Handbook of Catchment Management [2 ed.] 1119531225, 9781119531227

Citation preview

Handbook of Catchment Management

Handbook of Catchment Management Second edition

Edited by Robert C. Ferrier

The Macaulay Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, UK and

Alan Jenkins

Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Maclean Building, Crowmarsh Gifford, Wallingford, Oxfordshire OX10 8BB, UK

This edition first published 2021 © 2021 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Edition History Blackwell Publishing Ltd (2010) All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions. The right of Robert C. Ferrier and Alan Jenkins to be identified as the authors of the editorial material in this work has been asserted in accordance with law. Registered Offices John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK Editorial Office 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com. Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print‐on‐demand. Some content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats. Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication Data Names: Ferrier, Robert C., editor. | Jenkins, Alan (Hydrological advisor), editor. Title: Handbook of catchment management / edited by Robert C. Ferrier, The Macaulay Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, UK and Alan Jenkins, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Maclean Building, Crowmarsh Gifford, Wallingford, Oxfordshire OX10 8BB, UK. Description: Second edition. | Hoboken, NJ, USA : Wiley-Blackwell, 2021. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020029306 (print) | LCCN 2020029307 (ebook) | ISBN 9781119531227 (hardback) | ISBN 9781119531180 (adobe pdf) | ISBN 9781119531258 (epub) Subjects: LCSH: Water quality management–Handbooks, manuals, etc. | Watershed management–Handbooks, manuals, etc. | Water resources development–Handbooks, manuals, etc. Classification: LCC TD365 .H356 2021 (print) | LCC TD365 (ebook) | DDC 333.91–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020029306 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020029307 ISBN: 9781119531227  Cover Design: Wiley Cover Image: © NASA Set in 9.5/12.5pt STIXTwoText by Straive, Chennai, India 10  9  8  7  6  5  4  3  2  1

v

Contents List of Contributors  xvii Preface  xxi Acknowledgements  xxiv 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.3.3 1.3.4 1.3.5 1.3.6 1.4 1.5 1.6

Introduction to Catchment Management in 2020  3 Robert C. Ferrier and Alan Jenkins Introduction  3 Historical Synopsis  3 Recent Developments and Emerging Issues  6 Value of Water  6 Evaluation of the Global Resource  9 Water Scarcity and Drought  11 Emerging Technologies  14 Energy Transition  15 Water Quality  15 Policy Development  17 Working with Nature, Natural Capital, and Ecosystem Services  18 Summary  19 ­References  20

2 2.1 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.4 2.5

Water Diplomacy  25 Rozemarijn ter Horst  25 Introduction  25 Short Historical Synopsis  26 What Is Water Diplomacy?  27 Water conflict and cooperation  28 Current Solutions  28 Who Practises Water Diplomacy?  28 How Is Water Diplomacy Done?  31 New Insights  37 Future Knowledge Requirements  38 ­References  39

vi

Contents

3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.4 3.5

Water Financing and Pricing Mechanisms  47 Alan D. A. Sutherland and Colin McNaughton Introduction  47 Short Historical Synopsis  49 Current Solutions  52 Regulation by Contract (Franchise Regulation)  53 Rate of Return Regulation  53 Incentive-Based Regulation  54 The Regulatory Governance Framework  58 New Insights  60 Future Knowledge Requirements  64 ­References  65

4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.4.1 4.4.2 4.4.3 4.4.4 4.4.5 4.4.6 4.4.7 4.5 4.6

Defining ‘Smart Water’  67 David Lloyd Owen Introduction  67 Historical Synopsis  69 Current Solutions  72 New Insights – The Digital Disruption  73 Adopting New Technologies  73 Decarbonising Water and Wastewater as a Resource  75 Water and Sewerage Metering  76 Demand Management, Tariffs, and Smarter White Goods  77 Sensors  78 ‘Digital’ Water  79 Rural–Urban Interface (New Storage and Green Infiltration)  82 Future Knowledge Requirements  84 Discussion and Conclusions  86 ­References  87

5 5.1 5.2 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.2.4 5.2.4.1 5.2.4.2 5.2.4.3

Water, Food, and Energy Nexus  93 Alex Smajgl Introduction  93 Historical Synopsis  94 Nexus Conceptualisations  94 Nexus-Focused Research  96 Nexus-Type Implementations and Case Studies  97 Nexus Interactions and Trade-off Examples  98 Hydropower – Fish  98 Irrigation – Food Crops – Energy Crops  99 Energy Pricing – Irrigated Agriculture – Availability of Surface and Groundwater  99 Desalinisation – Energy Costs – Water Supply  100 Current Solutions  100 Sustainability and Nexus Outcomes  100

5.2.4.4 5.3 5.3.1

Contents

5.3.2 5.3.3 5.3.4 5.3.5 5.4 5.5

Different Types of Water  102 Intervention Points to ‘Manage the Nexus’  103 Research Solutions for Improved Trade-off Assessments  104 Innovative Engagement Processes to Steer Cross-Sector Dialogue  108 New Insights  110 Future Knowledge Requirements  112 ­References  114

6 6.1 6.1.1 6.1.2 6.1.3 6.1.4 6.1.5 6.2 6.2.1 6.2.2 6.2.3 6.2.3.1 6.2.3.2 6.2.3.3 6.2.3.4 6.2.4 6.2.4.1 6.2.4.2 6.2.5 6.3 6.3.1 6.3.2 6.3.2.1 6.3.2.2 6.3.3 6.3.4

Groundwater Management  125 Stephen Foster and Alan MacDonald Introduction  125 Importance of Groundwater Storage  125 Dynamics of Groundwater Flow Systems  126 Evaluation of Groundwater Recharge  128 Processes of Groundwater Quality Degradation  129 Aquifer Pollution Vulnerability and Quality Protection  132 Groundwater Management – Needs and Approaches  133 Impacts of Groundwater Resource Development  133 Surface-Water Impacts of Ineffective Management  135 Key Components of Groundwater Resources Management  135 Demand vs. Supply Side Interventions  135 Identifying Links with the Rest of the Water Cycle  136 Climate Change  137 Irrigation  137 Approaches to Groundwater Quality Protection  138 Potential Polluter Pays for Protection  138 Groundwater-Friendly Rural Land Use  139 Need for Adaptive and Precautionary Management  140 New Insights  140 Evolving Paradigm of Sound Governance  140 Integrated Policy to Strengthen Governance  142 Vertical Integration Within the Water Sector  142 Horizontal Integration Beyond the Water Sector  143 Conjunctive Use of Groundwater and Surface Water  143 Groundwater Management Planning  145 Acknowledgements  148 ­References  149

7 7.1 7.1.1 7.2 7.2.1 7.2.2

Diffuse Pollution Management  153 Andrew Vinten Introduction  153 Attributes of Diffuse Pollution  154 Historical synopsis: Challenges for diffuse pollution management  155 Recognition of Diffuse Pollution as an Issue  155 Identification of Sources of Diffuse Pollution  159

vii

viii

Contents

7.2.3 7.3 7.3.1 7.3.2 7.3.3 7.4

Development of Programmes of Measures to Combat Diffuse Pollution  161 Current solutions  162 Evidence of Effectiveness of Measures  162 Appropriateness of Measures in Specific Contexts  166 The Role of Governance and Other Factors in Effecting Behaviour Change  167 A Way Forward?  169 ­References  174



Emerging Contaminants and Pollutants of Concern  183 Pei Wang and Yonglong Lu Introduction  183 Short Historical Synopsis  186 Pollution Pathways  186 Life Cycle Analysis  188 Flows in Waste Management  189 Storage in the Environment  189 Alternatives or Mitigation Technologies for PFOA/PFO  190 Current Solutions  190 New Insights  191 Multi‐contaminants: Improved Risk Ranking  191 Heavy Metals  191 Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals  193 Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products  194 Persistent Organic Pollutants  194 What Is the Balance of the Cost from Production, Monitoring to Remediation of Emerging Pollutants?  196 What Is the Balance of the Attitude Among Different Stakeholders Including Government, Industry, Academia, and Public?  197 Government  197 Industry  198 Academia  199 Public  199 Future Knowledge Requirements  199 Regulations on the Production‐Demand Chain to Help Develop Low‐Toxicity Substitutes  199 Highly Efficient Methods to Remove the Pollutants in Various Wastes  200 Develop Specific Criteria and Standards for More Effective Risk Assessment and Environmental Management  200 Ecosystem‐Based Management for Prevention from Environmental Impacts of Emerging Pollutants  201 ­References  201

9 9.1

Flood Management  205 Mark Fletcher Introduction  205

8 8.1 8.2 8.2.1 8.2.2 8.2.3 8.2.4 8.2.5 8.3 8.4 8.4.1 8.4.2 8.4.3 8.4.4 8.4.5 8.4.6 8.4.7 8.4.8 8.4.9 8.4.10 8.4.11 8.5 8.5.1 8.5.2 8.5.3 8.5.4

Contents

9.1.1 9.2 9.2.1 9.2.2 9.2.3 9.2.4 9.2.5 9.3 9.3.1 9.3.2 9.3.3 9.4 9.4.1 9.4.1.1 9.4.1.2 9.4.1.3 9.4.1.4 9.4.1.5 9.4.1.6 9.4.1.7 9.4.2 9.4.2.1

The Water Cycle and Flooding  205 Historical Synopsis and Current Understanding  208 Flood Warning  208 UK Overview  208 Legislative Framework  209 Resilience to Flooding  209 Flood Categorisation  210 Current Solutions  213 Coping with Extreme Flooding  213 How to Cope (in Advance of a Major Flood Event)  213 Flood Asset Management  214 New Insights  214 Case Studies: (A) Leeds Flood Alleviation Scheme, Leeds, UK  214 Scheme Development  214 Digital Construction and Collaboration  215 Replacing the Weirs  215 Linear Defences in the City Centre  216 Eliminating Another Barrier  216 Integrated Urban Drainage Model  216 The Cutting Edge  216 Case Studies: (B) Skipton Flood Alleviation Scheme, Skipton, UK  221 The Short- and Long-Term Benefits from a Sustainable Development Perspective  224 9.4.2.2 Economic Benefits  224 9.4.2.3 Environmental Benefits  225 9.4.2.4 Social Benefits  225 9.4.2.5 Cutting Edge Aspects  225 9.4.2.6 Transferability – A Model for Work Elsewhere  226 9.4.2.7 Planning Impact on the Scheme  227 9.4.2.8 The Role of SMART Design in Flood Management  228 9.4.2.9 SMART Control  229 9.4.2.10 Automatic PLC Control  230 9.4.2.11 3D Modelling  230 9.4.3 Case Studies: (C) Connswater Community Greenway, Belfast, UK  233 9.4.4 Case Studies: (D) Freckleton Floodbank Breach, River Ribble, Lancashire, UK  233 9.4.4.1 Introduction  233 9.4.4.2 Possible Reasons for the Failure of the Embankment  237 9.4.4.3 Good Working Practice  239 9.5 Future Challenges  241 9.5.1 Climate Change – A Global Perspective  241 9.5.2 Population and Urbanisation  242 9.5.3 Digital  242 9.5.4 Nature Based Solutions (NBS)  242 ­References  243

ix

x

Contents

10 10.1 10.2 10.2.1 10.2.2 10.3 10.4 10.4.1 10.4.2 10.4.3 10.4.3.1 10.4.3.2 10.4.3.3 10.4.3.4 10.4.3.5 10.4.4 10.5 10.5.1 10.5.2 10.5.3 10.5.4 11 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.5.1 11.5.2 11.5.3 11.5.4 11.5.5 11.5.6

Ecological Restoration  245 Laurence Carvalho, Iain D. M. Gunn, Bryan M. Spears, and Anne J. Dobel Introduction  245 Short Historical Synopsis  246 Restoration Success (or Lack of It)  246 Timescales in Ecological Recovery  249 Target-Setting, Monitoring, and Assessment  250 Current Restoration Approaches  250 Rivers  251 Environmental Flows  252 Lakes  254 Biomanipulation  255 Artificial Mixing and Aeration  256 Chemical Treatment  256 Sediment Removal  257 Short-Term Mitigation of Harmful Algal Blooms – Poorly Evidenced Lake Restoration Methods  257 Ponds  258 New Insights, Innovation, and Knowledge Gaps  259 Circular Economies – Resource Recovery  259 Nature-Based Solutions and Payment for Ecosystem Services  260 Building Climate Change Resilience  260 Developing a Systemic Approach and Re-wilding  262 ­References  263 Water, Sanitation, and Health: Progress and Obstacles to Achieving the SDGs  271 Emmanuel M. Akpabio and John S. Rowan Introduction  271 Theoretical and Historical Basis of Water, Sanitation, and Health Nexus  273 Understanding Current WaSH Management Practices in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Case of Nigeria and Malawi  278 Understanding the Challenges Associated with Achieving Improved WaSH Services Delivery for Sub-Saharan Africa  296 Key Insights, Lessons, and Future Knowledge  299 A Lack of Nexus Approach  300 Governance Challenge and Poor Institutional Capacities  301 Cultural and Religious Values  301 Excessive Influence of External Actors and Agencies  303 Prioritising and Strengthening Catchment-Based Management Approach to WaSH Services Delivery  303 Climate Change Impact and Access to Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene  304 Acknowledgements  305 ­References  305

Contents

12

The Legal and Institutional Framework for Basin Management Across Governance Levels  309 Susanne Schmeier 12.1 Introduction  309 12.2 The Conceptual Framework – Legal and Institutional Dimensions of River Basin Management  311 12.2.1 From Local to Transboundary – A Level Perspective on River Basin Management  311 12.2.2 The River Basin Management Cycle  314 12.2.3 Combining the Level and the Cyclical Approach  315 12.3 From Concept to Practice – The (Mal-)Functioning of Legal and Institutional Frameworks  316 12.3.1 River Basin Management in Europe – High Complexity  316 12.3.1.1 The Rhine River Basin – A High Density of Legal and Institutional Instruments  316 12.3.1.2 The Danube River Basin – Complex Management Mechanisms for a Complex Basin  321 12.3.2 River Basin Management Across Levels in the Mekong River Basin – A Patchy Framework  323 12.3.3 River Basin Management in Southern Africa – Increasing Integration in the Orange River Basin  327 12.4 Conclusions  331 ­References  332 13 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6 13.7 13.8 13.9 13.10 13.11 13.12 13.13 13.14 13.15 13.16

Scotland the ‘Hydro Nation’: Linking Policy, Science, Industry, Regulation in Scotland and Internationally  339 Barry Greig and Jon Rathjen Introduction  339 Scotland’s Water Environment  339 Industry Vision  341 Scotland: The Hydro Nation  341 Value  343 Hydro Nation: Strategy and Structure  343 Hydro Nation Strategy: National Theme  346 Water Supply and Demand Management  347 Private Supplies and Rural Provision  347 Regulation and Governance  348 Hydro Nation Strategy: International Theme  349 Scotland and Malawi  350 Hydro Nation Strategy: Knowledge Theme  352 Hydro Nation Strategy: Innovation Theme  352 Hydro Nation Impact  353 Emerging Policy Issues for Scotland  355 ­References  357

xi

xii

Contents

14

Yorkshire Integrated Catchment Solutions Programme (iCASP): A New Model for Research-Based Catchment Management  359 Janet C. Richardson, Marie Ferré, Benjamin L. Rabb, Jennifer C. Armstrong, Julia Martin-Ortega, David M. Hodgson, Thomas D. M Willis, Richard Grayson, Poppy Leeder, and Joseph Holden 14.1 Introduction  359 14.2 Study Area: River Ouse Drainage Basin, Yorkshire  360 14.2.1 Catchment Challenges  361 14.3 The iCASP Model  364 14.3.1 Partnership Working  364 14.3.2 Principles of Working  369 14.3.3 Project Development Process  369 14.3.3.1 Outputs  373 14.3.4 Impact Tracking  374 14.3.5 The Network  376 14.4 New Insights and Highlights  376 14.5 Conclusions  380 Acknowledgements  380 ­References  380



Integrated Management in Singapore  385 Cecilia Tortajada and Rachel Yan Ting Koh Introduction  385 Institutional and Legal Frameworks  386 Overall Policy and Planning  388 The Search for Alternative Sources of Water  389 NEWater: From Concept to Implementation  393 NEWater: Water Source Looking to the Future  396 Final Thoughts: Public Engagement, Education, and Outreach Strategies to Promote Acceptance  400 ­References  401

16 16.1 16.1.1 16.1.2 16.1.3 16.1.4 16.1.5 16.1.5.1 16.1.5.2 16.1.5.3 16.1.6 16.2

Flood and Drought Emergency Management  409 Miaomiao Ma and Song Han Severe Flooding on the Huai River in 2007  409 Introduction  409 Background Hydrological Situation  409 Challenges  412 Current Approach to Meeting the Challenges  413 Lessons Learned  414 Leave the Flood More Space  414 Optimise Flood Control Regulations  415 Moderating Flood Risks  415 Future Work  415 Severe Drought in South-west Region of China in 2010  416

15 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 15.6 15.7

Contents

16.2.1 16.2.2 16.2.3 16.2.4 16.2.5 16.2.6

Introduction and Background  416 Challenges  418 Current Approach to Meeting the Challenges  420 Recovery After the Drought Event  423 Lessons Learned  424 Future Work  426 ­References  426

17 17.1 17.1.1 17.2 17.3 17.3.1 17.3.2 17.4

The River Chief System in China  429 Tan Xianqiang Introduction  429 Components of the RCS  430 Short Historical Synopsis  432 Current Solutions  433 RCS on the Chishui River as a Demonstration  433 New Insights  434 Future Knowledge Requirements  438 Acknowledgement  439

18 18.1 18.1.1 18.1.2 18.2 18.3 18.3.1 18.3.2 18.3.3 18.3.4 18.3.5 18.3.6 18.4

Water Resources Management in the Colorado River Basin  441 Alan Butler, Terrance Fulp, James Prairie, and Amy Witherall Introduction and Background  441 Geography and Hydrology  442 Legal and Policy Framework  444 Current Challenge – Imbalance of Water Supply and Demand  450 Recent Approaches to Meeting Challenges  452 The Collaborative, Incremental Approach  452 Interim Surplus Guidelines and California ‘4.4 Plan’  453 2007 Interim Guidelines  455 Minutes 319 and 323  455 Drought Contingency Plans in the United States and Mexico  457 Reclamation’s Role  458 Future Thoughts and Considerations  459 ­References  460

19 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.3.1 19.3.1.1 19.3.2 19.3.3 19.4

Development in the Northern Rivers of Australia  465 Ian Watson, Andrew Ash, Cuan Petheram, Marcus Barber, and Chris Stokes Introduction  465 Context for Northern Development  468 Biophysical Characteristics and Constraints  475 Physiography, Climate, and Hydrology  476 Surface Water – Groundwater Connectivity  478 Environment and Ecology  480 Potential Impacts and Their Management  481 Catchment Governance and Management  483

xiii

xiv

Contents

19.4.1 19.4.2 19.4.3 19.4.4 19.4.5 19.4.6 19.4.7

Roles and Responsibilities of Government in Managing Catchments  483 Commonwealth Government  483 State and Territory Government  484 Statutory Bodies with a Role in Catchment Management  485 Community Organisations, Emerging Voices  485 The Role of Indigenous People in Catchment Management  485 Development Agendas and the Protection of the Natural and Cultural Values of Northern Australian Rivers  486 19.5 Development Opportunities  487 19.5.1 Background  487 19.5.2 Land and Water Resources  487 19.5.2.1 Soils and Land Suitability  487 19.5.2.2 Surface and Groundwater  488 19.5.3 Primary Production Opportunities  488 19.6 Conclusions  489 Acknowledgements  490 ­References  490 20 20.1 20.2 20.2.1 20.2.2 20.2.3 20.3 20.3.1 20.4 20.4.1 20.4.2 20.4.3 20.4.4 20.4.5 20.4.6 20.4.7 20.4.8 20.4.9 20.4.10 20.4.11 20.5 20.5.1 20.5.2 20.6

Catchment Management of Lake Simcoe, Canada  499 Jill C. Crossman Introduction to the Lake Simcoe Case Study: A History of Problems  499 History of Pollution  501 Point Sources  502 Diffuse Sources  502 Direct Sources to the Lake  505 History of Management of Lake Simcoe  506 Implementation of Catchment Management Principles  507 Management Achievements  510 Reductions in Phosphorus Loadings  510 Point Source Reductions – Sewage Treatment  511 Diffuse Source Reductions  512 Septic Systems  512 Urban Run-off  513 Fertilisers  515 Livestock  516 Soil Erosion  516 Wetland Drainage (Polders)  517 Improvements in Lake Water Quality  518 Management Impacts on Fish Stocks  520 Future Implications  522 Land Use and Population Change  522 Climate Change  524 Conclusion  526 ­References  527

Contents

21 21.1 21.2 21.2.1 21.2.2 21.3 21.3.1 21.3.2 21.3.3 21.4

Management of Water Resources on the Han River, Korea  533 Hwirin Kim Introduction  533 Short Historical Synopsis  535 Dams, Weirs, Reservoirs, and Related Institutions in the Han River Basin  535 The Dam and Weir Conjunctive Operation Council  538 Current Issues  539 Flooding in 2006  539 Drought in 2016–2018  542 Dam Water Use for River Water Quality Improvement-2018  543 Future Challenges  546

22 22.1 22.1.1 22.1.2 22.2 22.2.1 22.2.2 22.2.3 22.2.4 22.2.4.1 22.2.4.2 22.2.5 22.2.5.1 22.2.5.2 22.2.5.3 22.2.5.4 22.2.5.5 22.2.6 22.2.7 22.3 22.3.1 22.3.1.1 22.3.1.2 22.3.1.3 22.3.2 22.3.2.1 22.3.2.2 22.3.2.3 22.3.2.4 22.3.2.5 22.3.2.6

Dispute Resolution in the Cauvery Basin, India  549 Neha Khandekar and Veena Srinivasan Introduction  549 Background  549 The Cauvery Water Conflict  552 History of the Dispute  553 Colonial Times  553 Post‐independence Origins of Inter‐State Dispute (1974–1990)  555 Tribunal Process (1990–2007)  555 Different States Have Different Positions About Principles  556 Karnataka’s Position  556 Tamil Nadu’s Position  557 2007 Agreement  558 Principles of Allocation  558 Surface Water Allocation  558 Groundwater Allocation  558 Environmental Flow  560 Release Schedule  560 Post‐tribunal Conflicts (2007–2018)  561 The 2018 Verdict  561 Analysis of the Cauvery Dispute  562 Problems with Scientific Basis of Tribunal Allocation  563 Premise of Allocation Is Flawed  563 No Guidance on Shortage Sharing in Drought Years  564 No Clarity on Wastewater Ownership  564 Data Gaps  564 Sparse Data on Water Availability  564 Inconsistent and Inadequate Data on Agricultural Water Use  565 Data on ‘Green Water’ and Evapotranspiration Is Unavailable  565 Data on Urban Water Use Is Fragmented  566 Inadequate Public Information on Water Infrastructure Plans  566 Missing Data on Water Infrastructure Operations  566

xv

xvi

Contents

22.3.2.7 22.3.2.8 22.4 22.4.1 22.5 22.5.1 22.5.2 22.6 22.6.1 22.6.2 22.7 ­

Reservoir Sedimentation Is Not Accounted for  566 Water Quality Data Are Inadequate  567 Science–Policy Gaps  567 Changing Nature of Demand and Supply  568 Political Challenges  569 Identity Politics  569 Poor Public Communication  569 Dispute Resolution Approaches  569 Cauvery Management Board  570 Direct Dialogue  571 Summary and Way Forward  571 Acknowledgements  573 References  573

23 23.1 23.2 23.3 23.4 23.5 23.6 23.7 23.8

The Future for Catchment Management  579 Alan Jenkins and Robert C. Ferrier Climate Change  579 Biodiversity  580 Land Use  581 Coasts  582 Ecosystem Goods and Services  582 People and Management  583 Science  584 Challenges for the Next Decade  585 ­References  585



Index  589

xvii

List of Contributors Emmanuel M. Akpabio Geography & Natural Resources Management Faculty of Social Sciences University of Uyo Nigeria, and Geography and Environmental Science, School of Social Science, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.

Laurence Carvalho UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology Edinburgh, EH26 0QB UK

Jennifer Armstrong School of Earth & Environment University of Leeds, LS2 9JT UK

Anne J. Dobel UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology Edinburgh, EH26 0QB UK

Andrew Ash Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Agriculture & Food, Australia

Marie Ferré School of Earth & Environment University of Leeds, LS2 9JT UK

Marcus Barber Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Land & Water, Australia Robert A. Butler Bureau of Reclamation U.S. Department of the Interior Boulder, CO, U.S.A.

Jill Crossman University of Windsor Ontario, N9B 3P4 Canada

Robert C. Ferrier James Hutton Institute Craigiebuckler Aberdeen, AB15 8QH UK Mark Fletcher Arup, Leeds, LS9 8EE UK

xviii

List of Contributors

Stephen Foster University College London, Department of Earth Sciences, London, WC1E 6BT UK Terrance Fulp Bureau of Reclamation U.S. Department of the Interior Boulder City, NV, U.S.A. Iain Gunn UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology Edinburgh, EH26 0QB UK Richard Grayson School of Geography University of Leeds, LS2 9JT UK Barry Greig The Scottish Government Edinburgh, EH6 6QQ UK Song Han Research Centre on Flood & Drought Disaster Reduction China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research Beijing, China David M. Hodgson School of Earth & Environment University of Leeds, LS2 9JT UK Joseph Holden School of Geography University of Leeds, LS2 9JT UK

Rozemarijn ter Horst Wageningen University, Department of Environmental Sciences, Water Resources Management Group, Postbus 47, 6700 AA, Wageningen, The Netherlands Alan Jenkins UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology Wallingford, Oxfordshire, OX10 8BB UK Neha Khandekar Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology & the Environment Sriramapura, Jakkur Post, Bangalore 560 064 Karnataka, India Hwirin Kim Han River Flood Control Office Ministry of Environment 328 Dongjakdaero, Secho‐Gu Seoul, 137‐049 Republic of Korea Rachel Yan Ting Koh WWF‐Singapore, 247672 Singapore Poppy Leeder School of Geography University of Leeds, LS2 9JT UK David Lloyd Owen Envisager Ltd Cardigan, Wales, SA43 2LN UK

List of Contributors

Yonglong Lu Research Centre for Eco‐Environmental Sciences Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing China Miaomiao Ma Research Centre on Flood & Drought Disaster Reduction China Institute of Water Resources & Hydropower Research Beijing, 100038 China Colin Mcnaughton Water Industry Commission for Scotland Stirling, FK8 1QZ UK Alan Macdonald British Geological Survey The Lyell Centre Research Avenue South Edinburgh EH14 4AP, UK

Ben Rabb School of Earth & Environment University of Leeds, LS2 9JT UK Jon Rathjen The Scottish Government Edinburgh, EH6 6QQ UK Janet C. Richardson School of Earth & Environment University of Leeds, LS2 9JT UK John S. Rowan Geography & Environmental Science School of Social Sciences University of Dundee, DD1 4HN UK Alex Smajgl The Mekong Region Futures Institute Sukhumvit Rd, North Klongtoey, Wattana, Bangkok 10110 Thailand

Julia Martin-Ortega School of Earth & Environment University of Leeds, LS2 9JT UK

Susanne Schmeier IHE Delft Institute for Water Education Westvest 7, 2611 AX Delft, The Netherlands

Cuan Petheram Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Land & Water, Australia

Bryan Spears UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology Edinburgh, EH26 0QB UK

James Prairie Bureau of Reclamation U.S. Department of the Interior, Boulder, CO, U.S.A.

Veena Srinivasan Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology & the Environment Sriramapura, Jakkur Post, Bangalore 560 064 Karnataka, India

xix

xx

List of Contributors

Chris Stokes Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Land & Water, Australia

Ian Watson Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Agriculture and Food, Australia

Alan D.A. Sutherland Water Industry Commission for Scotland Stirling, FK8 1QZ UK

Thomas D.M. Willis School of Geography University of Leeds, LS2 9JT UK

Cecilia Tortajada Institute of Water Policy, National University of Singapore, Singapore, and School of Interdisciplinary Studies, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

Amy Witherall Bureau of Reclamation U.S. Department of the Interior Temecula, CA, U.S.A.

Andrew Vinten James Hutton Institute Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen, AB15 8QH UK Pei Wang Research Centre for Eco‐Environmental Sciences Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing, China

Tan Xianqiang Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute Wuhan, Hubei, China

xxi

Preface It is with much pleasure that we introduce you to the new edition of the Handbook of Catchment Management, a decade after the first. The hydrological cycle has always the most important earth system process on the planet but how has our relationship with water changed in the space of a decade? As population continues to grow, the human‐induced pressures on catchments have never been so great, but this has also been accompanied by an explosion in information technology which has made our current world very different from that of 10 years ago. At school, we learn of water as a virtuous cycle where evaporation from the ocean generates cloud, which deposits as pristine rain on the landscape which then returns through the multitude of streams rivers, lakes back to the sea (along with some recharging to groundwater). The physics of this process haven’t changed (and will never change), and the water cycle continues to function, but our human impact on that process has never been greater. Human‐driven climate change has altered the timing, magnitude, and impact of rainfall through floods and droughts. We have continued to extract increasing amounts of fossil water from our groundwaters along with surface waters from lakes and rivers and concomitantly have contaminated most global environments. Biodiversity over the last decade has declined across the world, and the use of our land resources, through increased urbanisation and agricultural intensity, has placed further pressures on our most valuable resource. This supports an overarching principle underlying the concept of catchment management in that land and water are intimately connected and that any land use decision is also a water decision. We must appreciate that managing land and water must be complementary and inclusive. But our relationship and commitment to water have improved, and in many contexts, recovery of ecosystems is evident due to coordinated trans‐national cooperation and inter‐ basin management. We have increasingly seen water as a critical resource, one that contains ‘value’ in all its forms – green, blue, grey, and brown. Embracing this concept is embedded in the UK Sustainable Development Goals, (SDGs) although targets for Water Sanitation and Health (WASH) are still aspirational in many countries. Research, development, and innovation are essential to support informed decision‐making while community‐based action is critical for addressing the root causes of poor sanitation. In many development

xxii

Preface

contexts, it is also important that we design systems of support that benefit from recent technological innovation and are suitably future‐proofed and don’t only address contemporary issues. Over the last decade, there has been an increasing awareness of water quality issues, and although the excess use of nitrogen in agriculture continues to drive deterioration of resources, the more incipient emergence of other pollutants, such as organics, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and antibiotics, is raising a warning flag, and the likely consequences of this are not truly understood but the development of Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) is most definitely a cause for future concern. We have seen developments in Artificial Intelligence (AI), Earth Observation (EO), and information technologies driving our modern world. Although there are areas of the globe where information on water resources, stores, and flows is poor, we are increasingly living in a world where information is not necessarily limiting, but where the focus has moved to how to interpret information, analyse, and use it in a real‐time decision‐making. This is an exciting development in monitoring and analysing our complex environmental systems and how they are influenced by change. Such technologies have generated a digital water value chain, where sensing, monitoring, evaluation, and analytics such as blockchain are generating a new ‘ecosystem’ of water users and stakeholders, including trans‐boundary management efforts. There has been no doubt that the biggest concern for catchment resources is that from climate‐driven change. Altered temperature dynamics and weather patterns are driving changes in snow accumulation and melt, seasonal temperatures, the incidence of flood, and drought with massive consequences for our existence and such changes will drive social and financial inequality, migration, and global economics potentially over time scales in which we will be unable to respond and build resilience. The growth of a global children’s movement and declaration by many countries of a climate crisis underline the significance and requirement for a sustainable green economy based on low carbon technologies, and water is at the heart of this. The rise in ‘sponge cities’ and ‘water sensitive cities’ and other urban infrastructure planning approaches are evidence of how the challenge is being met in our increasingly urbanised world but as mega‐cities grow, the necessary water provision and sanitation infrastructure is still woefully lacking in many contexts. In this volume, we have aimed to bring together different issues pertinent to our current thinking and to encourage our authors to consider the future challenges. We invited a suite of case studies from across the globe to highlight new contexts where water resource management is being developed as well as more mature approaches to catchment management which provide invaluable knowledge on progress and challenges in multi‐stakeholder perspectives and the ongoing challenge of trans‐boundary management. As we go to press, the world is facing the significant challenge against a global pandemic. Planning for such an event has been considered by many countries for a considerable time, but the scale and rapid spread have pushed countries contingency planning to the maximum, and the cracks are showing. Nobody knows at this stage what the outcome of this will be in terms of a new world order, but already it has taught us some important lessons. With air and water quality improving, the incredible restorative properties of nature have been exposed and our relationship with biodiversity and natural systems put under the microscope. With a justifiable pressing focus on public health and ensuring economic

Preface

recovery, it is understandable that our line of sight has moved away from the environment, but it is important that we take cognisance of the impact on our resource consumption and the reduction in carbon emission that the enforced ‘lock‐down’ has generated. This should provide a stimulus to designing a new future where natural processes are enhanced rather than controlled. The pandemic has also highlighted the societal disparities we live with in terms of access to resources and opportunity with the old, poor, and marginal groups being more significantly impacted than others. The SDGs should provide the beacon for a new vision, rather than being a desired outcome, they should be the blueprint for the future. Having given the earth a break, it is perhaps our most pressing challenge to drive through a global green agenda, with water at its heart where access to resources and sustainable development are the drivers for a more equitable society. Achieving that vision needs consensus (much on a global scale), but governance of natural processes such as that for catchment management has given us a set of guiding principles and highlights the critical need for inclusive and equitable governance. To deliver that vision, we must ensure that the respected knowledge generated by research underpins our options for future management, that all stakeholders are involved, an appreciation of the important role of natural processes is promoted, and that we consider cross‐sectoral integration to deliver tangible benefits. Aberdeen and Wallingford, July 2020

Bob Ferrier and Alan Jenkins

xxiii

xxiv

Acknowledgements This second edition of the Handbook of Catchment Management would not have been possible without the commitment and efforts of our Chapter authors, who we personally thank for their patience, understanding and commitment. We hope that this edition will do justice to their efforts in moving catchment management forward and will provide a springboard for wider engagement with research and practitioner communities. We are indebted to Linda Wood of the James Hutton Institute for all her administrative support throughout this project, liaising with authors, proof reading and co‐ordinating the submissions. Her dedication has been exceptional, and we thank her for all her hard work. In addition, we would also like to acknowledge the efforts of Sarah Horne from the James Hutton Institute who undertook the task of preparing additional graphical material throughout the edition. Finally, we would like to thank Wiley, for the invite to prepare a second edition for this new decade.

Source: S. Charman, James Hutton Institute, UK.

3

1 Introduction to Catchment Management in 2020 Robert C. Ferrier1 and Alan Jenkins2 1

 James Hutton Institute, Aberdeen, UK  UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK

2

1.1 ­Introduction The hydrological cycle is the fundamental earth system process supporting life on our planet. In essence, the basic physical principles of how water moves through the environment and how it interacts with the atmosphere, landscape, and oceans are consistent with contemporary thermodynamic paradigms, and nothing in that regard has changed over the history of the Earth. The interaction of water with the landscape has resulted in a myriad of aquatic habitats, all with individual physico‐chemical characteristics and in many cases unique biodiversity. The importance of fluvial processes and sediment transport to estuarine and coastal environments has supported the productivity of coastal ecosystems and their role as important nursery areas for marine species as well as providing integral protection from coastal erosion. Natural terrestrial habitats reflect the dynamics of the earth’s surface in the interplay of the hydrological cycle, shaping features such as lakes, streams, river channels, deltas, the interaction between ground and surface water and evaporative salt lakes that have taken millennia to form and develop. Geological and biogeochemical processes influence the composition of water as it flows over the landscape and infiltrates into subsurface flow and out to the sea, changing over time driven by flow dynamics and connectivity in turn reflecting global climate patterns and seasonal and daily weather patterns.

1.2 ­Historical Synopsis In concert with these natural processes, however, human interaction with the hydrological cycle has significantly changed and at an increasing pace. This change is expressed during the current geological age, the Anthropocene, which is viewed as the period during which human activity has been the dominant influence on climate and Handbook of Catchment Management, Second Edition. Edited by Robert C. Ferrier and Alan Jenkins. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

4

1  Introduction to Catchment Management in 2020

the environment. The new world of the Anthropocene is dangerous, complex, unstable, and uncertain (Dean et al. 2014), differing significantly from the Holocene, the world humans lived in during the previous 10 000 years (Pereira and Freitas 2017). Ferrier and Jenkins (2010) reviewed the concept of catchment management in relation to human influence and management of the interplay of water and landscape, and what approaches and tools were being employed through which to manage that interaction. They highlighted how physical, chemical, and ecological management of resources follows principles and guidelines informed by both science and policy communities and how these were being addressed through geographical and context‐specific challenges in flagship basins across the globe. A decade on from that review and mankind’s influence on the water cycle has manifestly changed in terms of both chronic and acute drivers of change. Climate change, driven through the increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and an increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the composition of the global atmosphere, has been expressed through many changes, most of which are expressed in a negative way. Since 2010, there has been an approximate 5% increase in CO2 concentration (from 390 parts per million [ppm] to 410 ppm); the past four years (2015–2019) have been the hottest on record with global temperatures rising; ice mass loss in Antarctica has tripled since 2012; glacial retreat and the loss of the Greenland ice shelf have continued (and in some locations accelerated); Arctic sea ice has declined in both extent and thickness; and the amount of seasonal snow accumulation in the northern hemisphere has decreased and snow melt is occurring earlier in the year (WMO 2019). The outcome of this is increasing loss of our global ice and snow reserves, which affect seasonal flow dynamics and biogeochemistry of our rivers, and flux to the coast combined with sea‐level rise. In relation to atmospheric response, global warming has increased the energy of the global circulation manifesting in increased storminess, changes to seasonal and annual cycles of flood, prolonged periods of drought, and changed geographical distributions of rainfall and temperature rise. This has been reflected in record‐breaking droughts in Australia (‘Millennium’ drought); record summer temperatures experienced in Europe (record in France of 46 °C in 2019) and Japan (39.6 °C in 2019); altered Monsoon patterns in India (Turner 2018); and increased frequency of cyclonic depressions in the Atlantic (Bhatia et al. 2019). The outcome of this has had a direct impact on countries, regions, and communities, particularly those most vulnerable to climate risk, namely, the poor. Droughted crops and damage to yield through weather induced damage has increased (FAO 2016), and global supply chains are now having to adapt to increase resilience to climate. Agriculture suffers from 25% of all the economic damage caused by climate‐related disasters, and on average over 80% of all damage is generated from drought (FAO 2015). Provision of potable supplies and the vulnerability of our ever‐growing cities and the proportion of the global population living under water stress have been exposed as a real twenty‐first‐century threat (IPCC 2014), as has the incidence of disaster‐induced and climate‐driven health issues affecting citizens. The ‘countdown to day zero’, when the city of Cape Town could have potentially run out of water, was a clear message on how water resources planning is out of synchrony with our changing environment (The Economist 2018). This means that nations, regions, and communities of people will increasingly compete for available water resources (Box 1.1).

1.2 ­Historical Synopsi

Box 1.1  Global Cities Under Threat of Water Security In 2010, 51% of the world’s population was living in cities, and by 2050, that percentage is expected to climb to 70%. In the next 40 years, world cities are expected to receive 800 000 new inhabitants every week. In Latin America, more than 80% of the population live in cities. Many cities have expanded due to regional economic pressures and migration to urban and peri-urban environments with a concomitant decline in rural populations. Cities can become vulnerable or at risk due to being located in already water sparse environments, where the available resource is not of significantly high quality, where management and infrastructural needs are not met, or simply where consumption outstrips supply (Justo 2019). In addition, cities in river deltas are especially vulnerable to flooding (Di Baldassarre et al. 2013). In developing cities, the existence of slums and families living below the poverty line may add to the pressures as these areas have no proper water and sanitation infrastructure (Hoekstra et  al. 2019). Many cities experience some or all of these pressures. Global cities currently considered to be exposed to water stress are ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●●

São Paulo, Brazil Cape Town, South Africa Bangalore, India Beijing, China Cairo, Egypt Jakarta, Indonesia Moscow, Russia Istanbul, Turkey Mexico City, Mexico London, United Kingdom Tokyo, Japan Miami, United States of America Chennai, India Lima, Peru

In addition, we are a growing population, now estimated to be 7.6 billion people, with a shift in the balance between urban and rural increasing from approximately 50% in 2010 to an estimated 66% by 2050. In addition to this change, there has been a continued increase in the number of megacities across the globe (those with populations in excess of 10 million residents). This has also been particularly noticeable in water poor regions such as the Middle East. Increasing use of desalination plants along the Persian Gulf Coast has increased the gulf’s salinity to 1.5 times that of 20 years ago, increasing the cost (both financial and in terms of carbon cost) of water provision to this rapidly developing economy (Missimer and Maliva 2018). In terms of overall global dynamics, Africa and Asia will see the greatest continental increase in population, increasing pressure on globally significant ecosystems and habitats. Our global population has also become more interconnected with the emergence and rise in real‐time information sharing, hand‐held computing power, cloud storage, artificial

5

6

1  Introduction to Catchment Management in 2020

intelligence (AI), publicly available software ‘apps’, and shared social media. Information flow has never been faster but has also been associated with the rise of a post‐truth world of ‘fake news’ and ‘alternative facts’ generating significant noise in factual communication. This global population will continue to rely heavily on natural and managed ecosystems for the environmental services they provide (in terms of regulatory, provisioning, and cultural delivery), though these systems are increasingly being compromised. Freshwater biodiversity continues to decline more rapidly than the terrestrial equivalent (Albert et  al. 2020), while agriculture globally continues to use approximately 70% of all extracted freshwater (using approximately a third of the world’s total workforce), and to feed an estimated 9 billion by 2050, farmers will have to produce 60% more food (with a concomitant increase in land under cultivation, as well as increases in overall productivity) which will require an additional 20% more water. Changing diets are also driving up water consumption as there is an on‐going transition in developing economies towards increased consumption of meat and dairy products (WEF 2020). Agricultural production has steadily increased over the last century, and population growth and changing diet preferences will continue that rise, potentially doubling in the next 30 years (OECD‐FAO 2019). Since 1960, the area under irrigation has doubled and volumetric withdrawals have trebled, with irrigated agriculture representing around 20% of total agricultural land and contributing 40% of total food production. Although there have been recent technological improvements in precision irrigation, the performance of many irrigation systems is sub‐optimal (Chandran and Ambili 2016). Over‐abstraction in some global contexts, in particular Asia and the Indian sub‐continent, has been driven by rather perverse energy subsidy systems, which results in inefficient use, though generating higher value cropping at the expense of environmental degradation. The new vision for sustainable irrigation needs to embrace a wider agenda balancing increased environmental awareness and resource efficiency and increased returns on investment, whilst simultaneously improving water security, rural livelihoods, and nutrition (McCartney et al. 2019). Climate change will have a significant influence on agriculture affecting harvests and total production, availability of water during the growing season, impacts on soil trafficability during planting and harvesting, and water shortages in vulnerable groundwater zones (Leng and Huang 2017). Agriculture will need to adapt to a new norm where climate resilience becomes a significant factor, and this will be difficult to achieve in low‐income countries where subsistence agriculture dominates the rural economy. This represents the current and future state in which our collective principles of catchment management now must respond and adapt.

1.3 ­Recent Developments and Emerging Issues 1.3.1  Value of Water Increasingly, and in part driven by issues of availability, market pressures, and cost and growing concerns around climate change, there is a growing awareness of the value of water. ‘Value’ in this context encompasses both monetary and non‐monetary aspects.

1.3  ­Recent Developments and Emerging Issue

Water provides society with goods and services that support human well‐being. The value of water resources is to be interpreted as the benefits of all ecosystem services (ES) that freshwaters provide, including provisioning services (such as clean water and energy), regulating services (such as water purification, flood mitigation, and climate regulation), and cultural services (such as recreation, symbolic, and religious values). Understanding and estimating the value of the range of services that freshwaters provide to humans is important to inform decisions about the use, management, and conservation of water resources in a way that maximises the benefits to society. Methods to estimate the value of water resources in monetary terms exist. These include methods to estimate the market value of water ecosystem services, as well as non‐market values. Monetary estimations allow comparison of the benefits with the costs of the measures needed to preserve and enhance natural resources. However, monetary estimations are also criticised because of their reduced view of the notion of value, which can potentially result in an under valuing of the asset. Non‐monetary methods and alternative decision frameworks are also available. Trade‐offs and the complexity of the water ecosystem services need to be considered so that promoting the value of one water service does not lead to the decline of another service. For example, the generation of hydropower can have negative effects for wild salmon. Understanding and comparing the full benefits of both options is necessary to maximise the benefits for society. Monetary values can be used to inform decision making based on cost–benefit analysis (CBA) and can be added to gross domestic product (GDP) accounts, but other non‐monetary decision support frameworks and measures of social prosperity based on broader understanding of human well‐being also exist such as cost‐effectiveness, multi‐criterion, and life cycle analyses. In addition, there are a range of ‘prosperity’ indicators that have been used such as the Human Development Index (HDI), Index of Sustainable Welfare (ISEW), and, in a global context, the UN Sustainable Goal Indicators (see Box 1.2). It is also possible to establish mechanisms to promote the sustained provision and enhancement of water ecosystem services in an economically efficient manner. Among such mechanisms are Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES). PES initiatives aim to reach mutually beneficial agreements between downstream users of water and upstream land managers in the catchment, in which these get rewarded for changing practice that can ensure or enhance the delivery of benefits (Martin‐Ortega et al. 2013). In 2017, the UN/World Bank High Level Panel on Water recognised the importance of understanding value in relation to water, recognising water’s multiple values principle by promoting consideration of different stakeholders in all decisions affecting water. They encourage trust to be built by conducting all processes to reconcile values into management systems in ways that are equitable, transparent, and inclusive; that there must be consideration of all sources of water, including watersheds, rivers, aquifers, and associated ecosystems for current and future generations; that people must be empowered by promoting education and public awareness about the essential role of water and its intrinsic value; and to invest and innovate in institutions, infrastructure, information, and innovation to realise the full potential of water (Table 1.1).

7

8

1  Introduction to Catchment Management in 2020

Box 1.2  Water and the Sustainable Development Goals Sustainable development goal 6: ‘Ensure access to water and sanitation for all’ ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all. By 2030, achieve access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all and end open defecation, paying special attention to the needs of women and girls and those in vulnerable situations. By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimising release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater, and substantially increasing recycling and safe reuse globally. By 2030, substantially increase water-use efficiency across all sectors and ensure sustainable withdrawals and supply of freshwater to address water scarcity and substantially reduce the number of people suffering from water scarcity. By 2030, implement integrated water resources management at all levels, including through transboundary cooperation as appropriate. By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers, and lakes. By 2030, expand international cooperation and capacity-building support to developing countries in water- and sanitation-related activities and programmes, including water harvesting, desalination, water efficiency, wastewater treatment, recycling, and reuse technologies. Support and strengthen the participation of local communities in improving water and sanitation management. Water interfaces with several other sustainable development goals (SDGs), namely,

Sustainable development goal 3: Good health and well-being: ●●

●●

By 2030 end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and neglected tropical diseases and combat hepatitis, water-borne diseases, and other communicable diseases; By 2030 substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water, and soil pollution and contamination.

Sustainable development goal 11: Sustainable cities and communities: ●●

By 2030 significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of affected people and decrease the economic losses relative to GDP caused by disasters, including water-related disasters, with the focus on protecting the poor and people in vulnerable situations.

Sustainable development goal 12: Responsible consumption and production: ●●

By 2020 achieve environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle in accordance with agreed international frameworks and significantly reduce their release to air, water, and soil to minimise their adverse impacts on human health and the environment.

1.3  ­Recent Developments and Emerging Issue

Sustainable development goal 15: Life on land: ●●

●●

By 2020 ensure conservation, restoration, and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests, wetlands, mountains, and drylands, in line with obligations under international agreements; By 2020 introduce measures to prevent the introduction and significantly reduce the impact of invasive alien species on land and water ecosystems and control or eradicate the priority species.

Table 1.1  Bellagio principles on valuing water. UN/World Bank High Level Panel on Water, Bellagio, May 2017 Recognise water’s multiple values Principle 1. Consider the multiple values to different stakeholders in all decisions affecting water. There are deep interconnections between human needs, economic well‐being, spirituality, and the viability of freshwater ecosystems that must be considered by all Build trust Principle 2. Conduct all processes to reconcile values in ways that are equitable, transparent, and inclusive of multiple values. Trade‐offs will be inevitable, especially when water is scarce. Inaction may also have costs that involve steeper trade‐offs. These processes need to be adaptive in the face of local and global changes Protect the sources Principle 3. Value and protect all sources of water, including watersheds, rivers, aquifers, and associated ecosystems for current and future generations. There is growing scarcity of water. Protecting sources and controlling pollutants and other pressures are necessary for sustainable development Educate to empower Principle 4. Promote education and public awareness about the essential role of water and its intrinsic value. This will facilitate better‐informed decision making and more sustainable water consumption patterns Invest and innovate Principle 5. Increase investment in institutions, infrastructure, information, and innovation to realise the full potential and values of water. The complexity of the water challenges should spur concerted action, innovation, institutional strengthening, and re‐alignment. These should harness new ideas, tools, and solutions while drawing on existing and indigenous knowledge and practices in ways that nurture the leaders of tomorrow

1.3.2  Evaluation of the Global Resource Measurement of the current status of available water resources has long been problematic. Managing water resources and ensuring appropriate and equitable allocation between users, including the environment, remains an ill‐parameterised problem without data to quantify the spatial and temporal storage of water. At catchment scale in most developed countries, there has long existed adequate monitoring of rainfall, river flow,

9

10

1  Introduction to Catchment Management in 2020

lake levels, and groundwater levels to enable a ‘nowcast’ assessment. Such data is now enhanced by the availability of data measured from satellites, the most significant of which is estimates of soil water (Kim et al. 2019). New technologies are also emerging such as the cosmic ray soil moisture sensors that provide data in real time at a spatial scale of c. 200 m2 (Zreda et al. 2012). Understanding and quantifying the spatial and temporal changes in water storage and pathways, however, remains a problem exemplified by the on‐going issues around the development of appropriate scale models with which to address the issue. In less developed countries, however, hydro‐meteorological data remain scarce (Rogers et al. 2019). To some extent, this is being addressed through model applications and is also supported by new satellite information on the discharge of large rivers (Gleason and Smith 2014). The problems of managing water resources in these locations, however, rely on model applications, and unfortunately, the capability to utilise models is not uniform in countries around the world, whilst global model representations remain at an insufficient spatial and temporal scale for management purposes. The problems of limited data become greater when we look to make predictions of future water availability at almost any timescale from 7 days ahead (flood forecasting) to 30–90 days ahead (sub‐seasonal and seasonal forecasting) to 30 years ahead (climate change impacts). Such predictions are essential to water resources management. Despite the data limitations, progress is being made and the World Meteorological Organisation initiative to develop a ‘Global Hydrological Status and Outlook System’ (HydroSOS) offers the potential to support decision making at local catchment, national, regional, and global scales. Additionally, huge steps forward have been achieved in providing catchment scale flood prediction across the globe (e.g. Global Flood Alert System [GLOFAS]). The development of new technologies and monitoring and assessment systems for better management of water resources all require that we overcome persistent problems around data sharing between institutions within the same country and between countries in shared, transboundary river basins and aquifers (Box 1.3). At the decadal timescale, climate change impacts on water and catchment management must be assessed but this needs to be interfaced with the impacts that climate change might have on water demand, agriculture, human behaviour, etc. This is a ‘wicked problem’ as the driving variables interact with each other and feedbacks and responses are not always predictable or easily quantifiable. Scientifically, this remains a huge challenge but one which must be mainstreamed into current catchment management thinking and planning. In terms of climate change impacts, yet further problems exist for assessing the potential implications for water management. The spatial resolution of global climate models (GCMs) imposes significant uncertainty on hydrometeorological outputs, especially rainfall estimates and derived evapotranspiration. This requires that down‐scaling in space and time is employed, either pre‐ or post‐processing of the hydrological component. Bias correction techniques are also essential. This all introduces significant uncertainty which in itself presents a huge challenge to catchment management planning. Current responses tend to follow a ‘no‐regrets’ approach whereby plans will not lead to make matters worse according to current knowledge.

1.3  ­Recent Developments and Emerging Issue

Box 1.3  HydroSOS – The Hydrological Status and Outlook System – Aiming to Provide Information for Better Water Management Water-related hazards and threats are a source of deepening concern globally with tens of millions of people worldwide affected by these events and damages estimated to cost in the order of billions of US dollars per year. Water hazards are consistently identified as among the highest global risks in terms of impact (World Economic Forum (WEF) 2020). Some of the principal water challenges include securing water supplies; designing appropriate water governance schematics; sustaining the management of transboundary basins; managing flood and/or drought; and ensuring ecosystem – protection and conservation. One of the main difficulties in trying to effectively manage water resources and address such challenges is the lack of hydrological information products targeted to serve the needs of different sectors. This information deficiency is often driven by three factors: ●● ●●

●●

insufficient local-scale data; lack of regional to global coherence in hydrological information and modelling systems; limited dialogue between the multitude of actors, which makes catchment management needs unclear.

The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) Global Hydrological Status and Outlook System (HydroSOS) aims to address these problems in an effort to facilitate the tasks of water managers and stakeholders in the face of intensifying water threats and risks. The aim is to provide a global framework for the production and sharing of water-related information products as a unified assessment and prediction system. This will provide essential information on the current status of surface and groundwater hydrological systems as well as predict their evolution over the coming weeks to months. This will be achieved by bringing National Meteorological and Hydrological Services (NMHSs) together to improve the provision of reliable, timely, accurate, and relevant hydrological status assessments and outlook products to inform water resources management. HydroSOS will permit NMHSs to respond to pressing questions from decision-makers and catchment managers, such as ‘how much water is available in my catchment/region at the moment?’, ‘is the current situation normal?’, and ‘how might the local and regional flood/drought situation change in the coming weeks to months?’ Moreover, HydroSOS will provide consistent hydrological status and outlook information, which is not often available across transboundary basins or regions of shared hydrological interest. Finally, it will bridge the information gap between locally informed hydrological and information products and those developed globally.

1.3.3  Water Scarcity and Drought The terms ‘water scarcity’ and ‘drought’ are often used interchangeably to describe situations where water resources are in short supply, although they refer to quite different phenomena. There are several definitions of water scarcity, but it can best be defined as a

11

12

1  Introduction to Catchment Management in 2020

situation where insufficient water resources are available to satisfy long‐term average requirements of water users (people, industry, nature, etc.) (EU 2007). All definitions generally refer in some way to long‐term water imbalances, where the availability is low compared to the demand for water and means that water demand exceeds the water resources exploitable under sustainable conditions. The term ‘drought’ is also defined in many different ways. According to the EU (2007), droughts represent a spatially and sustained period of below‐average natural water availability (Tallaksen and Van Lanen 2004). Droughts are, therefore, temporary and are considered to be natural phenomena and/or natural hazards. It is often the case, however, that drought and water scarcity aggravate the impacts of each other. In some regions, the severity and frequency of droughts can lead to water scarcity situations, while overexploitation of available water resources can exacerbate the consequences of droughts. Catchment management has a huge role to play in preventing and mitigating the occurrence and impacts of both water scarcity and drought. Assessing the overall water demand of a catchment or region enables an appropriate water resource storage and distribution system to be maintained or implemented. Such a water supply system must take account of long‐term variability in rainfall and temperature as well as considering how these characteristics might change into the future under climate change. Increasing water demand within a catchment or region must be carefully planned and considered so as not to push the region into water scarcity. In some regions, agriculture has a key role to play, especially where there are changes to cropping patterns that require large‐scale irrigation. Water quality is also a key issue in this respect since heavily polluted water may not be useable and so does not represent an available ‘resource’. This is not often considered appropriately or effectively in current thinking around catchment management. In this respect, appropriate pollution prevention legislation, water‐use policy, and planning procedures must all be established and, most importantly, effectively implemented and policed to ensure that catchments do not move towards water scarcity or become more susceptible to drought. Societal understanding of the issues and good data are both essential (Box 1.4). Groundwater is a widely used resource in many parts of the world. Groundwater is replenished or recharged predominantly through rainfall, whilst over time, water exits or discharges from groundwater into lakes and rivers. In the long term and without human intervention, this system remains in a balance or equilibrium. When human activity intervenes, however, and water is pumped in large volumes, often for irrigated agriculture, recharge is exceeded, and groundwater volumes begin to decline. In areas such as the plains of northern India, groundwater level has been falling for decades and the point at which the aquifer runs dry becomes closer although the exact stored volume remains an unknown. If there is a change in recharge, for example, due to a reduction in rainfall as a result of climate change, the levels of water in the ground will also begin to change and questions still remain about how groundwater will be specifically impacted by future climate change, and where and when any changes will take place. Many parts of the world may experience changes in groundwater flows due to climate change that could have a very long legacy. It is essential that the potential for these initially hidden impacts is recognised when developing water management policies or climate change adaptation strategies for future generations.

1.3  ­Recent Developments and Emerging Issue

Box 1.4  The Groundwater Timebomb in India

GWL (mbgl)

More than half of India suffers from water stress as a result of very low water storage per capita (including reservoirs and groundwater). India is the largest user of groundwater in the world (Chindarkar and Grafton 2019) and about 90% of the groundwater extracted is used for irrigation purposes. The increase in use of groundwater for agriculture over the past few decades has been supported by supplydriven policies that provide farmers with free or heavily subsidised electricity and pumps which are contributing to an impending water crisis as the groundwater resource is depleted. The ratio of the annual groundwater extraction to the net annual groundwater availability from recharge (a higher ratio means greater extraction) increased in India from 58% in 2004 to 62% in 2011 (Suhag 2016). Over the same period, groundwater levels declined in 42% of observation wells (Central Ground Water Board 2011). Appropriate measures to manage the groundwater resource are urgently required.

0

GWL (mbgl)

20

1990

2000 (a)

2010

1990

2000 (b)

2010

0

30

Groundwater level at two boreholes (a and b) in NE India. Source: Based on MacDonald et al. (2015).

A complex web of factors determines groundwater extraction: the size of landholdings, density of population, water intensity of crops planted, water users’ behaviour, legislation and administration of groundwater, power subsidies for pumping irrigation water, and economic policies. Groundwater regulation in India operates through state-level policies with states adopting different strategies and combinations of instruments (Shah 2014). The federal government implements groundwater regulations on the demand and on the (Continued)

13

14

1  Introduction to Catchment Management in 2020

Box 1.4  (Continued) supply side (Birkenholtz 2017). On the demand side, direct state regulation includes mandatory registration of bore-well owners, permission for sinking new bore wells, restriction on the depth of bore wells, and establishment of protection zones. These direct regulations are administratively difficult to monitor and remain poorly implemented or not enforced in some states (Shah 2014). Direct groundwater regulation also includes promotion of water-saving agricultural technologies and community management of groundwater. On the supply side, groundwater policy measures have included constructing groundwater recharge structures and making surface water more accessible. Although many demand- and supply-side approaches have been applied to help manage the growing groundwater crisis, and some such as managed aquifer recharge have potential, there continues to be significant groundwater depletion across India.

1.3.4  Emerging Technologies Precision agriculture where emerging technology supports ‘smart’ sensors, optimising irrigation and fertilisation, improving conservation practices, greater use of automation and robotics, and more efficient pest and weed management, is increasing though not mainstream by any means. The bulk of our food production is still predominantly driven on sub‐optimal production mechanisms that are highly climate dependent (in rain‐fed agricultural situations) or constrained by groundwater availability and quality. Similarly, our ability to measure evapotranspiration at the plant level to understand plant need through proximity sensing is linking with rapidly improving remote sensing (both drones and satellites) to assess evapotranspiration and water needs at the farm and regional levels. Other disruptive technologies, such as vertical and urban farming, hydroponic systems, and protected cropping, all provide opportunity to enhance the value chain, whilst reduction in the production pathlength all provide mechanisms for growth which place water as a central factor, linking energy use and food production. In addition, on‐going developments in plant breeding allowing for genetic manipulation and ‘speed’ breeding of new crops support the need for new climate resilient varieties, particularly where adapted to low water availability, drought, or increased salinity. With the explosion of data and the power of cloud computing comes new analytical tools and models through which to interrogate and analyse environmental variables. Much of this analysis underpins the on‐going forecasting and evaluation of water balances in regional and global contexts. Increasingly this is accessible to citizens through enhanced global data connectivity and smart phone processing capability. In many situations the benefits of this can be significant, allowing, for example, farmers in remote rural locations to access real‐ time information ‘alerts’ on the status of water resources, soil moisture, and plant condition, which can improve decision making around agronomic practices such as fertilisation or crop protection activities whose efficiencies can be negatively impacted by local weather. This will only accelerate as machine learning and artificial intelligence become even more mainstream and utility and understanding by users develop.

1.3  ­Recent Developments and Emerging Issue

1.3.5  Energy Transition Hydropower currently provides about 20% of the world’s electricity supply, more than 40% of the electricity used in developing countries and in 2015 represented nearly 80% of all total renewable energy generation (Berga 2016). Small‐scale hydropower generation through ‘run‐of‐river’ approaches is one of the most cost‐effective and environmentally benign clean energy technologies (Bakis 2007). Energy contained in wastewater is 5–10 times greater than the energy needed to treat it. In general, though, wastewater is an underexploited resource, and WWAP (2017) estimates that 80% of all industrial and municipal wastewater is still being released into the environment without any treatment. As countries embrace the need for the low‐ to zero‐carbon transition, the ‘circularity’ of water in all sectors will be increasingly scrutinised. Maximising the value chain in water and wastewater can be used to offset energy consumption and recover valuable resources such as phosphorus. Understanding the role of water in other sectors, such as the food and drink industry, and the potential for efficiencies is linked to understanding and appreciating the true ‘value’ of water and the need for ‘fit‐for‐purpose’ use (Box 1.5).

1.3.6  Water Quality A recent report from the World Bank (Damania et  al. 2019) clearly identified that the global water quality crisis continues and that this affects both economically strong as well as developing countries. Global water quality for three major indicators – Biochemical Oxygen Demand (indicator of gross pollution), nitrate‐N (derived from diffuse pollution from agriculture), and salinity (indicator of groundwater misuse) – all show increasing trends in many parts of the world. Increases are not ubiquitous (as evidenced by the significant improvement in locations such as the European Union [EU]) and tend to go hand in hand with poor governance and lack of policy structure. Some issues, however, such as diffuse pollution from agriculture, continue to be an on‐going issue, where the need for co‐ordinated land–water policy is essential. Recently, there is considerable concern around emerging contaminants such pharmaceutical compounds and their derivatives as well as plastics and micro‐pollutants. Global concern about plastic in the environment has gained considerable worldwide attention, and it is estimated that just 10 major rivers are responsible for 88–95% of the plastic pollution transported by rivers into the world’s oceans (Schmidt et al. 2017). They are the Yangtze, Yellow, Hai, Pearl, Amur, Mekong, Indus and Ganges Delta in Asia, and the Niger and Nile in Africa. The Yangtze alone dumps up to an estimated 1.5 million metric tonnes of plastic waste into the Yellow Sea. There is considerable concern around the interplay between climate change and water quality, in meeting the global challenge of water supply and sanitation (sustainable development goal 6). Many developing country infrastructures are vulnerable to climate‐related threats including flooding‐induced (acute) contamination of supplies and longer‐term (chronic) impacts such as deterioration of water quality by temperature‐mediated biochemical changes, lack of dilution, and saline increases in supplies (Howard et al. 2010; Luo et al. 2013).

15

16

1  Introduction to Catchment Management in 2020

Box 1.5  Blue, Green, Blue, and Black; the Colours of Water Increasingly, water balance, flux, and usage are described in terms of the ‘colour’ of water, being blue, green, grey, and black. This reflects humans’ influence on water and builds on the original concepts of Falkenmark and Rockstrom (2006). In its simplest terms: Blue water is that found in surface and freshwater, being stored in snow, stream, lake, wetland, and subsurface (soil and/or groundwater). Green water is that found embedded in the evapotranspiration cycle through vegetation such as natural systems, forestry, and agriculture. Grey water is that found in polluted wastewater from urban environments that does not contain a significant faecal burden or industrial contamination, such as showers, laundry, and kitchen washings. Black water is that arising from wastewater in a sanitation context which is likely to contain significant pathogen burden and organic matter, such as that from toilets and latrines. Evaporation Evapotranspiration

Rainfall Natural ecosystems

Green water

Blue water River Lakes

Groundwater Irrigation

Domestic and industrial use

Agriculture Solids

Grey water Treatment Black water

Increased understanding of the interplay between these different components has increased the understanding of ‘circularity’ within the human-impacted hydrological cycle. This forms the basis for a more robust approach to integrated management, but it does not guarantee that outcome as many aspects are controlled and managed by different sectors. The concept of virtual water, which embedded or embodied in products or the production of commodities, goods, and services, has increased awareness of the global trade, and in particular that from water-stressed to water-rich countries, and raised issues around equity, access, and social justice at a global scale. This generated the concept of water footprint and virtual water trade (Hoekstra and Chapagain 2008; Hoekstra and Mekonnen 2012). This concept does continue to generate considerable debate, especially in relation to its interpretation, use in developing policy, informing decisions on international trading (Dabrowski et al. 2009), as an accurate measure of sustainability, and its interaction with climate change (Konar et al. 2013).

1.4 ­Policy Developmen

1.4 ­Policy Development Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) was promoted by the Global Water Partnership (GWP 2000), consolidated at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg, South Africa, in 2002 and embedded in the International Decade for Action ‘Water for Life’ (2001–2015), as a mechanism for efficient, equitable, and sustainable development and management of water resources. The overall approach follows an adaptive cycle of Goal setting  –  Resource assessment  –  Strategy development  –  Implementation  –  Monitoring and evaluation. However, Biswas (2008, 2019) highlights that the implementation of IWRM has been unable to deliver significant benefits to water policy and implementation at macro and meso‐scales, particularly due to the lack of clarity on translating concepts to execution, institutional conflicts and inertia, and lack of significant realignment of effort above that already in place. There is also concern that IWRM might not meet the most difficult of ‘wicked’ challenges of environmental sustainability and/or biodiversity decline and that resources for IWRM implementation have been diverted from local scale, bottom‐up approaches (Giordano and Shah 2014). The Water Framework Directive (WFD), which was adopted in October 2000 and was promoted at the time as ‘the most significant piece of European environmental legislation ever introduced’, in part mirrors a similar adaptive management planning cycle. However, the WFD defines specific targets for remediation and improvement based on the inherent potential of different water bodies and a formalised timescale for implementation across all Member States. In 2018, the European Environment Agency (EEA 2018) reported that in general water quality in Europe was improving, due in part to improvements in urban wastewater management and a reduction in agricultural pollution, resulting in improvements to rivers and lakes. The report also highlighted on‐going issues particularly with chemical contamination (emerging and priority pollutants), over‐abstraction, and historical and on‐going hydro‐morphological concerns. The European Commission (EU 2019a), reported on the implementation of EU water legislation and the implementation of River Basin Management plans that ran from 2015 to 2021. It reported that compliance across Europe was improving and that the large majority of groundwaters have achieved good status, although there was on‐going concern about surface water bodies where less than half had achieved good status. Detailed recommendations were provided to each member state on how to progress their individual River Basin Management Plans (EU 2019b). Concurrently, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Paris Convention (2015) mentions water on numerous occasions, but there is not a structured approach to the role that water management can play in addressing mitigation and adaptation to the climate challenge, in particular the interplay between water, food, and energy and the transition to a low‐carbon economy. Many water‐based initiatives are included in individual countries: Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) including energy reform, increasing adaptive capacity and resilience, technology development and transference between sectors, enhancing land‐based approaches to carbon sinks (forestry, grassland management, peatland restoration, etc.), and supporting capacity building in developing countries. This places water at the heart of meeting the climate challenge (White et al. 2018; Box 1.6).

17

18

1  Introduction to Catchment Management in 2020

Box 1.6  Hydromorphological Pressures on Rivers These activities have resulted in significant damage to the morphology and hydrology of rivers. Under the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD), the second round of River Basin Management Plans (EEA 2018) show that the most commonly occurring pressures on surface water bodies are hydromorphological, affecting 40% of all such bodies. They are further subdivided into physical alterations in the channel, bed, riparian zone, or shore (26% of water bodies); structures that have an impact on longitudinal continuity such as dams/barriers and locks (24%), and hydrological alterations to flow regime (7% of water bodies). The WFD requires action to be taken in those cases where the hydromorphological pressures affect ecological status and prevent the WFDs objective of reaching ‘good’ status from being achieved. In this respect, if the morphology is degraded or the water flow is markedly changed, a water body with good water quality will not reach its full potential as an aquatic ecosystem. Fish, for example, are particularly sensitive to hydromorphological pressures, their population status revealing the impacts of interruptions in longitudinal continuity, riverbank constructions, large flow fluctuations, and water abstraction. Such habitat alterations can impact fish abundance, species composition, and age structure. In addition, salmon and many other fish species that migrate from the sea to river headwaters to spawn are dependent on river continuity. The restoration of hydromorphological conditions has been managed through a number of different interventions including employing measures related to river continuity, such as removing obstacles and installing fish passes; restoring aquatic habitats, such as improving physical habitats; managing sediment in a way that ensures it is transported along the length of rivers; reconnecting backwaters and wetlands to restore lateral connectivity between the main river channel, the riparian area, and the wider floodplain; implementing natural water retention measures that restore natural water storage, for example, inundating flood plains and constructing retention basins; restoring the natural water flow regime through, for example, setting minimum flow and ecological flow requirements; and developing master or conservation plans for restoring the population of threatened fish species.

1.5 ­Working with Nature, Natural Capital, and Ecosystem Services A range of important ecosystem services (ES) are explicitly linked to the water cycle, from providing clean drinking water to regulating the flow of flood events and creating opportunities for water‐based recreation and cultural practices. Much has been written about these services, and management approaches based on the ecosystem services concept are proposed in a range of water contexts, including climate change water‐based adaptation, river basin and catchment management, and IWRM (Martin‐Ortega et  al. 2015). Reframing environmental resource use through operationalisation of ecosystem services acknowledges the dependence of natural processes in support of human well‐being (IPBES 2018; Rounsevell et al. 2019). Early interest and popularisation of the concept resulted in a loss

1.6 ­Summar

of clarity about how to operationalise and implement the concept, but some key principles around the need for data, the ability to share and utilise that data in multiple political jurisdictions, and the potential benefits of remediation and restoration underpin contemporary developments (Martin‐Ortega et al. 2015). Bouwa et al. (2018) assessed the degree to which ES concepts had been incorporated into contemporary and evolving EU environmental policies. Although ES has not been coherently embedded in policy, there was an increasing incorporation of ES concepts into policy thinking and development, dependent upon the type of policy and where specific measures formed part of the monitoring and evaluation of the policy. An excellent example is the EU Biodiversity Strategy where Member States are encouraged to record and monitor indices in a consistent way, and this was also reflected in water policy such as the WFD. A further integration of ES concepts does require the adoption of common methods for evaluation and for greater cross‐sectoral trade‐offs.

1.6 ­Summary Over the last decade, there have been many technological, social, and other innovations that have significantly contributed to our ability to manage waters and in our societal relationships with water. The complexity of the water cycle and humans influence upon it has become clearer in the last decade and has influenced all aspects of the hydrological cycle. The World Economic Forum Global Risks Report (2020) places the top five risks in terms of likelihood as being environmental for the very first time, and the top five in terms of impact include climate action failure, biodiversity loss, extreme weather, and the water crisis. In many global contexts, water quality has continued to decline, and although the mechanisms of both point and diffuse pollution are well understood, it is the lack of suitable policy, finance, and governance structures which impinge on improvement. Global biodiversity decline has impacted aquatic ecosystems at an increasing rate, and there seems an inability for society to learn from the mistakes of the past in terms of hydromorphological alteration. Human‐induced climate change has had direct consequences on the availability of water, the intensity of its delivery, and its spatial distribution across the globe. The range of extremes of both drought and flood are unprecedented in contemporary history, with significant consequences on ecosystems, infrastructure, and human welfare. Throughout the water cycle, there have been pressures on both blue and green components, along with an increasing realisation of the value of grey (and black) water. There is, however, a global tendency to focus on acquiring additional water resources to meet demand rather than a progressive approach to maximising the inherent value in existing supplies and promoting the ‘circularity’ of water. In addition, the impacts of human activity in the upper reaches of a river basin can place an additional burden on downstream users and on to coastal environments where supply and quality can adversely impact both key earth system processes and society. The increasing urbanisation of our population provides both stresses on available resources and potential benefits if urban expansion is adequately managed and builds in twenty‐first‐century thinking and appropriate infrastructure. New disruptive approaches to agriculture including optimised nutrition and irrigation along with new crops and

19

20

1  Introduction to Catchment Management in 2020

agronomic practice also provide a vision for a more sustainable future. Information on our environment and our human performance has never been as rich and the rise of AI and data analytics again provides a unique set of tools through which to assess, monitor, and plan our resource management. All this understanding provides a platform for a more progressive approach to water resources management, but the rate‐limiting step is the global distribution and sharing of that knowledge, the availability and affordability of resource efficiency and remediation mechanisms, and having the appropriate governance structures in place through which to deliver tangible improvement. These remain the challenges, but an increasing global awareness of water as the foundation to sustainable economies has never been so pertinent.

­References Albert, J.S., Destouni, G., Duke‐Sylvester, S.M. et al. (2020). Scientists warning to humanity on the freshwater biodiversity crisis. Ambio https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280‐020‐01318‐8. Bakis, R. (2007). The current status and future opportunities of hydroelectricity. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy 2: 259–266. Berga, L. (2016). The role of hydropower in climate change mitigation and adaptation: a review. Engineering 2: 313–331. Bhatia, K.T., Vecchi, G.A., Knutson, T.R. et al. (2019). Recent increases in tropical cyclone intensification rates. Nature Communications 10: 635. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41467‐019‐08471‐z. Birkenholtz, T. (2017). Assessing India’s drip‐irrigation boom: efficiency, climate change and groundwater policy. Water International 42: 663–677. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.201 7.1351910. Biswas, A.K. (2008). Integrated water resources management: is it working? International Journal of Water Resources Development 24 (1): 5–22. https://doi. org/10.1080/07900620701871718. Biswas, A.K. (2019). Water quality management, a globally neglected issue. International Journal of Water Resources Development 6: 913–916. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.201 9.1670506. Bouwa, I., Schleyer, C., Primmer, E. et al. (2018). Adoption of the ecosystem services concept in EU policies. Ecosystem Services 29: 213–222. Central Ground Water Board (2011). Dynamic Ground Water Resources of India. Central Ground Water Board, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India. Chandran, K.M. and Ambili, G.K. (2016). Evaluation of minor irrigation schemes using performance indicators: case studies from South India. Sustainable Water Resources Management 2: 431–437. Chindarkar, N. and Grafton, R.Q. (2019). India’s depleting groundwater: when science meets policy. Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies https://doi.org/10.1002/app5.269. Dabrowski, J.M., Murray, K., Ashton, P.J., and Leaner, J.J. (2009). Agricultural impacts on water quality and implications for virtual water trading. Ecological Economics 68: 1074–1082.

 ­Reference

Damania, R., Desbureaux, S., Rodella, A. et al. (2019). Quality Unknown: The Invisible Water Crisis. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/ handle/10986/32245. Dean, J.R., Leng, M.J., and Mackay, A.W. (2014). Is there an isotopic signature of the Anthropocene? The Anthropocene Review 1: 276–287. Di Baldassarre, G., Viglione, A., Carr, G. et al. (2013). Socio‐hydrology: conceptualising human‐flood interactions. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 17: 3295–3303. The Economist (2018). Why Cape Town Is Running out of Water. The Economist. https://www. economist.com/news/ middle‐east‐and‐africa/21737048‐politics‐drought‐why‐cape‐town‐running‐out‐water. EU (2007). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: Addressing the Challenge of Water Scarcity and Droughts in the European Union. COM (2006) 414 final. Commission of the European Communities. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/ water/quantity/pdf/comm_droughts/ia_summary_en.pdf. EU (2019a). Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council on the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive (200/60/EC) and Floods Directive (2007/60/EC). COM (2019), 95 final. Brussels: European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/ info/sites/info/files/com_report_wfd_fd_2019_en_1.pdf. EU (2019b). Annex to the Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council on the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive (200/60/EC) and Floods Directive (2007/60/EC). COM (2019). Brussels: European Commission. European Environment Agency (EEA) (2018). European Waters; Assessment of Status and Pressures 2018. EEA Report 7/2018, 85pp. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency. doi: 0.2800/303664. Falkenmark, M. and Rockstrom, J. (2006). The new blue and green water paridgm: breaking new ground for water resource planning and management. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5ec4/35c5d483b3bf2933c80f46 7ebe2a7c7686ed.pdf. FAO (2015). The Impact of Natural Hazards and Disasters on Agriculture, Food Security and Nutrition. Food and Agriculture Organisations of the United Nations. http://www.fao. org/3/a‐i5128e.pdf. FAO (2016). Damage and Loss from Climate Related Disasters in Agricultural Sectors. Food and Agriculture Organisations of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/3/a‐i6486e.pdf. Ferrier, R.C. and Jenkins, A. (2010). Handbook of Catchment Management, 540pp. Oxford: Blackwell. ISBN: 978‐1‐4051‐7122‐9. Giordano, M. and Shah, T. (2014). From IWRM back to integrated water resources management. International Journal of Water Resources Development https://doi.org/10. 1080/07900627.2013.851521. Gleason, C. and Smith, L. (2014). Towards global mapping of river discharge using satellite images and at‐many‐stations hydraulic geometry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111: 4788–4791. Global Water Partnership (2000). Integrated Water Resources Management. TAC Background Paper, no. 4. Stockholm, Sweden: Global Water Partnership/Swedish International Development Agency.

21

22

1  Introduction to Catchment Management in 2020

Hoekstra, A.Y. and Chapagain, A.K. (2008). Globalization of Water: Sharing the planet’s Freshwater Resources. Oxford: Blackwell. Hoekstra, A.Y. and Mekonnen, M.M. (2012). The water footprint of humanity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109: 3232–3237. Hoekstra, A.Y., Buurman, J., and van Ginkel, K.C.H. (2019). Urban water security: a review. Environmental Research Letters 13 (5): 053002. Howard, G., Charles, K., Pond, K. et al. (2010). Securing 2020 vision for 2030: climate change and ensuring resilience in water and sanitation services. Journal of Water and Climate Change 1: 2–16. Inter‐governmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Core Writing Team (eds. R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer), 151 pp. Geneva: IPCC. IPBES (2018). The IPBES Regional Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services for Europe and Central Asia (eds. M. Rounsevell, M. Fischer, R.A. Torre‐Marin and A. Mader), 892 pp. Bonn: IPBES Secretariat. Justo J.P. (2019). Water Security in large cities. Smart Water Magazine. https:// smartwatermagazine.com/news/inclam‐group/water‐security‐large‐cities (accessed 5 December 2020). Kim, S., Zhang, R., Pham, H., and Sharma, A. (2019). A review of satellite‐derived soil moisture and its usage for flood estimation. Remote Sensing in Earth Systems Sciences 2: 225–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41976‐019‐00025‐7. Konar, W.M., Hussein, N.H., and Rodriquez‐Iturbe, I. (2013). Virtual water trade under climate change. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 17: 3219–3234. Leng, G. and Huang, M. (2017). Crop yield response to climate change varies with crop distribution pattern. Scientific Reports 7: 1463. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598‐017‐01599‐2. Luo, Y., Ficklin, D.L., Liu, X., and Zhang, M. (2013). Assessment of climate change impacts on hydrology and water quality with a watershed modelling approach. Science of the Total Environment 450–451: 72–82. MacDonald, A.M., Bonsor, H.C., Taylor, R. et al. (2015). Groundwater Resources in the Indo‐ Gangetic Basin: Resilience to Climate Change and Abstraction, 51pp. Nottingham: British Geological Survey. Martin‐Ortega, J., Holstead, K., and Kenyon, W. (2013). The Value of Scotland’s Water Resources. Centre of Expertise for Waters (CREW). www.crew.ac.uk/sites/www.crew.ac.uk/ files/sites/default/files/publication/water_resources_bill_leaflet_20feb_opt.pdf. Martin‐Ortega, J., Ferrier, R.C., Gordon, I.J., and Khan, S. (2015). Water Ecosystem Services: A Global Perspective. Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 978‐1‐107‐10037‐4. McCartney, M.P., Whiting, L., Makin, I. et al. (2019). Rethinking irrigation modernisation: realising multiple objectives through the integration of fisheries. Marine and Freshwater Research 70: 1201–1210. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF19161. Missimer, T.M. and Maliva, R.G. (2018). Environmental issues in seawater reverse osmosis desalination: intakes and outfalls. Desalination 434: 198–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. desal.2017.07.012. OECD/FAO (2019). OECD‐FAO Agricultural Outlook 2019–2028. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/agr_outlook‐2019‐en.

 ­Reference

Paris Convention. (2015). https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/paris_nov_2015/application/pdf/ paris_agreement_english_.pdf Pereira, J.C. and Freitas, M.R. (2017). Cities and water security in the Anthropocene: research challenges and opportunities for international relations. Contexto Internacional 39: 521–543. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0102‐8529.2017390300004. Rogers, D., Tsirkunov, V., Kootval, H. et al. (2019). Weathering the Change: How to Improve Hydromet Services in Developing Countries? Washington, DC: World Bank. https://doi. org/10.1596/31507. Rounsevell, M.D.A., Metzger, M.J., and Walz, A. (2019). Operationalising ecosystem services in Europe. Regional Environmental Change 19: 2143–2149. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10113‐019‐01560‐1. Schmidt, C., Krauth, T., and Wagner, S. (2017). Export of plastic debris by rivers into the sea. Environmental Science and Technology 51: 1224–1225. Shah, T. (2014). Groundwater governance and irrigated agriculture. Global Water Partnership Technical Committee (TEC) Background Paper No. 19. Stockholm, Sweden. Suhag, R. (2016). Overview of Groundwater in India. New Delhi: PRS Legislative Research. Tallaksen, L. and Van Lanen, H. (2004). Hydrological Drought; Processes and Estimation Methods for Streamflow and Groundwater, Developments in Water Science, vol. 48, 442pp. The Netherlands: Elsevier. Turner, A. (2018). The Indian Monsoon in a Changing Climate. Royal Meteorological Society. https://www.rmets.org/resource/indian‐monsoon‐changing‐climate. White, M., Timboe, I., and Johansson, K. (2018). Implementing the Paris Agreement Through Water Solutions. Stockholm: Stockholm International Water Institute. https://www.siwi.org/ wp‐content/uploads/2019/12/Implementing‐the‐Paris‐Agreement_web.pdf. World Economic Forum (2020). The Global Risks Report 2020, 145e. Marsh and McLennan/ Zurich Insurance Group. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Risk_ Report_2020.pdf. World Meteorological Organisation (2019). The Global Climate in 2015–19. Geneva, Switzerland: WMO. https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=9936. WWAP (United Nations World Water Assessment Programme) (2017). The United Nations World Water Development Report 2017: Wastewater, The Untapped Resource. Paris: UNESCO. Zreda, M., Shuttleworth, W.J., Zeng, X. et al. (2012). COSMOS: the COsmic‐ray soil moisture observing system. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 16: 4079–4099. https://doi. org/10.5194/hess‐16‐4079‐2012.

23

Source: R.J.M. de Bruin.

25

2 Water Diplomacy Rozemarijn ter Horst IHE Delft Institute for Water Education, Delft, The Netherlands

2.1 ­Introduction Water is a special commodity: it is essential for life, there is no substitute for it, it is finite and fugitive, it is part of a complex system and is difficult or costly to transport in bulk (Savenije 2002; Van der Zaag and Savenije 2006) although it is transported around the world in the form of virtual water (Dalin et al. 2012). Management of this special commodity requires taking into account its multiple uses and users, which is why some authors mention that ‘water management is conflict management’ (Marshall et  al. 2017; Wolf 2012). This is especially applicable when water needs to be managed across administrative boundaries, bringing together users working under different rules and regulations with different cultures, histories, and resources. As the world hosts more than 286 transboundary river basins (UNEP 2016), managing transboundary water conflicts in a way that they do not escalate is part and parcel of water management. In this changing and ever more connected world, it is highly recommended to create platforms for meetings and set guidelines on how much water is shared between countries and federal states, when and how the resource is shared, and what quality is acceptable. It is expected that the number and intensity of conflicts over water will increase as water availability is impacted due to growing economies and populations, and as climate variability and change affect rain patterns (de Bruin et al. 2018), although causal relations between climate change, water security, and violent conflict are not proven (Handmer et al. 2012). The issue is now high on the agenda of governments and businesses. Water supply crises have been listed in the top five ‘Global Risks in terms of likelihood’ in the Global Risks Reports of the World Economic Forum in 2012 and 2013 (World Economic Forum 2017), and water crises are listed in the top 10 of the 2019 Report (World Economic Forum 2019). While in office as UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, Ban Ki‐moon, and António Guterres have all warned of the likelihood of water conflicts to increase, yet also stressed that water can be a catalyst for cooperation (Carius

Handbook of Catchment Management, Second Edition. Edited by Robert C. Ferrier and Alan Jenkins. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

26

2  Water Diplomacy

et al. 2004; UN News 2008; United Nations Security Council 2017). However, it was in 2017 that the matter was discussed for the first time in the UN Security Council, which has the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. It was in this meeting that the UN Secretary General stressed that ‘water, peace and security are inextricably linked’ (United Nations Security Council 2017). It is in this context that water diplomacy, sometimes also referred to as hydro‐diplomacy, has gained much in popularity as an approach to mitigate and prevent transboundary water conflicts. Different ideas exist about what water diplomacy is, what can be achieved through water diplomacy, who should be involved, and how to research it. This chapter aims to provide an insight into what water diplomacy is and invites the reader to develop their own ideas about water diplomacy, as well as on how the approach and tools can be useful for water management in general. Namely, the political, social, legal, and technical tools that are used at the transboundary can also be useful to address (potential) conflict at federal, regional, or local level. The chapter first discusses a brief history of water diplomacy, explains who practises water diplomacy and how it is practised and why, and reflects on who or what is not included in water diplomacy processes. Examples of water diplomacy are given, highlighting the roles of various actors in water diplomacy and the importance of trust between people that make up the institutions. The chapter ends with a reflection on challenges and future knowledge requirements for the field of water diplomacy.

2.2 ­Short Historical Synopsis Water diplomacy has not always been so prominent or even present on the political agenda. To trace its popularity, we have to go back at least two decades in time. The brief overview does not do justice to the many people working in the field, lobbying for more attention for the issue of water diplomacy, and therefore, it may be that important dynamics are not included in this summary. In 2000, The Hague Declaration was signed at the second World Water Forum drawing attention to the issue of water security (Ministerial Declaration of The Hague on Water Security in the 21st Century 2000). Subsequently, a programme at UNESCO was dedicated to answering one of the key challenges identified to achieve water security, being ‘Sharing of water resources’. The Potential Conflict to Co‐operation Potential (PC → CP) Programme was included in the World Water Assessment Programme to ‘prove that it is possible to turn a situation with undeniable potential conflicts into a situation where co‐operation is established’ (UNESCO IHP Secretariat 2001). Research, capacity development, and projects on transboundary water management were supported by this programme, and contributions were made by world leading experts from hydrology, legal, and geography backgrounds. Transboundary water cooperation, water conflict, conflict prevention, and resolution were high on the agenda, yet water diplomacy was not. Around 2010, water diplomacy started to receive more attention. Not only as ‘the thing statesmen do’ but as an approach to facilitate water cooperation between states. For instance, The Dutch ‘Scientific Council for Government Policy’, of which prominent scholars are members and that advises the government, recommended the Dutch

2.2 ­Short Historical Synopsi

Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2010 to specialise and focus on niche diplomacy, that is, being foreign policy focused on one or a few areas of expertise. Water was mentioned as one of the potential areas for specialisation. This recommendation led to more detailed research on water diplomacy and the exact role the Netherlands could play (van Genderen and Rood 2011). Around the same time Tufts University appointed a Professor of Water Diplomacy, set up a doctoral programme on water diplomacy, and set up a Water Diplomacy Workshop (Water Diplomacy n.d.-a, b). This workshop, as well as the related book ‘Water Diplomacy: A Negotiated Approach to Manage Complex Water Problems’ (Islam and Susskind 2012), promotes ‘an alternative to traditional techno‐ or values‐ focused approaches to water management problems’ (Islam and Repella 2015). One year later, in 2013, the Council of the European Union highlighted the potential of water diplomacy to help safeguard security, development, prosperity, and the human rights of water and sanitation (Council of The European Union 2013). In 2014, Adelphi published a report on ‘The Rise of Hydro‐Diplomacy’, funded by the German Federal Foreign Office (Pohl et al. 2014). The Netherlands promoted water diplomacy through support for the Netherlands Institute of International Relations, The Hague Institute for Global Justice, and IHE Delft (Clingendael 2013), and Sweden supported projects and knowledge development on water diplomacy through the founding of a UNESCO category II International Centre for Water Cooperation (SIWI 2014). After this, many other reports, research, and programmes followed, including the ‘Building River Dialogue and Governance’ (BRIDGE) project of International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), and the ‘Blue Peace Movement’, both funded by the Swiss Department of Foreign Affairs (Blue Peace n.d.). This overview shows clearly that Ministries of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland, as well as UNESCO and scholars in the USA played an important part in the promotion of water diplomacy in the last decade.

2.2.1  What Is Water Diplomacy? A broadly accepted definition of diplomacy is that it ‘is concerned with the management of relations between states’ (Barston 2006). Water diplomacy is a sub‐field, or niche, of diplomacy and thus aims at managing relations between states over water. It logically follows that many of the water diplomacy tools facilitate states to communicate over shared waters. This can be interpreted in a narrow sense, in which only state representatives are concerned with practicing water diplomacy. However, it is generally accepted that many actors beyond the state can contribute to state relations, in the short and long run. It is by these many actors that water diplomacy tools are applied to maintain relations, strengthen existing relations, break relations, or mend broken relations, or to prevent conflicts from escalating. The definition of water diplomacy provided earlier is not the only one. Molnar et  al. (2017) collected an overview of aims and definitions of 30 different experts, think tanks, and organisations on water diplomacy, comprising 27 different definitions and 25 different aims. By analysing the different definitions gathered, it becomes apparent that water diplomacy has gained popularity in the last decade. A consequence of this growing attention and the availability of funds for water diplomacy, water security and conflict prevention, is that the term is also applied to activities that may be related to water diplomacy, but are not.

27

28

2  Water Diplomacy

This is one of the reasons why work has been done to better understand and define water diplomacy in the past years. Identifying a simple check that can easily be applied by everyone who is interested in the topic, is to identify whether activities labeled as water diplomacy are concerned with the management of relations between states over water, or not.

2.2.2  Water conflict and cooperation Generally the consensus is that water diplomacy tools and processes aim to foster water cooperation, prevent conflicts, and support a sustainable management of existing conflicts (International Centre for Water Cooperation and International Centre for Water Resources and Global Change 2016; Keskinen et al. 2014; Klimes et al. 2019; Molnar et al. 2017; Pohl et al. 2014; Schmeier 2018). An important note to make is that cooperation can be counterproductive and that not all conflict is always negative. For instance, actors may appear to be cooperating, by demanding for more meetings or research, while at the same time stalling decisions. On the other hand, a conflict does not need to have only negative effects, for instance if it allows for previous hidden obstacles to be discussed. Conflict and cooperation exist in different intensities, conflict and cooperation can also exist at the same time (Zeitoun and Mirumachi 2008) and have effect at different  –  and multiple‐geographical scales, from local to international. In situations where states are in open or latent conflict, with limited or no trust existing between the parties, rekindling diplomatic relations over issues that seem non‐threatening to state security may provide a good testing ground for discussions on more sensitive issues. Discussing water issues may in some cases provide such opportunities (Ide and Detges 2018; Pohl et al. 2014). On the other hand, water can also be an extremely sensitive subject, especially when it is made an issue of national security (Fischhendler 2015). Power balances and imbalances are an important factor in state interactions (Zeitoun and Warner 2006). There will always be a certain difference in power between countries or parties in diplomatic processes. There may be larger or smaller difference in the possibilities to control the water flow, the capacity and number of experts available to advise, analyse, and negotiate, or differences in financial resources, or support from other states. Being aware of these balances and imbalances in power is an important prerequisite to prevent inequality from being institutionalised in treaties or processes.

2.3 ­Current Solutions 2.3.1  Who Practises Water Diplomacy? As water diplomacy is in essence about the relations between states, representatives of these states play a very important role. The interaction between those mandated to represent a state is referred to as Track 1 diplomacy and has been the official interpretation of diplomacy since the creation of the concept. The first actors who come to mind when answering the question ‘Who does water diplomacy?’ are therefore often diplomats. Diplomats are those who are appointed by their state to represent state affairs and protect national

2.3 ­Current Solution

interests in international settings. Diplomats can be hired as ‘career diplomat’, being full‐ time in function as diplomats, having to represent their state in multiple international platforms. People chosen to represent states can be career diplomats as described earlier, but also ministers, presidents, military officials, or topic experts. The great majority of the career diplomats are not experts in water but are experts in fostering state relations. They often receive a mandate, an official command of what can or cannot be agreed upon, or an instruction that provides guidelines for what can and cannot be said and use this as the basis for their involvement. Diplomatic meetings can be exclusive processes that are not easy to influence for other stakeholders. It does lead to questions on representation. For instance, are delegations gender‐balanced and does it matter? (See, for instance, Carmi et  al. 2019; Sehring et al. 2020). Are marginalised groups represented, are their needs taken into account in the mandates of delegations, are their voices heard at the negotiation table, and what means do these groups have to communicate their needs? (Box 2.1). There are, therefore, clear limitations of treating diplomacy and water diplomacy as something only official representatives of states do. Davidson and Montville, a Psychiatrist and Foreign Service Officer of the United States, reflected that the official Track 1 processes allow limited space for interaction beyond actions aimed at protecting and defending the nation (Davidson and Montville 1981). The suit of diplomats can become a shield to hide a personality behind. The rituals of protocols and etiquette (the rules, norms, and values that guide interactions between state representatives and people) help to protect from embarrassments, but can also reduce the space for creativity or perhaps obstruct the making of a genuine human connection. The official settings in which meetings take place, such as ministries or hotels, facilitate talking about positions, but less about interests and needs (Wolf 2017). Knowing that the person on the other side of the table loves to grow flowers, what he or she has studied, that this person is a mother or father, may help to create a bond and build trust, and therefore support negotiations. It can make the difference between walking out of the room or staying to find other ways forward (Wolf 2008) if the mandate allows. Suits, etiquette, and official venues do have important functions in supporting communication between representatives of states. However, it contributes to Track 1 water diplomacy being an exclusive process with many limitations. Instead of suggesting diplomats to shed their suits, drop etiquette, or start meetings with personal exchanges, Davidson and Montville called for ‘Track 2 Diplomacy’ to acknowledge the importance of relations between groups beyond national borders that also contribute to good relations between countries. Track 2 diplomacy facilitates communication between groups of non‐state actors such as religious groups or leaders, representatives of civil society organisations, or academics (ibid). These processes can be used as bridge by those practicing Track 1 Diplomacy, in the same way that water can be used to start conversations on more sensitive topics. Non‐state actors can connect to each other, discuss sensitive issues, or strengthen their relations, potentially contributing to an enabling environment for diplomats to meet as well or discuss certain issues that were taboo before. To describe the interaction between state actors and non‐state actors, the middle ground between track 1 and 2, the term Track 1.5 diplomacy is used. For water, Track 1.5 diplomacy is extremely valuable as it covers also the interaction between water diplomats and water

29

30

2  Water Diplomacy

Box 2.1  Human Relations and State Relations Diplomacy may often appear as a black box that revolves around states. However, when diving deeper in how diplomacy is done, it concerns people, emotions, and processes (Adler-nissen 2015). An interesting insight is shared by Henry White, a former American ambassador to France, to provide advice to the organisers of the third Hague conference that was planned to take place in 1914, but was never organised due to the outbreak of World War I. This old example shows that in terms of human interaction, little has changed. The feature […] was that all the delegates were lodged in the same hotel, the only good one of which the small town of Algeciras could boast, and they filled it almost entirely. Consequently, they had little society other than that of each other, and were constantly meeting, and discussing in twos and threes from morning till night in the hotel or its gardens, or during their walks and drives for sixteen weeks the questions at issue and the possible methods of settling them. […] I felt at the time, and have felt ever since, that it was owing to the perpetual exchange of views which took place day after day between the delegates outside the conference, and consequently, informally, and to the agreeable and intimate personal relations which could hardly fail to be established between a number of men of the world meeting all day long for three months, that all friction at the formal sessions was avoided, in spite of an amount of tension in the atmosphere prevalent almost to the end, and very difficult to realize by anyone who was not present.

Source: Based on White et al. (1912).

2.3 ­Current Solution

experts; especially professors in universities whom in many countries play both a role in science and in advising their government on transboundary water. In Track 1.5 the interaction between diplomats and experts may also give diplomats more space to be creative and connect on a different level with other parties. Track 3 Diplomacy, people‐to‐people or citizen diplomacy, is used to describe the exchange from people to people that contributes to relations between states and may prevent conflict or contribute to peacebuilding. To clarify, two examples outside of the water sector are provided: youth exchanges are organised around the world to bring young people together to promote cultural awareness, understanding each other’s values and history. One of those is the ‘Building bridges for future dialog’ project of a German foundation that promotes ‘German‐Israeli Young Leaders Exchange’ because ‘German‐Israeli relations are facing new challenges today’ (Bertelsmann Stiftung n.d.). Other examples are international educational exchanges as important tool (Barua et al. 2019; de Lima 2007). For instance, the Erasmus programme of the European Union is designed to promote exchange between young people and students. It can be seen as promoting Track 3 Diplomacy and may be an important contribution to peace and cooperation in the EU. In a report of the European Union Committee of the British House of Lords, interviewees detail how ‘Erasmus participants acted as “ambassadors” for UK education institutions’, and how this contributed to the ‘the UKs “public diplomacy”’ (European Union Committee 2019). An example from the water sector is the ‘Shared water resources development program’ hosted by Cairo University. The programme has been established in ‘close cooperation’ with the Egyptian Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation (MWRI) in Egypt (Faculty of Engineering – Cairo University n.d.), and explicitly invites water resources professionals from the Nile basin to come and study in Cairo. Multitrack diplomacy describes the interaction between the different diplomatic tracks and how all these different tracks can contribute to resolving the same conflict and to promoting constructive communication between states, facilitating water cooperation, and potentially fostering peace beyond the water sector (Ide and Detges 2018; Pohl et al. 2014). When discussing water diplomacy, it is important to keep in mind that the aim is to foster good relations between states, but that more and more non‐state actors play a role. Track 2 diplomacy and Track 3 diplomacy do not substitute, but may provide an enabling environment for Track 1 and 1.5 Diplomatic processes (Box 2.2).

2.3.2  How Is Water Diplomacy Done? Diplomatic tools are applied to maintain good relations, strengthen existing relations, allow for mending of broken relations and to prevent conflicting relations from escalating. Many different tools exist, of which some can be used for multiple aims. An example are trainings that can be used to develop the capacities of those involved in diplomatic practices or as platform to bring different parties in a conflict together. It is therefore important that the tools are carefully catered towards the situation, applied at the right moment, with and by suitable actors. For water diplomacy, this means taking into account why water conflict is happening or why water cooperation is needed, how conflict and cooperation over water developed and with what effect, who is involved, who is excluded, who has

31

32

2  Water Diplomacy

Box 2.2  IUCNs Champions Network The IUCN promotes water cooperation through its BRIDGE programme. IUCN specifically advocates for the role of local communities in water diplomacy as ‘Water diplomacy has to happen under the authority of national governments, but water accords need the agreement of local users’ (M. Smith in IUCN 2013, p. 7.). The idea is that local representatives join meetings and are informed of which issues are being discussed and which decisions are taken by basin organisations. The aim is that this knowledge can then be transferred to local communities, and relevant action can be undertaken. To facilitate this input, IUCN hosts Water Champion’s networks. One of these networks connects local representatives from Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Panama, Nicaragua, Belize, and Mexico (IUCN 2013). Another is based in Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Vietnam, training them on water cooperation and providing information to enable the participants to inspire peers as well as policy makers to promote transboundary water cooperation in the Lower Mekong Basin (IUCN 2016).

Source: Based on IUCN (2013).

leverage over others or is equipped to enter into an exchange, and who has financial resources to gather information or implement plans or sufficient capacity and knowledge to engage fully in the process. Timing of using the tools is also of the essence. It may take years before a window of opportunity opens up to discuss specific issues. This may be, for instance, due to a changing public opinion or change in political leadership. Further, several diplomatic tools are discussed.

2.3 ­Current Solution

The diplomatic toolbox includes tools to analyse situations for the preparation of meetings or information exchange. For instance, there are different methods for conflict and stakeholder analyses (a small selection with tools applied outside and in the water sector, including training material developed for UNESCOs PCCP programme: Grey et al. 2010; Mason and Rychard 2005; Nyheim et  al. 2001; Priscoli 2003; Priscoli and Wolf 2010). Analysis can also include hydrological and social science research to understand water quality, quantity, and current and future water availability and use. Fact finding is also a form of analysis, where oftentimes a neutral third party is invited to do research for the chair or all parties in a conflict. Outcomes of these analyses can be used by River Basin Organisations to prepare meetings, by Ministries of Foreign Affairs to develop instructions and mandates for diplomats, for potential third parties to identify if they can play a constructive role, for local representatives to understand who they need to address or avoid to get their voice heard, but also for a water manager to prepare work for a national or regional project with several partners. It remains important that throughout the process, analyses are repeated as positions and relations may change over time. As water diplomacy is in essence about communication, providing opportunities to exchange messages as well as platforms for parties to come together is one of the most important water diplomacy tools. Messages can be exchanged directly between parties, for instance, via phone calls between the ministers that are responsible for water. In June 1963, the government of the United States of America and the government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics signed an agreement to ‘establish as soon as technically feasible a direct communications link between the two Governments’ (Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation 1963). This was labelled as the ‘Hot Line’ agreement, inspired by the Cuban Missile crisis. It shows how important quick exchange of messages can be in diplomacy. An example from the water sector is how in the 1944 treaty of the International Boundary and Water Commission between the United States and Mexico it was agreed that the Commissioner, two principal engineers, a legal adviser, and a secretary of each side would be granted a diplomatic status to facilitate travel between the states. This stresses the importance of face-to-face meetings. The dialogue in the Brahmaputra River Basin is also a valuable example of platforms that provide an opportunity to communicate (Barua et al. 2017). During official meetings, protocol and etiquette (the rules, norms, and values that guide interactions between state representatives and people) are tools that are useful in the preparation and execution of meetings. Especially for official diplomatic exchanges, it is important to know who has to sit next to whom or, for instance, who will be invited to speak first. For official meetings, the number, political weight, and profile of the invited candidates are also important. It may be seen as a disgrace if one country sends a minister to a meeting, showing that the issue discussed is seen as an important matter, and the other delegation sends a low‐ranking official (Box 2.3). There are also ways to facilitate communication even where parties do not want to meet at all or not officially. In case parties do not want to communicate directly, a third party can propose to act as a shuttle between them, bringing messages back and forth while smoothing relations. States can offer their services as neutral third party to facilitate exchanges and negotiations between countries. In addition, countries who experience a dispute can decide to invite representatives of other states or international organisations, as well as individual

33

34

2  Water Diplomacy

Box 2.3  Transnational Policy Dialogue for Improved Water Governance of the Brahmaputra River Dialogues that facilitate Track 2, Track 3, and multitrack diplomacy are also an important tool to promote water cooperation. An example of such a dialogue is the Transnational Policy Dialogue for Improved Water Governance of the Brahmaputra River. The Dialogue was set up in 2013 by SaciWATERs, a policy institute based in Hyderabad, India, with the intention to contribute to improved transboundary water governance through an inclusive dialogue that brings together a gender-balanced group of people, civil society organisations, scientists, and government representatives. Organisers of the Dialogue indicate that the initiative developed from peopleto-people exchange (Track 3 Water Diplomacy) to Track 2 Water Diplomacy including civil society organisations and experts and now also including state officials of some of the riparian basins in some of the meetings. The organisers play an extremely important role in keeping the dialogue alive, fostering communication between stakeholders, and contributing to the building of trust.

Source: Based on Barua and Vij (2018), Brahmaputra Dialogue (2016), Fanaian et al. (2016), and Klimes et al. (2019).

experts to act as neutral outsiders to facilitate a mediation or negotiation. This is an important tool in water diplomacy and perhaps can be compared with a form of couples counselling. In the UN Convention on the Law of the Non‐navigational Uses of International Water courses, it is formally included and described as follows: ‘If the parties concerned cannot reach agreement by negotiation requested by one of them, they may jointly seek the good offices of, or request mediation or conciliation by, a third party, or make use, as appropriate, of any joint water course institutions that may have been established by them or

2.3 ­Current Solution

agree to submit the dispute to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice’ (United Nations General Assembly 1997). Trust is an important element in relations, and even relations between states are also importantly made up by those individuals who represent a state in addition to historical, cultural, and economic ties. Trust is especially important to manage uncertainty. For water this may, for instance, concern the current or future available quantity of water due to changes in the natural or social system. Different tools can be applied to build trust, of which the most important ingredients may be time and meetings. Opportunities to bring parties together in a safe setting are workshops or trainings that allow representatives to jointly learn about a topic as well as to getting to know each other outside of an official negotiation setting. During such trainings, serious games can be used to gain a better understanding of a certain topic, identify potential courses of action and their consequences, as well as experiencing for a brief moment what the other party faces. A rule that is very useful to apply in workshops or conferences that allow a free exchange of thoughts is the Chatham House rule that dictates that no information or opinion shared in a meeting may be attributed to anyone in that meeting (Chatham House n.d.). Another tool to build trust is Joint Fact Finding. Fact Finding and Joint Fact Finding emphasise the process to facilitate the acceptance of the end results by all parties whether it is the truth or an accepted truth and are based on the willingness of actors to pool their knowledge, to facilitate multiple stakeholders to identify knowledge gaps and the best data to fill this, all in close collaboration between decision‐makers and scientists (Karl et al. 2007). It is a useful tool for conflict resolution; for instance, article 33 (3–9) of the UN Watercourses Convention details how fact‐finding and inquiry processes should be designed as tools for dispute settlements (United Nations General Assembly 1997; Box 2.4). The provision of platforms for meetings for different parties, from Track 1 to Track 3 processes, is also part of diplomatic tools. These include one‐off meetings or by creating more permanent platforms for exchange, such as joint commissions or River Basin Organisations (Schmeier et al. 2016). To facilitate the exchange of messages, clear procedural guidelines and rules for how to cooperate and how to resolve conflict in case it occurs are needed. This includes legal instruments such as treaties and conventions that detail how cooperation takes place, what the scope of cooperation is, and what are the rights and duties of signatories. Examples of these legal instruments are the two global water conventions: the Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (UNECE 1992) and the Convention on the Law of the Non‐navigational Uses of International Watercourses (United Nations General Assembly 1997). Another example is the framework for cooperation over shared watercourses in the South African Development Community (SADC), negotiated by 14 states. The revised framework explicitly mentions SADCs aims at promoting regional integration and poverty alleviation (SADC 2000). Water diplomacy in this context directly promotes water cooperation and aims at fostering cooperation beyond the water sector. In every relation, it is important to define expectations on how to cooperate, it is wise to set up rules in times of cooperation, to make sure there are processes in place that can facilitate conflict resolution in times when disagreements arise. Conflict does not need to be destructive if there is an opportunity to defuse or a third party that can provide a neutral perspective on the situation. International law, through treaties and the opportunity

35

36

2  Water Diplomacy

Box 2.4  Water Data Banks Project Data gathering and fact finding can also be used as a trust building exercise. An example is the Water Data Banks Project that was endorsed in 1994 by various donors to advance the Middle East peace process. Israelis, Jordanians, and Palestinians were core parties of the project and formed the Executive Action Team. The project aimed to enhance current and future cooperation in water management through the establishment, upgrade, and standardisation of regional hydrologic data in Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinian Territories. Deliverables of the project focused on enhancement of water data availability, water management practices, water supply, and developing concepts for regional water management and cooperation. Despite these highly technical and ambitious aims, the success of the project is described as follows: ‘Perhaps the greatest single achievement is the effective and continuing communication channels that have been established among colleagues from the Core Party participating agencies’ (Multilateral Working Group on Water Resources 2002).

Jordan River (source: picture taken by Jean Housen, 2010)

for countries to go to court, therefore plays a crucial role in water diplomacy and cooperation. Other options are alternative dispute resolution that includes negotiation, conciliation, mediation, and arbitration and are called alternative as they are processes that take place outside of the court. Negotiation is most probably the most well‐known diplomatic tool, but also is done by all of us on a day‐to‐day basis. During a negotiation, two or more parties try to reach an agreement. Conciliation is the process where a third party discusses separately with the disagreeing parties to identify areas of potential agreement. During mediation, an independent third party is invited to facilitate the process. During arbitration, the parties agree that in the meeting outside of court and to adhere to the verdict of

2.4 ­New Insight

the arbitrator. Conflict transformation is also an important method, intending to transform current conflict and prevent future conflict by addressing the structural causes of conflict and changing relationships between involved parties (Grey et  al. 2010; Priscoli 2003; Priscoli and Wolf 2010). For everyone who does water diplomacy, it is important to ensure no counterproductive or ineffective approaches are chosen at a certain time. It is especially challenging when there is a long history of distrust between parties, which may have deteriorated Track 2 and Track 3 transboundary relations as well. Sometimes it may be better not to undertake action directly, but wait for a window of opportunity to act (Quassem et al. 2018). Working towards cooperation is playing the long game. Trust can take many years to build yet can be gone in seconds. Understanding why there is conflict is therefore crucial and cannot be done with only knowledge from the water sector. For instance, does the root cause of conflict lie in the water sector or is the reason for conflict something different? Understanding the conflict will also help to identify important stakeholders and potential areas for cooperation.

2.4 ­New Insights Diplomacy has been practised for centuries. However, diplomacy on specific topics such as water, with its own field of research as well as practitioners, is a recent phenomenon. It experiences a boost in interest that frees up funds from donors and promotes capacity development, develops and maintains platforms for meetings and dialogue, increases the research done which enriches our knowledge on water conflict, cooperation, and diplomacy. There are many new insights, yet also many unknowns still to discover. For instance, the interaction between water managers, civil society actors, and water diplomats brings different worlds together. This leads to exchange of knowledge and tools and perhaps to new and creative approaches to foster water cooperation. A challenge remains to connect the world of diplomats with the world of water engineers but is a challenge worth pursuing. An important insight, and challenge, is that there is also a need to connect the world of water to the world of diplomacy in terms of planning. As briefly discussed in this chapter, developing peaceful and constructive relations between states is often playing the long game. It takes often more time than the four or five‐year project cycles usually take. For dialogue processes to succeed, whether they are set up as Track 1 diplomacy supported by third parties or Track 2 or 3 diplomacy involving civil society organisations, academic representatives, or citizens, long‐term commitment is needed, as is, for instance, shown in the Brahmaputra dialogue (Barua et al. 2017). Sometimes it pays off to not focus on large river catchments, but identify if and how cooperation can happen over smaller rivers with only two riparian states such as is proposed for Tekezze‐Atbara, a sub‐basin of the Nile (Hydraulics Research Centre 2018). Another insight is that many different actors can play a role in water diplomacy, as well as that there are several ways to facilitate their input. Leading researchers on water diplomacy, such as Aaron Wolf, are emphasising the importance of learning from indigenous

37

38

2  Water Diplomacy

practices of conflict resolution, as well as religious practices (Wolf 2017). This interest also relates to the possibilities to apply water diplomacy tools at federal, regional, or local level, such as advocated by IUCNs bridge project (IUCN 2015). New actors that are often not taken into account are young people, although the UN Security Council has acknowledged their role in the ‘maintenance and promotion of international peace and security’ (2015). Opening the black box of water diplomacy and power relations and understanding the positive and negative roles individuals can play in water diplomacy processes and trust building between states, and how water diplomacy is done remains an exciting path for research. Yet, a challenge remains for negotiators and for judges, who sometimes have to make judgements or negotiate solutions under great stress or with a very limited mandates, to include the needs of stakeholders with little opportunity to voice their needs, such as the environment.

2.5 ­Future Knowledge Requirements New insights lead to new questions, and the attention for water diplomacy calls for a reflection on who drives the water diplomacy agenda and how this influences our knowledge on the topic. Water diplomacy work is driven mainly by policymakers and donors from Western countries such as The Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland as discussed earlier in this chapter. Although the scientific field is diversifying quickly, biases are still visible. Experience and interesting cases may be overlooked because of a Western, perhaps top‐down, approach to water diplomacy as well as language barriers. A bigger effort needs to be made to share knowledge on how water diplomacy and transboundary water cooperation is practised around the world, what worked well, what failed, and how parties dealt with these failures. A positive example is the project ‘From the Delta Looking up’ that provided safe spaces for exchange of knowledge which led to the Zeeland call to action and sharing of diplomatic lessons and strategies (Quassem et al. 2018). Investing in the new generation of water diplomats and transboundary water managers is crucial, with sharing of knowledge and experiences of state‐ and non‐state actors from around the world as an essential element. Another bias that is persistent is the bias towards understanding conflict, driven by an increased interest of scholars, journalists, and the wider public for water conflict and water wars. Several activities have been undertaken to map water conflicts at different levels (De Stefano et al. 2017; Pacific Institute 2019; Yoffe et al. 2004). More projects are in development to analyse water conflict (Adelphi 2019; Hegre et al. 2019; Schmeier et al. 2018; The Economist Intelligence Unit 2019). These projects provide a wealth of knowledge on water and conflict. However, there is simply less interest for processes that run smoothly. This leads to a large bias towards areas where conflict already occurs (Adams et al. 2018), thus neglecting cases where conflict is avoided or de‐escalated in early stages. Interdisciplinary research on water conflict and especially cooperation is required so that water diplomacy tools can be better applied. Better understanding conflict and cooperation is important, yet the question is whether more information always leads to better decision‐making (Susskind and Islam 2012; Van der Gun 2001). A call for more research, more data, and more reports is often heard, yet

 ­Reference

both water experts and diplomats have to accept that not every detail can be fully understood or known and, therefore, have to reflect on what this means for the way decisions are made. This is especially valid in situations where water resources are shared, when little trust exists between parties, when power imbalances are large, and when states have to power to opt out of cooperation due to the sovereignty principle. As many unknowns remain, water conflict, cooperation, and diplomacy can only be understood better when approaching the situation in an interdisciplinary manner, connecting social, political, economic, and natural science information. Better interdisciplinary cooperation will help to gain more insight in the difficult puzzles of understanding root causes and effects of conflict, as well as identifying new ways to inform and facilitate communication and foster water cooperation. This chapter started with a mention that ‘water management is conflict management’. It is apparent that most water managers encounter conflict in their daily work and that skills to manage or prevent conflict, but even more to foster constructive cooperation, are an added value in every water manager’s toolbox.

