Water in the media
By Timothy Allinson, P.E.,
Murray Co., Long Beach, Calif.
It always pleases me when I see the subject of water getting a lot of attention in the media. Lately this favorite subject has been getting more and more attention. This is probably because the global warming conference in Copenhagen was quite a flop, and people seem to be somewhat over the hype of that subject, creating necessity for a new crisis to focus on.
I was on Facebook the other day and discovered a “personal water footprint calculator.” Of course, I took the test. My results were disappointing, in part because I live in the U.S. and have a family of four. On first pass, my water use calculated out as a little more than 60,000 gallons per year. The average American household uses about 54,000 gallons. I took the test again, fudging the numbers a bit, pretending I had a high efficiency washing machine and dishwasher and never washed my car. My footprint came down to the average 54,000 gallons. I took the test a third time impersonating a vegetarian from Africa who never bathed, washed dishes or did laundry, and my number came down to 705 gallons. Not bad.
According to the footprint calculator, the average American uses 54,000 gallons per year compared with 38,000 for the average European, 8,000 for the average Chinese, and 2,000 for the average African. I understand why the averages are low in China and Africa, but I’m a little confused about the average European. Their lifestyle is not that much different than ours. Do they really bathe that much less? Surely they still wash their clothes and dishes. I tried to find the answer to this question on the Internet with no success. If any of you readers have insight, please let me know.
Later that same day I discovered that the April issue of National Geographic is all about water. It is filled with eight different articles about water: “Water is Life,” “The Big Melt,” “Sacred Waters,” “The Burden of Thirst,” “Silent Streams,” “California’s Pipe Dream,” “Parting Waters,” and “The Last Drop.” It’s a must-read for anyone in this industry. On their website they have even more information with a Freshwater 101 Topics page, with all sorts of facts about water.
For example, not surprisingly, there is an unequal distribution of water around the world. Six countries — Brazil, Russia, Canada, Indonesia, China, and Colombia—account for half of Earth’s freshwater supply. Within those countries there is an imbalance of the water to people ratio. Here in the U.S. we have 4.5% of the world’s population and nearly 8% of the renewable water supply. In contrast, China has 19.5% of the people and only 7% of the water. It’s a good thing they use far less water per person than we do — but as the country modernizes, their water usage will increase, just as their automobile use and associated pollution has increased. In anticipation of this, China has begun a $60 billion project — the largest construction project on the planet — to transfer 1.5 trillion cubic feet of water per year from the relatively wet south to the arid north. The physical mass of this project is expected to tilt the earth one inch on its axis. That’s a big project. I wonder if that tilt will send more or less water their way?
Seventy percent of the water we consume goes to agriculture, and meat eaters are driving a good percentage of that number through the grain that is required to feed cows and other animals. If everyone cut their meat intake in half it would reduce the United States’ dietary need for water by 37%, from about 1,320 gallons per day per person to about 830 gallons. And while highly efficient drip irrigation could reduce the water used for agriculture by 30-70%, it is used on less than 2% of the irrigated lands worldwide. It seems there is much greater opportunity to save water in the fields than in the home.
The relationship between the preverbal water footprint and carbon footprint is a complex one. For example, a Congressional mandate to produce 15 trillion gallons of ethanol by 2015 to reduce our dependency on foreign oil will require 1.6 trillion gallons of irrigation water (plus rainfall) to grow the necessary corn. Thus, reducing our carbon footprint necessitates that we increase our water footprint. Conversely, transferring water from northern to southern California takes about 2 kWh per cubic meter (35 cubic feet) — about the same amount of energy required to produce the same amount of fresh water from seawater desalination. As desalination becomes even more efficient, more of SoCal’s water will likely be produced this way.
The relationship between dams and water is also a complex one. While they can produce water resource benefits, they also inflict often unanticipated damage to the water-based ecology. Since 1950, the number of large dams has grown worldwide from 5,000 to over 45,000 — an average of two new large dams per day for half a century. In recent years there has been a surge in dam removal. Since the Edwards Dam was removed in Maine 10 years ago, the growth in the population of sturgeon, salmon and striped bass in recreational fisheries has added $65 million annually to the local economy.
Pollution remains a grave threat to our water supply. Nearly everything we discard, via landfills, toilets and illegal dumping or discharge ends up in our groundwater or oceans. In developing countries, 70% of the industrial waste is dumped into the local waters, polluting the water supply. Worldwide, nearly 100 million pounds of fertilizers and chemicals are used each year. In the surrounds of Kenya, some locals use an innovative means of purifying their drinking water. A discarded water bottle is filled with local creek water. Six hours in the sun on a hot sheet of metal will produce enough UVA radiation to kill the water pollutants making it fit to drink.
Speaking of water bottles, there is another media venue about bottled water that is worth watching — “The Story of Bottled Water” — you can search it online. It puts the dilemma of bottled drinking water into perspective. Ironically, many bottle water producers espouse their product as being healthier than tap water, as did Fiji water when they promoted their product by stating in their advertising campaign, “Fiji: Because it’s not bottled in Cleveland.” This sent the city of Cleveland into an uproar, so they tested their tap water against Fiji water and guess what? The tap water in Cleveland proved to be superior to the Fiji-bottled water, while the bottled water costs 2,000 times more than the tap.
The cost of utility-furnished water varies greatly across the world. Here in the U.S. it ranges from $0.30 per 100 gallons in Memphis, to $1.65 in San Diego. In some foreign countries such as Cork, Ireland, Tripoli, Libya, and Calcutta, India it is free, while in Gent, Belgium it can cost as much as $3.50. Prices vary depending on, not only availability, but tax structure and other factors.
Regardless the price, the reality is that our water use and population are growing. Barbara Kingsolver of National Geographic emphasized one of my favorite concepts. “The amount of moisture on the earth has not changed. The water the dinosaurs drank millions of years ago is the same water that falls as rain today. But will there be enough for a more crowded world? Our deepest dread is the threat of having too little — or too much.”
A recent Carnegie Mellon University study has shown that much of our water is consumed indirectly by industry. Among the findings for consumer products: It takes 200 gallons of water to make $1 worth of dog or cat food, 270 gallons to place $1 worth of sugar on store shelves and 140 gallons of water to make $1 worth of milk. Clearly there needs to be an effort toward water efficiency on the industrial market.
We all know this in our industry. But how many of us do what we can, like shutting off the shower while soaping up? Or, like Louise Pape of the high desert in northern New Mexico, using dish water for plants and shower water to flush toilets? We all use about 100 gallons per day, but Pape uses just about 10. I, for one, have an artificial lawn in my backyard. What are you doing to make a difference? n
Timothy Allinson is a senior professional engineer with Murray Co., Mechanical Contractors, in Long Beach, Calif. He holds a bsme from Tufts University and an mba from New York University. He is a professional engineer licensed in both mechanical and fire protection engineering in various states, and is a leed accredited professional. Allinson is a past-president of aspe, both the New York and Orange County Chapters.