
The risks of cheap water - whyenot
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/15/business/economy/the-price-of-water-is-too-low.html
======
lucaspiller
I live in Dubai, where apparently the city has the highest worldwide per
capita usage of 500 gallons/day [0] (18 months ago, so probably higher now)
but we also have fairly cheap water, it works out to be about US$10/1000
gallons. Even though we are in the desert, we don't have any restrictions on
water usage (there is a nice green park next to my apartment). Apart from
cheap fuel, one of the main reasons why is that water production is by-product
of electricity production.

Most of the electricity here is produced by natural gas (yep, not oil) which
is used to heat water into steam to drive turbines. This needs a lot of water,
which there isn't really much in the desert, so it uses sea water. This
distills the water, after which limestone is added to make it potable
(drinking water has quite a lot of minerals in it, so drinking distilled water
isn't that great for you) and then it is sent to the water grid. The overall
process has an efficiency of 82%.

Further reading:

[http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/uae-s-largest-
power-...](http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/uae-s-largest-power-and-
desalination-plant-opens-at-jebel-ali)

[https://www.dubal.ae/who-we-are/our-production-
process/power...](https://www.dubal.ae/who-we-are/our-production-
process/power-desalination.aspx)

[0] [http://www.emirates247.com/news/emirates/uae-water-
consumpti...](http://www.emirates247.com/news/emirates/uae-water-consumption-
highest-in-the-world-2013-03-13-1.498498)

~~~
dalke
"drinking water has quite a lot of minerals in it, so drinking distilled water
isn't that great for you"

That's an urban legend. Please stop spreading false tales. Rainwater is
distilled water, and lacks exactly the same minerals. Yet people live for
years without a problem on harvested rainwater.

As [http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/water-eau/devices-
dispo...](http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/water-eau/devices-dispositifs-
eng.php) points out "There are no known beneficial, nor harmful health effects
associated with the ingestion of demineralized or distilled water."

You can see how contentious this is at
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Distilled_water](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Distilled_water)
.

Limestone is added because the water is low in calcium. Concrete contains
calcium, and water will dissolve the calcium from concrete pipes. Pure water
also has "little buffering capacity relative to that of freshwater. Low
buffering capacity increases risks of corrosion to metal distribution pipes."

(Quote from
[http://www.arava.co.il/haklaut/mop/d081007/d081007_2.pdf](http://www.arava.co.il/haklaut/mop/d081007/d081007_2.pdf)
. See the same points at
[http://books.google.com/books?id=XTrvVSJTnUEC&pg=PA311&lpg=P...](http://books.google.com/books?id=XTrvVSJTnUEC&pg=PA311&lpg=PA311&dq=rainwater+mineral+content&source=bl&ots=QWg8AkLjbB&sig=6t1Uq2IgQVgYTqAb-C2HYfNOu0U&hl=sv&sa=X&ei=uVc-
VJipLcvLygPQoIDgCw&ved=0CGkQ6AEwCzgK#v=onepage&q=rainwater%20mineral%20content&f=false)
and
[http://books.google.com/books?id=M3W7QsfdyMIC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA...](http://books.google.com/books?id=M3W7QsfdyMIC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=limestone+desalination&source=bl&ots=sW6X8YiM2C&sig=VNfV4D_Pc7kLkJl4w49iziMSbF0&hl=sv&sa=X&ei=rlw-
VIm8LYr8ygPMhYHQDg&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBzgU#v=onepage&q=limestone%20desalination&f=false)
.)

They also point out that consumers prefer the taste after some
remineralization. The first link also comments the using RO water for
agriculture ended up with MG2+ deficiency diseases in the irrigated plants.

However, you'll noted that remineralization only adds a couple of ions. It
doesn't add "quite a lot of minerals" to the water supply, which would be
needed if distilled water actually were a problem for the body.

