Why do we need to conserve water?

[SuperBunny]

I am careful with it but always wonder why.

I should know the answer - I have a degree in Environmental Biology and a PGCE in Environmental Education - but I don't

BOO

just thought i'd stalk yer before i head off for the night!

i think we're the only 2 here, a bit like being alone in a big dark building - spooky.

Argh!

Erm I hate questions like these in case I miss the obvious.
My first thought was that it takes power (fuel) to get water to drinking level.

It takes power and chemicals to get water up to drinking quality. That's bad enough when you're starting with rainwater (which is limited even in these soggy isles for reasons I don't fully understand ), but even worse when you are having to start with "previously used" water going through treatment plants.

Hmm, ok. What I don't understand is how, when I live by one of the largest bodies of fresh water in the world and, when we have significant snowfall, we have water shortaages in the summer.

I know there is water there because we swim in it.

I vote with Bronze. The water industry is one of the largest energy users in the country and the water that you use has a significant carbon footprint. How large? Ummm, give me a moment

Well, they can't pull lots of water out of just any body of fresh water, because if they take a lot from one place it will upset the ecosystems there. If they could take a bit out of every lake then that would be better, but they need a lot of infrastructure like pumps and pipes to do it so that's not practical.

But TBH if they didn't have such leaky pipe systems they wouldn't have such a problem anyway.

Most of the water in our taps (in southern Britain) comes from groundwater.
Most (all, I think, actually) of the British (ground)water tables are falling, and have been steadily falling, for decades.
That's right, we are 'mining' water, taking it out faster than it naturally replentishes.
That's why to conserve.

Part I don't understand is why water can't be transported easily enough from Scotland to the south, the distance is not a problem for other countries in the world, but the word here is always that it's not feasible (I imagine what that means is that the price would rise a lot if water was moved from Scotland south).

Although excess water from Scotland might not be enough to quench the thirst of the south, anyway.

Because water is scarce. Bizarre I know when we live in such an apparently wet place. Simply put, the current calculations firstly work out how much the environment needs, then what is left is available for us to use. In the south and east, most of our supply is from groundwater which have to supply both human needs and the local river systems. The south and east of the country is also where rainfall is lowest, and population, and so demand is highest. In these areas there are rivers which, if you do the sums, don't have enough water in them to keep the environment happy. There are other rivers which, if those who are legally entitled to take water, took all of their quota, would also be in the same position.

The number of rivers that are 'in balance, is in fact not large, and the number where there is potentially water available which could use, is even smaller in number. Broadly speaking you would find these in the west, where, no surprise, it's wettest and populations are lower. But even there we can't afford to be casual.

That's all a bit of a generalisation, but you get the picture. And the reason we don't transport it is because it if we can help it is that it's really heavy stuff, and so energetically (and so also financially) very expensive stuff to move around. We do move water where needed (a bit), but there's a cost/benefit excercise that has to be carried out first to work out if it's a reasonable proposition.

Ok, this all makes sense, I think, thanks

I'm on a water meter so I conserve for that reason!

But in other countries in the world water is transported equal or far further distances, so why is it so out of the question in the UK?

Isn't is just cost effectiveness?

Gargh! Think I should re-read before posting. Sorry about garbled bits in last post.

Transporting water is about cost effectiveness, yes. But it is also about the potential impact on the environment. Any programme of works which set out to build the infrastructure necessary to transport water in the way which is being suggested, would be subject to various pieces of environmental legislation, and public scrutiny. So too, would the overall impact of the scheme when it is running. I think it fair to say that for most such schemes, at present the environmental cost would be too high, given that there are other ways to ensure supply meets demand. This includes programmes such as metering to try and get us all to use less in the first place. If you think about it, we are incredibly careless about how we use water. How many of us thoughtlessly leave the tap on when we are cleaning our teeth, for example? Or spend an extra few minutes in the shower because standing under hot water is just plain nice? That's just water down the plug hole. Probably in the sort of volumes that, in some countries, would meet the needs of an entire family! Although I realise there is all kinds of debate surrounding charging for water by volume (low income families, etc.), overall it is only reasonable that as a society we try and reduce our environmental impact where we can. And turning the tap off when you clean your teeth aint rocket science! Or a great hardship for that matter.

Oh, and to answer the previous question, I think you will find that other countries do it because they just don't have the environmental legislation and controls we have.

And if you want to know what happens when we get the balance wrong, read this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea

and this

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/678898.stm

Now turn the tap off (while I get off my hobby horse)!

Wondering out loud really...which countries are we thinking of, that transport water great distances?

I know they do in the US, to make arid regions habitable (LA and Las Vegas spring to mind), but the amount of power required for that sort of pipeline is substantial: water is heavy stuff.

My part of the world (East Anglia) alledgedly has lower annual rainfall than Jordan. On average.

I was talking about using grey water with someone - and they said that actually it's better to get the water down into the sewers to flush them through and avoid blockages (yurk) especially in London where there are just so many people. If everyone in houses suddenly started collecting their grey water and putting it on their garden (which I think is what it's normally used for) then we would soon get into a mess (or at least a very bad pong).

Is this nonsense? It sounds pluasible to me but you never know...

'Tis true Gizmo. Or is it Saudi? Either way, it's quite startling.

Trouble is, it's only the winter rain that counts when it comes to topping up groundwater. All that stuff that falls between April and September doesn't make it through to the groundwater. The temperatures are too high (yes, really, even though it may be too cold for you to swan around in your shorts), so it either evaporates, or plants take it up and use it.

As for other countries, I could swear I read something somewhere about the Chinese wanting to take water from Tibet and divert it for use, leaving India without flows that should ultimately reach there.

I think you are right about the US. I have memories of flying over the States on a very clear day and seeing circles of crops in what would otherwise be desert.

Tumtum - Personally I can't see the problem with using grey water. Basically you would save the water from your bath/shower (i.e. fairly clean stuff, but certainly not drinkable) and use it to do jobs like flush your loo. So ultimately it would go down the sewers but you would just get two uses out of it. Or you could collect rainwater for the same purpose. I know of people who do just that and use it for the washing machine (filtered first I think). And the New Zealanders (south island west coast particularly) often collect rainwater, although in their case I think for all purposes (though theirs is probably lovely and clean having some of thousands of miles of sea...)

I am always astounded at water use here - I have never seen such green lawns - they are watered continuously in the summer. It really pisses me off. And then you see it trickling down the pavement and evaporating because it is 30 degrees

And the likes of Vegas is terrible. There was a very interesting documentary on at my Imax last week about the Colorado river and some of the dams and how much they disturb the ecology of the area. They are apparently thinking of removing one of the dams since the level of the water in it has been drastically reduced and they can't refill it because so little water flows down the river (compared with previous years)

Arriety - I wasn't thinking about rainwater - I was thinking specifically about collecting water from baths etc and putting it on the garden - so it wouldn't go down the sewer. Have seen a few progs on the TV about that and know a couple of people who do it.

Happy to be told otherwise though

Interestingly have just been reading Akenfield which is about a village in Suffolk in the 1960s, one of the older people interviewed talks about how before they were on the mains they really often ran out of water in the summer in the springs and how 'pond fever' from drinking pond water was really common. So not a new problem . . .