how should water be managed in response to growth · salt water 2.5% 69% 0.3% 0.9% 30%...

How Should Water BeManaged in Response to Growth:An International Perspective

PURC and Askew Program31 March, 2005

Paul ReiterExecutive Director, IWA

a global network for water professionals

“If there is magic on this planet, it is contained in water.”

Loren Eisely, The Immense Journey – 1957


Reasons for Pessimism… Reasons for Optimism


IWA - The Premier Global Network for Water Professionalsl 7,000+ members in over 120 countries

l Professions: Science & research, utilities, consultants, regulators, manufacturers

l Scope –> All aspects of water management -> water and wastewater

l “Leading Edge” of science and practice

? ?

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

BC400

BC200 AD

1200 400 600 800 100

01200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

(m illion)


97.5%Salt

water

2.5%

69%

0.3%

0.9%

30%

Glaciers/permanent snow coverOther (incl soil moisture, swamp water etc)Fresh groundwater (10.5m ck)Freshwater lakes and river flows ((93k ck)

This is the proportion of the world’s fresh water

that is renewable

Total water

Global “Bluewater” ResourcesDistribution of Global Fresh Water Only

(2.5% of Global Water)Distribution of Global

Fresh Water & Salt Water

2.5%Fresh water


Dimensions to a Global Challenge

l Coping With Growing Water Demands

l Addressing Widespread Water Pollution – Both Seen and Unseen

l Closing the Gap on Access to Water and Sanitation


Worldwide Water Use by Sector


Irrigated Land Worldwide

l 1900 – 1950 – doubledl 1950 – 1980 – doubled againl 1980 – present – growing proportionally


Water Availability Per Capita 1950


The projected change is compared to the present day with a ~1% increase per year in equivalent CO2

Source: The Met Office. Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research

Projected Changes in Annual Temperatures for the 2050s


At the Same Time …Additional and Significant Water Quality Challenges

l Pollution and water quality degradationl Nitrate and phosphate accumulationl Growth in salinityl Habitat loss

l Extinctions and reductions in biodiversity


NRC 2000:

Nitrogen is now the largest pollution problem in the coastal waters of the United States.

Two thirds of coastal rivers and bays are moderately to severely degraded from nitrogen pollution.

Industrially fixed(mainly fertilizer)

Total reactive N

N-fixing crops

Fossil fuel combustion

Period of explosive increase of coastal eutrophication

0

50

100

150

200

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

Tera

gram

s of

nitr

ogen

(Boesch 2002)


Kg N km-2 year-1 (Howarth et al. 1996)


Closing the Gap on Access

Access to Safe Water

l 1.1 Billion Lacking

l Goal: 50% Reduction in 15 Years

l 101,000 People Connected per Day!

Access to Sanitation

l 2.4 Billion Lacking

l Goal: 50% Reduction in 15 Years

l 220,000 People with Sanitation Added per Day!


Access to Drinking Water


Consequences of Poor Access


Urban Portion of World’s Population

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1950 1990 2030


Challenges Scorecard

ü Have already stressed resources to support growth in irrigation and food production

l Have 2 billion more to feed in next 20 years

l Need to provide unserved population (1-2 billion) with water and sanitation services

l Context – rapidly urbanizing population (40->60%)

l Global warming à reduction in supply

l Growing recognition: ecological needs must be elevated relative to human needs


Our Shared ChallengeAcross the Income Divide

Rich country or poor country alike

The key question is:

How do we do more with less?


Dual Imperatives

Use Less Water

Underlying Growth P+I

Pollute Less Water

EnvironmentalAwareness

Resources Constraints

Wealth Cost Avoidance

+ New Technologies

+

= Emergent Paradigm Shift


The Emerging Paradigm ShiftOld Paradigml Subdivide Water Management (Ag, Urban, Indus)l Use Water Oncel Use It Inefficientlyl Pollute Large Quantities of Waterl Treat the environment as an unequal partnerNew Paradigml Integrate Planning and Management of Waterl Use Water Efficiently and Multiple Timesl Match Needs with Water Sourcesl Minimize Pollution at the Sourcel Treat the environment as an equal partner


