Largest City In South America Could Run Out Of Water In 100 Days

[Judi Lynn]

Largest City In South America Could Run Out Of Water In 100 Days
by Joaquim Moreira Salles Posted on October 24, 2014 at 2:31 pm Updated: October 24, 2014 at 3:00 pm

It’s one in the morning, and dozens of people are lining up at a series of public water taps in the Brazilian town of Itu, in the state of São Paulo. Most of the people that come to the taps at this early hour are elderly or families with children. They do so in order to avoid the large crowds that flock to the area seeking water throughout the day. “Yesterday I got here at five in the morning and there were six people. There were 60 people in line behind me by the time I left,” one of the locals told the Brazilian newspaper Folha de São Paulo.

This scene is repeating itself across the state, which is home to the seventh-largest metropolitan region in the world and responsible for a third of Brazil’s GDP. It is going through its worst drought in almost a century — the worst spring drought in history. During the last rainy season (October-February), São Paulo only received between a third and a half of its normal amount of rain. Since then it has only seen about 40 percent of the normal amount. The region is running dangerously low on water, with its reservoirs operating at under five percent capacity. The rainy season — which was supposed to start in late September or early October — is a month late, and no significant rains are predicted anytime soon. Some sources estimate the state, which is home to 44 million people, could run dry in less than 100 days.

“If the drought continues, residents will face more dramatic water shortages in the short term,” Vicente Andreu, the president of Brazil’s National Water Agency, told reporters. “If it doesn’t rain, we run the risk that the region will have a collapse like we’ve never seen before.”

In the city of São Paulo — South America’s largest — at least 60 percent of residents have experienced water shortages in the past month. The main reservoir feeding the city has become a dry bed of cracked earth. Volume is so low that authorities had to build 2 miles of pipes in order to salvage the remaining water. Reservoirs across the state are experiencing similarly low volumes. Cantareira, the biggest reservoir in the state, currently holds 3.2 percent of its normal load.

More:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/10/24/3584331/sao-paolo-running-out-of-water/

[NYC_SKP]

1. It's just the beginning. And it's not just drought, it's unchecked population growth.

It's human ego, this feeling that we're superior and that the earth is here to serve us.

[Peace Patriot]

2. I don't think I agree with this Puritan-Biblical viewpoint: that we are 'sinful,'

that it's all our fault, and that, if only we weren't so bad, so selfish, so egotistical, all would be well--although this Puritan-Biblical viewpoint TOO is a product of evolution.

I think: either we learn to understand our own impacts--the results of our own success as a species--or we die out. There is nothing 'sinful' about it. It is just how things are. We aren't the first species to develop along a temporarily successful but, ultimately, extinction path, and we won't be the last. There are thousands of examples in Earth history; there are probably multi-millions of examples in the greater universe. No amount of breast-beating and rending of garments and going about in sackcloth and ashes is going to change this. It never has--with regard to other kinds of alleged 'sins'--and it never will. Why? Because human beings NEVER heed the Puritans among us. The majority ALWAYS goes right on 'sinning' and, in every case, eventually topples the Puritans (if they get on top) and restores some version or other of LIBERTY--enjoyment of life, ease, creativity, fun, adventure, sinfulness of all kinds, acquisition of material goods, stores of grain for 7 years (security), and so on. We are NOT a species that likes, or agrees to, being told "NO!" I mean, look at Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" (alleged) campaign. You tell people "No!" and they do just the opposite (especially if egregious hypocrisy is involved).

Anyway, we are on a "steep learning curve," as they say. We've only been heavily industrialized for about a hundred years. That is NOTHING in evolution's terms. It's no wonder that we are repeating the same agricultural/ecological mistakes of every human civilization that has come and gone--deforestation being one of the key elements of their success followed by their demise. That's what we do. We cut down trees and build cities. We are notable for ad hoc and hyper organization, as well as for the development of technical genius (though not for ecological genius--until very recently). (The one exception has been peasant farmers, who DO have ecological genius, but 'civilization' has tended to disregard them, not to mention stealing their land and killing them.) Anyway, here we are, with a history of NEVER having taken care of the Earth properly--of ALWAYS having exploited it, from Day One (strip one area of berries, roots and bison, and move on), and now having inflicted this PROTOTYPICAL human way of life on our surroundings in an exceedingly fast-paced way, over the last hundred years, with intense (indeed, mad) industrialization, and no government mechanisms anywhere that are effective in curtailing it, and we have only JUST RECENTLY realized--some of us (an increasing group)--what we have done and what we are doing.

Are we intelligent enough to learn a new way? That is the question. If we are not, we will die out. The Earth may recover; we, very likely, will not. Put another way: can we evolve in time to reverse our own impacts on our mother nest? We are an amazingly flexible, adaptable and creative species. I often gape in wonder at our cleverness--my God, Hubble!!!--and especially our cleverness in adversity. But can we develop wisdom sufficient to temper our cleverness, in time to save us from our own cleverness? I have as long a view as most humans ever gain--seven decades--on live-action human activity, and I am quite impressed with the astonishing growth of ecological/agricultural consciousness, and food consciousness, in my lifetime. It has been very dramatic, especially over the last few decades. I would say we shouldn't underestimate ourselves. Also, there may be many ironies ahead. For instance, high birth rates may actually save us--i.e., evolving better, more ecologically aware humans, and human ecological genius. (The more people born, the more chances of that consciousness and genius developing.) Another is that the solution to our immediate problem, at least--fast-paced climate change--may well turn out to be highly technical (and not all that educative in the long term). Another solution--to the problem you mention (too many people impacting the environment)--may turn out to be migration to other planets (and possibly again with lessons unlearned). As I say, ironies. The transformation of all human beings into high-minded, altruistic creatures, who get their pleasures small and homespun, and who wouldn't think of using and throwing away plastic bags or dosing their gardens with pesticides, probably will take TIME--lots and lots of time--although you never know with humans, how we might transform ourselves suddenly. (It has happened; it can happen.)

But we do know this about humans; we not only don't like to be preached at; we often take the preaching as the cue to do the opposite. We are contrary critters. That might even turn out to be our saving grace. It is certainly a lovable characteristic of our very puzzling selves.

[Paolo123]

3. How does unchecked population growth affect how much rain there is in brazil? nt