Due before Tuesday, January 14 at 9 AM.
Based on ONE of the readings assigned for January 15th:
Gleick, P. H. (2002a). The changing water paradigm: a look at twenty-first century water resources development: Water International 25(1): 127-138.
Vorosmarty, C. J. et al. (2010). Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature 467: 555-561.
Sprague, J. (2007). “Great Wet North? Canada’s Myth of Water Abundance.” In Bakker, K. (ed.) Eau Canada: The future of Canada’s water. Vancouver: UBC Press. 23-36.
Reminder: the reflection should be 1-page long (~500 words) and contain two questions at the end.
To add your reflection, click on “Leave a Reply” below this post.
**Suggestion: write-up your reflection in an alternative program (ie. Word, Pages, Google Drive), then copy and paste your reflection to this website. Save a copy of your reflection for safekeeping
Gleick’s paper offers an insightful overview of twentieth-century water planning as well as hopes for the future of water governance. The shift to a conservation-centric approach appeared to have kicked off after the environmental movement that began in the 1960s-1970s, which permeated into different sectors of natural resources management, including water. Nonetheless there are remaining issues that were raised in this paper, such as a need to address water as a basic human right, its ecosystem benefits, economic principles, etc. It is interesting to reflect from a perspective ten years after this paper was published, to see the improvements that has been made but also how water management continues to be fraught with issues. Dams continue to be supported by governmental expenditures (in fact, the largest dam in the world, the Three Gorges Dam, was completed in 2006), water conservation programs are still lackluster in many countries, and demand continues to increase.
The paper touches on how water should be a fundamental human right and the lack of this explicit acknowledgement in law was a failure of the 20th century. Despite how seemingly self-evident this seems, there is still a stark shortfall of legislation that enshrines a constitutional right to clean water in countries. In Canada, many indigenous communities continue to suffer from lack of access to clean drinking water, resulting in a disproportionate rate health effects related to water security. I grew up in Beijing, where I wasn’t aware that water could be drinkable from the tap until my family first immigrated to Vancouver and a relative retrieved a cup of water for me straight from the kitchen sink.
The pricing of water is another area of development that Gleick addressed. As stated in the paper, economic subsidies for water-intensive processes such as cotton production or wheat production or charging water by base pricing that is not metered are practices that continues to undermine water conservation. Instead, for an actual paradigm shift, water pricing should go beyond using a metered system to include its environmental externality costs.
Although this paper encourages the efficient consumption of water as a key move to the future, the example of improving water productivity for lawns seem almost paradoxical. Reducing demand and improving efficiency by reusing reclaimed water is not going to be as good as a systemic shift that addresses the root of the problem of why lawns and water-inefficient green structures even exist. Urban greenery is important, but the complex of lawns is very contradictory to sustainable goals.
Although the first decade of the 21st century may not have moved towards the development path that Gleick has written on, there are nonetheless instances of success, thus it is important to address both the continued deficiencies in water governance but also the potential for a renewed systemic shift towards a structure that would allow for equitable, efficient, and holistic usage of a crucial resource.
Question 1: What could water governance look like at the end of this century? What would be a realistic transition to a more equitable distribution and pricing of water look like?
Question 2: Do you think it would be possible that with current management schemes, it could lead to water scarcity that could potentially induce global conflict?
Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity
In this paper Vörösmarty et al insightfully consider both human and biodiversity perspectives simultaneously, on global water security, which threatens 80% of the global population and 65% of species’ habitats associated with continental discharge. They highlight a need to prioritise and expand research on the protection and rehabilitation of water resources, specifically information on rivers, which currently relies on fragmented data and country-level statistics.
Both ecosystems and human water security are undoubtedly affected by certain stressors, such as pollution and contamination. However, less obvious stressors, like the construction of dams and reservoirs, provide a plethora of advantages to humans, but often at the cost of complex ecosystems. One only needs to look at many of the dams in Canada to witness the multitude of harmful effects. Dams like the La Grande complex in northern Quebec, which created 15,000 megawatts of hydroelectric capacity, achieves this by flooding nearly 13,000 square kilometres of boreal forest and wetlands.
Vorosmarty et al comparatively map the threat of human water scarcity, against a threat to biodiversity. Both maps highlight the spatial similarities between the two. Although not identical, the both maps show high incident threat in regions of intense agriculture, such as large portions of the US, Europe, Asia and India. While simultaneously recognising threats to arid, desert regions like the Murray-Darling basin. Interestingly, certain regions of high rainfall, such as developed east China, show regions of high threat, implying that urbanisation and development play a significant role in the water security of a region. In similar fashion, the few remote regions of the world, where human interference is minimal, shows the lowest levels biodiversity threat.
Vorosmarty et el highlight that, for most rivers, threat levels downstream, are much higher compared to upstream, suggesting that stressors accumulate as the river flows toward its mouth, while most urbanised regions also conglomerate in these areas. This made me think about the collective impacts the countries downstream of rivers must deal with, while countries upstream reap greater benefits.
The researchers interestingly calculate an ‘adjusted human water security threat’, which takes into account the potential for technological advancements to mitigate some of the negative impacts of humans on waterways. It is here one notices the devastating contrast in ability of more developed countries such as the US, to lower their threat level, with increased investment in water infrastructure. Whereas, developing countries are left behind, with minimal investment and threat levels remaining critical. Finally the researchers highlight the imminent need for global, biodiversity conservation investment and divestment from harmful large-scale fluvial infrastructure projects like mega-dams, suggesting a different engineering approach, that benefits both humans and nature.
Question 1: When did human involvement in fluvial systems trigger such a large scale effect on human water security and biodiversity?
Question 2: To what extent can humans re-engineer current infrastructure, to better serve the needs of both humans and natural ecosystems?
