, Zs z z /E X · , Zs z z /E X u ] v µ Z À Ç Ç X } P X µ W í µ v ] À U h v P v X
CUAHSI Benchmark Presentation · X r ï l ð } ( h X^ X P } µ v Á } v µ u ] } v X X r í l î }...
Transcript of CUAHSI Benchmark Presentation · X r ï l ð } ( h X^ X P } µ v Á } v µ u ] } v X X r í l î }...
Water Footprint Benchmarks for the United States
Landon Marston, Ph.D., P.E.Assistant ProfessorKansas State University, Civil Engineering
Co-Authors: Zach Ancona, Kyle F. Davis, Benjamin Ruddell, Richard Rushforth
CUAHSI’s 2019 Winter Cyberseminar Series February 20, 2019
High Resolution Sectoral Water Footprints
Water Footprint Benchmarks
Concluding Remarks & Future Directions
Water Savings
High Resolution Sectoral Water Footprints
Water Footprint Benchmarks
Concluding Remarks & Future Directions
Water Savings
The US economy is supported by water.
Water use data is scarce.
Descriptions of water use are highly specific or overly generalized.
Following hydrology, we need to move to more distributed estimates of human water use.
Research Goal: .
Spatially explicit and distinct industry mapping of USA economy’s water consumption.
Research Questions:.
(i) How much water is required to support each U.S. industry? .
(ii) How does economic water use vary across the country?.
(iii) Do industries depend more on water directly or indirectly through their supply chains?
Research Goal: .
Spatially explicit and distinct industry mapping of USA economy’s water consumption.
Research Questions:.
(i) How much water is required to support each U.S. industry? .
(ii) How does economic water use vary across the country?.
(iii) Do industries depend more on water directly or indirectly through their supply chains?
Research Goal: .
Spatially explicit and distinct industry mapping of USA economy’s water consumption.
Research Questions:.
(i) How much water is required to support each U.S. industry? .
(ii) How does economic water use vary across the country?.
(iii) Do industries depend more on water directly or indirectly through their supply chains?
Hoekstra, 2011
Virtual water (or water footprint) is the water embedded within the production of a good.
Surface Water
Green WaterGroundWater
Hundreds of data products were synthesized to calculate water consumption of US economy.
The water footprint of crops is centered around major aquifers, Western US, and Midwest/High Plains.
Surface WF Ground WF
Green WF Total WF
km3
km3
km3
km3
Marston et al, 2018 WRR
95% of the U.S. water footprint is due to crop production.
7 crops responsible for.
- 3/4 of U.S. groundwater consumption. .
- 1/2 of U.S. surface water consumption.
A ALMONDS B APPLES C BARLEY D BEANS, DRY EDIBLEE CORN, GRAIN F CORN, SILAGE G COTTON H GRAPES I HAY & HAYLAGE J LETTUCE K ORANGES L OTHER CROPSM PEANUTS N PECANS O PISTACHIOS P POTATOES Q RICE R SORGHUM, GRAIN S SOYBEANS T SUGARBEETS U SUGARCANE V SUNFLOWER W TOMATOESX WALNUTSY WHEAT
Marston et al, 2018 WRR
A significant proportion of US lands and waters are dedicated to livestock production.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-us-land-use/
Agriculture is the top water user in 7 of 10 counties.
10% of U.S. counties consume 74% of water.Marston et al, 2018 WRR
Water is a critical input in US food and energy production but it’s utilization is unevenly distributed.
Marston et al, 2018 WRR
The majority of non-crop industries water footprint of production is attributed to hydropower and non-revenue water losses.
A AquacultureB Beef CattleC Chemical ManufacturingD Food and Beverage Stores E Food ManufacturingF HydropowerG MiningH Non-Revenue Water I Other LivestockJ Other SectorsK Petroleum and Coal Products
ManufacturingL Primary Metal ManufacturingM Thermoelectric Once-ThroughN Thermoelectric RecirculatingO Wholesale Trade
Marston et al, 2018 WRR
93% of sectors use more water through their supply chains than they consume directly.
