6 ms·

She used 178 gallons (674 litres) per day? And that wasn't enough to take a shower every day?! A bathtub is ~80l, and a showering consumes less than that. A was

by rdancer 11y ago

She used 178 gallons (674 litres) per day? And that wasn't enough to take a shower every day?! A bathtub is ~80l, and a showering consumes less than that. A washing machine cycle is another ~80l. A dishwasher ~20l/cycle. Cooking maybe 20l. Flush the toilet 5 times/day, 50l. Even such generous estimates get barely to ⅓ of her reported consumption.

dalke 11y ago
http://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2014/01/23/how-much-water-do-californians-use-each-day-and-what-does-a-20-reduction-look-like/ http://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2014/01/23/how-much-water-do-cal... says "An often-cited 2011 study of California single-family water consumption estimated that the average California household used more than 360 gallons of water per day." They are under 1/2 that water use. The KQED page continues "... Meanwhile, Indoor use accounted for more than 170 gallons per household per day. Not surprisingly, the most in-home water consumption was in toilet flushes. A more shocking finding, however, was the whopping 18 percent lost to leaks inside homes, the study found." The family is well-aligned with that water use. Of course, the "per household" in that study is an average. This household has 4 people, while the study uses an average of 2.94 people per household, so we should expect this family to use more water than average. The study is at http://water.cityofdavis.org/Media/PublicWorks/Documents/PDF/PW/Water/Documents/California-Single-Family-Home-Water-Use-Efficiency-Study-20110420.pdf http://water.cityofdavis.org/Media/PublicWorks/Documents/PDF... . Page 197 gives an estimated water use per household as a function of household size, using various models (old homes, new homes, California homes, and high efficiency homes). By that benchmark, 178/gallons is well below the 200 gal/day average for California homes, though worse than expected for a high efficiency home, which comes out to 150 gallons per day. I don't really see the source of your astonishment. By all accounts, the water use in this household is below average for California. If it were an older house, with more wasteful fixtures, then these numbers would be unsurprising even for a family doing its best to conserve. > Even such generous estimates get barely to ⅓ of her reported consumption. I lived in Santa Fe, which has some of the lowest water use per capita of any city in the south-west. I had drip irrigation for my garden, and like most in the city, no grass. The city had rebate and other incentive programs in place to promote water conservation. For example, I got my toilets replaced with high efficiency toilets for free, due to a city program which coupled housing growth to water conservation. They now have a rebate for households which install water-free urinals. Even with all that in place, and quoting from http://savewatersantafe.com/2015/06/santa-fe-2014-gpcd-sets-standard-for-the-west/ http://savewatersantafe.com/2015/06/santa-fe-2014-gpcd-sets-... "For people in single-family residences, each person within the household uses 51 gallons per person per day." You can see that that 50 gallons/month is higher than your "generous" expectations of 1/3 of 178 gallons = 45 gallons/capita/day. While it's certainly possible to have a lower water use lifestyle, all evidence is that it's not a quick or cheap change. Is your astonishment not all the more greater for those using over 25x the district average, as reported in this piece?
- rdancer 11y ago
  From the 1st paragraph of the fine article: "She [...] cut her family’s water use nearly in half, to just 178 gallons per person each day." [emphasis mine]. I agree with your analysis wholeheartedly.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    Yeah, I just checked, the per person usage here is ~1050 gallons per month. There's no shortage of water ($3 for 10,000 gallons), and we don't work real hard to conserve (and no kids in the house). It could be the case that the article got it wrong. You sort of hope so. Otherwise there is probably something wrong with their plumbing.
- ptaipale 11y ago
  > You can see that that 50 gallons/month is higher than your "generous" expectations of 1/3 of 178 gallons = 45 gallons/capita/day. While it's certainly possible to have a lower water use lifestyle, all evidence is that it's not a quick or cheap change. I don't quite understand why the change would be expensive (unless the house is already severely broken in the way of internal leaks, and you would need to build a whole new plumbing). My family uses about 110 litres per day per person, which is about one third less than this 45 gallons. And I feel I'm using water abundantly (shower every day, flush toilet at will, wash clothes more often than is good for them, one teenager still living in the house, etc.)
yason 11y ago
I was thinking exactly the same thing. I had to check the numbers for Finland which has abundant, cheap, and clean groundwater just about everywhere. By the token of the first few Google hits the average consumption here is roughly 150 liters per person per day. It sounds somewhat realistic, based on my own usage. I do wonder where all that water of hers goes.
- StephenConnell 11y ago
  Landscape or leaks. Flushing is a drop in the bucket and showering is minimal.
  - ptaipale 11y ago
    Big leaks in her house? Landscaping your garden is part of "bare minimum" for survival?
    - Zarathustra30 11y ago
      There ARE some HOAs that fine home owners for lacking green lawns. There's still the option of zero-scaping (covering your yard with gravel), but that is a big up-front investment.
      - ptaipale 11y ago
        > There ARE some HOAs that fine home owners for lacking green lawns. One would expect that in circumstances of drought, a city or state government should be able to mandate such HOA rules void.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  I think the article has probably misstated the usage and that the 180 gallons is for the household.
Luc 11y ago
In Flanders in Belgium, domestic water usage is 110 liter per person per day on average ( https://www.water-link.be/files/uploads/document/gemiddeld-waterverbruik_4.pdf https://www.water-link.be/files/uploads/document/gemiddeld-w... ) So they use 6 times as much, and that's the bare minimum?

