Sinclair, in his book Lifespan, is making the point on the importance of conserving water with growing populations - that global population is less relevant than consumption.
“We also need to solve the shortage of fresh, drinkable water. Cities such as Las Vegas, a very thirsty town in the middle of the driest place in the United States, have demonstrated that by marrying conservation and innovation, efficient water recycling is not only possible but profitable; whereas metro Vegas grew by half a million people from 2000 to 2016, its total water use fell by a third.”
Hmm. I thought. Is this so? Google-fu led me to this article.
It discusses some intelligent reforms, and states:
“The efforts are paying off. Though total water use for the city rose only slightly between 2000 and 2010—by about 1.5 percent—Vegas added more than a million people. That works out to a 33 percent per person drop in water use. Vegas water officials hope to go even lower, with a per capita water-use goal of 199 gallons per person per day by 2035. That’s 20 fewer gallons a day than is used today.”
The savings sound impressive and important. But these two articles say different things (a per capita drop vs. reducing totals) and are hardly definitive anyway. So how big are the water savings in Vegas really? How do people feel about them?