Productivity Gainsin Forest Products

1900 ~40% ? à 2000 >95%

Sawmill Papermill Cogen Plant

Papermill

“First-Use” Resource Utilization

“Multiple-Use” Resource Recovery1950 ~10% ?1990 ~35% 2000 ~45%


Cascading Uses

Wood Fiber Water Use

# 1

# 2

# 3

# 4

Writing Paper, Graphics

High Strength Boxes

Packaging Mtls

TP

Drinking, Hygiene, Hi-Tech

Industry

Irrigation

Toilets, Fire Flow

High Quality Low High Quality Low


Innovation Required !

l To meet emergent challenges

l To meet traditional challenges

l To operate in a truly sustainable manner

l Need to develop the knowledge-base in specific areas to do this – our purpose for being here today


Dimensions of Innovation

l The management and policy framework

l Planning and regulation components

l Technical components

l Social and educational change components


Lessons From Around the World

l Europel Australial US

l Israell Tenerife


Notable National Approaches in Europe

l France

l Netherlands

l UK


EU WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE: What is It?

l European Union l Frameworkl Directivel Water Resources

l Framework for Integrated Water and Environmental Management for the EU States


EU WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE: Broad Objectives

l Prevent further deterioration and protect and enhance status of aquatic ecosystems and associated wetlands

l Promote sustainable water consumption

l Contribute to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts


EU WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE: Key Elements

l Focus water policy on water as it flows through river basins to the sea

l Applies to all waters; inland surface waters, groundwaters, transitional waters and coastal waters

l Integrates water quality and quantity issues for surface and groundwaters


EU FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE: Overarching Objective (1)

l Achieving highest quality status in the rated condition of most EU waters by 2017

l In all areas by 2027

l Commitment:All waters in a healthy state (biological,chemical, hydrological) within 25 years


Identify river basins Appoint competent body

Establish river basins

Develop objectives Survey river basins

-Physical characters

-Human influences

-Economics


Inputs to objectivesIdentify water bodies

Survey results

Eco-region type

Protected areas

Parametric values

Inputs to action programmesBasis measures

Supplementary measures

Inputs to River Basin PlansSurvey results

Economic assessment

Objectives

Action programmes

International collaboration

Inputs to River Basin PlansPublic consultation

Prepare objectives

Prepare action programmes

Prepare draft river basin plan

Final river basin plan


River Basin Management Cycle

Evaluate stateof environment

Assesspressures& impacts

Determineobjectives

ProposeActions

Finalise Programmeof Measures

Enact measures

MonitorImplementation

Asses risks,costs & benefits

2007

2008

2009

2010

2010-13

2013-162005

Continual

Three Six Year Cycles


Murray-Darling Basin, Australia

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

Year

Ann

ual D

iver

sion

(GL/

Yea

r)

NSW

Victoria

S.A. Queensland

Full development of existing entitlements

'88'94

Average Natural Flow to Sea

Flow to SeaNet of Withdrawals

Withdrawals


Murray-Darling Process Outcomes

l Rollback on consumptive water uses

l Program for buying back water rights

l Agricultural efficiency measures

l Introduced market mechanisms for agricultural water use and pricing

l Water trading scheme between agriculture and urban uses

l Stringent conservation programs for urban water utilities


Common Elements

l Political recognition of the problems

l National and multinational framework for basin authorities, water quality standards and required actions

l Basin level approach to managementl True integration of managementl Ability to collect and the ability to spendl Effective partnerships with local governments


Different Circumstances Mean Different Approaches

Top Down

Bottom Up

Requires Shared Values and Commitments

Requires Shared Respect for Authorities






l Social and educational change components


Innovation in Water Production and Use: Doing More with Less

Efficiencies in Supply and DemandConjunctive Use of Water

Water ReuseDesalinisation

Cascading Use

More water for people and the environment


The Distant Future?The Distant Future?

SEWERSEWERSEWER

DRINKING WATERSUPPLYDRINKING WATERSUPPLY

REUSED WATER SUPPLYREUSED WATER SUPPLY

ENVIRONMENTAL LAKEENVIRONMENTAL LAKEQuality & quantity bufferQuality & quantity buffer

Water quality monitoringWater quality monitoring

Sewage treatment plantSewage treatment plant

with advanced processeswith advanced processesCITY AREACITY AREA

Nat

ural

Riv

erN

atur

al R

iver

Emergency replenishment line

Drinking water purification P.Drinking water purification P.