­References Adams, C., Ide, T., Barnett, J., and Detges, A. (2018). Sampling bias in climate – conflict research. Nature Climate Change 8: 200–203. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558‐018‐0068‐2. Adelphi (2019). The ECC Factbook. http://newclimateforpeace.org/thematic‐reading/factbook (accessed 4 December 2020). Adler‐nissen, R. (2015). Conclusion: Relationalism: why diplomats find international relations theory strange. In: Diplomacy and the Making of World Politics (eds. O.J. Sending, V. Pouliot and I.B. Neumann), 284–308. London: Cambridge University Press https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9781316162903.011. Barston, R.P. (2006). Modern Diplomacy, 3e. Harlow, England: Pearson Longman. ISBN: 140581201X 9781405812016. Barua, A. and Vij, S. (2018). Treaties can be a non‐starter: a multi‐track and multilateral dialogue approach for Brahmaputra Basin. Water Policy 20: 1027–1041. https://doi. org/10.2166/wp.2018.140. Barua, A., Vij, S., and Rahman, M.Z. (2017). Powering or sharing water in the Brahmaputra River basin. International Journal of Water Resources Development 627: 1–15. https://doi. org/10.1080/07900627.2017.1403892. Barua, A., Horst, R., Sehring, J. et al. (2019). Universities’ partnership: the role of academic institutions in water cooperation and diplomacy. International Journal of Water Resources Development https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2019.1657002. Bertelsmann Stiftung (n.d.). Building bridges for future dialog. https://www.bertelsmann‐ stiftung.de/en/our‐projects/german‐israeli‐young‐leaders‐exchange/project‐description (accessed 4 December 2020). Blue Peace (n.d.). https://www.thebluepeace.org (accessed 4 December 2020). Brahmaputra Dialogue (2016). Transnational Policy Dialogue for Improved Water Governance of Brahmaputra River. http://www.saciwaters.org/brahmaputra‐dialogue (accessed 4 December 2020).

39

40

2  Water Diplomacy

Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation (1963). Memorandum of Understanding Between The United States of America and The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Regarding the Establishment of a Direct Communications Link. https://www.state.gov/t/ isn/4785.htm#treaty (accessed 4 December 2020). Carius, A., Dabelko, G.D., and Wolf, A.T. (2004). Water, Conflict, and Cooperation (ECSP Report). Carmi, N., Alsayegh, M., and Zoubi, M. (2019). Empowering women in water diplomacy: a basic mapping of the challenges in Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan. Journal of Hydrology 569: 330–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.12.011. Chatham House (n.d.). Chatham House Rule. https://www.chathamhouse.org/chatham‐ house‐rule (accessed 4 December 2020). Clingendael (2013). Conference brings diplomats and water experts together. https://www. clingendael.org/news/conference‐brings‐diplomats‐and‐water‐experts‐together (accessed 4 December 2020). Council of The European Union (2013). Council conclusions on EU water diplomacy, Brussels. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/138253.pdf (accessed 4 December 2020). Dalin, C., Konar, M., Hanasaki, N., Rinaldo, A. and Rodriguez‐Iturbe, I. (2012). Evolution of the global virtual water trade network. PNAS, 109 (16) 5989‐5994; https://doi.org/https:// doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1203176109. Davidson, W.D. and Montville, J.V. (1981). Foreign policy according to Freud. Foreign Policy 45: 145–157. De Bruin, S., Knoop, J., Visser, H., and Ligtvoet, W. (2018). Linking Water Security Threats to Conflict; an Exploration of Pathways. The Hague: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, PBL publication number: 3039. De Lima, A.F.J. (2007). The role of international educational exchanges in public diplomacy. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 3: 234–251. De Stefano, L., Petersen‐Perlman, J.D., Sproles, E.A. et al. (2017). Assessment of transboundary river basins for potential hydro‐political tensions. Global Environmental Change 45: 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.04.008. European Union Committee (2019). Brexit: The Erasmus and Horizon Programmes. European Union Committee (No. 28th Report of Session 2017–19). https://publications.parliament.uk/ pa/ld201719/ldselect/ldeucom/283/283.pdf. Faculty of Engineering – Cairo University (n.d.). Shared Water Resources Development. http:// ihd.eng.cu.edu.eg/swrd/main.htm (accessed 4 December 2020). Fanaian, S., Deka, A., and Gulati, V. (2016). Towards collaborative transboundary river governance. ENVIS Newsletter on Himalayan Ecology 13 (3): 1. Fischhendler, I. (2015). The securitization of water discourse: theoretical foundations, research gaps and objectives of the special issue. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 15: 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784‐015‐9277‐6. van Genderen, R. and Rood, J. (2011). Water Diplomacy: A Niche for the Netherlands? The Hague. https://www.clingendael.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/20111200_cling_report_ waterdiplomacy_rgenderen_jrood.pdf. Grey, D., Andersen, I., Abrams, L. et al. (2010). Sharing Water, Sharing Benefits: Working Towards Effective Transboundary Water Resources Managment (ed. A.T. Wolf). Paris: UNESCO.

 ­Reference

Handmer, J., Honda, Y., Kundzewicz, Z.W. et al. (2012). Changes in impacts of climate extremes: human systems and ecosystems. In: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (eds. C.B. Field, V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, et al.) (Special Re, pp. 231–290). Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Hegre, H., Allansson, M., Basedau, M. et al. (2019). ViEWS: a political violence early‐warning system. Journal of Peace Research 56: 155–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343319823860. Hydraulics Research Centre (2018). River Basin Simulation for Improved Transboundary Water Management in the Nile. http://t‐abasin.hrc‐sudan.sd (accessed 4 December 2020). Ide, T. and Detges, A. (2018). International water cooperation and environmental peacemaking. Global Environmental Politics 18: 63–84. International Centre for Water Cooperation and International Centre for Water Resources and Global Change (2016). International Symposium on Water Diplomacy: An Overview. Stockholm. https://www.siwi.org/international‐symposium‐water‐diplomacy‐overview. Islam, S. and Repella, A.C. (2015). Water diplomacy: a negotiated approach to manage complex water problems. Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education 155: 1–11. https:// doi.org/10.4324/9780203083659. Islam, S. and Susskind, L. (2012). Water Diplomacy: A Negotiated Approach to Managing Complex Water Networks, 334 pp. Routledge. ISBN: 9781617261039. IUCN (2013). Goascorán Basin: Honduras and El Salvador. Revitalising Cooperative Management Through Expanding Stakeholder Involvement. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. https://www.iucn.org/content/ goascoran‐basin‐honduras‐and‐el‐salvador‐revitalising‐cooperative‐management‐through‐ expanding‐stakeholder‐involvement. IUCN (2015). BRIDGE: Building River Dialogue and Governance: Greater Cooperation through Water Diplomacy and Transboundary Water Management. https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/ files/import/downloads/bridge_pdf__english_2015_.pdf (accessed 4 December 2020). IUCN (2016). Championing a future for water security. Retrieved March 8, 2019, from https:// www.iucn.org/content/championing‐future‐water‐security. Karl, H.A., Susskind, L.E., and Wallace, K.H. (2007). Dialogue. Diatribe 49 (1): 20–34. Keskinen, M., Inkinen, A., Hakanen, U., and Affairs, F. (2014). Water diplomacy: bringing diplomacy into water cooperation and water into diplomacy. In: Hydro Diplomacy: Sharing Water Across Borders (ed. G. Pangare), 35–40. Academic Foundation. Klimes, M., Michel, D., Yaari, E., and Restiani, P. (2019). Water diplomacy: the intersect of science, policy and practice. Journal of Hydrology 575: 1362–1370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jhydrol.2019.02.049. Marshall, D., Salamé, L., and Wolf, A.T. (2017). A call for capacity development for improved water diplomacy. In: Water Diplomacy in Action: Contingent Approaches to Managing Complex Water Problems (eds. S. Islam and K. Madani), 141–154. New York: Anthem Press. Mason, S. and Rychard, S. (2005). Conflict Analysis Tools: Tip Sheet. SDC: Conflict Prevention and Transformation Division (COPRET). https://css.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special‐ interest/gess/cis/center‐for‐securities‐studies/pdfs/Conflict‐Analysis‐Tools.pdf. Ministerial Declaration of The Hague on Water Security in the 21st Century (2000). The Hague. https://www.worldwatercouncil.org/fileadmin/world_water_council/documents/ world_water_forum_2/The_Hague_Declaration.pdf

41

42

2  Water Diplomacy

Molnar, K., Cuppari, R., Schmeier, S., and Demuth, S. (2017). Preventing Conflicts, Fostering Cooperation – The many Roles of Water Diplomacy. https://waterandchange.org/wp‐ content/uploads/2018/02/PUB_Water‐Diplomacy_Bericht.pdf (accessed 4 December 2020). Multilateral Working Group on Water Resources (2002). Regional Water Data Banks Project. http://www.israel.org/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Peace/Guide/Pages/Water%20Resources%20 Working%20Group.aspx (accessed 4 December 2020). Nyheim, D., Leonhardt, M., and Gaigals, C. (2001). Development in conflict: a seven step tool for planners. https://www.international‐alert.org/sites/default/files/library/tool.pdf (accessed 4 December 2020). Pacific Institute (2019). Water conflict chronology. https://www.worldwater.org/water‐conflict (accessed 4 December 2020). Pohl, B., Carius, A., Conca, K. et al. (2014). The Rise of Hydro‐Diplomacy Strengthening Foreign Policy for Transboundary Waters. Adelphi https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.4035.5848. Priscoli, J.D. (2003). Participation, Consensus Building and Conflict Management Training Course (PC CP series, No 22 No. SC‐2003/WS/57). Priscoli, J.D. and Wolf, A.T. (2010). Managing and Transforming Water Conflicts (International). New York: Cambridge University Press https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511551536. Quassem, M.A., Hossain, M.S., El‐Bahrawy, A.N. et al. (2018). The Zeeland call to action. https://www.un‐ihe.org/sites/default/files/from_the_delta_looking_up_‐ _the_zeeland_call_to_action_0.pdf (accessed 4 December 2020). Savenije, H.H.G. (2002). Why water is not an ordinary economic good, or why the girl is special. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 27: 741–744. Schmeier, S. (2018). What is water diplomacy and why should you care? http://www. globalwaterforum.org/2018/08/31/what‐is‐water‐diplomacy‐and‐why‐should‐you‐care (accessed 4 December 2020). Schmeier, S., Gerlak, A.K., and Blumstein, S. (2016). Clearing the muddy waters of shared watercourses governance: conceptualizing international River Basin Organizations. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 16: 597–619. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10784‐015‐9287‐4. Schmeier, S., Baker, C., Blauw, J. et al. (2018). Are water and conflict linked and what actually links them? https://www.un‐ihe.org/sites/default/files/opinion_piece_wps_final_0.pdf (accessed 4 December 2020). Sehring, J., ter Horst, R.H., and Said, A. (2020): Reporting on water diplomacy: Does gender matter?. In R. Dewedar (Ed.) Water Conflicts and Cooperation: a Media Handbook. CABI Publishing SIWI (2014). Sweden’s first UNESCO Category II Centre. https://www.siwi.org/latest/ swedens‐first‐unesco‐category‐ii‐centre (accessed 4 December 2020). Southern African Development Community (2000). Southern African Development Community Revised Protocol on Shared Watercourses. http://www.internationalwaterlaw. org/documents/regionaldocs/Revised‐SADC‐SharedWatercourse‐Protocol‐2000.pdf (accessed 4 December 2020). Susskind, L. and Islam, S. (2012). Water diplomacy: creating value and building trust in transboundary water negotiations. Science & Diplomacy 1 (3): 1–7. http://www. sciencediplomacy.org/perspective/2012/water‐diplomacy%5Cnfiles/2275/water‐ diplomacy.html.

 ­Reference

The Economist Intelligence Unit (2019). The Blue Peace Index 2019. https://bluepeaceindex. eiu.com/pdf/Blue%20Peace%20Index%202019%20Report_FINAL%20WEB.pdf (accessed 4 December 2020). UN News (2008). Ban Ki‐moon warns that water shortages are increasingly driving conflicts. https://news.un.org/en/story/2008/02/248092‐ban‐ki‐moon‐warns‐water‐shortages‐are‐ increasingly‐driving‐conflicts (accessed 4 December 2020). UNECE (1992). Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes. https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM//env/water/documents/ brochure_water_convention.pdf (accessed 4 December 2020). UNEP (2016). Transboundary Waters Systems – Status and Trends Crosscutting: Analysis, vol. 6. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). https://uneplive.unep.org/ media/docs/assessments/transboundary_waters_systems_status_and_trends_crosscutting_ analysis.pdf. UNESCO IHP Secretariat (2001). Report on the “From Potential Conflicts to Co‐operation Potential (PC → CP)” Project, France. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000125485 (accessed 4 December 2020). United Nations General Assembly (1997). Convention on the Law of the Non‐Navigational Uses of International Watercourses. Retrieved from https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/ DAM/env/water/cwc/legal/UNConvention_McCaffrey.pdf. United Nations Security Council (2015). Resolution 2250, Pub. L. No. S/RES/2250. United Nations Security Council (2017). S/PV.7959 (Vol. 0506). https://www.security councilreport.org/un‐documents/document/spv7959.php (accessed 4 December 2020). Van der Gun, J. (2001). From monitoring and modeling to decision support frameworks for the joint management of shared aquifers. In: Management of Shared Groundwater Resources: The Israeli‐Palestinian Case with an International Perspective (eds. E. Feitelson and M. Haddad), 303–321. New York: Springer. Van der Zaag, P. and Savenije, H.H.G. (2006). Water as an Economic Good: The Value of Pricing and the Failure of Markets, Value of Water Research Report Series No. 19. Delft: UNESCO‐IHE. Water Diplomacy (n.d.‐a). http://ase.tufts.edu/igert/waterdiplomacy (accessed 4 December 2020). Water Diplomacy (n.d.‐b). http://waterdiplomacy.org (accessed 4 December 2020). White, H., Collier, W.M., Ion, T.P., and Myers, D.P. (1912). The organization and procedure of the third Hague conference. Proceedings of the American Society of International Law at Its Annual Meeting, Volume 6, pp. 178–189. Wolf, A. (2008). Healing the enlightenment rift: rationality, spirituality and shared waters. Journal of International Affairs 61 (3): 51–73. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24358111. Wolf, A.T. (2012). Spiritual understandings of conflict and transformation and their contribution to water dialogue. Water Policy 14 (S1): 73–88. https://doi.org/10.2166/ wp.2012.010. Wolf, A.T. (2017). The Spirit of Dialogue: Lessons from Faith Traditions in Transforming Conflict. Island Press. ISBN: 9781610916172. World Economic Forum (2017). The Global Risks Report 2017, 12th Edition, The Global Risks Report No. 12. Geneva. World Economic Forum (2019). The Global Risks Report 2019, 14th Edition, The Global Risks Report No. 14. Geneva.

43

44

2  Water Diplomacy

Yoffe, S., Wolf, A.T., and Giordano, M. (2004). Conflict and cooperation over international freshwater resources: indicators of basins at risk 1. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 39 (5): 1109–1126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752‐1688.2003.tb03696.x. Zeitoun, M. and Mirumachi, N. (2008). Transboundary water interaction I: reconsidering conflict and cooperation. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 8: 297–316. Zeitoun, M. and Warner, J. (2006). Hydro‐hegemony‐ a framework for analysis of trans‐ boundary water hydro‐hegemony – a framework for analysis of trans‐boundary water conflicts. Water Policy 8: 435–460. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2006.054.

Credit: Scottish Water.

47

3 Water Financing and Pricing Mechanisms Alan D. A. Sutherland and Colin McNaughton Water Industry Commission for Scotland, Stirling, Scotland, UK

3.1 ­Introduction In order to achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals around water and sanitation, there needs to be a significant global effort to scale up investment in the provision of water services. The United Nations Human Right to Water and Sanitation (UN 2010) encouraged nation states and international organisations to invest in capital resources, capacity building, and technology transfer to hasten this transition. Benefit–cost ratios for investments in water and sanitation services have been reported to be as high as 7 : 1 in developing countries (OECD 2011, 2018). Well‐functioning water infrastructure is essential for sustained economic growth and maintaining public health against the demands of a growing population, consumer behaviour, and environmental change. In many countries, such infrastructure is aged, and approaches to investment cover the spectrum of different public–private partnership models. Water infrastructure finance includes capital investment costs as well as the delivery of services to customers and citizens. Understanding the range of mechanisms employed provides useful insight when transitioning from established approaches to new and emerging global contexts. There are a range of governance models in the water sector in different countries where established supply and treatment infrastructure is operational and accessible to citizens. These models involve public and private operators or a combination of the two. In the United Kingdom, for example, the water industry has publicly owned companies in Scotland and Northern Ireland, private companies in England, and one private, mutually owned and one mutually owned water company in Wales. There are also examples of municipalities providing water services (Italy) and government or municipalities contracting private operators through franchise arrangements (France). Irrespective of the governance and ownership model, the water sector is characterised by investment in long‐lived assets. A water treatment facility, for example, is expected to last

Handbook of Catchment Management, Second Edition. Edited by Robert C. Ferrier and Alan Jenkins. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

48

3  Water Financing and Pricing Mechanisms

around 30 years on average, while a newly laid sewer is often expected to last more than 200 years on the average (although we are yet to see whether this is truly the case!). National governments and/or economic regulators face a choice about when the upfront capital expenditure is recovered. One option is to recover the capital expenditure when it is incurred. In this option, prices match expenditure profiles, which potentially causes volatile or unpredictable price changes (which tends not to be popular among customers and politicians). The alternative option is to recover the capital expenditure over the expected life of the asset. This option has the attraction of smoothing charges over time. It does, however, bring other potential consequences which we will explore in this chapter. Notwithstanding this point, we call the mismatch between the upfront capital expenditure and smooth charging profiles time asymmetries. To overcome time asymmetries, one approach is to raise equity (applicable only where assets are in private ownership) and debt finance to pay for the upfront capital expenditure. This would smooth charges provided the term of the debt (i.e. the period over which the debt is repaid) matches (or is ideally shorter than) the expected life of the asset. In this case, charges reflect the repayment of the debt (i.e. the principal) and the interest on the outstanding balance of debt in each year. Here it is important to distinguish between financing and funding. Financing is about how the upfront investment is paid for. Funding, however, is about who ultimately pays. In the scenario described earlier, the financing is the debt used to pay for the upfront capital expenditure. The funding is the repayment of the debt and the interest through charges to users (or general taxation with public ownership if there are no charges). Customers or society (if there are not charges), therefore, always pay; it is just a matter of when they pay. This raises an important question about when it is appropriate to finance capital expenditure through raising debt. From an economics perspective, it is appropriate to borrow subject to several conditions. These include: ●● ●● ●● ●●

●●

it is one‐off capital expenditure; it is truly an incremental enhancement to current levels of service; the debt raised is only a proportion of the cost of the incremental enhancement; the term of the debt is shorter (or at least no longer than!) than the expected life of the asset created; the borrowing is demonstrably affordable.

Focusing on the first point, there is no intrinsic reason to borrow (other than for cash flow management) if the level of average annual expenditure on enhancing assets is expected to remain broadly constant over the medium to long term. Such a scenario results in customers paying more than necessary. This is because customers still pay for the annual expenditure (just through the repayment of debt rather than directly) and now must pay for the additional interest generated on the debt. In simple terms, charges are higher to cover the interest on the debt. From a public policy (rather than an economics) perspective, however, it may be appropriate to borrow in some circumstances. This could be the case if there was a short‐term pressure to comply with a Directive or to deliver some other desired outcome, and future

3.2 ­Short Historical Synopsi

expenditure was brought forward without affecting the average level of expenditure in the medium to long term. One example could be a decision to remove lead (an historical issue where lead was the material of choice for supply plumbing) from the entire water supply system (including from within a customer’s home). This would be a demonstrably one‐off initiative, which would benefit both current and future customers. As such, it could be appropriate to spread the upfront cost of this work over a much longer period than the actual period required to complete the work. This chapter focuses on these financing and pricing mechanisms in the context of different models for water governance and economic regulation. It also provides new insights about how changes to the regulatory governance framework and, in particular, industry behaviours could unlock new financing and pricing mechanisms.

3.2 ­Short Historical Synopsis The structure of the water industry in the United Kingdom has undergone significant consolidation and reform over the past 50 years. A notable milestone in England and Wales was the privatisation of what were then regional water and wastewater authorities. The backdrop to privatisation was that the independent water authorities needed to catch up with national and European standards for the quality of drinking water and the environment and needed to do so quickly. The UK government at the time had a choice: finance this investment itself or finance this investment off the Government’s balance sheet through privatisation. There was also a philosophy that a private sector management with a profit motive would have an incentive to run these companies more efficiently. The UK Government therefore opted for privatisation in England and Wales. Prospective investors of these companies faced a dilemma. If they provide finance to these companies to pay for new long‐lived assets, they will need to recoup this investment (plus an appropriate return) over time through the charges to customers. Investors know, however, that politicians could face a short‐term temptation to cut charges before they have recouped their original investment. This difference in time horizons is the time asymmetry problem in action. The UK Government removed this temptation in the immediate year’s post‐privatisation through setting a fixed price in the prospectus for the share offering. The longer‐term solution was to introduce economic regulation. Economic regulation was a means to protect investors from Government interference, thereby overcoming the time asymmetry problem. It was not, initially, about looking after customers (politicians would do this!). The water industry in Scotland followed a different course. The Scottish water industry was not privatised in 1989 because it was a local government function, rather than being organised as independent authorities as was the case in England and Wales. The industry structure did, however, change in 1996 when these local authority functions were transferred, as a part of a broader reform of local Government, into three regional water and sewerage authorities: East, West, and North of Scotland Water. Privatisation

49

50

3  Water Financing and Pricing Mechanisms

was considered; however, this was rejected following a postal vote on the subject in 1994 in Strathclyde Region, by far the largest of the regional council areas. Following devolution in Scotland in 1997 and the creation of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, water became a devolved matter for the newly created Scottish Executive (now known Scottish Government). The Water Industry Act 1999 introduced economic regulation to the Scottish water industry, establishing the Water Industry Commissioner for Scotland. This was an advisory role to the Scottish Ministers. In essence, it involved the analytical work of an economic regulator but without any of the powers required to set a financial framework for the regulated utility. Scottish Ministers would decide on prices having considered the Commissioner’s advice. The Commissioner provided interim advice to the Scottish Ministers in December 1999. He identified that charges would have to increase significantly, particularly in the area covered by the North of Scotland Water Authority. Charges in the North would have to increase sharply and would be almost double the charges in the other two areas. This was because the North of Scotland Water Authority had more than half the land mass and coastline of Scotland, but less than 20% of the chargeable customer base. The Commissioner’s first detailed advice to Scottish Ministers was in 2001. Among other things, the advice recognised that the current industry structure of three regional authorities was likely to be suboptimal. The cost of bringing Scotland’s water and wastewater service into compliance with European directives (which were underestimated at the time) would fall disproportionately on customers served by the North of Scotland Water Authority. There were also likely to be efficiency savings from bringing the three authorities together into a single company. In 2002, therefore, the Scottish Executive created Scottish Water from the merger of the three former water authorities. The Scottish Executive harmonised charges across Scotland which meant that Scottish Water would charge the same price to each household and business for the same service (Box 3.1). The next major reform of the Scottish water industry was to strengthen the role of the economic regulator. In 2005, the Scottish Executive established the Water Industry Commission for Scotland (WICS). Importantly, Scottish Ministers kept control of setting policy through the Principles of Charging and investment priorities for Scottish Water (‘Ministers objectives’). The role of the WICS was to set prices consistent with the lowest reasonable overall cost of delivering the Ministers Objectives and consistent with the Principles of Charging . In the early years of economic regulation (both in England and Wales and Scotland), the immediate priority was for the regulators to facilitate investment to comply with European Union Directives. The expectation was that there would be less than 10 years of investment required (although the reality has been different as we now know that investment will continue for the foreseeable future). The regulatory framework and financing and pricing mechanisms were, therefore, designed to facilitate investment on the basis that there would be a sharp reduction in future levels of investment, once compliance with European Union Directives had been achieved.

3.2 ­Short Historical Synopsi

Box 3.1  List of Industry Stakeholders in Scotland and Roles and Responsibilities The clear definition of roles in the Scottish Water industry set important foundations for an effective economic, environmental, and water quality regulation. The Scottish Parliament: ●● ●●

holds all industry stakeholders to account; and provides legislative consent, where required, to Government policy.

The Scottish Government: ●●

●● ●●

●●

develops the policy for the industry. This includes the policy on charging, financing, and levels of service; acts as owner of Scottish Water; sponsors each of the regulators and customer bodies (i.e. approves their annual plans); and sets the objectives for the industry (Ministers Objectives).

Scottish Water: ●● ●● ●●

●●

delivers water and wastewater services to customers; has responsibility for meeting Ministerial Objectives for the industry; must live within the resources allowed for by the Water Industry Commission for Scotland; and must ensure that it meets water and environmental standards set by its regulators.

The Water Industry Commission for Scotland (WICS): ●● ●●

was established in 2005; is responsible for setting charges such that Scottish Water can recover the lowest reasonable overall costs that it should incur in meeting the Objectives of the Scottish Ministers – within the Principles of Charging of the Scottish Ministers.

The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA): ●● ●●

●●

●●

was established in 1996; sets environmental standards that are consistent with the EU, UK, and Scottish legislative framework; is the responsible authority for the implementation of the European Union Water Framework Directive; has responsibility for developing the river basin management plans.

The Drinking Water Quality Regulator (DWQR): ●● ●● ●● ●●

was established in 2002; advises on water quality standards; monitors the standards of drinking water that are achieved; and signs off water safety plans. (Continued)

51

52

3  Water Financing and Pricing Mechanisms

Box 3.1  (Continued) The Consumer Futures Unit (CFU): ●●

advises the Scottish Government on consumer policy issues relating to the water industry and other utility services.

The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO): ●●

adjudicates on any complaints against Scottish Water (and any other public body) that were not resolved.

3.3 ­Current Solutions Governments can address the issue of control and governance of natural monopolies either by contract management or by establishing economic regulation. This choice is between placing reliance on contracts and enabling effective independent economic regulation to ensure that the desired policy outcomes of the government are achieved. In both cases, the policy responsibility lies with the government. Both these options can support the delivery of large‐scale levels of investment. A reliance on contracts (one form of private involvement but by no means the only form) requires the national government or a responsible municipality to let one or more comprehensive contracts where the contract holder makes the necessary investment and operates the assets. This approach of ‘regulation by contract’ is sometimes called franchise regulation and is common in France, Spain and other areas of Southern Europe. Economic regulation, in its simplest form, involves the setting of prices for a period. This function can be performed by an independent economic regulator, a court, or (in some countries) even the national government itself. Effective economic regulation also involves introducing an information framework and establishing robust monitoring processes. There are several models of economic regulation, including: ●●

●●

Rate of return regulation: sometimes called ‘cost‐plus’ regulation which is common in the United States (US); and Incentive‐based regulation: sometimes called ‘price cap’ or ‘RPI minus X’ regulation which is common in the United Kingdom.

It is important to emphasise that the choice between reliance on contracts and effective regulation is not about public or private ownership of water assets. Relying on effective economic regulation does not preclude the use of the private sector; in reality, it requires the use of the private sector as no operator can enjoy the scale and scope economies of specialist service providers. In Scotland, for example, Scottish Water is publicly owned but relies on private sector expertise to deliver elements of its capital investment programme and support its use of information technology. Before covering the different models in turn, it is important to define some common terms, which apply to all models. In the context of an investor providing capital to a company (irrespective of whether it is subject to economic regulation): ●●

The return of capital is the process by which the investor gets their capital back from the business. In the case of an owner, the return of capital is the owner selling their share in

3.3 ­Current Solution

●●

the company. For a lender, it is the repayment of the original loan which can happen throughout the loan period (e.g. a mortgage) or at the end of the period (e.g. a bond). The return on capital is the reward that an investor receives for having their capital invested in the business. An owner earns a return through capital appreciation and the dividends that the company will pay. For a lender, it is the interest paid on the outstanding loan balance.

Another term to define is the asymmetry of information. A natural monopoly is characterised by high fixed costs where it is more efficient to have one company provide the service. Examples include network industries such as electricity distribution and transmission, the water industry, and the rail network. Natural monopolies are characterised by asymmetries of information whereby a regulated company will always have more information than the regulator. This covers information such as the true efficient level of costs (both the day‐to‐day operating expenditure and capital expenditure) and the levels of service improvements which the company could deliver. Economic regulators typically seek to overcome the asymmetry of information through the regulatory governance framework and explicit incentive mechanisms.

3.3.1  Regulation by Contract (Franchise Regulation) For regulation by contract (or franchise regulation), a delegating authority (such as a government or regulator) sets out the services that it wants delivered. This could be, for example, the provision of water services for 30 years. The authority would put the contract to the market (known as ‘competition for the market’) with a call for tenders from potential operators who might want to bid for the contract. Competition for the market means that at any time there is only one supplier with some form of competition to be that supplier. These operators (typically third‐party private operators) would provide the price that they are willing to accept for providing the service. There is, therefore, competition at the time of awarding the contract. There are different forms of franchise regulation which vary depending on the role of the operator. These include: ●●

●●

Concession agreements: the scope of the contractor’s role includes all infrastructure investment; and Lease or ‘affermage’ agreements: the scope of the operator’s role is restricted to operating the assets and the delegating authority remains responsible for major investments.

Franchise regulation aims to bring the benefits of competition to the economies of scale associated with natural monopolies. The approach is commonplace in several European countries including France and Italy. The important feature of this model is that the pricing formula and service requirements are often fixed for the entire period in the contractual agreement. Box 3.2 sets out the advantages and disadvantages of regulation by contract.

3.3.2  Rate of Return Regulation Rate of return regulation involves the regulator allowing the company to set prices (or rate) based on their actual costs incurred plus a return on (and ultimately return of) the

53

54

3  Water Financing and Pricing Mechanisms

Box 3.2  Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of Franchise Regulation Potential Advantages ●●

●● ●● ●● ●●

The industry gains an experienced operator (accessing know how, economies of scale, etc.) Concessions are long term contracts – bringing certainty that outputs will be delivered. The pricing can be competitive (at least in the short run). Access to tried and tested solutions and best international expertise. Market tested and opportunity to review the proposed approaches of the different bidders. This helps to overcome the inevitable information asymmetries which might exist.

Potential Disadvantages ●●

●●

●● ●●

●●

●●

Concessions are long‐term contracts, and as such, they often do not provide the required flexibility to adjust to material changes over time. Flexibility in such contracts can be very expensive. The organisation letting a contract has to understand in detail what it wants and how much it should cost. Insufficient or incomplete information can lead to issues such as under investment or unexpected tariff hikes. Identifying the best price–quality combination is complex. The organisation that lets the contract has to consider transition issues (how does a new supplier take over, how will assets be valued at the end of a contract, etc., how will incentives to maintain performance be maintained as the contract ends). Where changes are required, timely and costly disputes can arise between the government or municipality and the concessionaire. Can be seen as less legitimate – provider is accountable to contract and not customers.

company’s actual investment. Either a customer or regulated company can request a rate hearing. At which point, the regulator will consider the appropriate rate of return. This is typically a quasi‐judicial approach with rate hearings taking place in a court room setting. The approach is commonplace in the United States and some Baltic states such as Latvia (OECD 2014). The important feature of this model is that prices are set based on an ex‐post evaluation of actual costs – essentially a cost passed through with an additional return on capital. This is considered to provide weak incentives for efficiency as the company can just pass through the cost it incurs to customers through prices, while still earning the same return on capital in percentage terms. Box 3.3 sets out the advantages and disadvantages of rate of return regulation.

3.3.3  Incentive-Based Regulation Incentive‐based regulation is an ex‐ante approach to setting prices. It involves a regulator setting a cap on the prices that the regulated company can charge its customers for a fixed period (e.g. six years). The regulator also sets the obligations, which the company must deliver for that price.

3.3 ­Current Solution

Box 3.3  Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of Rate of Return Regulation Potential Advantages ●●

●● ●●

●●

Potentially more flexible as prices can be changed as soon as either customers or the regulated company can make a case that such a change is warranted. The rate of return approach is relatively simple and transparent. The approach is relatively low risk for the utility; therefore, the rate of return that customers pay tends to be lower than under other approaches. Can be seen as more legitimate than ‘franchise’ regulation – provider is accountable to customers and not a contract.

Potential Disadvantages ●● ●●

●● ●●

There are only limited incentives to outperform (to reduce costs and improve efficiency). The rate of return is wholly dependent on the information that the company provides on costs – it fails to address the inevitable ‘asymmetry’ of information between a regulated company and the regulator. There is potentially an incentive for companies to over‐invest and ‘gold‐plate’ investment. Frequent reviews could increase the cost and burden of regulation.

The UK water sector has a form of incentive‐based regulation in place which is known as retail price index (RPI) minus X plus K. The components are: ●● ●●

●●

RPI is the general inflation rate in the economy reflected in the retail price index; X is the expected improvement in productivity in the economy as a whole (productivity is defined as the change in gross domestic product [GDP] minus inflation); K is the cost of the required improvements to public health and the environment. The regulated company outperforms if:

●●

●●

it beats the regulator’s assumption for the rate of productivity in the economy through reducing its operating expenditure (i.e. the X); and/or it spends less than the regulator’s assumption for the cost of the required improvements to public health and the water environment (i.e. the K). Alternatively, the regulated company underperforms if:

●● ●●

it does not achieve the rate of productivity in the economy (X); and/or it spends more than the regulator’s assumption for the cost of the required improvements (K).

The incentives of RPI minus X regulation are simple. RPI minus X rewards outperformance and penalises underperformance. If the regulated company outperforms (e.g. through spending less than assumed), it can continue to charge the same price and keep the outperformance for the duration of the regulatory period. If the company underperforms, however, it cannot raise prices and must bear the cost. The regulated company is

55

56

3  Water Financing and Pricing Mechanisms

therefore subject to a hard budget constraint (in a way that a company, regulated on a ‘rate of return’ basis could never be). At the end of the fixed period, the regulator then resets prices to take account of any reduction in costs. Customers benefit from the reduction in costs in the form of lower prices from the start of the next regulatory period. It is, therefore, particularly effective when applied consistently over an extended period – in economic terms; it is a multi‐period game. RPI minus X incentives were successful in initial regulatory periods when there was considerable scope for the regulated companies to reduce operating expenditure and become more efficient. It does, however, become less effective over time when the scope for further reductions in operating expenditure is reduced. A further point is that RPI minus X regulation intends to overcome the inevitable asymmetry of information which exists between a regulated company and the regulator. This is through relying on the outperformance incentives to reveal the efficient level of costs. The regulator then takes account of this information when resetting prices at the end of the fixed period. While this has worked to some extent with operating expenditure (companies still have an incentive to increase expenditure in the year that the regulator uses to set the baseline), it has proven less successful at overcoming the asymmetry of information for capital expenditure. This is where the considerable asymmetries of information exist as capital projects tend to be one‐off in nature and much less comparable across years. The approach is commonplace in several European countries including the United Kingdom and Ireland. Box 3.4 sets out the advantages and disadvantages of incentive‐based regulation. Box 3.4  Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of Incentive-Based Regulation Potential Advantages ●●

●● ●● ●● ●●

●●

It creates an incentive for a company to outperform and ultimately allows customers to benefit from improved performance. It settles the price profile for a period of years. It is cheaper to implement than ‘rate of return’ regulation. It is more flexible than ‘franchise’ regulation. Customers will likely be better off if this method is used – at least from the second regulatory control period. Can be seen as more legitimate than ‘franchise’ regulation – provider is accountable to customers and not a contract.

Potential Disadvantages ●● ●● ●● ●●

●●

Profits may seem too large during a regulatory control period. There may be a focus on short‐term performance within the regulatory control period. Investment will be focused on the specific targets for a given period. No innovation will be adopted that has a potential payback less than the regulatory control period – even if it has a positive net present value. Businesses may seek to maximise returns through financial engineering. This may have a cost in terms of financial sustainability.

3.3 ­Current Solution

RPI minus X regulation can be applied equally effectively to the economic regulation of private companies and public sector organisations. In the water sector in England and Wales, for example, Ofwat (The Economic Regulator of the Water Sector in England and Wales) applies the principles of RPI minus X to regulate the privately owned water companies. Ofwat has, however, adapted RPI minus X regulation to: ●●

●●

encourage companies to invest in capital solutions in order to meet European directives in a short time frame; and overcome time asymmetries by providing investors with a commitment that they will receive the return of and return on capital over the lifetime of the asset.

To this end, Ofwat has introduced a mechanism called the regulatory capital value (RCV) which represents the company’s capital investment (less accumulated depreciation) since privatisation. Investors earn a return of and return on capital through the RCV. The RCV in each year is calculated by: ●● ●● ●●

adding inflation on the RCV in the previous year; adding capital expenditure in the year; and subtracting depreciation based on an assumed asset life. Ofwat then sets the price cap based on the sum of:

●● ●●

●●

its view of the company’s efficient expenditure; the RCV multiplied by the assumed cost of capital (which represents a weighted average of the return on equity and cost of debt); and depreciation in the year (which represents the return on capital).

The private companies in England and Wales can earn higher profits (above the assumed cost of capital) from outperforming the regulator’s view of efficient expenditure or assumed cost of capital. The RPI minus X incentives therefore continue to apply. An unintended consequence of RPI minus X, however, is that it gave the private companies an incentive to raise debt to substitute cheaper debt for more expensive equity in order to outperform the regulator’s assumed cost of capital, which is based on a theoretical efficient level of gearing. This allowed companies to maximise returns to shareholders through special dividends (Figure 3.1). In the Scottish water sector, WICS has adopted a different approach based on estimating the cash that Scottish Water requires to deliver the Ministers Objectives over the regulatory period. This cash‐based approach involves WICS setting price caps to ensure that revenue (i.e. which together with borrowing is the cash inflows) is sufficient to cover Scottish Water’s expenditure (i.e. the cash outflows) in the period (Figure 3.2). Under the cash‐based approach, Scottish Water outperforms by spending less than assumed to deliver the Ministerial objectives. The incentives of the hard budget constraint therefore apply. WICS has updated its regulatory approach for the Strategic Review of Charges 2021–2027. The Strategic Review of Charges is the name of the process that WICS follows to set price caps for Scottish Water for the regulatory period. This section has so far focused on the different forms of economic regulation and the financing and price mechanisms. It has examined the rate of return regulation, franchise regulation, and the variations of incentive‐based regulation. Another important element of economic regulation, however, is the regulatory governance framework.

57

3  Water Financing and Pricing Mechanisms 300 250 200 150 100

Scottish water

15–16

14–15

13–14

12–13

11–12

10–11

09–10

08–09

07–08

06–07

05–06

04–05

0

03–04

50

02–03

Net debt indexed to 2002–03 = 100

58

England and Wales

Figure 3.1  Maximization of return through special dividend. Source: From Water Industry Commission for Scotland (2017). © 2017 WICS.

3.3.4  The Regulatory Governance Framework The regulatory governance framework defines the environment within which the regulated company operates. This includes: ●● ●● ●●

the process for setting investment priorities and developing the investment plans; the process that the economic regulator follows to set price caps; and how the company reports its performance – this includes levels of service provided (or benefits delivered) and progress towards delivering the investment plans.

These elements are important as they encourage a particular set of behaviours and relationships across all levels of the organisation – both at the economic regulator and regulated company. Take the process that the regulator follows to set price caps as an example. A traditional regulatory approach in the United Kingdom would involve several steps. These include: ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

the regulator prepares a methodology which sets out the approach that it will follow to set prices – this includes both the process and the incentive mechanisms; the regulated company follows the methodology in preparing a business plan  –  this includes its view of efficient costs and its investment plans; the regulator reviews the business plan and provides its own view of the efficient costs and the company’s investment plans which it publishes in a draft determination; the regulated company (along with other industry stakeholders) reviews the draft determination of price caps and provides representations to the regulator; the regulator takes account of these representations in preparing its final determination of price caps; and the company accepts the final determination or requests an appeal to the national competition authority.

3.3 ­Current Solution 9000 +£720m

8000

–£3510m

+£7130m

7000

£ million

6000 5000

–£1950m

4000 3000

–£1570m

2000 –£1045m

1000

Closing cash balance

Interest paid

Capital enhancement expenditure

Capital maintenance expenditure

Operating expenditure

Net borrowing

£40m

Revenue

Opening cash balance

0

£265m

Figure 3.2  Price capping to ensure revenue is sufficient to cover expenditure. Source: From The Water Industry Commission for Scotland (2014). © 2014 WICS.

This approach was effective in removing inefficiency in the early years of economic regulation when the companies had high operating costs and provided a poor level of service. It has, however, had several consequences. These include: ●●

●●

●●

●●

It created an adversarial relationship between the regulator and regulated company; either the regulator won through setting a tough determination of price caps and the company lost, or vice versa. It, therefore, created a framework based on winners and losers; It encourages gaming. The regulated company, for example, knows that the regulator will seek to reduce the costs that it has proposed in the business plan. The company, therefore, has an incentive to inflate the cost estimates in its business plan (known as ‘padding’ the business plan) to maximise the scope for outperformance in the regulatory period. The business plan was a bidding document for the regulator rather than having customers and communities at its heart. It reduces the company’s ownership of its business plan. In publishing a final and draft determination, the regulator fundamentally changes the company’s business plan. The consequence is that the company may no longer feel that they have ownership of their business plan and, more fundamentally, their long‐term strategy. This can create a parent–child relationship between the regulator and the regulated company where the company focuses on meeting the requirements that the regulator has set out in the Final Determination.

As a further example, how a regulated company reports its performance to the regulator also encourages particular behaviours. Traditionally, an economic regulator would

59

60

3  Water Financing and Pricing Mechanisms

implement a monitoring framework to understand how the company is performing against the regulator’s targets in the Final Determination. Each year, the economic regulator would publish reports which ‘praise’ or ‘scold’ the company based on how it is performing against the targets. This would cover performance against targets for cost efficiency, levels of service and progress towards delivering the investment plans. Again, in the early years of economic regulation, this approach was necessary to ensure that the water companies delivered the investment needed to comply with EU Directives. The fear of missing a target and suffering criticism (which would be reported in the national media) led to significant improvements in performance and investment delivery. It has, however, reinforced the consequences described above (e.g. the adversarial behaviours and parent–child relationship). As explained previously, these elements of the regulatory governance framework are important as they encourage a set of behaviours and cultures between regulator and regulated company. These include: ●● ●● ●● ●●

a lack of openness or dialogue on the significant strategic issues; a lack of trust between regulator and regulated company; focus on meeting short‐term targets; and risk aversion or, put simply, a fear of failure.

On this latter point, the fear of failure is likely to act as an inhibitor to alternative approaches and/or innovation. This is likely to result in a worse outcome for customers and the environment. The fear of failure is likely to result in companies favouring tried and tested capital expenditure solutions – which may be more expensive on a whole‐life cost basis. Catchment management is a relevant example. The traditional solution would likely involve changing the treatment process to remove pesticides and/or fertilisers from the water course, through capital investment and/or adding further chemicals to the water course. The catchment management solution, however, involves work with the stakeholders in the water catchment area to encourage them to change their behaviour (e.g. avoid using specific pesticides and/or fertilisers). This could involve water companies making compensation payments to landowners. The catchment management solution may have a lower whole life cost than the traditional solution, especially when the cost of carbon is considered. It will, however, have less certainty of meeting the defined water quality standard, largely due to the water company having to rely on the actions of third parties. The fear of failure may, therefore, result in the water company relying on the traditional solution even if this is more expensive and a demonstrably worse outcome for customers and the environment. It is, therefore, important that regulatory governance frameworks facilitate the right behaviours, relationships, and ultimately culture. The financing and pricing mechanisms then naturally follow.

3.4 ­New Insights The water industry faces substantial long‐term challenges. These include: ●●

Climate change adaptation and mitigation: Several national governments have set their countries the target of achieving ‘net zero’ emissions (e.g. the United Kingdom) or

3.4 ­New Insight

●●

becoming carbon neutral (e.g. France and Germany) by 2050. In the case of Scotland, the Scottish Government has set an earlier target of 2045. The water industry will have a vital role to play if these targets are to be met and given the scale of the infrastructure in the water industry, it is hard to imagine an industry with a larger operational and embedded carbon footprint! Indeed, recognising the important role of the water industry in achieving these targets, some national governments have set the water industry in their country earlier targets for reaching net zero emissions. In Scotland, for example, Scottish Water is to reach net zero emissions by 2040, five years before the Scotland wide target. Asset replacement: It is difficult to see how the water industry could achieve net zero emissions if it is not operating, enhancing, refurbishing, and replacing its assets in an economically optimal way, taking into account the costs of emissions. Moreover, customers and communities will expect service levels to improve over time. As such, the water industry will need to transition to the point where it manages its assets in an economically optimal manner. There is evidence that expenditure on asset replacement will eventually have to increase significantly from current levels. This has major implications for the future financing and funding of the water industry.

Current approaches to economic regulation are not well placed to put the industry on a good footing to meet these challenges. As an example, the ‘hard budget constraint’, which has traditionally been the foundation of incentive‐based regulation in the United Kingdom, requires a regulated company to minimise its use of cash during a regulatory period. This creates an incentive to take forward interventions which require the lowest cash outlay (often assuming that the use of available capacity is a ‘free’ resource) even if they do not have the lowest whole life cost. It is inimical to appropriate consideration of non‐cash costs, such as emissions. Indeed, on this latter point, incentive‐based regulation has not paid sufficient attention to wider economic costs. It is not possible to monetise reductions in emissions or other benefits captured in a ‘six‐capital’ framework (financial, manufactured, natural, human, intellectual, and social capitals) while maintaining a ‘hard budget constraint’. Addressing longer‐term challenges, therefore, requires a fundamental change in approach. Economic regulation in the United Kingdom has therefore come to a critical juncture: ●●

●●

Does economic regulation continue to introduce incremental incentives to try to encourage the right behaviours and culture (e.g. establishing ‘truth‐telling’ incentives, or innovation funds)? Does economic regulation require a more significant overhaul to find a new way of operating with a focus on behaviours, relationships, and culture?

Focusing on the latter point, a new concept which identifies the importance of adopting fair and ethical behaviours is Ethical Business Practice and Ethical Business Regulation (EBP and EBR) (Hodges and Steinholtz 2018). EBP is defined as: An organisation in which the leaders consciously and consistently strive to create an effective ethical culture where employees do the right thing, based upon ethical values and supported by cultural norms and formal institutions. EBP requires people who can recognise ethical dilemmas, challenge constructively, speak up if they know or suspect unethical behaviour, and who use mistakes and wrongdoing as an

61

62

3  Water Financing and Pricing Mechanisms

opportunity to learn and improve. Engagement with EBR then requires the organisation to be open with its regulator and provide evidence of EBP (Hodges and Steinholtz 2018). The concept of EBP also aligns with the latest thinking on redefining company purpose as advanced by Professor Colin Mayer and the British Academy (Mayer 2018; British Academy 2019). Professor Mayer, for example, recognises that companies should not profit from creating problems for people and the planet. Companies should instead have clear purposes which provide a commitment to their stakeholders such as the environment, customers, employees, and suppliers. Professor Mayer’s research suggests that it is the pursuit of such clear purposes, which deliver value over time. Implementing purpose and EBP is not straightforward as it requires a company to go well beyond operating in an ‘ethical’ way. It involves businesses continually demonstrating evidence of their commitment to open, fair, and candid behaviours that build and maintain the trust of its stakeholders. This is a very high bar. In theory, EBR should be the regulator’s response to a business demonstrating a consistent track record of EBP. EBR considers evidence from behavioural science, safety regulation, and business and integrity management and considers the application of these lessons to regulatory systems. It focuses on the essential role of ethics in regulatory activities (on the part of regulators and regulated companies) as a foundation for establishing trust among stakeholders. This should result in better‐quality decision‐making and better outcomes for customers. The main elements of EBR can be summarised in the following terms: ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

The regulatory system will be most effective in affecting the behaviour of individuals when it supports ethical and fair behaviour. Businesses should continually demonstrate evidence of their commitment to fair and ethical behaviour that will support the trust of regulators and enforcers, as well as of all levels of management and employees, customers, suppliers, investors, and stakeholders. A blame culture will inhibit learning and an ethical culture, so businesses and regulators should support an open collaborative culture. Regulatory systems need to be based on collaboration if they are to support an ethical regime, as well as maximising performance, compliance, and innovation. Where there is unethical behaviour, people expect a proportionate response. This is consistent with strong sanctions for intentional wrongdoing.

The essence of EBR is to ‘do the right thing’ and speak up in sharing all relevant information in open relationships, so as continuously to learn and improve. It is about relationships inside and outside a company. The crucial aspects of EBR are the degree of collaboration, openness, and transparency on which relationships and transactions are based. Under EBR, provided the regulated companies demonstrate that they are ‘doing the right thing’ for customers and society (i.e. demonstrating EBP behaviours), then the regulator would not intervene. If, however, the regulated ‘company ship’ deviates from a reasonable ‘shipping lane’, then the regulator would act. In the most severe cases, where trust has broken and attempts to restore it have failed, the regulator’s response would be to rely on its extensive regulatory powers. EBR is therefore akin to ‘regulation by exception’. EBR is gaining traction in the United Kingdom with both the UK

3.4 ­New Insight

Government and Scottish Government indicating their support for taking forward EBR approaches. The Scottish water industry is a tangible example of an EBP‐ and EBR‐based approach. WICS has committed to EBR because it considers that if Scottish Water adopts and implements EBP, the combination of EBP and EBR should enable the water industry in Scotland to meet the challenges that lie ahead as effectively as possible and to do so long into the future (Water Industry Commissioner for Scotland 2017). EBR is still a new concept, and it will take time to change the traditional regulatory behaviours and culture. Nevertheless, WICS is beginning to observe initial benefits from this approach in several areas. These include: ●●

●●

seeking to build a joint understanding of the investment challenges in the Scottish water industry and developing an appropriate response; and developing a new process for Scottish Water to develop its investment plans – an investment planning and prioritisation process.

On the first area, for example, Scottish Water has worked with WICS and other stakeholders to understand likely future levels of asset replacement. The work has identified that past investment in new (shorter life) assets to comply with national legislation and European Directives will require that expenditure on asset replacement may eventually have to increase threefold from current levels. This has led to an open discussion on an appropriate transition to this level of asset replacement and the further information that stakeholders require to have confidence that Scottish Water will spend this expenditure efficiently and effectively. On the second area, in past Strategic Review of Charges, Scottish Water prepared a business plan which set out its view of the price caps necessary to fund the investment consistent with meeting Ministers Objectives. The Strategic Review of Charges is the name of the process that WICS follows to set price caps for Scottish Water for the regulatory period. WICS reviewed the business plan and prepared a Final Determination of price caps. At the end of this process, Scottish Water confirmed the list of projects to be delivered for the full regulatory period (six years) in a document called the Technical Expression. The business plan and investment plans were therefore developed in tandem. Going forward, the Scottish Water’s Strategic Plan and the WICS Final Determination will result in a financial envelope for investment. Scottish Water will then develop its investment plans on a rolling basis (rather than for the full six years in the Technical Expression) through a new investment planning and prioritisation process. At its essence, this new process will involve several steps. These include: ●●

●●

●●

Scottish Water and stakeholders developing an extensive list of potential requirements and aspirations based on Scottish Ministers’ objectives for the industry; Scottish Water assessing the requirements and aspirations in terms of both urgency and importance and deciding which should be taken forward for appraisal; Scottish Water producing investment appraisals which set out the range of options that are available to the regulated company. At its heart, this will be a series of trade-offs and, often, difficult decisions. The quality of process and the evidence base deployed will be critical. These appraisals should consider wider benefits such as amenity value, carbon

63

64

3  Water Financing and Pricing Mechanisms

●●

impacts, and augmenting natural and social capital and not just looking at expenditure; and Scottish Water taking account of the input from stakeholders in deciding which projects to promote to its investment plan.

The expectation is that the new process will deliver several benefits – including introducing much more flexibility into the investment prioritisation and planning process. The appraisals should also identify opportunities for alternative approaches and/or innovation. This could include, for example, involving customers, communities, and other stakeholders in the co‐design and co‐delivery of improvements. In the context of catchment management, the appraisals could identify further opportunities to work with landowners. These benefits would not be possible, or at the very least much harder, to realise under traditional regulatory approaches given that they require a paradigm shift in behaviours.

3.5 ­Future Knowledge Requirements As previously discussed, economic regulation will need to adapt in light of the long‐term challenges facing the water industry of which the most significant one is climate change adaptation and mitigation. Several countries have also set ambitious targets for reducing emissions which will have significant consequences for how the water industry operates, maintains, and manages its assets in an economically optimal way. The largest knowledge gap is, therefore, what the water industry will look like in the future if it is to play its part in the achievement of these targets. To this end, in Scotland, for example, Scottish Water is developing a transformation plan in the early 2020s which will set out how it will change as an organisation to meet the Scottish Government’s target of net zero emissions by 2040 for the water industry. This will cover how Scottish Water will look and act differently in relation to the f­ ollowing areas: ●● ●● ●●

asset management improvement and appraisals; customer involvement; and organisational change, including competency and culture.

In relation to the change in culture, for example, lower carbon solutions such as catchment management will need to become ‘business as usual’ rather than around the ‘margins’ which is what is generally observed in water industries in several countries. To achieve such a change in culture will require water companies to have a genuine openness to try new approaches and a willingness to work with customers and stakeholders to co‐develop solutions. In such a world, the customer voice would need to carry as much weight as the vital engineering and economic input. Furthermore, regulators (and politicians) would have to accept that even the best laid plans may not turn out as expected, provided that the company proactively identifies and explains the shortfall in performance including explaining what it has done and why it has done it. EBP‐ and EBR‐based approaches are a step in this direction. Another knowledge gap, however, is whether such approaches will be sufficient in light of the significant challenges ahead.

  ­Reference

­References British Academy (2019). Principles for Purposeful Business. Hodges, C. and Steinholtz, R. (2018). Ethical Business Practice and Regulation: A Behavioural and Values‐Based Approach to Compliance and Enforcement, 352. Oxford: Hart Publishing. ISBN: 97881509916382. Mayer, C. (2018). Prosperity, 1e. Oxford University Press. OECD (2011). Benefits of Investing in Water and Sanitation; An OECD Perspective. The Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development. OECD (2014). Applying better regulation in the water service sector: the governance of water regulators. 3rd Meeting of the Network of Economic Regulators. OECD (2018). Financing water: investing in sustainable growth. Policy perspectives OECD Environmental Policy Paper No. 11. The Water Industry Commission for Scotland (2014). ‘The Strategic Review of Charges 2015‐21: Final determination’, November, p. 7. UN (2010). Resolution A/Res/64/292 United Nations General Assembly July 2010, General comment 15. The right to water, UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Water Industry Commission for Scotland (2017). Initial Decision Paper 12: Financial strategy. Water Industry Commissioner for Scotland (2017). Innovation and collaboration: future proofing the Water Industry for Customers, April 2017, Chapter 4.

65

Credit: D. Lloyd Owen, Envisager Ltd, UK.

67

4 Defining ‘Smart Water’ David Lloyd Owen Envisager Limited, Newcastle Emlyn, Cardigan, Wales, UK

4.1 ­Introduction Smart water, sometimes referred to as ‘digital water’, is ‘something of a catch‐all expression’ (OECD 2012) for the current and potential impact of data collection, transmission, and analysis for water and sewage utilities and domestic, commercial, industrial, and irrigation users. Smart water is an enhancement rather than a replacement, ‘an enabler of innovation, as much as being an innovation itself’ (OECD 2012). Smart water involves the application of the ‘smart metering’ and ‘smart grid’ sides of clean technology covering water distribution and usage, wastewater distribution, treatment and recovery, along with water flows, quality, and saturation in the built and natural environment. Smart water has been realised through the development and convergence of information technology, mobile and digital communication, and the Internet. The expression ‘Cleantech’ (an abbreviation of clean technology) covers goods and services that aim to reduce the environmental impact of utility, environmental and public service activities such as power, waste management, heating, and transportation, along with associated consumer goods. ‘Cleantech’ was coined by Nicholas Parker in 2002 (personal communication). Cleantech aims to ‘do more for less’ whereby innovations improve the performance of a utility or an allied service and lowers its costs. It is associated with aiming to decrease a product or service’s environmental footprint, typically in terms of its carbon dioxide (CO2) generation. The ultimate aim is to ‘de‐carbonise’ activities so that they are not net generators of CO2. As a result, Cleantech is especially associated with developing and deploying renewable energy technologies. ‘Smart’ stems from the acronym ‘Self‐Monitoring, Analysis and Reporting Technology’ and was first adopted in the early 1980s and was widely adopted after the mention of ‘smart missiles’ in the first Gulf War of 1991 (Goddard et al. 1997). Smart Cleantech involves the overlay of information processing upon extant systems. Cleantech can benefit from smart approaches where they enable the impacts of these innovations to be delivered in the most efficient manner. Smart Cleantech involves the automation of systems within Cleantech, Handbook of Catchment Management, Second Edition. Edited by Robert C. Ferrier and Alan Jenkins. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

68

4  Defining ‘Smart Water’

managing their interfaces, by adopting integrated communications for monitoring, supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA), delivering usage optimisation, and peak demand smoothing. The ‘smart grid’ is designed to ensure the most efficient use of electricity across a network, so that no more generating capacity is deployed at any one time than is needed, matching demand with supplies as closely as possible using generators at their optimum output and with minimal transmission losses. According to the Smart Grid Forum, a smart power grid is ‘a modernised electricity grid that uses information and communications technology to monitor and actively control generation and demand in near real time, which provides a more reliable and cost‐effective system for transporting electricity from generators to homes, businesses and industry’. The first major smart grid deployment was Italy’s Telegestore programme 1999 (Drago 2009). In social and technical media, the frequency of ‘smart grid’ mentions took off in 2008, with the first journal citation being in 1997 (Gómez‐Expósito 2012). Digital domestic energy metering emerged in the 1990s (Anderson and Fuloria 2010). Smart water management concerns remote communications, data capture and assimilation, and decision‐making. It typically involves five discrete stages in information handling. (i) Monitoring and data collection, (ii) data transmission and recovery, (iii) data interpretation, (iv) data manipulation, and (v) data presentation. Data collection, interpretation, and management may take place by using approaches such as JCS (Java cache systems data cache management for optimal data handling), CRM (customer relationship management via dedicated data management), smartphones as data handlers, and GISs (geographic information systems for collecting, analysing, and sharing geographic information). Outside the ‘smart’ elements there is a physical layer (meters and monitors, for example) which gathers the data the smart networks need (Heath 2015; Peleg 2015). Smart water as a term evolved from smart water metering trials in the mid‐2000s (Lloyd Owen, personal observation). Water and wastewater have a somewhat uneasy relationship with the rest of the Cleantech sector. This stems from an assumption that pipes, sewers, and treatment works do not belong in a sector associated with photovoltaics, hydrogen cells, and data communications services. This ignores the fact that water services, gas, telecoms, and electricity provision are utility activities. There are significant cross‐linkages between utilities both in terms of services developed for one utility being adapted for another and where combined services can be offered. Links with other areas of Cleantech are emerging through work on de‐carbonising the water and wastewater sector or making traditionally energy‐intensive actions such as water and wastewater pumping and wastewater treatment and recovery energy (and therefore carbon) neutral. Water occupies a small section of the Cleantech sector in terms of funding flows and to a lesser extent in capital and operating expenditure, and the same applies with smart water and smart Cleantech. Between 2006 and 2015, 815 venture capital deals for water companies were identified compared with 9349 for Cleantech overall, with US$ 3.8 billion raised for water against US$ 83.4 billion for Cleantech (Lloyd Owen 2018). Smart Cleantech is in turn a sub‐set of Cleantech. In the five years from 2006 to 2010, ‘smart technology’ accounted for 11% of total Cleantech venture capital funding with 2% of this going on Smart Water, although there is also indirect investment in smart water through smart grid and smart industrial companies.

4.2 ­Historical Synopsi

4.2 ­Historical Synopsis The water sector is characterised by its risk adversity and conservatism. Water provision is directly affected by public health and environmental concerns and is subject to greater regulatory scrutiny than other utilities. In developed economies, any deviation from perfect water and wastewater delivery is considered as unacceptable, and there is less tolerance of service shortfalls than, for example, failing to get a mobile phone signal. Indeed, while mobile telephony may feel indispensable, access to potable water is essential to life, while the economic and public health costs of poor access to water and inadequate sanitation are considerable. Another factor is the asset intensity of water services, and even more so for sewerage, in relation to the revenues their activities generate. This leads to concerns about stranded assets, whereby innovation obliges a utility to acquire new systems even though it already has perfectly functional assets. For example, if manual read water meters were recently purchased, this may delay the adoption of smart meters because of the concerns about purchasing these assets twice over. Data gathering by water utilities is typically slow, partial, labour‐intensive, and reactive to events. With most assets being located underground, utilities typically have a limited understanding of their condition or performance. This in turn diminishes the utility’s ability to respond to new challenges through past experiences. If utility managers cannot appreciate how its assets are performing, they cannot make properly informed decisions about any aspects of their operations that need to be addressed, let alone how to respond to these and to prioritise them. Due to the costs of transport, the balance between water supplies and demand usually occurs at the catchment area level. The proportion of people living with water shortages has risen as population growth competes with an unchanging resource. In 1900, 9% of the global population (131 million people) lived in conditions of water stress (less than 1700 m3 per annum of renewable water resources). By 2005, 3247 million people, 50% of the population, were living in water‐stressed conditions, 35% with less than 1000 m3 per annum of water resources (Kummu et al. 2010). Affordability and willingness to pay for water and wastewater services are a leading challenge for utilities and resource managers. Full cost recovery (covering the cost of operating a service and the ability to finance the debt required to develop new assets) and sustainable cost recovery (similar to full cost recovery, blended with grants from international donors and/or the national government) ought to be the norm, but remain the exception. The only known case of a utility paying directly for all of its operating and capital expenditure costs without recourse to subsidies or debt is Copenhagen Water (HOFOR) in Denmark. There is a need to do more with less. The imbalance between current levels of capital expenditure and what is needed is significant. GWI (2011) estimated that utilities in 2010 were spending US$ 173 billion in capital spending compared with US$  384 billion per annum needed to maintain services at their current level while ensuring no further overall deterioration in these assets and US$ 534 billion per annum to secure supplies and meet currently foreseen standards and demands. The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) predicts significant renewable water resource shortfalls on the basis of 4200 km3 of global readily accessible annual water

69

70

4  Defining ‘Smart Water’

flows. Water demand is forecast to rise from 3856 km3 per annum in 2000 to 6900 km3 per annum by 2030. 900 km3 per annum of the forecast demand is for municipal use, 1500 km3 by industry, and 4500 km3 by agriculture (Molden 2007; FAO 2010). This shortfall may be met in part by desalination, water reuse, or the abstraction of non‐renewable groundwater resources. The former entails extra costs and energy demand while the latter is not a sustainable option. It is expected that meeting the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 6 (SDG6) (water and sanitation) targets by 2030 will require US$ 114 billion per annum of capital spending between 2015 and 2030 (Hutton and Verguhese 2016). The World Bank notes (World Bank 2016) that ‘the water sector is not well equipped to face these new financing challenges’. Current capital spending for SDG6 is at US$ 16 billion per annum and rising by 5% per annum (UN‐Water 2017) with water‐related Overseas Development Assistance at US$ 13 billion and showing no significant increases (Winpenny et al. 2016). Water is ‘an uncooperative commodity’ (Bakker 2004) which is seen by some as being free and, therefore, free from commercial considerations, yet its equitable and universal provision requires significant investment. Water utilities face many challenges obtaining funding for maintaining, let alone extending their services. A survey commissioned by the World Bank, using data from 1999 to 2004 (Foster and Yepes 2005; Olivier 2007), found that 60% of the utilities examined achieved some degree of cost recovery, especially in higher‐ income countries, where cost recovery was seen in 92% of utilities against 9% in low‐income countries. No (or inadequate) cost recovery was interpreted as charging less than US$ 0.20 per m3 and partial cost recovery as charging US$ 0.20–0.40 per m3. Looking at developed economies, a survey of 48 utilities in 17 countries in 2014 highlights the continuing challenges. Tariffs on average covered 110% of operating costs for water and 102% for wastewater, leaving little for capital projects (European Benchmarking Co‐operation 2015). Meanwhile, in developing economies, revenues as a percentage of operating costs fell from 121% to 108% between 2000 and 2010 (Danilenko et al. 2014). The IB‐Net data used is obtained from co‐operating utilities, which tend to be better managed. Cost recovery in utilities providing data to IB‐Net was is in inverse proportion to water usage. The best utilities (tariffs covering over 130% of operations and maintenance) had a median water consumption of 118 l per capita per day, while the weakest (below 85% cost recovery) consumed 258 l per capita per day, mainly due to leakage and unbilled water. The ability of a utility to innovate is to some extent controlled by its regulators. Until 2008, Ofwat, the water sector’s economic regulator in England and Wales, was somewhat ambivalent about compulsory domestic water metering programmes and the adoption of smart metering approaches. Under the 2015–2020 pricing regimen, economic incentives for innovation‐led efficiency were introduced by Ofwat, and these are expected to gain in impact in 2020–2025 (see UK water industry map; Figure 4.1). The adoption of smart water is affected by politics and populism. Data privacy laws in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and California, and fears about possible health implications of data transmission have been used to postpone or even prevent the installation of smart meters. In 2010, the Netherlands postponed its universal smart water metering policy because of media and ‘vocal minority’ opposition, relating to concerns about health and privacy.

4.2 ­Historical Synopsi

Scottish Water

Northumbrian Water

Northern Ireland Water United Utilities

Yorkshire Water

Severn Trent Anglian Water Dwr Cymru (Welsh Water) Thames Water Wessex Water

Southern Water

South West Water

Figure 4.1  Water and sewerage companies in the UK (2012).

When policies limit the collection of data from consumers, for example, regarding privacy laws and data security requirements, this limits the utility of smart metering. California’s Public Utilities Commission allows customers to opt out from smart meters over concerns about electromagnetic fields (EMFs) generated, meaning they have to have

71

72

4  Defining ‘Smart Water’

their meters manually read. In the United Kingdom, similar concerns have been expressed regarding the Data Protection Act and the amount of personal information smart meters can obtain. It is seen as legal with legitimate reasons for processing data, at an appropriate collection frequency and customer access to this data. In the United Kingdom, newspaper headlines such as ‘My water meter can be a killer’ (Williams 2010) and ‘Not so smart meters’ will ‘enable snooping and pose a health risk’ (Casey 2016) demonstrate the sensitivity of policy to objections that are unlikely to have been rationally anticipated. Websites such as ‘smartmetermurder.com’ and ‘stopsmartmeters.org’ in the United States allege that smart meters damage the users’ DNA, cause cancers, kill local wildlife, and so on. In the current populist climate, such points of view can attract a following. Concerns about stranded assets can also inhibit deployment. In the Netherlands, Amsterdam’s Waternet is not installing smart meters since they recently started installing a new generation of traditional water meters, and replacing these meters with smart meters is seen as a waste of money (A. Struker and M. Havekes, personal communication). The meters are stranded assets, where installing a new technology involves replacing hardware that is fully operational, albeit having been left behind by subsequent developments.

4.3 ­Current Solutions Supply management is based on the belief that there are sufficient supplies to meet increased demand during the foreseeable future. This works well when supplies are plentiful and secure, especially within a river basin. Where water transfers are needed, this involves extra costs for energy and new infrastructure. Walker (2013) examined projections for future water supply needs in England and Wales made between 1949 and 2009 against actual demand. In the 1970s, the Water Authorities and Statutory Water Companies were supplying 13 million cubic metres per day. Projections in that decade foresaw 20–28 million cubic metres per day being needed in 10–20 years. Supply peaked at 17 million cubic metres, and by 2010, it was 14 million cubic metres. There are two types of manual meters. Accumulation meters log up how much water has been used since the previous reading was taken. A pulse meter records the time taken for a certain volume of water (100 l, for example) has been consumed and provides a readout of these time intervals. An interval meter records how much water has been consumed over a given period of time (an hour or a day, for example). The interval meter operates continually, while the pulse meter is only activated when a given volume of water has passed through. Both pulse and interval meters can provide more data through smaller set volumes and time intervals, respectively. In each case, data gathering takes place through a manual reading (say every 6 or 12 months) by a utility employee. Leaks in a water network are traditionally noted when water losses have caused a measurable decline in water deliveries or there has been a visible burst. The actual leak is likely to have occurred sometime before its detection, meaning that damage caused by the leak will be well advanced. Detecting chronic, underlying leakage traditionally requires manual inspections, based upon acoustic detection through periodic inspection taking place once

4.4  ­New Insights – The Digital Disruptio

every few months or even years. Finer location of a leak involves shutting the pipe to send down monitors or digging the pipe up. Driven by public health concerns and framed by World Health Organisation standards, water quality monitoring can offer a high degree of confidence in a utility’s ability to deliver potable water. For example, 3.48 million water tests were made in England during 2017 (DWI 2018) of which 99.96% met the applicable standards. However, traditional approaches are labour‐intensive and water quality data from the network is manually collected meaning that there is a time lag between an incident occurring and its detection. The flow of water through a network can be accurately measured through manual meters and within a network where domestic meters are universally deployed. Effluents entering a sewage treatment works can also be measured. In each case, the value of this data is limited by the time taken to collect and collate it. This limits a system’s ability to be most effectively used in, for example, periods of extreme rainfall. When pollution incidents are discovered through their damage to a river’s ecosystem, then the damage has been done. Manually collected information about the quality of inland waterways means that pollution incidents can only be responded to and usually at some time after the incident. This also limits the ability to identify and prosecute the polluter.

4.4  ­New Insights – The Digital Disruption 4.4.1  Adopting New Technologies Disruptive technologies change the nature of their intended market, and significant disruptions have been seen in water provision. These include slow sand filtration for large‐ scale water treatment in Paisley, Scotland, in 1804 (Huismann and Wood 1974) and activated sludge sewage treatment by Edward Arden and William Locket in 1913–1914 (Alleman 2005). Reverse osmosis for desalination was developed in the 1950s with the first commercial plant opening in 1965 (Loeb 2006), and membranes for wastewater treatment and water recovery were transformed by the development of the submerged membrane bioreactor in 1989 (Yamamoto et  al. 1989). While most smart water developments offer incremental rather than disruptive improvements in efficiency and cost‐effectiveness, the potential to integrate and to redouble these incremental benefits into a smart water system is indeed disruptive. Demand for water needs to be managed in order to secure future supplies. Demand management enables consumers to appreciate the direct and indirect cost of the water they consume, how consumption can be changed, and by how much. Change needs motivation and for domestic customers, this includes labelling schemes for buying water‐efficient domestic goods and water metering. Commercial customers can be encouraged to recycle their water. Between 1989 and 2002, the population of Las Vagas rose from 0.67 million to 1.43 million and water consumption increased from 28 Million cubic meteres to 54 M cubic metres. Demand management strategies implemented (Winz et al. 2009) meant that even though the population rose further to 2.05 million by 2012, water consumption eased to 49 million cubic metres. (NWA 2014; USBR 2015a, 2015b) Industrial customers can be incentivised to internalise water usage (ZLD or zero liquid discharge), and mechanisms exist for

73

74

4  Defining ‘Smart Water’

improving agricultural and recreational water efficiency. Such behaviour changes require regulatory or economic incentives. To date, demand management has been of a prescriptive nature, without much consideration of customer expectations. A one‐way flow of information from customers to utilities limits the scope for influencing consumer behaviour. Utilities rarely appreciate the variable nature of consumer behaviour and tend to communicate with their customers in a simplistic manner, limiting the scope for altering customer needs or preferences. A reasonable domestic water consumption target in Western Europe would be 105–120 l per capita per day as 120–128 l per capita per day is already the norm in much of Germany and the Netherlands, while it is 100 l per capita per day in Copenhagen after concerted demand management measures. Integration between communications, data processing, and data capture is essential for effective management. A resilient water system needs network data in real time to diagnose supply or network failures such as bursts and to provide integrated control in order to mitigate their impact in as near to real time as possible. The utility becomes proactive, preventing any actual impact occurring, or minimising and mitigating any impact if it does occur. Where data flows in a hierarchal and interlinked manner, the technology and its application are only as good as its weakest link calling the optimal integration of the separate elements. The water sector has been characterised by the relative lack of integration of its systems, especially where individual innovations are added to the existing network. For a physical network, this may have a limited impact in terms of perceived service delivery. However, poor integration results in assets across a network operating at less than their optimal efficiency. This may result in more assets being deployed than are in fact necessary, with higher operations and maintenance costs as a result. The effect of this may be more pronounced as assets age and require refurbishment or rehabilitation. Smoothing out patterns and perturbations in water demand enables assets to be used more effectively avoiding excess assets and capacity. Instead of assets geared towards managing occasional peaks of demand, their capacity better reflects overall demand, giving more headroom for dealing with exceptional peaks in demand or extreme weather events. Such extremes can also be smoothed out, for example, smart catchment management deploys natural and built assets to delay some of the discharge of flood waters into river systems by retaining water upstream so that it is released over a longer period. GWI (2016a) examined potential savings in operating and capital expenditure from ‘digital water’. In both water and wastewater, greater savings were identified for treatment (16% overall for both) rather than for distribution or collection (13% and 11%, respectively). Some examples are included below. Pumps account for 10% of global energy consumption (Riis 2015), and 90% of pumps have not been optimised. Energy accounts for 20–25% (Fargas‐Marques 2015) of water utility operating spending. Linking pumps with active water network pressure management lowers energy needs by 20% as well as reducing network distribution losses by 20%. The effective deployment of pumps and their usage levels can result in 11.5% improvements in energy efficiency (Bunn 2015). Where customers are upgraded from septic tanks to sewerage, retaining the tanks’ storage capacity can optimise network and treatment efficiency. In Australia, South East Water considered developing a sewerage system costing A$ 507 million (A$ 20 280 per property).

4.4  ­New Insights – The Digital Disruptio

Instead, a smart sewerage management system was developed, using the extant septic tanks to smooth slows into the sewerage system, managing the sewage flow into the septic tank, the sewage level, and how and when it is released into the sewerage network. When rainfall is anticipated, sewage can be held back until flows through the stormwater network have eased. Lower peak flows meant that the system was installed for 51% of the anticipated cost, while delivering a more efficient service (GWI 2016b). Making a vulnerable property safe from sewer flooding is expensive. The average of preventing sewer flooding in the United Kingdom ranges from £15 000 to £58 000 per property (Keeting 2015). The InfoWorks CS sewerage and flood risk assessment model, developed by Innovyze, was combined with 16 flow monitors at 916 properties in a part of Blackburn, UK, considered to be at risk of sewer flooding. The ‘At Risk’ register was reduced to 118, with improved flood risk prediction and lower insurance surcharge risk (Innovyze 2010). Yarra Valley Water (Melbourne, Australia) used InfoWorks CS for future sewerage population needs in a suburb. By optimising the extant sewerage system for A$  1 million, a A$ 10 million sewer project was avoided (Innovyze 2009). InfoWorks CS was used for real‐ time control system in Bordeaux, France, and Ottawa, Canada, to minimise capital spending for meeting wastewater management standards. This saw savings of 67% in Ottawa (US$  65 million) for new infrastructure needed by avoiding a new sewer tunnel while improving rain‐generated wastewater capture from 74% to 91%. A cost saving of 63% in Bordeaux (€62 million) was achieved through improving the network’s ability to store wastewater (Innovyze 2008). Demand management cuts water costs and enables extant assets to deliver a suitable level of service. Examples in Australia (Beal and Flynn 2014) include reducing monthly peak demand by 10%, deferring of A$ 100 million in new infrastructure for four years, saving the utility A$  20 million in finance costs. Deferring a A$  20 million water treatment works upgrade by seven years after reducing demand growth saw capital spending savings of A$ 7.9 million while deferring a A$ 5 million pipeline upgrade for five years realised a saving of A$ 1.6 million.

4.4.2  Decarbonising Water and Wastewater as a Resource A number of examples in this chapter highlight the potential to decarbonise water provision by minimising wastage within networks, distributing it in an energy‐efficient manner, and managing demand especially by linking water and energy consumption and bills. Wastewater is a resource and creating value through water, nutrient, and energy recovery from wastewater also generates cash flow for developing wastewater treatment systems. Water can be returned to the domestic network directly (direct potable) or indirectly (indirect potable) and direct non‐potable sale to industrial customers. Nutrient recovery is being driven by limited fertiliser stocks, and energy recovery is playing an increasingly important role in reducing utility energy costs and lowering their carbon footprints. Nutrient and energy recovery depend on controlling the waste treatment process to optimise yields. Sludge to energy, when combined with measures to minimise energy use in the rest of the water and sewerage network, has the potential to significantly reduce a utility’s carbon footprint as well as lowering its operating costs. Wastewater contains 7–10 times the energy

75

76

4  Defining ‘Smart Water’

it takes to treat it. The Egå Renseanlæg wastewater treatment plant in Aarhus, Denmark, generates 150% of its energy (Freyberg 2016). Customer interaction is a central element in metering adoption. Southern Water in the United Kingdom sought to engage with stakeholders before launching their smart metering roll‐out (Figure  4.1). At the start, 78% of customers surveyed supported metering, primarily citing fairness as a higher priority than costs (Earl 2016). Customer engagement has been a beneficial effect of an unprecedented degree of face‐to‐face customer contact instead of the traditional channels. There were also 30 000 Green Doctor water efficiency visits explaining how smart meters ‘save water, save energy, save money’ in three phases; eight weeks before installation at a property, four weeks before and on the day of installation.

4.4.3  Water and Sewerage Metering Metering drives demand management through the information it generates. The more information each meter generates, the greater the potential to influence consumer behaviour and to manage the water network in real time. Mechanical meters measure water flow continually, with readings via a physical inspection while Automated Meter Reading (AMR) does not require a manual visit. Advanced Metering Infrastructures (AMIs) are AMRs integrated into a data collection and processing network and are smart meters. AMRs allow a wide variety of data to be transmitted, including activity patterns and leakage alerts, meter and battery condition and enabling billing systems to suit specific customer needs. A home area network (HAN) allows two‐way communications, where in addition, the utility can communicate with the meter and the customer via the HAN. 89% of the UKs CO2 water‐related emissions are generated by domestic water heating or 5% of the total (Energy Savings Trust 2013). In 2010, 16% of household energy costs were water‐related, £228 of each household’s energy bill, and a total average water and sewerage bill of £369. A minute off a daily power shower would save the average user £22 and £26 off their annual electricity and water bills. A smart water meter that can estimate or indeed quantify water savings in terms of energy bills redoubles the incentive to lower consumption. Remote and accurate leakage detection allows their swift and accurate location, minimising the amount of digging and disruption needed, or avoided through trenchless techniques. Network leakage monitoring and management is carried out within a district management area (DMA) or by acoustic leak detection. DMA is mainly seen in Europe, especially in France, England and Wales, and Portugal, along with Israel, Singapore, Australia, Chile, and Brazil, and more recently, India, China, and the Philippines, while countries where DMA are rarely used include the United States and Germany. Hybrid approaches are also emerging where virtual district management areas (VDMAs) are developed through sensors, meter data analysis, and dedicated software systems (Hays 2017). The DMA approach divides the distribution system into a number of separate sections. All the water flowing into, through, and out of each DMA is measured using pipe and customer meters. This generates accurate data about water losses and allows the rapid detection of new leaks or deteriorating pipe performance. Smart metering generates this data in real time.

4.4  ­New Insights – The Digital Disruptio

Maynilad Water’s initial non‐revenue water (NRW) reduction project for West Manila (Philippines) ran from 2008 to 2014. The area was split into 1500 DMAs, each monitored for pressure management and leakage detection. The project saw NRW fall from 1580 to 650 ml per day with 277 000 leaks repaired. The improved water availability allowed Maynilad Water to increase its customer base from 700 000 connections to 1 160 000, and 24‐hour supply instead of 15 per day (Merks et  al. 2017). Maynilad invested US$  410 million in the project which generated US$ 441 million in additional revenues. Remote acoustic sensing allows the utility to monitor potential leakage in near real time. This involved a series of nodes which send data to a server via local mobile communications networks, with noise loggers placed along the network, and acoustic signals are correlated between the adjacent loggers. SYABAS serves 7.5 million people in Selangor, Malaysia. During a 190‐day trial with SYBAS, 1461 km of main pipeline was inspected, detecting 154 leaks that were losing 19 250 m3 of water each day (Bracken and Benner 2016). 25–30% of water distribution losses occur within household boundaries rather than the network. Unless the leak is noticed by the customer, without metering this goes undetected. Metering can identify anomalous water consumption. Addressing household leakage can lower overall domestic consumption by 5–11% (Godley et  al. 2008; Lloyd Owen 2018). Metering household sewerage allows utilities to appreciate the actual flow of water and the relationship between foul water and other water that enters the sewerage water network. Sewer metering incentivises customers to reuse rainwater or grey water for their gardens, which also benefits the utility, as it reduces the loading into the storm sewerage network and levels rainwater flow through the catchment area. The meter allows a utility to compare the daily volume of water supply, wastewater discharge and rainfall at the household level, and internal leaks. Network flow monitoring also shows where rain and foul connections are interconnected.

4.4.4  Demand Management, Tariffs, and Smarter White Goods Water meters inform the customer about their water consumption and motivate them to modify this. With AMI the customer gets timely and detailed information, allowing them to see the impact of each individual intervention. A survey of 12 major meter trials between 1988 and 2015 (Lloyd Owen 2018) found a 10–16% reduction in consumption when traditional meters are installed and a further 7–15% reduction when these are replaced by AMI systems. Where AMI is used in previously unmetered households, 16–17% reductions were noted. Consumer behaviour can be modified by appreciating the impact of lowering water consumption on their bills, comparing their overall consumption with neighbours and peer groups (most effective in water‐scarce areas), and replacing domestic goods with more water‐efficient models. In Australia, the Smart Approved WaterMark was launched in 2004 to certify water‐efficient devices. There were 88 approved devices by 2016. Singapore’s WELS (Water Efficiency Labelling Scheme) has been mandatory since 2009, whereby minimum efficiency standards are set for showers, lavatories, and washing machines. Since its inception in 2006, the minimum standard has been progressively tightened.

77

78

4  Defining ‘Smart Water’

Water‐smart consumer goods are also emerging, for example, the Orbital Systems (orbital‐systems.com) shower was launched in Denmark in response to high water tariffs. The shower has three smart elements; (i) shower water is recycled internally and its quality is monitored in the base unit, to determine when it needs to be treated or flushed away; (ii) LEDs warn when the treatment capsules are due for renewal; and (iii) an app allows shower use data to be monitored (Box 4.1).

Box 4.1  Case Study: Metering and Non-revenue Water Reduction Aguas de Cascais serves 208 000 people in Portugal. NRW fell from 39% in 2001 to 25% in 2005 through conventional NRW approaches. Smart approaches were adopted in 2012. Data analysis was automated, the DMA size was reduced, and pressure management systems were brought in. Large night-time consumers have full two-way AMR metering to distinguish between their usage and the background usage levels. Current loss is calibrated against the potential minimum physical loss and the minimum practically achievable physical loss. From 2014, the utility adopted an active leak control programme linked to optimised network pressure management, smart leakage detection approaches, and applied a predictive pipeline and asset management programme based on reducing background leakage. This involves the selection of pipes each month for rehabilitation or replacement. By 2014, NRW was 14.3%, and the cost of NRW in 2014 was €1.25 million against €3.00 million in 2010, a net saving of €1.75 million per year (Perdiago 2015).

4.4.5 Sensors Water scarcity is often allied with water quality issues, for example, saline encroachment of groundwater and the need to maintain the integrity of renewable resources such as rivers and lakes. More testing is needed due to the intensity of water use. This requires more detailed data on inland and groundwater quality, in terms of both their availability and quality. Where treated wastewater is reintroduced into river systems or groundwater (aquifer recharge) for indirect potable reuse, this also needs to be monitored appropriately. Faster testing allows managers to predict rather than respond. The greater the lag between an incident occurring and its being addressed, the more damage can be done. A water leak can damage roads and pavements above it by leaching away the soil lying beneath the hard surface. Sewer leaks can also contaminate water supplies through egress into groundwater and poorly maintained water pipes. Rising expectations about service delivery, aesthetic issues, and public health standards drive monitoring and treatment costs. Public willingness to pay for services is linked to service quality, especially in the perception of service reliability. Where there is little public trust in service delivery, alternative approaches such as point‐of‐use (PoU) and point‐of‐ entry (PoE) household water treatment units and bottled water are adopted, irrespective of the latter’s actual quality. Here, consumers are spending on water; however, the money is not going on infrastructure or service development.

4.4  ­New Insights – The Digital Disruptio

Bathing water quality monitoring was traditionally reactive, days or weeks passing before test results were released with overall beach assessments at the end of each year. The EUs revised bathing water directive (2006/7/EU) requires data to be released on dedicated websites. As bathing water quality is affected by rainwater flushing sewage from combined sewer overflows (CSOs), timely monitoring and data dissemination are important. When the directive was developed, in a ‘pre‐smart’ era, the need for near real‐time data meant that as the directive became effective in 2015, the directive’s requirements and the capabilities offered by smart water have aligned. A broad range of indicators can be used for assessing inland water quality. These include water flow (volume and height, for flood warning and management, resource planning, and inland water quality), temperature (water quality, via the ability to retain dissolved oxygen), colour and turbidity (underlying contamination issues and individual pollution incidents, along with flooding and exceptional surface run‐off), contaminants (faecal contamination, pesticides, and heavy metals, for example, from agricultural, urban, industrial, and mining discharges and also for water leaving a service reservoir), pH, and dissolved oxygen (eutrophication). Smart irrigation allows a detailed appreciation of growth needs and conditions, with irrigation flow to separately watered zones timed according to soil moisture or rainfall data, including its duration and intensity. Irrigation is managed by a control system that determines when and how much water for each zone in relation to the crop and soil characteristics. Weather forecasting ensures no irrigation when rainfall is anticipated. Feedback loops based on this data enable the grower to refine the irrigation regimen to local circumstances. Water is delivered to the growing zone through drip/tube irrigators, with smart metering to monitor water usage. Irrigation is also synchronised with each crop’s growth cycle. Water pressure management has an important role to play in leakage reduction. Pressure management reduces network leakage by keeping water pressure within a distribution system to a minimum. Excess pressure within the network forces water out of the pipes through underlying leaks in the system and shortens pipe life due to the stress induced upon them (Dunning 2015). Trials in the United Kingdom with i2O’s oNet with Severn Trent, Portsmouth Water, and United Utilities between 2008 and 2010 resulted in leakage reductions of 26%, 29%, and 36%, respectively. A contract with Anglian Water from 2014 to 2016 has resulted in 40% fewer burst mains and a 35% reduction in leakage.

4.4.6  ‘Digital’ Water Real‐time access to information allows utilities to respond to events after their outset rather than when noticed, minimising service disruption and damage to infrastructure, with this information being adopted to improve their ability to predict and respond to similar events in the future. Northumbrian Water adopted an integrated catchment level control system for the entire utility in 2010. Periodic data collection was found to have a minimal effect. The Aquadapt system adopted in 2015 provides data on all operating assets every 30 minutes. This includes identifying the cheapest water and energy resources to use. Aquadapt has seen a 6% reduction in water produced, 14% better energy efficiency, and 20% less energy consumption, at £1.7 million per annum (Baker 2015).

79

80

4  Defining ‘Smart Water’

Big data can be put to good use. Customer calls ought to be a source of information rather than dealing with concerns and complaints. For this, a utility needs to translate real‐time data capture into anticipating where problems may occur and to use e‐mail, SMS, and social media to alert customers before they are aware that there is a problem. At Vitens in the Netherlands, this approach reduced call centre contacts by 90% with improved customer satisfaction. Vitens anticipates 120 million values per day coming from their sensors alone. External data inputs include social media (especially Twitter), incoming calls, traffic data, trending topics (using Google), weather, and sensor data from other sources. Dwr Cymru Welsh Water’s experiences with big data are outlined in Box 4.2 Box 4.2  Case Study: Big Data at D-r Cymru Welsh Water D-r Cymru Welsh Water (DCWW, dwrcymru.com) serves approximately 3 million people for water and sewage services in Wales and parts of England. DCWW has a smart water strategy running from 2010 to 2035. It aims to provide an invisible customer service (ensuring customers do not notice works being carried out to deliver their services) and to focus field work to what is actually needed in the right place and at the right time. As a private sector company, DCWW needs a business case for each smart application. DCWW anticipates big data playing a significant role from 2020, along with the connected home and the Internet of Things (IoT). Currently, DCWW generates 331 500 000 data points per annum, including 180 million for water flow, 53 million for wastewater flow, 36 million for telemetry outstations, 47 million for water pressure, and 7 million for business customers. This data is managed by two people during the day and one at night at its monitoring headquarters, along with three regional centres. Their experience to date shows that what matters is accessing the important data, not the noise (Bishop 2015). Virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) allow the remote visualisation of extant or planned assets. Maintenance teams can obtain a detailed picture of water mains and sewers and how they relate to other underground assets, minimising the disruption caused when these need to be inspected, replaced, or maintained. New or upgraded treatment works may be comprehensively trialled and examined without the need to develop physical prototypes as operators can be immersed into their virtual working environments. Big data brings its own challenges, however. Systems designed to operate with 2 data reads per month may not be able to cope with 720 (once every hour) to 2880 (once every 15 minutes) customer reads that are capable of being generated by AMI systems every month (Symmonds 2015). For example, Cachoeiro de Itapemirim (Brazil) has 55 309 metered connections. The utility has 1956 data points in 20 DMAs. Each data point generates 5.18 million units of data a day or 10.1 billion units of data a day overall, some 3.7 million–million units of data each year (Sodeck 2016). This data needs to be cleaned, to remove gaps, zeros, peaks, and constant values through the effective use of previously collected data. Here, deviations from expected performance over the previous 30 days are reported every 30 minutes and presented in graphics, along with other data such as pressure, reservoir levels, and minimum night flows.

4.4  ­New Insights – The Digital Disruptio

Flood management is chiefly concerned with ‘hard’ defences, rather than flood avoidance and amelioration. Smart flood management has five stages. (i) Mapping and analysing an area’s vulnerability to flooding. (ii) Developing responses for these vulnerabilities, such as flood prevention (increasing the natural or engineered absorptive capacity within or before a flood zone) and developing flood defences on both a property and area level. (iii) Monitor water flows and the weather in real time, feeding the data back to the maps to improve their accuracy and predictive ability. (iv) Continually updated maps for changes that may affect the flow of water through the area, along with water levels and climate patterns, to highlight current or emerging vulnerabilities. (v) Forecast potential flooding events to maximise warning times for flood defences and people. In some urban areas, people can also be warned to alter their water usage (baths, washing machines, and so on) during critical periods to lower the impact of storm sewer flooding. Looking forward, the main opportunities lie in the evolution of more sensitive and fast‐reacting sensors and relating these to real‐time network control and the application of hydraulic models (Lloyd Owen 2018) to current and predicted weather conditions and other events. This in turn will be linked with smart sewerage with the integrated monitoring of sewage flow and other operational parameters across the sewerage and sewage networks and treatment systems as well as the discharge points such as CSOs, using a systemic understanding of the behaviour and performance of the entire sewage system. Water network flow monitoring ought to take place from the point it is introduced into the distribution network to the customer, in order to anticipate and react to any deteriorations in asset condition. The same applies to the sewerage network. In the case of sewerage, monitoring also allows a utility to appreciate where rainwater and foul (waste) water actually flow through storm and foul sewers and how combined sewers are in fact performing. Cost‐effective pipe repairs depend on an accurate diagnosis of pipe condition. Being mainly located underground, these assets are poorly understood and tend to deteriorate to an unacceptable degree or are replaced before they should or be rehabilitated. Water pipe linings are affected by a wide variety of physical, chemical, and biological reactions over time. For the customer, network deterioration often means water discolouration. The utility needs to understand and manage the cohesive layers within pipes through knowing their condition, age, material, and diameter. Pipe cleaning is expensive and can only be justified if there will be no significant biofilm regrowth within at least a year. Pipe conditioning is a low‐cost alternative. To see where this is the case, PODDS (Prediction of Discolouration in Distribution Systems) predictive modelling can be used (J. Boxall, personal communication). In six trials in the United Kingdom, instead of traditional approaches (swabbing, jetting, flushing, or replacement) at a forecast cost of £0.075–0.333 million per kilometre, jetting or conditioning was used, bringing the costs down to £0.001–0.057 million per kilometre. PODDS merges real‐time analysis of water flow and turbidity, using long‐term time series data, simulating the accumulation of material layers onto a pipe surface, with the regeneration rate being a function of water quality. Within a smart network, this also allows flows to be managed in relation to current and predicted pipe condition (Box 4.3).

81

82

4  Defining ‘Smart Water’

Box 4.3  Case Study: Integrated Leakage Detection Visenti was spun-off from MIT in 2011 based on a water IoT concept developed there in 2008 and was acquired by Xylem in 2016. The system allows managers to differentiate between pipe bursts and chronic leakage through integrating real-time monitoring of pressure transients, hydrophones, and flow within the water distribution network to determine and locate the type of leak and its impact for effective response and remediation work. Initial trials were carried out in New Zealand (WaterCare Auckland and Christ Church), Australia (Yarra Valley, South East Water, and SA Water), and UAE (Sharjah) and across a series of DMAs in Singapore.

4.4.7  Rural–Urban Interface (New Storage and Green Infiltration) Rising demand from municipal and industrial users is resulting in greater competition between irrigation and these new consumers. Meanwhile irrigation faces its own challenges: (i) a finite amount of fertile land, with some of the most fertile being lost to urbanisation, (ii) the growth in agricultural yields being overtaken by population growth, and (iii) loss of land from lowered groundwater levels and increasing soil salination. Smart irrigation enables extant or planned assets to operate in the most effective manner possible. For example, replacing surface by drip irrigation can reduce non‐beneficial consumption by 76% (Jägermeyr et al. 2015) and improve yields by 9–15%. Smart soil moisture monitoring systems are achieving 40% savings and further improvements in yields. Lowering irrigation intensity means there is scope for supplemental irrigation, which has the potential to boost crop yields by 56% (Jägermeyr et al. 2016). Instead of the 4500 km3 irrigation demand forecast for 2030 (FAO 2010), drip irrigation could reduce demand to 2100 km3, and when combined with smart monitoring, to 1550 km3 (Lloyd Owen 2018). This is the impact of water reaching the roots when it is needed. Smart irrigation can ensure that global water abstraction is maintained at below the 4200 km3 per annum of accessible renewable water flows. Smart municipal water management could see 2030 demand drop from 900 to 730 km3 and from 1050 to 945 km3 for industrial demand. This would see overall demand at 3225 km3 rather than 6450 or 3690 km3 if more land is irrigated using renewable resources (Lloyd Owen 2018). Sustainable urban drainage has a significant role in urban flood mitigation. While utilities typically have a limited role with regard to preventing and managing flooding incidents, they are associated with them, as the providers of water and sewerage services in any affected area. A rising frequency and intensity of flood events is in part being exacerbated by urbanisation, as in urban areas, 85% of rainfall becomes surface run‐off, which has to be absorbed by drainage systems. Sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) can be used in urban areas and in rural areas, combined with catchment management. SuDS approaches are localised and complement other urban drainage systems. Its broader deployment is inhibited by the variety of approaches available and the data generated when comparing them. The SuDS Studio (Atkins) examined various approaches for 1900 km2 of land in Anglian Water’s catchment area. GIS data was used

4.4  ­New Insights – The Digital Disruptio

to map potential SuDS areas while avoiding potential conflict zones such as listed buildings, flood zones, and incorrect topography. 13.5 million potential projects were identified, 5.5 million of which were cost‐effective. From here, more detailed analysis can be carried out, based on a database with the degree of detail that was not feasible with non‐smart approaches. Sewerage monitoring and warning systems prevent discharges from CSOs or overflows within the sewerage network. Smart sewerage involves integrating weather data, along with actual and predicted rainfall, and the performance of the storm sewer network to the drainage basin. Event duration monitoring (EDM) records discharges from CSOs how long they last for. In England, the Environment Agency has asked the English water companies to monitor the ‘vast majority’ of their 15 000 CSOs by 2020 (Hulme 2014). For sites of Community Importance, this means monitoring a spill at 2‐minute intervals while for less sensitive areas, a 15‐minute monitoring frequency is seen as appropriate (Hulme 2014). Catchment‐based water management with real‐time monitoring and predictive systems minimises the response time to perturbations in each area, including linking treatment works to the monitoring data. This requires a full appreciation about the water flowing through each water system from its origin to its consumption and discharge. Working with farmers and land managers, downstream water quality can be improved and flood resilience boosted through a greater capability to absorb exceptional rainfall upstream (Indepen 2014) while improving agricultural efficiency, decreasing water and wastewater costs, and improving inland waterway quality. Upstream catchment management to date has concentrated on the potential for physical interventions to improve downstream outcomes. Monitoring has been reactive, with an emphasis on long‐term outcomes. As hardware costs fall, migrating monitoring upstream allows a greater focus on those areas where upstream data can provide an early warning about potential issues that may arise downstream, enabling operators to assess and address them at the earliest instance. Smart catchment management includes considering how to alleviate the rising conflicts between agriculture and utilities for water resources where irrigation agriculture is practiced. Effective flood management and mitigation depend on real‐time monitoring. The roles of external factors such as soil moisture content prior to heavy rainfall and surface run‐off have not been adequately factored into flood risk monitoring until recently. Real‐time monitoring of rainfall, water flows, soil moisture, and groundwater levels are allied to comprehensive and fully updated data on the flood characteristics of each catchment area to respond to changing water levels and to maximise the time available to respond to potential flooding incidents. Monitoring sewer overflows is also proving to be cost‐effective. Detectronic’s ultrasonic flow sewer meter system integrates rainfall and sewer level data and blends it with external weather, sewer asset, and historic data. It accepts old data from other monitors to provide historic benchmarking. Trials meant that 160 pollution or flood preventing interventions were carried out, saving clients £5 million in potential fines, along with reputational damage and post‐event remedial works, against an £225 000 investment (Box 4.4).

83

84

4  Defining ‘Smart Water’

Box 4.4  Case Study: Flood Warning and Management in Bordeaux Greater Bordeaux in France covers 27 municipalities with 740 000 people. After two floods in 1982, the city spent €900 million on ‘hard’ engineering for handling floodwaters (Erk 2015). Suez developed the RAMSES INFLUX™ stormwater management system to maximise the warning time for impending flood events. A one-hour weather forecast is updated every five minutes and integrated with network data (water level and flow and network systems status) and along with rainfall and river flow data for the catchment area. This allows water storage and discharge systems to operate with at least six hours’ notice during wet weather. In 2016, the system was integrated into the Suez Aquadvanced water management systems (Suez 2016). In 2013, a flood more severe than those in 1982 (7 cm of rainfall in 40 minutes) did not affect the city.

4.5  ­Future Knowledge Requirements Water is a low‐value, high‐volume substance which is not usually regarded as a commodity. Safe water provision and sewage disposal sit uneasily with the public perception of smart futures seeking the greatest value from the smallest entities. Financial concerns inhibit utility investment in innovation. In contrast, industrial customers need to use water as efficiently as is possible in order to lower its operating costs (less water abstracted and consumed, fewer effluents generated, and lower power and chemical consumption), while complying with applicable environmental and public health standards, adopting where it makes business sense to do so. Industrial customers can act as a bridge towards utility markets. Water utilities also face rising expectations in meeting environmental, service delivery, and public health obligations. Limited budgets and the demonstrable cost benefits of smart approaches are making utilities more open to innovation. Regulation is a policy driver. Public health and environmental obligations ensure water utilities monitor a variety of chemical and physical parameters to ensure legal and regulatory compliance. Rapid or ideally real‐time data capture and analysis can prevent or minimise the impact of perturbations and ensure access to this data. The EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) has encouraged a shift from reactive to proactive inland water quality management, creating a demand for real‐time physical, chemical, and biochemical data. Reconciling ‘natural’ river water flow with customer needs in turn drives demand management. Explicit encouragement of smart water systems has been seen in a growing number of countries. In Jersey and Malta, this has seen the roll‐out of a universal smart water metering programme, in response to water shortages. Korea and Singapore have sought to develop comprehensive smart water grids. Smart approaches can result from general measures designed to encourage efficiency. In Denmark, a tax of €1 per m3 for any losses above a leakage threshold (Fisher 2016) resulted in a smart leakage detection system in Copenhagen. In Australia, the annual irrigation allowance in Canberra for parkland, sports grounds, and residential gardens is 0.5 Ml per 1000 M2 of total surface area per annum or 5000 m3 per hectare per annum (ACT 2007). The limit‐based nature of this legislation is driving both the adoption of smart metering and smart irrigation.

4.5  ­Future Knowledge Requirement

Policy can also be an inhibitor. Until 2010, Ofwat rejected smart water meters, regarding them as too strongly linked with water scarcity and only allowed intensified manual meter roll‐outs in the south east of England. Ofwat’s climate change report recognised the need for innovation and that smart meters have a role in leakage detection as an integrated element of supply–demand balance rather than a regulatory target (Worsfold 2012). However, in 2010, Defra considered the financial case for smart water metering to be premature. Policy incoherence was exacerbated by a lack of incentives for innovation, as five‐year spending cycles are seen as poorly suited for longer‐term projects. Legislation and regulation that favour demand management has been seen in the United States. American policy is enacted at the state and local level. The most significant policy objectives have been for water resources management and demand reduction at the state level. Texas’s HB 2299 bill relating to equipment used for garden irrigation systems came into effect in 2008. HM 2299 requires these to be fitted with smart controllers and was modified to include automatic shut‐off systems for rain and frost in 2011. In 2007, five types of smart controllers were being sold in the state which rose to 11 by 2011 (Lee 2011). California’s Updated Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance AB1881 states that from 2012, all new irrigation devices in the state must have smart controllers. Arizona’s Department of Water Resources’ (ADWR) Modified Non‐per Capita Conservation Programme was implemented in 2010, requiring water providers to adopt best management for water conservation. The programme lays down a framework for future smart water implementation. A survey of water conservation measures in 2010 found that 5 of 15 communities offered rebates relating to smart irrigation: US$ 22–100 for irrigation audits, US$ 30–250 for domestic lawn smart irrigation systems, and one‐third of the total cost for commercial smart irrigation upgrades (Western Resources Advocates 2010). Korea is seeking world leadership in smart water grids by 2020 through linking all aspects of water treatment and management including agricultural use and dams with data flows that mimic the water cycle, via a centralised control facility. This involves micro‐grids at the town level and macro‐grids at the regional or river basin level. The smart grid plans stem from a central plan to sustain economic development through international leadership in selected information‐technology‐related themes (Choi et al. 2016) (Box 4.5). International cooperation for hardware and software interoperability is needed to encourage the international deployment of smart water technologies. This is a growing concern as various smart water applications start to be integrated (ITU 2010). The only national initiative for smart water standards identified to date is the Open IoT Standards set of guidelines developed by the Government of Singapore (Freedman and Dietz 2017). International standards are being developed by the ISO (ISO 22158 for water meter electronic interfaces, ISO 27000 series for data security, ISO 37120 for smart cities, and the ISO 55000 series for asset management) along with the ISO 19100 series for geographical information systems. The IoT involves the interconnection of monitoring systems into all‐encompassing whole and imagines a world limitlessly and universally interconnected via the Internet. It stems the belief that the analytical power of information increases as more data from more sources is integrated via device to device communications within a network. It often refers to the integrated monitoring and management of domestic appliances. For water this could be an extension of smart water with other utilities and water‐consuming devices.

85

86

4  Defining ‘Smart Water’

Box 4.5  Development Hubs: Singapore and Israel Policy in Singapore is aimed towards long-term water self-sufficiency and seeking to adopt smart approaches where they can assist this. The Public Utilities Board (PUB) has supported private–public partnerships (intellectual property remaining in the private sector) for infrastructure including real-time water quality monitoring and analysis, membrane integrity sensors for wastewater recovery and microbial source tracking (Cleantech Group 2011). Smart metering is being trialled for selecting a preferred technology and full coverage by 2028 along with home water management systems for consumption logging and graphical data display (PUB 2016). Israel’s National Sustainable Energy and Water Programme reimburses 70% of installation costs (up to US$  200 000) for innovative technology trials at Mekorot, the national water utility, to mitigate installation risks. Successful companies such as TaKaDu (leakage detection and management) and Miya (pressure management) have emerged through this, and 151 trials were underway in 2017. Future policy drivers will see the broader adoption of initiatives taken by more innovative countries such as Singapore, the Netherlands, and Israel along with measures intending to encourage greater efficiency and lowering net energy use. In practice, this will see the continuing integration of various monitoring and measuring systems across the water cycle. This will allow a comprehensive appreciation of water and effluent flows through networks and relate them to conditions in their river basins. Linkages include inland water quality monitoring and the performance of sewage treatment works and sewer overflows. A fully informed utility is better placed to deliver the best possible service with the lowest water consumed at the lowest price to the customer with asset maintenance that does not impinge upon its customers. For this to happen, utilities need legal and regulatory incentives and the ability to migrate from ‘big data’ to ‘massive data’ as new information is integrated. The effective presentation and prioritisation of information are essential as various data sources are brought together.

4.6  ­Discussion and Conclusions Water management faces two great challenges; the availability of water and the availability of the funds needed to address the current and future spending needs. Lowering the cost of capital and operating expenditure can make sustainable water management affordable. By preventing the development of surplus assets and capacity and optimising the utility of extant assets, utilities can lower their operating costs at a time when there appears to be little prospect of funding increasing. Smart water offers a response, not as a ‘cure‐all’, rather a more coherent and sustainable approach to water management. While the most dramatic savings in irrigation arise from drip irrigation, smart water allows the benefits of drip irrigation to be fully realised. Smart water offers the potential to comprehensively monitor and sustainably manage water at the catchment level in real time. We are also starting to understand the practical

  ­Reference

linkages between customers, utilities, and the water cycle. Optimising water and wastewater management needs the effective integration of different aspects of network monitoring and management, moving from single outcome approaches to integrating this information with other data sources. Systems integration is seeing various self‐sufficient approaches become interlinked, offering the potential to optimise the incremental advantages each single approach offers into a coherent overall approach. The greater complexity and the data generated by such an integrated approach will bring its own challenges, especially in terms of security and managing the data to best reflect actual needs rather than delivering externally assumed information outcomes. Smart metering remains the public face of smart water. For the most sophisticated customers, a comprehensive suite of water use information these can generate will be an attraction. Time will tell how it is in fact used. At the same time, utilities are starting to appreciate what customers actually want and how their behaviour can be beneficially modified. The rate of innovation does not appear to be slowing. Between 2012 and 2018, the potential scope for smart interventions has grown and new approaches are continuing to emerge. There are two challenges here. Firstly, difference between successfully demonstrating a smart innovation and its commercialisation or broad adoption. A number of promising approaches ranging from a warning system to minimise water flushing when an urban sewer network is close to capacity to DNA‐based approaches for effluent identification have failed to be realised during this period. The attrition rate will remain high and an innovation’s inherent merits do not guarantee success. This reflects a disconnect between innovators’ offerings and what utilities and other customers in fact want, especially where applications have emerged from offerings developed for other sectors.

­References ACT (2007). Water Resources (Amounts of Water Reasonable for Uses Guidelines) Determination 2007 (No 1). Canberra, Australia: Australian Capital Territory. Alleman, J.E. (2005). The genesis and evolution of activated sludge technology. http://www. elmhurst.org/DocumentView.aspx?DID=301 (accessed 5 December 2020). Anderson, R. and Fuloria, S. (2010). On the security economics of electricity metering. Paper Presented to the 9th Workshop on the Economics of Information Security (WEIS 2010). Harvard University, USA (8 June 2010). https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/eb88/1e049ca7e8a 6bf63de15773e1351374917d0.pdf (accessed 5 December 2020). Baker, M. (2015). Vendor or in‐house solutions: trade off or opportunity? Presentation at the SWAN Forum 2015, Smart Water: The Time Is Now! London (29–30 April 2015). https:// www.swan‐forum.com/wp‐content/uploads/sites/218/2016/05/SWAN‐2015‐ Conference_What‐are‐the‐tradeoffs‐between‐in‐house‐v.‐vendor‐solutions.pdf (accessed 5 December 2020). Bakker, K.J. (2004). An Uncooperative Commodity: Privatizing Water in England and Wales. Oxford: OUP.

87

88

4  Defining ‘Smart Water’

Beal, C. and Flynn, J. (2014). The 2014 Review of Smart Metering and Intelligent Water Networks in Australia & New Zealand. Water Services Association of Australia. Bishop, M. (2015). What business benefits can be achieved from data? Presentation to the SWAN Forum 2015 Smart Water: The Time Is Now! London (29–30 April 2015). https://www. swan‐forum.com/wp‐content/uploads/sites/218/2016/05/SWAN‐2015‐Conference_What‐ are‐the‐tradeoffs‐between‐in‐house‐v.‐vendor‐solutions.pdf (accessed 5 December 2020). Bracken, M. and Benner, R. (2016). Business case for smart leak detection: trunk mains. Presentation to ‘Accelerating SMART Water’, SWAN Conference, London, UK (5–6 April 2016). https://www. swan‐forum.com/wp‐content/uploads/sites/218/2016/05/Water‐Loss_SWAN‐2016_Marc‐ Bracken.pdf (accessed 5 December 2020). Bunn, S. (2015). What is the energy savings potential in a water distribution system? A closer look at pumps. Presentation at the SWAN Forum 2015 Smart Water: The Time Is Now! London (29–30th April 2015). https://www.swan‐forum.com/wp‐content/uploads/ sites/218/2016/05/SWAN‐2015‐Conference_What‐is‐the‐energy‐savings‐potential‐in‐a‐ distribution‐system.pdf (accessed 5 December 2020). Casey, C. (2016). Not so smart meters will “enable snooping and pose a health risk”. Enfield Gazette & Advertiser, 23rd November 2016. Cleantech Group (2011) Investment Monitor Report. Cleantech Group LLC, San Jose, USA. Choi, G.W., Chong, K.Y., Kim, S.J., and Ryu, T.S. (2016). SWMI: new paradigm of water resources management for SDGs. Smart Water 1: 3. Danilenko, A., van den Berg, C., Macheve, B., and Moffitt, L.J. (2014). The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Blue Book 2014: The International Benchmarking Network for Water and Sanitation Utilities Databook. Washington, DC: World Bank. Drago, C.M. (2009). The smart grids in Italy – an example of successful implementation. Presentation by IBM to the Polish Parliament (27 October 2009). http://www.piio.pl/ dok/20091027_The_Smart_Grids_in_Italy_an_example_of_successful_implementation.pdf (accessed 5 December 2020). Dunning, J. (2015). Maximising asset lifetimes. SWAN Forum 2015 Smart Water: The Time Is Now! London (29–30 April 2015). https://www.swan‐forum.com/wp‐content/uploads/ sites/218/2016/05/SWAN‐2015‐Conference_How‐can‐we‐maximise‐the‐life‐of‐our‐existing‐ assets.pdf (accessed 5 December 2020). DWI (2018). Drinking water 2017. In: Summary of the Chief Inspector’s Report for Drinking Water in England, 5. London: DWI. Earl, B. (2016). Smart water efficiency & affordability. Presentation at Accelerating SMART Water, SWAN Forum, London (5–6 April 2016). https://www.swan‐forum.com/wp‐content/ uploads/sites/218/2016/05/Water‐Efficiency_SWAN‐2016_Ben‐Earl.pdf (accessed 5 Decmeber 2020). Energy Savings Trust (2013). At Home with Water. London: Energy Savings Trust. Erk, T. (2015). Smart storm water management in the context of Bordeaux. Presentation Given to the IWA Busan Global Forum, Busan, Korea (2–3 September 2015). European Benchmarking Co‐operation (2015). Learning from International Best Practices, 2014. The Hague, Netherlands: EBC Foundation. FAO (2010). Towards 2030/2050. Rome, Italy: UN FAO. Fargas‐Marques, A. (2015). Smart engineering for energy savings. SWAN Forum 2015 Smart Water: The Time Is Now! London (29–30 April 2015). https://www.swan‐forum.com/

  ­Reference

wp‐content/uploads/sites/218/2016/05/SWAN‐2015‐Conference_What‐is‐the‐energy‐ savings‐potential‐in‐a‐distribution‐system.pdf (accessed 5 Decmber 2020). Fisher, S. (2016) Addressing the water leak challenge in Copenhagen. WWi, June–July 2016, 32–33. Foster, V. and Yepes, T. (2005). Is cost recovery a feasible objective for water and electricity? A background paper commissioned for the World Bank. In: Infrastructure in Latin America and the Caribbean: Recent Developments and Key Challenges. Volume I: Main Report and Volume II: Annexes, Report No. 32640‐LCR (eds. M. Fay and M. Morrison). Washington, DC: World Bank. Freedman, J. and Dietz, G. (2017). The Future of Water Management: A Menu for Policymakers in the Digital Industrial Era. Boston, MA: The General Electric Corporation. Freyberg, T. (2016). Denmark Kick‐Starts Energy‐Positive Wastewater Treatment Project. WWi magazine (5 February). Global Water Intelligence (2011). Global Water Markets 2011: Meeting the World’s Water and Wastewater Needs Until 2016. Oxford: Media Analytics Limited. Goddard, N.D.R., Kemp, R.M.J., and Lane, R. (1997). An overview of smart technology. Packaging Technology and Science 10: 129–143. Godley, A., Ashton, V., Brown, J., and Saddique, S. (2008). The Costs and Benefits of Moving to Full Water Metering. Science Report ‐ SC070016/SR1 (WP2). Bristol, UK: Environment Agency. Gómez‐Expósito, A. (2012). Smart Grids: So Old, So New. Mondragón. GWI (2016a). Inventing the Uber for water. Global Water Intelligence 11: 59–64. GWI (2016b). Chart of the month: digital water savings for utilities. Global Water Intelligence 12: 5. Hays, K. (2017). To DMA or Not to DMA? That Is the Smart Water Question. Boston, MA: Bluefield Research. Heath, J. (2015). Smart networks. Presentation to Smart Water: The Time of Now! SWAN Forum Conference, London (29–30 April 2015). https://www.swan‐forum.com/wp‐content/uploads/ sites/218/2016/05/SWAN‐2015‐Conference_How‐can‐we‐use‐data‐to‐offer‐innovative‐ customer‐service‐solutions.pdf (accessed 5 December 2020). Huismann, L. and Wood, E. (1974). Slow Sand Filtration. Geneva: World Health Organization. Hulme, P. (2014). CSO monitoring and the environment agency. Presentation to ‘Sewer Systems for the 21st Century.’ Sensors for Water Interest Group. Sheffield: University of Sheffield (25 June 2014). www.swig.org.uk/wp‐content/uploads/2014/01/Phil‐Hulme‐2014.pdf (accessed 5 December 2020). Hutton, G. and Verguhese, M. (2016). The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene. Washington, DC: World Bank. Indepen (2014). Discussion Paper on the Potential for Catchment Services in England. London: Indepen. Innovyze (2008). Real time control: two cities, two stories. The impact of network simplification on property flood risk predictions. Innovyze case study, 17th November 2008. Innovyze (2009). InfoWorks CS enables large CAPEX savings in Melbourne. Innovyze case study, 22nd October 2009. Innovyze (2010). The impact of network simplification on property flood risk predictions. Innovyze case study, 10th September 2010. ITU (2010). ICT as an Enabler for Smart Water Management. ITU‐T Technology Watch Report. Geneva, Switzerland: ITU.

