# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
MEXICO CITY -- Farms and their wasteful irrigation systems are major contributors to water scarcity on the globe, nations at a world water summit said Saturday.

Farming accounts for 70 percent of the water consumed and most of its wasteful use, said representatives of 130 nations at the World Water Forum discussing water management.

One-fifth of the world's population lacks safe drinking water, the United Nations said in a report last week that laid much of the blame on mismanagement of resources.

"Farmers are central to the whole picture," Patrick McCully, director of International River Network, a non-governmental organization, said at the forum. "They use the majority of the world's water, and farmers are where most of the world's poverty is concentrated."

Agriculture cannot be ignored in the water equation, said Gerald Galloway, a civil engineer and visiting scholar with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. "It is an important part of the U.S. economy, and it's even more important in the developing world," he said. "You have to be able to provide water for agriculture."

With 525 million small farms in the world -- and 2.5 billion people living off the land -- farmers suffer the most from the problems discussed at the forum: poverty, disease, and the lack of sanitation and clean water.

Drought-parched fields, withered corn stalks and skinny cattle make up the face of the crisis in the developing world.

Getting farmers to use water less extensively is daunting, speakers said.

"There are great problems with irrigation," said Michel Rocard, former prime minister of France. We must persuade our farmers to go to less extensive crops. It's a question of changing the whole agricultural method."

Traditionally governments have responded to the problems of small farmers -- defined as those with plots of 5 acres or less -- with big dam projects. But most small farms are so high up in the hills or removed from rivers that they cannot benefit from them, said McCully.

The answer is more efficient irrigation systems, said Ute Collier, of the World Wildlife Fund. "We can't afford to waste water in irrigation systems that are 30 to 40 percent efficient," he said. "If we could get that part of the equation done, we could probably cut down the number of dams we're building by half, at least."

Greater efficiency would free up money to help provide clean drinking water and food to small farmers who, despite raising food, constitute most of the 842 million people in the world who go hungry.

Many of the world's poor live on less than 2.5 gallons of water per day -- one-thirtieth of the daily usage in developed nations.

Collier's work has focused on improving irrigation for notoriously thirsty cash crops, like cotton and sugarcane, although they are seldom grown on the smallest farms. Agriculture based on fields that temporarily flood is also a major problem because most of that water is wasted through evaporation, the forum was told.

Other problems include pesticide and herbicide runoff from farm fields that pollute rivers and lakes, as well as soil erosion and salt buildup from irrigation.

In Mexico, host of the international forum, farm water disputes are among the most sensitive issues in its relations with the United States. In 2004, farmers in Texas were outraged when Mexico failed to let billions of gallons of water flow into a border river under a 1944 treaty.

Texans also accused Mexico of growing alfalfa -- a water-hungry feed crop -- in desert areas. One state politician suggested that the United States retaliate by reducing its flow into another border river, the Colorado.

Mexico went to court last year to stop the United States from lining one of its irrigation canals with concrete. Mexico claims its farmers had become dependent on water seeping out of the earthen canal, located near the two countries' border. The case has not been resolved.

Europe also has its conflicts. Spain would like France to share some of its water, but Rocard, France's former prime minister, said the French are reluctant to do so until the Spaniards improve their water management.
2005 May Be Warmest Year Ever Need a Building? Just Add Water Drier Times Ahead in the West? Glaciers Quicken Pace to Sea Water to Boost Satellite Snooping

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
MEXICO CITY - Farms and their wasteful irrigation systems are major contributors to water scarcity on the globe, nations at a world water summit said Saturday. Farming accounts for 70 percent of the water consumed and most of its wasteful use, said representatives of 130 nations at the World Water Forum discussing water management.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/search/?q=the+future+of+water&site=default_collection&client=default_frontend&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&output=xml_no_dtd&oe=utf-8&btnG=Search

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For the past 45 years, Patagonia has been a business at the cutting edge of environmental activism, sustainable supply chains, and advocacy for public lands and the outdoors. Its mission has long been "Build the best product, cause no unnecessary harm, use business to inspire and implement solutions to the environmental crisis."

In just the last few years alone, the company has expanded its used clothing program, amped up its investment in sustainable startups, launched an activist hub to connect its customer base directly with grassroots environmental organizations, and taken the Trump administration to court over its public lands policy. And just last month, CEO Rose Marcario announced it was giving back $10 million in tax cuts to grassroots environmental organizations.

But for Yvon Chouinard, that's not enough. So this week, the 80-year-old company founder and Marcario informed employees that the company's mission statement has changed to something more direct, urgent, and crystal clear: "Patagonia is in business to save our home planet."

In an exclusive interview with Fast Company, Chouinard says the shift in mission may sound trivial-obviously those ubiquitous fleeces aren't going anywhere-but it's actually fundamental to almost every aspect of the company. The key is in its expression of urgency, to signal to everyone inside the company and out, that this isn't just about climate change, it's a climate crisis.

"We're losing the planet because of climate change, that's the elephant in the room. Society is basically working on symptoms. Save the polar bear? If you want to save the polar bear, you got to save the planet," Chouinard says. "Forget about the polar bear, they're toast anyway. So I decided to make a very simple statement, because in reality, if we want to save the planet, every single company in the world has to do the same thing. And I thought, well, let's be the first."

While months in the works, Patagonia's announcement comes as major scientific reports have detailed the consequences of unchecked climate change. The Fourth National Climate Assessment by the White House released just a few weeks ago outlined the potential societal and economic impact, which includes annual losses in some economic sectors projected to reach hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century.

Chouinard is blunt in his own assessment of the level of urgency. "This is Pearl Harbor. The whole country, and whole world, has to mobilize to do this," he says. "It's triage. I remember when I was a kid during World War II, we didn't have any meat to eat. There was no beef, there was no sugar, people had to grow their own gardens. The whole country mobilized. That's what has to happen now. So I didn't think we were taking climate change seriously enough. We were supporting too many causes that were working on symptoms and not actual causes and solutions."

The new mission statement impacts every single job in the company. About six months ago, Chouinard gave the HR department some new marching orders. "Whenever we have a job opening, all things being equal, hire the person who's committed to saving the planet no matter what the job is," he says. "And that's made a huge difference in the people coming into the company."

It's also influencing who Patagonia works with as brand ambassadors-being a great surfer is cool, for example, but they also have to be committed to being strong and vocal environmental advocates-and the grassroots activist organizations it funds. "We give out about 900 grants a year to different activist organizations," says Chouinard. "We've given money to an organization that repairs people's bicycles. Well, they're not going to get any money any more."

To figure out the best way the company could have the most effective impact, Chouinard and Marcario had to ask themselves questions like, what are Patagonia's resources? Where does the company have influence? And what should it be putting money into? They came up with three key answers: agriculture, politics, and protected lands.

Regenerative agriculture has long been a company priority, both in its R&D for clothing and apparel materials and its line of food products, Patagonia Provisions. Before it was a nice-to-have, now it's a need-to-have. "We're not going to get rid of our cars; we can't even get carbon taxes going," says Chouinard. "But with regenerative agriculture, there's been studies that have shown that if we did our agriculture the right way, we could capture more carbon than we're emitting. Period."

Right now the company is working with about 100 small farmers who grow cotton regeneratively in India, which is being expanded to 450 next year. They control the pests with traps, they weed and gather the cotton by hand. "That's what you have to do, replace all the chemicals with knowledge and labor," says Chouinard.

And they can also sell the cover crops planted to help protect the cotton, "So they get another 10% from us for growing regeneratively, they can sell their cover crops, and they're happy," Chouinard says. "We're going to be making regeneratively grown cotton stand-up shorts, not only employing people, but from a crop that actually captures carbon. That's a win-win for everybody."

In politics, ahead of the 2018 midterm election, Patagonia became one of the first consumer brands ever to make the endorsement of specific candidates part of its brand marketing. It posted endorsements of Nevada Democratic candidate Jacky Rosen in Nevada and incumbent Montana Senator Jon Tester on its website, across its social channels, and in customer emails. Chouinard says to expect the company to speak up more loudly and often.

"Jon Tester barely won in Montana. I've had people in Montana tell me he probably wouldn't have done it if we hadn't helped," he says. "That makes me feel pretty good! We have this political power, a few million customers who are really behind what we're doing. So why not use it to do some good?"

For protected lands, it goes beyond advocating and fighting for public lands, as the company has been doing for Bears Ears in Utah. Smaller, more strategic investments of money and time have the potential for significant impact. Last May, Chouinard talked to Kristine Tompkins, president of Tompkins Conservation, about an idea for creating a new park at the very tip of South America. "I've been there and it's a wild, wild place," Chouinard says. "There's no roads, no trails, just a lot of swampland that captures a tremendous amount of carbon. So I thought it'd be a perfect place for a protected parkland."

Patagonia gave Tompkins Conservation $185,000 to get on it. And they are, working with the governments of Chile and Argentina on the establishment of new protected lands. "It's not like we had to buy up a ton of land and force our way in. It's strategic investment that has really paid off," says Chouinard. "This whole thing could be done by Christmas. Can you believe it?"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Exclusive: "Patagonia is in business to save our home planet."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For the past 45 years, Patagonia has been a business at the cutting edge of environmental activism, sustainable supply chains, and advocacy for public lands and the outdoors. Its mission has long been "Build the best product, cause no unnecessary harm, use business to inspire and implement solutions to the environmental crisis."

# data[].attributes.headline
Food Companies Unprepared for Water Crisis

# data[].attributes.subject
Food Companies Unprepared for Water Crisis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Food companies are unprepared for global water scarcity, says new report

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Using public data, a nonprofit ranked the best and worst companies in terms of water use. The results were sobering

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
MEXICO CITY -- Farms and their wasteful irrigation systems are major contributors to water scarcity on the globe, nations at a world water summit said Saturday.

Farming accounts for 70 percent of the water consumed and most of its wasteful use, said representatives of 130 nations at the World Water Forum discussing water management.

One-fifth of the world's population lacks safe drinking water, the United Nations said in a report last week that laid much of the blame on mismanagement of resources.

"Farmers are central to the whole picture," Patrick McCully, director of International River Network, a non-governmental organization, said at the forum. "They use the majority of the world's water, and farmers are where most of the world's poverty is concentrated."

Agriculture cannot be ignored in the water equation, said Gerald Galloway, a civil engineer and visiting scholar with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. "It is an important part of the U.S. economy, and it's even more important in the developing world," he said. "You have to be able to provide water for agriculture."

With 525 million small farms in the world -- and 2.5 billion people living off the land -- farmers suffer the most from the problems discussed at the forum: poverty, disease, and the lack of sanitation and clean water.

Drought-parched fields, withered corn stalks and skinny cattle make up the face of the crisis in the developing world.

Getting farmers to use water less extensively is daunting, speakers said.

"There are great problems with irrigation," said Michel Rocard, former prime minister of France. We must persuade our farmers to go to less extensive crops. It's a question of changing the whole agricultural method."

Traditionally governments have responded to the problems of small farmers -- defined as those with plots of 5 acres or less -- with big dam projects. But most small farms are so high up in the hills or removed from rivers that they cannot benefit from them, said McCully.

The answer is more efficient irrigation systems, said Ute Collier, of the World Wildlife Fund. "We can't afford to waste water in irrigation systems that are 30 to 40 percent efficient," he said. "If we could get that part of the equation done, we could probably cut down the number of dams we're building by half, at least."

Greater efficiency would free up money to help provide clean drinking water and food to small farmers who, despite raising food, constitute most of the 842 million people in the world who go hungry.

