Previous Page
570 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR WATER RESOURCES
could include allowing current owners and users to sell
their water for nonagricultural uses.
During the next few decades, it is unlikely that many
governments will permit the following scenario for inter-
national water markets to develop. Both national and local
governments give full private property rights to agricul-
ture and/or urban ‘‘owners.’’ With full rights, these owners
could then sell their water to whomever they wanted.
Willing higher and highest bidding buyers and consumers
would include rural and urban residents, transnational
corporations, environmental groups, and even water spec-
ulators (12). Once governments and nongovernments have
experimented with internal hydrosolidarity and learned
the lessons from the multiple forms of water-market-
oriented institutions such as water banks and water
vouchers, governments and nongovernments may well
transfer this knowledge to the realm of external hydrosol-
idarity.
Finally, when we interpret ‘‘international water
markets’’ and we more precisely speak in terms of water-
market-oriented institutions, our language and logic must
accurately reflect the multiple roles that governments
play in the creation and evolution of international
water markets.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Dellapenna, J.W. (2000). The importance of getting names
right: the myth of markets for water. William and Mary
Environ Law Policy Law Rev. 25(Winter): 317–378.
2. Kemper, K.E. (1999). Jose Yarley de Brito Goncalves, and
Francisco William Brito Bezerra, Water allocation and
trading in the Cariri region—Ceara, Brazil. In: Institutional
Frameworks in Successful Water Markets: Brazil, Spain,
and Colorado, USA. M. Marino and K.E. Kemper (Eds.).
World Bank Technical Paper 427, February, Washington,
DC, pp. 1–9.
3. Gleick, P.H. (2000). The World’s Water, 2000–2001: The
Biennial Report on Freshwater Resources. Island Press,
Covelo, CA, p. 96.
4. International Desalination Association. Accessed at http:
//www.ida.bm on August 24, (2001).
5. Landry, C.J. (2001). The role of geographic information
systems in water rights management. In: The Technology
of Property Rights. L.A. Terry and P.J. Hill (Eds.). Rowman
& Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, MD, p. 23.
6. Stockholm International Water Institute. The Final Overall
Conclusions: The 10th Stockholm Water Symposium. August
14–17, 2000, p. 1. Accessed at http://www.siwi.org/sws2000
/eng/sws2000conclusions.html on September 24, 2001.
7. Maria, R.S. and Ariel, D. (1999). Water Challenge and
Institutional Response: A Cross-Country Perspective. World
Bank Policy Research Working Paper 2045, January,
Washington, DC, p. 36.
8. Saleth and Dinar, p. 37.
9. The Water Page. Accessed at http://www. thewaterpage.com/
ppp new main.htm on October 22, 2001.
10. Stockholm International Water Institute. The Final Overall
Conclusions: The 10th Stockholm Water Symposium. August
14–17, 2000, p. 3. Accessed at http://www.siwi.org/sws2000
/eng/sws2000conclusions.html on September 24, 2001.
11. Yandle, B. (2001). Legal foundations for evolving property
rights technologies. In: The Technology of Property Rights.
T.L. Anderson and P.J. Hill (Eds.). Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, Lanham, MD, pp. 12–18.
12. For a review of the dynamics of domestic and international
water markets, see Water Marketing—The Next Generation.
T.L. Anderson and P.J. Hill (Eds.). 2000. The Political
Economy of Water Pricing Reforms Ariel Dinar (Ed.). 2000,
and Water Bank at http://www.WaterBank.com.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR WATER
RESOURCES
MOHAMMAD N. ALMASRI
An-Najah National University
Nablus, Palestine
JAGATH J. KALUARACHCHI
Utah State University
Logan, Utah
INTRODUCTION
Best management practices (BMPs) for water resources
are affordable, practical, and effective methods for
eliminating or reducing the movement of pollutants from
the ground surface to groundwater or surface waterbodies.
Such pollutants include nutrients and pesticides, among
others, that may have adverse effects on human health.
In addition, BMPs can be viewed as methods to ensure a
sustainable and safe yield of water resources through
optimal conjunctive management of these resources.
The main premise in developing BMPs is to achieve a
balance between the goal of protecting water resource
quality, for instance, and the economic and social
ramifications of adopting these BMPs. Before adopting
BMPs for a specific site, it is essential to understand
the BMPs thoroughly and to ensure their technical
feasibility through research, experience, field pilot studies,
and surveys. In addition to technical feasibility, BMPs
should be economically well founded through cost-
effectiveness analysis and acceptable via adopting and
maintaining them. BMPs may consist of single practices
or combinations of them based on the problem at
hand and the social and economic ramifications. BMPs
for groundwater resources are important because they
preserve and protect groundwater quality and quantity.
Preservation of groundwater resources minimizes public
health problems and maintains the social and economic
values of groundwater. For instance, the cost of mitigating
polluted groundwater can be extremely high and by
adopting effective BMPs, such mitigation costs can be
reduced dramatically.
This document focuses on BMPs to protect and preserve
groundwater resources from nitrate contamination.
NITRATE CONTAMINATION OF GROUNDWATER
Groundwater is the primary source of drinking water in
many parts of the world and the sole supply of potable
water in many rural communities (1). There is increasing

