Why does DFW use so much water? (Houston, Dallas: buy, new construction)

[Mr. Clutch]

I was reading through an interesting article in the Star-Telegram discussing the potential building of a new reservoir in East Texas to meet future water needs for DFW, and local opposition to doing so. One of the arguments that the landowners of the proposed future reservoir make is that DFW doesn't actually need as much water in the future if they would conserve more. Apparently, cities in the north Texas region use significantly more water than the rest of the Texas cities. From the article (https://www.star-telegram.com/news/s...271936067.html):

Water usage per capita gallons per day, by city (2019):

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

My question is why is DFW's (and Dallas in particular) water usage so much higher than the rest of the state? I would expect it to be maybe a little higher than Central/Southern Texas as it's a drier climate but North Texas isn't exactly a desert either. Dallas uses more than 50% more water than San Antonio per person. That seems like a lot and reflective of why so many of these new water projects have focused on supplying DFW.

[tmtex]

Growth ? The have a new lake being built near Bonham

[Mr. Clutch]

Originally Posted by tmtex

Growth ? The have a new lake being built near Bonham

The numbers given in the article are per capita, so growth isn't going to affect that. My question is why those numbers are so high per capita. All of the Texas metros are growing quickly, but it seems that an outsized proportion of new water projects are being built primarily to serve DFW. Why has DFW not been able to get below the 140 gal/day/per capita goal that the state set in 2003, while the other three main metros have all reduced water consumption and met that goal (from the quoted article)?

[NP78]

Originally Posted by Mr. Clutch

The numbers given in the article are per capita, so growth isn't going to affect that. My question is why those numbers are so high per capita. All of the Texas metros are growing quickly, but it seems that an outsized proportion of new water projects are being built primarily to serve DFW. Why has DFW not been able to get below the 140 gal/day/per capita goal that the state set in 2003, while the other three main metros have all reduced water consumption and met that goal (from the quoted article)?

It's an interesting question. I really don't know the answer. I could speculate, but I think the big questions would be whether or not those usages are consistent across the metro areas or just the primary cities, what the mix looks like between industrial and commercial use, etc.

Just from my experience living in Austin and Dallas and lots of time spent in Houston I would expect Dallas to have the highest of the (3) areas, but not sure why the delta is so large. Houston simply needs much less water for irrigation which is a huge use for water (whether it is a good use is up for debate, but still) due to the differing climates (Houston averages about 35% more precipitation and 25% more days of precipitation) and from my experience in Austin, the conservation/water restrictions are more stringent in Austin than Dallas.

There is probably something more to the story as well. The biggest question is whether that per-capita usage is consistent across the metroplex because the reality is that most of the additional water use above current levels will not be in the City of Dallas, but in outlying areas.

[ChristieP]

Maybe it has to do with all of the new construction that uses a lot of water to put in new grass and trees?

[Mr. Clutch]

Originally Posted by NP78

It's an interesting question. I really don't know the answer. I could speculate, but I think the big questions would be whether or not those usages are consistent across the metro areas or just the primary cities, what the mix looks like between industrial and commercial use, etc.

Just from my experience living in Austin and Dallas and lots of time spent in Houston I would expect Dallas to have the highest of the (3) areas, but not sure why the delta is so large. Houston simply needs much less water for irrigation which is a huge use for water (whether it is a good use is up for debate, but still) due to the differing climates (Houston averages about 35% more precipitation and 25% more days of precipitation) and from my experience in Austin, the conservation/water restrictions are more stringent in Austin than Dallas.

There is probably something more to the story as well. The biggest question is whether that per-capita usage is consistent across the metroplex because the reality is that most of the additional water use above current levels will not be in the City of Dallas, but in outlying areas.

Good post. I agree - it does seem like DFW would use more water than the other metros just because of the climate but not THAT much more.

The part about the consistency of the usage of city vs. metro is an interesting one. The article strongly implies that the numbers are city-only, but the water plans underpinning them are submitted by water districts and they're organized a bit differently. However, assuming that the numbers are limited to the city and not reflective of the metro, I'd think metro area per capita water usage would be higher (more lawns, large industrial users, etc. in the suburbs) for everyone.

I can buy DFW being significantly higher than Houston, but I'm surprised that its that much higher than the Central TX cities since they don't get as much precipitation as Houston.

I'm trying to understand if the opponents of this new lake/reservoir have a point about water usage and the idea that some of this new water infrastructure is being driven by a lack of conservation. It's hard to say.

[SanJac]

Originally Posted by Mr. Clutch

Good post. I agree - it does seem like DFW would use more water than the other metros just because of the climate but not THAT much more.

The part about the consistency of the usage of city vs. metro is an interesting one. The article strongly implies that the numbers are city-only, but the water plans underpinning them are submitted by water districts and they're organized a bit differently. However, assuming that the numbers are limited to the city and not reflective of the metro, I'd think metro area per capita water usage would be higher (more lawns, large industrial users, etc. in the suburbs) for everyone.

I can buy DFW being significantly higher than Houston, but I'm surprised that its that much higher than the Central TX cities since they don't get as much precipitation as Houston.

I'm trying to understand if the opponents of this new lake/reservoir have a point about water usage and the idea that some of this new water infrastructure is being driven by a lack of conservation. It's hard to say.

You definitely have to normalize for climate (not just precipitation, but summers are much hotter and drier in Dallas). DFW has less park space than Houston, but potentially more golf courses? I would be curious to see how Dallas compares to cities like Oklahoma City and Phoenix.

[Mr. Clutch]

Originally Posted by SanJac

You definitely have to normalize for climate (not just precipitation, but summers are much hotter and drier in Dallas). DFW has less park space than Houston, but potentially more golf courses? I would be curious to see how Dallas compares to cities like Oklahoma City and Phoenix.

There's definitely more golf courses in DFW and they do require a lot of water. I could see that being a factor. Plus in Houston, the parks don't normally require a whole lot of watering except during the drought-ish times.

The climate piece makes sense vis a vis Houston, but not sure it does when compared to Austin/San Antonio - they are just as hot as DFW in the summer but with a bit more precipitation.

[DabOnEm]

Originally Posted by Mr. Clutch

I was reading through an interesting article in the Star-Telegram discussing the potential building of a new reservoir in East Texas to meet future water needs for DFW, and local opposition to doing so. One of the arguments that the landowners of the proposed future reservoir make is that DFW doesn't actually need as much water in the future if they would conserve more. Apparently, cities in the north Texas region use significantly more water than the rest of the Texas cities. From the article (https://www.star-telegram.com/news/s...271936067.html):

Water usage per capita gallons per day, by city (2019):

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

My question is why is DFW's (and Dallas in particular) water usage so much higher than the rest of the state? I would expect it to be maybe a little higher than Central/Southern Texas as it's a drier climate but North Texas isn't exactly a desert either. Dallas uses more than 50% more water than San Antonio per person. That seems like a lot and reflective of why so many of these new water projects have focused on supplying DFW.

DFW heavily landscapes and may actually be a trendsetter when it comes to that. I feel like it is taken very seriously, especially northern Dallas County and CoCo. All that requires constant water. Just a theory tho.

[Leonard123]

It says those are by city and not by region, so it does not account for any surrounding cities. It's also a snapshot from one year and not necessarily reflective of a trend. I would be reluctant to draw conclusions from it.

Agriculture accounts for the largest share of water consumption in the state, but I don't think there is any in Dallas.