Quantcast
Environmental News for a Healthier Planet and Life

Jay Z is Wrong, Water Service Is Not Free

Last week while promoting his new music service, Tidal, Jay Z made a well intended but nonetheless tone deaf statement, gushing about the beauty of supposedly “free” water service. While tap water may seem free to a rap mogul, those in Detroit who have been living without this essential service because they cannot afford to pay their water bills are singing a very different tune. In a seemingly unrelated development, the New York Times published an editorial that day claiming that water isn’t priced highly enough and thus isn’t properly valued. Both statements were wrong, and reflect some fundamental misconceptions about how our society views and values water.

We must restore aging, leaking infrastructure systems and better regulate industrial and agricultural water takings to prevent chronic over-extraction. We must recognize the impact of all water use—including industrial and domestic needs, and we must demand collective responsibility.
Photo credit: Shutterstock

While many of us are conditioned to turning on the tap and always finding water flowing from it, it’s crucial to note that water is a finite resource. We may pay fractions of a penny for a glass of tap water, but that water doesn’t magically find its way to our homes—it gets there through a complex infrastructure system that requires billions of dollars a year for upkeep.

Many of these systems were built around the same time that Henry Ford developed the first Model T, are reaching the end of their lifespans and are in desperate need of costly upgrades. In 2014, the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF), which provides federal funding to maintain safe drinking water, received $907 million in federal funding—enough to finance only 5 percent of what is needed.

While it’s easy to assume that raising water rates might compel consumers to conserve more, the reality is not so simple. According to Food & Water Watch analysis of water rates and usage, people do not drink less water or wash their clothes significantly less when their water rates increase. That’s because short of buying a new water-saving appliance, it’s just not possible to use significantly less water for basic health and sanitation. What’s more, when household consumption is only eight percent of total U.S. freshwater use, it is a red herring to suggest that raising household rates will solve our water crisis.

Moreover, doing so would place a disproportional burden on consumers when the actual source of the problem lies chiefly with corporate water abusers.

In the U.S., 52 percent of freshwater is consumed by industrial and commercial users, particularly for mining and energy production. Another 40 percent of that freshwater is used for irrigation, raising livestock and aquaculture facilities, according to 2005 U.S. Geological Survey data. Clearly, any realistic measures to conserve water should focus on these sectors.

We must find ways to cut back on industrial water consumption. To do so, the U.S. needs to develop and implement comprehensive watershed planning policies that prioritize water for local residents. Rather than building expensive pipelines to supply water for agribusiness to grow export crops like almonds and soybeans, or draining the Ogallala Aquifer to produce corn ethanol, we must ensure that water is not removed from watersheds faster than it can be naturally replenished. A comprehensive, sustainable water management plan would prevent the corporate export of water for profit—especially during times of drought when households are being asked to ration their use.

Just last week, protesters shut down the Nestlé water plant in Sacramento because it was bottling during a drought. California is, of course, suffering from the worst drought in recorded history, and consumers are being asked to cut down on their own water consumption, while industrial users continue to suck the land dry. Gov. Brown announced measures this week to curb the water crisis, but they do not address the state’s most egregious water abusers. When you consider the fact that residential water use is a mere drop in the bucket compared to industrial water habits, it makes absolutely no sense to expect households to solve this crisis.

It’s time for a reality check. Water service is not free, low prices are not to blame for the water crisis and climate change alone is not causing drought. The real culprit is a failure to align our water management policies with environmental and human needs.

We cannot price away our water woes. Instead, we must restore aging, leaking infrastructure systems and better regulate industrial and agricultural water takings to prevent chronic over-extraction. We must recognize the impact of all water use—including industrial and domestic needs, and we must demand collective responsibility.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

California’s Historic Drought Threatens the Future of Orca Whales

Fracking’s Most Wanted

Drought-Stricken California Exempts Big Oil and Big Ag from Mandatory Restrictions

EcoWatch Daily Newsletter

Moroccan patients who recovered from the novel coronavirus disease celebrate with medical staff as they leave the hospital in Sale, Morocco, on April 3, 2020. AFP / Getty Images

By Tom Duszynski

The coronavirus is certainly scary, but despite the constant reporting on total cases and a climbing death toll, the reality is that the vast majority of people who come down with COVID-19 survive it. Just as the number of cases grows, so does another number: those who have recovered.

In mid-March, the number of patients in the U.S. who had officially recovered from the virus was close to zero. That number is now in the tens of thousands and is climbing every day. But recovering from COVID-19 is more complicated than simply feeling better. Recovery involves biology, epidemiology and a little bit of bureaucracy too.

Read More Show Less
Reef scene with crinoid and fish in the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Reinhard Dirscherl / ullstein bild / Getty Images

By Elizabeth Claire Alberts

The future for the world's oceans often looks grim. Fisheries are set to collapse by 2048, according to one study, and 8 million tons of plastic pollute the ocean every year, causing considerable damage to delicate marine ecosystems. Yet a new study in Nature offers an alternative, and more optimistic view on the ocean's future: it asserts that the entire marine environment could be substantially rebuilt by 2050, if humanity is able to step up to the challenge.

Read More Show Less
Sponsored
A daughter touches her father's head while saying goodbye as medics prepare to transport him to Stamford Hospital on April 02, 2020 in Stamford, Connecticut. He had multiple COVID-19 symptoms. John Moore / Getty Images

Across the country, the novel coronavirus is severely affecting black people at much higher rates than whites, according to data released by several states, as The New York Times reported.

Read More Show Less
Four rolls of sourdough bread are arranged on a surface. Photo by Laura Chase de Formigny and food styling by Lisa Cherkasky for The Washington Post / Getty Images

By Zulfikar Abbany

Bread has been a source of basic nutrition for centuries, the holy trinity being wheat, maize and rice. It has also been the reason for a lot of innovation in science and technology, from millstones to microbiological investigations into a family of single-cell fungi called Saccharomyces.

Read More Show Less

Trending

A coral reef in Egypt's Red Sea. Tropical ocean ecosystems could see sudden biodiversity losses this decade if emissions are not reduced. Georgette Douwma / Stone / Getty Images

The biodiversity loss caused by the climate crisis will be sudden and swift, and could begin before 2030.

Read More Show Less