Food, Water and Energy - competing and converging.

The Energy, Water and Food nexus can be conceptualised as the ‘perfect storm’. Increased energy demand by 50% by 2030; increased food demand by 50% by 2030; and increased water demand by 30% by 2030. There is competition between them but also convergence. How we deal with the three are among the most pressing challenges.

For farmers, it can be much more profitable to sell water rights than to farm. Two farmers in San Joaquin Valley, California planned in 2010 to sell the right to draw up to 57,343 acre-feet of water per year from the California State Water Project. Under this sale, the farmers would be paid a total of $11.7 million dollars, as they sell the water at a price of $5,850 per acre-foot[i]. The use of water can be for energy production, municipal or industrial water.

Eagle Ford in Texas is one of the fastest-growing shale oil and gas plays in the United States. It is also in one of the driest parts of the country. Following a severe drought in 2011, concerns are mounting that oil and gas extraction is competing with irrigation for scarce water supplies. Drilling and fracturing rock formations to release oil and gas uses enormous quantities of water: 4 to 5 million gallons of water for every well in the Eagle Ford, according to most estimates. The economic return for using groundwater for fracking is enormous. If oil prices remain around $80-90 per barrel, the gross revenue from a single well could be $24 million-32 million or more. The returns on using groundwater for oil extraction easily outstrip those for agriculture. If the groundwater owner can claim royalties on output from oil and gas wells, using groundwater to frack wells could yield more than 2,000 times compared to using the same amount of water to grow corn[ii].

This competition for water is not only for oil and gas extraction in the energy sector. Large scale concentrated solar power fields are often located in dry areas and needs huge quantities of water for cooling. In 2011, China had to make the tough choice between using water in the Three Gorges Dam for irrigation of food crops or for energy. The Three Gorges Dam discharged enough water to fill 2 million Olympic-sized swimming pools by June 10, according to a government statement. Lower water levels on the 6,264-kilometer (3,915-mile) river may increased China’s oil demand by 300,000 barrels a day to make up for lost hydropower generation[iii].

In United States, 143 billion gallons of freshwater is used daily for cooling power plants – more than any other freshwater use, even more than for irrigation[iv]. At the same time irrigation itself consumes a lot of electricity as in India. Moving and treating the water of California takes almost 20 percent of the electricity of the stat’s electricity[v].

“We just want to get enough money to get the bank off our back,” Mark Shannon a farmer in California’s Joaquin valley told the New York Times in 2010. “We would love to stay here because this is some of the best dirt in the world. But I can’t farm myself out of this water problem.” he says as he has to let his land be converted into a solar power field[vi]. This is a very vivid illustration of that shortage of resources will be a permanent feature in the future, and how land, water and energy interplay. And it also shows that when a resource is used for one purpose it is withdrawn from some other place, something that is self-evident for everybody except a special breed of humans that have total faith in the market and technology to solve all problems and that there are no limits in resources.

In a "free" market economy a choice like this is simple. Has the potential energy in the water a higher market price than the food that is produced; we'll use it for energy production and let people starve.

Read more
Turning water into wine - ooops, sorry, I meant dollars...
How wet is your cucumber?
http://www.water-energy-food.org/en/home.html

[i] http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2010/11/30/california%E2%80%99s-water-rights-controversy-should-farmers-be-allowed-to-transfer-water-to-developers/
[ii]http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/01/us-column-kemp-texas-fracking-idUSBRE9400HB20130501
[iii] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-24/china-orders-release-of-three-gorges-dam-water-to-ease-drought.html
[iv] Food, water and Energy, Know the Nexus, Grace Communications 2013
[v] Food, water and Energy, Know the Nexus, Grace Communications 2013
[vi]http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/business/energy-environment/11solar.html?ref=business&pagewanted=all&_r=0

How wet is your cucumber?

There are many arguments about the effects of our food consumption. In particular, the consumption of meat is often portrayed as harmful, be it for the climate, for food supply or for our health. What we eat and how we process it effects water consumption, here the concept of water footprint is the most used. Treehugger says that if you really want to reduce your water foot print you should cut back on meat. The Guardian calls for water foot print labelling. 

While a human being needs a few litres of water to drink, at least 1000 times as much water is used for production of food. The water needed for foods varies tremendously and varies for the same product under different conditions. Often the figures mix  ‘blue’ water—water in rivers and lakes, ‘green’ water—water in rainfall and in the soil, and ‘grey’ water—the water needed to absorb or purify the waste. The water footprint - per kg - of beef is big, ten times as big as for grain and fifty times bigger than for vegetables, if water sources are counted.

