This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Architecture Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Civil engineering Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCE articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Water High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Water, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Water supply-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WaterWikipedia:WikiProject WaterTemplate:WikiProject WaterWater articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is better pumps/control systems the reason for the declining use of water towers? In any case, I think the cause should be mentioned in the article, maybe in conjunction with drawbacks of water towers. --81.233.75.23 20:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Water towers are continuing to be constructed across around the world, current construction backlog is over 6 months with last tower constructor I talked to, Pittsburgh Tower. New water towers continue to be constructed in all major cities.

While pump controls are getting more sophisticated, a water tower is still a very economical for what it able to produce, large reservoir of water, under pressure at the use point at grade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinmax (talk • contribs) 04:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I forgot to add that by way of technical expertise, vinmax is a past president of a Municipal Water and Waste Water Utiiity District near Houston, Texas. Our design flowrate through our WWTP was 500,000 gallons per day. Everyone writting into this article has done an excellent job, I hope my additions are considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinmax (talk • contribs) 04:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The operation of the water towers section is very poorly written, it reads like someone has cut and pasted it from a book. And rearranged in the wrong order with vital parts missing. A far better description is on: http://www.howstuffworks.com/water.htm The diagram in the wiki article is misleading as it suggests that all the water that the end user utilises goes through the top of the water tower, according to www.howstuffworks.com this is not the case. Rather the water tower acts like an accumulator on the high pressure side of the system, absorbing the peaks and troughs of the water demand. Which makes a lot more sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.53.157.250 (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is is said: "Completed in 1860, the Louisville Water Tower was the first modern water tower in the world". How about Tower Hill Water Tower (completed in 1854), and Grimsby Dock Tower (completed in 1852)? Louisville Water Tower is "modern", and these ones are not? Why? 195.160.253.4 (talk) 07:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The section "Uses today" included information on historical uses; I deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.102.244 (talk • contribs)

I've reverted it since you've not given a vaild reason for the removal. More information on why you think it should be removed. Bidgee (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps energy storage may be mentioned. This can be done by adding a hydropower generator on the tube. This allows the height difference to be used as a energy source. Conversions of regular towers are theoretically also possible —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.163.19 (talk) 12:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's touched upon at Water tower#Uses today. Plenty of scope for expansion! --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are a lot of images in the gallery - are all absolutely necessary (Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Image_galleries) - there is after all the link to commons.Sf5xeplus (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Huge scope for a trim, to leave just a few to illustrate the concept. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We now have 51 images in the gallery, which is excessive, and does not follow the guidelines in WP:IG. I will cut this down to about six, chosen to cover a range of dates, materials and designs. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where comes the claim that McBee water tower is largest in the world? 4.5 million litres is not particularly large for a water tower. And there doesn't seem to be any pics around of this supposedly great landmark, only ones which I found don't seem to depict particularly large tower. Water towers containing up to 10 million litres aren't so uncommon - the Finnish water tower pictured in the article contains 12 million litres. I'm going to remove the claim. --Mikoyan21 (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When I attended college in Troy, New York we were told that the 2-million gallon (7.5+ million liters) Sycaway water tower on the hill at the north end of town was the largest free-standing, above ground water tank in the world. That was 30 years ago, so it may well have been surpassed by now. But you are correct: 4.5 million liters (1.2 million gallons) is not particularly large for a water tower. It's certainly nowhere near being the "largest".

Who is disputing this claim? If no one is, the dubious tag should be removed.207.70.152.162 (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The local Gannett newspaper reports that they are doing away with water towers in Florida (in flat areas you'd think they'd need them most) and implies that this is nationwide as well. The largest city in our county just dismantled their (only?) water tower. They state "alternative water storage," but don't state what that is. See http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20130425/NEWS01/304250033/An-up-down-day-old-Palm-Bay-water-tower until it gets archived. Student7 (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The claim needs a citation; that is why it is being disputed. 174.22.223.42 (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems to me that the statement, "...constructed at a height sufficient to pressurize a water supply system...", does not go far enough in explaining the main purposes for using a water tower in modern water distribution systems.

First and foremost, a water tower is a PRESSURE REGULATOR with no moving parts. When a fluid, like water, is pumped with a mechanical pump there can be unacceptable pressure fluctuations. Water, like most fluids, is not compressible so when there are no open faucets in the system, the water pressure can very quickly go very high with a piston pump. Perhaps even high enough to break the pistons or cylinders. So the pump must be stopped almost immediately when the flow is stopped or decreased. And the pressure will go down very quickly when the pump is off and the faucets are opened so the pump must also be restarted very quickly when the pressure drops. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish with mechanical devices.

By storing the water at a relatively constant height in the tank of the water tower, the pressure in the pipe leading to the faucets is also relatively constant. Thus, the tower acts as a pressure regulator and there are no moving parts to wear down. And the pump can be run for relatively long periods to bring the level in the tower up to a high point and then shut off until it drains to some mid point. Thus the pump runs in a better cycle. This greatly simplifies the design of a water distribution system and lowers the cost of maintenance.

The second main reason for water towers is to provide a emergency or back-up supply of water for conditions when it can not be pumped; such as a power or pump failure. This provides time for the maintenance personnel to repair the problems with no interruption to the flow of water to the customers.

