Guest Essay by Kip Hansen
In the “make climate a part of every beat in the newsroom” mainstream media, we get stories like this in the NY Times tthis week: “To Save More Water, American Homes Need Smaller Pipes — Most of the plumbing pipes in the United States are oversize, wasting water in a time of increasing drought.” authored by Megy Karydes.
The piece is absolutely hilarious — the NY Times journalist somehow arrived at a very wrong interpretation of something that was explained to her:
“Oversize plumbing pipes move water inefficiently, wasting money and increasing the risk of waterborne diseases. And water efficiency is especially important as climate change makes droughts more frequent and severe.”
Ten points to the first few readers to spot the gross misunderstanding.
She goes on: “When the current method for sizing pipes to transport hot and cold water throughout the home was created in the 1940s, it was under the assumption that every fixture had to be able to support a line of people for the bathroom, like at a sports stadium at halftime, according to Christoph Lohr, a mechanical engineer specializing in plumbing systems and the vice president of technical services and research for the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, a trade organization.” …. “But even during a party at home, there won’t be a line for the kitchen sink, the shower, the bathtub, the laundry machine, the dishwasher and the toilets, with people using them over and over. In other words, most plumbing fixtures in the United States are designed to accommodate total flow rates far higher than they will realistically encounter.”
Really? How did a matter of plumbing size get assigned to someone who must not even have a high school understanding about fluid flow or home plumbing system design?
Number One: Larger than necessary pipes do move water less efficiently – takes more energy to move the water through too-large pipes – and too large pipes, which don’t get a lot of throughput, can develop biofilms that can be the source of some illnesses.
[Update, 21 Nov 24, 1300 hrs, ET: There has been some correction/clarification on this point. An explanation of Christoph Lohr‘s point can be found at this page. Two issues: Over-sized pipes waste materials and add to building cost. Over-sized hot water pipes can lead to delayed hot water delivery to the faucet/shower (one has to run the water longer until hot water arrives at the sink) which lowers hot water energy-use efficiency and send fresh water down the drain unnecessarily.]
Number Two: Number One has nothing to do with the concept of “water efficiency” that is related to total water usage and thus peripherally related to drought.
In case Megy Karydes reads here, I will explain: The stadium example mentioned by Mr. Lohr has to do with the number of sinks, urinals, and toilets expected to be in use simultaneously, which requires a high volume water flow … the number of people waiting in line, does not affect flow of water at all (ever). In the journalist’s home, there may well be many people needing to use the sink or toilet but not at the same time…just one after another, which does not affect required water flow or affect choice of water supply line pipe size. Larger supply lines or larger pipes do not use more water (except to fill them initially) – water use as water volume depends on the outlet size and time the water is allowed to flow – in our modern US homes this is regulated by flow restricting washers, which are placed in the faucets and showerheads, with differing sized holes.
[Note: To clarify, flow is the amount of water moving through the pipe and out the faucet. Total water use is the volume of water used. Larger flows require larger pipes – just like fire hoses come in several sizes. But this does not apply to normal home water use. Water pressure also is part of the equation of water use – higher pressure through the same sized outlet increases water coming out of it .]
I bet you all already knew that, but it had to be said.

The size of pipes used in household plumbing does not affect water usage at all. [There might be a tiny itys-bitsy effect when the house water system is first filled, but that is all, a few extra gallons of water stored in the pipes, but this is not ongoing use.]
Household water use is determined by the length of time water is flowing and at what rate it flows through the system. Saving water is done installing:
1. Flow restricting faucets (either factory restricted or by the addition of flow restricting washers). Usually 2.2 gpm or 1.5 gpm (gallons per minute).
2. Flow restricting shower heads. EPA’s WaterSense standard is no more than 2.0 gpm.
3. Low-flush toilets. Current standard 1.6 gpf (gallons per flush) for solids and 1.1 gpf for liquids. EPA WaterSense high efficiency certified toilets use 1.28 gpf.
4. Water-saving appliances: washing machines and dishwashers.
5. Laws and regulations on landscape watering.
A bit of Home Plumbing 101:

A water service line comes from the water main to the house. The size of the water service line determines the maximum total water flow/volume (at normal water pressure) that will be available in the home. In my county, the minimum size of the water service line is ¾ inch. All new single-family homes here have ¾ inch supply lines while those with more than one living unit have 1 inch service lines because they will need more total water flow.

A water supply line means the pipe from the incoming water source to a water use point – like a bathroom. In the diagram above, the supply lines are blue for cold water and red for hot water. The hot water heating system has incoming cold water supply and outgoing hot water supply lines. There are T’s in supply lines that divide up the supply of water, sometimes through smaller pipes, and send it to the sinks, appliances, bathtub faucets, shower-heads and the toilets.
