Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Water

Can You Get by on Just 5 Gallons of Water a Day?

By Sophie Morris, Independent UK. Posted April 28, 2008.


A British woman attempts for a day what most in the developing world deal with all the time -- living on just over 5 gallons of water.
Advertisement

Full marks to those who keep a tight rein on their carbon footprint, but don't relax just yet: water is the new carbon, and our engorged water footprints need to be scrutinised before the rivers really do run dry. At the World Economic Forum in January, the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, warned that water and food shortages would be the crises of 2008. Last week we watched the escalating food crisis reverberate around the globe. Conflicts fuelled by water shortages may well be next, triggered by climate change, population growth and poor water management.

The phrase "water footprint" was coined to describe the embedded or "virtual" water in a food or industrial product -- the real volume of water used to create that product. It is difficult to avoid using products which have not been involved in a water-intensive process somewhere along the line, and the figures are staggering: it takes 1,760 litres to get one pint of milk out of a cow and into your fridge; a kilogram of cheddar swallows up 5,000 litres.

There is also, of course, plenty of water embedded in everyday activities other than eating, such as washing, cooking and cleaning. The average Brit splashes about 155 litres of water each day, compared with 20 litres for most people living in sub-Saharan Africa. Water might flow freely from our taps, but our small island is not immune to global shortages. Water is a limited commodity, and is becoming more expensive as its supply grows more difficult to guarantee.

How do we get through almost nine times more water each day than someone living in Africa? Thirsty Planet, a bottled water brand which donates part of its profits to the charity Pump Aid, challenged me to survive on 20 litres for 24 hours to find out.

I discovered pretty quickly that we waste the larger part of those 155 litres, by leaving the tap on while brushing our teeth, over-filling kettles (this wastes electricity, too), luxuriating in hot baths filled to the brim, and running the dishwasher or washing machine half-empty. These bad habits seemed easy to fix, though, and I was confident surviving on the 20 litres would prove a doddle. My "preparatory techniques" (you might call this cheating) were to shower and wash my hair the evening before beginning the challenge, and to skip washing any clothes or dishes for the day.

When I wake up, I fill a measuring jug with one litre of water, which I use to wash in, and clean my teeth. I boil about 250ml for a cup of tea and drink a glass of water. As the morning wears on I need to go to the toilet. A single flush of a toilet consigns between six and 10 litres of clean water to the sewers, and I fear this is where I may come unstuck as the day progresses. Instead, I duck out of the loo without flushing and substitute hand washing for a squirt of hand gel.

"If it's yellow, let it mellow. If it's brown, flush it down," advises Thirsty Planet on the toilet flushing issue. I pretty much follow this rule in my own home anyway, but not at work or in someone else's home. No way. As I buy my lunch from the office canteen, I don't use any of my water allowance for cooking. I factor in a couple of litres, hoping the salad I eat has been washed. I have no way of knowing if it was given a quick rinse in a small tub of water or waved under a running tap, which gushes out five litres a minute. Forget indulgent toilet flushing, the water "embedded" in all food items is the real culprit.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: water, water scarcity, water shortage, water crisis, water footprint, virtual water

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Water! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The message is clear: don't eat
Posted by: Art on Apr 29, 2008 1:51 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But we can't and since our own use of water pales compared to what modern agriculture needs, the real question is: do we need modern agriculture? Can the organic mixed farm feed the world or are we stuck with modern agriculture and its onslaught on the environment?
My bet is that organic is not going to make a real comeback and the future is more technical solutions, genetically modified crop that needs less water, etc. etc.. More of the same agro industrial complex. It will create more problems than we already have.
Pricing the use of the environment seems a good idea and it would make the organic mixed farm more competitive. But does it have the yields?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The message is clear: don't eat Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
make an effort
Posted by: grmartin on Apr 29, 2008 4:58 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
re this high usage:
food: go vegetarian.
consumer products: recycle/buy used.
toilet: adjust toilet flush so valve opens only when handle held down.
shower: install showerhead with shutoff.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