The height of the water level in the tower determines the water pressure at the base of the tower. The formula for this is:

Pressure in PSI = 0.0360911906567 PSI X height in inches^[1]

The pressure will change by about five to fifteen percent with most towers as the water level changes from the highest to the lowest level, but this is far less than the fluctuations that may be present without it.

The water tower must be higher than the highest point where water is to be distributed without any additional pumps. Thus many high rise structures that exceed a significant fraction of the height of the local system's water towers must have their own means of pumping the water to the upper floors.

These are the two primary purposes of water towers.

I hesitate to edit the basic article, but offer this so that others can consider it in future changes.

EPA3 (talk) 06:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should go ahead and edit the article, per WP:BOLD. Dicklyon (talk) 06:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As quoted from the article: Alternatives to water towers are simple pumps mounted on top of the water pipes to increase the water pressure.[31] This new approach is more straightforward, but also more subject to potential public health risks; if the pumps fail, then loss of water pressure may result in entry of contaminants into the water system.[32] Most large water utilities do not use this approach, given the potential risks.

Here’s what I would say to that:

A Server Administrator’s approach to this problem:

Have two pumps side by side that are in-line for supply (via a splitter with valves), and output (via a splitter with valves), but not in-line with each other. Both have capacity that far exceeds normal throughput. Both operate all the time, but at half capacity (slower, but lines still fully charged), so the combination output equals 100 percent. Should one pump fail the other ramps up to full 100% capacity immediately and automatic valves isolate the bad pump side until fixed. Sensors automatically alert the Water company to start the fix. Have two pumps ready in reserve for immediate replacement, re-order new pump to restock while still having a backup just in case. Result, no downtime, no loss of pressure to allow introduction of contaminants, no loss of service, no loss of capacity. Problem solved.

BTW, This would surely be much less expensive than the cost of a water tower! Indigob2016 (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pumping stations generally do have two or three pumps and a generator. Some small systems don't have any elevated storage and are able to get by like you describe. It's still better to have a tower. The tower gives more regular downstream pressure than is possible with pumps. One of the problems with using only pumps is, there is a relationship between pressure and flow rate, you can't increase or decrease one parameter as you desire without affecting the other parameter. The controller can only increase or decrease the pump speed. Pumps are not equally efficient throughout their whole operating ranges; they have a best efficiency point. If operating very far from the best efficiency point, the pump might even have problems like cavitation which will damage it. A system with a water tower will be designed to keep the pump operating as close as possible to the best efficiency point at all times while the pump is on.

Another issue with having the pumps run all day long every day, is they wear out faster. Pumps are very expensive and the purchase of a new set of pumps is a big capital investment that may require months for delivery. You generally can't order a new one immediately when one breaks.

Another alternative to a water tower, is to use a tank at ground level which is pressurized with air pressure (called a hydropneumatic tank). These can have a bladder to separate the air side from the water side, but more often it's just an air-and-water tank with no bladder. The volume of the tank helps even out fluctuations in the system pressure just like a water tower would, but they tend to be a lot smaller because they have to be pressurized (thousands of gallons, instead of hundreds of thousands of gallons), and they won't cut it for big systems. Baller McGee (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article starts: "A water tower is an elevated structure supporting a water tank constructed at a height sufficient to pressurize a water supply system for the distribution of potable water, and to provide emergency storage for fire protection." Why the qualification "potable"? What about a water tower to provide water for steam locomotives for example - clearly potable water wasn't required, nor were they for water protection. Suspect you'd also find water towers at some industrial sites, etc. to provide water for manufacturing processes, etc. In any case, this lead sounds a lot like original research to me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.90.64 (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the title and list of contents, the word "Weird" is misspelled as "Wierd" (but the correct spelling is used in the text). I would change this myself, but it's a title and is presumably linked to the list of contents, so I'll leave this to someone with the necessary technical knowledge.84.243.236.9 (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article starts off mentioning that the terms "water tower" and "standpipe" can be used interchangeably, and then goes on to have a whole section devoted especially to "standpipes". This certainly needs some explaining. --BjKa (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a very generic term, "a vertical pipe that is connected to a water supply". A standpipe may not have a significant amount of storage but is used for pressure regulation, an example being Philadelphia’s Spiral Standpipe. Larger diameter standpipes could also store a volume of water, they were later called water towers when they were built with long metal legs instead of a single pipe rising from the ground. Dougmcdonell (talk) 00:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

this table should have a column for actual water tank height. The water height is unlikely to be much over 100m (for feeding a public water system) as the pressure would be too high. Gjxj (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "Pinnacle height" column should be changed to "Greatest height at which water is stored."

For example, the Swisscom tower, currently "tallest" in the table, reaches 250 m only because it's topped by a 98 m antenna – which has nothing to do with the tower's secondary function of water storage. For those interested in the heights at which towers store water, the 250 m figure is irrelevant.

The "tallest table" section on this page argues for the same thing, using a different argument. 2601:281:D47E:1920:81BB:8350:3633:63F2 (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There were notable and interesting uses of water towers in ancient times, and the History section should not gloss over this. For example, there was a water tower 1700 years ago at Mediana – and that was probably not the first. 2601:281:D47E:1920:81BB:8350:3633:63F2 (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am requesting clarification on the (uncited) "tall, exposed, N-shaped" standpipes used in the United Kingdom in the 19th century. In what way are they N-shaped? Uppercase N or lowercase n? My conception of a standpipe is just a vertical cylinder extending up from the ground to a great height. Baller McGee (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]