Need for Smarter Water Utilities to

Confront Climate Change and other

Threats.

Mario Buenfil, Mexican Institute of Water Technology,

buenfilon@gmail.com
Oscar Rodriguez, Citizen Monitoring of Water Utilities: mobrpnh@gmail.com

Abstract
Presents some methods and comparative results to assess institutional
strength of Water Utilities (WUs). and their preparedness for scarcity and
other challenges. Cities in developing countries have been seriously
affected by exponential demographic growth and are still expanding,
regardless of deficiencies of their public water services. WUs should be
ideally reliable and competent, instead face a governance crisis and are
weak and unreliable, adding to a water crisis. A set of indices for
Mexican WUs is proposed to assess their institutional capacity and
strength. The methods are intended as social alternatives and pressure
mechanisms to compel each WU to improve their service reliability.
The Transparency Index (TI) is a preliminary assessment of the WU´s
reliability based on the Mexican Transparency Law. It may be adapted to
other laws or nations. The Sustainability Index (SI) requires a deeper
understanding of each utility and its water basin. Other methods are
briefly presented. Shows that most WU are not prepared, and some are
dangerously mediocre in their results, and require serious improvements.
Suggestions are given to adapt and apply these methods to other
countries, and perform deeper evaluations for climate change related
challenges.
1
 Keywords
Climate change, Environmental ethics, Institutional capacity,
Regulation of public services. Water Utility, Transparency Index.

2
１. Purpose and background to this article.

１-１. Climate change, planning and water.

Although water is an essential natural resource for life on our planet

and the same volume of it has existed for millions of years, recent
exponential growth of human water demands has generated strong
competition and induced scarcity and pollution in various locations.
Water represents a subject of vulnerability regarding planetary climate
change, and requires a broader approach to successfully plan and operate
its infrastructure and ensure proper integrated water resources
management (IWRM).
Strategic planning and resource management seek to achieve long-
term sustainability to guarantee the rights and quality of life for present
and future generations. Therefore, future scenarios that could limit or
support social peace must be identified, together with potential threats of
having less water, including risks to ecosystems and the need for new
regulations.
Two main components of planning are sustainability and transparency.
Sustainability defines criteria for the viability of each project, particularly
in the environmental aspects, considering the limits of natural resources,
which define whether a certain project is feasible or not. Transparency
provides elements for collaboration and social deliberation regarding
each project and helps identify good institutional and governance
practices.

１-２. Sustainability.

The word "sustainability", in a full and ambitious sense, implies the

3
aspiration of a region, social group or institution to achieve stability and
a future without setbacks or risks for those involved, nor abuses towards
other people, sentient animals, or regions.
Tragically today, in many cases, the opposite persists: unsustainability
(insecurity, deterioration), and “ecological overshoot” (consumption
exceeds regeneration bio-capacity) (Wackernagel, 2019).
The term "sustainable" should be clear by itself, to refer to something
that remains stable for a long time without affecting or decimating non-
renewable resources or the environment and without harming outside
social groups.
Although terms such as sustainability and overshoot may be clear
to scholars and researchers, they unfortunately are often obscure to the
general public due to inappropriate formation in elementary education
systems. Improving “social environmental culture” would counteract
frequent populist messages which hide facts to appear as optimistic
(Cafaro, 2022).

１-３. Transparency.

The word “transparency” is a simpler term than the previous one, but
it is also often misused, either intentionally or carelessly. The appropriate
meaning of “transparency” in the current context is “to make available to
the general public information about managerial performance in a
continuous, understandable, complete and timely manner”.
For example, saying: "X million dollars were invested in the Y
program" is not truly transparent if another set of pertinent facts are not
explained, such as:
- Against what other investment alternatives was such Y decision
compared?
- Which are the real impacts to citizens, to the environment, or to
other actors?
- What are the maintenance and operational costs of the project?
4
 - How, and from where, will funds come from to ensure the
operation and maintenance of program Y?
- What is the amortization balance (total or annual) of the
invested money regarding net benefits or savings
compared to other options?

１-４. Institutional strength and performance indicators.

Continuous demographic growth has been excessive in most cities in

developing countries, despite their potentially limited water resources, or
weak and unstable WUs. Such accelerated growth in part has prevented
or hampered having solid and professional operating institutions in
charge of municipal water supply, sewage and waste treatment. Then
many of those cities confront a governance crisis, reflected as a water
crisis (OECD, 2015).
The lack of reliable, competent and properly financed WUs is even
more critical under climate changing scenarios.
To evaluate a WU there are multiple customary management
indicators or key performance indicators (KPIs) recommended by
national or international regulatory institutions and professional
associations. This set of KPIs allows analysts to assess and contrast
(benchmark) the performance, efficiency, and quality of attention to
users, as well as the planning strength and commitment of each WU.
Such indicators should be systematically computed, in order to latter
properly report them (make transparent).
Besides the obligation for any WU to make public (transparent) their
data, plans, investments and progress. Also, anyone has the right to
access such information.
It can be said that transparency is part of a strategy to improve
governance and verify if public institutions are working properly.

