Will Humans ever really learn to conserve fresh water or continue to waste it now?

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by elusive, Dec 8, 2013.

  1. Gage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    165
    :wallbang:
    What exactly do you mean by this? So we shouldn't be concerned that our lakes, rivers and wetlands are drying up? You have very dim understanding of the water cycle my friend.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Peregrine Registered Member

    Messages:
    90
    You cannot impose a water meter on private land for private water use. Well, not in America. I dont know where you live.

    Plus, I don't see the reasoning. The farmer is going to use the same amount of water... It will just make the price of food change.





    I think he was being sarcastic. Hopefully, at the least...
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,088
    @ Gage,

    Today there is just as much water on the planet as there was when the first signs of life appeared.

    Almost half of all rain will find its way into freshwater depositories (lakes/rivers) just as it has done since the dawn of this planet.

    You say...
    I will argue that it is you who is "Dim". Soil and groundwater topics I understand more than many.

    It is you who said,
    You act as if water use makes it vanish. It does not! The concept of drilling for water is proposed to save on desalination costs because of the lower salt content.

    Every bit of the water that falls on land or in the ocean or is used for human endeavors is eventually evaporated back up into the sky as water vapor, replenishing our planet’s never-ending freshwater cycle. No water is actually "lost" in that global cycle.

    Lakes, Rivers, and Wetlands may in some cases be drying up but that does not mean the water has vanished. It means that nature has decided to drop its rain elsewhere.

    Water conservation has nothing to do with how nature works. Every drop of water consumed will find its way back to nature. Humans release all water they consume in forms of sweat/Urine/Feces/Blood/breath/vomit/Decomposition.

    Water conservation is usually about infrastructures and energy conservation. Some cities/countries may require conservation because their water supply is diminishing. My town sometimes wants us to go easy watering lawns, etc., because our water tower is only so big, and we can only clean and filter a fixed amount per hour. Yet we are on a huge Freshwater Canal. The fact is that the same amount of water exists, but perhaps now you will need a pipeline to get at it.

    Some countries do have pipelines for water. It is either that or move your cities.

    Your notion that water is vanishing because you see a river dry up is absurd. The water exists but nature has sent it somewhere else. The desert was not always a desert.

    I think if you read about this you will find most areas with water crisis are having problems filtering and cleaning enough water. They may have heavily polluted freshwater, etc.

    Drink up!

    Energy and infrastructure/MONEY is what water deprived cities are lacking, but you will not save anybody by drinking less or not watering your lawn.

    @ Peregrine,

    No. I was not being sarcastic. I will say it again.

    - - - You do know that everything you drink finds its way back to the lake don't you?

    Maybe I should have said "A lake or river somewhere" to add clarity.

    You know a few minutes googling a topic could save a lot of junk threads being started.
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2013
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Gage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    165
    First off I live in Florida. Second it's obvious your talking straight from your rear. State governments can regulate wells on private land through meters and even charge for it. Problem is many do not, as was said before. Here is but one of the hundred examples:

    OFFICAL GOVERNMENT NOTICE TO WATER WELL OWNERS:
    NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT



    Non-Exempt Wells

    Any water well that does not meet the description of an “exempt well” above is “non-exempt’ and subject to the requirements set forth below.

    Well Registration

    All non-exempt wells drilled before January 1, 2009, must be registered with the District between January 1, 2009 and July 1, 2009.

    All wells drilled or completed on or after January 1, 2009, must be registered with the District before drilling or completion commences, regardless of whether the well qualifies for an exemption under the Rules. The requirements for registering all new wells can be found at District Rule 3.5. Registration of such new wells is subject to payment of a $175 administrative fee and submission to the District of a refundable well report deposit prior to drilling.

    Well Metering

    Each non-exempt well in the District must be equipped with a water meter that complies with the technical requirements of Section 8 of the District’s Rules by January 1, 2009.

    Water Production Reports and Meter Logs

    Starting on January 1, 2009, the owners or operators of each non-exempt well must begin recording monthly the amount of groundwater produced by the well and maintain a water meter log of those amounts. This requirement can be found at District Rule 8.6.