awareness that groundwater is vulnerable to contamina-
tion from domestic, industrial, and agricultural wastes (2).
Sources of groundwater contamination are widespread and
include accidental spills, landfills, storage tanks, pipelines,
agricultural activities, and many other sources. Of these
sources, agriculture activities produce nonpoint source
pollution in small to large watersheds especially due to
nitrogen in fertilizers and various carcinogenic substances
found in pesticides. Due to its high mobility, nitrate is
the primary nitrogen species lost from soils by leach-
ing (3). Groundwater contamination by nitrate has been
confirmed throughout the United States (4,5) and world-
wide (6). Elevated nitrate concentration in drinking water
can cause methemoglobinemia in infants and stomach
cancer in adults (7–9). Therefore, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has established a maximum
contaminant level (MCL) of 10 mg/L NO3 -N (10). Nitrate
may indicate the presence of bacteria, viruses, and proto-
zoa in groundwater if the source of nitrate is animal waste
or effluent from septic tanks. Likewise, nitrate contamina-
tion of surface water has health and environmental effects.
Transport of nitrate to surface water occurs mainly via
discharge of groundwater during baseflow conditions (11).
Hence, prevention of groundwater contamination protects
surface water quality as well.
Agricultural activities are probably the most signif-
icant anthropogenic source of nitrate contamination in
groundwater. Nitrogen is a vital nutrient for plant growth.
Nevertheless, when nitrogen-rich fertilizer application
exceeds the plant demand and the denitrification capac-
ity of the soil, nitrogen can leach to groundwater usually
in the form of nitrate (12). Many studies have shown
high correlation between agricultural land use and nitrate
concentration in groundwater (6,13,14). Agricultural prac-
tices result in nonpoint source pollution of groundwater
and the effects of these practices accumulate over time (7).
Nonpoint sources of nitrogen from agricultural practices
include fertilizer, dairy farms, manure application, and
leguminous crops (15). Point sources of nitrogen such as
septic tanks and dairy lagoons contribute to nitrate pollu-
tion of groundwater.
BMPs TO MINIMIZE NITRATE CONTAMINATION OF
GROUNDWATER
Identification of areas with heavy nitrogen loadings from
point and nonpoint sources is important for land use
planners and environmental regulators. Once such high-
risk areas have been identified, BMPs can be implemented
to minimize the risk of nitrate leaching to groundwater.
The knowledge of the spatial distribution of nitrogen
loading can identify the areas where groundwater needs
to be protected. This assessment is of great importance
in designating areas that can benefit from pollution
prevention and monitoring programs. In large areas such
as large watersheds or basins, proper understanding of
on-ground nitrogen loading from different sources and
corresponding transformations in the soil are needed
before areas can be designated for future protective
measures (16).
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR WATER RESOURCES 571
BMPs developed to protect groundwater quality are
improvements in agricultural practices and land use
patterns (17). Improving agricultural practices focuses
on tillage practices, crop rotation, rational fertilizer and
manure applications, vegetation cover, and irrigation
management (18). For instance, on-ground application
of manure should be in accordance with agronomic
requirements and the nitrogen mass in the soil (19). Land
use changes include reevaluation of land use distribution
and changes in the land use in areas that are vulnerable to
contamination. However, this option may not be feasible
in many instances due to competing stakeholder concerns
arising from economic constraints and these constraints
may, sometimes, override environmental concerns. BMPs
imply conflicting objectives. On the one hand, the main
aim of a BMP is to reduce nitrate concentrations in
groundwater below the MCL. On the other hand, a
protection alternative should consider the minimization
of economic losses incurred from implementing the
protection alternatives. Therefore, a multicriteria decision
analysis might be developed to determine the most viable
BMP that accounts for the different decision criteria.
Fertilizer and manure applications are required to
replace crop land nutrients that have been consumed by
previous plant growth. They are essential for economical
yields. However, excess fertilizer and manure use and
poor application methods can lead to nitrate pollution
of groundwater and surface waterbodies. Therefore, it is
important to match nitrogen applications to crop uptake
to minimize nitrate leaching. This is the core of the
BMPs that address the problem of nitrate contamination
of groundwater resources.
Effective BMPs limit movement by minimizing the
quantity of nutrients available for leaching below the
root zone. This is achieved by developing an inclusive
nutrient management plan that uses field studies, soil and
groundwater models, uses only the types and amounts of
nutrients necessary to produce the crop, applies nutrients
at the proper times and by proper methods, implements
additional farming practices to reduce nutrient losses,
and follows proper procedures for fertilizer storage and
handling. In the following, the main BMPs pertaining to
fertilizer and manure applications for reducing nitrate
occurrences in the groundwater are summarized based on
the work provided by Waskom (20), the EPA (21), Almasri
(22), and Almasri and Kaluarachchi (23), among other
studies listed in the references.
Application Rates and Fertilizer Types
One component of a comprehensive nutrient management
plan is determining proper fertilizer application rates (24).
The objective is to limit fertilizer application to an amount
sufficient to achieve a realistic crop yield. Allowing for
other nitrogen sources in the soil is also part of the concept.
Previous legume crops, irrigation water, manure, and soil
organic matter all contribute nitrogen to the soil. Along
with soil samples and fertilizer credits from other sources,
nitrogen fertilizer recommendations are based on yield
goals established by crop producers. Yield expectations are
established for each crop and field based on soil properties,
available moisture, yield history, and management level.
572 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR WATER RESOURCES
Applying the appropriate form of nitrogen fertilizer can
reduce leaching.
Nitrate forms of nitrogen fertilizer are readily available
to crops but are subject to leaching losses. Nitrate fertilizer
use should be limited when the leaching potential is
moderate to high. In these situations, ammonium nitrogen
fertilizers should be used because they are not subject
to immediate leaching. However, ammonium nitrogen
transforms rapidly into nitrate via the nitrification
process, especially when soils are warm and moist. More
slowly available nitrogen fertilizers should be used in
these conditions. Nitrification inhibitors can also delay
the conversion of ammonium to nitrate under certain
conditions (23).
Fertilizer Application Timing
Nitrogen fertilizer applications should be timed in periods
of maximum crop uptake. Fertilizer applied in the
fall causes groundwater quality degradation. Partial
application of fertilizer in the spring, followed by small
additional applications as needed, can improve nitrogen
uptake and reduce leaching risk.
Fertilizer Application Methods
Fertilizer application equipment should be checked at
least once a year and should be properly calibrated to
ensure that the recommended amount of fertilizer is
applied. Fertilizer placement in the root zone can greatly
enhance plant nutrient uptake and minimize leaching
losses. Subsurface applied or incorporated fertilizer should
be used instead of surface broadcast fertilizer. An efficient
application method for fertilizer is to place dry fertilizer
into the ground in bands closer to the seed, so that
it can be recovered by the crop very efficiently. To
reduce losses through surface runoff and volatilization,
all fertilizers should be mechanically incorporated into
the soil. Fertilizer application to frozen ground should be
avoided and limited on slopes and areas with high runoff
or overland flow.
Irrigation Water Management
Irrigation water should be managed to maximize efficiency
and minimize runoff or leaching. Irrigated crop production
has the greatest potential for source water contamination
because of the large amount of water applied and the
movement of nutrients via irrigation flux. Nitrate can
leach into groundwater when excess water is applied
to fields. Irrigation systems, such as sprinklers, low-
energy precision applications, surges, and drips, allow
producers to apply water uniformly and with great
efficiency. Efficiency can also be improved by using delivery
systems such as lined ditches and gated pipe, as well
as reuse systems such as field drainage recovery ponds
that efficiently capture sediment and nutrients. Gravity-
controlled irrigation or furrow runs should be shortened
to prevent overwatering at the top of the furrow before the
lower end is adequately watered.
Manure Application Reduction
Manure is an excellent source of plant nutrients,
especially nitrogen. Nevertheless, excessive applications
of manure lead to nitrogen buildup in the soil that
eventually leads to groundwater pollution. Prior to
application, manure should be analyzed to determine
its nutrient content. The application of increasing
quantities of manure to the same land area may
result in groundwater quality problems and adverse
environmental consequences. If it turns out that the land
base is insufficient for manure application, then BMPs
should be introduced. In the following subsections, BMPs
pertaining to dairy manure such as reducing herd size,
composting/exporting manure, or implementing feeding
strategies to reduce nutrient content in the excrement are
summarized (25).
Dairy Herd Size Reduction. Manure production and
loading are functions of dairy herd size, so downsizing
the dairy herd is apparently the most straightforward
and effectual BMP that minimizes manure loading (25).
Nonetheless, such an option has serious economic
ramifications that may prohibit the adoption of this
alternative.
Manure Composting/Exporting. Manure exporting is a
viable alternative because it does not involve herd
size reduction. For manure to be exported, it should
be composted. Composting is a biological process that
converts organic manure to a more stable material such
as humus. Composting is the aerobic decomposition of
organic matter by certain microorganisms such as bacteria
that consume oxygen and use nutrients such as carbon,
nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium as they feed on
the organic waste. They produce heat, carbon dioxide,
and water vapor. Heat destroys pathogens and weed
seeds. The resulting composted manure is humus-like
organic material, fine-textured, low in moisture, and
has a nonoffensive earthy odor. Because of the carbon
dioxide and water vapor that escape during the process,
the resulting compost can be approximately half the
volume and weight of the original material. Efficient
composting requires maintaining proper temperatures
and oxygen levels in the composting material (26).
Warm temperatures help microorganisms to grow best.
Elevated temperatures are needed to destroy pathogens
and weed seeds. Bulking materials can be mixed with
manure to provide structural support when manure
solids are too wet to maintain air spaces within
the composting pile. Composting is best accomplished
by placing the manure in windrows. The windrows
can be turned and mixed periodically to maintain
oxygen levels for proper composting. The windrows
may be 3 to 6 feet high and 10 to 20 feet wide,
depending mostly on the type of machinery used in
turning them. The width of the windrow must allow
air movement into the manure to introduce oxygen.
Composting reduces spreading costs, facilitates land
application, eliminates manure odors, and promotes
manure transporting and marketing. Composted manure
can be used mainly on lawns and gardens to keep and
add organic matter in the soil. Organic matter provides
good aeration porosity, holds more water, and releases
important nutrients.