１-５. Threats to human rights from climate change,

ecological overshoot, weak institutions, and low social
5
environmental culture.

Currently there are several Mexican cities with serious conflicts and
water shortages. While in the past these situations used to be only
common in poor and populous neighbourhoods, recent droughts have
resulted in water shortages that also affect wealthier zones and industrial
areas.
In some cities with intermittent water supply there also exist organized
criminals who steal water from public pipes to later sell it through “tank
trucks” to poor neighbourhoods at higher prices.
Problems will increase as climate change worsens, and the potential of
water supply sources will likely deteriorate. Meanwhile water
consumption may increase due to rising temperatures and population
growth (with uncertainty deepening due to increased droughts or floods).
Then stern “demand management” policies will be mandatory.
Such a scenario is projected to worsen if public services are operated
by unprofessional on incompetent WUs where long term planning is
absent and an independent regulator (supervisor) is lacking. The situation
could become still direr if delinquency, violence, corruption and other
abuses persist without appropriate punishments for offenders.

１-６. Preparedness through more citizen awareness and

education.

It is urgent and important to educate citizens and institutions that

public water and sanitation services must be efficient, reliable,
committed, transparent, and sustainable in the future because climate
change is not a phenomenon that is short termed or mild.
In spite of difficulties mentioned in section 1-5, institutions and the
public together must guarantee human rights to water supply, sewers and
treatment, and fulfil the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) in their
many aspects.
6
 Citizens and their institutions must understand dangers as: aquifer
drawdowns, increases in operational costs, insufficient infrastructure,
improper or meagre water tariffs, and other emerging challenges. It is
essential to promote a culture of sensibility towards water, nature and
human rights. These last include concepts such as transparency,
sustainability, accountability, and combating corruption. The root causes
of climate change (accumulated CO2 emissions), global ecological
overshoot (overpopulation), and deficient services (water sources
deterioration, weak institutions) should be understood and confronted by
most people, given the risks they generate.
Environmental ethics are essential because when facing a
changing climate, water scarcity and other resource
problems, it is not only the responsibility and function of
institutions and the government. The necessary measures
must be understood and supported by society itself.

7
２. Background and context to Mexican water

utilities.

Water Utilities (WU) are those public institutions in charge of

supplying water, sewage and wastewater treatment. In Mexico usually
each “Municipio” has a different and independent WU in so each
important Mexican city is served by an independent utility. Meaning it
has its own “natural monopoly”. Their duties are not different from other
utilities in the world but, on average, the strength and performance of
Mexican WUs are deficient (Ethos, 2020 and Buenfil, 2017).
Climate change is worrisome for any nation as water demands may
increase due to rising temperatures and demographic growth. That,
combined with probable dwindling or uncertain water availability, will
be aggravated by weak or unstable institutions.
Any urban WU exists immersed in hydraulic, social, institutional,
commercial, financial, human rights, climate and ecosystem issues, and
not everyone fully understands the interactions among all these elements.
Therefore, it is convenient to start with standardized analyses which help
to classify and contrast the qualities or defects of each WU.
To understand some differences among weak and strong institutions,
we characterise Mexican and similar WUs in developing countries
through the questions and answers described in the following sub-
sections.

２-１. How reliable is the water and sanitation in my city?

A complete and scientific answer to this question would require

reviewing and comparing a great deal of data and performing various
8
complicated analyses. But simpler, tangible and more immediate
answers are the common inhabitant´s opinions regarding:
- the quantity and continuity of their water supply;
- if they perceive bad odors from the drainage;
- if the tariff is reasonable;
- if as clients are treated well when making payments or
requesting any information or clarification from the WU.
However, opinions are sometimes temporary, circumstantial,
subjective, and differ greatly between neighborhoods within the same
city, or between socioeconomic or productive sectors.
In this article some intermediate procedures are proposed to evaluate
WUs reliability, as will be explained in the following sections.

２-２. Who supervises the planning and performance of water

utilities?

Unfortunately, in Mexico no formal institution has the power to

supervise and demand improvements to the water services provided by
municipal WUs.
For years researchers, officials and ordinary citizens, have noted
serious and frequent deficiencies, opacity and improvisation on the part
of many of Mexico’s WUs. Some have written several articles proposing
possible solutions (examples: Rodriguez 2022, Salazar 2020, Buenfil,
2017 and 2008). The general assessment is widespread poor service
(with rare exceptions) and the absence of any formal and independent
supervisor or regulator. Such authority would demand accountability and
compel these operators to improve their performance.
“...probably one origin of services´ problems is the absence of proper
regulatory elements, which promote quality in services, a healthy
coexistence between authorities and providers, and sustainability.”
(Rodriguez Briceño, 2022).

9
２-３. How would a good water utility look like?

