by kevin, on March 13th, 2010
Two weeks ago Aleida and I took a dreadful red-eye flight from LA to Miami. I hate red-eye flights. We flew with Virgin America this time, which was a new experience for us. Having an internet connection while en-route helped me wrap up the final details of a show I was scheduled to deliver just a few hours after landing. I speak at various events and conference around the country on a number of topics, but water seems to be the hot issue for me right now. I was invited to present at the second annual MiaGreen Expo and Conference, an event that Aleida has recently been posting about – preview: MiaGreen, review: MiaGreen overview, review: MiaGreen session 1, review: MiaGreen session 2, and review: MiaGreen session 3.
My session was titled Water Wars: Rising Demand vs. Diminishing Supply and was organized into three sections – Distribution of Water, Factors of Disruption, and Climate of Conflict. I’ve posted several times covering the issues discussed in the first section, but I would like this post to focus on the five primary factors of disruption – climate change, manipulation and diversion, pollution, over-consumption, and privatization. To be sure, there are many other factors that diminish the supply of fresh water, but these five are those already leading to physical conflict.
When discussing issues related to global climate, I prefer the term climate change to global warming. Not because global warming isn’t correct, but it only describes a single aspect of the issues. It’s likely that those who have a stake in not believing climate is changing will go on denying it, but I’ve read enough and and seen enough to convince me that human activity over the past two-hundred years has accelerated changes in global climate. Throughout the U.S., regions are experiencing dramatic shifts in precipitation patterns – some states will see increased snow and rain, while neighboring states will see increased drought. Nowhere is this more obvious than in California. The state depends on seasonal snow melt and runoff from the Sierra Nevada mountain range for domestic drinking water, agriculture, recreation, and industrial purposes. The most productive agricultural region in the nation is partially fed by that water. But a persistent trend toward less snowfall is creating significant regional conflict as water levels are dramatically reduced. The images above show recent water level data for reservoirs throughout the state and recent conditions at one. Many are well below seasonal averages. All indications are that continued changes in climate will bring less snow to the region and ultimately less water for vital needs. In the past year we’ve already seen the political climate heat up as urban and rural areas begin to fight over a shrinking supply.
It’s estimated that 68% of all U.S. rivers and navigable water systems have been manipulated, diverted, altered, or controlled. It’s well understood that damming a river or modifying its course creates environmental impact to surrounding ecology. Natural watersheds are vast living systems with water as its life blood. Diversions transform the path of valuable nutrients, alter the water composition, change the water temperature, and ultimately impact all animal species within the watershed, including humans. In North and Central America there are more than 8,000 dams or diversions. And although that seems like a large number, it pales in comparison to the more than 31,000 dams and diversions that exist in Asia. Nowhere else in the world are more people doing more to control the course of water. For more than 70 years the seven states that make up the Colorado River watershed have been battling over agreements that dictate access to the water. So much is taken that very little of the river reaches the Gulf of California, routinely angering Mexico who is contractually entitled to a share. Similar battles are currently being fought in neighboring Chinese villages, and are likely to increase as more people demand greater supply.
Throughout the world, water systems have become a dumping zone for all kinds of pollutants. Some of the most contaminated rivers in the world are located in regions with the densest populations of Southeast Asia. Rapid industrial growth in China, India, South Korea, and others is leading to rapid contamination of water systems due to minimal government regulations regarding toxic dumping. Minimal garbage and sewage systems in these regions are also leading to swift degradation of once clean rivers as they fill up with human waste and trash. Add to that an increasing quantity of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers washing off growing industrialized farms throughout the world and it’s easy to see how some of the largest water systems are transitioning from fresh to polluted making them utterly unusable for sizable populations.
For centuries, humans have moved water from where it is abundant to where it is needed. But over the past three decades, we’ve gotten very good at moving large quantities in short time frames. In the image above you can see the 1960 outline of what was once one of the largest bodies of inland water, the Aral Sea. The satellite photo was taken in 2000. The dramatic reduction in water can clearly be seen. Over a ten year period between 2000 and 2009, water has been moved from the Aral Sea to Russian farms to grow cotton. They attempted to grow one of the most water and pesticide intensive crops in a region short of water. In doing so, they’ve practically drained the Sea in less than 10 years. Inappropriate water use and consumption at unsustainable rates will increase the impact on limited and dwindling water supplies.
