The Nature Conservancy: Is 0.03% 'Drinkable and Accessible' Water Really All There Is? Nope - Try 0.4%

Curmudgeon Alert: I'm harping on the water cycle again - its stocks, not flows - and the 'dissing' of groundwater. Here are links to three sites that form the basis of this post: USGS (groundwater), USGS (water cycle), and NGWA (groundwater use).

Mom & Apple Pie - My Bad?
I am taking The Nature Conservancy to task for promulgating misinformation. This is not an easy thing to do because I admire TNC and think it's one of the best (along with IUCN) environmental/conservation organizations in the world. TNC brags about its stellar freshwater scientists, and they are right - I know and have worked with some of them. Many of them do groundwater work - here is a great example.    

I suspect their excellent scientists would not support the TNC HQ folks on this issue.

The Issue
A month or so ago I received the following graphic via Twitter:

It was retweeted by a number of people I follow on Twitter. It is part of TNC's 'Liquid Courage' promotion (TNC made it easy to Tweet this graphic with a pop-up as you scrolled through the Liquid Courage site). Even Alexandra Cousteau, yes - the granddaughter of Jacques Cousteau - retweeted it.

My immediate thought: 'That figure is wrong; it is too low. I bet groundwater was neglected." I retweeted something to that effect.

TNC's 0.03% Solution: Some Perspective  
Let's talk about TNC's 0.03% number. That is a very small percentage, but it is a small percentage of a VERY large number: about 321 million cubic miles or 1.34 billion cubic kilometers of water. So the amount of 'drinkable and accessible' water is about 96,000 cubic miles or 400,000 cubic kilometers. That water would comprise a cube about 46 miles on an edge or a sphere about 57 miles in diameter. Still hard to visualize? That amount of water would cover my home state of Oregon (or Wyoming, or Michigan) to a depth of one mile, or California to a depth of about 0.6 mile (3100 feet). 

An aside: you should realize that all these numbers - global-scale water estimates - have a lot of undertainty in them. We just don't have these numbers pinned down with a great deal of accuracy. I tell my students +/- 10-20% (and that is itself a SWAG).

Back to 0.03% now. I know you're saying, "Wow, that really is not a lot of water for >7B people and Earth's ecosystems!" It's not - check out this great visual. However, keep in mind that the TNC figure is comprised mostly (solely?) of renewable surface water. So that 0.03% is used over and over again, although the quality can be degraded, especially after humans use it. 

Nonetheless, that figure - 0.03% drinkable and accessible water - is patently wrong. It is too low. Where does that number come from? I found this on the TNC site here:

Do you know where your water comes from? Why is it important to know your water source? For starters, while water covers 70 percent of our planet, just 0.03 percent of that water is accessible and drinkable.

I also found the same thing at this TNC site. Neither site indicates the source of this figure.

A friend says the following is on the TNC site but I could not find it: 

Fresh water is a scarce resource. It makes up only 1% of the world’s water. Sixty percent of that is locked up in Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. Another 40% is in groundwater, most of which is inaccessible. By some estimates we are left with some 0.03% of the world’s water as surface fresh water [emboldening mine]. It is not scarce in the same sense that oil is scarce – it doesn’t disappear if you consume it. But, at any given point in time, there is only a very tiny amount of water that is accessible for all our uses. 

So there we have it - surface fresh water! Funny but the USGS says that rivers and freshwater lakes comprise just 0.007% of total water. Upshot: I do not know where the TNC gets 0.03%, but I have seen that number elsewhere. 

Drinkable and Accessible ('D & A') Water
Let's now talk about 'drinkable and accessible' water. Like TNC, I'm equating 'drinkable' with 'fresh'. Note: sustainability is not an issue in this case; check TNC's graphic - it says nothing about sustainable. Groundwater is not always used sustainably.

According to the USGS and the references cited (Peter Gleick) therein, fresh ('drinkable') groundwater comprises 46% of all groundwater, or 2.5 million cubic miles (10.5 million cubic kilometers). That is about 0.8% of Earth's TOTAL water - over 26 times TNC's number. Think I'm being too optimistic? Okay, take half the fresh groundwater (maybe half is polluted) - you're still talking about 0.4% of Earth's total water, not 0.03% - over 13 times greater.