89

90

4  Defining ‘Smart Water’

Jägermeyr, J., Gerten, D., Heinke, J. et al. (2015). Water savings potentials of irrigation systems: global simulation of processes and linkages. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 19: 3073–3091. Jägermeyr, J., Gerten, D., Schaphoff, S. et al. (2016). Integrated crop water management might sustainably halve the global food gap. Environmental Research Letters 11: 7–14. Keeting, K. (2015). Cost Estimation for SUDS ‐ Summary of Evidence. Report –SC080039/R9. Bristol, UK: JBA Consulting for the Environment Agency. Kummu, M., Ward, P.J., de Moel, H., and Varis, O. (2010). Is physical water scarcity a new phenomenon? Global assessment of water shortage over the last two millennia. Environmental Research Letters 5: 034006. Lee, L. (2011). The art of smart irrigation. TxH2O 6 (3): 10–12. https://twri.tamu.edu/ media/2767/txh2o‐v6n3.pdf. Lloyd Owen, D.A. (2018). Towards smart water management. In: Smart Water Technologies and Techniques: Data Capture and Analysis for Sustainable Water Management. Oxford: Wiley https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119078678.ch10. Loeb, S. (2006). Personal Communication. Personal notes on the development of the Cellulose Acetate Membrane, prepared by and delivered by Sid Loeb at an honour ceremony of the first Inaugural Sydney Loeb Award by the European Desalination Association. Merks, C., Shepherd, M., Fantozi, M., and Lambert, A. (2017). NRW as % of system input volume just doesn’t work! Presentation to the IWA Efficient Urban Water Management Specialist Group, Bath, UK (18–20 June 2017). Molden, D. (ed.) (2007). Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture. London/Colombo: Earthscan/International Water Management Institute. OECD (2012). Policies to Support Smart Water Systems. Lessons Learnt from Countries Experience. ENV/EPOC/WPBWE(2012)6. Paris, France: OECD. Olivier, A. (2007). Affordability: Principles and practice, presentation to Pricing water services: economic efficiency, revenue efficiency and affordability. OECD Expert Meeting, 14 November 2007, Paris, France. Informing the OEDC Working Party on Global and Structural Policies: Pricing water resources and water and sanitation services. ENV/EPOC/GSP (2009) 17/FINAL. http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=ENV/ EPOC/GSP(2009)17/FINAL&docLanguage=En (accessed 5 December 2020). Peleg, A. (2015). Water networks 2.0: the power of big (wet) data. Presentation to Smart Water: The Time of Now! SWAN Forum Conference, London (29–30 April 2015). https://www. swan‐forum.com/wp‐content/uploads/sites/218/2016/05/SWAN‐2015‐Conference_What‐is‐ the‐long‐term‐vision‐for‐Smart‐Water‐Networks.pdf (accessed 5 December 2020). Perdiago, P. (2015) A smart NRW reduction strategy. Presentation to the SMi Smart Water Systems Conference, London (29–30 April 2015). PUB (2016). Managing the water distribution network with a smart water grid. Smart Water 1: 4. Riis, M. (2015). Energy savings potential in a water distribution system. SWAN Forum 2015 Smart Water: The Time Is Now! London (29–30 April 2015). https://www.swan‐forum.com/ wp‐content/uploads/sites/218/2016/05/SWAN‐2015‐Conference_What‐is‐the‐energy‐ savings‐potential‐in‐a‐distribution‐system.pdf (accessed 5 December 2020).

  ­Reference

Sodeck, D.S. (2016). Water loss with information overload. Presentation to Accelerating SMART Water, SWAN Conference, London, UK (5–6 April 2016). https://www.swan‐forum.com/ wp‐content/uploads/sites/218/2016/05/Water‐Loss_SWAN‐2016_Sodek‐Steven.pdf (accessed 5 December 2020). SNWA (2014) Water Conservation Plan 2014‐2018: Southern Nevada Water Authority: Las Vegas, NV, USA 2014. Suez (2016). Suez launches AQUAADVANCED™ urban drainage, an innovative solution to optimise the performance of sewer and stormwater networks and preserve the natural environment. Symmonds, G. (2015). The challenge of transitioning from AMR to AMI. Presentation Given at the SWAN Forum 2015 Smart Water. The Time Is Now! London (29–30 April 2015). https://www. swan‐forum.com/wp‐content/uploads/sites/218/2016/05/SWAN‐2015‐Conference_What‐is‐ the‐transition‐from‐AMR‐to‐AMI.pdf (accessed 5 December 2020). UN‐Water (2017). Financing Universal Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Under the Sustainable Development Goals. UN‐Water Global Analysis and Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking‐ Water. New York: UN‐Water, UN. USBR (2015a) Upper Colorado River Basin consumptive uses and losses report: US Department of the Interior‐ Bureau of Reclaimation: Denver, CO, USA 2015. USBR (2015b) Lower Colorado Water Accounting Report. Department of the Interior‐ Bureau of Reclaimation: Denver, CO, USA, 2015. Walker, G. (2013). A critical examination of models and projections of demand in water utility resource planning in England and Wales. International Journal of Water Resources Development 29: 352–372. Western Resources Advocates (2010). Arizona Water Meter: A Comparison of Water Conservation Programs in 15 Arizona Communities. Boulder, CO: WRA. Williams, L. (2010). My Water Meter Can Be a Killer. Liverpool Echo. Winpenny, J., Trémolet, S., and Cardone, R. (2016). Aid Flows to the Water Sector: Overview and Recommendations. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. Winz, I, Brierley, G., and Trowsdale, S. (2009) The use of system dynamics simulation in water resources management. Water Resources Management, 23, 1301‐1323. World Bank (2016). Financing the 2030 Water Agenda. Washington, DC: Water Global Practice, World Bank. Worsfold, M. (2012). Personal Communication. Head of Asset Strategy, Ofwat. Comments at the World Water‐Tech Investment Summit, London, February 2012. Yamamoto, K., Hiasa, H., Talat, M., and Matsuo, T. (1989). Direct solid liquid separation using hollow fiber membranes in activated sludge aeration tank. Water Science and Technology 21: 43–54.

91

Source: A. Smajgl, MERFI, Bangkok.

93

5 Water, Food, and Energy Nexus Alex Smajgl Mekong Region Futures Institute (MERFI), Bangkok, Thailand

5.1 ­Introduction Economic development strategies focus predominantly on sector goals, such as improving energy or food security. Over the past decades, many development agencies and governments experienced unintended trade-offs in response to these sector-specific investments (Bazilian et al. 2011; Smajgl et al. 2016). As systems thinking increasingly influenced relevant impact assessments, more and more of these trade-off relationships were conceptualised. Although trade-offs and synergies have been experienced across a wide range of issues, development agencies identified a particularly strong trade-off relationship between water, food, and energy (Bazilian et al. 2011; WEF 2011). Investments in the energy sector that aimed to meet the growing demand for energy were triggered in many cases by a decline in food security or changes in water availability. Equally, food security-focused interventions had implications for the energy sector and for waterrelated issues. Also, water management-focused improvements impacted on food and energy-related goals. The recurring observation of trade-offs was an important driver for the formation of the water, food, and energy nexus as an important development concept. The World Economic Forum was the first formal event formulating the water, food, and energy nexus in 2008. Since then, the demand for a better understanding of the water, food, and energy nexus grew stronger to allow for a better management of trade-off risks and ensure more sustainable development outcomes. These experiences highlight the need for ex-ante assessments to consider the interactions between these three sectors. One of the early events was the Bonn 2011 conference on the Water, Energy, and Food Security Nexus, which concluded that ‘Understanding the nexus is needed to develop policies, strategies and investments to exploit synergies and mitigate trade-offs among these three development goals with active participation of and among government agencies, the private sector and civil society. In this way, unintended consequences can be avoided’ (BMU and BMZ 2011). Since then, many events focused on the nexus concluding with similar statements and stressing the relevance of nexus-related trade-offs and synergies. Handbook of Catchment Management, Second Edition. Edited by Robert C. Ferrier and Alan Jenkins. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

94

5  Water, Food, and Energy Nexus

More recently, nexus experiences have been transferred to the implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), partly because SDGs cover the nexus and several other SDGs appear to have critical trade-off relationships (Fader et al. 2018). Consequently, the WEF nexus is likely to remain an important paradigm in sustainable developmentrelated debates and assessments.

5.2 ­Historical Synopsis 5.2.1  Nexus Conceptualisations Since Hoff (2011), World Economic Forum (2011), and Bazilian et al. (2011), a range of conceptualisations of the WEF nexus have been published (e.g. ADB 2013; Ringler et al. 2013; Smajgl and Ward 2013a; Smajgl et al. 2016). Conceptualisations vary depending on the assessment focus. For instance, the majority of conceptualisations emphasises the relevance of one particular sector, while other frameworks offer a holistic integration of all three nexus sectors. Many early conceptualisations are highly water-centric (e.g. Hoff 2011; ADB 2013) while following publications offered either a food-focused concept (e.g. Ringler et al. 2013) or aimed for a balanced integration of water, food, and energy (Smajgl and Ward 2013a) (Figure 5.1). Energy-centric conceptualisations typically exclude the food component (e.g. Santhosh et al. 2014). Smajgl et al. (2016) argue that a sector-balanced conceptualisation is more likely to ensure that trade-offs and synergies between all three sectors are captured comprehensively. Emphasising one of the three sectors introduces a focus on connections in and out of the focus sector while potentially excluding the connections between the two other sectors. Figure 5.1 conceptualises the water, food, and energy nexus based on a balanced sector perspective. Traditionally, development strategies focus either on one of the three sectors to improve either water, food, or energy security. These investments can trigger a variety of trade-offs or synergies as the examples indicate along the cross-sector arrows. Critical for the understanding of cross-sector relationships is that trade-offs and synergies cannot be reduced to a single connection but rather form ripple effects. For instance, if the intervention aims to improve food security, direct trade-offs can occur between food and water and food and energy. However, indirect knock-on effects are also likely between water and energy, which themselves can create feedback for the food sector. The complexity of these dynamics propagates when considering that the nexus is embedded in a larger system. Figure  5.1 identifies a few drivers typically relevant for a nexus assessment, in particular population growth, technological change, institutional arrangements, and climate change. These drivers interact (not visualised to simplify the diagram), which adds to the long-term complexity. For instance, technological change and institutional arrangements respond (directly or indirectly) to climate change and to population growth. Importantly, as drivers change, the way nexus sectors interact also changes, which can imply deteriorating trade-off relationships or improving synergetic opportunities. From a policy perspective, nexus sector interactions are critical but cover only a subset of policy indicators. Consequently, nexus outcomes have to be measured in broader terms, which can draw on the UN SDGs and its assessment indicators (Figure 5.1). Ideally, nexus

5.2  ­Historical Synopsi

assessments would measure impacts on all SDGs and not just the four SDGs included in the actual nexus. However, so far, nexus studies have prioritise a subset of goals, which is discussed further below. This explains the wide range of nexus studies, including additional SDGs as a wider nexus, e.g., –– Water-Food-Energy-Poverty Nexus, –– Water-Food-Energy-Land Nexus, –– Water-Food-Energy-Climate Nexus, –– Water-Food-Energy-Urbanisation Nexus, etc. In essence, these variations conceptualise a specific focus by connecting the nexus relationship to a particular SDG (or development indicator) (Figure 5.1). However, the broader the indicator space, the more likely it is that the assessment captures unintended side effects. The extent to which a country succeeds in implementing its SDGs creates feedback effects for drivers (Figure 5.1). Inevitably, drivers cannot be understood to be static, which means that all nexus relations receive constant adjustments by varying drivers, which incurs ongoing cross-sector responses. Importantly, these complex dynamics occur even without implementing large-scale development strategies. Based on such a dynamic system, understanding the nexus provides a paradigm that moves away from a merely static understanding of the target system to a highly organic and adapting system. Therefore, development Sustainable Development Goals 1

No poverty

6

2

Zero hunger

7

3

Good health and well-being

8

4 5

Quality education Gender equality

9 10

Clean water and sanitation Affordable and clean energy Decent work and economic growth

12

Sustainable cities and communities Responsible consumption and production

13 Climate action

6

Drivers

Water management

Drought mitigation

Climate change

16 Peace, Justice, and strong institutions

17 Partnerships for the goals

14

Irrigation

Governance mechanisms

15 Life on land

Industry, innovation, and infrastructure 14 Life below water Reduced inequalities

Population growth Technological change

11

Water-Energy-Food Nexus

All other Sustainable Development Goals

Hydropower Thermal energy Desalinisation Water transport

7

2

Energy generation and distribution

Food production and distribution

Biofuels

Food processing

Figure 5.1  The Water–Food–Energy Nexus.

95

96

5  Water, Food, and Energy Nexus

investments designed based on a nexus approach understand focus indicators as ‘moving targets’ in a morphing system.

5.2.2  Nexus-Focused Research Since its emergence about 12 years ago, many initiatives have focused on the nexus with a variety of goals. The majority of research focused on conceptualising the nexus, often adding a fourth sector, e.g. Ecosystems, Environment, Land, Minerals, Livelihoods, or Climate Change. Variations indicate that in some contexts, the nexus requires adjustments to reflect the most relevant system interactions and intervention space. As aforementioned, the broader nexus emerges from focussing on the interactions of the water, food, and energy nexus and a particular SDG or development indicator (Figure 5.1). A second group of publications responded to WEF conceptualisations by comparing this new work with existing work in the domain of Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) or broader Sustainable Development studies. Some scholars argue that the WEF nexus has very little to offer if compared with IWRM or Sustainability (see discussions in Beck and Villarroel Walker 2013; Benson et  al. 2015; Cairns and Krzywoszynska 2016). Smajgl et al. (2016) argue that IWRM does indeed have a similar perspective but is highly water-centric and therefore mainly provides a conceptual or analytical entry point for water management and related hydrological assessments. Figure 5.2 imposes the IWRM perspective on the nexus diagram (Figure 5.1) to visualise the main difference diagrammatically. IWRM studies include the assessment of a similar set of drivers (left box) and can include food and energy issues (right box). However, water management indicators (e.g. water access, surface water flow, groundwater change, water quality) are at the core of IWRM studies, while nexus studies could have a strong focus on energy and food indicators with only minor focus of water.

Drivers

IWRM

Population growth Technological change

Governance mechanisms

Clean water and sanitation

6

14

Water management

Life below water

All other Sustainable Development Goals

Climate change

Figure 5.2  Imposing the mainstream IWRM approach on the NEXUS diagram.

5.2  ­Historical Synopsi

The nexus could equally be deployed for energy studies or food security assessments, if implementing a sector-balanced version of the nexus. Additionally, nexus work is typically focused on trade-offs and cross-sector coordination, which is different from coordinating flows or basin planning. As such, WEF nexus assessments can not only be guided by basins but can also embrace larger or smaller systems. Consequently, although there are some important differences between IWRM and the nexus, both paradigms are not mutually exclusive and should not be perceived as competing frameworks. Sustainability defines a much wider paradigm, often aiming for balanced outcomes for selected social, economic, and environmental indicators, which is reflected by the assessment indicator space of a nexus assessment. Smajgl et  al. (2016) argue that the WEF nexus defines a subset of the sustainable development agenda, which is now operationalised by the UN SDGs. Considering that development agencies have been driving forces of the nexus, it can be argued that the nexus resulted from decades of implementing a sustainability agenda and establishes an empirical prioritisation of ­sector investments.

5.2.3  Nexus-Type Implementations and Case Studies One of the first empirical studies of the WEF nexus was implemented between 2008 and 2013 in the transboundary context of the Mekong basin (Smajgl et al. 2016). This project explored a series of nexus-type examples in five of the six Mekong countries (Smajgl et al. 2015b). Each case study involved most relevant stakeholders in a participatory process to bridge cross-sector mandates as well as science and policy. In a parallel process, transboundary trade-offs and synergies were presented and discussed in a regional stakeholder engagement process to address transboundary issues. Considering the novelty of the nexus approach right after the World Economic Forum in 2008, this Australian DFAT-Australian Aid funded programme focused on three dimensions. First, to understand the nexusrelated trade-offs and synergies by assessing development investments such as hydropower in the Mekong basin, rubber plantations, trends in (irrigated) agriculture to replace food crops by energy crops, and climate change (e.g. sea level rise, shifting rain fall patterns). Second, the efficiency of pre-tested designs for policy engagement involving multiple levels of governance and transboundary conflict. Third, the efficiency of a variety of disciplinary and transdisciplinary assessment methods, which ranged from household surveys, to a range of hydrological models, to integrated agent-based models. Other case studies followed as the nexus gained prominence among development agencies and governments around the world. Case studies either focused on countries, regions, or had a global focus and applied the nexus framework either to a single intervention in one sector or to a combination of interventions across multiple sectors. Several nexus assessments have been implemented for hydropower, making it arguably one of the most relevant types of nexus relationships. Hydropower-focused nexus studies were implemented for the Mekong (Smajgl and Ward 2013a; Smajgl et  al. 2015a; Dombrowsky and Hensengerth 2018; Intralawan et al. 2019), Taiwan (Zhou et al. 2019), India (Yang et al. 2016), and Nepal (Rasul et al. 2019). The synthesis of these nexus implementations emphasises the risk of substantial trade-offs regarding fish biomass and diversity, which will be discussed in more detail below.

97

98

5  Water, Food, and Energy Nexus

Energy-related biomass production is another important application domain for the nexus. Sarkodie et  al. (2019) focus on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, biomass-based energy production, and economic growth in Australia. Their statistical modelling suggests substantial trade-offs between decarbonising the Australian economy and food security. Zhang (2013) investigates nexus relationships between food- and energy-targeted biomass production advocating a surge in biomass-based biorefineries. Both studies employ lifecycle assessment (LCA) data for their assessments, which is an important methodological aspect that is revisited further below. Krittasudthacheewa et al. (2012) and Smajgl et al. (2015a) implemented a nexus study to the increasing replacement of food crops by energy crops in northeast Thailand to understand poverty and livelihood implications in addition to effects on water, food, and energy security. Other popular topics for nexus assessments include food production (Shifflett et al. 2016; Sobrosa Neto et al. 2018; Bozeman et al. 2019; Ju 2019) and investigating water and energy as production inputs for various types of food in various types of aggregation. Evidently, land is a critical additional input factor. While most aforementioned studies have a disaggregated sectoral focus, some studies aim to understand nexus relationships at a more aggregated level by analysing principle changes in flows within the boundaries of a country or a region. Typically, these aggregated assessments analyse longitudinal data for water, food, and energy-related parameters. Jiang et al. (2018) investigates nexus relationships for the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region in China to understand how the three sectors correlated over time. Xiao et al. (2019) employ input–output data to assess the nexus relationship for China. Conway et al. (2015) investigate nexus relationships in the context of climate change in southern Africa, stressing the relevance of climate change for how the three nexus sectors affect each other. Mabhaudhi et al. (2018) also apply the nexus framework to southern Africa focussing on irrigated agriculture. Some studies implement the nexus at the global scale to understand how water security, food security, and energy security evolved over time (Bijl et al. 2018; Sušnik 2018). While most of these studies employ highly aggregated presentations of water, food, and energy, some work aims for household level representation. For instance, Hussien et al. (2017) formalise nexus relationships for the household scale in the town of Duhok, Iraq.

5.2.4  Nexus Interactions and Trade-off Examples 5.2.4.1  Hydropower – Fish

Trade-offs and synergies between hydropower, fish, and water establish one of the most discussed nexus examples. In essence, water flow can be used to generate electricity, which establishes an important synergy between water and energy. Maintaining water flow protects the capacity to generate power, which is critical in situations of decreasing flows, often climate related or due to upstream water diversion. However, too much water flow puts the actual infrastructure at risk, often experienced during flood events and triggering the release of large volumes of water from the reservoir (Lu et al. 2018). While such an extreme situation causes the amplification of floods and is of relevance for disaster risk management, hydropower reservoirs provide in most other situations a reduction of floods and increased dry season flows, which establishes another important synergy between water and energy (Hoang et al. 2019). A growing body of literature is focused on

5.2  ­Historical Synopsi

understanding environmental flows (Arthington et al. 2018) and on the design of waterflow-related benefit sharing and compensation schemes (Grumbine et al. 2012; Intralawan et al. 2019). Operationalising these synergies between water and energy can cause substantial tradeoffs with the food sector, in particular in tropical waters where migratory fish provide a major food source for the local population. Migratory fish depend on water flow and the variation of flow and cannot migrate where dams create barriers. Although fish ladders provide some mitigating effect (Baumgartner et  al. 2012; Intralawan et  al. 2019), both downstream and upstream migration can be seriously impacted by large-scale engineering interventions. Therefore, an inverse relationship exists between energy and food. This trade-off is only partially mitigated by the creation of habitat for so-called generalists (nonmigratory fish species) (Bush and Hirsch 2005; Intralawan et al. 2019). A wide range of studies conclude that the net effect on fish-based food is highly negative (Hirsch and Jensen 2006; Arias et  al. 2012; Baumgartner et  al. 2012; Orr et  al. 2012; Smajgl et  al. 2015a; Intralawan et al. 2019). Investments in hydroelectric dams are not a new phenomenon, and many countries have experienced the inverse relationship between fish and electricity. The global commitment to mitigation of carbon dioxide has accelerated some investments and triggered many old development plans to be reviewed. However, the same GHG mitigation policies establish innovation-focused incentives for the energy sectors, which induced major investments in new technologies. Currently, the energy sector is going through a major shift as production prices have declined for many technologies; for instance, costs for photovoltaic declined in 5 years by 90% (Glenk and Reichelstein 2019) putting solar at a par with hydropower for many countries especially if internalising the external costs such as fish losses. 5.2.4.2  Irrigation – Food Crops – Energy Crops

Another well-established example for the nexus is the provision of water to irrigate crops, whereby farmers have the choice between food crops and energy crops (Krittasudthacheewa et al. 2012; Hoang et al. 2019). This nexus is even richer if irrigation requires energy (Burney et al. 2010; Gupta 2019). The main nexus relationships include the increased production of energy or food crops that requires an intervention in natural water flow, either by diverting or by storing water for irrigation purposes. Depending on the individually perceived incentives, farmers either decide to plant food crops or energy crops. The past 20 years have witnessed a substantial shift towards energy crops, which is partly driven by the decarbonisation of the energy sector. As a consequence, the percentage of agricultural land area dedicated to food production has declined. However, as the energy sector is currently experiencing transformative changes with new technologies entering the market-place and/or production costs for existing technologies declining, future scenarios would suggest a reversal of this trend (Intralawan et al. 2019). 5.2.4.3  Energy Pricing – Irrigated Agriculture – Availability of Surface and Groundwater

Another example for the WEF nexus is driven by a decline in energy prices. The decline in costs for solar panels followed a period of sharply declining prices for water pumps. This combination provides favourable conditions for many farmers to put irrigation

99

100

5  Water, Food, and Energy Nexus

infrastructure in place or expand existing irrigated area. However, as more and more farmers can afford to irrigate their fields, water resources have declined. Most affected is groundwater, especially where aquifer recharge rates are low. Resource evaluation through monitoring is often absent, making the introduction of regulatory or marketbased instruments difficult or ineffective. This unsustainable development can be driven by technological change or by politically motivated subsidies for energy. Several Indian states, for instance, provide farmers with low-cost (or free) electricity to improve local food security, which in turn causes unsustainable irrigation practices. The emerging outcomes of the WEF nexus are very positive for food security, while negative for water and neutral to negative for energy. However, food security improvements can only be maintained as long as water is available. Wada and Heinrich (2013) identify the most stressed aquifers globally to be in India, Pakistan, Central Asia, the Arabian Peninsula, the southern USA, and northern Mexico. These have been stretched to their limits, resulting in a sudden loss in food security as water availability declines (Shah 2009; Minderhoud et al. 2017; Varua et al. 2018). 5.2.4.4  Desalinisation – Energy Costs – Water Supply

Many regions of the world lack reliable surface or groundwater sources for potable supply and turn to the desalinisation of sea water to provide households with vital drinking water (Zhou and Tol 2005). For a long time, costs of this strategy were prohibitive which limited its application to small geographical areas or as a backup for short time periods. Declining costs for solar power have turned desalinisation into a viable option for larger areas and longer periods which results in improved food security (Dawoud 2005; Caldera and Breyer 2019).

5.3 ­Current Solutions 5.3.1  Sustainability and Nexus Outcomes Nexus-focused research might not have been able to specify a generic framework, but it facilitated a wide acknowledgement of trade-off risks. Subsequently, many planning situations demand a broader impact assessment scope to include any unintended side effects. Sustainability-focused indicators provide the necessary metrics for cross-sector evaluation as otherwise sector-focused indicators remain the sole basis for decision-making, which typically means that the most powerful sector achieves its goals while causing cross-sector trade-offs. The endorsement of the UN SDGs introduces an operational set of indicators that governments have started implementing. Thus, the SDGs provide a robust basis for discussing cross-sector trade-offs and synergies resulting from a nexus analysis (Figure 5.1). The comprehensiveness of the 17 Goals challenges existing monitoring frameworks in all countries as the 232 indicators developed by the inter-agency and expert group in 2016 moved beyond what was currently recorded by statistical offices. However, it will only be a matter of time for SDG indicators to introduce a globally shared assessment framework,

5.3 ­Current Solution

which is critical for the evaluation of nexus outcomes. Importantly, the implementation of SDGs standardises assessment criteria globally, which will allow for inter-country comparisons. This standardisation establishes a vastly different and more transparent perspective as to date, countries and agencies have developed their own assessment criteria. The nexus approach can support the policy implementation of SDGs as many scientists started analysing SDGs, revealing inherent trade-offs (Gao and Bryan 2017; Fader et  al. 2018). The quest of implementing SDGs can draw on cross-sector impact patterns already identified by nexus studies as outlined by the aforementioned examples. Also methodological lessons learnt can be shared between both research communities (e.g. Fader et al. 2018) as both aim to apply a highly transdisciplinary assessment perspective. It seems likely that future SDG studies will identify highly synergetic relationships on the SDG side, for instance between poverty, zero hunger, and good health/wellbeing. This could potentially help clustering SDGs and shift the focus of analysis to assessing the relationship between the nexus (as a cluster on the investment and production side) and clusters of SDGs. Figure  5.3 exemplifies this idea and hypothesises which SDGs could potentially cluster in highly synergetic groups. Figure 5.3 also shows how improvements in one SDG group could lead to positive or negative externalities in other groups. Figure 5.3 provides only an example, which needs to be tested and is likely to vary depending on the context. However, considering the potential trade-off relationship between SDG clusters, such an approach would advance the assessment scope further and provide improved evidence for more sustainable development strategies (Rockström and Sukhdev 2016; Muff et  al. 2018). Once principle relationships have been confirmed, assessments could be reduced to key SDGs per group, which could potentially reconfirm the WEF Nexus as an effective assessment structure.

3

1

No poverty

2

Zero hunger

Good health and well-being

+

7

Affordable and clean energy

8

Decent work and economic growth

9

Industry, innovation, and infrastructure

+ +

+

4

Peace, justice, and Quality 16 strong institutions education

5

Gender equality

10 Reduced

inequalities

+ +

17 Partnerships for

6

Clean water and sanitation

+ 13 Climate action

11 Sustainable cities 14 Life below water

the goals

and communities

+

12

Responsible consumption and production

15 Life on land

Figure 5.3  Potential clustering of SDGs and their principle trade-off relationship.

101

5  Water, Food, and Energy Nexus

5.3.2  Different Types of Water The analysis of water-related impacts in the nexus requires considering different types of water, for instance referred to as blue and green water (de Fraiture et al. 2008; van Lienden et al. 2010). Water used for the production of food or energy in one region can be exported into another region, which implies the export of green or virtual water (Hoekstra and Hung 2002; Renault 2002). This eventuates typically as a result of differences in water scarcity between two regions and involves differences in costs or prices for energy, food, and water. This emphasises the role of water as a production factor and highlights the relevance of analytical methods such as LCAs or supply chain analysis (Sobrosa Neto et al. 2018; Zhang et al. 2018; Xiao et al. 2019). Neglecting such differentiation of water can lead to inaccurate nexus assessments. Falkenmark and Rockström (2006) conceptualise this distinction for the context of water resource planning and management, see Figure 5.4. In this flow-focused conceptualisation, green-water flows are linked to terrestrial biomass producing systems such as crops, forests, grasslands, and savannas, while blue-water flows connect to rivers, wetlands, and groundwater aquifers. The vast majority of the virtual water debate is focused on food production. However, the surge in biofuels and hydrogen focused investments in the energy sector (van Ruijven et al. 2008; Glenk and Reichelstein 2019) or more recent advances in ammonia as an energy source (Giddey et al. 2019; Lamb et al. 2019; Liu et al. 2019) are non-food-related examples for virtual water transfers. It is helpful for the nexus debate to distinguish the food-embedded (green) water flows from energy-embedded (yellow; based on the colour of SDG 7) water flows (Ruddell et al. 2014). Any virtual water transfer can relieve the severity of prevailing

Rainfall

gr ee nE

to

Blue water resource

Tf

flow flow ET n ET e e r G

ue

Unsaturated zone

n Gree

lo w

Green water flow

Saturated zone

102

Bl

Blue water flow Green water resource

Blue water resource

Figure 5.4  Blue and green water distinction for water resource management. Source: From Falkenmark and Rockström (2006). © 2006 ASCE.

5.3 ­Current Solution

nexus trade-offs in one region, while potentially amplify trade-offs in another region. Understanding in particular the role of virtual water is of particular relevance.

5.3.3  Intervention Points to ‘Manage the Nexus’ From a policy perspective, the understanding of nexus assessment results in the context of SDGs can lead to four potential outcomes, which exemplifies the benefits of the nexus approach as a guiding structure for cross-sector decision-making. Once trade-offs or synergies are identified, decision-makers can make an informed decision to either: –– Go ahead with proposed sector plans while being fully aware of the broader consequences (e.g. cross-sector and cross-SDG trade-offs); –– Introduce measures to mitigate predicted trade-offs; –– Add investments to realise potential synergies; –– Identify alternative sector plans. The second and third options are of particular interest to most evidence-based planning processes. Mitigation investments focus on trade-offs and aim to reduce related risks. For the hydropower example, fish-related trade-offs instigated decision-makers to consider investments in fish passages to mitigate food security risks while maintaining the energy security improvement. As aforementioned, overwhelming evidence suggests that fish passages introduce only marginal offsets for hydropower-driven decline of fish. Alternative operation of proposed hydropower structures is another mitigation strategy often discussed by decision-makers to mitigate trade-offs. This particular strategy is also advocated for sediment-related trade-offs, which has additional impacts on food production in delta areas (Kummu and Varis 2007; Kondolf et  al. 2018). Another mitigation example is the redesign of hydropower, often by downsizing or relocating the structure, potentially investing in micro-hydropower (Elbatran et al. 2015). Similar mitigation strategies emerge from nexus discussions on irrigation, for instance solar-powered irrigation systems based on groundwater pumping (Shah 2009; Burney et al. 2010; Gupta 2019). Here, empirical studies led to innovative governance structures to manage nexus trade-offs, often involving the introduction of new incentives to re-balance sector results in the context of overall sustainability outcomes (e.g. groundwater level, poverty, income distribution) (Maheshwari et al. 2014; Varua et al. 2018). Assessing trade-offs between food and energy crops in a broader sustainability agenda is also critical as it introduces other indicators, e.g. biodiversity, environmental flows, or water quality. In many situations, surging energy prices triggered farmers to replace food crops or forests by energy crops introducing higher water demands that challenge environmental flows, or higher application levels of chemical fertilisers that lead to an increase of nitrate in run off and declining oxygen in adjacent water bodies. The combination of nexus assessments and sustainability measured outcomes (in addition to cross-sector trade-offs and synergies) provides effective steps towards more sustainable development. While trade-offs dominate the applied debate of nexus assessments, it is also critical to focus on potential cross-sector synergies. Infrastructure to manage drought and floodrelated risks can provide essential synergies for the food sector. The hydropower debate has also emphasised the need to focus on multi-purpose dams to realise synergies, in particular

103

104

5  Water, Food, and Energy Nexus

between power generation, irrigated agriculture, and fisheries. Also, the management of depleting groundwater aquifers has revived a discussion of improved wetland management, which could have additional water and food security benefits. While the above analysis of policy implications derives recommendations directly from specific cross-sector dynamics, nexus thinking can be taken a step further by applying two different angles. The first angle analyses investment strategies in one sector to mitigate risks or realise opportunities in the two other sectors. For instance, trade-offs between food and energy targets might be revealed but instead of only focussing on intervention options within these two sectors, nexus thinking could reveal solutions in the water sector to lead to improved overall nexus outcomes. An example could be the partial diversion of a river to feed a hydropower dam to maintain fish migration pathways in the initial river system. The research question would shift the focus from a particular sector relationship to the third sector, for instance,–– which intervention in water management can reduce food-energy trade-offs?; or –– what could be changed in the food system to improve water–energy relationships?; or –– which energy investment can alleviate water–food trade-offs? The second angle is the analysis of nexus dynamics to identify system elements that are critical for overall nexus outcomes in a particular context. Such a perspective shifts the policy focus from the three sectors to specific factors critical for how the sectors interact. For instance, the definition and security of land titles can be critical for how risks in the nexus eventuate. Improved land titles can mitigate food security risks as it protects smallholders cropping from large-scale investors, which often invest in energy-focused cash crops. Similarly, incentive schemes for wetlands, biodiversity, or improved water quality can change nexus dynamics and lead to improved nexus outcomes. Also, migrationfocused policies can introduce different constraints for all three sectors and, therefore, manage nexus outcomes spatially by shifting expected pressures from one context into another.

5.3.4  Research Solutions for Improved Trade-off Assessments The above establishes that the critical challenges of nexus research are the assessment of cross-sector outcomes. Already before the emergence of nexus thinking the sustainability paradigm triggered an important shift towards transdisciplinary research methodology (Argent et al. 1999; Ascough II et al. 2008). Nexus research can build on these methodological advances and consider multiple sectors and their disciplinary indicators (or variables) (Hirsch Hadorn et  al. 2006; Alvargonzález 2011; Smajgl 2018). These methods include agent-based modelling, system dynamics modelling, and Bayesian Belief Networks (BBN), to name three of the most widely applied methods (Box 6.1). Several publications provide in-depth overviews of these and other methods, see Albrecht et  al. (2018), Voinov et  al. (2018), Lynam et al. (2007), or Harrison et al. (2018). Any of these methods can be combined to cover different types of research questions (e.g. stochastic, deterministic, probabilistic) or assess variables at multiple scales and their scale-specific resolution (Smajgl 2009; Hussien et al. 2017; Bijl et al. 2018; Box 5.1).

5.3 ­Current Solution

Box 5.1  Methodologies for nexus assessment Agent-based modelling: –– Stochastic or deterministic simulation –– High integrated modelling capacity –– Effective for simulating disaggregated human decision-making –– Effective for simulating spatial dynamics System dynamics modelling: –– Deterministic or stochastic simulation –– High integrated modelling capacity –– Effective for most complex systems without disaggregated human behaviour –– Powerful systems learning in combination with causal loop diagrams Bayesian belief networks: –– Probabilistic model –– High integrated modelling capacity –– Effective for assessing risks and likelihoods of certain predefined outcomes Hydrological and hydraulic models: –– Effective for detailed water-focused assessments –– Recommended as support of integrated models Energy system models: –– Mostly type of system dynamics model –– Often to optimise national/regional energy mix and not integrated –– Effective to support integrated models Crop models: –– Mathematical models connecting crop growth and environmental variables, including water –– Effective to support integrated models Multi-criteria analysis: –– Fast method for prioritising options –– Effective for contexts with low complexity –– Effective in combination with complex integrated models –– Can be implemented with spatial visualisation Integrated modelling: –– Can refer to many different methods for trans-disciplinary modelling –– Can refer to the coupling of (existing) disciplinary models (Continued)

105

106

5  Water, Food, and Energy Nexus

Box 5.1  (Continued) Expert panels: –– Fast method for combining disciplinary understanding –– Effective to support integrated models Quantitative storytelling or ChaRL: –– Sequence of methods that link visioning to assessment methods to decision making Serious games: –– Effective to facilitate learning of complex systems –– Traditionally role-playing or board games, increasingly digital –– Effective to be embedded in participatory process (e.g. ChaRL) The following provides some detail on agent-based modelling as a promising assessment method for the nexus. Agent-based modelling is experiencing a fast uptake across a wide range of disciplines, which is compared with the influence statistical modelling had on many disciplines (Janssen and Ostrom 2006; Troitzsch 2013). Typically, nexus assessments require an improved understanding of complex social-ecological dynamics, which agent-based ­modelling provides due to its ability to consider highly complex relationships of multiple variables, including human behaviour (Gilbert 2008; Barreteau and Smajgl 2013). In particular, its capacity to incorporate social dimensions creates a methodological advantage over most other modelling techniques which adds the critical aptitude to consider indicators to assess not only trade-offs between the three nexus sectors but also impacts on SDGs. The empirical modelling of social, economic, and environmental interactions and feedbacks requires a wide range of non-linear relationships, which agent-based modelling allows to define in the form of logical rules (e.g. for behavioural and social variables) and in the form of mathematical equations (e.g. for biophysical variables) (Axelrod et al. 2006; Gilbert 2008). Ultimately, it provides a modelling platform for combining existing disciplinary modelling. Agent-based modelling seems particularly suitable for nexus assessments because many outcomes regarding water, food, and energy emerge from the bottom up as a result of decision-making of, and interactions between, many households. Behavioural aspects influence the nexus in multiple ways. Water demand results from decisions made by individual farmers that perceive and respond to a variety of factors (i.e. crop prices, water price). In urban settings, water demand results from a set of other factors, including habits, type of appliances, or water prices. Energy use depends on similar factors, while energy production is largely a consequence of corporate investment calculations and institutional arrangements. Food production in rural settings is linked to similar factors as water, but experiences show a decline due to the increasing profitability of energy crops. All these influencing factors have in common that the decisions are being made by individuals, households, or companies based on what they perceive as effective incentives or constraints. Increasingly, the modelling community acknowledges that designing such modelling efforts from the bottom up is paramount for analysing nexus outcomes and trade-offs (Smajgl and Bohensky 2013; Biggs et al. 2015; Hussien et al. 2017).

5.3 ­Current Solution

However, current nexus studies conduct trade-off assessments mainly from a highly aggregated perspective at the national, regional, or global level (Andrews-Speed et al. 2012; Franz et al. 2018; Xiao et al. 2019), which provide different types of insights, in particular by analysing longitudinal data. Data availability is a clear advantage of a highly aggregated approach, while the ability to obtain highly disaggregated data for the implementation of agent-based models is often limited and requires robust parametrisation techniques (Smajgl and Bohensky 2013; Smajgl and Barreteau 2017) and model validation (Moss 2008; David 2009, 2013; Smajgl et al. 2011). Unfortunately, so far, very few empirical agent-based models have been implemented for the water, food, and energy nexus; the few examples include Smajgl et al. (2015a) or Smajgl et al. (2015b). However, many partial nexus applications have been developed as agent-based models, primarily for energy–water analyses (Ng et al. 2011; Santhosh et al. 2014) and for water–food-focused analyses (Becu et al. 2003; Valbuena et al. 2008; Sahrbacher et al. 2014). Agent-based modelling is not the only promising method. Other advanced techniques include BBN and hydro-economic modelling. BBN are a probabilistic method to analyse the impact of interventions on specific nexus risks (Lynam et al. 2007; Lynam 2016). BBNs require the quantification of probabilities for expected consequences, which can be derived from data or from experts (Sun and Müller 2013; Lynam 2016). However, only a few BBNs have been explicitly implemented to study nexus outcomes (Varis et  al. 2012; Biggs et al. 2015). Considering that the nexus discussion is largely driven by hydrologists, an emerging approach involves the extension of hydrological models by economic variables. Hydroeconomic models integrate hydrological variables and their physical dynamics with the economic value of water considering the economic value of water uses (i.e. crops) (Harou et al. 2009). A growing number of hydro-economic models has been developed for the analysis of (mostly partial) nexus trade-offs (Mainuddin et al. 2011; Singh et al. 2014; He-Lambert et al. 2016). While integrated modelling is frequently highlighted as essential for empirical sustainability assessments (Jakeman and Letcher 2003; Bazilian et  al. 2011; Smajgl 2018), the majority of methods deployed during nexus studies have a disciplinary focus (Kaddoura and El Khatib 2017; Karnib 2018; Zhang et al. 2018), which means that cross-sector tradeoffs and synergies are not the primary scope of the analysis. In these cases, sector-specific results need to be further processed to reveal trade-offs or synergies. Typically, this can be achieved by qualitative methods such as expert panels. For instance, Smajgl and Ward (2013b) designed an expert panel approach that asked disciplinary experts to identify for the nexus assessment first-order impacts of a variety of development strategies. Then, firstorder impacts were presented, and experts were asked to identify which impacts are likely to result in consequence to these changes. Then, these secondary impacts were again presented, and experts were asked to identify tertiary impacts. The combination of first-, second-, and third-order impacts provides inputs for the development of system diagrams that specified the mechanisms that constitute cross-sector relationships. This approach established (qualitatively) how nexus sectors interact and how these relationships might change over time. Laspidou et  al. (2019) present a similar technique by specifying all possible nexus relationships and then ranking them to develop a heuristic assessment of scores across all nexus interlinkages.

107

108

5  Water, Food, and Energy Nexus

Several research groups have explored very successfully the effect of serious games as a method to investigate cross-sector impacts from a stakeholder perspective (Barreteau 2003; Annetta 2010; Wood et al. 2014). Such games can be designed as computer games, board games, or as role-playing games that target improved systems understanding among stakeholders or to make stakeholder better understand each other’s actions by taking on each other’s role (Barreteau et  al. 2003; Jones et  al. 2009; Zellner et  al. 2009; Annetta 2010). Considering the relevance of conflict, negotiations, and complexity in nexus-type situations, serious games are likely to offer substantial potential to reduce nexus trade-offs and achieve more sustainable outcomes. Aubert et  al. (2018) provide an excellent review of serious games in the context of water management and how these tools could contribute to multi-criteria decision analysis. Such (partially) qualitative methods allow experts and stakeholders to design likely cause–effect relationships, the specification and ranking of risks, and the identification of thresholds. However, the weakness is that it falls short of introducing complex cross-sector dynamics that go beyond the experience of participating stakeholders. This limitation could be overcome by combining qualitative methods with integrated modelling.

5.3.5  Innovative Engagement Processes to Steer Cross-Sector Dialogue Growing evidence emphasises that in situations characterised by high complexity and highly contested values, decision support needs to actively design and manage processes that allow them to engage with competing stakeholders and thereby mitigate policy impact failure risks (Smajgl and Ward 2013b; Hassenforder et al. 2015). Considering that the nexus is in most situations highly complex and contested, the success of a nexus implementation depends not only on an effective methodology but also on the design of an effective stakeholder engagement process. By definition, any applied nexus study needs to engage with at least three sector agencies, which have competing mandates. Considering that most of these cross-sector relations harbour complex interactions, the science-policy partnership is problematic because highly contested values establish incentives to argue for the first-best solution for any of the involved sectors. Complexity makes it difficult to dispute the benefits of a particular solution or present evidence for cross-sector trade-offs. Thus, nexus situations make evidence-based decision-making challenging and demand careful planning of the engagement process with the competing policy-makers and planners. Consequentially, the design of research processes and its policy engagement becomes a research topic of its own in understanding which process design options exist and which sequence of what actions is likely to lead to what policy outcome. Mounting evidence points at the effectiveness of participatory research processes to effectively bridge science and policy in complex and contested situations, which implies nexus-relevant situations (Cornwall and Jewkes 1995; Barreteau et al. 2010; d’Aquino and Bah 2013). Participatory research is a very diverse field, largely applied in the domains of public health, environmental management, and education (Cornwall and Jewkes 1995). The common denominator for participatory approaches is that the (research) process constructively engages non-scientists to consider their knowledge (Cornwall and Jewkes 1995). Cash et al. (2003) argue that for effective participation of affected interests, knowledge needs to be

5.3 ­Current Solution

agreed as valid, salient, and legitimate. However, the degree to which stakeholder knowledge is considered, what knowledge is exchanged, and what engagement techniques are being implemented varies widely (Barreteau et al. 2010). Increasingly, scientists observe that studies claim to conduct participatory research, while the influence of stakeholders on the research remains minimal. In response, the research community developed robust definitions of what participation needs to entail and what levels of participation exist (see for details, Barreteau et al. 2010). In cases with strong utilisation of modelling, the terminology mostly changes to participatory modelling. Voinov and Bousquet (2010) provide an excellent overview of participatory modelling. Most prominent examples for participatory research include Community-based Participatory Research and Action Research (Cornwall and Jewkes 1995) and Participatory Action Research (McIntyre 2008). It needs to be emphasised that both of these groups include a range of diverse approaches. Prominent approaches within participatory modelling include Companion Modelling (Barreteau et  al. 2003; Bousquet et al. 2006) and Mediated Modelling (van den Belt 2004; Antunes et al. 2006). These developments are encouraging and establish a new research domain that will benefit nexus-focused research to effectively interact with multiple competing sectors and facilitate evidence-based decision-making despite the significance of complex dynamics. One participatory process design that has been successfully tested in a few empirical nexus processes is the psychologically founded Challenge and Reconstruct Learning (ChaRL) process. The ChaRL framework (Smajgl and Ward 2013b) aims to effectively bridge science and policy by guiding policymakers and planners through a highly structured participatory process. This systematic science-policy engagement framework puts stakeholder learning centre-stage. It utilises visions, beliefs, and values as key entry points for scientific evidence to inform policy and planning processes. The ChaRL framework approaches the introduction of scientific evidence into ongoing policy or planning processes from the perspective of discovery-based learning, aiming to ground truth existing assumptions about cause– effect relationships relevant to the decision-making situation at hand. ‘Discovery learning occurs whenever the learner is not provided with the target information or conceptual understanding and must find it independently and with only the provided materials’ (Alfieri et al. 2011). The ChaRL process elicits and challenges these underpinning causal beliefs (or heuristics) and reconstructs revised beliefs within the understanding of the functionality of the larger systems. The ChaRL process understands such reconstruction in the tradition of Habermas (2005) as the key process of learning, which is facilitated as an exchange of intuitive knowledge. The ChaRL process is in line with psychological research, particularly in the domains of cognitive research and discovery-based learning (Dean and Kuhn 2006; Alfieri et  al. 2011). However, experiments have also emphasised the importance of guidance during the discovery process (Mayer 2004; Kirschner et al. 2006), which ChaRL provides through a highly structured process, that involves cross-sector visioning, integrated assessment, and participatory systems mapping as some of the key steps. The ChaRL process has been implemented in various applied nexus studies and helped effectively bridge science and policy in very complex and contested decision-making situations (Smajgl 2010; Smajgl and Ward 2013b; Smajgl et al. 2015a). Several publications list and compare participatory processes (Cornwall and Jewkes 1995; Barreteau et al. 2010). Such comparisons are useful to guide the selection of the best suited process design for the task at hand. The development of improved process designs

109

110

5  Water, Food, and Energy Nexus

for implementing a nexus approach requires the testing and further enhancement of any of these research process designs. Each process design has a particular strength and is likely to perform better in some circumstances than in others. Nexus implementations could further improve the understanding of the effectiveness of particular process steps or sequences if the process is accompanied by a robust monitoring and evaluation approach to identify contextual strengths and limitations for each design option. The evaluation of participatory research processes and participatory modelling is largely limited to qualitative descriptions of impacts without a systematic and replicable experimental design. Hassenforder et al. (2015) developed a framework for the comparative analysis of participatory processes. Their Comparison of Participatory Processes (COPP) framework defines 30 criteria across four dimensions: context (6 criteria), process design (14 criteria), monitoring and evaluation (4 criteria), and the impacts, outputs, and outcomes (6 criteria). The framework application elicits evidence to derive testable hypotheses. These hypotheses would state that specific process activities implemented in a particular sequence lead to a particular outcome in a specific context. Ultimately, once widely tested, this evidence would define for a small number of contexts which activities are most critical and which activities should be avoided. Such design principles can provide the nexus community with robust understanding of effective science-policy deliberation processes. Recent implementations of the COPP framework have pointed at a few design principles (Hassenforder et al. 2015). First, effective engagement processes combine multiple levels of governance. This is supported by other literature (e.g. Smajgl 2009; Smajgl et  al. 2009; Daniell and Barreteau 2014; Smajgl and Ward 2015). Second, policy impacts are less dependent on methods, which contradicts some other empirical studies comparing disciplinary models with complex system models (Smajgl and Ward 2015; Smajgl et al. 2015c). These results emphasise the need to further investigate the relevance of methods in the broader research design, which seems also highly relevant for the nexus discussion. Third, high policy impact is more likely to be achieved in 2 years or more, while low impact studies engaged for 12 months or less. This could mean that there is a threshold for nexus studies and the need to engage for 2 years or more to make policy outcomes more likely. These types of findings resulting from a wider application of the COPP framework and a subsequent comparative analysis would help develop robust design principles nexus implementations could build on.

5.4 ­New Insights Nexus-type assessments identified and confirmed a few important cause–effect patterns critical for sustainable development, including sustainable water and basin management. While many of these impacts have been understood from a sector perspective, nexus studies highlight many wider cross-sector relationships and offer the identification of intervention points for managing basins towards sustainable nexus outcomes. Nexus studies can guide basin planning by comprehensively framing assessments of water, food, and energy-related investments. Interventions to improve energy security (e.g. hydropower or energy crops) can be understood from a basin perspective and how food and water security are likely to be affected.

5.4  ­New Insight

Equally, investments that aim for improved food security often involve deforestation or reduce wetlands, which can have implications for hydrological parameters, including flood risks or groundwater recharge. In a basin perspective such hydrological changes can affect also downstream hydropower. Consequentially, nexus dynamics unfold largely within the system boundaries of a basin or watershed, reminding us to consider basin boundaries and the connectedness within. Basins define system boundaries that often demand a balanced development approach regarding natural resource use. Nexus analyses provide insights for achieving such a balance between the development of key economic sectors while achieving sustainable development targets, which equally include social and environmental indicators. Nexus assessments reveal important relationships and system wide impacts for fine-tuning development plans. While important natural systems are defined by basins, social-ecological processes unfold within different boundaries, often extending basins. This can materialise in the form of amended hydrological systems (e.g. blue water transfer), or evolving energy systems (e.g. grids), or food system flows (e.g. food trade and value chains). Increasingly relevant from a water management perspective are inter-basin transfers (Pohlner 2016; Zhuang 2016; Gu et al. 2017). Such interventions connect multiple natural systems (e.g. basins) and shift water from one basin into the next depending on the socio-political priorities. The two main drivers for inter-basin water transfer are climate change adaptation (e.g. drought mitigation) and socio-economic changes (e.g. price changes). Once the infrastructure is in place, economic signals are likely to affect larger areas due to the new spatial connectivity. Consequently, water transfer can reduce water flow for hydropower in the source basin while increasing water availability (and, therefore, power generation capacity) in the receiving basin. Similarly, irrigated agriculture can be maintained or boosted in the target basin while introducing new water availability constraints in the initial basin. In these cases, nexus assessments need to focus on the entire system at hand and not be limited to a particular basin if the basin is driven by water, energy, or food needs from outside the basin. Effective methods for structuring the relevant inputs and environmental footprint independent from basin boundaries are LCAs and value chain analyses. Increasingly LCAs have entered nexus-focused research (Zhang et al. 2018; Bozeman et al. 2019) to capture comprehensively the input and output flows between economic sectors and ecosystem ­services. While Input–Output modelling provides similar data from a highly aggregated perspective, LCAs are typically implemented at a disaggregated level. Such disaggregated analyses provide better resolution for the cross-sector connectivity and the connection between nexus sectors and ecosystem services. Inter-basin transfers clearly increase the complexity as system boundaries widen. Similarly, large power grids and food trade add layers of interacting drivers that go far beyond the initial basin area insofar as, basin boundaries are not necessarily paramount for the nexus while being critical for the water management dimension. From a governance perspective, effective governance of the nexus needs to manage the nexus dimensions according to their respective system boundaries. However, the sector-focused governance requires an overarching coordination to achieve sustainable nexus outcomes. Existing governance is dominantly focused on sectors and needs stronger cross-sector coordination.

111

112

5  Water, Food, and Energy Nexus

Nexus-focused governance can utilise many existing institutional mechanisms to manage sector interactions for more sustainable outcomes. Many scholars distinguish between regulatory and economic policy instruments (Lago et  al. 2015). Regulatory instruments include legislation that defines grants or constrains access rights. In addition to the initial planning permission, regulatory instruments can involve a wide range of rules for the nexus, including, –– minimum water release rates for hydropower; –– maximum water out-take from surface or groundwater for irrigation; –– land use limitations that directly affect irrigation needs; –– mandatory insurance or compensation/restoration funds for hydropower; –– water titles for water users. The rationalisation of water within a basin is increasingly achieved by defining water titles and providing water users with specific annual allocations (Randall 1981; Shi 2005; Ward 2012). In dry years, these allocations can be reduced to protect downstream users or shift the burden based on particular policy priorities. Tradable water rights are a specific form of water title and an increasingly popular economic instrument. Additional economic instruments to influence supply or the demand sided behaviour include, –– water or energy tariffs –– supply side taxes and subsidies –– demand side taxes and subsidies –– other fees affecting water users, energy supply or demand, or food systems –– international or industry-focused agreements. This can provide an important intervention point for governance as incentives can be provided to improve water and energy use efficiency, or food production systems. Economic incentives are a well-established mechanism to introduce effective incentives for efficiency improvements, for instance by increasing costs for water or energy use, or by subsidising more efficient technologies. Efficiency improvements have been an important focus for nexus studies to identify intervention points (Ringler et al. 2013). The effectiveness and practical outcomes of any of these instruments depend on the broader institutional framework, which places a particular emphasis on the availability of effective monitoring of natural resource use and enforcement of rules (Ostrom 1992, 2006). Without effective monitoring and enforcement, any well-intended instrument can lead to adverse or no impact (Smajgl et al. 2015c). Accordingly, effective impact assessments need to consider the broader institutional arrangements to avoid unsustainable outcomes. Adopting a nexus approach considers such wider interactions between nexus sectors and SDGs.

5.5 ­Future Knowledge Requirements The improved management of the water, food, and energy nexus requires two main pillars, improved evidence and improved governance. In an ideal process, evidence informs decisionmaking towards better coordinated cross-sector investments and more sustainable outcomes. Experience highlights that coordination improves if stakeholders establish a shared

5.5  ­Future Knowledge Requirement

understanding of a future situation (Foran et al. 2013; Smajgl and Ward 2013b), for instance in form of a vision, which considers, –– desired states of each of the three nexus sectors, –– desired interactions between the nexus sectors, and –– desired outcomes measured in terms of SDG achievement. Evidence could be effectively introduced in a reverse-engineering approach, by designing investment and management strategies that are expected to lead to the desired outcomes across the three listed dimensions. Ideally, proposed strategies would undergo an integrated assessment covering all three stages (nexus sectors, nexus interactions, SDG outcomes) to establish the necessary evidence base. Impact assessments require data and adequate methods. Above-mentioned empirical studies reveal that data required to conduct robust integrated assessments are increasingly available but that large data gaps still remain. Data improvements are mainly driven by remote sensing and artificial intelligence (AI)-supported analysis (e.g. pattern recognition). Data gaps remain largely in the socio-economic realm, which is vital for addressing a large number of SDG indicators. Identifying the most critical data needs for a nexus assessment and closing these gaps is therefore important and would establish an additional important research contribution. Methodological improvements would equally advance our ability to conduct nexus assessments. Shifting more research capacity from disciplinary to transdisciplinary studies would help with establishing new integrated assessment methodology. While these research strategies could more robustly support sustainable development, governance could also evolve by strengthening cross-sector processes and institutionalising nexus coordination (Gyawali 2015). The current dominance of sectoral silos does not support effective nexus management. Adding cross-sectoral planning processes, involving visioning and cross-sector planning, and processes for establishing an effective sciencepolicy interface seem highly promising steps towards a nexus-focused restructuring of governance. The design and testing of innovative governance mechanisms would equally add advantages. Here, recent development in the domain of Internet of Things (IoT) and decentralising technologies (e.g. blockchain) could introduce completely new ways to establish incentives and guide behaviours, including, for instance, –– reducing water consumption, –– lowering energy demand, –– diminishing food waste. However, the policy integration of nexus thinking is challenging as silos also persevere in policy-making. A realistic strategy to improve nexus governance is to focus on existing cross-sector agencies (e.g. Finance, Planning, Office of Prime Minister) and focus their work with nexus-based evidence. The commitment of most Governments to the UN SDGs is a robust foundation for cross-sector alignment if trade-offs are being considered. Without explicitly considering and managing SDG-wide trade-offs, Ministries are likely to implement strategies for achieving individual SDGs in isolation from system-wide implications. The effective implementation of SDGs in policy requires an improved understanding of SDG trade-offs and synergies. Research needs to support this policy-focused process by assessing SDG relationships for a wide range of contexts. Future research will reveal if the

113

114

5  Water, Food, and Energy Nexus

WEF nexus is an effective surrogate for the assessment of SDG-wide trade-offs as suggested by Figure 5.3. If studies confirm that the WEF nexus provides an effective framing for the assessment of overall sustainability outcomes, governance could focus on managing nexus dynamics. Therefore, the WEF nexus has the potential to make important contributions towards the design of a green or circular economy. Governance improvements are particularly pressing in the context of large-scale societal challenges. Climate change, for instance, influences simultaneously many processes and, in the context of the nexus, how water, food, and energy security evolve. Climate change is likely to increase energy demand while reducing water availability and causing declining agricultural productivity in many regions. The dynamic relationships between the three nexus sectors respond to climate change and cause, without adequately adapting, governance declining outcomes for livelihoods and societal well-being. These effects are likely to imply undesirable distributional outcomes (Middleton et  al. 2015). The nexus approach provides an effective framing for systematically assessing nexus dynamics and SDG-specific outcomes. The improvement of nexus dynamics should therefore lead to improved livelihoods and improved ecosystems as water, energy, and food security improve. Advancing the sustainability of current nexus processes will demand innovative financing solutions to turn trade-off relationships into neutral or synergetic relationships. Financial support for achieving SDGs could be prioritised by such a nexus trade-off assessment, and incentives could be introduced to further direct existing and stimulate new financing to improve nexus dynamics. Any considerate nexus-based strategy for implementing SDGs requires the design of finance and the integration of the private sector. Investments that are solely focused on sector interests and/or individual SDGs are likely to skew outcomes at the cost of other SDG/nexus components. Research and governance can adapt to an increasingly complex reality. An effective next step could be the synthesising of all nexus studies to identify most frequent water–food– energy patterns. Lessons learnt for how one pattern unfolds in one context can effectively inform similar water–food–energy interactions elsewhere. Developing and continuously updating a catalogue of nexus cases would therefore be a promising next step to develop principle guidelines. Cases outlined at the beginning of this chapter could be a first step.

­References ADB (2013). Thinking About Water Differently: Managing the Water–Food–Energy Nexus. Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Asian Development Bank. Albrecht, T.R., Crootof, A., and Scott, C.A. (2018). The water–energy–food nexus: a systematic review of methods for nexus assessment. Environmental Research Letters 13: 043002. https:// doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa9c6. Alfieri, L., Brooks, P.J., Aldrich, N.J., and Tenenbaum, H.R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology 103: 1–18. Alvargonzález, D. (2011). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, and the sciences. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 25: 387–403. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/02698595.2011.623366.

 ­Reference

Andrews-Speed, P., Bleischwitz, R., and Boersma, T. (2012). The Global Resource Nexus. The Struggles for Land, Energy, Food, Water, and Minerals. Washington, DC: Transatlantic Academy. Annetta, L.A. (2010). The “I’s” have it: a framework for serious educational game design. Review of General Psychology 14: 105–112. Antunes, P., Santos, R., and Videira, N. (2006). Participatory decision making for sustainable development-the use of mediated modelling techniques. Land Use Policy 23: 44–52. Argent, R.M., Grayson, R.B., and Ewing, S.A. (1999). Integrated models for environmental management: issues of process and design. Environment International 25: 693–699. Arias, M.E., Cochrane, T.A., and Piman, T. (2012). Quantifying changes in flooding and habitats in the Tonle Sap Lake (Cambodia) caused by water infrastructure development and climate change in the Mekong Basin. Journal of Environmental Management 112: 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.07.003. Arthington, A.H., Kennen, J.G., Stein, E.D., and Webb, J.A. (2018). Recent advances in environmental flows science and water management – innovation in the Anthropocene. Freshwater Biology 63: 1022–1034. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.13108. Ascough II, J.C., Maier, H.R., Ravalico, J.K., and Strudley, M.W. (2008). Future research challenges for incorporation of uncertainty in environmental and ecological decisionmaking. Ecological Modelling 219: 383–399. Aubert, A.H., Bauer, R., and Lienert, J. (2018). A review of water-related serious games to specify use in environmental multi-criteria decision analysis. Environmental Modelling and Software 105: 64–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.03.023. Axelrod, R., Tesfatsion, L., and Judd, K.L. (2006). A Guide for Newcomers to Agent-Based Modelling in the Social Sciences 154. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Barreteau, O. (2003). The joint use of role-playing games and models regarding negotiation processes: characterization of associations. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 6: 16. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/6/2/3.html. Barreteau, O. and Smajgl, A. (2013). Designing empirical agent-based models: an issue of matching data, technical requirements and stakeholder expectations. In: The Characterisation & Parameterisation of Empirical Agent-Based Models (eds. A. Smajgl and O. Barreteau), 217–229. New York: Springer. Barreteau, O., Antona, M., D’Aquino, P. et al. (2003). Our companion modelling approach. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 6 (1). http://jasss.soc.surrey. ac.uk/6/2/1.html. Barreteau, O., Bots, P.W.G., and Daniell, K.A. (2010). A framework for clarifying “participation” in participatory research to prevent its rejection for the wrong reasons. Ecology and Society 15: 1. Baumgartner, L.J., Marsden, T., and Singhanouvong, D. (2012). Using an experimental in situ fishway to provide key design criteria for lateral fish passage in tropical rivers: a case study from the Mekong River, Central Lao PDR. River Research and Applications 28: 1217–1229. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.1513. Bazilian, M., Rogner, H., and Howells, M. (2011). Considering the energy, water and food nexus: towards an integrated modelling approach. Energy Policy 39: 7896–7906. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.09.039.

115

116

5  Water, Food, and Energy Nexus

Beck, M.B. and Villarroel Walker, R. (2013). On water security, sustainability, and the water– food–energy-climate nexus. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering 7: 626–639. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-013-0548-6. Becu, N., Perez, P., and Walker, A. (2003). Agent based simulation of a small catchment water management in northern Thailand: description of the CATCHSCAPE model. Ecological Modelling 170: 319–331. van den Belt, M. (2004). Mediated Modelling: A System Dynamics Approach to Environmental Consensus Building. Washington, DC: Island Press. Benson, D., Gain, A.K., and Rouillard, J.J. (2015). Water governance in a comparative perspective: from IWRM to a “nexus” approach? Water Alternatives 8: 756–773. Biggs, E.M., Bruce, E., and Boruff, B. (2015). Sustainable development and the water–energy– food nexus: a perspective on livelihoods. Environmental Science & Policy 54: 389–397. Bijl, D.L., Bogaart, P.W., Dekker, S.C., and van Vuuren, D.P. (2018). Unpacking the nexus: different spatial scales for water, food and energy. Global Environmental Change 48: 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.11.005. BMU, BMZ (2011). Messages from the Bonn 2011 Conference: The Water, Energy and Food Security Nexus – Solutions for a Green Economy. Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit. Bousquet, F., Barnaud, C., and Barreteau, O. (2006). Companion modelling for resilient water management: stakeholders’ perceptions of water dynamics and collective learning at the catchment scale. CGIAR Secretariat. In: France and the CGIAR: Delivering Scientific Results for Agricultural Development, 98–101. CGIAR. Bozeman, J.F., Bozeman, R., and Theis, T.L. (2019). Overcoming climate change adaptation barriers: a study on food–energy–water impacts of the average American diet by demographic group. Journal of Industrial Ecology https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12859. Burney, J., Woltering, L., and Burke, M. (2010). Solar-powered drip irrigation enhances food security in the Sudano-Sahel. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107: 1848–1853. Bush, S.R. and Hirsch, P. (2005). Framing fishery decline. Aquatic Resources, Culture and Development 1: 79–90. Cairns, R. and Krzywoszynska, A. (2016). Anatomy of a buzzword: the emergence of ‘the water–energy–food nexus’ in UK natural resource debates. Environmental Science & Policy 64: 164–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.07.007. Caldera, U. and Breyer, C. (2019). Assessing the potential for renewable energy powered desalination for the global irrigation sector. Science of the Total Environment 694: 133598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133598. Cash, D.W., Clark, W.C., and Alcock, F. (2003). Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100: 8086–8091. Conway, D., van Garderen, E.A., and Deryng, D. (2015). Climate and southern Africa’s water–energy–food nexus. Nature Climate Change 5: 837. Cornwall, A. and Jewkes, R. (1995). What is participatory research? Social Science and Medicine 41: 1767–1676. Daniell, K.A. and Barreteau, O. (2014). Water governance across competing scales: coupling land and water management. Journal of Hydrology https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.10.055.

 ­Reference

d’Aquino, P. and Bah, A. (2013). A participatory modeling process to capture indigenous ways of adaptability to uncertainty: outputs from an experiment in West African drylands. Ecology and Society 18: 16. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05876–180416. David, N. (2009). Validation and verification in social simulation: patterns and clarification of terminology. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 5466: 117–129. David, N. (2013). Validating simulations. In: Simulating Social Complexity (eds. B. Edmonds and R. Meyer), 135–171. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. Dawoud, M.A. (2005). The role of desalination in augmentation of water supply in GCC countries. Desalination 186: 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2005.03.094. Dean, D.J. and Kuhn, D. (2006). Direct instruction vs. discovery: the long view. Science Education 91: 384–397. Dombrowsky, I. and Hensengerth, O. (2018). Governing the water–energy–food nexus related to hydropower on shared rivers-the role of regional organizations. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2018.00153. Elbatran, A.H., Yaakob, O.B., Ahmed, Y.M., and Shabara, H.M. (2015). Operation, performance and economic analysis of low head micro-hydropower turbines for rural and remote areas: a review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 43: 40–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.rser.2014.11.045. Fader, M., Cranmer, C., Lawford, R., and Engel-Cox, J. (2018). Toward an understanding of synergies and trade-offs between water, energy, and food SDG targets. Frontiers in Environmental Science 6: 112. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2018.00112. Falkenmark, M. and Rockström, J. (2006). The new blue and green water paradigm: breaking new ground for water resources planning and management. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 132: 129–132. https://doi.org/10.1061/ (ASCE)0733-9496(2006)132:3(129). Foran, T., Ward, J., Kemp-Benedict, E., and Smajgl, A. (2013). Developing detailed foresight narratives: a participatory technique from the Mekong region. Ecology and Society 18: 6. de Fraiture, C., Giordano, M., and Liao, Y. (2008). Biofuels and implications for agricultural water use: blue impacts of green energy. Water Policy 10: 67–81. Franz, M., Schlitz, N., and Schumacher, K.P. (2018). Globalization and the water–energy–food nexus – using the global production networks approach to analyze society-environment relations. Environmental Science & Policy 90: 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. envsci.2017.12.004. Gao, L. and Bryan, B.A. (2017). Finding pathways to national-scale land-sector sustainability. Nature 544: 217. Giddey, S., Badwal, S.P.S., and Ju, H. (2019). Polymer electrolyte membrane technologies integrated with renewable energy for hydrogen production. In: Current Trends and Future Developments on (Bio-) Membranes, Chapter 10 (eds. A. Basile, A. Cassano and A. Figoli), 235–259. Elsevier. Gilbert, N. (2008). Agent-Based Models. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications. Glenk, G. and Reichelstein, S. (2019). Economics of converting renewable power to hydrogen. Nature Energy 4: 216–222. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-019-0326-1. Grumbine, R.E., Dore, J., and Xu, J. (2012). Mekong hydropower: drivers of change and governance challenges. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10: 91–98. https:// doi.org/10.1890/110146.

117

118

5  Water, Food, and Energy Nexus

Gu, W., Shao, D., and Tan, X. (2017). Simulation and optimization of multi-reservoir operation in inter-basin water transfer system. Water Resources Management 31: 3401–3412. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-1675-9. Gupta, E. (2019). The impact of solar water pumps on energy–water–food nexus: evidence from Rajasthan, India. Energy Policy 129: 598–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.02.008. Gyawali, D. (2015). Nexus Governance: Harnessing Contending Forces at Work. IUCN. Habermas, J. (2005). Concluding comments on empirical approaches to deliberative politics. Acta Politica 40: 384–392. Harou, J.J., Pulido-Velazquez, M., and Rosenberg, D.E. (2009). Hydro-economic models: concepts, applications, and future prospects. Journal of Hydrology 375: 627–643. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.06.037. Harrison, P.A., Dunford, R., and Barton, D.N. (2018). Selecting methods for ecosystem service assessment: a decision tree approach. Ecosystem Services 29: 481–498. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.016. Hassenforder, E., Smajgl, A., and Ward, J. (2015). Towards understanding participatory processes: framework, application and results. Journal of Environmental Management 157: 84–95. He-Lambert, L., English, B.C., and Lambert, D.M. (2016). Using Hydro-Economic Modeling to Analyze the Allocation of Agricultural Water in the Southeastern U.S. 2016 Annual Meeting (31 July-2 August), Boston, Massachusetts 235675, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association. Hirsch Hadorn, G., Bradley, D., and Pohl, C. (2006). Implications of transdisciplinarity for sustainability research. Ecological Economics 60: 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ecolecon.2005.12.002. Hirsch, P. and Jensen, K. (2006). National Interests and Transboundary Water Governance in the Mekong. Sydney: Australian Mekong Resource Centre, Univeristy of Sydney. Hoang, L.P., van Vliet, M.T.H., and Kummu, M. (2019). The Mekong’s future flows under multiple drivers: how climate change, hydropower developments and irrigation expansions drive hydrological changes. Science of the Total Environment 649: 601–609. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.160. Hoekstra, A.Y. and Hung, P.Q. (2002). Virtual Water Trade: A Quantification of Virtual Water Flows between Nations in Relation to International Crop Trade. Research Report Series 11, IHE Delft. Hoff, H. (2011). Understanding the Nexus. In: Background Paper for the Bonn 2011 Conference: The Water, Energy and Food Security Nexus. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). Hussien, W.A., Memon, F.A., and Savic, D.A. (2017). An integrated model to evaluate water– energy–food nexus at a household scale. Environmental Modelling and Software 93: 366–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.03.034. Intralawan, A., Smajgl, A., and McConnell, W. (2019). Reviewing benefits and costs of hydropower development evidence from the Lower Mekong River Basin. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water 6: e1347. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1347. Jakeman, A.J. and Letcher, R.A. (2003). Integrated assessment and modelling: features, principles and examples for catchment management. Environmental Modelling and Software 18: 491–501.

 ­Reference

Janssen, M. and Ostrom, E. (2006). Empirically based, agent-based models. Ecology and Society 11: Art. 37. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art37. Jiang, G., Zhao, M., Su, Q., and He, Y. (2018). Evaluation Method and Empirical Research of Regional Water–Energy–Food Synergetic Development. MATEC Web Conferences, Vol. 246, Article 01081, 2018 International Symposium on Water System Operations (ISWSO 2018). Jones, N.A., Perez, P., and Measham, T.G. (2009). Evaluating participatory modeling: developing a framework for cross-case analysis. Environmental Management 44: 1180–1195. Ju, Y. (2019). Revealing the bilateral dependencies and policy implication of food production of Japan and China: from the perspective of food-energy-water nexus. Ecological Modelling 391: 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2018.11.001. Kaddoura, S. and El Khatib, S. (2017). Review of water–energy–food Nexus tools to improve the Nexus modelling approach for integrated policy making. Environmental Science & Policy 77: 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.007. Karnib, A. (2018). Bridging science and policy in water–energy–food nexus: using the Q-nexus model for informing policy making. Water Resources Management 32: 4895–4909. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11269-018-2059-5. Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., and Clark, R.E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist 41: 75–86. Kondolf, G.M., Schmitt, R.J.P., and Carling, P. (2018). Changing sediment budget of the Mekong: cumulative threats and management strategies for a large river basin. Science of the Total Environment 625: 114–134. Krittasudthacheewa, C., Polpanich, O., and Bush, A. (2012). Final Report for the Northeast Thailand Futures: A Local Study of the Exploring Mekong Region Futures Project. Report submitted to Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). Kummu, M. and Varis, O. (2007). Sediment-related impacts due to upstream reservoir trapping, the Lower Mekong River. Geomorphology 85: 275–293. Lago, M., Mysiak, J., and Gómez, C.M. (2015). Defining and assessing economic policy instruments for sustainable water management. In: Use of Economic Instruments in Water Policy: Insights from International Experience (eds. M. Lago, J. Mysiak, C.M. Gómez, et al.), 1–13. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Lamb, K.E., Dolan, M.D., and Kennedy, D.F. (2019). Ammonia for hydrogen storage; a review of catalytic ammonia decomposition and hydrogen separation and purification. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 44: 3580–3593. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijhydene.2018.12.024. Laspidou, C.S., Mellios, N., and Kofinas, D. (2019). Towards ranking the water–energy–foodland use-climate nexus interlinkages for building a nexus conceptual model with a heuristic algorithm. Water, 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11020306. van Lienden, A.R., Gerbens-Leenes, P.W., Hoekstra, A.Y., and van der Meer, T.H. (2010). Biofuel Scenarios in a Water Perspective: The Global Blue and Green Water Footprint of Road Transport in 2030. Delft, The Netherlands: UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Eductation. Liu, C., Li, Q., and Wu, C. (2019). Single-boron catalysts for nitrogen reduction reaction. Journal of the American Chemical Society 141: 2884–2888. https://doi.org/10.1021/ jacs.8b13165.

119

120

5  Water, Food, and Energy Nexus

Lu, S., Shang, Y., and Li, W. (2018). Economic benefit analysis of joint operation of cascaded reservoirs. Journal of Cleaner Production 179: 731–737. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jclepro.2017.08.140. Lynam, T. (2016). Exploring social representations of adapting to climate change using topic modeling and Bayesian networks. Ecology and Society 21: 16. Lynam, T., de Jong, W., and Shell, D. (2007). A review of tools for incorporating community knowledge, preferences, and values into decision making in natural resources management. Ecology and Society 12: 5. Mabhaudhi, T., Mpandeli, S., and Nhamo, L. (2018). Prospects for improving irrigated agriculture in Southern Africa: linking water, energy and food. Water 10 https: //doi.org/10.3390/w10121881. Maheshwari, B., Varua, M., and Ward, J. (2014). The role of transdisciplinary approach and community participation in village scale groundwater management: insights from Gujarat and Rajasthan, India. Water 6: 3386–3408. Mainuddin, M., Kirby, M., and Hoanh, C. (2011). Adaptation to climate change for food security in the lower Mekong Basin. Food Security 3: 433–450. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12571-011-0154-z. Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist 59: 14–19. McIntyre, A. (2008). Participatory Action Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Middleton, C., Allouche, J., Gyawali, D., and Allen, S. (2015). The rise and implications of the water–energy–food nexus in Southeast Asia through an environmental justice lens. Water Alternatives 8: 627–654. Minderhoud, P.S.J., Erkens, G., and Pham, V.H. (2017). Impacts of 25 years of groundwater extraction on subsidence in the Mekong delta, Vietnam. Environmental Research Letters 12: 1–13. Moss, S. (2008). Alternative approaches to the empirical validation of agent-based models. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 11: 5. Muff, K., Kapalka, A., and Dyllick, T. (2018). Moving the world into a safe space – the GAPFRAME methodology. The International Journal of Management Education 16: 349–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2018.05.001. Ng, T.L., Eheart, J.W., Cai, X., and Braden, J.B. (2011). An agent-based model of farmer decision-making and water quality impacts at the watershed scale under markets for carbon allowance and a second-generation biofuel crop. Water Resources Research 47 https ://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR010399. Orr, S., Pittock, J., Chapagain, A., and Dumaresq, D. (2012). Dams on the Mekong River: lost fish protein and the implications for land and water resources. Global Environmental Change 22: 925–932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.06.002. Ostrom, E. (1992). Crafting Institutions for Self-Governing Irrigation Systems. San Francisco, CA: Institute for Contemporary Studies Press. Ostrom, E. (2006). Understanding Institutional Diversity. Pohlner, H. (2016). Institutional change and the political economy of water megaprojects: China’s south-north water transfer. Global Environmental Change 38: 205–216. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.03.015. Randall, A. (1981). Property entitlements and pricing policies for a maturing water economy 838. Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics 25: 195–220.

 ­Reference

Rasul, G., Neupane, N., Hussain, A., and Pasakhala, B. (2019). Beyond hydropower: towards an integrated solution for water, energy and food security in South Asia. International Journal of Water Resources Development https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2019.1579705. Renault, D. (2002). Value of Virtual Water in Food: Principles and Virtues. La valeur de l’eau virtuelle dans la gestion de l’alimentation humaine. Actes des 27emes journées de la Société Hydrotechnique de France, Eau et Economie (24–26 September 2002), 8pp. Ringler, C., Bhaduri, A., and Lawford, R. (2013). The nexus across water, energy, land and food (WELF): potential for improved resource use efficiency? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 5: 617–624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.11.002. Rockström, J. and Sukhdev, P. (2016). How Food Connects all the SDGs. Stockholm Resilience Center. Ruddell, B.L., Adams, E.A., Rushforth, R., and Tidwell, V.C. (2014). Embedded resource accounting for coupled natural-human systems: an application to water resource impacts of the western U.S. electrical energy trade. Water Resources Research 50: 7957–7972. https:// doi.org/10.1002/2013WR014531. van Ruijven, B., Hari, L., van Vuuren, D.P., and de Vries, B. (2008). The potential role of hydrogen energy in India and Western Europe. Energy Policy 36: 1649–1665. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.01.020. Sahrbacher, C., Sahrbacher, A., and Balmann, A. (2014). Parameterisaton of AgriPoliS: a model of agricultural structural change. In: Empirical Agent-Based Modelling – Challenges & Solutions: The Characterisation & Parameterisation of Empirical Agent-Based Models (eds. A. Smajgl and O. Barreteau), 105–122. New York: Springer. Santhosh, A., Farid, A.M., and Youcef-Toumi, K. (2014). Real-time economic dispatch for the supply side of the energy-water nexus. Applied Energy 122: 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.apenergy.2014.01.062. Sarkodie, S.A., Strezov, V., and Weldekidan, H. (2019). Environmental sustainability assessment using dynamic autoregressive-distributed lag simulations – nexus between greenhouse gas emissions, biomass energy, food and economic growth. Science of the Total Environment 668: 318–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.432. Shah, T. (2009). Taming the Anarchy: Groundwater Governance in South Asia. New Delhi: Routledge. Shi, T. (2005). Simplifying Complexity: A Framework for the Rationalisation of Water Entitlements in the Southern Connected River Murray System 905. 03/05. Shifflett, S.D., Culbreth, A., and Hazel, D. (2016). Coupling aquaculture with forest plantations for food, energy, and water resiliency. Science of the Total Environment 571: 1262–1270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.07.161. Singh, R., Maheshwari, B., and Malano, H. (2014). Securing water supply in Western Sydney: an analysis of water use, demand and availability in the South Creek catchment. In: The Security of Water, Food, Energy and Liveability of Cities: Challenges and Opportunities for Peri-Urban Futures (eds. B. Maheshwari, R. Purohit, H. Malano, et al.), 121–136. New York: Springer. Smajgl, A. (2009). Accounting for multiple governance scales in integrated modelling and decision support. In: Reflecting on Integrated Mission Directed Research: Learning from Experience in Environmental and Natural Resource Management (eds. W. Proctor, L. Van Kerkhoff and S. Hatfield Dodds), 189–202. Collingwood: CSIRO Publishing.

121

122

5  Water, Food, and Energy Nexus

Smajgl, A. (2010). Challenging beliefs through multi-level participatory modelling in Indonesia. Environmental Modelling and Software 25: 1470–1476. Smajgl, A. (2018). Participatory processes and integrated modelling supporting nexus implementations. In: Managing Water, Soil and Waste Resources to Achieve Sustainable Development Goals: Monitoring and Implementation of Integrated Resources Management (eds. S. Hülsmann and R. Ardakanian), 71–92. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Smajgl, A. and Barreteau, O. (2017). Framing options for characterising and parameterising human agents in empirical ABM. Environmental Modelling and Software 93: 29–41. Smajgl, A. and Bohensky, E. (2013). Behaviour and space in agent-based modelling: poverty patterns in East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Environmental Modelling and Software 45: 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.10.014. Smajgl, A. and Ward, J. (2013a). The Water–Food–Energy Nexus in the Mekong Region: Assessing Development Strategies Considering Cross-Sectoral and Trans-Boundary Impacts. New York: Springer. Smajgl, A. and Ward, J. (2013b). A framework for bridging science and decision making. Futures 52: 52–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2013.07.002. Smajgl, A. and Ward, J. (2015). Evaluating participatory research: framework, methods and implementation results. Journal of Environmental Management 157: 311–319. Smajgl, A., Morris, S., and Heckbert, S. (2009). Water policy impact assessment – combining modelling techniques in the Great Barrier Reef region. Water Policy 11: 191–202. Smajgl, A., House, A., and Butler, J. (2011). Implications of ecological data constraints for integrated policy and livelihoods modelling: an example from East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Ecological Modelling 222: 888–896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2010.11.015. Smajgl, A., Toan, T.Q., and Nhan, D.K. (2015a). Responding to rising sea-levels in Vietnam’s Mekong Delta. Nature Climate Change 5: 167–174. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2469. Smajgl, A., Ward, J., and Foran, T. (2015b). Visions, beliefs and transformation: exploring cross-sector and trans-boundary dynamics in the wider Mekong region. Ecology and Society 20: 15. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07421-200215. Smajgl, A., Xu, J., and Egan, S. (2015c). Assessing the effectiveness of payments for ecosystem services for diversifying rubber in Yunnan, China. Environmental Modelling and Software 69: 187–195. Smajgl, A., Ward, J., and Pluschke, L. (2016). The water–food–energy nexus – realising a new paradigm. Journal of Hydrology 533: 533–540. Sobrosa Neto, R.D.C., Berchin, I.I., and Magtoto, M. (2018). An integrative approach for the water–energy–food nexus in beef cattle production: a simulation of the proposed model to Brazil. Journal of Cleaner Production 204: 1108–1123. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jclepro.2018.08.200. Sun, Z. and Müller, D. (2013). A framework for modeling payments for ecosystem services with agent-based models, Bayesian belief networks and opinion dynamics models. Environmental Modelling and Software 45: 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.06.007. Sušnik, J. (2018). Data-driven quantification of the global water–energy–food system. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 133: 179–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.resconrec.2018.02.023. Troitzsch, K.G. (2013). Historical introduction. In: Simulating Social Complexity (eds. B. Edmonds and R. Meyer), 13–21. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

 ­Reference

Valbuena, D., Verburg, P.H., and Bregt, A.K. (2008). A method to define a typology for agent-based analysis in regional land-use research. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 128: 27–36. Varis, O., Rahaman, M.M., and Kajander, T. (2012). Fully connected Bayesian belief networks: a modeling procedure with a case study of the Ganges river basin. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 8: 491–502. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.222. Varua, M.E., Ward, J., and Maheshwari, B. (2018). Groundwater management and gender inequalities; the case of two watersheds in India. Groundwater for Sustainable Development 6: 93–100. Voinov, A. and Bousquet, F. (2010). Modelling with stakeholders. Environmental Modelling and Software 25: 1168–1281. Voinov, A., Jenni, K., and Gray, S. (2018). Tools and methods in participatory modeling: selecting the right tool for the job. Environmental Modelling and Software 109: 232–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.08.028. Wada, Y. and Heinrich, L. (2013). Assessment of transboundary aquifers of the world – vulnerability arising from human water use. Environmental Research Letters 8: 024003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024003. Ward, F.A. (2012). Cost-benefit and water resources policy: a survey. Water Policy 14: 250–280. WEF (2011). Water Security: Water–Food–Energy-Climate Nexus. The World Economic Forum Water Initiative. Washington, DC: Island Press. Wood, G., van der Horst, D., and Day, R. (2014). Serious games for energy social science research. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 26: 1212–1227. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09537325.2014.978277. Xiao, Z., Yao, M., Tang, X., and Sun, L. (2019). Identifying critical supply chains: an input– output analysis for food-energy-water nexus in China. Ecological Modelling 392: 31–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2018.11.006. Yang, Y.C.E., Wi, S., and Ray, P.A. (2016). The future nexus of the Brahmaputra River Basin: climate, water, energy and food trajectories. Global Environmental Change 37: 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.01.002. Zellner, M.L., Page, S.E., and Rand, W. (2009). The emergence of zoning policy games in exurban jurisdictions: informing collective action theory. Land Use Policy 26: 256–367. Zhang, Y.-H.P. (2013). Next generation biorefineries will solve the food, biofuels, and environmental trilemma in the energy-food-water nexus. Energy Science & Engineering 1: 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/ese3.2. Zhang, C., Chen, X., and Li, Y. (2018). Water–energy–food nexus: concepts, questions and methodologies. Journal of Cleaner Production 195: 625–639. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jclepro.2018.05.194. Zhou, Y. and Tol, R.S.J. (2005). Evaluating the costs of desalination and water transport. Water Resources 41: W03003. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004wr003749. Zhou, Y., Chang, L.-C., and Uen, T.-S. (2019). Prospect for small-hydropower installation settled upon optimal water allocation: an action to stimulate synergies of water–food–energy nexus. Applied Energy: 668–682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.01.069. Zhuang, W. (2016). Eco-environmental impact of inter-basin water transfer projects: a review. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 23: 12867–12879. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11356-016-6854-3.

123

Credit: A. MacDonald, BGS, UK.

125

6 Groundwater Management Stephen Foster1 and Alan MacDonald2 1 2

University College London, London, UK Lyell Centre, British Geological Survey, Edinburgh, UK

6.1 ­Introduction 6.1.1  Importance of Groundwater Storage Groundwater is the largest reservoir of unfrozen freshwater on our planet. If only shallow groundwater in active circulation is considered (some 8–10 million cubic kilometres), then these reserves amount to 95–97% of total freshwater stocks, with only 2–3% being held in lakes, reservoirs, rivers, and swamps, and with soil moisture storage representing about another 1%. The vast storage of many aquifer systems is their most distinctive characteristic but can result in the false impression that groundwater resources are inexhaustible. Whilst this storage provides an effective natural buffer against climatic variability, recharge is finite and controls the long-term physical sustainability of groundwater resources (Figure 6.1). As a result of being an ‘invisible (or hidden) resource’, the flow of groundwater is also still widely a source of public misconception, with often mistaken ideas about underground rivers or subterranean lakes. A clear understanding of the occurrence of aquifers and the hydrogeological structure of river basins is essential for effective catchment management. Different aquifer systems vary widely in their storage properties because of major differences in saturated thickness, spatial extent, and geology. Groundwater is generally stored in pore spaces and fractures within rocks and the proportion of void space is known as the porosity. Unconsolidated granular sediments, such as sands or gravels, are highly porous, and the water content in these aquifers can exceed 30% of their volume. Effective porosity reduces with the proportion of finer materials (such as silt or clay) and with consolidation of sediments into solid rock under pressure. In highly consolidated sedimentary rocks, the porosity may be 10 000 years old, which originated as recharge in past wetter and colder millennia (e.g. the Nubian aquifers of North Africa). However, the large volume of many aquifer systems will help to buffer the effects of climate change in the short to medium term. Aquifer systems possess their own resilience to the pressures arising from global change based on their volume, porosity, and permeability (Foster and MacDonald 2014). Therefore, each will respond differently, but predictably, to climate change. Climate change will not universally reduce groundwater recharge, but in some circumstances, changes in rainfall volumes, intensity, and land use may actually increase recharge (Cuthbert et al. 2019) and in some circumstances lead to groundwater flooding. 6.2.3.4  Irrigation

The practice of irrigated agriculture has an intimate linkage with groundwater resources (Llamas and Martinez-Santos 2005; Garrido et al. 2006; Foster and Cherlet 2014), although the nature of this relation varies considerably with hydrogeological setting (especially watertable depth) and whether groundwater or surface water is the main source of irrigation water supply. Since agriculture is by far the largest consumer of groundwater, water-resource savings in irrigation are critical, although real savings can only be made by either reducing consumptive use or by eliminating freshwater losses to saline water bodies. Otherwise, supposed water savings are just reducing water input to another part of the catchment. The replacement of flood irrigation with precision drip or sprinkler technology can reduce the volume of groundwater applied to a crop and, therefore, reduce energy use for pumping. Moreover, precision ferti-irrigation delivers nutrients directly to the root zone, reducing weed growth and increasing crop yields. But it must be stressed that this irrigation system is not a significant water-resource saving measure (Figure 6.6) (Foster and Perry 2010), and its introduction often has negative consequences for the groundwater system as a whole. The main impacts are usually greatly reducing groundwater recharge from irrigation water returns and increasing the build-up of soil salinity and in turn groundwater recharge salinity. Thus, a well-informed and carefully balanced approach to irrigation is required, and the challenge (particularly in arid areas) is not only to focus on efficient water use but also to reconcile gross groundwater abstraction with overall average recharge and required environmental flows. It is helpful to manage irrigation water through evapotranspiration and soil management to retain favourable moisture and salt balance. Management arrangements are required that boost crop-water productivity (net income per cubic meters evaporated), whilst honouring the need for groundwater regulation to achieve resource sustainability. Metering of irrigation water use is a highly desirable management provision, but one that is often resisted as being logistically too complex and costly. A simpler (and usually adequate) proxy is to meter and control the energy supply for pumping which, for example, can be facilitated by using electronic smart-card technology for pump activation, with individual card allocations being chargeable and annually variable according to aquifer water-level trends. Rural energy pricing can be used as part of an incentive framework for promoting sustainable groundwater extraction, with joint billing of pump energy consumption and

137

6  Groundwater Management GROUNDWATER IRRIGATION RETURN FLOW

POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTION FROM SURFACE WATER IRRIGATION LOSSES

2000

2000

PERMEABLE SOIL PROFILES

50

lan d ted ) FLOOD

200

100

50

GROUNDWATER RECHARGE (mm/s) from excess rainfall and irrigation losses

100

500

nirr iga

l (u

FLOOD

1000

l (u

200

nirr iga

ted )

SPATE

for field-level losses only (not including canal seepage) recharge from irrigation losses may impact groundwater salinity

nat ura

lan d

500

GROUNDWATER RECHARGE (mm/s) from excess rainfall and irrigation losses

1000

nat ura

138

DRIP/SPRAY DRIP/SPRAY CLIMATIC TYPE ARID

20

SEMI-ARID TEMPERATE HOT HUMID

200

500

2000

AVERAGE ANNUAL RAINFALL (mm a–1)

CLIMATIC TYPE ARID

20

SEMI-ARID TEMPERATE HOT HUMID

200

500

2000

AVERAGE ANNUAL RAINFALL (mm a–1)

Figure 6.6  Impact of irrigated agriculture on groundwater recharge rates.

groundwater resource use (with power connection depending on payment). Solar pumping complicates this picture. Although a welcome development for reducing dependence on fossil fuels, solar pumping will reduce many of the levers to manage groundwater abstraction. One possible solution is for water resource agencies to work with power companies to introduce grid buy-back tariffs that are sufficiently attractive to avoid solar energy being used for continued over-pumping of groundwater.

6.2.4  Approaches to Groundwater Quality Protection 6.2.4.1  Potential Polluter Pays for Protection

The economic concept usually prescribed to constrain point-source water pollution is the ‘polluter-pays-principle’. This principle incorporates the cost of pollution externalities into the cost of industrial production, rather than leaving them for society to pay. However, in the case of groundwater pollution, the burden of proof is often onerous because determining who is to blame is made difficult by both the hydraulic complexity of, and the very large time-lag in, pollutant transport typical of many (if not all) aquifer systems. Thus, the above approach is not readily applicable and would be largely ineffective as regards protection of aquifers because of the extreme persistence of some contaminants in the subsurface and the frequent impracticability of clean-up, together with the elevated cost of some pollution episodes. Thus, in the case of groundwater, the ‘polluter pays principle’ must be interpreted as the ‘potential polluter pays the cost of required aquifer protection’, which will show wide variation spatially with the soil profile, underlying geology and (most importantly) be the highest in lowland groundwater recharge areas (Foster et al. 2002).

6.2  ­Groundwater

Management – Needs and Approache

6.2.4.2  Groundwater-Friendly Rural Land Use

Land use in recharge areas has a major influence on the quality and quantity of infiltration to groundwater and thus needs to be linked systematically to groundwater management. Some of the most significant changes for underlying aquifers include clearing natural vegetation, converting forest to pasture, pasture to arable land, intensifying dryland agriculture, and reforestation/afforestation with commercial woodland. Extending irrigated agriculture with surface water will have by far the greatest impact on groundwater as demonstrated most strikingly by the irrigation systems of the Indus and Ganges rivers (MacDonald et al. 2016). However, land-use decisions are usually the domain of local government and strongly influenced by national agricultural policy, so their control is not straightforward. Groundwater quality protection requires a consultation mechanism with the planning and investment procedures related to land use in both rural and urban areas. Where groundwater performs a strategic municipal water supply and/or ecological function, a useful instrument to facilitate such consultation is a regulatory provision to declare special ‘groundwater protection zones’ (for highly vulnerable recharge areas and/or drinkingwater capture zones) (Figure 6.7), which allows the water-resource agency to exert restrictions on land-use practices and potentially polluting activities. Limit of Groundwater Body/ Drinking Water Protection Zone (management unit)

base

Springflow

of a qu ife r

Groundwater source 50-day flow zone 500-day flow zone Drinking Water Safeguard Zone (source capture area)

Figure 6.7  Groundwater protection zones defined on capture areas and flow time zones basis around a series of public boreholes.

139

140

6  Groundwater Management

In drinking-water protection zones, it will be desirable to exclude hazardous activities, through a combination of regulatory provisions and economic instruments, in preference to controlling their design and operation. It will also be preferable to introduce economic incentives for potential polluters to improve existing industrial premises and their wastewater handling, treatment, re-use and disposal facilities, and the minimisation and safe disposal of solid wastes, especially in areas where aquifer vulnerability assessments suggest high risk of groundwater pollution. The imposition of strong sanctions for non­compliance, as well as incentives for compliance, will be essential. The control of diffuse agricultural pollution from intensive cultivation using heavy applications of fertilisers and pesticides can usually only be possible through the promulgation of voluntary codes of best practice and/or the payment for ecosystem services (Foster and Cherlet 2014).

6.2.5  Need for Adaptive and Precautionary Management The relatively high level of uncertainty resulting from limited hydrogeological data on such factors as the fracturing and permeability, temporal and spatial variation of rainfall intensity, groundwater recharge processes, actual groundwater abstraction and consumptive use, etc. represents a strong argument for adopting an ‘adaptive management approach’. This is one in which a ‘groundwater management plan’ (GW-MaP) is drawn-up on the basis of best available information, but its outcomes are subject to careful monitoring and systematic review of aquifer response, with plan adjustment after 2, 5, or 10 years according to resource status and trends. Another issue that arises is how to approach decisions on groundwater pumping and conditions of permits for potentially polluting activities as they arise. The recommended approach here is ‘precautionary’, involving the elaboration of a worst-case scenario numerical model (based on the best available data) and its use to guide decisions.

6.3  ­New Insights Groundwater is a classic common pool resource, which is inherently susceptible to its stakeholders acting solely in their short-term self-interest, rather than taking long-term communal requirements into account (Ostrom 1990). This is usually because of a perception that personal interests cannot be assured through communal action. Ever-increasing pressures on groundwater (from water supply provision and from polluting activities) have led to poor outcomes, which in essence are due to inadequate governance arrangements.

6.3.1  Evolving Paradigm of Sound Governance Important changes in the approach to groundwater governance commenced about 20 years ago in some countries and are still evolving in many others. There has been an underlying need to move the ‘groundwater management target’ from individual water wells and pollution sites to entire aquifer systems. This paradigm shift has involved applying the principles of IWRM and introducing governance concepts that will facilitate such an approach. Moreover, in recent decades, there has been clearer recognition of the

6.3  ­New Insight

groundwater dependence of many aquatic, and some terrestrial, ecosystems, and the vulnerability of groundwater resources at catchment scale to extensive diffuse pollution by contaminant loads generated from agricultural intensification and urbanisation. Effective groundwater resource management and protection, and the improved governance arrangements that facilitate them, have become a pressing need worldwide. The term ‘governance’ when applied to groundwater is generally understood to encompass the promotion of responsible collective action by society to ensure resource sustainability. For each defined resource unit, this should include establishing the necessary institutional and participatory arrangements, agreeing the policy position and its translation into specific goals, providing procedures and finance for implementation, assuring compliance and resolving conflicts, and (most importantly) establishing appropriate monitoring and clear accountability for outcomes (FAO-UN 2016). Groundwater management must deal with balancing the exploitation of a complex resource (in terms of quantity, quality, and surface water interactions) with the increasing demands of water and land users, who can pose a threat to resource availability and quality, and the aquatic environment. Thus, it is as much about managing people, water, and land users (the socio-economic dimension), as it is about scientific understanding of resource behaviour under stress and how to mitigate it (the hydrogeological dimension). Groundwater governance provisions that blend these two facets require: ●●

●●

●●

the development of an effective GW-MaP for the local aquifer system, with agreed targets, desired outcomes, a programme of measures or interventions, financial support, clear time frame, adequate monitoring, and periodic review. appropriate levels of integration within the overall hydrological cycle through comanagement with other components of water and land resources. main-streaming groundwater concerns across sectors because many drivers of change in groundwater systems often arise from the socio-economic goals outside the water sector.

The European Union has been in the vanguard of the ‘integrated system approach’ to groundwater governance, with the basic principles being discussed in the 1990s and enshrined in the Water Framework Directive of 2000, which was supplemented by the Groundwater Protection Directive of 2006 (EC 2008; Quevauviller 2008). Concomitantly, other programmes were pioneering a more integrated and participative approach, such as the World Bank GW-MATe Programme of 2001–2011 (Foster et al. 2009), IWMI projects in South Asia (Mukherji et  al. 2009), and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) initiatives in the Middle East. All these experiences have been brought together in the Global Environment Facility (GEF) Global Groundwater Governance Framework-forAction (FAO-UN 2016). River basin organisations can be the most appropriate focus for local/regional groundwater management, but the given wide variation in their function, capacity, and scale (e.g. from the enormous transboundary Niger Basin of West Africa to the local Tana Basin in Kenya), this will not always be the case. In some situations, community groundwater management (or at least self-regulation of groundwater abstraction) maybe the only realistic option that can function effectively in small aquifers with a socially homogenous group of groundwater users.

141

142

6  Groundwater Management

6.3.2  Integrated Policy to Strengthen Governance 6.3.2.1  Vertical Integration Within the Water Sector

When strengthening groundwater governance, the highly distributed nature of the resource needs to be appreciated. Groundwater is affected by the actions of a very large number of users and potential polluters. It thus needs to be managed at the most local scale compatible with the hydrogeological and institutional boundaries. In reality, it is the local hydrogeological setting and socio-economic circumstances that together frame groundwater resource availability and use and in turn constrain the management measures likely to be feasible and applicable to manage aquifer degradation risks, to resolve potential conflicts and to secure catchment-scale objectives. There is no simple blueprint for integrated groundwater management, only a framework of principles for policy and planning that foster subsidiarity in the detail of local application, whilst providing clear coordination between national, provincial, and local level (Figure 6.8). Fundamental to success is a clear

Agriculture and food

Water supply and energy

National level • • • • •

Legal provisions Financing measures Vertical policy integration Horizontal policy harmonisation Resource status reporting

Synthesis of management progress/problems

Major urban infrastructure

Framework policy and financial facilities

Provincial/basin level

Economic development

• Resource allocation • Detailed planning • Monitoring strategy /data management

GW body management plans and monitoring

Planning framework financial allocations

Local level (district/catchment)

Municipal authorities

• • • • •

Plan elaboration/implementation Resource administration/regulations Demand/supply-side measures Resource/source protection Use/resource monitoring

Figure 6.8  General scheme for integrated groundwater management.

Groundwater users and land owners

6.3  ­New Insight

definition of the collective responsibility for the resource, specifying who is accountable for the outcome of management measures. 6.3.2.2  Horizontal Integration Beyond the Water Sector

The principal drivers of degradation of aquifer systems are often generated from outside the water sector. Thus, incorporating groundwater resource and quality considerations into policy formulation of certain related sectors or sub-sectors (so-called horizontal policy integration) helps avoid national policies that emanate perverse signals. For example, in many countries, food production subsidies (through guaranteed prices for high water-consuming crops) or energy-use subsidies (through reduced prices for electrical energy/diesel fuel or for solar-powered pumps) (Shah 2009; Shah et al. 2012) make up a significant proportion of public expenditure. As part of effective groundwater governance, the incentives provided by such subsidies, both in terms of groundwater use and excessive agrochemical applications, are at odds with sustainable groundwater management. Public finance for subsidies could be much better used to help address the problems of groundwater depletion, salinisation, ecosystem degradation, and assisting those who have been adversely affected by pumping (often the poorest). The concept of paying farmers for groundwater environmental services requires more proactive promotion (Smith et al. 2016). Urbanisation has a major impact on groundwater; ●●

●●

Quantity: With recharge simultaneously being reduced by paving and roofing, and increased by water mains leakage and seepage from in situ sanitation units and drainage soakaways. Quality: From large volumes of infiltrating domestic and/or industrial wastewater and solid waste, and the hazards arising from industrial zones.

Of particular significance are in situ sanitation practices and wastewater handling from mains sewerage systems, which provide a significant component of urban groundwater recharge in more arid climates, but simultaneously pose a serious threat of shallow groundwater pollution (including pathogenic micro-organisms, ammonium or nitrates, toxic community chemicals, and pharmaceutical residues). The pollution risk varies widely with the local hydrogeological setting, density of population served, design of in situ sanitation units, or the level of wastewater treatment and re-use. It is critical, therefore, that groundwater vulnerability is taken into consideration in the planning and implementation of sanitation investments and industrial zones.

6.3.3  Conjunctive Use of Groundwater and Surface Water Groundwater storage within aquifers is best managed strategically and conjunctively with surface water (Foster et al. 2010b). This approach increases water security and reduces the possibility of surface water and aquatic ecosystem degradation. Conjunctive use is primarily, though not exclusively, relevant to alluvial plains, which often have important rivers and major aquifers in close juxtaposition (Figure 6.9). However, in the developing nations in particular, most current conjunctive use amounts to little more than a piecemeal coping strategy (rather than an integrated policy) and it is

143

144

6  Groundwater Management

Strong hydraulic linkage

QSW River

Weak hydraulic linkage

QSW River

QGW

Aquifer

QGW Semi-confining bed

Aquifer

No hydraulic linkage

QGW

QSW River

Aquifer

Hydraulic linkage via artificial aquifer recharge

QSW

QGW

River

Aquifer QSW/QGW – yield of surface water and groundwater respectively

Figure 6.9  Groundwater/surface-water relations with implications for mode of conjunctive use.

much more common for groundwater resources to be used continuously in irrigation and as a continuous base load for municipal supply. Urban water engineers pressed by day-today problems often look for operationally simple arrangements, such as a single major water supply source and a large water-treatment works, rather than more secure and resilient conjunctive solutions. A change in approach to consider all the water resources available to city to achieve a balance between short-term operational efficiency and long-term water supply security. There are several good examples of conjunctive management and optimised resource use, such as in Lima-Peru and Bangkok-Thailand (Foster et al. 2010b), where the normal constraints have been overcome and the necessary capital investment for systematic conjunctive management mobilised. There are significant challenges to promoting conjunctive use in established irrigationcanal command areas as a result of: ●●

●● ●●

●●

socio-political dominance of ‘head-water farmers’ in irrigation canal commands and their refusal to reduce surface-water intakes. a disconnect between irrigation engineers and the groundwater community. split institutional responsibility for surface-water and groundwater development and management. inadequate water resource and water supply charging systems, with a large cost differential (as felt by users) between groundwater and surface water.

6.3  ­New Insight

6.3.4  Groundwater Management Planning ‘Good groundwater governance’ requires the elaboration of an effective GW-MaP (Box 6.6) for the local aquifer system in question, with agreed targets, desired outcomes, a programme of measures or interventions, financial support, clear timeframe, adequate monitoring, periodic review, and an appropriate level of integration within the hydrologic cycle by co-management with other components of water and land resources (Foster et al. 2015). GW-MaPs have another important governance function in that they help to harmonise the groundwater-related activities of all government organisations. Box 6.6  The Groundwater Management Planning Process Step

1st – Characterisation of priority aquifers (also referred to as ‘groundwater management units’ or ‘groundwater bodies’)

Main activities ●●

●●

●●

2nd – Assessment of groundwater resource status

●●

●●

●●

●●

3rd – Plan consultation process

●●

●●

●●

Physical delineation of the system considering groundwater flow regime from natural recharge to discharge zones, whilst taking account of major man-made perturbations Evaluating the importance of the system to socio-economic development and to ecosystem conservation Assessing pressures on the system and its susceptibility and vulnerability to irreversible degradation (through land subsidence, salinisation, and persistent pollution) Geographical scale of the aquifer system and size of its storage reserve, which will determine how identifiable it will be for local stakeholders Degree of connectivity with surface water, determining whether conjunctive management is essential to achieve improved conservation of both groundwater and surface-water resources Level of contemporary recharge, since if the use of non-renewable groundwater resources is likely, it should be subject to more rigorous control Aquifer susceptibility to degradation and groundwater vulnerability to pollution, which together will determine urgency for action and whether comprehensive regulatory provisions are essential By definition participatory process, with final decisions resting with mandated government agency Consultation must be fully informed on groundwater resource trends and quality status, potential consequences of ‘no management action’ and options as regard management measures Some governance provisions (and sets of management measures) will need to be specifically tailored to certain facets of the socio-economic situation conditioning groundwater use, dependence, management, and protection (Continued)

145

146

6  Groundwater Management

Box 6.6  (Continued) Step

4th – Elaboration of planning document

Main activities ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

5th – Implementing and reviewing plans

●●

●●

●●

Identifying regulatory measures, economic incentives, and policy changes to address groundwater management needs within the given legal and institutional framework Identifying a technically and economically sound array of demand-side and supply-side measures to re-balance groundwater withdrawals and avoid irreversible damage Definition of stakeholder roles, and specification of how these roles will be factored into planning and management and be maintained Recognising any dependence upon essentially non-renewable groundwater resources, requiring additional governance provisions and management strategies Dealing with point-source pollution (which is relatively easy once the problem has been identified) Addressing diffuse-source pollution threat from intensive agricultural land use through promulgation of ‘best farming practices’ Plan must include an operational timeframe and management monitoring network endorsed by the responsible national/local groundwater agency and all relevant stakeholders Implementation will often require strengthening of institutional linkages, raising substantial capital investment, improving groundwater use/protection measures and aquifer response monitoring Promoting more effective public information campaigns and undertaking capacity building

In many ways, groundwater management planning is an art form and a far from fashionable one. It is one, however, which is central to adaptive management. The plan must be dynamic providing capacity for adaptation to change in technical knowledge and in external drivers (such as climate change and land use). Indicators of groundwater status (such as pre-defined water-table level or quality at a strategic monitoring site) can act as barometers of aquifer condition. It is important to emphasise that adaptive management is in no way inconsistent with groundwater planning, since a GW-MaP will have fixed targets (including those at catchment-scale critical for surface water and ecosystem health), which will be achieved by a programme of measures that will almost always require adjustment following periodic review of their effectiveness. The groundwater management planning process should be promoted by the responsible national groundwater ministry or agency (through provision of protocols and guidance) and undertaken by the corresponding local groundwater resource agency or office together with all relevant stakeholders. It will

6.3  ­New Insight

require co-mobilisation of financial investment for the demand management and/or pollution control measures required for plan implementation. Whilst some types of aquifer system are relatively rapid to respond to changes in groundwater pumping and pollution load, and a response can be expected to manifest itself within two years, quality-related responses in thick aquifer systems can take a decade to become apparent. A carefully designed monitoring network is essential to avoid falling into a false sense of complacency when considering the initial aquifer response to newly applied pressures. Feedback from the first cycle of plan implementation should be used to upgrade the GW-MaP and, if necessary, to refine the underlying governance provisions. A GW-MaP should be dynamic in nature and implemented as a structured, stepwise long-term (5–10 years) sequence. Indicators of resource status (e.g. a predefined groundwater level or quality at a strategic monitoring site) can act as barometers of aquifer condition and facilitate the adaptive management approach. The process proposed conforms in general terms with that adopted by both the EU-Water Framework Directive (EC 2000) and the GEF Groundwater Governance Programme (FAO-UN 2016) and is transparent consultative and evidence-based, thereby creating a framework for cooperation and accountability. The resulting plans take the form of a formal public document with budgeted, time-bound, actions, and outcomes that can be evaluated. As discussed above, groundwater is quintessentially a local resource and is best managed as close as possible to local stakeholders. There are, however, some exceptions to this rule, for example, where a larger aquifer system extends across international frontiers and some form of transboundary cooperation will be required for its successful governance. The same applies to large aquifers extending across state boundaries in federal countries (Box 6.7). Box 6.7  Murray–Darling Basin Plan of Australia – Key Groundwater Lessons The Murray–Darling River Basin is a very large basin, covering over 1 000 000 km2 of eastern Australia, spanning the jurisdiction of five semi-independent territorial authorities, and containing some 9200 irrigated agricultural enterprises. Over the last few decades, a combination of inadequately controlled land use and water abstraction for irrigated agriculture, and increasingly severe natural droughts, has led to marked degradation of the water environment, especially in the ‘downstream states’ (most notably South Australia). In 2012, all levels of government agreed that a Murray–Darling Basin Plan should be defined as priority, with the aim of restoring the water environment and making provisions to support farming, industrial, and urban water use at sustainable levels. At its heart, the Basin Plan defined the amount of water that could be consumed annually, whilst leaving enough for river flow and aquatic wetlands. It was further agreed that complementary plans for individual sub-catchments and aquifer units should be implemented by state governments that included sustainable diversion limits, waterenvironment needs, and salinity and quality management measures to ensure that, (Continued)

147

148

6  Groundwater Management

Box 6.7  (Continued) whilst meeting local requirements, the overall needs of the basin would be respected. However, by 2018, it was becoming clear that the Basin Plan was not delivering its key objectives and the water environment remained of poor status with continuing downward trends in low river flows, increasing land and water salinity, and widespread loss of ecosystem functions. An independent judicial review was conducted and reported in January 2018 that ‘politics rather than science have driven the setting of limits on water-use for agriculture’, although this has been strongly denied by the Murray–Darling Basin Authority. The Murray–Darling Basin includes 80 individual ‘groundwater management units’ (sub-aquifers) that required individual ‘water management plans’, with two specific priority issues widely needing to be addressed: ●●

●●

lack of control on groundwater abstraction, use, and wastage in the northern part of the basin (Queensland and New South Wales), a large land area with low river flow reliability and major reliance on water wells for agricultural irrigation, which has led to serious groundwater-level decline (from 20–90 m) accompanied by significant nutrient pollution inadequate control and preparation for the impacts of land use change in the southern part of the basin (Victoria and South Australia), which has witnessed major clearing of natural vegetation to make way for surface-water irrigated agriculture resulting in a many-fold increase in groundwater recharge, rising water-table (by 5–30 m) and consequent land-drainage problems, accompanied by mobilisation of salts naturally accumulated in the vadose zone, together with soil salinisation and saline river baseflow.

Questions thus arise as to whether the Basin Plan and its implementation were in part founded upon inadequate conceptualisation of (i) the balance between ‘consumptive use’ and ‘groundwater return flows’ when so-called ‘irrigation efficiency’ is increased, and (ii) the major changes of groundwater recharge and its salinity following the clearing of natural vegetation for irrigated agriculture in semi-arid climates. The recuperation of overexploited aquifers in the north and the mitigation of rising groundwater salinity in the south will require substantial revisions to the Basin Plan, with much greater constraints in land and water use, and consistent and closely monitored implementation of policy over future decades. But the key ‘groundwater lesson’ of this important and well-documented experience is that basin-level water-resource management plans must be based on refined hydrogeologic understanding and careful attention to management detail. Source: Based on Murray–Darling Basin Commission 2000; Grafton et al. 2018; Nogrady 2019.

­Acknowledgements This chapter was supported by the British Geological Survey NC-ODA grant NE/R000069/1: Geoscience for Sustainable Futures and is published by permission of the Director of the British Geological Survey. The authors acknowledge the support of the World Bank in reproducing Figures 6.1, 6.2, 6.6–6.9 and Box 6.1 from material originally produced under GW-Mate.

  ­Reference

­References Cuthbert, M.O., Taylor, R.G., Favreau, G. et al. (2019). Observed controls on resilience of groundwater to climate variability in sub-Saharan Africa. Nature 572: 230–234. https:// doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1441-7. Dillon, P., Stuyfzand, P., Grischek, T. et al. (2019). Sixty years of global progress in managed aquifer recharge. Hydrogeology Journal 27: 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10040-018-1841-z. Döll, P., Hoffmann-Dobrev, H., Portmann, F.T. et al. (2012). Impact of water withdrawals from groundwater and surface water on continental water storage variations. Journal of Geodynamics 59: 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jog.2011.05.001. EC (2000). Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. http:// data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2000/60/2014-11-20. EC-Directorate General for the Environment (2008). Groundwater Protection in Europe – Consolidating the Regulatory Framework. Luxembourg: European Community Office for Publications. FAO-UN (2016). Global Framework for Action to Achieve the Vision on Groundwater Governance. Rome: UN-Food & Agricultural Organisation (for GEF, IAH, UNESCO & World Bank) Publication. Foster, S. and Cherlet, J. (2014). The Links Between Land Use and Groundwater: Governance Provisions and Management Strategies to Secure a ‘Sustainable Harvest’. GWP Perspectives Paper. Stockholm: Global Water Partnership. Foster, S. and Loucks, D.P. (2006). Non-renewable Groundwater Resources – A Guidebook on Socially-Sustainable Management for Water-Policy Makers. UNESCO IHP-VI Series on Groundwater 10 (Paris). Foster, S. and MacDonald, A. (2014). The ‘water security’ dialogue: why it needs to be better informed about groundwater. Hydrogeology Journal 22: 1489–1492. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10040-014-1157-6. Foster, S.S.D. and Perry, C.J. (2010). Improving groundwater resource accounting in irrigated areas: a prerequisite for promoting sustainable use. Hydrogeology Journal 18: 291–294. Foster, S., Hirata, R., Gomes, D. et al. (2002). Groundwater Quality Protection–A Guide for Water Utilities, Municipal Authorities and Environment Agencies. Washington, DC: World Bank. Foster, S., Garduno, H., Tuinhof, A., and Tovey, C. (2009). Groundwater Governance – Conceptual Framework for Assessment of Provisions and Needs, GW-MATE Strategic Overview Series SO-1. Washington, DC: World Bank. Foster, S., Hirata, R., Misra, S., and Garduno, H. (2010a). Urban Groundwater Use Policy: Balancing the Benefits and Risks in Developing Countries, GW-MATE Strategic Overview Series 3. Washington, DC: World Bank. Foster, S., van Steenbergen, F., Zuleta, J., and Garduno, H. (2010b). Conjunctive Use of Groundwater and Surface Water – From Spontaneous Coping Strategy to Adaptive Resource Management, GW-MATE Strategic Overview Series 2. Washington, DC: World Bank. Foster, S., Evans, R., and Escolero, O. (2015). The groundwater management plan: in praise of a neglected ‘tool of our trade’. Hydrogeology Journal 23: 847–850.

