Physical scarcity is the issue that the water just isn’t there.  There are many different sets of circumstances that can lead to this physical scarcity.  One major way physical scarcity occurs is desert areas where there simply is not water.  The atmosphere and landscape in these locations leads to little rain, high levels of evaporation, and little to no rivers, lakes, or aquifers.  In these areas, people usually walk extremely far distances to find any bit of water, and the water used is unclean.  Another cause of physical scarcity is overuse.  In the Indus Valley, high amounts of canal irrigation using the river has lead to severe drops in the water level, even causing it to run dry in smaller streams.  In India, groundwater is pumped at such a high rate for agriculture that water levels are dropping at a rate of 10 cm per year, which is extremely significant.  When a water source is overused, it will disappear and not return. 

Another fact to consider is that water is becoming a privatized commodity, with bottled water passing milk, juice, and sports drinks to become the third most purchased beverage in the United States.  These companies are pumping more and more water, often from springs, and it is not clear if this amount of pumping is sustainable.  There is also the morality issue of whether selling water for huge profits is ethical or permitted under the human rights ideal.  The debate over bottled water is an ongoing one which has not led to a definite conclusion, but it is important to consider when discussing over-pumping. While bottled water uses a small percentage of the total water, it is usually in isolated areas, which might lead to eventual depletion of the source.  The question of how to get good water supplies to desert areas and how to prevent people from over-pumping are issues that have not been solved, but need to continue to be addressed.

In my next blog, I will wrap up the ways that the human right to water is violated with a discussion of pollution, and then will move the conversation towards what should happen next.

As an environmental engineering student focusing on water resources, I did not truly realize the extent and urgency of the water issue.  When thoroughly analyzed, the human rights issue of clean water availability is unique in many different ways.  The issue is so multifaceted that it is difficult to find where to begin and which issues are the most urgent to address.  The situation seems to be able to be split into several distinct areas, though there is still a large amount of overlap.   The major issues I will be addressing over my next three blog posts are economic scarcity, physical scarcity, and pollution.

The issue of economic scarcity is often the most significant issue in the human rights violation of the unavailability of clean water.  In the developing world of Africa, Asia and South America, there are plentiful groundwater supplies, but the countries do not have the money to install pumps or the electricity to power them and build suitable infrastructure.  Even if they can get a pump installed, there are so few that people are forced to walk miles and miles to reach this water source, and if something breaks there is no way to successfully and quickly repair it. Also, many developing countries have access to extremely polluted water supplies that are not acceptable to use.  With some investment, it could be made to potable quality.  However, the countries such as these do not have the money to invest in a water treatment plant, so instead they use the polluted resources available to them.

So in this situation, who is violating the clean water rights of these people? It is difficult to tell.  The governments in these countries are not often stable enough to supply this basic right to the citizens, so who does it fall to next? Should rich countries, such as the United States and European countries, spend the money to build this infrastructure and provide them with water? Should it fall to the United Nations to raise the funds and have it implemented? In the Millennium Declaration in 2000, 150 heads of state in the UN pledged to reduce by 50% the number of people without access to safe drinking water.  This declaration means that everyone is taking it upon themselves to help, but since it is a declaration and not international law, it is not easy to enforce.

Next week I will discuss the physical scarcity issue in the human rights issue of water. Following weeks will conclude the discussion of pollution issues and a discussion of possible next steps.

This image from a project run by energy.ca.gov

For environmentalists, a troubling example of the water/energy nexus arises in the American West, a region known for its brilliant sun and high potential for solar energy production.  Unfortunately, the region is also known for its short supply of water resources, and water is just what is needed for a popular type of solar energy production–wet cooling of solar thermal plants.  While extremely attractive, both economically and because of its minimal carbon emissions, solar thermal energy is also hugely water intensive.  As the Times reported on Oct 27, this tension is beginning to come to a head in many water-stressed areas of the region.

This presents a conundrum for many environmentalists (including me). Solar is typically considered to be one of the “good” energy alternatives due to its relatively small environmental footprint. Yet it’s clear that in spite of the many arguments in favor of solar, its drawbacks also need to be considered.  The unfortunate reality is that many regions which are so well suited to solar, for reasons related to weather and space, are also water-stressed.  This isn’t an argument against solar, but we do need to acknowledge that the potential implementation of solar, especially on a large scale, needs to be carefully evaluated in light of the water constraint.  It is also imperative that as a society we work towards breaking down barriers to the adoption of much less water-intensive types of solar production.