Improve Dairy Cow Diets. The future challenge for
dairy producers and nutritionists will be to formulate
rations properly for high milk production levels while
simultaneously minimizing the environmental impact
of excessive nitrogen content in the excrement. A
properly formulated ration that precisely meets the
cow’s requirements for milk production, maintenance,
and growth minimizes excessive nitrogen in the manure.
Many dairy producers overfeed crude protein to support
high levels of milk production. However, this results in
excessively high nitrogen in the excrement. The protein
that is not used for milk production or maintenance and
growth is excreted as urea or organic-N. This practice
has an adverse effect on the environment. Feeding
strategies can be adopted to minimize manure nitrogen
content while maintaining the same milk production
levels. Van Horn (27) showed that when cows are
precisely fed to meet the National Research Council
recommendations (28), the nitrogen content in manure
dropped by 14%.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Solley, W.B., Pierce, R.R., and Perlman, H.A. (1993). Esti-
mated use of water in the United States in 1990. U.S.
Geological Survey Circular 1081.
2. Almasri, M.N. and Kaluarachchi, J.J. (2004). Assessment and
management of long-term nitrate pollution of ground water in
agriculture-dominated watersheds. J. Hydrol. 295: 225–245.
doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.03.013.
3. Tesoriero, A., Liecscher, H., and Cox, S. (2000). Mechanism
and rate of denitrification in an agricultural watershed:
Electron and mass balance along ground water flow paths.
Water Resour. Res. 36(6): 1545–1559.
4. Spalding, R.F. and Exner, M.E. (1993). Occurrence of nitrate
in groundwater—a review. J. Environ. Qual. 22: 392–
402.
5. Nolan, B.T. (2001). Relating nitrogen sources and aquifer
susceptibility to nitrate in shallow ground waters of the
United States. Ground Water 39(2): 290–299.
6. Hudak, P.F. (2000). Regional trends in nitrate content of
Texas groundwater. J. Hydrol. 228: 37–47.
7. Addiscott, T.M., Whitmore, A.P., and Powlson, D.S. (1991).
Farming, fertilizers and the nitrate problem. CAB Interna-
tional, Wallingford, United Kingdom.
8. Lee, Y.W. (1992). Risk assessment and risk management
for nitrate-contaminated groundwater supplies. Unpub-
lished Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Nebraska, Lincoln,
NE.
9. Wolfe, A.H. and Patz, J.A. (2002). Reactive nitrogen and
human health: Acute and long-term implications. Ambio
31(2): 120–125.
10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1995). Drinking
water regulations and health advisories. Office of Water,
Washington, DC.
11. Bachman L.J., Krantz, D.E., and Böhlke. J, (2002). Hydro-
geologic framework, ground-water, geochemistry, and assess-
ment of N yield from base flow in two agricultural watersheds,
Kent County, Maryland. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA/600/R-02/008.
12. Meisinger, J.J. and Randall, G.W. (1991). Estimating N bud-
gets for soil-crop systems. In: Managing N for groundwater
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR WATER RESOURCES 573
quality and farm profitability. R.F. Follet, D.R. Keeney, and
R.M. Cruse (Eds.). Soil Science Society of America, Madison,
WI, pp. 85–124.
13. Ator, S.W. and Ferrari, M.J. (1997). Nitrate and selected
pesticides in ground water of the Mid-Atlantic Region. United
States Geological Survey. Water-Resources Investigation
Report 97–4139.
14. Harter, T., Davis, H., Mathews, M., and Meyer, R. (2002).
Shallow groundwater quality on dairy farms with irrigated
forage crops. J. Contam. Hydrol. 55: 287–315.
15. Cox, S.E., and Kahle, S.C. (1999). Hydrogeology, ground-
water quality, and sources of nitrate in lowland glacial
aquifer of Whatcom County, Washington, and British
Columbia, Canada. USGS Water Resources Investigation
Report 98–4195, Tacoma, Washington.
16. Schilling, K.E. and Wolter, C.F. (2001). Contribution of base
flow to nonpoint source pollution loads in an agricultural
watershed. Ground Water 39(1): 49–58.
17. Latinopoulos, P. (2000). Nitrate contamination of groundwa-
ter: Modeling as a tool for risk assessment, management and
control. In: Groundwater Pollution Control. K.L. Katsifarakis
(Ed.). WIT Press, Southampton, United Kingdom, pp. 7–
48.
18. Goss, M.J. and Goorahoo, D. (1995). Nitrate contamination
of groundwater: Measurement and prediction. Fert. Res. 42:
331–338.
19. Livingston, M.L. and Cory, D.C. (1998). Agricultural nitrate
contamination of ground water: An evaluation of environ-
mental policy. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 34(6): 1311–
1317.
20. Waskom, R.M, (1994). Best Management Practices for Nitro-
gen Fertilization. Colorado State University Cooperative
Extension, (XCM-172).
21. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2001). Source water
protection practices bulletin: Managing agricultural fertilizer
application to prevent contamination of drinking water. Office
of Water, 4606, EPA 916-F-01-028, Washington, DC.
22. Almasri, M.N. (2003). Optimal management of nitrate
contamination of ground water. Ph.D. Dissertation, Utah
State University, Logan, UT.
23. Almasri, M.N. and Kaluarachchi, J.J. (2004). Implications
of on-ground nitrogen loading and soil transformations on
ground water quality management. J. Am. Water Resour.
Assoc. 40(1): 165–186.
24. Yadav, S.N. and Wall, D.B. (1998). Benefit-cost analysis of
best management practices implemented to control nitrate
contamination of groundwater. Water Resour. Res. 34(3):
497–504.
25. Davis, J., Koenig, R., and Flynn, R. (1999). Manure best
management practices: A practical guide for dairies in
Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico. Utah State University
Extension, AG-WM-04.
26. Pace, M.G., Miller, B.E., and Farrell-Poe, K.L. (1995). The
composting process. Utah State University Extension, AG-
WM 01.
27. Van Horn, H.H. (1992). Recycling manure nutrients to avoid
environmental pollution. In: Large Dairy Herd Management.
H.H. Van Horn and C.J. Wilcox (Eds.). American Dairy
Science Association, Champaign, IL, pp. 640–654.
28. National Research Council. (1989). Nutrient Requirements of
Dairy Cattle, 6th Revised Edn. National Academic Sciences,
Washington, DC.
574 INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IWRM)
INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT (IWRM)
MUKAND SINGH BABEL
Asian Institute of Technology
Pathumthani, Thailand
TODAY’S WATER PROBLEMS
Population and economic growth has led to rising demand
for water for human consumption, food production, indus-
trial uses, and other development activities, and opportu-
nities for increasing the supply are becoming prohibitively
expensive. The growing concern for maintaining natu-
ral ecosystems is exerting further pressure on water
resources. The threatening environmental problems orig-
inating from unsustainable use of water resources are
of great concern. Pollution of water is connected with
human activities. Proliferation of development activities
and modern living styles has also contributed to the wors-
ening of water quality. Adverse conditions such as social
inequity, economic marginalization, and lack of poverty
alleviation programs in many countries also force peo-
ple living in extreme poverty to overexploit soil and
forestry resources, which often results in negative impacts
on water resources. Deteriorating water quality caused
by pollution makes safe use difficult for downstream
users and threatens human health and the functioning
of aquatic ecosystems.
In most countries, water policies have been largely
dominated by a supply-oriented and compartmentalized
sector mentality. Top-down approaches have prevailed
in development and management of water resources
without participation by stakeholders in decision making.
In these traditional approaches, the important distinction
between managing water as a commonly owned natural
resource and providing services for water users has not
been fully recognized, leading to a confusion of roles
and responsibilities of different organizations dealing
with water. Thus, inefficient governance and increased
competition for finite water resources are the root cause of
water problems.
Balancing and compromising the need for water by
people, different economic sectors, and nature is the
main challenge faced by the water sector. About 1
billion people in the world are without access to safe
drinking water, and about 3 billion people do not have
access to adequate sanitation. Securing water for people
is a prime concern in many countries. According to
the UN medium projections, the population on earth
in 2025 will reach about 7.8 billion, a 38% increase
over present levels. Providing water to meet the needs
of food and fiber for the world population in years
ahead is another main challenge. Even with improved
irrigation management and water productivity, it is
estimated that 17% more water will be required for
this population (1). Ecosystems are sources of various
benefits to society such as providing timber, fuel, wildlife
habitats, aquatic resources, etc. Ecosystem security
through maintenance of the natural environment and
proper management of land and water resources is
therefore essential.
Variation of precipitation over time and space leads
to the classical problem of too much or too little water.
The variations in water flow and groundwater recharge,
whether of climatic origin or due to land mismanagement,
can add to drought and floods, which can have catastrophic
effects in terms of large-scale loss of human life and
damage to economic, social, and environmental systems.
Managing the variability of water in time and space and
the associated risks are other challenges.
CONCEPTS OF IWRM
Compared to traditional approaches to water resources
problems, integrated water resources management
(IWRM) takes a broader holistic view and examines a
more complete range of solutions. It looks outside the
narrow water sector for policies and activities to achieve
sustainable water resources development. It also consid-
ers how different actions affect and can reinforce each
other. IWRM has attracted particular attention since
the International Conferences on Water and Environ-
mental in Dublin in 1992. IWRM can be defined as
follows:
‘‘IWRM is a process which promotes the coordi-
nated development and management of water, land and
related resources in order to maximize the resultant
economic and social welfare in an equitable manner
without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosys-
tems’’ (2).
IWRM principles place its overriding importance
over economic, social, and natural facets. It draws
its inspiration from the Dublin principles, culminating
from the International Conference on Water and the
Environment in Dublin, 1992. These are the four Dublin
principles:
• Freshwater is a finite and vulnerable resource,
essential to sustain life, development and the
environment.
• Water development and management should be
based on a participatory approach, involving users,
planners, and policy makers at all levels.
• Water has an economic value in all its competing uses
and should be recognized as an economic good.
• Women must play a central part in the provision,
management and safeguarding of water.
In the traditional approach, the planning and operation
of water systems is usually fragmented, causing a lack of
coordination, wastage of resources, and conflict among
stakeholders. Water issues are also generally neglected
when decisions are made about crop patterns, trade and
energy policies, and urban design and planning, all of
which are critical determinants of water demand. For the
sustainable use of water resources, there is a need to
create institutions and frameworks that can transcend
these traditional boundaries and involve a variety of users
and stakeholders. IWRM promotes a holistic view and

