24th of a series

“Please, Sir, I want some more.”

- Oliver Twist (click here)

Although all of us need to use less water, changes in personal habits are not in themselves sufficient to reverse our current trajectory toward scarcity and pollution. Not when agriculture accounts for 70% of worldwide consumption and almost half of that is lost to evaporation and bad management. Not when thermoelectric power production and manufacturing directly withdraw almost 10 billion gallons a day from our aquifers. Not when the heavy metals required for batteries and other green energy infrastructure require enormous amounts of water – almost 600,000 gallons to produce a ton of lithium (which has also been linked to water contamination).

Of the countless ways for individuals and communities to use less water, two deserve special mention: tearing up our lawns and planting trees. In particular, years of research have shown that planting trees along a streamside has an unexpected double benefit for water health: it not only stops many pollutants from getting into the water, it puts the stream in a position to neutralize many that do. Diet matters, too: raising animals for meat and dairy products takes far more water than growing grains and vegetables – and over a third of the food we buy ends up in a landfill anyway. More efficient household appliances have also made a big difference.

On a more macro level, since farming is by far the most prolific user – and waster – of water, more efficient technologies, such as sprinkling systems and drip irrigation, make a big difference. As does recycling: almost half Israel’s agricultural water, for example, is treated wastewater.

Charging for water also increases efficiency. New York City didn’t get around to installing meters until the 1980s. Since then, per capita water use has declined by 94%. Cities can do many other things: reuse stormwater runoff, repair system leaks, and encourage water efficiency. Through a combination of innovations and fines, Las Vegas has reduced per capita water consumption by 48% since 2002.

And that brings us face to face with two ethical issues:

1. As an old friend once said to me: “I know how much is enough. . . .Just a little bit more than I have right now” – a sentiment that has driven economic growth for a very long time. Questioned about their endless thirst for more water, too many industries (i.e., National Association of Homebuilders) and governments (e.g., Arizona) say they are simply responding to the demands of consumers and the marketplace. Moreover, Chris Neel of Oklahoma Water Resources Board told the Times, that just the act of publishing data on declining water tables can immediately depress property values. So even as we work to reduce water use, the mantra seems to have become: we need to use less so we can keep on using more.

2. The second issue is one of social justice. It’s fine to talk about charging prices that will encourage water conservation. But what about the billions of people who are already forced conservers, either because they live in water-stressed parts of the world, or the water they have access to is contaminated, or they are poor? What is our obligation to provide water to them?

And that brings up the most fundamental question of all: Is water a commodity to be bought and sold in the marketplace or is it a basic human right?

This seemingly endless series (which I am really enjoying) will continue after the New Year. In the meantime, let us pray for work for peace and justice. Happy Holidays to all.