Marston et al, 2018 WRR
An industry’s overall WFP is largely dependent on where it sources its inputs.
Sugar cane and sugar beets 0.09 10.55 116.61 All other indirect uses 0.17 3.23 22.31
Total, all sectors 0.44 16.35 163.62
gallons / 5 lb bag
Direct Water Use Low National Average High
Sugar and confectionery product manufacturing 0.17 0.41 0.92
Indirect Water Uses
𝟏
Example: Sugar Industry
Marston et al, 2018 WRR
High Resolution Sectoral Water Footprints
Water Footprint Benchmarks
Concluding Remarks & Future Directions
Water Savings
Blue WF per unit of production ($) varies significantly between and within economic sectors.
National average water intensity
Marston et al, 2018 WRR
What if all water users adjusted their water use to match their industry benchmark level?
Marston et al, in preparation
Water savings
How much water could be saved and where?
BM25 Scenario
BM10 Scenario BM50 Scenario
Expectations of reasonable water consumption were constrained based on current water utilization rates.
Based on similar production processes and comparable conditions.
Potential water savings calculated by NOAA Climate
Region by industry/product/
technology.
Potential water savings calculated
by industry for each NOAA
Climate Region
Industrial, Institutional, and Commercial Water Footprints
UtilitiesConstructionManufacturingWholesale TradeRetail TradeTransportation & WarehousingInformationFinance & InsuranceReal Estate and Rental and LeasingProfessional, Scientific, and Technical ServicesAdministrative Support / Waste ManagementEducational ServicesHealth Care and Social AssistanceArts, Entertainment, and RecreationAccommodation and Food ServicesOther Services (except Public Administration)
NAICS 2-Digit Description
Potential water savings calculated
by industry for each NOAA
Climate Region
Industrial, Institutional, and Commercial Water Footprints
UtilitiesConstructionManufacturingWholesale TradeRetail TradeTransportation & WarehousingInformationFinance & InsuranceReal Estate and Rental and LeasingProfessional, Scientific, and Technical ServicesAdministrative Support / Waste ManagementEducational ServicesHealth Care and Social AssistanceArts, Entertainment, and RecreationAccommodation and Food ServicesOther Services (except Public Administration)
NAICS 2-Digit Description
Blue Water Footprint [log10(m3/$1000)]
-2.5-5 0 2.5
Potential water savings calculated
by industry for each NOAA
Climate Region
Industrial, Institutional, and Commercial Water Footprints
UtilitiesConstructionManufacturingWholesale TradeRetail TradeTransportation & WarehousingInformationFinance & InsuranceReal Estate and Rental and LeasingProfessional, Scientific, and Technical ServicesAdministrative Support / Waste ManagementEducational ServicesHealth Care and Social AssistanceArts, Entertainment, and RecreationAccommodation and Food ServicesOther Services (except Public Administration)
NAICS 2-Digit Description
Blue Water Footprint [log10(m3/$1000)]
-2.5-5 0 2.5
Similar crop growing areas were clustered
based on growing degree days and
aridity index.
Growing Degree Days
Arid
ity In
dex
Similar crop growing areas were clustered
based on growing degree days and
aridity index.
Marston et al, in preparation
Crop Clusters: Wheat
The greatest water savings can be achieved in the agriculture sector. W
ater
Sav
ings
(km
3 /yr
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
Marston et al, in preparation
Wat
er S
avin
gs (k
m3 /
yr)
0
2
4
6
8
10
The greatest water savings can be achieved in the agriculture sector.
Marston et al, in preparation
Wat
er S
avin
gs (k
m3 /
yr)
0
2
4
6
8
10
The greatest water savings can be achieved in the agriculture sector.
Marston et al, in preparation
BM25 Scenario
Where and how much water would be made available for other uses?
