Why does DFW use so much water? (Dallas: per capita, between)

[EDS_]

IMO it's petty simple.

1. During warmer months DFW is in the aggregate hotter, dryer and much more windy than the other big Triangle cities. DFW is windier than Chicago FWIIW.

2. DFW has much larger light and medium industrial bases than Austin or SA.

3. I read one time that Dallas loses about 15% of its water via city owned pipe leaks.

I'd bet the delta is 95% or better explained by the above.

[Aggielina]

This wouldn't account for the difference in whole, but Dallas has several water bottling businesses. I had to laugh one time when I was on vacation in Colorado and the hotel handed out bottled water that came from Dallas, not some sparkling Colorado stream!

[FreeVilley]

I would venture to say that San Antonio, despite being drier, uses less water than Dallas, because of native plant usage. If San Antonio is leaning into the drier climate reality and uses appropriate landscape features, then the landscape can survive based on rainfall. If Dallas is trying to use more decorative, lush vegetation, its going to require more water.... I know say this from experience, I have a very lush, very thirsty Palisades Bermuda lawn, that gets more water than my municipality officially allows.

[Leonard123]

Originally Posted by Mr. Clutch

The article says it's a metric that has been tracked for a long time, and that the state set a goal of bringing daily per capita usage down below 140 gallons a while back, which only DFW has been unable to meet. The implication being that this high level of water usage is pretty consistent.

It gives the numbers only for Dallas and Fort Worth, yet everyone is extrapolating it to the entire "DFW" region.

I'd replace my grass with gravel or artificial turf in a heartbeat if the HOA would let me. Why aren't there any neighborhoods around here with all drought-tolerant landscaping? That would make for an interesting and probably popular neighborhood.

That said, I don't water my yard and don't even have a sprinkler system. I just do enough to get the foundation watered. I average around 4000 gallons a month for myself alone.

[elnina]

Originally Posted by Mr. Clutch

I doubt that's a factor. Household sizes aren't that different across Texas metros.

Average household size by metro:

DFW: 2.7
Houston: 2.8
San Antonio: 2.8
Austin: 2.6

https://www.census-charts.com/Metrop...ouseholds.html

To add to it:
San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX
Percentage of population in multigenerational households: 12.4%
Percentage of households that are multigenerational: 5.4%
Total population in multigenerational households: 303,018
Total multigenerational households: 43,194

Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX
Percentage of population in multigenerational households: 10.7%
Percentage of households that are multigenerational: 5.3%
Total population in multigenerational households: 266,873
Total multigenerational households: 41,701

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX
Percentage of population in multigenerational households: 9.8%
Percentage of households that are multigenerational: 4.7%
Total population in multigenerational households: 727,236
Total multigenerational households: 122,706

Data from 2020 by Filterbuy

[Mr. Clutch]

Originally Posted by EDS_

IMO it's petty simple.

1. During warmer months DFW is in the aggregate hotter, dryer and much more windy than the other big Triangle cities. DFW is windier than Chicago FWIIW.

2. DFW has much larger light and medium industrial bases than Austin or SA.

3. I read one time that Dallas loses about 15% of its water via city owned pipe leaks.

I'd bet the delta is 95% or better explained by the above.

Maybe, but bringing some additional data for other non-Texas metros will add a bit of context (keeping in mind its not entirely apples to apples due to the divergence in the areas to which various water resource plans apply).

Dallas: 182
Fort Worth: 159
Houston: 129
Austin: 126
San Antonio: 118

Phoenix: 169 (2019)
Las Vegas: 124 (2018)
Atlanta: 99 (2021)
Denver: 140 (2021)

I think expanding the data shows DFW's high-usage is very likely an "all of the above" type of issue. It's hotter and drier than most sunbelt cities, has more water intensive industry users than most of them, has more water-intensive landscaping and land uses (such as golf courses and the like) than most of them, and on top of all of that has few to no policies encouraging conservation. Phoenix looks to be right around the same water usage as DFW - its hotter and dryer, but has less industry and more conservation. Atlanta uses about half of what DFW does per capita, despite having significant industry and landscaping, but is in a much more favorable climate in terms of both precipitation and temperature. Houston has similar amounts of industry to DFW, but has a more favorable climate for less water usage as well. I don't think the infrastructure (e.g. pipes) has much to do with anything - Houston and Atlanta's pipes are horrible too and I don't believe transportation losses are factored into per capita rates (which are based on production).

