Content: 1-page written response on one reading for each week. Your reflection should discuss your response to the reading, focusing on your view of how it relates to the current module, other articles and water management as a whole. Students will demonstrate a careful reading of the texts by including their critical thoughts and ideas. At the end of each Reflection, students should include 2 questions to pose to the class during discussion.
Grading: Reflections will be marked based on their completion, and each is worth 2% of your final grade; students should submit 5 Reflections total. The Reflections are due on Tuesday at 9:00am the day before class and uploaded to this page where other students can view the responses.
Due Dates:
- Tuesday, January 14th 9:00am
- Tuesday, January 21st 9:00am
- Tuesday, February 11th 9:00am
- Tuesday, March 3rd 9:00am
- Tuesday, March 31st 9:00am
In the introduction of the book “Great Wet North? Canada’s Myth of Water Abundance.”, Bakker introduced three main issues in Canadian water governance, including jurisdictional fragment, transboundary management, miss of management at the federal level and water supply privatization. All these address the problems at the macro level. However, I want to add problems at the individual level to that. As an international student who comes from a non-western society, I like to observe how people behave and speak kind of to help myself adapt into this new environment. What surprised me when I first came here was that people can drink water directly from the tap. However, only the coldest water is drinkable, so people often turn on the tap and wait until it switches from warm or mild to cold. In the gym, after working out, many people, especially old ones, often have the tap turned on but doing something else. Sometimes, they leave with the water flowing. Moreover, in summer, irrigating water is sprayed on a sidewalk in front of houses. When I ask” why don’t you turn the tap off?”, the answers are always about “Canada has more than enough water, we do not need to save.” From the answers, I can see what is more serious behind the institutional failures. People are both water users and protectors. Because all agreements and policies are made by people, if we can not have a correct awareness, the direction will finally go deviated. It is also important to say if every Canadian can save a little, all Canadian can save a lot.
In his article, Dr. Gleick uses a number of examples to prove improving water efficiency can effectively save water. My favourite one is the toilet example. According to the figure he provides, if we can achieve full implementation of efficient toilets, we can save almost one million acre-feet per year at the end of the 20th century (now I think even more). I like it because it, in my personal opinion, perfectly shows how a “small” change in technology or improvement in water use efficiency can combine with individuals to save tremendous water resources. As Gleick says “there is no technological reason why toilets have to use any water at all”, we may use merely air to flush waste one day. I am longing to see this principle applied in other aspects like showering, dishwashing and etc. Now if we have the right awareness and proper technology (demonstrated in the form of different domestic products), we are at the right starting point and facing the right direction. Every person can make a considerable contribution to water resource management and development.
Q1: Can you share some water-saving tips in everyday life? Do you have the awareness?
Q2: Which example in Gleick’s article related to water management inspire you and why?
This week’s readings touched on the history of water management, the interlocking threats of water supply shortages and biodiversity loss, and pervasive myths of water abundance in Canada. I felt that these articles shed light on the complexities associated with crafting well-informed water policies. Decision makers are tasked with finding a way to respect, non-human life, ecosystem integrity, and promote human well-being. Achieving any of these goals may come at the expense of another.
As Vorosmarty et. Al.’s study illustrated, there are potential conflicts of interest between preserving aquatic biodiversity and securing water supply for human use. While water management in the 20th century emphasized technologies such as large dams to increase water supply, recent research into the negative economic, social and ecological impacts of big dams diminishes faith in technocratic solutions. For example, as Vorosmarty et. Al. suggested, there is a strong correlation between large river obstructions (such as reservoirs) and biodiversity loss. Yet, the regions experiencing the highest rates of biodiversity loss are also experiencing acute water shortages. Does the dam go? Do the people? Policy makers must judge the proper balance of responsibilities to their constituents, to non-human life, and to the ecosystems in their jurisdictions. If navigating such ethical calculations were not complex enough, the formation of sound water policies is further frustrated when decision makers lack accurate scientific knowledge.