looks at the entire hydrologic cycle and the interaction
of water with other natural and socioeconomic systems.
IWRM focuses on integration, participation, consultation,
gender awareness, and consensus.
Integration among different stakeholders and different
domains of water resources is one of the highlights of
IWRM. At its most fundamental level, IWRM is as con-
cerned with the management of water demand as with its
supply. Thus, integration can be considered in two basic
categories—the natural system and the human system.
The natural system puts critical importance on resource
availability and quality; the human system fundamentally
determines the resource use, waste production, and pollu-
tion of the resource. Integration of the natural system
implies a concern with upstream–downstream water-
related interests, integration of land and water manage-
ment, integration of freshwater management and coastal
zone management, a unified management of surface water
and groundwater, a shift to management at a river basin
level, integration of quantity and quality, and matching
water management with other sectoral policies with a col-
lateral impact (trade, housing, energy, agriculture, etc.).
Human system integration involves mainstreaming of
water resources, cross-sectoral integration in national pol-
icy development, analyzing macroeconomic effects of water
development on overall economic development, influencing
economic sector decisions, and integrating all stakeholders
in the planning and decision-making process.
As one of the principles of the IWRM, the concept
of water as an economic good introduces a wholly new
model to water resources management. Therefore, it
differs from the traditional approach in that it invariably
associates economic aspects of water with water resources
management issues. It distinguishes between the value
of water and its pricing. The concept of the value of
water is used in assisting allocation processes; the pricing
concept is used as part of the cost recovery issue. The
Ecological sustainability
ts
en
um
r Legislation
st
t in
en
em Allocation
ag
an Regulations
M
Economic tools
...
Economic efficiency
Figure 1. General framework for IWRM (2).
INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IWRM) 575
economic value of water is highlighted through greater
stress on demand management rather than supply-
side management, a recognition (and estimation, where
possible) of the economic value of water in different uses,
acceptance of the notion of opportunity cost (what is lost
to other uses from taking it for a particular purpose),
and attention to cost recovery, though with concern for
affordability and securing access for the poor.
Water conservation is another critical aspect of
IWRM. Freshwater ecosystems face enormous threats,
directly and indirectly, from human activities. Conserving
freshwater systems is essential for the future survival
of all living species on the earth. Water conservation
and management call for the protection, improvement,
and use of water according to principles that will assure
their highest economic and social benefits. Maintaining the
delicate and sustainable balance of demand and supply of
water is a critical element of any sound water strategy.
To fulfill desirable social, economic, and natural con-
ditions, IWRM places its overriding criteria on economic
efficiency in water use, equity and access for all, and
sustainability of vital ecosystems. The increasing scarcity
of water as well as financial resources, under increasing
pressure from the excessive demands upon it, demands
that water be used with maximum possible efficiency. The
‘‘social equity and access for all’’ criteria recognize the
basic human right to access to water of adequate quantity
and quality. The third criterion (ecological sustainability)
is about ensuring that the present use of the resource
does not undermine ecological stability and that future
generations are not adversely affected.
Three basic elements highlight the IWRM framework:
the enabling environment, the institutional roles, and the
management instruments, as shown in Fig. 1.
The enabling environment refers to the general frame-
work of national policies, legislation, and regulations. The
Enabling
environment
In
Policies st
itu
tio
na
Level lr
Fora and
mechanisms of action ol
es
for participation Management
International boundaries
cooperation Capacity building
... ...
Social equity
576 MANAGEMENT OF WATER RESOURCES FOR DROUGHT CONDITIONS
institutional framework defines the roles and responsi-
bilities of government agencies at different levels and
other stakeholders. The management instruments include
water resources assessment, communication and informa-
tion systems, allocation, economic tools, technology, and
so on.
In spite of considerable advantages in IWRM, its
implementation requires a much greater commitment
from all stakeholders. There are many challenges, which
have to be overcome for successful implementation. The
short-term costs and disadvantages may seem more
apparent than tangible benefits in the pursuit of longer
term advantages. Integration is difficult to implement at
first and may not guarantee equity for all; simply involving
a wider range of stakeholders in decision making may not
automatically ensure fair treatment for them.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Seckler, D., Amarasinghe, U., Molden, D., de Silva, R., and
Barker, R. (1998). World Water Demand and Supply, 1990 to
2025: Scenarios and Issues, Research Report 19. International
Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
2. GWP. (2000). Integrated Water Resource Management, TAC
Background Paper No. 4. Global Water Partnership Technical
Advisory Committee, Stockholm, Sweden.
MANAGEMENT OF WATER RESOURCES FOR
DROUGHT CONDITIONS∗
WILLIAM R. WALKER
Virginia Water Resources
Research Center
MARGARET S. HREZO
Radford University
Virginia
CAROL J. HALEY
Virginia Water Resources
Research Center
INTRODUCTION
Droughts have been a part of our environment since the
beginning of recorded history, and humanity’s survival
may be testimony only to its capacity to endure this
climatic phenomenon. According to Yevjevich and others
(1, p. 41), one of the earliest records of efforts to plan
for droughts is found in the biblical story of Joseph.
This article is a US Government work and, as such, is in the
public domain in the United States of America.
∗
This article is reproduced in its entirety from Walker, W.R.,
Hrezo, M.S., and Haley, C.J. (1991). Management of water
resources for drought conditions. In: National Water Summary
1988-89—Hydrologic Events and Floods and Droughts. Paulson,
R.W., Chase, E.B., Roberts, R.S., and Moody, D.W., (Compilers).
U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2375, pp. 147–156.
The pharaoh of Egypt gave Joseph the authority to
plan and implement the world’s first recorded national
drought strategy. One can ask if improvements in society’s
planning capability over the past several millenniums
have increased our ability to deal with droughts in
other than catastrophic terms. Certainly, droughts will
continue to be a randomly occurring climatic phenomenon.
Have we built on any past successes pertaining to the
planning for droughts and managing water resources
during droughts; have we learned from past actions or
inactions; or are we doomed to repeat our mistakes? The
evidence indicates that society tends to be unwilling to
plan for droughts.
To better understand why society is still reacting to
droughts rather than planning for their eventuality, the
activities of various levels of government in planning
for droughts must be examined. Until very recently,
the policies of most State governments for dealing with
drought have been to ‘‘wait ’til it rains’’ and in the
meantime provide some form of emergency assistance
to localities and hope a catastrophe can be avoided.
Many States also, as a matter of implicit policy, place
primary responsibility for drought action with the Federal
Government and local governments who, throughout
the Nation’s history, have been the primary levels of
government involved when droughts occur. The policies of
both the Federal Government and the local governments
also have been to provide emergency relief and to try to
reduce water demand to match the available supply. This
governmental approach, however, has not reduced the
economic losses or the level of inconvenience and suffering
of the Nation’s citizens. With each succeeding drought, the
cycle repeats itself. As a result, the following questions
arise: Do the States have a responsibility for planning for
droughts? If the States do have such a responsibility, what
type of planning should take place? Is there a possibility
that drought-related activities of the Federal Government
and the local governments are likely to change in the
future, and if so, how and why?
In strictly climatic terms, a drought can be defined as
an interval of time, generally months or years in duration,
during which the actual moisture supply at a given place
consistently is less than the climatically expected or
climatically appropriate moisture supply (2, p. 3). Drought
generally is defined as being meteorological, hydrological,
or agricultural. However, the ultimate consequences of
droughts have to be placed in the context of the effects on
the social and economic activities of a given region (Evan
C. Vlachos, Colorado State University, written commun.,
January 1988). Thus, the climatic attributes of drought
also need to be defined in social and economic terms
because it is in these contexts that water management
becomes important (Evan C. Vlachos, Colorado State
University, written commun., January 1988). Yevjevich
and others (1, p. 32) have suggested that we think in
terms of ‘‘sociological drought,’’ which is defined as the
meteorological and hydrological conditions under which
less water is available than is anticipated and relied on
for the normal level of social and economic activity of
the region.
 MANAGEMENT OF WATER RESOURCES FOR DROUGHT CONDITIONS
Due in part to our agrarian heritage and because water
deficiencies can develop rather quickly in the root zone,
most droughts are thought of as agricultural droughts.
This characterization can be confusing, however, because
an agricultural drought can occur in the midst of a
hydrological wet period. The distribution of precipitation
during a year can be such that there is a shortage of
moisture (drought) during a critical growing period for a
variety of crops, yet the total precipitation for the year
can be greater than the historical yearly average. In
this discussion of institutional and management aspects,
droughts are considered as moisture shortages that
seriously affect the established economy and the quality
of life of a region.
The following analysis of the roles of government in
planning for droughts begins with an examination of the
traditional activities of government during a drought. If
the traditional approach by government seems less than
desirable, then the obstacles to greater involvement need
to be identified and evaluated to determine if they can be
removed or circumvented. The suggestions by King and
others (3) in their ‘‘Model Water Use Act’’ for managing
water resources during droughts are examined in some
detail to determine if they provide a minimum approach
for States to consider in developing a plan for managing
water resources for drought conditions. To better assess
the status of State involvement, the drought programs and
drought-related actions of the 48 conterminous States are
reviewed in terms of the minimum criteria recommended
by King and others (3). Lastly, the expanded role that
the Federal Government might have in planning for and
mitigating the effects of droughts pursuant to existing
Federal water-quality legislation is considered.
TRADITIONAL GOVERNMENT APPROACH TO
DROUGHTS
Droughts have two components—climatic (decrease in
precipitation) and demand (use of water). In responding to
droughts, governments tend to concentrate most of their
activity on reducing the demand for water, although they
might have limited options for controlling the climatic
component. Cloud seeding, for example, might make
increasing the snowpack possible and, in some instances,
obtaining a limited summer rainfall. Because climatic
control, however, generally is less reliable, most measures
focus on management, reallocation, and distribution of
existing water sources and on establishing priorities
accordingly for different uses (4, p. 41).
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Traditionally, managing water resources during droughts
has been based on immediate reactions to a current crisis.
The focus of most action is to reduce the daily demand
for water, and local governments usually are responsible
for reducing water demand within their jurisdictions.
Broader issues that impinge on their programs to reduce
water demands are not within their purview; for example,
local governments are not permitted to allocate surface
577
water and groundwater among competing users. Local
governments, however, do not covet the existing authority
for reducing water demands. Even in times of impending
crisis, there is a great reluctance to impose water-
conservation measures, if there is any hope that rain
will fall in time to save officials from having to do so.
Decision makers are not popular when they must halt or
reduce industrial activity, curtail domestic use, or prohibit
‘‘nonessential’’ services. As a result, timely action rarely
is achieved (Evan C. Vlachos, Colorado State University,
written commun., January 1988).
The local approach to the management of water
resources during droughts is not responsive to other
drought-induced issues such as minimum instream flows
because these issues are not within the purview of
local government. Yet water for wildlife, increased
contamination due to low flows, and decreased navigation
and hydroelectric-power generation are issues equally
as important as the ones being addressed by local
government. Water shortages cause low streamflows that
have an adverse effect on fish and wildlife habitat. If there
are no limits as to how much flows can decrease or for
how long (the longer the period of low flow, the greater the
stress), the recovery time for a habitat can be extremely
long, or a habitat can be lost permanently. Low flows
can increase salt-water intrusion, increase health hazards
because of increased concentration of toxic substances and
pathogens, decrease hydroelectric-power generation, and
curtail recreational opportunities. Decreased precipitation
also increases the potential for brush and forest fires and
wind erosion of topsoil.
With a few exceptions, the response of government
at any level to the shortages caused by decreased
precipitation has been to react rather than to adopt a
proactive approach to minimize the effect of droughts.
Drought planning at the local level in many areas appears
to be given a low priority because of the randomness of
droughts, the limited resources for planning, the limited
jurisdiction (local government might not be able to control
streamflow levels), and the programs of the Federal
Government to provide disaster relief in time of crisis.
As a result, local governments are encouraged to accept
an implicit policy of doing only what can be done after a
crisis has occurred.
A notable exception to inaction at the local level to
plan for drought conditions occurred in the Washington,
DC, area. The leadership role in this case was taken by
the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin
(ICPRB), but the implementation of the water resources
plan was by local government. The plan finally adopted
saved between $200 million and $1 billion compared to
longer scale structural solutions previously proposed (5,
p. 106). Implementation of the plan was through eight
separate but interlocking contracts executed in 1982 (5,
p. 106).
STATE GOVERNMENT
With the exception of eight States—Arkansas, California,
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Minnesota, New Jersey,
578 MANAGEMENT OF WATER RESOURCES FOR DROUGHT CONDITIONS
and South Carolina—the activities of the State govern-
ments in managing water resources during droughts
have been minimal. Most State governments have not
passed legislation providing for additional drought plan-
ning beyond slight modifications in their water laws.
Governors, on occasion, will declare counties or desig-
nated areas as disaster areas in order to make individuals
eligible for Federal relief.
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
The Federal Government generally has limited its activ-
ities to providing direct relief to drought victims and to
farmers in general. For example, the Federal response to
the 1976-77 drought, which affected about two-thirds of the
country, was to enact the Emergency Drought Act of 1977
(Public Law 95-18), the Community Emergency Relief Act
of 1977 (Public Law 95-31), and certain provisions of the
Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-
26) to bolster existing emergency-assistance programs. As
the result of these laws, 40 Federal programs, adminis-
tered by 16 agencies, offered drought relief in the form
of loans, grants, indemnity payments, and other forms
of assistance to State and local governments, households,
farms, and private businesses (6, p. 1–2). The overriding
objective was to reduce impending damage by imple-
menting short-term actions to augment existing water
supplies. Other Federal programs available to drought
victims were designed to provide assistance after dam-
age had occurred (6, p. 2). Typical of these were the
disaster loan programs of the Farmers Home Admin-
istration. Four Federal agencies—the Departments of
Agriculture, Commerce, and Interior and the Small Busi-
ness Administration—were responsible for implementing
emergency drought programs at a cost of $5 billion, which
included an additional $1 billion for short-term emergency
actions to augment existing water supplies (6, p. 11). The
Comptroller General of the United States (6, p. 11) con-
cluded that:
• Some drought programs were enacted or imple-
mented too late to have much effect in augmenting
water supplies.
• Inadequate standards for determining the worthiness
of projects meant that many projects were funded
that had little, if any, effect in mitigating the effects
of the drought.
• Drought victims were treated in an inconsistent,
inequitable, and confusing manner.
• Inadequate coordination among the agencies resulted
in inefficient and inequitable distribution of funds.
The report (6, p. 21) also recommended that a national
plan be developed for providing assistance in a more