In the past, I never really understood the outsized focus on DFW when it comes to future water requirements in the Texas context, but it's all starting to make sense now. Going back to the original question about whether the east Texas landowners actually have a case to make about conservation being a major driver of these new water projects, I think they make a good point. DFW is one of the few sunbelt metros that hasn't significantly decreased its water usage in recent years where nearly all of the other metros have. Metroplex users do seem to make up the bulk of new water requirements in the state. Of course, more water will eventually be needed over time due to growth, but dry western cities have been able to drive their per capita water usage down significantly over time by implementing conservation policies. Phoenix has actually flattened its total water usage and uses slightly less water than it did 15 years ago, with a higher overall population.

So it becomes an interesting conversation from there - should DFW (and the rest of the Texas metros for that matter) conserve more to decrease the amount of required future water projects and thus the taking of rural land? Or should Texas continue to build reservoirs to account for the current relatively high usage levels? Different stakeholders are going to see this very differently.

sources for other sunbelt metros:

Phoenix: https://www.phoenix.gov/waterservice...rce%20Plan.pdf
Las Vegas: https://lasvegassun.com/news/2019/se...ent-residents/
Atlanta: https://northgeorgiawater.org/curren...20to%20climate.
Denver: https://coloradosun.com/2021/08/06/c...ervation-cuts/

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by Mr. Clutch

Maybe, but bringing some additional data for other non-Texas metros will add a bit of context (keeping in mind its not entirely apples to apples due to the divergence in the areas to which various water resource plans apply).

Dallas: 182
Fort Worth: 159
Houston: 129
Austin: 126
San Antonio: 118

Phoenix: 169 (2019)
Las Vegas: 124 (2018)
Atlanta: 99 (2021)
Denver: 140 (2021)

I think expanding the data shows DFW's high-usage is very likely an "all of the above" type of issue. It's hotter and drier than most sunbelt cities, has more water intensive industry users than most of them, has more water-intensive landscaping and land uses (such as golf courses and the like) than most of them, and on top of all of that has few to no policies encouraging conservation. Phoenix looks to be right around the same water usage as DFW - its hotter and dryer, but has less industry and more conservation. Atlanta uses about half of what DFW does per capita, despite having significant industry and landscaping, but is in a much more favorable climate in terms of both precipitation and temperature. Houston has similar amounts of industry to DFW, but has a more favorable climate for less water usage as well. I don't think the infrastructure (e.g. pipes) has much to do with anything - Houston and Atlanta's pipes are horrible too and I don't believe transportation losses are factored into per capita rates (which are based on production).

In the past, I never really understood the outsized focus on DFW when it comes to future water requirements in the Texas context, but it's all starting to make sense now. Going back to the original question about whether the east Texas landowners actually have a case to make about conservation being a major driver of these new water projects, I think they make a good point. DFW is one of the few sunbelt metros that hasn't significantly decreased its water usage in recent years where nearly all of the other metros have. Metroplex users do seem to make up the bulk of new water requirements in the state. Of course, more water will eventually be needed over time due to growth, but dry western cities have been able to drive their per capita water usage down significantly over time by implementing conservation policies. Phoenix has actually flattened its total water usage and uses slightly less water than it did 15 years ago, with a higher overall population.