~~~
tobylane
Rainwater isn't distilled water. It has acids in it to make acidic rain. You
can distill wine and I'd imagine you'd end up with water, alcohol and a lot
less colour.

~~~
dalke
For the purposes of this discussion it's distilled, because it doesn't have
minerals in it.

As you say acid rain contains sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. It can also
pick up other gases. Rain also contains carbon dioxide, and rain near the sea
also contains some salt. (Then again, distillation isn't perfect either.)

It doesn't contain dissolved limestone, granite, or other minerals that might
be found in ground water, at least not that makes a credible biological
difference.

I don't understand your comment about wine - if you distill crude oil you can
end up with gasoline, asphalt, and more.

------
throwaway_yy2Di
Here's all the cost figures in metric, in case you forgot how to handle
gallons => acre-feet in your head.

    
    
        cost / cubic meter
    
                 [ Residential ]
        $0.63    Fresno
        $1.69    Boston
        $2.64    HN'er in Dubai
    
                 [ Agriculture ]
        $0.02    CA Imperial Irrigation District ($0.016, rounded)
        $0.16+   San Diego
    
                 [ Desalination plants ]
        $1.62    San Diego
    

Alfalfa's market value is $0.75 per m^3 of water used growing it. (The article
compared this to the $1.62 desal figure: i.e., at market (?) rates, growing it
would be a net loss).

Here's a related factsheet of California water statistics. Tap water amounts
to 9 km^3/year; irrigation is 32 km^3.

[http://ca.water.usgs.gov/water_use/2010-california-water-
use...](http://ca.water.usgs.gov/water_use/2010-california-water-use.html)

~~~
lucian1900
> in case you forgot how to handle gallons => acre-feet in your head

Or in case those have no intuitive meaning to you :) Thanks.

~~~
fennecfoxen
A gallon is ~4 litres (two large bottles of soda) and an acre is a the small
end of a soccer^H^H^H^H^H^H^H football-field (or half of a big one). For an
acre-foot, that's all underwater, up to your shins. Or maybe you just stacked
all the soda bottles next to each other, they're about a foot tall...

------
madaxe_again
Between the lines, this reads as:

"Water prices are going up. Consumers will need to use less, because they
won't be able to afford as much. If that affects them... boo hoo. We'd rather
have water riots than go up against the agribusiness lobby, who can't and
won't pay for water - they wouldn't be profitable if they weren't - and being
unprofitable is anti-american!"

~~~
ArkyBeagle
There is evidence[1] that Jimmy Carter was going after the water rates Central
Valley farmers owe the U.S. government. This cause Ronald Reagan's campaign to
be better financed. Don't know if it can be credited with costing Carter the
election, but it was a factor.

[1] I recall the story as being from the book "Cadillac Desert".

------
AshFurrow
Yeah, so markets aren't necessarily the answer to _everything_. Simply making
water more expensive isn't necessarily going to decrease its consumption, as
hawkice has said in this thread.

And I'm really not a fan of how this article vilifies the farmers. This quote
sums it up:

> [This awesome thing would give] farmers an opportunity to sell their [water]
> rights to developers rather than using them for low-value crops.

"Low-value crops", eh? Sure, make farmers use water more efficiently, but it
seems pretty silly to value the construction of new buildings over the
production _of food_.

~~~
Xylakant
> "Low-value crops", eh? Sure, make farmers use water more efficiently, but it
> seems pretty silly to value the construction of new buildings over the
> production of food.

Is it really that easy? Food >> Buildings? A lot of crops are grown that never
end up on your plate - biofuel, exported food, stuff that in the end rots in
the silos. It might really be valuable to rethink the priorities here.

~~~
AshFurrow
If we want to have that discussion, I think that'd be a great one to have. But
that was not the author's intention.