As Bakker showed was the case with politicians in Canada, key decision makers may believe certain ‘myths’ about a nations water supply that affect water policy. The creation of sound water policy muddled by pervasive myths of freshwater abundance, such as the misconception that Canada is brimming with 20% of the worlds freshwater supply (in reality, the figure is closer to 2.6% of usable freshwater supply. An illusion of freshwater abundance could lead to unsustainable operations, such as the approval water-intensive private industry operations (fracking, private bottling facilities, etc.). In the backdrop to the challenges outlined in the readings are rapid changes to social dynamics and climate. Decision makers must contend with the interconnected and increasing crises of water scarcity in increasingly high-density/ urbanized regions and form policies with regard to the threats posed by climate change.
Questions for class:
1. In what ways might misinformation/partial information about the availability of fresh water affect household consumption of water in Canada?
2. With projected population growth and possible long-range climate impacts to our glacial ‘water towers’, are our current rates of water bottling and export enabling water sources to replenish?
Global Threats to Human Water Security and River Biodiversity (Vorosmarty et. Al)
In their paper, Vorosmarty et. Al discusses the inextricable link between human water security and biodiversity. They explain that the “benefits of water provision to economic productivity are often accompanied by impairment to ecosystems and biodiversity”. It is this relationship that they continue to explore in their paper, using different spatial scales to demonstrate that water is in a deceptive abundance; 80% of the world’s population faces water insecurity. They described success as achieving a balance between human resource use and ecosystem production. It was interesting to note that while stressors are threats to both water security and biodiversity, benefits to one side seemed to impede the other. But then again, this idea of impediment can come from a biased place as a human talking about human water security. Although it makes our job more difficult, this contradiction and delicate relationship between water security and biodiversity conservation ultimately force us to be informed, aware and smarter with how we work. Vorosmarty et. Al does address some solutions, the most prominent contender being technology. While technology has allowed us to do many incredible things and solve various problems, we should be cautious of our reliance on it.
The focus of the article was on the relationship between human water security and biodiversity. This relationship was either improved or deteriorated by this notion of investment. Here, the authors go into the element of scale a bit more, stating how richer countries can invest more in their systems, thus lowering their incident threat. In contrast, developing countries do not have the resources to do the same, so their vulnerability remains high. It was then criticized that richer countries treat symptoms of the problem rather than the underlying cause. I both agree and disagree with this idea. I agree that treating symptoms does not fix the problem; instead, it creates an illusion that solutions are being achieved and progress is being made. Illusions can lull people into a false sense of security, which directly relates to the statistic that 80% of the population face water insecurity. I, however, don’t think treating symptoms should be dismissed entirely. There’s just something tangible about them that people can comprehend and tolerate, and that in itself is a good start for engagement. Furthermore, the relationship between the two is complicated and sometimes contradictory. While we work to increase water security throughout the globe, it is often put in opposition to biodiversity. For as we improve our security, we are destabilizing the security of other organisms. Vorosmarty et. Al uses figure 1 to demonstrate that while human water threats and biodiversity occur in many of the same areas, they are not identical. This figure amplifies the variability of the problem and highlights the fact that each area is going to have its own solution tailored to their unique situation and environment.
Questions:
1. There is this cognitive distance when it comes to issues as broad and intangible as water security. This distance feeds into the misconceptions and our relationship with the issue. How can we close this gap?
2. Is it useless to treat symptoms? Instead of treating symptoms of the problem, should we be focussing more on the root of the problem?
Gleick’s main argument is that the end of the twentieth century and the 21st century are experiencing a change in water paradigm. Water panning is experiencing a shift from traditional planning approach relying on physical solutions (such as major construction and large-scale water transfers) to non-structural water development based on efficient use and allocation of water. In this paper, Gleick observes that past water resource planning aimed at bridging the anticipated gap between future water demand and water supplies. However, large constructions had significant economic, social and environmental costs (including destruction of ecosystems, loss of species, dislocation of human population, inundation of cultural sites…). These costs are illustrated by the construction of the C-sites dam on the Peace River which had high environmental and social impacts. As Sprague argues (2007), in the case of Canada, “the myth of abundance has probably encouraged a cavalier attitude toward the use and manipulation of water”.