    At the end of 2009 and no later than February 15, 2010, and by February 15 of each year after 2010, the owner or operator of each non-exempt well must submit a water production report of monthly use for the prior calendar year to the District and, if applicable, a report indicating any amount of water produced from a well within the District and transported for use at any point outside the District. The rules relating to water production reports, including a list of all formation required to be contained in each report can be found at District Rule 3.10. The rules governing groundwater transport reports can be found at District Rule 6.2.

    Water Use Fees—No Texas

    Because the District is prohibited by law from assessing property taxes or other taxes to support its operations, the District is required to establish groundwater production fees to generate the revenues necessary to manage local groundwater resources. The Board has set the fee for water use during calendar year 2009 at 22 cents per thousand gallons of water produced. Only water produced from non-exempt wells is subject to a water use fee. The Rules relating to water use fees can be found at District Rule 7.1. Owners of non-exempt wells who desire to obtain a discounty of up to 10 percent on the total amount of fees due may wish to participate in the District’s Early Fee Payment Incentive Program, which can be found at District Rule 7.4, and which requires well registration by February 15, 2009.


    The District Rules can be found at www.uppertrinitygcd.com



    Ya I can see you don't see the reasoning.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Nope he wasn't... Pretty sad isn't it.
     
  8. Gage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    165
    That has to be the most imprudent train of thought I've ever read. I have no idea what to say to you buddy other than I hope you're high. Sad and pathetic.
     
  9. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,088
    @ Gage,

    Pretty high and mighty for a dodo that thinks we will need to get water from asteroids. Your kindergarten teacher is probably ashamed.

    Try explaining more about how we will need asteroid water.

    Try reading a book or two while you are at it. I don't know what is wrong with that Floridian education system.

    The Water cycle really should have been drilled into you by a third grade teacher. This is common knowledge to most here. Our planet has as much water now as when life began on this world.

    Your views are totally ignorant and you know it, although maybe you've lost touch with reality.

    Everything I said in my last post is a fact of life. If you disagree that is fine, but try to prove me wrong and you might actually learn something.

    p.s. Look up imprudent before you use it in a sentence again.
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2013
  10. Peregrine Registered Member

    Messages:
    90
    I stand corrected. That is very hard for me to believe, but there it is!!
     
  11. Gage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    165
  12. Gage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    165
    :jawdrop::bugeye

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    f course!:thumbsup: Silly me for being worried.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,823
    What a load of crap. We take so much water from the Colorado River to water our lawns that the Colorado doesn't even reach the ocean any more for most of the year. We use it ALL. (Google it if you don't believe me.) We will save people who depend on that water by having fewer lawns.

    To put it another way, if we lacked the money to drain the Colorado dry, other people would still have water.

    Greed and selfishness is great when it comes to driving an economy, not so great when it's used as an excuse to deprive other people of water.
     
  14. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,088
    @ Gage,

    Next time you can use that word properly. See how easy a dictionary can be.

    @ Billvon,

    The post that got me commenting here was Gage's notion we will need to harvest water from asteroids in an early post. There is a difference between Water Supply and Water Demand.

    Your Colorado river example. How many ways can you divert a river and expect it to exist? A small percentage of it is expected to vanish with global warming, but that is not why it is hurting.

    Wars have been and will be fought over water sources, but the supply will be the same as always. If you divert it to a city with 30 million people then there is an assumption of risk.

    The point I was arguing against was that the water does not vanish forever. There will never be needs to farm comets for water. 100% of the Colorado river will be returned to the water cycle.

    Exactly. It is mostly about Infrastructure/Energy/Money.

    A better argument for water conservation is likely Mexico City. They are literally destroying the soil it is built upon.

    There are many overpopulated areas that need water. I already discussed Pipelines have been built, etc.
    I said,
    The point I was trying to make is that the water does not vanish forever. Almost half of all rain will continue to find its way into lakes and rivers.

    If mankind wants to build megacities then they will need to aid nature with infrastructure/energy/money.

    The Colorado river would run as strong and proud as always if it was not as mangled by mankind.

    My stance that we will not need space water stands.
     