------
JoachimS
At the same time the right to water has been protected by UN as a basic human
right.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_water](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_water)

For this reason what happens when the price for water is raised and the
consumers can't pay becomes a very interesting issue. Detroit has raised their
prices and then started to cut off consumers that don't pay. Something UN has
criticized Detroit for:

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/26/united-nations-
detr...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/26/united-nations-detroit-
water-shutoffs_n_5533901.html)

[http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/u-n-to-intervene-in-detroit-
water...](http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/u-n-to-intervene-in-detroit-water-
shutoffs/)

~~~
gaius
It's the kind of "right" that only exists if other people provide it - people
who quite reasonably, don't see your "right" as a reason they should work for
free.

~~~
cbd1984
This is also true of a right to own land, unless you are actually out there
physically patrolling your property with an intent to stop someone from
trespassing.

And after you stop that person, who's to say you had the right to, and that
the person's friends shouldn't come back and teach you the error of your ways?

My point is, if you can't have water because someone else claims they own it,
their ownership claim is backed up by the positive effort of others just as
much as your claim to the water is, if not more so.

"Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress
of society." — Thomas Jefferson ( [http://press-
pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12....](http://press-
pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html) )

~~~
anon1385
>unless you are actually out there physically patrolling your property with an
intent to stop someone from trespassing.

It's worth noting that in some countries (Scotland, Norway) there is no such
thing as trespass. So not only do you not have government assistance with
preventing people walking on your land, you are not legally allowed to enforce
that yourself either.

On the topic of land ownership:

A Scottish miner is walking home one evening with a brace of pheasants. He
unexpectedly meets the landowner who informs him that this is his land and he
better hand over the pheasants:

    
    
      'Your land eh' asks the miner.
      'Yes', replies the laird, 'and my pheasants.'
      'And who did you get this land from?'
      'Well, I inherited it from my father.'
      'And who did he get it from?' the miner insists. 
      'His father of course. The land has been in my family for over 400 years' the laird splutters.
      'OK, so how did your family come to own this land 400 years ago?' the miner asks.
      'Well… well… they fought for it!'
      'Fine,' replies the miner. 'Take your jacket off and I'll fight you for it now.'

~~~
arethuza
I don't think it's quite true to say there are _no_ trespass laws in Scotland
- there is still laws against aggravated and collective trespass and there is
a rather long list of laws governing access to other peoples land.

However, the general rule is that we do have a "right to roam" with the
condition that people accessing land are sensible about it:

[http://www.outdooraccess-scotland.com/](http://www.outdooraccess-
scotland.com/)

Land ownership in Scotland is _incredibly_ complex - I can recommend the book
"The Poor Had No Lawyers: Who Owns Scotland and How They Got it":

[http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Poor-Had-No-
Lawyers/dp/178027114...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Poor-Had-No-
Lawyers/dp/178027114X)

~~~
anon1385
That little story I quoted is actually from that book. I've yet to read most
of it though.

~~~
arethuza
I did recognise it - been a while since I read the book though! :-)

------
hawkice
By far the best reference on this subject is the Aguanomics blog and his book
Living With Water Scarcity. This article barely scratches the surface of the
insanity of water allocation and the difficulties of regulation surrounding
the industry.

Suffice it to say, making water more expensive might not even be a solution
until is it extremely expensive, because we already have water pricing so
complex (in many places in the US) that many people have no idea what their
water needs are or how to efficiently use water. Roughly a sixth of
residential water usage in some areas effected by the drought in California is
leaked from the building's pipes unused.

The solutions are complex, involve analyzing risk and allowing high water
prices in years without scarcity to fund investment in infrastructure
(desalination, for instance) to avoid scarcity turning into a shortage (which
no one wants).