The mission of any local water and sanitation operator is to serve

citizens efficiently, reliably, honestly and without apprehensions caused
by variability or detriment of the service quality. That is why there are
books and professional associations dedicated to proposing procedures
(software, courses, or standardised performance indicators) to monitor
these public operators.
The proposals of these collegiate associations are usually ambitious
and supported by long statistical records. They are based on the logic that
the WU generates and possesses the most information about its
administrative, technical and social situation (reason: information
asymmetry), so it must provide such data to the public in a complete and
reliable manner.
Often in developed countries, or in other nations that strive to achieve
good public services, there is some "regulatory" institution which
integrates and compares these statistics and has the authority to pressure
operators to correct any undesirable situations, improve performance and
clarify the WU reports.
A fundamental requirement of a good WU is its stability and
continuity towards a medium- and long-term vision, that is, its
sustainability. This includes monitoring five dimensions: Institutional,
Technical, Economic, Social and Environmental.

２-４. How to remedy the absence of a formal supervisor?

In Mexico the performance of many municipal water and sanitation

operators leaves much to be desired, due to the inexistence of an external
regulator-supervisor with the authority to demand accountability and
efficiency from WUs. Such lack could be partially mitigated if citizens
took advantage of the General Law of Transparency and Access to
Public Information (LGTAIP), which exists since 2015.
10
 An educated and concerned society will bring more stringent requests,
mandates and formal denouncements to transform operators into
becoming more transparent and efficient. By demanding better
institutions, people’s rights may then not deteriorate. The threats include
uncontrolled water demand growth, scarcer resources, incompetence, or
procrastination, which can be avoided since counteractions can be
planned and performed.
Social pressure for transparency and accountability, and formal
denouncements when these conditions are not met, may provide a kind
of inducement for WUs to improve. Social pressure may help mitigate
the absence of a proper water regulator in Mexico.

２-５. How to evaluate and contrast the performance of WUs?

This article proposes to monitor the information transparency of each

WU and also its sustainability, through two independent indices. Both
measurements will allow knowing and differentiating the most proficient
utilities, and pointing out the weaker ones. The contrasts would make it
easier to channel requests and support to each operator to improve
through training and better planning for the future.
Both indicators are based on information that a WU should provide, as
an obligation under the LGTAIP.
The monitoring and performance comparisons (benchmarking) of
WUs, may come through collaboration and interaction (via internet)
between interested individuals, research institutes, civil associations,
non-government organizations (NGOs), and others.
Of course, one fundamental requirement is that the WUs should be
transparent, and another is that they provide proper information. Such
information must be complete, timely, updated, verifiable,
understandable to citizens, and available for analysis by others.
Due to the quantity and complexity of topics any WU deals with, it is
convenient that external observers use some standard basic analyses that
11
may facilitate their understanding of the WU’s present situation.

12
３. Method to assess and compare transparency.

In Mexico each citizen or resident has the right to access information

from any public institution and demand their transparency and
accountability according to the National Transparency Law (LGTAIP).

３-１. Requesting public information from Mexican

institutions.

In Mexico there is a robust, well-structured and functional National

Transparency Platform (PNT) operated by the National Institute of
Information Access (INAI), at
https://www.plataformadetransparencia.org.mx/
This PNT is a tool to access the information that each public
institution must provide according either to its State Transparency Law,
or the national LGTAIP. So, the first thing is learning to use this platform,
by visiting the site: https://consultapublicamx.inai.org.mx/, which
contains extensive explanations on how to make inquiries, a Q&A
section, and various instructional videos.
Any interested person can review the information provided by each
WU by visiting the PNT, choosing the desired WU and the topic of
interest. Then check the existence or completeness of the documents,
figures, statistics or details provided.
The Mexican Institute of Water Technology (IMTA) developed a
simple method to qualify transparency by verifying if a sample of those
materials exist in a relatively complete and updated manner. For
simplicity and speed the method omits qualifying the content and
veracity of such information. This method and subsequent statistics are
part of a research and transference project, compatible with IMTA´s
mission.
13
３-２. Selected parameters for the Transparency Index for
Water Utilities.

The Transparency Index (TI) used for these assessments is simple and
practical since it uses few elements. It can be replicated and applied by
any interested group or agency to produce a comparative base of
scrutinized water utilities.
Although Article 70 of the LGTAIP dictates 48 “Common
Transparency Obligations” for any public institution, only 16 of them
were chosen for the TI, to make its computation easier, particularly when
the proposal is that these tasks may be performed by voluntary -unpaid-
civil actors.
These 16 concepts are combined in the TI to verify if the institution
under scrutiny reports them correctly.
The way to evaluate each element is very simple, with only three
possible values: zero, 0.5 or 1.0, based on the following criteria:
0.0 (null rating) when the item was not reported for the quarter or
year, or when it is apparently captured but the content is merely
provided in a general format with no useful information.
0.5 (half a point) when some information appears but it is scarce, not
up-to-date, or poor when compared to other operators that better
report this concept.
1.0 (one full point) when it is judged that the information is complete
and well presented (although without thoroughly assessing the
veracity of the content).

Depending on the type of element, the evidence or concepts open to

consultation can be documents, tables, statistics, or key indicator values.

14
３-３. Transparency elements and T.I. formula.

To save space in this article just a simple list of the 16 elements involved
is presented, together with the formula to “weight” and combine each
element. More explanations and results for various Mexican WUS at
different times can be seen at: http://transparencia-
ooays.imta.mx/barometro/ChartIT

Table 1 Components (of article 70 LGTAIP) of the transparency index.