In Gleick’s article, the author centres his ideas around what he calls the “changing water paradigm”, which indicates a shift in the way individuals and officials think about water management. This shift marks a change of focus, from looking for more water sources to meeting basic human needs for water demand by altering distribution of water and improving the efficiency of water use. Old paradigm water investments included technologies like dams, relating to our current module, but while these methods had a number of positive outcomes such as increased food production and more widespread access to clean and reliable water, there were also a number of consequences including biodiversity and fish species loss, contamination and displacement of cultural sites. These projects were also often heavily funded by governments and international banking organizations, were built on the basis of questionable/incomplete information about their potential impacts and proved to be cost ineffective in many cases. He explains how predicted trajectories for water use have associated an increase in population with an increase in demand for water, and up until the 1980s this was an accurate prediction. I was surprised to find out that water usage in most of the world has actually gone down since the 1980s despite the global population increasing, mostly due to improved efficiency with industrial water use but also because of policy changes like the US law created in 1994 that required all new toilets to use one third of the amount of water previously used in past products. I was also extremely surprised to discover how much of our global water supply goes to waste either because of things like inefficient technology, for example, leaky pipes or faulty aqueducts.
I found it interesting that the author used California as an example of somewhere where water is inefficiently used, as California is an area that has been experiencing an increased number of fires in the drier seasons and is an area prone to drought. That being said, California is also a wealthier area that has the ability to cover up their water shortages by importing water from other places, places like Colorado. He mentions that it is estimated that 10 percent of California’s water is unaccounted for. Drawing on a few of the solutions that the author mentions, there are many things that California could be doing to ensure that their water is used more efficiently. For example, they could focus on building green infrastructure that is water efficient to replace things like golf courses and lawns. They could also work on growing agriculture that is less water intensive rather than things like almonds, which are extremely water intensive, or at least could work at making their agricultural practices more efficient. As the author stated, agriculture is the industry that uses the largest amount of water but potentially over half of the water set aside for agriculture is never used to produce food.
One more thing that I found particularly compelling about Gleick’s article was that he talked about how the environmental movements in the 1960s and 70s had a big impact on water management, and how this movement led people to see things like rivers, natural riparian systems and freshwater species as rare and valued. While I have learned about the lasting impact of the early environmental movement, I have never seen a connection made between this movement and water management specifically. The asks I have learned about from this wave of the environmental movement were focused more broadly on pollution and toxic waste. On a related note, my questions are as follows:
Question 1: What are the least environmentally degrading water management technologies and how likely are they to be implemented? (I am particularly interested in learning more about fog capture as it was only briefly mentioned in the article)
Question 2: Will the current wave of the environmental movement put even more pressure on governments, NGOs and companies to think about efficient water management and distribution or has this not been a big enough focus of the movement? (In other words… are environmentalists more focused on fossil fuels and is water management taking a backseat?)
Being a Canadian who has grown up in Vancouver, I have always taken the statements about Canada possessing a quarter of the world’s fresh water supply at face value. From my own situated knowledge of living in one of the rainiest cities on earth this statistic has always seemed reasonable. Reading this article has changed my world view in how much water we have and how much water we can use in the future. Already we see water bans almost every summer in Vancouver and have to start thinking about restricting our water consumption, all the while corporations like Nestle plan to extract as much Canadian water for exportation as possible. This new knowledge of how little of our water is actually renewable (6.5 at best, 2.6 realistically) is a concerning realisation about just how lacking Canada is in our ability to retain high yields of water going into the future. With misconceptions about our water supply coupled with the ease of access to water through plumbing, many Canadians over-use the water supplied to us. Of this I am also guilty. This myth of limitless water in Canada turns into a form of the Jevon’s paradox (as a resource becomes cheaper people use more and more until they end up spending more on it than they did when it was expensive). With uncertainty about future access to water due to climate change, proper information about Canada’s water supply should be distributed to the public and regulations about corporate access to water should be tightened.
The part discussing the changes the people have made to important hydrological landscapes is equally fascinating and saddening. The thought of a thousand bison drowning in floods as people attempt to recreate the seasonal water levels of the delta serves as an analogy for human impact on the environment. We make drastic changes without understanding the vast array of impacts, then in an attempt to undo the impacts there are overcompensations that lead to the extreme opposite. A delta that balanced water and land was dried and flooded repeatedly by people until the land is unusable and the native species are pushed out or killed off.
Questions
-How can we spread the real statistics instead of the popular misconception? (the bank account analogy is a good one for helping normal people understand)
-Even when we are truthful about the amount of renewable water that we receive (~2.6%) Canada still has higher water per capita than the rest of the world. Should we continue to allow corporations to sell our water to other nations? Should we allow it with more regulations or should we ban it altogether?
I forgot to mention, this is in response to Sprague, J. (2007). “Great Wet North? Canada’s Myth of Water Abundance.”
Vorosmarty et. al.’s article “Global Threats to Human Water Security and River Biodiversity” explains that although most people think that they have endless water, this is not reality as they state that nearly 80% of the worlds population deals with water scarcity. After reading and analyzing the article, I agree with the points that the authors make about the reality of water scarcity. The type of analysis that the authors used to create this study were very well thought out and created a clear correlation to viewing the water security as well as biodiversity. The authors describe that areas where dense development had occurred correlated with high incident threat toward water scarcity and biodiversity.
For example in China the Yangtze River basin is incapable of attenuating the impacts of concentrated developments. The same can be said for many other highly urbanized and populated Countries such as, Mexico, Cuba, North Africa, Nigeria, South Africa, Korea and Japan. Vorosmarty et. al. explain that a very small percentage of rivers on Earth are unaffected by humans. These areas are remote areas of the world that include the high north and and unsettled parts of the tropical zone. These areas are flourishing with biodiversity due to the fact that humans have not placed their harmful touch on nature. The authors then describe that recent sampling of rivers across the USA showed impairments among 50% of sampled river length.
After reading the article posed by Vorosmarty et. al. I come to the conclusion that due to humanities capitalistic market and society, it has single handedly destroyed the biodiversity and created water scarcity. Instead of humans realizing that the natural resources in the ground are precious, they treat them as a commodity. The commodification of nature has destroyed the human-nature relationship as it only views nature in a monetary gain from its exploitation.
Through the commodification of nature it has created many conflicts between local communities and the company that is extracting the natural resources. Many Indigenous communities have been displaced due to the inability to live near these extraction plants. Through the harsh extraction of these precious natural resources, the nature of the biodiversity has been changed in such a drastic way in such a short period of time.
