W - 3.5 -> 3.8 Flashcards
Lesotho
Essentially, used technology to form a water deal with South Africa,and it was mostly successful
Cons of water project in Lesotho
• no official report done on damage to flora and fauna for phase 1A, began without an overall project EIA
• Environmental Action Plan does nothing to combat damage in 1A
• Critically endangered Maloti Minnow
• 40% river diverted to Vaal, leads to severe deoxygenation and eutrophication
• Cost of mitigating biophysical and social impacts 2.8 - 4.2 million annually
30k affected and 325 houses relocated
Cons part 2 Lesotho project
- aids introduced through prostitution and alcoholism
20k people disrupted - any land loss is as damaging as only 9% of land here is arable
Pros of Lesotho treaty
- 1986 bilateral treaty
- 90 MW power generated for Lesotho
- 80 million revenue, 7k jobs
- led to more stable geopolitics
- 35 mil a year for Lesotho’s water
Altitude and temperature mean very few people have to be displaced and less disease
Judge the Lesotho treaty
strong economic + geopolitics benefits I believe outweigh the short term social/ environmental losses. Provides a firm base for Lesotho gov to invest/ develop environment and social losses – albeit the environmental losses are minimal. Kuznets curve can be used to further substantiate my judgement.
Singapore
Manages water very efficiently, good local attitudes.
Sustainable too. + low corruption
Looking to break free from its expensive water imports from Malaysia by developing tech.
Singapore stats
• Lots of rain and evaporation
• Limited collection and storing of rainwater
• NEWater
• Recycle local catchment water
• Desalination
• Importing from malaysia
• Treated and purified: advanced membrane/ UV disinfection (destroys nucleic acid and disrupts DNA of microorganisms
4 plants – 30% of need/ 55% by 2060
Intermediate technology (restoration of supply):
• e.g. tube wells, pumpkin tanks and earth dams
• Might be seem to have quote strong sustainability credentials
But perhaps don’t reach enough people, only apply in the rural developing world
Water conservation
• e.. grey water recycling, metering, pricing, groundwater recharge schemes
• All to try and reduce demand so water resources go further, or ensure supply for future generations
Other approaches, desalination:
• Immediate benefit in terms of supply; can be used in areas where there is essentially no supply
• Expensive to build and run; coastal locations only; energy intensive and polluting – water cost may be high
• Might be seen as the only option in some cases
• In very water rich it could be argued sustainable schemes are just not needed.
Some more Singapore facts:
- 4.8 mil people
Treaties will expire 2061 - recycled waste and desalinated water expected to soon meet 25-30% demand
- water use fallen from 165l in 03, to 155l
- still import 40% of water though
Colorado
Big basin with lots of water, downstream does not get enough water as upstream has it all (physical geo), and thus are a lot more efficient than the upstream who waste a lot. Clash in ideology as the American idea of capitalism and free will means upstream towns are less likely to be willing to invest into sustainable just to benefit the downstream. Also indigenous are struggling.
Owens valley
• Enough water to supply 1 million people, during shortage was quite demanded.
• But owned by farmers
• Men came to invest into the farms, and offered exuberant prices in order to receive the water rights.
• Farmers did not give up and kept opening up the dam to allow water back into owens valley and not LA
Integrated water resource management:
• Advocated in 1990s – whole river basin is treated holistically to protect environmental quality of rivers and ensure maximum efficiency of usage and equitable distribution.
Berlin rules:
• A Water Framework Directive - approved by International Law association (ILA) in 2004
• Produced by the European Parliament, alongside the UNECE (based in… Geneva…) (UN for Europe)
• Supersedes ILA’s ‘Helsinki Rules’ (1966) – promoting equitable use across basins and benefit of prior use
• There are 9 water management principles that apply to all countries, including national and international shared waters…
Colorado River Basin:
Source: Rocky Mountains, flowing through the Colorado Plateau to the mouth at Gulf of California (Mexico)
97% of flow in USA (7 States)
Upper Basin – Colorado, Wyoming, Utah
Lower Basin - Arizona, Nevada, California, and Mexico
The western states arguably need more water, e.g. S. California, which has no major river to us
When was Colorado compact signed?
