Economist Intelligence Unit: Waterless in 2030?

(via: Water Efficiency Journal)

A recent study by the Economist Intelligence Unit (sponsored by Oracle) reveals that if water utilities plan on meeting water supply, large-scale infrastructure investments must be made—or else demand will outstrip supply by 2030.

The study, entitled “Water for All?”, compared the water resource management strategies of 10 countries—the US, Canada, UK, Australia, France, Spain, Brazil, Russia, India, and China—and surveyed 244 water utility managers and executives, including 20 “in-depth” interviews with water executives and independent experts. The participants’ answerers led researchers to conclude that while water providers are optimistic about their ability to meet future demand, that ability will be amplified or hampered by government action and consumer education. And all water purveyors will have to “think outside the box.”

“The leading overall response to water stress in the future is expected to be a sharp focus on demand management,” explains a statement released by Oracle in relation to the report. “This represents a shift in utilities’ traditional emphasis on continuing to supply increasing quantities of water in response to increasing demand.”

Meanwhile, developing countries have a tougher row to hoe. The study’s survey of water resource management strategies in the developing world reveals that climate change and erratic weather patters will increasingly influence the creation and maintenance of infrastructure in those countries.

“Utilities in the developing countries, in contrast, are more likely to focus on rolling out or expanding basic infrastructure,” states the report.

Other key findings:

* Increased water stress by 2030. Due to growing demand for water, caused by increasing populations, changing climate patterns, and wasteful consumer behavior, 39% of executives surveyed believe that the risk of national water demand outstripping supply by 2030 is “highly likely,” while 54% believe such a risk is moderately likely. Failure to address this could result in significant economic, social, and health implications.

* Barriers to conservation. Forty-five percent of utilities—especially in developed markets—see wasteful consumer behavior as their biggest barrier to progress, while another 33% believe tariffs are too low to stimulate greater investment. In developing countries, a lack of capital for investment tops the list (41%), while worries over climate change stand third overall (34%).

* Encouraging consumer engagement. Half of respondents (49%) believe pricing structures need to be changed to encourage conservation, while under four in 10 water utilities think water prices must be held down to ensure fair access to water for all (38%). With consumer behavior being the biggest barrier to conservation, it is critical for water utilities to engage with consumers to overcome this challenge.

* Increased investment. Almost all respondents stated that they are increasing investment to meet supply challenges (93%), with more than one in five (22%) increasing investment by 15% or more within the next three years.

* Innovative industry. Prompted by necessity, the water sector is becoming an increasingly prominent innovator, due to the implementation technologies such as smart meters and desalination solutions. For instance, one-fifth of water utilities in developed markets regularly evaluate new technologies, compared to one-third of developing countries. However, more water utilities must improve their ability to identify and implement such advances, with over one-third (36%) unaware of the innovation options available to them.

* Stumbling blocks. Drought and increased water pollution are seen by respondents as the biggest risks faced by water utilities, and are considered the most likely to occur. Similarly, half of respondents polled felt that that information and support from government bodies is lacking; while 43% recognize they must develop their management techniques to more precisely model future water availability or rainfall.

 

Saskatchewan aims to protect water from source to tap with 25-year plan

via: The Canadian Press
Published Monday, Oct. 15, 2012

The Saskatchewan government has outlined a 25-year plan that it says will protect water supplies from the source to the tap.

The 25 Year Saskatchewan Water Security Plan has seven goals:

• Sustainable Supplies
• Safe Drinking Water
• Protection of Water Resources
• Safe Dams
• Flood and Drought Damage Reduction
• Adequate Data, Information and Knowledge
• Effective Governance and Engagement

The Vision Statement of the Plan,”Water supporting economic growth, quality of life and environmental well-being” is supported by the following principles:

Long-Term Perspective: Water management decisions will be undertaken within the context of a 25-year time horizon.

Water for Future Generations: A sustainable approach to water use will protect the quality and quantity of water now and for the future.

Integrated Approach to Management: Water decisions will integrate the multiple objectives and information pertaining to the economic development, ecological, hydrological, human health, and social aspects of water, considering circumstances and needs that may be unique to a watershed or region, to achieve a balanced outcome.