	Water use (l/kg)
	Green	Blue	Grey	Total
Beef	14414	550	451	15415
Nuts	7106	1367	680	9153
Lamb	8253	457	53	8763
Ckicken	3545	313	467	4325
Egg	2592	244	429	3265
Oil crops	2023	220	121	2364
Grains	1232	228	184	1644
Milk	863	86	72	1021
Root crops	327	16	43	386
Vegetables	194	43	85	322
Sugar crops	130	52	15	197

But statistics can be presented in many ways. Green water as rainfall is not the same as the water in lakes or wells, the blue water. In many places where cattle graze it would still be too dry to grow any crop. Also, water foot print per kg is a dubious measurement. We eat very different quantities of food, and their concentration of useful nutrients differ widely. If we look at use of blue and green water per calorie, nuts has the lowest efficiency in water use and root crops are the best. Vegetables and meat are quite similar.  Looking at blue and grey water use per protein, oil crops are best followed by milk, lamb root crops and grain. Nuts and vegetables are the least efficient.  

In general many people jump to conclusions when it comes to food. Mostly, they jump in the direction of a choice they already made.  

Increase happiness productivity

Compare a litre of water in the swimming pool of a rich person with a litre used for drinking or for cooking in the house of a poor person. To make things worse, the cost of a litre of water that one has to carry by hand is often higher in the slums in developing countries than a litre conveniently poured from the tap by the rich, and the quality of the water is also mostly better for the rich. So the poor are discriminated against thrice over. Isn’t this perspective in itself enough to make one argue in favour of global redistribution of resources?

An increase in the absolute income by a certain sum does a lot more good—results in more well-being—for a poor person than for a rich person. One could discuss the ‘happiness productivity’ of a certain resource, that is, how to use a resource to deliver as much happiness or satisfaction or well-being as possible. 

Diener and Seligman 2005

There is no direct correlation between an individual’s or a country’s economic (material) wealth and their sense of happiness, satisfaction or well-being. This is an old observation. The more balanced defendants of capitalism also agree; for example, the economist Joseph A. Schumpeter says that people in industrial societies don’t have to be happier or experience more well-being than people in the Middle Ages. An American study from 2004 states that while economic wealth has increased threefold in 50 years (see figure), people’s feeling of well-being has been constant; in fact, mental health has deteriorated and social networks are weaker. Between 1958 and 1991, the average income of the Japanese increased sixfold; still, in 1991 they were as satisfied (or as little satisfied) as their parents were in 1958.

Material wealth doesn’t lead to more well-being; on the contrary, it appears that the human quest for more things is threatening not only our space on earth but, ultimately, also our own well-being. There is no reason to moralize over this; considering that scarcity has been the norm for millennia, no built-in barriers exist against over-consumption of food or things. But now the damage is evident, for the physical environ­ment, for society as a whole and for individual human beings. Both the values that hail consumption and the economic system that is driven by this consumption and that, at the same time, amplifies consumption have to be changed. And these two are strongly linked, one feeds on the other, therefore they need to be tackled simultaneously. Inequality adds to the equation by leading to people being more frustrated than they would be in a more just society. To compensate for this frustration they consume. Not only that, inequality itself drives comparison and competition, which had growth as its main expression.

(based on Garden Earth -From Hunter and Gatherer to Global Capitalism and Thereafter, my book that will be published next week)

Producing meat (for export) or food for the people

Many see a contradiction between production of meet and producing food for the poor. I believe the issues are much more complex than such a simple either-or discussion.

I recently visited Namibia. Most of Namibia is too dry for crop farming. In addition, the rainfall is very variable over the year and between years, so the risk of total failure in farming is very high in most areas. Where crop farming is the best land use, it is already taken place. In the drier areas there is livestock production, and the rest is dessert.