Many of the world's poor live on less than 2.5 gallons of water per day -- one-thirtieth of the daily usage in developed nations.

Collier's work has focused on improving irrigation for notoriously thirsty cash crops, like cotton and sugarcane, although they are seldom grown on the smallest farms. Agriculture based on fields that temporarily flood is also a major problem because most of that water is wasted through evaporation, the forum was told.

Other problems include pesticide and herbicide runoff from farm fields that pollute rivers and lakes, as well as soil erosion and salt buildup from irrigation.

In Mexico, host of the international forum, farm water disputes are among the most sensitive issues in its relations with the United States. In 2004, farmers in Texas were outraged when Mexico failed to let billions of gallons of water flow into a border river under a 1944 treaty.

Texans also accused Mexico of growing alfalfa -- a water-hungry feed crop -- in desert areas. One state politician suggested that the United States retaliate by reducing its flow into another border river, the Colorado.

Mexico went to court last year to stop the United States from lining one of its irrigation canals with concrete. Mexico claims its farmers had become dependent on water seeping out of the earthen canal, located near the two countries' border. The case has not been resolved.

Europe also has its conflicts. Spain would like France to share some of its water, but Rocard, France's former prime minister, said the French are reluctant to do so until the Spaniards improve their water management.
2005 May Be Warmest Year Ever Need a Building? Just Add Water Drier Times Ahead in the West? Glaciers Quicken Pace to Sea Water to Boost Satellite Snooping

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
MEXICO CITY - Farms and their wasteful irrigation systems are major contributors to water scarcity on the globe, nations at a world water summit said Saturday. Farming accounts for 70 percent of the water consumed and most of its wasteful use, said representatives of 130 nations at the World Water Forum discussing water management.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Water companies are sucking too much from rivers rather than making the most of rainfall putting some of Britain's most famous wildlife at risk, MPs have warned.

Water voles, otters and kingfishers are among the wildlife threatened by draining of rivers to supply homes and businesses.

The Government is currently looking at new rules to try and stop water companies draining rivers dry in the Water White Paper.

But a report by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs committee said the crackdown will not happen quickly enough to save some of the country's most famous salmon and trout rivers.

The cross-party group also criticised the Government for failing to ensure consumers do their bit to save wildlife by installing water meters.

Water companies can only pump water out of rivers with an abstraction licence from the Environment Agency.

However the current regime was drawn up in the 1960s and fails to take account of the huge increase in demand as the population has grown.

Anne McIntosh MP, EFRA Committee Chair, said water companies are being allowed to take too much from rivers.

Instead of storing water from rainfall, like the recent downpours, water companies pump water out of streams and rivers.

"We heard persuasive evidence about the environmental damage unleashed by over-abstraction. The Government's current plans - to reform the abstraction regime by the mid-to-late 2020s - will not take effect rapidly enough given that our rivers are already running dry."

The Tory MP called for reforms in the short term to stop the most damaging abstractions and in the long term an overhaul of the regime so water is only ever taken out when river levels are high.

She also said that consumers should be encouraged to cut demand by setting clear targets for water.

Around 40 per cent of homes in England and Wales are metered, which means more than half the population has no connection between the amount of water they use and the size of their bills.

"It's hard to see how the White Paper's call for water to be managed as a precious resource can be reconciled with the lack of any clear target to increase metering levels," said Ms McIntosh.

"Installing a meter is the most effective way to improve water efficiency, providing a clear incentive for householders to minimise wastage," she said.

The report comes in the wake of drought and floods, with two unusually dry winters in a row leaving parts of England parched before three months of record-breaking rainfall caused flooding across much of the country.

The River Kennet in Berkshire and Wiltshire, and the rivers Itchen and Test, in Hampshire ran dry earlier this year, largely because of over-abstraction.

Species like water voles, made famous in the Wind in the Willows are declining in most counties and now extinct in Cornwall.

Paul de Zlylva, Friends of the Earth's Nature Campaigner, Paul de Zylva, said otters and birdlife including kingfishers are threatened.

"Our precious wildlife is being left high and dry because too much water is being sucked out of Englands rivers.

"The Government must urgently develop a wildlife-friendly water strategy by plugging the holes in its white paper and renegotiating licences to siphon off river water.

"Despite the recent wet weather, drought is still a major threat - Ministers must ensure our water is managed effectively for the sake of households, farmers and wildlife."

Dr Rose Timlett, WWF's Freshwater Expert, said the last few months illustrate why it is so important to better manage water in England.

"It's been a difficult few months for the country's water systems, we've gone from drought to deluge with the wettest June on record. Whilst people may think everything's alright now, recent events show us all how important it is to deal with our water resources longer-term to try and minimise the risks to people, to wildlife and to our environment," she said.

Water companies and the regulator also need to do more to reduce the amount wasted through leaks, the report concluded.

The Environment Department (Defra) should help make sure bills are affordable by tackling bad debt in the water industry, which costs households £15 a year on their bills.

Ministers must implement measures to improve management of surface water, which can cause flash flooding during heavy rain, the MPs said.

The report said it was "deeply worrying" that the Government had not reached an agreement with insurers about providing cover for homes in flood risk areas.

:: The Government has ruled out selling any of the public forest estate after a public outcry.

Caroline Spelman, the Environment Secretary, pledged that "our forests will stay in public hands", more than a year after she was forced into a U-turn on a bid to privatise England's forests following a petition signed by 500,000 people.

The Independent Panel on Forestry, set up after the outcry prompted by the bid to dispose of public woodlands to businesses, communities and charities, said the estate should remain in public ownership managed by a new body.

At the moment the Government is able to sell off up to 15 per cent of the 258,000 hectares of public forest estate but even this small sale has been ruled out.

Water Minister Richard Benyon said: "We are modernising the rules governing how we take water from our rivers, to make it more responsive to climate change and increasing demand. This is a major piece of reform with significant economic impacts, so we need to take our time to get it right.

"We are working closely with the Environment Agency to review abstraction licences that are causing damage, but we cannot fix this problem overnight.

"Since 2010 we have made changes to 47 licences to reduce environmental harm from abstraction. These changes will help improve around 100 km of rivers and 23 square kilometres of wetland in England and Wales."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Water companies taking too much from rivers despite rainfall

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Water companies are sucking too much from rivers rather than making the most of rainfall putting some of Britain's most famous wildlife at risk, MPs have warned.

# data[].attributes.headline
What Happens if Companies Don't Care about Water?

# data[].attributes.subject
What Happens if Companies Don't Care about Water?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What will happen if world's biggest companies don't take water seriously?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Business claims to take drought seriously, but many have no idea how much water they use and where. This is why they should act

# data[].attributes.headline
How Companies Score on Water Sustainability

# data[].attributes.subject
How Companies Score on Water Sustainability

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Cape Town is expected to run out of water in a few months. Just plain out.

California endured five years of drought with the help of urban areas cutting back water consumption and farmers fallowing fields. During 2015 alone, the state's agriculture sector lost nearly $2 billion and 10,000 farmworker jobs.

The 2012 drought in the Midwest dented the corn harvest by 15 percent and caused a global spike in corn prices.

The risks from water insecurity span the globe and have deep economic impacts, as many in the business sector have come to understand. Without water to grow alfalfa for cow forage, you can't produce milk and beef. Without water to cool data centers, the servers that power our smartphones and computers won't run.

More than half of the largest U.S. corporations now actively manage their water use and water resources, according to a recent Ceres analysis of more than 600 publicly traded U.S. companies.

Some companies are catching on. More than half of the largest U.S. corporations now actively manage their water use and water resources, according to a recent Ceres analysis of more than 600 publicly traded U.S. companies that represent 80 percent of the country's market capitalization.

The report, " Turning Point: Corporate Progress on the Ceres Roadmap for Sustainability," scores companies on 20 key expectations laid out in " The Ceres Roadmap for Sustainability" to assess how seriously and effectively they are responding to sustainability challenges-including climate change, human rights abuses, and, of course, the global water crisis.

When it comes to water, the report found that 55 percent of the companies have at least general commitments to manage water resources through efforts such as water use efficiency.

On the flip side, 45 percent of the assessed companies do not disclose any evidence that they manage water-related impacts in any formal way. And only 20 percent of the 600 have set time-bound, quantitative targets to manage impacts to water resources.

In the aftermath of California's drought, we're seeing positive change, with water-efficiency efforts multiplying and new watershed restoration and recharge projects popping up.

Every business depends on water in some way, so it's short-sighted that all companies don't work to manage water resources. In the aftermath of California's drought, though, we're seeing positive change, with water-efficiency efforts multiplying and new watershed restoration and recharge projects popping up.

Many of the water stewardship leaders are based in California or have significant operations there.

One is Clorox, the century-old Oakland, California-based company that has expanded its products from cleaning supplies to consumer household and healthcare products. Clorox was noted for making water stewardship a top executive responsibility. Its sustainability steering committee includes five C-suite executives and two vice presidents. Water resource management is seen-and experienced-by Clorox as a business issue and, accordingly, the Clorox Global Strategic Sourcing Group is responsible for water efficiency and protection in the supply chain.

Yet Clorox also recognizes the social need for clean water and that its main product-bleach-can be instrumental in providing it. Clorox donates bleach to communities in the developing world for use in purifying and disinfecting water collected from rivers and wells. The company figures it has helped purify water for 25,000 people who live in areas with untreated water.

The good news in the 2018 findings of "Turning Point" is that more and more companies understand the business imperative of addressing sustainability risks generally.

San Francisco-based Gap is one of three footwear and apparel companies that are held up as prioritizing water management within their supply chains. Apparel and footwear companies use a lot of water for the manufacturing and processing of fabric and leather. Gap, along with Nike and L Brands, set targets to mitigate the impact on local water sources of the chemicals used in their dye houses and laundries. Recognizing the social impact its water use has on communities and workers' lives, Gap also launched a Women + Water initiative two years ago across its supply chain operations, helping to provide safe, treated water and sanitation access to people living in the communities where Gap products are made.

The Coca-Cola Company, which operates several facilities in California and in numerous locations the world over, also had global social impacts on water in mind when it launched a massive watershed-restoration program, promising to replenish the equivalent amount of water it uses in its products back into watersheds or community water systems. It achieved that goal in 2016 ahead of schedule. The watersheds it replenished and helped restore include those that are home to bottling operations in Los Angeles County and the city of San Leandro.

Another company operating in California that "Turning Point" highlights for its water-management efforts is Xylem, which develops and sells water-saving technologies used by many California water districts.

Companies not only need to understand their water impacts but to develop and prioritize water stewardship plans to help solve local needs throughout their value chain.

Xylem set a goal four years ago to reduce water use intensity (or improve water efficiency) in its operations by 25 percent by 2019. To do so it created an eco-efficiency tool to use with other water-measurement tools to gauge water availability and demand factors nearby, taking in population, biodiversity, sanitation, and watershed health. All this helped it develop a water-management strategy tailored to regional needs.

In addition to their individual actions, Gap, the Coca-Cola Company, Xylem, and 24 other major corporations operating in California became advocates of water conservation and protection policies, joining Ceres' Connect the Drops network. Connect the Drops companies both commit to their own water stewardship and engage with California lawmakers on key legislative initiatives around sustainable water management and helping all Californians get access to safe drinkable water.

The good news in the 2018 findings of "Turning Point" is that more and more companies understand the business imperative of addressing sustainability risks generally. Then again, the need is greater than ever before as more than 40 percent of the world's population faces water scarcity and the United Nations estimates that 5 billion people will face water shortages by 2050 because of climate change. Companies not only need to understand their water impacts but to develop and prioritize water stewardship plans to help solve local needs throughout their value chain.