There are countless other examples of the interplay between water and energy issues, and while awareness of each individually seems to be on the rise, there is relatively little consideration of the actual connection between the two.   At the Water Center, we will continue to research this issue, yet it is my hope that over time, energy and water will come to be seen, not as distinct, but as two sides of the same coin.  A myopic focus on only of these  is unlikely to lead to good decisions; instead both factors should be considered as part of a holistic approach to–everyone’s favorite term–environmental sustainability.

This third and final post considers yet another option: a switch to a more climatically appropriate crop. In water-stressed regions, this strategy asks individual farmers to move away from rice, and towards instead slightly riskier but more water-efficient options such as corn, basmati rice (which requires much less water than regular rice), and fruits and vegetables. This last option would need to be coupled with risk-mitigating mechanisms, investments in product and marketing infrastructure, insurance, and market intelligence.

This third innovation would have to come from individual, progressive farmers who are willing to take some risks and make niche plays. While public sector policy changes and changes to corporate practices are important, the role of the individual is a critical, and often overlooked, ingredient. The willingness of some of these farmers to take significant risks in their crop choice has resulted in both greatly increased income, as well as reduced groundwater consumption.

As we noted earlier, the predominant cropping pattern in the region has become a rice-wheat rotation given the Government of India’s procurement program for these grains and the associated minimum support price. Farmer incomes were stable and actually rose in response to this policy, facilitating the transition. However, in the last 10-15 years the income has stopped increasing and has become stagnant. According to Rajinder Sidhu and Kamal Vatta, professors at Punjab Agricultural University, if just 10% of the agricultural land was moved away from rice and wheat and to less water intensive crops, such as flowers and vegetables, the groundwater depletion problem could be solved.
The issue is getting people to change to these crops and the ability to stabilize the markets. A number of individuals have explored alternatives, often leasing the land from existing farmers to experiment with a new strategy.

One example of the innovative and progressive way of farming is pioneered by Avatar Singh. After graduating from Punjab Agricultural University, Mr. Singh decided to go, not into the rice and wheat industry like most people, but instead into the flower industry. He began by exporting the flowers he grew, but due to flowers wilting in transit, he discovered that by selling the seeds, he could make higher profits. He started by farming 3.5 acres of land, and his profits have been so high that he now controls the farming of several hundred leased acres through contract farming. The land is leased from other farmers at the value of their income from rice-wheat, and then used to grow higher value items. He also contracts to grow his flower crop by his guidelines.

When actually analyzed, the lack of clean water in developing countries is truly shocking. The average United States citizen uses 180 gallons of water per day, while the average African uses between 10 and 20 gallons of water per day. The water we take for granted when we turn on our faucet is nothing like that of the average Africans – in Africa, most people have to walk hours to reach their water supply, and even then it is muddy and contaminated, something people from developed countries would be uneasy even swimming in. Water is essential to human life – a person can only live a few days without water, yet can live for forty days or longer with only water as sustenance. It is important to determine if water is truly a human right, and if so, how we should go about correcting the situation of people living without clean water resources.

In Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s famous “Four Freedoms” speech, which he gave in January of 1941, he mentioned one freedom as the “freedom from want.” This implicitly implies that people have the right to the basic needs for life. It is well known that water is necessary for life –- in the United States people are taught they need to drink eight glasses of water a day, as well as use water for cooking, bathing, watering our lawns, and most importantly, agriculture. If everyone has a right to life, water is clearly a human right.

In the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” a document written and approved by the general assembly of the United Nations, Article 3 clearly states that “everyone has the right to life.” Since there can be no life without a water supply to sustain it, water must be considered a human right. More specifically, Article 25 of the declaration specifically states that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family.” While the list of examples does not specifically state water, water can be considered as part of food, which is specifically mentioned, as well as “other lack of livelihood.” It is a scientific fact that without clean water, human life is not possible.

It is important to distinguish that the human right to water implies that the water must be of potable quality. With the high death rate caused by unclean water, it is clear that people without clean water are being denied their right to life. Contaminated water leads to the deaths of thousands of people from completely preventable diseases. In 2002, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social, and Human Rights officially recognized water as a human right, saying “the right to water clearly falls within the category of guarantees essential for securing an adequate standard of living, particularly since it is one of the most fundamental conditions for survival.” This decision clearly creates the right to clean drinking water as a fundamental human right of our time.

