFpE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BCY0SPOFpE)

red_ball_express

I wish the 2nd and 3rd entries in the legend swapped places

Margister

cascua

I wonder where the data comes from : Ukraine is much more green than Spain and there is no water scarcity from what I have seen there !

indy75012

biznes_guy

Sahara Desert, Australian Outback water scarcity: "not estimated"

qualitystreet

The map for Brazil is wrong, the water scarcity goes further east and does not reach that much west. Pretty much all of inland eastern Northeast is dry, extending as south as North Bahia and most of Piauí, meanwhile West Maranhão is pretty much Amazonic in climate.

LupusDeusMagnus

I'm pretty sure that Siberia, Alaska and Greenland have more than enough water in places where human would live.

whitebearspirit

FreeMan4096

What's the difference between physical and economic water scarcity?  I can infer a pretty good idea, but what's the actual definitions?

bes5318

What a joke apart from a few small areas Australia has no fucking water.

Hnry64

All of the UK shows “no water scarcity”, but there l have been quite a few stories in the UK press over the past few years about how England is approaching water scarcity and has to make substantial investments in its infrastructure quite soon to avoid it. Scotland has lots of water, but even there part of the whisky industry shuts down in the summer due to water shortage.

ForeverGrumpy

Lebanon and south western Syria (both which receive lots of rainfall and snow) are labeled as "Physical Water Scarcity", whereas parts of the Syrian desert are labeled as "Approaching Physical Water Scarcity". Which is a pie of crap honestly.

All hail Yugohelvetia And Greater Czechoslovakohungaromanobulgaria

JayManty

According to this map it's little to no water scarcity where I live but we are constantly told that we need to save water 'cause we don't have enough.

Midan71

Langernama

This map has some issue. I can't find my country in it.

hovhanp

Texas is "not estimated" because half the time we're in a severe drought and the other half of the time it won't stop raining.

Edit: derp, Texas is "approaching water scarcity". That makes a lot more sense. Stupid color scale.

Silcantar

Countries that border the ocean have water scarcity?

Eticology

Strange how the driest parts of India are shown as better off.

prateekraisinghani

Always bothers me when the original source isn't linked to. The map can be found on the [Wikipedia page on water scarcity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_scarcity).

simongerman600

India is full of hypocrisy... So we have water scarcity here? Almost all my neighbors have the tanks on their roofs overflowing all the time (Badaun, Uttar Pradesh)

Atestanto-de-Divizio

I think a lot of environmental issues boil down to a much needed shift in cultural values. Most cultures do not prioritize sustainability as a value, but rather a vision of infinite growth. There needs to be pressure and take away the taboos of criticizing overpopulation, building cities beyond what the natural environment can sustain, and removing the colossal power corporations have in the world. 
Trying to fix things without addressing the basic lack of a proper compass simply delays catastrophe a little bit longer.

Alwaysfresh9

I think we should slow down the flow and let the water sink in closer to where it lands. This can be done many ways. 

Infrastructure.thats is it as well as cooperation. It is not that there is not enough water. It is how much we use and where. 

Areas in China and such have massive rainfall. While areas in the north are more arid. Taking the water from the south to bring it north would solve the issue.

Another idea is desalination. But that takes a lot of power and so is expensive in most cases. 

A combination is needed to achieve this. Global cooperation on rivers. (USA pulled out of one with Canada). Reduction of use of water, better water distribution and political will.

Odd-Employment856

Strict regulation on industrial water usage. One idea is to make them clean and reuse more of their waste water instead of dumping.

idfkjack

Check out Brad Lancaster and or the work at the Watershed Management Group, both in Tucson, Arizona. Precipitation harvesting. Greywater. Etc. 

Few-Candidate-1223

Hook a dehumidifier up to a solar panel.  You would have to add minerals to it.

Difficult_Prize_5430

Solar-powered and gravity-powered desalination/lithium production plants would seem to basically solve this issue entirely.

Icy_Peace6993

In Japan water that is used in appliances and bathrooms often serves multiple purposes before entering the wastewater stream.

LaDragonneDeJardin

Shared resources must be managed jointly.

There are fair ways to do that, but our social institutions refuse to avoid giving the wealthy and powerful advantages over everyone else. 

Due_Satisfaction2167

It’ll be nearly impossible, but the right answer is for western states to slowly retreat over time on first in time first in right water laws. Right now you see a lot of states limiting new water appropriation but that doesn’t address legacy overallocation of limited water supplies. They can do this by buying back senior water rights, dedicating more water instream (preventing diversion), and curtailing water rights more often (related to increasing instream dedication. As for the east, implementing more strict water use laws like the west has, but not through first in time first in right, just new laws to limit inefficient water use.

srirachamatic

Start recycling and filtering water.  Make the plants. We waste money on less worthy things.

Physical_Tap_4796

I've heard that Las Vegas does a good job managing their scarce water supply by using a lot of gray water. I think using more gray water, especially in arid regions would be one approach. Collecting rain water will also probably be a useful tool. Economically, I think that insurers will quit covering places that are extremely dry due to wildfire risk, so this will force a lot of people out of these regions into regions that are more habitable.

Lost_Effective5239

Hunger games, duh. Oh I'm sorry, Thirst games, duh.

adeniumlover

rainwater harvesting, creating ponds-lakes

DivineSky5

does the world need water-intensive almonds growing in California central valley?

untoldmillions

You talking about the Colorado River? Theyve had every chance to fix the issue for decades but. Nobody is willing to acknowledge the obvious. Soon people simply will not be able to live in the middle of desserts and divert rivers hoping it'll be enough.

Man_Bear_Pig08

Stop using so much goddamn water to feed animals that then feed humans. Just use the water to grow crops humans eat in the first place. Boom, you reduced water usage by half. 

Then make water treatment plants circular, and you drop the usage by another half or more. 

These issues are of political will, not personal choice.

percy135810

Live where the water is. I.e., not Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Phoenix, etc.

hamoc10

I think I speak for all of us when I say we should ignore the problem entirely.  Maybe green light and fast track as many large AI data centers as possible in the meanwhile and just relax, guy.

x_Jimi_x

Stop treating negative population growth like it's a crisis rather than a solution.

Medical_Revenue4703

Construct a circumferential floating highway, gardens, and reef around our relatively storm less equator?

Also provides better access to clean up. From a platform designed for recycling.

tralfamadoran777

https://www.waterislovefilm.org/

We have to start doing ACTIVE reclamation of our environments. There’s no such thing as sustainable growth. That’s an oxymoron. We must take action to have more drinking water.

Lumpy_Experience2052

The first thing we have to do is recognize that there is not a shortage of water.

The world is 75% water, and every day it rains a bunch all over everywhere.

It's only certain areas that are a little bit short of water, because that was never meant to be a place for people

Analyst-Effective

The global water crisis is highlighted, with several countries facing severe water scarcity, exacerbated by climate change and population pressures.

Global Water Scarcity

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want