Partnerships and Participation: The provincial government will facilitate collaboration in the development and implementation of water management decisions.

Shared Responsibility: All residents, communities and levels of government share responsibility for the wise use and management of water.

Value of Water: Water is essential to life and will be treated as a finite resource that is used efficiently and effectively to best reflect its economic, social, and environmental importance.

Continuous Improvement: Water management will be adaptive and supported by sound monitoring, risk assessment, evaluation, research, innovation, and best practices.

The province says conservation is critical and could be achieved through pricing strategies.

But the plan adds that new reservoirs, pipelines and canals may also be necessary to meet demand.

Water demand is highest in the southern part of the province because of industrial development such as potash mines.

Other goals include ensuring dams meet water supply and management needs safely and making sure measures are in place to respond to floods or drought.

“We want to ensure there is a sustainable water supply available to support our growth, a healthy environment and our quality of life,” Ken Cheveldayoff, minister responsible for the new Water Security Agency, said Monday.

Saskatchewan’s new Water Security Agency will report annually on how the plan is working.

 

Draft of Mississippi-Rideau Drinking Water Source Protection Plan released

From the website:

The Mississippi Valley Conservation and Rideau Valley Conservation Authority have developed draft policies to help keep contaminants out of rivers and groundwater where they are a source of municipal drinking water. Such preventative measures will help make municipal drinking water even safer. Review the draft policies and submit comments by May 4, 2012.

Policies can be found in the draft Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Plan. This Plan contains a series of voluntary and mandatory policies that encourage good stewardship, require additional oversight or risk reduction measures where necessary and prohibit certain activities from being established in the future. Funding is also available until December 1, 2012 to help property owners proactively address activities on their property that may be subject to these policies in the future.

View the Draft Plan:

Online at http://www.mrsourcewater.ca

At our Conservation Authority Offices:
Mississippi Valley Conservation – 4175 Highway 511, Lanark
Rideau Valley Conservation Authority – 3889 Rideau Valley Dr, Manotick

At our open houses (details below)
Request a DVD copy (contact information below)

Attend an Open House (all open houses are 4 pm to 8 pm)

April 19 – Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (3889 Rideau Valley Drive, Manotick)
April 24 – Carleton Place Arena (75 Neelin Street, Carleton Place)
April 26 – Smiths Falls Memorial Centre (75 Cornelia Street, Smiths Falls)

 Where Policies Would Apply

There are 11 locations in the Mississippi-Rideau region where rivers or groundwater are a source of municipal drinking water – these are the areas where policies will apply and funding is available:

•         Almonte
•         Carleton Place
•         Carp
•         Kemptville
•         Merrickville
•         Munster
•         Perth
•         Richmond
•         Smiths Falls
•         Urban Ottawa
•         Westport

 What Activities Policies Would Address

The following types of activities could be subject to policies in the areas listed above. These are activities that must be carefully managed near sources of drinking water to prevent contamination.

•         Waste disposal sites
•         Municipal sewage works
•         Septic systems
•         Pesticides
•         Commercial fertilizer
•         Nutrients (manure, biosolids, livestock)
•         Heating oil (furnace tanks)
•         Liquid fuel (gas stations, yard tanks)
•         Road salt and snow storage
•         Chemicals (DNAPLs and organic solvents)

More information:     Sommer Casgrain-Robertson,
Co-Project Manager, Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Region

613-692-3571 or 1-800-267-3504 ext 1147
sommer.robertson@mrsourcewater.ca
www.mrsourcewater.ca

Water Law: Public Trust May Be Fresh Approach to Protecting Great Lakes

By Keith Schneider
Via: Circle of Blue

January 17, 2012 WASHINGTON, D.C. — Maude Barlow, a 64-year-old author and activist from Ottawa, is chairperson of the Council of Canadians, one of that country’s most influential public interest organizations. She has spent a globally prominent career advocating for clean water, environmental protection, and fairer trade deals for the Great Lakes region.