Personal Note: In my home, when I had a single upstairs bathroom remodeled into two smaller bathrooms – one with a tub and the other with a shower stall – I had to specify supply line size to my plumber. He wanted to use less expensive ½ inch copper pipe (this is before modern PEX piping). I specified ¾ inch supply for the hot water – as the supply line would feed two bathrooms for six people, three of which were teenagers, and a supper-sized hot water tank, as both showers were likely to be in use simultaneously every morning and evening.
Well, now, we have seen that home plumbing water pipe size does not contribute to “wasting water in a time of increasing drought.”
Wait! What does this have to do with droughts?
Nothing whatever. As in, nothing at all.
But are we “in a time of increasing drought”?
Not according to the IPCC. In AR6, Chapter 12, Table 12.12:

The IPCC’s latest estimate of the predicted time of emergence of various Climatic Impact-drivers (CIDs) – “‘Time of Emergence’ refers to the time when anthropogenic change signals emerge from the background noise of natural variability in a pre-defined reference period” — shows that no signal Hydrological Drought or Agricultural and Ecological Drought has yet emerged. Not only not happening in present time, but not expected to be seen by 2050 and not expected to emerge between 2050 and 2100. Despite what the mainstream seems to say every day, in simple language, increased and more frequent drought is just not happening.
There are a lot of doubts and confusion about drought. In the United States, the primary source of confusion about droughts comes from the NOAA’s National Integrated Drought Information System through its website at Drought.gov.
Information from drought.gov ends up in the main stream media as this:
In a Record, All but Two U.S. States Are in Drought
Which uses drought.gov’s illustration:

I am not contesting the image or the data behind it. But I will state categorically that it is the specific type of mis-information that we see all through the weather and climate news: The actual meaning of the image (in this case) received by the pubic will not be the reality – there is not any context or clear plain language statement of what the image means for the public.
Definition: “A ‘plain language statement’ in science is a concise summary of a … scientific finding written in easily understandable language, designed to be accessible to the general public without requiring specialized scientific knowledge.”
Why is it that the primary source of doubt and confusion about drought is the very agency department whose primary responsibility is to track and inform the public about drought conditions in the United States?
It isn’t that they are trying to fool the public with mis-information. They are not bad actors trying to push “The Climate Crisis”. They do good science and report their results accurately.
If so, why the doubt and confusion?
According to the National Geographic:
“Drought is a complicated phenomenon, and can be hard to define. One difficulty is that drought means different things in different regions. A drought is defined depending on the average amount of precipitation that an area is accustomed to receiving.” … “A drought in Atlanta could be a very wet period in Phoenix, Arizona!”
There are at least 11 types of droughts mentioned at aginfo.in (unfortunately no longer active, but the link goes to the ever-helpful Wayback Machine – I send money every time I am forced to use them).
Dr. Jim Angel, State Climatologist of Illinois, says this:
“Drought is a complex physical and social phenomenon of widespread significance, and despite all the problems droughts have caused, drought has been difficult to define. There is no universally accepted definition because: 1) drought, unlike flood, is not a distinct event, and 2) drought is often the result of many complex factors acting on and interacting within the environment.
Complicating the problem of drought is the fact that drought often has neither a distinct start nor end. It is usually recognizable only after a period of time and, because a drought may be interrupted by short spells of one or more wet months, its termination is difficult to recognize.”
So, when the NY Times prints (on paper or digitally) the image used above, they surely explain that this is a representation of an “index” called “U.S. Drought Monitor”. Don’t they?
Well, no, they don’t explain that that is what we are looking at.
The “U.S. Drought Monitor” is an index about drought: “A drought index combines multiple drought indicators (e.g., precipitation, temperature, soil moisture) to depict drought conditions. For some products, like the U.S. Drought Monitor, authors combine their analysis of drought indicators with input from local observers. Other drought indices, like the Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI), use an objective calculation to describe the severity, location, timing, and/or duration of drought.”
The U.S. Drought Monitor (index) is not an objective calculation about drought or it’s severity in any particular location….involving more than one measure plus “input from local observers”.
My home area is “in a drought condition” which had little or no effect for my family – other than we had to water the vegetable garden twice in a month – which is not different from non-drought conditions.
Here’s another look of the continental U.S. drought conditions produced the same week as the image above, for the month of October 2024, but using different indices:

While they are somewhat similar, they do not even duplicate the deep severe drought in southwest Texas and southern New Mexico. Comparing them side-by-side, or diagonally, often finds no similarity on a state or region basis. Two of the four indices show the Northeast US in fairly serious drought, while the other two show the Northeast to be wet (green and blues) which is the opposite of drought.
The US Drought Monitor drought index is a very subjective metric of drought – and mostly means “less rain over the period [week, month, year] than average”. What it does not mean is that local water companies have to start restricting water use or call for voluntary water usage.