One of the greatest threats to remaining supply is the trend toward water privatization. There are actually two parts to this threat, bottled water and privatized distribution in developing nations. It’s estimated by the International Bottled Water Association that U.S. sales of bottled water reached 29 billion bottles in 2007. At its current rate of growth, bottled water will soon overtake carbonated beverages as the leader in drink sales, and represent a dramatic shift away from tap water. Which is quite ironic since 40% of all bottled water is actually tap water. The three largest beverage manufacturers Coca Cola, Pepsi, and Nestle Waters have successfully convinced the public that their water is better than municipal water while selling it for more than 1900 times the price. What’s especially troubling about this trend is how, in some cases, bottled water has trace amounts of substances such as bisphenol A, benzine, toluene, antimony, and others that were not present in the original municipal source water. And, as long as the water is extracted, bottled, and sold within state lines it comes under no government regulations for safety. Skirmishes between local communities and international corporations are already beginning to take place throughout the United States. At the same time, the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, United Nations, and World Trade Organization have set financial assistance guidelines for third world and developing nations that requires privatization of municipal water delivery. In doing so, they’ve created a pattern that benefits some of the largest water companies such as Bechtel, Veolia, Thames Water, and Suez Environment while pricing the average consumer out of the market. Most new water contracts signed under the guidelines of these world organizations guarantees a specific return on investment for the powerful water companies, which often leads to price increases of 200-300%. Poor citizens routinely find themselves having to choose between water and food. In some cases, desperate people are even charged by the corporations for collecting their own rain water. It’s a dangerous trend that puts vulnerable populations under conditions that significantly limit their access to a vital resource.
As global populations increase and climate changes century-old precipitation patterns, as we continue to alter and manipulate water systems and impact watershed ecology, as we generate more pollution, as we consume diminishing supplies at unsustainable rates, and privatize the remaining supply, we set ourselves up for more battles, fights, and wars over a resource that’s absolutely vital for life. There is no substitute for water. When we taint and over-consume the small supply available, we put future generations at risk in a way that’s far more dangerous than the depletion of other natural resources.
Click on the graphic below if you would like to see the full show on SlideShare:
Quote: Poor citizens routinely find themselves having to choose between water and food. In some cases, desperate people are even charged by the corporations for collecting their own rain water.
Kevin, a few examples of when and where please. Thanks, Ralph Williams.
Hi Ralph,
Thanks for the question. One of the most egregious cases is what happened in Bolivia in the last 1990s. In 1998, the Bolivian government passed a law privatizing water utilities in the city of Cochabamba and contracted with the American engineering firm Bechtel. Based on an agreement supervised by The World Bank, Bechtel was contractually guaranteed a fixed rate of return. In order to meet that, water prices immediately tripled. Minimum wage earners make an average of US$60 per month. It was common for their water bills to be as high as US$20 per month. Most could not afford it and started going without. Traditional sources of water such as rainwater collection, wells, lagoons, or streams were banned. The Coalition in Defense of Water and Life was formed to protest the privatization. When the government refused to act on a public referendum demanding an end to privatized water, thousands protested, the government cracked down, dozens were injured, and one seventeen year old protester was shot dead. Two years later the government relented, broke their contract with Bechtel, and asked them to leave the country.
There’s a good accounting of the incident in the book Blue Covenant by Maude Barlow, and the book and movie The Corporation by Joel Bakan.
This is a great presentation. I’m still looking through it. I do worry, perhaps like the previous poster, that this issue is over-simplified. Water is complex because it is so integral. The Bolivia example above is used repeatedly, often with no other examples. People younger than I am might forget why privatized water-treatment service was promoted: because municipalities were managing water in a corrupt way, and/or they did not have the skills or capacity to treat water. So some, like this city, entered into overly limiting contracts with vendors. Others entered into equitable contracts; we don’t hear about them. Chances are your community outsources its water or wastewater treatment. It would be nice if we could have municipally run systems everywhere, but we no longer have the civic involvement that would bring that about. “Privatized water” is a term used too liberally. Water rights and contracts have long been an issue; “privatization” is not really the correct term for this in all situations. Anyway, the next frontier of this discussion is how to localize water and use it better.
Hi Carol,
Thanks for your comment. One unfortunate limitation of a blog is attention span. Generally speaking, I’ve found that my shorter posts get more traffic and generate more feedback than longer ones. Anything over a thousand words is too much for the average time spent on the site. The presentation I delivered at the conference was 90 minutes dedicated to the topic. That amount of time allowed for greater detail and exploration of the topic that I could not distill for the blog without loosing something.
It is so true that water is a complex issue. It’s not the core issue of my blog site, but some of the most visited posts are those related to it. I agree that Bolivia is not only an old story, but one that is used a bit too often. Perhaps because it’s a good example of how bad it can get, and how average citizens can change policy.
There are documented water conflicts in Argentina, Mexico, Chile, Ecuador, India, China, Indonesia, Australia, South Africa, Yemen, and even here in the US. Many, but not all, are related to privatization. There are roughly 1000 US municipalities with private water delivery systems in place, representing approximately 15% of total delivery. By and large, most work perfectly fine. But there are exceptions such as Atlanta in the past decade. France has had privatized water for more than a century.
Since my presentation was about water wars, I was focused on factors that are, or could, impact supply. And privatization mismanaged or handled poorly certainly represents one such factor. Presenting positive stories about privatization was not within the scope of my show. But you are correct, there are success stories that are typically under-presented. Thanks again for your interest in this subject.