Follow this blog:
RSS

Infographic: What is the water footprint in the U.S.?

By | March 23, 2011, 11:39 PM PDT

The alarming rise in clean water consumption has raised the spector of widespread shortages.

Recent studies project that water demand in many countries will exceed supply by 40 percent by the year 2030. Much of the strain on water supply has to with the fact that the vast majority of water consumption (90 percent) goes toward food and energy production. For example, my colleague Boonsri Dickinson pointed out in her report a few weeks ago that “it takes 1.5 tonnes of water to make a computer and six tonnes to make a pair of jeans.”  And as the world population grows, so will the number of city dwellers who rely on what scientists consider an unsustainable water infrastructure.

Anna Warwick Sears, a member of the Okanagan Basin Water Board in British Columbia, Canada, told the Daily Mail that “even in one of the driest regions of Canada, our water systems were built under a paradigm of unlimited supply.”

Coupled with the effects of climate change, the situation is getting dire. So it may be up to the nations responsible for the lion’s share of the world’s water consumption to devise and implement solutions that can prevent a potentially catastrophic scenario from occurring in their own backyard.

To sort out who’s got their work cut out for them, Joseph Bergen and Nickie Huang, students at the Harvard Graduate School of Design, have created a “water footprint” infographic that visually details the volume of water consumption throughout various parts of the world. The map, which was awarded visualizing.org’s World Water Day Challenge grand prize, was created using precise measurements of each nation’s water consumption and presents this information in an HTML5-based color-coded scheme similar to carbon footprint maps.

You can access the interactive map here and compare water consumption data among different countries by pointing the cursor at that region.

As you might have expected, the thirstiest nations tended to be among the more populous, urbanized and industrialized. But there are a few surprises as well. Here are some comparative statistics that are of particular relevance to us here in the U.S.A.

  • Overall, the United States consumes slightly less water than China. But the argument can be made that Americans consume a lot more since the chinese urban population is more than double the number of city folk living in the States. In fact, the average Chinese person consumes 1138 liters a day compared to 4382 liters a day for the average American.
  • Compared to the United Kingdom, Americans consume around eight times as much water per person each day.
  • Canada, the U.S. neighbor to the north, seems to share the same degree of consumption. The typical Canadian consumes 3796 liters a day. But Canada has a slightly greater yearly supply of water (3300 km3 vs. 3069 km3) and a much smaller population (32.3 million).
More from World Water Day on SmartPlanet:

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Tuan C. Nguyen

About Tuan C. Nguyen

Tuan C. Nguyen was a contributing editor for SmartPlanet from 2011 to 2013.

Tuan C. Nguyen

Tuan C. Nguyen

Contributing Editor

Tuan C. Nguyen is a freelance science journalist based in New York City. He has written for the U.S. News and World Report, Fox News, MSNBC, ABC News, AOL, Yahoo! News and LiveScience. Formerly, he was reporter and producer for the technology section of ABCNews.com. He holds degrees from the University of California Los Angeles and the City University of New York's Graduate School of Journalism.

Follow him on Twitter.

Tuan C. Nguyen

Tuan C. Nguyen

Tuan C. Nguyen does not hold any investments in the technology companies he covers.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
15
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+2 Votes
+ -
Consumption and supply.
I can see a correlation between the US and Canada having large supplies of fresh water and are therefore using large amounts of water.

While I understand and support conservation at the local level. Especially in states like Arizona that have very little local rainfall.

But the people who claim the US and Canada must reduce water consumption to help reduce global water usage have yet to explain how reducing water use in North America helps provide water to over populated countries in Africa.

Are they proposing we burn massive amounts of fossil fuels to ship large enough amounts of excess water to Africa to make a difference?
Posted by Hates Idiots
24th Mar 2011
+2 Votes
+ -
RE: Infographic: What is the water footprint in the U.S.?
The term "consumption" is not very accurate for issues of global distribution. Most of the water used in my home is not consumed. It just moves from underground through my house, to a sewer, then to a cleaning process into a river, and then to the sea. How does my leaving more water underground in the US help anyone in Africa or the Middle East? This topic needs a more serious discussion than this article provides.
Posted by tcresswell@...
24th Mar 2011
+2 Votes
+ -
No HI, my guess is...
...that eventually someone will propose another wealth-transfer
scheme where we'll be required to purchase "water credits" for all
of the excess water we "consume", that will then be transferred to
various organizations to subsidize their activities in the name of
water.