Element (indicator, parameter) Fraction #

Directory #7
Objectives and goals #4
Curriculum of officials and sanctions # 17
Assigned budget # 21
Audits reports # 24
Advances in program and budget # 31
Income and destination # 43
Recommendations about human rights # 45
Citizen participation mechanisms # 34
Coordination agreements with the private and social sector # 33
Minutes and resolutions of the Transparency Committee # 39
Evaluations and surveys of programs financed with public resources # 40
Services and procedures offered and requirements to access them # 19
Specialized studies and reports # 41
Indicators of public interest #6
Programs the WU offers # 38

The formula for the "Transparency Index" is:

TI = SUM n=1, to 16 ( element´s importance n x element´s qualification n )

15
３-４. Some TI results for Mexican WUs.

The ideal would be to apply the TI to the more than 2,000 municipal
water utilities existing in Mexico and classify them according to different
regions or other characteristics, such as climate. But nowadays this
holistic assessment is unfeasible as most WUs are not reporting data to
the PNT, thus not fulfilling their transparency obligations.
IMTA presents some results for the TI at his web site: “Transparency
barometer” (IMTA, 2023). Graph 3.4.1 shows a few of those TI results.

Graph 3.4.1 Transparency of some Mexican Water Utilities (Source IMTA,

2023)
The best TI was 0.98 belonging to Cd. Obregon, followed by
Guadalajara with TI of 0.85. Among the worst evaluated were Acapulco,
Cuernavaca, Ecatepec, Saltillo and some others.
In the sample of 110 cities, the average rating was 0.40, which is
regrettable since only making transparent 40% of their obligations is a
serious breach, especially in WUs with millions of inhabitants who
require a committed and responsible operator regarding its performance
and transparency.
Graph 3.4.2 illustrates on which of the 16 analysed elements, those
110 cities scored poorly or acceptably. Elements including directory,
budget, and employees´ curricula are among the most reported features.
In contrast, items as audit documents, citizen participation mechanisms,
specialized studies, and indicators of public interest are among the
opaquest ones. This means that the easiest and habitual ones are indeed
frequently reported, while those more strategic and useful for observers
and planners are rarely reported.
16
 Graph 3.4.2 Elements either absent or present in sample of 110 cities
(Source: IMTA, 2023)

The low results of the sampled 110 water utilities, and the silence of
another 2,000 WUs for their transparency obligations, is a symptom of
low performance, and unpreparedness for the climate challenge.

３-５. Transference of this assessment method.

The purpose of developing this TI and additional techniques presented

later in this article is that they be freely transferred to other institutions
and to society. This in Mexico or elsewhere, as their broader use may
promote better statistical analyses and more interest in WUs performance
and responsibility. Such a goal meets IMTA´s mission of technological
development, adaptation and transference regarding WU issues.
This to remedy the absence, in Mexico, of a formal WUs’ overseer or
regulator. Among the potential users of these tools are Federal or State
official institutions related to water resources, formal transparency
agencies, interested NGOs, and particularly the local organized civil
society in big and medium sized cities. They jointly or independently
should make frequent explicit request for information from WUs, as the
existing transparency laws allows anyone to do.

17
４. Method to measure and compare Utilities´

Sustainability.

In contrast to qualifying "transparency", evaluating "sustainability"

requires more intensive information analysis about the WU under
analysis. Such as historic and present information regarding
improvement plans and threats related to its physical, social, economic
and even political environment.
Unfortunately, demographic expansion, climate change, increasing
water scarcity, and environmental devastation and/or contamination
mean that no site achieves a rating of excellence in sustainability. But
surely some cities are better prepared than others to face the future and
resolve problematic situations.
As assessing the "sustainability index" (SI) is complex and laborious,
it has been quantified just for a few Water Utilities. The method will be
explained briefly, leaving further explanations to the bibliography.
Application will be exemplified in just two places. The expectation is
that other user associations or local institutions will become interested in
applying this method to gradually create a larger catalogue of cities
assessed regarding their SI.

４-１. Purpose and style of the Sustainability Index.

In 2017 IMTA and other institutions jointly produced the "Guidelines for
Sustainability Plans for hydraulic services in urban and peri-urban areas, with an
IWRM vision", which states the purpose and criteria for the SI. For brevity,
explanations of the "Guidelines" document will not be repeated here
except regarding the parameters involved and their conjunction in a SI.
Ideally such index should be monitored every six months by a group
18
of experts to check trends towards accomplishing goals for various
topics, and the integral sustainability of the WU under study.

４-２. The five dimensions and 32 indicators to assess

sustainability.

Sustainability assessment for municipal water and sanitation services

starts by identifying problems and weaknesses that may pose risks for
each type of service (supply, sewers, wastewater treatment). Likewise,
the Sustainability Plan must record the corrective and follow-up actions
which are the responsibility of the operator.
Each operator, according to its diagnostic tool, must define the
pertinent evaluation and follow-up criteria and indicators to influence the
problems and solve them.
The SI procedure (IMTA, 2017) focuses in 5 axes (dimensions) and
32 strategic indicators, summarized in table 4.2. By periodically using
such SI procedure for a given WU, its historical evolution and trends will
be shown and the analysis will reveal if the operator is following its own
"sustainability plan".

