<New Liberal Leader - First Green PM? The Oil Drum A Debate on the Substance and Timing of the Peak of Oil Production and Consumption, Part I>
<DrumBeat: December 3, 2006 DrumBeat DrumBeat: December 5, 2006>

DrumBeat: December 4, 2006

Show without comments | PDF version

277 comments | Comments can no longer be added to this story.

odograph on December 4, 2006 - 12:52pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top
Do you think a reader would guess, based on your posts here, that the US has reduced water usage not just per capita, but in total, over the last few decades?
GreyZone on December 4, 2006 - 1:45pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top
Source please.
GreyZone on December 4, 2006 - 2:33pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top
          Total
Year        (billion gallons)
WITHDRAWALS
1940        140
1950        180
1955        240
1960        270
1965        310
1970        370
1975        420
1980        440
1985        399
1990        408
1995        402
2000        408


 Consumptive Use


1960        61
1965        77
1970        87
1975        96
1980        100
1985        92
1990        94
1995        100
2000        (NA)

This data is from the The 2006 Statistical Abstract published by the US Census Bureau, specifically the link marked as U.S. Water Withdrawals and Consumption Use Per Day by End-Use: 1940 to 2000.  What it tells us is that overall withdrawals are down. That doesn't tell us why. It does tell us that consumption peaked in 1980, then went flat til 2000 where it matched its old peak. I have not found more current data on water consumption for the US, hence my interest in seeing your sources, Odograph. The US Census Bureau says consumption is up, not down. Withdrawals are down but that may be due to known aquifer problems. Per capita consumption is down (from that same document) but since population overall is up, that is a wash.


odograph on December 5, 2006 - 10:39am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top
It's the same article (from the New Yorker) that I posted above.  It did not have graphs or tables, just the paragraph:

The amount of water that Americans used for nearly all purposes rose steadily from the beginning of the twentieth century, through the Second World War, and into the seventies. Every projection indicated that the growth would continue. Yet, in 1980, the amount of water we withdrew from rivers, lakes, and reservoirs reached its peak and then began to subside. Despite increases in wealth, industrial productivity, and the size of the American population, the decline has accelerated.

That article does cover a lot of territory, but I think it is worth reading in detail:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/061023fa_fact1

Magnus Redin on December 5, 2006 - 11:47am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top
The goal to save water spreads farther then it makes sense. People pick it up as an issue even in water rich areas where the only thing that is saved is a trickle of power used to run pumps in public water works. Its ok when it is a true waste of water but its not as good when it leads to new washing machines doing a poor job.

The fresh water situation in Sweden is overall very good. The only problem areas are mostly private wells close to the sea who can draw in saline water if they are overused. There is an old goal that all major water works should be fully redundant but that is moving forward as fast as a snail and will probably not be reached. Almost all water is "soft" and of good bottled water quality but people still buy more bottled water every year. The chlorination is most often small and some water works dont need it at all.

The only expectation about fresh water problems due to global warming is if lakes used as fresh water sources would overflow due to much larger rainfall and flood old contaminated areas and low lying sewage plants or sewage systems overflows. There are some official investigations of these risks included in the same studies investigating the risk for flooding. I expect that the problem areas slowly will be rebuilt over 10-20 years if nothing happens, faster we do get flooding.

A neighbouring small town Motala has had a fairly large reduction in water use but the cost for running the water works is nor sensitive to the flow giving a continous rise of the fees. This is probably the same thing as observed in Finland.

The cost for water in my own municipiality Linköping is about $0.7 per m3 of water and about $0.9 per m3 of waste water/sewage giving a cost for normal housholds of about $1.6 per m3 plus a fixed fee, $321 for a single house including drainage water from rainfall.

The only influence I expect from peak oil for the local water situation is declining bottled water sales and if we have a serious depression a decade long hiatus of water system maintainance. Practical exampels from seriously mismanaged municipialities is that these systems can limp along with almost no maintainance for 10-20 years withouth noticable change in water quality when the water source is a good one. They are thus sensitive to silent budget cuts but they are usualy not financed by taxation but run as municipiality owned monopolies making this less tempting.

odograph on December 5, 2006 - 12:09pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top
I agree, there is the general problem of fossil water (over)use around the world, and then there are regions that have none of those worries.
odograph on December 5, 2006 - 11:38am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top
BTW, I suspect that your question really is "what is 'consumptive use' and why does it account for only 1/4 of all water withdrawals?"

DrumBeat: December 4, 2006

Show without comments | PDF version

277 comments | Comments can no longer be added to this story.