timely, consistent, and equitable manner. Issues to be
considered in the development of such a plan are:
• Identification of respective roles of agencies involved
to avoid overlap and duplication of activities.
• Need for legislation to more clearly define agency
roles and activities.
• Need for standby legislation to permit more timely
response to drought-related problems.
In 1988, in response to another severe drought, Congress
passed the Disaster Assistance Act of 1988 (Public Law
100–387). This legislation is less comprehensive than
the 1977 legislation in that its primary purposes are to
protect farm income in an efficient and equitable manner,
protect the economic health of rural communities affected
by the drought, and help assure a continued adequate
supply of food for American consumers. Little in this
legislation reflects the major recommendations of the
Comptroller General of the United States (6) regarding
the development of a national plan for providing future
assistance in a more timely, consistent, and equitable
manner. Although the Secretary of the U.S. Department
of Agriculture is authorized to make grants and provide
other assistance to combat water shortages, the Disaster
Assistance Act of 1988 is primarily an agricultural-relief
act. Thus, to date, the Federal Government has limited
its involvement in droughts to the provision of water-
resources information, technical assistance, and financial
relief to mitigate the costs incurred once a drought
has occurred.
OBSTACLES TO EFFECTIVE PLANNING FOR DROUGHTS
Although governments can plan effectively for droughts,
fundamental problems that deter action need to be
examined and understood before drought planning
can become a reality. Five obstacles to planning for
droughts—specificity, randomness, drought phenomenon,
cost of droughts, and political considerations—are dis-
cussed here.
SPECIFICITY
Planning for and management of hazardous events
presuppose that those events are well defined and
discernible to all. The planning necessary to reduce
the effects of most natural hazards is difficult because
the intensity and frequency of the events are unknown,
although there is never any question as to their eventual
occurrence. Although no technical expertise is required to
determine when floods, volcanic eruptions, or earthquakes
have been experienced, considerable uncertainty exists as
to when droughts start and end. A drought is almost a
‘‘non-event’’ (Evan C. Vlachos, Colorado State University,
written commun., January 1988). Any discussion about
planning for drought conditions and management of water
resources, therefore, requires some definition as to what
constitutes a drought. This lack of specificity can be a
major contributing factor, although unstated, as to why
the planning for droughts and the managing of water
resources during droughts have received less attention
than they deserve.
 MANAGEMENT OF WATER RESOURCES FOR DROUGHT CONDITIONS
RANDOMNESS
Droughts, when placed in historical perspective, have not
received much attention from governments at any level
until severe water shortages occur. What most inhibits
the planning for water shortages associated with droughts
is their random nature. It is this inherent variability
that makes ‘‘reacting’’ to a water-shortage crisis and
instituting relief efforts when the shortages occur appear
to be more rational than does ‘‘planning’’ for droughts.
People tend to overlook that droughts are a normal part
of the climatic regime and that they will recur. Droughts
remain a certainty; only their frequency and severity are
unknown. Thus, it makes good sense to plan to reduce
both the costs that result from droughts and the associated
personal hardships.
DROUGHT PHENOMENON
Another obstacle to planning for droughts is inherent in
the drought phenomenon. Although droughts do affect
individuals, in reality droughts are a community problem
having characteristics of Hardin’s famous ‘‘Tragedy of the
Commons’’ (1, p. 34). The self-interest of each individual
using communal property is to maximize it for immediate
gain. The net result can well be the destruction or
deterioration of the communal property. In Hardin’s
example, the overgrazing and destruction of the common
pastures occurred because each person sought to graze
all the animals possible. The sum of the actions by each
individual was not ‘‘best’’ for the sum of the individuals.
This phenomenon makes the best policy infeasible unless
the individuals reach a consensus themselves or are
compelled to do so by a government.
Droughts produce the same type of situation. For
individuals experiencing a drought, options to deal
effectively with water shortages are limited. Collective
action by all the individuals provides the best solution.
The use of groundwater during times of drought in
many Eastern States provides a comparable situation
to the one described by Hardin in the case of common
pastures. The common law in many Eastern States
deals with groundwater as a common resource that is
appropriated under the Rule of Capture (7, p. 115).
What you capture is what you get, and those having
the deepest wells and the largest pumps get the most
water. Given these circumstances, the solution for an
individual during drought conditions might be to drill a
well. If all individuals act in the same manner, a variety
of consequences can occur to the detriment of each. A
shallow aquifer eventually can be depleted, the individuals
can be competitors for water and cause larger and larger
cones of depression as deeper wells and larger pumps are
utilized, or the increased pumping can cause saltwater
intrusion, which will destroy the quality of the water in
the aquifer for all. The best solution for all parties might
be an agreement between the individual well owners, or
restriction by the local government, to curtail the time and
rate of pumping. Under these circumstances, an individual
who pumps water from a common aquifer cannot plan
effectively for droughts. If an individual well owner seeks
579
to conserve groundwater or plan for a water shortage, he
or she needs to be aware that the water he or she does not
pump will probably be pumped by others.
Because droughts affect larger geographic areas than
those occupied by single communities, the ability of an
individual community to respond effectively is affected
by the actions of similar communities in the drought
area. The position of each community in this larger
arena can be analogous to that of the individual in the
community. Individual actions by each community can
be counterproductive to the policy best for the region as
a whole. For one community, the solution may be the
building of a reservoir on a stream that is the water source
for other communities downstream. As each community
opts to resolve its water needs without regard to its
neighbors, the stream can become an inadequate water
source for all. The development of a regional water supply
for all communities might be the best solution, but this
will require the consensus of all the communities.
COST OF DROUGHTS
The lack of information about the cost of droughts is
another reason why only marginal interest exists in
planning for droughts, especially at the State level.
The magnitude of drought costs is assumed to be less
than that of other natural hazards because the losses
associated with other natural hazards are more evident
and generally are incurred during short periods of time.
In contrast, drought losses generally are distributed over
longer time periods. When the true costs of drought are
known, drought losses can dwarf the losses from other
natural hazards. For example, Australia determined that,
for the period 1945–1975, the costs of droughts were four
times the costs of other natural hazards (8, p. 226). In
addition, all the costs associated with droughts are not
clearly defined. The social effects of droughts and the
associated costs, how the effects propagate throughout
society, and who is ultimately affected need to be better
understood. Human suffering is less likely to be factored
into the cost assessment even though these costs are real
and can continue for years, long after other costs have
been absorbed. The aggregated indirect costs probably are
far greater than the direct costs, but because of their
diffused nature they are difficult to identify and quantify
and, thus, generally go unrecognized (1, p. 32). These
indirect costs, which are disbursed among large groups
and throughout large geographic areas, nevertheless
constitute a major proportion of the total costs resulting
from droughts (1, p. 32). Again, the random nature of
droughts, coupled with the rapid decrease of public
interest in droughts after normal precipitation resumes
and the limited resources available for planning, make
the determination of in-direct costs associated with the
droughts less urgent. As long as these indirect, diffused
costs remain undisclosed, decision makers will have
incomplete knowledge of the costs of drought. If the past is
any guide, the total costs of droughts probably never will
be reliably assessed.
The length of a drought also has a significant effect
on the total costs; long droughts are more costly than
580 MANAGEMENT OF WATER RESOURCES FOR DROUGHT CONDITIONS
shorter droughts. A sustained drought, such as the one
in the 1930s, can have economic and social costs that are
never quantified. During the 1930s drought, for example,
agriculture was abandoned in some sections of the Nation;
this abandonment, in turn, caused dislocation of people
and severe impairment of the economic substructure that
supported agriculture. The 1930s drought had an effect
on a whole generation of Americans, wherever they lived
and however they made their living (4, p. 34). Even if the
value of human life is ignored, the total economic losses
from droughts can be staggering.
POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Lastly, political considerations affect action that might
lessen the effects of droughts through better planning
and management. The randomness of droughts induces
the public to believe that little can be done to reduce
the costs of droughts before they occur. In addition,
the public’s memory of past tragedies usually is short,
and political attention shifts quickly to new political
problems. The public, lacking an analysis of the total
costs associated with a drought, has the illusion that
droughts are affordable, although inconvenient. Thus,
decision makers lack the public support needed to take
aggressive action in planning for droughts and managing
water resources during droughts. This is not strictly an
American phenomenon, as witnessed by the inaction of
the British Parliament during the mid-1970s when the
country experienced its worst drought in 500 years (9,
p. 51). Early in the drought, efforts were made to have
Parliament enact legislation to extend the responsibilities
of the river authorities to mitigate the effects of the
drought. Before responding, Parliament waited until
there was widespread public awareness of the need for
the legislation; thus, the damage factor was increased
substantially compared to what it would have been had
Parliament acted earlier.
In contrast to a lack of public support, special-interest
groups at the State level might oppose activities that
are essential for an effective water-management plan
applicable to droughts. For example, farm groups in
Virginia strongly oppose any Federal, State, or regional
water-management plan because they believe there should
be no regulation of water apart from the Riparian Doctrine
(Mark Tubbs, Virginia Farm Bureau, commun., 1981).
Water management, of necessity, must be at the core of
any program to mediate the effects of water shortages
that occur during droughts, but political factors can
substantially dampen the interest in managing water
resources even during droughts.
FRAMEWORK FOR STATE ACTION
The ‘‘Tragedy of the Commons’’ phenomenon, which char-
acterizes the problems associated with any management
plan to mitigate the costs associated with droughts,
illustrates that, in the absence of agreement among
all the parties affected by the drought, the manage-
ment responsibility needs to be at the lowest possible
level of government that will permit the attainment of
management’s objectives (1, p. 34). The State, in most
situations, represents the unit of government that has
the authority to allocate water, to set policy objectives
that are concerned with water-use efficiency and equity,
to consider interboundary issues and externalities asso-
ciated with matters such as minimum instream flows,
and to coordinate the activities of local governments
in meeting water-supply needs during times of severe
water shortages.
The responsibility for managing water resources during
droughts, once assumed by the State, needs to be vested
in such a manner as to require timely action and not be
vulnerable to legal challenges by groups who do not favor
an approach taken by the State. Although expanding the
Governor’s powers to deal with disasters by including
droughts might be expeditious, the action taken by most
States generally is to group management activities with
the authority primarily designed to respond to disasters
after they have occurred rather than to undertake
planning activities to reduce the cost of droughts in
advance of their occurrence. Colorado, Delaware, New
Jersey, and North Carolina are examples of States
that have used executive power to develop statutory
guidelines that define droughts and delineate interaction
among State agencies responsible for water resources (10,
p. 162–163).
PLANNING TOOLS
The authors of the ‘‘Model Water Use Act’’ (3, 1958) devel-
oped five planning tools—identification of drought indi-
cators, designation of government authority, notification
of the public, curtailment of water use and maintenance
of revenues, and monitoring of water-user compliance—to
cope with planning for water shortages associated with
droughts. These tools addressed the following fundamen-
tal questions:
• How does a State know when there is a drought?
• If there is a drought, who is in charge?
• How is the public informed?
• How are current allocations and uses of water to
be modified?
• How is compliance assured?
The answers or responses to these fundamental questions
need not be identical for each State having a functioning
water-management plan applicable to droughts. Each
State, however, needs to address each question in terms
of its own circumstances. Failure to address each of the
questions will detract seriously from the effectiveness of a
water-management plan. Each of these planning tools is
now examined in detail.
IDENTIFICATION OF DROUGHT INDICATORS
Because of the difficulty of deciding when droughts start
and end, specific drought indicators must be used to
decide when to implement a water-management plan.
 MANAGEMENT OF WATER RESOURCES FOR DROUGHT CONDITIONS
When such indicators have been identified, water users
can formulate contingency plans and make decisions on
future economic investments (11, p. 47). The drought
indicators must be precise and susceptible to little, if
any, subjective decision making. The latter makes the
indicators vulnerable to court action by those who oppose
advanced planning.
A variety of drought indicators can be used, including
the Palmer Index (a drought-severity index), in stream
flows, historical data on the present and anticipated
needs for water, the degree of subsidence or saltwater
intrusion, the potential for irreversible adverse effects
on fish and wildlife, and reservoir or groundwater
conditions relative to the number of days of water supply
remaining (11, p. 47). Usually it is desirable to select
a number of drought indicators to reflect the seasonal
relation of supply versus demand. The Delaware River
Basin Commission (11, p. 51) relies on five drought
indicators—precipitation, groundwater levels, reservoir
storage, streamflow, and the Palmer Index. Ranges of
values for each of these indicators are assigned to one
of four drought stages—normal, drought watch, drought
warning, and drought emergency (11, p. 51). To activate
any one of the drought stages, three of the five drought
indicators must indicate a given drought stage (12, p. 34).
The drought indicators should not be so complex as
to cause uncertainty about whether some stage of the
water-management plan should be activated; for example,
if precipitation and reservoir storage are two drought
indicators, the decision to activate the plan will be unclear
if the precipitation is less than normal while reservoir
storage is normal.
When there is only one source of water supply,
one drought indicator may be sufficient; for example,
581
when a city’s only source of water is a reservoir,
the water-management plan can be activated if reser-
voir storage, expressed as a percentage of normal
seasonal capacity, decreases below a specified per-
centage. The phasing criteria used by Manchester,
Connecticut, are an example (Table 1): a drought
watch goes into effect when reservoir storage is at
70 percent of normal seasonal capacity, and stage I
of the water-management plan becomes operational
when reservoir storage is 57 percent of normal sea-
sonal capacity.
A sliding scale for drought indicators also can be
shown graphically in terms of the storage in a reservoir,
as shown by the operation curves for three reservoirs
in New York that also are part of the Delaware River
basin (Fig. 1). When the actual reservoir level drops below
the drought-warning zone or drought zone, schedule of
reduced diversions from the basin to the various localities
takes effect. The Pennsylvania Drought Contingency Plan
for the Delaware River Basin is based on these criteria.
Where groundwater is one of the main sources of water
supply, drought indicators based on groundwater levels
can be used; the Alameda County Water District in
California has such a plan (12, p. 38).
Most water-management plans have correlated suc-
cessive stages of a drought strategy to certain deficit-
reduction goals (12, p. 39). Fewer than three stages in a
plan can result in marked differences in the actions to
be implemented between the first and the second stages.
More than five stages in a plan, however, can cause fre-
quent transitions between stages, which can decrease the
effectiveness of the plan. An example of a workable plan is
the Seattle Water Department five-stage plan for reducing
water use (Table 1). Agencies having water-management
Figure 1. Operation curves for three
New York City reservoirs (Can-
nonville, Pepacton, and Neversink) in
the Delaware River Basin (from Ref.
13, p. 31).
 Table 1. Drought-Contingency-Plan Phasing Criteria Used By Two Cities in the United States
MANCHESTER, CONNECTICUT
(South System)

