Dear Umbra,
Your general drift has been to get us to focus on the big stuff instead of the little paper-or-plastic issues. So what's the big picture of household water use and overuse? I have a clothes washer and a dishwasher, I wash dishes in the sink, I take showers and flush every time I pee, and my bathroom sink drips a bit. Which of these is my biggest issue, or is it something else I'm overlooking? How should I big-picture my water worries?
Rick Groshong
Tallahassee, Fla.
Dearest Rick,
Yeah, I say focus on the big stuff, but has anyone done the statistical analysis? If I'm not mistaken, I just wrote an article about vodka.
Eek! A leak!
Photo: iStockphoto
Over the years I've written articles about each of the water-using appliances you mention, which we can go back and revisit if we wish, but your question is a good one. If we held a gallons-take-all demolition derby, which appliance would win?
Let's pilfer some numbers from ... the Tallahassee city website! Your fine municipality tells us that a four-person household uses about 9,000 gallons of water per month, and gives us the top water consumers: toilets use 24 percent of the water, washing machines 22 percent, and showers 21 percent. The American Water Works Association seems to have the same statistical source and so can finish off our numbers: faucets use 15 percent, leaks 14 percent, baths 1.7 percent, dishwashers 1.5 percent.
What you should do with this information is going to depend a bit on your own watery habits, and on the efficiency of your household. There are easy behavioral changes you can make that will reduce your water use whether or not your appliances are efficient, and since these are free -- money-saving, in fact -- let's put them first on the list. Obviously, if you wash the dishes by turning the hot water spigot full blast and running it continuously during the 10 minutes it takes to clean up after dinner, there's room for improvement. If you already have a low-flow toilet and are not willing to let it mellow, there's nothing you can do there. Take shorter showers, turn the sink off while brushing your teeth, use your dishwasher instead of your kitchen sink if you have enough dishes to make it worthwhile, and only run full loads through the clothes washer.
Looking at our numbers above, I say fixing any leaks is our number one big-picture item after we change our wasteful habits. Replacing inefficient appliances will reduce water use for that appliance, but fixing all leaks ends that waste of water entirely, cutting our usage by 14 percent. Another statistic: one drop per second adds up to 2,700 gallons a year. You can see your leaky faucet; there may be other leaks you cannot see, such as within the toilet or -- mon dieu -- in a pipe. After fixing your faucet leak, go find the water meter (everyone's water service website should have instructions on finding the meter and learning to read it -- here's one example). Do two meter readings two hours apart without using any water between, and you'll know if you have a leak.
Check your meter before starting this project, in fact. Measure one week of water use, then change your habits for a week and see what the impact is; then fix the leaks and check again. During week four, change the next big item for your own personal home -- probably the toilet, based on the above numbers and your own narrative. If you are going from a five-gallon flush to a 1.6, that'll make a big difference. But only you know your home appliances well enough, and maybe your big difference will be in the showerhead. That would be lucky, because a low-flow showerhead is quite a bit cheaper than a new toilet. You can evaluate which one to prioritize either using the water meter -- you know, one day without flushing the toilet, another without using the shower, see which uses more water -- or by figuring the gallons per use and multiplying by times used. The toilet should have the gallons per flush on it, the shower you'll probably have to measure. Here's a page with a handy comparison of less-efficient and more-efficient appliances, so you can see the benefits of replacement.
Good luck, and I hope you don't have any leaks.
Flushingly,
Umbra
Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting
Turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo
This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!
Comments
View as Flat
river2sea72 Posted 3:31 am
09 Apr 2007
Permalink
estark Posted 4:25 am
09 Apr 2007
In addition, livestock production is the largest source of water pollution (from animal wastes, antibiotics and hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and pesticides used for feedcrops, and sediments from eroded pastures).
It contributes to "dead" zones in coastal areas, degradation of coral reefs, human health problems, antibiotic resistance and much more.
An article in The Guardian exposed that "meat-eaters consume the equivalent of about 1,100 gallons of water a day compared to the roughly 300 gallons used by people on vegetarian diets in developing countries. All that water has to come from somewhere."
So, scientists are finally concluding that it will be almost impossible to feed future generations the typical diet eaten in western Europe and North America without destroying the environment. No kidding. Go vegan.