But what about water use? We often hear that meat production needs a lot of water. Well it does need quite some water, but in the case of Namibia most of that water falls on the dry rangeland as pasture and only a smaller part is supplied as drinking water for the animals, and they use almost no bought in feed stuff. A borehole for cattle with a solar pump and a capacity of 2 m3 per hour (20 m3 per day) can service some 500 cattle. In reality this is often a bit less because of seepage, evaporation etc. so let us say 250 cattle. Those 250 cattle produce in the range of 75 full grown heads for slaughter per year which represent around > 20 tons of meat. The same water used for irrigating crops would be enough for irrigation of approximately a hectare of farm land (depending on natural rainfall pattern and temperatures). That hectare would produce considerable less food (say 8 tons of maize in good conditions, more realistically considering land quality 2-3 tons) and a lot less money. Of course, if one add all the rain that falls on the 1000 hectares of land that those cattle graze, the "water footprint" of the cattle production increases tremendously. If 300 mm of rain falls on 500 hectares that represents 1.5 million cubic meters of water, which would then correspond to 600 cubic meter per kg of meat. But this water has no alternative use, except for grazing by wild life.

Manufacturing, mining and tourism are potentially much bigger competitors for water for crop farming than livestock production. Each cubic meter used for agriculture purpose is estimated to produce a value of N$7 while manufacturing and tourism gain about N$272 and N$574 respectively (Atlas of Namibia 2002). Namibia has also invested money in two desalination plants to supply the uranium mines with water, while it simply doesn't pay to desalinate water for food production - it is cheaper to import food.

increasing shortages and growing inequality - a lethal mix

“We just want to get enough money to get the bank off our back,” he said. “We would love to stay here because this is some of the best dirt in the world. But I can’t farm myself out of this water problem.” says an American farmer who has to let his land be converted into a solar power field. read more. 

It is astonishing that there are still so many who seem to believe that human ideas are the only limitations we have. In area after area, there are clear indications of that resources are getting shorter in supply. Some resources can be traded globally and therefore it is a matter of money, who gets them. And those that are too poor can't pay for them. That is why some people strave to death while others are obese and why 2 billion don't have electricity while others use it even for brushing the teeth of their dogs. Other resources are not possible to trade, because of their nature, such as land and water and solar radiation. For them competition is already fierce, as the examples from the US shows. In a recent posting I told about how the Chinese government had to order water into the fields from the Three Gorges Dam, instead of using it for food.

In a market economy, there will of course, by definition, always be a balance. There simply can't be any "shortages", because demand and supply are regulated by price. That is why starvation is not real issue, perhaps just a "market failure" in the view of neo-liberals (I know irony is hard to use on the web, I hope the reader can appreciate that these are not my views).

The combination of increasing shortages and the massive inequalities - which are increasing (see more here) in the world makes it clear that the market economy totally lacks instruments for any kind of sustainable and fair distribution of resources. And isn't that what we need?

Turning water into wine - ooops, sorry, I meant dollars...

Each one of us needs a few litre of water for drinking and cooking. To that we need some 25-50 litres for hygiene and laundry. 3.4 billion people had to do with less than 50 litres per day 1991 and many with much less. I have seen women in Mozambique in the mid 1990s doing their laundry in potholes in the road after a rain. The average American used 350 litres per day and the Australian 570 litres, ironically, as Australia is the driest continent of all (Tansey and Worsley 1995). These figures don’t tell the full truth as countries that import water consuming raw materials are importing ‘embedded’ water from other places. For instance, direct consumption of water in the UK is only half of the quantity that has been used to produce things imported to the UK (BBC 2010). 

At the moment, humans are directly using some 10 percent of all fresh water. Indirect we use almost all of it. We certainly draw benefit from the rainfall on our forests, farms and rangelands. In the Middle East and North Africa 120 percent of all freshwater is used annually. That one can use more than 100 percent is explained by that there is a substantial use of fossil water, water left from earlier epochs, which is not recharged by rain in our times, and that groundwater is depleted quicker than it is re-charged. Agriculture scientists tend to believe that water use by human society, be it for households, industry or farming, of more than forty percent is problematic, while ecologists tend to think that this is already far too much.

The tapping of water from rivers and lakes for irrigation and for city and industrial use was doubled between 1960 and 2000. Seventy percent of all water use is for farming. The irrigated area has increased from 210 million hectares to 277 million hectares between 1979 and 2003 (MEA 2005). The drawing of water leads to rapidly falling ground water tables, in great parts of China and India with 1-3 meters per year (FAO 2003). In Australia, the situation is precarious and the government’s program Water for the Future allocates some AUD12.9 billion to secure water resources for all Australians, but also for the environment. Just in the Murray-Darling basin, AUD3.2 billion will be used to buy back water rights from farmers so that the water can be used for other purposes, mainly to maintain fragile and threatened ecosystems (Australian Government 2008).  

