The thing about this article is that I found it in an ultra right-wing "doomsday preppers" type website. Generally this is not the most "science-friendly" of demographics, as a quick spin around the site can show you, but possibly that makes them more prone to care about groundwater rather than just expecting that "technology" will provide it.

This drought could last the rest of our lives?!

#1 According to the Los Angeles Times, downtown Los Angeles is now the driest that it has been since records began being kept all the way back in 1877.

#2 The California State Water Resources Control Board says that nearly 50 communities are already on the verge of running out of water.

#5 Climate scientist Tim Barnett says that the water situation in Las Vegas “is as bad as you can imagine“, and he believes that unless the city “can find a way to get more water from somewhere” it will soon be “out of business”.

#8 In some areas of southern Nevada, officials are actually paying people to remove their lawns in a desperate attempt to conserve water.

#9 According to Accuweather, “more than a decade of drought” along the Colorado River has set up an “impending Southwest water shortage” which could ultimately affect tens of millions of people.

#10 Most people don’t realize this, but the once mighty Colorado River has become so depleted that it no longer runs all the way to the ocean.

#19 At the moment, close to 80 percent of the state of California is experiencing either “extreme” or “exceptional” drought.

#20 National Weather Service meteorologist Eric Boldt says that this is “the worst drought we probably have seen in our lifetime“.

Most people just assume that this drought will be temporary, but experts tell us that there have been “megadroughts” throughout history in the western half of the United States that have lasted for more than 100 years.

I had a great professor that wrote about the fishery destruction in the 60s and no one listened.   

He taught extensively on water economics in the 90s. 

This is an obvious outcome to the destruction of the aquifers and rivers. Again no one listened.  There are really smart people in the environmental Econ field.   They are also Multi disciplinary and wholistic by nature.  

How many enviro are on TV or opinion pages? 

None!

How many short sighted GDP maximization  macro guys.  

All of them. 

This same prof was going to pay for me to attend CMU as part of a phd at WVU.  CMU wouldn't allow me to even audit a class.  He then told me NO ONE will ever listen to you. 

At which point I said F it. 

Doesn't economics use the term moral hazard to describe this phenomenon?

Moral hazard is more about incentives or disincentives regarding risk. Meaning policies that encourage risk taking beyond what would be normal. 

Environmental risks are barely considered beyond the cost of clean up or fines which is a type of moral hazard if they even cared. 

The primary problem is net present value evaluation of project has a 20 year life cycle.  Wall Street has a 1-2 quarter life cycle. 

Policy changes greatly if you simply look at two generations.  We can look past a mid year election cycle. 

Wall Street cares 3-6 months into the future.

Politicians care 1-2 years into the future.

No one can think longer term than that, which will ultimately cause a catastrophe.

Speaking of water economics remind me of my water economics final. Oh...all of those equilibrium calculations. Had to take it from this good ol' chap: http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/bef2010/speakers/michael-hanemann/index.html

I used to call West Virginia the Berkeley of Appalachian mountains. Most of my profs were Berkeley/Davis grads and professors. 

Hanemann literally wrote the book.