Drought Stage Drought Stage Initiating Conditions Demand-Reduction Objective

Drought watch Reservoir water levels at 70 percent of normal seasonal Informational only, raise public awareness
capacity.
Stage 1 Reservoir water levels at 57 percent of normal seasonal Cut back withdrawals from reservoirs by 5 percent or
capacity. reduce total system use by 3.8 percent.
Stage 2 Reservoir water levels at 40 percent of normal seasonal Cut back withdrawals from reservoirs by 30 percent or
capacity. reduce total system use by 20 percent.
Stage 3 Reservoir water levels at 0 percent of normal seasonal Eliminate withdrawals from reservoirs and reduce total
capacity system use by 70 percent.

Source: Data from Reference 12, pp. 33, 35, and 36.

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, WATER DEPARTMENT

(Deficit reduction objective is based on demand levels in a l-in-50-year
drought, which are expected to be above normal averages due to warm, dry conditions)

Summer-Shortage Response Plan

Demand-Reduction Amount,
in Million Gallons Per Day

Stage 1 Minor shortage Total system storage is not filled to capacity as of June 1. Water-system management 3.0
potential Streamflow and snowmelt forecasts indicate that inflows Customer 0.0
will be inadequate to fill storage facilities before the Total 3.0
beginning of the peak-use season.
Stage 2 Moderate Total system storage is predicted to fall below the level Water-system management 3.0
shortage potential required to meet expected demands during a 1-in-50-year Customer 4.7
drought. System inflows continue to be low. Weather Total 7.7
forecasts predict a continuing trend of warmer, drier than
normal conditions.
Stage 3 Serious shortage Total system storage drops below the level required to meet Water-system management 5.0
expected demands during a 1-in-50-year drought. System Customer 15.0
inflows continue to be low. Weather forecasts predict a Total 20.0
continuing trend of warmer, drier than normal conditions.
Stage 4 Severe shortage Conditions described for stage 3 occur near the end of the Water-system management 5.0
peak-use season. Customer 16.1
Total 21.1
Stage 5 Critical Customer demands and system pressure requirements Not applicable.
emergency cannot be met.

Fall-Shortage Response Plan

Demand-Reduction Amount,
in Million Gallons Per Day

Stage 1 Minor shortage Total system-storage levels are dropping due to the increased Water-system management 3.0
potential use associated with a warm, dry summer. Weather Customer 0.0
forecasts predict a continuing trend of warmer, drier than Total 3.0
normal conditions.
Stage 2 Moderate Total system storage is expected to fall below the level Water-system management 5.0
shortage potential required to meet expected demands during a 1-in-50-year Customer 2.4
drought. Total 7.4
Stage 3 Serious shortage System inflows continue to be low. Water-system management 5.0
Customer 6.2
Total .11.2
Stage 4 Severe shortage Weather forecasts predict a continuing trend of warmer, drier Water-system management 5.0
than normal conditions. Customer 19.6
Total 24.6
Stage 5 Critical Customer demands and system pressure requirements Water-system management 5.0
emergency cannot be met. Customer 52.4
Total 57.4