But, you say, that groundwater is not accessible! Why not? You have to drill a well! So what - we're in the 21st century, where well drilling is commonplace. In the US alone there are almost 16 million water wells - many of those supply drinking water. That is a lot of 'inaccessibility'! Check some global groundwater use figures. If you think most groundwater is inaccessible, then you really are still dwelling in the 'mysterious and occult' realm of groundwater - from the Stone Ages.

Since we are talking about drinking water, recall that using surface water for drinking water can require dams, pipelines, treatment plants (sometimes above and beyond what groundwater might require) and all kinds of infrastructure. However, water wells can often be drilled at the point of use - where the water is actually needed, obviating the need for a lot of costly infrastructure. You don't necessarily need water districts, municipalities, etc. So an individual can also take care of his/her own water needs. The groundwater may not even need treatment. That's an accessible resource! 

Why TNC Uses This Number
I don't know why TNC uses the 0.03% number and ignores groundwater. I don't even know the number's origin. I suspect it came from someone involved with marketing and fundraising. Certainly, if you are trying to impress donors with the importance of your work it would behoove you to use a small amount of 'D & A' water. The smaller the amount to be protected, the more critical your work. I understand that raising money is important. But stick to the facts, please.  

TNC is not the only one who does this; check out item 4 on Circle of Blue's list. See this list from Seametrics - to their credit, they deleted a few items that were incorrect. Thanks!

And don't get me started on people who state that 'The North American Great Lakes contain 20% of the world's freshwater'. That's liquid surface freshwater, if you please.
 

My Ten Cents - Takeaway
TNC should quietly change the 0.03% figure or at least qualify it as ignoring groundwater. But they really should include groundwater in a new 'D and A' number. I'll go with 0.4% - conservative, in my view. I could go as high as 0.8%, but given the uncertainty in these numbers, I'll stick with the lower figure.

What I am really trying to say is that to ignore fresh groundwater is ludicrous. 

If TNC wants to focus on fresh unfrozen surface water - streams and lakes - that is fine with me. If TNC does not want to acknowledge the importance of groundwater to their mission and the work of many of its experts, that's okay too. Just use the right numbers.

Doing nothing perpetuates a disservice to groundwater by marginalizing it and the people who 'do groundwater'. It exacerbates the 'out of sight, out of mind' problem groundwater faces. It is hard to get people to appreciate and protect it when they cannot see it, thereby thinking it is unimportant to the environment (think baseflow - about 30% of US streamflow) and to humans (a lot of our drinking water).

Groundwater is an important water resource. It is by far the largest liquid freshwater source and deserves to be accorded appropriate recognition.

It is not 'mysterious and occult'. TNC should just ask some of its freshwater scientists - especially those working outside the Beltway.   

"Success does not consist in never making mistakes but in never making the same one a second time." - George Bernard Shaw

Comments

[Michael]

Thank you for commenting, Eloise. Nice to hear from you. Hope all is well.

For the purposes of my post and TNC's graphic, I am not concerned with whether or not the groundwater pumpage depletes surface water flow. I am just looking at the stock of groundwater, and I believe TNC is being disingenuous by neglecting the vast amount of groundwater that is physically accessible and drinkable. I view 'fossil' (or non-renewable) groundwater as being accessible and, in many cases, drinkable.

I do appreciate your comments about depleting surface water flow, which is a problem in many areas, and will likely increase with decreasing surface water flows due to climate change/drought. California's San Joaquin Valley is a great example of that predicament.

[Eloise]

Hi Michael, In the interest of not misleading in the other direction, note that in most places pumping groundwater means decreasing surface water flow. Sure, we can -- and do -- decrease groundwater storage and call that "accessible." But ultimately, except in fossil aquifers, that groundwater depletion will affect surface-water dependent ecosystems.

[Michael]

Dear Namesake,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I am going to tell your minders you've escaped again.