Permalink
TheSSG Posted 9:23 am
09 Apr 2007
You can get a low-flow showerhead, flush the toilet once a day, etc, etc, etc.
But, in ALL these efforts, eating a quarter-pounder will waste WAY more water.
So I think worrying about the little things is a bit silly unless you already have the big things out of the way (i.e. you don't eat meat).
Permalink
Greenbeings Nancy Posted 12:14 pm
09 Apr 2007
Use water from washing grains and vegetable and fish to water your plants. The blood from your fish is a very good fertilizer. If you are ambitious and use menstrual cup, you can add the collection to your garden too if you are not into painting with it. Yes, there are people who do that.
Take showers as a family activity cum biology class for the children. Pee as your wash your face under the shower.
Try to use only one toilet in the house so that you need not have to wash all toilets more frequently. Do not flush the toilet when anyone in the family gets up to pee at night. Flush only in the morning after all have done their poos and pees.
Stop all sink drips by remembering that it is bad for Feng Shui. It is like dripping your money away.
If the children have been brought up this way, I think they will be more conscious when they use water in public places.
Permalink
Greenbeings Nancy Posted 12:30 pm
09 Apr 2007
Singapore is more ambitious. To curtail their reliance of buying water from Malaysia, they are recycling wastewater, or treating sewage water to the point that it is safe to drink. So, when you are down in Singapore and want to do the "being there done that" thing, make sure you buy a bottle of their NEUwater.
Permalink
Liara Covert Posted 1:08 pm
09 Apr 2007
In 2000, the U.S. Geological Survey revealed the U.S. used 408 billion gallons of water per day. http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/circ1268/
About 195 Bgal/d, or 48% of all freshwater and saline-water withdrawals for 2000, were used for thermoelectric power. Most of this water came from surface water and used for once-through cooling at power plants. About 52% of fresh surface-water withdrawals and about 96 percent of saline-water withdrawals were for thermoelectric-power use. That's more than 1/2!
In contrast, consider Australia. In 2004, the Australian Bureau of Statistics published Australia's Water Account for 2000-01. It showed that irrigated agriculture is the main user of water, or 67% of water used in 2000-01. Urban and industrial consumption accounted for only 9% of water use. As of 2007, most populated Australian areas are on highly restricted water. Agriculture is suffering yet the energy industry which uses millions of litres of water isn't penalized. (Power plants have been asked to come up with a water saving strategies by end of the year).
It's great for each person to evolve to desire to conserve water at home. Energy-saving ideas can include using less water and energy wherever you can. Becoming a minimalist could have its advantages in saving money and reducing negative impacts on the environment. At the same time, what does the usage gap between individuals, the food and energy industry tell us about the state of awareness of the water problem and usefulness of government regulations?
Permalink
croner Posted 2:50 am
10 Apr 2007
Permalink
CyberBrook Posted 3:30 am
10 Apr 2007
* 5. Water:
Eating meat wastes huge amounts of water, increasingly referred to as "blue gold". In an effort to conserve increasingly scarce yet completely necessary water, you can install a water saver on your kitchen faucet, saving up to 6,000 gallons (23,000 liters) of water per year. Your savings will be lost, however, if you consume just one pound (0.45 kg) of California beef (which requires about 5,000 gallons (19,000 l)--and as much as 12,000 gallons (45,000 l)--of water per pound to produce). A typical meat-based diet wastes a tremendous amount of water per person every day, hastening "peak water", while a vegetarian diet uses only a moderate amount. The amount of water used to produce the meat from a single cow is enough to float a large ship. More than half of the water consumed in the U.S. irrigates land to grow feed for livestock. The Ogallala Aquifer, under the Great Plains of the U.S. and one of the world's largest stores of fresh groundwater, took millions of years to create and is being depleted (and polluted) in decades due to the livestock industry and the crops needed to feed it.
The U.S. EPA estimates that almost half of America's surface streams and wells are contaminated by "agricultural pollutants", including chemicals and feces. Due to the nitrates in manure, nitrates are too often found in drinking water. Oceans are also being heavily polluted, while coral reefs and other marine habitats destroyed.
Eco-Eaters help protect and conserve this most precious resource.