James Olson, a 66-year-old attorney from Traverse City, Michigan, is an expert in American environmental law who challenged Nestle’s authority to bottle Michigan’s groundwater in a 2003 case that spurred an eight-state pact in 2008 to block big diversions of water from the Great Lakes.

Now the two advocates, driven by their shared allegiance to the security of the Great Lakes, have teamed up to develop and promote the biggest idea of their careers. They are intent on applying two ancient governing and legal principles — defining the Great Lakes as a shared “commons,” protected by the public trust doctrine — to reverse the deteriorating condition of the largest system of fresh surface water on earth.

On December 13, Barlow and Olson took a momentous first step toward their goal when they spent 75 minutes formally introducing the concept to the Canadian and American leaders of the International Joint Commission (IJC), a bilateral agency founded in 1909 to help manage the Great Lakes and other waters that cross the boundaries of the two countries. It was the first time that a framework for managing the Great Lakes as a commons had been presented at such a high government level in both nations.

“We were asking the IJC to show leadership, by promoting a new narrative for protecting the Great Lakes,” Barlow added. “They were gracious, warm, and receptive. There was no hostility and a great deal of interest in how it would work.”

Frank Bevacqua, the IJC spokesman, said the commissioners would not comment publicly on what they heard. “Our commissioners wish to have the opportunity to discuss the material presented by Barlow and Olson amongst themselves, before giving interviews on the subject,” he said.

The proposal from Barlow and Olson also attracted interest from water law experts outside of government. Paul Simmons — a water law specialist and partner at Somach, Simmons, and Dunn in Sacramento — said in an interview with Circle of Blue that, since a 1983 state Supreme Court case, California has required water suppliers and regulators to consider the public trust implications in decisions involving water allocations from rivers for such things as supplying drinking water or for wildlife conservation.

The biggest question in defining the Great Lakes as a commons subject to public trust principles is how to install such principles in real-world law and regulation, according to Simmons.

Read the rest of the article

CCPA: BC’s climate goals, hydro and water resources at risk as shale gas fracking industry expands

via: @ecojustice_ca & Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives  Nov. 16, 2011

(Vancouver) A new study concludes that BC’s ballooning shale gas industry is the natural gas equivalent of Alberta’s tar sands, placing the province’s water and hydro resource at risk as well as jeopardizing climate change policies.

Despite industry and government assertions that natural gas from shale rock is a “green” alternative to other fossil fuels, the study released today by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and Wilderness Committee finds the opposite, and lays much of the blame on the controversial gas extraction technology known as hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.”

Fracking involves forcing massive amounts of water, chemicals and sand deep into shale rock formations, creating fractures in the rock that release the gas.

“If the shale gas industry expands as projected,” says study author and CCPA resource policy analyst Ben Parfitt, “shale gas companies will need two to three times the amount of power that the proposed Site C dam would provide. In other words, large amounts of publicly owned clean water and hydro power will have to be found to produce more and more dirty fossil fuel. I don’t think British Columbians are comfortable with that.”

The study, Fracking Up Our Water, Hydro Power and Climate: BC’s Reckless Pursuit of Shale Gas, notes many troubling outcomes of escalating shale gas production:

A potential doubling of industry greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, as fracking activities escalate. If BC is to meet its legislated targets for greenhouse gas reduction, every other sector of the provincial economy will have to cut their emissions in half.
The BC government giving shale gas companies access to public water supplies for 20 years, with little or no public consultation despite the massive amounts of water used (up to 600 Olympic swimming pools per gas well pad).
Potential increases in shale gas piped to Alberta, where it already helps to fuel operations at the tar sands.
The study further notes that environmental and climatic stresses associated with the industry will increase with new developments like the recently approved liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal at Kitimat.

“It’s time to curb this industry before it’s too late for our climate, our water and our hydroelectric resources,” says Tria Donaldson, Pacific Coast Campaigner for the Wilderness Committee.

 “We want firm no-go zones established where industry activities are restricted and we want a moratorium on fracking in undeveloped watersheds, pending full surface water and groundwater studies.”

