Cons of water conservation?

How is it that fracking "may hold the solution of water conservation," but the Ice Bucket Challenge is somehow a significant contributor to California's water crisis?

• Shirley Li reports that some people bemoan the 5 million gallons of water used in the Ice Bucket Challenge in her article "http://www.thewire.com/national/2014/08/the-california-drought-versus-the-ice-bucket-challenge/378776/", while Brigham A. McCown argues that fracking "may hold the solution of water conservation" in his article "http://www.forbes.com/sites/brighammccown/2014/08/18/fracking-recycles-during-drought/".  It seems that Li's figure of 5 million gallons is world-wide, and McCown notes that in 2013 in California alone 323 acre-feet of water were used for fracking.  323 acre-feet is approximately 105.2 million gallons in California alone -- versus 5 million world-wide.  How does this make sense?

• Answer:

  Apples and oranges.  One article you cite talks about a technology to recycle wastewater (i.e., bring water used back into circulation) and the other talks about actively wasting water on a viral publicity stunt.  The amounts aren't comparable, sure, but then again neither are the articles' contents.  Both articles use sensationalistic headlines to grab clicks, but it's clear that each one is talking about very different things. Since you best articulated your reasoning for this question in a comment to the other answers below, I'm just going to quote it here: The point of my question is about how we make sense of the two culturally current ideas represented by these articles.  How is it that the water waste of the Ice Bucket Challenge is taken seriously, while also the notion that fracking is a form of water conservation is also taken seriously?  Do these two culturally current ideas harmonize for you?  If so, how? First, "fracking is a form of water conservation" is a gross misrepresentation of what that article is talking about.  At best, it's talks about a possible way to make hydraulic fracturing water-neutral rather than actively withdraw water.  That might put a couple tens of millions of gallons back into the supply through conservation.  This is not a difficult concept to get across, and it is emphatically not cultural. I suspect your real question is that you are wondering why we as a society can produce headlines bemoaning wasting water on the ALS ice bucket challenge while condoning the use of hydraulic fracturing. It's probably because hydraulic fracturing produces something at least marginally useful and thus receives a certain level of tolerance while the ice bucket challenge dumps expensive, potable water and ice produced largely from fossil energy onto the street as an arguably frivolous publicity stunt.