One of the most wasteful uses is the vast quantities needed to cool industrial systems, such as electricity and other plants that generate high levels of heat. The quantities required are very high and most of the water is permanently lost because it is not captured and recycled for reuse. Another wasteful use is irrigation for agriculture, where as much as 40 percent of the water evaporates or sinks into the subsoil carrying traces of the chemicals used in fertilizers over long distances through underground flows or as clouds laden with acid rain.

The decisions required to handle such problems are both political and technical. That places a special burden on diplomats and politicians who are often more comfortable with the big picture rather than nitty-gritty issues, potentially of life and death but which have not yet turned into crises. The sad fact is that an issue, however critical or potentially murderous, gets international attention backed with money only when it hits the United States or a European country. The fight against terrorism with global reach, a phenomenon at least 40 years old, became a top priority after an attack within the US. The combat against HIV/AIDS got significant attention only after it hit US celebrities and interest withered when its impact ebbed in Western countries. It took nearly 20 years and 40 million infected persons for the international community to set up a fund in June 2001 to deal with HIV/AIDS with the direct aim of saving the world's poorer citizens.

Water is an issue that cannot wait for so long to get serious attention and funds. It is true that the sums of money required to build water infrastructures that safeguard health are massive. The challenge is not one of finding the funds or the technology. Rather, it is one of persuading or even coercing governments, ranging from the national capital to local municipalities, to deal with water issues on a war footing, alongside malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS.

The war is against unsafe drinking water and unsafe sanitation systems, including individual behavior that ignores the imperative of hygiene. The Bonn conference should exercise prudence not in aggressively pursuing its goals but in spreading itself too thin. Its draft declaration is too far reaching and, for that reason, unachievable on the ground. Like a doctoral thesis, it makes educational reading because everything imaginable that involves water is defined and exhortations are made to find solutions. But it is far from being a finely honed or pragmatic plan of action that a poor country might implement on the ground within a reasonable period of time.

The declaration says action is need in the areas of governance, integrated management, new partnerships, mobilizing funds, capacity development and technology transfer. It then lists 25 items that should be addressed. Its analysis cannot be faulted because all the "shoulds" contained in its wish list are like saying that mother's milk is better for infants than milk powder. But are any of the "shoulds" achievable in 15 or even 25 years without fundamental societal and cultural changes in the way people think and behave?

The international community has grappled with water issues for over two decades without achieving much more than pilot projects in some developing countries, while continuously widening the agenda of actions that governments should undertake. Negotiators and experts seem to have forgotten that supplying safe water and safe sanitation to each household and village are not activities carried out at the national or federal levels. They have to be achieved at the municipal, city and village levels.

Those local governments are the ones that must do the work and the management. State or national authorities can do little more than set standards, conduct surveillance and help to raise funds and technology.

It is inappropriate to set out a list of societal changes summarized neatly into 25 points for implementation by municipal counselors in villages and small towns, where levels of both education and sophistication are low.

It is worth paying attention to the people to be served and those actually serving them, rather than to grandiose notions of what should be achieved but is not doable by the people closest to the problems.