Marston et al, in preparationHUC4 total water savings (105 m3)
2.2 18,039
BM25 Scenario
Direct vs. Indirect Water Savings
Marston et al, in preparation
BM25 Scenario
Direct vs. Indirect Water Savings
Marston et al, in preparation
BM25 Scenario
High Resolution Sectoral Water Footprints
Water Footprint Benchmarks
Concluding Remarks & Future Directions
Water Savings
In summary, there is still significant water savings to be achieved! Areas facing water stress also show some of the greatest potential for
water savings.
Most industries can save more water by working with their suppliers to reduce their water use than they can save directly by making their own operations more water efficient.
Future research is needed to explore the inherent tradeoffs involved in improved water utilization, such as potential increases in energy or fertilizer consumption which may lead to increased grey water and carbon footprints.
This work represents the first step in better understanding how water is used in the economy and the potential for water conservation.
• Incomplete water use data limits our work but also makes it necessary.
• Need for collaborations between state and federal agencies, as well as non-federal researchers, to• collect, synthesize, and analyze data • at finer sectoral, temporal, and spatial
scales.
This work provides a rich and high-resolution dataset of human water use in the U.S.• Improve our understanding of
how and where water is used in the economy.
• Useful resource for water management and modeling environmental LCA WF assessments benchmarking
Landon Marston [email protected]
Marston, L., Ao, Y., Konar, M., Mekonnen, M. M., & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2018). High-Resolution Water Footprints of Production of the United States. Water Resources Research, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017WR021923
Publication
DatasetData available at: http://waterfootprint.org
Marston Research Group
Exploring the interactions between water and society
Questions?
Potential water savings calculated by NOAA Climate
Region by industry/product/
technology.
Thermoelectric Power Production
Extirpation of fish species from sub-watersheds due to summer flow depletion in the US.
Richter et al, in review
What is the impact of the livestock production system on the nation’s rivers?
Percent change in summer flow due to water use from all sectorsRichter et al, in review
Commercial, industrial, and institutional (CII) water footprints varied greatly across the USA.
2.17E-03 m3/$
Water Footprint per Unit (WFU) Water Footprints of Production (WFP)
0 m3/$ 3.15E+08 m30 m3
Water withdrawals were distributed to over 375 commercial, industrial, and institutional (CII) enterprises.
𝑪𝑭𝑺 𝑪𝑭𝑺 𝑪𝑭𝑺 𝑪𝑭𝑺 𝑪𝑭𝑺
𝒊,𝑪𝑭𝑺
𝒊,𝑪𝑭𝑺 𝒊∈𝑪𝑰𝑰
𝑪𝑭𝑺 𝒊,𝑪𝑭𝑺
Allocates CII publicly supplied water based on industry’s relative water purchases.
Total water available
Total water supplied to users
Subtract domestic water use
Total water delivered to CII
Water withdrawals were distributed to over 375 commercial, industrial, and institutional (CII) enterprises.
𝑪𝑭𝑺 𝑪𝑭𝑺 𝑪𝑭𝑺 𝑪𝑭𝑺 𝑪𝑭𝑺
𝒊,𝑪𝑭𝑺
𝒊,𝑪𝑭𝑺 𝒊∈𝑪𝑰𝑰
𝑪𝑭𝑺 𝒊,𝑪𝑭𝑺
Allocates CII publicly supplied water based on industry’s relative water purchases.
Total water available
Total water supplied to users
Subtract domestic water use
Total water delivered to CII
𝒊 𝒊,𝑪𝑭𝑺
𝒊 𝒊,𝑪𝑭𝑺 𝒊∈𝑰
𝑪𝑭𝑺 𝒊,𝑪𝑭𝑺
Allocates CII self- supplied water withdrawals based on industry’s relative employment and water use coefficient.
Water withdrawals were distributed to over 375 commercial, industrial, and institutional (CII) enterprises.