However, lack of rainfall can and does affect some cities (megalopolises) that depend on rain-fed reservoirs for drinking water. New York city’s biggest reservoir is currently down to 60% of normal. It will fill back up when winter rains and snows arrive. In areas where large cities depend on water pumped from deep aquafers, long-lasting problems can develop as these deep aquafers take many years/decades to refill. This is not an effect of drought but rather an effect of over-withdrawal.
CONFUSED? I don’t blame you.
# # # # #
Author’s Comment:
While researching for this essay, I came across this statement at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]:
“When you use these water–saving products in your home or business, you can expect exceptional performance, savings on your water bills, and assurance that you are saving water for future generations.”
My home water supply used to come from one of two wells on our property, not exceptionally deep, but we never ran the well dry. Now we have “city water” that comes from a small dammed stream five miles away, the dam creates a small pond. The water not used by the water treatment plant there runs over the dam and then down the hills eventually into the Hudson River, which runs to the sea.
This setup is the same as it is for NY City, though NY has many distant reservoirs. But in the end, the water not used by NY City flows over or through the dams, down rivers into the Atlantic Ocean. All the waste water from NY City also flows into the Atlantic (albeit with a great deal of loss from leaking aquaducts).
No amount of saving water from these reservoirs benefits “future generations”.
Fresh water, where it is in low supply, can be wasted, used in foolish ways like to water desert golf courses. But only when this ssavings is of water pumped from aquifers does this saved water benefit our children and grandchildren.
Do you know where your water comes from?
Thanks for reading.
# # # # #
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Just be careful how mush water is pumped from aquifers.
Pumping more water.from aquifers than is naturally replaced by annual rains can lead to subsidence
Drought is a big deal and so it gets a mention in Chinese myth.
There were originally 10 suns and they used to hang in a world-tree, a mulberry tree. Every day a three-legged crow would take a sun up to the top of the tree for its journey across the sky. But all these suns led to drought, so Yi the Archer shot down nine of them, and that solved the problem.
Mulberry trees are the favorite food of silk worms.
No amount of saving water from these reservoirs benefits “future generations”.
Kevin ==> Deep aquifers may actually save water for future generations….it takes a long long time to fill or replenish them.
Our water comes from a 300 ft deep well. The pump for which is electric, when the power goes off so does the water. Our house is then in a localized drought condition unless we have backup on hand.
Nansar07 ==> Ah, your drought condition is caused by electrical supply failure not water supply failure. Yes, recommend a fairly inexpensive back-up generator — 20-30amps — to maintain basic water supply and keep the frig/freezer cold and at least one light on.
Life at sea taught me that,and se will practice it.
Too often “drought” is conflated with “water shortage” and I do not consider those to be the same thing. Drought, IMO, is reduction to water inflow to a region, whereas water shortage reflects an inability to meet demand/need (outflow). I can get into lots of “tin foil hat” comments, but there is an online record for rainfall in my local city water yard for the last 82 years. It is highly variable but remarkably shows a marginal increase in overall precipitation(.03″/yr).
A lot of the Drought talk relies on “average” rainfall, but what they use is Mean. The mean rainfall in my area is just over 14″, but the median is just under 12″. By this kind of characterization, a middle of the road year is 2″ below “average”. The SD is over 6″
I built a quick histogram with .5″ divisions and fully 63% of annual rainfall amounts are below the mean without an overall change in trend over the 82 year history.
I have 20yrs of experience in Statistical Process Control so I know this level of analysis is far from complete and there COULD be shifts or changes in variability, trends to max or min, etc, hidden in there that are not visible to an eyeball review of the data. However, the more subtle the shifts, the more careful you need to be in how you assign their cause. I’m not sure how I would handle a DOE on this but sure as heck wouldn’t be screaming drought.
First off – flow restrictors do NOT decrease the time to get hot water, they INCREASE it. Simple physics: SAME volume to be moved, LESS flow. That is the reason that I rip them out first thing when I change one. Time to rinse off soap and shampoo is similarly INCREASED.
Second, about “biofilms” – those will certainly form. IF you don’t run water through the pipe for a VERY long time. Typically at least a week. For a much worse “biofilm,” do a #2 in your “efficient” toilet – and note that unless you flush it a half dozen times, there is a VERY evident “biofilm” left in the bowl.
Third, “high efficiency” appliances – well, I happen to suffer from psoriasis. EVERY load I put through my “high efficiency” washing machine HAS to go through an extra rinse cycle to remove every bit of the “high efficiency” detergent, lest I flake skin all over the house (which would require more electricity usage for more frequent vacuumings).
Now, I don’t claim that my dishwasher is “high efficiency.” I happen to like my dishes to be clean, so I wash everything by hand in a sink of hot soapy water and rinse them thoroughly.