Vorosmarty et. al. illustrates that something as simple and complex as a river basin is a key part in nature. Human overpopulation and densification has not only ruined biodiversity but has created great water scarcity, especially downstream of the river. The authors explain the importance for global biodiversity conservation investment and the divestment from large-scale infrastructure that only views nature as a commodity.
Question 1: Do you think that the biodiversity loss and human water security issues that we face today will be corrected in the next 10-20 years, even with an increasing population?
Question 2: If you were in charge of managing and distributing the water in a local drainage basin, how would you go about it and what would you prioritize from most important to least important?
Vörösmarty et.al.’s article “Global Threats to Human Water Security and River Biodiversity” determines that nearly 80% of the world’s population (for 2000) resides in areas where either incident human water security or biodiversity threats exceed the 75th percentile. This finding is a result of a spatial framework that quantifies multiple stressors and accounts for downstream impacts on freshwater systems. Regions most prominently impacted by threats to water security include areas of dense settlement that are heavily populated and developed, as well as regions of intensive agriculture. As illustrated by Vörösmarty et.al., a mere 0.16% of the Earth’s total area experiences low scores for every contributing stressor to water security. Only the most remote areas of the planet retain minimally affected freshwater systems, thereby indicating a significant flaw in modern day human-nature relationships. A subsequent correlation is drawn regarding two cumulative incident threat indices, whereby regions with a high incident biodiversity threat also have a high incident human water security threat. In areas of high incident threat, water resource development and pollution are dominant contributing themes for both human water security and biodiversity.
The extensive list of impacted regions is illustrated as follows: “much of the United States, virtually all of Europe (excluding Scandinavia and northern Russia), and large portions of central Asia, the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent and eastern China. Smaller contiguous areas of high incident threat appear in central Mexico, Cuba, North Africa, Nigeria, South Africa, Korea and Japan.” Threatened water security for both human and non human entities is a truly global issue. Yet the distribution of consequences is concentrated downstream. As explored by Vörösmarty et.al., in most freshwater river systems, threat levels are highest downstream due to cumulative stressors and contaminants. Subsequently, there exists a disparity between upstream and downstream human settlements in regards to water security. This uneven distribution of consequences encourages the question: What are potential geopolitical conflicts that may arise as a consequence of increasing water insecurity? Another interesting component of this article was the consideration of the role of potential technological advancements in mitigating impacts on freshwater systems. Vörösmarty et.al. refer to this consideration as ‘adjusted human water security threat’. While this is an important factor to consider, I argue that there exists a danger in fostering and reiterating a reliance on the potential of technology to solve environmental issues. Furthermore, adjusted human water security threats are dependent on development and investment capabilities that varies depending on socio-economic and political development. Ultimately, Vörösmarty et.al. illustrate the critical issue of water (in)security for both humans and biodiversity, calling for immediate action to conserve critical ecosystem functions in freshwater river systems.
Question 1: In what ways can Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) in relation to our interactions with freshwater systems benefit both human and non human entities? Building on this concept, would providing freshwater systems with the same rights and titles as humans prove to be beneficial?
Question 2: What are potential geopolitical conflicts that may arise as a consequence of increasing water insecurity?
Gleick’s paper provides a comprehensive summary of the challenges of water scarcity, use efficiency, and fair distribution. Before the end of the 20th century, a global trend towards building dams for hydro-power, meeting demands of potable and agricultural use, and for flood mitigation, was well accepted. A seven-fold increase in water withdrawals over a 100 year period led to a dam construction frenzy which capitalized on ideal sites. Water use increased with population growth, and expansion of irrigated agriculture and was expected to continue to grow exponentially. However, refining industrial processes, and investments into water saving efficiencies decelerated the demand. Water withdrawal in the US was found to be 10% below peak consumption (reached 1980) when this paper was published, due to smarter use in industry and agriculture.
This article is written at an intriguing time environmentally, where global opinion on dams was rapidly swinging in favor of dam removal. Most of the total suitable sites were taken, meaning as a globe we essentially reached “peak dams”. There were growing concerns about environmental impacts and increasing costs. As Gleick highlights, there was often a failure to account properly for the economically “hidden” social and environmental costs. Billions of dollars invested by governments allowed for the subsidization of these mega infrastructure projects, once more disguising the true costs. An additional cost not mentioned by the author, is the hidden cost of depreciation of the dam infrastructure over time, and the cost of repair and upkeep (or removal) when the dam becomes a hazard to people towards the end of its’ lifespan. As with any product, we are starting to incorporate the cost of disposal, instead of inappropriately discounting the future cost.
Gleick highlights how large-scale projects are no longer the answer, and outside the box thinking is needed to integrate water conservation programs into solutions. This got me thinking about novel methods to preserve the ecosystem services that are so important for humans, and also how to better ensure the rights of all people to water, and the rights of indigenous communities. One thing that has occurred since the publication of this article is designation of legal rights and person-hood to rivers (to the advantage of the environment and communities). The Ganges River, India and the Whanganui River, New Zealand were given this right in 2017. This gives them intrinsic value, in the way that they are often seen by indigenous people. This movement may be expected to grow in the next decade and may change the way water is allocated to different uses (more water for the environment itself). Whilst this may be a good thing in principle, there are still lots of finer details to work out around how this legal person-hood actually functions and what that means for diversions on the river, etc.
Q1. The paper asserts that water conservation programs are becoming integral in water solutions. Are there examples of new or existing infrastructure projects where water conservation has been mandated?
Q2. Since this paper was published 20 years ago, has there been any movement away from the economic and institutional structures that encourage inefficient use of water?
John B. Sprague’s chapter “Great Wet North? Canada’s Myth of Water Abundance” in Eau Canada, outlines the perpetual misconstructions of Canada’s not-so-sizeable renewable water supply. Within the first few paragraphs, the author straightforwardly explains the reality behind the country’s water abundance, or lack thereof, as Canada possesses a comparatively average amount of renewable water supply on a global stage. This information has been readily accessible for decades, yet mainstream media outlets, official spokespeople and representatives for the country, and even the average Canadian seem to believe otherwise as they all continue to perpetuate this fallacy. Sprague’s text prompted me to consider where this myth originated from beyond the mere confusion between standing water from lakes and renewable water supply. Additionally, it brought me to examine the significant ecological and human costs that this myth may facilitate.