582
 MANAGEMENT OF WATER RESOURCES FOR DROUGHT CONDITIONS
plans have determined that fall droughts have a lesser
probability of occurrence, but if they do occur, they are
likely to develop more quickly and be more severe.
DESIGNATION OF GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY
The designation of a governmental unit or agency having
specific drought-planning authority in advance of a
drought is one of the critical aspects of providing for
managing water supplies during droughts (10, p. 162). For
a water-management plan to be effective, the designated
agency needs to have authority to declare that a drought
exists and to alter water-use patterns. The location of a
unit or agency that has this authority within the State’s
administrative structure will vary. Statutory authority
needs to be detailed and specific. If discretionary authority
is given, well-defined guidelines for its use need to
be given. Failure to adequately delineate the limits
wherein action needs to be taken can create situations
where administrators postpone action in order to avoid
conflict with user groups. This postponement lessens the
protection afforded to both water quantity and quality (10,
p. 164).
NOTIFICATION OF THE PUBLIC
When drought conditions activate the implementation
of the water-management plan, the public needs to be
notified. The notice needs to contain information about
the provisions to curtail use, when conservation measures
become effective, the availability of variances, and the
procedures for obtaining a variance. The exact notification
procedure can be developed to reflect local conditions.
Examples of States having well-defined notification
procedures include Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and
South Carolina (10, p. 165).
CURTAILMENT OF WATER USE AND MAINTENANCE OF
REVENUES
A system of priorities of water-use categories needs to be
in place before droughts occur, so that each user knows, in
advance of a drought, in what order water restrictions will
be applied. If industries and commercial establishments
know, in advance of a drought, the procedures to be used
in reducing water availability, they can establish their
own contingency plans for those reductions; for example,
they can arrange for alternative water supplies or plan
reductions in production schedules. Unlike most Western
States, the majority of Eastern States, which allocate
water according to the riparian doctrine, do not have a
water-use-priority system to deal with water shortages
caused by droughts. Some attempt, however, has been
made in most States to show a preference for certain uses
(10, p. 162).
A reduction in water use will cause a reduction in the
revenues of the water suppliers. The reduced revenues
come at a time when costs are greater because of
expenditures made to deal with the drought. In the absence
of a water-revenue reserve or a drought-emergency
583
account, water suppliers need to either increase water
rates or impose a drought surcharge (12, p. 49). The use
of a drought surcharge has several advantages compared
to a simple increase in water rates. For example, the
drought surcharge is easier to administer, and the amount
of revenue to be generated is more predictable. This
surcharge probably is more acceptable to the customer
because it is a one-time charge that is understandable
and allays the fear that a water-rate increase to make
up revenues lost during droughts will continue when the
drought is over.
MONITORING OF WATER-USER COMPLIANCE
Experience has indicated that reductions in water use
greater than 20–25 percent cannot be obtained with a
request for voluntary conservation (12, p. 29). There does
not seem to be general agreement as to whether manda-
tory conservation regulations or water-rate increases
and drought surcharges are the most effective means
of reducing water use to a volume less than that
obtained by voluntary conservation. Utah determined
that price increases to reduce water use were not as
effective as mandatory conservation regulations for a
short drought (12, p. 28). New Jersey, in contrast,
recently enacted a ‘‘water emergency price schedule’’
in preference to mandatory restrictions (New Jersey
Administrative Code, title 7, section 19B-1.5(a)). Some
utilities managers argue that the availability of enforce-
ment mechanisms is the important feature of the plan
and that their application is rare (12, p. 29). Much
of the monitoring of customers for compliance comes
from peer-group pressure, but governmental employees,
such as supervisors of streets and wastewater depart-
ments and inspectors for buildings, plumbing, electric,
construction, and health services, can be empowered to
issue citations (12, p. 29). This is an effective method of
monitoring a service area with a minimum of expense
and with minimal disruption of employees’ regular
work schedules.
SYNOPSIS OF PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
ACTIVITIES OF THE STATES
The planning tools suggested by King and others (3) in
their ‘‘Model Water Use Act’’ provide a minimum set
of criteria for evaluating the activities of States in the
area of water management during droughts. A survey
in 1983 and its update in 1986 by the Virginia Water
Resources Research Center (10) determined that, of the 48
conterminous States, only 8 States have comprehensive
water-shortage plans, 27 States have emergency drought
provisions within their water-rights system, and 13 States
do not appear to have plans in place for managing water
resources during droughts (Fig. 2).
The eight States that have comprehensive water-
management plans incorporate all of the basic concepts
suggested in the ‘‘Model Water Use Act.’’ However,
the approach by each State has been different and
reflects individual State needs and existing water-
allocation systems. The drought indicators that are used
584 MANAGEMENT OF WATER RESOURCES FOR DROUGHT CONDITIONS
Figure 2. State-level methods for managing water resources during drought conditions (From Ref. 10, p. 146).
to determine when the plans are to begin and to end
probably were the least precise component in the plan
of each of the eight States. All the water-management
plans are activated at the State level except in Florida,
where activation is the responsibility of existing water-
management districts, and in California, where activation
is in the charge of the intrastate districts mandated
by statute.
Water laws of 27 States have been modified to establish
systems of water-use categories (Fig. 2). Although having
these systems in place eases the management of water
supplies once a drought occurs, most of the changes are
designed to meet emergency water shortages rather than
to provide a strategy to mitigate the effects of droughts
before an emergency develops (10, p. 149). These 27
States can be subdivided into those that have modified
the riparian doctrine with some form of a permit system;
that use a modified appropriation system; or that rely
on civil-defense, disaster, or emergency legislation that
incorporates droughts within its definitions (10, p. 148). A
description of these subdivisions follows.
Six States (Fig. 2) in the East have modified then
common-law riparian doctrine by requiring water-use
permits for some uses. Many of the permits are subject
to water-use restrictions during times of severe water
shortages. Georgia has water-use restrictions that are
implemented during water emergencies. Iowa has made
all use of surface and groundwater subject to a statewide
permit system; permit users are denied water whenever
the minimum instream-flow standard is reached. In
Kentucky, permits give no guarantee of a water right
during droughts. Conservation programs are required
under all permits in Maryland when the safety is
threatened by existing or projected water demand. North
Carolina’s permit system is limited to designated capacity-
use areas; other laws in North Carolina grant water-
emergency powers that affect the capacity-use areas and
the rest of the State. Pennsylvania requires permits only
of public water suppliers using surface water; permits
are conditioned on there being an emergency water plan
in place. All these States have taken some initial steps
to manage their water resources during droughts, but
they utilize few of the planning tools suggested by King
and others (3) in their ‘‘Model Water Use Act’’ for water
management (10, p. 155).
Twelve States (Fig. 2) in the West have attempted
to deal with severe water shortages by modifying the
appropriation doctrine for allocating water. Under this
doctrine only the most senior appropriation in time will
receive water during water shortages. All these States
have modified the appropriation doctrine to some degree
to accommodate water shortages caused by droughts. New
Mexico, for example, provides for changing the place of
diversion, storage, or use of water if an emergency exists
(10, p. 152). In Oregon, the Director of Water Resources
can order State agencies and political subdivisions to
develop water-conservation and water-use-curtailment
plans that encourage conservation, reduce nonessential
water use, prevent waste, provide for reuse of water,
and allocate or rotate the supply to domestic, municipal,
and industrial uses (10, p. 152). Utah allows its State
Engineer to use regulatory authority to prevent waste in
 MANAGEMENT OF WATER RESOURCES FOR DROUGHT CONDITIONS
order to mandate rotation of irrigation water where no
use will benefit from a diversion of the water supply
(10, p. 152). In these 12 States, legislation provides
some management tools to assist in decreasing the
effects of a water-shortage crisis. Little of the modifying
legislation includes the planning tools suggested by
King and others (3) in their ‘‘Model Water Use Act’’
to manage water shortages due to droughts in a
comprehensive way.
Nine States (Fig. 2) in the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic
region have left the management of droughts, from a State
perspective, almost entirely to the Governor. These States
perceive water shortages as primarily the responsibility of
local government. The State has a role when the shortage
becomes extensive in terms of time and scope and affects
such a large area of the State that the water shortage
is perceived as a severe crisis approaching a disaster.
These States choose to deal with water shortages due to
droughts on an ad hoc basis. New York passed a law that
took effect in 1990 and requires a conservation plan for
surface withdrawals.
INTRASTATE REGIONAL AUTHORITIES AND INTERSTATE
COMMISSION COMPACTS
Intrastate regional authorities can perform the water-
management function during droughts if droughts are
less than statewide in scope. Politically, such authorities
are difficult to create because of the rivalry that exists
among local units of government. If intrastate regional
authorities are established, such regional grouping must
be done carefully to avoid possible constitutional challenge
as unlawful delegation of legislative authority (10, p. 162).
The water-management districts in Florida are examples
of this approach.
When droughts affect more than one State but are not
national in scope, interstate commissions and compacts
can provide the management function to mitigate drought
effects. Their effectiveness is predicated on having well-
publicized plans and specific rules for planning purposes
so that all users know how they will fare when the river
flows cannot accommodate all the withdrawal demands
(10, p. 164). The Delaware River Basin Compact (Public
Law 87–328, 75 Stat. 688, 1961) and the 1978 Potomac
River Low Flow Agreement are examples of interstate
compacts that have been used to plan for the problems
associated with droughts. Such commissions or compacts
require, however, the approval of all of the involved State
legislatures, which could be a difficult task politically.
The fact that the number of such entities is small is
ample evidence of the difficulty and time required to
establish them.
FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITIES FOR WATER QUALITY AS
RELATED TO DROUGHTS
Since 1972, with the passage of the Water Pollu-
tion Control Act Amendments (Public Law 92–500),
the Federal Government has assumed a more dom-
inant role on water-quality issues related to surface
water. Because droughts and the resulting low flows
585
have a substantial effect on water quality, it is pos-
sible, on the basis of existing legislation and regu-
lations, that the Federal Government might become
more interested in drought management. For example,
Section 208(b)(2)(1) of the Clean Water Act (Public Law
92–500) provides:
Any plan prepared under such process shall include, but not
be limited to, (1) a process to (i) identify, if appropriate, salt
water intrusion into rivers, lakes, and estuaries resulting
from reduction of fresh water flow from any cause, including
irrigation, obstruction, groundwater extraction, and diversion,
and (ii) set forth procedures and methods to control such
intrusion to the extent feasible where such procedures
and methods are otherwise a part of the waste treatment
management plan.
The legislative history amplifies on this point (1972
U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News, p.
3706) (emphasis added):
Salt water intrusion no less than point sources of discharge,
alters significantly the character of the water and the life
system it supports. Salt water intrusion often devastates
the commercial shellfish industry. It must be accounted for
and controlled in any pollution control program. It makes no
sense to control salts associated with industrial or municipal
waste point sources and allow, at the same time, similar
effects to enter the fresh water as a result of intrusion of salt
water. Fresh water flows can be reduced from any number
of causes. The bill requires identification of those causes and
establishment of methods to control them so as to minimize the
impact of salt water intrusion.
Droughts can be one of the major causes for reduced
freshwater flows, and the law requires that methods be
established to control or to minimize the causes of reduced
freshwater flows that allow saltwater intrusion.
The Siting Requirement under the Safe Drinking Water
Act (Public Law 93–523) contains language(emphasizes
added) that can be construed to include drought conditions
and, thus, impose on States the requirement to adapt
siting criteria that include drought conditions:
Before a person may enter into a financial commitment for or
initiate construction of a new public water system or increase
the capacity of an existing public water system, he shall notify
the State and, to the extent practicable, avoid locating part
or all of the new or expanded facility at a site which: (a) Is
subject to a significant risk from earth-quakes, floods, fires or
other disasters which could cause a breakdown of the public
water system or a portion thereof.
Droughts could conceivably be ‘‘other disasters’’ pro-
vided for in the Safe Drinking Water Act. A combination
of these water-quality considerations might, in the future,
cause the Federal Government to give greater consid-
eration to managing the effects of droughts, at least
with respect to those effects that impinge on water-
quality issues.
Lastly, the quality of surface-water bodies is affected
markedly by the runoff that occurs when precipitation
increases after a drought. During the drought, pollutants
586 WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
accumulate on the land surface and on other surfaces,
such as pavement and structures. It is not uncommon for
droughts to be followed by a period of abnormally high
precipitation that tends to aggravate the already existing
water-quality problems by rapidly flushing large loads of
pollutants into surface-water bodies. After the drought in
England in the 1970s, the nitrate concentration in the
Thames River increased to the point where the public-
supply intakes had to be closed (9, p. 54). This kind of post
drought problem may be reflected in what the Federal
Government requires States to do to meet water-quality
standards. Some drought planning may occur at the State
level as a byproduct of the action taken to address this
water-quality problem.
CONCLUSIONS
The planning for and the management of the effects
of droughts appear to have a low priority in all but
a few States, although all have experienced severe
water shortages. For the most part, accommodating the
inconvenience caused by droughts is considered a local-
government responsibility. The Federal Government’s role
has been to provide financial assistance to citizens after
the droughts have occurred. Water-quality legislation may
cause the Federal Government to take a more proactive
approach to managing the effects of droughts. Several
factors will have to coexist before many States will
undertake development of plans to mitigate the effects of
droughts. Such factors may be the occurrence of a drought
that is long and extensive, thereby increasing demands
on a fixed water supply, and a public awareness of the
economic costs of droughts. As water demands continue to
grow, even minor droughts will become more serious, and
States will be compelled to become leaders in developing
water-management plans.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Yevjevich, V., Hall, W.A., and Salas, J.D. (Eds.). (1978).
Drought Research Needs-Conference on Drought Research
Needs, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado,
December 12–15, 1977, Proceedings: Fort Collins, CO, Water
Resources Publications, p. 288.
2. Palmer, W.C. (1965). Meteorological Drought. U.S. Weather
Bureau Research Paper 45, p. 64.
3. King, D.B., Lauer, T.E., and Zieglar, W.L. (1958). Model
water use act with comments. In: Water Resources and the
Law. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pp. 533–614.
4. Harrison, R. (1977). Response to Droughts. Water Spectrum
9(3): 34–41.
5. Sheer, D.P. (1986). Managing Water Supplies to Increase
Water Availability, in National Water Summary 1985—
Hydrologic Events and Surface-Water Resources. U.S. Geo-
logical Survey Water-Supply Paper 2300, pp. 101–112.
6. Comptroller General of the United States. (1979). Federal
Response to the 1976-77 Drought-What Should Be Done Next.
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, p. 25.
7. Cox, W.E. (1982). Water law primer. American Society of
Civil Engineers, Water Resources Planning and Management
Division, Proceedings, v. 18 (WRI), pp. 107–122.
8. Heathcode, R.L. (1986). Drought mitigation in Australia.
Great Plains Quarterly 6: 225–237.
9. Blackburn, A.M. (1978). Management strategies—dealing
with drought. Am. Water Works Assoc. J. 1978: 51–59.
10. Hrezo, M.S., Bridgeman, P.G., and Walker, W.R. (1986). Inte-
grating drought planning into water resources management.
Nat. Resour. J. 26: 141–167.
11. Hrezo, M.S., Bridgeman, P.G., and Walker, W.R. (1986).
Managing droughts through triggering mechanisms. Am.
Water Works Assoc. J. 1986: 46–51.
12. California Department of Water Resources. (1988). Urban
Drought Guidebook. California Department of Natural
Resources, Department of Water Resources, Office of Water
Conservation, Water Conservation Guidebook 7, p. 144.
13. U.S. Geological Survey. (1986). National Water Summary
1985-Hydrologic Events and Surface-Water Resources. U.S.
Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2300, p. 506.
WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
NEIL S. GRIGG
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado
Water is an essential asset for all life and economic
activity, and the term ‘‘water resources management’’
describes activities necessary to balance supplies and
demands of water. It involves applying structural and
nonstructural measures to control natural and man-made
water resources systems to achieve beneficial human and
environmental purposes, which may be listed as water
supply, wastewater service, flood control, hydropower,
recreation, navigation, and environmental protection (1).
Along with these, water resources management deals with
mutual impacts between water and other systems, such
as land, wildlife, and economic systems.
Water resources management controls water resources
systems, that are combinations of constructed water
control facilities and natural, or environmental elements
that work together to achieve water management.
A constructed water resources system, consisting of
structural facilities, provides control of water flow and
quality and includes facilities for water supply and
wastewater management; for drainage of land and control
of floods; and for water control in rivers, reservoirs,
and aquifers. Examples include conveyance systems
(channels, canals, and pipes), diversion structures, dams
and storage facilities, treatment plants, pumping stations
and hydroelectric plants, wells, and all appurtenances.
Natural water resource systems comprise sets of
environmental or hydrologic elements in nature that
include the atmosphere, watersheds, stream channels,
wetlands, floodplains, aquifers and groundwater systems,
lakes, estuaries, seas, and the ocean.
In addition to structural measures to control water
flow and quality, nonstructural measures are used for
programs or activities that do not require constructed
facilities. Examples of nonstructural measures include
pricing schemes, zoning, incentives, public relations,
regulatory programs, and insurance.
 NASA HELPING TO UNDERSTAND WATER FLOW IN THE WEST 587