So if the right to clean water is a fundamental human right, what should be done about people who lack clean water resources? Future blogs on this subject will address several different ways that the right to clean water is violated, who is to blame for the violation of this right, and what should be done in the future to create a world where everyone has access to clean water resources.

(Photo credit: Simeon, Wikimedia Commons)

For many who have been following the saga of the Everglades of South Florida, it seemed that restoration and conservation plans formed during the last decade were only getting more complicated and mired in bureaucracy. That is, until Gov. Charlie Crist stepped up to the plate to make a game-changing proposition to buy back land currently owned by U.S. Sugar Corp.

The proposed purchase of land by the state of Florida  and the South Florida Water Management District offered the prospect of a more straight-forward and timely solution to replenish vital flows of water from Lake Okeechobee to the threatened Everglades ecosystem. Yet soon after Gov. Crist announced his intentions to buy 180,000 acres of land for a price tag of $1.34 billion, the state was hit with financial hardship, as a result of the economic downturn, that provoked calls to scale down the project.

As a result, the governor has been forced to cut the total acreage of the deal twice. Now the the state is still trying to piece together a much reduced version of the buyback, totaling approximately 75,000 acres for $500 million. Despite the reductions, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) was still positive about the plan. According to Governing Board Chairman, Eric Buermann:

“Benefits of this acquisition to the Everglades and Florida’s coastal estuaries are immense, providing us the opportunity to restore a unique and treasured ecosystem in ways not previously envisioned. By approving this revised acquisition, the Board has balanced its duty to both the environment and the taxpayers, embracing this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity while protecting the agency’s mission responsibilities.”

Yet, there are others who do not feel that the purchasing the land from U.S. Sugar is the best way to achieve results in the Everglades restoration. Although the acquisition would be likely to help minimize problems, such as harmful effluent from Lake Okeechobee, which damages coastal estuaries, or phosphorus loading from agricultural systems directly into the Everglades, there are several parties who feel that it is not the best option.

Specifically, the Miccosukee Tribe and Florida Crystals, a sugar production company that competes with U.S. Sugar, argue that even the much-reduced land deal will cost tax payers too much, with little guarantee of measurable benefits. These opponents contend that pouring funds into land acquisition schemes will detract from financing for more more surefire projects, whose implementation has already been significantly delayed due to budgetary issues. Additionally, they contend that the burden of financing the purchase would be unduly placed on taxpayers in the state.

The Miccosukee and Florida Crystals have brought the case to court, under the assertion that the SFWMD does not have the right to borrow the money to buy the land. The case was originally tried in the Palm Beach County Circuit Court, where the verdict permitted the SFWMD to borrow $650 million to buy 73,000 acres. The Court, however, ruled against larger loan amounts that would be intended for future purchases, dashing the hopes of many environmentalists who had held out for the possibility of increasing the size of the acquisition to at least 100,000 acres in the future.

Dissatisfied with this ruling, the Miccosukee and Florida Crystals are taking the case to the Florida Supreme Court. The case is expected to be underway before the end of the year. Even if the ruling is favorable to the purchase, however, under the current agreement with U.S. Sugar, the State of Florida and the SFWMD would only have until June of 2010 to obtain the necessary funding to finalize the deal. While skeptics have little faith that the sum can be amassed, given the current economic climate, supporters maintain that Federal funding, stimulus packages, land swaps, or other creative alternatives will allow the agreement to move forward.

While the ruling of the state Supreme Court won’t be expected for several more months, the ecological verdict in the Everglades is already in; if restorative action of one kind or another is not taken swiftly, the longevity of this unique ecosystem is in serious jeopardy.

An example of a farm in India using the direct seeding method of growing rice

Even before changing the irrigation in the crop’s lifecycle, however, an initial step that farmers can take starts with the seeding of the crop. Recognizing that the regional farmers of Punjab are some of the most productive in the country, it is unlikely that rice production and government procurement will move away from Punjab in the near term – at least until agricultural and procurement infrastructure is improved in other states in northeastern India that are climatically  better suited for rice cultivation.

If rice remains the crop of choice for many farmers, at least into the near future, the way the crop is planted could still be changed to reduce water use. Direct seeding of rice into the soil, as opposed to transplantation after starting the crop-growth in a nursery is already being successfully tested by many farmers in the region, and is promoted by Pepsico corporation. The direct seeding approach does away with having to maintain flooded paddy fields.