[Michael]

Dear Emily,

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Your arguments are flawed. You arbitrarily dismiss groundwater as being inaccessible and/or undrinkable with no real proof.

What is the point of the Borjomi video? It is an isolated situation and a promotional video. Besides, the water that Borjomi uses is actually groundwater that flows at the surface as springs. So that really does not support your point that groundwater is not accessible - it's bubbling up at the surface. How more accessible can it be?

Yes, I am aware of what the USGS says. The fact that people mostly use surface water does not mean that groundwater is any less accessible or inaccessible. Simply because you don't use a source does not mean it is inaccessible. For a variety of reasons people use surface water, not always related to accessibility. Sometimes the opposite is true. Take the case of Memphis, which uses groundwater from the Memphis Sand aquifer for 100% of its water, for about 1.2 M people. This is true despite the fact that the city sits on the banks of one of the largest rivers in the world. Why should they do that? Does that mean the Mississippi is 'inaccessible'? No, of course not.

And don't forget that in the US, about 30%, on average, of streamflow is groundwater!

You should look at what the rest of what the USGS says about the amount of fresh groundwater. In my 0.4% estimate I am counting just half of the freshwater!

TNC is making a valuable statement about valuing and protecting water - I have never denied that. But by discounting groundwater, TNC is also in a sense 'encouraging' people not to take care of groundwater because it is 'inaccessible and undrinkable'. So why should I care for it? It does me no good.

There is no need to be disingenuous about groundwater and its role. Read my blog post and the references. Talk to some of your TNC people in the field who work with and value groundwater. The tell them it's inaccessible and undrinkable.

You strike me as a smart person. Don't follow the shibboleth that only surface water counts. That kind of approach was fine many years ago - not in 2014.

Michael

[Emily Simmons]

Of all the water on planet earth, 97.5% is salt water, which leaves only 2.5% as freshwater. But two-thirds of this (close to 68.7%) is stored at the poles as glaciers and icecaps, and another 30.1% is locked away underground. This means that only 1.2% of all freshwater is at the surface (as lakes, rivers, marshes, etc) that we can easily access. When calculated (0.012 x 0.025 = 0.0003), it shows us that of all water on our planet, only 0.03% is fresh and accessible.

Check out the USGS description of global water distribution: “Fresh surface-water sources, such as rivers and lakes, only constitute about 22,300 cubic miles (93,100 cubic kilometers), which is about 1/150th of one percent of total water. Yet, rivers and lakes are the sources of most of the water PEOPLE USE everyday.” (http://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycle.html)

Also take a look at this cool website (by the water company called Borjomi) that shows while groundwater is drinkable, it is not often easily accessible: http://thedeepestsite.com/

If we counted partial groundwater to increase the 0.03% reference, but also subtracted all the contaminated surface water, the point that TNC is making still holds: Water is a valuable and limited resource that we need to take better care of, especially as demand grows & replenishment mechanisms decline.

great conversations to be had ;)

Emily
@Eco_Em

[Namesake]

http://uwiag.com/environment
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_of_Earth's_total_water_supply_is_not_available_for_drinking_water#slide=2
http://www.prominent.nl/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-3883/570_read-2273/
http://www.prominent.co.uk/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-3596/570_read-2273/
They have the 0.03%.

And look at this: http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/freshwater_supply/freshwater.html : 2.5% of all water is fresh water and http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/question157.htm : 0.036% surface water.

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/freshwater/freshwater-crisis : 0.007% based on the umich.edu type of calculation ("less than 0.025% is 0.007%").

http://www.unesco.org/bpi/science/content/press/anglo/10.htm : "less than 0.007 percent of all the water in the world is easily accessible". Surely the UN can't be wrong on these numbers, can they? Did you know "it takes 1400 years for an underground water table (called an aquifer) to be replenished"? So why should we even start considering the use of groundwater? It is too old to drink and when it is finished we have to wait 1400 years to have a water table back.

Back to the image: where do you see groundwater? And why is there only a tap in the Middle East? Will that water be lost for ever to space? What's up with the moon so close that it almost hits the USA? Questions, questions...

* end of hilaric rant *