The report makes numerous recommendations, including:

A cap on annual shale gas production.
An end to all government subsidies of the natural gas industry.
A requirement that the province explain how BC will meet its legislatively mandated greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets while simultaneously supporting the shale gas industry.
Increased water prices for industry, to encourage innovation and conservation (currently companies pay nothing for the water they use, or nominal charges of just $2.75 for each Olympic swimming pool of water).
A requirement that the industry pay full cost for the electricity it uses.

“We need to manage this industry for wind-down, not wind-up, and ensure that while the industry is operating the public gets a fair return,” Parfitt says.

For more information or interviews, contact Sarah Leavitt, 604-801-5121, x233 or sarah@policyalternatives.ca.

This study is part of the Climate Justice Project, a partnership between the CCPA-BC and UBC, funded by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, with additional funding from Mountain Equipment Coop.

POLIS Project: A Blueprint for Reinventing Rainwater Management in Canada’s Communities

Via: POLIS Project on Ecological Governance – Water Sustainability Project (WSP)

Most of Canada’s communities manage stormwater runoff in a way that is not sustainable in the long term. Flooded streets and basements, degraded urban streams, increasing impacts of a changing climate, and expensive drainage infrastructure that demands constant maintenance are all evidence that we must learn to better integrate the water cycle into urban areas.

Peeling Back the Pavement: A Blueprint for Reinventing Rainwater Management in Canada’s Communities is the latest in POLIS’ water sustainability handbook series for decision makers, community leaders, and municipal water management staff.

Rethinking the way we deal with rain and snowmelt in our cities means replacing conventional pipe-and-convey systems with an approach that recognizes rainwater as a valuable resource while, at the same time, reducing runoff volume and improving runoff quality. Peeling Back the Pavement outlines the problems with conventional stormwater management and examines solutions for moving toward sustainability.

It provides a comprehensive blueprint that outlines the crucial steps necessary to change the way communities manage and, importantly, govern stormwater. The blueprint describes detailed actions that local and senior levels of government can take to move from the current system of stormwater management to one focused on rainwater as a resource.

The handbook is alive with examples and case studies demonstrating leading practice and on-the-ground results from across Canada and beyond. A main focus is addressing the fragmented responsibility for fresh water across and within jurisdictions—one of the greatest challenges to reinventing rainwater management.

Report (high res for printing – 8 MB)

Report (low res for online viewing – 4.5 MB)

Author(s): Susanne Porter-Bopp, Oliver M. Brandes & Calvin Sandborn with Laura Brandes

See also:

Canada Water Network / Reseau Canadien de l’eau – WEBINAR: Creating a Blue Dialogue — POLIS Water Sustainability Project
http://www.cwn-rce.ca/news-and-events/webinar-creating-a-blue-dialogue-polis-water-sustain-project/

Shared Water, One Framework: What Canada Can Learn from EU Water Governance
http://poliswaterproject.org/story/421

University of Waterloo – Water Institute, Events page http://water.uwaterloo.ca/news_events.aspx

Calgary Herald: Water policy a priority for Alberta’s new environment minister

Alberta’s new Environment and Water minister says long-awaited public discussions on a system for divvying up southern Alberta’s scarce water resources will be coming in 2012.

The newly appointed Diana McQueen, MLA for Drayton Valley-Calmar, said public consultations on water – and southern Alberta’s current market for buying and selling limited water licences – is one of the top priorities in the new portfolio.

In an interview, McQueen said she wants the consultations to lead to improvements to what she describes as an already solid system that feeds agriculture, cities, towns and industry in the most populated region of the province.

“We’ve got a system that’s worked very well over the last 100 years,” McQueen said. “We want to make sure we are not throwing the baby out with the bath water.”

McQueen said her department would release some educational documents on water next year to prompt discussion on water – but already the province’s new premier has waded into the issue.

At a leader’s dinner in Medicine Hat earlier this month, Alison Redford suggested she doesn’t like the idea of going further down the path of putting a price on water, saying “it’s not the way I think we should go.”

However, Redford added she wants an open conversation on the issue where Albertans make the decision as to how to proceed.

Those with an interest in Alberta’s water supplies have long been waiting for some kind of clarity. It was more than three years ago when long-serving former environment minister Rob Renner said that public consultations on re-vamping the province’s water allocation system would go ahead with 18 months.