_______________________

Kirsten James oversees the California policy program at Ceres, a nonprofit sustainability advocacy organization. She recently spoke at our inaugural Water Conference.

This article was originally published by Water Deeply.

The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Pacific Council or Water Deeply.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How the Biggest Companies Score on Water Sustainability | Pacific Council on International Policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cape Town is expected to run out of water in a few months. Just plain out. California endured five years of drought with the help of urban areas cutting back water consumption and farmers fallowing fields. During 2015 alone, the state's agriculture sector lost nearly $2 billion and 10,000 farmworker jobs.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ten Countries Helping Water Sustainability

# data[].attributes.subject
Ten Countries Helping Water Sustainability

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The data on water scarcity continues to be sobering, and shortages increasingly are linked to both natural and human-made causes. By 2025, 1.8 billion people will live in regions that face "absolute water scarcity," reports the United Nations. Stemming the losses and re-diverting the flow to stressed regions this will take a big investment: almost $1.8 trillion over the next 20 years, according to the U.N. University Institute for Water, Environment and Health.

The good news is corporate investments in innovative technologies and processes for reducing the drain on aquifers, detecting leaky infrastructure, reusing wastewater and addressing the troublesome water-energy nexus are on the rise.

One microcosm of activity centers on desalination: there has been a 57 percent increase in capacity over the past five years to 19.8 billion gallons per day, according to analyst firm Global Water Intelligence and the International Desalination Association.

"Growth in desalination is not linear, and it is tied to many other factors, including the cost of oil, prices of certain commodities and availability of financing," said Patricia Burke, secretary general for the IDA, in a statement. "However, the underlying factors that have driven the growth of desalination remain in place, including population growth, industrial development, pollution of traditional water resources and climate change."

There's far more to water innovation, however, than better desalination. Global Water Intelligence reports that major companies have committed more than $84 billion over the past three years to water efficiency and conservation. Although lists of this nature are always subjective, here are 10 companies that have our attention - ranging from more major manufacturers working hard to reduce their freshwater dependence, technology startups that address the water-energy generation nexus and need for more intelligent infrastructure, and organizations that are advancing what it means to be a responsible water steward.
1. Alliance for Water Stewardship
Technically speaking, the alliance isn't a company, but the organization is behind the development of a global standard for defining water stewardship developed over the past four years. The verification system for evaluating and verifying compliance with these metrics and business practices is due out by the end of 2014.

Close to 30 organizations are driving the framework, including Nestle, General Mills, Ecolab, Sealed Air and Veolia.

"As a global food company, water is critical to General Mills' business," said Jerry Lynch, vice president and chief sustainability officer of General Mills, in a statement. "We have an interest and a responsibility to protect the quality and supply of water upon which our business depends, and actively look for ways to collaborate with others to benefit our growers, the community and the environment. We wholeheartedly embrace this challenge and are proud to be a founding partner with AWS as they seek to define the global standard on responsible water stewardship."
2. American Water
Water utilities have a big vested interest in the water supply, of course, but not a lot of money to spend fixing the efficiency challenge. American Water's strategy is unique. The largest publicly traded utility in the United States spent $1.9 million on research and development (R&D) in 2013; about one-quarter of those funds went to outside research grants. That doesn't count the $800 million to $1 billion that the Voorhees, N.J.-based company invests annually to replace aging pipes and pumps and construct new facilities.

American Water CEO Susan Story, an engineer by training, told me that the 128-year-old company is focusing its R&D on three main things: safety, supplying clean and affordable water, and ensuring a "sustainable" supply. Among other things, it is testing technologies including smart meters and acoustic pipeline monitoring systems, demand response systems that automate water pump schedules for improved efficiency and - with more frequency - water reuse strategies and processes.

This strategy isn't ad hoc or random: American Water has created what it calls the Innovation Development Process. When the utility decides it wants to try something new, a multi-stakeholder team is created to carry out testing and to be accountable for results. Three senior executives, called the Stage Gate Committee, are responsible for finding the money to support pilots. "We are facing a national problem that something must be done about," Story said.
3. Cambrian Innovation
Technologies for reusing wastewater more intelligently are emerging quickly. One example is Boston-based Cambrian Innovation's approach, the EcoVolt, which uses a bioelectric process to simultaneously treat water and generate biogas energy. Each reactor unit is the size of a shipping container, handling about 20,000 gallons daily. Brewery Bear Republic in California is using EcoVolt systems to recycle and supply about 10 percent of its water requirements.

"There is this giant problem of wastewater - billions of gallons from industrial, agricultural and other sources," Matthew Silver, co-founder and CEO of Cambrian, told me earlier this year. "The issue of management is large and growing, and there needs to be a new paradigm to approach these things."
4. Coca-Cola
One of the earliest food and beverage companies to focus serious management attention on water, Coca-Cola and its bottlers have spent up to $2 billion on conservation since 2003, according to internal estimates.

Coca-Cola works closely with the World Wildlife Fund to develop and carry out its water-related environmental commitments, including a pledge to improve the water efficient of its manufacturing operations an additional 25 percent by 2020, on top of the 21.4 percent improvement that it achieved between 2004 and 2012. Right now, it supports conservation efforts focused on regions including the river basins of the Amazon, Koshi, Mekong, Rio Grande/Bravo and Zambezi; catchments of the Great Barrier Reef; and watersheds of the Amu-Heilong, Atlantic Forests and Northern Great Plains. In January, it added a project focused on the Yangtze in China, the third longest river in the world.

One of its more radical initiatives, part of the 5x20 corporate social responsibility program, involves delivering up to 2,000 off-grid water purification systems to rural communities in 20 countries by late 2015.

"Few projects to date have so ambitiously vowed to help rural communities through such a tightly linked partnership structure that incorporates world-renowned organizations from the public, private and civic sectors," said Dean Kamen, the Segway innovator who developed the Slingshot purification technology at the center of this effort. "We hope additional organizations will join us to expedite the positive impact the project will have on communities globally."

Even with all these efforts in place, water conservation programs take patience, perserverance and honesty: Coca-Cola suffered a public setback in June when officials in India closed down one of its plants for allegedly extracting too much groundwater.
5. Dow Water and Process Solutions
One of the most aggressive suppliers of water treatment technologies is the water division of behemoth Dow Chemical - it has a hand in everything from reverse osmosis and nanofiltration membrane technologies to ion exchange processing resins. It just won an innovation award for one of latest technologies, the Tequatic Plus filter, for treating high-solids water. An estimated 15 million gallons of water per minute are processed by its technologies.

Snehal Desai, global business director for Dow Water, said there are two primary focal points for its R&D: reducing the amount of energy requires for processing and treatment, and expanding the universe of wastewater reuse options.

The company's largest processing plant outside the United States is in Terneuzen, Netherlands, which must truck its freshwater into the city from about 75 miles away. The project is a collaborative effort between Dow, the city and municipal water board, and businesses including Evides Water. Today, each liter of water can be used about three times - for manufacturing and for agricultural processes, Desai said. The project is aimed at eliminating the practice of trucking in supplies after 2020. "Every drop of water they get, they make sure they get every potential use out of it," he said.
6. DyeCoo Textile Systems
Conventional textile dyeing approaches are extremely water-intense, using anywhere from 25 to 40 gallons for every two pounds of fabric.

Technology from DyeCoo Textile Systems, already used by the likes of Nike (an investor along with IKEA) and Adidas, uses a carbon-based process to accomplish the same thing. It works by converting carbon dioxide into a liquid under extreme pressure and heat, which is substituted for water. As the liquid cools, it turns back into gas, and it can be reused. Nike's new plant in Taiwan is entirely dedicated to the process, which it calls ColorDry.

"Compared to traditional dyeing methods, the ColorDry process reduces dyeing time by 40 percent, energy use by around 60 percent and the required factory footprint by a quarter. It's also the most saturated, intense and consistent color we've seen," said Kuenlin Ho, executive vice president of Far Eastern New Century, which is Nike's contract manufacturer there.
7. Imagine H20
If you're interested in startups that are applying new technologies to the water problem - everything from precision agriculture to wastewater processing - start paying attention to Imagine H2 0.

The organization runs annual competitions that seek to identify early-stage companies: past winners have included vineyard management software developer Fruition Sciences and aerial imaging company TerrAvion. So far, more than 250 startups have participated: $1 in every $6 of investment into early-stage water companies.

Imagine H20's sixth annual competition is focused on infrastructure: "scalable solutions that improve water and wastewater infrastructure in a manner resulting in quantifiable cost savings or environmental impact."
8. MillerCoors & Molson Coors
When it comes to water efficiency, every major brewer is hopping, but MillerCoors - the joint venture of SABMillers and Molson Coors - just set a record for itself: it takes an average of just 3.48 barrels of water to brew one barrel of its beer. The company even has achieved a 2.8 ratio in at least one of its eight breweries, albeit briefly, said Kim Marotta, director of sustainability at MillerCoors.

For perspective, other U.S. brewers use up to six barrels. That translated into a water savings of more than 1.1 billion gallons of water from 2011 to 2013 alone.

Getting to this place is a unique challenge for every brewery, depending on the types of beers being made there. Certainly, technology - such as waterless lubrication approaches or advanced pasteurization units - have played a role. But 80 percent of the improvements came from what Marotta describes as investments in people, such as shorter interval controls. "Now, we look back and say 'of course' when it comes to many of these efficiency improvements, but this really requires serious attention to change management," she said.

Molson Coors discusses its own water goals in terms of intensity, which is seeks to reduce by 15 percent before 2020 (compared with a 2011 baseline). It created a risk index to help prioritize. "When you start talking about CapEx, it becomes difficult unless you have an idea of water matters," said Neil Tonge, global director of EHS and sustainability. "The vision was to create a tool that tells us how best to deploy human and capital resources again water."

In terms of technologies, one big focus over the next 12 months will be anaerobic digestion: The company already uses these systems in five breweries in the United Kingdom, Central Europe and India. This year, $11.8 million has been committed to two additional installations, and more biogas recovery projects are also planned for 2015 and beyond.

Although MillersCoors and Molson Coors work independently, a shared corporate responsibility committee shares best practices that might be codified across both companies, Tonge said.
9. TaKaDu
Some of the world's biggest technology companies including IBM and Schneider Electric have a hand in smart water meter management, but relative newcomer TaKaDu from Yehud, Israel - which offers monitoring and analytics as a cloud service - has scored some pretty significant contracts in at least eight countries.

One example is its relationship with Unitywater in Australia: a 12-month pilot prevented an estimated 1 billion liters in water loss, worth about $2 million to the utility. As a result, the companies are expanding coverage of TaKaDu's monitoring system across a larger portion of the Unitywater service territory. TaKaDu also recently announced a deal with FCC Aqualia in Spain, which operates more than 200 drinking water treatment plants in 17 countries; and it extended its existing deal with South West Water in England.

"It's not just about water loss, it goes way beyond that to reduce the cycles of fixing problems and increasingly data availability about the network," said Amir Peleg, founder and CEO of the company.
10. WaterFX
Interest in desalination is skyrocketing, which is stoking the emergence of unconventional approaches.

One example is the technology from San Francisco-based WaterFX, which is using solar panels to remove the salt from drainage water from farms in California's Central Valley. The company's 6,500-square-foot test facility in Firebaugh can produce up to 8 gallons per minute of pure water from the saline discharge.

