What warming?
What droughts?
What increase in severe storms?
What sea level rise?

Its too bad that a sensible program for a commendable objective like Clean water, needs to be disguised and wrapped in AGW mumbo-jumbo, in order to achieve any attention.

Actually more specifically, there isn't a single legit scientific organization in the world that says manmade climate change isn't happening.

Which even includes the American Association of Petroluem Geologists.
http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/statements/climatechange.cfm

I'd be more than surprised if you could find even one.

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml

Conserving water in places that are already prone to drought, e.g. Southern California, is a sensible precaution on the basis of expected population growth alone.

On the other end of the scale, improving flood control measures in places that are already prone to flooding (e.g. California Central Valley near Stockton) is useful on purely economic grounds. Likewise, producing biogas from dung on an industrial scale not only reduces methane emissions but also demand for fossil natural gas and/or electricity produced from it. Separating either the dung or the fermentation residue into dry and liquid components lets farmers better manage nitrogen runoff, which reduces demand for artificial fertilizer and the impact on downstream fisheries.

KQED Quest: From Waste to Watts

Any long-term benefits from water management for the climate are basically gravy, but if that's what it takes to market the policy shift right now, then so be it.

@Esabre,

a verbatim rip of a two year piece from an avowed climate skeptic scientist?

Compared to AGW with the basic backing of every legitimate national and international scientific organization?

Yah, right.

Here's something for the denialists.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/video.html

If you had looked at the stasis in temperatures since 1999 you would have no problerm with the question: What Warming?s

If you had inspected the North American desert Southwest which is the 8th year of a "drought" and looked at the reservoir levels you would ask: What drought?

All the silver necklace reservoirs Roosevelt, Apache, Horseshoe, Canyon, Bartlett, Suguaro, Pleasant, surrounding Phoenix are full and can accept no more water. Lake Powell and Lake Mead on the Colorado have been down but lakes Mohave, Havasu and others are full. Lake Powell was at 33% capacity two years ago and the enviro-nutcases were saying it would NEVER refill. This year's projected snowmelt will fill Powell to between 75-80% full, some of which will find its way to Mead as well. Both are Higher than in 5 years. All the upper Colorado and Utah and Wyoming reservoirs are full already except for one tiny one on the Montana border. Meanwhile the Southwest aquifer refill is proceeding just as it has throughout the drought, and is within one foot of its all time highest measurements. Southern California reservoirs have received even more rain than the Southwest.

Only an enviro know-nothing thinks water can be "conserved" or "lost". Matter can neither be created nor destroyed.

Every drop from the reservoirs is re-used several times in Phoenix until there is next to nothing entering the dry Salt River south of the City. It is used for potable water, irrigation for food products, re-cleansed and grey water feeds irrgation for nonedible plants like cotton and landscaping. The remains is recleansed and sold to industry and the power company to cool the electric plants or pumped underground to replenish the aquifer.

So don't preach to me of "unflush" toilets that "save water" by having to be reflushed several times. There is no savings there.

Just to keep Washington bureaucrats happy, a small quantity of pure drinking water, better than its source from the reservoirs, is dumped into the dry riverbed and purposely not "conserved". Water has to be dumped into the dry riverbed just so that Phoenix can meet a bureaucrat's definition of downstream effluent being as clean as upstream intakes.

Jackoff bureaucrats in DC, never could countenance the possibility that a city could utilize, and reutilize, and reutilize, every drop of all the water that it chooses to take.

BTW, The Great southwest drought is broken, even if it is not official yet.

The only drought in the North America at the moment, is in the Southeast around Atlanta. The reason it is in that state, is that there were no hurricanes that hit landfall on the eastern seaboard for the third year in a row, to replenish its reservoirs as is "normal". But even there the drought has eased with winter rain. So... What Severe Storms?

BTW if you actually studied Global Warming Theory, as I have; you would see that it is supposed to be accompanied by a increase in precipitation in the temperate zones. As "Warming" increases, evaporation (and precipitation). increase as well. Again, Science says: What goes up, must come down...

In other words you don't know much Science, and also what you are talking about, regarding global warming.

I suggest you discover global warming theory from a Science book and not from a sermon by a flunkout Preacherman who never studied Science either. His Fire an Brimstone sermons are certainly that. But seem more full of heat than light.

Actually there is a fixed amount of water on planet Earth which neither increases or decreases but simply changes states.

As a resident of drought stricken NC - yeah I guess we are near Atlanta. It is true that our drought is partly or mostly a result of no hurricanes. Our last drought was "broken" by a single storm that refilled reservoirs 5 years ago. Our drought is 35 inch a year instead of our usual 45 inches. Good planning makes a huge difference. My suburb has a 400 day supply of water while Raleigh and Durham each are sitting on 30-60 day supplies.

Finally Raleigh has started to tier their water rates like we already had. But much of the problem is population growth and total disregard of water use - similar to the national problem of petroleum use. People here still flush with 4.5 gallons (on older homes) but the primary problem is all the irrigation running during the rain storms....

Overall - this is small potatoes. This is a mild decrease in rainfall (but it meets the official standard for "exceptional" drought.) Proper planning and commonsense conservation would make the difference. The good news is that rain barrels are flying off the shelves...

In Addendum,

As for this being a cold winter...

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080313_coolest.html

February was 61st warmest in the contiguous U.S. and 15th warmest globally on record. For the U.S., the temperature was near average, 0.2°F (0.1°C) above the 20th century average of 34.7°F (1.5°C), which was 2.0°F (1.1°C) warmer than February 2007.

Globally, the February average temperature was 0.68°F/0.38°C above the 20th century mean of 53.8°F/12.1°C.

It may have been the coolest since 2001 but then so what? That by the way was another la nina event.

The climate trend is to higher temperatures. This will lead to more drought conditions. Looking at this season doesn't negate the overall long term trend of what's happening. This season's weather was an anomaly. It was not and cannot be counted to occur on a regular basis to alleviate conditions or what will be future "normal" conditions.

Your examples are of weather but not of climate. I also see that you have ignored the big elephant and that is that no national or international recognized organization doesn't recognize AGW.

From NOAA...

Record Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent in January was followed by above average snow cover for the month of February. Unusually high temperatures across much of the mid- and high-latitude areas of the Northern Hemisphere in February began reducing the snow cover, and by the end of February, snow cover extent was below average in many parts of the hemisphere.

From this, one can infer that although the reservoirs will get higher than average runoffs from the spring, there will be less additions to the reservoirs later in the year. This is especially true of the meditterean style climate of the SW region.

PS.
American low flush toilets are supposedly of worse design than Australian dual flush models, which are designed with a totally different basis of operation than water pulling the waste.