So it becomes an interesting conversation from there - should DFW (and the rest of the Texas metros for that matter) conserve more to decrease the amount of required future water projects and thus the taking of rural land? Or should Texas continue to build reservoirs to account for the current relatively high usage levels? Different stakeholders are going to see this very differently.

sources for other sunbelt metros:

Phoenix: https://www.phoenix.gov/waterservice...rce%20Plan.pdf
Las Vegas: https://lasvegassun.com/news/2019/se...ent-residents/
Atlanta: https://northgeorgiawater.org/curren...20to%20climate.
Denver: https://coloradosun.com/2021/08/06/c...ervation-cuts/

Compared to Dallas Phoenix has more or less no industry.

[TheOverdog]

I think this another example where describing data with per-capita is yet another fail, I mean if we are talking individual use of water while discounting industrial usage (which is what conservation and restriction policies implies), it's not the correct measure to use, especially considering that the majority if not every DFW city has individually metered water (and many have 2nd meters specifically for irrigation).



We could be using the median water use, or even usage quartiles, which we could then correlate to size of lawn, has pool, and other economic factors and truly compare if people in DFW use water more generously than average.



In my following of the NTMWD nonsense the past 20 years, IMO the average per-household water usage falls pretty dramatically as cities moderately densify (I'm talking like Richardson or Allen here, not NYC), which means water usage is not well-correlated to population, so things like golf courses and pools are actually marginal uses at the metro-population level don't really answer anything.


Lacking that, I'm leaning towards industry with residential use borderline meaningless, which I'd guess as less than 20% of overall water expenditure.

[D-Towner]

Perhaps because of the massive population in the area?

[oil capital]

Originally Posted by Mr. Clutch

Maybe, but bringing some additional data for other non-Texas metros will add a bit of context (keeping in mind its not entirely apples to apples due to the divergence in the areas to which various water resource plans apply).

Dallas: 182
Fort Worth: 159
Houston: 129
Austin: 126
San Antonio: 118

Phoenix: 169 (2019)
Las Vegas: 124 (2018)
Atlanta: 99 (2021)
Denver: 140 (2021)

I think expanding the data shows DFW's high-usage is very likely an "all of the above" type of issue. It's hotter and drier than most sunbelt cities, has more water intensive industry users than most of them, has more water-intensive landscaping and land uses (such as golf courses and the like) than most of them, and on top of all of that has few to no policies encouraging conservation. Phoenix looks to be right around the same water usage as DFW - its hotter and dryer, but has less industry and more conservation. Atlanta uses about half of what DFW does per capita, despite having significant industry and landscaping, but is in a much more favorable climate in terms of both precipitation and temperature. Houston has similar amounts of industry to DFW, but has a more favorable climate for less water usage as well. I don't think the infrastructure (e.g. pipes) has much to do with anything - Houston and Atlanta's pipes are horrible too and I don't believe transportation losses are factored into per capita rates (which are based on production).

In the past, I never really understood the outsized focus on DFW when it comes to future water requirements in the Texas context, but it's all starting to make sense now. Going back to the original question about whether the east Texas landowners actually have a case to make about conservation being a major driver of these new water projects, I think they make a good point. DFW is one of the few sunbelt metros that hasn't significantly decreased its water usage in recent years where nearly all of the other metros have. Metroplex users do seem to make up the bulk of new water requirements in the state. Of course, more water will eventually be needed over time due to growth, but dry western cities have been able to drive their per capita water usage down significantly over time by implementing conservation policies. Phoenix has actually flattened its total water usage and uses slightly less water than it did 15 years ago, with a higher overall population.

So it becomes an interesting conversation from there - should DFW (and the rest of the Texas metros for that matter) conserve more to decrease the amount of required future water projects and thus the taking of rural land? Or should Texas continue to build reservoirs to account for the current relatively high usage levels? Different stakeholders are going to see this very differently.

sources for other sunbelt metros:

Phoenix: https://www.phoenix.gov/waterservice...rce%20Plan.pdf
Las Vegas: https://lasvegassun.com/news/2019/se...ent-residents/
Atlanta: https://northgeorgiawater.org/curren...20to%20climate.
Denver: https://coloradosun.com/2021/08/06/c...ervation-cuts/

Curious what industry dallas has that is particularly water-intensive?