Day Zero, Capetown.

[The Grand Nudger]

So what's the problem and what are the possible solutions?

Read the article, they lay out their specific problems.  

As far as solutions, for them and for us, perhaps it's useful to note where our water comes from and how the majority of that water is consumed and how, after that consumption, it's made unavailable -to us- despite it..you know..sitting there.

Somewhere @ 80% of fresh water in the US comes from surface supply.  The remainder is groundwater.   So..as far as sources and consumption are concerned, we need to really focus on our surface water quality and sources..which is what I'll be doing below.

In the US most of our fresh water consumption is an effect of power generation.  Pumping it in to cool off equipment.  Saltwater is a poor fit here, where it's available...too corrosive (but e've been known to come up with novel solutions on that count).  OTOH..most of that water is returned to whatever body it was drawn from..and depending on what sort of regs and equipment we're talking about it may or may not be available to us afterwards.  40/50%, I don't recall off he top of my head but in that range.

Right behind that it's irrigation, about one third of all water consumption.  If you ignore power generation it's two thirds of water consumption.  Ignoring it because the water is much more available in the first example than it is here...in that here it;s often combined with toxins and also ends up going back down into the table rather than being pumped back into a lake.  

The remainder is a sort of dance between industry, public supply and domestic consumption.  Depends on where you live..but in general public supply is slightly more, industry behind that, and domestic consumption in the single digits.

So, knowing the above...where would you expect to see the greatest return for effort and investment in water?

(as to the remainder, groundwater..that's almost entirely used for irrigation - with a decent chunk for public supply as well..and a significant portion of that portion being used to irrigate peoples lawns.)

---

While you mull it over and come up with some solutions you think are worthwhile, I'll comment.

The first and most obvious category when you know he stats is probably one that most people wouldn't think of not knowing them.  Renewable power.  Solar and wind, for example..don;t rely on pumping in massive amounts of water for cooling like thermoeletric does.  Every coal fired plant that goes up puts more strain on the surface supply.  It also either makes some portion of that water unavailable for having been poisoned...or it puts the larger supply at risk of being poisoned in the case of a failure or accident.

So that's no 1.  The single greatest thing we could do to reduce stress on our water supply, is change how we generate electricity.  Solar saves water, isn't that something?  Not a little, alot...most of it, in fact.

Right behind that, and again a massive chunk (surface or ground) is irrigation.  Not only are we hugely irresponsible with how much water we use to irrigate, we're hugeley irresponsible with -how- we irrigate.  Now, I grew up in florida.  Lotta strawberrys.  Lots of sinkholes.  In fact, winter is the sinkhole season because it;s the strawberry season.  Producers, rather than covering their crop (that would incur a greater cost and or..frankly..be impossible) turn on the sprinklers to keep flowing water over their entire fields for as long as the temp dips below freezing at night.   That's just one example of how our pattern of use in irrigation stresses the supply.  There, the sinkholes form because they deplete the surface supply and then dip into the ground supply.  A massive spike in water use.  Overhead irrigation is inherently wasteful even when it's done right, even from the producers point of view.  There's alot of loss and it increases disease pressure by giving pathogens a highway from plant to plant...and ofc by keeping everything moist.  Subsurface or drip is better, but still not better than hydro, and hydro is made better by re-circulation.  All of this, obvisly, before we get to agricultural runoff or the time it takes for water to go from the field back down to the table (which isn't where most of our water comes from anyway) even though most of it being used is being pumped from surface supply.

So there's no 2.  A change in how we grow our food..even changing it to recirculating hydro, actually uses less water in spite of using nothing -but- water.  It also doesn't incur the cost of sinking it into the table.  I guess it;s just a bonus that you get a better yield, too.

Here, I'll pause, because just those two things account for most of our water use and for most of the fresh water made unavailable for use by the nature of it;s consumption.  If we didn't change anything further down in the set we'd already be better off..and not just in water, when you think about it.