The longstanding Canadian myth of essentially having an immeasurable amount of water domestically firstly led me to consider the country’s initial colonization and unsustainable development practices performed by European settlers. Canada was, upon “discovery”, deemed to be an inexhaustible land with an infinite amount of natural resources. Settlers saw an enormous land mass that consisted of forests, mountains, meadows, and, of course, large bodies of water that could be tapped into for ongoing land development. Evidently, these settlers had a narrow scope of consideration for environmental limits in addition to the complete disregard for existing Indigenous populations as a result of this false perception of limitless resources, including water. Canada’s history is predicated in a fallacy of endless resources and this is substantiated in our use of the tar sands, clear cutting, and reckless water use. Ill-advised water use in Canada, such as inefficient agricultural practices that waste large amounts of water, could be a direct result of a perception of limitless water supply as Sprague notes that ineffective policy design could be based upon this myth. With the looming impacts of climate change, there needs to be a hyper-focus on appropriate water management. Climate change, as the author writes, will affect water distribution significantly through the modification of precipitation regularity which then changes the demand for irrigation. With inapplicable policies being put into place, or none at all, none of these practices can be properly managed.
Not only does the Canadian myth of endless resources legitimize reckless water management domestically, but it also erases the existence of Indigenous peoples who have sustainably relied on these resources for millennia. The implication of exhaustible forests and waters, among other materials, denies the existence of Indigenous people as it groups them with the exploitable entities of nature rather than a culturally complex people. Furthermore, this myth has historically allowed for the reckless use of these materials with simultaneous disregard for the impacts it may have on Indigenous people as their livelihoods are so intricately connected to the Earth. Colonial legacies have evidently embedded themselves into this myth of boundless water and resultantly facilitates any carelessness that can be held by policy-makers.
Question 1: In what ways are we able to incorporate Indigenous ways of sustainable water management into government-sanctioned practices?
Question 2: How can we change the way Canadian policy-makers, media outlets, and other stakeholders think about our water supply so that it minimizes ecological and human costs?
In Gleick’s article “The Changing Water Paradigm: A Look at Twenty-First Century Water Resources Development”, the evolution of the management of water globally was discussed in the broadest of terms. Gleick approached the paradigm shift from political, social, moral, and environmental angles. The overall tone of the article was hopeful. This was not something I was expecting from an article addressing water usage; in my experience articles and news on this topic are bleak from start to finish so this new attitude was extremely refreshing. I was inspired to hear of all the advances that have been made in the field of water usage. For example, in 1965 Japan, industrial output valuing one million dollars would have required 48,000 cubic meters of water to produce; at the time this article was written (2000), that requirement had dropped to 13,000 cubic meters. I would be very interested to know if positive trends in industrial water use have followed the same trajectory in the past two decades. On that note, I was very aware while reading the article that Gleik’s arguments were based within an environmental and socioeconomic context that is now two decades old. With such dramatic and fast paced changes occurring within our environment and political and economic spheres, it goes without saying that Gleik’s predictions and recommendations may not have necessarily unfolded as he expected. Not having a large existing knowledge base regarding water resource policy myself, it would be interesting to know which parts of this article are still relevant within our current context.
Overall, Gleick emphasized that the large scale, high cost, blanket solution water management projects of the past are no longer appropriate from a financial, environmental, or functional point of view. These projects (often large dams) were both driven by and required by the population growth, increasing standards of living, and extreme changes in agricultural systems over the course of the 20th century. However, these projects were extremely expensive and inefficient compared to other technologies; furthermore, a shift in public opinion has resulted in the consideration of related adverse environmental and social impacts. In BC, well known impacts resulting from dams include the displacement of human communities and the disruption of diadromous fish migrations. Gleick explains that improving the efficiency and allocation of the water resources we already have access to should be favoured over continuing to search for new sources. Notable exceptions are situations in which large infrastructure projects are required to fulfill basic human needs for water. In most cases however, small scale, technical, economic, and systems based solutions are far more appropriate. Currently systems within our society allow for the enduring poor management of water; by simply examining water requirements on a case to case basis, our needs can be tactfully met moving into the future
Question 1: Technological advances are needed to improve the efficiency of water resource use. How best could the negative environmental consequences of these technologies be minimized?
Question 2: How could community engagement be maximized as we shift towards for local strategies for water management?
Reflection #1: A Look at Twenty-first Century Water Resources Development, P. H. Gleick
Module: Global Water Management: Key Issues
In the abstract of the text, A Look at Twenty-first Century Water Resources Development, Gleick is putting the key issues of global water management regarding the 20th century and its evolution. He is showing the evolutions that occurred during the 20th century, challenging therefore the societies of the 21st century. He is pointing out the “changing water paradigm” which he is defining as “the new dynamic process of managing freshwater resources and human demands for water”. He is identifying three factors for the change of water use, the population growth, the changing standards of living, and the expansion of irrigated agriculture. He is therefore highlighting three main issues regarding water management, economic, environmental and social.
He is questioning the role of the international community and the lack of recognition by the international law on an effective set of rules to protect water resources. He is then making an important point on the technological improvements made in water management as well as the future improvements that should be make. He is mentioning for example reclaimed wastewater, consisting in reusing water, for other purposes, rather than throwing it away after the first use. Though, he also could have discussed the closed-circuit shower – saving 90% of water –, first invented to be used in space missions, but meant to be expended to communal showers in gymnasiums and so on, and which could have been interesting to discuss as it implies a high economic cost, government and private entities might not be willing to spend.
Still, Gleick is highlighting the inactivity of the governments when local use and new technology on water management would be more efficient, environmental conscious and economically beneficial. He is in the same way pointing out the actual use of such practices in developing countries, proving water management is also about agenda and economic matters.
Although this article was published 10 years ago, the main issues raised about water use and water management, are still true today.
So, what emerges from the text is the inaction of the international community, and the urge for environmental responses. The author is emphasizing a lot of problems in water management that could be easily taking care by governments, as the overuse of water in urban center, due to the fact that water use is not measured for example. He is also pointing out the devastating impacts of dams on humans as well as on biodiversity, stressing out the lack of strict regulations about it. The environment in general including water resources should be put before any other matters, such as economics. Gleick could have been more frontal on that point.