149

150

6  Groundwater Management

Foster, S., Pulido-Bosch, A., Vallejos, Á. et al. (2018). Impact of irrigated agriculture on groundwater-recharge salinity: a major sustainability concern in semi-arid regions. Hydrogeology Journal 26: 2781–2791. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-018-1830-2. Garrido, A., Martínez-Santos, P., and Llamas, M.R. (2006). Groundwater irrigation and its implications for water-policy in semi-arid countries–the Spanish experience. Hydrogeology Journal 14: 340–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-005-0006-z. Grafton, Q., Hatton MacDonald, D., Paton, D. et al. (2018). The Murray-Darling Basin Plan Is Not Delivering – There’s No More Time to Waste. The Conversation. Haunch, S., MacDonald, A.M., Brown, N., and McDermott, C.I. (2013). Flow dependent water quality impacts of historic coal and oil shale mining in the Almond River catchment, Scotland. Applied Geochemistry 39: 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2013.06.001. Healy, R.W. (2010). Estimating Groundwater Recharge. Cambridge University Press. Konikow, L.F. (2011). Contribution of global groundwater depletion since 1900 to sea-level rise. Geophysical Research Letters 38: L17401. Llamas, M.R. and Martinez-Santos, P. (2005). Intensive groundwater use: silent revolution and potential source of social conflicts. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 131: 337–341. MacDonald, A.M., Bonsor, H.C., Ahmed, K.M. et al. (2016). Groundwater quality and depletion in the Indo-Gangetic Basin mapped from in situ observations. Nature Geoscience 9: 762–766. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2791. Mukherji, A., Villholth, K.G., Sharma, B.R., and Wang, J. (2009). Groundwater Governance in the Indo-Gangetic and Yellow River Basins: Realities and Challenges, IAH Selected Papers in Hydrogeology 15. CRC Press. Murray–Darling Basin Commission (2000). Groundwater – A Resource for the Future, 32 pp. Canberra: Murray-Darling Basin Commission. Nogrady, B. (2019). Management of Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin deemed ‘negligent’. Nature. http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00438-w. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press. Quevauviller, P. (2008). European Union Groundwater Policy. Groundwater Science & Policy – An International Overview, 85–106. London: Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) Publishing. RAMSAR (1971). Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat. https://www.ramsar.org/ (accessed January 2021). Scanlon, B.R., Healy, R.W., and Cook, P.G. (2002). Choosing appropriate techniques for quantifying groundwater recharge. Hydrogeology Journal 10: 18–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10040-001-0176-2. Shah, T. (2009). Taming the Anarchy: Groundwater Governance in South Asia. Washington, DC: Resources for Future Press. Shah, T., Giordano, M., and Mukherji, A. (2012). Political economy of energy-groundwater nexus in India: exploring issues and assessing policy options. Hydrogeology Journal 20: 995–1006. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-011-0816-0. Smith, M., Cross, K., Paden, M., and Laban, P. (eds.) (2016). Spring – Managing Groundwater Sustainably. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

  ­Reference

Taylor, R.G., Scanlon, B.R., Döll, P. et al. (2013). Ground water and climate change. Nature Climate Change 3: 322–329. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1744. Voss, C.I. and Soliman, S.M. (2014). The transboundary non-renewable Nubian Aquifer System of Chad, Egypt, Libya and Sudan: classical groundwater questions and parsimonious hydrogeologic analysis and modeling. Hydrogeology Journal 22: 441–468. Wesselink, A.J. and Gustard, A. (1992). Groundwater Storage in Chalk aquifers – Estimation from Hydrographs, 45 pp. Wallingford: Institute of Hydrology.

151

Source: A. Vinten, James Hutton Institute, UK.

153

7 Diffuse Pollution Management Andrew Vinten James Hutton Institute, Aberdeen, UK

7.1 ­Introduction Diffuse pollution has been described as the ‘unfinished business’ of water pollution control (Campbell et  al. 2004). For example, in 1858, the stench of sewage from the River Thames in London was so bad that MPs suspended Parliament. The period is referred to as ‘The Great Stink’. Yet today, the river Thames is widely regarded as one of the cleanest urban rivers in the world. This remarkable improvement can be attributed principally to the building of sewers and water treatment plants to collect and process domestic sewage, before the treated water is returned to the river, an effort which has been repeated across many, but not all, of the world’s great rivers. However, if we look at the long‐term nitrate concentrations in the river Thames, there is a record of continual rise of this pollutant from the time records began, with a rapid rise in the 1970s (Figure 7.1). The cause of this rise is mainly the ‘unfinished business’ of diffuse pollution (Howden et al. 2010). The estimates of historical nitrogen loading to the Thames catchment, derived from land‐use and management records, suggest that catchment N loading has increased by a factor of up to 3 since the 1930s. This was principally because of enhanced N mineralisation following ploughing of permanent grasslands during World War II. Given a time lag of 30 years for movement of nitrate through the aquifers of the Thames basin, increases in the 1970s can be attributed to this ploughing. More recently, fertiliser inputs to land have become the dominant source of leachable nitrate. The current trend is a result of a combination of recovery from grassland ploughing in the 1940s and the pattern of increased fertiliser N applications from the 1960s onwards. Recovery to lower nitrate concentrations of river water and groundwater, following significant change in fertiliser and land management practice, though now evident, will take several decades to take full effect.

Handbook of Catchment Management, Second Edition. Edited by Robert C. Ferrier and Alan Jenkins. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

7  Diffuse Pollution Management

8 7

5

Increased fertiliser use

4 3 2 1 0 1860

1880

1900

1920

1940

1960

1980

Fertiliser management reform

6

“Dig (grasslands) for victory” 1940

Arable subsidies begin 1917

9 Nitrate-N concentration in river Thames (mg l–1)

154

2000

2020

Figure 7.1  How land policies have polluted the Thames in London. Results need to be interpreted in the light of an estimated 30‐year time lag for transport from land sources to surface waters. Source: Based on Howden et al. (2010).

7.1.1  Attributes of Diffuse Pollution Diffuse pollution can be defined (D’Arcy et al. 2000) as; Pollution sources arising from land‐use activities (urban and rural) that are dispersed across a catchment, or sub‐catchment, and do not arise as a process effluent, municipal sewage effluent, or farm effluent discharge. Key attributes of diffuse pollution, which contribute to it being difficult to mitigate include (Campbell et al. 2004): 1) The significant time lags associated with diffuse pollution, especially where a component of the water balance of a surface water is contributed by deep groundwater with long residence times. 2) The highly dispersed nature of the sources of diffuse pollution, meaning that regulatory controls based on discharge consents, which are suitable for end‐of‐pipe discharges, are not feasible. 3) The highly episodic character of diffuse pollution, either because of the timing of land‐based activities such as grazing of livestock or cultivations or because of the timing of driving meteorological events such as intense rainfall or snowmelt. Box 7.1 illustrates the highly dispersed and episodic character of diffuse pollution for a dairy catchment in the SW of Scotland (Vinten et al. 2008). 4) The problem of distinguishing diffuse pollution from other sources. For example, natural sources of organic matter release from flooded wetlands, causing fish kills in

7.2  Historical synopsis

Brazil, need to be distinguished from sources arising from human activity (Calheiros and Hamilton 1998; Oliveira et al. 2019). 5) The challenge of equitable allocation of responsibility for mitigation between polluters, between polluters and beneficiaries of good water quality, and between generations. Classic examples of this ‘tragedy of the commons’ include the destruction of the oyster beds of the upper Firth of Forth resulting from the reclamation of peat lands for agriculture in the Carse of Stirling in Scotland (Smout 2011), salinisation and waterlogging of irrigated lands in the lower Indus Basin as a result of over‐exploitation of unregulated groundwater (Qureshi 2011) and over‐enrichment of the Baltic Sea (Murray et al. 2019) due to agricultural intensification in the surrounding countries.

7.2 ­Historical synopsis: Challenges for diffuse pollution management Fifteen years on from Campbell et al. (2004), much progress has been made to deal with diffuse pollution in many key areas; however, several issues remain and new challenges have emerged. Areas where significant progress in diffuse pollution management has been made, include:

7.2.1  Recognition of Diffuse Pollution as an Issue A key area where progress has been made is in recognition of the problem. While the point source pollution of many rivers and groundwater bodies has been mitigated across many of the world’s rivers, the challenge of diffuse pollution mitigation has, if anything, increased, because of the intensification of land use, increase in field sizes, and loss of buffer zones between land and water that would have been occupied by forest, unfertilised vegetation and semi‐natural wetlands in the past. Consistently across all climate domains, while montane systems have gained tree cover, many arid and semi‐arid ecosystems have lost vegetation cover (Song et  al. 2018). Along with agricultural intensification and consequent

Box 7.1  Characteristics of Diffuse Pollution Example of some of the characteristics of diffuse pollution, for a livestock catchment in Ayrshire, SW Scotland. The River Irvine discharges into the Irish Sea at Irvine Beach, a designated bathing water which has often failed to comply with microbiological standards set by the EU Bathing Waters Directive. There are both diffuse and point sources which contribute to this. The most challenging to mitigate are associated with dairy livestock production. Storm event monitoring has sought to characterise water quality during storm events, both up and downstream of dairy farms. The figure illustrates (i) how Escherichia coli counts increase greatly with increase in flow (ii) that fields upstream of the farm steading and the farm steading itself both contribute to the load of E. coli (iii) that a downstream pond (a disused reservoir) helps greatly to mitigate the load. (iv) The background load draining from the upstream forestry. (Continued)

155

156

7  Diffuse Pollution Management

Box 7.1  (Continued)

(a)

(d)

(b)

(e)

(c) (f) (a) Cattle drinking by unfenced watercourse, (b) Runoff from hard‐standing area, (c) Cattle walkway over stream, (d) Dairy farmland landscape, (e) River Irvine in spate, and (f) River Irvine discharge at Irvine Beach.

increases in fertiliser use, areas of semi‐natural vegetation in rural and peri‐urban environments have been lost, leading to increased pressure on ground and surface waters. In the urban environment, combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and sewage exfiltration from aged/ leaking sewers contaminate surface water, urban runoff, untreated or partially treated sewage, illicit connections, and broken/poor pipe materials have also been identified as sources of wastewater contaminations to surface water (Lim et al. 2017).

7.2  Historical synopsis

An example of a region where diffuse pollution pressures have increased and awareness has been raised in recent years is the Pantanal area of South America, one of the world’s largest, most pristine and biodiverse wetlands (Box 7.2). Box 7.2  The Pantanal Wetland The Pantanal is a huge complex of savannah wetlands within a catchment area of 360 000 km2 in the upper reaches of the Paraguay River, in Brazil, Paraguay, and Bolivia. It is the third largest Environmental Biosphere Reserve, with 140 000 km2 of floodplain. The natural vegetation of these wetlands is around 80% intact; however, over 60% of the surrounding Cerrado plateaux have been converted into pasture and croplands, at conversion rates that exceed those in the Amazon and Atlantic forest ecosystems (Overbeck et al. 2015). Soil erosion from these areas associated with intensification of cattle ranching and arable agriculture threaten the functioning of the flooding cycle in the wetlands. The Pantanal is also threatened by urban sources (Zeilhofer et al. 2010). However, awareness of the impacts of soil erosion from upland agricultural intensification on function of the flood cycle, and the consequences of rapid urbanisation, is increasing, through the work of organisations such as the Pantanal Research Centre1

(a)

(b)

(a) The Pantanal region of S. America (b) sediment accumulation from erosion of grazing land on upland plateau on the Taquari River (Lima et al. 2015) In the European Union, the enactment of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and implementation at national level are the most tangible evidence of increased awareness of diffuse pollution. Member states were responsible for developing River Basin Management Plans which included strategies to mitigate diffuse pollution. The first step was to categorise the ecological, chemical, and morphological status for all surface water bodies in each country and then to develop programmes of measures to achieve ‘Good Ecological Status’, where such improvement did not entail disproportionate costs, and to prevent any deterioration. Figure 7.2 shows an overview of strategy for Scotland, developed during the first 1  www.cppantanal.org.br/2018

157

7  Diffuse Pollution Management National and catchment-scale awareness raising, guidance, and support Evidence and information, support materials best practice codes and advice Regulations; diffuse pollution. General binding rules, nitrate vulnerable zone regulations Economic support and incentives e.g. cross-compliance, SRDP, and the restoration fund On the ground changes in land management e.g. constructed farm wetlands, buffer strips, nutrient management, fencing, biobeds

Review of the strategy

158

Environmental improvements; progress towards good ecological status and protected area compliance

Figure 7.2  Implementation of national and catchment‐scale strategies for diffuse pollution management in Scotland. SRDP = Scotland Rural Development Plan, the main source of government funds. Cross‐compliance = approach to ensuring farmers comply with regulations. Restoration fund = source of competitive funding for projects to improve the water environment.

River Basin Management Planning cycle (2009–2015) by the National Diffuse Pollution Management Advisory Group, as an example. During the second phase of implementation (2015–2021), priority catchments were set up, where awareness raising was enhanced locally, and compliance with regulatory requirements encouraged through local stakeholder meetings, river surveys, and farm visits. Similar processes were developed in the rest of the UK and in other member states. A survey on WFD implementation across Europe sought to identify the strengths, weakness, and main causes of not achieving the objective of Good Ecological Status in European waters by 2027 (Carvalho et al. 2019). Strengths included setting ecological, as opposed to chemical water quality criteria, at the centre of objectives, and achieving a common monitoring and assessment scheme across Europe. Weakness included poor investment on restoration measures and a lack of cross‐sectoral involvement in implementation of measures. Teaming up with Agricultural and Floods policies, to ‘mainstream’ water quality improvement, was seen as vital. However, a problem for addressing diffuse pollution is that many metrics of ecological quality are seen as responding to multiple stressors (Diamantini et al. 2018) which means addressing specific water quality issues associated with diffuse pollution (such as soil erosion, nitrate leaching, or faecal runoff) may not generate the desired improvement in status, without addressing other issues such as river morphology or water abstraction. For example, the river Ebro in Spain has low precipitation, high temperatures, and high water demand, which exacerbate greatly the impacts of nutrient inputs leading to eutrophication (Herrero et  al. 2018). Monitoring and assessment could be improved by revising the one‐out‐all‐out approach to setting ecological status based on multiple metrics, through more targeted monitoring with paired sites (Conner et al. 2016), through use of Earth Observation (Tyler et al. 2016), genomics, and citizen science.

7.2  Historical synopsis

The demonstration of the economic consequences of diffuse pollution for human health, natural capital, agricultural, fisheries and industrial productivity, tourism, and water treatment has been a vital driver of awareness raising and action (OECD 2008). For example, it has been estimated that internalising environmental costs of N fertiliser use would lower the optimum annual N‐fertilisation rate in North‐western Europe by about 50 kg ha−1 (Van Grinsven et al. 2013). Methods for assessing these costs, such as contingent valuation, need to include both use and non‐use valuation of water (Hanley et al. 2003) and consider the long‐term loss of natural capital entailed in water pollution.

7.2.2  Identification of Sources of Diffuse Pollution Although diffuse water pollution is increasingly recognised to be a major problem across the world, it is difficult to quantify and control since it is not easily distinguished from point sources, where both occur. There are also many pathways by which diffuse pollution can enter water, which makes attempts to characterise them especially challenging. The main approaches to source identification include modelling and empirical monitoring. One example of a source apportionment modelling tool for quantification of sources of diffuse pollution is the Moneris model applied to the Ipojuca river basin, Pernambuco State, Brazil (Figure 7.3). However, in many cases, reliable attribution of the sources of pollution is difficult. Another example is the Source Apportionment Geographic Information System (SAGIS) Tool. This is a GIS‐based tool to apportion loads and concentration of chemicals to WFD water bodies. Diffuse sources of nutrient pollution are incorporated into SAGIS from the Phosphorus and Sediment Yield Characterisation In Catchments (PSYCHIC) model (Reaney et al. 2011). Such ‘screening’ models will always be a simplified version of reality and so must be used as an advisory tool and not as the sole basis of decisions.

Phosphorus

Nitrogen

Atmospheric Surface depositor runoff 0.9 2.6

Urban systems 44.0

Tile drainage

20.2 Erosion 15.1

Point sources 13.2

Groundwater 4.1

Atmospheric depositor 2.2

Surface runoff 7.9 Tile drainage 14.9

Urban systems 40.4

Erosion 5.6 Groundwater 13.3 Point sources 15.8

Figure 7.3  Example of % contribution of estimated nutrient emissions in Ipojuca river basin for each pathway. Source: Adapted from de Lima Barros et al. (2013).

159

160

7  Diffuse Pollution Management

Data is often subject to change, and so the models require regular updates. Such models are also not generally available for emerging pollutants. More detailed, dynamic models attempt to deal with the processes of transport of pollutants more explicitly. There are many options available, and platforms such as the Catchment Management for Water Quality platform promote accessibility and effective use of existing models and enable more integrated modelling to deliver holistic solutions for multiple pollutants, services, and policies. Some models also address the uncertainty about inputs, transfer processes and impacts, for example, through Bayesian methods (Dorner et al. 2007). There is also a range of empirical methods available. Water flows converging at the catchment outlet offer the opportunity to employ indirect methods to interpret hydrological and/or chemical data observed there as integrative signatures reflecting the various pathways through a catchment. (e.g. hydrograph separation, concentration‐discharge analysis, pollutograph/loadograph analysis, end‐member mixing analysis) (Singh and Stenger 2018). Using a three‐pathway model, for example, it was possible to successfully model total N and total P concentrations in eight catchments in New Zealand, using only hydrographs and monthly chemistry data (Woodward and Stenger 2018). Another approach to source identification, which is more suited to microbial pollution, is source tracking. For microbial pollutants, microbial source tracking using DNA methods offers opportunities to identify types of animals or human contribution as the source (Hagedorn et al. 2011). In a study in Thailand, for example, the sewage‐ and swine‐specific quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) marker concentrations did not vary among the sampling events, whereas cattle‐specific qPCR markers were detected only in the wet season. Animal‐specific markers were detected in the lower Tha Chin River section (Figure 7.4), which is characterised by intensive animal farming. Sewage‐specific markers were also found in the lower section and near an upstream residential area (Kongprajug et al. 2019). A combination of chemical and microbiological source tracking for sewage and animal faecal inputs is highly recommended especially for complex, multi‐use catchments. To identify contaminant inputs from raw wastewater, various techniques using molecular markers (chemical, microbial, or combination of both) have been widely practiced (Lim et al. 2017). Chemical markers can be divided into three main categories: (i) those produced by humans, e.g. faecal sterols and stanols; (ii) those that can pass through 0

A

B

E C D

F

G

H

I

J

K

10

30 km

L

Cattle Sewage Swine Universal

0

20 40 60 80 100 Detection (%)

Figure 7.4  Example of microbial source tracking on the lower Tha Chin river in Thailand.

7.2  Historical synopsis

human bodies, e.g. pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs); and (iii) those that are associated with sewage contaminated waste system, e.g. detergents (Lim et al. 2017). In the studies by Tran et al. (2014), it was demonstrated that PPCPs such as carbamazepine, artificial sweeteners (ASs) such as sucralose, and, more provisionally, chemical whitening agents, such as diaminostilbene, could serve as promising markers for detecting human waste from sewer leakage. The faecal sterol, Coprostanol, is considered a marker for human‐derived pollution due to its persistence during transportation in the environment. A high ratio of Coprostanol to cholestanol can indicate trace sewage contamination (Writer et al. 1995). However, understanding the conditions of transportation and impact of the environmental parameters is crucial for the selection of suitable sterols and stanols as markers (Lim et al. 2017). The use of sterols and stanols as markers gives the opportunity to discriminate between human and non‐human contamination and different domestic animals (Derrien et al. 2012). There are also source tracking methods which use mineralogy of sediment to identify soils and sites contributing to watercourse diffuse pollution. For example, Collins et  al. (2013) used particle tracking of fluorescent‐magnetic grains by inserting high‐strength magnets into watercourses to provide sub‐catchment scale information on sediment loss from key components of the primary arable topsoil and channel bank generic sources, which gave relative contributions to sediment from arable farmland. These were characterised, respectively, as wheelings (18–33%) or inter‐wheelings (7–13%) and poached (19–47%) or fluvially eroded (1–3%) channel margins.

7.2.3  Development of Programmes of Measures to Combat Diffuse Pollution Great progress has been made in many countries in the development of a wide range of potential measures to mitigate diffuse pollution. Figure  7.5 shows examples of some of these measures. In Europe, the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC (WFD) has been a major policy driver for developing toolboxes of measures to combat diffuse pollution. For example, in the United Kingdom, an inventory of mitigation methods (Cuttle et al. 2016) and guide to their effects on diffuse water pollution has been developed which is included in a widely used package for farm pollution advisors called FARM Scale Optimisation of Pollutant Emission Reductions (Farm Scoper; https://www.adas.uk/Service/farmscoper Zhang et al. 2012). Such measures are generally classified according to the type of farm where they are relevant (e.g. livestock, arable, mixed), the site of action of the measure (e.g. management of inputs, cultivation, edge of field), the pollutants mitigated (both diffuse water transported pollution and gaseous emissions are often considered), and the relative effectiveness, which is dependent on the initial baseline of pollution. Populating such tools with independent data and model outputs to provide realistic choices of measures is challenging, because of the uncertainties involved in the context of specific farms, landscapes, and management practices. An optimal approach to addressing diffuse pollution will likely entail a mix of policy interventions reflecting the basic OECD principles of water quality management – pollution prevention, treatment at source, the polluter pays and beneficiary pays principles, equity, and policy coherence (OECD 2017) (Box 7.3).

161

162

7  Diffuse Pollution Management

Box 7.3  OECD Principles for Control of Diffuse Pollution Principle of Pollution Prevention. This emphasises the fact that prevention of diffuse pollution is often more cost‐effective than treatment and restoration options. Principle of Treatment at Sources. This encourages treatment at the earliest stage possible, which is generally more effective and less costly than waiting until pollution is widely dispersed. Polluter Pays Principle. This makes it costly for those activities that generate diffuse pollution and provides an economic incentive for reduction of pollution. Beneficiary Pays Principle. This allows sharing of the financial burden with those who benefit from water quality improvements. Requiring minimum regulatory standards to reduce pollution before payments are made by beneficiaries is needed to ensure additionality and avoid rewarding polluters. Equity among different groups and across generations should be considered in the allocation of pollution rights and costs of abatement. Policy coherence across sectors is essential to ensure that initiatives taken by different agencies (e.g. water, agriculture, urban planning, and climate) do not have inadvertent negative impacts on water quality and can capitalise on potential co‐benefits from water quality interventions. Good water governance, with reference to geographical scale, data, and information; implementation and enforcement, stakeholder engagement, and outcome‐based polices.

7.3 ­Current solutions 7.3.1 

Evidence of Effectiveness of Measures

Evidence to demonstrate effectiveness of measures to control diffuse pollution is a necessary part of government policy, for example, within the EU, where the WFD requires the development of monitoring systems to demonstrate improvement in water quality across member states. The complexities of pollution mobilisation, transfer and delivery through river catchments means that monitored outcomes will take years to decades to confirm successful impacts arising from targeted on‐farm remediation (Collins et al. 2018). Therefore, a combination of site‐specific monitoring of specific measures (e.g. Ockenden et al. 2012, 2014), calibrated process models to set such measures in a catchment context (e.g. Rocha et al. 2015), and models which deal with the uncertainty of extrapolation to catchment scale (Dorner et al. 2007; Reaney et al. 2011) is required. These approaches are also often combined with expert judgement through stakeholder workshops. A good example where long‐term monitoring has been able to demonstrate the benefits of pollution mitigation is the groundwater quality in Denmark, where there is evidence of response to changing land use (Hansen et al. 2012, 2017). This study demonstrates a clear relationship between changes in the N surplus in agriculture, both at national and at regional level, and changes in the nitrate concentrations in toxic groundwater with the same temporal pattern and trend reversals around 1980. The development in Danish agricultural management of N has been driven mainly by politically enforced regulation

7.3 ­Current solution

(a)

(d)

(b)

(e)

(c)

(f)

Figure 7.5  Examples of mitigation measures to control diffuse pollution from agriculture (Including buffer strips, sediment detention, nutrient budgeting, tied ridging, wetland plants in farm ditches, sediment fencing, contour cultivation, cultivation of end rigs, cattle hygiene, pasture pump, irrigation scheduling, cover crops, and awareness raising).

of N inputs since 1985. Other examples of long‐term approaches to monitor mitigation of diffuse pollution include the Demonstration Test Catchments project in England and the Agricultural Catchments programme in Ireland. Evidence of effectiveness of individual or suites of measures, where water quality changes or the background level of exceedance of standards are more marginal, is more difficult to obtain directly. In addition, where surface waters are being sampled, there is very strong temporal variation of flow, meaning identification of trends requires seasonal adjustment (Dunn et al. 2014) and high‐frequency monitoring, to establish loads (Outram et al. 2014) and pathways (Mellander et al. 2012, 2015).

163

164

7  Diffuse Pollution Management

To obtain robust evidence of change as a result of mitigation in such catchments, a before‐after‐control‐intervention (BACI) approach to monitoring and statistical analysis is often used (see Figure  7.6). The first UK study involving BACI assessment of remedial measures, principally stream bank fencing designed to reduce faecal indicator fluxes at the catchment scale, showed considerable reduction in faecal indicator flux, but this was insufficient to ensure bathing water compliance (Outram et al. 2014). Event‐driven delivery of pollution means that pollutant concentrations in water courses can vary strongly with time. This means that time‐weighted average concentrations can be misleading, especially if the sampling frequency is low. Ecological impact of pollutants such as nutrients in rivers may respond to time‐weighted averages; however, the impacts on standing waters are likely to be more strongly influenced by total loads. Moreover, when considering the impacts of biocides on aquatic ecology, short‐term episodes of pollution may be completely missed, even by frequent or flow‐proportional sampling. There is a number of responses to these sampling dilemmas, which include: i)  Increasing the frequency of time‐based sampling to try to capture episodic events; this method does improve the estimation of loads, but it is important that interpolation is done in a way that does not generate statistical bias. The Beale estimator (Dunn et al. 2014; Lee et al. 2017) can be used to obtain unbiased estimates of flow‐weighted concentrations. More recently, high‐frequency bankside sampling and analysis stations have been developed which provide for near‐continuous measurement of N and P concentrations (e.g. Blaen et al. 2017; Outram et al. 2014; Schilling et al. 2017); however, such stations are expensive to install and maintain compared with less frequent sampling. They are not suited to emerging organic, microbial, or pharmaceutical pollutants. ii)  Adopting flow‐proportional sampling techniques, including methods that trigger more frequent sampling during high flow periods. In a comparison of sampling methods, Audet et al. (2014) conclude that although monitoring employing time‐proportional sampling is costly, its reliability avoids high implementation expenses associated with bankside chemistry. First-or second-order catchment

River Sub-catchment outlet (with autoanalysers)

1 km2 Measures

Headwater sample location Paired borehole installation Control

Automatic water sampler and monitoring station Mini catchment

95% accuracy. New tools have been created to accurately monitor the progress, including, as a world first, a series of SDG6 indicators building on the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring

13.12  ­Scotland and Malaw

Box 13.4  Disaster Relief in Malawi, Spring 2019 Scotland played a part in responding to the devastating floods that affected Malawi in early 2019 using the water point data gathered under the Water Futures project to identify water points and communities at most risk to help target urgent aid. On 11 March 2019, the scale and impact of flooding in Malawi were beginning to become clear so the Climate Justice Fund Water Futures Programme invoked an emergency flood relief initiative to secure water supplies and treat contamination in the immediate aftermath of the disaster at over 200 Displacement Camps in Southern Malawi. Across the affected districts, a total of 396 boreholes and 81 protected shallow wells were reported to be damaged to varying extents. The spatial data platform identified 332 boreholes and 19 protected shallow wells at risk and in need of decontamination. It was also determined that a significant number of hand pumps had been inundated with silt and clay. The use of the data in this way contributed directly to the effective targeting of interventions such as chlorine treatment to significantly reduce post-flood sickness levels and was a key part of the emergency response. See: https://news.gov.scot/news/malawi-flooding-crisis.

●●

●●

Programme have been brought together by www.UNWater.org and combined in a new tool to track SDG6 performance. Capacity building and training: The programme has delivered training across all 28 districts in groundwater resources management, key technical skills for drilling oversight and hydrogeology for staff across every local government District Water Development Office and Malawi Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation, and Water Development. A parallel project continues to analyse the main causes of failure in boreholes, for example, historically poor drilling standards, lack of maintenance, or water quality issues. This project, called Borehole Forensics, has also been used to train Malawian professionals in drilling supervision and was especially beneficial to communities when the Mpira dam dried up in July 2018 and became non-operational following low rainfall in 2017–2018 leading to a significant reduction in the water table, combined with increased demand due to population growth outstripping capacity. Additional boreholes were installed within an initiative led by the Malawian Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation, and Water Development to alleviate the local water crisis. Policy support: The programme shares policy best practice with the Government of Malawi to assist the sustainable long-term management of the water resources in Malawi. As part of Scotland’s Hydro Nation initiative, SEPA works in partnership with the Malawi National Water Resources Authority (NWRA) to support operational issues. Working ‘regulator to regulator’ has afforded the opportunity to share knowledge, advice, and guidance from a unique perspective, setting sound foundations for twenty-first century environmental regulation in Malawi and ultimately, the achievement of Sustainable Development Goal 6. The Government of Malawi has recently appointed the board members of the NWRA which could be considered the first important step forward towards the implementation of the NWRA since the Water Resources Act was passed in 2013.

351

352

13  Scotland the ‘Hydro Nation’: Linking Policy, Science, Industry, Regulation in Scotland and Internationally

13.13 ­Hydro Nation Strategy: Knowledge Theme Hydro Nation also supports the development of Scotland’s academic and research strengths in water. A key initiative has been the establishment of CREW; a policy/research hub coordinated across academic institutions, government, and the water sector in Scotland. The Centre supports policy, industry, and stakeholder community co-construction to identify the best available and most relevant academic research along with subject experts to develop and implement water policy. In addition, the Centre commissions research that helps inform and shape policy, meeting short- and medium-term needs. CREW promotes a unique problem-solving environment linking across research, policy, industry, and agencies, promoting resource management through shared understanding and outcomefocussed interventions (www.crew.ac.uk). CREW is managed by the James Hutton Institute, which is Scotland’s largest agri-environment research institute. The Centre also administers the Hydro Nation Scholars Programme; a challenging postgraduate development programme, designed to deliver the global water leaders of the future. The Programme supports postgraduate research aligned to the strategic priorities of the Hydro Nation Agenda agreed with industry, with Scholars benefiting from dedicated opportunities for placement at waterrelated institutions such as Scottish Water, the Scottish Government, SEPA, or with other stakeholders (www.hydronationscholars.scot). The Programme is complemented by a post-doctoral Fellowship Programme supporting key priorities in global water challenges such as management tools for reducing groundwater nitrate contamination in rural India or innovative approaches to the financing of water industry asset upgrades in Scotland.

13.14 ­Hydro Nation Strategy: Innovation Theme Innovation is critical to the health of our water industry and the contribution it makes to the overall economy, driving down costs for consumers and helping to differentiate businesses by developing new processes, technology, or materials that are more efficient, effective, and cheaper than those they replace. Domestically, one of the main early achievements of the Scottish Hydro Nation programme has been the establishment of the HNWIS, a bespoke service for the water industry which provides advice, introductions, and support to innovators. This support assists in bringing new products and services to market more quickly, a perennial challenge identified by the industry. This service was strengthened by the opening in November 2015 of two fullscale testing facilities. At Gorthleck in the Scottish Highlands, a potable water Development Centre has been created within a former water treatment work. The facility has its own feed of raw water, with sampling collection and analysis available from Scottish Water’s accredited laboratories. At Bo’ness near Falkirk in the central belt of Scotland, a wastewater Development Centre has been created next to the existing wastewater treatment works. These Development Centres help meet a clearly identified need in the water industry for dedicated facilities where new equipment and technologies can be tested, thereby assisting companies to accelerate the development of their technologies or processes for use in the future treatment of water and wastewater (Figure 13.1; Box 13.5).

13.15  ­Hydro Nation Impac

Box 13.5  Hydro Nation and the Circular Economy Pioneered by Glenmorangie Distillery in partnership with Heriot-Watt University and the Marine Conservation Society, the Dornoch Environmental Enhancement Project (DEEP) is a groundbreaking initiative to restore Native European oysters to the Dornoch Firth, improve water quality, and help establish new employment opportunities in a rural area.

Since 2014, DEEPs approach has already seen 20 000 oysters returned to the Dornoch Firth. It aims to establish a self-sustaining reef of four million oysters by 2025. Established reefs will improve water quality and biodiversity and act in tandem with Glenmorangie’s anaerobic digestion plant, purifying the by-products of distillation – an environmental first for a distillery. CREW (2019) Towards an Economic Value of Native Oyster Restoration in Scotland: Provisioning, Regulating, and Cultural Ecosystem Services elucidated the current state of knowledge of oyster restoration within Scotland, the United Kingdom, and in other global contexts.

13.15 ­Hydro Nation Impact Since its inception, the Hydro Nation programme has delivered several initiatives supporting a cross-sectoral joined-up approach to water management both nationally and to the wider international SD6 agenda; ●● ●●

●●

●●

Integrating best available knowledge and expertise with policy development via CREW; The establishment of Scottish Water International, providing consultancy services globally on key operational and governance challenges; Hydro Nation International, which is providing support in Malawi, India, Pakistan, and other global contexts to support the delivery of the UNs Sustainable Development goals, in particular SDG6; The establishment of the HNWIS, supporting innovators and companies to bring products to market faster than ever before;

353

354

13  Scotland the ‘Hydro Nation’: Linking Policy, Science, Industry, Regulation in Scotland and Internationally

Box 13.6  Glasgow’s ‘Smart’ Canal The construction of Glasgow’s ‘smart canal’ scheme started in May 2018. The project combines the 250-year-old Forth and Clyde Canal and twenty-first century technology to provide surface water drainage to support significant regeneration in the north of the city. The pioneering digital surface water drainage system unlocks 110 ha across the north of the city for investment, regeneration, and development, including plans for more than 3000 new affordable homes. Officially named the North Glasgow Integrated Water Management System, the project creates a so-called ‘sponge city’ to support the North Glasgow area to passively absorb, de-contaminate, and manage run-off. Advanced warning of heavy rainfall automatically triggers a lowering of the canal water level to create capacity for surface water run-off. Before periods of heavy rain, canal water is discharged through a network of newly created urban spaces, from sustainable urban drainage systems, that retain and manage water in a controlled way. The project, being delivered by partnership between Glasgow City Council, Scottish Canals, and Scottish Water under the Metropolitan Glasgow Strategic Drainage Partnership (MGSDP) (www.mgsdp.org), uses real-time sensor and weather forecasting to provide early warning of excess rainfall and proactively reduce water levels in the canal by up to 100 mm, thereby creating 55 000 m3 of storage before receiving run-off from residential and business locations.

Waterway reconnections

Climate change ready

Blue-Green networks

Keeping water on the surface

MGSDP Vision

Design for extreme rainfall

Urban biodiversity enhancement

Integrated urban design

Sustainable drainage solutions

This solution avoids the requirements to upgrade existing sewerage systems and, through the diversion of surface water, creates additional capacity to enable the development of new communities in areas that were once considered too costly to invest in. In addition, there are significant environmental benefits through the inclusion of green infrastructure and the avoidance of significant excavation and construction activities. See YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5l2chUBMPY.

13.16  ­Emerging Policy Issues for Scotlan ●●

●●

The Hydro Nation Scholar and Fellow Programmes, supporting the development of the next generation of global water leaders; The creation of two state-of-the-art development centres providing world-class testing facilities and support for new technologies and processes and a technology verification programme in collaboration with the EU Water Test Network.

This national and global-scale commitment from a water-rich region highlights the acknowledgement by Government of the importance of water in supporting Scotland’s people, communities, and industry in delivering a water-wise society and meeting the growing climate challenge.

13.16 ­Emerging Policy Issues for Scotland The Hydro Nation approach is designed to take a proactive approach to the resolution of emerging issues and to develop policy addressing such concerns. For example, emerging issues include Contaminants of Emerging Concern (CEC), the removal of the final legacy lead piping in supply infrastructure, and the Green-Blue Cities agenda. Recently, the European Union has highlighted the pollution of soil and water with pharmaceutical contaminants and degraded by-products as ‘an emerging environmental concern’. The Scottish National Health Service (Highland) and Scottish Water are founding partners in a groundbreaking collaborative project to address this issue (The One Health Breakthrough Partnership). This wide-ranging partnership of public sector bodies and others coordinate a programme of work, which includes: ●●

●●

●●

●●

●● ●●

Lobbying for an International agreement to minimise pharmaceutical pollution of the environment and ‘greener’ production in the pharmaceutical industry; Raising awareness amongst healthcare professionals about the impact of pharmaceuticals in the environment and providing prescribing guidance; Helping patients and the public to understand the impact of pharmaceuticals in the environment and how to safely dispose of unused medicine; Examining pharmaceutical occurrence in Scotland’s water environment and researching pharmaceutical fate through national and international research collaborations; Considering how to make the prescription and consumption of medicines ‘greener’; Investigating possibilities for SMEs innovation in this area.

The Scottish Government has commenced collaboration on adopting a ‘WISE list’ approach to the formulary in NHS Highland region building on a model developed in Sweden (Kloka Listan 2020) which aims to inform the development of the Scottish National Formulary and to achieve wider benefit across Scotland as a whole; including, potentially, appropriate related solutions for wastewater treatment, appropriate standards/ recommendations for environmental protection, and NHS Scotland procurement, thereby contributing to wider Scottish Government priorities around natural capital, the circular economy, sustainability of public services, and the health of the population. Whilst this chapter has focussed on the benefits of Scotland’s relative water abundance, the challenge of flooding is an increasing threat to communities and economy in Scotland.

355

356

13  Scotland the ‘Hydro Nation’: Linking Policy, Science, Industry, Regulation in Scotland and Internationally

Greater urbanisation with increased surface impermeability and climate change resulting in more intense rainfall events make flooding a serious concern (CREW 2019). The ‘Green-Blue Cities’ approach aims to develop and implement management schemes involving both natural and constructed interventions that minimise transfer to sewer systems and at-risk properties. Creating water attenuation features is not new but creating them in ways that can provide great places to live in and enhance leisure opportunities and the environment brings a new dimension to surface water management (see also Chapter 9; Box 13.6). To conclude, Scotland has established a Ministerial commitment to a high-level vision for its water environment and industry, an ambition to maximise the value of water resources, the skills and knowledge of people, and the land and assets supporting sustainable catchment management. This ambitious approach has resulted in both sectoral growth and a reduction in the CFP of the water industry which now generates more energy from renewable sources than it consumes in operations (Box  13.7). Expert knowledge in key

Box 13.7  Scottish Water Emissions Mitigation Strategy – The Net-Zero Challenge As Scotland’s single, publicly owned utility, the services delivered by Scottish Water, including water collection, treatment, and distribution to customers, and the collection, pumping, and treatment of wastewater, require significant infrastructure and energy. The company is one of Scotland’s larger users of electricity, with a demand of some 570 GWh of electricity per annum. Since the company began measuring and managing operational greenhouse gas emissions in 2006/2007, emissions have fallen by 41% to 272 000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) in 2018/2019. As of April 2019, Scottish Water hosted or generated more than twice the energy from renewable sources than it expends in its operations and is committed to hosting or generating 300% by 2030. Reductions in earlier years were achieved through measures such as energy efficiency, leakage management, and renewable power generation. Each year Scottish Water invests significantly in its asset base and the capital programme is a significant source of emissions. The utility is working closely with the supply chain and delivery partners to transform greenhouse gas emissions in its capital investment and has embraced the net-zero emissions challenge, both in day-to-day service provision and in capital investment. Scottish Water is developing a net-zero route map for publication in 2020, which will require significant efforts around energy efficiency, renewable power, and the transformation of assets in the coming years. It will demand close working, across the business and with the wider supply chain, to bring innovation for emissions reductions into capital investment and to identify opportunities to avoid the emissions associated with the products the business uses. Scottish Water is considering ways to ‘lock up’ greenhouse gases in its landholdings, such as through peatland restoration, woodland creation, or other approaches still to be developed, to help balance those emissions that cannot today be eliminated. The utility is also exploring the potential to become a ‘carbon sink’ for Scotland, which may be a key lever in Scotland meeting net zero.

  ­Reference

issues affecting water is valued and underpinned by direct government support, ensuring that, as well as assisting policymakers arrive at better-informed decisions, important water knowledge is shared with the world. Perhaps the key challenge to which all sectors and communities must respond is the global ‘climate emergency’ touched on elsewhere in this chapter, but also to better articulate the importance of water in relation to health in responding to challenges such as the 2020 coronavirus/COVID-19 outbreak. Scotland has set out legislative targets to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2045 with Scottish Water as a utility delivering net zero in its own operations five years earlier.

­References CREW (2019). Quantifying Rates of Urban Creep in Scotland. CREW. www.crew.ac.uk/ publication/urban-creep. Kloka Listan (2020). WISE list. http://klokalistan2.janusinfo.se/20201/Kloka-listan-2019 (accessed 4 December 2020). mWater (2019). Water Point Assets in Malawi, Summary. mWater. https://portal.mwater.co/#/ consoles/b41081d615864dc6b0ccb45e73eaceac?share=232d203f5fe34948970cac2653b01b01 &tab=9d1fae1a-2481-445a-8d7b-7b2d6bebb84f. OECD (2019). Water Governance Indicator Framework: Scotland, United Kingdom. OECD. http://www.oecd.org/cfe/regional-policy/Water-Pilot-Test-3-Scotland-UnitedKingdom.pdf. Scottish Government (2019a). Scotland the Hydro Nation, Annual Report, 2019. Scottish Government. https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotland-hydro-nation-annual-report-2019/ pages/3. Scottish Government (2019b). Contribution to International Development Report: 2018–2019. Scottish Government. Scottish Water (2018). Guidance Note. www.scottishwater.co.uk/en/About-Us/News-andViews/150618-Moray-Use-Water-Wisely (accessed 4 December 2020). Scottish Water (2019a). Scottish Water Annual Report 2018–19. https://www.gov.scot/ publications/scottish-government-contribution-international-development-report-2018-19/ pages/13 (accessed 4 December 2020). Scottish Water (2019b). Sustainability Report, 2019. https://docs.google.com/viewerng/ viewer?url=www.scottishwater.co.uk/-/media/ScottishWater/Document-Hub/KeyPublications/Energy-and-Sustainability/200120SustainabilityReport2019.pdf (accessed 4 December 2020). United Nations (2019). Report of the UN Secretary-General, Special: Progress Towards the Sustainable Development Goals. United Nations. https://undocs.org/E/2019/68.

357

Source: J. C. Richardson, iCASP/water@leeds, UK.

359

14 Yorkshire Integrated Catchment Solutions Programme (iCASP): A New Model for Research-Based Catchment Management Janet C. Richardson1, Marie Ferré1, Benjamin L. Rabb1, Jennifer C. Armstrong1, Julia Martin-Ortega1, David M. Hodgson1, Thomas D. M Willis2, Richard Grayson2, Poppy Leeder2, and Joseph Holden2 1 2

iCASP/water@leeds, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, UK iCASP/water@leeds, School of Geography, University of Leeds, UK

14.1 ­Introduction Integrated catchment management has been promoted for a number of years as an alternative to traditional approaches to water management (e.g. Jakeman and Letcher 2003; Macleod et  al. 2007, 2008), under the expectation that it can facilitate integrated solutions, pool catchment knowledge, and leverage funding from multiple, and often unconventional, sources. The United Kingdom has been particularly active in the promotion of such joined-up thinking (Defra 2013). The Yorkshire Integrated Catchment Solutions Programme (iCASP) is an example of an integrated approach to catchment management, in which research is the cornerstone for integration. In this way, iCASP helps identify, design, and implement solutions that: (i) provide multiple and interconnected benefits (e.g. flood mitigation, carbon sequestration, water quality, air quality, and biodiversity benefits from spatially optimised tree planting); and (ii) promote cooperation between organisations and their different associated funding streams and interest groups. iCASP aims to create practical societal, economic, and environmental benefits (i.e. impacts) across the Yorkshire region (Figure 14.1), and for wider national or international transfer, by applying environmental and social science to catchment challenges in an integrated way. Fundamental to delivering impact is collaborative working between project partners who are drawn from the private sector, charities, government and statutory agencies (who have a legal obligation to protect the environment), and academic researchers (Macnaghten and Jacobs 1997; Beierle 2002; Dietz and Stern 2008; Reed 2008; de Vente et al. 2016). iCASP was launched in April 2017 with a budget of US$ 7 million and runs for five and a half years. The funding was received from the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) under the Regional Impact from Science of the Environment programme and in Handbook of Catchment Management, Second Edition. Edited by Robert C. Ferrier and Alan Jenkins. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

360

14  Yorkshire Integrated Catchment Solutions Programme (iCASP)

alignment with the UK Industrial Strategy. iCASP responds to an increasing trend in the demand by funding bodies for research to deliver demonstrable societal and economic impacts (National Science Foundation 2014; Tsey et  al. 2016; Chubb and Reed 2018; Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2018). The remit is based around creating impact by developing a shared understanding of environmental issues between partners, utilising existing science (data, models, knowledge, and/or expertise, etc.) to develop tools, solutions, and approaches; embedding knowledge through a range of mechanisms including secondments; and advancing academic outputs into commercially viable products and services. The lessons learnt from the mode of working are, therefore, of importance not only for catchment management but also for improving impact generation pathways and evaluation metrics for future research, particularly when seeking to generate large-scale and transformational impact.

14.2 ­Study Area: River Ouse Drainage Basin, Yorkshire The iCASP focus area is the River Ouse drainage basin, Yorkshire, in northern England (Figure 14.1). The basin drains into the Humber Estuary and is part of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) Humber River Basin. The River Ouse is fed by nine main tributaries: the Aire, Calder, Derwent, Don, Nidd, Ouse, Swale, Ure, and Wharfe. All major tributaries drain steep upland areas and flow through multiple urban areas and business centres to the Humber. Topographically, the catchment area ranges from 700 m to sea level and has an area of 10 770 km2. The River Ouse drainage basin is home to 6.7% of the UK population (c. 4.3 million people) and covers one-third of the land in northern England (Figure  14.1). Within the River Ouse drainage basin, there are distinct environments and land uses, each facing complicated and costly inter-related challenges. There are 10 metropolitan boroughs and large urban areas including, Leeds, York, Bradford, and Sheffield (Figure 14.1). Several global companies and regulatory agencies are headquartered in the region. The region is one of the largest manufacturing areas in the United Kingdom, with organisations holding vast amounts of land and who are engaged with catchment responsibilities (e.g. 54 000 rural businesses in the catchment area). There are also sparsely populated uplands, many of which are designated such as National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (Figure 14.2). These areas are also important for their wildlife, and the designations relate to national and international rare and important species, for example, the River Derwent (Figure 14.1) is the only place in the United Kingdom where you can find the Scarce Dusky Yellowstreak Riverfly (Electrogena affinis) and the only place in England where corn crakes (Crex crex) have bred in the wild. Just over 8% of the land use is urban or semi-urban, and the aim of iCASP is to consider an integrated approach to resource management across all land uses and climatic gradients to underpin present and future environmentally sustainable economic productivity and resilience. Large areas of upland, including peatland, characterise much of the headwater areas of the catchment and are a source of c. 70% of Yorkshire’s potable water. The catchment contains 43% of agricultural land, with important lowland agricultural zones towards the Humber Estuary which are dominated by groundwater-fed water supplies.

14.2 ­Study Area: River Ouse Drainage Basin, Yorkshir

ale R. Sw

R.Ure

R. Ni

R. Wharf e

R. De

rwent

dd

York

R. O use

Leeds R. A

ire

Humber Estuary

Bradford

R.

Do

n

R. Calder

Key: Urban areas Rivers iCASP region

Sheffield

700 m

0m 20 km

N

Figure 14.1  The iCASP study area (insert showing the location within the United Kingdom).

14.2.1  Catchment Challenges Catchment-specific challenges within the River Ouse drainage basin (Box  14.1) include flooding and drought, soil and water degradation, loss of agriculturally productive land, degradation of peatlands, and aquatic invasive non-native species (INNS). Many of the watercourses are heavily modified for flood risk, land drainage, and navigation (59%), and

361

362

14  Yorkshire Integrated Catchment Solutions Programme (iCASP)

Land-use Key: Land-use Broadleaved woodland Coniferous woodland Arable and Horticulture Improved Grassland Rough Grassland Neutral Grassland Calcareous Grassland Acid Grassland Heather Heather Grassland Bog Montane habitats Inland Rocks Salt Water Freshwater Littoral Sediment Urban Sub-Urban

Designated sites Rivers

20km

N

Key: Designated sites National Parks Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty National Nature Reserve Site of Special Scientific Interest Special Protection Area Special Area of Conservation

Figure 14.2  Designated sites and land use within the Yorkshire River Ouse Drainage Basin.

only 10% meet good Ecological Status or Potential under the WFD. Integrating catchment challenges with aspects of improved real-time weather forecasting, especially in the context of climate change projections, will enable development of more resilient plans for the region while promoting sustainable development and protecting valuable ecosystem services. By promoting a resilient region, through integrating research into cross-disciplinary catchment solutions, the Yorkshire region is expected to be more attractive for future business investment. Currently, there are high levels of investment within the region, which provide the opportunity for iCASP to translate existing research into impact, for example, the US$ 55 million phase II Leeds Flood Alleviation Scheme which is targeting upstream flooding solutions such as Natural Flood Management (NFM). By targeting big issues within the catchment, whilst championing a catchment-based approach and mirroring the approach developed by Defra and partners (Defra 2013), iCASP aims for multiple benefits for each

14.2 ­Study Area: River Ouse Drainage Basin, Yorkshir

Box 14.1  Case Studies of Catchment Challenges Flooding: Many of the Ouse headwater tributaries respond very rapidly to rainfall, meaning that the travel time for flood peaks hitting towns and cities downstream can be short. Serious and widespread fluvial flooding was experienced in the region in 2007, 2012, 2015, 2017, and 2019. Businesses in Calderdale alone suffered US$ 56 million in losses as result of the 2015 Boxing Day floods with US$ 205 million cost to the local economy in that area (Sakai et  al. 2016). Downstream, 7500 properties were flooded at c. US$ 3 billion cost, and Yorkshire Water suffered US$ 36 million infrastructure damage. The US$ 54 million Leeds Flood Alleviation Scheme is one of the United Kingdom’s largest; however, the 2015 Boxing Day floods provided an opportunity for some redesign as it moves into phase 2 and 3 with business cases required for additional funding and upstream measures. The region also suffers from surface water flooding due to intense rainstorms combined with the topography of steep catchments, with notable cases experienced in the summers of 2012, 2014, and 2015 across the region. Large thunderstorms in June 2012 saw parts of the Calder Valley experience a typical month’s rainfall in less than 24 hours. More than 500 businesses and homes were flooded in the valley. During this period, some 4500 homes were affected across the United Kingdom, with an estimated US$ 604 million in total damage costs. In the Wakefield district in summer 2014, the council received 100 reports of surface water flooding. The catchment has complex terrain, in which real-time rainfall monitoring to provide flood warnings using traditional radar technologies is challenging. There are questions on the effectiveness of natural flood management (NFM) measures and their design and optimal locations. Both surface water flooding and NFM are key themes in iCASP projects shown in Boxes 14.2 and 14.3. Further, climate change projection data has been integrated into surface flood risk projections in the UKCP18 project. Drought: The catchment has a stark rainfall gradient, with >2000  mm per year in Pennine headwaters, to 30 influencers briefed

1 community of practice setup

9 business cases strengthened 28 organisations worked with directly

Figure 14.4  iCASPs impact from the start of the programme until June 2019..

difference compared to traditional research programmes due to engagement with the stakeholders, in which they are involved with regular meetings to inform different projects as they develop. This allows project outputs to be tailored to stakeholder needs, such as creating short videos and specific stakeholder-tailored guides and tools, for example, the peatland user guide, which are a good way to reach people and generate more interest than written reports. To most of the springboard partners involved, iCASP is unique in its delivery mechanisms and aims, especially in terms of scale and ambition. As it draws on existing research, the resources of the programme can be used to focus on impact. However, translation of existing research is challenging in situations where research is in a new area and is evolving quickly. For example, NFM interventions are being put in place well before the research base has matured (e.g. Dadson et al. 2017; Rogger et al. 2017). The NFM community of practice (Box  14.3) allows iCASP to update stakeholders and practitioners by bringing active researchers in NFM to the events, in this way, the latest science is used. iCASP is expected to have a lasting legacy by creating a well-connected, resilient region with a strong network of catchment practitioners. It aims to be an important player in the

14.4 ­New Insights and Highlight

Table 14.2  iCASP impact so far (June 2019). Key success measure

1: Value creation

2: Science–user engagement

Impact generated

Example

By March 2019, iCASP had already provided US$ 13 million of economic/ financial benefits to the region (e.g. avoided costs, improved business performance), the majority of which is due to attracting inward investment in the region (96%)

iCASP has supported major investment opportunities within the Yorkshire Region such as the Don Catchment Rivers Trust Heritage Lottery funded project entitled ‘Hidden Heritage Secret Streams’

iCASP has supported nine business cases and in total since its inception

Leeds Flood Alleviation Scheme, Phase 2

iCASP has provided additional US$ 7 million for new research and

European funded projects through Horizon 2020

18 new jobs

ITFs and a Natural Flood Management officer for the Don Catchment Rivers Trust

Twenty-eight different organisations have worked directly on existing iCASP projects to date

Projects often involve partners beyond the springboard Partners, e.g. Yorkshire Wildlife Trust

At least US$ 445 000 of in-kind support has been provided to iCASP by partner organisations by March 2019 iCASP acts as a node for regional and iCASP facilitated connections between national connections UK Water Industry Research (UKWIR) and researchers at the University of Leeds Communication reach

iCASP projects have been discussed at 24 national and international meetings/events and the website has on average 350 visitors per month since September 2018

3: Policy formation and implementation

iCASP has briefed >30 influencers through a combination of verbal and written briefings

This includes a verbal briefing on uses of the new UK climate projections (UKCP18) and agricultural land management and public goods

4: Practical benefits

iCASP is helping facilitate capacity building within stakeholder organisations and its own team

A Natural Flood Management (NFM) Community of Practice. A Regional UKCP18 Forum, co-funded by Yorkshire Water to introduce UKCP18 to the Yorkshire community of practitioners

future of growth and investment decisions within Yorkshire due to holistic transformative change across the region, underpinned by research. The aim is that the model of working will eventually be self-funding due to the benefits documented through its first phase and will become a national centre of excellence. The long-term aspiration is that outcomes of

379

380

14  Yorkshire Integrated Catchment Solutions Programme (iCASP)

projects, such as the development of communities of practice, will become self-sustaining. For example, the latest community of practice event has received funding from Environment Agency and the Catchment-Based Approach (an inclusive civil society-led initiative that works in partnership with government, local authorities, charities, water companies, etc.). It has also produced a cohort of ITFs with a unique skill set that spans both academia and industry; this is a vital skill set that will help foster future relationships and produce wellrounded experts who can adapt their skill sets to different audiences.

14.5 ­Conclusions iCASP represents a new model of working between academia, civic society, and industry. As it is user-driven, there has been a step change in the use of existing academic research to generate economic, environmental, and societal impact in the River Ouse catchment. This is a model that can be applied elsewhere. At the time of writing, iCASP is halfway through its five-year funding period but has already generated >US$ 13 million in economic benefit for the Yorkshire Region. The programme has a growing network and is becoming a recognised valued programme across the region. Due to the impartial nature, it has been able to interact with a range of different organisations and mediate and advocate without bias. iCASP highlights how academia and stakeholders can work together, to translate existing research and highlight research gaps. There is a wealth of information in research that has yet to be translated, and failure to do so would be a missed opportunity for the sustainable growth of the region. By integrating universities into a wider network of stakeholders, developing relationships, and understanding different needs, the impact of research will continue to increase in future years across the catchment.

­Acknowledgements iCASP is based at water@leeds, in partnership with the universities of York, Sheffield, Durham, and Manchester. The partnership comprises the following 16 springboard partners around Yorkshire; Arup; City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council; City of York Council; Yorkshire Dales Rivers Trust (Dales to Vales River Network); Environment Agency; IUCN UK Peatland Programme; JBA Trust/JBA Consulting; Linking Environment and Farming (LEAF); Leeds City Council; National Farmer’ Union; Natural England; Pennine Prospects; UK Met Office; Yorkshire Water; Yorkshire West Local Nature Partnership and Yorkshire Wildlife Trust. Thanks to Finn Barlow Duncan and Duncan Fyfe for their comments and suggestions on the manuscript. iCASP is funded under NERC Grant NE/P011160/1.

­References Beierle, T.C. (2002). The quality of stakeholder-based decisions. Risk Analysis 22: 739–749. https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.00065.

 ­Reference

Bonn, A., Allott, T., Evans, M.G. et al. (eds.) (2016). Peatland Ecosystem Services – Science, Policy and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chubb, J. and Reed, M.S. (2018). The politics of research impact: academic perceptions of the implications for research funding, motivation and quality. British Politics 13: 295–311. Dadson, S.J., Hall, J.W., Murgatroyd, A. et al. (2017). A restatement of the natural science evidence concerning catchment-based “natural” flood management in the United Kingdom. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 473: 20160706. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2016.0706. Defra (2013). Catchment based approach: improving the quality of our water environment a policy framework to encourage the wider adoption of an integrated catchment based approach to improving the quality of our water environment. May 2013. https://www.gov. uk/government/publications/catchment-based-approach-improving-the-quality-of-ourwater-environment (accessed 5 December 2020). Dietz, T. and Stern, P.C. (eds.) (2008). Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision-Making. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (European Commission) (2018). A New Horizon for Europe: Impact Assessment of the 9th EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. European Commission. ISBN: 978-92-79-81000-8. Ferré, M., Martin-Ortega, J., Di Gregorio, M., and Dallimer, M. (2020). Which path does the transfer of science follow in the iCASP network and how does it lead to change in organisations? Report, Yorkshire Integrated Catchment Solutions Programme (iCASP) – University of Leeds. Available - https://icasp.org.uk/resources-and-publications/ resources-about-the-programme/social-network-analysis/. Gao, J., Holden, J., and Kirkby, M.J. (2015). A distributed TOPMODEL for modelling impacts of land-cover change on river flow in upland peatland catchments. Hydrological Processes 29: 2867–2879. Jakeman, A.J. and Letcher, R.A. (2003). Integrated assessment and modelling: features, principles and examples for catchment management. Environmental Modelling and Software 18: 491–501. Macleod, C.J., Scholefield, D., and Haygarth, P.M. (2007). Integration for sustainable catchment management. Science of the Total Environment 373: 591–602. Macleod, C.J., Blackstock, K.L., and Haygarth, P.M. (2008). Mechanisms to improve integrative research at the science-policy interface for sustainable catchment management. Ecology and Society 13: 48. Macnaghten, P. and Jacobs, M. (1997). Public identification with sustainable development: investigating cultural barriers to participation. Global Environmental Change 7: 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-3780(96)00023-4. National Science Foundation (NSF) (2014). Perspectives on Broader Impacts. National Science Foundation. http://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/publications/Broader_Impacts.pdf. Reed, M.S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biological Conservation 141: 2417–2431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014. Reed, M.S., Ferré, M., Martin-Ortega, J. et al. (2021). Evaluating impact from research: a methodological framework. Research Policy 50 (4): 100012. Richardson, J.C., Hodgson, D.M., Kay, P. et al. (2019). Muddying the picture? Forecasting particulate sources and dispersal patterns in managed catchments. Frontiers in Earth Science 7: 277.

381

382

14  Yorkshire Integrated Catchment Solutions Programme (iCASP)

Rogger, M., Agnoletti, M., Alaoui, A. et al. (2017). Land-use change impacts on floods at the catchment scale – challenges and opportunities for future research. Water Resources Research 53: 5209–5219. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017WR020723. Sakai, P., Holdsworth, A., and Curry, S. (2016). Economic Impact Assessment of the Boxing Day Floods (2015) on SMEs in the Borough of Calderdale. Calderdale Council and University of Leeds. http://ucvr.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/ EconomicReport_Flooding_SMEs_CalderdaleBorough_vF.pdf. Tsey, K., Lawson, K., Kinchin, I. et al. (2016). Evaluating research impact: the development of a research for impact tool. Frontiers in Public Health 4: 160. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpubh.2016.00160. de Vente, J., Reed, M., Stringer, L. et al. (2016). How does the context and design of participatory decision-making processes affect their outcomes? Evidence from sustainable land management in global drylands. Ecology and Society 21: 24.

Credit: C. Tortajada, Institute of Water Policy, Singapore.

385

15 Integrated Management in Singapore Cecilia Tortajada1 and Rachel Yan Ting Koh2 1 School of Interdisciplinary Studies, University of Glasgow, Scotland; Institute of Water Policy, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, Singapore 2  WWF Singapore

15.1 ­Introduction Singapore is a highly urbanised and densely populated small island nation with over 5.5 million inhabitants in a total land area of 722 km2 (Department of Statistics 2018a). Although there is abundant rainfall, with an average of 2200 mm per year (Meteorological Service Singapore 2018), the city‐state is constrained by its small size and thus limited catchment area for collection and storage of rainwater. Fast economic and population growth as well as industrialisation have exerted immense pressure on the competing water uses. This has brought a continual challenge to diversify its scarce water resources and to manage them in an integrated manner so as to optimise them within a framework of sustainability. Water resources have played an integral role in the socio‐economic development of Singapore since its independence in 1965. In the 1970s, the management of floods and cleaning of waterways contributed to further rapid development and a higher quality of life for the population. This could be seen most notably in the clean‐up efforts for the Singapore River and Kallang Basin. The Singapore River has a maximum navigable length of 2.95 km. It drains a catchment area of about 1500 ha. The Kallang River, at 10 km, is the longest river in the city‐state. It drains five main rivers: the Bukit Timah/Rochor, Sungei Whampoa, Sungei Kallang, Pelton, and Geylang. The total drainage area of the Rochor, Kallang, and Geylang Rivers is 7800 ha (Yap 1986). The Singapore River joins the five rivers from the Kallang Basin near the city waterfront and together they flow out to the sea. Their economic, social, and environmental importance to Singapore is similar to that of the great rivers of the world in the countries through which they flow (Joshi et al. 2012; Tortajada et al. 2013). Between 1977 and 1986, the Government launched a 10‐year Master Plan that involved various government ministries and agencies to conduct a large‐scale clean‐up operation and relocation of polluting activities that had severely affected the Singapore River and Handbook of Catchment Management, Second Edition. Edited by Robert C. Ferrier and Alan Jenkins. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

386

15  Integrated Management in Singapore

Kallang Basin. The Master Plan included a large‐scale development plan that changed the face of Singapore; polluting sources were either removed or relocated; infrastructure was developed for the population affected by relocation; and rivers were cleaned and dredged (Tortajada et al. 2013). As a result, more than 26 000 families were resettled, mostly into public housing, with a significant improvement in their quality of life; more than 4200 hawkers (street food sellers) and approximately 800 lighters (large boats or sea‐going barges) were relocated, and more than 44 000 squatters were cleared. Between 1982 and 1984, 2000 tonnes of refuse were removed from the Singapore, Kallang, Geylang, and Rochor Rivers. Some 40 000 m3 of sediment was dredged from the Singapore River, and 600 000 m3 from the Rochor and Kallang Rivers (Yap 1986). Direct and indirect benefits were numerous, from better quality of life for the population to development‐related activities that transformed the city‐state into a model city in terms of urban planning and development. In the 1980s, there was a change in the approach to managing waterbodies and waterways, indicating a change in the narrative of water management and how this contributed to socio‐economic development. Waterbodies, which used to be for water storage only, were made aesthetically attractive, with the main objective to create environmental awareness in the population (Centre for Liveable Cities 2012). In the 2000s, there was a further shift, where the state saw the need to strengthen public engagement, leading to the opening up of waterbodies such as the MacRitchie and Bedok reservoirs for recreational activities, expanding the social and economic activities along waterbodies (Joshi et al. 2012; Tortajada et al. 2013). As Singapore developed socially and economically, it diversified its sources of water from two to four to meet its increasing water demand. Its ‘four national taps’ include local water catchment areas; imported water from Johor, Malaysia, under two agreements signed in 1961 and 1962 (Tortajada and Pobre 2011); high‐quality reclaimed, or reused, water (NEWater) that meets WHO and US EPA drinking water standards; and desalinated water (PUB 2018a; Tortajada and Wong 2018). Figure 15.1 provides an overview of Singapore’s water resources. This chapter gives a historical analysis of how NEWater, the main source of water for Singapore looking towards the future, was conceived and how it has evolved. The institutional, legal, and policy frameworks required for its delivery are explored.

15.2 ­Institutional and Legal Frameworks In Singapore, the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment is in charge of law and policy‐making in the environmental and water fields (MEWR 2019). Its two statutory boards, the Public Utilities Board (PUB, National Water Agency) and the National Environment Agency, are in charge of implementing its policy directions (Tortajada et al. 2013). PUB was created in 1963 to supply water, electricity, and gas. At present, PUB is the primary statutory agency which manages the Singapore water supply, as well as its sewerage and drainage networks. The National Environment Agency was created in 2002 by the merger of the Ministry of Environment Divisions of Environmental Public Health and

15.2  ­Institutional and Legal Framework

0

ne

Linggui Reservoir Jo ho rR ive r

Murai Poyan

Upper Kranji Seletar

12

10

15

Punggol

20 km

Pulau Tekong

Lower Peirce Serangoon

Upper Peirce Jurong Lake

Tengeh

1 2 4

Lower Seletar

9

P ip

e li

Sarimbum

5

Bedok

MacRitchie

10

7 6

Marina

Pandan

8

3 11

Legend 5

Pipeline from Johor

Reservoirs

Desalination plant

Unprotected cathment Protected cathment Urban stormwater collection system

Reclamation plant

Plants Id 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Name Singspring Desalination Plant Tuaspring Desalination Plant Future variable desalination plant (2019) Third desalination plant (2017) Future 5th desalination plant (2020) Changi NEWater Plant Bedok NEWater Factory Sembcorp NEWater Plant Kranji Water NEWater Plant Ulu Pandan Water NEWater Plant Future Tuas Water NEWater Plant (2005) Jurong Industrial Water Works

Capacity (MGD) 30 70 30 30 30 30 18 50 17 32 25 27

Water sales (million m3/year) 217.6 124.8 25

297.1

Potable: non-domestic NEWater (non-domestic) Industrial Water Potable: domestic

Figure 15.1  Map of Singapore’s water resources and water sales figures. Source: Modified from Buurman et al. (2018).

Environment Policy and Management and the Meteorological Service Department (Tortajada et  al. 2013). This was done to prepare for the positioning of the Ministry of Environment as a policymaker, with the National Environment Agency and PUB implementing its policies. Today, the National Environment Agency is the primary statutory agency which manages Singapore’s sanitation facilities, as part of its wider remit to manage and protect the environment. The management of sewerage services is regulated by the Sewerage and Drainage Act (2001). The act provides for, inter alia, the construction and maintenance of public sewerage and stormwater drainage systems. In 2001, the Public Utilities Act was repealed and re‐enacted. This time, PUB was to take over the Ministry of Environment Drainage and Sewerage Departments, giving PUB a mandate and the resources to manage the entire water cycle and opening the way for it to begin treating and recycling water from the sewerage system (Tan and Rawat 2018). Previously, part of the

387

388

15  Integrated Management in Singapore

Ministry of Trade and Industry, PUB was moved to the Ministry of the Environment (Public Utilities Act 2001). The act was amended in 2012, giving PUB responsibility for regulating and managing activities in and around reservoirs and waterways, including the management and maintenance of any barrage or boat transfer facility in or connecting to a reservoir. This new regulatory function was needed for PUB to open up waterbodies for community and recreational uses, by allowing it to draw up rules and regulations for the proper use of these places. The act was also amended to properly reflect the sanitary appliance fee and the waterborne fee as a tax contribution to the sewerage system (Public Utilities (Amendment) Act 2012). These fees were previously justified as part of the general taxation power of the government. The act now also included a list of costs that may be included in the price of water supplied by PUB. In 2018, the act was amended again and the water service worker licensing regime was reformed to bring sanitary plumbers, who had not been previously subject to licensing, into the scheme. This was done over concerns of cross‐contamination of the drinking water supply and the sewerage systems, in view of the case of Alameda City, California, where a cross‐connection between the city drinking water supply and a non‐potable irrigation well had rendered parts of the city water supply undrinkable (Public Utilities (Amendment) Act 2018).

15.3 ­Overall Policy and Planning Singapore’s first Water Master Plan, of 1972, outlined plans for the next 20 years in terms of water resources, including local catchments, NEWater, and desalinated water (Tan et al. 2009). The same year, the Drainage Master Plan was drawn up to put in place an effective land drainage system to protect national assets, improve public health, and prevent and alleviate floods (Tortajada et al. 2013). A Water Pollution Control and Drainage Bill was introduced in 1977 for more effective protection of water resources and prevention of water pollution (Parliamentary Debates 1977a). It was decided that only non‐polluting industries and activities would be allowed in the catchment areas. As a result, in the Kranji and Pandan catchment areas, pig farms and some polluting industrial facilities were eventually moved to non‐catchment areas. Farms with more than 100 pigs each were given the option to be resettled in Punggol, while the smaller farms were required to phase out pig‐rearing and adopt other non‐polluting forms of farming (Parliamentary Debates 1977b). All but one of the pig farms in the Kallang River catchment were relocated. Later, they were phased out or encouraged to change to a different activity. The overall objective was to prevent pollution of the reservoirs (Parliament of Singapore 1982). It was also decided that S$400 million would be spent on sewerage projects in the next five years for housing and industrial estates. These projects would serve Telok Blangah, Bukit Timah, Clementi, the City, East Coast, Bedok, Woodlands, and Ang Mo Kio (Parliamentary Debates 1977a). Within the next few years, PUB would have to look into unconventional methods, such as advanced water treatment, to increase the water supply and to cope with anticipated demand beyond the 1980s. In response to water demand

15.4  ­The Search for Alternative Sources of Wate

outpacing population growth, in 1981, the Water Conservation Plan was drawn up. This set out three key policies for water conservation in Singapore: water pricing, mandatory requirements, and public education (Tan et al. 2009). In 1984, in its most important policy on food security, the government decided not to pursue food self‐sufficiency. Singapore would not practice traditional agriculture but import food from the global markets and focus on producing goods and services in which it would have a competitive advantage (Goh 1984). Land and water used for agricultural purposes was thus reallocated for other uses. In 1992, water and sanitation were included in the larger environmental picture, in the first Singapore Green Plan. Relevant topics included wastewater management and aesthetic management of waterbodies (Ministry of the Environment 1992). The Singapore Green Plan 2012 was launched in 2002, with three key performance targets for 2012 to increase catchment areas from 50% to 67% of Singapore’s land surface, to increase supply from reclaimed water and desalination to 25% of national water demand, and to ensure that water quality continues to meet international standards (Ministry of the Environment 2002). This was reissued in 2006, with additional targets to reduce per capita domestic water consumption from 160 to 155 l per day, to join the public, private, and people (‘3P’) sectors to raise awareness of the importance of conserving, valuing, and enjoying water, and to develop a sense of shared ownership of water resources (MEWR 2006). The Sustainable Singapore Blueprint 2015 was launched in 2015 (MEWR 2015) and updated in 2016. Two goals were set for 2030: increasing the waterbodies and rivers open to recreational activity from 974 ha and 98 km, respectively, to 1039 ha and 100 km, respectively, by 2030, and reducing per capita domestic water consumption from 151 to 140 l per day (MEWR 2015). PUB launched ‘Our Water, Our Future’ in 2016 (PUB 2016). Amongst other provisions, it targeted increasing supply from reclaimed water and desalination from 65% of national water demand to 85% by 2060, and, in line with the Sustainable Singapore Blueprint 2015, reducing domestic water consumption from 148 to 140 l per day by 2030.

15.4 ­The Search for Alternative Sources of Water A theme of planned water reuse was stated by the UN Economic and Social Council in 1958; ‘No higher quality water, unless there is a surplus of it, should be used for a purpose that can tolerate a lower grade’ (Okun 1973). Okun (1973) called the water reclamation plant for the Jurong Industrial Estate in Singapore an ‘excellent example’, explaining that the utilisation of the full capacity of the reclamation plant, 10 million gallons per day (MGD) (45 500 m3per day), over a six‐month drought period would help conserve ‘storage equivalent to the capacity of the MacRitchie and Peirce reservoirs’ (for more information on the reservoirs, see PUB, ‘Water from Local Catchment’, https://www.pub.gov.sg/ watersupply/fournationaltaps/localcatchmentwater). Development of unconventional sources of water started in Singapore in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the city‐state started looking towards water reuse (PUB 2011; Lefebvre 2018).

389

390

15  Integrated Management in Singapore

In terms of planning, the first Used Water Master Plan was developed in the late 1960s. Singapore would be divided into six water catchment zones, each served by a water reclamation plant to treat the water before it was discharged to the sea (Centre for Liveable Cities 2012). One objective was to develop infrastructure, over a period of 10 years, to collect wastewater all over the island. There was an understanding of the potential of wastewater as a resource (that is, it would increase the amount of water available), of the importance of developing local water resources to their maximum, and of cleaning up rivers and canals (Parliamentary Debates 1971). The work in the Used Water Master Plan would be completed several decades later, by 1997, with World Bank funding. One of the conditions on the funding was that Singapore would need to recover costs from consumers. The plan led to 100% of Singapore being served by a modern sanitation system, up from 45% in 1965 (Tan et al. 2009). Industrial water was first introduced in 1966 with the construction of the Jurong Industrial Water Works by the Economic Development Board to supply non‐potable water to facilities in the Jurong and Tuas industrial estates. The objective was to help conserve potable water by reclaiming the effluent from Ulu Pandan Water Reclamation Plant (Tan et al. 2009). Industrial water is a lower grade of reclaimed water and serves as an alternative source of water for non‐potable use in industry (Lee and Tan 2016). The plant had an initial capacity of 45 000 m3 per day (PUB 2019). The objective was to help conserve potable water by reclaiming the effluent from the Ulu Pandan Water Reclamation Plant (Tan et al. 2009). By 1971, about 3.5 MGD (15 900 m3 per day) was being used for industrial purposes (Straits Times 1971). The value of wastewater, its management, and its potential for reclamation were topics discussed in the Parliament as early as the 1970s. Discussions referred to the approximately 60% of domestic and 20% of industrial and commercial water (25 MGD [114 000 m3 per day] and 10 MGD [45 500 m3  per day], respectively) that were discharged as wastewater (Parliamentary Debates 1970a). The discussions also included water pollution management. They stressed the importance of building infrastructure to collect and treat domestic and industrial wastewater before discharging it into open drains and watercourses. At that time, water pollution control activities included phasing out bucket latrines and instead using water‐seal latrines or septic tanks. An inter‐departmental working committee was established to coordinate and supervise water pollution control measures. It included the director of Public Works, deputy director of medical services (health), senior health officer (environmental health), commissioner for public health, chief water engineer (PUB), senior executive engineer (sewerage) and senior executive engineer (drainage and marine), both of the Public Works Department, senior public health engineer, chief administrative officer (Jurong Town Corporation), and representatives from the Ministry of Finance, together with a member from the Economic Development Board (Parliamentary Debates 1970b). This provided the basis for an integrated multi‐actor approach to the management of water resources. In 1971, the Water Planning Unit was established, led by Lee Ek Tieng, and assisted by Tan Gee Paw, who developed the first Water Master Plan in 1972 (CLC 2012). As only 57% of the population were served by the main public sewerage network, the Public Works Department made plans to expand the network to the entire island. This was essential not

15.4  ­The Search for Alternative Sources of Wate

only for sanitary purposes and to avoid pollution of surface waters but also to collect wastewater that decades later would be reclaimed. In early 1972, PUB began exploring nonconventional sources of water, such as reclaimed or desalinated water, to increase the water supply. At that time, such methods seemed unfeasible due to their high cost and energy consumption (PUB 2013). In 1974, the first pilot water reclamation plant, a joint project by PUB and Ministry of the Environment, was commissioned at the Jurong Industrial Water Works to study the feasibility of reclaiming wastewater using physico‐chemical processes (CLC 2012; PUB 2011; Parliamentary Debates 1978). It was the first water reclamation plant in Singapore to experiment with water treatment technologies, including reverse osmosis. Costing S$1.3 million, the plant had a capacity of 381 360 l of water per day (Leong 2015). Though it produced high‐quality drinking water, the cost of the technologies was high, and their reliability was questionable. The plant was decommissioned one year later (Tan et al. 2009). In 1975, there was the first media demonstration that sewage effluent could be purified to the state where it could be safely drunk. Project advisor Tan Teng Huat of PUBs Water Reclamation Department had drunk a glass of reclaimed (and boiled and refrigerated) water and declared it ‘not bad at all’ (Straits Times 1975). Purified water was first obtained through reverse osmosis in 1979. The system could produce 775 l of drinking water per day from salty, brackish, or polluted water. Its quality was said to exceed both US and World Health Organization standards for potable water (Business Times 1979). PUB recognised that the disposal of processed effluent in the Jurong and Serangoon Rivers, to eventually flow out to sea, was a ‘waste of water resources’ (Straits Times 1975). The objective at that time was consistent with the approach today that purified (reused) water would not be brought directly into the potable water circulation system. Instead, the final effluent would be stored in impounding reservoirs for blending with other water resources and conventional treatment in a recycling system (Straits Times 1975). Later, feasibility studies and tests carried out at the 1974 Jurong Pilot Plant mentioned earlier showed that with advanced water treatment processes, the recycling of water would be a technically feasible method of increasing water supply in the future (Parliamentary Debates 1977a). In the 1980s, the industrial use of recycled water in factories gained traction (Straits Times 1987). This occurred at the same time that the Environment Ministry implemented policies to encourage more factories to use industrial water (Straits Times 1987). One incentive was the lower cost of industrial water: S$0.24 m−3, compared to S$1.10 m−3 for potable water (Straits Times 1987). By the end of 1987, about 20 000 m3 of wastewater was being recycled daily. Discussion of the increasing water consumption and the limited land area for water catchment continued in the Parliament. PUB also started a programme to encourage companies to use industrial water. Five companies with large water consumption agreed to install facilities to receive industrial water (Parliamentary Debates 1984). There were also plans to extend the industrial water network to the area of Tuas, and the government offered a 50% investment allowance to commercial and industrial enterprises to install plants or equipment that would save a significant amount of water (Parliamentary Debates 1984).

391

392

15  Integrated Management in Singapore

Attempts to reclaim wastewater for household and industrial use continued. For example, by 1982, the Jurong Industrial Water Works reclaimed 20 000 m3 per day of wastewater from the Ulu Pandan Sewage Treatment Works. The reclaimed water was used by 39 companies in Jurong and in 5658 apartments for toilet flushing (Parliamentary Debates 1982). By 1988, of the 45 000 m3 produced, most of it (25 000 m3) was used for toilet flushing, cleaning, and cooling. Also, by 1988, it was reported that ‘87% of the population enjoy modern sanitation facilities and more than 90% of the sewage is collected and treated by the activated sludge treatment system’ (Chin et al. 1988). Some facilities (such as paper, textile, plastic, and chemical plants, and rubber and steel product factories) also used reclaimed water in their manufacturing processes. In 1988, a study by the National University of Singapore explored the feasibility of upgrading the water to ultra‐pure quality for sensitive cooling processes and for use as process water in the electronics industry. However, the total organic carbon (TOC) and ammoniacal nitrogen contents were too high (in the range of 10 and 40 mg l−1, respectively), and the treatment train was ineffective in removing the total trihalomethanes from the raw water (Chin et al. 1988). At present, water is being treated to much lower levels, less than 0.5 mg l−1 and less than 1 mg l−1, respectively (PUB 2017a). In the early 1990s, ultra‐pure water could be produced with a combination of reverse osmosis and continuous deionisation. The Mobile DI System, incorporated into a 40‐ft air‐conditioned container, was provided by Singapore firm Chemitreat to supply ultra‐ pure water to industrial users on short notice (Business Times 1993). Although reclamation of sewage for industrial water was a viable alternative, reclamation of sewage for ultra‐pure water was cost‐prohibitive, at around USD 2 m−3 of product water. Chin (1996) remarked, ‘The cost will be considerably higher if electronic‐grade water and ultrapure water … is produced with more advanced steps of treatment.… Savings from using reclaimed sewage to produce the needed process water will be negligible and potable water will continue to be the main feed water unless incentives or disincentives are provided through legislation’. Increased demand for water by Jurong Island’s petrochemical plants saw the introduction of cheaper high‐quality water. In 1999, SembCorp Engineering opened a S$50 million facility to produce high‐grade industrial water of a quality similar to PUBs potable water (Straits Times 1999). The plant SembCorp Utilities and Terminals Seraya operated had an initial daily capacity of 300 000 m3 and was thought to be the world’s largest water recycling facility. SembCorp used reverse osmosis to remove waste particles and chemical impurities from water from the Ulu Pandan Sewage Treatment Plant. Before this, potable water from PUB was the only grade of water available to the petrochemical industry. As potable water has to be demineralised when used in certain processes, the cost further increased. The recycled water did not have to be demineralised, and its price of S$1.45 m−3 was 30% less than PUBs potable water, after rates were raised from S$1.88 to S$2.12 m−3 in July 2000 (Straits Times 1999). This meant big potential savings for companies and also helped conserve potable water for domestic use. The early groundwork of managing the sewerage network and experimenting with the use of recycled water by industry would prove vital in the adoption of water reclamation to produce potable water in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

15.5  ­NEWater: From Concept to Implementatio

15.5 ­NEWater: From Concept to Implementation The Singapore Water Reclamation Study (‘NEWater Study’) was first conceptualised in 1998 by PUB and Ministry of Environment to determine whether NEWater was suitable as a source of raw water to supplement water supply (PUB 2002; Seah et al. 2003). Two engineers, from PUB and the Ministry of the Environment, respectively, went on a two‐ week trip to the United States to study water recycling methods such as membrane technology and found that they were viable (Tan et al. 2009; Tortajada and Nambiar 2019). From 2000 to 2002, a two‐year study was conducted in Singapore which included three elements; a 10 000 m3 per day demonstration plant at Bedok using microfiltration, reverse osmosis, and ultraviolet treatment to produce NEWater; a sampling and monitoring programme to ensure that the water quality met drinking standards; and a health effects testing programme to determine NEWater’s safety for consumption in the long term (Seah et al. 2003). After conducting more than 20 000 tests on approximately 190 water quality parameters, a panel of local and international experts in various disciplines, including engineering, water chemistry, toxicology, epidemiology, and microbiology, asserted that the water was of high quality and safe for potable use, surpassing the WHO Drinking Water Quality Guidelines and United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (Seah et al. 2003). They suggested reintroducing trace minerals by blending the purified water with reservoir water (indirect potable reuse) and treating it afterwards in the waterworks before it was distributed to the public (PUB 2002; Tan et al. 2009; World Health Organization 2017). One year earlier, on 21 January 2001, PUB announced its goal to recycle 20% of secondary treated wastewater for industrial use (Seah et al. 2003). Also, in 2001, it was announced that NEWater, or ultra‐pure, recycled water, would be sold to Singapore’s electronics companies from 2002 onwards. The rest would be pumped into the sea until the distribution pipelines were ready. ST Microelectronics, a wafer fabricator, was already active in reclaiming water from their wafer fab and treating it before putting it back into the manufacturing process. About 40% of their water was recycled (Straits Times 2001a). PUB announced that NEWater would be sent to industrial plants in the Tampines and Woodlands areas by the end of 2002 (Straits Times 2001b). By the end of August 2001, it was reported that seven wafer fabrication plants had come to an agreement with PUB to use NEWater, which was reported to cost 10–15% less than potable water, at S$1.52 m−3 (Straits Times 2001c). According to the Straits Times (2002), this was only a third of its price in the 1970s. Discussions in the Parliament were encouraging; At this moment, there is a growing industry known as the wafer fabrication industry. Over the next 10 years or so, our aim is to have 25 wafer fabrication plants in Singapore. And together, they require about 55 million gallons per day (250 000 m3 per day) of ultra clean water. This 55 MGD is equivalent to 15% of our daily consumption of water.… In fact, our assessment is that we will be able to supply this NEWater to them even cheaper than what they are paying today for potable water. (Parliamentary Debates 2001a).

393

394

15  Integrated Management in Singapore

It makes a lot of sense to supply NEWater to wafer fabrication plants because these 25 wafer fabrication plants are not scattered all over Singapore. They are located centrally at three, at Woodlands, Tampines, and Pasir Ris, and they are high‐ consumption customers. As a result, we will be able to supply this NEWater to these 25 wafer fabrication plants in the three parks in a highly cost‐effective manner. (Parliamentary Debates 2001b). Demand for NEWater in seven wafer fabrication plants reached 4 MGD (18 000 m3 per day) in 2003. (Singapore Government 2003). PUB announced plans to build a separate pipeline network for NEWater and asked developers to make space for it in their new commercial and industrial developments (Business Times 2002). Our intention is to set up a reticulation system to reach out to various industrial estates and commercial hubs in Singapore, so that over the next 10 years, we will be able to expand the use of NEWater beyond wafer fabrication plants, to various other sectors such as semi‐conductors, chemicals, electronics, utilities, engineering and so on. Starting with 15 million gallons per day next year for the wafer fabrication plants, our target is to expand the use to more than 55 million gallons per day by the year 2012. By the year 2012, NEWater or water reclamation will account for at least 15% of total water demand in Singapore. (Lim Swee Say, quoted in Parliamentary Debates 2002). In 2003, NEWater was introduced largely for direct non‐potable use to non‐domestic sectors in water‐intensive facilities such as wafer fabrication plants, in industrial estates and in commercial buildings for industrial and air‐con cooling purposes. NEWater is pumped into water reservoirs (for indirect potable reuse) and then treated in the waterworks before being distributed to the population. It has also been used for air‐con cooling in Century Square and the Telepark Building at Tampines Regional Centre (Business Times 2003). Singapore’s first two NEWater plants, in Bedok (with a capacity of 6 MGD [27 000 m3 per day]) and Kranji (9 MGD [40 500 m3 per day]), were commissioned in January 2003. The third, in Seletar (5 MGD [22 500 m3 per day]), was commissioned in January 2004 but was decommissioned in 2011 along with the reclamation plant. The fourth plant, Ulu Pandan, was commissioned at the end of 2006 with an operating capacity of 25 MGD (112 500 m3 per day) and is the first plant commissioned under a public–private partnership using the design‐build‐own‐operate model (Hai and De Ryck 2005). In 2008 and 2009, the Kranji and Bedok plants were expanded, more than doubling the operating capacity of each (PUB 2017b; Lee and Tan 2016). The fifth plant, Changi, was commissioned in 2010, also under the design‐build‐own‐operate model (Lee and Tan 2016). In April 2016, the Kranji plant was further upgraded, by 5–22 MGD (PUB 2017b). The newest, the BEWG‐UESH

15.5  ­NEWater: From Concept to Implementatio

NEWater Plant, jointly developed by Chinese consortium BEWG International and local company UES Holdings, was officially commissioned in 2017 in Changi, with operating capacity of 50 MGD (225 000 m3 per day) (PUB 2017c). Table 15.1 shows water reclamation milestones. NEWater meets 40% of Singapore’s current water demand. The amount discharged into reservoirs for blending makes up about 2–3% of water demand during normal weather conditions but can be increased to over 10% during dry spells (World Health Organization 2017). It is expected that water demand will continue to increase in Singapore as the population grows and the economy develops. By 2060, it is estimated that the water demand will have doubled (from about 430 MGD), and NEWater will contribute 55% of the supply. NEWater and desalinated water in total will meet up to 85% of Singapore’s water demand (PUB 2018a). Table 15.1  Water reclamation milestones. Year

Milestone

1998

Water Reclamation Study initiative conceived by PUB and the Ministry of the Environment

February 1999

CH2M HILL commissioned for the engineering design, project delivery, and study management of the Singapore Water Reclamation Study

May 2000

Bedok NEWater Factory Demonstration Plant constructed and commissioned within a seven‐month period; design capacity of 10 000 m3 d−1

October 2000

Commencement of the most comprehensive and sophisticated study of water reclamation: ●● Sampling and monitoring programme for some 190 water quality parameters ●● Toxicological assessment using both mice and fish for the first time

January 2001

PUB announces its goal to recycle 20% of secondary‐treated used water for industrial use

July 2001

CH2M HILL awarded the engineering design and construction supervision for full‐scale Bedok and Kranji NEWater Plants, as well as interactive visitor/public education centre at Bedok; ultimate design capacity of 168 000 m3 d−1

July 2002

Expert panel recommends the adoption of indirect potable reuse of NEWater to supplement Singapore’s existing water supply sources

August 2002

NEWater debuts to wide public acceptance at the National Day Parade and celebrations; up to 60 000 bottles of NEWater given away on parade day

January 2003

Bedok and Kranji NEWater Plants, with initial capacity of 72 000 m3 d−1

February 2003

The potable and non‐potable use of NEWater is officially launched by the prime minister of Singapore at a gala event. At the same time, a visitor and public education centre is opened to the public. The unique centre is fully integrated with the Bedok NEWater Plant and includes an elevated walk‐ through of the process area and a multimedia interactive exhibition/ education area with a 120‐seat digital audio/video auditorium. The very latest in multimedia interactive learning tools are used extensively throughout the centre.

Source: Adapted from Seah et al. (2003).

395

396

15  Integrated Management in Singapore

15.6 ­NEWater: Water Source Looking to the Future Two million gallons of NEWater, or less than 1% of the total volume of water consumed daily, started being pumped into reservoirs daily on 21 February 2003 (Business Times 2003; USEPA 2012). This was increased progressively to 10 MGD by 2011, or 2.5% of consumption at that time (Business Times 2003; USEPA 2012). It was mentioned that, for every drop of water channelled to the reservoirs, another 3.5 drops were being supplied to industry and commercial buildings for non‐potable use (Parliamentary Debates 2003). Over the years, involvement of the private sector in the expansion of treatment and conveyance infrastructure has increased. An estimated S$550 million of contracts are likely to be awarded by PUB Corp this year as it continues to seek private sector participation in Singapore’s water management. Almost S$470 million of projects have already been outsourced to the private sector this year.… Another S$79 million of projects are still to be contracted, including the laying of NEWater pipelines and construction of links for the Deep Tunnel Sewage System. (Business Times 2006). The first recycling plant for water for industrial use opened in 2014. Set up by PUB and Japanese technology firm Meiden Singapore, it could recycle up to one million gallons per day, about 5% of the wastewater generated by industry at that time (Straits Times 2014a). To encourage companies to implement such projects, PUB provides funding support, such as the Water Efficiency Fund and the Industrial Water Solutions Demonstration Fund. For example, in 2018, PUB worked with Micron Semiconductor Asia and co‐funded installation of a wastewater recycling plant. This was expected to reduce NEWater demand by 400 000 m3 annually (MEWR 2018). NEWater (Figure 15.2) is available in: ●●

●●

●● ●●

Ulu Pandan Cluster: western and central areas such as Jurong Island, Tuas, Jurong, and City; Bedok Cluster: eastern areas such as Pasir Ris, Tampines, Bedok, Changi, Chai Chee, and Loyang; Kranji Cluster: northern areas such as Woodlands, Kranji, and Yishun; Seletar Cluster: north‐eastern areas such as Ang Mo Kio.

By 2007, more than 300 companies were reported to be using NEWater, with about 80 of them using it for industrial processes. They included wafer fabrication plants and electronics companies such as Chartered Semiconductor, Seagate, and 3 M Electronics (Business Times 2007; Singapore Government 2007). By 2009, following the opening of Sembcorp’s NEWater factory at Changi, the cost of NEWater was 30 cents m−3 vs. 78 cents m−3 for desalinated water from the SingSpring Desalination Plant in Tuas (Straits Times 2009a). It is estimated by PUB that NEWater could be produced with less energy, reducing the production cost by between 1 and 2 cents m−3. From 4 MGD (18 000 m3 per day) in 2003 to 60 MGD (270 000 m3 per day) in 2010, NEWater demand

15.6  ­NEWater: Water Source Looking to the Futur

Kranji Cluster

Seletar Cluster Bedok Cluster

Ulu Pandan Cluster

Jurong Island

Figure 15.2  Availability clusters. Source: PUB, National Water Agency n.d.

increased 15‐fold, with wafer fabrications (e.g. Tech Semiconductor) and petrochemical companies (such as ExxonMobil and Singapore Refining Company) using it (Singapore Government 2010). Tables 15.2–15.5 show the water tariffs for different sources of water, including NEWater. Table 15.6 shows sales of potable water and NEWater from 2001 to 2017. The sales of all types of water sources have increased with time. NEWater is audited twice a year by an external panel of experts in engineering, water chemistry, toxicology, and microbiology (https://www.pub.gov.sg/watersupply/ fournationaltaps/newater). Table 15.2  Water tariff from 1 July 2000 to 31 December 2016. Potable water Tariff category

Consumption block (m3 mo−1)

Tariff (S$ m−3)

Water conservation tax (%)

Total (tariff + tax)

Waterborne fee

Domestic

0–40

1.17

30

1.52

0.28

Domestic

Over 40

1.40

45

2.03

0.28

Non‐ domestic

All units

1.17

30

1.52

0.56

Shipping

All units

1.92

30

2.50

0.56

Source: Government of Singapore (2017).

397

398

15  Integrated Management in Singapore

Table 15.3  NEWater tariff (2001–2016).

Year

Tariff (S$ m−3)

Water conservation tax (%)

Total (tariff + tax)

Waterborne fee

August 2001 (Straits Times 2001d)

1.29– 1.37a

—

1.29–1.37a

No data

2003 (WWAP 2015)

1.35b

—

1.35b

No data

January 2005 (Chong 2010)

1.15

—

1.15

No data

April 2007

1.00

—

1.00

No data

2010–2011 (DOS 2017)

1.10

—

1.10

0.56

2012–2016

1.22

—

1.22

0.56

From 1 July 2017 (PUB 2017d)

1.28

10

1.41

0.78

From 1 July 2018

1.28

10

1.41

a

0.92 −3

 NEWater price was reported as being ‘10–15% cheaper than potable water (S$1.52 m )’.  NEWater price was reported as S$ 1.04 m−3.

b

Table 15.4  Water tariff from 1 July 2017. Potable water Tariff category

Consumption block Tariff (S$ m−3) (m3 mo−1)

Water conservation tax (%)

Total (tariff + tax)

Waterborne fee

Domestic

0–40

1.19

35

1.61

0.78

Domestic

Above 40

1.46

50

2.19

1.02

Non‐ domestic

All units

1.19

35

1.61

0.78

Shipping

All units

1.92

35

2.59

0.78

Source: Modified from PUB (2018b).

Table 15.5  Water tariff from 1 July 2018. Domestic

Non-domestic

(SGD m−3)

0–40 m3

>40 m3

Potable water

NEWater

Potable water for Industrial water shipping

Tariff

1.21

1.52

1.21

1.28

0.66

1.92

Water conservation tax

0.61 (50% of tariff)

0.99 (65% 0.61 (50% of of tariff) tariff)

0.13 (10% of tariff)

—

0.96 (50% of tariff)

Waterborne fee 0.92

1.18

0.92

0.92

0.92

0.92

Total

3.69

2.74

2.33

1.58

3.80

2.74

Source: Modified from PUB (2018b).

400

15  Integrated Management in Singapore

Following are some examples of use of NEWater by non‐electronics industries: ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

Capital Tower received a Water Efficient Building Certification from PUB in 2007 for its use of NEWater for cooling towers and water features constituting 34% of the building’s total water consumption. Estimated water savings were 7500 m3 yr−1 (Eco‐ business 2013). Shell became the largest industrial user of NEWater in 2009, when a NEWater pipeline began supplying water to the Shell Eastern Petrochemical Complex, which has plants on Pulau Bukom and Jurong Islands (Straits Times 2009b). At Changi Airport, NEWater was used for airport fire‐fighting, sanitation, and cooling of air‐conditioning chillers (Eco‐business 2010). Keppel used 2.9 million m3 of NEWater in 2010, 47% more than the 1.97 million m3 used the previous year (Eco‐business 2011). In One George Street, NEWater is used for cooling towers and sprinkler tanks, which account for 55% of the building’s total water consumption. Estimated water saving is 1505 m3 per year (Eco‐business 2015). Suntec City and Raffles City used NEWater for commercial use (e.g. air‐con cooling) (Straits Times 2014b). Five facilities of Pratt and Whitney (an aerospace manufacturer) in Singapore had already adopted NEWater by 2016 (Eco‐business 2010, 2016). Following are the rates of NEWater production (in MGD) from different sources:

●● ●● ●● ●●

●● ●●

Bedok: 7 (Hyflux 2018); Kranji: 22 (PUB 2017b); Kranji + Bedok: 35 (Lee and Tan 2016); Keppel‐Seghers Ulu Pandan Plant: 32 in 2011 (Keppel Seghers 2011), 35 in 2017 (Business Times 2017); Sembcorp Changi Plant: 50 (Sembcorp 2010); BEWG‐UESH Changi Plant: 50 (PUB 2014).

Total annual production is approximately 71 000 MGD. Assuming that 5% of the potable water supply is NEWater added to reservoirs (direct communication, PUB), approximately 25 million m3 is pumped into the reservoirs annually.

15.7 ­Final Thoughts: Public Engagement, Education, and Outreach Strategies to Promote Acceptance To gain public acceptance and trust of NEWater, PUB has implemented long‐term education, communication, and engagement processes. To establish trust and confidence, the National Water Agency believes that it is imperative to provide information on the water source to all potential stakeholders, including political leaders, the media, grass‐roots organisations, business associations, and religious groups. This is done through numerous activities such as exhibitions and roadshows both for students and for the community at large (World Health Organization 2017).

 ­Reference

As part of this engagement strategy, in May 2002, PUB devised a Public Communications Plan to foster public acceptance of NEWater. Information was conveyed regarding the practice of water reclamation internationally, reclaimed water quality standards, and NEWater’s safety for human consumption and cost competitiveness (Lee and Tan 2016; Tan et  al. 2009). A survey by Forbes Research at the end of 2002 established that NEWater had been successfully implemented, with 98% acceptance (Tortajada and Nambiar 2019; World Health Organization 2017). In 2015, another survey found that around 74% of the respondents accepted NEWater (Timm and Deal 2018). Public trust in the government has facilitated the acceptance of NEWater. Politicians publicly drank NEWater. For example, Goh Chok Tong, then prime minister, drank bottled NEWater immediately after a tennis game. Other cabinet ministers and members of parliament have also toasted with NEWater during celebrations on National Day. The public acceptance and support for NEWater, which set the stage for its implementation, were exemplified by a toast to Singapore with NEWater by 60 000 people during the 2002 National Day celebration. Being able to perceive and determine the quality of NEWater by sampling it fostered public trust. As discussed earlier, NEWater supplies up to 40% of Singapore’s water demand. By 2060, this is expected to increase to 55%. The support of Singaporeans is essential to achieve Singapore’s goals of water security and self‐sufficiency with the help of nonconventional sources of water, such as NEWater. For decades, the main goal of Singapore in terms of water resources has been to become water secure. To this end, management of water resources has been integrated with decisions taken at the highest political level. Singapore’s overall development is tightly linked to ‘blue development’: water available in quantity and quality and at affordable prices for the growing number of uses in every sector. The city‐state aims to be water‐secure and self‐sufficient by 2060, when water consumption will be twice today’s level. In this, water reuse (NEWater) will play a key role. An important global city, Singapore will continue improving its economic and social conditions to match both local expectations and global prospects. Trends indicate that it will become more urban, more industrialised, and more competitive, all implying higher water demand. Known for its key policies and innovations, Singapore will have to continue planning within a long‐term framework to become water‐secure and achieve its overall development goals.

­References Business Times (1979). I’ll drink to that! Business Times (12 February), Singapore. Business Times (1993). Ultra‐pure water on tap for industry. Business Times (14 October), Singapore. Business Times (2002). East, North to get NEWater first. Business Times (26 August), Singapore. Business Times (2003). Reservoirs getting NEWater from yesterday. Business Times (22 February), Singapore. Business Times (2006). PUB may offer private sector contracts worth $550m. Business Times (29 August), Singapore.

401

402

15  Integrated Management in Singapore

Business Times (2007). NEWater could be made with 20% less energy. Business Times (19 April), Singapore. Business Times (2017). Keppel Seghers completes capacity upgrade at Ulu Pandan NEWater plant. Business Times (10 April), Singapore. Buurman, J., Tortajada, C., and Biswas, A.K. (2018). Singapore Case Study. Water Scarce Cities: Thriving in a Finite World. Washington, DC: World Bank. Centre for Liveable Cities (2012). Water: From Scarce Resource to National Asset, Singapore Urban Systems Studies Booklet Series. Singapore Ministry of National Development. Chin, K.K. (1996). Pre‐treatment to produce ultrapure water from reclaimed sewage. Desalination 106: 269–272. Chin, K.K., Ong, S.L., and Chin, C.K. (1988). Treatment of sewage for reuse. In: Water Pollution Control in Asia: Proceeding of Second IAWPRC Asian Conference on Water Pollution Control Held in Bangkok, Thailand, 9‐11 November. (eds. C.P. Panswad and K. Yamamoto), 601–604. Chong, T. (2010). Management of Success: Singapore Revisited, 426. Singapore: ISEAS Publishing. Department of Statistics, Singapore (2012). Yearbook of Statistics, 2012. Singapore: Department of Statistics. Retrieved from https://seadelt.net/Asset/Source/Document_ID‐405_No‐01.pdf. Department of Statistics, Singapore (2017). Yearbook of Statistics, 2017. Singapore: Department of Statistics. www.singstat.gov.sg/‐/media/files/publications/reference/yearbook_2017/ yos2017.pdf. Department of Statistics, Singapore (2018a). Population and Population Structure. Singapore: Department of Statistics. [online] Retrieved from www.singstat.gov.sg/find‐data/search‐by‐ theme/population/population‐and‐population‐structure/latest‐data. Department of Statistics, Singapore (2018b). Yearbook of Statistics, 2018. Singapore: Department of Statistics. [online] Retrieved from www.singstat.gov.sg/‐/media/files/ publications/reference/yearbook_2018/yos2018.pdf. Eco‐business (2010). Changi Airport goes green. Eco‐business (10 November). https://www. eco‐business.com/news/changi‐airport‐goes‐green (accessed 7 December 2020). Eco‐business (2011). Keppel releases first sustainability report. Eco‐business (24 June). https:// www.eco‐business.com/news/keppel‐releases‐first‐sustainability‐report (accessed 7 December 2020). Eco‐business (2013). CapitaLand accorded the largest number of Universal Design Mark awards. Eco‐business (17 May). https://www.eco‐business.com/press‐releases/capitaland‐ accorded‐the‐largest‐number‐of‐universal‐design‐mark‐awards (accessed 7 December 2020). Eco‐business (2015). CapitaLand bags most number of BCA Universal Design Mark Platinum. Eco‐business (5 June). https://www.eco‐business.com/press‐releases/capitaland‐bags‐most‐ number‐of‐bca‐universal‐design‐mark‐platinum (accessed 7 December 2020). Eco‐business (2016). Pratt and Whitney’s journey to water sustainability in Singapore. Eco‐business (18 April). https://www.eco‐business.com/opinion/pratt‐whitneys‐journey‐to‐ water‐sustainability‐in‐singapore (accessed 7 December 2020). Goh, K.S. (1984). Self‐sufficiency not the aim. Straits Times (18 March), Singapore. Government of Singapore (2017). Potable Water Tariff. Government of Singapore. https://data. gov.sg/dataset/potable‐water‐tariff.

 ­Reference

Hai, O.H. and De Ryck, L. (2005). Water reuse and Ulu Pandan NEWater Project. IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse, Singapore. Hyflux (2018). Bedok NEWater Plant. Hyflux. https://www.hyflux.com/highlights/ bedok‐newater‐plant. Joshi, K., Tortajada, C., and Biswas, A.K. (2012). Cleaning of the Singapore River and Kallang Basin in Singapore: economic, social and environmental dimensions. International Journal of Water Resources Development 28: 647–658. Keppel Seghers (2011). Water Treatment Plants. Keppel Seghers. http://www.keppelseghers. com/en/content.aspx?sid=3027. Lee, H. and Tan, T.P. (2016). Singapore’s experience with reclaimed water: NEWater. International Journal of Water Resources Development 32: 611–621. Lefebvre, O. (2018). Beyond NEWater: an insight into Singapore’s water reuse prospects. Current Opinion in Environmental Science and Health 2: 26–31. Leong, C. (2015). A quantitative investigation of narratives: recycled drinking water. Water Policy 17: 831–847. Meteorological Service Singapore (2018). Climate of Singapore. Meteorological Service Singapore. www.weather.gov.sg/climate‐climate‐of‐singapore. Ministry of the Environment (1992). The Singapore Green Plan: Towards a Model Green City. Singapore: Ministry of the Environment. Ministry of the Environment (2002). The Singapore Green Plan: Beyond Clean and Green Towards Environmental Sustainability. Singapore: Ministry of the Environment. Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR) (2006). Singapore Green Plan 2012, 2006e. MEWR. www.mewr.gov.sg/docs/default‐source/default‐document‐library/ grab‐our‐research/sgp2012_2006edition_new.pdf. Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR) (2015). Sustainable Singapore Blueprint. MEWR. www.mewr.gov.sg/docs/default‐source/module/ssb‐publications/ 41f1d882‐73f6‐4a4a‐964b‐6c67091a0fe2.pdf. Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR) (2018). Parliament Q&A. MEWR. www.mewr.gov.sg/news/written‐reply‐by‐mr‐masagos‐zulkifli‐‐minister‐ for‐the‐environment‐and‐water‐resources‐‐to‐parliamentary‐question‐on‐water‐ efficiency‐‐6‐august‐2018. Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR) (2019). Our Organisation: History. MEWR. www.mewr.gov.sg/about‐us/our‐organisation/history. Okun, D.A. (1973). Planning for water reuse. American Water Works Association Journal 65: 617–622. Parliament of Singapore (1982). Parliament No: 5, Session No: 1, Volume No: 41, Sitting No: 12, Sitting Date: 18‐03‐1982, Title: Budget, Ministry of the Environment. Parliamentary Debates (1970a). First Session of the Second Parliament, Volume 29, Sitting 7, Singapore, Official Report. Parliamentary Debates (1970b). First Session of the Second Parliament, Volume 29, Sitting 15, Singapore, Official Report. Parliamentary Debates (1971). Second Session of the Second Parliament, Volume 31, Sitting 1, Singapore, Official Report. Parliamentary Debates (1977a). First Session of the Fourth Parliament, Volume 36, Sitting 2, Singapore, Official Report.

403

404

15  Integrated Management in Singapore

Parliamentary Debates (1977b). First Session of the Fourth Parliament, Volume 37, Sitting 1, Singapore, Official Report. Parliamentary Debates (1978). Second Session of the Fourth Parliament, Addenda, Ministry of National Development, Volume 38, Sitting 1, Singapore, Official Report. Parliamentary Debates (1982). First Session of the Fifth Parliament, Volume 41, Sitting 12, Singapore, Official Report. Parliamentary Debates (1984). First Session of the Fifth Parliament, Volume 43, Sitting 5, Singapore, Official Report. Parliamentary Debates (2001a). Second Session of the Ninth Parliament, Volume 72, Sitting 13, Singapore, Official Report. Parliamentary Debates (2001b). Second Session of the Ninth Parliament, Volume 73, Sitting 10, Budget, Ministry of the Environment, Singapore, Official Report. Parliamentary Debates (2002). First Session of the Tenth Parliament, Volume 74, Sitting 16, Budget, Ministry of the Environment, Singapore, Official Report. Parliamentary Debates (2003). First Session of the Tenth Parliament, Volume 76, Sitting 10, Budget, Ministry of the Environment, Singapore, Official Report. Public Utilities (Amendment) Act (2012). 8 March. ‘Public Utilities (Amendment) Bill’, Bills Supplement of the Singapore Gazette, clause 3, 5 and 26. https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Bills‐ Supp/7‐2012 (accessed 7 December 2020). Public Utilities (Amendment) Act (2018). 8 January. ‘Public Utilities (Amendment) Bill’, Bills Supplement of the Singapore Gazette, clause 2, 4, 8 and 9. https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Bills‐ Supp/4‐2018 (accessed 7 December 2020). Public Utilities Act (2001). 23 February. ‘Public Utilities Bill’, Bills Supplement of the Singapore Gazette. https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Bills‐Supp/7‐2001 (accessed 7 December 2020). Public Utilities Board (PUB) (2002). Singapore Water Reclamation Study: Expert Panel Review and Findings. PUB. http://uwatech.com/wp‐content/uploads/2015/11/newater‐study‐ report.pdf. Public Utilities Board (PUB) (2011). Innovation in Water Singapore. PUB. www.pub.gov.sg/ Documents/InnovationWater_vol1.pdf. Public Utilities Board (PUB) (2013). PUB Annual Report 2012/2013: commemorating Fifty Years of Water From the first drop. www.pub.gov.sg/annualreports/annualreport2013.pdf (accessed 7 December 2020). Public Utilities Board (PUB) (2014). BESIN‐UEN Consortium to build second NEWater Plant at Changi. https://www.gov.sg/~/sgpcmedia/media_releases/PUB/press_release/ P‐20140918‐1/attachment/PR20140918_2nd%20Changi%20NEWater%20Plant%20award _press%20release_Sally.pdf (accessed 7 December 2020). Public Utilities Board (PUB) (2016). Our Water, Our Future. PUB. www.pub.gov.sg/Documents/ PUBOurWaterOurFuture.pdf. Public Utilities Board (PUB) (2017a). NEWater Quality (Typical value). www.pub.gov.sg/ Documents/PUB_NEWater_Quality.pdf (accessed 7 December 2020). Public Utilities Board (PUB) (2017b). PUB Annual Report 2016/2017. www.pub.gov.sg/ annualreports/annualreport2017.pdf (accessed 7 December 2020). Public Utilities Board (PUB) (2017c). Factsheet BEWG‐UESH NEWater Plant. PUB. www.pub. gov.sg/sites/assets/PressReleaseDocuments/Fact%20Sheet_5th%20NEWater%20Plant%20 opens_18Jan2017.pdf.

 ­Reference

Public Utilities Board (PUB) (2017d). Annex A – Water Price Revisions. PUB, Retrieved from https://www.pub.gov.sg/sites/assets/PressReleaseDocuments/WPR2017‐AnnexA.pdf. Public Utilities Board (PUB) (2018a). Singapore Water Story. PUB. www.pub.gov.sg/ watersupply/singaporewaterstory. Public Utilities Board (PUB) (2018b). Water Price. PUB. www.pub.gov.sg/watersupply/ waterprice. Public Utilities Board (PUB) (2019). Industrial Water Works. PUB. www.pub.gov.sg/usedwater/ treatment/industrialwaterworks. Public Utilities Board (PUB) (n.d.). Water Efficient Building Design Guidebook. Singapore: PUB. www.pub.gov.sg/Documents/WEB_Design.pdf. Seah, H., Poon, J., Leslie, G., and Law, I.B. (2003). Singapore’s NEWater demonstration project: another milestone in indirect potable reuse. Water 30: 74–77. Sembcorp (2010). Opening of Singapore’s Fifth and Largest NEWater Plant, the Sembcorp NEWater Plant. Sembcorp. http://www.sembcorp.com/en/media/media‐releases/ utilities/2010/may/opening‐of‐singapores‐fifth‐and‐largest‐newater‐plant‐the‐ sembcorp‐newater‐plant. Sewerage and Drainage Act (2001). Sewerage and Drainage Act (Chapter 294). https://sso.agc. gov.sg/Act/SDA1999 (accessed 7 December 2020). Singapore Government (2003). Speech by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong at the Official Launch of NEWater [Press release], 21 February 2003. Media Relations Division, Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts. Singapore Government (2007). Speech by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong at the Official Opening of Keppel Seghers Ulu Pandan NEWater Plant [Press release], 15 March 2007. Media Relations Division, Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts. Singapore Government (2010). Speech by Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong at the Official Opening of Sembcorp’s NEWater Plant [Press release], 3 May 2010. Media Relations Division, Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts. Straits Times (1971). Water solution in 10 years. Straits Times (21 November), Singapore. Straits Times (1975). Drinking water, a second time round. Straits Times (10 January), Singapore. Straits Times (1987). Plan to extend use of recycled water in factories. Straits Times (11 December), Singapore. Straits Times (1999). Cheaper water for Jurong island. Straits Times (3 September), Singapore. Straits Times (2001a). In the pipeline: more recycled water plants. Straits Times (21 January), Singapore. Straits Times (2001b). Wafer‐fab plants to get recycled water. Straits Times (17 July), Singapore. Straits Times (2001c). Wafer‐fab plants opt for recycled water. Straits Times (31 August), Singapore. Straits Times (2001d). Wafer‐fab plants opt for recycled water. Straits Times (31 August), Singapore. Straits Times (2002). NEWater idea more than 25 years old. Straits Times (6 September), Singapore. Straits Times (2009a). Reusing water cheaper than desalination. Straits Times (25 June), Singapore. Straits Times (2009b). Shell complex to use NEWater. Straits Times (26 May), Singapore.

