User:Jprather18/sandbox

For my article, “Droughts in California”, the first change would be to the lead, changing “There have been several severe droughts in California history” to “Throughout history, California has experienced many droughts, such as in the 1860s, 1920s and 30s, 1960s, and even as recently as 2011-2017”. Then I would go on to expand by laying out the rest of the article, talking about the causes, effects, historical droughts, and possible responses. I would then go on to expand the effects section by using source 2 to implement a short term and long term impact sub section. In the historic drought section, I would use source 1 to expand upon the information, listing more droughts and more detailed descriptions of the droughts. And finally, add a possible responses section which had mitigation and adaptation subsections, explaining ways to deal with the drought and possible policy options.

To expand upon the possible policy options, there are multiple policy options that can be added to the both the mitigation and adaptation sub sections. Policies including water use limit per household, water recycling requirements, etc. Let’s evaluate both policies starting with water use limit per household, this policy would likely work to decrease water use which would reduce the need for water and limit the effects of a drought. This policy would not cost much, only the need to install monitors in the household which track the amount of water used. The citizens would be against this policy since they would want to have unlimited access to water. But the politicians and environmentalists would be in favor because it would reduce the water crisis and help with the drought. This policy would likely not easy political acceptability because many people would likely fight this policy and file lawsuits on the government for mandating their water.

For the water recycle requirements, this policy would likely work to reuse water in households and businesses, and save water for the state. This would likely be very expensive because it would require new piping in nearly all buildings to reroute contaminated gray water back into the building, while still having the fecal water be transported out of the building. This would be opposed by the people required to pay for the installation of new piping, either the people or the government. The environmentalists and the people who don’t have to pay would be in favor. This would ease political acceptability by solving the problem, but depending on the people paying for the pipes, it might cause problems.

Source:

Kotin, Adam, and Dru Marion. “A History of Drought in California: Learning From the Past, Looking to the Future.” Civil Eats, California Climate and Agriculture Network, 6 Feb. 2014, civileats.com/2014/02/05/a-history-of-drought-in-california-learning-from-the-past-looking-to-the-future/. Accessed 12 Apr. 2017.

Unknown. “Drought Impacts.” Impacts of Drought | USGS California Water Science Center, ca.water.usgs.gov/data/drought/drought-impact.html. Accessed 12 Apr. 2017.

Unknown. “California's Drought: Adapting and Mitigating.” Agrion, 26 Feb. 2014, www.agrion.org/sessions/agrion-en-California_s_Drought_Adapting_and_Mitigating.htm. Accessed 12 Apr. 2017.

Unknown. “Drought Planning Toolbox: State Strategies for Mitigation and Adaptation.”APA California - Making Great Communities Happen, 19 Nov. 2014, www.apacalifornia.org/events/drought-planning-toolbox-state-strategies-mitigation-adaptation/. Accessed 12 Apr. 2017.