While a few different strategies for direct seeding are being tested, one strategy is to use row cultivation and dry seed the rice in the sides of the hills of each row. Water is applied at the time of seeding and then subsequently only every 10-20 days depending on the soil conditions. Water savings of 30% to 60% are claimed without impacting the rice yield, and tests are being conducted on different seeding rates. Weed emergence in non-flooded conditions is an issue, but pre-emergence weedicide application, manual weeding, and reduction in near surface soil moisture can control the growth of weeds. Labor costs are apparently in line with those for transplanting.

If just this innovation sees widespread adoption, and is as successful as predicted, then much of the groundwater depletion problem could be addressed. Related recent policy changes regarding rice cultivation already claim to have a significant positive impact. At the behest of the Punjab Farmers Commission and the Punjab Agricultural University, the Punjab Government recently banned early sowing and transplantation of rice. This resulted in significant water savings and a rebound of the groundwater table, since the timing of the crop was effectively shifted into the wet monsoon season from the pre-monsoon season, which is hot and dry, and when the flooded paddy fields are effectively large evaporation ponds. In the neighboring state of Haryana, the government banned “Saathi”, a fast growing (60 day maturity) variety of rice that was being grown in between the winter wheat season and the monsoon season. Similar benefits are claimed from this policy change.

This is Part 2 of the series. Click here to go back and read Part 1, or continue reading Part 3.

On Climate

In a recent study at Columbia University, correlations were drawn between sea surface temperature on the coast of Africa and streamflow at the inlet of a reservoir at the head of the Delaware River.

While it seems strange, at first, that New England can be affected by water temperature shifts of a very few degrees Celsius on the other side of the world, it makes more sense when we look at the pathways of our seasonal storms.

Storms that come at us in New England from the Midwest originate in build-ups of energy and moisture collected off of the Gulf Mexico, then travel up through North America along the Mississippi and Ohio River valleys. Our hurricanes, before raging up the east coast of North America, travel across the equator from origins on the west coast of North Africa.

The pathway of the correlation between sea surface temperatures and streamflow, then, becomes clear. With warmer water temperatures, there is more energy buildup on the surface, which in turn leads to more (or at least more intense) storms traveling along the storm trajectories, more precipitation arriving in New England, and more streamflow finding its way to the Delaware River.

On Climate Change

Scientists have developed complex global climate models to assess current and future climate based on a number of greenhouse gas emissions scenarios. The impacts of global warming will vary depending on which trajectory emissions actually follow, though there is a broad agreement across all scenarios that a change of approximately 2 degrees Celsius is nearly unavoidable. Most disturbingly, the observed global rates of temperature and greenhouse gas increases to-date have exceeded all the near-term model projections. These results are all the more frightening when one considers the resistance to action exhibited by the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters.

If sea surface temperatures rise, when greenhouse gases prevent the release of water heat back out into the atmosphere, the threat of global ramifications—in terms of unprecedented storms, floods, or other extreme weather events—are very real.

Sea surface temperatures are rising, certainly. Over the past 150 years, average sea surface temperatures have risen about one degree Celsius.

Interestingly, however, they are not doing so at the projected rate. What this means is that while the underlying trend may be one of warming, parts of the globe may experience extended periods (5-10 years) of no warming, or even cooling.

All of this said, sea surface temperature is hardly the only factor of climatic behavior. It would be an easy system if, when sea surface temperatures rose in one place, frequency and/or intensity of storms rose in another—potentially, in the case of drastic climate change over time, causing potential flooding or storm damage. This is, to be fair, often the case (many studies have been done on this subject, linking sea surface temperature with either intensity or frequency of storms, or both).

It is possible, however, that the opposite actually happens. Even if sea surface temperature were to increase, and were to lead to significantly more hurricanes, other indirectly related factors, like changes in circulation, could prevent the storms from ever getting north of Virginia. The reservoir along the Delaware River, then, might paradoxically find itself in a drought.

There are a huge number of factors involved in analyzing current climate realities—not to mention predicting any future realities, or protecting against them.  The idea behind modeling is to create something simpler than reality. It is the challenge of scientists and researches, when constructing forecasting models for the future of our global climate, to work on the best compromise between simplicity and breadth, between feasibility and reliability.

Climate change is, inconveniently, a complicated truth.