1) I think one of the questions raised by the article is the link between economic growth and water use – water as an economic good – and so shall we reinvent our consumption model or our economic model to encounter human needs of water?
2) As the main issue seems to lie on the inaction of governments, could we imagine an international claim or a local claim against those governments as it happened in Netherland for example?
Gleick, P. H. (2002a). The changing water paradigm: a look at twenty-first century water resources development: Water International 25(1): 127-138.
In this article, Gleick focuses on the evolution of water management approaches around the world. He discusses the approaches of the twentieth century in terms of water management and explores the questions that still need to be answered for the coming decades. It is interesting to question this article today, as it was published twenty years ago, and many points have not changed much.
In his analysis, he establishes a very interesting link between the evolution of water management, economic growth and the growth of populations that has hit developed countries and large cities during the last century. Thus, the major changes in water management can be explained by population growth, changing standards of living and expansion of irrigated agriculture. He also explains that the aim of water management seems to have evolved over the century from a desire to increase water resources to a need to meet human needs while respecting the environment. Thus, it seems that the social values and political economic condition have changed.
According to him, this evolution has made it possible to set up new principles governing water management at the global level. Gleick may have been a little too enthusiastic about environmental awareness and about redistributing this resource more fairly. Indeed, he defends the idea that access to water should be considered a fundamental right. Even if mentalities have evolved in this direction, today unfortunately the problem of equal access remains a major issue, there is always a basic human need for water that remain unmet.
Two of the main points can easily be challenged: basic human needs for drinking water and sanitation services and basic ecosystem needs for water. These two points are not met. According to the UN, in 1995, 400 million people worldwide were suffering from water/hydraulic stress. According to the United Nations, in about 5 years, this number will rise to 4 billion people. This means that today we continue to consume more water than we actually have. We continue to deplete resources with no concern for the future. Moreover, today about 90% of water resources are used for agricultural purposes. For example, a country such as Morocco use almost all his water resources for agriculture and Morocco is one of the mean fruits and vegetables exporter in Europe. So, in other world, Morocco use almost his water resources to feed Western countries. This example is a good illustration of our unfair system of water repartition.
Some countries are not yet able to offer real access to drinking water and sanitation services to their population. The example of Morocco is very interesting because it borders the eastern Mediterranean Sea and is very close to Europe, a continent where access to water does not seem to be a problem. There are still large disparities in certain geographical areas that can lead to conflict. As a student in International Relations, the first thing that comes to mind when we talk about water management is the geopolitical problem of water. I think it does not talk enough about the conflicts created by the problems of water distribution in the world.
What concretes principles of suitability and equity could help to reorganize the global water needs?
Do you think states can fight each other over water? / Do you believe in a possible “water war”?
In Gleick’s article, “A Look at Twenty-first Century Water Resources Development,” he makes the claim that with the turn of the century came new standards and demands in the realm of water policy. Specifically, with an awareness of the diverse and substantial costs of large-scale physical infrastructure used to establish new water sources, as well as a re-prioritization of values towards environmental and equity concerns, focuses for meeting water demand shifted away from large physical projects such as building new dams and incorporated smaller scale, innovative techniques. Furthermore, Gleick highlights how economically there has been pushes towards improving the efficiency of current water practices or using non-conventional strategies such as desalination, use of waste water, and conversion of fog to water. While citing examples of these changes taking place, Gleick seeks to argue for the current stock of water supplies to be utilized to meet demand, with the exception of some developing regions which would require new physical projects to a certain extent, and for the incorporation of a critical focus on environmental preservation and social needs such as equity in water policy.
With regards to the future of water policy, Gleick highlights a need to discuss ethical priorities, utilize an understanding of how to meet water requirements for healthy ecosystems, and incorporate technical or economic solutions to conserve water or reconstruct its demand. For example, significant water savings have been gained through policy which reduced the volume and quality of toilet water, as well as markets substituting for less water-intensive products such as aluminum in the place of steel. In essence, these types of approaches should serve to reduce the amount of water demanded and advance water policy.
One specific method Gleick discusses is water pricing, which in some cases could be in opposition to his call for meeting basic water requirements for billions of humans who face unsafe drinking water and inadequate sanitation services. Although Gleick recognizes that this practice can decrease the quantity of water that is wasted, and he notes its flaws in protecting ecosystems that are not accounted for in market assessments, he does not discuss the potential consequences for more impoverished, marginalized populations. Depending on the design of a water pricing policy, this approach to water management could potentially create a barrier for many in accessing basic water requirements. Furthermore, Gleick fails to address the future of water policy with regards to Indigenous communities, proposing an overtly top-down approach to managing water supplies that does not incorporate discussion nor recognition of Indigenous interests and claims in these water bodies. Although there appears to be social and environmental promise in turning to efficiency gains, market reorientation, and technical adaptations for meeting water demands, one must recognize that many of these approaches create new ecological burdens, such as the environmental costs of desalination, and may perhaps be accessible only for those of greater economic status. Gleick’s propositions hold promise and provide concrete examples of success in these methods, but they are incomplete, requiring a next step towards incorporating Indigenous partnership, further research into the impacts of technical solutions proposed, as well as a recognition of the potential need to shift away from an economic model based in endless growth to truly establish sustainable water use.
Discussion Questions
1. What are some potential promises and repercussions of utilizing Gleick’s proposed technical innovations to reduce the economic and social burden of water management systems?
2. Do you think Gleick is justified in his representation of the substantial role of environmental, social, and cultural concerns shaping contemporary environmental policy, and the prospect of this for resolving the “stalemate” and bringing to the fore a “new era” in water management?
Gleick, P. H. (2002). The changing water paradigm: a look at twenty-first century water resources development: Water International 25(1): 127-138.
In “The Changing Water Paradigm: A Look at Twenty-first Century Water Resources Development,” Peter Gleick outlines the fundamental shifts and transformations of water resource management approaches around the world. Central to Gleick’s thesis is the notion of a changing water paradigm that has evolved throughout history. He notes that there has been a move away from a reliance of finding new sources of supply to meet projected demands to one that seeks to re-emphasize water as a basic human right as well as reinforce a triple bottom line approach to water management.
