A nominal water aerator limits water around 5L-6L/min levels. For every minute I don't use the water, I spend approximately two full kettles of water.

With every 5L of water I can

    - Cook 4 servings (~400 grams) of pasta.
    - Brew 5L of tea/coffee
    - Water all the plants at home two times.
    - Possibly wash most of my handwash-only dishes in one go.
    - etc.

So it's not not meaningfully wasteful. However, I can't turn off the water in the winter, because I feel very cold otherwise. However, this doesn't mean I don't waste any water or happy about what I'm doing. My only (half) relief is this water is somehow processed and reused by city for other needs, at least one more time.

▲ eek2121 a year ago | parent | next [-]

Water is by far the most abundant resource on the planet (70+% of earth is water), and we have methods to remove salt and contaminants from almost all of it. We can even turn urine into drinking water.

I wouldn’t worry about wasting it. We’ll die from something else long before water becomes an issue.

▲

bagels a year ago | parent | next [-]

Water already is an issue in many places. It's expensive and in limited supply because we can't drink salt water and storage, treatment and delivery cost money.

▲

crooked-v a year ago | parent | next [-]

For the US in particular, water issues come down overwhelmingly to unfettered agricultural use, often with crops like alfalfa that are both mostly water by weight and are shipped out of the country to other places. Domestic use is only a fraction of the total.

	▲	throwaway2037 a year ago \| parent [-]
		I am pretty sure that this is true in all developed countries. When you see farming without irrigation, you will see more poverty. It is very important for human development. That said, it could sometimes be done more efficiently, but more costly.

▲

gambiting a year ago | parent | prev [-]

And in some other places it's so abundant that water companies don't even bother metering it, you just pay one flat fee a month and you can use as much as you like.

▲

kazinator a year ago | parent | prev | next [-]

70% of the surface of the Earth is covered by water. That turns out to mean little. Have you seen this?

https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/all-earths-water-a-single-...

▲

appreciatorBus a year ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The issue in cities where most people live is only sometimes about the actual quantity of water available, but the cost and capacity of infrastructure to collect, treat, and distribute the water.

▲

hooverd a year ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Currently, my waste water goes right back into the Mississippi. Fresh water galore. That's not the case on the west coast. Residential (lawns aside) isn't a drop in the bucket compared to agriculture though.

▲

bayindirh a year ago | parent | prev [-]

The amount, abundance and share of water among everything on this planet doesn't mean anything if none of it is in that dam nearby your city and you can't utilize it.

Similarly, that spring water has no use if you can't extract it and get out from the hands of capitalistic companies (cough Nestlé & CocaCola cough) which monopolize said spring and suck it dry without giving it to you.

Don't forget, Nestlé's CEO told that "water is something they package and sell, and that water is not a human right". So don't expect it to get that abundant resource and use it the way you wish.

So, water is precious. You need to be mindful about it.

▲ pantalaimon a year ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The water is cheap and plentiful, what's wasteful is heating the water and throwing that away.

▲

bagels a year ago | parent | next [-]

If you live in Minnesota, sure. Not as true in Australia.

▲

bayindirh a year ago | parent | prev [-]

The maps, surveys and projections say otherwise, but of course you're free to believe what you believe.

▲

TeMPOraL a year ago | parent [-]

That's the thing, dollars are usually a better indicator, unless something somewhere is burning money to prevent prices from reflecting real scarcity.

	▲	bayindirh a year ago \| parent [-]
		We're drinking one of the cheapest drinking water in the world, but this doesn't change the reality of sinkholes appearing where we deplete the water in our country. So, the prices might not be rising that quickly for now, but sinkholes are giving us the warning. Prices don't always point correctly, esp. when there are other economic and socioeconomic factors at play.

▲ eru a year ago | parent | prev [-]

Well, even if the city doesn't re-use the water, it doesn't just disappear.

▲

bayindirh a year ago | parent [-]

Yeah, but getting rid of chemicals and returning it to a non-poisonous state for the nature is a big plus.

You can't dump everything to the soil and say "that's your problem now, nature. Cope!".

▲

toast0 a year ago | parent | next [-]

Assuming you use the same amount of soap and what nots, and get the same amount of dirt and debris off your body, the more water you use during a shower, the easier it is to process the water at your sewage treatment plant, if your waste water is treated.

If your waste water isn't treated, and is discharged to water ways as-is, the more water you use, the more dilute your pollution.

If you've got a septic system, I dunno? Probably doesn't help, but if your system is well sized, no big deal? Some of your outflow probably recharges aquifers, so it's kind of circular (although a lot of the outflow evaporates, so less directly circular there)

▲

eru a year ago | parent [-]

> [...] the easier it is to process the water at your sewage treatment plant, if your waste water is treated.

It's easier to process per litre, but it is easier to process in absolute numbers?

▲

toast0 a year ago | parent [-]

Part of processing is often adding clean water; to the extent that you've already done it upstream, the treatment plant can add less.

	▲	eru 10 months ago \| parent [-]
		Maybe. Though when you add clean water upstream that usually means water clean enough to be fit for drinking (because that what comes out of your tap.) When they dilute at the treatment plant, they can use somewhat dirtier clean water.

▲

eru a year ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes, I mean when you are 'wasting water' you are mostly wasting the effort it takes to clean the water. Not the water itself.

As opposed to eg 'wasting petrol', where the petrol really is gone afterwards. At least it has been chemically transformed.

▲

shepherdjerred a year ago | parent | prev [-]

> You can't dump everything to the soil and say "that's your problem now, nature. Cope!".

Nature couldn't care less. Nature works on much larger timescales than humans. It's the humans that are impacted.

Just like climate change, plastic, and all other environmental issues -- humans are paying (or will pay) the price, not nature.

▲

eru a year ago | parent [-]

It depends on what you mean by 'nature'. On a large enough scale, 'nature' doesn't care whether earth is hit by a moon sized asteroid, either.

	▲	shepherdjerred a year ago \| parent [-]
		I think we’re in agreement :)