Imagine, paying an extra tax to produce ethanol to mitigate the
excessive use of water that only gets used because it's supposed
to mitigate the use of other fuels that must be used to transfer
water elsewhere...
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
24th Mar 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Shh..
Your letting my retirement plan out of the bag...

If Al can retire on carbon credits I can on water credits.
Posted by Hates Idiots
24th Mar 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Infographic: What is the water footprint in the U.S.?
@tcresswell @Hates Idiots

My original intent in presenting the infographic was to show that it can be a useful tool in revealing how much of a strain each nation was putting on its own water supply, not to address issues of water distribution to different parts of the world. I have amended to article to reflect that. Hope it helps!

- Tuan
Posted by ReporterTuan
24th Mar 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Thanks for the update Tuan.
The question still is, when will we stop artificially supporting life in countries that cannot grow enough food to feed themselves and do not have enough water to survive?

Population estimates for Africa range from 680 million to just over 1 billion people. Are people ready to admit the continent can only support 500 million people with the current political climate interfering with food production and the proper handling of waste and water?

Do we stop shipping charity food there and allow the population to dwindle for the sake of the planet?

These are the tough questions people avoid.
Posted by Hates Idiots
24th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Infographic: What is the water footprint in the U.S.?
Tuan, HatesIdiots doesn't want to start his own website to promote his own views son he's going to pound away at them on yours regardless of what the actual topic is. I think your colleagues at SP have figured that out now.
Posted by hoodedswan
24th Mar 2011
+2 Votes
+ -
Agenda?
Go ahead and get it out of your system.

Lets face it, comparing the water usage of the USA and Canada to African nations is simply stupid. Of course you are going to see differences in usage. One area sees almost 4 times the amount of annual rainfall as the other area.

Next thing you know people are going to say I cannot go swimming in the lake near my house just because some poor kid in Mongolia does not have a lake within a hundred miles of his house.

If I have an agenda, it is to point out peoples hypocrisy.
Posted by Hates Idiots
25th Mar 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Oh, come on.
Hate,
My fear is that your points are not just in sarcastic (if not poor taste) fun, but that you actually take what you write seriously. Nobody involved with water use policies in the US is looking at African per capita consumption as a reason for cutting our own consumption, nor will they. This doesn't mean that water consumption patterns aren't being looked at, because they are, and it has long been noted by folks who plan for the future that water presents a real bottleneck in supporting continued growth in many parts of the US. In many ways, energy use and water use follow parallel paths in that there are consumption ceilings that can only be addressed either through increased production or increased efficiency for what we already have, and typically, both fronts are being pursued.

A few centuries ago, energy was primarily a locally extracted and produced entity. Concurrent with industrialization, we've developed ways of extracting portable, highly concentrated forms of energy that have allowed us to build our current energy-intensive ways of life. We've bumped against increasingly high costs for producing more and more energy, resulting in the search for more sustainable sources and using what we have much more efficiently. And we are finding it increasingly difficult to ignore the global consequences of our energy intensive lifestyles on the climate, the ecosystems on which all life depends, and on and on.

On the other hand, at first glance, it seems that we have not found "concentrated water" sources akin to fossil fuels and energy, but in many ways we have. We have developed technologies to capture water that used to run down stream and instead have stored it in reservoirs, and pump it in vast quantities that were unheard of in previous centuries. This has been hand-in-hand with energy consumption leaps, resulting in our energy-and-water-intensive lifestyles, which consume the water at much greater volumes when compared to simpler lifestyles/earlier ways of living right here in the US. But faced with the same kinds of increasing costs of storing more and more water, there is a parallel push to increase the efficiency of how we use the water we already have put to use, also spurred by the increasing awareness of the consequences to the rest of the planet in terms of our usage patterns. Sustainability is a concept that is applicable to any resource we as a society consumes.

Finally, there are many corporations out there who fully understand the developing water bottlenecks (there's a pun for you!) around the world and are trying to take advantage of it in developing countries around the world in terms of privatizing the water supplies and getting rich from the monopolies they create. This kind of behavior will only lead to more "gated community" mindsets that will result in more and more social unrest that will cost more and more to suppress until water wars will dominate the headlines as much as energy wars do today.
Posted by klassman6
26th Mar 2011
+2 Votes
+ -
Example is already here.
Just look on this site for the article on building ships to move water.