Prior to the 1980s, the construction of large scale, physical infrastructure such as reservoirs, dams, and aqueducts were a vital part of meeting anticipated demand. Water planners tended to focus on supply-side solutions by taming the hydrological cycle by relying on scaling up and increasing water projects to capture, store, and move water. Water management was predicated on bridging the gap between current water supplies and future water demand from past predictions and baselines. The role of development agencies such as the World Bank and subsidies struck me as catalysts in water development. The proliferation of physical infrastructure such as dams have been widely used by both local and international groups. Widespread subsidies have encouraged more of the same redundant building of vast supply systems that often curtail natural water flow to the detriment of local communities and ecosystems. This has resulted in great pushback among citizens against one-size-fits-all solutions that pose greater harm than help. Inappropriate pricing policies and economic subsidies present a paradox as a double-edged sword. Though these schemes may help with efficiency in the short-term, treating water solely as an economic good and something that can be commodified is dangerous.
I am in agreement with Gleick in his stance that a purely market oriented approach cannot successfully protect the integrity of water resources, flora, fauna, and human societies. A triple bottom line approach to water management and sustainability along the axes that balance people, planet, and profit is therefore necessary. Ensuring that projects and practices are environmentally sustainable, socially equitable, and economically viable is paramount to shifts in the water paradigm. This calls for a more holistic view of water management that goes beyond myopic, short term gains, and towards a comprehensive approach along multiple thresholds. However, Gleick is silent on the imperative of indigenous knowledge in water management. While there are brief mentions of restoring traditional practices in water governance, indigenous knowledge must be at the forefront of current and future paradigm shifts around water development. This paradigm shift from a twentieth century water development paradigm driven by growth to one predicated on changing social, economic, environmental, political and indigenous values, has also been fueled by technological innovation.
Gleick addresses how twentieth century water resources planning and development incorporated metrics on projecting future population growth, per capital water demand, agricultural production, and levels of economic activity. Comparing and contrasting these changes, data shows a changing nature in demand. There has been a break in the line between water use and industrial production the United States as well as long-term projections for global water demand steadily declining. Technological advances and innovation have helped facilitate a more just transition that relies on alternative approaches to water management. As more efficient technology is on the rise, it is important to underscore that many people around the world still do not have access to clean, safe drinking water. This is observed not only in the Global South, but locally through boil water advisories on indigenous reserves in Canada and in Flint, Michigan.
Question 1: While Gleick provides a comprehensive summary and framework on fundamental shifts in water management, he is largely silent on the importance of indigenous knowledge in informing debates around water management. What role does indigenous knowledge play as a guiding ethic in shaping key paradigm shifts around water? How do we incorporate indigenous ontologies and epistemologies of water (as sacred) to water management? What steps are needed to decolonize water and move towards a more holistic approach to water management?
Question 2: Corporations and aid agencies play a role in financing a lot of development projects around the world as governments also lure investments through subsidies. Gleick notes that these projects have often resulted in the swift building of large scale physical infrastructure such as dams, reservoirs, and aqueducts. As the greater pushback from local communities and attention is placed on the potential harms and hidden costs of these projects, how do we ensure aid agencies and corporations are held accountable for past projects and in the future? How do we guard against redundant, one-size-fits-all projects that do not account for local communities and ecologies?
The misconception of Canada’s water abundance was critically tackled in the article “Great Wet North? Canada’s Myth of Water Abundance” (2007), by John B. Sprague. Sprague introduces that the confusion arises between understandings of standing water, and renewable supply: while standing water represents the volume of water which fills various deep and shallow lakes, renewable supply is the amount of precipitation governing river flow and groundwater recharge. Although Canada does have a relatively large supply of water (at a 4th place tie with Indonesia), the nation contains roughly 6.5% of the world’s renewable supply. As Sprague emphasizes, the myth of Canada containing excessive amounts of water is deeply troubling, and the continual perpetuation of the myth by politicians and media outlets is what has largely been contributing to the spread of this misinformation.
In reflecting on this insightful article, I would also like to add on to Sprague’s arguments that the perception of Canada’s seemingly unlimited supply of water is also tied to the popularized “wilderness myth”, which is the romanticized idea that humans and the physical environment are completely separate from one another. The idea of Canada being “blessed with at least one-fifth of the world’s supply of fresh water” romanticizes the land and its environment, that the nation is rich in resources which are desired by other countries, and resources that may capitalized on.
Sprague articulates that what is most problematic about the misconceptions around water are that many Canadians believe that the nation is in surplus, and that this is dangerous because it is also a misconception that political and government leaders are complicit in spreading. Despite that technical information about Canada’s water has been publicly available for decades, politicians continue to invoke the idea that Canada has more water than it needs. It has become a part of the national identity and source of pride. The deception around Canada’s water is strategic for influencing political decisions, and continuing Canada’s violent ongoing work of colonization.
1) With Canada’s increasing demand for water in the upcoming decades, how do you think that this myth should be debunked and unlearned from Canada’s national consciousness?
2) Do you think that other countries, which out-rank Canada in water supply, share a similar myth about their own resources of water? Why or why not?
Great Wet North? Canada’s Myth of Water Abundance by John B. Spague outlines how the myth of water abundance in Canada has been continuously perpetuated and discusses how this problematic narrative of abundance influences water usage decisions and public opinion.
This article challenges the dominant narrative in Canada that Canada is home to the largest supply of freshwater in the world and that Canada is extremely water-rich. This reframing of the Canadian water supply taking into account the difference between volume and renewable supply highlights how statistics can be manipulated to serve certain narratives.
As displayed in the article, the dissemination of total water volume into renewable vs. non-renewable, then further into accessible and non-accessible sources to paint a true picture of water availability in Canada is important when considering policies surrounding water and how people view its commodification and extraction. This exaggeration is a good example of misrepresenting the truth, while Canada is extremely water-rich in volume, it is not the case that all of that water is sustainably extractable. Another example is hydropower from dams being stated as clean energy while not detailing its impact on ecosystems or its initial emissions.