------
clumsysmurf
After reading this, I was reminded of an older 2006 article also from the NYT
"There's Money in Thirst". Its a good companion to this article. I hope thirst
isn't a business opportunity that leaves many without.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/10/business/worldbusiness/10w...](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/10/business/worldbusiness/10water.html)

~~~
Marry_09
Awesome article clumsysmurf. Thanks for sharing

------
mmphosis
I think that selling water only brings more scarcity.

Money is cheap. Maybe we need a monetary system backed by clean drinking
water. Money as water.

WaterCoin could be created by producing clean drinking water. The algorithm
would encourage water to be abundant.

------
nitrogen
Complaining about farmers using too much water is the same as complaining
about people eating too much food. The word "food" doesn't even occur in this
article that appears to have started with a conclusion ("markets are
magic!!!") and omitted facts until the conclusion was justified.

The disruption to our nation's economy and lower classes caused by an increase
in food prices or scarcity as a result of hasty water management changes would
potentially destabilize society.

Edit: the article also failed to mention that the water delivered to farmers
has most likely not been purified, chlorinated, or protected from animals, so
of course it will be cheaper than culinary water.

~~~
guard-of-terra
Optimising the 20% of water spent on humans seems suboptimal. Not much gains
to have there, just stress. All the billboards who make you think it's you who
spent all the water.

