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.
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.
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.
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.
