What is a Water Footprint?

I was glancing at articles in Discover Magazine and saw one titled “How Big Is Your Water Footprint?” This caught my eye because I have heard of the term “carbon footprint” but never “water footprint.”

It is something I had not given too much thought to, but holds much merit. We only think about the water we consume around the house and do our best by installing water efficient faucets and shower-heads. What this article addresses is that the products we consume have a water footprint consumers should know about.

One example is the typical 12 ounce cup of coffee. One would think it only takes 12 ounces of water to make that cup of coffee but in reality it takes close to 40 gallons, which go into watering the coffee plants and cooling the roasters during the processing of the beans.

Conservation scientists believe it is time people start being informed of a product’s water footprint, which is basically the total amount of water that goes into the manufacture of a product. This can help consumers understand just how much water is required to make a product.

According to Brad Ridoff, a water conservation specialist from Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, consumers also need to know where the water is coming from because some geographical areas have more abundance of fresh water than others. He also mentions that food and energy production account for nearly 90% of the world’s fresh water consumption, which is an incredibly high percentage.

The productions of different food products take a different toll on fresh water supplies. Two examples are an 18-ounce jar of pasta sauce and a small bag of Peanut M&M’s. The pasta sauce requires about 52 gallons of water to grow the tomatoes, sugar, garlic and onions. The M & M’s require 300 gallons of water to produce. Now you would think the M&M’s take a far greater toll on our fresh water resources, but the fact is that the pasta sauce is the one taking the greater toll.

Since tomato plants are typically grown in hot, dry climates, they are watered using irrigation systems that typically draw water from the same locations as human drinking water. Whereas, the peanuts and cocoa in the M&M’s are gown in temperate areas that do not need irrigation and they pull the water directly from the ground. Therefore, the pasta sauce is about ten times more likely to contribute to water scarcity than the M&M’s. This is why Brad Ridoff believes location is such an important component in computing the water footprint of a product.

Not all conservationists believe including location is important in calculating the water footprint of a product. Conservationists are still trying to figure out how to best include all the environmental impacts so they can incorporate this into a food label. Some believe it is best to just simply report the total volume of water used.

I think Brad Ridoff has a good point and they need to somehow incorporate the source of the water used as well. A product grown in Arizona, like cotton, is more likely to be depleting fresh water that is very scarce for that area, as opposed to growing blackberries in Seattle, WA where fresh water is plentiful.