"More than 4,000 gallons (15,000 liters) of water are needed to produce a single day's worth of food for the typical meat eater. In comparison, an ovo-lacto vegetarian requires only 1,200 gallons (4,500 l) of water, and a vegan needs a mere 300 gallons (1,135 l)."
Vegetarian Times Complete Cookbook
http://www.vegetariantimes.com
Permalink
bailsout Posted 9:27 am
10 Apr 2007
Permalink
Tracy Rout Posted 9:37 am
10 Apr 2007
Permalink
Tracy Rout Posted 10:16 am
10 Apr 2007
Don't hose your garden, in fact, don't hose anything. Throw out your hose right now.
Collect any grey water in your house (from washing dishes, using the washing machine, mopping the floor) and use that on the garden. This requires that you use garden-friendly low phosphate cleaners, which I'm sure we all do anyway.
If you have to clean your car, do it with a bucket on the lawn. Or go to a car wash that uses recycled water.
Even with a low flow shower head, you shouldn't shower for any longer than 4 minutes.
I think the way to make the most difference in your household use of water is to change the way you think about water. If you know that it is valuable, you won't want to waste it.
Permalink
h2oguard Posted 10:27 am
10 Apr 2007
Permalink
pinechild Posted 3:30 pm
10 Apr 2007
http://www.polyfacefarms.com/.
About low flush toilets- I think the idea is right, but the execution isn't always that great- I hear people complain that sometimes you need an extra flush to get things going. There are now toilets that have to flusher levers, or two settings- No 1 and No 2- my workplace has these in the new buildings. I'd like to collect grey water for flushing too, but I want my toilet to stay clean :-)
Here in the SF Bay Area I would love to collect rain water, but where to put it...? it's not like we have a lot of space for a big ol' tank... underground?
Permalink
estark Posted 8:12 am
11 Apr 2007
Re: What about fish and those sources of meat that don't pollute large amounts of water?
ALL animals raised for food pollute. Most of the fish at your grocery store is farmed fish and they are raised in intense confinement, analagous to a veal calf in its tiny cage. Very bad.
Chemicals such as disinfectants, antifoulants and pesticides are used. The most controversial of these is the organophosphorus pesticide Dichlorvos (related to military nerve gases and the most toxic of the Government's 'Red List' substances), used to treat sea lice in salmon farming. It was originally named Nuvan but was renamed Aquaguard as a PR ploy.
Dichlorvos not only kills sea lice, but is highly toxic to all forms of marine life, from plankton to crustaceans, and higher up on the food chain. It is reportedly also harmful to the fish being treated.
Dichlorvos is also a hazard to fish farm workers, who may become poisoned through skin contact and inhalation.
Fish farms also cause intense and highly localised pollution from feces and food pellets. Since salmon cages are generally placed in shallow and sheltered areas with little water movement, the bulk of the waste accumulates beneath the cages. Toxic by-products build up and this toxicity, along with physical smothering, cause destruction to natural organisms and can change the whole balance of the ecosystem.
Then there's the matter of nitrates, phosphates and nitrogenous waste products (eutrophication). Eutrophication encourages population blooms of phytoplankton, some of which produce highly toxic substances. These can cause mass mortalities of fish and other wildlife, and are associated with paralytic shellfish poisoning in humans. I just read that a US study has shown that a 20 acre salmon farm produces as much organic waste as a town of 10,000 people!
Think about it ...
The best thing to do for the planet and the animal victims is to eat a PLANT-BASED DIET. It's that simple.
Permalink
mckittre Posted 11:00 am
14 Apr 2007
Just as we can responsibly choose how our veggies are grown (organic or conventional, local or long-distance), we can make the same choices for our fish.
Unlike the farmed stuff, wild Alaskan salmon is a great choice (and tastier). And unlike any other food source I can think of, the wild salmon fishery is an industry that relies on an intact ecosystem and healthy streams to survive. An alliance between the salmon fishermen and environmentalists could do a lot to preserve habitat for all kinds of plants and animals, both on land and in the sea. In some cases, this is already happening. But it won't continue if fishermen see environmentalists as a blanket opposition to them.
-Erin
http://www.groundtruthtrekking.org
Permalink