The United States is reaching the tipping point of the “water crisis.” As population and climate increases, industries expand, and budgets are cut, Americans will no longer be able to expect cheap and affordable water. Several obstacles impede a secure water future: pollution enforcement, funding, and the delicate balance of environmentalism and economics. Technology appears to be the strongest solution to public water issues, and is imperative to maintaining our status as a global leader in public health and wealth.

Under the 1972 Clean Water Act “navigable” waters are protected from large industrial polluters and restored through public works. A recent Supreme Court decision has lifted water quality protection for about “117 million Americans” and allowed 45% or polluters to continue endangering natural habitats and watersheds. The EPA is not able to control water violations in lakes, intra-state waters, or wetlands. Congress is looking to amend the act with language to protect all waterways, especially those affecting our drinking water. But how will we pay for the estimated $334 billion in water infrastructure updates? Clearly Congress can’t appropriate a massive overhaul if they are only allocating $10 billion now. I believe the largest gap in water policy lies in the political understanding that all waterways affect drinking water, and thus affect public health and safety. If drinking water was an integral factor in the Clean Water Act, then perhaps more money could be allotted for enforcement and remediation of pollution. An even more effective approach could be technological advancements in private industry.

Besides pollution, efficient water use is plagued by gaps in funding and political backing. Many cities rely on pipes that are 100 years old! Also, every day hundreds of water mains burst and shut down major roadways for days or months. A New York Times article documents the challenge of a Washington D.C. water-planner in solving the infrastructure problem; but the scary part is that he has no previous experience in water utilities. It appears that a lack of planners and technically efficient solutions is driving the decline of public water safety.

I believe that the innovation and technological resources available in the United States could be our key to water sustainability. If computer industries can better monitor water flows, potential infrastructure failures, and simulate ecological effects of pollution and development, then the government can better afford enforcement. IBM is a great example of engineering meeting ecological needs. Pressing for “smarter water management” and implementing that idea with technical designs, IBM recognizes the potential profit for private practices in a public issue. For example, efficient water use in Los Angeles could save fisheries in Sacramento Valley from demise. Instead of over-pumping freshwater habitats efficient technology could prevent the loss of wetlands and riparian buffers (as was needed before Hurricane Katrina). Scientists and engineers are increasing in political clout by voicing the hard facts in water quality. The truthful interpretation of water quality and its effects on human health, economics, and the environment should only be taken into account under accurate scientific data.