The word “rival” comes from Latin rivalis, meaning a person sharing the same water. Thirty-nine countries are currently getting most of its water from sources outside their territory (UNEP 2009). In many cases there are tensions between countries that share the same resources, and conflicts over water are likely to increase.  

Table countries with high dependency on water from outside

Region	Countries getting 50 %- 75 % of its water from outside	Countries getting more than 75 % of its water from the outside
Middle East and North Africa	Iraq, Israel, Syria	Bahrain, Egypt, Kuwait
East Asia and the Pacific	Kampuchea, Vietnam
Latin America and the Caribbean	Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay
South Asia		Bangladesh, Pakistan
Africa south of Sahara	Benin, Chad, Congo, Eritrea, Gambia, Mozambique, Namibia, Somalia, Sudan	Botswana, Mauritanian, Niger
Eastern Europe and Central Asia	Azerbaijan, Croatia, Latvia Slovak republic, Ukraine Uzbekistan	Hungary, Moldova, Montenegro, Romania, Serbia, Turkmenistan
The OECD countries	Luxembourg	Netherlands

Source: UNEP 2009

Irrigation plays a big role for our food production. There is probably no single investment in farming that so clearly ‘pays off’ both economically and in increased productivity. In the end of 1990s, irrigated area represented a fifth of all agriculture area, but produced around two fifth of all crops and almost three fifths of all grain. FAO estimates that there is 402 million hectares of land in developing countries which could be irrigated of which only half of it is irrigated today. In Africa south of Sahara, only four percent of the farmland is irrigated and the area has only increased with four percent the last forty years (World Bank 2007). Approximately, two thirds of all rivers in the world are used for irrigation or hydro-electricity; in the USA, only 2 percent of the rivers flow freely. Great rivers like the Colorado, the Nile and the Ganges have almost no water left when the reach the sea. Great lakes such as Lake Chad and the Aral Sea have shrunk tremendously. In the case of the Aral Sea, this affected both the fisheries and the whole climate around the lake with sand storms and disease following (Vitousek 1997). There are several limitations to the expansion of irrigation, however, one is simply access to water; the other one is the loss of biodiversity from the land that can be irrigated, which today mostly are swamps or other wetlands. If wetlands are drained they will normally also be converted from carbon sinks to carbon emitters. In areas of high evaporation, salinization can be an additional problem. So there are reasons to believe that irrigation will not expand as much as theoretically possible. There are also many opportunities to improve water stewardship in existing irrigation schemes or to introduce small-scale technologies such as rainwater harvesting[1] in farming systems.

Be paid to waste

Pricing of water in most countries represent an actual subsidy of farming over other sectors. In the end of last century, the global water subsidies were estimated to 33 billion dollars, a fact that certainly reduces the incentive of farmers to save water (Worldwatch Institute 2000). Only the Netherlands and Austria of twelve OECD-countries priced water at any rate that could be called commercial[2]. Household and industries paid between US$0.5 and US$3 per cubic meter while farmers paid a few cents or even fractions of a cent. Now, irrigation water and drinking water are two different qualities of water, but the difference in price doesn’t represent that quality difference. Even in a dry country like Australia, households paid almost hundred times as much for their water than did farmers (OECD 2001).

That water subsidies are neither sustainable for the environment nor for financial reasons is shown again and again. In the 1970s, Saudi Arabia supported massive expansion of grain production based on subsidized irrigation. It was, by and large, very successful. In the 1990s, it became clear that it wasn’t sustainable. In some areas, ground water table dropped 5 meters per year and some farmers were drilling at 1000 meters to reach water. In response to this production of wheat was reduced from 4.5 million tons 1992 to 1.8 million tons 1993 and the production of barley dropped from 2.2 million tons to just 100,000 tons by year 2002. In 2002 the ministry of agriculture announced that it would cease feed production altogether because of its negative effect on water resources. (USDA 2002). In Santa Fe, New Mexico, the local government recently began requiring home builders to retrofit six existing houses to offset the added water use for each new house built (Ruddiman 2005). Las Vegans are paid to rip out their lawns and opt for (chic) desert landscaping (The Economist 2011a).

While a human need a few litre of water to drink, at least thousand times as much water is used for production of our food (Kijne and others 2009). The water need for foods vary tremendously and they vary for the same product under different conditions. From Australia, the following quantity of water is reported to be needed to produce a kg of a product.