H2O H2SO4, CO N Sodium???
Posted by: flymulla on Apr 29, 2008 5:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can You Get by on Just 5 Gallons of Water a Day?
Sir
A British woman attempts for a day what most in the developing world deal with all the time -- living on just over 5 gallons of water.
IN UK, all is possible. Even the donations to the politicians hit the news is possible. Let us be practical.
I know we are running short of oil, wheat, rice bread, butter, cod, whale, cotton, humans trafficking, child labour and many commodities except the election in USA and the Bush veto. Why do you venture out in the sun and ask for water? Short of that too? No. I am not kidding. Anything today is feasible. Shortage of water may be on the way hence the panic button. Are you for the rumour mongering? I want to join too. It is fun.
Look we need at least 8 eight glasses of water a day, the car needs 2 litres per week if you do not use the wipers ns wife needs thirty gallons to keep the cats and dogs clean. We take out clothes to the laundry so I do not worry about the power and water in the water machine of 1945.
Do you have kids who play out? Do you have baths once a week? Do you wash clothes or you buy new every time the sight of dirty lined scares, you will get divorce?
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla MBA PhD
P.O.Box 6044
Dar-Es-Salaam
Tanzania
East Africa

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: H2O H2SO4, CO N Sodium??? Posted by: richholland
» RE: H2O H2SO4, CO N Sodium??? Posted by: nahikurain@mac.com
WaterSource
Posted by: WaterSource on Apr 29, 2008 7:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With regard to water, the word USE needs to be defined or at least, clarified.

It is a generally recognized standard that in the US, the average person USES 100 gallons per day for domestic in-house USE purposes. A family of 4 would USE 400 gallons per day, or 146,000 gallons per year which is 0.45 acre feet/year.

However, all of this USE is returned to the sewage treatment plant, treated and returned to tributary streams or RE-USED.

Again, it is a generally accepted standard that only about 5% of the water USED is not returned for re-use and is therefore CONSUMED. This is where the words Consumptive Use come from and are referred to as CU.

Note that this article states,… 20 litres each day are used by most people living in sub-Saharan Africa. 20 litres is about 5 gallons. If the average person in the US diverts 100 gallons for dometic use per day and only consumes (CU) 5%, that is 20 litres or 5 gallons per day.

Generally speaking, people living in sub-Suharan African do not utilize sewer systems that return 95% of their water back to the tributary from which it came. In Africa, the entire 20 litres is consumptively used because it is eventually discharged on the ground where it evaporates.

The next time you hear that one acre foot of water in the US furnishes domestic water for only two families….keep in mind that the number is actually more like 20 families, unless the local sewer treatment facility is discharging directly into the sea. Septic tanks with leach fields also result in a CU of about 5% CU, but 10-15% CU is generally accepted for planning and appropriation purposes.

WaterSource waterrdw@yahoo.com

WaterSource promotes a truly new fresh water Source for California/Nevada/Arizona that can yield one million acre feet a year without damage to anyone’s water rights or the environment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: WaterSource Posted by: luzmejor
» Understand? Posted by: nahikurain@mac.com
» RE: WaterSource Posted by: boydranchitos
Container Gardens
Posted by: Southern Gal on Apr 29, 2008 7:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't have much area for a regular garden, so I've been trying container gardening. Some of the newer gardening containers have self watering mechanisms included. I found that they use less water to grow food. Once you fill the reservoir, they require just a little bit of water several times a week if it's really hot. Since they have an overflow mechanism you immediately know when to stop adding water. There is the initial investment to purchase these containers, but you can reuse the soil and the containers. I'm considering adding a rainbarrel to catch and furnish the water for the containers and for my fruit trees. My county is in a drought and water has become very precious.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't eat junk food so the answer is yes.
Posted by: maxpayne on Apr 29, 2008 12:15 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
See, junk food makes you more thirsty. Eating an apple in place of a candy bar on the other hand doesn't. Even an organic granola bar doesn't make one thirsty.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