“Water policy has been stalled for the last several years,” said Bob Sandford, an Alberta water expert and author who chairs Canada’s participation in the United Nations Water for Life Decade.

“We’re not the water policy leaders that we think we are.”

Water issues are especially charged in southern Alberta, where almost every river, lake and stream has been closed to new water licence requests since 2006. Since new licences are no longer readily available from the government, a market has sprung up with 60 licences bought and sold in the last five years.

The issue is intensified by debate over Alberta’s century-old “first-in-time, first-in-right” water system, which gives the oldest water licence holders first dibs on supplies. Some of the oldest and most senior licence holders — and therefore those who wield the most water power — are irrigation districts for southern Alberta farmers, and the city of Calgary.

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/Water+policy+priority+Alberta+environment+minister/5631079/story.html#ixzz1cTfFNqLy

Peter Gleick: Why Spend Public Money for Private Bottled Water?

for the Huffington Post Oct 6 2011

When I go to water meetings, there are serious scientific discussions about climate impacts on water systems, international conflicts over water, water quality and contamination threats, new technologies and strategies for providing basic water and sanitation for the world’s poor, and much more. But in the hallways between meetings and sessions, the real arguments are about the conflicts between public and private control and management of water.

One of the key issues in this debate these days is bottled water. We’re in what I think of as Phase 3 of the bottled water debate. In Phase 1, no one drank bottled water except for specialty mineral waters. In Phase 2, the use of bottled water exploded as people (1) became fearful or uncertain about their tap water, (2) were bombarded with sophisticated marketing and advertising touting the benefits of this or that brand of bottled water, and (3) found it easier and easier to find commercial bottled water and harder to find a clean working drinking water fountain.

We’re now in Phase 3, with a growing consumer backlash against bottled water. People are more aware of the high environmental and, especially, economic costs of bottled water, which costs 1000 to 2000 times more than the same quality tap water. And there is a growing movement of universities, restaurants, municipalities, and even states to stop buying bottled water, especially when tap water is available.

The latest state battleground is Maryland, which is pushing for a policy to stop state government spending on bottled water when tap water is available in order to save money and reduce waste. Governor Martin O’Malley endorsed the policy last week. The new policy, put forth by the Maryland Green Purchasing Committee, says that state funds “should not be used to purchase bottled water for use in facilities that are served by public water supplies or potable well water, except when required for safety, health or emergency situations.”

Note, carefully, what this policy does and does not do:

• It does say that state funds should not be used to buy bottled water when tap water is available.
• It does not ban bottled water or restrict consumer choice: anyone can buy their own.

The opposition of the bottled water industry to this policy is not a surprise, but their logic is astoundingly self-serving and twisted, and their public statements are gross misrepresentations of the Maryland policy. A statement from the International Bottled Water Association issued October 6th says:

“The recent announcement by Governor O’Malley endorsing the restriction of access to bottled water by Maryland state employees is disappointing.”
This, of course, is false. The policy does not restrict access to bottled water — Maryland state employees can buy and have all they want. It says the government shouldn’t pay for it. Rich Norling of the Maryland Green Purchasing Committee was explicit, “We are not restricting access to bottled water. We’re just not paying for it.” The IWRA statement goes on to say:

“it is unfortunate that the state has opted to single out healthy, safe and zero-calorie bottled water.”
This is also false. In fact, before this policy, the state was singling out bottled water as the only commercial beverage they were buying for employees. The new policy actually puts bottled water into the same position as any other commercial beverage. The state already doesn’t pay for soft drinks, fruit juices, beer, milk, or any other beverage. Why should they have been paying for commercial bottled water? All Maryland is doing is saying, “Hey, why are we treating bottled water as special? Let’s stop paying for it.”

And next, IBWA says:

“Removing bottled water as an option does not automatically drive people to drink tap water.”
This is also a mischaracterization: As noted above, Maryland is not removing it as an option. state employees and guests are free to buy their own. And the purpose of the policy is not to “drive people to drink tap water.”

