Water Footprint

This water footprint tool provides an informative insight into how a person or family uses or conserves water. As water resources continue to be under stress, conservation continues to rise in importance.

http://environment.nationalgeograph...change-the-course/water-footprint-calculator/

didn't know that 90% of 'my' water usage was outside the home....and half that was my dairy consumption.

Click to expand...

This surprised me also. My prior focus was on reducing water usage in our home, which remains important. But outside the home water usage is really big.

There's plenty of water for most of us.

Click to expand...

That depends on where "most of us" live, and then the answer also is not very clear. Even where there is lots of water, more and more of that water is toxic for supporting life.

Minnesota has lots of water -- 10,000 lakes as the motto goes, plus some of the most extensive pre-settlement wetlands in the lower 48. Yet, due mostly to industrial agricultural irrigation, which is increasing at a large rate, some aquifers are already being depleted to the point where wells are failing. Maybe even more significant is the pervasive and rapid expansion of ground water pollution by nitrates and other chemicals, also caused by industrial agricultural operations and application of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides. Some communities are trucking in drinking water.

Other areas of the US and of the world have serious water shortages and water pollution. Yes, there is lots of water. The problem is that most of that water is not usable to support human life and a vast number of other living things, and what water now is usable is being polluted and becoming unusable.

You crack me up -- have to share your comment with my friends.

I see this thread has brought out the "why use less and conserve a resource" crowd when you can "use more and waste a resource." Did my parents make a huge error when they taught me, and my wife and I have taught our children, who are teaching their children that everything is a tradeoff and resources are not unlimited? With regard to water use we have "low flow" on everything, the primary toilet is dual flush and the others are 1.5 gallon flush, and we don't water our lawn. BTW, the dual flush, pressurized toilet has never failed to do what it is supposed to do. We also have a well so in a sense our water is "free," although the cost of a well now is in excess of $5000; and we have a septic system, so no sewer bill for the waste water, although the cost of a septic system also is in the $5000+ range.

With having doled out the big $$$ for a well and septic system, why conserve? Simple: to reduce the likelihood that we ever again will need to drill a new well or replace the pump, pull the pump and put in a new screen, or put in a new septic system. Everything is a trade-off, use less now to better assure we have more later or can use present assets for more valuable things now. Waste not, want not is a major focus of our lives. And not conserving is just another form of greed and laziness, or perhaps the result of being a few gallons short of a full water tank.

Sure, pure water is just a matter of having enough money to purify it. Most people in our area cannot afford to buy a new well or buy water when their well water is nitrate contaminated. Same for new septic systems when old ones fail, and by failing the coliform bacteria contaminate other surface waters or nearby wells. Tell them "no worry, your water can be made usable" with the money and resources you don't have.

We're coming to common ground and we have a common basis to do so because we both exhibit behaviors which do not waste and which conserve water. We likely have just as much water now as ever, but back to that in a moment.

Second, conserving water used from your well has nothing to do with water bring available in the well later on.

Click to expand...

If this were true, no well would ever run dry. The fact is that in many places aquifers are being drawn down much faster than replenishment and that in many places a great quantity of water which likely is 1000's of year old is being consumed. That deep aquifer water probably will not be replenished for human use within any meaningful time for purposes of discussion here. Many wells are drying up, wells are being drilled deeper to access more water, but the shallow aquifers and many deeper aquifers are not being replenished at the rate of use. My conserving of well water, and conservation by others has a lot to do with water being available later on.

What you're really seeing is a water rights grab where people are claiming river flows for things like fish.

Click to expand...

At face value you may not see merit in water for fish. Fish and other water life, from microbes to whales, are part of a very large ecosystem which we do not well understand. Having water "not available for fish" and other water life has consequences for every living thing. You may choose to disregard that, I do not. The ecosystem we now have works pretty well for life as we know it and I would choose to act reasonably to sustain the environment which favors life as we know it. The future environment may be great for cockroaches, but not for life which works pretty well right now.

I would be much more concerned about how some of our groundwater sources are being polluted by the petroleum industry. We won't run out of water but the polluted water will cost money to make drinkable and that new burden is heavy.

Click to expand...

We have lots of room for agreement here, and this I think is a main point of the Water Footprint article. Polluted water costs money to clean up, and much of the world right now cannot afford that cost. If and as pollution is exacerbated, which is occurring world-wide, a greater and greater portion of the world's human population will not be able to afford clean water, which is little different than having no water. In addition, while humans can purify water to make it potable, if they can pay the price, other life does not have this option. The consequences of the impact of polluted waters on our ecosystems remains to be seen, but I doubt that it bodes well for most life as we now know it.

You focus on pollution from the petroleum industry and I join you in that focus. Of considerable concern in the agricultural areas is pollution from fertilizers, primarily nitrates, herbicides and pesticides. Growing areas of the country have nitrate pollution which is making water not drinkable, and nitrates, herbicides and pesticides are polluting all surface water around the globe. The impact remains to be seen, but it is an impact I would choose to act reasonably to avoid. In Minnesota, about 87% of the nitrates entering surface waters is from industrial agriculture. We need to eat and drink, and behaviors need to be instituted which allow both to happen. Industrial air borne and point source pollution continues to be a major concern world-wide. We know many of the effects of some of these polluting elements, and we continue to act to do better at reducing these pollutants, but world-wide the pollution is rampant.

The point is that your conservation efforts will not determine whether your well runs dry or not. Your particular draw on the aquifer is relatively tiny. The water level in the acquifer is determined by the discharge and recharge rates of the aquifer as a whole.

Click to expand...

It seems then that you point is that the individual is irrelevant. We will disagree forever on that. My actions influence others who may choose similar action, etc. Every person always counts.