saving water
Posted by: m_doles on Apr 29, 2008 3:27 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live in wheat country. It is dry land farming,no irrigation. 15 inches a year. 38cm. I don't see how you can count the water it takes to raise the wheat. It will fall on the land and either you can grow wheat or grass. I can get all the wheat i can eat for little or no extra water use. There are waterless urinals. I made one for home use. Someone should make them for both sexes and they should be mandatory in all new homes. Simple compost toilets take care of the rest. Or read the Humanure book. A bucket used properly will suffice. I have showered many times with 1 gal. of water. Don't dirty clean water with bodily excretions and a lot of water and energy will be saved.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If everyone would cooperate
Posted by: macdon1 on Apr 29, 2008 4:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
we could manage to conserve without radically changing our lives. However, the huge industrial users of resources like water must also conserve, which requires major changes. If this isn't done RIGHT AWAY all our recycling and conserving can't solve the problem and everyone will be suffering sooner and more horribly than anyone imagines.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the barrier to this water-miserliness is rich people
Posted by: DaBear on Apr 30, 2008 11:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The owning class loves the bidet, the luscious shower head, the water-based toilet, the sprinkler system, and detests water saving tech, especially gardening... how peasant like.

Go backpacking for a week, note how you use water and what you need and don't need. You'd be surprised how little water is necessary for human existence (even comfort). The problem is the standards for "home" set by the owning class.

They'll never let us do what must be done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No One Dares Broach THIS Subject
Posted by: LeaderofMen on May 1, 2008 2:40 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Global climate change is contributing to the melting of a huge source of fresh water. That would be the runoff from glaciers. That runoff sustains tens of millions of people across the planet. That source is drying up.

In addition, we're continuously adding to the existing population. When I was born there were less than 3 billion people on the planet. Less than 3 billion. Now there are nearly 7, with most likely 9 living on the same planet, before my natural demise.

Does anyone really think we can possibly sustain the agriculture we currently have while adding billions more people to the population?

I think not. The answer is clear. There must be population control across the spectrum. Unless population is limited we can expect catastrophe like we've never seen in history. A perfect storm is brewing. You and I can see it coming. Loss of potable water. Out of control population overdrawing existing water sources. Add to that the loss of cheap energy. The equation is simple, simple, simple. The facts are right there in front of us all.

Since population controls will never happen you may as well get ready for the inevitable. The future is NOT going to be a pleasant one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Overpopulation & water depletion
Posted by: atheistcable on May 2, 2008 11:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let us discuss Overpopulation
And you're right, leaderofmen, we're not reading, hearing and discussing enough about overpopulation. Maybe it's because that would lead to discussions on vasectomies, and abortions and "anti-Catholic bigotry", scientific sex education, condoms. It would also include discussions of various African cultures, and accusations of racism, genocide and disrespect for cultural traditions and Western Imperialism -- and so forth. It would also require individuals to see the world as a milk bottle sitting on a table on a warm day. Put a bottle of fresh milk on the table in late July at 7 am. What will that milk look like by 9 pm? The upper half will be a translucent liquid--waste from bacterial activity, and then they all die. This is what 7 Billion humans are doing to the biosphere--and we may all die as well. Will we actually get to 9 billion?

Overpopulation and Agriculture
In Wikipedia is a discussion of the Ogallala Aquifer . This article needs updating. The Platte river flows "below the water level of the aquifer and therefore the rivers actually receive groundwater flow (baseflow) rather than supply recharge to the aquifer." The author mentions that water conservation practices and more efficient irrigation methods and " simply reduced area under irrigation have helped to slow depletion of the aquifer, but levels are generally still dropping."
I read articles recently that more and more farmers are putting aside conservation methods to meet the demands of the market for biofuels and world hunger. More acreage is coming under cultivation and this trend will continue as population swells toward 9 billion.
The world is already breaking under overpopulation which is spawning more violence--and yet the Church makes no move whatsoever to ask its mindless flock to limit their families to ONE child--preferably no children. Immediately, we hear the complaint: "Well who's going to do the work necessary to support the aging population?" One answer is robotics which is popular in Japan. The U.S. is considerably behind--preferring to use Mexican immigrants as the new slave labor.

