Smithin K R
Natural drought is caused by “the predominant sinking motion of air (subsidence) that results in compressional warming or high pressure, which inhibits cloud formation and results in lower relative humidity and less precipitation” . It is a fact that most droughts, in normal cases, have a definite lifespan before it ends. And there are viable methods through which we can ensure that we don’t overextend its stay.
A sound scheme to assess the water scarcity problem, a perfectly laid out plan to eliminate water wastage, and an equally important water distribution mechanism can, in theory, help in reestablishing the waterbed in the long run. But for a large region or a province consisting of a city and a rural agricultural environment, there is a chance for a conflict where each groups argue for the larger share of the remaining water. It is a topic that needs a brief study.
Arguments for the City: A city is the heart of all the economic inflow of a large region. A city is where the most modern trade units such as the service and manufacture sector earn the best of their profits. It is imperative that the trade facilities of a city are preserved during the course of any natural disaster such that they do not affect the financial stability of a region much.
The manufacturing industry is the best example of an entity, more than the needs of an average city dweller, which will be affected by a calamity such as the drought. A city needs to be proficient in its manufacturing sector to be able to establish a global trade connection that could help the dwellers prosper in difficult times. One of the most important raw materials in any industry is a free flowing supply of pure and usable water. When the manufacturing industry suffers, a city suffers .
Any city’s growth output during a natural calamity is dependent on the current stage of its economy. For example, Least developed economies that are largely dependent on agriculture as a primary source of income shall be the most devastated by calamities such as drought whereas a complex economy is, usually, diverse enough to absorb the impacts of droughts easily .
This is done by promoting the manufacturing sector. And it has been proved effective in many cities during such difficult times. So in general, the answer to the case question rests solely on the type of economy of the region.
Arguments for the Agricultural sector: “The agricultural sector may have the most significant vulnerability to drought impacts. Drought reduces crop yield, which can reduce revenue. Drought increases the potential for pest infestations and crop diseases, reducing the crop quality” . The truth is, for a financially independent city, it would take much more time for the effects of the decline in agricultural produce from the rural areas kicks in. For this simple reason, water redistribution methods are usually conducted in the city with much more vehemence than that in the rural agricultural fields. But this is a wrong concept.
In any case the agricultural sector is the backbone of any society. Even though the impact of its depletion shall take some time to touch the general public of the city, who are more dependent on the other business fields of the economy, when it hits, a country or a region can hardly recover from it. This can only be explained by stressing on the importance of self efficacy of a region that is achievable only through the sustenance of its agricultural output. Simply put, any land or region that can put food in its own mouth, shall, without any exponentially overwhelming troubles, recover from the impact of a disaster such as drought.
But with the agricultural sector dead, the recovery of a city’s financial position shall be solely dependent on factors beyond its control such as the global or the country’s economic situation. If it is not doing well then the city might never recover from the meltdown. This can be taken care of by taking care of the agricultural sector.
Water supply based on minimal use and a fine levied for water usage above the permitted minimum.
This system can be effective only for families or individuals under middle class and lower class economic sector. A backward class family, whose budget plan could be affected by the rise in water taxes, may formulate a method for the effective of usage of water and avoidance of resource wastage. But for classes of city above such limitation, that is families that can afford to lose a penny or two, might not.
The easiest way of eliminating the problem is by devising a plan where the rich sections will have to pay a lot more than poorer sections in terms of fine for over-usage of water. This minimal amount allowed for every family shall be based on the number of members in it. By using the annual income of a family it will be easy to calculate an amount which can have a profound effect on their budget, if they have to live without it.
For large manufacturing companies, a viable solution is calculating their minimum requirements and allocating a certain amount of provisional water for their usage. They shall also be fined exponentially or, more effectively, shut down production for a couple of weeks as a punishment.
Providing subsidies for water usage for farmers, businesses, and households to promote water usage efficiency.
Financially more stable individuals and businesses, that is not directly dependent on water as a resource other than necessity, might not be much motivated by providing subsidies.
A viable adaptation of this scheme would be increasing the water tax to a certain value, depending on the family’s or business’ income, and providing subsidies for only those individuals and businesses that were capable of limiting their water usage to a minimum.
That being said, it should be noted that small scale farmers, who are mostly dependent on rain, must be provided subsidized water supply for irrigation. If the cost of irrigation exceeds the expected amount of output from agriculture, they might tend to give up farming and move to the city in search of jobs. This is noted to have a negative impact on resource management in cities .
But the case of large scale farmers is different. Instead of providing too much subsidies for water, they should be provided with subsidies for implementing better irrigation technologies. They should be supported to develop better and effective irrigation methods such as dripping methods and subsurface irrigation instead of promoting large scale irrigations that leads to excess evaporation. The pumping up of excess water from waterbed can disturb ground water balance and further enhance the effect of drought.
Providing subsidies to promote water harvesting is another viable measure for water resource management. In such cases individuals as well as business can afford to construct large water harvesting plants such as roof top water collection (best suitable for cities).
The conclusion is that even though these two methods are effective in resource management, if not done the right way, could have a profound negative impact than the intended good one. With enough planning and a sound system to ensure quick response to problems, effects of drought can be constrained within bearable levels.
References
Economic Impacts of Drought. (2016, January 22). Retrieved January 22, 2016, from Institute for the Study of Society and Environment: http://www.isse.ucar.edu/sadc/chptr3.html
Folger, P., & Cody, B. A. (2014). Drought in United States: Causes and Current Understanding. Congressional Research Service.
Modern Techniques of irrigation. (2016). Retrieved Janurary 22, 2016, from agridr: agridr.in/tnauEAgri/eagri50/AGRO101/lec13.pdf
Van Lenen, H. A., Tallaksen, L. M., & Rees, G. (2007). Droughts and climate change. Brussels, Belgium: Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment.
Wilhite, D. A., Diodato, D. M., Jacobs, K., Palmer, R., Raucher, B., Sada, D., et al. (2007). Managing Drought. Longmont: The Geological Society of America.