The idea is for farmers to reduce the draw on municipal water facilities. The trick will be to convince farmers to take a change on this supply, said Aaron Mandell, chairman and founder of WaterFX.

"We are dealing with an agricultural industry that for hundreds of years has gotten their technology in a certain way," he said. "Our hurdle is to get people to accept a new approach, new notions of desalination."
Top image of an Ekocenter via Coca-Cola

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 companies making waves in water innovation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The data on water scarcity continues to be sobering, and shortages increasingly are linked to both natural and human-made causes. By 2025, 1.8 billion people will live in regions that face "absolute water scarcity," reports the United Nations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
This Farm of the Future Uses No Soil and 95% Less Water

# data[].attributes.headline
Sustainable Water Use in Vietnamese Coffee

# data[].attributes.subject
Sustainable Water Use in Vietnamese Coffee

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nestlé develops sustainable water use for Vietnam coffee production

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Nestle makes billions bottling free water | AJ+

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwhcrpJTzGQ

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
This lake now has legal rights, just like you

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Drought and Water Solutions In Israel -- Environmentalism and Water Management

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Research shows that industrial water consumption is a major drain on the world's limited water supply. How do industries stack up in their water usage habits and which are doing the most for conservation? By 2030, water demand is expected to exceed current supply by 40 percent, according to the Water Resources Group, an arm of the World Bank. "In many parts of the world, water scarcity is increasing and rates of growth in agricultural production have been slowing," United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said inan address to mark World Water Day last month. "At the same time, climate change is exacerbating risk and unpredictability for farmers, especially for poor farmers in low-income countries...These interlinked challenges are increasing competition between communities and countries for scarce water resources, aggravating old security dilemmas, creating new ones and hampering the achievement of the fundamental human rights to food, water and sanitation." Experts say water shortages aren't solely about a planetary climate that is becoming warmer and drier. Much of the blame can also be laid on the mismanagement of existing water resources. Many industrial processes use a staggering amount of water from start to finish. It takes about 270 gallons of water to produce $1 worth of sugar; 200 gallons of water to make $1 worth of pet food; and 140 gallons of water to make $1 worth of milk. A 2010 report titledDirect and Indirect Water Withdrawals for U.S. Industrial Sectors, conducted by civil engineers at Carnegie Mellon University, handily broke down water usage by industry sector, taking into consideration both direct water usage -- which means bringing water into a manufacturing facility for your industrial process -- and indirect water usage -- when a manufacturing facility is buying items from the supply chain that were manufactured by someone else using water, then incorporating those materials into the finished product. So which industries use the most water? In terms of direct water usage, nobody beats the agriculture and power-generation industries, which together are responsible for 90 percent of direct water withdrawals. Yet a majority of water usage (about 60 percent) is indirect: about 96 percent of industry sectors use more water indirectly than directly in their supply chains.
Fruit & Vegetable Farming
According to the Carnegie Mellon report, while meat farming is often targeted as an energy- and carbon-intensive sector, it shows up lower on the list in terms of water use per dollar of economic output than fruit, grain and vegetable farming. Notoriously thirsty cash crops like wheat, corn, rice, cotton and sugarcane lead the pack in water usage. (A single 5 lb. bag of refined white sugar uses about 88 gallons of water, most of it from the farming of sugar cane and sugar beets.) Better technology and irrigation management would go a long way toward solving some of these problems. Many farms are investing in technologies for water management, according to a New York Times report last year. These hardware- and software-based solutions use remote sensing data and satellite images to measure factors such as evaporation and yield, identifying areas where water is being used productively and areas where it's being wasted.
Power Generation
It takes a lot of water to produce energy with the processes we use today. Water is used at almost every stage of energy production, including pumping crude oil, removing pollutants from power plant exhaust, generating steam to run turbines, washing away residue after fossil fuels are burned and keeping power plants cool. Ultimately, it takes a staggering 95 liters of water to produce one kilowatt-hour of electricity, according to Tamim Younos, head of the Virginia Water Resources Group and a professor of water resources at Virginia Tech. Within the energy industry, the most water-hungry process is the thermoelectric-power industry, which uses copious amounts of water to cool electricity-generating equipment. Overall, electrical power production uses more water than any other single industrial process, according toIEEE Spectrum. In 2005, about 201,000 million gallons of water were used each day to produce electricity (this figure excludes hydroelectric power). Since surface water is the source for more than 99 percent of the water used for thermoelectric-power generation, energy plants located in coastal areas with a ready supply of salt water for cooling equipment got higher marks in water conservation than those facilities forced to use fresh water. This leads to the knowledge that not all energy is created equal when it comes to water usage. According to the Virginia Water Resources group, natural gas gets top marks for efficiency in the energy industry, yielding the most energy per unit volume of water consumed. Only about 10 gallons of water are required to extract enough natural gas to generate 1,000 kWh of electricity. By comparison, a coal-fired power plant delivering the same amount of energy would use about 140 gallons of water. Perhaps most surprising, some biodiesel isn't quite so green in the context of water consumption. More than 180,000 liters of water are required to produce enough soybean-based biodiesel to provide a home with a month's worth of energy. This is because large amounts of water are required for irrigation of the soil in which the soybeans grow, then more water to turn the soybeans into biofuel.
Textiles and Garments
The textile industry is one of the biggest creators of wastewater worldwide. According to the U.S. EPA, it takes 2,900 gallons of water to produce a single pair of jeans. Most of this water is used in what's known as "wet processing" as well as dyeing of fabric. The textile industry is trying to cut down on its use of water, according to a separate report from the Times, in 2009. The industry doesn't have much choice: both cost-cutting demands and a tightening of environmental regulations are forcing textile and garment companies to evaluate how they use water (particularly if they operate in areas where water is scarce).
Meat Production
While fruit and vegetable agriculture uses more water than meat production, it's not without its own water sins. According to a study by the UNESCO Institute for Water Education, conducted between 1996 and 2005, "29 percent of the total water footprint of the agricultural sector in the world is related to the production of animal products." One-third of that water is used to raise beef cattle.
Beverage Industry
Another heavy user of water is the beverage industry, which produces sodas, beers, juices and other drinks. Yet it isn't necessarily the production and bottling processes that are to blame. Rather, it is the plants: the beverage industry requires farmed products such as sugar, barley, coffee, chocolate, lemons, vanilla and other plant-derived ingredients. All in all, it takes between 180 and 328 gallons of water to produce a 2-liter bottle of soda, 20 gallons of water to make a pint of beer and nearly 37 gallons of water to produce the ingredients to make a single cup of coffee, according to the Water Footprint Network.
Automotive Manufacturing
Next time you drive your car, consider this: it takes about 39,000 gallons of water to produce the average domestic car, including the tires. Major water uses in the automotive manufacturing industry include surface treatment and coating, paint spray booths, washing/rinsing/hosing, cooling, air conditioning systems and boilers. One of the most water-conscious automakers is PSA Peugeot Citroën. While the company uses about 20 million cubic meters of water each year, it strives to clean and return all of it to the environment, purifying the water it uses at all stages of production, including cooling welding machinery, washing sheet steel, painting and water tightness testing.
Industry Awareness
So what are companies doing about cutting water usage? A 2012 report from sustainable business analyst Verdantix, titled The State of Global Corporate Water Strategies, was compiled after interviewing senior executives in a number of $1 billion or greater firms from different sectors in 10 countries. Verdantix found that formal water strategies are becoming more common. In water-intensive industries, about 90 percent of businesses report having a formal water strategy. The numbers are lower in non-water-intensive industries, but are still substantial: about 60 percent. In water-intensive industries, about 93 percent of companies issue formal reports about their water usage and conservation practices, as do about 77 percent of companies in lower water-intensive industries. Companies are realizing that as water becomes scarcer in places they manufacture, wasteful production methods present a danger to operations, particularly if local governments turn off the tap or put huge surcharges on water use. It's in the businesses' best interests to put some water conversation programs into place now and wean themselves off wasteful processes in favor of more water-conserving production methods. To that end, according to the study, companies are using water metering and other technology solutions, such as water accounting, water-footprinting tools (helping facilities get a grip on how much water they are using for which processes) and productlifecycle assessment (LCA) software that helps them outline the environmental impact of their products and processes. There's still a long way to go. In 2011, the Verdantix study found that most firms perceive water waste as a short-term risk: most of their efforts were focused on cost savings and regulatory compliance strategies. A long-term view, called "water stewardship," was far less common. Water stewardship involves companies working beyond compliance requirements toward permanent sustainability. Â

Thomas Industry Update

Stay up to date on industry news and trends, product announcements and the latest innovations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Research shows that industrial water consumption is a major drain on the world's limited water supply. How do industries stack up in their water usage habits and which are doing the most for conservation? By 2030, water demand is expected to exceed current supply by 40 percent, according to the Water Resources Group, an arm of the World Bank.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nestlé has been bottling and selling water that it does not have the legal right to use, officials in California have concluded.

Fights over water are a constant in California, exacerbated when drought years make the supply especially scarce. Since 2015, officials with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) had received numerous complaints that Nestlé was claiming water from the San Bernardino National Forest to which it had no right and then selling it under its Arrowhead brand.

Because California allocates water rights in part based on who got there first, getting to the bottom of those allegations required a deep dive into history. Nestlé cited a 150-year-old claim by a man named David Noble Smith whose property later became the site of the Arrowhead Springs Hotel, for instance.

The company's materials tout its history in California and its commitment to "sourcing water exclusively from carefully selected mountain springs," which "ensures that every drop is as crystal clear as the water revered by Native Americans for its healing powers".

"Westerners have savoured the natural goodness of Arrowhead water since bottling began in the 1890s," the company's website proclaims.

After combing through decades worth of permitting information, the water board declared last week that the company had no basis for much of the water it was draining from the Strawberry Canyon watershed. It said the company's invocation of David Noble Smith was "not valid for Nestlé's current appropriative diversion and use of water from the San Bernardino National Forest".

"A significant portion of the water currently diverted by Nestlé appears to be diverted without a valid basis of right," the report said.

Ultimately, the board found Nestlé had the right to about 26 acre-feet a year, or about 8.5m gallons, but had averaged some 192 acre-feet a year, or about 62m gallons.

The board's report isn't the same as an enforceable order. It issued a series of recommendations for Nestlé in a letter to the company, including suggesting the company "cease any unauthorised diversions", submit a compliance plan and secure a permit for diverting water beyond its allowance.

In a statement, Nestlé said it was pleased the water board had vindicated its claim to "a significant amount of the water in Strawberry Canyon".

"We look forward to cooperating with the SWRCB during the review process and to providing the necessary documents to supplement the SWRCB's report, including producing information requested from over a century ago, to the extent that it is available," the statement said.

While California law does not prohibit private companies like Nestlé from bottling the state's water, the company is a regular target for environmentalists, Native Americans and other activists.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nestle has been taking and selling more water than it's allowed in drought-stricken California, state says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nestlé has been bottling and selling water that it does not have the legal right to use, officials in California have concluded. Fights over water are a constant in California, exacerbated when drought years make the supply especially scarce.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
6 industries hurt by the California drought

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The water restrictions imposed in California will mean more than just brown lawns. For these industries, water is intrinsic to doing business.