It's the same thing where people are advised to conserve electricity yet we
see large offices glowing with every light all night and day.

~~~
hueving
I think you're confused. Most offices shut off the lights at night.

------
nb1981
So if you can pay (more) it's OK to use more? We never learn.

------
graycat
For years, off and on, I've seen scare stories about running out of water.
Broadly, the situation is really simple: In some parts of the world, water
suitable for humans and/or agriculture is scarce, but in other parts of the
world such water is plentiful. In simplest terms, if are concerned about
water, then don't live in a desert.

For me, no worries, mate: I live in the US 70 miles north of Wall Street, and
my water comes from a well in my front yard. There's an electric pump at the
bottom of the well, and everything's fine. I have no swimming pool, but my
neighbors on both sides do, and they have similar wells. We have no water
shortage at all. Indeed, each spring there's enough melted snow and rain to
totally soak the ground with the excess water running off into, no doubt, the
Hudson River and the Atlantic Ocean.

Is it _good_ water? It seems fine. I have a filter in the line; the filter is
some tube about a foot long and 2 inches in diameter, sometimes of some foam
and other times a bunch of thread wrapped tightly. The water flows through the
tube, and any little pits of dirt, gravel, etc. get filtered out. I have a
supply of about a half-dozen new filters, and I replace a filter about once
each two years whether needed or not.

Yes, the water is totally saturated with CaCO3, that is, calcium carbonate. No
worries, mate. Everything in my kitchen is nice and clean with no sign of
CaCO3 deposits. Hot water coils? Yup, since hot water dissolves CaCO3 less
well than cold water, I get CaCO3 deposits in the hot water coils. So, maybe
twice a year I use some HCl, a drill pump, and two garden hoses to clean out
the CaCO3 from the hot water coils. Of course the reaction generates CaCL2 and
CO2. No biggie.

For the water I _use_ , it's not really _lost_ but goes to my septic tank.
Right, no sewer and just a backyard septic tank instead. What comes out of the
septic tank goes into a _drain field_ in my backyard and, then, no doubt helps
keep the backyard moist. Some of that water likely leaks into a stream that
runs past the back of the property, and the stream no doubt soon ends up in
the Hudson River. No worries, mate.

So, I pay nothing for the drinking water and nothing for sewer.

Trash? Paper and plastic I burn in the fireplace. Bottles and cans I
accumulate and occasionally, once each few years, make a midnight deposit in a
dumpster someplace.

Those bottles and cans causing a gigantic pile up of trash that is covering
the globe, as has been claimed by other alarmists? Nope: Instead what I dump
is a very high grade aluminum mine.

The article is more from the _Alarmist Industry_. The theme is: Humans are
evil. They are all sinners. They are greedy, filthy, and wasteful. They are
committing sinful, destructive, dangerous, short-sighted _transgressions_
against the 100% pure, pristine, precious, delicate, sensitive, beautiful
natural environment of Mother Nature. This transgression will led to just
horrible _retribution_ as just payback from injured, angry Mother Nature. The
only course is _redemption_ via sacrifice, discipline, denial, conservation,
and more in costs, taxes, regulations, etc.

Uh, where have we heard this trilogy, this line, before? How about 1000 years
ago in the English morality plays? It's called a _guilt trip_ , exploiting the
vulnerability of people to become afraid of dangers from the unknown. Laying
on such a guilt trip has been a favorite scam of charlatans for at least 1000
years.

No doubt one of the reasons for _The Age of Reason_ was to have means to
separate truth from superstitions and fears based on ignorance.

Yes, Virginia, there really are some dangers. And we need to understand such
dangers and do something effective about them. Dangers? Ebola, if we are not
careful. Polio unless we take vaccines seriously or just eliminate the virus
from the environment. Similarly for several other diseases for which we have
good vaccines. In some locations, earthquakes. In some locations, hurricanes.
In some locations, blizzards. In some locations, water shortages.

And, now, with the media, in all locations, alarmist charlatans using
misleading nonsense to try to grab us by the gut, make us afraid, create a
flim-flam, fraud scam, and get on our backs and into our pockets, all as their
_career_. Apparently there is a big industry for such. And, of course, the
media like such stories -- screaming "danger!" \-- to get eyeballs for ad
revenue.

Virginia, it's a scam, exploiting ignorance. Broadly the solution is
knowledge, education, and rationality.

Here, let's call a scam what it is and try to push back against such
destructive nonsense.

So, this article is from the NYT. Okay, for years I've concluded that the NYT
can't pass up an opportunity to try to get their (sucker!) readers up on their
hind legs by running scare stories about _the sky is falling_. So, I long ago
gave up on the NYT being rational or responsible. Emotional? Yes. Even
paranoid? Yes. Rational? No. If they were rational and responsible, then many
of their stories with a lot of eyeballs would go away. But, also, due to their
nonsense, I went away. So, back in the days of paper, I refused to have their
trash in the house, even for free. Now the NYT is running stories of wide
variety, and maybe some of the stories have some okay, rational, informational
content. Maybe.

But the NYT, from their long standard goal of grabbing people by the heart,
the gut, and below the belt, always below the shoulders, rarely between the
ears, has left me so pissed off I just can't take them seriously.

Clearly the NYT understands _formula fiction_ , that is, sympathetic White Hat
protagonists facing danger, dangerous Black Hats threatening the White Hats,
with strong issues of morality, etc. So, the NYT takes whatever they can find
and presents it using the techniques of formula fiction. Long ago, my brother
had an English prof who just asserted that the _news_ is mostly from just the
techniques of formula fiction. Informing the readers is not the goal. Instead
the goal is ad revenue from eyeballs from grabbing people emotionally by the
heart, gut, and below the belt.

Long ago one of the news anchors on one of the three major TV networks
explained that the _evening news_ was not healthy for viewers because it got
the viewers highly concerned about things they could do nothing about. Not a
full description of what is wrong with the media but a description of part of
it.

We gotta push back against this nonsense.

NYT, here's some feedback for you: Your content is alarmist, wildly overly
emotional, irrational, irresponsible, and frustrating; you just piss me off;
and mostly I just will refuse to pay attention to your stuff. You can keep
writing that nonsense, but I will rarely read it. And, as a matter of
principle, I will just never pay for that nonsense. And, as here, in public I
will push back against your nonsense. Did I mention your nonsense? I don't
want to leave out that I regard nearly everything you write as nonsense or
worse. You are getting this?

~~~
cpwright
You might say that the septic is free, but in practice the installation is
fairly costly, and it does need maintenance. It also requires less dense
housing, so there is an implied cost there (i.e. you need probably 1/2 an acre
of land). After the initial cost, it is still probably cheaper than a sewer;
but excavating the field will run thousands of dollars.