  15. Gage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    165
    This was not the issue kwhilborn. Now your backpedaling. The point of the thread and article was to point out a ever growing demand for a limited resource that is typically wasted in VAST quantities. Your third or fourth post.. I'm sure most believed to be sarcastic was imprudent and ridiculous. I got news for you rivers, lakes and wetlands drying up is not because nature decided to drop water else where!

    The fact that H2O isn't literally VANISHING from the earth isn't and will never be the issue. Probably why people thought you were being sarcastic.

    kwhilborn.... As already previously stated you have a dim understanding of the water cycle. Whether you believe it not humans have a direct impact upon it, water simply won't fall back where it's fallen before if you change the dynamics of an ecosystem. AKA Deforestation, sucking down lakes to water lawns, diverting rivers, paving over wetlands. These all change the dynamics of a fragile cycle that you obviously have never taken the time to fully comprehend.
     
  16. Peregrine Registered Member

    Messages:
    90
    Not entirely true.

    Texas is made up of lakes. The Colorado river flows dependant on an agency decision. The agency is holding the upper lake chains while letting out the lower lakes:

    http://hydromet.lcra.org/riverreport/report.aspx

    Also, Texas is in longterm drought. Especially at the headwaters of the Colorado.

    This is the reason for loss of water flow. Without the lakes, the Colorado river would be completely dry.
     
  17. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,088
    @ Gage,

    Wrong. The water cycle will continue as it always has.

    I could take you to places where it rains almost all the time. This is because Relief rainfall is caused by mountains and high elevations. So your notion that water wont fall where it has fallen before is wrong. The idea that mankind is disrupting watersheds is ridiculous. You would literally need to move mountains to affect change in the water flow. It is not ALWAYS about where the rain falls but where it is directed also counts.

    Why not read about it before making outlandish claims like your asteroid theory.

    You have said twice I do not understand the water cycle. Let me respond with this.

    "ANY WATER SHORTAGES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WATER CYCLE"... Your notions that we have messed up nature is flawed. Global Warming could affect a percentage of water remaining airborne over time, but that is as close to affecting the water cycle where we might be responsible.

    Any water shortages are caused by depletion from overuse and excessive diversions of the sources. The water cycle is totally innocent.

    Your city will have as much average rainfall as it has had for the last 1000 years (not including minor GW variences).

    Please give up on all this "Water cycle" garbage. It is not related in any way to water shortages due to population and river diversions. Yes an area might see a drought, but they are common throughout history. There is a difference between water shortages and droughts ( check your dictionary again).

    At least my understanding of the water cycle is enough to know it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

    Get a million people drinking out of a tiny lake and you will see a water shortage. Divert the water via pipeline from the next town to supply the million people and then that town may have the shortage instead.

    Watering a lawn is not wasting water. That water does not vanish. Drinking water does not make it vanish. Diverting the Colorado river to supply the 30 Million people of Los Angeles does not make it vanish. The water will continue to work its cycle.

    It is you who have backpedaled. You suggested mankind will someday need to farm water from asteroids, which is why I thought you were an idiot in the first place.


    When I said "My stance that we will not need space water stands."
    How can I be backpedalling when it was your stupid water from space comment that even brought me to this thread.

    remember

    Then peregrine quoted that as well.

    Then you said "BINGO" when someone suggested the best idea was to tax water more. From where I sit I can throw a stone into freshwater 19 feet deep and the canal goes into Lake Ontario. The government cannot tax me if I decide to run a pump for my lawn. The pump is out of sight inside a boathouse as it is.

    I am very conscious of the water cycle. I am a retired Soil Engineer, and have spent years driving from property to property examining runoff and contamination. All the pumps on the property also needed to be located and tested. Most farms have multiple wells.

    This thread is titled "Will humans ever really learn to conserve water", and the simple answer is "Why should I". How will water conservation help anybody in my town/.

    No; water conservation is only for certain populations of unfortunates whos cities outgrew their supply. Not mankind.


    The "water cycle" has NOTHING to do with water shortages.

    Mankind does not need to conserve water (only some regions).

    Wetlands dry up often because of drought and forestry. Planting trees is not always prudent. Drought (means it rains elsewhere as i said before) can cause a lot of dried up riverbeds

    I know areas with high agriculture and populations and low water can have crisis, but that is still mostly a cost debate.