# data[].attributes.headline
Coca-cola uses more Water than they say 

# data[].attributes.subject
Coca-cola uses more Water than they say 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When Coca-Cola announced plans earlier this year to recycle the equivalent of 100 percent of its packaging by 2030, the company touted the effort as building on its success with sustainable water use. In a 2016 full-page ad published in The New York Times, the company proclaimed, "For every drop we use, we give one back," boasting on its website that it was "the first Fortune 500 company to hit such an aggressive target." But a year of reporting into Coca-Cola's water program shows that the company is grossly exaggerating its water record, which suggests that its new "World Without Waste" recycling plan should also be viewed with skepticism.

Coca-Cola came under fire for its water practices in the mid-2000s. (The company did not answer specific questions, but it did issue a lengthy statement for this article.) Coca-Cola keeps distribution costs low by tapping local water sources, a practice it has continued since the company's early success at Atlanta-area soda fountains in the late 1800s. By the 2000s, however, local people in some of the world's increasingly water-stressed regions were looking more critically at big water users, and Coca-Cola found itself a target of public ire. By 2007, US college students took up the cause, calling for a nationwide boycott in support of Indian farmers who accused the company of stealing their water and livelihoods. It was an international PR nightmare that threatened Coca-Cola's brand image and global business strategy.

E. Neville Isdell, Coke's CEO at the time, took heed.

"Today," he said from a podium at a 2007 World Wildlife Fund conference in Beijing, "the Coca-Cola Company pledges to replace every drop of water we use in our beverages and their production to achieve balance in communities and in nature with the water we use." The idea was to make Coke's operations "water neutral." That year, the company pledged to reach this goal by 2020.

From the start, everything hinged on how "every drop" and "water neutral" would be defined. The expression "water neutrality" first appeared at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002, the brainchild of South African businessman Pancho Ndebele. Like a carbon offset program, it offered delegates a way to counterbalance their water consumption by purchasing credits to be invested in water efficiency initiatives and expanded clean water access. After the summit, Ndebele set up the Water Neutral Foundation to take the concept forward, but it struggled to earn credibility with the scientific community, which criticized "water neutrality" as a misleading term that lacked a rigorous method for assessing water use and offsets and suggested the world's water problems could be solved with a few charitable contributions.

A water-use accounting method arrived that same year when Dutch scientist Arjen Hoekstra created the Water Footprint, a method of totaling the water that goes into everything we consume. His Water Footprint counted not only the water used in the factory, but also what's needed to grow the raw materials, create the packaging, and everything else that goes into each product. Water Footprint assessments grabbed the world's attention by publicizing the mind-boggling amounts of water it takes to make even our humblest everyday necessities. Take a single T-shirt: it takes 712 gallons of water to produce, mostly because of the water needed to grow the cotton. A quarter-pound hamburger requires 462 gallons of water if you take into account the water required to grow the cattle feed. Whole countries and corporations can calculate their own Water Footprints. People can, too: in the United States, we have a per capita Water Footprint of 2,060 gallons a day.

The Water Footprint challenged people and companies to think more critically about water usage. Water "neutrality" expanded water ambitions beyond the environmental mantra of reduce, reuse, recycle. The two concepts seemed to go hand in hand, and Hoekstra began working on a Water Neutral Calculator for Ndebele's foundation. By tying water neutrality to Hoekstra's methodology for accurately measuring Water Footprints, Hoekstra and Ndebele hoped people and companies would use the calculator to invest in nature conservation projects that could, at least in theory, restore water that could not be reduced or recycled.

Greg Koch, then a Coca-Cola executive tasked with global water stewardship, contacted Hoekstra. Two weeks after Isdell's speech in Beijing, Koch and Hoekstra met at a cafe in Amsterdam.

"It was exciting for me," recalled Hoekstra, who had taken a train from Enschede, a city 100 miles east of Amsterdam on Holland's German border, where he works as a professor and researcher at the University of Twente.

Hoekstra was thrilled at the idea of helping Coca-Cola genuinely assess and reduce water usage in every part of its supply chain - not only the water used in its bottling plants, but also the amount it took to grow the sugar and other ingredients and to produce every plastic bottle and aluminum can. Today, the World Health Organization reports that half of the world's population will be living in water-stressed areas by 2025; by 2030, the United Nations predicts water stress will give way to water shortages for nearly half the people on the planet. Back in 2007, Hoekstra and other experts were already sounding the alarm. Hoekstra thought Coca-Cola was ready to come to grips with reality. But Coke would follow a different plan.

At first, the idea seemed to be gaining momentum. In Beijing, Isdell had said the company would not start with water used in its supply chain but would address it eventually. "We recognize that becoming 'water neutral' in our operations does not address the issue of embedded water in our agricultural ingredients and packaging materials. Working with WWF, we will seek opportunities to reduce water use in our supply chain, beginning with sugar," Isdell told the audience. He went on to say, "Our aim, ultimately, is to establish a truly water-sustainable business on a global scale." The company's next moves suggested it was considering an even more transformative overhaul of its operations, including its supply chain.

After the first meeting between Koch and Hoekstra, Coca-Cola commissioned three Water Footprint assessments at a plant in Holland from Hoekstra's team of researchers. The meeting in Amsterdam also led to a series of gatherings called the Water Neutral Working Group. In attendance at the first meeting were Hoekstra, Ndebele, and executives from Coke, World Wildlife Fund, and several international agencies. Representatives from Nestlé, Ikea, beverage maker SABMiller, and other corporations, along with The Nature Conservancy, put in appearances at subsequent meetings in Europe and the US.

"For every drop we use, we give one back."

"We started by reviewing the concept of water footprinting and discussing how this relates to business, on the assumption that this will provide the basis for water neutrality calculations" with the objective of seeing what "might be developed in the coming 6-12 months in a credible and open process," according to the minutes of the first Water Neutral Working Group meeting in September 2007. Around the same time, water neutrality and the Water Footprint headlined at international businesses conferences; JPMorgan featured the Water Footprint in a 2008 report on corporate water risk; and companies began to commission Water Footprint Assessments.

"There was a real buzz," said Derk Kuiper, a Dutch conservationist and former World Wildlife Fund staffer who chaired the Water Neutral Working Group.

But according to Ndebele and Kuiper, there was reluctance among executives in the room to face the truly enormous consumption of water in one area: corporate supply chains, which Ndebele recalled as "the elephant in the room." From the very first conversation, Hoekstra recalled, Coca-Cola executives recognized the water needs of its agricultural ingredients; agriculture, Hoekstra said, can contribute to more than 90 percent of water consumption in some places. ( The Verge asked Coca-Cola why the company excluded its supply chain from its original plan to replenish all the water it takes to make its products, but the company did not respond.)

There was reluctance among executives in the room to face the truly enormous consumption of water in one area: corporate supply chains

"Particularly in the food and beverage sectors, they understood that at the end of the day the largest user of water is agriculture. And inevitably your water footprint was going to be a lot bigger because of that particular segment," Ndebele said. "But I think what was a challenge initially, people were happy ... not actually to attend to it." Ndebele had previously worked as a sustainable development manager for SABMiller, the London-based multinational brewing and beverage company that was one of Coca-Cola's largest bottling partners. (SABMiller is now part of a new company called Newbelco.)

Kuiper recalled growing misgivings among corporate executives in the group. "Many organizations started doing these initial calculations, and found out that ... for supply chain Water Footprints, if you are a company with an agricultural supply chain, these are huge, these water footprints," he said. "There's not enough water to go around" - meaning there aren't enough viable offset projects to actually balance corporate agricultural water footprints.

Take the Water Footprint assessments Hoekstra and his team carried out for Coca-Cola beginning in 2008. When Coca-Cola publicly released the report in September 2010, it revealed that it takes 35 liters of water to make every half-liter of Coke in Holland. Most of that water (28 liters) was used primarily to grow sugar beets to sweeten the beverage. It took another seven liters to make the PET plastic bottle, plus a total of 0.4 liters of "operational water," which is the water used in its bottling plants to manufacture each half-liter of product. "[T]he operational water footprint associated with production was found to be a very small percentage of the total water footprint," the report stated.

"There's not enough water to go around."

Coca-Cola told The Verge that the company's "ultimate goal is to more sustainably source 100% of our key agricultural ingredients" and that it works with its suppliers to improve. "We believe we have made good progress in this area but acknowledge it is a journey," the company wrote in its statement for this article.

As the enormity of the task the company had set for itself sunk in, Coca-Cola and other working group members pressured Hoekstra to allow them to engage in an act of water accounting sleight of hand that would shave off nearly half of the Water Footprint for every half-liter of Coke, according to people at the meetings.

With one move, adopting "net green" water use rather than fully "green" water use could have wiped out 43 percent of Dutch Coke's water footprint. A water footprint using "net green" would subtract the amount of water natural vegetation might need if, say, a sugar plantation hadn't replaced it. In cases where pre-existing natural vegetation absorbed more water than the crop that replaced it, "net green" held out the possibility of reducing a company's overall water footprint despite industrial-scale farming's links to water pollution and other water sustainability issues. The Verge asked Coca-Cola about requesting that calculations be based on "net green" for water usage, but the company did not respond.

"There was a general push from the beverage companies toward 'net green,' and the issue also popped up specifically when we were doing our report," Hoekstra said, referring to the Water Footprint Assessments created for the company. "It felt like a victory when finally Coke accepted our report despite the general pressure within the [beverage] sector and Coke itself to change to net green."

After Hoekstra refused Coca-Cola's request to substitute the "green" for "net green" in his Water Footprint methodology, the company never moved forward with a Water Footprint of The Coca-Cola Company's global enterprise, limiting its attention to only the water that goes into each bottle. According to Koch, speaking on behalf of the company two years ago, there was no need since Hoekstra's work had already confirmed their "intuition" about the amount of water embedded in its supply chain.

Even as it became clear that the company would never get close to reaching "water neutrality" in its comprehensive meaning, Coca-Cola pushed on with its high-profile water-offset program in 2007, pledging to replace "every drop" of water used in its beverages. With The Nature Conservancy and other technical experts, the company devised a framework for evaluating projects and assessing how many liters each would "return" to nature in order to achieve company's promise of returning "every drop" of water used to make its beverages.

The company invests in three main types of projects. Its water and sanitation investments are designed to expand basic services in poor communities in Africa and elsewhere through well digging, water purification projects, and water distribution and metering systems. The company also funds "productive use" projects geared toward increasing water conservation and reuse and increasing the water supply for irrigation. Finally, there are watershed protection and restoration projects, which run the gamut from tree planting and stormwater management to high-tech irrigation projects designed to reduce the number of water crops need to grow.

The company told The Verge that "The Coca-Cola Company and our bottling partners have long believed that we must conduct our business more sustainably and grow responsibly" and that it has to work with its partners to achieve that. It also said that "[u]ltimately, our goal is to help protect and conserve water resources, and bring safe drinking water and sanitation to people in the communities we serve."

The nearly 2 billion liters of water the company offset in 2015 cover little more than its "operational water"

Since many of the projects were expected to improve water conditions over several years, the company came up with rules for documenting multiyear "credits," and it continues to report its progress in an annual Water Replenishment Report (along with an annual Sustainability Report), complete with hundreds of pages of fact sheets and technical footnotes. Coca-Cola told The Verge that it has invested in improving wastewater treatment, water-use efficiency, and addressing "local needs and challenges."

However, the nearly 2 billion liters of water the company offset in 2015 cover little more than its "operational water," that "very small percentage" of its Water Footprint, according to the company's own words a few years earlier in the Dutch report. Specifically, when it refers to returning "every drop," it's essentially referring only to the water that actually fits into each bottle or can of its beverages - the 0.5 liters in every half-liter bottle of Coke, which actually takes 35 liters of water to produce, according to the Water Footprint Assessment completed at that Holland factory. Coca-Cola didn't respond to questions from The Verge about whether it considers itself water neutral today or about the distinction between operational and total water use.