405

406

15  Integrated Management in Singapore

Straits Times (2014a). First recycling plant for industrial used water opens. Straits Times (8 March), Singapore. Straits Times (2014b). Measures to save water in commercial use. Straits Times (13 March), Singapore. Tan, T.P. and Rawat, S. (2018). NEWater in Singapore. http://www.globalwaterforum. org/2018/01/15/newater‐in‐singapore (accessed 7 December 2020). Tan, Y.S., Lee, T.J., and Tan, K. (2009). Clean, Green and Blue: Singapore’s Journey Towards Environmental and Water Sustainability. Singapore: ISEAS Publishing. Timm, S.N. and Deal, B.M. (2018). Understanding the behavioural influences behind Singapore’s water management strategies. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 61: 1654–1673. Tortajada, C. and Nambiar, S. (2019). Communications on technological innovations: potable water reuse. Water 11: 251. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11020251. Tortajada, C. and Pobre, K. (2011). Singapore and Malaysia water relationship: an analysis of the media perspectives. Hydrological Sciences Journal 56: 597–614. Tortajada, C. and Wong, C. (2018). Quest for water security in Singapore. In: Global Water Security: Lessons Learnt and Long‐Term Implications (ed. World Water Council), 85–115. Springer. ISBN: 978‐981‐10‐7912‐2. Tortajada, C., Joshi, Y., and Biswas, A.K. (2013). The Singapore Water Story: Sustainable Development in an Urban City State. Oxfordshire: Routledge. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2012). Guidelines for Water Reuse. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency. https://www3.epa.gov/region1/npdes/ merrimackstation/pdfs/ar/AR‐1530.pdf. United Nations World Water Assessment Programme (WWAP) (2015). Facing the Challenges, Case Studies and Indicators, UNESCO: Paris, 26. World Health Organization (2017). Potable Reuse: Guidance for Producing Safe Drinking‐Water. Geneva: World Health Organization. Yap, K.G. (1986). Physical improvement works to the Singapore River and the Kallang Basin. Paper Presented at COBSEA Workshop on Cleaning–Up of Urban River (14–16 January 1986). Singapore (Ministry of the Environment of Singapore and United Nations Environment Programme).

Source: M. Ma, China Institute of Water Resources, China.

409

16 Flood and Drought Emergency Management Miaomiao Ma and Song Han Research Center on Flood and Drought Disaster Reduction, China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research, Beijing, China

This chapter documents and assesses the lessons learned from the management responses associated with case studies on a flood event, the Huai River in 2007, and a drought event, in south-west China in 2010 (Figure 16.1).

16.1  ­Severe Flooding on the Huai River in 2007 16.1.1  Introduction The Huai River basin is located in the east of China, between the Yangtze River and the Yellow River, which covers an area of 270 000 km2 and crosses the provinces of Henan, Anhui, Jiangsu, Shandong, and Hubei (Figure 16.1). In this river basin, there are a population of 165 million and a cultivated land of 12 million ha, accounting for 60% of the area of the Huang–Huai-hai Plain. In July 2007, this basin had the second largest regional flood since 1954. Facing the severe flooding situation, under the unified command of the State Flood Control and Drought Relief Headquarters, the Huai River Flood Control Headquarters coordinated their provincial counterparts, adhered to the people-oriented principle, implemented effective flood management, and achieved effective results. The practical experience of flood prevention on the Huai River in 2007 is helpful to promote improved flood management of the Huai River in the future.

16.1.2  Background Hydrological Situation The heavy rain in plum season is a common type in the Huai River basin. In 2007, the plum rain lasted for 37 days, 14 days more than usual in this basin (Figure  16.2). In these days, six large-scale rainfall events occurred on the Huai River and the average rainfall totalled 465 mm. In terms of the magnitude of rainfall, the middle and lower

Handbook of Catchment Management, Second Edition. Edited by Robert C. Ferrier and Alan Jenkins. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

410

16  Flood and Drought Emergency Management N W

E S

Huai River Basin Sichuan Chongqing Guizhou Yunnan 0

90 180

360

540

Guangxi

720 Kilometers

Figure 16.1  Location map of flood and drought study areas: Huai River and south-western region of China.

reaches of the Huainan mountain area, Hongru River, the middle reaches along the Huai River, the surrounding of Hongze Lake and its northern branch flow, exceeded 500 mm, and the upper, middle, and lower reaches along the Huai River all had rainfall of over 600 mm. Precipitation totalled 919 mm in the Shegangdian station at the upstream of Shishankou reservoir. From the perspective of rainfall coverage, the rain area of 100, 200, 300, and over 400 mm totals covered areas of 190 000, 184 000, 151 000, and 124 000 km2, respectively, accounting for 100%, 97%, 79%, and 65% of the area of the Huai River water system. Because of the rainfall, the Huai River mainstream had multiple flood peaks. There were four flood peaks above Wangjiaba, three between Wangjiaba and Linhuaigang, two between Linhuaigang and Huainan, and one in the lower reaches of Huainan (Figure 16.3). The flood situation of the Huai River generally presents the characteristics of high flood flows, sharp rise in water level, high water level, long duration of high water level, and large flood volume in the middle reaches of the mainstream (Cheng and Li 2010). The water level of the Huai River was more than the warning water level for a total of 20–30 days. Among them, the water level between Wangjiaba and Runheji reach exceeded the safety level, and the water level between Runheji and Wangji reached a record high

16.1  ­Severe Flooding on the Huai River in 200 25 50 25 50

Jining 50

Heze 50

Zhengzhou

Linyi

100

Zaozhuang

Kaifeng

Lianyungang Shangqiu

Xuzhou

100

Huaibei

Xuchang Pingdingshan

Suxian Wuyang 200 Zhumadian

400 500 700

200

Huaiyin

Zhoukou

Yancheng

400 500

300

400

Bengbu Furyang

Huainan

300

300 300

300

Wangjiaba

Xinyang 400

Yangzhou 300

Liujiafan 200 300

200

Figure 16.2  Rainfall contour line of Huai River basin from 29 June to 9 July in 2007.

(Figure 16.3). According to the preliminary analysis, the flood return period of the Huai River floods in 2007 was 15–20 years in Wangjiaba, Runheji, Zhengyangguan, and Bengbu, and about 25 years in Hongze Lake, and was the second largest regional flood since the twentieth century. In 2007, there were serious flood disasters in Henan, Anhui, and Jiangsu Provinces, which greatly affected agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry, fishery production, industrial transportation, and water conservancy engineering facilities. There were 113 counties and cities, and 1634 villages and towns that suffered flood disasters on both sides of the Huai River, with a total of 25.56 million people affected. And 117 600 houses collapsed, 2.49 million ha of crops area were affected, and 1.58 million ha of crop area was inundated. The direct economic loss was 15.5 billion RMB. However, the flood could have had more serious consequences; failure of important embankments did not occur; large and mediumsized reservoirs were all in generally good operation; and, the people in the flood storage areas transferred to safety areas without any casualties. Direct economic losses were 54.3% and 45.7% lower than for floods in 1991 and 2003.

411

412

16  Flood and Drought Emergency Management

Figure 16.3  Water level chart of main control stations of Huai River mainstream in 2007.

16.1.3  Challenges The characteristics of rainfall in the Huai River basin in 2007 were; 1) The long duration of rainfall: During the 27 days from 29 June to 25 July, there were four periods of large-scale, heavy rainfall in the basin. In 20 days, large-scale heavy rainfall occurred, among which the continuous rainfall reached 11 days; 2) The intensity of the storm: There were 20 days of rainstorms with daily rainfall more than 50 mm and 41 stations with accumulated rainfall more than 600 mm; 3) The rainfall totals: The rainstorm centre delivered 919 mm of rainfall in Luoshan County, Henan Province, and 367 mm rainfall in Linquan County, Anhui Province, during the period 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. on 8 July; 4) The wide scope of the storm: The maximum rainfall of 200, 300, 400, and 500 mm in 30 days covered 184 000, 150 800, 124 400, and 55 600 km2, respectively, accounting for 97%, 79%, 66%, and 29%, respectively, of the total area of the Huai River water system; 5) Rainfall axis following the same direction as the river: The rainfall was mainly concentrated in the Huai River system, and the rainfall axis was in the east-west direction, which was consistent with the mainstream channel and concentrated on both sides of the mainstream. Rainfall totals in excess of over 400 mm were mainly concentrated near the mainstream, and totals over 500 mm were highly concentrated along the mainstream. The characteristics of the flood in the Huai River basin (Wang and Zhang 2007; Qiu 2007), include; 1) The main and tributary floods occurred simultaneously: The Huai River mainstream and more than 10 tributaries, such as Zhugan River, Hongru River, Hongze Lake, and Lixia River, all exceeded warning or guaranteed water levels;

16.1  ­Severe Flooding on the Huai River in 200

2) The combination of flood encountered: The moving path of the rainstorm was consistent with the flood trend. The upper reaches of Huaigan River encountered its tributaries (Huainan River and Hongru River) with a high level and a large volume. This caused the water level of the mainstream in the middle reaches of Huai River to exceed the warning level for a month; 3) Obvious backwater effect in the middle reach: The water level of Runheji hydrologic station was extremely high, once exceeding the historical high water level, and exceeded the warning water level for 29 days, which had a significant backwater effect on the upstream Wangjiaba, increasing water level by about 0.2 m; 4) The water level was high and flood volume was large: The highest water level of Wangjiaba and Runheji on the mainstream was listed in the second and first place of the historical record, respectively, and the maximum flow was listed in the fifth and fourth place of the historical record, respectively.

16.1.4  Current Approach to Meeting the Challenges At the critical moment of flood control and flood fighting, the premier and vice premier of the State Council went to the flooding area, consoled the soldiers and the people, inspected the disaster situation, held a symposium, and made comprehensive arrangements for flood fighting and disaster relief. Henan, Anhui, and Jiangsu provincial government went to the frontline to command the rescue operations. The government leaders at all levels along the Huai River promptly took up their posts in accordance with the flood control responsibility system, performed their duties, and did a lot of work in the process of organising the transfer and resettlement of affected people. The governments and departments at all levels had always given top priority to ensuring the safety of people’s lives in flood control, organised the orderly transfer of people threatened by floods, and spared no effort to rescue people surrounded by floods. The State Flood Control and Drought Relief Headquarters, the Huai River Headquarters, and the provincial headquarters repeatedly consulted with each other and made prudent decisions in deciding to use flood storage and storage areas and flood diversion. Taking the Huaihongxin River as an example, at that time, the levees below Bengbu were in danger, the soldiers were exhausted, and more than 110 000 displaced people were homeless. In this case, the Huai River Headquarters carried out the reasonable use of the Huaihongxin River, which enabled the people to return to their homes two to four days in advance. According to the flood prevention law, Anhui and Jiangsu provinces had declared an emergency flood control period, and leaders at all levels and all walks of life were fully engaged in flood control and relief work. The flood control departments of all provinces worked closely together and conscientiously implemented the flood control schemes and flood control pre-plans. The departments of water conservancy, meteorology, civil affairs, public health, public security, and transportation worked closely together to ensure that all flood control work was carried out in accordance with the law. The interim measures on the compensation for using flood storage and detention areas were effective, and its implementation had made the use of flood storage areas safe and timely. Meteorological and hydrological departments at all levels closely monitored the rain and water conditions and produced timely predictions and forecasts, providing an excellent

413

414

16  Flood and Drought Emergency Management

scientific basis for flood control. At 8 p.m. on 9 July 2007, in the key moment of putting to use the Mengwa flood diversion, the Department of Hydrology forecasted the highest safety stage of Wangjiaba more than two days in advance and the peak stage, one day in advance, to be 29.6 m, which provided a reliable technical support for timely use of the Mengwa flood diversion. This provided a lot of time for people to evacuate. In 2007, a number of other measures were adopted to control the flood such as retention, discharge, detention, and diversion. There were 18 large reservoirs in the river upstream, capable of retaining 2.1 billion cubic metres of flood water and effectively reducing the middle and downstream pressure on flood defences. There were 10 flood storage areas, such as Mengwa, to be put into use. The total volume of flood storage was 1.5 billion cubic metres and the flood peak stage of Zhengyangguan was reduced by 0.45 m. The duration of flood warning water level exceedance from Runheji River to Zhengyangguan River was shortened from 7 to 10 days. The maximum discharge of Hongze Lake was 11 400 m3 s−1, and its maximum level was 13.87 m. The opening of the water channel into the sea made the water level of Hongze Lake decrease by 0.4 m, effectively relieving the flood control pressure of the middle reaches of the river and Hongze Lake itself. The decision to use, or not to use, the Mengwa flood storage area was very important to the flood control of the Huai River, which is directly related to the flooding impacts and losses. At 10 p.m. on 10 July 2007, the water level in Wangjiaba was nearly 29.30 m and the Department of Hydrology predicted that there would be a peak level of about 29.60 m. At this time, if the Mengwa flood storage area was not used to cut the peak and reduce the volume, and so the best flood storage time would likely be missed and the flood would have a greater impact on the important flood control projects of the Huai River. However, if the Mengwa flood storage area was used, this would lead to more than 3000 people being transferred from the area, 12 km2 farmland being submerged, and part of the infrastructure being possibly damaged. On 10 July, based on the careful analysis of the Huai River flood situation, the order was issued to use the Mengwa flood storage area to ensure the overall security of the Huai River. After the flood, the relevant departments, in accordance with the regulations of the interim measures on the compensation for using flood storage and detention areas, promptly carried out the work of loss registration, verification, and distribution of compensation funds. In 2007, 675 000 people were seriously affected and 465 million RMB in compensation funds were distributed, which not only ensured the smooth implementation of flood storage but also protected the interests of the people.

16.1.5  Lessons Learned 16.1.5.1  Leave the Flood More Space

The flood storage area of the Huai River basin is an important part of the flood control system of the Huai River. In 2007, a total of 10 flood storage areas were put into use, with a total flood diversion of 1.58 billion cubic metres. The discharge of the river is increased by 200–1300 m3 s−1. In 2007, the main outside channel discharged 3.4 billion cubic metres into the sea in 23 days, and the Huaihongxin River discharged 230 million cubic metres in four days. After the flood, the Huai River Commission carried out the adjustment and planning of flood storage areas. After repeated assessments, 17 flood storage areas of the mainstream

16.1  ­Severe Flooding on the Huai River in 200

of the Huai River were decided to be abandoned, withdrawn, and merged. The implementation of these measures further alleviated the contradiction between man and water and promoted the harmony between man and nature. 16.1.5.2  Optimise Flood Control Regulations

After the floods of 2007, the experience and lessons were seriously considered in the Huai River basin leading to the completion of a series of flood control regulations and planning decisions. This included the further planning of the Huai River, the Huai River basin flood control planning, the main stream of Huai River floodplains adjustment planning, the immigration movement and implementation planning, the planning of construction and management of the Huai River flood storage and detention areas, and provincial keysensitive areas for water conservancy planning. After the investigation of the problems of flood disaster and flood storage areas, the countermeasures to the major problems in the Huai River were the subject of in-depth research and the comprehensive evaluation of 19 key projects in the Huai River basin. This provided the scientific basis for further control of the Huai River through reasonable construction of flood control projects and effective flood management. 16.1.5.3  Moderating Flood Risks

Reservoirs play an obvious role in flood control and disaster reduction, but they bear great risks from the difficulty around accurate meteorological forecasts, difficulty in balancing the interests and losses, and the need for coordination of inter-provincial conflicts. In 2007, the highest water level of Suyahu reservoir in the upper reaches of Henan Province reached 54.76 m, 2.26 m higher than the restricted level in the flood season. On the premise of ensuring the safety of downstream areas, it intercepted 500 million cubic metres of flood water for the lower reaches of Anhui and other provinces. For this reason, people in the reservoir area made a lot of sacrifices. The flood storage area reduced the flooded area by 52 700 ha, only 57% of that in 1991. There were no casualties in the flood storage area, but it added great difficulty and pressure to flood control of the basin.

16.1.6  Future Work It is necessary to seek harmony between human losses and flood protection based on the basic national conditions. Because of the large population and scarce land resources, China must use more land with flood risk and return some lands temporarily for storing floodwater in the case of extreme floods. ‘Set the overflow weir along the dyke for naturally overtopping flood’ is recommended as a governance mode to promote human–floodwater harmony. Such a mode can reduce the huge pressure of flood fighting, avoid the devastating disasters of dike breach, and speed up the recovery activities. Implementation of such a mode needs integrated measures of legislation, administration, education, economic compensation, and technical support. Innovation in the institutional mechanism and capacity building must be given high importance in the development of the flood management system. Faced with an increasingly complex flood control situation and improving security requirements in China’s rapid development phase, we can neither blindly follow the traditional successful experience nor

415

416

16  Flood and Drought Emergency Management

simply copy the advanced practices of other countries. For instance, the planning and construction of flood control system by taking the watershed as the control unit have yet to be established for small- and medium-sized rivers across multiple administrative areas. Furthermore, taking flood insurance as a means of flood risk sharing and management in the areas protected by dikes needs more attention and urgent research work. Enhancing flood risk management and emergency response capacities for the Huai River basin has still a long way to go.

16.2  ­Severe Drought in South-west Region of China in 2010 16.2.1  Introduction and Background An extra-seasonal, extreme drought occurred in the south-west region of China, covering five provinces in 2010. It exhibited characteristics of long duration, high intensity, wide scope, and heavy loss, causing huge impacts on people’s life and on regional socialeconomic development (RCFDDR 2010). The south-west region of China is located in the upper reaches of the Yangtze River and Pearl River, including Yunnan, Guizhou, Guangxi, Chongqing, and Sichuan provinces (autonomous regions and municipalities) (Figure  16.1). The terrain and landscape are complex and diverse, dominated by mountains and hills. Guizhou and Yunnan provinces are well known as ‘80% for mountains, 10% for water, and 10% for arable land’. The region has a subtropical humid and semi-humid monsoon climate, where annual average precipitation is 1000–1600 mm. The rainfall is unevenly distributed in time and space, with more rain in summer and autumn, and more rain in the east part than the west. Water resources are relatively plentiful but with large annual variation. The water resource development and utilisation levels are low with few water conservancy projects. This region has a total population of 255 million, arable lands of 19 million ha, and effective irrigation areas covering 7.1 million ha, accounting for 37% of arable lands. There are 70 large reservoirs, 614 medium-sized reservoirs, 21 283 small reservoirs, and 738 000 ponds. In recent decades, floods and droughts have occurred frequently in this region and seasonal drought was prominent. This extreme drought event lasted almost one year from the autumn of 2009 to summer 2010. During the autumn of 2009 to March 2010, precipitation was 50% less compared with the same periods of previous years in the severe drought area of this region, and some areas reached 70% less, possibly breaking their historical extreme records. The accumulated precipitation of seven months in Kunming, Chuxiong, Qujing, Zhaotong, and Honghe of Yunnan Province was less than 100 mm. There was no effective rainfall for 235 days in the south-west of Guizhou Province, and the Panxi area of Sichuan Province had more than 160 consecutive days without rain. On the whole, most of the drought-affected areas in the five provinces (autonomous regions and municipalities) had been suffering from drought for more than half a year. The rainfall and river discharge incoming to the south-west region of China continued to be less than normal level after the autumn of 2009. The drought conditions spread quickly

16.2  ­Severe Drought in South-west Region of China in 201

from the north central part to the whole of Yunnan Province during October and November. The drought in Guizhou and Guangxi began to appear in December and then the drought situation in the south-west region became more serious and further developed in February 2010. In early April, the drought in the south-west region reached a peak and the situation in most of Yunnan, western and southern Guizhou and northwestern Guangxi reached an extreme drought level. The drought-affected area of arable land in five provinces (autonomous regions and municipalities) was 6.7 million ha, accounting for 84% of national drought-affected arable area. There were 20.88 million people and 13.68 million large livestock having difficulties with the reduced supply of drinking water, accounting for 80% and 74% of national total quantities, respectively. As the south-west region gradually entered the rainy season after May, the precipitation increased significantly; hence, the drought situation for most parts of the south-west region of China was relieved, leaving the north central and eastern part of Yunnan Province remaining in a prolonged drought. Agriculture was significantly influenced by this extreme drought event. According to government statistics, there are 3.5 million ha grain crops in the region whose yields reduced by up to 10%, while there were 1.2 million ha grain crops whose yields reduced to equal or more than 80% caused by the drought, accounting for 34.6% of the total droughtaffected area. The grain loss totalled 3.5 million tons, resulting in a food shortage for 12.97 million people. There are 2.8 million ha economic crops whose yields reduced equal or more than 10%, while 0.4 million ha economic crops whose yields reduced equal or more than 80%, accounting for 13.9% of the total drought-affected area. The total loss of economic crops is about US$2.7  billion (Table  16.1). The agricultural loss of Yunnan and Guizhou provinces were the most severe, and winter wheat, rapeseed, and sugar cane were the most affected crops. The drought caused serious water scarcity in both the urban and rural areas. At the peak of the drought in early April, the number of people suffering from drinking water difficulties in the south-west region of China reached 20.88 million, and drinking water for 14.22 million people had to be provided by manual water delivery. The water supply systems in 112 cities or counties were greatly affected, and the drinking water difficulties Table 16.1  Statistics of agricultural drought disaster situation. Drought-affected area with yields reducing equal or more than 10% (103 ha)

Drought-affected area with yields reducing equal or more than 80% (103 ha)

Province/ autonomous regions

Grain crops Economic crops Grain crops

Yunnan

2173.3

989.3

1004.7

Economic crops

Grain crops yield reduction (103 tons)

Economic crops loss (million dollars)

206.7

2280

1371.4

Guizhou

784

848.7

180.7

161.3

660

1000

Guangxi

244.7

835.3

9.3

20

60

228.6

Sichuan

201.3

69.3

8.7

3.3

390

71.4

Chongqing

82.7

100.7

2.7

3.3

110

42.9

Total

3486

2844

1206.7

394.7

3500

2714.3

417

16  Flood and Drought Emergency Management 1200

Number of people with difficulty in drinking water/104

418

1000

965 830

800

695 612

600

540

457 400

329 289 216

191

200

135 60

0

Yunnan

Guizhou

Guangxi

Sichuan

172 97 82 Chongqing

Figure 16.4  Comparisons of people having difficulties in drinking water. Where the black bar shows the quantities at the drought peak time of 2010, the dark grey bar shows the quantities in the same period of the normal year, and the light grey bar shows the quantities in historical spring extreme drought.

lasted for four to six months. The population of Yunnan Province was 9.65 million having difficulties with drinking water supply at the peak time of the drought, accounting for 21% of the total population in Yunnan Province, which is 2.1 times the number in the same period of a normal year (457 million) and 1.35 million more than that of the extreme spring drought in 2005. Guizhou Province had 6.95 million population in drinking water difficulties, accounting for 18% of the total population of Guizhou Province, which is 2.6 times more than that of the same period of a normal year (1.91 million), and 0.83 million more than that of the spring extreme drought in 1990. The population having difficulties with drinking water supply in Guangxi, Sichuan, and Chongqing were more than those in normal years, but it is less than those in historical spring extreme droughts (Figure 16.4).

16.2.2  Challenges This extreme drought event had very wide coverage and caused huge impacts on agriculture, urban water supply, ecology, and economy. The affected area included 92 cities and covered 6.7 million ha of arable land at the peak time of drought, accounting for 84% of national drought-affected area. Fifteen cities in Yunnan Province were affected by severe and extreme drought, which is the most severe drought since 1949 when the People’s Republic of China was established. There are 85 counties (cities and districts) in Guizhou Province affected by different degrees of drought, accounting for 97% of the total number of counties in the province. The extreme drought caused a total direct economic loss of US$11 billion in the southwest region of China. The direct economic loss of agriculture and industry is US$4.8 and US$40 billion, respectively, while the direct economic loss of forestry and transportation is

16.2  ­Severe Drought in South-west Region of China in 201

US$1 and US$0.3 billion, respectively. The hydropower generation reduction decreased to 18.7 billion kWh with a direct economic loss of US$0.7 billion. Considering the distribution of different provinces, the direct economic losses of Yunnan Province and Guizhou Province were US$6.8 and US$2 billion, respectively, which is consistent with an extreme drought level according to classification of regional drought severity. The direct economic loss of Guangxi Autonomous Region was US$1.5 billion and equates to a severe drought level. The direct economic loss in Sichuan and Chongqing were US$0.34 and US$0.3 billion, respectively, and reached to a moderate drought level. Tourism in the south-west region of China was greatly affected due to this continuous severe drought. The Huangguoshu Waterfall in Guizhou Province was reduced to the lowest water level in history and almost dried up during this time. The origin of the Pearl River, which is the third longest river of China, was cut off due to this severe drought event. The direct economic loss of tourism in Yunnan Province was US$42.8 million. This extreme drought led to a decline of river water levels and the changes of navigation channels, bringing unexpected pressure and safety hazards to water transportation. The channel of the Wujiang section in Guizhou Province was lower than the designed water level by nearly 1 m, and the tonnage of the passable ship was reduced from 300 to 30 tons. The direct economic loss of transportation in the south-west region was nearly US$257 million. The severe drought, accompanied with high temperature, resulted in an increase in forest fire risk. There were 2527 forest fires in Guizhou Province, and the area of over-fired forests was 900 ha. The disaster area in Yunnan Province totalled 3.8 million ha. Meanwhile, the continuous drought led to the reduction of water resources in the nature reserve, swamp drying, shrinking of wetland area, damage to forest vegetation and to the ecological environment. Due to the low rainfall, the natural river network had very low water level and reduced water stored in the reservoirs. The inflow of the main rivers in this region were 30–80% less than normal level from March 2009 to March 2010. The amount of inflow water from Jinsha River, Nanpanjiang River, Honghe River, and Minjiang River in Yunnan Province reached their lowest historic records. The average inflow of rivers in Yunnan Province was 42% less than that in normal years, and 744 small rivers nearly dried up. The Wujiang River, Qingshui River, Wuyang River, Nanpan River, and Chishui River in Guizhou Province were 30–50% less than normal levels, and 3600 brooks nearly dried up. As the drought developed, the storage of water conservancy projects was dramatically reduced. At the peak of the drought in early April, the water storage projects in the southwest region were 20% less than that in the same period of the previous year. Most small reservoirs and ponds were waterless and faced serious water scarcity. The effective storage capacity of Kutang in Yunnan Province was 1.7 billion cubic metres less than that in the same period of the previous year and 36.1% less than for a normal year (Figure 16.5). There were 524 small reservoirs and 7380 ponds in Yunnan Province that had dried up in this period, while 212 small reservoirs and 1568 ponds in Guizhou Province were below the dead water level. This severe drought led to millions of people and livestock having difficulties in accessing drinking water. A population of 20.88 million suffered with drinking water difficulties in the south-west region of China at the peak time of the drought. Most of these people lived in the mountainous and semi-mountainous areas, and their residences are relatively

419

16  Flood and Drought Emergency Management 80 70 Effective water storage/108 m3

420

60

53

50

52

47

55

42

40 30

30

27

30

20 10

10 0

Yunnan

Guizhou

Guangxi

Sichuan

11

Chongqing

Figure 16.5  Water storage capacity statistics of hydrological projects in south-west region of China at the peak of drought. Where the black bar shows effective water storage at the peak time of 2010 and the grey bar shows effective water storage in the same period of last year.

scattered. So, they need to pull water for several kilometres, and the cost of pulling water became higher and higher as water resources decreased in the drought periods. Thus, local government adopted several measures to relieve the drinking water difficulties, such as emergency water transfer from adjacent reservoirs and drilling deep wells; however, the drinking water was still tight and water scarcity still existed.

16.2.3  Current Approach to Meeting the Challenges The Leading Group for the Drought-Relief campaign, led by the Executive Leader, was established when the severe drought occurred. The Guangxi Autonomous Region established the leading group for drought relief with 11 working groups (teams), and the executive heads served as the team leaders. Guizhou Province established a comprehensive emergency command leading group with the Deputy Governor as the leader of the team, which was fully responsible for drought relief and disaster reduction. Yunnan Province also established a drought and disaster relief coordination leading group to organise and coordinate the relevant state work teams, the relevant departments of the brother provinces and municipalities, as well as the People’s Liberation Army. The police, firefighting, and other voluntary organisations also devoted time to drought relief. According to the evolving drought situation, the State Flood Control and Drought Relief Headquarters launched a level-III emergency response on 5 February 2010 and raised the emergency response to level-II on 24 February. In order to urge the local authorities to do a good job in drought relief, the State Flood Control and Drought Relief Headquarters and Ministry of Water Resources sent 38 working groups and expert teams to supervise the drought-relief work into the severe drought areas. Yunnan provincial government launched a drought-relief level-II emergency response, and 11 of 16 cities in the province started the level-I (highest) emergency response and two

16.2  ­Severe Drought in South-west Region of China in 201

of them started the level-II response. More than 200 working groups were organised to participate in the drought-relief actions in the disaster area. Guizhou Province launched the level-I emergency response of natural disasters in the province and simultaneously launched the level-I emergency response to drought, disaster reduction, forest fire prevention, and meteorological disasters. Guangxi launched the drought-relief level-II emergency response. The government of Guangxi Autonomous Region organised 100 000 working team members to go deep into the drought-relief frontline, taking some measures such as covering rural areas, entering villages, and going to shelters to help the affected people solve practical difficulties and problems. Chongqing City also launched a drought-relief level-II emergency response. Panzhihua and Liangshan, two cities in Sichuan Province with severe drought, launched drought-relief level-II and level-III emergency response, respectively. The Pearl River and Yangtze River Flood Control and Drought Relief Headquarters also launched drought-relief level-II and level-III emergency response, respectively. The State Flood Control and Drought Relief Headquarters issued a special notice requesting all levels of flood control and drought-relief headquarters and departments of water conservancy to scientifically and reasonably dispatch large- and medium-sized reservoirs and hydropower stations according to the needs of drought prevention and to utilise water conservancy and hydropower key projects to provide water source protection for drought relief. The requirement was to find out the current situation of drought-resistant water sources, reverse the drinking water supply plan before the rainy season, formulate and improve the drinking water solution plan, and give priority to ensuring the living water needs of urban and rural residents and people in the drought-affected areas. Other measures that were necessary to be taken included: strengthen guidance on the classification of drinking water as a solution to difficulties; give full play to the key role of water conservancy facilities in drought-resistant areas; and strengthen the construction of emergency water supply projects to provide more sources of water for drought relief. The basic water supply for the people in the drought-affected areas was ensured through reservoir water supply, emergency water transfer, well water intake, and groundwater pumping. According to statistics, the five provinces (autonomous regions and municipalities) in the south-west region of China had adopted various measures to resolve the drinking water difficulties for 20.88 million people at the peak of drought, including 3.43 million people by the reservoir water supply security and 2.26 million people through emergency water transfer. In total, 0.97 million people and 5.12 million people were protected by temporary groundwater pumping and pulling water, respectively. Since the onset of the drought, a total of 24 000 new drought-resistant water source wells, 678 emergency water diversion projects, and 77 500 small water conservancy projects had been built in south-west region of China. These projects had solved a total of 8.23 million people’s drinking water difficulties during this severe drought. Governments at various levels (i.e. central, provincial, municipal, and county level) had increased the financial support for drought relief. The State Flood Control and Drought Relief Headquarters, the Ministry of Water Resources, the Ministry of Commerce, National Development and Reform Commission, the Ministry of Finance, and other departments had issued US$0.9 billion in construction funds for rural drinking water safety, irrigation

421

422

16  Flood and Drought Emergency Management

district renovation, weak reservoir reinforcement, and farmland water conservancy. The Ministry of Commerce and the Ministry of Finance had arranged US$40 million for extreme drought-relief allowance and US$143 million for comprehensive drought-relief funds to south-west region of China. Besides, Yunnan and Guangxi provinces received about US$123 million in donations, which played an important role in the drought-relief work. Although the US$183 million financial support have been assigned to the local government, it was still not enough to compensate the drought loss; thus, the provincial and local government also needed to raise counterpart funds in various ways. These funds were mainly used for emergency well drilling, water transfer cost, employing temporal workers, purchase of emergency drought-relief materials, etc. According to government statistics, the south-west region of China had invested a total of US$0.65 billion during the droughtrelief period. The State Flood Control and Drought Relief Headquarters organised and coordinated 10 provinces and municipal water conservancy departments in Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Anhui, Fujian, Shandong, Hubei, Guangdong, and 7 major river basins institutions, China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research, Nanjing Hydraulic Research Institute and Hohai University, to provide counterpart assistance and support to Yunnan, Guizhou, and Guangxi. Ten provinces and municipalities had mobilised 96 water trucks, 1410 pumps, 194 sets of engines, 0.2 million pieces of water purification chemicals, 14 800 m of hoses, and US$1 million of droughtresistant equipment purchase funds to support the drought-affected areas. A total of 136 experts and technicians of drought prevention and water supply in 7 large basins and 3 institutes were dispatched and more than 40 sets of drilling rigs and equipment for detecting water were sent to the drought-affected areas. Nearly, 300 water heads were surveyed and 118 water sources were found and utilised. Yellow River Conservancy Commission, Pearl River Water Resources Commission, and China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research drilled 10 places and found 8 water outlets, which solved the drinking water difficulties for 30 000 people. This response greatly alleviated the drinking water difficulty and ensured the drinking water supply in the extreme drought event. The central government and the relevant departments under the State Council claim that all the relative departments should work together to fight with this severe drought disaster. The National Development and Reform Commission issued annual investment orders for rural drinking water safety projects and large- and medium-sized reservoir reinforcement projects in advance, to ensure the supply of drought-resistant coals, electricity, and oils. The Ministry of Finance paid close attention to the drought situation and arranged to allocate US$263 million of relevant funds to support the drought relief in the south-west region of China and sent staff to participate in the work group to investigate the drought-relief situation. The Ministry of Civil Affairs promptly launched an emergency response and allocated a total of US$23 million from the central drought-relief funds in four batches, increasing the support for winter and spring drought relief, and guiding disaster-relief donation activities. The Ministry of Land and Resources sent an official group and professional team to go deep into the drought-affected areas and invested 1022 sets of various drilling rigs to help the locals find water and drill wells. The Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Railways made timely arrangements to ensure the transportation of

16.2  ­Severe Drought in South-west Region of China in 201

drought-resistant materials. The Ministry of Agriculture has strengthened the supply of agricultural resources in the drought-affected areas and had transferred 12 droughtresistant working groups and expert groups to guide the agricultural drought-relief work. The Ministry of Health had strengthened the safety management of drinking water in the drought-affected areas to prevent and control the infectious diseases. It dispatched medical and epidemic prevention teams to the drought-affected areas and formulated emergency plans for drought relief and guidelines for the disinfection of domestic water in droughtaffected areas. The State Forestry Administration allocated special funds, increased firefighting equipment, and made effort for forest fire prevention. The China Meteorological Administration launched a level-III emergency response to major meteorological disasters, closely tracked and monitored weather changes in the drought-affected areas, and forecasted weather changes, and organised the meteorological departments in the droughtaffected areas to carry out artificial precipitation enhancement operations. The Central United Front Work Department had mobilised all aspects of the united front to participate in and support drought relief. The Central Propaganda Department called the news media to create a good drought-resistant atmosphere and widely publicised the drought-relief work of party committees, governments, grassroots cadres, and masses at all levels in the drought-affected areas. The People’s Liberation Army and the Armed Police Force dispatched a total of 0.36 million soldiers and officers, organised 0.396 million militia reservists, used 0.13 million vehicles and 70 aircraft, delivered 0.35 million tons of water and 12 000 tons of relief materials, laid 1416 km of pipelines, watered 35 000 ha of farmland, drilled 1156 wells, and repaired 2620 water conservancy facilities for the south-west region of China. The Beijing Military sent two water supply groups to Yunnan and Guangxi’s severe drought areas to find water and drill 21 wells, which provided a strong guarantee for solving the drinking water shortage of local people. The task of supporting drought and mitigation in the drought-affected areas was successfully completed (Xu 2012).

16.2.4  Recovery After the Drought Event While ensuring the basic domestic water consumption of urban and rural residents, the State Flood Control and Drought Relief Headquarters and the Ministry of Water Resources organised drought-affected areas to promptly repair and remove the risk of water conservancy facilities failing, such as drought-damaged reservoirs and ponds, to ensure flood prevention in the later period. Meanwhile, they guided the drought-affected areas for domestic water allocation, and to seize the favourable opportunity for rainfall, and carry out spring sowing to reduce the drought losses. Various active measures were taken to ensure agricultural production and minimise the drought impacts in the drought-affected areas. Water infrastructure construction was accelerated and long-term mechanisms to solve water shortage problem were sought. Yunnan Province had allocated US$183 million of drought-relief funds and 41 000 tons of grain to solve the food shortage problem in the drought-affected areas. It had added US$42.8 million to stabilise grain production and increased 20 million ha planting area of spring grain compared with the original plan, which effectively guaranteed the market supply. The Yunnan provincial government decided to construct 100 backbone water source

423

424

16  Flood and Drought Emergency Management

projects and 1 million small water conservancy projects in the following three years. Guizhou Province carried out a comprehensive plan for water conservancy construction, ecological construction, and rock desertification control, fundamentally solving water shortage and ecological environment fragility problems to improve resistance to natural disasters. Guangxi Autonomous Region Party Committee and Government launched a conference on the construction of drinking water projects for 30 counties (cities and districts) and 1.2 million people in Dashi Mountain Area in April 2010. It would take two years to fundamentally solve the drinking water difficulties in the western mountainous areas and improve the irrigation conditions of arable land.

16.2.5  Lessons Learned The primary goal is to ensure the drinking water safety of urban and rural residents in drought-affected areas. This extreme drought in the south-west region of China seriously affected the regional economic and social development and brought great difficulties to people’s lives, especially the drinking water safety for urban and rural residents. The government made the safety of drinking water for people as the primary goal of drought-relief work. It conducted a comprehensive investigation of the water shortage situation in the drought-affected areas and then made the water supply security plan aiming that every person has enough drinking water. The society was stable during the drought period, and people appreciated the government decisions. The backbone water conservancy facilities are a solid foundation for drought relief. Water conservancy projects built over the years have fully played the role of water source scientific dispatching and ensured the safety of urban and rural water supply in the drought period. Water conservancy facilities such as various types of reservoirs, ponds, and dams, and drought-relief projects minimised drought impacts and losses and achieved significant benefits. In Yunnan Province, all kinds of water conservancy projects have become the basis for resisting drought and protecting people’s livelihood, and accumulated water supply has reached 4 billion cubic metres during this extreme drought period. The drought-relief emergency response plan is the key factor to win the victory in drought relief. The drought prevention plan is an effective guide for organising and implementing drought-relief work and is a key means to achieve drought and disaster reduction. In recent years, the State Flood Control and Drought Relief Headquarters at all levels have actively carried out the preparation of drought prevention plans, laying a good foundation for drought management and emergency command, and played an important role in the past drought prevention and control. After the drought occurred in the south-western region of China, the flood control and drought-relief headquarters in the drought-affected areas and its related basins started the drought emergency response according to the drought-relief plan, arranged the deployment of drought prevention work, and implemented measures to fight the drought. Yunnan and Guizhou firstly launched the drought-relief level-I emergency response, while Guangxi, Chongqing, and Pearl River basin flood control and drought-relief headquarters started the level-II emergency response. During the drought period, the south-west region of China launched a total of 312 drought-relief emergency responses, which are all above level-III, ensuring an effective and efficient implementation of drought-relief work.

16.2  ­Severe Drought in South-west Region of China in 201

Collaboration of different departments and organisations is an important guarantee for overcoming extreme drought. During the drought period, party committees, governments, and defences at all levels strengthened organisational leadership and unified command of drought prevention work. They unified dispatch of drought-resistant water sources, unified and mobilised drought-resistant materials, and effectively integrated drought-resistant power. All relevant departments and member units cooperated closely and performed their duties. With the joint participation of all social parties and relative departments, the combined efforts of drought-relief work have been significantly enhanced. The drought-relief work in the south-west region of China has demonstrated great achievements, but it has exposed the problem of drought disaster mitigation. There are still many shortcomings in the drought-relief work that needs to be profoundly rethought. The water resources regulation capacity is still insufficient. The water resources in the southwestern region are relatively abundant, but the spatial and temporal distribution of rainfall is uneven. In addition, due to the limitation of karst geology and geomorphology in the plateau mountainous area, although the coverage of water supply facilities in the southwestern region has gradually expanded after years of efforts, the large- and medium-sized backbone control water source projects are insufficient, and the supporting water diversion facilities are inadequate. The water-use efficiency of the five provinces (autonomous regions and municipalities) in the south-west region of China has been greatly improved since the 1980s, but they are still at a relatively low level. The development and utilisation of water resources in Guizhou Province is only 8.9%, and few large and medium reservoirs were built due to the limitation of karst topography and geomorphology. Only 34 medium-sized backbone projects were built, that is, about three counties (cities) share a medium-sized reservoir. The reservoir, which has the capability to resist drought and reduce disasters, is far from meeting the needs during a severe drought. In the mountainous areas of Yunnan and Guizhou, which have suffered from extreme drought on 2010, they mainly rely on small water conservancy projects such as small reservoirs, small ponds, and small water cellars. However, these projects often have small storage capacity, low control, and low water supply guarantee rate and, therefore, are faced with serious problems when confronted with severe drought events. The water conservancy infrastructures of farmland are still weak. The effective irrigated area in the south-west region of China accounted for 26% of arable land, which was much lower than the national average. The proportion of agricultural irrigation areas in Yunnan, south-western Guizhou, and western Guangxi is very low. This is because the droughtaffected farmland is mostly rainfed, and the drought-resistant capability is insufficient. In contrast, the degree of irrigation rate is high in Sichuan Province due to the control scope of the Dujiangyan Irrigation District, and the drought loss is significantly smaller than in other areas. In the drought-affected areas centred on the Yunnan–Guizhou Plateau, smalland medium-sized water conservancy facilities are crucial for agricultural drought relief with respect to the mountainous terrain and scattered farmland. However, small- and medium-sized water conservancy facilities are still insufficient, and some are old and have not been repaired for several years. As a result, the irrigation conditions of arable land have been degraded. The shortage of drought-resistant emergency water sources is still critical. The backbone water source project in south-west region of China is insufficient, which makes it difficult

425

426

16  Flood and Drought Emergency Management

to effectively regulate and control the water quantity across the regions. Meanwhile, some cities and towns lack emergency water resources for drought resistance. If severe drought occurs, the urban water supply will be firstly protected through a reduction in agriculture irrigation. In comparison, the water supply in rural areas, especially in the high mountain area, the water shortage is still prominent during the drought period. The drought monitoring, forecasting, and early warning technical levels are still low. Scientific monitoring and scientific forecasting are the necessary means and important preconditions for reducing losses during a drought disaster. This drought event exposed the shortage of the drought condition monitoring in the south-west region of China, resulting in the lag of drought situation analysis. Therefore, it is difficult to provide comprehensive, timely and effective information for scientific and drought-resistant decision-making. Chongqing and Yunnan Province only have a small amount of monitoring stations, and an effective monitoring network has not yet been constructed, and the collection level of drought information is low with poor timeliness. It is difficult to judge and analyse the drought condition scientifically and reasonably, which has a certain influence on the effective development of the drought-resistant emergency command. The awareness of social disaster prevention and reduction is still weak. The water resources in south-west China are relatively abundant, and the people’s consciousness of drought and disaster reduction is relatively weak compared with flood control. They lack preparation for fighting against severe drought and long drought. When the drought occurred, the leaders of relevant departments at the grassroots level did not have sufficient understanding of the drought, lacking sufficient preparation for fighting against drought, and their ability to cope with drought is obviously low.

16.2.6  Future Work In 2010, China’s drought policy was based on crisis response rather than risk response. Most of the safeguard measures were used when the drought occurred, including the drought reporting system, drought-relief service team, assignment of the investigation team from the water basin and state level, and disaster financial aid. With the development of drought risk management, the State Flood Control and Drought Relief Headquarters propose to learn the drought risk management and improve the drought monitoring and early warning ability. Meanwhile, governments at all levels will provide more financial support to enhance the construction of agricultural infrastructure and drought-relief emergency water resources. They will continually improve the guarantee system for drought resistance and disaster reduction and increase the public awareness of drought.

­References Cheng, G. and Li, X. (2010). Analysis of flood characteristics of Huai River in 2007. The 5th Symposium of Huaihe River Research Association, pp. 360–363. Qiu, P. (2007). Flood drainage control of Huai River in 2007. China Flood and Drought Management 5: 12–15.

 ­Reference

RCFDDR Research Center on Flood and Drought Disaster Reduction (2010). China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research. The survey report of severe drought in the Southwest of China on the year of 2010. Wang, W. and Zhang, J. (2007). An analysis of precipitation and river flow in Huai River basin during summer of 2007. Meteorological Monthly 34: 68–74. Xu, Y. (2012). Discussion of how to carry out the flood management from the defense of 2007 Huai River flood protection. China Flood and Drought Management 9: 45–47.

427

Source: T. Xianqiang, CRSRI, China.

429

17 The River Chief System in China Tan Xianqiang Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute, Wuhan, China

17.1 ­Introduction China is home to many rivers and lakes, among which the Yangtze River and Yellow River are well known throughout the world. There are 45 203 rivers with a drainage area of 50 km2 or above and a total length of 1 508 500 km. There are 2865 natural lakes with a perennial water surface area of over 1 km2 and a total surface area of 78 000 km2. At present, China is facing serious environmental problems, both historical and contemporary, in its water security situation, especially issues such as water resource shortage, aquatic ecosystem damage, and water pollution and quality degradation. In recent years, many localities have taken active measures to improve, manage, and protect rivers and lakes and have achieved remarkable comprehensive benefits. However, there still remain significant challenges in terms of the protection and management of rivers and lakes. The River Chief System (RCS) is a significant management innovation in the new era of China. It is designed to support the implementation of the new concept of ‘ecological priority and green development’, which adheres to the principle of problem orientation, and whose implementation is the main responsibility of the local Party and government leaders to manage. The implementation strengthens the management and improvement of water systems in accordance with relevant law(s) and promotes the construction of the ‘ecological civilization’. Under RCS, the principle responsible officers lead the transformation and upgrading of China’s water management and improvement work – from the ‘departmental responsible system’ to the ‘chief responsible system’. It provides the institutional guarantee to form a new water management initiative which is led by the Party and government, where identified leaders take relevant responsibilities, while different departments cooperate with each other, and stakeholders participate in the water ecosystem treatment and protection. This promotes a unified planning and implementation strategy taking cognizance of both economic and social development. RCS originates from Changxing County, Zhejiang Province. It originated in response to the need to manage Lake Tai, prospered throughout the entire Zhejiang Province, and was Handbook of Catchment Management, Second Edition. Edited by Robert C. Ferrier and Alan Jenkins. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

430

17  The River Chief System in China

Box 17.1  History of the River Chief System (RCS) In 2003, in order to create a civilised county, County Party Committee and County Government in Changxing County, Zhejiang Province, issued the first document of RCS in the state. In 2005, Zhang Yuping was appointed as the first river chief in Shuikou Village, Changxing County. The river chief duties were specified which included the supervision, coordination, promotion, and follow-up of water surface cleaning, dredging, riverbank greening, and industrial pollution treatment along the river. In 2007, there was a massive blue-green algae outburst in Taihu Lake which resulted in a water crisis in Wuxi City. Wuxi City took the lead in China to implement the RCS in the charge of local chief officials. Since then, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Jiangxi provinces, and other places continued seeking appropriate approaches on the RCS implementation. In 2012, Jiaxing City, Zhejiang Province, promoted the RCS throughout the city. In 2014, Ministry of Water Resources issued the Guidance Opinions on Strengthening the Management of Rivers and Lakes on the basis of leveraging experiences and practices of rivers and lakes management and protection in various places and made explicit the requirement that local governments should contribute new ideas on rivers and lakes management, and that local government should promote and implement RCS, of which government administrative officers are in charge. In July 2016, the Central Leading Group for Comprehensively Continuing Reform Office officially issued the task of drafting a comprehensive implementation of the RCS. On 11 October 2016, General Secretary Xi Jinping chaired the 28th meeting of the Central Leading Group for Comprehensively Continuing Reform, which reviewed and approved the Opinions on the Full Implementation of RCS. On 28 November 2016, the General Office of the CPC Central Committee and the General Office of the State Council issued the ‘Opinions on the Full Implementation of River Chief System’ (referred to as ‘Opinions’). On 26 December 2017, the General Office of the CPC Central Committee and the General Office of the State Council issued the ‘Guidance Opinions on Implementing RCS in Rivers and Lakes’ (referred to as ‘Opinions’).

later duplicated across the whole nation. For the detailed development process, please refer to Box 17.1.

17.1.1  Components of the RCS The main purpose of RCS is to properly manage water and protect the river basin. Both land and the water management are taken into consideration to ensure systematic protection. It comprises six key tasks or objectives (Figure 17.1) and has four main requirements for its implementation. The first task is to reinforce water resource protection. In this respect, it is necessary to ensure compliance with ‘redlines’. This requires control of water resource development and utilisation; control of water use efficiency; restriction on assimilative capacity in water

17.1 ­Introductio Water governance

River ecology restoration

Water resource protection

Major Task

Water environment improvement

Water surface and shoreline management

Water pollution control

Figure 17.1  Major tasks of RCS.

function areas; taking actions to simultaneously control the total volume and intensity of water consumption; adhering to the principle of ‘water conservation being a priority’; improving water use efficiency comprehensively; strictly controlling and supervising the water function area management; monitoring the sewage outlet into rivers and lakes; and strictly controlling the total wastewater volume discharge into rivers and lakes. The second task is to strengthen water surface and shoreline management. This requires strict control and management of aquatic ecosystems and delimitation of the management scope of rivers and lakes in accordance with relevant laws; undertaking regionalised shoreline planning and management; strengthening the protection and the intensively and economically viable utilisation of shorelines; strictly forbidding any invasion and occupation of river channels including illegal excavation of sand, carrying out clean-up and overhaul projects regarding indiscriminate use, and restricting indiscriminate shoreline occupation. The third objective is to strengthen water pollution control. This requires specification of the objectives and implementation needs of river and lake water pollution prevention and control; coordination of pollution control for both water and shoreline, and improvement of river and lake wastewater control and management system and assessment system; inspection and identification of the sources of pollution into rivers and lakes to improve the quality of the water environment; and optimisation of the spatial location of the wastewater outlets into rivers and lakes and conducting the wastewater outlet treatment. The fourth task is to strengthen water environment improvement. This requires strengthening the objective management of water environmental quality; carrying out the standardised provision of drinking water sources and removing illegal buildings and illegal sewage outlets within drinking water source protection areas in accordance with relevant laws; strengthening the comprehensive improvement of rivers and lakes water environment, promoting the network and information construction of water environment management, and establishing and improving the system of inspection, assessment, warning and forecasting, and response of water environment risks; increasing the intensity of black and odorous water treatment, improving the rural water environment comprehensively, so as to promote the restoration of the ‘beautiful’ countryside. The fifth task is to reinforce river ecology restoration. This requires ecosystem restoration and returning farmland to lakes and wetlands, returning fisheries to lakes, restoring natural connection channels among rivers and lakes, and strengthening the conservation of

431

432

17  The River Chief System in China

aquatic living resources; carrying out health assessment on rivers and lakes; actively promoting the establishment of ecological protection compensation mechanism; and strengthening the prevention, supervision, and comprehensive remediation of soil erosion, so as to create ecologically ‘clean’ catchments. The sixth objective is to strengthen water governance. This requires establishment and improvement of the comprehensive governance mechanism amongst different related departments, and enhancing mechanisms connecting administrative law enforcement and the criminal justice system; establishing daily supervision and inspection system for rivers and lakes, and clarifying the main parties, persons, equipment, and funds responsible for the management, protection, enforcement, and supervision of rivers and lakes; and severely cracking down on illegal activities related to rivers and lakes.

17.2 ­Short Historical Synopsis By 2018, the RCS was fully established, river chief(s) was assigned, the RCS offices were established, and the specific working mechanisms were formulated. There are four specific work requirements involved in the implementation of the RCS. The primary requirement is the confirmation of staff for the RCS. Provinces, cities, counties, and towns are required to establish the position of the general river chief, as well as positions of river chiefs at different levels and of different sections. All the provinces, autonomous regions, and directly administered municipalities were challenged to appoint provincial-level officers as river chiefs to take care of their main rivers and lakes within the administrative jurisdictions, cities, counties, and towns where there are rivers and lakes to appoint corresponding level officers as river chiefs at different levels and of different sections. Once offices and staff are in place, the responsibilities of the river chief must be specified. The general river chief of each province is the first person responsible for the management and protection of rivers and lakes in the corresponding administrative region. He/she takes the overall responsibility for the management and protection of rivers and lakes. The river chiefs at different levels are persons exclusively responsible for the management and protection of corresponding individual rivers and lakes. They undertake the relevant responsibilities at different levels and for different sections of the corresponding rivers and lakes. The river chief shall take the lead to organise the clearance and rehabilitation of urgent issues such as illegal reclamation of river channels; coordinate and solve major issues; and supervise the performance of relevant departments and the river chiefs at lower levels to assess the progress of targets fulfilment. Thirdly, an RCS office and infrastructure must be established. A corresponding RCS office shall be set up at the county level and/or above. The river chief shall undertake organisation and implementation. All relevant departments and units shall work as mandated and collaboratively achieve the targets of all aspects. Fourthly, working regulations for the implementation of the system must be established. The working regulations of RCS include the river chief’s meeting regulations, the information sharing regulations, the information reporting regulations, the supervision and checkup regulations, the performance-based accountability regulations, the incentives regulations, and the acceptance regulations.

17.3 ­Current Solution

17.3 ­Current Solutions On 19 April and 20 April 2018, Erik Solheim, UN Under-Secretary-General and Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme, led a delegation of five members who conducted a field survey in Zhejiang Province to inspect RCS implementation. During the field tour, he commented ‘I’m convinced that what I have seen in Pujiang County and Anji County will be the future of China, even the future of the world’. By 31 June 2018, provinces, autonomous regions, and directly administered municipalities of China had established comprehensive RCS and completed the target tasks set by the central government half a year ahead of schedule. The river chiefs of all rivers and lakes in 31 provinces, autonomous regions, and directly administered municipalities in the country were clearly designated. A total number of over 300 000 river chiefs in provincial, municipal, county, and township level have been designated. There are 402 provincial leaders appointed as the river chiefs. Among 31 provinces, 29 provinces have extended the RCS to the village level and appointed 76 000 village-level river chiefs. The RCS offices have been established in provincial, municipal, and county levels in 31 provinces to undertake the daily work under the RCS. Six major regulations, including the river chief meeting, the information sharing, the information reporting, the work supervision, the assessment accountability and incentive, and the acceptance regulations, have been established. Meanwhile, supporting mechanisms such as the river patrol and the supervision and check-up regulations have also been introduced in accordance with local situations. Under the guidance of CPC committees and governments, water conservancy department’s engagement of stakeholders ensure the smooth progress of the RCS. Current analysis suggests that provincial-level river chiefs have visited their lakes nearly 1000 person-times (visits), and the city-, county-, and township-level river chiefs over 210 million person-times (visits). Meanwhile, the Ministry of Water Resources has deployed a series of special remediation programmes targeting wastewater outflow points into rivers, coastline protection, illegal sand excavation, solid waste inspection, and garbage removal. Preliminary achievements have been recorded in some locations with visible physical improvement of local rivers and lakes, through waste reduction and visual water quality assessments.

17.3.1  RCS on the Chishui River as a Demonstration The Chishui River is a tributary of the upper Yangtze River on the right side. It is located at 27°23′–28°80′ north latitude and 104°73′–106°97′ east longitude. It originates from Yinchang Village, Chishuiyuan Town, Zhenxiong County, Zhaotong City, Yunnan Province. The river runs from the south-west to the north-east towards Hejiang County and then flows eastward into the Yangtze River. The total length of the Chishui River is 436.5 km, with an average gradient of 3.4‰ and an average flow of 284 m3 s−1. The Chishui River flows through a total of 14 counties (cities and districts) from Zhaotong City in Yunnan Province, Bijie City, and Zunyi City in Guizhou Province, to Luzhou City in Sichuan Province. The catchment area of Chishui River Basin is 20 440 km2, of which the catchment areas in Yunnan, Guizhou, and Sichuan are 2117, 12 222, and 6101 km2, respectively, accounting for 10.4%, 59.8%, and 29.8% of the total.

433

434

17  The River Chief System in China

The Chishui River system has several major tributaries with main ones such as Erdao River, Tongzi River, Gulin River, Tongmin River, Datong River, and Xishui River. Chishui River is a rare natural river with natural and free water flows among many tributaries of the upper Yangtze River. The basin is rich in biodiversity as a home to many rare and precious animals and plants. The main protection targets in the basin include the main stream of Chishui River, other tributaries of the upper Yangtze River where national preserves of rare and endemic fish are involved, important fish spawning areas, migration routes, and important liquor industry bases such as the base of national wine Maotai (see Figure 17.2).

17.3.2  New Insights Sichuan, Guizhou, and Yunnan provinces are particularly focused on ecological environmental protection of the Chishui River. They regard the RCS as an important system and focus on promoting the ecological protection and rehabilitation of the Chishui River Basin. Since 2017, the three provinces have completed the organisation and construction of RCS within their respective jurisdictions, which promoted the work under RCS of Chishui River in an orderly manner, and have established RCS offices subordinated to the water resource department. Meanwhile, they have standardised and detailed responsibilities in meeting regulations and the river patrol inspection regulations, for example, established river patrol officers and cleaners regulations, taken effective measures to identify illegal buildings within the management and protection area in the basin, and strengthened the dissemination of achievements of RCS implementation which has enhanced the ecological environment-friendly awareness of basin stakeholders and society. All these actions have created a positive working environment for RCS. The RCS implementation on the Chishui River has identified a number of best practices and useful experiences. Firstly, industry transformation and development based on the problem-oriented principle has been found to be beneficial. Investing over 17.5 million Chinese RMB (Renminbi), Chishui City has re-employed 164 fishermen and 213 fishing boats in the Chishui River Basin into other industries, including agriculture (planting, breeding, etc.), as well as other sectors such as business and service industries. The fishery administration and supervision management office of the Minister of Agriculture and Luzhou municipal government have signed the Agreement on the Framework of the Transformation of Fishermen Regarding Industry and Employment within Sichuan Section of Chishui River in Yangtze River Basin to accelerate re-employment of fishermen into different sectors. Through efforts and policies such as industrial support, employment transfer, ecological compensation, and social safeguard, the government at all levels in Luzhou City have successfully transferred a total number of 44 fishing boats into other industries in Gulin, Xuyong, and Hejing counties. The employment transfer of fishermen was smoothly completed on schedule. Secondly, there have been clear benefits in strictly implementing management measures such as the complete fishing ban. According to the Notice of the Complete Fishing Ban in Chishui River Basin proclaimed by the Ministry of Agriculture, fishing in all natural waters of the upper section of the river mouth in Hejiang County, which is included as a part of Chishui River Basin, has been completely banned for 10 years. Taking advantage of

Changjiang River

Hejiang County

Lianyuxi Chishui City

Qijang County

Xuyoung County

er Riv hui

Xishui County

r

Ri

ive

ui

ish

gR

Ch

ton

Da

Xis

r

ve

Tongzi County

Gulin River Sichuan Province

r ive Xuyong County

iR shu

o Da

Weixin County

Tongzi River Renhuai City

Gulin County

Chishu i Riv e

Zunyi County

r

ive

oR

da Er

Bijie City

Ton g

che

Riv er

r

Zhenxiong County Yunnan Province

Dafang County

Jinsha County

Guizhou Province N

Legend

River Provincial Boundary Country Boundary Watershed Boundary

Figure 17.2  The Chishui River Basin flows through three provinces.

436

17  The River Chief System in China

the rare fish protection area in upper and middle Yangzte River, Guizhou Province vigorously carried out a fisheries restoration programme (domestication, breeding, and release). Over 2 million fish fry of various kinds have been raised and released in the Chishui River Basin. At the same time, Guizhou Province has strengthened the comprehensive law enforcement against illegal activities such as electricity and net-based fishing, cage aquaculture, and river sand mining. Since 2017, a total number of 7 illegal cage aquacultures, 12 ship cages, and 6 steel cages have been demolished, 30 illegal ships have been confiscated, 1 sand dock has been demolished, and the vegetation has been restored. A total of 34 illegal water-related cases have been investigated and 27 administrative penalties have been imposed. Lessons have been learned with regard to interprovincial coordination and management. Sichuan, Yunnan, and Guizhou provinces have signed the ‘Agreement on the Coordination of Chishui River Basin Environmental Protection’ to jointly promote the ecological environment protection of the Chishui River Basin and strengthen the management of crossprovincial waters. In recent years, Sichuan Province, Guizhou Province, and Yunnan Province have carried out many joint enforcement actions and have identified and dealt with more than 150 environmental issues. In order to strengthen the protection of aquatic living resources, in April 2016, the three cities of Luzhou, Zunyi, and Bijie signed the ‘Agreement on the Coordination Working Mechanism of Fishery Administration in Co-managed water within Chishui River’ in which the three cities reached an agreement on coordination working mode, information reporting, enforcement collaboration, action cooperation, mutual enforcement recognition, etc. According to the agreement, the fishery administration of Luzhou City and Bijie City carried out a joint fishery law enforcement action in the Chishui River (the water area co-managed by the two cities) in December 2017. It has proved important to promote cross-provincial compensation for ecology conservation at the horizontal level. In February 2018, Yunnan, Guizhou, and Sichuan provinces signed the Agreement on Compensation for Ecological Conservation of Chishui River Basin at the Horizontal Level and jointly invested RMB 200 million at the ratio of 1 : 5 : 4 to establish the horizontal compensation funds for the Chishui River Basin. The period tentatively started from 2018 to 2020. The objective of ecological compensation is to maintain a stable water quality in the Chishui River Basin, ensuring water quality does not deteriorate. The annual average water quality of the state-controlled sections of the mainstreams of Qingshuipu and Lianyuxi aimed to attain the Class II standard. There are three water quality assessment indicators: permanganate index, NH4, and total phosphorus (TP). The assessment is based on the results of the measurement conducted by the China National Environmental Monitoring Centre, data from automatic monitoring stations, and/or the collaborative monitoring data measured by relevant provinces. Through the implementation of cross-provincial horizontal compensation for ecological conservation, the three provinces will gradually establish a mechanism of ‘cost sharing, ecological sharing, cooperation and co-governance’ to promote ecological conservation in the Chishui River Basin. Finally, there has been great benefit in having a focus on media dissemination and public participation. Since 2017, Chishui City has carried out a number of media campaigns seeking public opinions on TV programmes with regard to the work of RCS, issued three supervision reports, and addressed more than 120 issues. The RCS has promoted

17.3 ­Current Solution

radio, television, billboards, the governments’ own network platform, and 22 March World Water Day to carry out a campaign highlighting the activities of RCS, aiming to engage people in the protection and river patrol monitoring of the Chishui River. Bijie City engaged the headmasters of the primary and secondary schools to serve as the honorary river chiefs of the corresponding river. They took advantage of the campus radio and school newspaper to start columns on education and promotion of RCS. This helped enable students and teachers to further understand RCS and the need for protection of rivers and lakes. During implementation, a number of generic challenges and issues have been identified. Firstly, there has been a lack of overall cross-basin coordination. The Chishui River flows through Sichuan, Yunnan, and Guizhou provinces. Guizhou section of the Chishui River is managed by the provincial-level river chief, while the Yunnan section and the Sichuan section are managed by municipal-level river chief, which leads to inconsistency of levelspecific mandates in terms of dealing with specific issues. The implementation plan of the ‘one river one policy’ in Guizhou section is submitted to the Yangtze River Water Resources Commission for approval, while that of Yunnan and Sichuan sections are submitted to the provincial-level river chief for approval. This results in inconsistency in the ‘one river one policy’ approach for the Chishui River. It is essential that basin protection management planning, standard and action should be consistent. There has also been a lack of cross-province collaboration. Although the local government departments of the three provinces of the Chishui River Basin have signed agreements on the coordinated actions towards the river basin environmental protection and fishery administration, cross-province collaboration was absent. Upstream–downstream and left–right banks co-management of the water areas became challenges for comanagement, resulting in dead zones of rivers/lakes protection and management. For example, some provinces banned river sand mining and cage aquaculture while others did not. An effective mechanism or platform for the coordination of upstream–downstream and left–right banks of the Chishui River Basin has not yet been fully established. At present, Yunnan, Guizhou, and Sichuan provinces have arranged political consultations of the three provinces with the assistance of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference. However, a consensus on the ecological protection standards and actions has not been reached yet. A cross-provincial consultation mechanism at the national level will be established to address this issue. There is a demonstrated need for monitoring and evaluation of cross-border sections to be strengthened. At present, the assessment of RCS in the Chishui River Basin is mainly based on the results of water quality monitoring data of cross-border sections. For the work of RCS, water quality as the only monitoring and assessment indicator is not enough to achieve targets in terms of water resources protection, waterfront shoreline management, aquatic ecology restoration, and water-related administrative enforcement. The monitoring of the Chishui River mainly focuses on hydrologic and water quality monitoring. Due to changes over the past few years, there is an inconsistency in monitored sections, both in terms of hydrologic monitoring and water quality monitoring, thus there is no fixed water ecological monitoring sections, making it difficult to obtain the same basic data (e.g. hydrologic, water quality, and water ecology) on similar sections, which are often needed for performance evaluation of RCS.

437

438

17  The River Chief System in China

Finally, there are limited resources for river maintenance. Financial support for both poverty alleviation and environmental protection could be well balanced by supporting wider river maintenance. The three provinces where Chishui River Basin is located are underdeveloped with limited financial resourcing for wider investment, hence the lack of promotion of RCS. In addition to that, the overall Chishui River infrastructures are poor and lack capital investment. Domestic waste and sewage treatment facilities have not been built in some individual towns and villages, and although domestic waste dumping along the river has been under control, there are still no facilities for centralised treatment.

17.4 ­Future Knowledge Requirements 1) Improving the cross-provincial overall planning and coordination mechanism for the water basin: In general, the principle of ‘combining the overall planning of the river basin with local management’ should be followed and the implementation of RCS of the Chishui River should be accelerated. On the one hand, the river basin management agency, Changjiang Water Resources Commission, should fully play the role of coordination, guidance, supervision, and monitoring; should plan to establish a cross-border coordination and protection management mechanism for the Chishui River; and, should improve the monitoring, assessment, evaluation, and the supervision, inspection and management of the crossprovincial Chishui River Basin at the cross sections between different provinces. On the other hand, Yunnan, Sichuan, and Guizhou provinces should establish and improve the joint prevention and control mechanism for the upstream, downstream, and left and right banks at the cross-border sections; and should make the planning, standards, monitoring, and legal enforcement in basin environment protection consistent at each section so as to improve the environmental protection management of the Chishui River Basin. 2) Improving and implementing the integrated management system on co-managed water and enhancing the governance: The existing Chishui River Basin Environmental Protection Cooperation Agreement and Agreement on Joint Work Mechanism on Fishery Management of Chishui River Co-managed Water Area should be further refined. Taking advantage of ‘promotion from higher levels’ in implementing RCS at all levels of administrative regions, a regular meeting system of administrative region government and Party leaders should be established; a crossprovincial joint enforcement team should be set up; and the joint enforcement supervision mechanism should be clarified. Adhering to the principle of ‘problem-oriented’, the joint enforcement and inspection (including the frequency, scope, and duration) should be increased; the joint management system should be implemented; and, the illegal cross-boundary actions within the basin should be addressed. All the actions above should be implemented substantially so as to address the issues in the basin protection management of co-managed water areas in the Chishui River. 3) Constructing a comprehensive indicator system and method for inter-provincial section monitoring at the cross sections: Apart from the general water quality monitoring indicators (e.g. permanganate index, NH4, and TP), other indicators such as hydrologic indicators (e.g. run-off and water

­Acknowledgemen  439

level), water ecology indicators (e.g. aquatic biological integrity), and shoreline indicators (e.g. floating trash) should be included into the indicator system taking the performance evaluation of the RCS into consideration. Building on the situations where cross sections of the Chushui River crosses provinces, a comprehensive monitoring indicator system and methodology for the RCS should be established; a sophisticated plan to monitor cross sections in cross-provincial upstream and downstream, left, and right banks of Chishui River should be proposed; the scope and approach of data sharing should be clearly specified; an environmental information sharing system should be established as technical support for the evaluation and assessment of cross-provincial protection management of Chishui River Basin in the context of the RCS. 4) Establishing a government-led, society-involved Chishui River management and protection mechanism: On the one hand, this should specify the state subsidies provided to key protective reserves and development prohibited zones and establish and strengthen the incentives and restriction mechanism to link ecology protection outcomes with delegations. On the other hand, the roles of the government, society, enterprises, and the public to participate in the protection of the Chishui River eco-environment should be established. A diversified investment and financing mechanism for setting up a government-led platform as well as encouraging social participation should be established so as to orientate social capital into the protection of the Chishui River. 5) Exploring and establishing a proper integration system between the RCS promotion and poverty alleviation First of all, it is necessary to strengthen the policy support and orientation for the development of eco-industrial development in Chishui River Basin at the national level and encourage the development of locally suitable eco-industries and green industries. Secondly, the local government should integrate the RCS with poverty alleviation in a proper way. The local government should focus on the basin ecological protection and comprehensive river rehabilitation projects so as to orientate the industrial transformation in an ecology-friendly and green way, thus translating ecological resources into benefits for the poor, realising in the win-win target of the ecological protection of Chishui River Basin and poverty alleviation.

­Acknowledgement This work was supported by the Asia Development Bank Technical Assistance Projects ‘TA-9374 PRC: Supporting the Application of River Chief System for Ecological Protection in Yangtze River Economic Belt’, and the author greatly appreciates the contribution by the consultants including Simon Costanzo, Alan Jenkins, and Wang Zhenhua.

441

18 Water Resources Management in the Colorado River Basin Alan Butler1, Terrance Fulp2, James Prairie1, and Amy Witherall3 1

 Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder, CO, USA  Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder City, NV, USA 3  Bureau of Reclamation, Temecula, CA, USA 2

18.1  ­Introduction and Background The Colorado River is a vital resource for the people, environment, and economy of the south-western United States and north-western Mexico. The geography of the Colorado River Basin is diverse, from snow-capped mountains over 4000 m (c. 13 000 ft) tall to deserts with awe inspiring canyons cut by the river over millennia. The legal framework that guides the management is complex, developed over a century through a series of federal and state laws, court cases, agreements, and an international treaty. In recent years, as drought continues to stress the region, the challenges associated with responsibly using and managing this resource continue to mount, as illustrated by some of the river’s nicknames; ‘lifeline of the West’, ‘hardest working river in the west’, ‘basin of contention’, and ‘one of America’s most endangered rivers’. Throughout the basin, there are numerous catchment management issues, including environmental, water quality, and water quantity concerns, each of which include their own challenges and success stories. Federal statutes (federal laws, passed by the US Congress and signed into law by the US President) provide the basis for the solutions to many of these management issues. For example, there are several ongoing programmes (such as the San Juan Basin Recovery Program, Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, and Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program [LCR MSCP])1 that focus on the protection and restoration of threatened and endangered species throughout the US portion of the basin to ensure compliance with the 1973 Endangered Species Act.2 These programmes work collectively with federal science, management, and recreation agencies, state water agencies, municipal and agricultural water providers, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to identify opportunities to provide environmental benefits

Handbook of Catchment Management, Second Edition. Edited by Robert C. Ferrier and Alan Jenkins. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

442

18  Water Resources Management in the Colorado River Basin

while maintaining water delivery and hydropower benefits. There are many local water quality issues with ongoing work to ensure compliance with the 1972 Clean Water Act amendments to the 1948 Water Pollution Control Act.3 Continual efforts seek to maintain or reduce the salinity concentration in the river to protect agricultural, municipal, and industrial water users in accordance with the 1974 Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act.4 The major challenge facing the basin today is one of water quantity (i.e. an overall imbalance in water supply and water demand), particularly given a changing climate. This chapter offers a discussion of that challenge and the issues associated with it as a case study in water resources management. The discussion begins with background on the geography and hydrology of the basin and an overview of the legal and policy framework that guides the management and use of the river. The challenge of the imbalance in water supply and demand is then outlined along with the current approaches to addressing the issues related to that challenge. The conclusion offers some thoughts and considerations regarding Colorado River water policy decision-making in the future.

18.1.1  Geography and Hydrology The Colorado River and its tributaries flow through seven US states and two Mexican states. The basin drains an area of 637 000 km2 (c. 246 000mi2), an area about equal to the area of France, Belgium, and the Netherlands combined. The basin is an arid, snowmelt dominated basin with over 90% of the run-off generated by snowmelt from precipitation in the states of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, primarily from the areas above 2400 m (c. 8000 ft). Run-off in the basin is highly variable year to year, with an average natural flow of nearly 19.7 billion cubic metres (Bm3; 16 million acre-feet [maf]) per year. Throughout this chapter, water supply is reported as natural flow; i.e. the flow that would have occurred at a given location absent consumptive use and reservoir regulation upstream of that location. The term consumptive use refers to water that is evaporated, transpired, incorporated into products or crops, consumed by humans or livestock, or otherwise not available for immediate use, including water transferred out of the basin (Bruce et al. 2018). Today, over 40 million people rely on the Colorado River and its tributaries for some, if not all, of their municipal water needs, and water from the river is used to irrigate over 2 million ha (5 million acres) of land. The river and its tributaries also provide essential physical, economic, and cultural resources to 29 federally recognised Indian tribes5 (throughout this chapter, ‘Indian tribe’ or ‘tribe’ refers to a native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, or community that is federally recognised in the US pursuant to the Federally Recognised Indian Tribe List Act of 1994) throughout the basin. Many of the water users with the biggest diversions are located outside of the hydrologic basin (Figure  18.1) and receive Colorado River water through basin diversion tunnels and canals. As development has continued and population has increased over the past century, the total annual consumptive use throughout the basin has also increased, resulting in the 10-year average basin use exceeding the 10-year average basin supply in recent years (Figure 18.2). Water consumed for irrigated agriculture continues to be the largest use, representing over half of the total consumptive use basin-wide.

18.1  ­Introduction and Backgroun

Figure 18.1  Map of the Colorado River Basin.

In addition to providing water to municipal, industrial, agricultural, and tribal water users, the Colorado River also provides numerous recreational benefits (Box 18.1) and environmental benefits (discussed in more detail later) as it flows through nine National Park Units and seven national wildlife refuges (Reclamation 2015).

443

18  Water Resources Management in the Colorado River Basin

25

30.8

20

24.7

15

18.5

10

12.3

5

6.2 1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

10-year moving average basin water supply

Annual basin water supply

10-year moving average basin water use

Annual basin water use

Billion cubic metres

Million acre-ft

444

2020

Figure 18.2  Colorado River Basin supply and use.

The Bureau of Reclamation, a water management agency established in 1902 within the US Department of the Interior, has constructed several large dams throughout the basin over the past 80+ years, primarily to provide water storage capacity to mitigate the high annual variability in run-off and to minimise reductions in water delivery in dry years. Overall, there is capacity in the basin to store approximately four times the average annual natural flow, with the two largest human-made reservoirs in the US Lakes Powell and Mead (Figure 18.1), providing over 80% of the 74 Bm3 (60 maf) of total storage capacity in the basin. In addition, most of the dams include hydropower plants that provide more than 4200 MW of electrical generating capacity, helping to meet the power needs of the western United States and offset the use of fossil fuels (Reclamation 2012).

18.1.2  Legal and Policy Framework Underlying the legal and policy development for the management of most water systems in the western United States (including the Colorado River) is the doctrine of prior appropriation, often stated as ‘first in time, first in line’ (Box 18.2). With that underpinning, management of most western US water systems evolved to meet specific objectives and constraints and the Colorado River is no exception. The river is managed pursuant to numerous compacts, federal and state statutes, court decisions and decrees, regulations, contracts, and other legal documents and agreements, collectively referred to as the ‘Law of the River’,6 of which the 1922 Colorado River Compact (1922 Compact) is the cornerstone. Among the many management issues at the time of the 1922 Compact negotiation, a primary concern was that ongoing water projects in the lower portion of the basin (primarily

18.1  ­Introduction and Backgroun

Box 18.1  Recreational Opportunities Along the Colorado River The Colorado River Basin offers world-renowned rafting, boating, fishing, camping, hiking, and other recreational activities to millions of visitors each year in both reservoir and free-flowing river settings. Most of the recreational corridor is managed as national parks, national recreation areas, national forests, other federally managed lands, and state and local parks (Reclamation 2015). Cataract Canyon, Westwater Canyon, and the Grand Canyon are some of the most popular and famous white water stretches along the river, which are paddled by tens of thousands of private and commercial boaters each year. The Grand Canyon alone sees more than 22 000 visitors annually (Reclamation 2015). Additionally, the 30-mi stretch of the Colorado River below Hoover Dam, designated as a National Water Trail in 2014 and the first such trail in the south-western United States, offers unique flat water paddling through extraordinary desert canyons and wildlife refuges. In 2018, over 26 million people visited the nine National Park Service units considered directly linked to the Colorado River and its tributaries (Arches National Park, Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Curecanti National Recreation Area, Dinosaur National Monument, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Grand Canyon National Park, Lake Mead National Recreation Area, and Rocky Mountain National Park), spending over US$ 2.3 billion in total. The two largest reservoirs, Lake Powell and Lake Mead, accounted for 4.2 and 7.6 million visitors, and US$ 411 and US$ 336 million in spending, respectively (Thomas et al. 2019). While the quantified economic benefit is substantial, the visitors’ experiences are considered priceless.

Box 18.2  The Doctrine of Prior Appropriation Underlying the legal and policy development for the management of most water systems in the western United States (including the Colorado River) is the doctrine of prior appropriation (Gopalakrishnan 1973). This doctrine originated in the mid-1800s, as the relatively scarce water resources in the western United States were beginning to be used primarily for mining and agricultural purposes. This doctrine, often stated as ‘first in time is first in line’, refers to the principle that the first entity to put water to beneficial use has the right to continue to use water for that purpose in perpetuity, and each subsequent use is considered ‘junior’ in priority to those uses that came before it. Absent additional laws, policies, and/or agreements, water rights are fulfilled in priority order during times of water shortages. The prior appropriation doctrine differs from the system of water law known as the riparian doctrine, primarily utilised in the eastern United States. Under the riparian system, absent additional laws, policies, and/or agreements, the owner of land with water on, adjacent to, or under their property has the legal right to use that water and in the case of a river or stream, all riparian landowners have an equal right to use the water.

445

446

18  Water Resources Management in the Colorado River Basin

by California) would deprive the other states in the basin (Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming) of their ability to use Colorado River water in the future under the prior appropriation doctrine. Additionally, the states in the lower portion of the basin were concerned that future water development in the upper portion would adversely affect their ability to use Colorado River water, particularly in times of drought. Although the negotiators were unable to agree on the allocation of Colorado River water to each Basin State, a compromise was reached by dividing the basin into the Upper Basin (those parts of the states of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming within and from which waters naturally drain into the Colorado River System above Lee Ferry as well as the parts of those states outside of the drainage area served by water diverted from the system) and the Lower Basin (those parts of the states of Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah within and from which water naturally drain into the Colorado River System below Lee Ferry as well as the parts of those states outside of the drainage area served by water diverted from the system) with the dividing point at Lee Ferry (Figure 18.1) and apportioning 9.25 Bm3 (7.5 maf) per annum of consumptive use in perpetuity to each. Another compromise was reached whereby the Upper Division States (defined in the 1922 Compact as Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming) were directed to ‘not cause the flow of the river at Lee Ferry to be depleted below an aggregate of 92.5 Bm3 (75 maf) for any period of 10 consecutive years’. The interpretation of this provision is subject to extensive debate (Colorado River Governance Initiative 2012) and to date has not been tested in practice or in court. In recognition that Mexico could be the recipient of a right to consumptive use of Colorado River water sometime in the future, the Compact stated that if surplus water (i.e. water over and above the US apportionments) is insufficient to meet Mexico’s right, any deficiency would be shared equally by the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin (The Utilisation of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande Treaty Between the United States and Mexico [1944 US–Mexico Water Treaty] subsequently allocated 1.85 Bm3 [1.5 maf] per year to Mexico). Although most tribal water rights had not been adjudicated at the time, the Compact also stated that ‘Nothing in this compact shall be construed as affecting the obligations of the United States of America to Indian tribes’. Although the 1922 Compact left many important policy issues unresolved (e.g. the specific allocation of water to each Basin State and to Mexico, the resolution of specific tribal water rights claims, etc.), some key issues were resolved that allowed the planning and development of water projects in the Lower Basin to proceed. The construction of the Hoover Dam, which created Lake Mead, as well as some irrigation facilities downstream, was subsequently authorised by the 1928 Boulder Canyon Project Act (BCPA).7 The 1928 BCPA also divided the Lower Basin’s 9.25 Bm3 (7.5 maf) apportionment as follows: Arizona, 3.45 Bm3 (2.8 maf); California, 5.43 Bm3 (4.4 maf); and Nevada 0.37 Bm3 (0.3 maf) (Table 18.1), and it approved the 1922 Compact. Over the following four decades, development in the Lower Basin progressed, beginning with the construction of the Colorado River Aqueduct in the 1930s to divert water for municipal use in southern California8 (California established the Metropolitan Water District in 1928 with the primary purpose to construct and operate the 390-km [242-mi] aqueduct, which began delivery of water in 1939) and including two additional mainstream dams below Hoover Dam (Parker Dam in 1938 and Davis Dam in 1951) to facilitate the

18.1  ­Introduction and Backgroun

Table 18.1  Annual US State apportionmentsa and allocation to Mexico. Apportionment/allocation %b

Million cubic metre

Acre-ft

Arizona

—

61 674

50 000

Colorado

51.75

4 755 535

3 855 375

New Mexico

11.25

1 033 812

838 125

Utah

23.00

2 113 571

1 713 500

Wyoming

14.00

1 286 522

1 043 000

Arizona

—

3 453 749

2 800 000

California

—

5 427 320

4 400000

Nevada

—

370 045

300 000

Mexico

—

1 850 223

1 500 000

Upper Basin

Lower Basin

a) All US entitlements, including tribal rights, are included in these apportionments. b) Percentages are listed for the Upper Basin as the 1948 Upper Basin Compact apportioned the available water on a percentage basis to Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, after apportioning a fixed volume to Arizona.

delivery of water to California, Arizona, and Mexico. Arizona further desired the ability to divert water off-stream for use in central Arizona in order to use its full apportionment; however, California disagreed, and the long-standing dispute was ultimately settled by the US Supreme Court in its 1964 Decree.9 The Court effectively established the Secretary of the US Department of the Interior (Secretary) as the ‘water master’ of mainstream Colorado River water in the Lower Basin. Specific responsibilities include determining the amount of mainstream water available annually for consumptive use, releasing water apportioned but unused by one state for use in another state in any a given year (but with no rights to the recurrent use of such water in subsequent years), and accounting for all water use from the mainstream in the Lower Basin on an annual basis. Most of the Secretary’s Lower Basin water master responsibilities are carried out by Reclamation, as well as the annual, monthly, daily, and hourly scheduling, operation, and maintenance of the mainstream dams. The Court also affirmed the individual State apportionments as specified by the 1928 BCPA despite Arizona’s inability to consumptively use its amount. This led to the 1968 Colorado River Basin Project Act (CRBPA) authorising the Central Arizona Project (CAP). The CAP was completed in 1994, effectively allowing Arizona to use its state’s full apportionment. In addition, the Court allocated specific amounts of water to several ‘federal establishments’ that included the five Indian tribes with reservations on the lower Colorado River, a recreational area, two wildlife refuges, and the local municipality near Hoover Dam. The Court further specified that any mainstream water used within a state (including the water for the federal establishments) would be satisfied from the State’s apportionment where the uses occur.

447

448

18  Water Resources Management in the Colorado River Basin

During this time, a different framework was established for the allocation of Colorado River water in the Upper Basin. The 1948 Upper Colorado River Basin Compact10 (1948 Upper Basin Compact) apportioned the available Colorado River water supply to the Upper Division states (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming) on a percentage basis (Table 18.1). The 1948 Upper Basin Compact also established an interstate administrative agency (known as the Upper Colorado River Commission) to implement the provisions of the Compact including: adopting rules and regulations; collecting, analysing, and publishing water data and information; forecasting water run-off on the Colorado River and its tributaries; and making findings as to the quantity of Colorado River water used each year in the Upper Basin and in each State. Specific water entitlements and contracts are established and managed by each state, subject to the prior appropriation doctrine and other policies and agreements. Additional dams were authorised and constructed in the Upper Basin in the late 1950s and early 1960s including Glen Canyon Dam upstream of the Grand Canyon11 (The 1956 Colorado River Storage Project Act authorised construction of the Colorado River Storage Project, which allowed for comprehensive development of the water resources of the Upper Division States) which created Lake Powell. While Reclamation owns, operates, and manages many projects and dams in the Upper Basin, Reclamation does not have direct authority over Colorado River water use in each state. The volumes of Colorado River water apportioned to the individual states in both the Upper and Lower Basins include water consumptively used for environmental purposes (Box 18.3) and water allocated and used by tribes (Box 18.4). Some tribal water rights claims remain, and settlement discussions/negotiations are ongoing.

Box 18.3  Water for Environmental Resources During the initial allocations of water in the Colorado River Basin (e.g. the 1922 Colorado River Compact, the 1928 Boulder Canyon Project Act, the 1944 US–Mexico Water Treaty, and the 1948 Upper Colorado River Basin Compact), environmental uses for water were not clearly defined nor even directly acknowledged. As management of the river progressed and environmental consciousness evolved (i.e. with the passage of national laws such as the 1973 Endangered Species Act), providing water for environmental purposes has become more important and is now addressed through multiple federal, state, and local programmes throughout the basin. The use of water for environmental purposes in the basin broadly falls into two categories: consumptive uses and nonconsumptive uses (e.g. water for instream flows). For environmental uses that consumptively use Colorado River water, the consumptive volume counts towards the state’s apportionment. For example, several wildlife refuges have entitlements within the state of Arizona, including the Havasu National Wildlife Refuge that has an entitlement to consumptively use 46.13 Mm3 (37 399 acre-ft) each year out of Arizona’s apportioned 3.45 Bm3 (2.8 maf). In the Lower Basin, the LCR MSCP provides Endangered Species Act compliance for specific federal ongoing and future flow and non-flow-related actions in the Lower Basin through 2055 and works to balance the delivery and use of the Colorado River

18.1  ­Introduction and Backgroun

Box 18.3  (Continued) water resources and hydropower production with the conservation of native species and their habitats. Because the current vegetation along the Lower Colorado River mainstream differs significantly from historical conditions, one specific component of the LCR MSCP allows for the removal of non-native vegetation and replaces it with native vegetation in order to build habitat for covered species. In doing this, no water rights are obtained because the consumptive use by vegetation is considered a ‘system loss’ which is not part of any Lower Basin states’ apportionment. Switching from nonnative to native vegetation is viewed as a ‘re-purposing’ of water that is already used by the system. In many other cases, instream environmental flow targets or requirements have been established to help protect fish and other aquatic life. For example, the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program established flow targets below several Reclamation reservoirs, and the reservoirs are operated to help meet those flow targets. In some states, e.g. Colorado, nonconsumptive instream flow water rights have been established to maintain minimum flows between specific points on a stream. In both of these examples, the environmental flows do not count towards a state’s apportionment, as these flows are nonconsumptive.

Box 18.4  Indian Reserved Water Rights in the Colorado River Basin The 1922 Colorado River Compact did not explicitly address water rights for Indian tribes when apportioning water to the Upper and Lower Basins nor did the 1928 Boulder Canyon Project Act and 1948 Upper Colorado River Basin Compact when apportioning water to each state. However, Indian water rights count towards the state apportionments (Table 18.1) for the state in which they are established. The doctrine of Federal Indian Reserved Water Rights, also known as the Winters doctrine, holds that when the US Congress reserves land for an Indian reservation, Congress also implicitly reserves water to fulfil the purpose of the reservation. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Federal Indian Reserved Water Rights have a priority date of either the date the reservation was created or time immemorial, which makes them senior to almost every other water right in the basin. Federal Indian Reserved Water Rights differ from state water rights in at least two ways. Typically, state water rights in the Colorado River Basin are fixed by the date and quantity of the initial beneficial use of water and may be forfeited if not put to beneficial use for some period of time. Federal Indian Reserved Water Rights, however, are quantified based on the water needed to accomplish the reservation’s purposes (including past, present, and future uses) and cannot be lost due to nonuse (Reclamation 2018). (Continued)

449

450

18  Water Resources Management in the Colorado River Basin

Box 18.4  (Continued) The 10 tribes that have reserved water rights from the Colorado River mainstream currently divert about 1.7 Bm3 (1.4 maf) of water per year, almost all of which is used for agriculture. Including unresolved claims, the tribes’ reserved water rights total nearly 3.4 Bm3 (2.8 maf) of water per year from the Colorado River and its tributaries. Although Winters recognised Federal Indian Reserved Water Rights and set the stage for resolving Indian water rights claims, these claims are being resolved at a slow pace whether through a Court adjudication or a negotiated settlement process, with fewer than half of the tribes in the basin with fully settled or adjudicated reserved water rights. These unresolved water rights claims create complications for both tribal and other water users in the basin, the most significant of which is the uncertainty it creates regarding water availability. The tribes are critical partners as the Colorado River Basin faces future water supply challenges, and Reclamation is committed to exploring opportunities that enhance tribes’ ability to put their water to full beneficial and economic use (Reclamation 2018).

18.2  ­Current Challenge – Imbalance of Water Supply and Demand The most important issue currently facing the basin stems from the likelihood of decreasing water supplies and increasing water demands over the long term, both likely to be exacerbated in the future by changes in climate. In 2010–2012, Reclamation, in partnership with the Basin States, conducted a detailed, long-range (through 2060), basin-wide study12 (Basin Study) to define current and future imbalances in water supply and demand in the basin (including the adjacent areas that receive Colorado River water) and developed and analysed adaptation and mitigation strategies that could be used to resolve those imbalances. In addition, the potential impacts of a changing climate on water resources is a research and study topic of interest worldwide, and in this section, some key findings of these studies are summarised. Since 2000, the basin has been in a state of prolonged drought with the period 2000–2018 having the driest 19-year average in the historical record and, using paleo-reconstructions of streamflow (Meko et  al. 2007), one of the lowest 19-year periods dating back to 762 CE. Based on a comparison of different drought lengths, the current twenty-first century drought is one of the most severe that has been experienced since 1906 (Udall 2018). Figure 18.3 shows the effects of the drought on Lake Mead, which fell from 87% capacity in 2001 to 37% capacity in 2015. Temperatures in the basin, particularly in the run-off generating Upper Basin, are rising through time and are contributing to the decreasing supply, even with near or above average precipitation (McCabe et al. 2017; Udall and Overpeck 2017; Xiao et al. 2018). Since about 1988 (McCabe et al. 2017), temperatures in the Upper Basin have been consistently above the long-term average basin temperature. In this period (1988–2018), Upper Basin run-off is 89% of the long-term average.

18.2  ­Current Challenge – Imbalance of Water Supply and Deman (a)

(b)

Figure 18.3  Comparison of water elevation at Lake Mead showing the effects of the ongoing drought on reservoir levels. (a) Elevation 364.5 m (1196 ft) or 87% of capacity in 2001. (b) Elevation 327.7 m (1075 ft) or 37% of capacity in 2015.

Climate projections from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment (IPCC 2013) generally agree that temperatures across the basin will continue to rise in the future, with an estimated average increase of 2.8–3.3 °C (5–6 °F) by the end of the twenty-first century (Reclamation 2016). The projections of changes in precipitation are variable, ranging from decreases of 12% to increases exceeding 25%. Hydrology models, which rely on these temperature and precipitation projections, indicate in some cases that the increased precipitation is enough to overcome the increasing temperatures and result in either no change or a net increase in run-off. Overall, annual flow projections range from decreases nearing 35% to increases of more than 30%, while there is a projected shift towards an earlier peak flow and increases in the historically low flow months of December through March. Regardless, it is clear the hydrology in the basin is not stationary and that there is increasing uncertainty in future supply in the basin. A 10-year moving average of annual Colorado River consumptive use clearly shows that use has steadily increased throughout the twentieth century (Figure 18.2). Currently, the Upper Basin is using about half of its 9.25 Bm3 (7.5 maf) apportionment, while the demand in the Lower Basin grew to its full apportionment by the late 1990s. Given the ongoing drought and additional conservation and efficiency measures undertaken since the early 2000s, noting that voluntary conservation efforts in the Lower Basin in response to the ongoing drought have reduced annual Lower Basin consumptive use by about 5% on average over the past few years, overall consumptive use has declined over the past several years. However, the cities served by the Colorado River continue to be some of the fastest growing communities in the United States. Demand for Colorado River water is expected to increase by 1.9–4.9 Bm3 (1.5–4.0 maf) by 2060, mostly due to increasing demands in the municipal and industrial sector (Reclamation 2012), and demands may also increase due to additional tribal water settlements (see Box 18.4). As with water supply, water demand is also affected by climate change. The projected increases in temperature would result in increased evaporation from reservoirs and increased demand from crops due to increases in evapotranspiration (Reclamation 2012).

451

452

18  Water Resources Management in the Colorado River Basin

This implies that agricultural water users already using their full allocation will grow less product with the same amount of water, and those not yet using their full allocation would need to use more water to grow an amount equivalent to what is currently being grown. Not only did the Basin Study examine the water supply–demand challenges likely to confront the basin over the next 50 years, options and strategies were also considered to mitigate these challenges. It found that across a wide range of future supply scenarios, including hydrology derived from paleo-reconstructions and Global Circulation Models, and a range of future demand scenarios that accounted for varying increases in population and land use change, the Colorado River may face a supply–demand imbalance ranging from 0 to 8.6 Bm3 (7 maf) in 2060 (the median imbalance was 3.95 Bm3 [3.2 maf]). The Basin Study investigated a wide range of options to help resolve these imbalances, including demand management (conservation) and augmentation (desalination or inter-basin transfers), and found that a wide range of solutions will be needed to mitigate and adapt to future shortfalls. Based on the solid foundation established by the Basin Study, two follow-up studies have been conducted. The first study involved a very broad range of partners and stakeholders basin-wide and was focused on water conservation, reuse, and environmental and recreational flows (Reclamation 2015). The second study documented how the 10 tribes with adjudicated water rights on the mainstream of the Colorado River currently use their water, projected how future water development could occur, and described the potential effects of future tribal water development on the Colorado River system (Reclamation 2018).

18.3  ­Recent Approaches to Meeting Challenges 18.3.1  The Collaborative, Incremental Approach The past two decades on the Colorado River have been marked by a collaborative, incremental approach to dealing with basin-wide challenges. This approach focuses on building consensus among partners and stakeholders and utilising flexibilities in the Law of the River to develop new policy solutions to address the challenges. Building consensus throughout the process involves a ‘give and take’ approach by all parties and results in solutions that minimise the chance of litigation. Taking an incremental approach also allows those involved to focus on the most urgent challenges at the time. Additionally, these incremental solutions are typically only in effect for a finite time period, often referred to as an ‘interim period’, allowing partners and stakeholders to try new approaches without having to make long-term commitments (short-term solutions are often termed ‘a pilot project’ or ‘pilot program’ and are used to evaluate the feasibility, cost, and impacts of the actions being taken). This allows Reclamation, Mexico, the Basin States, and other partners the opportunity to gain valuable operational experience when implementing the interim policies. It also results in the need to renegotiate the decision in the future, which can have both positive and negative consequences. On the positive side, it allows all those involved to continue the policies that work best and modify those that need improvement, further decreasing the chance of litigation. On the negative side, it requires the commitment in advance to reengage in difficult analyses

18.3  ­Recent Approaches to Meeting Challenge

and negotiations and can also result in longer-term uncertainty regarding what policies will be in effect. This approach, while time- and labour-intensive, has been successfully used over the last 20 years and has resulted in several important operation and management agreements and decisions primarily in response to the effects of changing hydrology on available water in storage in Lakes Powell and Mead (Figure 18.4). Four examples of decision-making using the collaborative, incremental approach are discussed below.

18.3.2  Interim Surplus Guidelines and California ‘4.4 Plan’ With Arizona and Nevada approaching their full apportionments in the mid-1990s, attention was focused on California, who had been using more than their allocated 5.4 Bm3 (4.4 maf) for many years. California had been relying on unused apportionment as well as surplus water made available year to year by Secretarial determination. Although consistent with the 1964 Decree, the Secretary did not have specific criteria for determining the availability of surplus water (i.e. delivering more than the apportioned 9.25 Bm3 [7.5 maf] to the Lower Division States). In recognition that hydrology would likely change, and noting that in 1999, water storage in Lakes Powell and Mead was at 95% of capacity and Upper Basin run-off had been near or above average for several years, Arizona and Nevada would soon be using their full apportionments, and that more formal criteria for surplus determinations would provide greater certainty to water users, a public process pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)13 was undertaken to develop surplus criteria (The 1969 NEPA, as amended, is a US environmental law that promotes the enhancement of the environment. It established the President’s Council on Environmental Quality and requires federal agencies to evaluate the environmental effects of their proposed actions). Using the collaborative, incremental approach, Interim Surplus Guidelines were implemented in 2001, envisioned to be in place through 2016. These guidelines specified the amounts of water necessary in Lake Mead (by identifying specific elevation ‘triggers’) to identify when surplus conditions occur and the volume of surplus deliveries that would be made available to Arizona, California, and Nevada. In parallel, California agreed to implement a ‘4.4 Plan’14 to reduce their Colorado River water use to their apportionment and stay within that amount long term. The 4.4 Plan consists primarily of compensated, water conservation and subsequent water transfers from higher priority agricultural uses to lower priority municipal uses. In 2003, the appropriate water districts and sate agencies in California executed the Quantification Settlement Agreement and the Secretary signed the Colorado River Water Delivery Agreement,15 effectively implementing the 4.4 Plan for 35 years with provisions to extend for up to 75 years. The 15-year interim period for the Interim Surplus Guidelines was intended to give California a ‘soft landing’ (i.e. sufficient time to fully implement their water conservation/ transfer programmes); however, just as the Interim Surplus Guidelines were being completed, a period of extended drought began. In fact, Upper Basin run-off from 2000 to 2004 was the lowest five-year period in the historical record and resulted in Lakes Powell and Mead declining from a combined 95% of capacity to 54% of capacity (Figure 18.4). Despite the declining Lake Mead levels resulting in the lack of surplus water, California successfully implemented their 4.4 Plan in just a few years.

453

74.0 (60)

1968

1970 Long Range Operating Criteria

Colorado River Basin Project Act Combined maximum capacity

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act

1964 Consolidated Supreme Court Decree, Arizona v. California

Grand Canyon Protection Act

2001 Interim Surplus Guidelines 2003 Colorado River Water Delivery Agreement (QSA/IOPP) 2007 Interim Guidelines for Lake Powell & Lake Mead

Reservoir Storage - Bm3 (maf)

1956

2019

Colorado River Storage Project Act

49.3 (40)

2012 & 2017 Initiatives w/ Mexico (Min. 319 & 323)

1948 Upper Colorado River Basin Compact

Drought Cont. Plan & Binat’l 77% Water Scarcity Cout. Plan

1944

37.0 (30)

US-Mexico Water Treaty

58%

24.7 (20)

39%

12.3 (10)

0.0

96%

Percent Combined Maximum Capacity

61.7 (50)

1999 Off-stream

1992 Storage Rule

1974

19% 1922 Colorado River Compact 1928 Boulder Canyon Project Act

1937

0% 1947

1957

1967 Lake Mead Storage

1977

1987 Lake Powell Storage

1997

2007

2017 RECLAMATION

Figure 18.4  Combined Lake Powell and Lake Mead storage from 1937 (the year after the completion of Hoover Dam) through 2019, with key laws and policies identified.

18.3  ­Recent Approaches to Meeting Challenge

18.3.3  2007 Interim Guidelines Concern for continued drought and declining reservoir levels grew basin-wide. Similar to the ability of the Secretary to deliver surplus water, the 1964 Decree also contains provisions for the Secretary to reduce deliveries if there is not sufficient water to meet the 9.25 Bm3 (7.5 maf) apportionment to the Lower Division States; however, criteria for determining when shortages would occur and how shortages would be administered is not specified. In response to the rapid decline of the reservoirs by 2005, Reclamation initiated a NEPA process to determine the criteria for shortages. Working closely with the Basin States and other partners and stakeholders, this process resulted in the 2007 Interim Guidelines (Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead),16 in place from 2008 to 2026, which specify guidance for determining shortages in the Lower Basin along with three other elements (described below). The 2007 Interim Guidelines defined reservoir levels in Lake Mead when specified volumes of shortage would be imposed and allocated those reductions to Arizona and Nevada in accordance with 1968 CRBPA providing certainty regarding how the Secretary would administer shortages pursuant to the 1964 Decree. In addition to specifying shortage criteria for the Lower Basin, the 2007 Interim Guidelines contain three other main elements. First, they modify the 2001 Interim Surplus Guidelines, by extending certain provisions through 2026 and reducing the number of surplus levels. Second, they include coordinated operations of Lakes Powell and Mead, intended to keep the storage conditions more equitable between the Upper and Lower Basins (Lake Powell is at the headwaters of the Grand Canyon and is located in the Upper Basin, while Lake Mead is at the bottom end of the Grand Canyon and is located in the Lower Basin). The coordinated operations provide specific reservoir elevations (dependent on elevations at both Lakes Powell and Mead), where releases from Lake Powell could increase or decrease from the previous ‘standard’ release of 10.15 Bm3 (8.23 maf). Third, the 2007 Interim Guidelines include a mechanism known as Intentionally Created Surplus (ICS), which allows water users to store conserved water in Lake Mead and then use the stored water at a later date. This helps to increase the storage in Lake Mead and keep it from declining to lower levels, while still allowing users to know they can rely on this water in future times of need. All together these four elements of the 2007 Interim Guidelines help protect reservoir conditions, while providing certainty to water users particularly in the Lower Basin regarding water deliveries. Although not explicitly a part of the 2007 Interim Guidelines effort, the Upper Basin also undertook a study to determine the water availability in the Upper Basin in recognition that further Upper Basin water development is not without risks of additional shortages (see Box 18.5).

18.3.4  Minutes 319 and 323 While the 2007 Interim Guidelines specified guidance for determining shortages in the United States, additional work was necessary to develop an agreement with Mexico regarding operating criteria for circumstances of low elevation reservoir conditions necessitating the delivery of less than 1.85 Bm3 (1.5 maf) to Mexico. The 1944 US–Mexico Water

455

456

18  Water Resources Management in the Colorado River Basin

Box 18.5  2007 Hydrologic Determination of Water Availability from Navajo Reservoir and the Upper Colorado River Basin for Use in New Mexico In 2007, a determination of the availability of water to meet a proposed long-term service contract for use of water from Navajo Reservoir was investigated as required by Public Law 87-483, Section  11(a). This determination relied on projections of future estimated water uses and water supplies through 2060. Based on this hydrologic investigation, water depletions by the Upper Basin states from the Upper Colorado River Basin were found to reasonably be allowed to rise to an annual average of 7.1 Bm3 (5.76 maf) per year, exclusive of reservoir evaporation from Lake Powell, Flaming Gorge Reservoir, and the Aspinall Unit. To achieve this depletion level through 2060, the study17 assumed an overall 6% shortage or less over any consecutive 25 years. This study found that given projections of water supply and water uses through 2060 at the time, the Upper Basin should not expect to reasonably be able to use their full compact apportionment without experiencing significant shortage, greater than 6% in some years. Since this study, the Upper Basin states have strived to provide projected schedules for Reclamation-led modelling studies that do not exceed the 7.1 Bm3 (5.76 maf) per year determination through 2060.

Treaty states that in times of ‘extraordinary drought’ Mexico and the United States will share in reductions, but it does not specify criteria for defining that circumstance. In another collaborative, incremental step, federal agencies in the United States18 and Mexico (federal agencies in Mexico included the Mexican Section of IBWC [CILA], the National Water Commission [CONAGUA], and the Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources), Basin States in both countries, as well as other stakeholders in both countries worked together to define when Mexico would share in shortage and surplus with the United States. In addition to defining operating rules, two other components were critical to reaching an agreement: water conservation and infrastructure improvements; and environmental enhancements (i.e. environmental restoration). The outcome was Minute 319 (Minutes are implementing agreements executed jointly by the US and Mexican Sections of the International Boundary and Water Commission pursuant to the 1944 US–Mexico Water Treaty), a historic agreement between the two countries that included provisions where Mexico would share in shortages and surpluses with the United States and be able to store conserved water in Lake Mead, similar to the ICS capability in the United States (the terms shortage and surplus do not appear in Minutes with Mexico, as they are not defined under the 1944 US–Mexico Water Treaty. Instead, Minutes use the terms low- and high-elevation reservoir conditions). The agreement also included the ability for US federal and nonfederal entities to provide financial support for water conservation activities in Mexico that conserve water primarily through infrastructure improvements in exchange for a portion of the conserved water. A commitment was also made between the two countries to provide water for the environment, including a historic ‘pulse flow’ that resulted in water reaching the Colorado River Delta for the first time in decades (see Box 18.6).

18.3  ­Recent Approaches to Meeting Challenge

Box 18.6  Environmental Deliveries, Monitoring, and Restoration in the Colorado River Delta, Mexico Beginning in March 2014, the United States and Mexico jointly implemented a transboundary environmental flow under Minute 319, the first international agreement to allocate a specific amount of water across an international boundary for environmental benefit (King et al. 2014). From late March to mid-May 2014, approximately 130 Mm3 (105 392 acre-ft) of water was released from Morelos Dam on the Arizona–Mexico border as a ‘pulse flow’ to mimic (on a smaller scale) natural, pre-dam spring-time flows and temporarily achieved connectivity of the Colorado River from Morelos Dam to the Sea of Cortez. This accomplishment was the result of collaboration and coordination between federal, state, water district, and NGOs in both the United States and Mexico. The pulse flow, provided by the federal governments in both countries, was in addition to a base flow in the amount of approximately 71.1 Mm3 (57 621 acre-ft) delivered by a binational coalition of NGOs from 2012 to 2017. Combined, these environmental water deliveries totalled 195 Mm3 (158 088 acre-ft). The hydrologic and ecological results of the pulse flow were monitored and measured by a binational team of science experts, with co-leads from each country.19 The scientists also provided input to a binational Environmental Work Group that oversaw the development of the delivery plan for the environmental flows, monitoring programme, and restoration implementation. The binational Science Team and Environmental Work Group continue in their roles under Minute 323 as the US and Mexican federal governments and partners continue with water delivery, monitoring, and habitat restoration efforts.

Minute 319 was a five-year agreement, ending in 2017, and both countries agreed to extend the major provisions of Minute 319 through 2026 in a subsequent Minute (Minute 323), ensuring alignment of each country’s operational commitments for that time period. In Minute 323, Mexico took the lead in recognising that in the face of continued drought, additional reductions in deliveries may be required to protect Lake Mead and included a ‘Binational Water Scarcity Contingency Plan’ in the Minute. In that plan, Mexico agreed to take less water under prescribed conditions if the United States also agreed to do the same through a proposed ‘Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan’ (LB DCP). As stated in the Minute, ‘The United States and Mexico share a common vision on a clear need for additional and continued actions due to the impacts on Lake Mead elevations from meeting system demands, hydrologic conditions, increased temperatures, and other factors’.20

18.3.5  Drought Contingency Plans in the United States and Mexico In the United States, work on a Basin-wide DCP began in 2013, when the Secretary of the Interior convened a meeting of the Governors’ representatives of the Basin States

457

458

18  Water Resources Management in the Colorado River Basin

to discuss the increasing risk of reaching critically low-reservoir levels in Lake Mead and Lake Powell and what might be the best path forward to deal with that risk. When the 2007 Interim Guidelines were under development, detailed analysis showed the chance of reaching critically low-reservoir levels in Lake Mead through 2026 to be well below 10%. Some 10 years later, updated assessments indicated the risk may have increased nearly fourfold under some hydrologic scenarios. The Basin States agreed to work with the federal government to develop a DCP and after over five and a half years, the seven states representatives signed a letter to the US Congress in February 2019, transmitting agreements to implement the Basin-wide DCP in two parts (an Upper Basin DCP and a Lower Basin DCP) and asking Congress to direct the Secretary to implement the plan. The US Congress passed the legislation on 16 April 2019 (US Public Law 116-14) and, on 20 May 2019 the DCP was executed by the seven Basin States and the US federal government. On 11 July 2019, the final step necessary to trigger Mexico’s Binational Water Scarcity Contingency Plan was also executed through a binational Joint Report.21 The LB DCP is essentially an ‘overlay’ to the 2007 Interim Guidelines; that is, the 2007 Interim Guidelines continue to operate with the additional agreed-to actions in the LB DCP that will reduce the risk of reaching low-reservoir levels, particularly in Lake Mead, to near the chances anticipated in 2007. These conservation activities will result in less water being taken from Lake Mead, either through ICS activities with the restriction that such ICS can be delivered only when Lake Mead recovers above a specified level, or through simply leaving the water in Lake Mead as system water. The Binational Water Scarcity Contingency Plan is similar in many respects. In the first year of implementation (2020), the LB DCP will result in a total of 297.3 Mm3 (241 000 acre-ft) of required conservation in Arizona, Nevada, and Mexico since Lake Mead was projected in August 2019 to be below elevation 332.2 m (1090 ft) on 31 December 2019, the elevation that LB DCP contributions are first required. If Lake Mead drops to an elevation below 318.5 m (1045 ft), California will also make required LB DCP contributions. Inclusion of required contributions for California is historic, while still recognising their high priority by not requiring their contributions until lower elevations at Lake Mead.

18.3.6  Reclamation’s Role Over the past 20–25 years,22 as illustrated by the examples discussed in this chapter, Reclamation has fulfilled a variety of roles; facilitator, mediator, and in the Lower Basin, the water master as mentioned previously. Perhaps most importantly, Reclamation has acted as the ‘honest technical broker’, helping find solutions to a series of complex water management challenges by ensuring the best state-of-the-art data and information are available to all partners and stakeholders. As an example, in addition to working with federal agencies, universities, NGOs, and others to develop a wide range of future inflow scenarios, Reclamation relies on a long-term reservoir operations and policy model, available to outside entities, to develop and analyse alternative operating policies (see Box  18.7). Reclamation’s ability to continue to fulfil these and perhaps other roles is critical to reach collaborative solutions in the future.

18.4  ­Future Thoughts and Consideration

Box 18.7  Using Reclamation’s Reservoir Operations Planning Model to Help Address the Challenges Reclamation’s Colorado River Simulation System (CRSS) is a Basin-wide reservoir operations model23 designed to compare different operating policies. The legacy model, originally developed in the 1980s in Fortran, is now implemented in RiverWare24 (Zagona et al. 2001), a generalised river basin modelling software. CRSS is accepted as the de facto modelling tool for policy decisions affecting Lakes Powell and Mead and other Basin-wide initiatives. RiverWare allows basin policy to be written in a transparent user readable format, ensuring operating rules are understood and accepted by all stakeholders. It can be run by partners and stakeholders along with Reclamation, and through a Stakeholder Modelling Workgroup these partners are continually apprised of all changes to the model, while Reclamation maintains and advances the model. Each of the key milestones discussed in Section 18.3 used CRSS to analyse policy alternatives and facilitate discussions among partners during each respective process. At the beginning of each process, Reclamation and the other involved partners came together to agree on the modelling assumptions that were used. Where consensus could not be reached, the default was to ‘model it all ways’ to understand the sensitivity of results to the assumptions and to provide a range of scenarios. The process to agree on model assumptions, coupled with the long-standing acceptance of CRSS, helped to focus energy on policy decisions, rather than debating which model is ‘best’ or whose assumptions are ‘right’.

18.4  ­Future Thoughts and Considerations As discussed in this chapter, the past two decades on the Colorado River have been marked by a collaborative, incremental approach in addressing Basin-wide challenges. By utilising flexibilities in the Law of the River, new operations and management solutions have been successfully designed and implemented. By building broad consensus Basin-wide, major litigation has been avoided, allowing efforts to focus primarily on the technical and policy issues, not differing legal interpretations. Given that these incremental solutions are typically only in effect for interim periods, significant operational experience has been gained that provides valuable information for upcoming policy negotiations and decision-making. In the short term, water managers representing the Basin States, tribes, and Mexico, as well as NGOs and other interested parties, must focus on devising new guidelines for the operation of Lakes Powell and Mead, which expire in 2026, and new Minute(s) for specific aspects of implementation of the 1944 US–Mexico Water Treaty, since the current Minute expires in 2026. This work will begin with a formal review of the effectiveness of the existing 2007 Interim Guidelines, specified in the 2007 decision document to begin no later than 31 December 2020. Similar reviews, perhaps in a more informal manner, are anticipated with respect to the Minutes with Mexico and the DCPs. The experience gained and documented through these reviews will be invaluable as the discussion regarding post-2026 operations begins. The scope, time period, potential options and alternatives, and other key topics will be addressed through a NEPA process.

459

460

18  Water Resources Management in the Colorado River Basin

Some discussions have already begun as exemplified in recent publications (Castle and Fleck 2019) and meetings. At the bi-annual Colorado River Symposium25 held in September 2019, a panel of experts discussed many aspects of how to best move forward in order to solve pressing Colorado River issues. Essentially, the debate centred on the idea of an incremental vs. a visionary approach; however, some, including the authors of this chapter, do not see these concepts as mutually exclusive.26 For the longer term, the 2012 Basin Study established a framework to identify and address the broad range of future water supply–demand imbalances. Clearly, no single approach or option will suffice; rather, a ‘portfolio’ approach is necessary, whereby different actions are devised and implemented depending upon current and future risk. The actions will likely include additional water conservation and reuse, water marketing, expanded water banking, and larger-scale augmentation projects, both in the United States and Mexico. Indeed, as part of Minute 323, a binational work group is exploring the feasibility of a variety of new water sources projects, including augmenting the system with large-scale desalinisation off the coast of Mexico. Significant uncertainties will also need to be better understood in order to secure the commitment of the necessary and substantial resources, for example, the feasibility of larger-scale solutions which depend on many variables, such as permitting, energy requirements, and overall cost. Significant uncertainties also exist with respect to future water demand and supply. Resolution of outstanding tribal water rights is critical to better understand and reduce the large uncertainty regarding water needs throughout the Basin. Additionally, the everincreasing demand for Colorado River water may be balanced with the need for demand management (for example, the Pilot System Conservation Program which is a ‘pilot program’ in the United States designed to pay users in both the Upper and Lower Basin to conserve water resulting in increased storage in Lake Powell or Lake Mead) to mitigate risks to the Basin (Castle and Fleck 2019). There is also increasing uncertainty in future supply in the Basin due to the changing climate. Opportunities that improve future climate projections will need to be pursued to help address these uncertainties. Enhancements to the operational and planning tools used in the Basin to better understand the vulnerabilities of different policy alternatives is another approach that will help deal with these future uncertainties. Although the allocations in the 1922 Compact were based on a relatively wet period of time that led to an over-allocation of available water supply, the 1922 Compact was quite visionary and still remains the cornerstone of the Law of the River today (Hundley 2009). Certainly, the Law of the River continues to evolve over time and currently does not address all of the contemporary water management issues, particularly in times of severe and sustained drought (MacDonnell et al. 1995). It is our belief, however, that a collaborative and incremental approach continues to be the best course to ensure a reliable and sustainable Colorado River system, now and for the future.