1922, Mexico included in 1944
Main criticism of Colorado compact
Allocation based on period where precipitation was above average, not the case anymore, now we have drier conditions
Integrated Drainage Basin Management
This can overcome water conflicts, e.g. Colorado
•But they tend to forget climate change (i.e. prolonged drought)
•UNECE also places an emphasis on reducing water pollution.
•Smaller catchments (where groundwater can be replenished) are more successful.
Upper basin issues
Plentiful (cheap) water supply has fuelled a century of inefficient (but necessary) agriculture.
•80% of the river is used for agriculture. Other uses include (water) skiing and tourism (Utah), HEP (Utah)
Lower basin issues
California, Nevada and Arizona growing quickly with huge cities, technology and tourism in the middle of deserts.
•Wealth inspires innovation, efficiency, but they must negotiate water rights with upstream states.
•Desalination, irrigation restrictions and Water Banks are ideas experimented with since the 1990s.
Water Sharing Frameworks and Treaties
- even Indus water treaty is maintained
- Helsinki rules. -equitable use and shares concepts
- UNECE water convention promotes joint management and conservation of shared freshwater ecosystems
Other issues
o1922 when the Colorado Compact was signed: 16.2 million acres/ft water available – now there is only 13.2.
oThe more environmental management that the USA pursues, e.g. the Grand Canyon Protection Act, the more water it uses for conservation.
Other concerns
Indigenous groups have rights to 5% of the water - in real terms this will drop because of climate change. It is barely enough, and indigenous groups have been mistreated by water capitalists in Los Angeles in the 1890s.
•In 1944 a Treaty between USA and Mexico guaranteed 1.4mill acre/feet/yr, but water does not reach the Delta, and mudflats have dried up, leaving fisherman without income..
Bolivia
Shows physical and human causes of water scarcity as well as the response to it.
The case for the Private sector
TNCs (water) mean water is now a global commodity
•MEDC govts don’t like taking responsibility for modernisation of water supply infrastructures
•In theory – commercial charges means less consumptions
•In LEDCs, privatisation of water is a pre-requisite for debt relief
The case for the public sector
•Water is vital to human health
•FAO / Oxfam – it will be nationally managed
•Then poorer communities won’t be bypassed
•Want to avoid inequality gaps
Is there a middle ground? Free water?
Can be wasted and squandered
•Can’t pay bills and rich usually under-taxed
•Have to recover costs – from tax?
•Chile – subsidies: must prove you are poor
Stats for privatised water in Bolivia
• 50% more people received water when it was privatised
• 450$ connection cost cs 17$ wage
• Only 20% were able to afford it, 200k left without water supply
• People were no longer water wise
• Water quality has not increased with the water quantity
Stats for state run water in Bolivia
• Water supply contracted out to an American TNC – acting as a monopoly.
• Price sky rocketed
• Led to 4 days of riots and gov cancelled the contract 2000
• Now only 45% of houses have coverage
• 55% of pop. Not supplied
Cause of water scarcity
Price
Usage
Availability
Access
Private sector
Public sector
Water companies
Responsible for delivering water and managing water supplies.
•Could be good – competition brings lower costs low cost, safe, reliable supply in many developed countries.
•Privatisation (e.g. Bolivia) might be negative for some i.e. profit before people.
•TNCs could be seen in a different light to more local companies.
Governments
Set out water quality standards to ensure safety,
•Capital investment for major supply infrastructure such as dams, pipelines, transfer systems, desalination plants secure supply;
•Might play possible role in resolving conflict and regulating competition.
Consumers
Might be seen as excessive users or users who return water in an unfit condition e.g. farming leading to eutrophication of supplies, or industry discharging pollution – so water is not safe for others to use.
•Demands for lower prices and / or more efficient supply.
•Consumers might be seen as paying the bills but with little power, or as environmentalists demands better standards / lower impact on the environment.
•Have a key role in managing consumption as buyers of water and buyers of water saving devices. They have to be convinced of the need to be sustainable in order to change consumption behaviour.
Costs of obtaining the supply
If there is a plentiful supply then the price is lower, e.g. Memphis ($0.4 / m3) vs. San Francisco ($1.8 / m3.)
•If groundwater abstraction is easy, then price is lower, e.g. UK: Portsmouth Water obtain their supplies from the South Downs aquifer – ($0.5 / m3)
Demand
High consumer demand prompts water companies to raise their prices e.g. Chicago: 1/30 people have a swimming pool - higher prices ($0.7 / m3).