Declining groundwater tables are problematic, not only because they stem from inefficient use of energy and water, but also because they can lead to the loss of a buffer during critical periods of drought, cause potential social inequity (as marginal, less wealthy farmers lose out first in the race to the bottom of the well), risk irreversible pollution of the whole groundwater supply, and lead to the dying off of shallow rooted natural vegetation. There are a number of possible routes to take in tackling this situation. This will be a three-part series of posts aimed at discussing three such activities:

Part 1: Energy subsidy reform

Part 2: Direct seeding of rice in Punjab

Part 3: Crop-choice changes, made on the individual farmer level

Energy Subsidy Reform

The success of the Green Revolution in India was made possible through the use of subsidy programs which introduced plant-breeding science, scaled up supply chains of agrochemicals, mobilized a grass-roots agriculture extension effort, and ensured minimum support prices. The combination of these programs dramatically changed the agricultural climate of the country. Production of wheat in India, for example, doubled from 1966 to 1976, and doubled yet again in the 10 years following. On the flip side of this success-story, however, the same subsidies that revolutionized the country’s agriculture have also created a system which lacks incentive to exercise efficiency in water and energy use.

Water use, in India, is intricately linked with energy use. Irrigation is necessary in most parts of the country to ensure a level of productivity that maximizes crop yield, and requires energy to get the water from groundwater storage up to the surface level. As it stands now, farmers have access to basically free electricity. The problem, however, is that the electricity is not available reliably 24 hours a day. Farmers cannot count on getting the electricity required to pump water for irrigation when they need it, and so the common practice is to leave the pumps on constantly and over-irrigate. This current subsidy structure, in which farmers pay virtually nothing for either water or the electricity needed to pump water from groundwater wells, encourages waste, groundwater depletion and a lack of investments in water saving.

Energy subsidy reform is needed to reduce profligate groundwater pumping.

A movement to end or change this system of subsidized energy is politically sensitive, since populist politicians tend to shy away from measures that have the perception of reducing access to the rural constituency. It is interesting, though, that in our field visits and interviews in India, none of the farmers we talked to were in favor of the free electricity for pumping. They express a willingness to pay for metered use, provided that the electricity supply available is reliable. We hope that our farmer surveys and work with the Punjab Agricultural University and the Punjab Farmers Commission will facilitate the development and implementation of a reform that is both politically feasible and consistent with a better water use trajectory.

Continue reading Part 2 and Part 3 of this series.

Failed monsoon rains put a cloud over the Columbia Water Center’s journey to India this summer.

Soaring temperatures hitting 40 degrees Celsius with 100% humidity made for a hazy sweltering experience which begged for some precipitous relief.  As we traveled around New Delhi from air-conditioned cars to air-conditioned rooms, furnished with icy bottles of mineral water, I was distinctly aware that much of what we were experiencing was not in fact the “reality” of living in India during such a behemoth water crisis.

In fact, the reality of the living in New Delhi, one of the most developed cities in India with a strong middle and upper class holding, is very much burdened by constant water pressures that stem from both a lack of water and poorly designed water policy.  The Hindustan Times – one of the most widely read and respected newspapers in India - published a series of feature stories on the difficulties associated with access to water in Delhi.  For example, according to the article, Vasant Kunj, one of the oldest upper middle class colonies in South Delhi (and a veritable microcosm for the larger metropolis), is constantly locked in a losing battle with elusive authorities over their lack of access to water.

Clearly there are two Delhis; one which puts up an illusion of smooth sailing and another where every problem of living without efficient water policy hits home.  So while I was experiencing the former, sitting in air conditioned meeting rooms and drinking bottled water, much of the city was suffering though the latter.  The challenges of living without reliable water, even for middle and upper class families, are numerous.  The Hindustan Times article relays stories of various families in Vasant Kunj who have undergone all sorts of trials from getting a trickle of water only 15 minutes a day to going for days without water while dealing with toddlers with all sorts of stomach viruses.

In many cases, the families in Vasant Kunj can afford to pay for alternate solutions, including tanker deliveries of water and installation of large holding tanks.  In this sense, they are much better off than the hundreds of thousands of poor Indians with no reliable access to water whatsoever.  Still, the enormity of India’s water crisis really hit me in considering the families in Vasant Kunj – upper middle class families similar to my own, but living without a regular supply of water.

Back home in the U.S it is normal to brush your teeth with tap water and gape like a fish in the shower without the threat of falling dangerously ill from that consumed shower water. And yet these are unimagined privileges for most of the world’s population.  So while I was brushing my teeth with bottled mineral water at the hotel, I could not help musing on this unsustainable habit, and on those “privileged” Delhites in Vasant Kunj, paying 300-600 rupees to have private tankers of water delivered to them because they know their sinks and showers will remain dry yet another day.

This is the third and final article in a series inspired by the recent Columbia Water Center trip to India