Furthermore, many of Coca-Cola's offsets projects face questions about whether they deliver the benefits Coke claims. Perhaps the most serious allegation dogging the company's conservation spending is over whether it properly vets projects to ensure they're supported by science. The company didn't answer detailed questions about these criticisms, which have been raised by scientists in Mexico.

When it refers to returning "every drop," it's referring only to the water that actually fits into each bottle

In Mexico, Coca-Cola and one of its bottlers financed forestry work that included the digging of trenches similar to ones used in farming. These infiltration trenches were meant to ensure sufficient water to the saplings. Coca-Cola has publicly taken credit for helping finance more than an estimated 5 million trenches in national parks and other forests around Mexico. However, these projects have come under fire for causing damage to some of the country's most iconic national parks.

The Mexican government's forestry commission, Conafor, discontinued the use of these trenches more than three years ago in some parts of the country. Scientific studies have concluded the practice did not improve growing conditions, but it did increase erosion and forest degradation. The lead author of the studies, Dr. Helena Cotler of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), told The Verge that she brought the problems to an executive who was in charge of community services for Coca-Cola de Mexico (a subsidiary of the Atlanta-based parent company) in 2014. The next year, a Mexican conservationist appeared in a YouTube video calling out Coca-Cola and other corporations that funded the trench work. In response, Cotler said the executive told her the company discontinued funding for trenches in 2015. (Coca-Cola did not respond to questions about whether it had discontinued trench funding.)

Nevertheless, in Coke's most recent replenishment report, published in April 2017, the company continued to count these discredited projects each year toward its worldwide replenishment tally through 2023. It is not an insignificant quantity. Of the total 221.7 billion liters of water that Coca-Cola estimates it restored to nature worldwide in 2016, the 13 billion liters the company attributes to the Mexican trench projects equals nearly 6 percent of its worldwide replenishment claims and about 7.5 percent of its worldwide watershed protection investments.

According to the company, the 191.9 billion liters returned "to nature" in 2015 allowed the company to achieve "balance" five years ahead of schedule

Those accounting issues didn't stop the company from announcing in 2016 that it had reached its water neutrality goal. "For every drop we use, we give one back," heralded Coke's press release. According to the company, the 191.9 billion liters returned "to nature" in 2015 had allowed the company to achieve "balance" - water neutrality - five years ahead of schedule.

Since then, the company has tallied every liter it says it's saved, and it reported water offsets worth a total of 221 billion liters in 2016, or "133 percent" of its global sales volume. But looking at its broader Water Footprint, this number represents only slightly more than its "operational water," not the water that goes into the supply chain. Going by the one full Water Footprint study the company conducted, nearly 99 percent of its water use is left unaccounted for - possibly more, considering that not all of the company's offset projects actually "return" water to nature, by the company's own admission.

Nearly 99 percent of its water use is left unaccounted for

"In most cases water access and improved sanitation projects result in an actual increase in local water use and it may seem counterintuitive to pursue these types of projects as a balance to industrial consumptive use," according to a 2013 paper written by Coca-Cola executives and affiliated consultants explaining how its water offset program works. The paper goes on to say that the company nonetheless believes that such added water use is not necessarily bad, as long as it is used in an equitable and sustainable way. Despite the lack of actual "replenishment," last year, the company said these water and sanitation projects offset a total of 12.2 billion liters per year.

Even Koch, who led the water-offset program for Coca-Cola before leaving the company last year, acknowledged that some of the projects - particularly drinking water projects -mitigate social, economic, and environmental risks but often increase water withdrawals in some places by making it easier for people to access water.

"It does not mean in this context in all cases necessarily that you are actually replenishing water," Koch said. But, he added, "I would say that the vast majority of the volume of water reported is truly replenished."

If the sustainability value of Coke's offset projects is sometimes doubtful, a remarkable number of these investments further other business needs of the company in the 900 or so communities around the world where it relies on local water supplies to make its products.

One of the most efficient ways Coke ensures access to water is by partnering with the government agencies that serve as gatekeepers to the world's best water sources. Since 2007, according to Koch, the company participated in about $1 billion in nature conservation, infrastructure, and water and sanitation projects in more than 100 countries in partnership with government and international agencies and nonprofit groups. (When asked about these investments, Coca-Cola told The Verge it had "invested approximately $2 billion" - half on wastewater upgrades to its plants and the rest on water efficiency investments and community water projects. It did not address the question of whether some of that money was provided by its partners.)

Such projects have been accused of privileging the company's water access over that of local populations. For instance, the Houston-based nonprofit Living Water International, which received Coca-Cola money through a coalition of nonprofit groups, faced accusations of attempting to carry out backdoor privatization of public water resources that could have driven up water prices in the Mexican town of Ocotepec. ( The moves sparked protests, and the organization did not complete the project. When asked about the criticism, Coca-Cola did not respond.)

A remarkable number of these investments further other business needs

Finally, the water project puts Coca-Cola in partnership with a broad array of environmental groups, resulting in large payouts to institutions whose missions are to raise alarms about unsustainable water use, among other issues. Coca-Cola has put millions of dollars into just about every independent environmental organization to help with, and do assessments of, its water replenishment program. Coke has spent tens of millions of dollars on water efficiency and access projects in partnerships with groups ranging from the UN Development Program to the US Agency for International Development, making it a darling of the organizations that track corporate citizenship.

Among the better-known nature groups the company has partnered with is the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). In Isdell's 2007 Beijing speech, he announced that Coca-Cola was giving $20 million to WWF to carry out conservation work, and the company has continued to work with WWF since then. The WWF-US praised Coca-Cola for its forward-thinking approach and said its replenishment targets represent "a step in the right direction," but it did not answer questions about what role it played in helping the company define water neutrality.

Neither Coca-Cola nor The Nature Conservancy (TNC) disclosed the total amount of money the company gave to the nonprofit to carry out conservation work and what TNC described as providing "counsel on a variety of issues," including helping the company develop the methodology it uses for the production of the unwieldy "quantifying" report Coca-Cola publishes annually to share its water-related good works. But the company has made multiple donations to support the organization's work, including a $2 million grant from The Coca-Cola Foundation to support freshwater restoration projects and nearly $7.4 million for replenishment from the company's Latin American division and its bottlers.

The water project puts Coca-Cola in partnership with a broad array of environmental groups

The organizations' leaders have also offered effusive and public praise of the company. "Our partnership with Coca-Cola has set the gold standard," according to Carter Roberts, president and CEO of World Wildlife Fund-US, while TNC president and CEO Mark Tercek, was quoted in Food Processing magazine in 2015 saying: "Coca-Cola's commitment to water underscores that investing in nature can produce very positive returns for businesses and local communities."

In a statement from TNC, Kari Vigerstol, director of TNC's Conservation for Water Funds, told The Verge:

"Coca-Cola has been a leader in the stewardship of water and has set an incredibly ambitious goal of reducing its water footprint, supporting watershed restoration projects, and increasing access to safe drinking water for communities. ... We need to embrace collaboration and innovation with the private sector to achieve the level of change that is necessary for agriculture, energy, water security."

WWF did not answer questions about what role it played in helping the company define water neutrality or whether Coca-Cola had achieved water neutrality. But TNC did acknowledge that "it's nearly impossible to make a scientific case for 'water neutrality' in a similar sense as carbon neutrality," even if "companies may choose to discuss 'water neutrality' since it is a way to communicate to consumers what they're trying to do," according to the statement from Vigerstol. It should be noted that Vigerstol was part of a team of authors that included Coca-Cola executives, who, in a 2013 paper, appeared to define water neutrality as achievable without including supply chain water. (The paper did, however, recommend expanding the "scope of the strategy" to "encompass the entire value chain of the enterprise.") Such a definition would have been at odds with the Water Neutral Calculator Hoekstra and Ndebele had unveiled at World Water Week in 2008.

The scientists, however, are far less impressed.

Hoekstra parted ways with Coca-Cola in 2008. But the company has continued to tout its water achievements; earlier this year, it embarked on a new "World Without Waste" initiative to tackle packaging. Coke described its promise to use 50 percent recycled content and to recycle "the equivalent" of 100 percent of packaging by 2030, a bid, the company said, to usher in a "circular economy."

"Together, we might be able to make it zero" waste, James Quincey, Coca-Cola's president and CEO, said in a January op-ed launching the initiative.

Criticisms have already arisen. In an editorial about the new project, John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK, derided the company's packaging pledge as a familiar smoke screen. He also likened the company's frequent sustainability announcements and public awareness campaigns to a covert advertising program that overlooks what he calls the company's "meagre" environmental standards and failure to meet past sustainability goals. Sauven also accused the company of announcing splashy packaging pledges, only to abandon them later, a charge reminiscent of the company's water neutrality work a decade ago, when Coca-Cola assessed the Water Footprint of its PET plastic bottles (part of the work conducted by Hoekstra at the Dutch plant) but never moved forward with offsetting water in its packaging.

"Coke is symptomatic of the economy that is ecologically unsound."

The waste initiative hasn't been completely panned. The company's pledge to recycle the equivalent of every bottle and can of its products has been well-received by many in the environmental community. However, despite talk of a "circular economy," the company's new 2030 packaging targets look weak next to those of other Fortune 500 companies. McDonald's, for instance, says 100 percent of its packaging will be made with "renewable, recycled, or certified sources" by 2025. With its own plan, Coca-Cola hopes to get halfway there by 2030.

Hoekstra, who said he was overly optimistic a decade ago, now thinks it was "a breakthrough that a big company did a first water footprint assessment and shared that publicly" in 2010. Rather than offsetting more water, he'd like Coca-Cola to get serious about reducing the water needs of its products. "My hope and expectation is that companies will sooner or later formulate water footprint reduction targets that include targets for their supply chain," he said.

When Isdell started the company down the path to water neutrality more than a decade ago, he told the audience in Beijing: "Our aim, ultimately, is to establish a truly water-sustainable business on a global scale." What they've done instead is perpetuate "Coca-Cola Capitalism," said historian Bartow J. Elmore, author of the 2015 book, Citizen Coke. "It's such a 19th century economic model. Perpetual growth - the endless pursuit of selling more products next year than you did last year: A fifth grader could tell you that's not sustainable," Elmore said. "Coke is symptomatic of the economy that is ecologically unsound."
This article was reported in partnership with The Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Coke spun the public on its water use

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Earlier this year, Coca-Cola announced a plan to recycle the equivalent of 100 percent of its packaging by 2030, citing its success with a similar and much-touted program for sustainable water use. But a year-long investigation reveals that the company has been grossly exaggerating its water record.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Water is unlike any other commodity on Earth.

For a start, we can't live without it, for very obvious reasons.

But it also underpins pretty much every activity we pursue in life - not just in our everyday lives, but in growing food, energy production and industry both large and small-scale.

Water is also unique in that it's pretty much indestructible - unlike most resources, it doesn't break down when heated up, but evaporates, constantly changing form to be transported to another place at another time.

As Betsy Otto, global director at the World Resources Institute's (WRI) Water Programme, says, "the water we drink today dropped off the nose of Tyrannosaurus rex".

This may help explain why this most precious of resources is free. For despite being incomparably more precious than any amount of gold, platinum or diamond, in most places on Earth water holds practically no financial value whatsoever.

But water can no longer be seen as an infinite resource as shortages become ever more commonplace across the world.