WO ==> Not sure who, if anyone, claimed flow restrictors would decrease time to get hot water at the faucet or showerhead…but smaller pipes do decreased the time required to for hot water.
As for biofilms, the ‘experts’ do recommend full flow running of each line at regular intervals.
Our new Energy Star dishwasher takes 2 and 1/2 hours to wash the days dishes….my wife discovered the “Express” setting to reduce time and energy waste.
You don’t have to be a climate nutcase to see ‘water management’ as sensible and prudent, particularly in places like southern California where rainfall is always seasonal and often erratic.
The more water that can be stored in the water table where the rain falls, the better local water storage will become. It also requires far less spending on drains, which are designed to get the water back to the ocean as quick as possible.
India solved a lot of its droughts using totally low tech technology. They prepared circular pits to collect the monsoon rains close to villages and within a few short years, their water tables were restored and fresh water was a daily reality. Low tech, done as a private people initiatve.
You see similar things in the Steppes of Eurasia. Digging shallow pits around where young trees are planted, so that the melting of the winter snows captures sufficient water around the trees to see them through the dry summer.
Many homes in the UK are now being designed to collect rainwater from the roof into an underground tank by the side of the home, linked with pumps to the home’s water system to be used as grey water (washing machines, dishwashers, WCs). This can reduce water usage hugely.
Back in the olden days, letting rivers flood was another way of building up water tables in river valley. You know: another way of keeping the winter snows on land rather than returning to the ocean. Nature often organised that using fallen trees, beaver dams and landslides.
Brad Lancaster has organsed incredibly low tech water harvesting in Arizona, allowing trees and vegetation to flourish without ongoing investment.
Nothing lunatic about just harvesting water for local use.
RTJ ==> Water use, water savings, drought, water shortage are all local (sometimes regional) issues.
If one lives in an area that experiences water shortages, then water-use reduction, recycling, creative water capturing makes sense — common sense.
However, in my area, my municipal water supply, by design, is either captured from a small pond by the water treatment plant for distribution in our municipal system, or it flows over the short dam and down to the Hudson River and then to the Atlantic. After I use it in my home, it goes down the drain (most of it) through the waste water treatment plant into the Hudson River. This is my first house (out of four) that is connect to municipal water (finally, after 20 years).
I grew up in Los Angeles, which either had to import water from a distance (reservoirs, the Colorado) or flooded. LA has a huge system of drainage ditches (as large as small rivers) that carry the flood waters into the Pacific. My local park was actually part of the flood control system — a giant 2 block aside square intended to become a lake during floods and slowly drain over the following week.
Los Angeles is a megalopolis in what many would call a desert. Phoenix, Las Vegas, the list goes on. And they keep building, adding thousands and thousands of new homes that need water.
Even as a homesteader in a region with plentiful water, we practiced water management for our garden crops and animals — pumping well water cost money, which was always in short supply.
So, my kids were taught to save HOT water (expensive to heat), and just common sense, don;t forget to turn off the tap when you are done brushing your teeth.
WaterSense? Water nonsense! How many houses actually have 80psi water pressure?
But the waste of water waiting for a combi-boiler to heat up is tragic. A pump recirculating cold water to a hot tank wouldn’t be difficult to design.
Roger ==> There re solutions: In an all-electric home, an on-demand water heater, under the bathroom sink supllying both the sink and shower, is sensible, both using less water waiting for it to heat up and less energy keeping water hot in the water heater tank all day while everyone is at work.
My home has a huge-ish SuperSaver hot water tank for three-teenager showers — no longer needed.
SE PA is in drought conditions, we went 2 months with no rain. I am 58 years old and this is the most sever drought that I can remember in the last 20 years. But only one of a many in my life time. Age makes a big difference in how climate is perceived, if I was young and spent my school years being indoctrinated on climate change I too we see this as a dramatic climatic change. If I had spent my whole life with AC I too would see every heat wave as something unbearable. But I have seen much and lived summers sweating my ass off every night trying to sleep through heat waves. I have see police driving up and down the streets fining people for watering their lawns. Now just image if I was a thousand years old.
Thank you for the analysis. While this article clearly had room for improvement with more thorough editing, I appreciate the points you’ve raised. I would, however, like some clarification on parts of your critique.
The IPCC chart you provided does show that global drought is not generally predicted, but it also indicates that regional droughts are expected, particularly in areas like the Southwest United States. This region relies heavily on aquifers, which are being depleted. In this context, conserving water for future generations is indeed a valid and pressing concern.
Although the article could have been clearer in framing drought as a regional issue, mentioning it in the context of water conservation still seems appropriate, given the IPCC’s predictions and the importance of addressing localized water scarcity.