Table 4.2. Indicators for each dimension of the SI

TECHNICAL INDICATORS
t-1 Water supplied to each household greater than 75 litres/person/day
Operator has competent and trained personnel (or external
t-2
specialists) for operation and maintenance
t-3 Complete and updated user registry
Consumption water meters and appropriate billing readings, which
t-4
allows assessment of physical and commercial efficiencies
Good internal communication. Speedy and effective attention to report
t-5 s, throughout the city (including peri-urban areas), with
adequate procedures and materials
Frequent and effective silt removal and cleaning programs in sewerage
t-6
system
19
 t-7 Sufficient wastewater treatment plants and total coverage for the city
Operation and maintenance plans are fulfilled (appropriate
t-8
telemetry and automation in strategic sites for pumping and treatment processes)

ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
amb-1 Water delivered meets quality standards (clean drinking water).
Protection of aquifers, basin riverbeds, and flood buffer lands,
amb-2
safeguarded and forested water sources.
Disposal of treated wastewater meets standards, previously damaged
amb-3
water bodies and spaces are recovered.
Stable aquifers without contamination and without affecting
amb-4
springs or other users.
Balance between seasonal amount of natural water and users;
amb-5
ecological flows are respected.
amb-6 Risk protection plans and measures.

SOCIAL INDICATORS
s-1 Users trust and rely on their local water utility
There are no complaints regarding Human Right to Water (HRW), or
s-2
risk of compliance failure
There are no complaints regarding Human Right to Sanitation
s-3
(HRS), or risk of compliance failure
Satisfactory willingness to pay in exchange for enhanced service and s
s-4
avings generated through WU´s performance improvement
Effective central telephone service, utility’s reliable Internet page (and
s-5
"chat"), with complete and useful information
Citizen representatives in the Utility’s Directive Board and
s-6 Consultative Council; appropriate broadcasting and guidance to
Users; society trained to request information
Competent and independent "Citizen Observatory"
s-7
specializing in water and sanitation, and including women

20
 ECONOMIC INDICATORS
Tariffs lower than 5% of family income for poor users or specific s
e-1
upports and discounts
The WU receives complementary subsidies from Central Government
e-2 for rehabilitations and for Human Rights accomplishment;
or self-sufficient and efficient organism in this regard
e-3 Transparency and efficiency in billings and incomes
e-4 Clandestine water intake and leak detection
e-5 Proper payment culture from citizens
e-6 Utility’s appropriate proportion of income and expenses

INSTITUTIONAL AND MANAGEMENT INDICATORS

inst-1 Operator with administrative capacity (acquisitions, contracts, etc.)
inst-2 Equity and fairness in decisions and sufficient access to information
WU has a laboratory for water quality analysis with
inst-3
transparency and truthfulness in reports
inst-4 Appropriate number of staff (related to total number of users)
inst-5 Suitable national and municipal water policies and regulations

４-３. Sustainability index formula.

The SI is the combination, in a relatively simple formula, of the

assigned rating to each individual indicator (element).
To maintain consistency with a parallel evaluation method (IRC-
WASH, 2017), the “weighting factors” are similar to those in that
method. The weights for the 5 thematic groups are:
- Institutional and management, 35%
- Economic, 30%
- Technician, 15%
- Social, 10%

21
 - Environmental, 10%
Finally, the formula for calculating the "Sustainability Index" is:
SI = SUM n= 1, to 32 (element weight n x element value n )

４-４. Values for each element, and ideal SI.

Only one of 5 possible values (ratings) can be assigned to each of the

32 strategic sustainability indicators. Those values are:
0.00 terrible or intolerable situation (totally unsustainable).
0.25 very deficient, which is urgent to improve.
0.50 a deficient and risky situation, but useful to citizens.
0.75 acceptable situation but that needs to be improved.
1.00 very good or exemplary condition (sustainable).

The relative weights of each dimension and the number of indicators

in each produces a maximum possible value for the Sustainability Index
(SI) of 1.0 (excellent), and a minimum value of 0.0 (unacceptable). A
global rating lower than 0.70 is unfortunate and worthy of initiating
formal and urgent remedies, obviously starting with the most important
indicators or elements (affecting several issues), or those easy and critical
to improve.
A score of 1.0 would be ideal, meaning that the region´s
“Sustainability Plan for Water Services” is satisfactory because each time
it is reviewed, its purposes and goals are fully met.

４-５. Results of evaluating the SI for two cities.