by rdancer 11y ago

dalke 11y ago

http://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2014/01/23/how-much-water-do-californians-use-each-day-and-what-does-a-20-reduction-look-like/ http://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2014/01/23/how-much-water-do-cal... says "An often-cited 2011 study of California single-family water consumption estimated that the average California household used more than 360 gallons of water per day." They are under 1/2 that water use. The KQED page continues "... Meanwhile, Indoor use accounted for more than 170 gallons per household per day. Not surprisingly, the most in-home water consumption was in toilet flushes. A more shocking finding, however, was the whopping 18 percent lost to leaks inside homes, the study found." The family is well-aligned with that water use. Of course, the "per household" in that study is an average. This household has 4 people, while the study uses an average of 2.94 people per household, so we should expect this family to use more water than average. The study is at http://water.cityofdavis.org/Media/PublicWorks/Documents/PDF/PW/Water/Documents/California-Single-Family-Home-Water-Use-Efficiency-Study-20110420.pdf http://water.cityofdavis.org/Media/PublicWorks/Documents/PDF... . Page 197 gives an estimated water use per household as a function of household size, using various models (old homes, new homes, California homes, and high efficiency homes). By that benchmark, 178/gallons is well below the 200 gal/day average for California homes, though worse than expected for a high efficiency home, which comes out to 150 gallons per day. I don't really see the source of your astonishment. By all accounts, the water use in this household is below average for California. If it were an older house, with more wasteful fixtures, then these numbers would be unsurprising even for a family doing its best to conserve. > Even such generous estimates get barely to ⅓ of her reported consumption. I lived in Santa Fe, which has some of the lowest water use per capita of any city in the south-west. I had drip irrigation for my garden, and like most in the city, no grass. The city had rebate and other incentive programs in place to promote water conservation. For example, I got my toilets replaced with high efficiency toilets for free, due to a city program which coupled housing growth to water conservation. They now have a rebate for households which install water-free urinals. Even with all that in place, and quoting from http://savewatersantafe.com/2015/06/santa-fe-2014-gpcd-sets-standard-for-the-west/ http://savewatersantafe.com/2015/06/santa-fe-2014-gpcd-sets-... "For people in single-family residences, each person within the household uses 51 gallons per person per day." You can see that that 50 gallons/month is higher than your "generous" expectations of 1/3 of 178 gallons = 45 gallons/capita/day. While it's certainly possible to have a lower water use lifestyle, all evidence is that it's not a quick or cheap change. Is your astonishment not all the more greater for those using over 25x the district average, as reported in this piece?

rdancer 11y ago
From the 1st paragraph of the fine article: "She [...] cut her family’s water use nearly in half, to just 178 gallons per person each day." [emphasis mine]. I agree with your analysis wholeheartedly.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  Yeah, I just checked, the per person usage here is ~1050 gallons per month. There's no shortage of water ($3 for 10,000 gallons), and we don't work real hard to conserve (and no kids in the house). It could be the case that the article got it wrong. You sort of hope so. Otherwise there is probably something wrong with their plumbing.
ptaipale 11y ago
> You can see that that 50 gallons/month is higher than your "generous" expectations of 1/3 of 178 gallons = 45 gallons/capita/day. While it's certainly possible to have a lower water use lifestyle, all evidence is that it's not a quick or cheap change. I don't quite understand why the change would be expensive (unless the house is already severely broken in the way of internal leaks, and you would need to build a whole new plumbing). My family uses about 110 litres per day per person, which is about one third less than this 45 gallons. And I feel I'm using water abundantly (shower every day, flush toilet at will, wash clothes more often than is good for them, one teenager still living in the house, etc.)

yason 11y ago

I was thinking exactly the same thing. I had to check the numbers for Finland which has abundant, cheap, and clean groundwater just about everywhere. By the token of the first few Google hits the average consumption here is roughly 150 liters per person per day. It sounds somewhat realistic, based on my own usage. I do wonder where all that water of hers goes.

StephenConnell 11y ago
Landscape or leaks. Flushing is a drop in the bucket and showering is minimal.
- ptaipale 11y ago
  Big leaks in her house? Landscaping your garden is part of "bare minimum" for survival?
  - Zarathustra30 11y ago
    There ARE some HOAs that fine home owners for lacking green lawns. There's still the option of zero-scaping (covering your yard with gravel), but that is a big up-front investment.
    - ptaipale 11y ago
      > There ARE some HOAs that fine home owners for lacking green lawns. One would expect that in circumstances of drought, a city or state government should be able to mandate such HOA rules void.
maxerickson 11y ago
I think the article has probably misstated the usage and that the 180 gallons is for the household.

Luc 11y ago

In Flanders in Belgium, domestic water usage is 110 liter per person per day on average ( https://www.water-link.be/files/uploads/document/gemiddeld-waterverbruik_4.pdf https://www.water-link.be/files/uploads/document/gemiddeld-w... ) So they use 6 times as much, and that's the bare minimum?