𝑪𝑭𝑺 𝑪𝑭𝑺 𝑪𝑭𝑺 𝑪𝑭𝑺 𝑪𝑭𝑺
𝒊 𝒊,𝑪𝑭𝑺
𝒊 𝒊,𝑪𝑭𝑺 𝒊∈𝑰
𝑪𝑭𝑺 𝒊,𝑪𝑭𝑺𝒊,𝑪𝑭𝑺
𝒊,𝑪𝑭𝑺 𝒊∈𝑪𝑰𝑰
𝑪𝑭𝑺 𝒊,𝑪𝑭𝑺
Allocates CII self- supplied water withdrawals based on industry’s relative employment and water use coefficient.
Allocates CII publicly supplied water based on industry’s relative water purchases.
Total water available
Total water supplied to all users
Subtract domestic water use
Total water publicly supplied to CII
𝒊,𝑪𝑭𝑺 𝒊,𝑪𝑭𝑺) 𝒊 𝒊,𝑪𝑭𝑺
Total water supplied to industry
Fraction consumed
Water Footprint of Production
603.
1
94
2.6
1.3
4.7
2.8
2.3
612
95.9
3.4
79.7
2.6 3.
2
3.0 3.
8
2.1
82
239
93 108.
5
2.8
101.
3
2.8 3.3
CROPS (GREEN) CROPS (BLUE) LIVESTOCK MINING THERMOELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL
This study Hoekstra & Mekonnen (2012)Wang & Zimmerman (2016) FRIS (2014)Mubako (2011) Aquastat (2017)Maupin et al. (2014) EIA (2017)
Our results compare favorably with previous USA WF studies and government water use reports.
Difference in methods and study year lead to greater variance in water use estimates at the subnational scale.
USDA Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey (2013)
USGS Water Use Report (2010)
USGS vs. FRIS
There is significant uncertainty in WFP estimates, especially non-revenue water and hydropower.
0
5
10
15
20
25
Blue
WFP
(km
3 )
Thermoelectric WFP
Livestock WFP
Water Use Category Data Product Purpose/Description Source Data Type Finest Spatial Resolution
Data Year
Crops Crop production (irrigated and rainfed); Crop prices
USDA. 2017 Production County 2012
Crops Crop blue and green water requirements
Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2011 Water 5 x 5 arc minute 1996-2005
Crops Groundwater and surface water irrigation fractions
Maupin et al., 2014 Water County 2010
Aquaculture Groundwater and surface water utilization; Aquaculture sales and production method
USDA. 2017 Water; Production County 2012, 2013
Aquaculture Average annual open water surface evaporation
NOAA NWS 33 & 34 Water point / isohyetal 1919-1979
Mining Water withdrawals and consumption coefficients
Maupin et al., 2014 Water County 1995, 2010
Mining Water use coefficients Meldrum et al. 2013; Council, 2008; Spang et al. 2014; Norgate and Lovel, 2004 ; Mudd, 2008 ; Mudd, 2010 ; Norgate and Haque, 2010
Water point Varies
Mining Non-fuel mineral prices USGS - https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/ Production State 2012Mining Fuel prices EIA Production State 2012Thermoelectric Water withdrawals and consumption USGS (Special Report) Water Plant 2010Thermoelectric Plant fuel type EIA Production plant 2010Thermoelectric Electricity prices EIA Production State 2012Hydropower Water consumption Grubert, 2016 Water region 2010-2014Livestock Water withdrawals Maupin et al., 2014 Water County 2010Livestock Livestock production and prices USDA. 2017 Production County 2012Livestock Water use coefficients USGS (State & National Reports) Water State VariesCommercial, Industrial, and Institutional
Water withdrawals Maupin et al., 2014 Water County 2010
Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional
Direct water requirement coefficients BEACanada
Water Nation 2007, 2011, 2013
Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional
Water Transfers Numerous (see SI for full list) Water Point Varies
Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional
Consumption coefficients USCB Water Nation 1982
Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional
Non-revenue water fraction Various Water City Varies
Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional
Industry revenue and employment BEA Production County 2012