OCR Text |
Show USU gives evaluation on drought In the rare severe drought such as that experienced in 1977, the answer is to store information, not water. That is the recommendation recom-mendation of a report Ix-ing prepared by the Utah Water Research Laboratory (UWRL) at Utah State Universtiy as a windup of its Drought Information Program. While society can protect itself against regular moderate water shortages by storing water, it cannot afford to invest in facilities to protect itself against rare major droughts, say Professors L. Douglas James and Wade H. Andrews An-drews of USU, who wrote the report. James is director of the Utah Water Research Laboratory and Utah Center for Water Resources Research and Andrews is director of the Institute for Social Science Research on Natual Resources at USU. "What should society do to be prepared for the rare occasion when a worse drought occurs?" the authors ask. Engineering works are not the answer, they say. "Such droughts are too rare for that alternative to be justified. The answer for these rarer droughts may well be not to store water but to store knowledge, information in-formation on how to get by without unnecessary economic loss, aesthetic degradation or environmental en-vironmental harm," the report suggested. A reasonable amount of storage pays for itself, but if facilities are enlarged to save for rarer droughts the benefits become less because the water is so rarely needed, they explain. The answer, they continue, con-tinue, "is to chronicle the lessons of drought history, the water saving methods that worked as good examples to be followed and the water saving methods that failed as bad examples to be avoided. " And the obvious time to chronicle the examples is as soon as possible after they were learned "while memories are fresh and motivation is greatest." In one chaptyer it treats information dissemination programs in Utah that led to substantial savings of water in major population areas and adjustments agricultural users made to maintain production with reduced supplies. In its chapter on "Preparation For the Next Drought," the report notes that the "current dfrought situation is one in which a great deal of effort is going into developing new ways to generate a spirit of water conservation among the public." It outlines three possible approaches to assessing efforts that have been tried, and their effectiveness. The first is refinement of technology. During the drought information was compiled but there was no time for analysis. Now, while the information is fresh, is the time to analyze proposed ideas for technical feasibility and effectiveness. The second is a compilation com-pilation of drought experiences, ex-periences, so as to assess the economic, social, political and ecological effects of drought. This will help predict drought scenarios for future programs. The third emphasizes a prompt assessment of alternatives. This can be done after a drought, but is difficult during the emergency because of the strong political pressures for quick remedies. |