This article made me reflect on when and how I first learned about Canada’s abundant water supply. I perceived it as a fact I never questioned and something I learned so young I can’t remember ever not knowing it. This article challenged my perception that culturally has been accepted as fact and is enforced every day by the cheap and readily available water surrounding us in the city. Even during the water restrictions during extremely hot summers, I did not question the abundance narrative, nor did I think about the logistics of diversion. I was raised to conserve water, but more out of an understanding that it was wasteful not to, not out of a fear that Canada had less water than I originally thought. I still think Canada is incredibly water-rich especially considering our population. However, the narrative of abundance has helped install a laisse-faire and wasteful attitude to water usage, it does not properly take into account impacts on ecosystems, downplays the pollution of freshwater sources such as the great lakes, and reduces the backlash against extractive industries such as water bottling carried out most famously by Nestle in British Columbia.
I would be interested to explore more in-depth the question of why these statistical inflations began and continue to occur. Was water surplus purposely pushed by industries or governments to reduce public backlash against resource extraction and poor management or is it a case of statistics becoming legitimized in the wrong context through repetition and poor reporting.
A critique of this article is, while the article does acknowledge that Canada’s water wealth per capita is above the global average, the article comes across as underplaying Canada’s relative share. While the aim of the article is to debunk the way these statistics have been used incorrectly to overstate Canada’s world water share stating Canada’s renewable share is modest and only on par with countries such as China which has a population of over one billion comes across as understating Canada’s relative supply.
Questions:
1. Who benefits most from this abundance narrative and does that play a role in it being continually perpetuated?
2. How can the narrative of extreme abundance be reimagined when it is a dominant fixture in the Canadian cultural psyche?
Vorosmarty et al.’s work titled “Global Threats to Human Water Security and River Biodiversity” gave me a new perspective on the global water crisis. In dominant casual discourse surrounding the environment, human needs and environmental needs are often kept separate. “The environment” is framed as a separate issue than the economy in an election, for example. This article shows that this in fact not the case and that social and environmental issues are intertwined. Vorosmarty et al analyzes threats to biodiversity and threats to human water security at the same time. In their research, they show that these two threats are often results of the same causes such as pollution.
A key aspect to keep in mind when looking at the findings presented in this article is mentioned in the very beginning when the authors state that rich countries can address threats to human water security through technology without addressing the underlying issue of environmental degradation causing this human threat. By analyzing biodiversity along with humanity, the authors make a strong argument that plans to solve water security threats must use an integrated approach. This is no easy task, as developmental pressure is at odds with conservation. Another reason why this integrated approach is useful is to help end colonial and imperialist discourse surrounding the topic. Since poor countries have more visible threats to their water security (without the technology fixes of rich countries) problems such as water security are framed as being predetermined by the geography, culture and politics of said countries. By showing that rich countries’ water systems are also threatened, albeit in a less visible way, it allows the discourse surrounding threats to water security to be a global discourse regardless of wealth of a particular nation.
Rich countries and poor countries have unique issues in solving this problem. Rich countries have to restructure existing water infrastructure to promote conservation goals. Poor countries often lack infrastructure to achieve human water security in the first place. These problems are solvable, however they require lots of capital, fast. The fact of the matter is that this capital lies in the rich countries. I think this article is very important because it works to allow audience within rich countries to realize they too are part of the global water crisis, not just poor countries. Too often, issues in poorer nations are dismissed by people in rich countries because they are seen as expected. Hopefully, a new narrative surrounding water security can emerge, one that gains the attention and support of those in power.
Questions:
1.) In what ways can rich countries support water security threats in poor countries and vice versa?
2.) What are some (theoretically) possible integrated approaches to solving these issues?
Gleick, P. H. (2002a). The changing water paradigm: a look at twenty-first century water resources development: Water International 25(1): 127-138.
In this article, he discusses how the water paradigm change and establish a new standard to evaluate the water policies.
The traditional water development are no longer meeting the needs of society and thus people need a new paradigm to meet the water resources needs of this era. The old water resources development only focused on satisfy the demand of population growth, changing standards of living and the expansion of irrigated agriculture. Therefore these factors lead to a enormous expansion of freshwater withdrawals.
The traditional development methods in the past have brought social development but are not conducive to sustainable development and are no longer in line with the needs of water resources in the 21st century. The new paradigm shifts attention to how to improve the efficiency of water resources use, how to meet the basic human needs of water and how to reduce the negative impact of exploit water resources.
Following this new paradigm, fundamental changes have taken place in water resources management. For example people are pursuing more water-efficient technologies such as use of waster water, conversion of fog to water and applied them to agricultural and industrial production. At the same time, economic policies on water development has also changed. The subsidy policies for rapid water resources exploitation are no longer fit the situation. In the past, a large amount of water was wasted in agriculture and city living due to low-priced water resources obtained as a result of subsidies. However eliminating subsidies is not a solution to water waste.Fully marketed water resources may prevent some people using water resources. This requires policymakers to be more careful in formulating water polices.
Question 1: Are sustainable water development polices really in the interest of developing countries ? Should these countries put more resources on developing new water resources or on studying how to use existing water more efficiently?
Question 2: Is water different from other natural resources such as oil?
For this week’s reading, Gleik provides a coherent macro-scale summary of twenty-first century water usage. The article gives a brief overview about how humans have historically maneuvered through water crisis after water crisis, emphasizing the role of the agricultural industry and its connection to water, the economic lens of water management, as well as the impacts of dams and technology or lack thereof.
Being born and raised in Vancouver, I had always taken water for granted. It had been everywhere: the snow peaks I played in and the lakes I swam in. The water was clean and never hard, unlike the water I experienced in other places I travelled to. It wasn’t until I went to Califronia in grade 12 that I realized water isn’t the same everywhere. Then in Philippines I experienced water ‘black out times.’ I realized that I was among the blessed where I never needed to worry about the quality or quantity of my water, and that inequalities existed within the world and within nations, such as Canada’s reluctance to provide clean water to many Indigenous nations.