UF+NF

Coagulation + SedimentationCoagulation + Sedimentation

(Coagulation)+UF(Coagulation)+UFReclamation plantReclamation plant

DrainDrain

RORO(( desaltingdesalting))

Biological P.Biological P.++ CoagulationCoagulation++ UF+XUF+X


WATER DISTRICTS & FARMLANDWATER DISTRICTS & FARMLAND

? ?? ?? ?? ?

? ?? ?

? ?? ?

? ?? ?

? ? ? ? ?

? ? ?? ? ?

? ? ?? ? ?

? ? ?? ? ?

? ? ?? ? ?

? ? ?

? ?? ?

? ? ? ?? ? ? ?

FARMLANDFARMLANDFARMLANDFARMLAND

SEASEA

CITYCITY

CITYCITY

Drain

Environmental LakeEnvironmental Lake

Environmental LakeEnvironmental Lake

ReuseReuse

ReuseReuse

Supply

PONDPOND

Natural RiverNatural River

ReuseReuse

ReuseReuse


Macro-Forces to Think About

l Value of water (and nutrients) is rising– Desalination, reuse much more likely– Large scale nutrient recovery – when and how?

l Membranes are coming– Better, cheaper, gaining experience– Permit (drive ?) smaller scale solutions – Offer new possibilities for reuse

l In-situ solutions increasingly viable– Technology is getting there– Lower up-front costs => attractive to many– Host of maintenance issues to tackle


Centralised treatment costsTransport costs

Small scale treatment costsNew total costs

Reduced total costs

Existing total costs

Existing total costs

$/Ho

use

Number of Connections

Changing System Economics


Centralized vs. Nodal System


Tucson, Arizona: “Water Factory”

AquiferC River water


Recycling

Diversity of Sources

DemandManaged

Localtreatment& reuse

Stormwaterreuse

Detention

Land or water disposal

Water and nutrient flow

System That Are Much More Diverse in Their Design


Israel: Progressive à Radical

Current Future


Tenerife: Successive Innovation

Stage One Stage Two Stage Three






l Social and educational components


Setting the Stage

l Significant growth

l Deteriorating water quality

l Looming water shortages


Chinook salmon facing extinction

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996


Implicated through the ESA

l Anyone affecting the water resources that affect salmon

lWater and wastewater utilitiesl Others withdrawing or discharginglMunicipal stormwaterl River, seaside land use


Ecological-Political Overlay


Advent of a New Paradigm

l Change in Perspectivel Change in Approach l Change in Scope


Changing Perspective

From:– Meeting regulations

-- point of diversion, point of discharge -- minimum instream flows, wq permit

compliance

To:– Obligations to deliver environmental

outcomes-- water quality and quantity for fish -- environment / fish as another customer


Changing Approach

l From:– Divided and singular approached to the

development and management of water resources

l To:– A more integrated approach to the

development and management of water resources


The Big Challenge

l Subdivided Political Landscape– 3 counties, Seattle + 2 smaller cities

– 50+ smaller political jurisdictions

l Highly Fragmented Authorities– Water supply (big cities)

– Wastewater (various)

– Stormwater (about 50 local authorities)

l Fragmented Regulatory Environment


Resulting Actions

l Utilityl CitylWatershedl Regional l Stakeholder


Utility Actionsl ESA / environmental issues top priority

l Increase environmental flows on source rivers è more conservation investments

l Rethought entire water quality and stormwater program (regulatory implications)

l Removal of barrier to upstream passage

l Acceleration of “natural systems”

l Changed utility practices– Flushing

– Pesticides


City Actions

l Hightened engagement with other jurisdictions on water-environment issues

l Rethink on land uses and regulations

l Non-point sources elevated in importance and action


Watershed Actions

l Watershed forums developed

l Recovery plans developed

l Watershed compacts created

l Interlocal agreements between communities for financing actions


Regional Actions

“Salmon swim through 27 jurisdictions to spawn. In our need to solve this problem, the salmon will save us from ourselves”

l Formed Regional Water Suppliers Forum –“Water for fish and people”

l Developed state legislative package


Key Issues

l Balancing Prioritiesl Uncertain Sciencel Politics of the Environmentl Physical vs Jurisdictional Boundariesl Decentralized Political Structures


Thank You!

how should water be managed in response to growth · salt water 2.5% 69% 0.3% 0.9% 30%...

Documents