Evidently quantifying the SI is more arduous and time-consuming

than assessing the TI. It requires expertise to compile and analyse
multiple pieces of WU’s information. In 2017 the method was applied to
assess the SI of Acapulco’s WU at the request and under the sponsorship
of AECID.
At that time Acapulco obtained a very low, unsustainable rating which
22
evidenced the urgency of establishing corrective measures.
Unfortunately, the measures were not implemented there and, since
demographics and demand for water and services continued to grow, the
situation has worsened.
The SI obtained for Acapulco (CAPAMA) in 2017 was 0.463 (or 46%
of a desirable rating of 100%). Its breakdown for each of the 5 axes was:
Technical = 4.00 / 8 = 50% (failing)
Environmental = 2.50 / 6 = 42% (failed)
Social = 3.25 / 7 = 46% (failed)
Economic = 2.50 / 6 = 42% (failed)
Institutional = 2.50 / 5 = 50% (failing)
Acapulco´s WU was and continues to be an unsustainable operator
with serious deficiencies in its service quality, subject to various risks
and unpreparedness in the face of climate change. It failed in all 5
thematic axes, although in the environmental and economic ones are the
lowest ratings. This means there is no IWRM for the WU’s hydrological
basin.
Hopefully, if citizens knew of this diagnosis, they would demand
responses and actions from their authorities and from the WU, and could
influence things to change and improve.

The SI of Cuernavaca´s WU (SAPAC) was evaluated in 2021 through

the same method. Its qualification also was quite low, amounting to
0.427 (or 43%). Cuernavaca’s discussion will not be given here for
brevity but results are included in the comparative table in section 5.1
ahead.

23
５. Other methods and criteria to assess WUs.

５-１. Assessments by Colegio de Sonora.

In a book recently published by Colegio de Sonora (Salazar, 2020), a

method is explained and applied to determine "Institutional Capacity and
Performance" of WUs in 9 Mexican cities. This method uses 24
indicators of "institutional capacity" as well as 3 "performance
indicators".
The method resembles a sustainability assessment, but is limited to the
institutional dimension. To save space here no more explanations of such
method will be given. Interested researchers should consult the full
reference. Table 5.1 summarizes how Colegio de Sonora rated 9 cities
regarding their "global institutional capacity".

Table 5.1 Assessments for 9 Mexican cities (source: Salazar, 2020).

Utility Inclusive Institutional
and City Capacity
SADM, Monterrey 8.2
SAPAL, León 7.6
AGSAL, Saltillo 7.4
CCAPAMA, Aguascalientes 6.8
CESPT, Tijuana 6.5
CESPM, Mexicali 6.1
SIAPA, Guadalajara 4.9
AGUAH, Hermosillo 3.0
SIMAS, Torreón 2.8

To profit from the evaluations above and compare them with the S.I

24
just elaborated, we also applied Colegio de Sonora´s method to Acapulco
and Cuernavaca. The results are shown later, in section 5.4.

５-２. Performance indicators in PIGOO.

During the last 20 years, IMTA has operated the Web site and
information system "PIGOO" (WUs’ Performance Indicators Program),
at http://www.pigoo.gob.mx/. It concentrates information on institutional
and technical performance. Annually and on a voluntary basis,
approximately one hundred local WUs contribute to PIGOO.
Along with the statistics of 32 KPIs for each operator, PIGOO also
assigns a "general rating" to each city.
On table 5.4 ahead, the ratings assigned by PIGOO to the same
sample of cities that had been used so far in this article are also included,
as a reference of other assessment method and criteria.

５-３. Porosity (or opacity) in the PIGOO system.

To compare results from the TI against information supplied by WUs

into PIGOO, a complementary or inverse indicator would be that of
“porosity”, or “opacity”, which measures the absence of data to calculate
some indicators. Porosity represents empty fields in the database which
were not reported by the corresponding WU.
Table 5.4 summarizes this porosity indicator for the same sample of
WUs used so far here. Note that, contrary to the other indicators, here a
higher rating means a worse or more undesirable situation.
A synonym of porosity would be opacity (or lack of transparency).
According to what was presented in section 3.4the absences in the
sample of 110 cities mean most Mexican WUs still are opaque. This is
also evident referring to PIGOO´s porosity (Buenfil, 2017; Buenfil and
Salinas, 2020).

25
 ５-４. Contrasting results with different indexes.

Table 5.4 contrasts results using 5 of the discussed methods (TI, SI,
Institutional Capacity, PIGOO, and Porosity), for a short list of cities.
The cities are the same as those in Table 5.1, with the addition of
Cuernavaca, Acapulco and Obregon.
This table is not intended to point out or select “the best WU”. Its
purpose is merely to show that there are not absolute ways to rank a WU,
particularly when they are not outstanding ones. It confirms that even
under different methods and perspectives this sample of Mexican WUs is
not well qualified. That even when, except two cities in the sample,
typically are considered “good” institutions.
Table 5.4 shows that all these cities must improve their institutional
capacity, transparency, and sustainability. Even without a rank under
such heading, is evident that they are not sustainable, as some
evaluations and recent draughts has shown (Castellanos, 2021). So,
municipalities where those cities are located must work hard to improve
the local governance.