­References Bruce, B., Prairie, J., Maupin, M.A. et al. (2018). Comparison of US Geological Survey and Bureau of Reclamation Water-Use Reporting in the Colorado River Basin (No. 2018–5021). US Geological Survey. https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20185021.

 ­Reference

Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) (2012). Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study. Bureau of Reclamation. https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy.html. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) (2015). Colorado River Basin Stakeholders Moving Forward to Address Challenges Identified in the Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study. Bureau of Reclamation. https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/ crbstudy/MovingForward. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) (2016). SECURE Water Act Section 9503(c) – Reclamation Climate Change and Water 2016. Bureau of Reclamation. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) (2018). Colorado River Basin Ten Tribes Partnership Tribal Water Study. Bureau of Reclamation. https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/ crbstudy/tribalwaterstudy.html. Castle, A. and Fleck, J. (2019). The Risk of Curtailment under the Colorado River Compact. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3483654. Colorado River Governance Initiative (2012). Does the Upper Basin Have a Delivery Obligation or an Obligation Not to Deplete the Flow of the Colorado River at Lee Ferry? (Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado Law School). Colorado River Governance Initiative. https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent. cgi?article=1006&context=books_reports_studies. Gopalakrishnan, C. (1973). The doctrine of prior appropriation and its impact on water development: a critical survey. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 32 (1): 61–72. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3485791.pdf. Hundley, N. (2009). Water and the West: The Colorado River Compact and the Politics of Water in the American West. University of California Press. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2013). IPCC Fifth Assessment World Climate Research Program’s Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, Phase 5. King, J.S., Culp, P.W., and de la Parra, C. (2014). Getting to the right side of the river: lessons for binational cooperation on the road to minute 319. University of Denver Water Law Review 18: 36. MacDonnell, L.J., Getches, D.H., and Hugenberg, W.C. Jr. (1995). The law of the Colorado River: coping with severe sustained drought. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association 31: 825–836. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.1995.tb03404.x. McCabe, G.J., Wolock, D.M., Pederson, G.T. et al. (2017). Evidence that recent warming is reducing upper Colorado River flows. Earth Interactions 21 https://doi.org/10.1175/ EI-D-17-0007. Meko, D.M., Woodhouse, C.A., Baisan, C.A. et al. (2007). Medieval drought in the upper Colorado River Basin. Geophysical Research Letters 34: L10705. https://doi. org/10.1029/2007GL029988. Thomas, C.C., Koontz, L., and Cornachione, E. (2019). 2018 National Park Visitor Spending Effects Economic Contributions to Local Communities, States, and the Nation. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/EQD/NRR – 2019/1922. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1374600. Udall, B. and Overpeck, J. (2017). The twenty-first century Colorado River hot drought and implications for the future. Water Resources Research 53: 2404–2418. https://doi. org/10.1002/2016WR019638. Udall, Brad (2018). The Drying Colorado River Basin: Lessons from the past 25 years applied to the next 25 years. Presented at the Upper Colorado River Basin Water Forum, Grand

461

462

18  Water Resources Management in the Colorado River Basin

Junction, Colorado, USA. https://www.coloradomesa.edu/water-center/forum/2018-uppercolorado-river-basin-water-forum.html. Xiao, M., Udall, B., and Lettenmaier, D. (2018). On the causes of declining Colorado River streamflows. Water Resources Research 54: 6739–6756. https://doi. org/10.1029/2018WR023153. Zagona, E., Fulp, T., Shane, R. et al. (2001). RiverWare™: a generalized tool for complex reservoir systems modeling. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37 (4): 913–929. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2001.tb05522.x.

Notes 1 See https://www.usbr.gov/uc; https://www.usbr.gov/lc 2 See https://www.fws.gov/international/laws-treaties-agreements/us-conservation-laws/ endangered-species-act.html 3 See https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/history-clean-water-act 4 See https://www.coloradoriversalinity.org 5 See https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2013-05-06/pdf/2013-10649.pdf 6 See https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/lawofrvr.html 7 See https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/pdfiles/bcpact.pdf 8 See http://www.mwdh2o.com/WhoWeAre/History/Pages/default.aspx 9 See https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/pdfiles/scconsolidateddecree2006.pdf 10 See https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/pdfiles/ucbsnact.pdf 11 See https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/crsp/index.html 12 See https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy.html 13 See https://ceq.doe.gov 14 See https://www.watereducation.org/aquapedia/colorado-river-water-use-44-plan 15 See https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/crwda/index.htm 16 See https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/strategies.html 17 See https://www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/eis/navgallup/FEIS/vol1/attach-N.pdf 18 See https://www.ibwc.gov/home.html 19 See https://www.ibwc.gov/Files/Minute_319_Monitoring_Report_112818_FINAL.pdf 20 See https://www.ibwc.gov/Files/Minutes/Min323.pdf 21 See https://www.ibwc.gov/Files/joint_report_min323_bi_water_scarcity_contingency_ plan_final.pdf 22 See https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/CRdocuments2008.html 23 See https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/riverops/model-info.html 24 See https://www.colorado.edu/cadswes 25 See https://www.watereducation.org 26 See https://www.watereducation.org/western-water/ can-grand-vision-solve-colorado-rivers-challenges-or-will-incremental-change-offer

Source: N. Dyer, CSIRO, Canberra, Australia.

465

19 Development in the Northern Rivers of Australia Ian Watson1, Andrew Ash1, Cuan Petheram2, Marcus Barber2, and Chris Stokes2 1 2

Agriculture and Food, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Australia Land and Water, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Australia

19.1 ­Introduction This chapter explores the potential for development of new or ‘greenfield’ areas of agriculture in the largely undeveloped catchments of northern Australia and the way in which this will be managed. It begins by providing some background context and describing the biophysical and governance features of catchments in this region and then explores the type of development that might occur. The rivers of northern Australia which flow into the Timor Sea and the Gulf of Carpentaria present a unique case of catchment management. The area is large, sparsely populated, and environmentally valuable, while the rivers flow largely unimpeded and relatively free of impacts associated with intensive land use (Douglas et al. 2005; Woinarski et  al. 2007). The Australian continent has been continuously inhabited by Indigenous people for at least 65 000 years (Clarkson et al. 2017), yet is now also a developed world economy following two centuries of settler colonisation. Most of the rivers remain a ‘blank slate’ in terms of large-scale water resource development, yet for well over a 100 years there has been a strong government and wider community agenda to develop the north of Australia. However, development activity has remained sporadic and uncoordinated. An ongoing poor understanding of key environmental and management conditions is one reason for this, and improving the information base remains an important objective for decision-makers. These decision-makers include government at all three levels (Commonwealth, State/Territory, and Local); pastoral, agricultural, and other development interests such as mining; and Indigenous people who are exercising increasing levels of control over natural resources as their property rights and management interests are becoming more widely and explicitly recognised. A settler, colonial imperative to develop northern Australia, was strongly apparent from even before the time Australia became a nation at the beginning of the twentieth century Handbook of Catchment Management, Second Edition. Edited by Robert C. Ferrier and Alan Jenkins. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

466

19  Development in the Northern Rivers of Australia

(Davidson 1972). That imperative has been ever present since but has waxed and waned in prominence over the last 120 years. Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, there has been renewed public and private interest in intensified development of the north. Evidence for this can be seen in the establishment of the Northern Australia Land and Water Taskforce (NALWT 2009), the establishment of the Northern Australia Ministerial Forum in 2010, the Inquiry into the Development of Northern Australia (Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia 2014), and the production of a White Paper on developing northern Australia (Australian Government 2015) as well as a large number of other policy initiatives, infrastructure funding and loans, feasibility studies, and investment in research (e.g. George et al. 2016). This enthusiasm to intensify land use has focused on traditional development options such as agriculture, but it is increasingly well recognised that the region has important and unique cultural and natural assets and that these will both influence the forms that traditional development options may take (NALWT 2009; Woinarski et  al. 2007; Holmes 2012; Australian Government 2015) as well as potentially becoming sources of economic activity in their own right through new mechanisms of valuation such as ecosystem services. A range of definitions is used to define northern Australia. Here, we define it as that part of Australia north of the Tropic of Capricorn, but west of the Great Dividing Range (Figure 19.1) an area of about 3.2 million square kilometres. In this case study chapter, we focus on the largely northerly draining catchments (c. 50) of the Timor Sea and Gulf of Carpentaria drainage divisions (CSIRO 2009) because they have much higher run-off than the largely arid internally draining rivers to the south (Figure 19.2). Together, the catchments in these two drainage divisions cover an area of 1.2 million square kilometres and span three jurisdictions, Western Australia, Northern Territory, and Queensland (Figures 19.1 and 19.2). Catchments in the North-East Coast drainage division lie east of the Great Dividing Range and flow into the Great Barrier Reef lagoon (Waterhouse et al. 2010), while to the south-west the catchments of the Pilbara drain into the Indian Ocean. The focus on that area west of the Great Dividing Range is because much of the land to the east is already intensively developed and being used for sugarcane, bananas, and a range of other crops in catchments such as the Burdekin and the Tully. These northerly draining catchments provide a strong contrast to the southern, more temperate, parts of Australia where water resource development has occurred on a much larger scale and where most of Australia’s population of 25 million resides. The Timor Sea and Gulf of Carpentaria drainage divisions contain about 40 000 ha of land under irrigation and are sparsely populated with only about 280 000 people, 140 000 of whom live in a single city, Darwin (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2016). Almost one-third of this population is counted in the Census as Indigenous, but this differs between regions: approximately 10% of the population of the greater Darwin region is Indigenous, but this increases to closer to 90% in many more remote areas which are often those subject to the greatest level of Indigenous control. The dominant commercial land use is livestock grazing, 54% by area, almost exclusively cattle on extensive pastoral properties. Areas protected for nature conservation (16%) and ‘other protected areas including Indigenous’ (20%) make up the majority of the remainder (Australian Land Use Mapping 2016). Within these drainage divisions, the climate is characterised by a distinct wet season during the hotter months, with more than 85% of mean annual rainfall occurring between November and April, and a dry season during the cooler months.

19.1 ­Introductio

NT QLD WA SA

NSW VIC TAS

Timor Sea

Darwin

Weipa

Katherine Kununurra

Tennant Creek

Townsville

Mount Isa

WA

f ee rR

Exmouth

rie

NT

Indian Ocean

Caims

ar

Fitzroy Crossing

Normanton

tB

Ord River

ea Gr

Broome

Coral Sea Cape York Gulf of Carpentaria

QLD Tropic of Capricorn

Drainage divisions

Alice Springs

Great Dividing Range

GULF OF CARPENTARIA INDIAN OCEAN LAKE EYRE

N

NORTH-EAST COAST TIMOR SEA WESTERN PLATEAU

0

500

1000

Kilometres

Figure 19.1  Northern Australia, here defined as that part of Australia, north of the Tropic of Capricorn, and west of the Great Dividing Range. This case study focuses on the Gulf of Carpentaria and the Timor Sea drainage divisions. WA, QLD, NT, etc. are states and territories of Australia.

Northern Australia was characterised by pre-colonial interactions between its Indigenous owners and Macassan seafarers, fishermen, and traders. Dutch explorers also visited, but European colonisation and settlement across Australia occurred as a direct result of the British proclamation of the Colony of New South Wales in south-eastern Australia in 1788. The western third of the Australian continent was claimed by the British Crown in 1827, but it was not until the 1870s and 1880s that Europeans, in the form of graziers, gold prospectors, and miners, settled in many of the northern catchments. Indigenous people inevitably suffered violence, the effects of disease, and dispossession of their land due to settler colonialism. While Indigenous people continue to live throughout the north in comparatively large numbers, population distribution has been shaped by colonial processes, and some areas within these catchments remain relatively under-populated by Indigenous

467

468

19  Development in the Northern Rivers of Australia

Figure 19.2  The northerly draining drainage basins, Timor Sea (left) and Gulf of Carpentaria (right), which are the focus for this case study. WA, QLD, NT, etc. are states and territories of Australia.

people because of this dispossession (Lyons and Barber 2018). While most of the early settlement of northern Australia was driven by private enterprise, based on the livestock grazing and mining industries, by the early twentieth century, the Commonwealth and the three jurisdictions saw a pressing need on both economic and national security grounds to significantly increase the population of the region. This chapter focuses on development of water resources, such as for irrigated agriculture, which is the most likely way that agriculture will be intensified in the region. Mining is not considered in this chapter, although it should be noted that it is the biggest industry in northern Australia in term of gross value of production.

19.2 ­Context for Northern Development The term ‘development’ can be understood in a number of different ways. For example, the livestock grazing industry has developed about 1.58 million square kilometre of land for cattle in northern Australia west of the Great Dividing Range (Grice et al. 2013). Creating

19.2  ­Context for Northern Developmen

tourist access to national parks is another form of development, and customary Indigenous use of land is increasingly being understood in development terms (e.g. Pascoe 2018). This has led to multifunctional transitions in at least some parts of the north, such as Cape York (Holmes 2012) (see Box 19.1). However, these examples are low intensity, characterised by very low productivity per hectare (e.g. hectares to tens of hectares per livestock unit) and or low human density (in the order of 1000–1500 ha per person). Box 19.1  Management of the Archer River Basin and Indigenous Economic Development Contributors: Justin Perry, Marcus Barber, Tim Jaffer, Dion Creek, Sandy Whyte, and Mel Sinclair. Justin Perry, CSIRO Land and Water, PMB Aitkenvale. Townsville, Queensland, 4814, Australia. Marcus Barber, CSIRO Land and Water, 41 GPO Box 2583, Brisbane, Queensland, 4001, Australia Tim Jaffer, Kalan Enterprises, 52 Peninsula Development Road, Coen, Queensland, 4871, Australia Dion Creek, Kalan Enterprises, 52 Peninsula Development Road, Coen, Queensland, 4871, Australia Sandy Whyte, Aak Puul Ngangtam Cape York, 18-20 Donaldson Street, Cairns, Queensland, 4870, Australia Melissa Sinclair, THE GEORG GROUP, 10/77 Woodward St, Edge Hill, Queensland, 4870, Australia Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have been managing landscapes in northern Australia for millennia through complex cultural governance that imposed an intricate tenure across the landscape which was usually based on topography and most often large rivers (catchment boundaries). A large catchment in the Cape York Peninsula Bioregion of northern Australia is the Archer River Basin. This basin is one of the most biologically diverse and intact catchments in the world having never undergone any major exploitation, damming or drainage manipulation. Native title, which recognises a continuous connection with traditional lands, underlies various tenure including Aboriginal Freehold, Pastoral Lease, local council, and national park. A common paradigm among the Aboriginal people of the region is local empowerment through economic development. People have strong cultural connections to their traditional clan areas and have cultural obligations for managing and visiting these lands but encounter economic, social, government, and infrastructure barriers to fulfilling their aspirations. Recently, several independent traditional owner led businesses have emerged in this region that have sought to develop their own opportunities that further the aspirations of their shareholders, the families who have cultural rights to traditional lands in which the businesses operate. The key challenge that faces these organisations is how to integrate the social and cultural obligations with the inherent inflexibility of market-based economies. Here, we consider the development and planning of economic opportunities (Continued)

469

470

19  Development in the Northern Rivers of Australia

Box 19.1  (Continued) from two stable Indigenous businesses in the Archer River Basin, Kalan Enterprises (Kalan), and Aak Puul Ngangtam (APN). Kalan and APN provide tangible evidence of the benefits of locally led economic development. Both organisations focus on a holistic approach that highlights how people, country, and culture are interrelated. Collaborative research done with Kalan Enterprises demonstrated that economic development required a far more complex set of considerations. Kalan has developed a suite of land management and economic activities that range from resource exploitation (hard rock quarry), civil works, social development, and land and sea management for conservation outcomes. Some of these elements are motivated by the need for long-term non-government revenue and are supported by standard business models (e.g. the hard rock quarry), while others depend more on government funding for environmental and social outcomes (e.g. employment programmes and land and sea management). The key driving principles are that Kalan leads the opportunities, supports local employment, and that revenue streams and activities are sustainable (economically and environmentally). Aak Puul Ngangtam is similarly motivated to support economic development and land management activities that support Wik traditional owners to return to and retain long-term connection with their traditional lands. APN have secured commercial and scientific advice on the development of a cattle enterprise, growing profits in the carbon market, developing a prawn farm, providing training to Indigenous youth, supporting mining activities, and developing offsets programmes. Unlike single-objective business development, APN has had to integrate each development opportunity within the complexity of local decision-making processes and constraints. The experiences of APN and Kalan illustrate that to adequately meet the multiple objectives that are inherent in this large collectively owned estate, it is essential that the decision-making complexity is confronted during the planning process. More

Indigenous led development Kalan enterprises 1. Local leadership 2. Local membership and community support 3. Clear local outcomes and impact 4. Probity – financial, communication, reporting.

Economic development

Research and tourism

Ecosystem services

1. Service provision to meet government Indigenous procurement goals – e.g. civil works 2. Pastoral lease 3. Hard rock quarry and mining 4. Social impact 5. Indigenous water rights and provision of water for economic development.

1. Indigenous led research partnerships – e.g. research delivery services 2. Indigenous cultural tourism

1. Land management services – e.g. feral animal control

3. Administrative and cultural support for research projects 4. Four wheel drive car hire 5. Indigenous art sales

2. Indigenous cultural tourism 3. Administrative and cultural support for research projects 4. Social and environmental impact assessment – e.g. meeting Sustainable Development Goals.

  Kalan Enterprises sustainable development model is built upon local leadership and integrates cultural obligations to family and country with diverse economic activities.

19.2  ­Context for Northern Developmen

Box 19.1  (Continued)

  The multiple objective economic and social development considerations underpinning the decision-making processes for APN.

broadly, successful Indigenous-led economic development examples are those that have grown from individuals and groups from within communities and have scaled with increasing capability and resources, for example, crocodile egg harvesting in the Northern Territory and savanna burning for carbon abatement. Here, the activities were scalable and had flexible markets (businesses did not fold in the absence of participation), low start-up costs, and limited capital costs. Another key foundational element that has supported the growth of Indigenous enterprise in northern Australia has been the stable employment base provided by government-funded Indigenous ranger programmes such as ‘Working On Country’ and (Continued)

471

472

19  Development in the Northern Rivers of Australia

Box 19.1  (Continued) the ‘Queensland Indigenous Land and Sea Ranger’ programme. These long-term programmes have allowed ranger groups to support the personal development of individuals to raise skill levels and work practices which has allowed organisations to develop new opportunities. Additionally, as the ranger programmes and their workforces have matured, so have the governance and administrative functions that have grown with the organisations. This has led to the development of more complex enterprises that are locally led but engage external expertise.

The percentage of Indigenous people in the population of northern Australia is increasing. In concert with this, the rights and interests of Indigenous people in land and water management have been increasingly recognised in recent years through specific land rights and native title legislation and through the more Indigenous-aware and/or -sensitive application of other legislation. In particular, recognition since the early 1990s, that the common law which the British brought with them to the continent (through the concept and application of terra nullius) has allowed certain Indigenous people to claim native title rights where it can be shown that they have continuously exercised those rights since before settler colonisation. This suggests that Indigenous people will be increasingly important stakeholders in considerations of northern development. Many Australians, but especially Indigenous people in the catchments, also see a need for Indigenous-driven economic development to provide livelihood benefits to their people but are constrained both by human capacity and investment funding. Across the north, there are millions of hectares of land moderately suitable or better for agriculture (e.g. Bartley et al. 2013; Thomas et al. 2018). A range of crops could be grown and the wet–dry climate, with warm winters, does provide some advantages to the farming system. However, the amount of water that is available for release by government is far less than the amount of suitable land. Furthermore, the cost of land and water resource development, which in principle can be borne by government under the National Water Initiative (Anon 2004) provided there is full transparency of subsidies, will in practice require substantial private sector investment. Satisfactory rates of return are difficult to achieve, and recent experience has shown that there are also significant costs and time involved in seeking approval to develop under the range of State and Commonwealth Acts which apply (Kimberley Pilbara Cattlemen’s Association 2017). The largest recent increase in irrigated land in the last two decades has been in the Ord River Irrigation Area, where an additional 5000 ha of land has been developed (Ash and Watson 2018) with approximately another 45 000 ha in active consideration for future development. In the Northern Territory, the plant-based farming industry has grown over the last 35 years from a near-zero base in 1980 to AUD$ 244 million in 2015, mostly through high-value horticulture such as mango, melon, and Asian vegetables. By area, this represents about 8800 ha of land for irrigation and 20 000 of dryland/rainfed land for hay production (NT Farmers 2015).

19.2  ­Context for Northern Developmen

Beef cattle production incorporating forages

Weirs and re-regulating structures Water distribution systems Colonial history

Climate

Cost of new infrastructure Indigenous pre-history

Current infrastructure Streamflow and run-off

Legislation and policy environment

Flooding

Waterholes

Soils

Regional-scale economic impact Catchment profile

Current industry

Major dams

Biosecurity Broader social environmental values Ringtanks water harvesting

Watert

able

Groundwater

Aquaculture

Geology

Current industry Indigenous water values Groundwater recharge

Ecological implications of altered flow regimes

Potential investors Native title

Groundwater resource development

Indigenous water rights and development objectives

Irrigation Risk of systems irrigation-induced Scheme-scale Cropping and other agricultural opportunities salinisation financial viability

Surface water–groundwater connectivity

Figure 19.3  A range of perspectives need to be considered when initiating greenfield development in northern Australia.

There is no single statutory catchment management authority in any of the three jurisdictions. Rather catchment management, and therefore development, is administered by a range of legislation relating to land tenure, water resource planning, environmental protection, planning, cultural assets, and others, which varies across the jurisdictions. Catchment management, by necessity, is composed of a broad range of factors, from diverse perspectives (Figure 19.3). Similarly, water resource development, if it occurs, will likely occur in a number of different ways. Irrigation development in other parts of Australia has led to a range of, what at times seem intractable, problems (see Boxes 19.2 and 19.3). Recent irrigation developments in the North-East Coastal drainage division, especially the Burdekin catchment (Waterhouse et al. 2010), have also led to concerns about development impacts on the Great Barrier Reef. These experiences have directly informed approaches to northern Australian development, and particularly the need for accurate assessments of water resources. One advantage for managing catchments that northern Australian rivers have over the Murray–Darling basin

473

474

19  Development in the Northern Rivers of Australia

Box 19.2  Murray–Darling Basin Irrigation development in other parts of Australia has led to a range of, what at times seem intractable, problems. Australia’s most famous river basin, the 1 million square kilometre MDB in south-eastern Australia, is home to about two-thirds of Australia’s land developed for irrigated agriculture (2.4 m ha) and more than 2 million people. An At least another 1 million people rely on the MDB as a source of water. Much of the irrigation development within the basin occurred at a time when little was understood about the need to maintain flows to sustain the environment, the need to jointly manage connected surface water and groundwater systems or appreciate the financial, social, and ecological ramifications of over-allocating water. With the MDB spanning four Australian states and one Territory, ramifications that arise from these oversights are more challenging to resolve retrospectively. Between 2001 and 2009, south-eastern Australia experienced the Millennium drought, arguably the most prolonged drought in the Basin’s instrument record. This drought devastated communities, industries, and the environment. Although irrigated agriculture in the Basin has been found to sustain levels of economic and community activity three to five times that of rainfed production (Meyer 2005), there has also been a widespread decline in the health of the ecosystems of the Basin. This led to the development of the MDB Plan, a historic, bipartisan agreement, enacted through legislation in November 2012 (Australian Government 2012). The Plan seeks to rebalance water entitlements between consumptive users and the environment and includes tiers of water-sharing arrangements and protects water for critical human needs. Although considered a major step forward in Australian water reform and held up as a positive example internationally, the implementation of this plan, which has involved ‘buying back’ water, primarily for environmental use, has proved problematic. Early drafts, referred to as Guides to Plan, were publicly burnt in 2010 and continued unrest led to the government of the jurisdiction at the end of the system, South Australia, undertaking a Royal Commission into the MDB (Walker 2019). More recently, unauthorised water extractions during a severe drought in northern parts of the Basin, have raised questions over the availability of resources and political will of some jurisdictions to enforce compliance with the Plan.

(MDB) is that the rivers externally drain and they are not part of a single, interconnected basin. That is, it is easier to relate an impact to a development in smaller unconnected catchments than it is where the impacts can be very remote from the development and they can be the cumulative result of multiple upstream changes to the system. In smaller unconnected catchments, it is more likely that the regional community who benefits from a development will be the same community or neighbour of the community that experiences the trade-offs. The opportunity exists in northern Australia to use our improved understanding of the components of development to take a system’s approach and choose the right trade-offs between development benefits and negative impacts for these largely natural and undeveloped catchments. Critically, the challenge is both to improve our understanding of water,

19.3  ­Biophysical Characteristics and Constraint

Box 19.3  Reef 2050 Plan The Great Barrier Reef is one of the natural wonders of the world and a significant part of Australia’s national identity. The Great Barrier Reef was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1981 in recognition of its Outstanding Universal Value. However, the Reef is under pressure. Climate change, poor water quality from landbased run-off, and impacts from coastal development are having negative impacts on the Reef. In response, the Australian and Queensland governments have implemented the Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan to ensure the Reef remains a natural wonder for future generations. A key plank of the Reef 2050 Plan is to improve the quality of water entering the Reef through implementing the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan. River discharges from catchments dominated by agricultural activities are the most significant source of pollutants entering the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. River catchments across 35 basins drain 424 000 km2 of Queensland. The Reef Water Quality Protection Plan that is being implemented by the Queensland and Commonwealth governments takes a partnership approach, working with farmers, rural industry organisations, natural resource management organisations, conservation groups, and communities to reduce pollutants in catchment run-off. The programme has been implemented since 2003, with very significant investments over the last decade. Water quality entering the Reef is improving as the pesticide load has been reduced by 28%, sediment load by 11%, and dissolved inorganic nitrogen load by 16% compared with the 2009 baseline. In a recently updated Reef 2050 Water Quality Improvement Plan (Queensland Government 2018), targets for 2025 include a 60% reduction in dissolved inorganic nitrogen loads and a 25% reduction in sediment loads. One of the challenges in measuring progress against these targets is the highly variable climate that produces runs of dry years with very low river flows punctuated by episodic extreme rainfall events that produce floods and large river plumes in the Great Barrier Reef lagoon. In addition to river and catchment monitoring, extensive use is made of catchment sediment and nutrient models to evaluate changes in management practice using long periods of historical climate.

land, people, ecology, and the broader environment but also to use that improved knowledge for better decision-making.

19.3 ­Biophysical Characteristics and Constraints The volume of water discharged from rivers in northern Australia is comparatively small by world comparison. For example, the mean annual discharges of the largest river, the Mitchell in Queensland, is approximately 15 000 GL per year, while other examples include the Fitzroy and Mary Rivers at 6600 and 2405 GL per year, respectively (Petheram et al. 2018b,c,d)

475

476

19  Development in the Northern Rivers of Australia

N Median annual streamflow (Gl/year)

Drainage divisions Murray–Darling Basin

0 1000

10,000

20,000

0

500

1,000

Kilometres

Figure 19.4  Streamflow under natural conditions (pre-European settlement) for Australian rivers. The schematic uses the width of the river to represent the median annual streamflow at that point.

(Figure 19.4). By contrast, the Zambesi River, at a similar latitude, has a mean annual discharge of 97 000 GL per year (Moore et al. 2007).

19.3.1  Physiography, Climate, and Hydrology Most of northern Australia is classified as tropical savanna (Aw), arid hot steppe (BSh), or arid hot desert (BWh) under the Köppen–Geiger classification (Peel et  al. 2007). The catchments of the Timor Sea and Gulf of Carpentaria drainage basins of northern Australia are characterised by higher inter-annual variability in rainfall and streamflow than catchments in similar environments globally and of similar mean annual rainfall (Petheram et  al. 2008). Rainfall and run-off are also highly seasonal across northern Australia (Petheram et al. 2008), with an extended dry season when many rivers stop flowing (see Box 19.4). This has important implications for the type and nature of water extraction and storage and for the farming systems which can be used. For example, in the Fitzroy catchment, 79% of total streamflow is discharged in the highest 10% of days (Petheram et al. 2018c). Water resource plans being developed in northern Australia are likely to only allow for water to be extracted (or diverted) at high river flow rates, which limits the number of days per year

19.3  ­Biophysical Characteristics and Constraint

Box 19.4  Establishment of an Appropriate Hydroclimate Baseline for Catchment Management The establishment of an appropriate hydroclimate baseline for catchment planning and management is an important consideration. For example, the allocation of water, and the design, planning, and operation of water resources infrastructure and systems need to take a genuine long-term view. Generally, long-term records provide the best mechanism for capturing the full suite of climate variability expressed to date, and it is particularly important to ensure representative dry spells (i.e. consecutive years where streamflow is less than the long-term median) are captured because it is during the dry years that there is greatest competition for water and highest ecological and financial risk. In some instances, shorter-term records may be preferable where this is the more conservative option, e.g. south-western Australia (Chiew et al. 2012; McFarlane et al. 2012), where there has been a recent marked reduction in rainfall and there are multiple lines of evidence that this trend will continue into the foreseeable future (e.g. good agreement among Global Climate Model [GCM] projections and conceptual understanding of how circulatory systems have changed). Across northern Australia, however, there is no clear agreement in GCM projections. Even in the north-west of northern Australia (e.g. the Fitzroy catchment) where the last several decades have been wetter than the long-term mean approximately half the GCM’s project an increase in mean annual rainfall relative to a 1990 baseline and the other half project a decrease or no change (Charles et al. 2016). Without a stronger evidence base that this trend is likely to continue into the future and without any certainty of how the modes of variability may change into the future, a more conservative, and arguably more responsible position, would be to utilise the long-term historical record and examine the sensitivity of the system to reductions in rainfall and increases in variability. In establishing an appropriate hydroclimate baseline for catchment planning and management in highly variable climates such as northern Australia, it is also important to consider that the transformation of rainfall to run-off is nonlinear and consequently, (i) streamflow not rainfall should be the parameter of interest and (ii) periods of similar mean or median annual run-off can have quite different patterns of wet and dry spells (e.g. see Charles et al. 2016). A further consideration, however, is that studies of Australian paleo-climate suggest the instrument record does not account for the full range of climates that has been experienced in the recent past.

in which water can be extracted. Once stored, water must be efficiently used early in the dry season before evaporation and seepage reduces its availability. The reliability at which water can be extracted and the timing of low-offtake years can be a key driver of financial performance and ultimately the survival of water-related enterprises (Petheram et al. 2016). Infrastructure, therefore, needs to be engineered to extract and then store enough water at high rates per day to ensure sufficiently high reliability. A large proportion of rainfall comes from the monsoon, especially low-pressure systems associated with the Intertropical Convergence Zone. Tropical cyclones provide about 10% of total rainfall over much of the north but over 30% in north-western Australia, decreasing

477

478

19  Development in the Northern Rivers of Australia

in inland parts (Lavender and Abbs 2013). As well as rainfall, cyclones also bring destructive winds and are an important influence on crop type and location, especially closer to the coast. Associated flooding can not only damage the infrastructure but also add to the cost of building infrastructure as mitigation to flood damage. As well as being an important determinant of the costs and risks associated with intensified agriculture, flooding location, extent, and duration are important for the ecological functioning of catchments in northern Australia by connecting off-stream wetlands and floodplains to each other and to the main river channel. For example, the Fitzroy catchment contains 148 floodplain wetlands (Kennard 2011) and flooding occurs along a 300-km stretch of the river which can expand to over 30-km wide in places (in about 10% of years). 19.3.1.1  Surface Water – Groundwater Connectivity

In a highly seasonal climate such as that of northern Australia, the majority of rivers are ephemeral and consequently any waterbodies (e.g. waterholes, wetlands) that persist throughout the extended dry season in the majority of years are considered ecological refugia, particularly where they coincide with significant stands of riparian vegetation (Waltham et al. 2013). In some instances, these waterbodies are entirely replenished by streamflow of each wet season. In a few rivers (e.g. the Daly, Einasleigh, and Fitzroy), however, they are in part replenished by groundwater which also adds to the baseflow (see Box 19.5). Factors other than the availability of water in the dry season, such as water quality, are also important to the ecology of the system. Food webs in these rivers are heavily dependent on algal carbon sources (Douglas et  al. 2005), and factors which influence algae Box 19.5  Surface Water Groundwater Connectivity, Indigenous Hydrological Understanding, and Resource Use While not known to be a widespread phenomenon, some of the rivers in northern Australia are fed by groundwater, contributing to base flows and to pool persistence. In the Fitzroy River, a combination of hydraulic, hydrochemical, and isotopic techniques was used to study the key processes of surface water–groundwater interaction (Harrington et al. 2011). Over a 100-km study reach, it was estimated that about 102 ML per day was being discharged from both local and regional aquifers into the river. Extracting groundwater from these aquifers would reduce discharge to the river. However, the impact would be site-specific and highlights the lack of basic understanding of the key processes in these rivers. This includes the extent to which the systems are interconnected (if at all) the types of aquifers contributing, the size of flows, and the temporal variability both between seasons and within seasons. Importantly, very little is known of the extent to which groundwater contributes to pool/waterhole/wetland persistence on floodplains such as the Fitzroy, away from the river channels. Rivers and floodplains provide customary resources to Indigenous people either well into the dry season, or right through the dry season, in an otherwise dry environment. These resources are used for food, for art, and for medicinal purposes (Jackson et al. 2012). Indigenous offtake targets a wide variety of species and is structured around the

19.3  ­Biophysical Characteristics and Constraint

Box 19.5  (Continued) life histories and movement patterns of each of them, as well as the social and economic forces shaping contemporary life (Barber et  al. 2015). In some locations, Indigenous people actively manipulated river flow to improve resource returns (Barber and Jackson 2014). In the Daly River, Jackson et al. (2012) showed that resource use progressed from the main river channel to off-stream pools late in the dry season, while in the Fitzroy River the main river channel and tributaries provided the most resources. In the Daly catchment, turtles, lilies, magpie geese, and fish were the most commonly harvested, while in the Fitzroy catchment fish and crustaceans were the most common (Jackson et al. 2012). As well as providing resources, groundwater flows (soaks and springs, but also flows directly into river channels) are of immense cultural significance to Indigenous people. Indigenous law and spiritual beliefs are interwoven with understandings of hydrological and meteorological cycles, particularly with respect to sites of permanent water in water-scarce environments. The Rainbow Serpent is an iconic figure in this respect (Radcliffe-Brown 1926), and narratives about the snake remain pervasive across significant areas of Australia, particularly in the north (Taylor 1990; Barber and Jackson 2011). The significance of such associations can be formally recognised by governments, for example, through the Commonwealth Government listing of the west Kimberley on the National Heritage List, which includes much of the Fitzroy River catchment (Australian Heritage Council 2011; gazetted under the EPBC Act 1999, August 2011). In this area, several related traditional narratives are tied to Indigenous interpretations of the way in which water flows throughout the hydrological system called Warloongarriy Law (i.e. River Law). The underlying groundwater system itself is termed kurtany (i.e. mother), and the name of several permanent subsurface water sources (jila) listed under the Act (jila-kalpurta) includes direct reference to the Rainbow Serpent (Australian Heritage Council 2011). This demonstrates how Indigenous Australian’s hydrological understanding is intimately interwoven with their Law and spiritual beliefs.

production, such as turbidity, have a profound impact on other species. For example, in river reaches where considerable groundwater discharge occurs (e.g. Daly and Einasleigh rivers), the penetration of light through the water during the dry season drives higher primary productivity compared to those reaches with little or no connection. In the Daly River, the carbonate-rich groundwater discharge during the early dry season causes clays in the river water to flocculate enabling the penetration of light deeper into the water column, leading to increased primary productivity. Development activities that increase the turbidity of these waterbodies risk much greater ecological change than in those waterbodies that are naturally turbid. During the time at which water resources in southern Australia were developed, the concept of connectivity between surface and groundwater systems was not widely recognised or acknowledged by decision-makers or regulators. Consequently, in some of

479

480

19  Development in the Northern Rivers of Australia

the more populous regions, the same portion of water was in effect allocated twice, once as groundwater and again as surface water. Any future development of the water resources of northern Australia, however, occurs at a time when it is well recognised (and explicitly so in both the National Water Initiative (Anon 2004) and the MDB Plan (Australian Government 2012), for example) that groundwater and surface water can be interconnected, where development of either resource can affect the quantity and quality of the other.

19.3.2  Environment and Ecology The area includes some of the few remaining relatively intact tropical riverscapes in the world (Pettit et al. 2017). However, land degradation, principally due to livestock grazing, and species decline or loss due to a range of factors (weeds, feral animals, and overgrazing) are apparent. Notwithstanding this, these rivers continue to support globally significant native species and communities. Biodiversity values are relatively high and the number of introduced species is comparatively low, although mammal extinctions are disproportionately large (Woinarski et al. 2011). Key habitats most closely associated with the rivers and floodplains include waterholes and wetlands, mangroves and salt flats, riparian vegetation, and the inshore marine waters into which the rivers flow. In ephemeral rivers, waterholes, especially those that persist throughout the year, are critical habitats for a range of aquatic species such as invertebrates, fish, turtles, and crocodiles as well as terrestrial species which depend on free-standing water. Wetlands, away from the river channel, perform a similar role but may or may not be connected to the river each year, depending on the scale of flooding beyond the river’s banks. The connection of these off-stream wetlands during floods is vital throughout the ecosystem, not just for populations of those species found in the wetlands. The influx of nutrients provides a boost to ecosystem productivity which is not only felt downstream and in marine waters but also to terrestrial species and to birds, often supporting large breeding events. Mangrove communities are found fringing the coastline of much of northern Australia. They play a key role in supporting marine and estuarine fish, including many species for which at least some of their life cycle occurs in the upstream, freshwater parts of the rivers. Management of these catchments also has an impact on the receiving waters of the rivers. The Gulf of Carpentaria supports both a commercial prawn industry that is heavily dependent on river flows (Vance et al. 1985) and a suite of iconic species such as sawfish, whiprays, and river sharks which depend on rivers, estuaries, and tidal channels for at least part of their life cycle. It is not just the direct impacts of water extraction and irrigation development that can affect the abundance of these species, but the indirect impacts should also be considered, such as the construction of roads and causeways that can impede the movement of aquatic and migratory species such as sawfish (Morgan et al. 2016) and the recreational fishing bycatch that the increased infrastructure allows. The largetooth or freshwater sawfish (Pristis pristis), an iconic and threatened species, is found throughout much of the northern draining catchments. These are diadromous species with a freshwater adult phase found well upstream and juveniles found in marine or freshwater environments. Their distribution within freshwater is dependent on waterholes of sufficient persistence and health during the dry season. One of the most important

19.3  ­Biophysical Characteristics and Constraint

remaining nursery grounds within its circumtropical range is found in the Fitzroy River (Whitty et al. 2009, 2017). Invasive species have the potential to change ecological functioning or to damage the production potential of the land and water. In general, northern Australian catchments and their waterways remain relatively natural and have not been transformed, except in some specific areas, by invasive species. Feral pigs (Sus scrofa) can be particularly damaging to wetlands (Doupé et al. 2010) and are known to prey on marine turtle eggs. Weeds such as olive hymenachne (Hymenachne amplexicaulis) and mimosa (Mimosa pigra) have established in a number of catchments and invasive fish such as tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus) are an ongoing risk of establishment, being found in some major easterly flowing catchments in north Queensland and recently in the westerly flowing Mitchell River (Brendan Ebner, personal communication). One of the potential risks posed by the construction of dams west of the Great Dividing Range is the illegal stocking of reservoirs with non-native fish, which could escape into the rest of the river system (Ebner et al. 2020).

19.3.3  Potential Impacts and Their Management Given that many of the species and habitats found in these catchments sit outside conservation reserves or national parks, the most direct form of management in terms of managing for development pressure comes from Commonwealth and State/Territory environmental protection Acts. For example, any proposed development action which would have a significant impact on the populations or habitat of species listed as ‘Threatened’ would need to have an environmental impact assessment under the relevant Commonwealth Act (Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 [EPBC], see below). Large in-stream dams will inevitably lead to changes to water-dependent ecosystems immediately downstream of the structure. The extent to which ecosystems further downstream are impacted depends on a large part on the quantity of water regulated by the dam relative to the inflows downstream. Dams located in headwater catchments may have lower yields than those located in the mid-reaches of a catchment, and their ecological impacts would typically be considerably less. Not only do small headwater dams result in lower perturbations to streamflow near the catchment mouth, generally the dam wall has less impact on the movement of aquatic species and food and nutrients. Off-stream harvesting, where water is pumped or diverted into an earth embankment storage adjacent to the river, generally occurs at much smaller scale than large in-stream dams. While this is likely to have less direct impact downstream, the higher number of dispersed developments may increase the biosecurity risk and may also be more difficult to manage and regulate. Large-scale development, such as in-stream dams, allows for a wide range of impacts. The infrastructure used to build and service the development, including downstream land development, facilitates and encourages greater access by more people, such as tourists, recreational fishers, and mineral prospectors. While these activities may encourage further regional economic activity, they pose direct and indirect risks to the environment such as biosecurity risks through the introduction of invasive organisms. Large in-stream dams also allow for ephemeral watercourses downstream of the dam to become permanent,

481

482

19  Development in the Northern Rivers of Australia

providing reliability of water in an environment that was previously seasonally dry and favouring some species over others. This has occurred in the Ord River downstream of the Ord River Dam, which is now listed as a Ramsar wetland (see Box 19.6). In remote areas like northern Australia, licencing mechanisms for mitigating impacts of water regulation need to be simple to implement and to monitor for compliance, such as end-of-system flow requirements. However, these do not often allow the fine-scale management which is needed to minimise unwanted localised impacts.

Box 19.6  Ramsar Wetlands Associated with the Ord River After Regulating Flow When river flows are regulated to provide water for irrigated agriculture, ecosystems in and around these rivers change. There can be negative impacts of dams permanently flooding habitat, movements of aquatic fauna being disrupted, and changes to freshwater–saltwater dynamics in estuaries. But not all impacts are negative, there can be ecological benefits too. An example is the Ord River in the north-east of Western Australia. The Kununurra Diversion Dam was built to support an irrigation scheme on the Ivanhoe Plain in the 1960s and the Ord River Dam was built 55 km upstream in the 1970s to improve the reliability of supply. After raising the dam wall in the 1990s when a hydro power station was built, Lake Argyle, created by the Ord River Dam, became one of the largest reservoirs in Australia with a storage of 10 760 GL and a surface area of 980 km2 when it spills. The regulation of the Ord River has reduced peak wet season flows, increased dry season flows and permanence of water, and reduced the variability of flow both within and between years creating risks for ecosystem function and biodiversity (Leigh and Sheldon 2008). But the benefits downstream of the dams have included development of lush riparian vegetation and increases in migratory waterbirds while maintaining biologically diverse and complex contiguous floodplain and mangrove systems (Hale 2008). These values contributed to the ‘Ord River Floodplain’ being designated a Ramsar site in 1990. The entire 140 766 ha site is set aside for nature conservation. Likewise, there have also been benefits associated with the permanent waterbodies, extensive shoreline habitat, and islands created by the two dams. These have created dry season refugia for waterbirds and breeding sites for vulnerable freshwater crocodiles (Crocodylus johnstoni) and have sustained diverse populations of freshwater fish and other vulnerable fauna (Hale and Morgan 2010). These values contributed to ‘Lakes Argyle and Kununurra’ (which includes the connecting section of river) also being designated a Ramsar site in 1990. However, the Ramsar declarations occurring after the dams were built was more likely because of the perceived threat of over-extraction than because of any ecological benefit. Compliance with maintaining Ramsar status was invoked during the development of the Ord River water allocation plan, requiring a response to ensure continuation of the then-current flood regime on the floodplains. The plan aims to maintain the sites’ environmental values and allows sufficient flows for the river to continue to overspill its levees into the floodplain on average of about 1 in 15–20 years (Government of Western Australia 2012).

19.4  ­Catchment Governance and Managemen

19.4 ­Catchment Governance and Management 19.4.1  Roles and Responsibilities of Government in Managing Catchments The Commonwealth of Australia is governed as a Federation. The Australian Government is often referred to as the Commonwealth Government. There are six states and two major mainland territories. Only two states (Western Australia and Queensland) and one Territory (the Northern Territory) have jurisdiction in northern Australia. Local government is the third tier of government but is not considered in detail here. All three tiers of government play a role in catchment management, particularly as it relates to agricultural and water resource development. Under the Australian Constitution, management of water for conservation or irrigation is considered to be under the jurisdiction of the states and territories. Most of the land in northern Australia is Crown land (i.e. without freehold title, where the use is regulated by state or Commonwealth governments). This includes the majority of the land used for pastoral grazing, most of the national parks and Unallocated Crown land, which is typically found in the arid interior of Western Australia. In the Northern Territory, the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976 allowed Indigenous people to hold inalienable freehold title. Across Australia, the Native Title Act 1993 granted particular Indigenous people certain rights to land and waters. However, common law in relation to water only allows for nonexclusive possession, access, and use. This has limited the Indigenous contribution to water resource planning in northern Australia. A range of different legislation confer some degree of management. There are no catchment management Acts, nor catchment management authorities in northern Australia. However, in some instances, there are community-level organisations which seek to influence management for particular catchments as do a number of statutory bodies.

19.4.2  Commonwealth Government The two most important Acts administered by the Commonwealth Government are the Native Title Act 1993 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The former recognises a set of Indigenous rights and interests over land (and to a certain extent water) and provides mechanisms for agreed land use within these areas through Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs). The latter Act applies to ‘Matters of National Environmental Significance’ such as World Heritage areas and listed threatened species. Other Commonwealth Acts can play a role in developing natural resources in northern Australia, such as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984, which is designed to protect areas of cultural significance. The Commonwealth also has a coordinating role for the National Water Initiative (Anon 2004) which it has been suggested could be updated by more consideration of the northern Australian context. In particular, the principles were developed to restore the health of systems rather than managing largely undeveloped catchments in a pre-emptive way (Hart et al. 2019). Critically, the Commonwealth Government also collects the majority of the tax in Australia and so has a strong influence on the policy directions inherent in its spending. The Commonwealth is able to exert influence through mechanisms such as White Papers (i.e. proposals for policy actions) and the programme initiatives within them.

483

484

19  Development in the Northern Rivers of Australia

19.4.3  State and Territory Government The Western Australian, Northern Territory, and Queensland governments have the principal role in managing land and water in northern Australia within their respective borders. While the individual Acts are specific to each jurisdiction, they all have Acts that relate to land tenure, water access and use, planning, environmental protection, heritage, and major projects. Being mostly Crown land, the three northern jurisdictions have an abiding interest in the management and use of the pastoral lands, whose lease conditions, especially in Western Australia, typically do not allow for intensified agriculture unless it is an adjunct to the pastoral enterprise. Development of land which does not fit within the existing lease conditions may trigger the Commonwealth Government’s Native Title Act 1993, which is implemented in terms of the customs and laws of the relevant Indigenous traditional owners but typically would involve some form of compensation and/or an ILUA. Recent expansion of the Ord River Irrigation Area has seen a process in which the acquisition of 65 000 ha of land for a range of development purposes culminated in an agreement which included a AUD$ 57 million compensation package, the Western Australian Government handing back 50 000 ha of land and a private pastoral company relinquishing almost 200 000 ha of pastoral land, principally for the creation of conservation reserves (Department of Premier and Cabinet, Western Australia 2019). More recently, (March 2019) a decision by the High Court of Australia has exercised the compensation provisions of the Act to provide compensation for spiritual (i.e. intangible) harm caused by disconnection with the land. The rights to use water (and by definition to alter streamflows) are held by State and Territory governments. Some catchments have water resource plans (e.g. Queensland Government Water Plan (Mitchell) 2007), but many catchments do not. Increasingly, especially in the Northern Territory, consumptive water allocations are being planned for Indigenous people as water resource plans are being developed or revised. Environmental legislation in all three jurisdictions is designed to protect environmental assets and values, and any development proposals which will have a significant impact on these are required to seek environmental approval before proceeding. Similarly, cultural heritage legislation is enacted to protect cultural heritage values. Particular habitats or ecosystems can also be protected through the establishment of national parks and nature reserves. Development proponents face significant complexities in navigating the development approval processes. For example, approval to clear native vegetation in Queensland sits mostly under the Vegetation Management Act 1999, but the government’s website (www. qld.gov.au/environment/land/management/vegetation/clearing) makes it clear that both Commonwealth law (i.e. EPBC) and other state laws may also need to be complied with to gain approval to clear, and that this other relevant state legislation is administered by five separate government departments. The Western Australian Government provides a check list to those wishing to change from pastoral leasehold to freehold for the purposes of irrigated agriculture which includes at least 11 government departments or agencies (Western Australian Government 2016) noting that some departments need to be considered for more than one aspect of the proposal (e.g. land capability and biosecurity) and that the process has an eight-year minimum

19.4  ­Catchment Governance and Managemen

time frame. All three jurisdictions have processes, whereby ‘major projects’ bypass the standard approval processes and approvals are given directly through executive government (i.e. Cabinet). These processes are typically used for large projects such as found in mining but can be used for agricultural development.

19.4.4  Statutory Bodies with a Role in Catchment Management A number of statutory bodies have a role in catchment management, but not through regulation and legislation. Regional Natural Resource Management organisations (www.nrm. gov.au/regional/regional-nrm-organisations) are constituted by the Commonwealth Government and play a role in delivering natural resource management projects at the local community level. Regional Development Committees (https://rda.gov.au) are also locally constituted but are aimed at regional economic development, rather than conservation. Both these types of organisations are a further way in which the Commonwealth is able to exert influence on catchment management without having formal responsibility for land and water management. Prescribed Bodies Corporate act as the managing agents of land under the Native Title Act (www.nativetitle.org.au) and the corporation members consist of traditional owners who have customary responsibilities for land on which Native Title has been granted. Land councils (or land and sea councils) are also made up of Indigenous people (www.australia.gov.au/aboutgovernment/government-and-parliament/indigenous-policy-and-programs/land-councils) and provide for Indigenous interests relating to land and sea on their traditional lands.

19.4.5  Community Organisations, Emerging Voices Community groups also play an active role in catchment management. Their primary interests are typically environmental, but some also act as local development associations (e.g. Cape York Sustainable Futures). The Mitchell River Watershed Management Group (MRWMG) is a particularly good example of the former (http://www.mitchell-river.com.au). It was formed in 1990 after a conference initiated by the Kowanyama Aboriginal Community, near the mouth of the Mitchell River. The people of Kowanyama routinely use the river for customary collection of food and other resources and recognised that any development of the Mitchell higher in the catchment might lead to negative impacts for their people.

19.4.6  The Role of Indigenous People in Catchment Management Access to water was critical to the existence and distribution of Indigenous people throughout the course of their habitation of northern Australia (Bird et al. 2016). It was fundamentally recognised that water was important for healthy landscapes and for sustaining the plants and animals upon which humans depended. Not surprisingly, water forms a fundamental part of Indigenous law, custom, and custodial responsibility for ‘country’. This means that Indigenous people value water and associated riparian landscapes in a way that is fundamental to meeting cultural, ancestral, and intergenerational responsibilities to care for country (Barber 2018). Naturally, this leads to the assertion of a broad range

485

486

19  Development in the Northern Rivers of Australia

of values, rights, and interests in water, spanning outright protection to consumptive economic use. In contemporary life, these values, rights, and interests manifest themselves in a number of ways. Land interests are enabled through Commonwealth native title and State and Territory land rights legislation, represented by a range of Indigenous corporations, trusts, and land councils. Catchment management is enacted through Indigenous representation in broader regional NRM agencies such as Northern Gulf Resource Management and in catchment management groups such as the Mitchell River Water Management Group. Such stakeholder models are important but problematic for Indigenous people, as the typical model of stakeholder consultation gives equivalent representation to a range of interest groups, some of whom may only have registered a stake in management of that catchment in very recent years. By contrast, Indigenous people through their long-term occupation and through their history of violence and dispossession see themselves as fundamentally different to other stakeholders. Partly as a consequence, Indigenous-specific catchment groups such as the Martuwarra Fitzroy River Council have been formed. Operationally, Indigenous catchment management is increasingly achieved through formalised Indigenous land and sea ranger programmes (Jarvis et al. 2018). It is clear that Indigenous people can exercise, through a range of mechanisms, some degree of influence over catchment management and that the extent to which they have the legislative or other formal power to do so has increased in the last few decades. They also have an emerging capacity to initiate and finance development. This focuses attention on their values, rights, interests, and economic development objectives in relation to a keylimiting resource for development, water.

19.4.7  Development Agendas and the Protection of the Natural and Cultural Values of Northern Australian Rivers There is often a tension between the development agendas for Australia’s northern rivers, including those promoted by governments, and the wishes and priorities of the community as reflected through government. Government policies reflect these sometimes-dichotomous priorities. While state governments such as Queensland have typically fostered a development agenda, they have also sought to protect the rivers and the catchments. For example, the Queensland Government introduced the Wild Rivers Act in 2005 to preserve the values of northern rivers that had all, or almost all, of their natural values intact. Community response, including within and between Indigenous communities, was divided and in 2014, the Federal Court declared that declarations over three Cape York rivers were invalid. The Queensland Government subsequently repealed the Act later in 2014. Similarly, the extent to which clearing of native vegetation is allowed to support development in Queensland is mostly determined under the Vegetation Management Act 1999. Since its introduction, the Act has been amended multiple times by governments of different persuasions, making it easier or more difficult for landholders to gain approval to clear native vegetation for cropping. This tension can also be seen in Western Australia; the State government is actively seeking to facilitate development in the north of the state, yet made election commitments in 2017 that no dams would be built on the Fitzroy River or its tributaries and that an existing

19.5 ­Development Opportunitie

national park would be expanded in order to better protect sections of the Fitzroy River and one of its major tributaries, the Margaret River. The government remains open to offstream storages and is developing a water allocation plan as part of another election commitment to produce a catchment management plan, in part to assign water for development purposes, reflecting the complexity of policy and planning drivers.

19.5 ­Development Opportunities 19.5.1  Background The three jurisdictions, Western Australia, the Northern Territory, and Queensland, have all invested in recent years in resource assessment and fostering irrigated agriculture development in northern Australia. Western Australia has focused on the west Kimberley, the Canning Basin, and expansion of the Ord Irrigation area (George et al. 2016), while the NT Government has invested heavily in land suitability assessment down to 1 : 25 000 scale (e.g. Easey et al. 2017). CSIRO, Australia’s national research organisation, has conducted a number of research studies on behalf of government as part of the northern development agenda to quantify the resources available for development in northern Australia and the ways in which development might occur. These include broad-scale water assessments (CSIRO 2009), value chains and transport logistics (Ash et al. 2017; Higgins et al. 2013), and more comprehensive assessments of the opportunities and constraints for agricultural and water resource development in specific catchments of high prospect (Petheram et  al. 2013a,b, 2018b,c,d). These latter assessments identified and evaluated surface and groundwater capture and storage options, provided detailed information on soils and land suitability, evaluated the commercial viability of agriculture and aquaculture, and assessed potential environmental, social, and economic impacts and risks. Research to better understand the aquatic ecosystems and riverscapes of northern Australia has occurred through a succession of programmes, the most recent being the Northern Australia Environmental Resources Hub of the National Environmental Science Program (www.nespnorthern.edu. au). The northern development agenda directly led to a research agenda within these programmes based on five hypotheses of food webs and ecosystem process in northern Australian rivers (Douglas et al. 2005; Pettit et al. 2017).

19.5.2  Land and Water Resources 19.5.2.1  Soils and Land Suitability

Australian soils are notably characterised as being old, highly weathered, and infertile. Indeed, McKenzie et al. (2004) point out that much of Australia’s geology was established by the early Tertiary period, and that some Australian soils are older than mountain chains such as the Himalayas. Nevertheless, pockets of more recent soil formation can be found due to events such as basalt extrusion and through relatively recent (Quaternary) alluvial processes. A broad-scale assessment of the amount of land suitable for agriculture estimated between 5 million and 17 million ha in the northerly draining catchments (Wilson et  al.

487

488

19  Development in the Northern Rivers of Australia

2009); however, finer-scale catchment by catchment assessments (e.g. Thomas et al. 2018) suggest that this is a conservative estimate. Note, these estimates are unconstrained by factors such as proximity to water, environmental impact considerations, a range of biophysical risks (e.g. flooding), and legislative and regulatory imperatives, especially concerning existing land tenure which in practice will reduce the available area significantly. 19.5.2.2  Surface and Groundwater

There are a number of ways in which water can be captured and stored, or otherwise accessed, in northern Australia. As well as major in-stream dams, off-stream storages, and groundwater, solutions to irrigated agriculture may include managed aquifer recharge, large farm-scale gully dams, weirs, and even natural waterbodies. The solution in any place will depend on local conditions (both biophysical as well as political, social, and economic), the scale of downstream impacts, political appetite for major in-stream dams and crucially, the economics of production especially where private enterprise is expected to fund the capital cost of making water available. Large in-stream dams are used worldwide to supply water for irrigation. In northern Australia (west of the Great Dividing Range), the only dam used for irrigation with a reservoir capacity greater than 100 GL is the Ord River Dam (10 760 GL). As Petheram et  al. (2018a) showed, there a number of other sites at which a dam could be built, but the likelihood of another large dam being built for irrigation in at least the next 10–15 years is low. A more likely scenario is that surface water will be captured and stored in off-stream storages with storage capacities in the order of 2–8 GL each. In many locations, groundwater offers greater reliability of water year in year out and allows development away from the main drainage channels. It is also suited to individual enterprise scale development, potentially as an adjunct to existing extensive livestock businesses because capital costs can be lower. Groundwater aquifers in northern Australia are not well understood, but one estimate suggests there may be 600 GL per year of extractable groundwater in northern Australia west of the Great Dividing Range (Turnadge et al. 2013) allowing irrigation in the order of 60 000 ha.

19.5.3  Primary Production Opportunities The growing conditions in northern Australia provide an opportunity to grow a large range of different crops in crop types including intensive horticulture, cereals, legumes, oilseeds, sugarcane, cotton, and silviculture. Rainfed (or dryland) cropping is possible, especially for cereals and forages, but history shows development schemes based on rainfed cropping have a record of failure (Ash and Watson 2018). Growing horticultural crops in the dry season under irrigation provides an opportunity to supply national markets at a time when production is not possible in southern Australia. Rainfed crops suitable for northern Australia include short-to-medium length season crops such as sorghum, mungbean, and peanut. The variable wet season rainfall results in rainfed cropping being high risk on a year-in-year-out basis, but it may be possible as an opportunistic adjunct to irrigated cropping. Gross margin analyses suggest small positive returns in about 20% of years (Ash et al. 2018a,b,c). A further factor surrounds agronomic practicalities. For example, in most years, planting in January provides the best returns, yet

19.6 ­Conclusion

access to the cropping area and trafficability of the crop fields might be impossible due to the ongoing wet season. Irrigation provides much higher crop yields. Reliability is increased but there is always a trade-off between water availability in any year and the area of crop sown. However, for those crops planted after the wet season, the farmer has the advantage of knowing how much water is available, the rate of its loss through evaporation and seepage (for surface water), and the amount of soil moisture. This, in theory at least, allows for optimised seasonal planning decisions about crop type and area sown. For many crops, especially broad-acre, high-volume, low-value commodities, high transport costs for both inputs and outputs render net returns insufficient to meet the capital costs of water and land development (Ash et  al. 2017, 2018a,b,c). Sugarcane and cotton have the potential to deliver sufficient net returns but only in a situation where processing facilities are nearby. These crops will only be profitable if grown at scale (in the thousands of hectares) sufficient to justify the capital investment in a local sugar mill or cotton gin. Crop modelling suggests that multiple (or sequential) cropping provides more likelihood of providing returns sufficient to render the capital investment worthwhile, but there is little experience in implementing them in northern Australia and in many cases the farming systems have not yet been developed (Ash et al. 2018a,b,c). High-value horticultural crops can be very profitable but are subject to variable market prices because of a mostly domestic market that can be easily saturated in years of good production. An additional risk factor is that economically damaging disease outbreaks are more common in horticultural crops than in most field crops. A range of soft infrastructure requirements such as knowledge, skills, and capability remain a constraint to development (McKellar et al. 2015). A mosaic irrigation approach focused on growing irrigated forages as an adjunct to existing beef cattle enterprises has the potential to warrant investment because transport costs are minimal. However, the returns from irrigated forages are dependent on utilising the forage effectively to ensure optimum cattle production and are also highly sensitive to cattle prices (Ash et al. 2018a,b,c). Irrigated forages have not yet been shown to be consistently profitable within a commercial beef operation. Aquaculture also has the potential to deliver sufficiently high net returns (Irvin et al. 2018) and faces a smoother regulatory path than in those catchments draining into the Great Barrier Reef lagoon, but potential developers face high risks both biophysically and in terms of competition from Asia, so that recent proponents of large-scale aquaculture have not yet been able to secure finance for development.

19.6 ­Conclusions The trajectory of development for the northern rivers of Australia is unclear. Despite the strength of the northern development agenda over the last 120 years, only about 0.033% of the two drainage divisions is being used for irrigated agriculture. Despite the recent intensification of this agenda in the twenty-first century, very little new land has been developed for irrigated agriculture in northern Australia, with the exception of an expansion of the Ord River Irrigation Area by 5000 ha since 2012 (Ash and Watson 2018). This has come at a cost of more than AUD$ 500 million in public and private investment (Office of the Auditor General of Western Australia 2016).

489

490

19  Development in the Northern Rivers of Australia

There are a number of reasons that the recent development agenda has resulted in limited on-ground change. One of these is due to the high cost:benefit ratio, likely to be borne by the private sector. Another is due to the ongoing tension between the stated need to develop these catchments while at the same time protect their environmental and cultural values. Amongst other things, this has led to protracted approvals processes. This is especially the case when there is greenfield development in largely intact catchments, still inhabited by Indigenous people. It is the management of this tension which will provide the greatest challenge. Extremes of view (‘no development’ through to ‘develop at almost any cost’) will need to be accommodated by a middle ground. For the Mitchell River, the MRWMG describes it as a ‘balanced approach to the use of catchment resources and sustainable and integrated management of the Mitchell River catchment area’ (http://www.mitchell-river.com.au). Similar language and intent can be seen in a range of government and community documents, but it is not yet clear how this will manifest and the visions within them range, for example, from: no new dams but large numbers of small scale, mosaic irrigation systems (NALWT 2009); to supporting accelerated investment for large in-stream dams (Australian Government 2015). One suggestion is for the Commonwealth Government to take a more formalised coordinating approach across the three jurisdictions, either through coordinating legislation or an intergovernmental agreement (Hart et  al. 2019). This would take advantage of the ‘blank slate’ many northern rivers provide and a chance to put in place resource planning and policies in a pre-emptive way, avoiding the need to then manage over-allocated systems (Hart et al. 2019). One thing is clear, Indigenous Australians are the longest-term residents of northern Australia with the fastest growing population and a growing array of natural resource rights and interests. Access to finance and limited management capacity may constrain initial participation, but Indigenous perspectives on development in northern Australia will play an increasingly strong role in the types and scale of development which will occur.

­Acknowledgements We are grateful for the comments of Danial Stratford and Chris Chilcott, which improved this case study and for Petina Pert, who prepared the maps. Brendan Ebner provided valuable advice regarding sawfish and invasive fish species. Nathan Dyer took the facing page photograph of the Fitzroy River.

­References Anon (2004). Intergovernmental Agreement on a National Water Initiative between the Commonwealth of Australia and the Governments of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/water-reform/national-water-initiativeagreement-2004.pdf (accessed 8 December 2020).

 ­Reference

Ash, A. and Watson, I. (2018). Developing the north: learning from the past to guide future plans and policies. The Rangeland Journal 40: 301–314. Ash, A., Gleeson, T., Hall, M. et al. (2017). Irrigated agricultural development in northern Australia: value-chain challenges and opportunities. Agricultural Systems 155: 116–125. Ash, A., Bristow, M., Laing, A. et al. (2018a). Agricultural Viability: Darwin Catchments. A Technical Report from the CSIRO Northern Australia Water Resource Assessment, Part of the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund: Water Resource Assessments. Australia: CSIRO. Ash, A., Cossart, R., Ham, C. et al. (2018b). Agricultural Viability: Fitzroy Catchment. A Technical Report from the CSIRO Northern Australia Water Resource Assessment, Part of the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund: Water Resource Assessments. Australia: CSIRO. Ash, A., Laing, A., MacLeod, N. et al. (2018c). Agricultural Viability: Mitchell Catchment. A Technical Report from the CSIRO Northern Australia Water Resource Assessment, Part of the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund: Water Resource Assessments. Australia: CSIRO. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2016). Census (2016), TableBuilder. Findings based on use of ABS TableBuilder data. https://auth.censusdata.abs.gov.au (accessed 8 December 2020). Australian Government (2012). Water Act 2007 – Basin Plan 2012. Extract for the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments. Canberra: Australian Government. www.legislation.gov. au/Details/F2018C00451. Australian Government (2015). Our North, Out Future: White Paper on Developing Northern Australia. Canberra: Australian Government. Australian Heritage Council (2011). Final Assessment of National Heritage Values of the West Kimberley. Australian Heritage Council. www.environment.gov.au/heritage/places/ national/west-kimberley. Australian Land Use Mapping (2016). https://www.agriculture.gov.au/sites/default/files/ abares/aclump/documents/ALUMCv8_Handbook4ednPart2_UpdateOctober2016.pdf. Barber, M. (2018). Settling for dams. The Rangeland Journal 40: 365–379. Barber, M. and Jackson, S. (2011). Indigenous water values and resource development pressures in the Pilbara region of north-west Australia. Australian Aboriginal Studies 2: 32–49. Barber, M. and Jackson, S. (2014). Autonomy and the intercultural: interpreting the history of Australian aboriginal water management in the Roper River catchment, Northern Territory. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 20: 670–693. Barber, M., Jackson, S., Dambacher, J., and Finn, M. (2015). The persistence of subsistence: qualitative social-ecological modelling of indigenous aquatic hunting and gathering in tropical Australia. Ecology and Society 20: 60. Bartley, R., Thomas, M.F., Clifford, D. et al. (2013). Land Suitability: Technical Methods. A Technical Report to the Australian Government for the Flinders and Gilbert Agricultural Resource Assessment (FGARA) Project. CSIRO. Bird, M.I., O’Grady, D., and Ulm, S. (2016). Humans, water, and the colonization of Australia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113: 11477–11482.

491

492

19  Development in the Northern Rivers of Australia

Charles, S., Petheram, C., Berthet, A. et al. (2016). Climate Data and Their Characterisation for Hydrological and Agricultural Scenario Modelling Across the Fitzroy, Darwin and Mitchell Catchments. A technical report to the Australian Government from the CSIRO Northern Australia Water Resource Assessment, part of the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund: Water Resource Assessments. Australia: CSIRO. Chiew, F., Post, D., and Moran, R. (2012). Hydroclimate baseline and future water availability projections for water resources planning. 34th Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium 2012, Sydney, NSW (19–22 November 2012). Barton, ACT: Engineers Australia, pp. 461–468. Clarkson, C., Jacobs, Z., Marwick, B. et al. (2017). Human occupation of northern Australia by 65,000 years ago. Nature 547: 306. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature22968. CSIRO (2009). Water in Northern Australia: A Summary of Reports to the Australian Government from the CSIRO Northern Australia Sustainable Yields Project. CSIRO. https:// doi.org/10.4225/08/58597335c3ec0. Davidson, B.R. (1972). The Northern Myth. A Study of the Physical and Economic Limits to Agricultural and Pastoral Development in Tropical Australia, 3e. Melbourne University Press. Department of Premier and Cabinet, Western Australia (2019). Fact Sheet. Ord Final Agreement. https://www.wa.gov.au/government/publications/ord-final-indigenous-landuse-agreement-documents (accessed 8 December 2020). Douglas, M.M., Bunn, S.E., and Davies, P.M. (2005). River and wetland food webs in Australia’s wet-dry tropics: general principles and implications for management. Marine and Freshwater Research 56: 329–342. Doupé, R.G., Mitchell, J., Knott, M.J. et al. (2010). Efficacy of exclusion fencing to protect ephemeral floodplain lagoon habitats from feral pigs (Sus scrofa). Wetlands Ecology and Management 18: 69–78. Easey, D., Brocklehurst, P., and Emberg, J. (2017). Soil and Land Suitability Assessment for Irrigated Agriculture in the Gunn Point Area, Northern Territory. Darwin: Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Ebner, B.C., Millington, M., Holmes, B. et al. (2020). Scoping the Biosecurity Risks and Appropriate Management Relating to the Freshwater Ornamental Aquarium Trade Across Northern Australia. Report to the Department of Agriculture. TropWATER, James Cook University. George, R., Ham, C., Bennett, D. et al. (2016). Land and water investigations and targeted capital investment underpin economic growth for development in Northern Western Australia. Developing Northern Australia Conference. Above the Line – Unleashing the North’s Potential. Conference Proceedings, pp 4–23. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 321795992_Land_and_water_investigations_and_targeted_capital_investment_underpin _economic_growth_for_development_in_Northern_Western_Australia (accessed 8 December 2020). Government of Western Australia (2012). Ord Surface Water Allocation Plan Methods Report: Background Information and Description of Methods for the Ord Surface Water Allocation Plan. Government of Western Australia. Grice, A.C., Watson, I., and Stone, P. (2013). Mosaic Irrigation for the Northern Australian Beef Industry. An Assessment of Sustainability and Potential. CSIRO.

 ­Reference

Hale, J. (2008). Ecological Character Description of the Ord River Floodplain Ramsar Site, Report to the Department of Environment and Conservation. Western Australia: Perth. Hale, J. and Morgan, D. (2010). Ecological Character Description for the Lakes Argyle and Kununurra Ramsar Site. Report to the Department of Sustainability. Canberra: Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Harrington, G.A., Stelfox, L., Gardner, W.P. et al. (2011). Surface Water – Groundwater Interactions in the Lower Fitzroy River, Western Australia, 54pp. CSIRO: Water for a Healthy Country National Research Flagship. Hart, B., O’Donnell, E., and Horne, A. (2019). Sustainable water resources development in northern Australia: the need for coordination, integration and representation. International Journal of Water Resources Development https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2019.1578199. Higgins, A., Watson, I., Chilcott, C. et al. (2013). A framework for optimising capital investment and operations in livestock logistics. The Rangeland Journal 35: 181–191. Holmes, J. (2012). Cape York Peninsula, Australia: a frontier region undergoing a multifunctional transition with indigenous engagement. Journal of Rural Studies 28: 252–265. Irvin, S., Coman, G., Musson, D. et al. (2018). Aquaculture Viability. A Technical Report to the Australian Government from the CSIRO Northern Australia Water Resource Assessment, Part of the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund: Water Resource Assessments. Australia: CSIRO. Jackson, S., Finn, M., and Featherston, P. (2012). Aquatic resource use by Indigenous Australians in two tropical river catchments: the Fitzroy River and Daly River. Human Ecology 40: 893–908. Jarvis, D., Stoeckl, N., Hill, R., and Pert, P. (2018). Indigenous land and sea management programs: can they promote regional development and help ‘close the (income) gap’? Australian Journal of Social Issues https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.44. Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia (2014). Pivot North: Inquiry into the Development of Northern Australia- Final Report. Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia. www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Former_Committees/ Northern_Australia/Inquiry_into_the_Development_of_Northern_Australia/ Tabled_Reports. Kennard, M.J. (2011). Priorities for Identification and Sustainable Management of High Conservation Value Aquatic Ecosystems in Northern Australia. Final Report for the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Populations and Communities and the National Water Commission. Darwin: Tropical Rivers and Coastal Knowledge (TRaCK) Commonwealth Environmental Research Facility, Charles Darwin University. Kimberley Pilbara Cattlemen’s Association (2017). Submission #10. Submission from the KPCA to Red Tape Committee. Senate Select Committee on Red Tape, specific area of ‘Environmental assessment and approvals’. www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/ Committees/Senate/Red_Tape (accessed 8 December 2020). Lavender, S.L. and Abbs, D.J. (2013). Trends in Australian rainfall: contribution of tropical cyclones and closed lows. Climate Dynamics 40: 317–326. Leigh, C. and Sheldon, F. (2008). Hydrological changes and ecological impacts associated with water resource development in large floodplain rivers in the Australian tropics. River Research and Applications 24: 1251–1270.

493

494

19  Development in the Northern Rivers of Australia

Lyons, I. and Barber, M. (2018). Indigenous Water Values, Rights, Interests and Development Objectives in the Mitchell Catchment. A technical report to the Australian Government from the CSIRO Northern Australia Water Resource Assessment, part of the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund: Water Resource Assessments. Australia: CSIRO. McFarlane, D., Stone, R., Martens, S. et al. (2012). Climate change impacts on water yields and demands in south-western Australia. Journal of Hydrology 475: 488–498. McKellar, L., Bark, R.H., and Watson, I. (2015). Agricultural transition and land-use change: considerations in the development of irrigated enterprises in the rangelands of northern Australia. The Rangeland Journal 37: 445–457. McKenzie, N., Jacquier, D., Isbell, R., and Brown, K. (2004). Australian Soils and Landscapes. An Illustrated Compendium. Collingwood: CSIRO Publishing. Meyer, W.S. (2005). The Irrigation Industry in the Murray and Murrumbidgee Basins. CRC for Irrigation Futures Technical Report no. 03/05. Adelaide: CSIRO. Moore, A.E., Cotterill, F.P.D., Main, M.P.L., and Williams, H.B. (2007). The Zambezi River. In: Large Rivers: Geomorphology and Management (ed. A. Gupta), 311–332. Wiley. Morgan, D., Whitty, J., Allen, M. et al. (2016). Wheatstone Environmental Offsets - Barriers to Sawfish Migrations. A Freshwater Fish Group & Fish Health Unit. A report for Chevron Australia and the Western Australian Marine Science Institution, 77pp. Centre for Fish & Fisheries Research, Murdoch University. NALWT (2009). Sustainable Development in Northern Australia. A report to Government from the Northern Australia Land and Water Taskforce. Canberra, Australia: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. NT Farmers Association (2015). Economic Profile of Plant-Based Industries in the Northern Territory 2015. Darwin: NT farmers Association. Office of the Auditor General Western Australia (2016). Western Australian Auditor General’s Report. Ord-East Kimberley Development. Perth: Western Australian Government. Pascoe (2018). Dark EMU. Aboriginal Australian and the Birth of Agriculture. Magabala Books. Peel, M.C., Finlayson, B.L., and McMahon, T.A. (2007). Updated world map of the KöppenGeiger climate classification. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 11: 1633–1644. https:// doi.org/10.5194/hess-11-1633-2007. Petheram, C., McMahon, T., and Peel, M. (2008). Flow characteristics of rivers in northern Australia: implications for development. Journal of Hydrology 357: 93–111. Petheram, C., Watson, I., and Stone, P. (eds.) (2013a). Agricultural Resource Assessment for the Flinders Catchment. A report to the Australian Government from the CSIRO Flinders and Gilbert Agricultural Resource Assessment, part of the North Queensland Irrigated Agriculture Strategy. Australia: CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country and Sustainable Agriculture flagships. Petheram, C., Watson, I., and Stone, P. (eds.) (2013b). Agricultural Resource Assessment for the Gilbert Catchment. A report to the Australian Government from the CSIRO Flinders and Gilbert Agricultural Resource Assessment, part of the North Queensland Irrigated Agriculture Strategy. Australia: CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country and Sustainable Agriculture flagships. Petheram, C., McKellar, L., Holz, L. et al. (2016). Evaluation of the economic feasibility of water harvesting for irrigation in a large semi-arid tropical catchment in northern Australia. Agricultural Systems 142: 84–98.

 ­Reference

Petheram, C., Gallant, J., Stone, P. et al. (2018a). Rapid assessment of potential for development of large dams and irrigation large dam and irrigation development potential across continental areas: application to northern Australia. The Rangeland Journal 40: 431–449. Petheram, C., Chilcott, C., Watson, I., and Bruce, C. (eds.) (2018b). Water Resource Assessment for the Darwin Catchments. A report to the Australian Government from the CSIRO Northern Australia Water Resource Assessment, part of the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund: Water Resource Assessments. Australia: CSIRO. Petheram, C., Bruce, C., Chilcott, C., and Watson, I. (eds.) (2018c). Water Resource Assessment for the Fitzroy Catchment. A report to the Australian Government from the CSIRO Northern Australia Water Resource Assessment, part of the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund: Water Resource Assessments. Australia: CSIRO. Petheram, C., Watson, I., Bruce, C., and Chilcott, C. (eds.) (2018d). Water Resource Assessment for the Mitchell Catchment. A report to the Australian sGovernment from the CSIRO Northern Australia Water Resource Assessment, part of the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund: Water Resource Assessments. Australia: CSIRO. Pettit, N.E., Naiman, R.J., Warfe, D.M. et al. (2017). Productivity and connectivity in tropical riverscapes of northern Australia: ecological insights for management. Ecosystems 20: 492–514. Queensland Government Water Plan (Mitchell) (2007). https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/ view/pdf/2016-12-06/sl-2007-0269 (accessed 8 December 2020). Queensland Government (2018). Reef 2050 Water Quality Improvement Plan 2017-22. State of Queensland. https://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/46115/reef-2050water-quality-improvement-plan-2017-22.pdf. Radcliffe-Brown, A.R. (1926). The rainbow-serpent myth of Australia. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 56: 19–25. Taylor, L. (1990). The rainbow serpent as visual metaphor in Western Arnhem Land. Oceania 60: 329–344. Thomas, M., Gregory, L., Harms, B. et al. (2018). Land Suitability of the Fitzroy, Darwin and Mitchell Catchments. A technical report from the CSIRO Northern Australia Water Resource Assessment, part of the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund: Water Resource Assessments. Australia: CSIRO. Turnadge, C., Petheram, C., and Davies, P. (2013). Water resources. In: Mosaic Irrigation for the Northern Australian Beef Industry. An Assessment of Sustainability and Potential. Technical Report, Chapter 3. A report prepared for the Office of Northern Australia (eds. A.C. Grice, I. Watson and P. Stone), 31–75. Brisbane: CSIRO. Vance, D.J., Staples, D.J., and Kerr, J.D. (1985). Factors affecting year-to-year variation in the catch of banana prawns (Penaeus merguiensis) in the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. ICES Journal of Marine Science 42: 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/42.1.83. Walker, B. (2019). Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission Report. Adelaide: Government of South Australia. Waltham, N., Burrows, D., Butler, B. et al. (2013). Waterhole Ecology in the Flinders and Gilbert Catchments. A technical report to the Australian Government from the CSIRO Flinders and Gilbert Agricultural Resource Assessment, part of the North Queensland Irrigated Agriculture Strategy. Australia: CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country and Sustainable Agriculture flagships.

495

496

19  Development in the Northern Rivers of Australia

Waterhouse, J., Grundy, M., Gordon, I. et al. (2010). Managing the catchments of the Great Barrier Reef. In: Handbook of Catchment Management, Chapter 15, 1e (eds. R.C. Ferrier and A. Jenkins), 351–375. Wiley-Blackwell. Western Australian Government (2016). Land Tenure Pathway for Irrigated Agriculture. Agency Referral Information. V1 20/6/16. Whitty, J.M., Morgan, D.L., Peverell, S.C. et al. (2009). Ontogenetic depth partitioning by juvenile freshwater sawfish (Pristis microdon: Pristidae) in a riverine environment. Marine and Freshwater Research 60: 306–316. Whitty, J.M., Keleher, J., Ebner, B.C. et al. (2017). Habitat use of a critically endangered elasmobranch, the largetooth sawfish Pristis pristis, in an intermittently flowing riverine nursery. Endangered Species Research 34: 211–227. Wilson, P., Ringrose-Voase, A., Jacquier, D. et al. (2009). Land and soil resources in Northern Australia. In: Northern Australia Land and Water Science Review 2009, Chapter 2 (ed. P. Stone), 2-1–2-47. Canberra: Northern Australia Land and Water Taskforce and CSIRO. Woinarski, J., Mackey, B., Nix, H. et al. (2007). The Nature of Northern Australia: Its Natural Values, Ecological Processes and Future Prospects. ANU Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/ j.ctt24h8n3. Woinarski, J.C., Legge, S., Fitzsimons, J.A. et al. (2011). The disappearing mammal fauna of northern Australia: context, cause, and response. Conservation Letters 4: 192–201.

Source: J. Crossman, University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada.

499

20 Catchment Management of Lake Simcoe, Canada Jill Crossman School of Environment, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada

20.1 ­Introduction to the Lake Simcoe Case Study: A History of Problems With a lake area of 722 km2 and catchment area of 2899 km2, Lake Simcoe is the fourth largest lake situated entirely within the Canadian Province of Ontario. It is fed by tributaries from 22 subcatchments and drains into Georgian Bay and Lake Huron via the Severn River (Figure 20.1). The lake is characterised by three major basins: the main basin has an average depth of 14 m with maximum depths of over 40 m (Image 20.1), Cook’s Bay is the shallowest with a maximum depth of 15 m, and Kempenfelt Bay is the deepest, with a maximum depth of 42 m. The lake is both environmentally and economically important, supporting over CAD500 million per year from agriculture and providing clean water to a population of nearly 400 000 homeowners. Annually, fishing and tourism on Lake Simcoe also attract over CAD200 million to the region (Palmer et al. 2011), and angling on Lake Simcoe accounts for over 15% of all recreational fishing across Ontario (LSEMS 2008). The catchment area is relatively small compared to the lake surface, with just a 4 : 1 ratio, and is attributable to low gradients found throughout the region. Around 74% of the watershed has a slope of less than 2% (Walker and McDougal 1994). Elevated regions are formed by a geological feature called the Oak Ridges Moraine which runs to the southeast of the basin, creating the watershed divide between Lake Ontario and Lake Simcoe. The moraine is recognised as an important groundwater recharge zone (Howard et  al. 1996) and is a protected conservation area in Ontario. Due to the generally low elevation of the Simcoe landscape, surface drainage is slow, and around 10% of the region is characterised by permanently waterlogged, wetland areas (Walker and McDougal 1994). Some of these wetlands are drained to create agricultural areas on the shore of Lake Simcoe, as the soils are rich in nutrients. Although agriculture dominates the majority of land use (average of 47%), some subcatchments feature large rapidly expanding cities (Table  20.1), which present issues such as flooding due to low permeability and high run-off rates.

Handbook of Catchment Management, Second Edition. Edited by Robert C. Ferrier and Alan Jenkins. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

500

20  Catchment Management of Lake Simcoe, Canada

N

Main Basin (E51)

Raman

Kempenfelt Bay (K42)

Ontario

Talbot

Orillia

Hawkestone

Oro

Whites Legend:

Barrie

Hewitts

Leonards

1600 km

Selected provincial water quality monitoring sites

Lovers Cooks Bay (C9)

0

River

Maskinonge Beaver

Lake depth 42 m

Black

Pefferlaw

0m

Holland East

Holland West 0

20

40

80 Kilometers

Figure 20.1  Major subcatchments and lake basins of Lake Simcoe. Gridded lake bathymetry data calculated from digitised bathymetric data provided by OMNR, originally interpreted from depth sounding. Source: Based on Canadian Hydrographic Service (1957).

Over 200 years ago in 1790, European immigrants deforested the Simcoe catchments to establish agricultural industry, at which time nutrient loading rates, specifically phosphorus, had been estimated at around 32 tonnes year−1 (Johnson and Nicholls 1989). These rose rapidly to over 70 and 100 tonnes year−1 by 1900 and the 1950s, respectively. While initially a large proportion of the excess phosphorus load was attributable to forest removal and accelerated soil erosion, by the 1980s over 20% was ascribed to sewage, which was discharged directly into Lake Simcoe (Nicholls 1995). Concerns were raised regarding lake water quality, when in the 1970s these excess nutrient loads, or eutrophication, were thought to be causing blooms of blue-green algae associated with declines in lake dissolved oxygen (DO), most concerningly within the deepest lake basin, Kempenfelt Bay. Simcoe is a dimictic lake, and as a result summer DO concentrations near the bottom zones of deeper basins can naturally reach very low levels shortly prior to fall turnover. Importantly, these deep, colder waters are also the preferred habitats of juvenile and spawning game fish, e.g. lake trout and whitefish, and potential further reductions in DO levels were a concern in relation to fish populations. Combined with heavy fish harvesting during the 1960s, large declines in game fish populations in Lake Simcoe were observed, and soon a requirement for artificial stocking of fish populations arose (Johnson and Nicholls 1989), which have continued into the twenty-first century. Since the early 1980s, a range of management strategies and long-term monitoring programmes have been implemented across

20.2  ­History of Pollutio

Table 20.1  Subcatchment areas and percentage land use across the Simcoe watershed, calculated from the Ecological Land Classifications of Ontario data. Land use (%) Catchment

Total area (km2)

Agriculture

Urban

Forest

Wetland

Barry

45.8

14

65.9

15.4

4.7

Talbot

368.6

48.8

3.8

19.4

28.0

Leonard

85.34

44.2

22.7

21.4

11.7

Lovers Creek

59.4

39.1

29.8

17.2

13.9

Orillia

76

39.2

19.1

31.5

10.2

Black

322.9

43

10.8

28.8

17.8

Holland

617

50.8

21.3

16.9

11.1

Pefferlaw

417.6

48.6

11.6

22.2

17.6

Beaver

328.5

65.1

5.2

10.5

19.3

Hewits

19.1

51.3

27.8

15.6

5.3

Hawkstone

67

36

11.3

33.2

19.6

Whites

87.93

65.8

1.7

11.2

21.3

Ramara

56.2

42.2

4.4

16.9

36.5

Oro

30.7

48.6

8.6

30.4

12.3

Maskinonge

79.3

66

16.1

10.8

7.1

Source: Data from OMNR (2007).

the catchments and lake basins of Simcoe, aiming to improve lake water quality and facilitate sustainable fish populations and ecosystem services. During this time, Lake Simcoe has encountered numerous challenges, including eutrophication, invasive species, climate change, and population growth which have complicated efforts to restore and maintain lake health. This case study provides a summary of integrated and collaborative management methods undertaken, the observed results, and future plans for restoring the ecological health of a Canadian catchment.

20.2 ­History of Pollution The human population around the shores of Lake Simcoe has grown rapidly since the 1930s, the impacts of which are reflected in catchment phosphorus loads. Early deforestation of the catchment in the 1700s to accommodate agriculture initially resulted in higher soil mobility and increased diffuse sources of phosphorus (Nicholls 1995). However, as more people settled, houses were built along the lake and tributary shorelines, and the effluent pipes from these residences drained directly into watercourses; rapidly increasing the ‘end of pipe’ or point source proportion of phosphorus loads. Changes between phosphorus point and diffuse sources (over the past 35 years) can be seen in Figure 20.2.

501

20  Catchment Management of Lake Simcoe, Canada 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

Urban runoff and septic tanks Precipiation Tributaries Polders WWTP Total load

19 8 19 2 83 19 8 19 4 85 19 8 19 6 8 19 7 8 19 8 8 19 9 9 19 0 9 19 1 9 19 2 9 19 3 9 19 4 9 19 5 9 19 6 9 19 7 9 19 8 9 20 9 0 20 0 0 20 1 0 20 2 0 20 3 04 20 0 20 5 06 20 0 20 7 0 20 8 09 20 1 20 0 1 20 1 12 20 1 20 3 1 20 4 15

Total phosphorus load (tonnes year–1)

502

Figure 20.2  Total phosphorus load transported to Lake Simcoe between 1982 and 2015. During periods where only total load data were available, atmospheric deposition was estimated using records of precipitation amounts and chemistry, and tributary loads were estimated using mass balance methods. These estimated quantities are indicated in hashed bars. Source: Adapted from Snodgrass and Holubeshen (1992) (Table 2); Scott et al. 2001 (Tables 29 and 30, and Figure 16); Winter et al. (2007) (Figure 7); LSRCA (2017) (pages 2–3), and Crossman (unpublished data).

20.2.1  Point Sources The uncontrolled urban sprawl and direct effluent discharge into the lake were determined to be unsustainable, and to meet the demands of the growing population the first wastewater treatment plant was constructed on the shores of Lake Simcoe in 1933. Initially, treatment involved only fairly rudimentary methods such as filtering and settling, which along with a rapidly growing population and the introduction of phosphorus into detergent, was unable to prevent increases in point source contributions to the Lake. In the 1960s and 1970s, secondary and tertiary treatment facilities were introduced, which removed phosphorus from wastewater before it was discharged, and legislation was introduced to restrict the use of phosphorus in detergents. Today, 15 treatment facilities serve the 22 subcatchments of Lake Simcoe, the latest of which was installed as recently as 2010. Over the past 50 years, however, the residential population has increased from just over 85 000 residents in 1961 (LSEMS 1995) to currently over 350 000 (Neumann et  al. 2017), with projected future increases of nearly double by 2031 (OMAH 2017). Unfortunately, despite new treatment methods being able to obtain very low effluent phosphorus concentrations of 0.1 mg l−1, the continual rising population poses persistent and likely future challenges for catchment management.

20.2.2  Diffuse Sources In the 1930s, a series of wetlands in the catchments were drained, and dykes built around them to enable water to be constantly pumped out through a series of canals (Johnson and Nicholls 1989). Currently, these drained wetlands, or ‘polders’ occupy around 49 km2 with the majority located in the Holland catchment. Two pumping stations now operate to keep water levels sufficiently low to grow crops, which predominantly consist of vegetables, e.g.

20.2  ­History of Pollutio

lettuce, carrots, and onions (LSEMS 1995). Wetland soils are naturally high in nutrients, which are discharged to the lake through the pumping stations, and additional chemical fertilisers are often applied to the land by farmers. In combination with elevated soil erosion from the dykes and canal systems, polders have been identified as a significant source of nutrients to the lake (Winter et al. 2007). The direct addition of nutrients, such as chemical fertilisers to the soils, enriches the near-surface soil nutrient stores, and over time the nutrient uptake of crops depletes the fertiliser-derived nutrient pool. Around Simcoe, however, the total amount of nutrients added to soils through agricultural means has increased substantially since the 1930s, due to intensifying methods and development of chemical fertilisers. It has been suggested that rates of fertiliser application are often greater than those of plant uptake; a practice particularly common on polders, where the value of the vegetable crops is so much higher than the cost of the fertiliser (LSEMS 1995). Applying excess fertilisers to the soils can have both short- and long-term consequences; in the short term, rainfall events occurring when soils are nutrient-enriched will readily transfer nutrients to nearby watercourses (Borling 2003). In the long term, the excess phosphorus can also be transferred into soil stores, which can be released even decades later as ‘legacy P’. This often occurs when agricultural fertiliser applications are reduced, and legacy soil phosphorus is released to compensate, making it difficult to achieve effective phosphorus load reductions from agricultural soils where excess fertilisers have been applied for prolonged time periods (Jarvie et al. 2013). Fertiliser additions to each of the subcatchments in Simcoe have been estimated (Table 20.2) which vary by dominant crop type. Agriculture in Simcoe is predominantly focused on winter wheat, corn, alfalfa hay, and more recently soya bean (LSEMS 1995), which together make up around 90% of crops harvested in the region. Livestock production can also contribute significantly to phosphorus loads. Where livestock are not restricted from watercourses, studies have shown that they can add up to 0.35 kg P animal−1 yr−1 to rivers in Simcoe (Crossman et al. 2016). In addition, large-scale dairy farming operations may store up to 92% of manure for later disposal outside of the catchment (Statistics Canada 2003, 2011). Leakage from these storage facilities can contribute phosphorus through run-off and leaching, although dairy farming is not widespread in the region and accounts for only 1% of the total land use. As over 60% of the region is rural, a significant portion of residents are not connected to central wastewater treatment facilities; in these areas, it is more common for properties to use septic systems. These consist of a tank (where organic matter is digested) and a septic bed. The septic bed is created from soil or sand, located in a covered field. The effluent runs through pipes laid within the septic bed, slowly leaching through the unsaturated zone of the soils. As it moves through the soil, phosphorus (as well as bacteria and viruses) is absorbed from the effluent. Eventually the effluent, now with a lower phosphorus content, percolates into the wider natural soil zone beyond the septic bed, and into groundwater and nearby rivers. This process essentially results in a ‘plume’ of soils containing very high phosphorus concentrations surrounding a septic bed, upwards of 16 m (May et al. 2015) meaning they should not be built close to watercourses, although historically such buffers have not always been observed.

503

504

20  Catchment Management of Lake Simcoe, Canada

Table 20.2  Fertiliser additions to crops and through livestock, to intensive and non-intensive agricultural land (kg P ha−1 d−1). Fertiliser applied (kg P ha−1 d−1) Intensive agricultural land

Non-intensive agricultural land

Catchment

Crops

Livestock

Crops

Livestock

Barry

2.78

0.11

0.31

0.04

Talbot

0.85

0.05

0.11

0.05

Leonard

0.49

0.14

0.13

0.03

Lovers Creek

0.47

0.13

0.22

0.03

Orillia

0.39

0.08

0.12

0.04

Black

0.38

0.12

0.19

0.04

Holland

0.38

0.15

0.21

0.05

Pefferlaw

0.36

0.14

0.19

0.04

Beaver

0.35

0.18

0.16

0.06

Hewitt

0.33

0.13

0.21

0.03

Hawkstone

0.32

0.08

0.14

0.04

Whites

0.32

0.08

0.11

0.05

Ramara

0.26

0.01

0.13

0.05

Oro

0.19

0.08

0.13

0.04

Maskinonge

0.12

0.08

0.19

0.04

Calculations for intensive agricultural land include crops such as wheat, soy, corn, rye, barley, canola, oats, and potatoes; and livestock such as dairy cattle, pigs, and hens. Non-intensive agricultural land includes alfalfa and forage; nondairy cattle, sheep, and horses. Differences in fertiliser application rates are due to variations between catchments in density of livestock and crop planting (e.g. number and type of crops farmed per ha). Calculations made from data available through OMAFRA (2009) and Statistics Canada (2011).

It has been demonstrated that the soils of a septic bed may become overloaded with nutrients over time, resulting in them becoming less effective at removing the phosphorus, and eventually turning from a sink to a source of the nutrient (Beal et  al. 2005). Similarly, when effluent or floodwaters are added to the septic bed too quickly, the soils become saturated and cannot remove the nutrients, viruses, and bacteria. Typically, these beds would be deemed ‘too small’ for the location. Again, this would result in the septic systems becoming a source of diffuse phosphorus. The efficiency of septic beds in retaining phosphorus, therefore, varies by soil type, slope, size, and age of the bed. The total amount of phosphorus leached from septic beds in Simcoe catchments was around 2.6 tonnes year−1 in the 1980s (Snodgrass and Holubeshen 1992) and had risen to 4.4 tonnes year−1 (Figure 20.2) between 2000 and 2010 (MECP 2015). While management strategies have been implemented to repair and replace old and damaged septic systems, rising populations along with the opening of a major highway has increased cottage and resort

20.2  ­History of Pollutio

developments (Lynch 2016), which until the implementation of recent legislation, meant an associated increase in septic system installations. Finally, urban run-off can be another diffuse source of phosphorus. Urbanisation restricts the infiltration of precipitation by the presence of paved surfaces and buildings, generating greater quantities of surface run-off. Due to the presence of lawn fertilisers, domestic pets, car emissions, and detergents from car washing, this run-off typically contains high concentrations of phosphorus (LSEMS 1995). Although the stormwater run-off may be channelled into drains, and ultimately could enter watercourses at the end of a storm pipe, it is generally considered a diffuse source. In the Simcoe watershed, it was fairly typical during the 1980s for stormwater to drain directly into tributaries or the lake (LSEMS 2008). The lack of vegetation, high rates of surface run-off, and development sites also facilitated soil erosion, and a substantial quantity of soil loss also occurred during this period.

20.2.3  Direct Sources to the Lake Due to the large surface area of the lake in comparison to that of the catchment (Figure 20.1, Image 20.1), direct atmospheric deposition of nutrients upon the lake surface can contribute significant loads. Both phosphorus and nitrogen can be returned to the lake via precipitation (wet deposition), or through the settling of fine particles (dry deposition). Between 25% and 50% of all phosphorus entering the lake is estimated to originate from the atmosphere (Winter et al. 2007) (Figure 20.2). Phosphorus can also be released directly into the lake water column from bed sediments, known as ‘internal load’. Organic material falling to the lake bottom contains high phosphorus content, which can be absorbed onto bed sediment, acting to store the phosphorus

Image 20.1  Lake Simcoe main basin in Spring. Source: Jill Crossman

505

506

20  Catchment Management of Lake Simcoe, Canada

for potentially long periods of time (Pettersson 1998). However, portions of this phosphorus can be released when hypolimnetic waters become anoxic, typically in late summer and early fall. Few estimates of internal phosphorus loads have been made in Lake Simcoe; however, those which have been calculated suggest that annual internal loading may equal around 89% of the annual external load (Nurnberg et  al. 2013), making it an important component of lake chemical and biological processes.

20.3 ­History of Management of Lake Simcoe In Ontario, the oversight of waterbody health is administered across multiple jurisdictions, from a top-down federal stance, to an integrated catchment management approach. At the federal level, the government is responsible for the protection of ocean resources, navigation, ocean fisheries, transboundary waters, and international relations. The primary federal department tasked with water management is Environment Canada, which is also responsible for water management in National Parks, federal facilities (e.g. military bases), and First Nation reserves (ECCC 2013). Most authority over freshwater matters, however, is held at the provincial level (ECCC 2016), where in Ontario there are two main authorities, or ministries, involved; the Ontario Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks (MECP; formerly the Ontario Ministry of Environment), and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Fisheries (MNRF). The MECP protects the quantity and quality of Ontario’s water resources, whereas the primary water role of the MNRF is its oversight of aquatic biodiversity protection (ECO 2019). The province may delegate some of its water management duties to the municipal level, most commonly those involving treatment and supply of drinking water, and treatment of wastewater. The ability of federal, provincial, and municipal bodies to manage water effectively has historically been constrained by their fragmented locations across multiple watersheds. To support a watershed management approach, conservation authorities were developed in 1946 with the aim of bridging these transboundary issues. Conservation authorities are comprised of a board of directors, with elected representatives from constituent municipalities (Figure 20.3). They oversee clean water protection, natural hazard management, and flood erosion and control. These authorities may also assist with the regulation of development through permit processes and administer their programmes under the direction of the MECP, who provide policy direction, technical advice, and funding (Ontario 1950). Conservation authorities follow a method known as ‘integrated watershed management’, which is the notion that protection of the environment, consideration of the economy, and meeting the needs of society are equally important in achieving a sustainable management plan (Conservation Ontario 2019). The authorities achieve their plans through adaptive management techniques, whereby conditions are continually monitored and plans altered or updated where required. Since 1971, the principles of catchment management have been applied to the Lake Simcoe watershed through various legislative frameworks, controlled and enacted by a combination of the above jurisdictions (Figure 20.4). This collaborative governance approach is key to the Conservation Authority concept and the success of management approaches in the Lake Simcoe watershed.

20.3  ­History of Management of Lake Simco (a)

(b) Municipality 1

Municipality 3

Municipality 4 Municipality 5

Partners:

Board of directors Elected representatives from:

Federal ECCC FOC

Municipality 1 Municipality 2

Municipality 2

Funding

Municipality 3

Technichal assistance

Municipality 4

Direction

Municipality 5

Provincial OMAFRA MECP MAH MNRF

Figure 20.3  (a) Example catchment partially spanning five municipalities. Dashed line indicates conservation authority border. (b) Structure of conservation authority for sample catchment, including collaborative federal and provincial governance relationships. ECCC = Environment Canada and Climate Change; FOC = Fisheries and Oceans Canada; OMAFRA = Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Farming, and Rural Affairs; MECP = Ministry of Conservation and Parks; MAH = Municipal Affairs and Housing; MNRF = Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. Source: (a,b) Jill Crossman.

20.3.1  Implementation of Catchment Management Principles Between 1971 and 1974, the provincial Ministry of the Environment conducted the first official monitoring of Lake Simcoe water quality (Ralston et al. 1975) to assess the need for action. It was concluded that although general water quality was ‘satisfactory’, nutrient levels around the shorelines of Cook’s Bay and Kempenfelt Bay were elevated, and algal scums were observed annually in autumn, along with DO depletion in deep waters (Image 20.2). Severely impaired water quality (high phosphorus, excess algal growth, and depleted DO concentrations) was also noted in the Holland River. The study recommended a management focus on reducing anthropogenic phosphorus inputs to the lake. To meet the recommendation of developing an environmental strategy, the Lake SimcoeCouchiching steering and report committees were formed in 1977 and ran until 1979. The committees instigated collaborative governance of the catchment, being comprised of members from various provincial ministries (Environment, Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Housing), the Regional Conservation Authority, and municipalities. First, the report committee assessed the source of the algae and DO depletion problem, using data from the MECP provincial monitoring programme which had continued since 1974. The committees found that population growth had led to excess phosphorus being released to Lake Simcoe, which was the direct cause of algal scums and localised turbidity problems. Most significantly, the committee concluded that the phosphorus-induced algal problem was the cause of low DO concentrations in lake-bottom waters during autumn, where oxygen levels were insufficient to sustain a healthy cold-water fishery. As a result, large reductions in populations of whitefish and lake trout were reported (LSCRC 1979). The committee assessed current and likely future development pressures and made recommendations that

507

508

20  Catchment Management of Lake Simcoe, Canada

1971–1974 First official monitoring of Lake Simcoe by MECP. Recommended management to reduce phosphorus inputs

1977–1979

1981–1985 Lake Simcoe Environmental management Strategy established to conduct research and establish baseline monitoring program. Recommended phosphrous reductions from priority sources and pathways

Lake Simcoe-Couchiching streering and report committees found phosphorus-induced algal scums affected DO and cold-water fisheries.

1990–1995 LSEMS phase 1 implemented: aim to restore self-sustaining cold-water fishery through improving water quality. Regional conservation authority named as lead agency and management strategies implemented

1996–2001 LSEMS phase 2 implemented: 55 water quality improvement programs completed, impacts of invasive species assessed

2001–2008 LSEMS phase 3 implemented: focus on future pressures, including land use development and climate change. This phase considered protection, not just restoration of the Lake.

2009 Finalisation of the Lake Simcoe Protection plan, aiming to restore deep water oxygen minimum to 7mg I–1 to protect cold-water fish.

2010 Conservation Authority, local stakeholders, municipalities, and the province produced the adaptive Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Reduction Strategy

Figure 20.4  Timeline summary of Lake Simcoe catchment management. Source: Jill Crossman.

catchment management was required to prevent any further deterioration with likely continued regional development. Eleven recommendations were made, with the aim of reducing both point and diffuse phosphorus inputs, restoring natural phosphorus uptake

20.3  ­History of Management of Lake Simco

Image 20.2  Growth of algae during late summer and early fall. Source: Jill Crossman

mechanisms and supporting fish stocking programmes. The provincial Cabinet Committee for Resources Development (CCRD) was identified as the authority most appropriate for overseeing implementation of these recommendations. The CCRD determined that further research was required in order to determine the sources of phosphorus inputs, to evaluate measures designed to reduce them, and to establish a baseline monitoring programme from which future changes could be quantified. In 1981, the CCRD established the Lake Simcoe Environmental Management Strategy (LSEMS) to conduct these studies, led by the MECP. These studies concluded in 1985 that phosphorus sources varied between tributaries and subcatchments, ranging from predominantly soil erosion to urban inputs. A final report (LSEMS 1985) provided a series of recommendations of improvements, targeting high-priority phosphorus sources and transport pathways. LSEMS then conducted a three-phase plan to implement these recommendations. Phase one was conducted between 1990 and 1995, with the goal of restoring a self-sustaining cold-water fishery through water quality improvements. Recognising the importance of the catchment-based approach, the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority was named as the lead agency, who then partnered with MECP, MNRF, and Ontario Ministry of Farming and Rural Affairs. During this period, LSEMS implemented a variety of ‘best management practices’, including effluent permits, upgrading septic systems, fencing livestock off from watercourses, construction of artificial wetlands, planting of cover crops, and restoration of stream banks. Meanwhile, the MNRF tracked fish communities within Lake Simcoe; low recruitment numbers of cold-water fish, including lake trout, whitefish, and herring, continued to require stocking (LSEMS 1995). Phase two was implemented between 1996 and 2001. During this period, additional partners were added to the programme, including the Chippewas of Georgina Island First

509

510

20  Catchment Management of Lake Simcoe, Canada

Nation, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Environment Canada, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Fifty-five water quality improvement plans were completed, and a hydrologic mass balance for the lake conducted. Zebra mussels invaded the lake in 1995, and their impact on water quality was assessed. The final LSEMS integration phase was conducted between 2001 and 2008. The goal was adjusted to include protection of the Lake Simcoe watershed and improve recreational opportunities. During this last period, a greater focus was placed on consideration of future pressures, and thus on basin-wide land use planning and development, including upgrading stormwater and septic systems. Hundreds of stewardship programmes (co-funded between landowners and LSEMS) were also supported, including upgrading manure storage facilities, reducing stream bank erosion, and improvement of agricultural land use practices. The final LSEMS report (2008) concluded that there was an urgent need for continued investment in restoration, which contributed to the development of the Lake Simcoe Protection Act, federal legislation passed in 2008. This was Canada’s first lake-specific legislation, which provided the authority for establishment of lake protection plans. The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan was finalised in 2009 (MECP 2009) and aimed to protect and restore the ecological health of the watershed, ultimately setting a deep water DO target of 7 mg l−1 in order to protect cold-water fish species. The plan adopted an integrated watershed approach to restoring water quality and health of aquatic life within the Lake Simcoe watershed and to maintain water quantity. It also aimed to address evolving impacts such as invasive species and climate change through promoting ongoing monitoring and research. The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan required annual public reporting on the implementation and success of management plans, summarising data from watershed and lake programmes and the release of a five-year report providing results, progress, and summaries from advisory committees. It legislated for the development of a strategy for phosphorus reduction, requiring the province, conservation authorities, First Nation communities, local residents, and municipalities to produce an integrated strategy, further encouraging collaborative governance of the watershed. The Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Reduction Strategy was produced in 2010, using an adaptive management approach. The strategy identifies effective actions that should be taken to proportionally reduce phosphorus loadings from each major source to Lake Simcoe. To achieve this, the strategy aims to track contributions of phosphorous from different sectors or sources and identifies reduction targets for each source (MECP 2010). In line with the adaptive management approach, the strategy is reviewed at a minimum of every five years, with targets and methods updated to match advances in research. Currently, the strategy suggests that in order to reach the hypolimnetic DO target of 7 mg l−1, a 40% reduction in annual phosphorus load to Lake Simcoe is required.

20.4 ­Management Achievements 20.4.1  Reductions in Phosphorus Loadings Cost-effectiveness analyses have demonstrated that across Ontario, a combination of both point and diffuse source phosphorus load reductions are required in order to obtain

20.4 ­Management Achievement

optimal results (Chapra et al. 1983). Since 1971, a large range of studies and management plans have been carried out across the Simcoe catchments (Figure  20.4), and despite the complexity of the catchment management history, reductions in phosphorus loads to the lake have been achieved. Many of these improvements have been attributed to a series of lake stewardship programmes, best management practices and, Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) restoration projects (Box 20.1) led by the province and conservation authorities, encouraging more conservative phosphorus use and reduced seepage to watercourses.

20.4.2  Point Source Reductions – Sewage Treatment Considered some of the most straight forward sources to identify, locate, and therefore mitigate, end-of-pipe effluent from sewage treatment plants are often one of the first targets of nutrient reduction strategies. In 1984, the outflow from two treatment plants, Aurora and Newmarket, was redirected from the Holland River to the watershed of Lake Ontario, by connecting the mains sewer lines to those of the York region outflows (LSEMS 1995). Between 1984 and 1985, the total phosphorus loads from sewage effluent entering Lake Simcoe dropped by 3.3 tonnes (Snodgrass and Holubeshen 1992), which might in part

Box 20.1  The Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) Development Program Between 1983 and 1984, 10% of monitored beaches in southern Ontario failed the provincial standard for recreation and were closed (Bowman 2019), raising economic concerns as they bring in up to CAD1 million per day in tourism (MOEE 1996). In 1985, MECP launched the Provincial Beaches Strategy Program, including MNRF, Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and the Ministry of Health, to identify the sources and extent of beach bacterial and nutrient pollution. The programme had two components: Urban Beaches Improvement and CURB. Between 1986 and 1990, CURB contracted 28 conservation authorities to undertake watershed scale studies, identify pollution sources, and develop action plans to address beach closures. Two major sources of contamination were identified: continuous (e.g. livestock access to streams) and periodic (e.g. manure spills). Between 1991–1996, CURB implemented action plan recommendations. CAD57 million was announced as a 10-year programme to run until 2001 of which CAD50 million was to be made available to farmers with CAD7 million for education, research, and innovation. Eight watersheds were initially chosen for the application of CURB, although 28 were deemed eligible by 1995. The money was made available both as a financial incentive and as economic assistance to encourage effective management practices. By 1996, over 3500 management projects had been implemented over 150 watersheds in southern Ontario. Project types included sewage disposal (50%), livestock access (16%), milk house parlour run-off (8%), and manure storage (26%) (Ministry of Environment and Energy 1996). In 1996, the CURB programme was terminated. Approximately CAD20 million of the allocated CAD57 million had been distributed (Bowman 2019).

511

512

20  Catchment Management of Lake Simcoe, Canada

be attributed to this effluent diversion. Due to continued population increases and urban development, however, the benefits were short-lived, and it was recognised that more action was needed to protect Lake Simcoe. In 1989, the MECP prohibited the establishment of additional sewage treatment plants in the watershed and set ‘loading caps’ for the effluent of existing plants, of 0.3 or 0.12 mg l−1 dependent upon flow volume (LSEMS 1995). These caps ensured that effluent associated with future developments did not adversely impact water quality. Between 1985 and 1990, it was established that these changes led to a reduction in phosphorus loads of 5 tonnes year−1 (Figure 20.5) (LSEMS 1995). Following this, however, further reductions from point sources were not achieved for another 20 years. During the implementation of the Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Reduction Strategy, the loading caps were additionally restricted in the interest of further reducing point source inputs. This required improvements or upgrades in phosphorus treatment technologies employed by some wastewater treatment plants. This litigation has been highly successful, with effluent treatment in the Simcoe watershed now being some of the most effective in the province. These amendments resulted in phosphorus load reductions of a further 2 tonnes per year (MECP 2016) compared to effluent loads prior to the implementation of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. Figure 20.5 demonstrates the cumulative load reductions that have been achieved since management began, indicating these programmes have prevented the loading of over 160 tonnes of phosphorus from point sources to the lake since 1980.

20.4.3  Diffuse Source Reductions Quantifying the success of management efforts to reduce loading from diffuse sources is more complicated. Direct monitoring of diffuse loads is often not plausible, and often estimates of diffuse pollution and strategy effects are instead made through mass balance calculations or using process-based hydro-chemical catchment models. A complication with this is that methods of assessment can change over time. Total load calculations have been made by a range of different groups (Figure 20.2), and while every effort is made to maintain methodological consistency, improvements in temporal and spatial resolution of monitoring data can introduce uncertainty into calculations of the source of load changes. Using a combination of the available monitored and modelled data, it is estimated however that management of diffuse phosphorus sources has achieved a reduction in over 260 tonnes of phosphorus loadings to the Lake since 1982 (Figure 20.5).

20.4.4  Septic Systems Between 1985 and 1993, both the CURB and the Landowner Environmental Assistance Program (LEAP; Box 20.2) offered matching funds in assistance for any upgrades made to failed septic systems located within 15 m of a watercourse. During this period, 10 systems were repaired, which were estimated by LSEMS (1995) to have reduced phosphorus loads by up to 0.03 tonnes per year. This estimation was based on the generalisation that all individuals generate 0.8 kg P yr−1, with 50% of individuals generating an additional 0.36 kg P yr−1 through the use of dishwashers, taking into account the difference in system usage of permanent residents (365 days) and temporary residents (80 days) and assuming

20.4 ­Management Achievement

Cumulative TP load reductions (tonnes)

450 400 350 300

WWTP Tributaries Stormwater Septic tanks

250 200 150 100 50 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

0

Figure 20.5  Cumulative reductions of total phosphorus loads from management strategies across Lake Simcoe, calculated from information available in LSEMS and MECP reports. Source: Jill Crossman. Snodgrass and Holubeshen (1992), LSEMS (1995), MECP (2016), and from process-based models (Crossman et al. 2019).

that only around 5% of phosphorus input to septic beds reaches local watercourses (Walker and McDougal 1994). Further research into septic upgrade efficiency (Crossman et  al. 2019) has since determined that soil type, history of septic failures, and local connectivity to additional stream networks significantly impact this 5% assumption, resulting in the effectiveness of upgrades varying substantially between subcatchments in which they are implemented. Crossman et al. (2019) estimated that of a further 450 septic repairs made between 2000 and 2015, less than 0.5 tonnes of phosphorus were removed from diffuse loadings, or 0.03 tonnes per year. New building code regulations were recently implemented in the Lake Simcoe watershed, requiring all 3700 septic systems within 100 m of a waterbody to be inspected every five years from January 2016 (MECP 2015). Combined with educational and funding programmes, it is hoped that these legislative efforts will further reduce diffuse loadings from septic sources.