1 kg of wheat, 715-750 litre of water

1 kg of corn, 540-630 litre of water

1 kg soy, 1,650-2,200 litre of water

1 kg rice, 1,550 litre of water

1 kg beef, 50,000-100,000 litre of water

1 kg wool, 170,000 litre of water[3]

(Meyer 1997)

Other figures are reported elsewhere; from the UK, a kg of beef is said to embed 15,000 litres of water (BBC 2010). The fact that a certain food needs a lot of water is as little as with energy an absolute reason to avoid a certain food. Nevertheless, a discussion on embedded water, or virtual water as it is also called, is obviously more and more relevant the more scarce water resources are seen to be. One weakness in water discussions and the concept of embedded water is that it equals all sorts of water. There is ‘blue’ water – water in rivers and lakes; there is ‘green’ water – water in rainfall and in the soil; there is ‘grey’ water – i.e. waste water and there is also fossil water in aquifers. Concentrated water in a lake is a more useful resource than rain[4]. All in all global water supply is strained and locally water is already now a very limiting factor for development. There are many ways to improve water management and the efficiency of water use, ranging from simple solutions such as rainwater harvesting to high-tech recirculation of irrigation water in green houses. To reduce wasteful consumption, subsidies should be abolished and perhaps water use itself should have a price tag.

Turning water into property and money

“The fluid nature of water has always made it difficult to turn into private property” writes Radkau (2008), but then what increasingly are turned into property is water rights. The oil tycoon and investor T Boone Pickens has bought up water rights of the Ogallala aquifer in the USA for some US$100 million and expects to sell water for some US$165 million per year once the thirst of Dallas is big enough (Bloomberg 2008). Not surprisingly, this has triggered public outrage, regulatory responses and lawsuits. Parallel to private encroachment on water rights. Maintaining the water catchment areas is rapidly turned into a commodity by means of "watershed service payments". In 2008 there were some 300 schemes with payments of a total of  US$ 10 billion (Ecosystem Market Place 2010). 

(Extract from Garden Earth).  

In additon, the waterworks have increasingly been privatized last decades

Currently there is a rush to privatize water services around the world. The World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) are pushing for the privatization of water services by European and U.S.-based companies. They are pushing privatization through stipulations in trade agreements and loan conditions to developing countries. These privatization programs started in the early 1990’s and have since emerged in India, Bolivia, Chile, Argentina, Nigeria, Mexico, Malaysia, Australia, and the Philippines, to name a few. In Chile, the World Bank imposed a loan condition to guarantee a 33 percent profit margin to the French company Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux while the company insisted on a margin of 35 percent.

writes Water is life, which also have a lot of useful resources about water.  A complication in the discussion is that public utilities in many developing countries have grossly mismanaged their task and failed to deliver, similar as many of the public telecom and elecrticity utilities:

The truth is that many of the world’s poorest people are, perversely, already paying three to 10 times the global average price for water, due to the failure of public utilities to provide any access at all, says Caroline Boin, a director at London think tank the International Policy Network. In Kibera, a sprawling Nairobi slum—the biggest in Africa—the only way to get water is through a network of porters that provide water to 500,000 people a day, hauling it in canisters on their backs or by donkey. By some estimates, more than half the population of cities in the developing world get their water this way.

writes McLeans Canada
 
Another aspect is that water pricing, or lack of pricing has not promoted a sustainable use, and lack of pricing also means that faucets can stand running for day. I have often been struck by this phenomenon. In Sweden which is blessed with water resources (and where the public sector runs the utilities) you very rarely hear the constantly dripping faucet or the noise from a constantly flowing WC. But in many poor countries that is a very common situation. Water is a badly managed commons. I don't think privatisation is the cure, and I don't think we should cling to corrupt utilities. Where the public sector isn't doing its job properly, I think the local communities can take care of it instead. They will most likely also ensure better and wiser use. But, in addition, we need to set some kind of "price" on water itself to encourage responsible use.

some eartlier posts: Why Free is the wrong price for water

Water footrpint: how much water is there in a 0.5l soda?

---

[1]       Rainwater harvesting is the collection of rainwater to provide drinking water, water for livestock or water for irrigation.

[2]       Which still in this case only means that the costs for extraction and distribution is recovered, not that a price has been allocated to water itself.