There are people within the green community that just want to make a buck. It starts out as building a ship to transport water for emergencies, but next thing you know the government makes water a tradable commodity like gasoline, which it was not until the Clinton administration. Look how that worked out for world gas prices.

While I agree with local conservation efforts so people preserve their own water supplies, conservation efforts should not be put in place so people can steal our water and sell it.
Posted by Hates Idiots
28th Mar 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Huh?
How does building ships to haul water have to do with restricting water use in the US due to water shortages in Africa? Do you seriously think that there are plans afoot to conserve water in New York City or any other east coast city so it can be shipped to Africa at a handsome profit?

And what do you mean that water was not a tradable commodity until the Clinton Administration? Do you know the history of the settlement of the Western United States? I suggest you pick up a copy of a fine book: Cadillac Desert and learn about how water has been power and money in that part of the US and for the Spanish before us, and that story has been repeated all over the world. Water has been a commodity ever since the Egyptian pharaohs developed geometry to divide up the land along the limited but well watered and very fertile Nile river valley to extract wealth from the people.

I think you have an overdeveloped sense of distrust in anything sustainable and an underdeveloped sense of history.
Posted by klassman6
28th Mar 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
How is it possible...
...that each of us Brits only uses an eighth of the water of an
American?
We tend to be a bit less wasteful in our lifestyles (smaller cars,
homes, less food etc) but EIGHT times????
Posted by steve_jonesuk@...
29th Mar 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Infographic: What is the water footprint in the U.S.?
It is wierd how statistics can be interpreted to advance any point of view. When is (fresh) water consumed? If it is pumped out of an aquafer, river or lake, and with or without treatment discharged into the ocean, then it could fairly be called used. However if only its energy component is reduced, as in producing hydroelectric power, its availability for use as water remains. If it is circulated through cooling towers, only that lost to evaporation is used. If the used water from one community is treated and returned for use in other communities perhaps hundreds of miles downstream, is it counted as used each time? I have a well and septic system. Water our family uses comes out of the ground and is returned to the ground, purified by natural processes. Is it used? If I buy a pair of jeans from China, where does the 6 tonnes of water consumed in their manufacture get counted? I know the two people in our household do not use 2 times 3796 litres (7592) per day, which would require our little water pump to deliver over 5 litres per minute non-stop. It actually runs about 5% of the time. To be realistic, personal use water should be counted separately from industrial or public use water. The location of many high water use industries is selected because that is where the best collection of necessary resources is located. Canadian water use statistics "per capita" include usage for such industries. That is why there are no pulp and paper mills in Chad, but Chad still uses paper.
Posted by elderone1
30th Mar 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Water Water Everywhere...
There is no shortage of water on this planet anywhere. Have you forgotten your elementary school class where you learned the earth is 3/4ths water ? Oh, but this is about "clean" water you say. The Saudi's have implemented a solution for "clean" water. It is called a desalination plant. When collocated with a nuclear power plant, there is significant synergy between desalinating sea water to create "clean" water and engery generation. We have the distribution technology to deliver water anywhere on the continent. Remember the Alaskan oil pipeline? The same technology works with water.

Before anyone spouts off about the "hazards" of nuclear power, check the facts. Few people know there is more radioactivity around a coal fired power plant than a nuclear power plant. Oh, didn't know that did you? Yes, the process of burning coal for energy production creates a radioactive waste product which is often found in the environment within 2 to 3 miles of the power plant. All things taken into account, nuclear power generation is the safest, cleanest, most efficient power generation technology per kilowatt in existence today and probably for the forseeable future.

So there it is: there is no water shortage anywhere. There is only a shortage of desalination plants, water delivery systems, and nuclear power plants.
Posted by joe_friday_99@...
Updated - 26th Jul 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Water Water Everywhere....addendum
From "Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste", Scientific American, December 13, 2007 (available on the web at http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste)

The waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant, a by-product from burning coal for electricity, carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.
Posted by joe_friday_99@...
Updated - 26th Jul 2011
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!