Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

gunplumber700 t1_iwj152i wrote

There’s only a handful of areas where it’s a major problem (cough cough LA).

Focusing on water loss and reducing that would save quite a bit of water, but for whatever reason everyone is fine with throwing away treated potable water but is gung ho for drinking wastewater.

In my 5 minutes google search LA uses 10,999 MILLION gallons a month and has 7% water loss. I know it’ll never be 0, but that 770 MILLION gallons a month isn’t negligible.

6

outofideastx t1_iwjco13 wrote

UCLA said that the LA area reports of 3-7% water loss are because main breaks are being counted as "Unbilled, Unmetered consumption" instead of loss in some areas, and state of the art utilities still report a 10% water loss. I also found a Reuter's article stating that over 25% of the water mains in LA are teetering on 100 years old. I think it's safe to say that their figures are incomplete at best.

The relatively large Texas city I work for ranges between 10 and 20% depending on the year.

https://www.ioes.ucla.edu/news/california-water-agencies-dont-know-much-pipes-leak-ucla-report-finds/

2

gunplumber700 t1_iwjdpxa wrote

I wanted to use 7% to be conservative. It’s definitely much higher.

Imo distribution systems are one of the most neglected parts of the water utility system.

Why everyone thinks they’ll last forever is beyond me.

4

outofideastx t1_iwjf36o wrote

It's frustrating to say the least. At the pace we're going, we will have all the cast iron replaced in 50 years. By then, the ductile will be 90-110 years old, and the PVC will be 50-90. The math doesn't add up.

3

enemy_lettuce838 t1_iwjo4bn wrote

The US isn't the only place where water is important.

1

gunplumber700 t1_iwjrb8s wrote

No, but seeing as the article was written in California I chose a California city as an example.

0