Due to the fact that this issue has become a global crisis, Gleik acknowledges that “the lack of consensus on a guiding ethics for water policy” has led to many unsatisfactory results, leaving individuals unhappy. Looking forward, people tend to fall under the category of seeking a solution through technology and benefit-cost models, or reorganizing and rationalizing water through policy. I tend to fall into the second category, due to the fact that this lens addresses root drivers and inequalities of our era’s (typically richer regions) neglect of the resource. For example, the changing nature of the demand for water has been evident with the American per capita use of water increasing more than three-fold between 1900 and 1970s, and peaking in the 80s then declining. However, as Gleik states, this is a per capita unit, and as the population of USA increased dramatically throughout the years, the use of the resources also dramatically increased regardless of the broad measures used to analyze trends. This can be attributed to the perceived need for an increase of food production, yet one third of the food produced in the world is wasted (Principato, 2018). I believe this issue is prevalent because high rates of consumption and waste is normalized. Increased efficiency with global food distribution would cause food production to decrease, allowing space for water usage to decrease. Additionally, the water-conservation and demand-management programs that incentivise water efficiency should be widespread.
On the other hand, technology could increase efficiency on the production side of agriculture as well as water-supply networks, decreasing the amount of water used. The technocratic lens of water development must come hand in hand with an improved mode of global agricultural distribution and marketing. For example, it is beneficial to many locales that researchers and other individuals have studied the impacts of dams on the ecosystem and communities. These large scale projects bring environmental and societal turmoil, and at the time of this article they were beginning to be scrutinized due to the high construction costs and maintenance. Dam removal had begun and innovation was competing with dam construction. In many places of the world, so much water is lost within their drainage systems that the water could have supported other nations.
1) Gleik mentions that even after all this research, dams will certainly still be constructed in poorer nations. With all this research as to why dams are not optimal, why is it that after many years of this article are large scale projects such as dams still operating around the world, and in our own province? (Amazon, Site C, etc.)
2) How prevalent are the technologies and systems in which Gleik mentions save water are prevalent now? What innovative factors are used/discarded after this article was explored?
I meant to say was written* in question 2
Principato, L., SpringerLink (Online service), & SpringerLink ebooks – Earth and Environmental Science. (2018). Food waste at consumer level: A comprehensive literature review (1st 2018.;1st 2019; ed.). Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-78887-6
Sprague’s article on the myth of the abundance of water in Canada highlights the common misconception associated with the supply of water that exists in Canada, particularly in comparisons with other countries in the world. Sprague concludes that this misconception is often derived from the fusion of the two categories: ‘standing water’ and ‘renewable supply.’
As a person who has lived in Vancouver for four years, the findings of this article came as a shock to me due to the abundance of renewable supply of water that is experienced here, through rainfall. My perception is further emphasized by Vancouver’s reputation as being one of the rainiest cities in the world, which has given it its nickname, “Raincouver.” My personal perception only emphasizes the mainstream narrative that is known to many, with regards to the supply of water in the country.
This deeply rooted myth, which is also held by government officials as mentioned in the article, further contributes to the worldwide mismanagement of water. If people perceive water in such a way, there is no incentive to start conserving it. Given the forecasted increase in demand for water, this issue becomes most pressing now, more than ever, and reinforces the need for a continued campaign to abandon this “myth of superabundance”.
However, on a social level, I have doubts about whether this would really change the attitudes of Canadians with regards to their everyday water usage. As seen through the case study of global warming, a large portion of the human population tends to wait until the zero-hour, as in, until matters become concerning, before they begin to change their habits and consumption patterns.
On a political level, I have doubts about whether this would really change the attitudes of Canadian government officials with regards to their policies, particularly when looking at the exportation of water to the United States for financial gain. As seen through the case study of the Trans Mountain Pipeline, many politicians have a history of saying one thing while campaigning and during elections, for political gains, and then actually executing a different course of action when in office.
Question 1: Given our current Age of Technology and Social Media – What role can social media play in the debunking of this common misconception? Is it even, perhaps, the most effective and efficient way of doing so?
Question 2: Would the distribution of real statistics and the debunking of this common misconception really change people’s consumption habits and politicians’ agendas?
Sprague, J. (2007). “Great Wet North? Canada’s Myth of Water Abundance.” In Bakker, K. (ed.) Eau Canada: The future of Canada’s water. Vancouver: UBC Press. 23-36.
This week’s reading I wish to focus on is Sprague’s “Great Wet North? Canada’s Myth of Water Abundance.” Sprague argues that Canadians labor under a misguided understanding of how much water they actually have which is dangerous for how it inevitably informs water management policies in Canada. While I do believe Sprague makes several valid points regarding how misjudgment of total water resources may have devastating environmental impacts, I found myself unconvinced by his argument that Canada does not in fact have an abundance of water. The abundance of a resource is completely subjective and relative. Given its nature as something that’s subjective, and especially when considered against the world, I think Canada does have an abundance of renewable water.
In the Gleick reading, the author makes note that some parts of the world are dependent upon reclaimed water in order to augment their water supplies. The author also points out more than a billion people do not have sufficient access to potable water and that more than three and half billion do not have sufficient access to water for sanitary purposes. Unless 1/7 of Canada’s population does not have access to potable water and almost half don’t have the ability to properly sanitize themselves, I cannot accept that Canada does not have an abundance of water.
If Canada has a lack of water abundance, it is solely of their own making due to how the country chooses to inefficiently use its water resources. I think Sprague would agree with me that the country does not use its resources as efficiently as possible, which both Gleick, and Vorosmarty, et al. argue is necessary in order to meet global water needs. But Sprague and I disagree on the point of Canada’s relative water abundance. In my opinion, Canadians can acknowledge that they have a higher than global per capita average of water resources while simultaneously acknowledging that just because they have a high average amount of renewable water per person does not mean they can afford to be inefficient with their water policies.
The only purpose I see Sprague’s argument that Canada is not abundant in water serving is an agenda of realist policies that would see the government be more restrictive in transborder agreements with the US in regards to freshwater. Much of Sprague’s argument comes off as fear-mongering rather than serious policy recommendations like that which are raised by Gleick, and Vorosmarty, et al. in regards to better water management for the sake of human security and biodiversity well being.
Question 1: Is it ethical for countries to adopt realist policies regarding their water resource management, or should nations look to more constructivist and idealist policies?
Question 2: Vorosmarty, et al. assert that the reason, given humanities current technological capabilities, the world is off track for reaching the Millenium Development Goals for basic sanitation services is a result of misplaced priorities. Do you agree with this assessment or do you think there is some other barrier that prevents us from reaching this particular goal?