Water is a fundamental to so much we do, but unappreciated except when it is scarce. You are in the desert. Or more often you are in car full of kids driving and the kids are thirsty, and you forgot to stock up on drinks before you left. The value of water is much higher now.

So, why shouldn't location and the site's availability of water be considered when thinking of environmental impact?

Veolia water illustrates this point comparing peanuts to tomato sauce.

Another example is beef production.

A second example: the volume of water needed to produce one pound of beef – 1,857 gallons – appears to be the same regardless of whether the beef comes from a water-rich or water-poor area. But the impact on the water resource in two different states or, for that matter, two different areas of one state (East and West Texas, for example) can vary considerably.

The question few environmental groups ask is what is the local impact? If there is plenty of power from existing infrastructure, is it possible that a renewable energy plant could have a higher environmental impact?

Most don't want to think about this issue, because it complicates the call to action. Save our planet, renewable energy is the answer, in some places. :-)