Desalination Plants
We should also focus more effort in developing large solar-powered desalination plants, to then pipe that water (again, using solar and wind power) to regions where it's most needed. If we can pipe oil anywhere, we can pipe water anywhere.
We need also to develop solar collection technology above the clouds and transfer that energy to collectors on the ground. Regional transfer of water should never use fossil fuels. But instead of developing this technology--which is already on drawing boards--we waste trillions of dollars drawing more oil from the Middle East.
The very fact that we're having this discussion on water conservation tells us that the United States is very overpopulated. Our numbers in this country should be no more than about 150 million which was achieved in 1949.
How is it that we had plenty of people at work supporting ourselves and our country before 1949--enough to beat the Nazis, but if we go back to that number, then somehow we would suffer a shortage of workers?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Personal water conservation
Posted by: atheistcable on May 2, 2008 11:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Far fewer lawns, more bushes and trees
I have a small property here in Minneapolis, MN. When I moved into my house in 1995 I had a lot of lawn to mow. I didn't like that, so I started planting lilac and mulberry bushes--about 70 of them. Now I don't have to mow, and the bushes and grapevines absorb and retain more water than a lawn does. Only when it gets very dry do I have to use water to keep them alive, whereas I see untold tons of water being used on lawns every day. Now I don't have any grass on my property and it's very nice.

In the meantime, my use of water amounts to about 5 gallons a day. While some areas of the U.S. are receiving less annual rainfall, the upper MidWest is actually receiving more per year. But I like to experiment with conservation methods. I bathe using about 1 gallon of water, and discovered that if I bathe twice a week, I do not offend others with BO. Some may be shocked by this, but if you have precious little water in your area--you may have to do as I do.

Here in Mpls, our water is measured in units of 750 gallons. We pay a minimum of $2 if we use less than one unit in a month. I've been paying the $2 minimum all year so far because I haven't used up 750 gallons since Jan 1st. To flush my toilet I simply use rain water I collect in 55-gal barrels which is free. This I pour down the commode.
I do my laundry at a local church about once every two months--two washer-loads. Average that out, I'm sure I use 5 gal or less a day.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My apologies
Posted by: atheistcable on May 2, 2008 11:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I didn't proofread as carefully as I should have.
This sentence . . .

The author mentions that water conservation practices and more efficient irrigation methods and " simply reduced area under irrigation have helped to slow depletion of the aquifer, but levels are generally still dropping."


should read:
The author mentions that water conservation practices, and more efficient irrigation methods are in order, and "reduced area under irrigation have helped to slow depletion of the aquifer, but levels are generally still dropping."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bottled water
Posted by: Marc02 on May 3, 2008 11:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You have well stressed something extremely stupid with bottled water.
What a mess! Lots of people are paying lots of money believing what those selling bottled water are telling: you get poisoned if you drink tap water. Nonsense! If this was true, we should have died since a long time, because we are drinking water from the tap, and we feel still healthy. Moreover, what happens to empty bottles? In France, they are generally burnt and spill filth in the skies.
Regarding flushing, at home we have an "antiquated system" where a lever opens the flow of water, and if you think twice, as soon as it is clean enough, you raise the lever and stop water from flowing. Thus you need only 3 to 4 liters instead of 30, if you have a "modern" flush system, the same type which is fitted automatically by every plumber.
Do not forget that water companies are silently becoming the kings of the world. In France, we have Compagnie Générale des Eaux, which has invented a number of brands like Veolia, Onyx, and Compagnie Lyonnaise des Eaux, better known now as Suez. After sharing the French market they are expanding to the rest of Europe, the Americas and Asia now. To water they have added garbage collecting. They are very clever and tell to states and local authorities : "look water distribution and recycling, garbage are now so complicated because there are so many standards. You cannot fulfill all these standards, but we know who to do, so sign here". Prices can surge later, like it happens in many countries, and only a few local authorities dare to say "Stop! It is too expensive! We are not as silly as you can think, we are managing water like before" Magically prices go down. Unfortunately if prices go down, spoiling goes up. Is is true that stoppng to spoil water is a matter of conscience an day to day efforts.
Kind regards.
Marc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]