Consider, as an illustration of destruction of ecosystems and economic costs, the impacts of dams on the Chinook Salmon population (Douglas County PUD). Dams affect species adapted to fast moving and cool waters of the upper Columbia river. They have an impact on salmon food source availability and temperature fluctuation. Mitigation measures include the creation of fish ladder structures to aid salmon travelling upstream and allow female to travel the Columbia River to spawn. However, it is hard to evaluate the efficiency of these mitigation measures on the one hand and they are very costly on the other hand (GEOG419, Research in Environmental Geography, Dr. Jessica Dempsey).
The new paradigm discussed by Gleick consists in non-structural water development aimed at increasing the efficient use and allocation of water. In this paradigm, intelligent water conservation, appropriate efficient equipment through changes in technology, economics and institutions reduces the need for new sources of water supply. Gleick argues that inappropriate pricing policies and economic subsidies encourage water waste. The new paradigm draws attention to water conservation by engaging with greywater, reclaimed wastewater, desalination practices. Furthermore, Gleick mentions the use of metering by cities which, he argues, provides incentive for efficient use.
I think the specific example of metering can be further discussed in relation to equity and affordability. In absence of metering, they pay a fix amount which does not depend on their consumption and therefore might lead to water overuse. Metering consists in renters and owners paying the amount of water they use. In such a model, large families would be asked to pay more than smaller family (assuming that they have the same consumption per person). Large low middle-class family would dedicate a larger part of their income to water supply than smaller family from a higher social ladder. The issues of equity and affordability are not addressed by Gleick and deserve to seriously be considered by water planning. Thus, it could be interesting to look at the new paradigm and consider how it applies differently to various geographies (knowing that it is based on improved technology, economies and institutions).
For further inquiry, it might be interesting to reflect upon Gleick’s propositions for new solutions: greywater, reclaimed wastewater, desalination: What could be the best option for the city of Vancouver?
Water susceptibility, the common theme uniting this week’s readings, is reinforced with a history of water management, direct and indirect threats of water security, and a fact check of pervasive myths regarding the issue. I found that systems thinking lies at the core of understanding the underlying issues regarding water security. Vorosmarty et. Al approached the trouble with water management remarkably by tackling not only implications on humans but also biodiversity, a known indicator of healthy and regenerative ecosystems. Their analysis combined human and biodiversity perspectives in order to quantify how susceptible the world is to water security. The researchers derived threat indices for both humans and biodiversity, in order to create maps that illustrate threat. The researchers accounted for one variable that caught my attention – adjustment for water technology benefits. The before and after maps, including and excluding technology respectively, alter the models immensely. Developed regions such as the United States and Europe are bright red in the Incident maps, representing near-maximal HWS threat. After adjusting for water technology benefits, these areas are reduced to ~ 30% threat. Meanwhile, less developed regions such as sub-Saharan Africa are severely impacted, reaching threat levels between 80-95%. This trend is most noticeable at the extremes of the development spectrum. Table 1 shows high income nations with incident HWS threat upwards of 90% can reduce it to 5%. Nations with the lowest GDP per capita show an increase in their HWS threat from 43% to 96%. These technology advancements do not appear to follow the same trend. Developed with nations with low adjusted HWS threat due to technology still retain very high biodiversity threat. It’s also important to note that technology and investment is likely targeted to decrease human water security threat rather than biodiversity. I found this aspect of the research particularly striking. Firstly, both developed and underdeveloped nations are contributing to biodiversity threat at an alarming rate. I would have expected developed nations to contribute to biodiversity threat in greater proportions. Second, investment is significantly effective at reducing threat toward humans. While this phenomenon is not exclusively positive, it suggests that we have the potential to greatly influence the well-being of millions of people in a capitalist society obsessed with money. Vorosmarty’s research concludes with a call to action dubbed Rising to a dual challenge in which the researchers suggest preserving critical habitat and ecosystem processes in remote areas is the best strategy to contain risk. Preserving the natural systems that filter water seems like an idealist strategy that requires investment and education. This research does not provide any lengthy solutions to the problems raised but introduces an important system thinking approach to a major world problem.
Q1: How could we incorporate systems thinking into urban water management strategies?
Q2: Do you think developed nations and multinational corporations have a right to profit on the human water security dilemma in underdeveloped regions?