Grady Ku

FRINQ: Freshwater Use

11.27.2014
Freshwater Use: Challenging our Efficiency

On the general topic of freshwater use, there is still much to be desired. Policy makers
have long put freshwater issues on the backburner and, consequently, little dialogue has taken
place. Over the course of many articles, Ive come to the conclusion that we need more efficient
ways of using our precious freshwater. With our main source of drinking water coming from
underground aquifers, we need to ensure that this source can remain stable for as long as we need
them. However, studies have found that while we can sufficiently sustain our freshwater use until
2050, there will be an uneven distribution throughout the world. Some countries, particularly in
the developing world, dont even meet the national water requirements and must rely on imports
to supply their people. Clearly, this is a problem as water is something that is unique to this
world and is a necessity for our well-being. From here, I will establish two dimensions on which
we must build upon in order for us to make the more efficient decisions when it comes to
freshwater use: direction and distribution.
Dialogue on the topic of freshwater use has been surprisingly lacking. When you think
about the various problems that we face in regards to our access to available freshwater, such as
excess abstraction, polluted water and altered hydrological cycle, many of these can be fixed by
some dialogue through policy makers. One analyst was quoted: science without policy is simply
science; while policy without science is gambling. What does this mean to us? On one side, we
have science without any policy. I believe this is where we currently stand. With so many
solutions presented by various researchers, it seems all we need is some good policy making to

turn those solutions into a reality. However, without the appropriate dialogue, policies wont be
made which is the first step into the right direction. On the other hand, policy without science is
equally as dangerous but we dont necessarily have to worry about that because we have all the
science behind us. What we need is a sense of direction with freshwater management.
The idea of water security has been a relatively new concept and the accepted definition
for it is: the availability of an acceptable quantity and quality of water for health, livelihoods,
ecosystems and production, coupled with an acceptable level of water-related risks to people,
environments and economies. The question arises: are we at an acceptable quantity and quality of
water for these many different circumstances? The short answer is: no. The long answer is: yes,
but only in specific areas. It turns out wealthier societies are predominantly water secure and
dont need to choose between reducing other intolerable risks (such as food or energy security)
whereas poorer regions sometimes need to sacrifice one or more for the other. A recurring
example seems to be the Ganges sub-basin whose water must be shared between 650 million
people in four countries which is not my idea of being water secure. Moreover, much of the
worlds poor are trapped in a low-level equilibrium (especially those who are agriculturally
dependent) due to inconsistent hydrological cycles caused by climate change. So far, there
havent been many options for these poor besides collecting water from their local aquifers and a
few places using rain harvesting techniques. The problem still lies in that the number of people
who abstract water from the same aquifer far outweigh the recharge rate thus making such a
solution temporary. In the case of rain harvesting, much of its success depends on the natural
hydrological cycle and because of climate change, the sporadic shifts from droughts to torrents
can make it hard to rely on rain harvesting. So then what hope is there for these people? We still
need to come up with a proper direction!

As stated before, people in developing countries cant meet national water requirements
and must rely on imports to get by. However, that strategy only works so long as their economies
allow it. The moment their economy plummets, theyll be left with little to no options aside from
food aid. What we need to get started on is development of resilient social ecological systems
(SES). In Johan Rockstrom and Louise Karlbergs work The Quadruple Squeeze, they identify
the importance of the SES. Within the article they define resilience as something that provides
the capacity of a system to cope with shocks and changes while retaining essentially the same
structure and function. How is this relevant? With our current dependence on inconsistent
hydrological cycles for rain harvesting, excessive abstraction from aquifers and destruction of
land for creation of more dams, it is clear that relying on these wont last us until 2050. For our
reliance on natural hydrological cycles, research has shown that much of our natural hydrological
functions have become altered due to our tampering with climate changes. In The Quadruple
Squeeze, Rockstrom mentions that the graph for our environmental ecosystem functions are in
the shape of a hockey stick. The shaft representing past centuries of slow and linear change of
different ecosystem functions (i.e. climate regulation, freshwater flows, biodiversity, etc.) and
then an abrupt flattening out at the blade which represents the sudden change in a negative
direction in a relatively short time period. This tells us where our ecosystem states are headed
and that we cannot continue to rely on the hydrological cycle to supply us our daily water unless
we change direction with some good policy. As for excess abstraction, numbers revealed that we
have 442 million people in cities that have more than 100 new residents per dollar of GDP which
is an alarmingly high score on the delivery axis. The delivery axis is one of the three axes
identified in Robert McDonalds Global Urban Growth and the Geography of Water Availability,
Quality and Delivery article. Essentially, at the current rate of new residents per dollar of GDP,

we will have significant problems in the future to deal with water delivery. With 442 million
people plus 100 people/dollar, coupled with our water abstracting habits of today, there needs to
be change in either the costs of water delivery or how much we abstract vs recharge. Finally, we
have the rapid construction of dams, at rates we have never seen before. In Robert B. Jacksons
Water in a Changing World, he reveals that about 260 new dams have come on line each year
compared with 1000/year between 1950s-1970s. While I cannot deny the importance of dams,
as it is one of the many options we have left for renewable ground water and accessible runoff,
the high energy costs of desalination and environmental costs in constructing the dam will most
likely push this option out of the solution pool. Interestingly, 180 dams were actually removed in
the last decade due to safety hazards and environmental impacts. If you think about how 260
dams have been constructed within one year, and only 180 dams being deconstructed in the last
decade, its not surprising to see the state of our environments today. So with all of this
information on the various issues we have, ranging from missing dialogue on policy making to
the environmental/hydrological stresses put on those systems, where can we go from here? We
need to tackle the pressing issue of distribution and utilizing blue and green water.
With one-third of the human population affected by water scarcity, its disappointing to
see the lack of action in redistribution. With 68.7% being frozen water, 29.9% being
groundwater, and only 2.5% of all water being freshwater, we dont have very much to work
with. Add on the fact that with rising N and P emissions, our ocean waterour blue wateris
also subject to chemical pollution. Our current answer to the pollution is turning to building more
desalination/filtration plants. But we need to think more green and utilize watersheds and
naturally created levees to their full potential to preserve and restore environments instead of
dumping millions into building a filtration plant. Of course, its not as easy as it sounds. Not only

do we have a history of destroying habitats and natural ecosystems, we make matters worse by
continuing to increase our CO2 emission levels. Studies show that an increase of 450 ppm is just
enough for us to avoid going 2o over the planetary boundary however, we are currently going at a
rate of 550 ppm which is dangerously high. The worst part about all of this is that 20% of the
richest economies are to blame for the high amount of environmental damage while 80% of
underdeveloped countries suffer the consequences. How does the rise of CO2 levels have an
impact on freshwater use? High emission levels result in global warming and climate change.
With global warming, the hydrological cycle will occur more frequently on a global scale.
Moreover, because of waters high heat capacity, water on land will evaporate much quicker than
water from the ocean which causes problems in the hydrologic cycle. These problems will
eventually lead to more extreme droughts and more extreme floods.
In conclusion, with the combination of high overall costs for sustainability, lack of policy
incentives, unchecked environmental abuse/neglect, and poor distribution, our future for
available freshwater looks bleak. Unless the common people can voice their opinions for policies
in water management, the top 20% will continue to abuse their powerful economies while the
bottom 80% will have to continue to take the hit. Unless we remodel our current water collecting
techniques, equal distribution of freshwater will never happen. We need to acknowledge the
faults in our water management structures, write up policies to repair those problems, and build
upon those solutions to create a more resilient social ecological system for the future. We may be
in a poor spot at the moment, but its always better late than never.