20.4.5  Urban Run-off The importance of intercepting and treating the nutrients in urban stormwater run-off was recognised by LSEMS (1985), and in 1990 the MECP introduced treatment guidelines for run-off from new developments. Best management practices were introduced requiring stormwater to be directed through mechanisms such as detention ponds, infiltration trenches, green roofs, or artificial wetlands. In 1985, legislation was also introduced requiring erosion control facilities to be installed during building work, to retain eroded soils. It was estimated that this reduced phosphorus loads by 0.4 tonnes per year. In 2010, the Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Reduction Plan introduced additional policies to improve stormwater management in both new and existing developments. These policies placed more stringent requirements on approvals for new stormwater works and enabled

513

514

20  Catchment Management of Lake Simcoe, Canada

Box 20.2  Landowner Environmental Assistance Program (LEAP) Beginning in 1989 shortly before Phase 1 of the LSEMS implementation strategy (MECP 2015), the LEAP was made available to residents of the Simcoe watershed and administered by the Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority. It is currently funded by a combination of municipal partners and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. The programme provides financial support and technical advice for projects focused on improving surface or groundwater quality, reducing soil erosion, and improving wildlife habitats of the Simcoe watershed (LSRCA 2019). Since 2009, more than CAD22 million has been invested in the programme (MECP 2015). There are funding caps for each project type, which range between CAD500 and CAD15 000 (LSRCA 2019). Eligible projects include –– Controlling cropland erosion through installation of grassed waterways, terraces, and sediment control basins; –– Management of milk house waste, and diversion of flowing water away from manure storage areas, to prevent leakage into streams and ditches; –– Restricting livestock access from watercourses; –– Covering seed costs for planting cover crops; –– Nutrient testing of agricultural soils to minimise fertiliser usage and optimise crop yield; –– Repairing, upgrading, or replacing septic systems; only those within a ‘high-risk’ area are eligible for the programme, including systems situated close to a municipal water supply well, or surface water intake; –– Installation of tile outlet control structures; these prevent free drainage to watercourses during summer, storing water for crops and reducing nutrient discharge to rivers; –– Wash water treatment systems; aimed more specifically at vegetable growers, the projects aim to maximise recycling of water, nutrients, and soils washed from soils prior to shipment. –– Improving streams and any connected ponds; the aim is to disconnect ponds from streams, using channel bypasses and to stabilise streambanks and enhance habitat through vegetation planting. –– Prevention of groundwater contamination through protection or decommissioning of farm wells, including grading and seeding soil surfaces around wells, upgrading or replacing damaged casings, diversion of water away from wellheads, or installation of wellhead caps. –– Wetland, grassland, and wildlife habitat restoration and enhancement; includes restoring native plants and soils, creating habitats for fish, and installation of bird and bat boxes –– Planting trees and shrubs – including site visits by specialists, provision of equipment, and ongoing technical support –– Support of community action from work, youth organisations, and schools

20.4 ­Management Achievement

the MECP to revise existing permits (MECP 2009). The MECP and LSRCA collaborated to produce stormwater management plans for each settlement area in the watershed, including identification of opportunities to improve or ‘retrofit’ existing stormwater works, evaluating the impact of stormwater from developments and determining the effectiveness of stormwater management in reducing phosphorus loads to the lake. Retrofitting stormwater management methods has encouraged conversion from a stormwater quantity to quality approach and involved trial treatments such as the addition of sand filtration chambers to remove phosphorus as it flows out of ponds, and the use of ‘Phoslock’, a material which removes filterable reactive phosphorus from the water column, and entrains it in a layer above pond sediment (MECP 2010). While it has been estimated that effective implementation of stormwater best management practices could reduce phosphorus loadings by 0.77 tonnes per year (LSEMS 1995), having identified 160 opportunities to upgrade stormwater facilities, just 22 stormwater ponds were retrofitted between 2000 and 2015, with an estimated total phosphorus reduction of 0.6 tonnes (or 0.04 tonnes per year), calculated using the difference in hydro-chemical model outputs simulated with and without retrofitted ponds (Crossman et al. 2019). In 2015, the LSRCA and MECP began to encourage the treatment of stormwater as a resource rather than a waste product, updating stormwater management guidelines to advise developers on how to re-use run-off water and minimise impervious surfaces (MECP 2015).

20.4.6  Fertilisers In 2002, the Nutrient Management Act was introduced, regulating all materials applied to agricultural lands as a nutrient. The act set out land application standards, construction requirements for nutrient storage, and required users to provide detailed strategies for management, storage, and application of nutrients. The plans include calculations of nutrient application rates; these are estimated using total available phosphate from all nutrient sources (e.g. chemical fertiliser applications and organic matter additions), minus nutrient removal rates from crop uptake during production, and following crop harvest. Where nutrient applications include organic waste matter, soil testing must be conducted within one month of the application date, and legacy soil nutrient concentrations are also included in the calculation of ‘available’ nutrient sources. The aim of these plans is to avoid nutrient application rates exceeding crop requirements and to reduce the buildup of legacy phosphorus and associated mobilisation of nutrients when soils are saturated. Currently, the LSRCA offers funding support for soil testing, encouraging even those farmers for whom it is not mandatory to consider existing availability of soil nutrients in their fertiliser management plans. Fertilisers are expensive to buy and time-consuming to apply, and therefore reducing application frequency and amounts is in the interest of farmers as well as of Lake Simcoe. Changes in application methods have also been encouraged (MECP 2010); methods which have been identified as potential positive influences include altering from surface spraying to injection, adding buffer zones between application areas and watercourses and restricting use during periods of field saturation.

515

516

20  Catchment Management of Lake Simcoe, Canada

While it is estimated that over 60% of phosphorus loads (excluding atmospheric deposition) originate from agricultural sources, sufficiently detailed records on timing of fertiliser reduction efforts do not exist to quantify historic impacts of these strategies across the Lake Simcoe watershed. Research has, however, been conducted to estimate the potential effectiveness of implementing future fertiliser reduction strategies; for instance, Crossman et al. (2019) simulated the effects of reducing all fertiliser applications to alfalfa, soybeans, winter wheat, and corn crops by 50% across the watershed. This strategy was estimated to have the potential to be one of the most impactful of all management plans, with a calculated reduction of over 1 tonne of phosphorus per year.

20.4.7  Livestock The LEAP, CURB, and the Ontario Soil Conservation and the Environmental Protection Assistance Program (OSCEPAP; Box  20.3) encouraged better management practices by funding 146 programmes between 1984 and 1990 with an estimated 1.55 tonnes per year reduction in phosphorus loads (LSEMS 1995). The most popular programmes during this time were manure storage and restricting livestock access to watercourses. Funding was provided to reduce water contamination from manure and exercise yard run-off, through construction of improved storage, run-off containment facilities, and clean water diversion mechanisms (e.g. using eaves troughs which direct water away from exercise yards). Livestock access was restricted through funding of fencing, alternative watering devices, and construction of gated livestock crossings. Between 1991 and 2015, a further 29 livestock access programmes were implemented, which are estimated to have further reduced phosphorus loads by a total of 0.8 tonnes (calculated using management efficiency rates estimated by Crossman et  al. 2019). Over 40 manure storage programmes were also implemented during this period, further reducing loads by an estimated 0.001 tonnes. The relative inefficiency of the manure storage programmes is attributed to its focus on dairy operations. Dairy agricultural waste is a relatively minor source of phosphorus in this region, accounting for only 5.5% of all nutrient inputs to Lake Simcoe (Crossman et al. 2016), resulting in limited effects of managing each individual system.

20.4.8  Soil Erosion Between 1985 and 1990, programmes were introduced to reduce soil erosion issues from agriculture, including 48 OSCEPAP programmes associated with grassed waterways, cover crops, wind breaks, and buffer strips, which reduced phosphorus loads by 5.6 tonnes per year. Cover crops and buffer strip programmes improve infiltration of excess surface water and help to reduce transport of phosphorus through soil leaching and run-off that occurs on bare soils. LEAP also funded 74 strategies to reduce streambank and shoreline erosion which are estimated to have reduced phosphorus loads by a further 0.9 tonnes per year (LSEMS 1995). Experiments conducted on the Oak Ridges Moraine demonstrated that surface run-off and sediment loads of vegetated soils were over 52% and 90% lower than bare soils, respectively (Crossman et  al. 2016). Despite this high efficiency in erosion control, models

20.4 ­Management Achievement

Box 20.3  Ontario Soil Conservation and Environmental Protection Assistance Program (OSCEPAP) and the Land Stewardship Program (LSP) By the 1980s, an increasing awareness of water quality issues had arisen across Canada, largely associated with declining Great Lakes water quality and algal blooms. As a result, public funds had begun to be used for water conservation efforts. In 1983, OSCEPAP was initiated to control erosion and manage surface run-off from manure (Rudy 1991). Totally, CAD25.5 million was made available for five years, on a first-come, first-served basis. Up to CAD5000 per farm operation was eligible per farm, where OSCEPAP would fund up to 1/3 of the total estimated cost of the project. ●●

●●

rosion control projects included gabion and rip-rap lining, grassed waterways, terE races, windbreaks, and seeding riverbanks, spillways, tile outlet projections, fencing of ditches and watercourses, and installation of stream crossings. anure storage improvements aimed to focus manure applications during environM mentally suitable periods and included liquid manure storage tanks made of concrete, metal, or pressure-treated lumber or earth, dry manure storage tanks with concrete pads and methods for controlling liquid run-off, and installation of storage covers to reduce storage odours and exclude precipitation.

Between 1986 and 1988, OSCEPAP II was initiated to include incentives to remove ‘fragile land’ from agricultural circulation and allow funding for other fertiliser storage facilities. Fragile land includes buffer strips adjacent to watercourses, up-slope areas greater than 5%, and floodplains. Between 1987 and 1990, the Land Stewardship Program (LSP) was developed as a three-year financial incentive (CAD40 million) to encourage conservation tillage and cropping practices. It was delivered by the nongovernmental organisation Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association, consisting of local farmers. Through this grassroots approach, it is thought that the conservation strategy funding initiative received both higher interest from farmers and more effective peer review of applications (Napier et al. 1996). Between 1990 and 1994, LSP II and the National Soil Conservation Program (NSCP) were initiated following the signing of the Federal-Provincial Canada-Ontario Accord on Soil Conservation. NSCP included CAD11 million in federal funds available to encourage retirement of fragile land. LSP II funded cover cropping, strip cropping, equipment modifications, and soil and water conservation structures. indicate that of the 266 vegetation planting schemes implemented between 1991 and 2015, phosphorus loads to the lake were reduced by just 0.15 tonnes. This may indicate that areas in which these schemes were implemented did not contain phosphorus-rich soils.

20.4.9  Wetland Drainage (Polders) An environmental assessment conducted in 2003 by the LSRCA deduced that a combination of reduced volumes of pumped water and treatment of polder water would reduce

517

518

20  Catchment Management of Lake Simcoe, Canada

the amount of phosphorus released to the lake by approximately 2.4 tonnes per year (LSRCA 2015). Initially, a centralised treatment facility was proposed, along with diversion of pump-house water to existing sewage treatment lagoons. These strategies were ultimately not implemented due to excessive operational and capital costs identified. Instead, the LSRCA continues to investigate the possibility of constructing new treatment lagoons proximal to the pump houses in which to chemically treat polder pumphouse water. Additionally, the LSRCA promotes the same soil testing and soil erosion strategies as those offered in other agricultural sectors, encouraging farmers to calculate fertiliser amounts required by crops, to improve infiltration of excess water and reduce surface leaching from run-off. Although the exact impact of these management strategies has not been calculated, annual phosphorus loads from polders have decreased substantially from over 15 tonnes per year in 1982 (Draper et al. 1985), to just 4.5 tonnes per year in 2010.

20.4.10  Improvements in Lake Water Quality Due to the potential combined effects of climate, land use, population, and feedbacks from multiple strategies, observed changes in lake water quality cannot be used to directly ascertain the effectiveness of any single management strategy. However, these data do provide a mechanism for tracking overall improvements in lake health since management began. For instance, Eimers et al. (2005) analysed lake water quality data between 1980 and 2004 and concluded that both total phosphorus and chlorophyll-a concentrations had declined significantly since the early 1980s. Longer datasets now available to 2016 demonstrate that these trends have continued. Observations at Cook’s Bay (site C9), Kempenfelt (site K42), and in the main basin (E51) (Figures 20.1 and 20.6a) indicate that while total phosphorus (TP) concentrations fell by an average of 18% between 1980–1983 and 2000–2003, they fell a further 23% by 2011–2014. Total rates of phosphorus reduction varied between sites, however, with Cook’s Bay falling the fastest at a rate of 0.2 (μg l−1) yr−1. Lake phosphorus concentrations in spring show further reductions, similar across all three locations of between 0.2 and 0.3 μg l−1 yr−1 since 1980. Similarly, the fastest decline in lake chlorophyll-a has occurred since 2009. In Cook’s Bay, it has fallen at an average annual rate of 0.04 (μg l−1) yr−1 since 1980 (Figure 20.6b), although prior to 2004 only very slight decreases were observed (Eimers et al. 2005). Chlorophyll-a is often monitored as a proxy for phytoplankton biovolume, which has also been monitored in the lake, and it is interesting to note that biovolume (Figure 20.6d) has declined most substantially in Cook’s Bay. In Kempenfelt Bay, declines were observed only until the year 2000. While total phosphorus and chlorophyll-a have demonstrated significant decreases since this period, biovolume has recently increased in these regions. Riemann et al. (1989) have demonstrated that chlorophyll content of algal cells will decrease in response to nutrient deficiency, which may explain some of the mismatch between phytoplankton biovolume and chlorophyll-a concentrations to the reduced lake phosphorus concentrations, and raises questions as to the validity of long-term use of chlorophyll-a as a suitable measure for management success in this region. A key obstacle to ascertaining the success of catchment management has been the clarification of appropriate units and targets for measurement. In the case of Lake Simcoe,

20.4 ­Management Achievement

0.024 0.019 0.014 0.009 0.004 1980

(c)

9 8 7

HVWDO (mg I–1)

(b)

Cook’s Bay Main Basin Kempenfelt Bay

Chlorophyll-a concentration (mg I–1)

0.029

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Cook’s Bay Main Basin Kempenfelt Bay

4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2000

2010

2015

Cook’s Bay Main Basin Kempenfelt Bay

1800

30th September

1600 1400

6

1200

5

1000

4 3 2 1 0 1980

4.50

(d) 15th September

Biovolume (mm3 m3–1)

Total phosphorus concentration (mg I–1)

(a)

800 600 400 200

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

0 1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Figure 20.6  (a) Lake TP concentration May–October average, (b) lake chlorophyll-a concentration May–October average, (c) Volume-weighted hypolimnetic dissolved oxygen concentration in Kempenfelt Bay, and (d) Lake biovolume. ‘Cook’s Basin’ = site C9, ‘Kempenfelt Bay’ = site K42, ‘Main Basin’ = site E51 (see Figure 23.1). Source: (a–d) Based on MECP Lake Simcoe Monitoring data 1980–2015. Fair Use.

while it is clear that management strategies have reduced phosphorus loads entering the lake by impressive quantities and has thereby resulted in significant reductions in lake phosphorus concentrations; it is important to remember that the original aim of managing the watershed was to raise lake oxygen concentrations to restore the sustainability of fish breeding programmes (LSEMS 1995). The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (2009) identified that in order to restore fish health, a mean volume-weighted hypolimnetic DO concentration of 7 mg l−1 needed to be sustained throughout the summer, making DO a popular unit for measuring management success. This is typically measured in Simcoe as the minimum volume-weighted DO concentration observed by the ‘end of the summer’ in waters below 18 m, within Kempenfelt Bay; as this has been considered the region of Lake Simcoe most important to cold-water fisheries. The definition of the end of summer has varied between studies, from 15 September, 30 September (Young et al. 2011) to more specific calculations of the stratified period (Eimers et  al. 2005). While the Protection Plan does specifically reference a 7 mg l−1 target for 15 September, it is important to note that the date used does affect the interpretation of management success (Figure  20.6c), where end dates of 15 September indicate an improvement of 0.11 (mg l−1) yr−1 (with two occasions of having successfully achieved the 7 mg l−1 target); 30 September demonstrates a slightly faster improvement rate of 0.09  (mg l−1)  yr−1 without having yet achieved the target DO concentrations.

519

520

20  Catchment Management of Lake Simcoe, Canada

Irrespective of the precise calculation methods used, however, it is undeniable that mean volume-weighted hypolimnetic DO concentrations have improved in Kempenfelt Bay since the beginning of Lake Simcoe catchment management. One of the largest improvements in the lake’s DO concentrations occurred between 1994 and 1998, a period of noticeable decline in Kempenfelt Bay phytoplankton biovolume. However, both biovolume and oxygen concentrations increased between 2000 and 2010, indicating that perhaps processes operating in this catchment are more complicated than originally thought. Researchers have used models to simulate the response of Lake Simcoe water quality measures to individual nutrient management strategies. Results have indicated that while efforts to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus loads can significantly improve lake DO concentrations, there may also be unintended consequences associated with some remediation strategies, or with the implementation of specific combinations of strategies, which reduces their overall impact on lake DO improvements. One example is where use of multiple strategies to enhance infiltration and nutrient uptake through planting vegetation and removing paved surfaces can also reduce total water discharged to the lake in summer, increase stability of the lake thermal profile, induce surface warming, and encourage algal growth (Crossman et al. 2019). While the simulated reductions in nutrient loads from the strategies do drive increases in lake DO concentrations, greater improvements in lake health could have been simulated using strategies which did not impact river discharge. To optimise management strategy impacts, therefore, it has been suggested that a coordinated management approach be taken, which considers interactions between strategies, and biological and physical feedbacks on the lake. While DO levels do continue to decline to dangerously low levels during the end of the summer stratified period and do not yet consistently reach lake simcoe protection plan (LSPP) targets, management of this catchment to date has overall significantly improved lake water quality. It is likely, however, that as the economy of phosphorus use increases, further load reductions will become progressively harder to achieve. It therefore becomes increasingly important to focus on the most effective management strategies, or combinations of strategies, implementing them in a fashion that has the optimal impact on lake DO improvement.

20.4.11  Management Impacts on Fish Stocks Low DO concentrations can result in limited survival of juvenile cold-water fish species to adulthood, important to the economy of Lake Simcoe. In the 1800s, Lake Simcoe was a popular commercial fishery; however, concerns raised regarding declines in cold-water species led to the enaction of fishing regulations in 1885, restricting fish catch, methods, and season length. In 1903, all game fish (e.g. cisco – or lake herring, lake trout, and whitefish) were reserved for sport fishing only, temporarily relieving pressure on fish populations (LSEMS 1995). Over the past 100 years, however, significant increases in the popularity of sport fishing, combined with declines in water quality, and the introduction of invasive species (e.g. carp) have all reapplied pressures to these cold-water fish species. Declines in populations during the 1960s led to renewed concerns surrounding the health of Lake Simcoe cold-water fish populations (Figure  20.7a). During this year, the MNRF began fisheries assessments, which continue to this day, and provide data for

20.4 ­Management Achievement (a)

(b) 25

Winter cold-water fish CPUE

250

Estimated winter cold-water fish catch (thouands)

Whitefish

20

Whitefish Cisco Wild Lake Trout

200

150

Cisco

15

Wild Lake Trout

10 5 0 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

100

50

0

5

6 19

0

7 19

5

7 19

0

8 19

5

8 19

0

9 19

5

9 19

05

20

10 20

15 20

Figure 20.7  (a) Winter cold-water fish catch in Lake Simcoe from 1965 to 2012. Source: LSEMS (1995) (Figures 3.6–3.8); Dolson (2012) (Figure 11); MECP (2014) (Figure 52). Fair Use. (b) Lake Simcoe winter catch per unit effort (CPUE) calculated using winter creel survey abundance and fishing effort data. Source: Adapted from Dolson (2012) (Figure 11); Challice and Liddle (2015); and MECP (2016). Fair use.

long-term changes in populations; and ultimately the declines have been linked to several factors including fishing pressures and a reduction in suitable oxygenated cold-water habitat (Evans et  al. 1991; Willox 2001). In order to try and relieve some of these pressures, stocking programmes were introduced for both lake trout in 1975 and whitefish in 1982. These programmes involve artificially fertilising eggs from native fish, raising offspring in hatcheries and re-introducing them to Simcoe during a more resilient life stage. The original aim of the LSEMS implementation programme was to remove the need for this stocking through sufficient improvement of lake health as to enable ‘natural recruitment’ to sustain lake populations. In 1977, additional fishing regulations were introduced to protect cold-water fish species in Lake Simcoe. Possession limits for whitefish were reduced to two fish per angler, the same as that for lake trout, and the winter fishing season was shortened by two weeks. Declines in lake trout catches observed since the early 1960s were reversed and between 1975 and 1988, increases in trout numbers were recorded; however, whitefish and cisco continued to decline (LSEMS 1995). In the 1990s, the cisco population collapsed, resulting in the species being labelled as protected in the lake, and a cisco fish ban enacted. MNRF monitoring of fish catch is conducted through ‘creel’ surveys, whereby anglers are interviewed on their catch, harvest, and effort (Dolson 2012). MNRF winter creel fish catch records indicate that abundance of all three cold-water fish species have begun to recover significantly since the 1990s (Figure 23.7a); however, it is important to consider the increase in popularity of sport fishing and the greater total effort being put into catching these fish. To accurately quantify fish recovery rates in the lake, the MNRF therefore also

521

522

20  Catchment Management of Lake Simcoe, Canada

use a ‘catch per unit effort’ (CPUE) measure, which is simply the total catch of all fishing trips on the lake, divided by an estimate of the number of hours spent attempting to catch the fish (‘effort’). This produces data which is standardised by the popularity of fishing in any given year and gives a clearer picture of the abundance of fish in the lake. CPUE records (Figure 20.7b) indicate increases in cisco, wild whitefish, and wild lake trout from 2000 to 2009. This suggests that natural reproduction of these species increased, likely due to improvements in lake DO concentrations. These trends have not, however, been consistent and in 2010 and 2011, both cisco and whitefish suffered a second population decline, with declining trends in whitefish continuing through to 2016; a pattern which does not appear to match the improving trends in lake hyporheic DO concentrations during this period. Both have recently begun to recover again, however, and in 2015 the ban on cisco fishing was lifted, as it was established that this recovery was sufficient to support the industry. Discrepancies between apparent improvement in fish habitat (DO) and consistent improvements in CPUE of cold-water fish species may be associated with additional stressors such as invasive species (Box 20.4). Dolson (2012) makes the point that following their invasion of the lake in 1996, zebra mussels have now covered up to 99% of suitable cold-water fish spawning surfaces. This impact on successful spawning and maturity of fish eggs is not known. She also indicates that by increasing water clarity (Young et al. 2011), zebra mussels may reduce fish movement, reducing the catch rate of anglers, and impacting records in the MNRF creel programme. Predation by invasive species may also be an issue; common carp, rainbow smelt, rusty crayfish, and round gobies have all been introduced to the lake, the latter as recently as 2006, and all are predators of cold-water fish eggs (MECP 2014). Fish records therefore suggest that improvements in lake habitat resulting from catchment management have supported an increase in fish recruitment, although inconsistencies in population growth between years indicate that the cold-water fisheries remain highly sensitive. When considering additional pressures, such as land use and climate change, and invasive species, continued careful management will be required in order to reach and maintain a sustainable population.

20.5 ­Future Implications 20.5.1  Land Use and Population Change As the Simcoe watershed is located so closely to Toronto, a city which is rapidly expanding, it is predicted that urban populations will continue to increase. For instance, between 1991 and 2003, urban land cover increased by over 200% (Winter et al. 2007). Further urbanisation without careful management is likely to put additional pressure on sewage treatment and stormwater facilities and increase run-off rates and soil erosion through reduced infiltration and permeability (Johnson 2009). In the past, such urbanisation has led to generation of increased nutrient loads. Increasing the number of stormwater ponds in the Simcoe watershed was not considered an ideal solution, as the ponds are costly to maintain, can become a source of phosphorus

20.5  ­Future Implication

Box 20.4  Invasive Species of Ontario and Lake Simcoe Ontario Invasive species are defined as being nonnative to a region, having been transferred outside of their historic geographical range, and being likely to harm the natural environment, e.g. through competition, predation, and genetic hybridisation with native species. The province of Ontario currently harbours more than 180 aquatic invasive species, more than any other province in Canada. The primary pathway (at least 67%) for the introduction of aquatic invasive species to Canada has been through release of ballast waters of large ships (DFO 2004). To improve stability, empty ocean-bound vessels take water into their ballast, which is released when picking up cargo in their country of destination. Additional pathways include fish stocking, release of live baitfish, spillage from aquariums, disposal of fertilised eggs from live fish food, attachment of organisms to boat hulls, and construction of artificial canals between previously isolated waterbodies. Lake Simcoe There are currently over 12 aquatic invasive species within Lake Simcoe. The connection of Lake Simcoe to the Great Lakes via the Trent Severn Waterway along with its popularity among anglers and recreational boaters are seen as some of the principal pathways for invasion (LSRCA 2014). In order of introduction (from 1896 to 2009), aquatic invasive species include the common carp, rainbow smelt, watermilfoil, curly lead pondweed, black crappie, zebra mussel, spiny water flea, bluegill, quagga mussel, rusty crayfish, scud, round goby, and starry stonewort. Typically, these species are seen as harmful due to competition with native organisms for food or habitat, or in the case of several fish species due to direct predation. Several of the invasive species now compete or prey upon one another, although rarely to the extent of self-control. One notable exception is the relationship between the invasive zebra and quagga mussels. Zebra mussels were first recorded in Lake Simcoe around 1991, but their dominance began to decline in the 2000s due to a combination of a reduction in availability of food, and the introduction of the quagga mussel, a more competitive species. By 2010, quagga mussels had become more dominant than zebra mussels (Ginn et al. 2017), a pattern which has been observed in mussel communities across the Great Lakes. Management Until recently, there were few enforceable regulations pertaining to invasive species in Ontario. Under the federal Fisheries Act (1985), it was illegal to empty bait buckets into or within 30 m of a waterbody, bring nonnative species into Ontario for use as bait, or to generally introduce any aquatic species into an area where it is not naturally found. The 2010 Lake Simcoe Protection Plan included specific actions for reducing the risk and impact of invasive species, including implementation of public education (Continued)

523

524

20  Catchment Management of Lake Simcoe, Canada

Box 20.4  (Continued) programmes, monitoring programmes, and stewardship action plans. However, it was not until 2015 that an act which specifically focused on invasive species was introduced across the entire province, called the ‘Invasive Species Act’. This enhanced coordination of strategies across Ontario and went a step further than federal initiatives, by assessing the risk of specifically named nonnative species in an attempt to prevent, rather than just manage, their introduction to the province (Downe 2016). The act classifies invasive species as either ‘prohibited’ or ‘restricted’; it is now illegal to import, possess, deposit, release, transport, breed, buy, sell, lease, or trade prohibited species and all but to possess or transport restricted species outside of parks and conservation reserves. The act provides enforcement officers and inspectors with powers such as ‘compliance orders’ to enable early detection and destruction of invasive species, and fines of up to CAD1 000 000 or imprisonment can be imposed for noncompliance (Invasive Species Act 2015).

over time, and due to long-term storage of water, can reduce cold-water fish habitat (Longstaff 2015). The Lake Simcoe Regional Conservation Authority is therefore working with planning authorities and local communities in efforts to reduce the impacts of current and projected urbanisation through use of more sustainable and ‘low-impact development practices’ (MECP 2015). Low-impact development methods aim to maximise infiltration of water, simulating the natural hydrological cycle, a practice known as ‘rain-scaping’. Through encouraging the infiltration of rainfall at the source into permeable surfaces, these methods aim to limit high volumes of surface run-off, flash flooding, and erosion (Longstaff 2015) and limit the contact time of water with nutrients in urban areas. Innovative practices of low-impact development include the use of permeable pavements, perforated pipes, rainwater harvesting, and use of green roofs (LSRCA 2016). While it might be argued that with an increase in urbanisation a rise in agricultural land use would not be expected (LSEMS 1995), it must also be considered that rising population pressures and associated food scarcity will more generally result in a greater need for growth of crops (Gregory and Ingram 2000). This will have significant implications for applications of fertilisers and for nutrient loads. Crossman et al. (2013) and Pionke et al. (2000) demonstrated that such changes in land use can have greater impacts on water quality than changes in climate, through increasing the proportion of run-off which comes into contact with fertiliser-enriched soils. For the achievement of sustainably effective management strategies, it is therefore important to consider potential land use changes in both urban and agricultural sectors.

20.5.2  Climate Change There are many implications of a changing climate for Lake Simcoe, as altered precipitation patterns and increasing temperatures may alter run-off magnitude and timing, impact lake levels and temperature, lake stratification periods and extents, affect water quality and ultimately affect the ecology therein (Bates et al. 2008 inter alia). By altering the balance

20.5  ­Future Implication

between aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric processes within a catchment, and the effects of human use of natural resources, a changing climate therefore has the potential to influence the effectiveness of specific management strategies (Murdoch et al. 2000). As individual subcatchments are likely to respond to climate change in different ways, known as ‘catchment sensitivity’, management effectiveness may alter to different extents across the watershed and hence the future of water quality and ecology in this lake remains unknown (Image 20.3). Uncertainty surrounding future conditions makes it particularly difficult to determine whether currently effective management strategies will continue to perform well in the future. Such uncertainty presents a challenge for watershed managers and landowners

Image 20.3  Drainage through Ramara subcatchment. During spring the river sustains high water levels, but currently dries up during late summer. Source: Jill Crossman

525

526

20  Catchment Management of Lake Simcoe, Canada

when selecting strategies for implementation. In the past, a ‘top-down’ approach has been advocated, where a wide range of possible climate scenarios are selected, run through process-based hydro-chemical models to determine their impacts on the system, and the range of changes presented as likelihood of occurrence. This top-down approach has since been identified as problematic (Brown and Wilby 2012), as the climate scenarios do not represent the full possible range of futures and hence do not present managers with a true probability measure. In the case of Simcoe, bottom-up approaches to future-proofing management strategies have been attempted. These approaches are first based on sensitivity analyses of the strategies, i.e. identifying how the strategies respond to precipitation and temperature in a more general context, as opposed to any specific future projection. Once it is better understood how management strategies respond to any change in climate, these methods can then be used to identify how large of a change in climate can be endured before an unacceptable reduction in management effectiveness would be observed. Using these methods, the resilience of management strategies to change can be assessed within each catchment, and managers or landowners may then make an informed selection based upon a balance among (i) current effectiveness, (ii) cost, and (iii) resilience. This approach has the advantage of being more similar to the precautionary principle, which does not require certainty from global climate models, but rather a willingness to acknowledge the significance of the potential for a change in climate to negatively impact the effectiveness of management strategies, and the need to implement strategies which can best withstand these changes. Research has suggested that the resilience of Simcoe management strategies may differ between subcatchments, and that strategies in different locations may respond in conflicting ways to the same drivers. For instance, upgrades to septic systems were found to become less effective in the Beaver and Whites subcatchments, and more effective in the Holland subcatchment under the same changes in temperature and precipitation (Crossman et al. 2014). This is due to very different hydro-chemical process dynamics operating within each subcatchment, which, therefore, respond differently to changes in temperature and precipitation. This leads to alterations in dominance of flow pathways, frozen water stores, soil moisture deficits, spring melt magnitude, overland flow, etc. all of which can influence the extent to which a particular management strategy will impact nutrient loads and thus lake water quality. To optimise and future proof management strategies within the Simcoe watershed, it has therefore been suggested that approaches should be modified to target the dominant flow pathways specific to each subcatchment (e.g. septic upgrades prioritised in catchments with high through-flow rates). Implementation of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan provides the flexibility to address these localised and changing needs, though there is the requirement for sub-watershed adaptive management plans, for each of the 22 subcatchments draining into Lake Simcoe (MECP 2009).

20.6 ­Conclusion In 1990, LSEMS began an ambitious, collaborative effort to restore a sustainable coldwater fishery in Lake Simcoe, through reductions in anthropogenic phosphorus loads,

  ­Reference

aiming to reduce phytoplankton biomass and increase associated hypolimnetic DO concentrations. Over the past 50 years, integrated water resource management approaches involving the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, provincial ministries, the federal government, and local municipalities and stakeholders have achieved significant reductions in phosphorus exports to the lake and improvements in lake DO concentrations have been observed, without which it is seems likely that the lake trout, herring, and whitefish, so important to the lake’s economy and ecology, would not have survived. Today, the lake continues to be a significant economic and societal hub, supporting a booming sport fishing, agriculture, and tourist economy, as well as the basic requirements of clean drinking water supplies. However, in part due to its success, the lake also faces continuing pressures from increasing urbanisation, agricultural expansion, impacts of invasive species as well as those from climate change. As a result, the cold-water fisheries continue to be highly sensitive, and growth of all fish populations has not yet been consistent between years. As cutbacks in phosphorus use continue, additional load reductions will become progressively harder to achieve and it becomes increasingly important to focus on the most effective management strategies to obtain the optimal increases in lake DO. Management plans may ultimately need to be further tailored in order to achieve this optimal effectiveness and resilience under identified future land use and climate changes. To attain this, an adaptive management approach is necessary and is currently encouraged by the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, which not only requires continuous monitoring, assessments, and annual reporting but also assigns individual management approaches to each subcatchment draining into the lake. Lake Simcoe provides an example of how multi-level jurisdictional collaboration and integrated water resource management can bring about significant positive ecological, economical, and societal change. While the target of a 7 mg l−1 hypolimnetic DO concentration has not yet been consistently met, the lake water quality continues to improve and has achieved the re-establishment of natural cold-water fish recruitment.

­References Bates, B.C., Kundzwicz, Z.W., Wu, S., and Palutikof, J.P. (eds.) (2008). Climate Change and Water. Technical paper VI of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC Secretariat. Beal, C.D., Gardner, E.A., and Menzies, N.W. (2005). Processes, performance and pollution potential. A review of septic tank-soil absorption systems. Australian Journal of Soil Research 43: 781–802. Borling, K. (2003). Effects of long-term inorganic fertilization of cultivated soils. Doctoral thesis. Uppsala: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Bowman, B. (2019). Ag-Environmental Archives. http://agrienvarchive.ca/curb/curb. html#BACKGROUND. Brown, C. and Wilby, R.L. (2012). An alternate approach to assessing climate risks. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 92: 401–412.

527

528

20  Catchment Management of Lake Simcoe, Canada

Canadian Hydrographic Service. (1957). Depth Sounding Field Data, Scale 1:36,000 (Digitised by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). Challice, A. and Liddle, G. (2015). Successes in Managing the Lake Simcoe Fish Community. Aurora District MNRF. Chapra, S.C., Wicke, H.D., and Heidtke, T.M. (1983). Effectiveness of treatment to meet phosphorus objectives in the Great Lakes. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation 55: 81–91. Conservation Ontario (2019). Integrated Watershed Management Protecting Water Resources and Addressing Environmental Challenges. Conservation Ontario. https:// conservationontario.ca/policy-priorities/integrated-watershed-management. Crossman, J., Whitehead, P.G., Futter, M.N. et al. (2013). The interactive responses of water quality and hydrology to changes in multiple stressors and implications for the long-term effective management of phosphorus. Science of the Total Environment 454–455: 230–244. Crossman, J., Futter, M.N., Whitehead, P.G. et al. (2014). Flow pathways and nutrient transport mechanisms drive hydro chemical sensitivity to climate change across catchments with different geology and topography. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 18: 5125–5148. Crossman, J.C., Futter, M.N., Palmer, M. et al. (2016). The effectiveness and resilience of phosphorus management practices in the Lake Simcoe Watershed, Ontario, Canada. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences 121: 2390–2409. Crossman, J., Futter, M.N., Elliott, J.A. et al. (2019). Optimising land management strategies for maximum improvements in lake dissolved oxygen concentrations. Science of the Total Environment 652: 382–397. DFO (2004). A Canadian Action Plan to Address the Threat of Aquatic Invasive Species. Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers Aquatic Invasive Task Group. https://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/365581.pdf. Dolson, R. (2012). Status of Lake Trout (Salvelinus namaycush) in Lake Simcoe, Ontario. Science and Information Branch Southern Science and Information. Aquatic Science Unit Report 2012-1. I Ministry of Natural Resources. Downe, J. (2016). Ontario’s regulatory registry. Regulation of invasive species under the Ontario invasive species act, 2015. https://www.ontariocanada.com/registry/view. do?postingId=22462 (accessed 8 December 2020). Draper, D., Henry, D., Engler, F. et al. (1985). Phosphorus Modelling and Control Options. Technical report A6. LSEMS. ECCC (2013). Water – How We Manage It. Environment and Climate Change Canada publication. http://www.ec.gc.ca/eau-water/default.asp?lang=En&n=3DC41CC0-1. ECCC (2016). Water Governance and Legislation: Shared Responsibility. ECCC. https://www. canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/water-overview/governancelegislation/shared-responsibility.html. ECO (2019). Government Performance. Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. https://eco. on.ca/government-performance/mecp. Eimers, M.C., Winter, J.G., Scheider, W.A. et al. (2005). Recent changes and patterns in the water chemistry of Lake Simcoe. Journal of Great Lakes Research 31: 322–332. Evans, D.O., Casselman, J.M., and Willox, C.C. (1991). Effects of Exploitation, Loss of Nursery Habitat and Stocking on the Dynamics and Productivity of Lake Trout Populations in Ontario Lakes. Lake Trout Synthesis. Toronto, Ontario: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

  ­Reference

Fisheries Act (1985). R.S.C, c.F-14. https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-f-14/ latest/rsc-1985-c-f-14.html (accessed 8 December 2020). Ginn, B.K., Bolton, R., Coulombe, D. et al. (2017). Quantifying a shift in benthic dominance from zebra (Dreissena polymorpha) to quagga (Dreissena rostiformis bugensis) mussels in a large, inland lake. Journal of Great Lakes Research 44: 271–282. Gregory, P.J. and Ingram, J.S.I. (2000). Global change and food and forest production: future scientific challenges. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 82: 3–14. Howard, K.W.F., Eyles, N., Smart, P.J. et al. (1996). The Oak Ridges Moraine of Southern Ontario: a groundwater resource at risk. Geoscience Canada 22: 101–119. Invasive Species Act (2015). S.O. 2015, c. 22. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/15i22 (accessed 8 December 2020). Jarvie, H.P., Sharpley, A.N., Spears, B. et al. (2013). Water quality remediation faces unprecedented challenges from “legacy phosphorus”. Environmental Science and Technology 47: 8997–8998. Johnson, F.M. (2009). The landscape ecology of the Lake Simcoe Basin. Lake and Reservoir Management 13: 226–239. Johnson, M.G. and Nicholls, K.H. (1989). Temporal and spatial trends in metal loads to sediments of Lake Simcoe, Ontario. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution 39: 337–354. Longstaff, B. (2015). Managing Our Urban Footprint: Implementing Low Impact Development (LID) in the Lake Simcoe Watershed. Lake Simcoe Watershed Authority A watershed for life. http://www.latornell.ca/wp-content/uploads/files/presentations/2015/Latornell_2015 _T2H_Ben_Longstaff.pdf (accessed 8 December 2020). LSCRC (1979). Lake Simcoe-Couchiching Basin Environmental Strategy. LSCRC. LSEMS (1985). Lake Simcoe Environmental Management Studies Final Report and Recommendations of the Steering Committee. Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Natural Resources. LSEMS (1995). Our Waters, Our Heritage. Lake Simcoe Environmental Management Strategy Implementation Program Summary of Phase I Progress and Recommendations for Phase II. LSEMS. LSEMS (2008). Lake Simcoe Basin Wide Report. Lake Simcoe Environmental Management Strategy Report. https://www.lsrca.on.ca/Shared%20Documents/reports/lsems/basin_wide _report.pdf (accessed 8 December 2020). LSRCA (2014). Lake Simcoe Monitoring Report. LSRCA. https://www.lsrca.on.ca/Shared% 20Documents/reports/moecc-lake-simcoe-monitoring.pdf. LSRCA (2015). Polder Water Quality Treatment Study, Reducing Phosphorus Loading from the Holland Marsh. LSRCA. LSRCA (2016). Low Impact Development Practices. LSRCA. https://www.lsrca.on.ca/Pages/ Low-Impact-Development.aspx. LSRCA (2017). Report of Phosphorus Loads to Lake Simcoe, 2012/2013–2014/2015. Update Report. https://www.lsrca.on.ca/Shared%20Documents/reports/Phosphorus_Load_Report. pdf (accessed 8 December 2020). LSRCA (2019). Restoration Project List and Funding Rates. LSRCA. https://www.lsrca.on.ca/ Pages/Funding-Categories.aspx. Lynch, L. (2016). Beyond the Greenbelt: Extended Urbanization on the Shores of Lake Simcoe. Paper submitted to the Faculty of Environmental Studies in partial fulfillment of the

529

530

20  Catchment Management of Lake Simcoe, Canada

requirements for degree of Master in Environmental Studies. Toronto: York University. https:// fes.yorku.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/outstanding_papers_Lynch_L.pdf. May, L., Place, C., O’Malley, M., and Spears, B. (2015). The Impact of Phosphorus Inputs from Small Discharges on Designated Freshwater Sites. Natural England Commissioned Reports, Number 170. MECP (2009). Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. MECP. https://www.ontario.ca/page/ lake-simcoe-protection-plan. MECP (2010). Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Reduction Strategy. MECP. https://www.ontario.ca/ page/lake-simcoe-phosphorus-reduction-strategy. MECP (2014). Lake Simcoe Monitoring Report. MECP. https://www.lsrca.on.ca/Shared% 20Documents/reports/moecc-lake-simcoe-monitoring.pdf. MECP (2015). Minister’s Five-Year Report on Lake Simcoe: To Protect and Restore the Ecological Health of the Lake Simcoe Watershed. MECP. https://www.ontario.ca/page/ ministers-five-year-report-lake-simcoe-protect-and-restore-ecological-health-lake-simcoewatershed. MECP (2016). Minister’s Annual Report on Lake Simcoe, 2016. MECP. https://www.ontario.ca/ page/ministers-annual-report-lake-simcoe-2016. Ministry of Environment and Energy. 1996. Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) Program. Interim Final Report. Ecosystem Science Section, Science and Technology Branch. Available online at Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) Program: Interim Final Report, March, 1996 (uoguelph. ca) Last accessed on January 17th, 2021 MOEE (1996). Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) Program. Interim Final Report. Ecosystem Science and Technology Branch. http://agrienvarchive.ca/download/CURB-summary.pdf. Murdoch, P.S., Baron, J.S., and Miller, T.J. (2000). Potential effects of climate change on surface water quality in North America. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 36: 347–366. Napier, T.L., Napier, S.M., and Tvrdon, J. (1996). Soil and Water Conservation Policies and Programs; Successes and Failures. New York: Soil and Water Conservation Society/CRC Press. Neumann, A., Kim, D., Perhar, G., and Arhonditsis, G.B. (2017). Integrative analysis of the Lake Simcoe watershed (Ontario, Canada) as a socio-ecological system. Journal of Environmental Management 188: 308–321. Nicholls, K.H. (1995). A limnological basis for a Lake Simcoe phosphorus loading objective. Lake and Reservoir Management 13: 189–198. Nurnberg, G.K., LaZerte, B.D., Loh, P.S., and Molot, L.A. (2013). Quantification of internal phosphorus load in large, partially polymictic and mesotrophic Lake Simcoe. Journal of Great Lakes Research 39 (2): 271–279. DOI:10.1016/j.jglr.2013.03.017. OMAFRA (2009). Agronomy Guide for Field Crops. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/pub811/p811toc.html. OMAH (2017). Places to Grow. Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. http://placestogrow.ca/images/pdfs/ggh2017/en/ growth%20plan%20%282017%29.pdf. OMNR (2007). Ecological Land Classification of Ontario (ELC). Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. https://www.javacoeapp.lrc.gov.on.ca/geonetwork/srv/en/main.home. Ontario (1950). C62 Conservation Authorities Act Ontario: Revised Statutes, 1950 Iss 1 Article 65.

  ­Reference

Palmer, M.E., Winter, J.G., Young, J.D. et al. (2011). Introduction and summary of research on Lake Simcoe: research, monitoring and restoration of a large lake and its watershed. Journal of Great Lakes Research 37: 1–6. Pettersson, K. (1998). Mechanisms for internal loading of phosphorus in lakes. Hydrobiologia 373/374: 21–25. Pionke, H.B., Gburek, W.J., and Sharpley, A.N. (2000). Critical source area controls on water quality in an agricultural watershed located in the Chesapeake basin. Ecological Engineering 14: 325–335. Ralston, J.G., Irwin, S.M., and Veal, D.M. (1975). Lake Simcoe Basin a Water Quality and Use Study, 143. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Riemann, B., Simonsen, P., and Stensgaard, L. (1989). The carbon and chlorophyll content of phytoplankton from various nutrient regimes. Journal of Plankton Research 11 (5): 1037–1045. Rudy, H. (1991). Land Stewardship II. Annual of the 25th North Eastern Ontario Agricultural Conference. http://www.farmnorth.com/websites/farmnorth.com/files/1991.pdf (accessed 8 December 2020). Scott, L.D., Winter, J.G., Futter, M.N. and Girard, R.E. 2001. Annual water balances and phosphorus loading for Lake Simcoe (1990-1998). Lake Simcoe Environmental Management Strategy Implementation Phase II Technical Report No. Imp.A.4. Snodgrass, W.J. and Holubeshen, J. (1992). Estimation of Phosphorus Loadings and Evaluation of Empirical Oxygen Models for Lake Simcoe for 1970–1990. Report prepared in support of a study on Hypolimnetic Oxygen Dynamics in Lake Simcoe for the Lake Simcoe Environmental Management Strategy Technical Committee. LSEMS Implementation Technical Report Number Imp B15. Statistics Canada (2003). Manure storage in Canada catalogue no. 21–021-ME. Statistics Canada (2011). Farm environmental management survey. Catalogue 20 21–023-X. Walker, R.R. and McDougal, S. (1994). Development and implementation of a phosphorus loading watershed management model for Lake Simcoe. Watershed Technical Report prepared for the LSRCA by Beak Consultants Ltd. Willox, C.C. (2001). Lake Simcoe Lake Trout: Evidence of Natural Reproduction. Lake Simcoe Fisheries Assessment Unit. Sutton West, ON: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Winter, J.G., Eimers, M.C., Dillon, P.J. et al. (2007). Phosphorus inputs to Lake Simcoe from 1990 to 2003: declines in tributary loads and observations on lake water quality. Journal of Great Lakes Research 33: 381–396. Young, J.D., Winter, J.G., and Molot, L. (2011). A re-evaluation of the empirical relationships connecting dissolved oxygen and phosphorus loading after Dreissenid Mussel invasion in Lake Simcoe. Journal of Great Lakes Research 37: 7–14.

531

Source: H. Kim, WMO, Republic of Korea.

533

21 Management of Water Resources on the Han River, Korea Hwirin Kim Han River Flood Control Office, Ministry of Environment, Republic of Korea

21.1 ­Introduction The mainstream of the Han River is the second longest in Korea after the Nakdong River. The river slope is steeper than many other rivers in the world and 60% of the annual rainfall is concentrated in the summer, resulting in severe seasonal high- and low-flow periods. The basin comprises the administrative districts of Seoul, Incheon, Gyeonggi-do, Gangwon-do, Chungcheongnam-buk, and Gyeongsangbuk-do. There is a total of 913 tributary rivers in the Han River basin, including 19 designated national rivers and 894 local rivers. The Seoul Metropolitan Water Supply from the Han River serves 50% of Korea’s total population. The Han River Flood Control Office (HRFCO) of the Ministry of Environment manages integrated water resources across the whole flow range, minimising flood damage through efficient dam operation and by managing dams, weirs, and reservoirs and by contributing to regular flow management, drought preparation, and water quality improvement. The Han River basin is located in the central area of Korea (Figure 21.1). The basin area is 26 356 km2 (8455 km2 in North Korea) with mainstream length of 481.7 km and the coefficient of basin shape is 0.119. The north Han River has two main branch streams: Soyang River and Hongchun River with basin area of 10 834 km2 and the mainstream length of 317 km. This catchment contains the multi-purpose Soyang dam. The south Han River has three main branch streams: Seom River, Dalchuen River, and Pyoungchang River with a basin area of 12 510 km2 and mainstream length of 375 km. The Imjin River is a transboundary river that joins the Han River in the downstream section and flows to Kanghwa Bay after joining the Hantan River in KyungGi province through Kangwon province and Hwanghae province and from Masikryung Duckwongun Hamgyung south province. The basin area is 8117 km2 with 3008 km2 (37.1%) in South Korea and 5108 km2 (62.9%) in the north of the De-Militarised Zone (DMZ). The mainstream length is 254 km (81.0 km in the south of DMZ) and there are several main branch streams: Gomitan stream, Pyungan stream, Yeokgok stream, Hantan River, Sami stream, Munsan stream, and Sa stream. Branch streams of the Hantan River, which is the largest Handbook of Catchment Management, Second Edition. Edited by Robert C. Ferrier and Alan Jenkins. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

534

21  Management of Water Resources on the Han River, Korea

Basin area : 8 117 km2 Administrative districts : Gyeonggi-do

Basin area : 26 356 km2 Administrative districts : Seoul, Gyeonggi-do

Basin area : 1 655 km2 Administrative districts : Gyeonggi-do

Figure 21.1  The Han, Imjin, and Amseong River basins and major reservoirs and dams.

branch stream of the Imjin River, are Kimhwa Namdae stream, Youngpyung stream, Pochun stream, Sin stream, and Chatan stream. The Anseong stream flows into the sea through the Asan embankment, Injumeun Asan, after joining Keunwi stream which flows west from the mountain tops of Charyung Mountains and Baekwun mountain top, which is the city limit of Youngin, Uiwang, and Suwon. Most of the basin is flat land. Thus, the basin slope and river slope are also gentle, except in the upper reaches. The Anseong basin is located in the middle west of Korea with an area of 1655 km2 and stream length of 70 km. It is bounded by the Han River basin to the north-east, Keum River basin to the south-east, and Sabkyo stream basin to the south-west. There are four Flood Control Offices in Korea with responsibility to manage floods as well as to minimise flood and drought damage through efficient distribution of water for domestic supply, industrial use, and agricultural use. This chapter introduces the HRFCO, which first opened in 1974. The HRFCO provides flood forecasting, not only to the Han River basin, but also to the Imjin and Anseong river basins, and provides and shares realtime information with other relevant agencies (Ministry of Public Administration and Security, Korea Meteorological Agency (KMA), Korea Water Resources Corporation, Seoul City, etc.). It conducts basic spatially distributed hydro-meteorological measurements on precipitation, river level, and flow rate. It provides public services by producing highquality hydrology and river information needed for stakeholders and river users. In addition, it provides prompt and accurate flood forecasting based on this information to protect the lives and property of people and to ensure that all citizens receive a stable water supply through appropriate water allocation.

21.2  ­Short Historical Synopsi

21.2 ­Short Historical Synopsis 21.2.1  Dams, Weirs, Reservoirs, and Related Institutions in the Han River Basin The construction of dams in Korea mainly consisted of single-purpose dams focused on water supply and power generation until the 1960s. Following the five-year economic development plan, which began in 1962, the Sumjin River Multi-Purpose Dam was constructed, the first of many multi-purpose dams built up to the 1980s. Several large-scale multi-purpose dams were constructed through this period to cope with the rapid increase in water demand and to prevent flood damage (Figure 21.2). The Ministry of Construction and Transport announced plans to construct the Yeongwol Dam in 1991, but the plan was cancelled in 2000 due to lack of agreement around the benefits of multi-purpose dams. The dams in the Han River (Figure 21.2) include three multi-purpose dams: 14 water supply dams, 7 hydropower dams, and 3 flood dams (excluding agricultural reservoirs and pumped dams). The dams are operated and managed differently depending on the purpose of their construction, such as water supply, flood control, or hydroelectric power generation (Table  21.1). Agricultural reservoirs are operated and managed by the Ministry of

Figure 21.2  The Han River basin and its major dams and reservoirs.

535

21.2  ­Short Historical Synopsi

Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs (Korea Rural Development Corporation). Multipurpose dams are operated and managed by the Ministry of Environment (K-water), and hydropower dams are operated and managed by Ministry of trade, Industry, and Energy (KHNP, Korea Hydropower and Nuclear Plant). The River Management Authority is authorised to instruct dam managers to take necessary measures to prevent or reduce the occurrence of disasters caused by floods (Article 41 of the River Act), and if the dam manager wants to control the floodgates under the flood preparation system, the flood control director approves it. This management is undertaken under the delegated authority of the Minister of Environment for flood forecasting and dam control to the Director of Flood Control (Article 27 of the Enforcement Decree of the Water Resources Act and Article 105 of the Enforcement Decree of the River Act). Dam discharge control procedures are as follows: knowing the dam hydrological situation (upstream precipitation, inflow, discharge, current water level, flood control capacity, etc.) and the water level in the downstream area, the Han River Flood Control Center instructs the dam manager to review the estimated inflow and discharge plan. An adjusted plan is produced and submitted to the HRFCO for approval. The HRFCO approves the discharge plan to the dam manager and notifies the relevant authorities. As part of this approval process, the dam manager is instructed to verify the estimates of the dam hydrologic situation and downstream water level and to review the discharge plan, if the difference between observations and forecast is large. In order to limit the water level during the flood season, to control the increased flow rate during flooding and to secure the common capacity of the whole system, the restricted water level is operated from 21 June to 20 September (Figure 21.3). The restricted water level is imposed to make sure that each dam has enough capacity to protect or prevent flood damage during the flood season.

Flood season Non-flood season Flood water level (FWL) Flood control Flood control storage storage Active storage Effective storage

Effective storage

Normal high water level (NHWL)

Restricted water level (RWL)

Low water level (LWL) Inactive storage

Dead storage level (DSL)

Figure 21.3  Schematic of the control levels within the reservoir management system.

537

538

21  Management of Water Resources on the Han River, Korea

21.2.2  The Dam and Weir Conjunctive Operation Council In order to prevent dams causing flooding and to efficiently operate water resources through an organic linkage operation of the dams and agricultural reservoir facilities, the Dam and Weir Conjunctive Operation Council is operated under the director general of the HRFCO. The Han River Dam Integrated Management Council was piloted in 1999–2011, and the linked operational regulations for dams and weirs were enacted on 31 October 2011. On 1 January 2012, the Dam-Weir Linking Operation Regulation was implemented and a national watershed council was formed. On 1 January 2013, a separate council was formed through the revision of the Dam-Weir Linking Operation Regulation. The main function of the council is to resolve all matters relating to the operation of dams and weirs: establishing, modifying, and evaluating linked operational plans, such as facility water level and discharge plans, and coordinating mutual opinions among stakeholders related to linked operations. The council consists of 20 members including the chairman (the director general of HRFCO) and a civilian professional committee. According to Article 14 of the River Act, the Minister of Environment may, when necessary for the prevention of disasters caused by floods and the efficient operation of water resources, establish management regulations for the organic linkage between two or more river facilities. In this case, the Minister of Environment shall hear in advance the opinions of the heads of the central administrative agencies concerned and the governors of the relevant municipalities. According to the linkage operation regulations (Ministry of Environment), the river facilities such as dams and weirs are organically linked to each water system to manage the flow rate and water level at the base point. In order to establish a cooperative system among relevant institutions related to the use of water resources (Table 21.2) and to establish the Table 21.2  Submitted data by institution. Category

Submission

K-water (multi-purpose dams, water supply dams and weirs) Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co. (hydropower dams) Korea Rural Community Corporation (agricultural reservoirs)

Operation performance and plan Performance: low water level, inflow, discharge through each facility, power generation, rainfall, and water quality Operation plan: estimated inflow, target water level, generation amount and discharge amount, and water quality situation Relevant data necessary for establishing an operation plan

Local governments (Water Use Facility Manager)

Water use record and plan

–– By region (Han River, Nakdong River, Geum River, Yeongsan River, and Seomjin River) –– By purpose (domestic, industrial, agricultural water, and river maintenance water)

Han River Environment Office Water quality status and management plan All agencies

Requirements and suggestions related to linked operations

21.3 ­Current Issue

basic requirements for linkage operation, linkage operation councils are organised by central and water systems (Han River, Nakdong River, Geum River, and Yeongsan River). Regular meetings of the Central Council are held every February and regular meetings of the Water Council are held every December. The HRFCO reviews the integrated operation plan (draft) of the dams in the entire Han River water system (Table 21.2), reflecting the operation plan for each facility and verifying the water supply stability by analysing the water balance and adjusting the facility discharge plan. In addition, data are prepared and reported by calculating the monthly discharge and target water level of dams and weirs (see Table 21.3).

21.3 ­Current Issues 21.3.1  Flooding in 2006 During 14 July 2006, heavy rain occurred in the central region of Korea. The resulting flooding caused 46 casualties (25 deaths and 21 missing), 1978 households were affected, 2794 houses were damaged, and 12 491 ha of farmland were inundated. Subsidence and flooding occurred in 116 national roads, banks, and roadbeds. The synoptic situation at this time involved a typhoon (Ewinia) which was dissipating but was activating a rainy season front, resulting in record heavy rainfall in the central region. As typhoon Ewinia came, it pushed up the rainy season front that had fallen to the south, causing heavy rain (12–13 July). After 14 days, heavy rain was further influenced by typhoon Billis (category 4). This typhoon had already dissipated over China, but it drove up a tremendous amount of water vapour, so when the rainy season front was just over the central region of the area, heavy rainfall occurred on the Han River basin and as a result, passage over the Han River driving bridge was prohibited. At 02:30 on 16 July 2006, heavy rain alarms were issued in Seoul, Incheon, Gyeonggi, and Gangwon. Given the rain forecast, water release began at the Chungju Dam in the Namhan River in an effort to ensure the safety of downstream dams and to protect downstream areas. On the evening of 14th, the KMA preliminary heavy rain report was issued and immediately was made available to the border emergency service at the Han River Flood Control. Subsequently, however, the preliminary forecast report from KMA was updated and cancelled at around 20:20. The Korea Meteorological Administration’s heavy rain warning report was then re-issued at 07:30 on the 15th and was re-issued consecutively every six hours. Heavy rain warnings came into effect in most parts of Gangwon-do and in some parts of Gyeonggi-do. Due to the continuous rainy season front and heavy rains, flood warnings were issued around 14:40 at Imjin River basin. The hydrological situation was checked every hour through the real-time hydrologic data monitoring system including the river video surveillance system, rainfall radar monitoring system, and dam and water level monitoring system. Based on the real-time hydrologic data, the flood forecast was issued by the River Information Center responsible for flood forecasting using the flood forecasting system and the situation information on the Han River, Imjin River, Anseong River basin, and major streams. The HRFCO was responsible for the investigation, for notifying the relevant

539

21.3 ­Current Issue

agencies and for approving the discharge of dams. It also took charge of telecommunications, providing checks on whether the rainfall and water level data are correctly transmitted in real time, and takes urgent actions in case of problems, manages and provides the received data, and manages the system. All employees of the Han River Flood Control Center, such as the Information Management Office and the Management Division, responded to the flood crisis. At 0030 on 16 August, heavy rain warnings were extended to Seoul, Incheon, and Gyeonggi. The rainfall resulted in a sharp increase in river water levels. At around 02:15 on 16 August, the Korea Water Resources Corporation requested an increase in discharge from Chungju Dam from 3000 to 5000 m3 s−1 from 08:00. The weather situation then worsened and at 02:30, heavy rain alarms were issued by KMA at Pyeongchang-gun, and Jeongseon-gun, and rain alarms were issued in most areas of the Han River basin, including Sokcho-si, Goseong-gun, Yangyang-gun, Cheorwon-gun, Hwacheon-gun, Yanggu-gun, Inje-gun and Gangwon-do. The warning for the heavy rain became more severe some hours later and at 07:30 a flood watch level was issued at Yeoju branch and Han River Bridge. As a result of the forecast of increased rainfall severity, at 07:40, the Korea Water Resources Corporation (K-Water) requested a further increase in discharge from the Chungju Dam, from 5000 to 10 000 m3  s−1, because of concerns about the safety of the Chungju Dam. A discharge of 10 000 m3 s−1, however, would cause the Yeoju area (downstream of Chungju dam) and the Han River Bridge to exceed the flood warning level and potentially cause significant impact. The Anyangcheon embankment collapsed at that time (05:30) causing a lowering of the level of the Han River as requested from the city managers (local government) in Seoul. At the time of the initial request, 07:40, the HRFCO began to review the discharges considering the downstream situation. As the situation continued to deteriorate during the 16th, emergency work shifted to the highest level of alertness. More rain began to fall around the Chungju Dam upstream basin around 12:00 due to the continuous rain clouds from the West Sea. Due to the rainfall forecast of 60–150 mm or more, a request for approval of discharge from the Chungju Dam was urgently received from the Water Management Center of the Korea Water Resources Corporation. Considering the potential future rainfall, the request was to discharge 10 000 m3 s−1. In addition, a heavy rain alarm was issued at 12:00 in Chungbuk province, resulting in a sharp confrontation between the upper and lower dams over the determination of the discharge amount from the Chungju dam. In Danyang-gun, Chungcheongbuk-do, upstream of the dam, 500 families were expected to be flooded as the water level rose. A request was made to increase the discharge of dams further downstream, so that the water level in Chungju Dam could be further lowered. On the other hand, in Yeoju-gun, in the downstream area of the dam, 51 households had been flooded and 20 000 people had to be evacuated. With the upstream side of the dam asking for increased discharges, and the downstream side of the dam asking for less discharges, the Han River Flood Control Center began to consider optimal discharges for ensuring the safety of the dam. The decision was made to prioritise the safety of the Chungju dam, and the flood control optimisation was implemented so that flooding was prevented in the upper and lower areas of the dam. As a result of the flood forecast modelling, water levels in the Yeoju branch of the Namhan River were expected to be exceeded and a flood warning was issued at 15:20. In the end, the levels peaked at 9.28 m at 00:30 on the 17th August, which did not exceed

541

542

21  Management of Water Resources on the Han River, Korea

the warning level height and damaging flooding did not occur. The forecasts were very accurate, with the highest water level at Yeoju branch on the 17 August being 9.91 m (at 04:00), 1.6 m lower than the embankment height of 11.5 m. At Chungju Dam, the level reached 144 m (at 08:00), 1 m below the planned flood level of 145 m. The river level at the Han River Bridge was also below the emergency level reaching a peak of 10.22 m, which is slightly less than the 10.5 m flood protection level. The flood warning on the Han River Bridge was removed at 07:00 on 17 July and the flood warning on the Yeoju River was released at 10:30 on the 19th. The flood control system worked well and flooding was minimised in spite of the highest river levels level since the 1990 flood. Analysis of the event has enabled lessons to be learnt that will enable more effective management of future events. It is apparent that there needs to be clear and understandable regulations for controlling the system of dams in the whole river basin during the flood season. Appropriate reservoir operation is extremely important for flood and integrated water management in these systems. There is a clear need for flood forecasters and water resources managers to communicate effectively around the necessary decision-making during high-flow events. Finally, the decisions taken around dam operation should be incorporated into the flood forecast in near real time with the appropriate modelling systems in place to provide managers with the required information upon which to base their decisions.

21.3.2  Drought in 2016–2018 In order to prepare for water shortages due to precipitation shortages, the water supply of dams is adjusted to ensure optimal water supply capacity. For water use planning, consultation with stakeholders is undertaken and final plans drawn up following ratification by the Dam and Weir Linkage Operation Council. The water supply adjustment criteria are multilevel indicators of attention-caution-warning-severe levels, and for water supply dams of attention-caution-severe levels (Figure 21.4). In order to proactively prepare for drought, the central council on dam operation introduced the ‘Water Supply Adjustment Standard for Water Shortage in Dams’ from 2004. In 2007, the Hoengseong and Soyanggang-Chungju Dams reached low storage states that demanded attention. In 2016 and 2017, the Soyanggang-Chungju Dam entered the ‘Attention stage’ and the HRFCO responded to pre-empt a possible drought by adjusting the discharge of Paldang Dam. The application and measures taken in response to the water shortage on the Han River Water System Adjustment Standards are shown in Table 21.4. The rainy season in the Seoul Metropolitan Area, Gangwon, and Chungbuk in 2018 lasted 16 days and ended on 11 July, which represented the second shortest rainy season on record. After the end of the rainy season, the heat of the North Pacific high-pressure system persisted for a long time, resulting in the summer’s highest average temperature and days of heat waves. As a result, the average outflow rate upstream of the multi-purpose dams (Soyang and Chungju) fell below 10%, and the inflow decreased sharply. On 12 August, the multi-purpose Hoengseong Dam reached the drought ‘Attention stage’ compared to the water shortage indicator levels on 14 August. The necessary response to the low water situation was discussed at the Han River Water Dam Support Working Group, which was

21.3 ­Current Issue Response stage

Adjustment criteria

Normal

Supply elasticity more than usual (following the linked operation plan of dams and weirs)

Attention stage

Supply of demand level

Caution stage

Reduction of up to 100% of river maintenance water

Warning stage

Additional 20~30% reduction of actual agricultural water use (20% for April to June and 30% for July to September, considering the growing season of rice)

Severe stage

Additional 20% reduction in serious stage domestic and industrial water

Figure 21.4  The water supply adjustment criteria of attention-caution-warning-severe levels.

formed in February 2018, and as the inflow situation deteriorated, the August operational plan was adopted based on the inflow condition and weather forecast. The operational plan was changed on 30 July. Given the low precipitation, the inflow of upstream dams had been steadily decreasing since entering the multi-level dam drought ‘Attention stage’ and so the Han River Watershed-Board Operation Working Group (27 August) reduced agricultural water reserves and river flow maintenance levels. In addition, a multi-purpose dam– generation dam linkage (increased Hwacheon dam supply) was established as part of an adjustment plan to stockpile dam water. A strong localised heavy rain event occurred due to the impact of typhoon ‘Soric’ which alleviated the drought ‘interest stage’ of the Soyanggang-Chungju Dam and Hoengseong Dam which was subsequently lifted, and the proposed use of the multi-purpose water supply adjustment plan for drought was not implemented.

21.3.3  Dam Water Use for River Water Quality Improvement-2018 In the case of the Han River, it was decided at regular meetings of the Dam and Weir Coordination Management Council in 2017 and 2018 to utilise river maintenance water from the multi-purpose dams in the winter season (November–March of the following year) to deliver effective water resource utilisation in terms of drought response and water quality improvement. Priority was given to stockpiling against drought conditions, but additional discharge by utilising dam stockpiling was considered when drought and water quality management standards were met. Water quality management standards are applied when raw water, such as fresh and public agricultural water, can be supplied assuming the 20-year frequency inflow condition

543

544

21  Management of Water Resources on the Han River, Korea

Table 21.4  The application and measures taken in response to the water shortage on the Han River Water System. Dam water supply adjustment standard application stage

Action

2 March 2015 to 1 Hoengseong May 2016

Caution

Reduction of river maintenance water

25 March 2015 to Soyang1 April 2016 Chungju

Caution Attention

Reduction of river maintenance water Multi-purpose dams–hydropower dams emergency interoperation ●● Paldang Dam Reduction

Date

Dam

–– Irrigation: 124 → 80 m3 s−1 (max) –– Non-Irrigation: 124 → 50 m3 s−1 (maximum) 22 August 2016 to Hoengseong 14 December 2016

Caution

Reduction of river maintenance water

23 August 2016 to SoyangChungju 10 November 2016

Attention

Multi-purpose dams–hydropower dams emergency interoperation ●● Paldang Dam Reduction

(124 → 100 m3 s−1) 11 June 2017 to 4 July 2017

SoyangChungju

Attention

Multi-purpose dams–hydropower dams emergency interoperation ●● Paldang Dam Reduction

(124 → 100 m3 s−1) criteria are met. The decision to use stockpiles is based on the deliberation and resolution of the Dam and Weir Linked Operation Council, which can be replaced by the Dam and Weir Linked Operation Working Group. Under normal discharge and storage conditions, the Flood Control Center, Watershed Environment Office, K-Water, and local governments monitor and forecast the flow, water quality, and operation of the drinking water plant. When the drought management standard is reached, the available water resource is calculated by the flood control centre and the discharge plan is established and implemented after deliberation by the Council. When it was required to use water stocks, for example when water quality standards are breached, the Watershed Environment Office presents discharge measures (period and discharges) through water quality predictions and uses them after deliberation on the Council. If the use of stocks for water quality improvement is required, even under the water quality management standard, the use of stocks is requested from the Watershed Environment Office to the flood control station. When related organisations need to use stockpiled water for water quality improvement, the related agency will send the related matters to the

21.3 ­Current Issue

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and request to review the use of stockpiled water. In this event, the predicted water quality improvement effect from stock discharge is analysed and presented by the watershed environment agency. As a rule, water quality management standards should be used when the supply of fresh water, industrial, and agricultural water is below 1 in 20-year availability of pre-flooding season levels. In addition to national river water quality management standards (algae alarm and water quality prediction), water treatment standards are included to increase water supply stability (Table 21.5). Since mid-November 2018, taste-related substances (2-MIB) have been intensively detected in the Pangdang Lake and downstream areas of the North Korean River, the Han River Water Dam-Bo Interoperation Council has been promoting the use of dam water to reduce taste–odour substances. The taste-smelling substance (2-MIB) is a substance emitted from the low temperature (5–20 °C) algae ‘Sud Anavena’ during the growth and decay processes. It is known to cause taste odour in tap water. The Dam and Weir Interoperation Council increased discharge from the dam by 2.5 times (6.9 → 17.3 million cubic metre per day) in the Soyang River for 12 days from 28 November. As of end-November 2018, the multi-purpose dam inflow was similar to the previous year, about 97.7%, but the Soyang River-Chungju Dam secured 10.5 billion cubic metre (131%) compared to the previous year through stable water management. Even so, it was decided that stable water supply would be possible until the flooding period of 2019. As a result of water quality analysis, the 2-MIB (water quality) improvement effect reported by the EPA, the period of occurrence of monitoring abnormality was 22 days, even though the highest concentration occurred in the nonpeak concentrations in the previous year. The concentration of Yangsu Bridge in Paldang Inlet, which is upstream of the intake after discharge, was found to be lower than that of the intake.

Table 21.5  Water quality management standards used under low-flow (drought) conditions. Classification

Management standards

Drought management standard

When discharge rate is expected to drop below 124 m3 s−1 due to decrease of Paldang Dam inflow.

Water quality management standards

Algae alert

Noxious algal cell count 10 000 cells ml−1 over two consecutive times * However, winter reserves are abundant and the number of harmful algae cells are below the standard value (more than 5 000 cells ml−1) when requested by the Environment Agency

Water quality forecast

Noxious cyanobacterial cells exceed 10 000 cells ml−1 twice or Chl-exceeds 105 mg m−3 twice

Taste matter (2-MIB)

When the Environmental Agency’s Early Notification Standards exceed * Paldang Dam and Sambong Branch 0.04 μg l−1, Uiamho 0.1 μg l−1

545

546

21  Management of Water Resources on the Han River, Korea

21.4 ­Future Challenges Korea, including the Han River, is preparing for a new leap forward. By integrating water management organisations, the country aims to become a focal point for sustainable water management considering the efficient allocation of water resources and the needs of environment, centring on the development of large-scale water resources infrastructure such as dams. Laws related to reorganisation and unification of water management organisations were announced jointly by the government and the ruling party on 5 June 2018. These included the ‘Government Organization Act’, the ‘Basic Water Management Act’, the ‘Law on the Development of Water Management Technology and Water Industry Promotion’, and the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport. Most of the water management functions such as water quantity, water quality, and disaster prevention (except river management) were unified to the Ministry of Environment due to the passage of the recent water management laws complementing the operation of the National Watershed Management Committee, the National Water Management Basic Plan, and the Watershed General Management Plan. The establishment of such a foundation laid the groundwork for an integrated water management system at national and watershed levels. Under the Government Organisation Act, the Office of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport on Conservation, Use and Development of Water Resources was transferred to the Ministry of Environment. As a result, five laws related to water resources, such as the Water Resources Act, the Dam Construction Act, the Groundwater Act, the Hydrophilic Zone Act, and the Korea Water Resources Corporation Act, were also transferred to the Ministry of Environment. The ‘Land Transfer Land Compensation Act’, which existed in the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport, has now been transferred to the Ministry of Environment. In order to establish a sustainable water management system, the Basic Water Management Law was enacted to prescribe the basic principles and principles of water management and the establishment of the National Watershed Management Committee. In addition, the Water Technology Industry Act was enacted to establish a systematic basis for the development of water management technology, to improve the quality of life of people and to promote sustainable water use in industry. Such developments have placed water and its benefits to citizens, society, business, and the environment at the centre of Korea’s development.

Source: N. Khandekar, ATREE, India.

549

22 Dispute Resolution in the Cauvery Basin, India Neha Khandekar and Veena Srinivasan Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, Bengaluru, India

22.1 ­Introduction 22.1.1  Background The Cauvery basin is one of the largest river basins in India. Located in the peninsular region of the southern part of the country, it has been the subject of one of the longest running inter‐state water disputes. The fifth largest river basin in the country, and it covers a total drainage area of 85 600 km2, out of which 42% of the area falls under the state of Karnataka and about 54% in Tamil Nadu, the remaining divided between Kerala and the union territory of Puducherry. The length of the main river is about 800 km. Physiographically, the basin is bounded on the west by Western Ghats, on the east and the south by the Eastern Ghats mountain ranges, the maximum elevation falling in the range of about 2000–3000 m and 32% of the geographic area is about 750–1000 m high. The Cauvery river originates in the mountainous catchments of Western Ghats travelling across the Deccan plateau region past the city of Mysore in Karnataka. The river forms the scenic Shivanasamudram falls (91 m fall) before branching off into two parts through a series of rapids and falls. The two branches rejoin and flow through a gorge known as ‘Mekedatu’ (Goat’s leap). At this point, the river itself forms the boundary between both the states for about 64 km. The river then enters the state of Tamil Nadu after taking an eastward turn downstream of Mettur Dam. Two smaller tributaries, Noyyal and Amaravati, and the Bhavani River join Cauvery 45 km downstream. Eventually, the river descends into the floodplains, constituting a vast delta region (Figure 22.1). The major lithology groups found in the basin are granite gneiss, biotite gneiss, sand with clay and sandstone, and sand clay gravel and sandstone. Major rock group encountered in the basin is Crystalline (Archaean‐Pre‐Cambrian) and Semi‐Consolidated Sediments (Carboniferous‐Pliocene and other ages) (CWC and NRSC 2014). Groundwater occurs in these weathered gneisses, granites or in joints, and fractures and shear zones of fresh rocks. The yield of wells in these rocks varies from place to place depending on various factors like Handbook of Catchment Management, Second Edition. Edited by Robert C. Ferrier and Alan Jenkins. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

550

22  Dispute Resolution in the Cauvery Basin, India

Figure 22.1  Map of the Cauvery Map of the Cauvery Basin. Source: Shinde et al, 2020.

the nature of the rocks, the amount and depth of weathering, joint patterns, etc. Unconsolidated Pliocene and Quaternary deposits form the shallow aquifers in most of the delta area (UNDP, as quoted in Volume III, Cauvery Tribunal 2007). Karnataka has more heterogeneous hard rock formations and hence discontinuous layers of aquifer (EMPRI and TERI 2015). The basin is mostly fed by seasonal monsoon rains although, year round, the distribution of rainfall is highly variable in the region. While Karnataka receives most of its rainfall from the south‐west (S‐W) monsoon (June–September), Tamil Nadu receives rain spells from both S‐W and north east (N‐E) monsoons (October–December). The N‐E monsoon in coastal areas is characterised by storms and cyclones and so much of the annual precipitation falls in a few days. In the Cauvery Delta, flooding and heavy winds often accompany the showers. Besides a few showers on the onset of summers, the rest of the year remains dry. Rainfall thus has a high inter‐annual variability. The annual average precipitation varies from 2700 to 2000 mm in the Western Ghats and the Nilgiri mountain ranges in the western part of the basin and goes down to 500–1000 mm in the drier regions of Tamil Nadu (Figure 22.2). Comparing the graphs of the S‐W and N‐E monsoon, it is clear that the precipitation levels are higher in the upper catchment. The spatial distribution of the aridity index defined as the ratio of the precipitation and the Potential Evapotranspiration (P/PET) ratio within the basin shows that the ratio exceeds 1 only in the humid Western Ghats. In fact, most of the flow in the river is generated in the upper catchments. The Cauvery basin also has a rich heritage of cultural history and biodiversity and is home to many endemic species. The upper catchments have rich grasslands and evergreen forests which serve as habitat to large megafauna like elephants, tigers as well as lion‐tailed

22.1 ­Introductio

Figure 22.2  Rainfall distribution in Cauvery basin. Source: Shinde et al. (2020).

macaques. Some stretches of fresh water have been noted to have nearly 109 fish species, including the famous Mahseer. The Cauvery river also has otter populations, whose habitats are the sandbars along the river banks (Kumar et  al. 2017). The delta region hosts numerous wetlands, which serve as a habitat for migratory birds. There are various scenic falls as well as historic temples along the banks of river. The river thus has major cultural significance for people residing within and outside the basin who visit the banks of the river for rituals throughout the year, particularly during festivals. While the area near the origin, in the Western Ghats, is densely forested catchment (20% of basin area), the rest of the basin, including the highly fertile delta region, is largely agricultural (66%); about 14% of the basin area is urban. More than 60% of the total population in the basin live in rural areas and the major occupation is agriculture. The land under cultivation in the basin is about 48%. Around 24% of the cultivated area has some access to irrigation. The crops grown in the area vary from region to region; however, major crops are paddy, sugarcane in the canal command areas, and millets (ragi) and jowar (sorghum) in the dryland areas. Apart from these, some other crops such as coffee, pepper, banana, betel vine, gingili, onion, cotton, and black gram are also grown. Coconut, palm, some eucalyptus, and casuarina plantations can also be seen in the basin. Paddy‐dominant areas are within the deltaic regions with clayey soil. A unique system is followed in the area comprising of Kuruvai (June–September) combined with Thaladi (October–February) and a longer duration Samba (August–January) varieties of paddy crops, depending upon the releases from upstream (Box 22.1). As of the 2011 census, about 32 million people reside in the basin with a population density of 389 people per km2 (Amarasinghe et al. 2005). As population has grown, insecurities

551

552

22  Dispute Resolution in the Cauvery Basin, India

Box 22.1  The Cauvery [Kaveri] River Is One of the Sacred Rivers of India Also known as ‘Ganga of South India’, it has its origin in the Brahmagiri hills, of the Coorg region in Karnataka state, and meets its fate into the Bay of Bengal, south of Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu. Before entering Bengaluru, Cauvery forms the majestic Shivasamudram Falls which are the second largest waterfalls in India. These are dual rapids with 100 m drop and some 300 m wide as maximum flood stage: Bhar Chukki and Gagana Chukki. The steep fall is used to generate hydroelectricity for consumption in Mysore and Bangalore. These are followed by river forming the picturesque Hogenakkal Falls before entering the Tamil Nadu. From its headwaters, the river flows eastwards down the Eastern Ghats as a series of waterfalls. At Srirangam, Cauvery splits into two and flows as the Coleroon River in the north. Rest of the stream flows for about 60 km before dividing itself into various distributaries. The apex of the Cauvery Delta is about 30 km west of Thanjavur, also the older seat of the kingdom of the Chola dynasty rule in the region. This deltaic plain, washed with river bringing rich alluvial deposits, is often called the rice bowl of southern India. are growing with increasing stress on water resources. Although the basin receives a good amount of rainfall, with time, the demands have increased, and it is often the drought years where the disputes erupt.

22.1.2  The Cauvery Water Conflict The conflict over the river Cauvery between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, the two states with the majority share of the basin, first emerged in 1892. One hundred twenty‐five years later, and the dispute remains and has come to a standstill with recent court intervention and judgement offering some ways to deal with the situation. The Cauvery dispute is not a case of trying to reach agreement on sharing a pristine river that is largely unused, but rather a case of sharing the waters of a heavily modified, ‘closed’ river basin (Guhan 1993). The Cauvery water sharing case has become increasingly contentious as the demand for water increased in both states over the years. The downstream riparian state, Tamil Nadu, has feared a disruption in traditional patterns of farming and available share of water for irrigation. Karnataka as the upper riparian state feels that it will be prevented from using the water for its own development merely because the lower riparian state has a history of irrigated agriculture. Over time, the issue has become entangled in electoral party politics in both states, making it difficult to arrive at any settlement amicably (Joy and Janakrajan 2011) (Box 22.2). This chapter presents an analysis of the inter‐state water dispute in the Cauvery basin in India and discusses the loopholes and lacunae in the hydrology estimations while making apportionment between the states and the problems it creates. As Karnataka and Tamil Nadu are the major stakeholders, the discussion largely covers only these states to present the case.

22.2  ­History of the Disput

Box 22.2  Conflict Given the difficult socio‐political and cultural history, any diversion from traditional availability of Cauvery waters invoke strong emotional sentiments amidst masses in both states. This is clear from an early press report in Hazarika, Sanjoy (5 January 1992). ‘Tamils Are Target of Riots in Southern India’ – via http://NYTimes.com. These are often stirred by political reactions or court orders and any release decisions specially in dry years. For example, in most recent drought year of 2016, as covered in The Wire, 2016 in article – ‘Who Should Karnataka Blame in the Cauvery Dispute? History Has Some Answers’(https://thewire.in/politics/who‐should‐karnataka‐blame‐in‐the‐cauvery‐dispute‐ history‐has‐some‐answers). There have been reports of curfew in districts of Karnataka which houses KRS reservoir when in distress years, and authorities have found it difficult to keep up with the designated release of water downstream. A media coverage of the issue from October 2002 in Times of India newspaper says about 700 farmers from upper catchments protested to demand to stop releasing any water downstream. It also mentions the road and rail transport between both the states being affected because of the protests. Times of India. 2002a. ‘Cauvery row: Farmers renew stir’. 20 October 2002. (http:// timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?art_id=26586125). Issue has often gotten attention of international media coverage too. Circle of Blue points out to the issue being stuck in limbo in absence of political will to find a long‐ term solution in form of a robust water allocation plan. Politicians stir and milk the issue, often refuting the orders from authorities themselves, in this case the Court and Cauvery Monitoring Committee (CMC). This was covered in a press report from December 2012 in Indian Express. Indian Express. ‘Stopped releasing Cauvery water to TN, says Karnataka CM’. December 2012. (http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/stopped‐releasing‐cauvery‐water‐to‐tn‐ says‐karnataka‐cm/1043124).

22.2 ­History of the Dispute 22.2.1  Colonial Times The storey of the dispute over the Cauvery began 2000 years ago, with the construction of the Grand Anicut. Located at a distance of 15 km downstream of the city of Tiruchirappalli (Trichy), the dam, constructed by the Chola king Karikalan, remains one of the oldest water regulation structures in the world still in use. The dam allowed the formation of a massive irrigation system in the Thanjavur district in the first century CE. Thus, by the time the British came to India, irrigation and paddy cultivation in the delta had flourished for well over 1500 years (Babu 2008). The first colonial intervention in the basin was the construction of the Upper Anicut dam about 3 km downstream of the Grand Anicut. At this point, the northern distributary, Kollidam (Coleroon) River, branches out from the main Cauvery river. The Upper Anicut is considered

553

554

22  Dispute Resolution in the Cauvery Basin, India

to be the head of the delta as the river Cauvery carries essentially the irrigation waters to Thanjavur district from this point, leaving the floods to be carried away by the Coleroon branch. Tensions first emerged in the middle of the nineteenth century, when the Mysore Government (then a Princely state) began taking steps to increase the irrigation from the Cauvery and its tributaries and proposed to build a number of new irrigation projects. Objections were raised by the lower riparian state, the Madras Presidency (under British rule), that the proposed storage structures would impact the delta. Following a number of discussions, an agreement was reached in 1892. At this point, about 510 Thousand Million Cubic (TMC) feet per day was being used by the basin to irrigate 19 800 000 acres, over 80% of which was in the delta (Tribunal Volume 1 2007; Box 22.3). The agreement was renegotiated in 1924 to accommodate the construction of the Krishnarajasagar reservoir in Karnataka. The 1924 agreement between state of Madras and Mysore allowed for extension of irrigation in newer areas on set terms and conditions. The agreement specified the height of the reservoir, its storage capacity 45 TMC (1000 Million Cubic Feet Per Day  =  327.741 cumec/11 000 cusec flow for a day), and irrigated acreage (125 000 acres). Further, the agreement also capped future extensions of irrigation in Mysore state within the Cauvery basin to an additional 110 000 acres. The 1924 agreement also simultaneously permitted Tamil Nadu to build the Mettur reservoir with a command area of 301 000 acres. The basic tenet enshrined in both the 1892 and 1924 inter‐state agreements was that no injury could be caused to the existing irrigation downstream by the construction of new works upstream. In other words, the agreements, for most part, protected the age‐old rights of the delta farmers since, leaving out minor irrigation from tanks, irrigation only existed in the delta. To enforce this, the agreements explicitly stated that the prior consent of the lower riparian state (Tamil Nadu) was necessary and the rules of regulation of the dam must be framed so as not to impact established irrigation downstream and ‘customary supply of waters for the ancient ayacut (command area) in the lower riparian state’ (Tribunal Volume 1 2007). The agreements also established that Tamil Nadu could not withhold consent for projects that did not impact existing irrigation. Box 22.3  Unit Conversion Many of the units used throughout the case study are common units used in practice by the Government of India. The conversions to metric system for these units are explained here. TMC/Tmcft (is 1000 million cubic feet) was an original term used by British to quantify water supply. The unit is still in usage in quantifying reservoir storage. It is roughly equal to 30 million cubic metres of water. 1 TMC, i.e. 1 Thousand Million Cubic feet (1 000 000 000 cft) = 28 316 847 cumec 1 cusec, i.e. 1 cubic feet per second = 0.028 316 847 cumec where cumec means cubic metres per second. Source: http://wgbis.ces.iisc.ernet.in/biodiversity/pubs/ETR/ETR91/section5.html; accessed on 1 August 2019; http://www.mpwrd.gov.in/documents/18/45faa099‐2d07‐460c‐b7db‐9cf9b0848f99; accessed on 1 August 2019.

22.2  ­History of the Disput

22.2.2 Post‐independence Origins of Inter‐State Dispute (1974–1990) Post‐independence, Karnataka began to increasingly establish claims over the waters of the Cauvery. The 1924 agreement lapsed in 1974, after 50 years. Between 1970 and 1980, Karnataka started impounding more water in other existing reservoirs on Hemavathi, Kabini, Harangy, and Suvarnavathy tributaries, without seeking prior consent from Tamil Nadu. Importantly, the projects were funded without federal assistance, so the central government did not have any leverage on the projects (Figure 22.3). A Fact Finding Committee was set up in 1972 to work out the available dependable yield in the basin, based on available long‐term data, at the large reservoirs on the river using the historic flow data, area under cultivation, and climatic data submitted by both states. The figures calculated for the terminal outlet of the basin, namely lower Coleroon Anicut, from a baseline dataset of 1933–1971 years. The respective contributions to the basin are Karnataka – 54%, Kerala – 14%, and Tamil Nadu – 32% (Table 22.1). The committee also established the amount of water that was in use by both states. According to this, Tamil Nadu was using 567 TMC and Karnataka 177 TMC. Based on this, Tamil Nadu argued that as on 1971–1972, the combined utilisation of water in the Cauvery river in all the basin states already exceeded the total annual yield and, therefore, no further developments were permissible.

22.2.3  Tribunal Process (1990–2007) Water is a state subject according to Indian constitution, with powers given to central government to intervene in case of unresolvable inter‐state water sharing matters. There is a

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 22.3  Evolution of command areas in the Cauvery basin. (a) Pre‐colonial; (b) until Indian independence (1947); (c) post‐independence up to 1980; (d) present day. Source: Adapted from Shinde Ganesh, 2019. ATREE. Using databases at https://download.geofabrik.de/asia/india.html and https://gadm.org/download_country_v3.html.

555

556

22  Dispute Resolution in the Cauvery Basin, India

Table 22.1  Dependability as established by the tribunal. Serial number

Dependability (%)

Yield (TMC)

1

50

740

2

75

670

3

90

623

Source: Adapted from Tribunal Volume III, 2007.

provision in the constitutions to set up a tribunal for the speedy resolution of matters which is acceptable to all parties involved in case of inter‐state dispute. Besides the Interstate Water Dispute Act of 1956 and the 2002 amendment also stresses on fixing a timeline for resolution (Anand 2004). The River Board Act of 1956 further provides provision for setting up an independent body to allow engagement between states over meeting their shares amicably (Singh and Gosain 2004). The Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal (CWDT) was set up in 1990 under this very same Inter‐State Water Disputes Act of 1956. But amidst contestation of initial rights, the initial recommendations of the tribunal were unacceptable to the states (Richards and Singh 2002). After 1990, the upper riparian state of Karnataka continued expanding its command area for irrigation.

22.2.4  Different States Have Different Positions About Principles While the facts and figures used to calculate water availability are themselves contested, the core of the conflict lies in the two states disagreeing on the basis for allocation, given the water endowment. Specifically, there is the tension between preserving the ‘way of life’ for riparian communities (particularly in the Cauvery Delta) that reinforces the spirit of conservation vs. reallocating water uses in wake of rising demands due to urbanisation, industrialisation, irrigated agriculture, and the uncertainties posed by climate change. Accordingly, each state invoked different legal principles to make the argument. 22.2.4.1  Karnataka’s Position

The earlier 1924 agreement recognised the principle of ‘prior appropriation’. Specifically, that Tamil Nadu had priority over its usage of water for irrigation over Karnataka based on the long history of irrigation in the delta. After the expiry of the 1924 agreement, Karnataka started developing the irrigation in its area asserting its territorial rights over water. First, Karnataka has invoked the principle of absolute sovereignty, also popularly known as Harmon doctrine put forward by US Attorney general in 1985 arguing that it has absolute sovereign rights over Cauvery waters flowing through its territory (Anand 2004). Therefore, the decision to use these waters should be left to the state alone without any interference of any third party. Since Karnataka contributes the vast majority of the flows, in effect, it is the sole judge as to the share of the other riparian states (Volume IV, page 11 onwards). Essentially, this would allow Karnataka to follow a policy of zero water flowing across the border, if it so chooses (Box 22.4).

22.2  ­History of the Disput

Box 22.4  Harmon Doctrine Judson Harmon, Attorney General of United States in 1895, gave an opinion after he was consulted by the state in a dispute between United States and Mexico over the use of waters of Rio Grande. Rio Grande originates in the United States, flowing through arid regions of southwestern US and northeastern Mexico, and it ends in Gulf of Mexico. According to him, United States had absolute territorial rights over the waters of river flowing through its territory and that how it chooses to use those waters is its domestic concern and other states have no right to intervene or dictate. This is what popularly came to be known as the Harmon doctrine or doctrine of absolute sovereignty, later realised by experts as a narrow view of sharing waters between two provinces (McCaffrey 1996). Second, Karnataka argued there had been ‘historical injustice’, arguing that until the end of the nineteenth century, the princely states of Coorg and Mysore had only drawn on the waters of the Cauvery via channels or tanks in small quantities (~73 TMC) in aggregate (Final award 2018). Agriculture was primarily rainfed and farmers in the state had suffered as a consequence. The efforts made, by the erstwhile princely state of Mysore, to utilise the waters of the Cauvery for purposes of irrigation, were stymied by the British Government of Madras. While farmers in the Cauvery Delta had been harvesting three paddy crops making use of both S‐W and N‐E (receding) monsoon as well as soil moisture/access to shallow groundwater tables using open wells/tanks, in Karnataka, farmers were confined to mostly one rainfed crop during the south‐west monsoon season (June–September). Third, while Karnataka is dependent largely on the south‐west monsoon (June– September), Tamil Nadu gets rains from both the south‐west and north‐east monsoon (October–December) enabling it to harvest three crops. Moreover, a large portion of the water drains into the sea and is not properly utilised. 22.2.4.2  Tamil Nadu’s Position

Tamil Nadu, in turn, invoked the principle of absolute territorial or riverine integrity. First, it claimed that its rights to the river’s natural flows were absolute and instrumental to maintain its territorial integrity, in line with its historical or prescriptive rights over water (Anand 2004). This principle also creates dis‐harmony as, by establishing its rights over the natural flow of the river, it does not allow any alterations upstream. Tamil Nadu’s primary claim was based on honouring the earlier agreements that recognised the ancient prescriptive rights of the delta farmers. Second, rice is the dominant crop in the delta, especially in the Thanjavur district (analysis from National Informatics Centre [NIC] database). Unlike, Karnataka, which has historically grown rainfed millets and pulses, Tamil Nadu is dependent on this belt for rice, which is the staple food of the people. The black clayey or clay loam‐type soil of the delta is mostly fit for paddy. Tamil Nadu, arguing that while it might be possible to make more effective use of groundwater by changing irrigation methods and the system of rice cultivation, rejected the possibility of any cropping pattern changes, considering the importance of the Cauvery Delta for the state’s rice production.

557

558

22  Dispute Resolution in the Cauvery Basin, India

Third, Tamil Nadu argued that contrary to Karnataka’s claims, although it gets rains later in the year, during the north‐east monsoon, these depression‐driven rainfalls occur within the span of only a few days. The intense showers in the delta region cannot be harvested for use and inevitably drain away into the sea and is ‘lost’ (Volume V, Page 34) and, therefore, should not be factored in allocation decisions. In contrast, the south‐west monsoon is more ‘dependable’ and evenly spread throughout the season, but most of the catchment lying downstream of the Mettur reservoir does not benefit, as it lies in the rain shadow area of Western Ghats. Thus, even though there was largely an agreement on the quantum of water available (barring some dissent in the figure for 50% dependability submitted by Karnataka as it computed them from 1900 to 1972, which it found to be 752 TMC), the two states disagreed on the principles of allocation, with each taking an extreme position.

22.2.5  2007 Agreement 22.2.5.1  Principles of Allocation

In 2007, after 17 years of deliberation, the tribunal declared its orders by invoking Helsinki rules of 1966 and UN Convention on the Law of the Non‐Navigational Uses of International Watercourses, 1997. This essentially declared that though the waters of an inter‐state river pass through the territories of the riparian states, neither state can claim exclusive ownership of such waters so as to deprive the other riparians of their equitable share. These guiding principles drawn by the International Law Association focused on equitable allocation of shared waters considering not only socio‐economic, but also environmental aspects. This principle which had also been applied in other international cases, for example by Supreme Court of United States in Kansas vs. Colorado case, was reiterated by the judges again in a subsequent 2018 judgement, the most recent one. 22.2.5.2  Surface Water Allocation

The tribunal declared the award based on the outflow estimations conducted at the three locations, KRS, Mettur, and Grand Anicut, on the main Cauvery river between 1933 and 1971 at 50% dependability using the numbers provided by the Cauvery Fact Finding Committee of 1972. For computing sustainable utilisable surface flows, the court relied on assessments made by the Irrigation Commission, 1972, and the National Commission on Agriculture, 1976, both of which had considered biophysical and socio‐economic parameters for arriving at figures. Based on the premise that reservoirs should at least operate at an optimal storage capacity of 42% (live storage capacity ~310 TMC; lowest recorded yield ~520 TMC), the tribunal adopted a 50% dependable flow yield figure of 740 TMC for distributing waters between both states, the underlying assumption being timely arrival of monsoon and integrated functioning of all reservoirs. Thus, the basin yields within all states were calculated (Table 22.3). 22.2.5.3  Groundwater Allocation

Groundwater is an important source of irrigation in the basin and so the court opinioned that it could not be ignored while making the apportionment. The aquifers underlying the basin are recharged by direct infiltration, recharge from the existing systems of tanks and lakes, farm ponds, other recharge structures, agricultural fields,

22.2  ­History of the Disput

and inflow from other interconnected aquifers outside the basin. Groundwater fluctuations in the Cauvery basin were assessed for recharge and draft conditions, based on the groundwater levels in the four seasons. Groundwater recharge was estimated by the difference in groundwater level, pre‐ and post‐monsoon. Similarly, groundwater draft was estimated using the dry season difference: between post‐monsoon and pre‐monsoon season levels. Interestingly, the court’s treatment of groundwater was not uniform. Groundwater was observed by the court as a supplement to surface water for irrigation, i.e. as an independent source to mitigate the demands in periods of nonavailability of surface water. Groundwater dependence was estimated as follows: Karnataka (35%), Kerala (21%), Tamil Nadu (47.2%), and Union Territory of Puducherry (61%) (Cauvery Tribunal 2007; [Report of the Irrigation Commission 1972] as cited in Volume III). The court observed that history of development of groundwater use in Tamil Nadu has been more than Karnataka. There is considerable debate on whether groundwater should be included in the allocations declared by tribunal. Tamil Nadu, citing a research report of UNDP of 1973, petitioned that groundwater recharge in the delta is dependent on releases from Mettur Dam, which in turn was dependent on releases from Karnataka, also later mentioned by another World Bank, 1987, report. Therefore, groundwater use in the delta should not be considered as an independent source for agricultural purposes. For the rest of the basin, however, excluding the delta, groundwater has largely been considered to be an independent, ‘alternative’ source of irrigation. Although the tribunal acknowledges that groundwater is a relevant factor for the equitable apportionment and there may be a ‘a close connection between the surface and groundwater resources of a river basin’ and even that it may be ‘necessary to limit the use of groundwater to prevent diminution of the water supply downstream’, in the end, the court stopped short of enforcing limits on groundwater abstraction. (Cauvery Tribunal 2007; Vol III, page 129), citing instead the precedent of the prior Narmada and Godavari Water Disputes Tribunals from the 1970s, which argued that because groundwater could not be accurately estimated, it said that it was not ‘fully cognizable to work out groundwater estimates from the legal point of view’. In estimating the amount of water share that could be abstracted from groundwater, the courts relied on Central Groundwater Board (CGWB) ‘Groundwater Estimation Committee’ report of 1995, which recommends a water balance approach for estimating recharge as follows: total annual recharge  =  recharge during monsoon + non‐monsoon rainfall recharge + seepage from canals + return flow from irrigation + inflow from influent rivers, etc. + recharge from submerged lands, lakes, etc. It also gave specific yield estimates depending on various geological formations in the zone of the seasonal water table fluctuations for estimating utilisable recharge pertaining to conditions of monitoring every 100 km2. Thus, the tribunal referred to few groundwater availability estimations in the delta made by various expert groups and in the end without working out actual estimates for apportionment, it assumed that 20 TMC is already being conjunctively used by Tamil Nadu with surface water. This quantum is, therefore, excluded from its share; this being the component of groundwater recharge from river water by lateral infiltration.

559

560

22  Dispute Resolution in the Cauvery Basin, India

22.2.5.4  Environmental Flow

Ten TMC annually was allocated as e‐flows by the tribunal for environmental protection. No justification was given for arriving at this number. This is clearly inadequate; the determination of e‐flows is much more complex and needs to be based on seasonal flow and sediment regimes and worked out for both drought and normal years (Schmidt and Bassi 2018). 22.2.5.5  Release Schedule

The annual share of water for normal years was finally arrived at by the tribunal, divided into monthly releases for Tamil Nadu at the contact point between both states (Billigundulu) from mid‐June to end of January as given in tribunal orders (Cauvery Tribunal 2007; Table 22.2; Box 22.5). Table 22.2  Release schedule in Cauvery Tribunal 2007 Award. Month

TMC

Month

TMC

June

10

December

8

July

34

January

3

August

50

February

2.5

September

40

March

2.5

October

22

April

2.5

November

15

May

2.5

Total

192 TMC

Source: Adapted from Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal Final Award, 2007.

Box 22.5  Environmental Flows With the growth in industrial, urban, and agriculture areas, the demand for water also increases and a basin becomes closed. Dyson et al. (2008) defines an ‘environmental flow’ as the water regime provided within a river, wetland, or coastal zone to maintain ecosystems and their benefits where there are competing water uses and where flows are regulated. The premise stands on the fact that river is in fact an ecosystem and not merely a commodity to be diverted into pipes for human usage. A well‐defined set of seasonal environmental flow regime would ensure that all ecosystem services of a river are met including water requirements for plants and animals (Falkenmark and Molden 2008). This becomes significant specially in a closed basin like Cauvery where contesting human‐centric demands leave little room for maintaining a minimum flow regime for riverine ecosystem to thrive. Currently in allocation priority setting regime, environment flows are given least priority. And there have also been examples of comprehensive research initiated within India for environmental flows assessment, for example for Upper Ganga basin (O’Keeffe et  al. 2012). Demand management in water‐intensive sectors like industries, urban areas for human‐centric uses become important if any such environmental flows are to be realised for basins like Cauvery.

22.2  ­History of the Disput

It further guided to divide the releases into 10 daily flows and monitor them through a regulatory authority. Thus, out of the 270 TMC of Karnataka’s share, it was directed to release 192 TMC. The requirement for Tamil Nadu was worked out adjusting the yield available upstream of Mettur reservoir (740–508 TMC) and factor of transfers with neighbouring states as well as 4 TMC flux into the sea (232 – 20 + 25 TMC for upstream of Mettur). The tribunal added a further 10 TMC for e‐flows to finalise a total 192 TMC contribution. But in reality, neither the regulatory authority nor the compliance to the flows materialised.

22.2.6 Post‐tribunal Conflicts (2007–2018) The tribunal report was supposed to settle the Cauvery dispute once‐and‐for‐all and yet this was far from reality. In every drought year following the verdict, conflicts emerged. Repeating the history of 1991 and 2002–2003, in 2012–2013, 2013–2014, and 2015–2016, tensions erupted again; riots led to considerable damage of property. Why? Because, the tribunal did not clearly specify what was to be done in the distressed years when the reservoirs did not fill. In practice, Karnataka failed to comply with scheduled releases as it was unable to meet its own demands due to water shortage on multiple occasions and disagreements followed suit. For example, in 2016, Karnataka had offered to release 10 000 cusec for 10 days in the month of September in event of water shortage whereas Tamil Nadu demanded 20 000. The court meanwhile kept intervening. In the absence of better information on the extent of the failure of the monsoon, the court split the difference and came up with an ad hoc figure of 15 000 cusec, causing even more mistrust among farmers and leading to riots (Thakkar 2016). Thus, the issue of ad hoc releases from the upstream state continued (Table 22.3).

22.2.7  The 2018 Verdict Karnataka’s failure to comply with the releases as directed by tribunal resulted in Tamil Nadu seeking court intervention yet again. Following a series of appeals and petitions filed in the court by both the states questioning the tribunal, the Supreme Court of India gave its most recent verdict on 16 February 2018. This new verdict recognised the needs of ever Table 22.3  Allocations and contributions in 2007 and 2018; use and claims of contesting states as stated in the 1972 Fact Finding Committee report.

State

Contribution to flow

Pre‐colonial use

CFFC,1972 use

Claimed

2007 Award

2018 Award

Karnataka

377

73

177

465

270

284.75

Tamil Nadu

216

410

566

566

419

404.25

Kerala

147

–

5

100

30

30

–

–

–

9

7

7

Puducherry

Source: Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal, 2007. Final Award, 2018. (CFFC‐ Cauvery Fact Finding Committee)

561

562

22  Dispute Resolution in the Cauvery Basin, India

rising water demands from other sectors besides agriculture, in particular increasingly wealthy urban areas. Citing this, Tamil Nadu’s share of water was cut down by 14.75 TMC to provide for rising demands of the burgeoning city of Bengaluru in Karnataka. While the vast majority of the Cauvery judgement focused on surface water irrigation, the court did take some cognizance of urban water uses. The drinking water need for both the urban and rural population was worked out by projecting the population of the basin based on census data of 2011 (Final award 2018) using a norm of 150 litres per capita per day (LPCD) for large cities, 100 LPCD for towns, and 40 LPCD for villages. Since two‐thirds of Bangalore city lies outside of the Cauvery basin, only a third of Bangalore’s population was considered in allocating the drinking water requirement of Bangalore city. In the final award, only 14 TMC (against Karnataka’s request for 30 TMC) was allocated by the court for Bangalore’s urban water use. In allocating urban water needs to both the states, the court further assumed that 50% of urban water demand would be met by the groundwater allowing only 50% from surface water. It further assumed that 80% of the water would return as treated wastewater to the river. In other words, only the 20%, consumptive water use component was considered. The court also made allocations for thermal power plants, but again assumed that only 3% of water abstracted was consumptive; the rest would return to the river and become available downstream. Observing that Karnataka was more deserving in terms of drinking water requirements for Bengaluru, the Bench reallocated 14.75 TMC from Tamil Nadu’s share to Karnataka for Bengaluru. Thus, priority was given to drinking and domestic water purposes. Consumptive use was assumed to be 20% of diversions for the domestic water and 2.5% for industries, while making estimates. The court once again declined to recognise prescriptive rights acquired by both the states in the past or any new development in irrigation that happened after lapse of the agreements arguing that ‘being a fugitive resource, no state can claim exclusive ownership of such waters or assert a prescriptive right so as to deprive the other states of their equitable share’. The monthly flow releases were modified accordingly and both states were asked that this be followed for the next 15 years, with the first 5 years being monitored and regulated by Central Water Commission (CWC) to accommodate any new developments. The court again did not take a decision on allocations in drought years but instead suggested formation of a ‘Cauvery Management Board’ to work out release schedules for the same. While the nature of the management authority defined by the court and established on 1 June 2018 remains unclear, it at least opened a window of opportunity to move the conflict from a narrow focus on irrigation and releases from KRS to Mettur, to consider inter‐sectoral demands as well as the need to prioritise the same using an integrated basin management approach (Ghosh et al. 2018).

22.3 ­Analysis of the Cauvery Dispute The simmering tension over the Cauvery suggests that the tribunal award was not the panacea it was hoped to be. As the Cauvery basin moves to a new era under a Cauvery Management Board, it is worth critically examining the judgement from a hydrologic perspective. The principle of reasonable and equitable sharing, as stipulated by the tribunal, can only be determined in the light of all the relevant factors in each particular case. The relevant considerations that must be included are geography and drainage area in each basin state/

22.3  ­Analysis of the Cauvery Disput

nation; hydrology of the basin; climate affecting the basin; prior use; economic and social needs of each basin state; population dependent on this water; comparative costs of alternative means of satisfying the economic and social needs of each basin state; availability of other resources; avoidance of unnecessary waste in the utilisation of water; practicability of compensation to one or more of the co‐basin states as a means of adjusting conflicts among uses, and; the degree to which the needs of a basin state may be satisfied, without causing substantial injury to a co‐basin state (Anand 2004). Additionally, these factors are continuously changing. Changing rainfall (Rathore et al. 2013), land use and cropping pattern, groundwater abstractions, sand mining, and deforestation are all contributing to increasing uncertainty in assessing how much is available and being used, and by whom. The assessment is further complicated because of knowledge gaps, incomplete understanding of causal linkages, and our inability to understand and/or predict how all these factors would interact with each other and change in the future. A careful reading raises questions both on the scientific basis of the allocations as well as discrepancies between what the court assumes and what is enforceable on the ground.

22.3.1  Problems with Scientific Basis of Tribunal Allocation 22.3.1.1  Premise of Allocation Is Flawed

The premise for dispute resolution lies in fair share of total available water, the figure for which has been estimated to be 740 TMC by estimating flows at three points: KRS, Mettur, and the Coleroon River. The entire judgement is made on the basis of the existence of a ‘50% dependable yield’. This is hydrologically problematic for several reasons. First, there is an assumption of stationarity; that the relationship between rainfall and run‐off has remained constant over time, yet there is empirical evidence throughout the Cauvery basin of decline in dry season inflows (Gosain et al. 2006). Further, only pre‐1974 data were used for computing the basin yield, leaving out the anthropogenic influences (Ghosh et al. 2016) on flows that occurred later, when the catchment had in fact undergone several changes. The court effectively equated run‐off with rainfall, leaving no room for the possibility that inflows to the reservoirs might decline even in normal years, due to increase in evapotranspiration from groundwater irrigation or plantations (Box 22.6).

Box 22.6  Stationarity Traditionally in water resources engineering discipline, concept of stationarity has been commonly used. In a popular article written by Milly et al. (2008) titled ‘Stationarity is Dead: Whither Water Management?’ the authors discuss the concept and paradox associated with it in anthropocene. Stationarity in hydrologic processes means appearance of set pattern in variables across time series. That is to be able to predict future trends based on past, assuming no new patterns appear in physical processes, for example frequency of occurrence of floods or droughts. This is the concept based on which all large infrastructures have been designed to control and manage water resources. Although with humans altering the Cauvery Management processes occurring in nature to a significant state, stationarity is indeed dead.

563

564

22  Dispute Resolution in the Cauvery Basin, India

Second, the treatment of groundwater is flawed. As noted earlier, although the tribunal acknowledges that groundwater and surface water are connected and groundwater abstraction should be controlled, ultimately, it resorts to treating groundwater as an independent source of water, even recommending groundwater as an option to compensate for reductions in water allocation. Given the massive increase in groundwater abstraction in the basin and consequent decline in baseflows, this seems flawed. 22.3.1.2  No Guidance on Shortage Sharing in Drought Years

The whole focus of the dispute is on the transfer of water from KRS to Mettur as measured at the Biligundlu gauging station and adherence to a monthly schedule of releases. However, the legal document offers very little guidance on what should happen in case of a drought year when 740 TMC is not available. Given that the allocation was based on yield from the entire basin, the report also offers no guidance on what to do about variability; given the fact that some parts of the basin receive excess rainfall while others do not. In fact, the riots have occurred in dry years, when there was insufficient water to meet the needs of all claimants residing in different parts of the basin. The Cauvery Tribunal opinioned that if there is a deficit in rainfall in the basin, then there should be a proportionate reduction in the water shares of the basin states. The challenge is that the rainfall deficit may not be evenly spread out in the basin and for reasons described above, flows may decline even if there is sufficient rainfall due to anthropogenic modifications in catchments. The tribunal does not offer sufficient guidance on how to handle this. 22.3.1.3  No Clarity on Wastewater Ownership

In allocating water to urban centres, the tribunal assumes that 80% of the water will return as wastewater. In fact, only the 20% consumptive use is allocated from the available water. Yet, the courts make no provision to ensure that this will actually be adhered to, given that wastewater recycling is actively being adopted by many municipalities to meet both urban and irrigation needs. Untreated industrial effluents and discharge of sewage from cities and towns make the water unfit for different purposes, and thus the same available water becomes unavailable. There are no guidelines or set prescriptions, and this issue which can add spark to the conflict has also been left out. Wastewater represents a ‘loophole’ to increase abstractions upstream. Because urban allocations are small, this may not pose a major problem yet. In future though, as the basin becomes more urbanised and allocations to cities increased, this urban water use may emerge as a bigger problem.

22.3.2  Data Gaps 22.3.2.1  Sparse Data on Water Availability

Relative to the Western world, gauging density in the Cauvery basin is relatively sparse. In the 86 500 km2 basin area, CWC maintains 36 gauge‐discharge sites, 21 observation sites for water quality, and 15 sediment observation sites. Additionally, the state water resources departments maintain their own gauging sites in addition to maintaining data on inflows into reservoirs. There are 35 meteorological stations run by CWC, 183 by the

22.3  ­Analysis of the Cauvery Disput

Indian Meteorological Department (IMD) and 63 by automated weather stations (AWSs). Rainfall is highly spatially variable and the IMD gauge density remains sparse, given the varying agro‐ecology and geography in the entire basin, the rainfall deficit is likely to vary for both states and within sub‐basins and, hence, more monitoring may give better insights. In recent years, each state has additionally installed their own rain gauges. The Karnataka State Natural Disaster Monitoring Cell (KSNDMC) has automatic rain gauges in each taluk (cluster of 3–4 villages), while the State Water Resources Data Centre (SWRDC) has installed rain gauges in each district. The problem is that state rain gauges are not recognised by the tribunal. Conflicting claims based on different sets of rain gauges often end up exacerbating arguments over water availability and rainfall deficits. IMD claims that the state gauges do not adhere to installation guidelines, while the states claim that the IMD rain gauges over‐estimate rainfall because of their low density. 22.3.2.2  Inconsistent and Inadequate Data on Agricultural Water Use

Over the years, the area under water‐intensive irrigated crops has increased displacing rainfed crops. As perception of scarcity intensifies, conflicts are also likely to intensify. This evolution of cropping and irrigation patterns has varied across the basin. Moreover, the quality of secondary data on cropping patterns and irrigation is inconsistent and inadequate. Government data on crop statistics, which form the basis of demand for irrigation, are available district‐wide in the public domain. The problem is that often cropping data are inconsistent across datasets, e.g. village‐wide irrigated areas in the Census of India’s Village Amenities dataset do not aggregate to the district‐wide irrigated area in the Annual Season Crop Report. Furthermore, while irrigated area estimation is becoming increasingly possible through the use of satellite products such as Earth Engine, preliminary analyses suggest that they are actually not synchronous with either of the other two data sources. Further, much of the available data are too standardised to be useful, e.g. the standard kharif‐rabi reporting does not apply to the delta region, where the cropping pattern is completely different, generating further inconsistencies Additionally, there is no standard protocol available for reporting irrigation delivery. In Karnataka, reporting is done by both irrigation and agriculture departments or by farmer’s associations, whereas the revenue department collects water charges. In Tamil Nadu, it is done by the irrigation department. For small‐scale irrigation, farmers self‐declare the amount of water delivered. Also, several methods are used for measuring water delivered; gauge register, stage‐discharge method, using measuring devices at canal outlets or it is simply observation‐based. In most cases, the flow registers, which have been developed at the start of the operation of the structures, have not been updated. The groundwater‐irrigated agricultural area tends to be severely underreported, making it impossible to estimate total water use in irrigation. Conjunctive use of ground and surface water in canal command areas is reportedly quite significant based on field observations, but again comprehensive data are lacking. 22.3.2.3  Data on ‘Green Water’ and Evapotranspiration Is Unavailable

Only a small fraction of rainfall, say around 10–20%, ends up as surface water for irrigation use. The major portion of the rainfall, to the extent of 60–70%, is directly taken up by

565

566

22  Dispute Resolution in the Cauvery Basin, India

vegetation, including crops, from soil and evapotranspired to the atmosphere. As Swatuk (2017) highlighted, there is often a ‘blue water bias’ in planning. Other forms of green water are hardly accounted for in estimating water availability in the region. Given the increase in plantation area, this could lead to severe over‐estimation in water availability. Unlike developed countries, flux tower data on evapotranspiration are not available in the public domain, so closing the water balance poses a major challenge. 22.3.2.4  Data on Urban Water Use Is Fragmented

One of the drivers of the conflict is under increasing demand due to growth in urban agglomerations and the industrial sector. The drinking and domestic water requirements vary within the setting of the rural and urban areas as well as being strongly influenced by socio‐economic factors. There is a paucity of data on how much water is used by different end users and even fewer projections on how this might change over time. 22.3.2.5  Inadequate Public Information on Water Infrastructure Plans

Inter‐basin transfer links involve transfers from the region of surplus to deficit areas. The National Water Development Authority (NWDA) has proposed two inter‐basin links within the basin: Somasila–Grand Anicut Link which envisages diversion of 8565 million cubic metres (MCM) of water and Cauvery (Kattalai)–Vaigni–Gundar Link with 2252 MCM (CWC and NRSC 2014). As rightly pointed by Jamil et al. (2012), any interlinking project would result in disruption of existing sociocultural fabric in the neighbouring riparian communities due to land grabbing and inadequate mechanisms for compensation. For most projects, the irrigation potential defined during project planning stage is misleading. Yet, for most part, public consultations on the daily project reports (DPRs) are largely absent, making it difficult to independently verify the claims made by project proponents. 22.3.2.6  Missing Data on Water Infrastructure Operations

Any basin model must account for reservoir storage and performance. Yet, there is still lack of reliable data on reservoir operations in the public domain. For major and medium‐scale irrigation projects in India, records of inflows and outflows are generally maintained (but often they are not digitised for smaller reservoirs). Based on the meteorological conditions, announcements are made regarding the releases based on inflows received. The assumption is that farmers can plan their cropping pattern based on each year’s water releases. The problem is that irrigation department advisories are often not provided in a reliable, timely manner, creating a gap between irrigation potential created and utilised. Additionally, other supplemental sources of irrigation like lift schemes, water harvesting tanks, or groundwater often go unaccounted. 22.3.2.7  Reservoir Sedimentation Is Not Accounted for

Reservoir outflows are calculated using the stage–volume curve relationship in a hydraulic function developed at the time of commissioning of the reservoir. However, due to changes in the catchment in the upper reaches (deforestation and urbanisation), the sediment content in river water has increased over the years, increasing sedimentation rates. A cursory examination of, for example, a large and long‐running dataset on Mettur reservoir levels

22.4 ­Science–Policy Gap

reveals that sedimentation has decreased available storage. This suggests that estimates of current water availability are optimistic. Since sediment is being trapped upstream, sediment transfer gets impeded by constructing various dams and reservoirs, which was an issue not addressed in the final commission report and award. 22.3.2.8  Water Quality Data Are Inadequate

Water quality influences water use which in turn constrains water availability. While water quality was not specifically addressed at length in the current water conflict, it is anticipated that this will become an increasingly important factor as Tamil Nadu demands better quality water. One of the biggest challenges with rising urbanisation and industrialisation is decline in water quality due to an inadequate treatment of domestic sewage and discharge of untreated industrial effluents. There are several studies that have documented the deteriorating water quality in the Cauvery (RamyaPriya and Elango 2018), particularly from sewage (gross pollutants such as Biochemical Oxygen Demand, nutrients, etc.) as well as heavy metal contamination. These have exacerbated water conflicts both between the states as well as resulted in legal challenges within Tamil Nadu state. For example, in 1996, farmers sued the textile industries for compensation for pollution in the Noyyal River (Srinivasan et al. 2014). Over the years, rise in groundwater extraction in coastal areas has been gradually increasing contributing to salinisation. Post the 2004 tsunami, affected coastal areas have reported increased salinity.