Unprecedented population growth, allied with greater wealth leading to far more water-intensive meat consumption; climate change causing more erratic weather and extreme droughts; and pollution are all putting a huge strain on finite water reserves.

So much so that more than a billion people currently live in water scarce regions, according to the WRI, a number that could grow to 3.5 billion by 2025. Indeed demand for water is projected to rise by 40% in the next 20 years.

To make matters worse, food and clothing production has in recent years moved increasingly to areas of water shortages - typically developing countries that have welcomed the opportunity to establish industries, creating jobs and wealth.

Indeed water and its delivery are often cheapest in the parts of the world where it is most scarce.

As Richard Mattison, head of environmental research group Trucost, says: "If jeans were made in Denmark, fine. But they're not, they're produced in parts of the world that suffer from severe water stress."

Clearly something has to give.

"We are in a race to the bottom, as if there were no supply limitations," says Ms Otto. "That needs to change. We need to understand that we are out of balance and that there are very serious risks."

'Sea change'

But the message is starting to get through.

There has been a "sea change in the last five years, led by forward looking companies", says Ms Otto, particularly in the clothing, food and drink industries.

SABMiller is just one such company. As Andre Fourie, its head of water security and environmental value, puts it, "no water, no beer!"

Acutely aware of risks to the business of water stress in the countries in which it produces - including India, Nigeria, Peru and South Africa - the UK brewer decided eight years ago to calculate its water footprint, and claims to be the first consumer goods company to do so.

It found that 90% of its water use came from growing the ingredients for its beer, such as barley and hops, rather than the actual water used to make the beer itself.

It resolved to cut its own water use by 20% by 2015, a target that was met "a little early". It now uses on average 3.5 litres of water to produce a litre of beer, and the company has set a target of just three litres by 2020.

But it also resolved to address the wider risks of water shortages in its supply chain, for example speaking to local mining companies and farmers outside of Lima, Peru, to reduce pollution and fertiliser run-off into local rivers.

And addressing these risks is not cheap. Such are the scale of the long and short-term risks to the overall business, the company is prepared to spend serious amounts of money to secure not just its supply of water, but its quality as well.

SAB typically spends $500,000 in each locality it operates, which may be home to just one brewery.

US clothing giant Levi Strauss, best know for its jeans, is another leader in water conservation.

Five years ago, understanding that water was a "critical" issue for its business, the company initiated a drive to reduce water use in its supply chain without compromising quality.

It is now using 96% less water in making a pair of jeans - far less than the industry average of 11,000 litres.

Actions like these will "reduce operational and reputational risk, [help] manage costs and generate growth through product innovation", says Michael Kobori, vice president of sustainability.

This initiative has saved not only one billion litres of water, but also energy consumption, and it has translated into a costs saving of 4 cents (2.8p) per pair of jeans.

Elsewhere, the consumer goods giant Unilever and the carmaker Volkswagen have spent several hundred thousand dollars on planting trees to secure their water supplies in Africa and South America.

The coffee giant Starbucks has committed millions of dollars to protect the water supply to its coffee plantations in Mexico and Indonesia.

Microsoft is even experimenting at vast expense with putting data centres under the ocean off the coast of California in a bid to reduce the water needed for cooling.

Human right

There are numerous, very real threats to water supplies for corporations the world over, primarily in agriculture, energy, utilities, IT and mining, but also in food and drink, clothing, consumer goods, retailing and beyond.

The great unknown is whether, one day, water itself rather than the delivery of it will be priced to reflect its uniquely important role in the global economy and to the human race.

Some argue that as a basic human right a price can never be put on accessing water; others that it is an unavoidable necessity.

A precedent has already been set in California and in the Murray Darling Basin in Australia, where water trading systems have been used successfully to reduce water use dramatically in times of drought.

If such schemes became widespread, the consequences for the corporate world would be dramatic.

Indeed research by Trucost suggests that more than half of the profits of the world's biggest companies would be at risk if water was priced to reflect its value.

Companies need to act now before it's too late.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Water is unlike any other commodity on Earth. For a start, we can't live without it, for very obvious reasons. But it also underpins pretty much every activity we pursue in life - not just in our everyday lives, but in growing food, energy production and industry both large and small-scale.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Different industries use different amounts of water depending on the country.

Developed countries tend to use more water for energy generation and businesses/industry, whilst developing countries tend to use much more water for agriculture and farming.

In this guide you can see how different industries use water worldwide, and in specific countries.

What Are The Trends For Global Water Use?

Global freshwater use has increased nearly six fold since 1900, mainly due to a growing global population and economic shift towards more resource-intensive consumption patterns

Rates of global freshwater use increased sharply from the 1950s onwards, but since 2000 appears to be plateauing, or at least slowing.

- OurWorldInData.org

Freshwater withdrawals have tripled over the last 50 years. Demand for freshwater is increasing by 64 billion cubic meters a year (1 cubic meter = 1,000 liters)

The world's population is growing by roughly 80 million people each year.

Changes in lifestyles and eating habits in recent years are requiring more water consumption per capita.

The production of biofuels has also increased sharply in recent years, with significant impact on water demand. Between 1,000 and 4,000 litres of water are needed to produce a single litre of biofuel.

Energy demand is also accelerating, with corresponding implications for water demand.

Almost 80% of diseases in so called "developing" countries are associated with water, causing some three million early deaths. For example, 5,000 children die every day from diarrhoea, or one every 17 seconds.

- worldometers.info

You can view a live global water use counter at http://www.worldometers.info/water/

What Is Industrial Water Use?

When you look at stats for industrial water use, you need to look at what definition for industrial water use has been given and what water use they have included and not included in the stats.

But, here are some water use descriptions:

Industrial withdrawals provide water for such purposes as fabricating, processing, washing, diluting, cooling, or transporting a product; incorporating water into a product; or for sanitation needs within the manufacturing facility.

Some industries that use large amounts of water produce such commodities as food, paper, chemicals, refined petroleum, or primary metals. Water for industrial use may be delivered from a public supplier or be self supplied.

- water.usgs.gov

Manufacturing and other industries use water during the production process for either creating their products or cooling equipment used in creating their products.

According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), industrial water is used for fabricating, processing, washing, diluting, cooling, or transporting a product.

Water is also used by smelting facilities, petroleum refineries, and industries producing chemical products, food, and paper products.

Large amounts of water are used mostly to produce food, paper, and chemicals.

- cdc.gov

Which Industries Use The Most Water Worldwide?

According to OurWorldInData.org:

There are three main ways the world uses water - for agriculture, for industrial purposes, and for municipal use.

Agriculture

Includes food crop, livestock, biofuels, or other non-food crop production.

Water used in the form of rainfed sources or pumped irrigation

Data on agricultural water consumption is typically not reported on an annual basis, and often gathered over several year increments.

In 2010 India was the world's largest agricultural water consumer at nearly 700 billion m³ per year.

India's agricultural water consumption has been growing rapidly - almost doubling between 1975 and 2010 - as its population and total food demand continues to increase.

China is the world's second largest user, at approximately 385 billion m3 in 2015, although its agricultural freshwater use has approximately plateaued in the recent past.

Globally we use approximately 70 percent of freshwater withdrawals for agriculture.

However, this share varies significantly by country - where there are large variations geographically and by income level. The average agricultural water use for low-income countries is 90 percent; 79 percent for middle income and only 41 percent at high incomes. There are a number of countries across South Asia, Africa and Latin America which use more than 90 percent of water withdrawals for agriculture. The highest is Afghanistan at 99 percent. Countries in the global north tend to use a much lower share of water for agriculture; Germany and the Netherlands use less than one percent.

Irrigation - the deliberate provision or controlled flooding of agricultural land with water - has been an important input factor in the observed increase of crop yields across many countries in recent decades. It has also been a strong driver in the quantity of water used for agriculture.

The share of total agricultural area (which is the combination of arable and grazing land) which is irrigated is particularly prevalent across South & East Asia and the Middle East; Pakistan, Bangladesh and South Korea all irrigate more than half of their agricultural area. India irrigates 35 percent of its agricultural area.

Levels of irrigation in Sub-Saharan Africa have increased, and continue to have, lower levels of irrigation relative to South Asia and the Middle East & North Africa. Poorer progress in increasing crop yields in recent decades in Sub-Saharan Africa has been partly attributed (among other factors including fertilizer application rates and crop varieties) to lower uptake of irrigation in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Industrial

Municipal water is defined as the water we use for domestic, household purposes or public services. This is typically the most 'visible' form of water: the water we use for drinking, cleaning, washing, and cooking.

With the largest population, China's domestic water demands are highest at over 70 billion m³ per year. India, the next largest populace is the third largest municipal water user. The United States, despite having a much lower population, is the second largest user as a result of higher per capita water demands.

Despite being the most visible use of freshwater, domestic demands for most countries are small relative to agricultural and industrial applications. Globally around 11 percent of withdrawals are used for municipal purposes.

Municipal uses as a share of total water withdrawals across the world ... The majority of countries use less than 30 percent of withdrawals for domestic purposes.

The share of municipal water in some countries across Sub-Saharan Africa can be high as a result of very low demands for agricultural and industrial withdrawals. Domestic uses of water withdrawals can also dominate in some countries across Europe with high rainfall, such as the United Kingdom and Ireland where agricultural production is often largely rainfed and industrial output is low.

- OurWorldInData.org

The majority of our demand for water is driven by agriculture, accounting for a huge 70% of our global consumption.

However industry accounts for nearly 20% of our fresh water needs, and there are indications this demand will rise.

In advanced economies as much as 45% of all water demand is generated by industry.

If we are to address this challenge then industry must not only be more efficient in the water that we use, but be willing to explore the great possibilities provided by water reuse.

Greywater re-use and recycling for non potable water applications is a good opportunity for this

- ge.com

Worldwide, agriculture accounts for 70% of all water consumption, compared to 20% for industry and 10% for domestic use.

In industrialized nations, however, industries consume more than half of the water available for human use.

Belgium, for example, uses 80% of the water available for industry.

- worldometers.info

Worldwide, high-income countries use 59 percent of their water for industrial use, while low-income countries use 8 percent

- cdc.gov

Which Industries Use The Most Water In The United States?

According to News.Thomasnet.com:

A 2010 report titled Direct and Indirect Water Withdrawals for U.S. Industrial Sectors, conducted by civil engineers at Carnegie Mellon University, handily broke down water usage by industry sector, taking into consideration both direct water usage - which means bringing water into a manufacturing facility for your industrial process - and indirect water usage - when a manufacturing facility is buying items from the supply chain that were manufactured by someone else using water, then incorporating those materials into the finished product.

In terms of direct water usage, the agriculture and power-generation industries are responsible for 90 percent of direct water withdrawals.

Yet a majority of water usage (about 60 percent) is indirect: about 96 percent of industry sectors use more water indirectly than directly in their supply chains.

Fruit & Vegetable Farming - while meat farming is often targeted as an energy- and carbon-intensive sector, it shows up lower on the list in terms of water use per dollar of economic output than fruit, grain and vegetable farming. Notoriously thirsty cash crops like wheat, corn, rice, cotton and sugarcane lead the pack in water usage. (A single 5 lb. bag of refined white sugar uses about 88 gallons of water, most of it from the farming of sugar cane and sugar beets.)