I have septic and am perfectly fine with it, total cost has probably been
about $1800 over 8 years (4 x $300 pumpings + 1 x $600 jetting to clear out
roots that grew into a line).

The well also requires maintenance, an initial setup, and probably doesn't
have as much capacity as a municipal water supply. I'm happier having town
water, which requires no electricity or maintenance (on my part).

~~~
graycat
Yes, the septic tank is not entirely free, but I was trying to keep the
explanation simple. But, I pay no monthly _sewer fee_ to the town, city, or
whatever.

For the original cost of installing a septic system, sure, that's not free,
but neither is running a town-approved sewer line out to the street. And town
taxes or fees, I'd have to pay for, will have to maintain that sewer line.
Heck, a town sewer line has to carry my waste for miles, but my drain field
only runs for, maybe, 40 feet. My guess is, net, in both capex an opex, my
septic system is cheaper than a town sewer system.

Besides, with a town system, there is a central collection and processing
plant, and occasionally it has to get rid of the final, insoluble waste. So,
it might haul out that waste. Then, right, presto, bingo, the professional
alarmists, as in the OP, are out screaming about the _environment_ , even if
the town hauls the waste 100 miles into the Atlantic Ocean before dumping it.
Screaming professional alarmists. With my septic system, there's no screaming.
Good.

But, for the opex, I've been in the house for 23 years and so far have done
only one thing to the septic system: From some skin irritation from using a
weed whacker, I used some Wal-Mart triple anti-biotic cream on my legs; the
cream got on my socks; when I washed the socks the cream got into the septic
system. Then some sewage bubbled up from a spot far into the back yard. So,
the Wal-Mart cream was powerful stuff -- steralized my septic system!

Solution: There is a box of dry beads can buy at the grocery store. Just flush
the stuff, and the septic system is working again. Worked fine, right away.
The spot in the backyard? I did nothing about it, and soon it dried out and is
invisible now.

No worries, mate!

The lot? Yes, it's nice in some ways, and so is the neighborhood. There are
deer in the backyard; sometimes I see them, and when I mow the grass I can see
where they have matted down the grass from sleeping. There's a lot of
wildlife, mice (they tend to avoid the house; I have two kitty cats; mice
aren't totally stupid, you know!), rabbits, possums, skunks, raccoons, ground
hogs, geese, wild turkeys, hawks, crows, lots of other birds, and sometimes
foxes.

My kitty cats go out and are fine. My older kitty cat has been going out in
this neighborhood for 10 years now with no big problems. Secret: Have a
neutered male; else the little guy will go for miles each day, looking for
females, marking territory, getting into fights, maybe getting into trouble
with traffic, anti-freeze, etc.

I omitted what I do with fruits and vegetables that are too old: Sure, I dump
them on a pile in the bushes. It's a _compost_ pile. I also dump shrubbery
clippings on that pile. The pile shrinks down to next to nothing very quickly.
After 23 years of such dumping, I still have to look carefully in the bushes
even to find the pile.

I don't want town water, sewer, etc., heavily because I just don't want
bureaucratic mud wrestling with people who could issue edicts I'd have to
obey, no matter what the heck the cost, justification, etc.

There is no end of people who want to find excuses to have power over others,
e.g., the people in the article screaming for more in fees, taxes,
regulations, etc. Getting taxes from me and slapping regulations on me is all
they have to do; that's their job; maybe they believe that they are doing
_good_ ; but I am happy just avoiding them. Let them stay in CA! That's CA
where they also want to put regulations on, gads, lawn mowers. Generally NY
where I am also has a lot of regulations and taxes, but so far where I am I
manage to avoid most of that nonsense.

If my start-up works and I move to a nicer house, then I'll make sure I have
well water, a septic tank, room for a compost pile, lots of trees and bushes,
good room for kitty cats, lots of wild life, a nice emergency electric power
generator, and nearly no bureaucrats! Maybe for the well water I'll get a
reverse osmosis system -- that could be a little better!