Table 5.4 Contrast of results with 5 assessment methods for WUs. Based on
different sources (see column header).
Institutional Sustainability Transparency Porosity Stars at
City Capacity Index Index in PIGOO PIGOO
(Salazar, 2020) (IMTA 2017 & 2021) (IMTA 2022) (IMTA 2020) (IMTA 2018)

Monterrey 8.2 0.65 4.4 % 68 %

León 7.6 0.73 8.8 % 27 %

Saltillo 7.4 0.19 100.0 % 54 %

Tijuana 6.5 0.58 17.6 % 56 %

Mexicali 6.1 0.46 26.5 % 58 %

Guadalajara 4.9 0.85 19.1 % 55 %

26
Hermosillo 3.0 0.46 10.3 % 58 %

Torreon 2.8 0.35 2.9 % 63 %

Acapulco 0.463 0.18 100.0 % 39 %

Cuernavaca 2.5 0.427 0.32 10.3 % 55 %

Obregon 0.97 100.0 % 28 %

It must be noted that the same city is not always the best or worst for
each column. There are variations either because of the method applied
or the year or month of assessment. Although methods and years differ, a
horizontal comparison for each city allows the reader to have a broader
vision and permits making the best recommendations.
Sometimes one operator reports adequately in one situation but not in
another. For example, Obregon meets its obligation for transparency well,
but it is not really interested in voluntary evaluations at PIGOO.
The table shows that, even when two cities were chosen specifically
due to their known deficiencies and unsustainability (Acapulco and
Cuernavaca), the other cities are not fully satisfactory. So, the public
should not remain passive, as there is much to correct and improve,
particularly when one looks at changing climate and scarcer water
resources.
If WUs are not prepared to deal with the present challenges and to
fulfill their obligations, the idea is not to complain and remain, but to
search and force ways to improve and prevent new difficulties and
uncertainties.

27
６. Conclusions and proposals

The procedures, examples and arguments shown in the previous

sections were varied, which also leads us to suggest diverse and wide-
ranging conclusions and proposals. To annotate them in an orderly way
and facilitate their review and criticism, they are presented under the six
following headings.

６-１. Relating to climate change, uncertainty and regional

stability.

When any WU gets a TI below 0.80 or an SI below 0.70 there is not

much sense in trying to request much detail about preparedness for
climate change from the WU. The priority is to urgently correct and deal
with the present institutional failures, lack of information, absence of
formal planning, stability and continuity, or trust by customers. In such a
case, the main external pressure must be on institutional development,
transparency and improving the skills and performance of the WU.
Only after there are efforts to increase those low grades is there the
chance of having a responsible institution that may properly deal with
climate change urgencies.
Climate change is a source of great uncertainty for most regions of the
planet, especially regarding food stability and industrial production, or
inhabitants’ wellbeing due to coming variability in water demand and
availability. In addition, accessibility and requirements for other
resources (e.g., appropriate soil, fuels, raw materials, energy) may also
be drastically altered in coming years.
There must be continuous programs of “water culture” and awareness
about the imperative of keeping water demands below available resource
levels (i.e., to address the urgency of correcting overshoot) by teaching
28
people about the root causes of weak water services, the need to
guarantee the proper operation of WUs, and the importance of
sustainability. The requirements include the prerequisite to pay tariffs
that match the costs involved. If there is insufficient funding, situations
will deteriorate faster.
The starting point is, as insisted in previous sections here, demanding
more competent, stable and transparent WUs, compelled by a more
concerned and educated society.

６-２. Cultural and ethical implications and difficulties in

changing paradigms and visions.

A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his
inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury.
John Stuart Mill, philosopher and economist (1806-1873)
We must break the silence to recognize that climate change is a reality
and insist that water utilities must be prepared and making improvements
right now. Further, local, state and federal governments must finance and
request preparedness, as water issues are priorities due to present and
coming challenges.
As part of the culture, some of the following ideas should be
understood and recognized as ethical priorities:
- Existing institutions do not seem well-designed to address
paradigmatically global, intergenerational and ecological problems,
such as climate change. In particular, they tend to crowd out
intergenerational concern, and thereby facilitate a “tyranny of the
contemporary” (Gardiner S., 2017).
- The root causes of weak water services, water scarcity and
environmental overshoot (climate change included) are: human
overpopulation, overconsumption, and unprofessional and short
sighted institutions in charge. Society jointly must demand urgent
correction to these situations.

29
 Conscious institutions, informed researchers, and concerned citizens
must be encouraged and promoted when stating that “investments should
not be postponed, for example desalination plants, waiting for better
times”.
All this can be summarized as "Environmental Ethics", to be
promoted and practiced by individuals, institutions and leaders. Climate
change and other environmental damages caused precisely by our
negligent, blinded and biased previous behaviours, must be addressed
right now.

６-３. Monitoring, evaluating, greater regulation and

appropriate management.

It is useless to evaluate and calculate transparency, performance or

sustainability if there are no actions or consequences derived from those
assessments.
First actions are the disclosure, discussion, feedback and comparison
of results for a given WU, and making sure that the utility´s management
has become aware of these evaluations and the possible societal
dissatisfaction, along with the derived requests or recommendations.
If the WU does not make appropriate corrections regarding low scores
on the TI or S.I, then a formal request and denouncement at PNT, or
equivalent, must proceed, including broadcasting the fact on social
media for public awareness and support.
Promote formal regulatory bodies: “The effectiveness of the sectoral
legal framework depends on the fundamentals and technical consistency of
the instruments that comprise it, but this would be insufficient if there is no
specialized, experienced, stable, independent and objective institutional
organization to put it into practice”. (Lentini, 2012)

６-４. Sustainability, planning and risk preparedness.