Power Generation - it takes a staggering 95 liters of water to produce one kilowatt-hour of electricity. Within the energy industry, the most water-hungry process is the thermoelectric-power industry. Overall, electrical power production uses more water than any other single industrial process, according to IEEE Spectrum. In 2005, about 201,000 million gallons of water were used each day to produce electricity (this figure excludes hydroelectric power). Not all energy is created equal when it comes to water usage. According to the Virginia Water Resources group, natural gas gets top marks for efficiency in the energy industry, yielding the most energy per unit volume of water consumed. Only about 10 gallons of water are required to extract enough natural gas to generate 1,000 kWh of electricity. By comparison, a coal-fired power plant delivering the same amount of energy would use about 140 gallons of water. Perhaps most surprising, some biodiesel isn't quite so green in the context of water consumption. More than 180,000 liters of water are required to produce enough soybean-based biodiesel to provide a home with a month's worth of energy. This is because large amounts of water are required for irrigation of the soil in which the soybeans grow, then more water to turn the soybeans into biofuel.

Textiles & Garments - The textile industry is one of the biggest creators of wastewater worldwide. According to the U.S. EPA, it takes 2,900 gallons of water to produce a single pair of jeans. Most of this water is used in what's known as "wet processing" as well as dyeing of fabric.

Meat Production - According to a study by the UNESCO Institute for Water Education, conducted between 1996 and 2005, "29 percent of the total water footprint of the agricultural sector in the world is related to the production of animal products." One-third of that water is used to raise beef cattle.

Beverage Industry -produces sodas, beers, juices and other drinks. Yet it isn't necessarily the production and bottling processes that are to blame. Rather, it is the plants: the beverage industry requires farmed products such as sugar, barley, coffee, chocolate, lemons, vanilla and other plant-derived ingredients. All in all, it takes between 180 and 328 gallons of water to produce a 2-liter bottle of soda, 20 gallons of water to make a pint of beer and nearly 37 gallons of water to produce the ingredients to make a single cup of coffee, according to the Water Footprint Network.

Automotive Manufacturing - it takes about 39,000 gallons of water to produce the average domestic car, including the tires. Major water uses in the automotive manufacturing industry include surface treatment and coating, paint spray booths, washing/rinsing/hosing, cooling, air conditioning systems and boilers.

- news.thomasnet.com, and pubs.acs.org

In 2010, the US:

Used/withdrew 306,000 Mgal/d of freshwater total

Withdrew 230,000 Mgal/d (million gallons a day) of freshwater from surface water (rivers and lakes), and 76,000 Mgal/d of freshwater from groundwater

That water was distributed as follows...

Thermoelectric - 117,000 Mgal/d

Irrigation - 115,000 Mgal/d

Public Supply - 42,000 Mgal/d

Industrial - 15,000 Mgal/d

Aquaculture - 9,420 Mgal/d

Domestic - 3,600 Mgal/d

Mining - 2,250 Mgal/d

Livestock - 2,000 Mgal/d

(Note that a million gallons of water is approximately 20,000 baths, or a pool the size of 267 feet long (almost as long as a football field), 50 feet wide, and 10 feet deep)

You can read a breakdown of what each of these sectors include here - https://water.usgs.gov/watuse/

Descriptions/breakdowns of the two biggest water users, thermoelectric, and irrigation, are:

Water for thermoelectric power is used in the process of generating electricity with steam-driven turbine generators. Since 2000, thermoelectric-power withdrawals have been compiled by cooling-system type. Once-through cooling refers to cooling systems in which water is circulated through heat exchangers, and then returned to the source. Recirculating cooling refers to cooling systems in which water is circulated through heat exchangers, cooled using ponds or towers, and then recirculated. Subsequent water withdrawals for a recirculating system are used to replace water lost to evaporation, blowdown, drift, and leakage. Prior to 2000, thermoelectric-power withdrawals were compiled by fuel type (fossil-fuel, nuclear, and geothermal).

Thermoelectric power cooling water sources include fresh and saline water from both surface-water and groundwater sources. Reclaimed wastewater is a supplemental source of water for thermoelectric power, especially in areas where additional water sources are needed for plant operations.

Irrigation water use includes water that is applied by an irrigation system to sustain plant growth in agricultural and horticultural practices. Irrigation also includes water that is used for pre-irrigation, frost protection, chemical application, weed control, field preparation, crop cooling, harvesting, dust suppression, and leaching salts from the root zone. Estimates of irrigation withdrawals are generally accounted for at the point of diversion (wells, springs, streams, ponds) and include water that is lost in conveyance prior to application on fields, as well as water that may subsequently return to a surface-water body as runoff after application, water consumed as evapotranspiration (ET) from plants and evaporated from the ground, or water that recharges aquifers as it seeps past the root zone.

Irrigation of golf courses, parks, nurseries, turf farms, cemeteries, and other self-supplied landscape-watering uses also are included in the estimates. Irrigation water use includes self-supplied withdrawals and deliveries from irrigation companies or districts, cooperatives, or governmental entities. All irrigation withdrawals are considered freshwater. Some water used for irrigation is reclaimed wastewater from nearby treatment facilities or industries. Nationwide estimates of consumptive use of water withdrawn for irrigation were estimated for 2015 for the first time since 1995. Irrigated acres are reported by three types of irrigation methods: sprinkler, microirrigation, and surface (flood) systems.

- water.usgs.gov

According to 2010 US Water Withdrawals, water goes to:

*Livestock uses less than 1% of of water withdrawals

- epa.gov

The United States Geological Survey estimates that (as of 2005, the most recent year for which data is available) we withdraw 410 billion gallons of water a day, including both fresh and saline water.

Most (80%) of these withdrawals go to thermoelectric power plants (for cooling) and agriculture (for watering crops).

Another 11 percent (about 44 billion gallons of water) go to municipal supply and ultimately treatment systems each day (by the way, moving and treating that much water requires massive amounts of energy).

- gracelinks.org

In terms of domestic water use...

Domestic water use (also called home or residential water use) in the United States was estimated by the United States Geological Survey at 29.4 billion US gallons (111,000,000 m³) per day in 2005, and 27.4 billion US gallons (104,000,000 m³) per day in 2010 (7 percent lower).

The bulk of domestic water is provided through public networks. 13% or 3.6 billion US gallons (14,000,000 m³) of water is self-supplied.

The average domestic water use per person in the U.S. was 98-US-gallon (370 L) per day in 2005, and 88-US-gallon (330 L) per day in 2010.

This is about 2.2 times as high as in England (150 Liter) and 2.6 times as high as in Germany (126 Liter).

One of the reasons for the high domestic water use in the U.S. is the high share of outdoor water use. For example, the arid West has some of the highest per capita domestic water use, largely because of landscape irrigation. Per capita domestic water use varied from 51-US-gallon (190 L) per day in Maine to 148-US-gallon (560 L) per day in Arizona and 167-US-gallon (630 L) per day in Utah.

According to a 1999 study, on average all over the U.S. 58% of domestic water use is outdoors for gardening, swimming pools etc. and 42% is used indoors.

A 2016 update of the 1999 study measured the average quantities and percent shares of seven indoor end uses of water:

24% Toilets

3% Baths

20% Showers

17% Clothes Washers

1% Dishwashers

19% Faucets

4% Other Domestic Uses

- wikipedia.org (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_water_supply_and_sanitation_in_the_United_States)

The average American family uses more than 300 gallons of water per day at home. Roughly 70 percent of this use occurs indoors.

Nationally, outdoor water use accounts for 30 percent of household use yet can be much higher in drier parts of the country and in more water-intensive landscapes. For example, the arid West has some of the highest per capita residential water use because of landscape irrigation.

- epa.gov

Which Industries Use The Most Water In Europe?

The most important uses, in terms of total abstraction, have been identified as urban (households and industry connected to the public water supply system), industry, agriculture and energy (cooling in power plants).

On average, 44 % of total water abstraction in Europe is used for agriculture, 40 % for industry and energy production (cooling in power plants), and 15 % for public water supply.

The main water consumption sectors are irrigation, urban, and manufacturing industry.

Southern European countries use the largest percentages of abstracted water for agriculture. This generally accounts for more than two-thirds of total abstraction. Irrigation is the most significant use of water in the agriculture sector in these countries.

Central European and the Nordic countries use the largest percentages of abstracted water for cooling in energy production, industrial production and public water supply.

- eea.europa.eu

Which Industries Use The Most Water In Australia?

You can find a good infographic of this water extraction, usage, and discharge at http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/4610.0

- abs.gov.au

Possible Solutions To High Water Usage

"In many parts of the world, water scarcity is increasing and rates of growth in agricultural production have been slowing," United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in an address to mark World Water Day last month.

"At the same time, climate change is exacerbating risk and unpredictability for farmers, especially for poor farmers in low-income countries...These interlinked challenges are increasing competition between communities and countries for scarce water resources, aggravating old security dilemmas, creating new ones and hampering the achievement of the fundamental human rights to food, water and sanitation."

Experts say water shortages aren't solely about a planetary climate that is becoming warmer and drier. Much of the blame can also be laid on the mismanagement of existing water resources.

Many industrial processes use a staggering amount of water from start to finish.

It takes about 270 gallons of water to produce $1 worth of sugar; 200 gallons of water to make $1 worth of pet food; and 140 gallons of water to make $1 worth of milk.

Fruit and Vegetable Farming - Better technology and irrigation management would go a long way toward solving some of these problems.Many farms are investing in technologies for water management, according to a New York Times report last year. These hardware- and software-based solutions use remote sensing data and satellite images to measure factors such as evaporation and yield, identifying areas where water is being used productively and areas where it's being wasted.

Power Generation - Using salt water for cooling equipment. Use less water intensive forms of power generation.

Textiles & Garments - Both cost-cutting demands and a tightening of environmental regulations are forcing textile and garment companies to evaluate how they use water (particularly if they operate in areas where water is scarce).

Automotive Manufacturing - One of the most water-conscious automakers is PSA Peugeot Citroën. While the company uses about 20 million cubic meters of water each year, it strives to clean and return all of it to the environment, purifying the water it uses at all stages of production, including cooling welding machinery, washing sheet steel, painting and water tightness testing.

- news.thomasnet.com

- news.thomasnet.com

1. Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser (2018) - "Water Access, Resources & Sanitation". Published online at OurWorldInData.org. Retrieved from: 'https://ourworldindata.org/water-access-resources-sanitation' [Online Resource]

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_water_supply_and_sanitation_in_the_United_States

3. http://www.gracelinks.org/210/how-the-united-states-uses-water

4. https://water.usgs.gov/edu/wateruse-diagrams.html

5. https://www.epa.gov/watersense/how-we-use-water

6. https://water.usgs.gov/watuse/wuin.html

7. https://water.usgs.gov/watuse/

8. https://www.ge.com/reports/global-thirst-water-use-industry/

9. http://www.worldometers.info/water/

10 .https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/other/industrial/index.html

11. https://water.usgs.gov/edu/saline.html

12. https://water.usgs.gov/watuse/wuin.html

13. https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/water/water-resources/water-use-by-sectors

14. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/4610.0

15. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Latestproducts/4610.0Main%20Features32015-16?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=4610.0&issue=2015-16&num=&view=

16. https://news.thomasnet.com/imt/2012/04/10/down-the-drain-industry-water-use

17. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es903147k?tokenDomain=presspac&tokenAccess=presspac&forwardService=showFullText&journalCode=esthag

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Which Industries Use The Most Water - Better Meets Reality

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Different industries use different amounts of water depending on the country. Developed countries tend to use more water for energy generation and businesses/industry, whilst developing countries tend to use much more water for agriculture and farming. In this guide you can see how different industries use water worldwide, and in specific countries.