22.4 ­Science–Policy Gaps Given the fact that water management is still largely governed primarily through an engineering hydrology lens, the tribunal did not consider wider ecosystem functioning within the basin, particularly those related to ecosystem services. There was no consideration of important inherent features of system function such as sediment dynamics (Ramkumar et  al. 2015), lateral and longitudinal connectivity, flow regime, natural assets, interdependent lives, and sociocultural livelihoods as well as political ecology. Additionally, there have been many other crucial factors that were neglected in the estimations, and assumptions were made about how the states would behave but were not backed up by enforceable rules. While the understanding of conflict resolution within academic literature may have moved forward, the insights are not necessarily effectively translated into action. This is because of an ongoing silo mentality where policy‐makers do not necessarily integrate scientific knowledge into legal negotiations which, therefore, end up becoming more about reaching a politically acceptable agreement, even if based on weak knowledge and understanding. This calls for increased level of science:policy:practitioner dialogues to be initiated at the basin level and at the outset of any deliberation. Often water security for humans is a matter of perspectives of different stakeholders which must collectively appreciate and understand (i) where is the water, when, in what form, quality and quantity?, (ii) who is

567

568

22  Dispute Resolution in the Cauvery Basin, India

deriving what benefits from it, for what purpose?, and (iii) by what process are they accessing and disposing releasing the water back into the system. In doing so, all forms for water use, including virtual water transfers and blue, green, and grey water use must be considered.

22.4.1  Changing Nature of Demand and Supply A detailed sectoral estimation of water usage at sub‐basin level aggregated to basin level is not available with authorities, but statistics presented in various government reports clearly highlighted that the nature of demand, availability, and supply is itself dynamic. Fifty percent dependable yield of 740 TMC assumes that flow in the river is, at the least, this amount for 50% of the years. This assumption of stationarity, however, is being challenged. With declining rainfall, increased groundwater pumping, and/or increased evapotranspiration and other biophysical parameters, stream flow is changing. Climate change is a threat. Studies conducted by Gosain et al. (2006) suggest a declining trend in quantity of surface run‐off available as well as an increase in variability of rainfall and evapotranspiration in the Cauvery basin by the 2050s due to climate change. They also report that rainfall in the Western Ghats has declined, both because of climate change as well as deforestation. Other factors are influencing rainfall–run‐off relationships. For example, land use change and increasing urbanisation around major conurbations have resulted in an increase in impervious surfaces, altered drainage, and disturbed the connectivity of streams networks. Cropping patterns in the upper reaches have changed to more water‐intensive cropping and more area under the plantation of crops like eucalyptus and coconut which has increased evapotranspiration. Since the last assessments made in the late 1980s and early 1990s, on which tribunal relied upon for making assessments, evidence suggests that irrigation, particularly from groundwater, has expanded in the region. Groundwater abstraction has been demonstrably shown to be resulting in declining baseflows (Srinivasan et al. 2015). For instance, according to the State Action Plan for Climate Change of 2015, Karnataka uses 84% of the available, utilisable water for agriculture, out of which groundwater contributes about 45%. In the absence of any regulation, availability of groundwater has declined over the years (by 3% between 2004 and 2009). Although a basin‐level analysis is missing, according to a CGWB (2017) report, 43 taluks covering the Karnataka state are now over‐exploited. To address depletion, under various watershed schemes, farm ponds, check dams, and bunds have all been established which also result in declining downstream flow and increased evapotranspiration. Groundwater and human alterations have changed the very nature of rainfall–run‐off relationship that existed earlier. In addition, there is little information on how such water harvesting structures constructed under various schemes may boost groundwater recharge. Thus, to capture a true picture, all available water rather than just stream flows need to be considered using comprehensive water accounting. Units of analysis need to be as watersheds/sub‐basins rather than state.

22.6 ­Dispute Resolution Approache

22.5 ­Political Challenges 22.5.1  Identity Politics The riots over the Cauvery did not play out as a case of hydrological allocation of water, but in practice were framed in terms of ethnic identities. Linguistic identities are intrinsically part of the social construct in India, because states are divided along linguistic lines. Thus, instead of states facilitating the mechanisms for implementing and monitoring of the award (Chokkakula 2018), it becomes a unit of allocation strengthening political identities, thereby making the apportionments unacceptable to others who subsequently resorted to violence. With emerging demands from varied sectoral groups and various developments taking place within the landscape, this identified that politics has also resulted in further complicating the conflict. With the tribunal apportioning water to each state as a unit, it appears to ignore the complex realities and dynamics at play at the district or sub‐basin level (Narendar 2018).

22.5.2  Poor Public Communication While there is a lack of a scientific understanding of the hydrology complexity of the Cauvery basin, there is an even larger gap in the public communication of the issue. In particular, there is a lack of communication between scientists, end users, government officials, and decision‐makers and judiciary. Very little research has been done on this aspect on the role of science communication and the consequences of its absence. In a scenario where the science itself is incomplete and poorly communicated, the myriad regional media outlets and social media have not done much to improve the situation. In recent drought years, regional media houses from both states further fuelled tensions by repeatedly showing data and figures, which could be proved to be scientifically incorrect or misleading. In the absence of a well‐communicated public information system, however, there was no way to rebut the claims.

22.6 ­Dispute Resolution Approaches India faces unprecedented challenges and risks to water security as it moves further in the twenty‐first century. In a rapidly urbanising landscape and industrialising economy, there are newer threats emerging, such as groundwater depletion and contamination, degradation of land and surface water bodies, and uncertainties in weather patterns driven by climate change, all of which are likely to exacerbate the existing conflicts over water use between sectors and across the urban–rural and cultural divides. The root of the conflict lies in the lack of clearly laid‐out mechanisms (Wolf et al. 2003), for assigning priority to usage among the multiple contested sectors and states under varying water availability. Also, the figures that are relied upon while passing a judgement are mostly the estimations of the water balance at a macro level with the state as a unit rather

569

570

22  Dispute Resolution in the Cauvery Basin, India

than supported through a sub‐basin or watershed‐level analysis. Also a variety of interconnected institutional issues, diverse perspectives on property rights, political drivers of the conflict, and a lack of holistic perspective in water governance render multiple layers to the conflict that need to be addressed (Ghosh et al. 2019). Administratively, there is a need for a basin‐level body which involves policy‐makers, academics, and civil society representatives to explicitly define the structure and nature of the conflict and lay down a well‐defined and publicly acceptable framework, and the principles to be followed in a sustainably rigorous allocation system. This in turn needs to be informed from a transdisciplinary and participatory approach with understanding of the waterscape at a micro watershed or sub‐basin scale. This requires involvement of water user associations in governance, the importance of which has been highlighted from time to time in work of Shah (2016) and Iyer (2002). The current national water agencies (CWC and CGWB) managing data on water resources at national level need to develop close linkages with issues related to surface and groundwater availability and utilisation on a sub‐basin scale. Wastewater is increasingly considered as a resource and reuse must be accounted for. Not only anthropogenic but also biodiversity and ecological needs of water should be considered in an integrated manner, by taking the major river basin as a hydraulic unit and considering that aquifers are integral elements of any river basin (Shah 2016).

22.6.1  Cauvery Management Board Eighty‐three percent of the geographical area in India lies in inter‐state river basins. Under current law, the management of inter‐state river basins is under the jurisdiction of the central government. But due to political interests, states do not allow this system to work. There is still an absence of a successful example of an independent multi‐stakeholder River Basin Organisation (RBO) despite the existence of the River Boards Act of 1956 which has the provision to create such organisations. The National Water Policy, 2002, also recommends RBOs but fails to provide concrete measures. The tribunal ruling of June 2018, recognising the need for a more adaptive approach, called for the creation of a Cauvery Water Management Board. The core members of the Board are comprised mostly of state actors (mainly engineers), but the Board can invite academicians as needed. With the help of state authorities and several data recording agencies, the Board is supposed to collate and monitor rainfall as well as inflow at various large reservoirs. In the event of water shortages, the Board can proportionately reduce the share of water for a specified time period. The Board also has the mandate to devise a legal and technical framework for reservoir operation to deliver an integrated strategy for timely seasonal releases. This is particularly challenging given the evolving sectoral demands and climate variability on the ground. A multidisciplinary, institutional structure to capture the fast‐changing socio‐hydrology realities on the ground, however, is still lacking. There is little space to bring in non‐state actors and end users into the consultation process. Given the fact that there is also lot of contentious flow data that states mutually disagree with, the strength lies in the power conferred to the Board to keep a check on flow measurements and if required, to set up new monitoring equipment or sites in case those existing are outdated. Also by taking up the

22.7  ­Summary and Way Forwar

role of a nodal monitoring agency for maintaining flow data at various reservoirs, the Board moves the discourse, for the first time, from a narrow focus on a single Biligundlu gauging station to a more integrated approach to basin management.

22.6.2  Direct Dialogue Conflicts are driven not just by hydrological and socio‐economic change but also by how the issue has and will be handled by the existing governance structure given the lack of capacity of existing institutional structures to deal with the change. In order to remove barriers from adaptive water governance in such conflicted basins, there is a need to ascertain whether the current institutions are able to make truly informed decisions. It has been proposed that to facilitate this, there needs to be the creation of a more inclusive institutional space with members from state as well as non‐state actors (Thakkar and Harsha 2019). Minimising conflicts between parties requires an equitable, transparent, and conducive dialogue based on best available knowledge and in trusting environment. One such experiment was the ‘Cauvery family’ experiment (Iyer 2003). This was set up in 2003, designed to invoke direct dialogue between farmers, engineers, and subject matter experts from both states. The objectives were to reduce the communication gap and take a pragmatic approach around optimising the use of water for agriculture both then and into the future. The Cauvery family experiment saw farmers of both states coming together with experts to find a shared solution for water efficiency through the adoption of altered cropping patterns. The group met 18 times between 2003 and 2012. Some successes from these deliberations included an acknowledgement of the ecological stress imposed upon the basin due to lack of demand side management; the additional pressures placed by pollution, salinisation, oil exploration, and climate change; and suggestions to revamp the older canal system to avoid losses in water transfer. The main achievement of the direct dialogue approach was to successfully bring together varying interests groups into a common platform. Through various field visits, the group created greater understanding of the problem among themselves and farmers of both states. By developing healthy relationships between upstream and downstream farmers, it helped to break the various prejudices and false notions and attempted to facilitate a process to resolve the dispute by adopting a more scientific than emotive approach. In such a highly politicised environment, an independent, decentralised, and egalitarian people’s body structure was highly welcomed (Iyer 2003). Although the initiative withered due to funding constraints, the potential of such an independent body in knowledge sharing and capacity building was highly respected and provides a possible future model for integration within an interdisciplinary approach to catchment management.

22.7 ­Summary and Way Forward Transboundary conflict is a reality not only in India but also globally and is expected to worsen given our shared inability to manage freshwater resources sustainably in the face of

571

572

22  Dispute Resolution in the Cauvery Basin, India

rising demands and pressures. Before meeting the demand for more water from trans‐basin transfer (which is likely to engender another set of conflicts), a wiser approach is to encourage improved demand management with the water available in the basin. This almost certainly requires a sub‐basin approach to evaluation and for comprehensive water accounting, quantifying both groundwater and surface water. This requires several specific measures to be adopted; First, besides having legal frameworks in place for conflict resolution, there needs to be a set of well‐defined regulations and norms informed not only by single disciplines but through embracing a more multidisciplinary approach, and one that also focuses on clear communication to create a shared understanding of the problem. This requires that knowledge on current and future states should be presented in a way that all stakeholders can understand. Second, as previously outlined, that there is an instant and pressing need for data on the current state and use of the water resources in the catchment, much of which is missing or not available. Data must be managed, quality controlled, and fit for purpose. Therefore, the first task for the Cauvery Management Board would be to review the current state of knowledge and to take guidance from academics and professionals on the establishment of a rigorous monitoring programme including both quantity and quality. This resource evaluation must include an understanding of the physical manipulation of the catchment resource by land managers, farmers, and other actors which allows for the integration of that knowledge into scenario modelling and planning. Third, there is a clear recognition that the Cauvery basin has vastly complex spatial biodiversity, socio‐economic, and sociocultural realities, as well as diverse geography, geomorphology, and geo‐hydrology. The Cauvery Management Board needs to embrace a contemporary definition of a river system in its entirety to include the river basin rather than focusing on just the release schedule and quantity management. It also needs to consider the river as an ecosystem, rather than as a mere resource to be traded. The Cauvery basin has some of the most diverse and respected biodiversity ecosystems in the world, which have natural asset and ecosystem services values well beyond that for irrigation alone. Fourth, the evidence suggests that the biggest failure of the tribunal was the provision of guidance during drought years. The Cauvery Management Board needs to evolve a transparent process of how to share and manage resource shortages. One approach would be to specify the hierarchy of different water uses with the help of all stakeholders, whilst ensuring that the environment was one of those ‘stakeholders’ and should be represented in an equitable way through any proposed allocation system. Fifth, the Cauvery Management Board should engage in more proactive planning and adaptive learning and management. It should invest in an independent body of experts needed to devise the interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary methodologies required, review the current understanding of the river dynamics and performance to date, devise appropriate monitoring strategies, and establish the governance required to deliver the proposed outcomes. Finally, the Cauvery Management Board should take a holistic view of what possible management tools exist. Instead of a top‐down approach to informing farmers what to grow or what not to grow (which has not been effective). The proper course would be to

 ­Reference

limit the water (electricity for pumping groundwater) that is made available with comprehensive water accounting and work hand in hand with farmers to optimise crop performance, yield, and value. The set of options that exist must not be confined solely to water efficiency. Short‐term water markets, crop insurance, ‘cash for blue’ schemes, minimum crop support prices, and alternative livelihood models must all be part of the portfolio of options considered. Only through such actions will the Cauvery move to a more sustainable future with optimised financial return, balanced environmental protection and ecosystem service provision, and improved social cohesion and welfare.

­Acknowledgements The research underlying this paper was carried out under the UPSCAPE project of the Newton‐Bhabha programme ‘Sustaining Water Resources for Food, Energy and Ecosystem Services’, funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC‐UKRI) and the India Ministry of Earth Sciences (MoES), Grant Number MoES/NERC/IA‐SWR/ P1/08/2016‐PC‐II (ii). The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors alone.

­References Amarasinghe, U.A., Sharma, B.R., Aloysius, N. et al. (2005). Spatial Variation in Water Supply and Demand across River Basins of India 83 Research Report. Retrieved from www. iwmi.org. Anand, P.B. (2004). Water and Identity: An Analysis of the Cauvery River Water Dispute. University of Bradford. Bradford Centre for International Development. BCID Research Paper Number 3. http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/des/research/papers/Paper3.pdf. Babu, A. (2008). Economic and Environmental Impacts of Political Non‐cooperative Strategies in Water Management: An Analysis of Prospective Policies in the Cauvery River Basin of India. Institute of Agricultural Policy and Market Research. Dissertation Submitted for the degree of Doktor des Agrarwissenschaften (Dr. agr.) Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Nutritional Sciences and Environmental Management. JustusLiebig University Giessen. Cauvery Tribunal (2007). Final judgement of the Supreme Court of India (2018). The State of Karnataka by its Chief Secretary versus the State of Tamil Nadu by its Chief Secretary & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 2453 of 2007) with State of Kerala through the Chief Secretary to Government versus State of Tamil Nadu through the Chief Secretary to Government and others (Civil Appeal No. 2456 of 2007) with State of Tamil Nadu through the Secretary Public Works Department Versus State of Karnataka by its Chief Secretary Government of Karnataka and Ors. The report of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal with the decision. In the matter of water disputes regarding the inter‐state river Cauvery and the river valley thereof between the State of Tamil Nadu, State of Karnataka, State of Kerala, Union Territory of Pondicherry. (2007). Volume I, II, III, IV, V. New Delhi.

573

574

22  Dispute Resolution in the Cauvery Basin, India

Central Water Commission and National Remote Sensing Institute (2014). Cauvery basin report. https://indiawris.gov.in/downloads/Cauvery%20Basin.pdf. CGWB (2017). Dynamic Ground Water Resources of India (as on 31st March 2013). Faridabad: Central Ground Water Board Ministry of Water Resources, River Development & Ganga Rejuvenation Government of India Faridabad. Chokkakula, S. (2018). Transboundary politics of cooperation: Telugu ganga project, India. Regional Environmental Change 18: 1645–1654. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10113‐018‐1348‐0. Dyson, M., Bergkamp, G., and Scanlon, J. (eds.) (2008). Flow – The Essentials of Environmental Flows, 2e. Gland: IUCN. Reprint. https://www.iucn.org/content/ flow‐essentials‐environmental‐flows‐0. EMPRI and TERI (2015). Karnataka State Action Plan on Climate Change 1st Assessment. https://www.karnataka.gov.in/empri/Publications/Karnataka%20SAPCC%202015%20‐%20 EMPRI.pdf (accessed 7 December 2020). Falkenmark, M. and Molden, D. (2008). Wake up to realities of River Basin closure. International Journal of Water Resources Development 24: 201–215. https://doi. org/10.1080/07900620701723570. Ghosh, S., Vittal, H., Sharma, T. et al. (2016). Indian summer monsoon rainfall: implications of contrasting trends in the spatial variability of means and extremes. PLoS One 11 (7): e0158670. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158670. Ghosh, N., Bandyopadhyay, J., and Thakur, J. (2018). Conflict Over Cauvery Waters: Imperatives for Innovative Policy Options. https://www.orfonline.org/ research/43871‐conflict‐over‐cauvery‐waters‐imperatives‐for‐innovative‐policy‐options. Ghosh, N., Bandopadhyay, J., and Thakur, J. (2019). River Basin Governance: Learnings from Cauvery Conflict. https://www.indiawaterportal.org/articles/ river‐basin‐governance‐learnings‐cauvery‐conflict. Gosain, A.K., Rao, S., and Basuray, D. (2006). Climate change impact assessment on hydrology of Indian river basins. Current Science 90 (3): 346–353. Guhan, S. (1993). The Cauvery River Dispute : Towards Conciliation, 1e. Madras: Frontline. Iyer, R.R. (2002). Inter‐state water disputes act 1956: difficulties and solutions. Economic and Political Weekly 37 (28): 2907–2910. Retrieved June 5, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/ stable/4412360. Iyer, R.R. (2003). Cauvery dispute: a dialogue between farmers. Economic and Political Weekly 38 (24): 2350–2352. Retrieved June 5, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/ stable/4413671. Jamil, H., Kumar, P., Ismail, S., and Roy, R. (2012). Interstate Water Dispute and Federalism: Governance of Interstate River Water in India. Civil and Environmental Research, 2,2. ISSN 2222‐1719 (Paper), ISSN 2222‐2863 (Online). Joy, K.J. and Janakrajan, S. (2011). Inter‐State Water Disputes Among the Riparian States: The Case of Cauvery River from Peninsular India Case Study. Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency. Kumar, K.S., Anneboina, R.L., Pattanayak, A., and Balasubramanian, A. (2017). State of the environment report. http://admin.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/reports‐documents/ state‐environment‐report‐tamil‐nadu‐2017 (accessed 7 December 2020).

 ­Reference

McCaffrey, S.C. (1996). The Harmon doctrine one hundred years later: buried, not praised. Natural Resources Journal 549: 967–969. Milly, P.C., Betancourt, J., Falkenmark, M. et al. (2008). Climate change. Stationarity is dead: whither water management? Science 319 (5863): 573–574. https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.1151915. Narendar, P. (2018). Inter state water conflicts and linguistic identity in India – the case of the Cauvery. In: India’s Water Futures: Emergent Ideas and Pathways, 1e (eds. K.J. Joy and S. Janakarajan), 253–265. Taylor and Francis. O’Keeffe, J., Kaushal, N., Smakhtin, V., and Bharti, L. (2012). Assessment of Environmental Flows in the Upper Ganga Basin. A Summary Report. WWF India. Ramkumar, M. et al. (2015). Sand mining, channel bar dynamics and sediment textural properties of the Kaveri River, South India: implications on flooding hazard and sustainability of the natural fluvial system. In: Environmental Management of River Basin Ecosystems (eds. M. Ramkumar, K. Kumaraswamy and R. Mohanraj), 283–318. Cham: Springer Earth System Sciences. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐319‐13425‐3_14. RamyaPriya, R. and Elango, L. (2018). Evaluation of geogenic and anthropogenic impacts on spatio‐temporal variation in quality of surface water and groundwater along Cauvery River, India. Environmental Earth Sciences 77 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665‐017‐7176‐6. Rathore, L.S., Attri, S.D., and Jaswal, A.K. (2013). Government of India Ministry of Earth Sciences Earth System Science Organisation India Meterorological Department State Level Climate Change Trends in India. Government of India Ministry of Earth Sciences, Earth Systems Science Organisation, Indian Meteorological Department. Report of the Irrigation Commission (1972), vols I, III. New Delhi: Ministry of Irrigation and Power. Richards, A. and Singh, N. (2002). Inter‐state water disputes in India: institutions and policies. International Journal of Water Resources Development 18 (4): 611–625. https:// doi.org/10.1080/0790062022000017437. Schmidt, G. and Bassi, N. (2018). Cauvery Water Dispute Judgement: What Next? Rain‐Fed Agriculture in India View Project Analyzing the Agrarian Crisis in India View Project, 5. India: Institute for Resource Analysis and Policy. https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/328305499. Shah, M. (2016). Draft National Water Framework Bill, 2016. Ministry of Water Resources. Singh, A. and Gosain, A.K. (2004). Resolving conflicts over transboundary watercourses: an Indian perspective. Land Use and Water Resources Research 4: 1–5. Srinivasan, V., Suresh, D., Kumar, P. et al. (2014). Water Management in the Noyyal River Basin: A Situation Analysis. Environment and Development. Discussion Paper No.2. Bengaluru: Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment. Srinivasan, V., Thompson, S., Madhyastha, K. et al. (2015). Why is the Arkavathy River drying? A multiple‐hypothesis approach in a data‐scarce region. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 19: 1905–1917. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess‐19‐1905‐2015. Swatuk, L.A. (2017). Water in Southern Africa‐Off Centre New Perspectives on Public Issues Volume 1. University of KwaZulu‐Natal Press. Thakkar, H. (2016). Opinion: Court Decides on Cauvery Dispute But India Needs Democratic Management of Water Resources. Wion News (published online).

575

576

22  Dispute Resolution in the Cauvery Basin, India

https://www.wionews.com/south‐asia/opinion‐court‐decides‐on‐cauvery‐dispute‐ but‐india‐needs‐democratic‐management‐of‐water‐resources‐6615. Thakkar, H. and Harsha, J. (2019). Can outdated water institutes steer India out of water crisis? Economic and Political Weekly 54. https://www.epw.in/engage/article/ can‐outdated‐water‐institutes‐steer‐india‐water‐crisis. Wolf, A.T., Yoffe, S.B., and Giordano, M. (2003). International waters: identifying basins at risk. Water Policy 5: 29–60.

Source: Environmental Agency, UK.

579

23 The Future for Catchment Management Alan Jenkins1 and Robert C. Ferrier2 1

UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Wallingford, UK James Hutton Institute, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK

2

In the first edition of this handbook, the final chapter entitled ‘The Future of Catchment Management’ highlighted the then widely perceived pressures on catchment resources globally. It further reviewed existing management, policy, and scientific advances that had been recently implemented and their likely impact. The pressures and solutions were considered under the broad headings of climate change, biodiversity, land use, coasts, ecosystem goods and services, people and science aspects of catchment management, recognising that in reality, these issues are interacting and require inter‐disciplinary approaches. Now, 10 years on, it seems appropriate to reconsider these issues and consider the degree to which they have been dealt with whilst identifying those that remain. Since that time, there are also new issues that have arisen and emerging issues are also considered.

23.1 ­Climate Change There is little doubt that efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change have stalled over the last decade despite the enthusiasm of the global community in signing the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Paris Agreement in 2015 (UN 2015a). Carbon dioxide and methane concentrations in the atmosphere have continued to increase annually, and global surface temperatures and sea levels show similar gradual increase (WMO 2020). More detailed quantification of the inventories of greenhouse gas fluxes from different land uses and systems has alerted us to the potential for emission reduction within catchment systems; however, an overall management framework is still lacking. This, in many countries, reflects the fragmentation of responsibilities for different aspects of environmental management within Governments, for example, where separate Ministries are given responsibilities for agriculture, water, ecology, and other sectors (for example, in China; Shuzhong et  al. 2017). Catchments must, in future, be managed with a view to minimising emission of climate change driving Handbook of Catchment Management, Second Edition. Edited by Robert C. Ferrier and Alan Jenkins. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

580

23  The Future for Catchment Management

gases and pollutants if dangerous levels of pollution are to be avoided, and this can only be achieved through an integrated management of both land and water. Science has continued to deliver improved understanding of the drivers of weather, and particularly extremes, with long lead times (out to three months) to provide early warning of weather‐related natural hazards, notably floods and droughts (Benjamin et al. 2019). This understanding has also enabled assessment of the impact of climate change on weather extremes to the extent that catchment management measures can be targeted to mitigate the impacts of extremes. This is particularly important with respect to ensuring adequate water resources through droughts and maintaining protection from flooding. Nevertheless, there remains a high degree of uncertainty in future climate despite the improved models and decisions around catchment management being taken despite the uncertainties (WMO 2016). A ‘no‐regrets’ approach has become common in this respect; however, the future must bring more proactive management to water resources. This should embrace nature‐based solutions and engineered structures in a holistic way to address both flooding and drought issues. The less developed areas of the globe remain in a difficult position in terms of planning and managing against climate change due to continued lack of data (Rogers et al. 2019). Despite recognition of the lack of hydro‐meteorological data a decade ago, and some significant investment since, there remains insufficient data to provide for even basic water resource assessments to aid management decisions around water allocations. Weather warnings, especially for flooding, have improved for all regions as a result of improved global meteorological models (for example, Sampson et al. 2015). A big effort is still required to bring new sources of satellite‐derived data together with models and in situ measurements. The management of basins that cut across political divides, both national and international, remains hampered by a reluctance in some cases to share hydrological data. In this respect, there are understandable sensitivities around dam building to deliver local power and its downstream flow and associated impacts; however, these can only be realistically resolved if the data are shared and a common understanding is reached at the scale of the whole catchment. The World Meteorological Organisation, with responsibility for operational hydrology in the UN system, has for many decades tried to unlock these issues without resounding success. New initiatives such as the Global Hydrological Status and Outlook System (HydroSOS) are being developed to help by considering the exchange of indicators rather than raw flow data (Jenkins et al. 2020). The next decade must see a focus on resolution of these issues.

23.2 ­Biodiversity The resilience of natural systems and nature is being heavily eroded, with biodiversity declining faster than at any time in human history (Dasgupta 2020). Biodiversity loss is also closely related to climate change, and this may become the major driver of biodiversity loss in the next decades. Protecting and enhancing biodiversity in catchments will further enable the issue of climate change to be addressed through carbon sequestration. One of the biggest threats to biodiversity, after direct habitat loss or destruction, is that of invasive alien species (Dueñas et al. 2018). These are non‐native species whose introduction and/or spread outside their natural, past or present, ranges pose a threat to biodiversity. Invasive alien species occur in all major groups, including animals, plants, fungi, and

23.3 ­Land Us

microorganisms. Invasive species can cause great damage to native species by competing with them for food, eating them, spreading diseases, causing genetic changes through inter‐breeding with them, and disrupting various aspects of the food web and the physical environment. Continued monitoring of invasive species is fundamental to understanding their spread and control, and catchment management must encompass due consideration. Biodiversity loss will remain a serious risk without the appropriate quantification, valuation, and management of business impacts on the environment. Ecosystem restoration or remediation remains a key component of catchment management in many areas, particularly those where significant land use change has been implemented or where pollution has historically occurred from local industry or mining, for example. Ecosystem restoration is essentially the process of assisting recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed, through appropriate management intervention. Restoration interventions often involve allowing natural regeneration of overexploited ecosystems, for example, or by planting trees and other plants. Ecosystem restoration is considered fundamental to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (UN 2015b), mainly those on climate change, poverty eradication, food security, water and biodiversity conservation, and is also a pillar of international environmental conventions, such as the Ramsar Convention on wetlands (UNESCO 1994), the Rio Conventions on biodiversity (UN 1992a), desertification (UN 1994), and climate change (UN 1992b). The United Nations General Assembly declared 2021–2030 the UN Decade of Ecosystem Restoration during which time it aims to massively scale up the restoration of degraded and destroyed ecosystems as a proven measure to fight the climate crisis and enhance food security, water supply, and biodiversity (UN Environment Programme 2019).

23.3 ­Land Use The global population has continued to increase and is estimated to total 9 billion by 2040 (World Bank 2019). This drives a continually increasing demand for food, water, and energy, all of which are delivered through managing catchments. Additionally, the last few decades have seen a gradual increase in urbanisation, especially in less developed countries and regions with significant implications for rural land use and agriculture (for example, in China, Lu et  al. 2019). The rate of population increase is different regionally across the globe, and so managing the trade‐offs between demands for food, water, and energy require targeted approaches that are ‘tailored’ to those regions; there is unlikely to be a ‘one‐size‐ fits‐all’ framework of governance for catchment management globally. In terms of food supply, there are growing regional concerns regarding the capability of the physiographic environment (the ecosystem services) and the socio‐economic and governance frameworks to maintain food supply in light of the globalisation of food markets. There are some indications in some regions that the market drive of pricing leads to increased use and degradation of currently natural ecosystems and land cover as this is cheaper than increasing the productivity of land presently under cultivation with significant impacts on biodiversity. Increased efficiency in cropping systems, irrigation, pest control, fertiliser application must all continue to be sought to increase crop productivity with the associated aim of reduction in pollution, especially with respect to nutrients.

581

582

23  The Future for Catchment Management

23.4 ­Coasts The connectivity of major rivers to the sea is an ongoing global concern both in terms of the volumes of freshwater discharge to the marine environment and in regard to pollution loading. The Colorado River in the United States, the Indus in Pakistan, and the Yellow River in China are all examples. In terms of flows, the construction of large dams for hydropower, increased and inefficient water use for agriculture, and by heavy pumping of groundwater in the catchments are all contributing factors to decreased flows either seasonally or annually. More recently through the last decade, however, the changing rainfall regime and climate may well prove to be a significant contribution to the reduced flows. Whatever the cause, the reduction in flows continues to cause cross‐border disputes, both nationally and internationally, regarding entitlements to water and has a detrimental impact on aquatic biodiversity and deltaic ecosystems, including on species that return from marine to freshwater environments as part of their life cycle. Pollution transport to the marine environment has long been the focus of international agreements aimed at protecting fisheries and the nutrient status of inland seas, such as the Oslo–Paris Commission for the North Sea (OSPAR 1992) and the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM 1974) for the Baltic Sea. Excess sediment and nutrient run‐off from land‐based human activities are considered serious threats to coastal and marine ecosystems through deleterious consequences of eutrophication and hypoxia that have been observed worldwide. The linkage to catchment‐based activities, and in particular agricultural fertiliser use and sewage effluent discharges, is well known, but catchment management must embrace further efforts than currently in place to reduce the nutrient fluxes. The marine and coastal environment continues to be the recipient of land‐based pollutants, and most recently the issue of marine plastics has been highlighted (World Economic Forum 2018). Rivers with a generally high population living in the catchment and a less than ideal waste management process are being identified as targets for action to mitigate the problem, and these actions need to be embedded into catchment management planning. The potential for impacts on the coastal and marine zones from emerging contaminants such as pharmaceuticals is far from understood and should be urgently considered. The recent global urgent action to address the plastic pollution of our environment particularly oceans has reiterated the essential role that rivers play as a conduit for the transport of material (Schmidt et al. 2017).

23.5 ­Ecosystem Goods and Services The recognition that natural and managed ecosystems need to be considered together fostered the concept of ‘natural capital’ (Guerry et al. 2015). It is from this natural capital that society derives a wide range of services (ecosystem services) which make human life possible. These include the ability to provide food we eat, the water we drink, and the plant materials we use for fuel, building materials and medicines. There are also countless less visible ecosystem services such as the climate regulation and natural flood defences

23.6  ­People and Managemen

provided by forests, the billions of tonnes of carbon stored by peatlands, and the pollination of crops by insects. Even less visible are cultural ecosystem services such as the inspiration we take from wildlife and the natural environment. Like other forms of ‘capital’, when too much is taken (or impoverished by pollution, etc.), some form of payback is required. This restoration or remediation includes, for example, replanting clear‐cut forests, or allowing aquifers to replenish themselves after over‐abstraction. Poorly managed natural capital, therefore, becomes an ecological liability, as well as a social and economic liability not just in terms of biodiversity loss, but also catastrophic for humans as ecosystem productivity and resilience decline over time. Problems emerge in the use of the natural capital concept for making management decisions, however, starting from the all too popular premise that the natural environment is a free resource. The values we hold for nature are also too often obscured in the way priorities within decision‐making are assigned. The valuation of nature is difficult since it does not stand or fall on an economic viewpoint alone because people have diverse values for the natural environment that are both monetary and non‐monetary and both quantitative and qualitative. An appropriate scheme for valuing natural capital within the integrated management of natural capital, or ecosystem services, on a catchment scale is still urgently required but remains elusive.

23.6 ­People and Management Largely through the UN system, there have been a number of global initiatives over the past decade and beyond that have been targeted at improving the health and well‐being of people and for protecting the environment, although both go hand in hand. These include, for example, the Paris Agreement under the UNFCCC (UN 2015a), the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015c), the Convention on Biological Diversity (UN 1992a), and the most ambitious and over‐arching of all, the Sustainable Development Goals (UN 2015b). All of these have relevance to catchment management both in the achievement of their ambition and in the consequences of their implementation. The problem remains, however, that the implementation takes place in a fragmented approach rather than being integrated within an overall part of catchment management. There are also examples of joined‐up thinking around governance within catchments that have not fully delivered in their implementation. For example, Integrated Water Resources Management approaches (UNESCO 2009) which have been difficult to implement on the ground especially in developing countries (for example, in Ghana, Agyenim and Gupta 2012). An approach that was implemented in 2000 and has to a great extent achieved its aims is the EU WFD (EU 2000). Yet problems persist even with the WFD, the main problem potentially being that some of the chemical and ecological targets might not be achievable (Jarvie and Jenkins 2014), and derogations are always an issue if the focus moves back from the environment towards economic considerations. In less developed countries, there is all too often little coordinated and consistent governance despite the fact that the sustainability of catchment management depends on it. It might be fair to conclude that lack of governance is the key aspect that is preventing the development of truly sustainable resource management within catchments.

583

584

23  The Future for Catchment Management

23.7 ­Science The science understanding in support of catchment management has made significant advances over the past decade and will no doubt continue. Mathematical models of catchments have become increasingly spatially resolved and represent more process‐based dynamics. Our catchment models are driven by meteorological models with greatly enhanced resolution in space and time and with increasing reliability over longer forecast periods including on climate change timescales. As computer power continues to increase, this will no doubt continue and models will no doubt underpin every catchment management decision made in the future. Nevertheless, some issues remain unsolved at present and represent key stumbling blocks to more immediate catchment management decisions and planning. Perhaps the fundamental issue in this respect is that of non‐stationarity whereby our current understanding of processes embedded in the structure of many models and methods relies upon the past being a representation of the future (Milly et al. 2008). The trends we now observe in river flows and rainfall in many catchments around the world preclude this assumption as past statistics and distributions cannot be relied upon to infer how catchments will respond in the future (Sraj et al. 2016). The same question can be asked about other factors than hydrology; how will vegetation respond? How will soils respond? How will farmers react? And above all, how will all of these catchment attributes react together? There is a long way to go to develop the models that are needed. In terms of pollution, improved sensor technologies and analytical methods provide the necessary data for scientists to improve modelling of sources, transport pathways, and fate within the catchment system. It is perhaps inevitable, however, that we should accept that the next major pollutant that will cause problems for catchment management in terms of ensuring protection of human and environmental health is ‘only just around the corner’! During the last decade, for example, questions were raised about the toxicity and impact of neonicotinoid pesticides to populations of pollinating insects. Scientific assessment was undertaken, and these products were subsequently banned for use within Europe (Butler 2018). Since the last edition, various micro‐organic compounds have hit the headlines (for example, metaldehyde, perfluorooctane sulfonate [PFOS], etc.), and science has been mobilised to enable appropriate management and control. Newly identified pollutant issues, however, are still the subject of intense scientific study; what is the impact of anti‐ microbial resistance (AMR) in the environment? What is the toxicity and impact of micro‐ plastics now known to be prevalent in surface waters? Is there a long‐term legacy of human and veterinary pharmaceuticals on aquatic biology? The next big question is always just around the corner. The coming decade will no doubt see new science developments based on the explosion of data being made available from many sources, from micro‐sensors in the environment to satellite imagery. The development of artificial intelligence and machine learning approaches offer the opportunity for new understanding of processes and consequently, new method development. New approaches to data assimilation also provide for ever more powerful model approaches for forecasting and scenario assessment. Finally, it should be stressed that in order for science to have the biggest impact for catchment management, it

 ­Reference

is imperative that scientific activity is designed and implemented in collaboration with the stakeholders and those responsible for managing catchments.

23.8 ­Challenges for the Next Decade Looking at catchment management in 2020, it is apparent that many of the issues that were identified 10 years ago remain as issues although we are closer to understanding the drivers and identifying the solutions. It is quite clear that truly integrated management of our catchments is required. In this respect, management which embraces the complete water cycle and its interaction with natural, rural, and urban environments. This must include consideration of all activities and processes, from peatland restoration, to emissions reductions from treatment works and supply chains for food, water, and energy. The many UN Conventions and Frameworks all require elements of catchment management in their successful implementation, and so perhaps this provides a high‐level opportunity to integrate these requirements into integrated local‐scale management of our catchment systems.

­References Agyenim, J.B. and Gupta, J. (2012). IWRM and developing countries: implementation challenges in Ghana. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C 47–48: 46–57. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2011.06.007. Benjamin, S.G., Brown, J.M., Brunet, G. et al. (2019). 100 years of forecasting and NWP applications. Meteorological Monographs 59 https://doi.org/10.1175/ AMSMONOGRAPHS‐D‐18‐0020.1. Butler, D. (2018). Scientists hail European ban on bee‐harming pesticides. Nature News https:// doi.org/10.1038/d41586‐018‐04987‐4. Dasgupta, P. (2020). The Dasgupta Review – Independent Review on the Economics of Biodiversity Interim Report. London: Crown Publishing. http://www.gov.uk/ official‐documents. Dueñas, M., Ruffhead, H.J., Wakefield, N.H. et al. (2018, 2018). The role played by invasive species in interactions with endangered and threatened species in the United States: a systematic review. Biodiversity and Conservation 27: 3171–3183. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10531‐018‐1595‐x. European Union (2000). Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal L 327, 22/12/2000, pp73. Guerry, A.D., Polasky, S., Lubchenco, J. et al. (2015). Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: from promise to practice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112: 7348–7355. https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.1503751112. HELCOM (1974). Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area. HELCOM. https://helcom.fi/media/documents/1974_Convention.pdf.

585

586

23  The Future for Catchment Management

Jarvie, H.P. and Jenkins, A. (2014). Accounting for ecosystem services in water quality standards compliance. Environmental Science and Technology 48: 14072–14074. https:// doi.org/10.1021/es5053057. Jenkins, A., Dixon, H., Barlow, V. et al. (2020). HydroSOS – the Hydrological Status and Outlook System towards providing information for better water management [in special issue: climate and water]. WMO Bulletin 69 (1): 14–19. Lu, Y., Zhang, Y., Cao, X. et al. (2019). Forty years of reform and opening up: towards a sustainable path of China? Science Advances 5: eaau9413. Milly, P.C.D., Betancourt, J., Falkenmark, M. et al. (2008). Stationarity is dead: whither water management? Science 319: 573–574. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1151915. OSPAR (1992). The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North‐East Atlantic. OSPAR. https://www.ospar.org/convention/text. Rogers, D., Tsirkunov, V., Kootval, H. et al. (2019). Weathering the Change: How to Improve Hydromet Services in Developing Countries? Washington, DC: World Bank. Doi: 10.1596/31507. Sampson, C., Smith, A., Bates, P. et al. (2015). A high‐resolution global flood hazard model. Water Resources Research 51 https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR016954. Schmidt, C., Krauth, T., and Wagner, S. (2017). Export of plastic debris by rivers into the sea. Environmental Science and Technology 51: 1224–1225. Shuzhong, G., Jenkins, A., Gao, S.‐J. et al. (2017). Ensuring water resource security in China; the need for advances in evidence‐based policy to support sustainable management. Environmental Science and Policy 75: 65–69. Sraj, M., Viglioni, A., Parajka, J., and Bloschl, G. (2016). The influence of non‐stationarity in extreme hydrological events on flood frequency estimation. Journal of Hydrology and Hydromechanics 64: 426–437. https://doi.org/10.1515/johh‐2016‐0032. UN Environment Programme (2019). https://www.unenvironment.org/news‐and‐stories/ press‐release/new‐un‐decade‐ecosystem‐restoration‐offers‐unparalleled‐opportunity (accessed 7 December 2020). UNESCO (1994). Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat. UNESCO. https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/current_ convention_text_e.pdf. UNESCO (2009). IWRM Guidelines at River Basin Level, Part 1: Principles, 24pp. Paris: UNESCO. ISBN: 978‐92‐3‐104100‐6. United Nations (1992a). Convention on Biological Diversity. United Nations. https://www.cbd. int/doc/legal/cbd‐en.pdf. United Nations (1992b). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. United Nations. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf. United Nations (1994). Elaboration of an International Convention to Combat Desertification in Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa. United Nations. https://www.unccd.int/sites/default/files/relevant‐links/2017‐01/ English_0.pdf. United Nations (2015a). Paris Agreement. United Nations. http://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/ english_paris_agreement.pdf. United Nations (2015b). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United Nations. https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/ RES/70/1&Lang=E.

 ­Reference

United Nations (2015c). Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, 37pp. Geneva: UNISDR. https://www.preventionweb.net/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf. WMO (2016). Use of Climate Predictions to Manage Risks, 39 pp. Geneva: WMO. ISBN: 978‐92‐63‐11174‐7. WMO (2020). WMO Statement on the State of the Global Climate in 2019, 40 pp. Geneva: WMO. ISBN: 978‐92‐62‐11248‐5. World Bank (2019). World’s Population Will Continue to Grow and Will Reach Nearly 10 Billion by 2050. World Bank. https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/ worlds‐population‐will‐continue‐grow‐and‐will‐reach‐nearly‐10‐billion‐2050. World Economic Forum (2018). 90% of Plastic Polluting Our Oceans Comes from Just 10 Rivers. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/ agenda/2018/06/90‐of‐plastic‐polluting‐our‐oceans‐comes‐from‐just‐10‐rivers.

587

589

Index a Aak Puul Ngangtam (APN)  469–70 Abia State  279 Aboriginal Land Rights Act  483 Accumulation meters  72 Activated sludge sewage treatment  73 Adelphi  27 Administrative gaps  312 Advanced Metering Infrastructures (AMIs)  76 ADWR. See Arizona’s Department of Water Resources Aeration, in lake restoration  256 AFDB. See African Development Bank AFFFs. See Aqueous film‐forming foams Africa  130, 254 climate change in  98 African Development Bank (AFDB)  303 Agent‐based modeling  105–7 Agreement on Compensation for Ecological Conservation of Chishui River Basin at the Horizontal Level  436 Agreement on Joint Work Mechanism on Fishery Management of Chishui River Co‐managed Water Area  438

Agreement on the Coordination of Chishui River Basin Environmental Protection  436 Agreement on the Coordination Working Mechanism of Fishery Administration in Co‐managed water within Chishui River  436 Agricultural Catchments program  163 Agriculture  6 in Australia  489 in Cauvery River Basin  552 in Cauvery water conflict  565–66 diffuse pollution and  167–68, 503 drought and  417, 417t groundwater in  138f irrigation and  99–100, 489 Lake Simcoe and  524 livestock production  503, 504t technology in  14 Agri‐Environment  172 Aguas de Cascais  78 AI. See Artificial intelligence Akpabio, Emmanuel M.  301 Albrecht, T. R.  104 All Panel Reservoir Engineer (ARPE)  231 Alum  256 Amaravati River  549

Handbook of Catchment Management, Second Edition. Edited by Robert C. Ferrier and Alan Jenkins. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

590

Index

AMIs. See Advanced Metering Infrastructures Ammonia  102 AMR. See Automated Meter Reading Amseong River  539–40 reservoirs and dams  534 Anglian Water  79, 82–83 Ang Mo Kio  388 Anhui  413, 415 Annan, Kofi  25 Anthropocene, defining  3–4 Antibiotics, diffuse pollution from  168 Antimicrobial resistance  584 APN. See Aak Puul Ngangtam Aquaculture  168 Aquadapt  79 Aqua Publica Europea  349 Aqueous film‐forming foams (AFFFs)  185 Aquifers degradation of  143 floodplain  126 in IWRM  129 overexploitation of  133–34 pollution of  132–33 porosity of  125 quality protection  132–33 rainfall and recharge of  129 recharge  128–29 storage properties of  125 types of  127f vulnerability of  132–33 yield  136 AR. See Augmented reality Arbitration, in water diplomacy  37 Archer River Basin  469 Arden, Edward  73 Arid climates  130 Arizona  447, 455 Arizona’s Department of Water Resources (ADWR)  85

ARPE. See All Panel Reservoir Engineer Arsenic  192 Arsenicosis  274t Artificial intelligence (AI)  5–6, 14, 113 Artificial mixing, in lake restoration  256 Artificial sweeteners (ASs)  161 ASEAN. See Association of Southeast Asian Nations Asia  6 ASs. See Artificial sweeteners Asset replacement, in water industry  61 Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)  324 Asymmetry of information  53 Atenolol (ATL)  194 Audet, J.  164 Augmented reality (AR)  80 Aunger, R.  299 Aurora plant  511 Australia  77, 84, 98, 147–48, 467f agriculture in  489 biophysical characteristics  475–82 catchment management in  483–87 climate of  476–80 colonialism of  465–66 development of  468–75, 486–89 ecology  480–81 endangered species in  481 environmental impacts in  481–82 fish in  480–81 geography of  466 groundwater in  478–80, 488 hydrology of  476–80 Indigenous population of  465, 466 INNS in  481 irrigation in  473–74, 489 physiography of  476–80 primary production in  488–89 rainfall in  477–78

Index

settlement of  467–68 state and territory government  484 surface water in  478–80, 488 water rights in  484 Automated Meter Reading (AMR)  76

b

BACI. See Before after control intervention Backbone projects  425 Baltic Sea  155 Bangalore  248 Bangkok  144 Ban Ki‐moon  25 BAP. See Biodiversity Action Plan Barron, J.  234–35, 241 Basic Water Management Law  546 Basin Development Strategy (BDS)  325 Basins  111 Basins at Risk programme  28 Basin Study  451–52 Bayesian Belief Networks (BBN)  104, 105 Bayesian methods  160 Bazilian, M.  94 BBN. See Bayesian Belief Networks BCPA. See Boulder Canyon Project Act BDS. See Basin Development Strategy Beale estimator  164 Beaver subcatchment  526 Bedok  388, 394, 396 Before after control intervention (BACI)  164 Beijing  423 Belfast  233 Bellagio principles  9 Bellandur Lake  248–49 Beneficiary pays principle  162 Bengaluru  562 Bengbu  413 Benzo[α]pyrene  194

Beta‐lactamases  169 Bhavani River  549 Bijie  436, 437 BIM. See Building Information Modeling Binational Water Scarcity Contingency Plan  457–58 Biochemical Oxygen Demand  15, 567 Biocides  164 Biodiversity  3, 254 in catchment management  580–81 loss of  19 Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP)  225 Biofuels  102 Biological capture  259–60 Biomanipulation, in lake restoration  255–56 Biotite gneiss  549–50 Bisphenol A (BPA)  193 Black Sea  321 Black water  16, 19 Blue development  401 Blue Peace Movement  27 Blue water  16, 102f Bohai Region  192–93, 194 EDCs in  193f heavy metals in  193f POPs in  195t PPCPs in  193f Bonn 2011  93 Bordeaux  84 Borehole Forensics  351 Boulder Canyon Project Act (BCPA)  446–47, 449 Bousquet, F.  109 Bouwa, I.  19 BPA. See Bisphenol A Brahmaputra River Basin  34 water diplomacy in  35 BRIDGE,  33. See Building River Dialogue and Governance Building code regulations  513

591

592

Index

Building Information Modeling (BIM)  215 Building River Dialogue and Governance (BRIDGE)  27 Bukit Timah  385, 388 Bureau of Reclamation  444, 447–48, 452, 458–59 Business plans  59

c

Cabinet Committee for Resources Development (CCRD)  509 Cachoeiro de Itapemirim  80 Cadmium  192 Cairo  32 California  71–72, 446–47, 453 Cambodia–Vietnam Joint Committee for the Management of the Sesan River  325 Canals  354 Canning Basin  487 CAP. See Central Arizona Project Cape York  486 Carbamazepine (CBZ)  194 Carbon dioxide  4, 67, 76, 99. See also Greenhouse gas emissions Carbon footprints (CFP), of Scottish water industry  346 Carbon sinks  356 Carse of Stirling  155 CAS. See Citizens Advice Scotland Cash, D. W.  108 Cataract Canyon  445 Catchment management  60, 83, 473 in Australia  483–87 biodiversity in  580–81 climate change and  10, 579–80 coasts in  582 of Colorado River Basin  441–42 community organisations in  485 in drought  363

ecosystem goods and services in  582–83 in flooding  363 future challenges in  585 government responsibility in  483 history of  3–6 hydroclimate baseline for  477 implementation of  507–10 indigenous people in  485–86 land use in  581 local stakeholders in  172 MDB  474 municipalities in  507f people in  583 in River Ouse drainage basin  361–64 science in  584–85 statutory bodies in  485 WaSH nexus and  303–4 water scarcity and  12 WFD on  172 Catchment management agencies (CMAs)  330 Catchment Management for Water Quality  160 Catchment Partnerships  172 Catch per unit effort (CPUE)  522 Cattle  156 Cauvery Fact Finding Committee  555, 559, 562t Cauvery Management Board  570–72 Cauvery River Basin  313 agriculture in  552 command areas in  556f fish in  550–51 groundwater in  549–50 lithology groups in  549–50 map of  550 rainfall in  550, 551f Cauvery water conflict  552–53 agricultural use in  565–66 allocation principles  558, 563–64

Index

analysis of  563–67 climate change in  568–69 data gaps in  565–68 direct dialogue in  571–73 drought in  564–65 environmental flow in  560–61 green water in  566 groundwater in  560–61 history of  554–63 Karnataka in  557 political challenges in  569 post‐independence origins of  555 post‐tribunal conflicts in  561–62 public communication in  569–70 release schedule  560–61, 560t resolution of  570–72 science‐policy gap in  568–69 surface water in  558–59 Tamil Nadu in  558 tribunal process  555–56, 556t 2007 agreement in  558–61 2018 verdict  562–63 wastewater in  565 water infrastructure in  566–67 water quality in  567–68 water supply in  565 Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal (CWDT)  556 CBA. See Cost‐benefit analysis CBOs. See Community‐Based Organizations CBZ. See Carbamazepine CCC. See Criterion continuous concentration CCRD. See Cabinet Committee for Resources Development CDC. See Craven District Council Central Arizona Project (CAP)  447 Central Groundwater Board (CGWB)  560 Central Water Commission (CWC)  563

Centre of Expertise in Waters (CREW)  344, 345, 349 management of  352 CFD. See Computational Fluid Dynamics CFP. See Carbon footprints CFU. See Consumer Futures Unit CGWB. See Central Groundwater Board Challenge and Reconstruct Learning (ChaRL)  106, 109 Changi  394 Changxing County  429–30 Channel improvements  207 Chapeau‐Chapter  320, 323 ChaRL. See Challenge and Reconstruct Learning Chartered Semiconductor  396 Chatham House  34–35 Chemical fertilisers  503, 504t Chemical treatment, in lake restoration  256 Chemitreat  392 Chikwawa  304–5 Chilwa  304–5 Chin, K. K.  392 China  189–90, 192–93, 198, 259 drinking water in  421 drought in  416–26 environmental issues in  429 government departments of  422–23 military of  423 water conservancy in  424 water supply in  417–18 China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research  422 China Meteorological Association  422–23 China National Environmental Monitoring Centre  436 Chippewas  509–10 Chishui City  434, 436

593

594

Index

Chishui River pathway of  437 RCS on  433–34 Chishui River Basin  435f, 436, 438 Chishui River Basin Environmental Protection Cooperation Agreement  438 Chlorophyll‐a in Kempenfelt Bay  518 in Lake Simcoe  518 Cholera  274t Chongqing  421, 426 Chromium  192 Chungbuk  542 Chungcheongnam‐buk  533 Chungju Dam  539, 541, 545 Chuxiong  416 Circular economies, in ecological restoration  259–60 Circular economy, Hydro Nation and  353 Circularity  15–16 Citizens Advice Scotland (CAS)  341 City Water Resilience Approach (CWRA)  210 Cleantech defining  67 Smart  67–68 wastewater in  68 Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB)  511 Clean Water Act, US  245, 442 Clementi  388 Climate change  4, 6 in Africa  98 catchment management and  10, 579–80 in Cauvery water conflict  568–69 Colorado River and  451–52 ecological restoration for resilience to  261–62 flooding and  241–42

groundwater and  129, 137 impacts of  10 Lake Simcoe and  524–26 mitigation of  60–61 rainfall and  12 Scotland on  341, 347 WaSH nexus and  304–5 water industry and  60–61 water quality and  15 CMAs. See Catchment management agencies CMC. See Criterion maximum concentration Coastal flooding  206 Coasts  582 Co‐design workshops iCASP  369, 372 NFM and  373 process  372 Coleroon Anicut  555, 564 Collins, A. L.  161 Colonialism of Australia  465–66 of UK  275–76 Colorado River  441, 442 climate change and  451–52 consumptive use of  442, 446 Lower Basin  446–47, 451 Mexico allocation of  447t recreational opportunities along  445 tributaries  445 Upper Basin  446, 448, 451, 456 US apportionments  447t Colorado River Aqueduct  446–47 Colorado River Basin catchment management issues  441–42 incremental approach  452–53 legal and policy framework  444–50 map of  443f supply and use of  444f

Index

water supply and demand  450–52 Colorado River Basin Project Act (CRBPA)  447, 455 Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act  442 Colorado River Compact  444, 446, 449, 460 Colorado River Delta  456 restoration of  457 Colorado River Simulation System (CRSS)  459 Colorado River Storage Project Act  448 Colorado River Symposium  460 Colorado River Water Delivery Agreement  453 Combined sewer oveflows (CSOs)  79, 83, 156 Common Agricultural Policy Fund  173 Commons, tragedy of the  155, 173 Commonwealth Act  481 Community Action Groups  249 Community‐Based Organizations (CBOs)  287 Community‐based Participatory Research and Action Research  109 Community organisations, in catchment management  485 Companion Modeling  109 Comparison of Participatory Processes (COPP)  110 Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)  232 Concession agreement  53 Conciliation, in water diplomacy  37 Conflict, in water diplomacy  28, 37 Confluence, iCASP  373 Connswater Community Greenway  233, 234f Consumer Futures Unit (CFU)  52 Consumption  8

Consumptive use, of Colorado River  442, 446 Continuous samplers  165 Controlled overland flow  207 Convention on Biological Diversity  583 Convention on the Law of the Non‐ navigational Uses of International Watercourses  36 Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes  36 Conway, D.  98 Cook’s Bay  499, 507, 518 Coorg  557 Copenhagen Water (HOFOR)  69 COPP. See Comparison of Participatory Processes Copper  192 Coprostanol  161 Core Party  36 Cosmic ray soil moisture sensors  10 Cost‐benefit analysis (CBA)  7 Cost‐plus regulation  52 Council of the European Union  27 CPC Central Committee  430 CPUE. See Catch per unit effort Craven District Council (CDC)  224 CRBPA. See Colorado River Basin Project Act Creel surveys  521–22 CREW. See Centre of Expertise in Waters Criterion continuous concentration (CCC)  200 Criterion maximum concentration (CMC)  200 Crop breeding  14 Crop models  105 Crown Point  215, 217f, 219f CRSS. See Colorado River Simulation System Crystalline rock  549–50

595

596

Index

CSOs. See Combined sewer oveflows Cuban Missile Crisis  34 Cultural values, WaSH nexus and  301–2 CURB. See Clean Up Rural Beaches CWC. See Central Water Commission CWDT. See Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal CWRA. See City Water Resilience Approach Cyanobacteria  257

d

Daly River  479 Dam and Weir Conjunctive Operation Council  538–39, 542 Dam Construction Act  546 Dams. See also specific dams Amseong River  534 Han River basin  534f, 535–39, 535f, 536t Han River basin water usage  543–45 Imjin River  534 in‐stream  481 Dam‐Weir Linking Operation Regulation  538 Danube River Basin map of  322f RBM for  321–23 DARD. See Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Dashi Mountain Area  424 Data in digital water  80 in smart water  68 on water, food, and energy nexus  107, 113 in water industry  69 Data Protection Act  72 Datong River  434 Davidson, W. D.  29–30

Davis Dam  446 DCWW. See Dwr Cymru Welsh Water Decarbonising, water and wastewater  75–76 Decentralization, of WaSH  288t Decision‐making  471f DEEP. See Dornoch Environmental Enhancement Project Defra  362 DEHP. See Diethylhexyl phthalate Deionisation  392 De‐Militarised Zone (DMZ)  533 Demonstration Test Catchments  163, 172 Dengue  275t Denmark  84, 162 Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs  214 Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD)  327 Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DoNRE)  327 Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS)  330 Desalination  100 Developing economies, freshwater restoration in  248–49 Diarrhoea  274t Diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP)  193 Diffuse pollution agriculture and  167–68, 503 from antibiotics  168 appropriateness of measures for  166–67 attributes of  154–55 characteristics of  155–56 from chemical fertilisers  503, 504t combating  161–62 costs of  170, 171t dispersal of  154 distinguishing  154–55

Index

economic costs of control of  166 effectiveness of measures for  162–66 episodic nature of  154 in EU  157–58 governance for behaviour change  167–69 in Lake Simcoe  502–5, 512 from livestock production  503, 504t management challenges  155–69 mitigation measures  163f, 170 OECD on  161, 162 planned behaviour theory in  167f recognition of  155–59 responsibilities for  155 in Scotland  158 source identification  159–61 time lags in  154 under WFD  157–58 Digital water  68, 79–80. See also Smart water data in  80 Direct pollution, to Lake Simcoe  505–6 Disease transmission faecal‐oral route of  275 WaSH in  274t–75t Dissolved oxygen (DO) in Lake Simcoe  500, 519–20 measurement of  519–20 District management area (DMA)  76 DMZ. See De‐Militarised Zone DO. See Dissolved oxygen Doctrine of Prior Association  445 DoNRE. See Department of Natural Resources and Environment Dornoch Environmental Enhancement Project (DEEP)  353 Drainage Master Plan  388 Drainage systems, rainfall and  241–42 Drinking water in China  421 difficulties in  418f

in Malawi  283–84 in Nigeria  283–84 in Scotland  340 Drinking‐water protection zones  139–40 Drinking Water Quality Regulator (DWQR)  51, 341 Drought  4 agriculture and  417, 417t catchment management in  363 in Cauvery water conflict  564–65 in China  416–26 defining  11–12 economic losses from  418–19 EU on  12 future work for  426 groundwater and  129 in Guangxi  417, 421–25 in Guizhou  418–19, 425 in Han River basin  542–43 in Korea  542–43 in Malawi  305 in Mexico  457–58 Murray‐Darling River Basin  474 in Nigeria  305 recovery from  423–24 in US  457–58 in Yunnan Province  418–21, 423–25 Drowning  275t Dujiangyan Irrigation District  425 Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs  27 DWQR. See Drinking Water Quality Regulator Dwr Cymru Welsh Water (DCWW)  80 DWS. See Department of Water and Sanitation Dysentery  274t

e

EAC. See Environmental Audit Committee EBM. See Ecosystem‐based management

597

598

Index

Ebola  301 EBP. See Ethical Business Practice EBR. See Ethical Business Regulation Ebro  158 E. coli  155 Ecological restoration  581 from acidification  249–50 assessment of  250 circular economies in  259–60 climate change resilience in  261–62 of Colorado River Delta  457 current approaches to  250–59 environmental flows in  252–54 history of  246–50 monitoring in  250 nature‐based solutions  260–61 new insights into  259–62 re‐wilding in  262 success of  246–49 systemic approach to  262 target‐setting in  250 timescales in  249–50 WFD in  250 wicked problems in  247–48 Economic development, Indigenous people  469–72 Economic incentives  112 Ecosystem‐based management (EBM), for emerging contaminants  201 Ecosystem services (ES)  7 in EU  18–19 EDCs. See Endocrine disrupting chemicals Eddleston Water  260 EDM. See Event duration monitoring EEA. See European Environment Agency Effective‐Microorganisms (EM)  257 Egå Renseanlæg  76 Egypt  32 EIA. See Environmental Impact Assessment

Eimers, M. C.  518 Electromagnetic fields (EMFs)  71 Eller Beck Flood Storage Reservoir  221, 224, 228f, 231f Eller Beck Spillway  226 EM. See Effective‐Microorganisms Embsay Beck  229 Emergency Planning Society  374 Emerging contaminants  183 academia as stakeholder  199 cost balance of  196–97 current solutions for  190–91 ecosystem‐based management for  201 elimination of  185–86 environmental storage of  189–90 global actions on control of  191 government as stakeholder  197–98 history of  186–90 industry as stakeholder  198–99 LCA of  188–89 multi‐contaminants  192 pollution pathways for  186–88 production‐demand chain regulations and  199–200 public as stakeholder  199 removal of  200 risk assessment for  200 stakeholder analysis  197–99 in waste management  189 EMFs. See Electromagnetic fields Endangered species, in Australia  481 Endangered Species Act, US  448 Endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs)  184, 185, 193 in Bohai Region  193f risk ranking of  193f Energy. See also Water, food, and energy nexus security  110–11 in wastewater  15, 75–76

Index

Energy transition  15 Enhanced Enterprise Agency Business Support  344 Environment Agency  82 Environment Agency Flood Risk Management  372 Environmental Audit Committee (EAC)  374 Environmental hormones  184 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)  225 Environmental resources  448 EOC. See Extractable organic fluorine Equity  162 Erasmus programme  30–32 Erdao River  434 Erosion  237–38 Erythromycin  194 ES. See Ecosystem services Ethical Business Practice (EBP)  61–62 in Scottish water industry  63 Ethical Business Regulation (EBR) defining  61–62 elements of  62 in Scottish water industry  63 in UK  62 EU. See European Union EU Biodiversity Strategy  19 EU Floods Directive  209 European Commission  17 European Environment Agency (EEA)  17 European Investment Bank  253 European Union (EU)  4, 191 diffuse pollution in  157–58 on drought  12 ES in  18–19 groundwater in  141 RBM in  316–23 European Union Directives  50 Eutrophication  258

EU Water Framework Directive  84 Evans, A. E. V.  169 Evapotranspiration  451–52, 566 Event duration monitoring (EDM)  83 Executive Action Team  36 Expert panels  106, 107 Extractable organic fluorine (EOC)  184

f

Faecal‐oral route, of disease transmission  275 Falkenmark, M.  16, 102 Falkirk  352 FAO. See UN Food and Agriculture Organisation FAO‐UN 2016. See Global Groundwater Governance Framework‐for‐Action FARM Scale Optimisation of Pollutant Emission Reductions  161 FASRB. See Framework Agreement on the Sava River Basin Faye, M. L.  276 Federal Fisheries Act  522–23 Federal Indian Reserved Water Rights  449 Federally Recognised Indian Tribe List Act  442 Federal Ministry of Agricultural and Rural Development (FMARD)  292t Federal Ministry of Education (FMEdu)  292t Federal Ministry of Environment (FME)  289, 292t Federal Ministry of Finance (FMF)  292t Federal Ministry of Health (FMH)  286–87, 289, 291t Federal Ministry of Power, Works, and Housing (FMPWH)  287

599

600

Index

Federal Ministry of Water Resources (FMWR)  286–87, 289, 291t Federal Water Act  321 Feld, C. K.  248 Feral pigs  481 Ferrier, Bob  4 Fertilisers chemical  503, 504t in Lake Simcoe  515–16 FFC. See Flood Forecasting Centre FGG Donau  323 Firth of Forth  155 Fish in Australia  480–81 in Cauvery River Basin  550–51 game  520 hydropower and  98–99 in lake restoration  255 in Lake Simcoe  507–8, 520–22 Lake Simcoe Protection Plan on  519 migration of  104 MNRF tracking  509, 520–22 natural recruitment of  521 stock management  520–22 sustainability of  519 Fishing regulations  521 Fitzroy River  475, 478, 486 Flaming Gorge Reservoir  456 Flood and Water Management Act  209 Flood Control Offices  534–35 Flood Forecasting Centre (FFC)  365 Flooding. See also Huai River flooding alleviation methods  220f apocalyptic  212 asset management in  214 case studies  214–41 catchment management in  363 categorization of  210–13 climate change and  241–42

coastal  206 coping methods  213 embankmenks  208 extreme  213 fluvial  206 groundwater  206 in iCASP  363 in Korea  539–42 legislative framework  209–10 natural management  260 new insights into  214–41 overwhelming  210 pluvial  206 population growth and  242 proofing from  208 rapid  212 resilience to  209 rural  207 serious  210 sewer  206–7 solutions to  213–14 sudden  211 technology and  242 trees for alleviation of  220f in UK  208–9 unpredictable  211 urban  207 urbanisation and  242 warning  208 water cycle and  205–8 Flood management  81 sewer  75 Flood Risk Management  209 Floodwalls  208 town centre  221 Flow‐proportional sampling techniques  164 Fluoropolymer (FP)  185, 188 Fluorosis  274t Fluorotelomer (FT)  188

Index

Fluvial flooding  206 FMARD. See Federal Ministry of Agricultural and Rural Development FME. See Federal Ministry of Environment FMEdu. See Federal Ministry of Education FMF. See Federal Ministry of Finance FMH. See Federal Ministry of Health FMPWH. See Federal Ministry of Power, Works, and Housing Food security  389, 581. See also Agriculture Forbes Research  401 Forth and Clyde Canal  354 Fortran  459 Fossil groundwater  128 4.4 Plan  453 FP. See Fluoropolymer Framework Agreement on the Sava River Basin (FASRB)  312 Franchise regulation  53–54 Freckleton Floodbank breach good working practice in  239–41 Hockin Failure Mechanisms  237–39 maintenance of  240 repairs of  240–41 Freckleton Floodbank Breach  233–36, 235f embankment failure  237–39 Freeboard  207 Freshwater Habitats Trust  259 Freshwater restoration in developing economies  248–49 success of  248–49 Freshwater systems endangerment of  245 in Ontario  506 Friberg, N.  248

FT. See Fluorotelomer Funding, financing compared with  48

g

Galloway Fisheries Trust  313 Game fish  520 Gaming  59 Gangwon‐do  533, 539, 542 GCM. See Global Climate Model GDEs. See Groundwater‐dependent ecosystems GDP. See Gross domestic product GEF. See Global Environment Facility Geongsangbuk‐do  533 Georgian Bay  499 Georgina Island First Nation  509–10 German Federal Foreign Office  27 German Federal Water Act  319–20 German Working Group on Water Issues  320 Germany  313, 320 Geylang  385, 386 GHG. See Greenhouse gas emissions Gillespie, B. R.  251–53 Glasgow  354 Glen Canyon Dam  448 Glenmorangie Distillery  353 Global Circulation Models  452 Global Climate Model (GCM)  10, 477 Global Environment Facility (GEF)  141 Global Groundwater Governance Framework‐for‐Action (FAO‐UN 2016)  141 Global resources, evaluation of  9–10 Global Risks Reports  25–26 Global South  258 Global warming  4 Global Water Partnership (GWP)  17 Goh Chok Tong  401 Gomitan stream  533

601

602

Index

Gorthlck  352 Gosain, A. K.  568 Governance for diffuse pollution behaviour change  167–69 good water  162 of groundwater  140–41 holistic water  171–72 for RBM  311f regulatory governance framework  58–60 in Scotland  348–49 water, food, and energy nexus  111–12, 114 Grand Anicut  554 Grand Canyon  445, 455 Granite gneiss  549–50 Great Barrier Reef  474, 475 Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area  375 Great Dividing Range  481 Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions  4, 98, 579 in Scotland  356 smart water and  76 Green water  16, 102f in Cauvery water conflict  566 Grey water  16, 19 Gross domestic product (GDP)  7 of Nigeria  279 Groundwater  12. See also Aquifers in agriculture  138f in Australia  478–80, 488 in Cauvery River Basin  549–50 in Cauvery water conflict  560–61 chemistry of  135 climate change and  129, 137 contamination pathways  168f degradation of  129–32 demand‐side interventions  135–36 depletion of  134 drought and  129 flooding  206

flow regime  126f, 127f flow system dynamics  126–28 fossil  128 governance of  140–41 horizontal integration of  143 in India  13–14 irrigation and  137–38 management  133–40 new insights  140–41 non‐renewable  130 planning process  145–48 polluter‐pays‐principle for  138 pollution of  132–33 protection of  138–40 pumping  133 recharge  128–29 regulation  14 residence times  126f resource development  133–34, 135f rural land use and  139–40 salinisation of  130–32 storage  125–28 supply‐side interventions  135–36 surface water and management of  135, 143–44, 144f temperature of  135 urbanisation and  143 vulnerability of  132–33 water cycle linked to  136 water sector vertical integration with  142–43 in water supply  134 Groundwater Act  546 Groundwater‐dependent ecosystems (GDEs)  128, 133 Groundwater management plan (GW‐MaP)  140, 145 development of  141 implementation of  147 Groundwater Protection Directive  141 Guangxi, drought in  417, 421–25 Guangxi Autonomous Region  421

Index

Guangxi Autonomous Region Party Committee  424 Guinea worms  274t Guizhou  417, 434, 436 drought in  418–19, 425 Gulf of Carpentaria  465, 466 Gulf War  67–68 Gulin River  434 Guterres, António  25 Gwangon‐do  533 GWI  69, 74 GW‐MaP. See Groundwater management plan GWP. See Global Water Partnership Gyeonggi  541 Gyeonggi‐do  533, 539

h

Hague Declaration  26 HAN. See Home area network Han River basin current issues  539–45 dam water use in  543–45 drought in  542–43 future challenges  545 history of  535–39 interoperation facilities  540t reservoirs and dams  534f, 535–39, 535f, 536t tributaries of  533 water quality in  543–44 Han River Environmental Office  538t Han River Flood Control Center  541 Han River Flood Control Office (HRFCO)  533, 534 control levels  537, 537f Dam and Weir Conjunctive Operation Council  538–39, 542 Han River Water Dam‐Bo Interoperation Council  545 Han River Water Dam Support Working Group  542–43

Hantan River  533 Harmful algal blooms, in lake restoration  257 Harmon, Judson  557 Harmon doctrine  557 Harrison, P. A.  104 Hassenforder, E.  110 Havasu National Wildlife Refuge  448 HBCD. See Hexabromocyclododecane HBVs. See Health‐Based Values HCB. See Hexachlorobenzene HDI. See Human development index Health‐Based Values (HBVs)  191 Health Risk Limits (HRLs)  191 Heavy metals  192–93 in Bohai Region  193f risk ranking of  193f Helsinki Commission  582 Henan  413 Hepatitis A  274t Heriot‐Watt University  353 Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD)  194 Hexachlorobenzene (HCB)  194 High performance liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (HPLC MS/MS)  197 HIV/AIDS  274t HNWIS. See Hydro Nation Water Innovation Service Hockin, D. L.  241 Hockin Failure Mechanisms  237–39 Hoengseong Dam  542 Hoff, H.  94 HOFOR. See Copenhagen Water Holistic water governance  171–72 Holland River  507, 511 Holland subcatchment  526 Holocene  4 Home area network (HAN)  76 Honghe  416 Hongze Lake  414

603

604

Index

Hookworms  274t Hoover Dam  445, 446 Hot Line Agreement  34 HPLC MS/MS. See High performance liquid chromatography‐mass spectrometry HRFCO. See Han River Flood Control Office HRLs. See Health Risk Limits Huaihongxin River  413 Huai River Flood Control Headquarters  409 Huai River flooding challenges in  412–13 characteristics of  412 flood control regulation  415 flood risk moderation  415 hydrological situation  409–11 lessons from  414–15 map of  410f prevention laws  413 rainfall contour line  411f tributary floods in  412–13 Huangguoshu Waterfall  419 Huang–Huai‐hai Plain  409 Human development  206 Human development index (HDI)  7 Human relations, in water diplomacy  31 Humans, hydrological cycle and  3–4 Humber River Basin  360 Hussein, W. A.  98 Hwanghae province  533 Hydraulic models  105 Hydrocarbons  132 Hydroeconomic models  107 Hydroelectric plans  215–16 Hydrogen  102 Hydrological cycle, human interaction with  3–4

Hydrological models  105 Hydrological Status and Outlook System (HydroSOS)  10, 580 goals of  11 Hydrology, of Australia  476–80 Hydromorphological pressures on rivers  18 WFD on  18 Hydro Nation  341 annual reports  345 circular economy and  353 impact of  353–55 innovation theme of  352 international theme of  349–50 knowledge theme of  352 national theme  346–47 Scholars Program  352 strategy  343–46 value  343 vision  342 Hydro Nation Scholars Programme  344 Hydro Nation Water Innovation Service (HNWIS)  344 Hydrophilic Zone Act  546 Hydroponic systems  14 Hydropower  15, 103–4 fish and  98–99 in Korea  535–36 HydroSOS. See Hydrological Status and Outlook System Hypolimnion  256

i

IB‐Net  70 iCASP. See Integrated Catchment Solutions Programme ICPDR. See International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River ICPR. See International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine

Index

ICS. See Intentionally Created Surplus IKSMS. See International Commissions for the Protection of the Moselle and Saar ILUAs. See Indigenous Land Use Agreements IMD. See Indian Meteorological Department IMF. See International Monetary Fund Imjin River  533, 539–40 reservoirs and dams  534 Imjumeun Asan  534 Impact Translation Fellow (ITF)  371 Incentive‐based regulation  52, 54–57 Incheon  533, 541 Index of Sustainable Welfare (ISEW)  7 India  4, 6, 35, 100, 130, 170, 246f, 313 groundwater in  13–14 sacred rivers in  552 water scarcity in  13–14 Indian Meteorological Department (IMD)  565 Indian tribes  442 water rights of  449–50 Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs)  483 Indigenous people of Australia  465, 466 in catchment management  485–86 economic development  469–72 land use of  483 population of  472 social development considerations  471f Indus Basin  155 Industrial Mobility Fellowships  377 Industrial Water Solutions Demonstration Fund  396 Information, asymmetry of  53 InfoWorks CS  75

Ingold, K.  312 INNS. See Invasive non‐native species Input‐Output modeling  111 Inquiry into the Development of Northern Australia  466 In‐stream dams  481 Integrated Catchment Solutions Programme (iCASP) academic impact  377 case studies  365–67 co‐design workshops  369, 372 Confluence  373 core membership  368, 368t delivery of  370f Executive Management Group  371 flooding in  363 goals of  359 impact of  365–66, 378f, 379t impact tracking  374–75 KSMs in  371, 375 launch of  359–60 Leeds Flood Alleviation Scheme and  362 legacy of  378–79 model  364–76 network  376 new insights into  376–80 NFM in  363 outcomes  365 outputs  373–74 partnership working  364–68, 377 policy formation  371, 379t practical benefits  371, 379t project development process  369–73 on River Ouse drainage basin  360–64 science‐user engagement  379t springboard partners  377–78 study area  361f value creation  371, 379t working principles  369

605

606

Index

Integrated modeling  105 Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM)  17, 96, 140, 309, 583 aquifers in  129 Integrated watershed management  506 Intentionally Created Surplus (ICS)  455 Inter‐basin water transfer  111 Interim Guidelines  2007, 455–56 Interim Mekong Committee  325 Interim Surplus Guidelines  453 International Centre for Water Cooperation  27 International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR)  312, 321 International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (ICPR)  317–19 International Commissions for the Protection of the Moselle and Saar (IKSMS)  318–19 International Court of Justice  34 International Monetary Fund (IMF)  303 International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Fifth Assessment  451 International Sava River Basin Commission (ISRBC)  312 International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)  27, 33, 141, 254 bridge project  38 International Water Resources Association (IWRA)  349 International water treaties (IWTs)  312 Internet of Things (IoT)  85, 113 Interval meters  72 Intestinal worms  274t Invasive non‐native species (INNS)  361, 377 in Australia  481 Lake Simcoe  523 management of  522–23

in Ontario  523–24 Invasive Species Act  524 Invasive Species Inquiry  374 IoT. See Internet of Things IPCC. See International Panel on Climate Change Ipojuca river basin  159f Ireland  56, 163 Iron  192 Irrigation agriculture and  99–100, 489 in Australia  473–74, 489 canal command areas  144 groundwater and  137–38 metering of  137–38 smart  79, 82 solar‐powered  103 ISEW. See Index of Sustainable Welfare Israel, smart water in  86 ISRBC. See International Sava River Basin Commission ITF. See Impact Translation Fellow IUCN. See International Union for Conservation of Nature IWRA. See International Water Resources Association IWRM. See Integrated Water Resources Management IWTs. See International water treaties

j

Jackson, S.  479 Jakkur Lake  249f James Hutton Institute  344, 345, 349, 352 Japan  4 Japanese encephalitis  275t Jenkins, Alan  4 Jeongseon‐gun  541 Jiang, G.  98 Jiangsu  413 Jiaxing City  430

Index

Joint Fact Finding  34–35 Joint Sector Review Meetings (JSRM)  296 Jurong Industrial Estate  389, 390 Jurong Industrial Water Works  390–91

k

Kalan  469–70 Kallang River  385, 386 Kangwon province  533 Karnataka  549, 550, 552–53, 555, 561–62 in Cauvery water conflict  557 Karnataka State Natural Disaster Monitoring Cell (KSNDMC)  565 Kempenfelt Bay  500, 507 chlorophyll‐a in  518 Keppel  400 Kerala  559 Keum River  534 Keunwi stream  534 Key success measurements (KSMs) in iCASP  371, 375 policy formation  375 practical benefits  375 science‐user engagement  375 value creation  375 Key water management issues (KWMIs)  328 identification of  314–15 Kingston upon Hull  206 Klebsiella  168–69 KMA. See Korea Meteorological Agency Knostrop  215, 218f, 219f, 222f Korea  533–34 drought in  542–43 flooding in  539–42 hydropower in  535–36 smart water in  84–85 Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co.  538t Korea Meteorological Agency (KMA)  534, 539

Korea Rural Community Corporation  538t Korea Water Resources Corporation  534, 541 Korea Water Resources Corporation Act  546 Kranji  388, 394, 396 Krittasudthacheewa, C.  98 KSMs. See Key success measurements KSNDMC. See Karnataka State Natural Disaster Monitoring Cell Kunming  416 Kununurra diversion dam  482 K‐water  538t KWMIs. See Key water management issues KyungGi province  533

l

Lake Erhai  262 Lake Huron  499 Lake Mead  73–74, 450, 453, 454f, 456, 458 Lake Ontario  499, 511 Lake Powell  453, 454f, 456 Lake restoration  254–57 aeration in  256 artificial mixing in  256 biomanipulation in  255–56 chemical treatment in  256 fish in  255 harmful algal blooms in  257 sediment removal in  256–57 Lake Rotorua  262 Lake Simcoe agriculture and  524 chlorophyll‐a in  518 diffuse pollution in  502–5, 512 direct pollution sources  505–6 DO in  500, 519–20 fertilisers in  515–16 fish in  507–8, 520–22

607

608

Index

Lake Simcoe (Contd.) history of  499–501 INNS  523 land use  522–24 livestock and  516 management achievements  510–22 management of  506–10 monitoring  508f phosphorus in  502f, 510–13 phytoplankton in  518 point source pollution in  502, 511–12 pollution in  501–6 population near  522–24 septic systems in  512–13 sewage in  511–12 soil erosion in  516–17 soil nutrients in  515–16 stormwater management  515 subcatchments of  500f, 501t, 525–26 timeline of management of  508f urban run‐off  513–15 water quality in  507, 520 wetlands  517–18 Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority  506–7, 508f, 514 Lake Simcoe‐Couchiching steering and report committees  507 Lake Simcoe Environmental Management Strategy (LSEMS)  508f, 514, 526–27 implementation of  509–10 Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Reduction Strategy  510, 512 Lake Simcoe Protection Act  510 Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP)  510, 512, 523 on fish  519 Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority  509, 515, 527 on urbanisation  524

Lake Victoria Basin Commission  245 Landowner Environmental Assistance Program (LEAP)  514 Land Stewardship Program (LSP)  517 Land Transfer Land Compensation Act  546 Land use in catchment management  581 indigenous  483 Lake Simcoe  522–24 in River Ouse drainage basin  362f rural  139–40 Lanthanum‐modified clay  256, 257f Laspidou, C. S.  107 LASs. See Linear alkylbenzene sulfonates Las Vegas  73 Latin America and the Caribbean  271 Law of the River  444, 452 LCA. See Lifecycle assessment Lead  192 Leaks  72–73, 79 detection of  82 LEAP. See Landowner Environmental Assistance Program Lease agreements  53 Leeds Flood Alleviation Scheme  214–21 barrier elimination  216 development of  214–15 digital construction in  215 employment from  217 iCASP and  362 integrated urban drainage model in  215 linear defenses in  216 Leeds‐Liverpool Canal  224 Lee Ek Tieng  390 Lee Ferry  446 Legionellosis  274t Liangshan  421

Index

Lianyuxi  436 Lifecycle assessment (LCA)  98, 102, 111 of emerging contaminants  188–89 of PFOA  189f of PFOS  189f Lima  144 Lindane  194 Linear alkylbenzene sulfonates (LASs)  194 Linhuaigang  410 Livestock diffuse pollution from  503, 504t Lake Simcoe and  516 Loading caps, MECP  512 Local Resilience Forum (LRF)  365 Loch Leven  247, 258f, 262 Loch Lomond  339 Loch Morar  339 Locket, William  73 London  153 LRF. See Local Resilience Forum LSEMS. See Lake Simcoe Environmental Management Strategy LSP. See Land Stewardship Program LSPP. See Lake Simcoe Protection Plan Luzhou City  434 Lymphatic filariasis  275t Lynam, T.  104

m

Mabhaudhi, T.  98 Machine learning  14 Madras Presidency  554 Main River Basin  313 Malaria  275t Malawi  276, 278f disaster relief in  351 drinking water in  283–84 drought in  305

Scotland and  350–51 WaSH in  278–96, 300–304 water supply in  284f–85f, 286f Malta  84 Managed aquifer recharge (MAR)  136 Manganese  192 Mangroves  480 Manual of River Restoration Techniques  252 MAR. See Managed aquifer recharge MARD. See Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Margaret River  487 Marine Conservation Society  353 Martuwarra Fitzroy River Council  486 Mary River  475 Masikryung Duckwongun Hamgyung south province  533 Mayer, Colin  62 Maynilad Water  77 McKenzie, N.  487 MDB. See Murray‐Darling River Basin MDGs. See Millennium Development Goals MECP. See Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks Mediated Modeling  109 Me first approach  174 Meiden Singapore  396 Mekedatu  549 Mekong  97–98, 253f Mekong Agreement  312, 323, 325 Mekong River Basin map of  324f RBM for  323–27 Mekong River Commission (MRC)  312, 325–27 Mengwa  414 Mercury  192 Metoprolol  194

609

610

Index

Mettur Dam  549, 559, 564 MEWR. See Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources Mexico  447t, 459 drought in  457–58 US relations with  455–56 Micro plastic  184 Middle East  5, 36 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)  271–72 Mimosa  481 Ministry of Agriculture, China  423, 434 Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs, Korea  535–37 Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD)  326 Ministry of Civil Affairs, China  422 Ministry of Construction and Transport, Korea  535 Ministry of Environment, Nigeria  302 Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks (MECP)  506, 511 loading caps of  512 Ministry of Finance, China  422 Ministry of Health, China  422–23 Ministry of Land and Resources, China  422 Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MoNRE)  326 Ministry of Natural Resources and Fisheries (MNRF)  506 fish tracked by  509, 520–22 Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR)  386 Ministry of Transport, China  422 Ministry of Water Resources, Nigeria  302 Minute 319  455–57 Minute 323  455–57 Mitchell River  475 MNRF. See Ministry of Natural Resources and Fisheries

Mobile DI System  392 Molnar, K.  27–28 Monopoly  53 MoNRE. See Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Montville, J. V.  29–30 Moselle‐Saar River Basin  312 Mpira dam  351 MRC. See Mekong River Commission Multi‐criteria analysis  105 Municipal wastewater treatment plants (MWWTPs)  186 Munsan stream  533 Murray‐Darling River Basin (MDB)  147–48 catchment management  474 drought  474 MWWTPs. See Municipal wastewater treatment plants Mysore  549, 557 Mzimba  301

n

NAFDAC. See National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control Namhan River  539, 541–42 Naproxen (NPX)  194 National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC)  286–87 National Bureau of Statistics (NBS)  296 National Center for Environmental Information (NCEI)  242, 245 National Determined Contributions (NDCs)  17 National Development and Reform Commission  421, 422 National Environment Agency  386–87 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)  453, 455 National Flood Management  260–61

Index

National Indicative Plans (NIPs)  327 National Integrated Water Resources Management Commission (NIWRMC)  286 National Mekong Committees (NMCs)  326 National Meteorological and Hydrological Services (NMHSs)  11 National Mission for the Clean Ganga  245, 246 National Park Units  443 National Rivers Authority (NRA)  236 National Soil Conservation Program (NSCP)  517 National Task Group on Sanitation (NTGS)  294t, 296 National University of Singapore  392 National Water Act  330 National Water Development Authority (NWDA)  566 National Water Initiative  483 National Water Resources Authority (NWRA)  351 National Water Resources Council (NWRC)  326 National Water Trail  445 Native Title Act  483, 484 Natural capital  18–19, 582–83 Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)  359 Natural Flood Management (NFM)  207, 346, 364, 378 case studies on  366–67 co‐design workshops and  373 Community of Practice  366–67 in iCASP  363 outcomes  366–67 project partners  366 stakeholders in  373 Natural systems  111 Nature‐based solutions (NSBs)  254

Navajo Reservoir  456 NBS. See National Bureau of Statistics NCEI. See National Center for Environmental Information NDCs. See National Determined Contributions Negotiation, in water diplomacy  37 NEPA. See National Environmental Policy Act NERC. See Natural Environment Research Council Netherlands  72 water diplomacy in  26–27 Net zero emissions  60–61 in Scotland  356 Nevada  455 NEWater auditing  397 availability clusters  397f potable water and  399t public engagement with  400–401 study  393–95 tariffs  398t water sources in  396–400 Newmarket plant  511 NFM. See Natural Flood Management NGO. See Non‐governmental organisations Nigeria  276–77, 277f, 279f drinking water in  283–84 drought in  305 GDP of  279 Open defecation in  282f WaSH in  278–96, 300–304 water supply in  284f Nile basin  32 Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region  98 NIPs. See National Indicative Plans Nitrate  133 Nitrate‐N  15 Nitrogen  162 loading  153, 254

611

612

Index

NIWRMC. See National Integrated Water Resources Management Commission NMCs. See National Mekong Committees NMHSs. See National Meteorological and Hydrological Services Non‐governmental organisations (NGO)  200, 286, 293t, 441–42 Non‐renewable groundwater  130 Nonylphenol (NP)  193 Norfloxacin  194 Northern Australia Environmental Resources Hub  487 Northern Australia Land and Water Taskforce  466 Northern Australia Ministerial Forum  466 North Glasgow Integrated Water Management System  354 Northumbrian Water  79 North West Water Authorities (NWWAs)  236 North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC)  225 Notice of the Complete Fishing Ban in Chishui River Basin  434 Nowcasting  10 Noyyal River  549 NP. See Nonylphenol NPX. See Naproxen NRA. See National Rivers Authority NSAS. See Nubian Sandstone Aquifer system NSBs. See Nature‐based solutions NSCP. See National Soil Conservation Program NTGS. See National Task Group on Sanitation Nubian Sandstone Aquifer system (NSAS)  130

Nutrient Management Act  515 NWDA. See National Water Development Authority NWRA. See National Water Resources Authority NWRC. See National Water Resources Council NWWAs. See North West Water Authorities NYCC. See North Yorkshire County Council

o

Oak Ridge Moraine  499, 516 ODF Taskforce. See Open Defecation Free Taskforce OECD. See Organisation for Economic Development Ofloxacin  194 Ofwat  70 Okumah, M.  166 Okun, D. A.  389 Olden, J. D.  251 Olive hymenachne  481 Onchocerciasis  275t oNet  79 Ontario  499 freshwater systems in  506 INNS  523–24 Ontario Federation of Agriculture  514 Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association  517 Ontario Soil Conservation and Environmental Protection Assistance Program (OSCEPAP)  517 Open defecation  279, 297t in Nigeria  282f Open Defecation Free (ODF) Taskforce  296 Orange River Basin

Index

map of  328f RBM for  327–31 Orange‐Senqu River Commission (ORASECOM)  328–30 Orbital Systems  78 Ord Irrigation area  487 Ord River  482 Ord River Dam  482, 488 Ord River Irrigation Area  472 Organisation for Economic Development (OECD)  311 on diffuse pollution  161, 162 Water Governance Initiative  349–50 Water Governance Principles  348 OSCEPAP. See Ontario Soil Conservation and Environmental Protection Assistance Program Oslo‐Paris Commission for the North Sea (OSPAR)  582 Our Water, Our Future  389 Overseas Development Assistance  70 Overtopping  237, 240–41 Oysters  353

p

Pahl‐Wostl, C.  310 Pakistan  130 Palmer, M. A.  248 Pandan  388 Pangdang Lake  545 Pantanal wetland  157 Panzihihua  421 Paris Agreement  579, 583 Paris Convention  17 Parker, Nicholas  67 Parker Dam  446 Participatory Action Research  109 Payment by Results (PBR)  170 Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES)  7, 166 PBR. See Payment by Results

PBT. See Persistent, bio‐accumulative, and toxic Pearl River  416, 424 Pearl River Water Resources Commission  422 Peatland restoration  373–74 case studies  367–68 Pelton  385 Penstock  232f People power approach  174 People’s Liberation Army  423 Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS)  198 Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS)  184, 191 environment release of  187f half‐life of  200 LCA of  189f in pollution pathways  188f sources of  186f in wastewater  187–88 Perfluorooctanesulfonyl fluoride (POSF)  190 Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)  184, 191, 196, 198 environment release of  187f LCA of  189f mitigation of  190 in pollution pathways  188f sources of  186f Permo‐Triassic Bunter Sandstone  236 Persistent, bio‐accumulative, and toxic (PBT)  183 Persistent organic pollutants (POPs)  183, 184, 185, 194 in Bohai Region  195t PES. See Payment for Ecosystem Services Pesticides  185 PFAS. See Polyfluoroalkyl substances PFBS. See Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid PFO. See Polydioctylfluorene

613

614

Index

PFOA. See Perfluorooctanoic acid PFOS. See Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid Pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs)  161, 194 in Bohai Region  193f risk ranking of  193f Phenanthrene  194 Phoslock  515, 518 Phosphorus  501–2, 503, 527 internal load  505 in Lake Simcoe  502f, 510–13 load reduction  513f total  518, 519f Phosphorus and Sediment Yield Characterisation In Catchments (PSYCHIC)  159 Phytoplankton  255 in Lake Simcoe  518 Pilot System Conservation Program  460 Pipes cleaning  81 repairs  81 Pitt, Michael  206 Pitt Review  206 Planned behaviour theory, in diffuse pollution mitigation  167f Plastics  15 PLC. See Programmable Logic Controller Pluvial flooding  206 PODDS. See Prediction of Discolouration in Distribution Systems Point sources, pollution  502, 511–12 POL. See Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, Bidston Policy coherence  162 Political interference, in WaSH  288t Polluter‐pays‐principle  162 for groundwater  138 Polydioctylfluorene (PFO)  188–89 mitigation of  190 Polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)  184–85, 190–91

Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)  196 PoMs. See Programme of measures Pond restoration  258–59 in UK  258 POPs. See Persistent organic pollutants Population flooding and  242 growth  5–6 of Indigenous people  472 near Lake Simcoe  522–24 Porosity, of aquifers  125 Portsmouth Water  79 POSF. See Perfluorooctanesulfonyl fluoride Potable water  392 NEWater and  399t Potential Evapotranspiration (P/ PET)  550 Poverty RCS and alleviation of  439 WaSH access and  281f, 283f PPCPs. See Pharmaceuticals and personal care products P/PET. See Potential Evapotranspiration Practical River Restoration Appraisal Guidance for Monitoring Options (PRAGMO)  254 Pratt and Whitney  400 Prediction of Discolouration in Distribution Systems (PODDS)  81 President’s Council on Environmental Quality  453 Price caps  52, 59f Principle of pollution prevention  162 Private water well construction  134 Privatisation  49 Production‐demand chain, regulations on  199–200 Programmable Logic Controller (PLC), in Skipton Flood Alleviation Scheme  230

Index

Programme of measures (PoMs)  314, 315f Protected cropping  14 Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, Bidston (POL)  236 Provincial Beaches Strategy Program  511 Proxy measures  165–66 P‐stripping  259 PSYCHIC. See Phosphorus and Sediment Yield Characterisation In Catchments PTFE. See Polytetrafluoroethylene PUB. See Public Utilities Board Public health  275–76, 281f Public policy  48–49 Public‐private partnerships  47 Public Utilities Act  387 Public Utilities Board (PUB)  386, 389, 393–94, 396 Public Communications Plan  401 Pulse flow  456, 457 Punggol  388 Pyeongchang‐gun  541 Pyungan stream  533

q

Qingshuipu  436 qPCR. See Quantitative polymerase chain reaction Quantification Settlement Agreement  453 Quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR)  160 Quantitative storytelling  106 Queensland  484, 486 Queensland Indigenous Land and Sea Ranger programme  472 Quijing  416

r

Raffles City  400 Rainbow Serpent  479

Rainfall. See also Flooding aquifer recharge and  129 in Australia  477–78 in Cauvery River Basin  550, 551f climate change and  12 drainage systems and  241–42 in Huai River flooding  411f Rain‐scaping  524 Ramsar Convention  247, 581 RAMSAR Convention  128 Ramsar wetlands  482 Rate of return regulation  52–54 RBDAs. See River Basin Development Authorities RBM. See River basin management RBMP. See River Basin Management Plan RCS. See River Chief System RCV. See Regulatory capital value Recycled water  391–92 Redlines, RCS  430–31 Reed, M. S.  374 Reef 2050 Plan  375 Reef Water Quality Protection Plan  375 Reforestation  139 Regulation by contract  53–54 Regulative institutions  310–11 Regulatory capital value (RCV)  57 Regulatory governance framework, in water industry  58–60 Religion, WaSH nexus and  301–2 RESAS. See Rural and Environmental Science and Analytical Services Division Research Excellent Framework  377 Reservoirs  425. See also specific reservoirs Amseong River  534 Han River basin  534f, 535–39, 535f, 536t Imjin River  534 sedimentation  567

615

616

Index

Resilience Magazine  374 Retail price index (RPI)  55–57 Reverse osmosis  73, 392 Re‐wilding  262 Rhine River Basin  312, 313 map of  318f RBM for  316–21 Rio Conventions  581 Riparian system  445 Risk assessment for emerging contaminants  200 in WaSH nexus  299 River Act  538 River Aire  220f, 360 River Basin Development Authorities (RBDAs)  280 River basin management (RBM) cycle  314–15, 314f for Danube River Basin  321–23 defining  309 in EU  316–23 governance levels for  311f horizontal integration in  316 institutional dimensions of  311–16 integrated  310 legal dimensions of  311–16 in legislation  309 levels  315–16, 319f at local level  313 for Mekong River Basin  323–27 for Orange River Basin  327–31 for Rhine River Basin  316–21 steps in  314 in sub‐Saharan Africa  327–31 transboundary perspective on  311–14 units of  312 vertical integration in  316 in WFD  317 River Basin Management Plan (RBMP)  17, 18, 315

River Basin Organisations  32, 35–36, 571 River Calder  360 River Chief System (RCS) on Chishui River  433–34 components of  430–32 cross‐provincial planning  438 current solutions  433–38 design of  429 future knowledge requirements  438–39 history of  430, 432 infrastructure  432 major tasks of  431f new insights from  434–38 poverty alleviation and  439 redlines  430–31 river restoration  431–32 shoreline management by  431 staff of  432 water conservancy by  430–31 water pollution control by  431 River Derwent  360, 377 River Don  360 River Ganga  246f River hydrographs  127f River Management Authority  537 River Nidd  360 River Ouse drainage basin catchment management in  361–64 designated sites in  362f iCASP focus on  360–64 land use in  362f tributaries of  360 River restoration  206, 207 case studies  251–52 RCS  431–32 success of  248 River Restoration Centre  252 River Swale  360

Index

River Ugie  165 River Ure  360 RiverWare  459 River Wharfe  360 Rochor  385, 386 Rockström, J.  16, 102 Roundworms  274t RPI. See Retail price index Runheji  410 Rural and Environmental Science and Analytical Services Division (RESAS)  344 Rural flooding  207 Rural land use, groundwater and  139–40 Rural‐urban interface, smart water  82–83 Rural Water and Sanitation (RUWATSAN)  289

s

Sabkyo stream  534 SaciWATERs  35 SADC. See Southern African Development Community SAGIS. See Source Apportionment Geographic Information System Salaam‐Blyther  272 Salinisation of groundwater  130–32 process  131f Salinity  15 Sami stream  533 Sandstone  549–50 Sanitary revolution  275–76 Sanitation  8, 134 in MDGs  271–72 San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program  449 Sarkodie, S. A.  98 Sa stream  533

Sava River Basin  321 Sawfish  480–81 Scabies  274t SCADA. See Supervisory control and data acquisition Scarce Dusky Yellowstreak Riverfly  360 Schistosomiasis  275t Scotland  165 area of  339–40 on climate change  341, 347 diffuse pollution in  158 Drinking water in  340 emergency policy issues for  355–57 GHG emissions in  356 governance in  348–49 as Hydro Nation  341–55 Malawi and  350–51 net zero emission challenge in  356 private supplies in  347–48 rural provision in  347–48 on SDGs  349–51 WaSH nexus in  296 water bodies in  340f water demand in  347 water supply in  347 Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)  51, 341, 347 Scottish National Formulary  355 Scottish National Health Service  355 Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO)  52, 341 Scottish Water Horizons Development Centres  344 Scottish water industry  49–51, 57, 64, 340–41 CFP of  346 EBP in  63 EBR in  63 on sustainability  342 value in  343 vision of  341, 342

617

618

Index

Scottish Water International  344 SDGs. See Sustainable Development Goals Seagate  396 Sediment removal, in lake restoration  256–57 Seepage  238 Seletar  394, 396 SembCorp Engineering  392, 396 Semi‐Consolidated Sediments  549–50 Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction  583 Seoul  533, 541 SEPA. See Scottish Environment Protection Agency Septic beds  504 Septic systems, in Lake Simcoe  512–13 Serious games  106 Severn River  499 Severn Trent  79 Sewage  153 in Lake Simcoe  511–12 Sewage treatment works (STWs)  254 Sewerage and Drainage Act  387 Sewerage metering  76–77 Sewer flooding  206–7 in UK  75 Shell  400 Sherard, J. L.  238–39 Shoreline management, RCS  431 Sichuan Province  416, 425, 434, 436 Singapore  77 development of  385–86 food security in  389 map of  387 Master Plan  385–86 sewerage projects in  388–89 smart water in  84–86 Tariffs in  397t water demand  395 water sources for  389–92 Singapore Green Plan  389

Singapore River  385 Singapore Water Reclamation Study  393–95 SingSpring Desalination Plant  396 Skipton Flood Alleviation Scheme CFD in  232 cutting edge aspects of  225–26 dual authority planning consent in  225 economic benefits of  224–25 elements of  221 environmental benefits of  225 planning impact on  227–28 PLC in  230 single environmental statement in  225 SMART control in  229–30 SMART design in  228–29 social benefits of  225 sustainable development and  224 3D modeling in  230–32 transferability of  226–27 WFD and  225–26 YDNPA and  226 Slow sand filtration  73 Slumping  238 Smajgl, Alex  94, 96–97, 107 Smart Approved WaterMark  77 Smart Cleantech  67–68 SMART control, in Skipton Flood Alleviation Scheme  229–30 SMART design, in Skipton Flood Alleviation Scheme  228–29 Smart grid  68 Smart irrigation  79, 82 Smart water current solutions  72–73 data in  68 defining  67 future knowledge requirements  84–86 GHG emissions and  76

Index

history of  69–72 innovation in  70 in Israel  86 in Korea  84–85 management  68 new technologies  73–75 rural‐urban interface  82–83 savings from  74 sensors  78–79 in Singapore  84–86 tariffs and  77–78 in US  85 SNA. See Social Network Analysis SoB. See State of the basin Social Network Analysis (SNA)  376 Soil erosion, in Lake Simcoe  516–17 Soil nutrients  503 in Lake Simcoe  515–16 Solar‐powered irrigation  103 SOP. See Standard operation procedure Source Apportionment Geographic Information System (SAGIS)  159 Southern African Development Community (SADC)  37, 312, 330–31 water protocol  329 Soyang River  545 Special dividends  58f Springboard partners  376 iCASP  377–78 SPSO. See Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Srepok  327 SSA. See Sub‐Saharan Africa Stakeholder Modeling Workgroup  459 Standard operation procedure (SOP)  197 State Action Plan for Climate Change  569 State Flood Control and Drought Relief Headquarters  413, 421–22, 424 on water supply  422

State Forestry Administration, China  423 State of the basin (SoB)  315f State Water Acts  320 Stationarity  564 Statutory bodies, in catchment management  485 Stewardship approach  174 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants  183, 185, 191 Storm Eva  214 damages from  218f Storm surge  206 Stormwater management  515 Sturgeon, Nicola  349 STWs. See Sewage treatment works Sub‐Saharan Africa (SSA)  271 RBM in  327–31 WaSH nexus in  278–96 Sud Anavena  545 SuDS. See Sustainable drainage systems Suez  84 Sulfamethoxazole  194 Sumjin River Multi‐Purpose Dam  535 Sungei Kallang  385 Sungei Whampoa  385 Suntec City  400 Supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA)  68 Surface water in Australia  478–80, 488 in Cauvery water conflict  558–59 groundwater management and  135, 143–44, 144f Sustainability of cities  8 of fish  519 modeling  107 Scottish water industry on  342 water, food, and energy nexus and  100–101

619

620

Index

Sustainable development, Skipton Flood Alleviation Scheme and  224 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)  47, 70, 100, 245, 271, 298t clustering of  101f government commitment to  113–14 Scotland on  349–51 synergetic relationships in  101 targets  272 trade‐off relationships  101f, 113–14 in water, food, and energy nexus  94–96 water and  8–9 Sustainable drainage systems (SuDS)  82–83 Sustainable Singapore Blueprint 2015  389 Suwon  534 Suyahu  415 Swatuk, L. A.  566 Sweden  171t Swiss Department of Foreign Affairs  27 System dynamics modeling  105

t Takara, K.  301 Tamil Nadu  549, 550, 552–53, 555, 559, 561–62 in Cauvery water conflict  558 Tampines  393–95 Tan Gee Paw  390 Tan Teng Huat  391 Tariffs  70 NEWater  398t in Singapore  397t smart water and  77–78 TDI. See Toluene diisocyanate Technology in agriculture  14 analytical tools  14

emerging  14 flooding and  242 in smart water  73–75 water, food, and energy nexus  113 in water treatment  73 Tekezze‐Atbara  38 Telegestore  68 Telok Blangah  388 Terminals Seraya  392 Tha Chin River  160, 160f Thailand  160 Thames catchment  153 Thanjavur district  554, 558 3 M Electronics  396 Tilapia  481 Time‐based sampling  164 Timor Sea  465 Tiruchirappalli  554 Toluene diisocyanate (TDI)  200 Tongmin River  434 Tonzi River  434 Toronto  522 Total phosphorus (TP)  518, 519f Trachoma  275t Track 1.5 water diplomacy  30, 32 Track 2 water diplomacy  32 Track 3 water diplomacy  30, 32 Tragedy of the commons  155, 173 Tran, N. H.  161 Transboundary water  25–26, 28 Trans‐Pennine Trail  221f Trees, for flooding alleviation  220f Trent Severn Waterway  523 Tropical cyclones  477–78 Tropic of Capricorn  466 Truslove, J. P.  300 Tuas Industrial Estate  390 Tufts University  27 Turbidity  165–66, 479 Typhoid  274t Typhoon Billis  539

Index

u

Uiwang  534 UK. See United Kingdom UK Water Industry Research (UKWIR)  377 Ulu Pandan Cluster  396 Ulu Pandan Sewage Treatment Works  392 Ulu Pandan Water Reclamation Plant  390 UN Convention on the Law of the Non‐navigational Uses of International Water  34 Undernutrition  275t UNFCCC. See United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO)  69–70 UNICEF  285, 302 Union Territory of Puducherry  559 Unit conversion  554 United Kingdom (UK)  32, 47, 163 colonial rule of  275–76 EBR in  62 economic regulation in  61 flooding in  208–9 pond restoration in  258 regulation in  58–59 sewer flooding in  75 WaSH in  275–76 water industry in  49–50, 55–57, 71f, 72 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)  17, 241, 579 United Nations Human Right to Water and Sanitation  47 United States (US) Colorado River apportionments  447t drought in  457–58

Mexico relations with  455–56 smart water in  85 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), National Primary Drinking Water Regulations  393 United Utilities  79 UN Security Council  38 UN Sustainable Goal Indicators  7 UN Watercourses Convention, article 33  35 UN/World Bank High Level Panel on Water  7, 9 Upper Colorado River Basin Compact  448 Upper Colorado River Commission  448 Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program  449 Upstream storage  207 Urban farming  14 Urban flooding  207 Urbanisation flooding and  242 groundwater and  143 Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority on  524 Urban run‐off, Lake Simcoe  513–15 US. See United States Used Water Master Plan  390 USEPA. See United States Environmental Protection Agency US‐Mexico Water Treaty  455–56 USSR  33–34

v

VDMAs. See Virtual district management areas Vegetation Management Act  486 Verdonschot, P. F. M.  248, 249 Vermin holes  238 Vertical farming  14

621

622

Index

Vietnam National Mekong Committee (VNMC)  326 Virtual district management areas (VDMAs)  76 Virtual reality (VR)  80 Virtual water  16 transfer of  102–3 VNMC. See Vietnam National Mekong Committee Voinov, A.  104, 109 VR. See Virtual reality

w

Wales  57, 80 Walker, G.  72 Waller Hill Beck Flood Storage Reservoir  221, 224, 225, 227, 229f, 232f Wangjiaba  410 Ward, J.  107 WaSH. See Water, sanitation, and health nexus Waste management, emerging contaminants in  189 Wastewater  134 in Cauvery water conflict  565 in Cleantech  68 decarbonising  75–76 energy in  15, 75–76 PFOS in  187–88 reclaiming  392 treatment of  75–76 Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs)  189 Wastewater treatment works (WWTWs)  247 Water. See also specific topics black  16, 19 blue  16, 102f colours  16 as commodity  70 decarbonising  75–76

green  16, 102f, 566 grey  16, 19 potable  392 reclamation  305t recycled  391–92 Sustainable Development Goals and  8–9 value of  6–9 virtual  16 Water, Environmental Sanitation Network (WESNET)  296 Water conservancy in China  424 by RCS  430–31 Water cycle flooding and  205–8 groundwater links to  136 Water Data Banks Project  36 Water demand  106, 460 Colorado River Basin  450–52 management of  73–75, 77–78 rise in  70 in Scotland  347 Singapore  395 Water diplomacy  33–34 arbitration in  37 in Brahmaputra River Basin  35 communication in  30 conciliation in  37 conflict in  28, 37 decision‐making in  39 defining  26, 27–28 future of  38–39 goals of  28 history of  26–28 human relations in  31 limitations of  29 meetings  29 negotiation in  37 in Netherlands  26–27 new insights in  37–38 non‐state actors in  30

Index

practitioners of  29–32 process of  32–37 state actors in  30, 31 Track 1.5  30, 32 Track 2  32 Track 3  30, 32 trust in  34 Water Efficiency Fund  396 Water Efficiency Labeling Scheme (WELS)  77 Water Efficient Building Certification  400 Water Environment Fund  172 Water Environment Regulations Northern Ireland  209 Water financing funding compared with  48 history of  49–51 Water food, and energy nexus  95f balanced sector perspective on  93 case studies  97–98 cross‐sector dialogue on  108–10 data availability on  107, 113 defining  93 future knowledge requirements on  112–14 governance  111–12, 114 history of  94–100 impact assessments  113 implementations  97–98 intervention points in  103–4 new insights into  110–12 research on  96–97 SDGs in  94–96 sustainability and  100–101 technology  113 trade‐off assessments  104–8 trade‐off examples  98–100, 104–5 WEF on  94 Water Framework Directive (WFD)  17, 141, 245, 312, 360, 362 on catchment management  172

diffuse pollution under  157–58 in ecological restoration  250 hydromorphological pressures on  18 RBM in  317 Skipton Flood Alleviation Scheme and  225–26 2000/60/EC  161 Water industry asset replacement in  61 climate change and  60–61 data in  69 history of  69–72 incentive‐based regulation  54–57 innovation in  70 long‐term challenges in  60–61 rate of return regulation in  52–54 regulation by contract in  53–54 regulatory governance framework in  58–60 special dividends  58f in UK  49–50, 55–57, 71f, 72 Water Industry Act 1999  50 Water Industry Commission for Scotland (WICS)  50, 51, 57, 340 Water metering  76–77 Waternet  72 Water pollution  12 RCS control of  431 Water Pollution Control Act, US  442 Water Pollution Control and Drainage Bill  388 Water pressure management  79 Water quality  19 in Cauvery water conflict  567–68 climate change and  15 in Han River basin  543–44 indicators for  15 in Lake Simcoe  507, 520 management standards  545t monitoring  78–79 Water‐related hazards  11 Water Resources Act  546

623

624

Index

Water resource units (WRUs)  283 Water rights  112 in Australia  484 of Indian tribes  449–50 Water sanitation, and health (WaSH) nexus agencies in  290 capacity of  288t catchment management and  303–4 climate change and  304–5 communal facilities  304 coordination challenges in  288t cultural values in  301–2 decentralization of  288t diseases and  274t–75t donor countries for  303 external actors influencing  303 financing of  289t funding  303 future knowledge on  299–305 governance challenges in  301 history of  273–78 improvement in  275–76 international commitment to  272 legislative framework of  288t in Malawi  278–96, 300–304 in Nigeria  278–96, 300–304 policies  289t political interference in  288t poverty and access to  281f, 283f religion and  301–2 responsibilities in  291t–95t risk assessment in  299 in Scotland  296 sector drivers  290t services delivery in  288t, 296–99 stakeholders  302 in sub‐Saharan Africa  278–99 in UK  275–76 Water scarcity catchment management and  12 defining  11–12 in India  13–14

Water sector, vertical integration with groundwater  142–43 Water security  26 Watershed Environment Office  544–45 Water sources in NEWater Study  396–400 for Singapore  389–92 Water supply  460 in Cauvery water conflict  565 in China  417–18 Colorado River Basin  450–52 groundwater in  134 in Malawi  284f–85f, 286f management  72, 100 in Nigeria  284f in Scotland  347 State Flood Control and Drought Relief Headquarters on  422 Water Technology Industry Act  546 Water titles  112 Water treatment  47–48 technology in  73 WEF. See World Economic Forum Weirs  215, 217f, 218, 219f models  223f WELS. See Water Efficiency Labelling Scheme Weser River  313 WESNET. See Water, Environmental Sanitation Network Western Ghats  549, 550, 552, 568 Westwater Canyon  445 Wetlands Lake Simcoe  517–18 Pantanal  157 Ramsar  482 WFD. See Water Framework Directive Whipworms  274t White, Henry  31 White Papers  483 Whites subcatchment  526 WHO. See World Health Organisation

Index

Wicked problems  17 in ecological restoration  247–48 WICS. See Water Industry Commission for Scotland Winters doctrine  449–50 WISE list  355 WMO. See World Meteorological Organisation Wolf, Aaron  38 Working On Country programme  472 World Bank  70, 253, 390 World Bank GW‐MATe Programme of 2001–2011  141 World Economic Forum (WEF)  93, 97 Global Risks Report  19, 100 on water, food, and energy nexus  94 World Health Organisation (WHO)  73, 285 Drinking Water Quality Guidelines  393 World Heritage areas  483 World Meteorological Organisation (WMO)  10, 580 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD)  17 World War I  31 World War II  153 World Water Day  437 World Water Forum  26 WRUs. See Water resource units WSSD. See World Summit on Sustainable Development Wuxi City  430 WWAP  15 WWTPs. See Wastewater treatment plants WWTWs. See Wastewater treatment works

x

Xiao, Z.  98 Xiaoqing River  198

Xi Jinping  430 Xishui River  434

y

Yali Dam  325 Yangtze  15, 409, 416, 429 Yangtze River Water Resources Commission  437 Yarra Valley Water  75 YDNPA. See Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority Yellow River  429 Yellow River Conservancy Commission  422 Yellow Sea  15 Yeoju‐gun  541 Yeokgok stream  533 Yorkshire Dale National Park  224–27 Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority (YDNPA)  225 Skipton Flood Alleviation Scheme and  226 Yorkshire Water  377 Yorkshire Wildlife Trust  227 Youngin  534 Yunnan–Guizhou Plateau  425 Yunnan Province  416, 433, 436 drought in  423–25

z

Zebra mussels  510 Zeeland  39 Zeijiang Province  429–30 Zhang, Y.‐H. P.  98 Zhang Yuping  430 Zhaotong  416, 433 Zhejiang Province  433 Zhengyangguan  414 Zinc  192 Zunyi  436

625