[3]       Notably the figures for meat and wool also include water that is falling as rain on the grazing areas and the feed producing areas for the animals. Most of the grazing areas are far too dry to be used for any farming.

[4]       A bit similar like discussions about energy where one can’t equal heat energy with electricity.

Why local food production is stupid in Dubai

"We don’t have water here, it’s a stupid idea to farm without water.” says Nils El Accad, CEO of Dubai-based Organic Foods and Café. He continues:“Most farmers rely upon desalinated water, which means the carbon footprint of food grown using it is much higher than if you air freight it in,” read the rest. 

I did a job for the ministry of agriculture in the UAE some ten years ago, about the development of organic agriculture in UAE. My conclusion was quite the same: Date palms, sheep and camels are the traditional food produced in these very dry areas, and they can be produced sustainably. But all the vegetables, the strawberries and other food are better produced where there is more water around. Alternatively they can use waste water for irrigation of the food crops - now they use it for golf courses and lawns - equally ridiculous things in a desert.  For using waste water they need to change their consumption patterns and use less harmful stuff. 

Neighbouring Saudi Arabia has also come to similar conclusions, as I write about in Garden Earth: 

In the 1970s, Saudi Arabia supported massive expansion of grain production based on subsidized irrigation. It was, by and large, very successful. In the 1990s, it became clear that it wasn’t sustainable. In some areas, ground water table dropped 5 meters per year and some farmers were drilling at 1000 meters to reach water. In response to this production of wheat was reduced from 4.5 million tons 1992 to 1.8 million tons 1993 and the production of barley dropped from 2.2 million tons to just 100,000 tons by year 2002. In 2002 the ministry of agriculture announced that it would cease feed production altogether because of its negative effect on water resources.

Local food production is in most cases a good idea, but there are many situations where some trade is also justifiable also from an "ecological" perspective. Alpine farms specialize in animal production, making cheese etc. They have bought grain for centuries, which is actually a better idea than plowing steep mountains. The same patter can be seen where farms in mountain areas in Italy and Greece grow olives and grapes, and buy grain from plains. A too fundamentalist approach to local self-sufficiency would in those cases be more damaging.

Our drinking water: a toxic brew?

Most countries don’t systematically follow drug residues in drinking water and there are also no maximum residue thresholds. In the USA, at least one contaminant was detected in seventy-five percent of the groundwater wells tested; in virtually all the streams and stream sediments tested; in about 80% of the estuarine sediments tested; in about 80% of the freshwater fish tested and in nearly all of the salt-water fish tested (H. John Heinz III Center 2008). 

N.J. water contains traces of daily life

Drink a glass of water in New Jersey and you'll likely get more than you expect: prescription drugs, preservatives, caffeine, even a by-product of nicotine. Hundreds of these compounds, the residue of our chemical-intensive society, have been found in tap water around the state. Meanwhile, epilepsy drugs, deodorants, and other compounds have been discovered in minute amounts in 30 of New Jersey's brooks and rivers. From the Peckman River in West Paterson to the Wallkill in Sussex, researchers found traces of antibiotics, flame retardants, artificial colours, and fuel additives. Carbamazepine, a painkiller; AHTN, a fragrance in consumer products; and prometon, a herbicide, were most common. Two of the sites - the Passaic and Ramapo rivers - supply water to more than 1 million customers in North Jersey. The medicines and other chemicals were discovered in such tiny concentrations that many scientists think they pose no risk. Still, researchers admit that no one knows for sure. Many of the compounds have been studied in high doses, but not at low concentrations ingested over months, years, or a lifetime. Even less understood are the chemical cocktails now forming as they mix in the environment. "The question is, 'Is this something the body deals with at low levels, metabolizes, and there's no problem? Or is this something that accumulates in the body?' We just don't know," said Brian Buckley, the Rutgers chemist who led the four-year drinking water study. "To be honest, we are just starting to deal with the question." (North Jersey News 2003).

 Of 62 big waterworks in the USA, only 28 had tested their water for drug residues by the mid 2000s. New York, Houston, Chicago and Miami had never tested their water. Those that do test find a disturbing reality. In Philadelphia 56 different drugs were found in the drinking water and 63 in the water source. In San Francisco’s drinking water there are sexual hormones, in Washington 6 different drugs (USA Today 2008). Purification of water to get rid of the drugs might cost in the range of 200 dollar per inhabitant and year (UNT 2008).