    Water conservation efforts save money. I think for every dollar spent on conservation there is 5 dollar savings in water usage. Cities do not need to conserve water. It is just a money/energy savings as I have said throughout this thread.

    Sigh... Wrong, wrong wrong and wrong.

    Deforestation would help water supply, as those nasty little pine trees are quite thirsty. Watering lawns from lakes, Paving over wetlands, and diverting rivers will not hurt the water cycle. It is not as fragile as you think.

    Maybe Detroit will become populated again once your water bills start getting into quadruple digits annually.
     
  18. Gage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    165
    kwhilborn it's obvious you do not understand the water cycle. Cutting down the trees that holds the soil in place which retains water which prevents large runnoff. Paving over wetlands that help RETAIN water. It's all destructive kwhilborn and detrimental for a community it's just that simple. Communities are not better off by cutting down, as you say ''thirsty pine trees'' This does not equate for more water to water lawns, quite the opposite.
    Obviously sarcasm is beyond you. Drilling for water under the ocean is = as brain-dead as mining for water on an asteroid.
    :bugeye: I can't continue to argue with such ignorance. The pure crap that spews from your mouth is unbelievable. http://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/Contexts/H2O-On-the-Go/Science-Ideas-and-Concepts/Humans-and-the-water-cycle 2nd paragraph kwhilborn. 5th grade science class. Just keep rambling, hopefully every one who's reading this can see you for the dope you truly are.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2013
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,823
    Agreed to all of that. What I disagree with is your statement "but you will not save anybody by drinking less or not watering your lawn." That's what is bullshit. You are saying we cannot save anyone by using less water. That is the ONLY way we can save a lot of the people who currently depend on water we are taking.

    That Colorado river that doesn't reach the sea? That's not because "water is vanishing." It is because we are USING IT ALL. If we used less then it would still reach the sea, and other people who depend on it would still have water.

    And what would it take? It wouldn't take dehydrating yourself. It would take putting in fewer lawns and fewer pools. It would take fewer golf courses and more open space. It would take not flushing toilets with fresh water, and irrigating our gardens with the water we use for bathing.

    That's like saying "we will always have plenty of water; the ocean is full of it." It indicates an ignorance of the problems faced by the world when it comes to water supplies.
     
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,823
    Duplicate
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2013
  21. Gage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    165
    For You kwhilborn

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Go have child walk you through the arrows.
     
  22. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,088
    @ Gage,

    Fine. Live in your make believe world then... You said...

    Now here is a real world view (not your imaginary place).

    from
    http://azdailysun.com/news/local/education/article_64ffab38-f9f2-5376-aff4-597b80f73626.html


    So I said Forestry can and has hurt wetlands and it appears Abe Springer the Director of Northern Arizona University School of Earth Sciences might be on my side with that comment, when he says "overcrowded pine forests are draining the wetlands.".

    Hey.. I see you put a pretty picture in your last post. Notice it even includes "Plant Uptake" in the arrows.

    The rest of what I have said is also true, but you refuse to pay attention or research this yourself. You are obviously wrong on the above point. Are you really confident of your analyses now?

    @ Billvon,

    This topic covers a lot of ground and I thought I had mentioned infrastructure/money/energy were involved in river diversions, etc. Cities teach conservation because it is cheaper than meeting the demands. I am not clear on what it is we are disagreeing to here.

    A quick note though. If I (and a million others) take water out of the canal to water our lawns more water will evaporate because of surface area and actually might help a farmers field or drought stricken area.
     
  23. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    You prattle on about the water cycle a lot, and claim to know something about it, but let me ask you something.

    I have an unconfined aquifer. It receives a total recharge of 5 Mm[sup]3[/sup] per annum and stores 100 Mm[sup]3[/sup]. What's the maximum sustainable rate at which water can be drawn?

    That's the point that your prattle misses. The rates are important, because the natural water cycle has a natural time frame which is an important thing to consider, and if our demand from water should happen to exceed our supply of water (for example - in our above mentioned aquifer) then we need to consider importing water from external sources.

    That's why we build structures such as this:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Because they provide us with a buffer that allow us to take water from them at a higher rate than we might otherwise be able to do naturally.
     

Share This Page