The SI summarizes and highlights situations in a single number, and

30
facilitates comparisons of cities (benchmarking) and learning from the
most advanced ones. The essential use of an SI is to make comparative
periodic evaluations and review trends or tendencies towards
sustainability or lack thereof.
Some WUs may have no direct responsibilities for preserving the
water sources, including superficial and groundwater basins.
Nevertheless, the WU must be involved in those issues.
Any WU must participate in the general planning and IWRM issues of
its basin and promote the fulfillment of the SDGs because WU´s
sustainability is entirely linked to those broader visions and goals.
Agreements with other users in the basin to interchange treated water
for agricultural water rights, or from other users, should be studied, as
well as possibilities for water desalination and water reuse.

６-５. On transparency and institutional improvement.

The TI is a simple procedure for assessing WUs which anyone can

review from their own house by visiting the PNT internet site.
Usually, the most competent and better WUs are those that "dare" to
be transparent and show their results. Such self-confidence leads to trust
and credibility before society.
The Mexican PNT is easy to understand and practical to use. What is
lacking is organized civil follow-up. Jointly with other institutions, there
should by systematic reviews and denounces for WUs that do not
properly comply with those obligations.
In addition, citizens can, and should, question other transparency
issues that currently are not "basic" but which in fact are essential. Such
as: water quality, revenues, debts, leakage, discontinuities in supply,
wastewater treatment, requisites and finances regarding requests for new
water intakes.

31
６-６. Applying these indicators in other countries.

The methods exposed here can be adapted and applied to several WUs,
by different actors and at different times. The continuity of assessments
is important. Also, it would be useful to consolidate and share such
qualifications in a common database managed by some central entity.
Other nations may have several regional, state or national databases,
each one administered by a specific supervisory organization or civil
observatory, probably each nation handling its own territory.
The TI should be adapted to the specific legal requirements of each
country. Nations which have a formal water regulatory authority for
WUs might have better and speedier results than Mexico.
Sustainability is associated with climate change and water scarcity
threats. It would be useful to assess and learn about how different cities
or regions deal with these phenomena.

References and Bibliography

- Badaracco Joseph L. (1992) “Business Ethics: Four Spheres of
Executive Responsibility”. California Management Review,
- Buenfil M, Salinas R. (2020) “Necesidad e Importancia de la
Participación Ciudadana para Promover Mejores Servicios Urbanos de
Agua y Saneamiento" H2O Magazine, 2020.
- Buenfil M. (2017) “Regulation and Transparency for Water and
Sanitation Services in countries with lack of them". IWRA Word Water
Congress, 2017
- Cafaro Philip (2022) “Population in the IPCC’s new mitigation
report”, https://overpopulation-project.com/
- Cafaro Philp (2012) “Climate ethics and population policy”
WIREs Climate Change 2012, 3:45–61. doi: 10.1002/wcc.153.
- Ethos (2020) “Corrupción en el Sector Agua. ¿Quién es el
Responsable de la Crisis?” Ethos, Laboratorio de Políticas Públicas,
México 2020. https://www.ethos.org.mx/
32
 - Castellanos Heidy (2021) “Metodología para evaluar la
vulnerabilidad y el riesgo ante la sequía en los organismos operadores de
agua potable (OOapas) de México”, PhD thesis IMTA.
- Gardiner Stephen (2017), “Accepting Collective Responsibility for
the Future”. Journal of Practical Ethics 5.1: 22-52
- IMTA (2023) “Transparency Barometer for Water Utilities” ,
Mexican Institute of Water Technology http://transparencia-
ooays.imta.mx/barometro/
- IMTA, AECID, CONAGUA (2017) “Guía para el Plan de
Sostenibilidad …”. AECID, Conagua, IMTA.
- Lentini Emilio (2012) “Calidad Institucional, Corrupción y
Transparencia”, Chapter II.1 in e-book “Autoanálisis latinoamericano
sobre conflictos y gestión de servicios urbanos de agua y
saneamiento”
- OECD (2018) “OECD Water Governance Indicator Framework”
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
https://www.oecd.org/regional/OECD-Water-Governance-Indicator-Framework.pdf
- Rodriguez B. Emiliano (2022) “Las comisiones estatales y los
servicios de agua y saneamiento” https://emiliano.mx/
- Salazar Alejandro, (2020) “El agua en las ciudades del norte y
Bajío de México: capacidad institucional y desempeño”. El Colegio de
Sonora. ISBN: 978-607-8576-77-7
- WASH - IRC (2017) “Sustainability Assessment Tool“.
https://www.ircwash.org/home
- Wackernagel Mathis, Beyers Bert (2019) “Ecological Footprint.
Managing Our Biocapacity Budget” New Society Publishers,
https://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/publications/

33