And next IBWA says:

“According to peer-reviewed consumer research, and demonstrated through testing in Toronto, Canada schools, if bottled water is not available, only one-third of people seek out tap water, while two-thirds instead choose packaged beverages that add calories or sugar, or both, to their diet.”
Hmm, I could not find this “peer-reviewed” research (and I’d like the IBWA to send it to me — I couldn’t find it on their website, or in Google Scholar). And even if this is true, it is not a reason for the State of Maryland to subsidize bottled water for its employees. If the state were to do this, why not subsidize all other lifestyle choices that might improve diet, or health? Like salads at the lunch bar? Or my membership at the gym? And even if they did this, why subsidize a commercial product when the exact same product is available from the tap?

I could go on. The other arguments made by the IBWA are equally specious. There is no reason States or municipalities should be paying for bottled water when tap water is available; and indeed, when tap water is not available, states and municipalities must make it available – and still not buy bottled water. It costs more, it has environmental challenges associated with its use of energy, generation of waste, and impacts on some local groundwater, and it turns a public resource into a private commodity, as I discuss in my book Bottled and Sold: The Story Behind Our Obsession with Bottled Water.

This isn’t a “ban.” It is putting consumer choice back in the hands of the consumer, not the government.

Winnipeg Sun to province: Make sewers election issue

Columnists | Opinion | Winnipeg Sun

BY TOM BRODBECK ,WINNIPEG SUN
MONDAY, JUNE 6, 2011

Over two-million litres of untreated sewage was discharged into the Assiniboine River last month over a five-day period.

It was the largest sewage overflow in Winnipeg since the city’s massive sewage spill in 2002.

That’s on top of 17 smaller spills that occurred this year between March and April.

It’s all due to Winnipeg’s outdated combined sewer system, which diverts raw sewage into our rivers every time it rains, during spring runoff and when pipes get clogged, like they did last month.

Despite that, there was nothing in the Selinger government’s master plan released last week to “save Lake Winnipeg” that deals with the city’s combined sewer problem.

In fact, it doesn’t even mention it.

I don’t get that.

On May 20, the city’s 311 service got an e-mail at 2:11 p.m. that reported a raw sewage discharge into Sturgeon Creek near Lonsdale Drive just west of Grace General Hospital.

Unfortunately, the 311 system broke down and raw sewage poured into the creek and river for nearly five days without the city responding to it. You might want to look into this one, Sam.

The wastewater collection branch wasn’t notified until Wednesday May 25 — following a long-weekend — and a crew was eventually dispatched that day.

They found a blockage of grease and rags in the sewer that caused raw sewage to build up and overflow into the creek.

It was a major screw-up — and a lot crap that went into our rivers and lakes.

“Lag time between notification and resolution due to oversight in internal protocol,” the city’s incident report says. “Response process reviewed and will be improved for future similar events.”

Let’s hope so.

But better than that, why doesn’t the provincial government take the lead on this and sit down with the city to hammer out a funding deal that would fix this problem over time?

Read the rest of the article

IEEP: Water scarcity is a serious and growing problem in a number of EU Member States

Water scarcity is a serious and growing problem in a number of EU Member States   via: Environmental Expert

EU water law has traditionally focused on water quality issues. However, the introduction in 2000 of the Water Framework Directive has provided the first coherent legal tool to address water scarcity and this has been supported by further policy aimed directly at water scarcity.

However, there are also many local policy issues which need to be addressed, such as the patterns of agriculture and upgrading water distribution networks. Some issues are also outside of the control of most authorities, such as changing household size and population demography.

This presents major complexities in the policy landscape. Therefore, not only must a range of policies for water scarcity be considered for each country or region, but there must be a clear understanding not only of the opportunities afforded by those policies, but also their limitations. Such policies must include investment in innovation, new infrastructure, water saving technology, implementation of full cost recovery for water supply and, not least, strict regulation.

The complexity of the policy environment and the complexity of the dynamic social and economic interaction with hydrological systems present a major challenge for addressing water scarcity. Meeting this challenge, therefore, requires a partnership between EU, Member State and regional authorities as well as with the public and other stakeholders.

Read more