Among the human medications found in water in the USA are antidepressants, medications for high blood pressure and diabetes, anticonvulsants, steroid medications, oral contraceptives, hormone replacement therapy medications, codeine, non-prescription pain relievers, chemotherapy drugs, heart medications, and antibiotics (President’s Cancer Panel 2010). 

Our drinking water doesn't only contain prescription drugs, but pesticides as well. In most countries there is no systematic follow up of pesticides in nature and in no country there is monitoring of all active substances; what is found is still frightening enough. Eighty percent of all rivers in the USA contain pesticide residues. Sixty percent of all wells have residues. The proportion contaminated wells was almost as high in urbanized areas, due to use in home gardens, gravel or stone paths, golf courses etc. In France, pesticides are found in all rivers and half of all water sources had at least traces of them. Of the fifty substances that are checked in the Netherlands, two thirds were found in ground water (OECD 2001). 20 pesticides were found in groundwater used by 3.5 million people in the Santa Ana River watershed. On the great plains in the USA researchers detected two insecticides and 27 herbicides in reservoir water. Water treatment removed from 14 to 86% of individual herbicides. Drinking water contained 3–15 herbicides (average, 6.4).

Water footprint: How much water is there in a 0.5 l soda

Well you might believe it is like 0.495 l. But according to the water foodprint methodology it is some 170 liters to 310 liters....
I posted something on water pricing the other day, and here comes a bit more on water.
There is the concept of water foot print or why not call it "waterprint", which is an indicator of freshwater use that looks at both direct and indirect water use of a consumer or producer. Recently a standard for the calculation of water footprint is developed

Some facts and figures

• The production of one kilogram of beef requires 16 thousand litres of water. There is a huge variation around this global average. The precise footprint of a piece of beef depends on factors such as the type of production system and the composition and origin of the feed of the cow.
  
  
• To produce one cup of coffee we need 140 litres of water. This, again, is a global average. 
  There are of course differences between countries, but the water footprint doesn't differ as much between poor and rich countries as many other resources uses.  The Americans use about four times as much water per person than the people in the countries with the smallest water footprint, e.g. in Yemen. The water footprint of China is about 700 cubic meter per year per capita. Only about 7% of the Chinese water footprint falls outside China.Japan with a footprint of 1150 cubic meter per year per capita, has about 65% of its total water footprint outside the borders of the country. The USA water footprint is 2500 cubic meter per year per capita.

Derk Kuiper is executive director of the Water Footprint Network, an organisation established in the Netherlands in 2008 to promote sustainable and equitable water use worldwide by promoting the water footprint. in an Interview he says that:

 In the sustainability assessment, water footprint uses the concept of sustainability boundaries – which is about how to actually sustain the environmental and social benefits associated with your water. And if you start pricing those you can actually balance them much better against the economic activities that are taking place on the basis of water.

An interesting, and for me a bit disturbing, perspective is that: 

It is generally accepted that emissions of greenhouse gasses, such as CO2 from fossil energy carriers, are responsible for anthropogenic impacts on the climate system. In this context, there has been a remarkable shift in policy attitudes towards CO2-neutral energy carriers such as biomass. The production of biomass for food and fibre in agriculture requires about 86% of the worldwide freshwater use. In many parts of the world, the use of water for agriculture competes with other uses such as urban supply and industrial activities. In a scenario of increasing degradation and decline of water resources, a shift from fossil energy towards energy from biomass puts additional pressure on freshwater resources. says the Waterfootprint.org

Farmers don't want to pay - surprised?

With overexploitation of water rife in agriculture, making farmers pay real prices for publicly managed irrigation systems could push them to avoid waste and adopt more sustainable practices, argues the European Environment Agency (EEA).According to the agency, water pricing is "the core mechanism" for making agricultural water use more efficient, and research shows that farmers reduce irrigation and adopt water efficiency practices when illegal extraction is effectively policed and water paid for by volume.

The EU agricultural association Copa-Cogeca recognises that agriculture is a big user of water, especially in Southern Europe, but underlines that "the upward trend for use of water for irrigation has slowed down in several countries during recent years," while "water-use efficiency in agriculture is improving every year" due to the modernisation of irrigation systems. Copa-Cogeca is wary about water pricing, which "can bring about more negative effects to the agricultural sector than to other economic sectors, which can more easily pass on the costs for the use of water resources to the end-consumer," it said. Read more