As we all know, the United States has put a large sum of money into creating sources of drinking water. Restructuring landscapes and not using natural methods were used in the past and now basically the opposite methods are being incorporated into the future. The fact of the matter is that the damns, aqueducts, and other methods are not sustainable nor do they create an environment where the water cycle can function at optimum capacity. About 80 % of the world’s population lives in areas where the drinking supply is at some risk. Without the right water methods being used, climate change occurring, plus the human population growing at a steady rate means that we are headed into trouble. While developed countries are urging developing countries to use natural methods to save water, this still leaves 3.4 billion people at risk right now.
The question of whether which method is more economical is also a question. One circumstance occurred in New York where historically the water from the Catskills needed no filtering for the population to drink. Agricultural pollution and other issues created an unhealthy drinking supply. It became necessary to fix the situation. Two propositions came about. One was to create a filtering facility for all of New York and the other was to buy up the land in the Catskills and keep it preserved naturally. It was decided that economically it would be cheaper in the end to just buy the land and keep it free from all human use. Pros and cons of this matter are discussed everyday since this is basically a money run world.
Not only is the creation of infrastructure not working as well as presumed, it is also decreasing the biodiversity of the species living in rivers, wetlands, and streams. This is another horrible side effect. This creates less food sources for animals dwindling the food supply and ruining the ecosystem. The water shortage is a serious problem that needs to be addressed soon otherwise hundreds of thousands of people will be without water. This could lead to a refugee problem as well as the possibility of a large amount of people at risk of death.