Water resources management takes place within a
‘‘water industry’’ that consists of water service organiza-
tions, regulators, coordinators, and support organizations.
This industry places great value on public involvement in
decisions because water affects all people and activity in
interdependent relationships.
Water supply serves four categories of water users:
people, industries, farms, and the general environment.
Thus, we speak of water supply for people (domestic
water supply), for cities (urban water supply), for farms
(irrigation), for industries (industrial water supply),
and for cities and industries (municipal and industrial
or M&I water), or we can speak of water for the
environment (water for natural systems and habitat).
Wastewater management serves the same categories, as
urban wastewater, industrial wastewater, and drainage
for farms.
In-stream uses of water include hydropower generation,
navigation, recreation, and sustenance of fisheries and
ecological systems.
Stormwater and flood control are different types of
water management activities that handle excessive water.
As ‘‘protective’’ services, they do not provide water, but
remove or store the excess water.
Given its many facets, water resources manage-
ment should be comprehensive, coordinated, and inte-
grated. Comprehensive water resources management
includes all purposes and stakeholders in its activ-
ities. When water management is coordinated, there
should be linkages between activities so that they
occur with due consideration of each other. Integrated
water resources management is a term that includes
aspects of comprehensive and coordinated water man-
agement, and it has been explained in several ways;
usually the goal is describing a holistic management pro-
cess.
For example, a working group of the Awwa Research
Foundation (2) used the term ‘‘Total Water Manage-
ment’’ to explain the integrated nature of water
resources management:
• fosters public health, safety, and community good
will.’’
In the past, water resources management was primarily
an engineering arena for building dams, laying pipelines,
installing pumps, and operating systems. Now, managing
water resources requires skills and approaches that
go beyond pure engineering, science, management,
and law. Water resources managers must deal with
complexity and conflict to unravel interdependency of
systems and resolve political and legal dilemmas. Skills
from several disciplines are required, including law,
finance, and public administration, along with engineering
and science.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Grigg, N.S. (1996). Water Resources Management: Principles,
Cases, and Regulations. McGrawHill, New York.
2. Awwa Research Foundation. (1996). Minutes of Workshop on
Total Water Management. August 1996, Seattle, Denver.
NASA HELPING TO UNDERSTAND WATER
FLOW IN THE WEST
LINDSAY RENICK MAYER
KRISHNA RAMANUJAN
Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, Maryland
To do their jobs, water resource managers in the Columbia
River Basin have mostly relied on data from sparsely
located ground stations among the Cascade Mountains in
the Pacific Northwest. But now, NASA and partnering

‘‘Total Water Management is the exercise of stewardship

of water resources for the greatest good of society and
the environment. A basic principle of Total Water Man-
agement is that the supply is renewable, but limited,
and should be managed on a sustainable use basis. Tak-
ing into consideration local and regional variations, Total
Water Management

• encourages planning and management of natural water

systems through a dynamic process that adapts to
changing conditions;
• balances competing uses of water through efficient allo-
cation that addresses social values, cost-effectiveness,
and environmental benefits and costs;
Figure 1. Map of Rio Grande and Columbia River Basins. Credit:
• requires the participation of all units of government and Image by Robert Simmon, NASA GSFC Earth Observatory,
stakeholders in decision-making through a process of Michael Tischler, NASA/GSFC.
coordination and conflict resolution;
• promotes water conservation, reuse, source protection,
and supply development to enhance water quality and This article is a US Government work and, as such, is in the
quantity; and public domain in the United States of America.
588 NASA HELPING TO UNDERSTAND WATER FLOW IN THE WEST
Figure 2. Rio Grande River Basin, SeaWiFS Image with MODIS
higher resolution inset. This graphic shows a larger view (1
kilometer resolution) of the Rio Grande River Basin taken
by the Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor (SeaWiFS) on
the OrbView-2 satellite, with an inset of the same area
(250 meter resolution) taken by the Moderate Resolution
Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instrument aboard the
Terra satellite. In the inset, the largest dark area indicates
Elephant Butte Reservoir. Credit: Image by Andrew French of
NASA GSFC/NRC, Kristi Arsenault, NASA GSFC and Univ. of
Maryland-Baltimore County.
Figure 3. MODIS image of Columbia River Basin snowcover,
February 24, 2003. This image from the Moderate Resolution
Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) shows snowcover for the
Columbia River Basin in the Cascade Mountains of Washington
State, taken on February 24, 2003 (250 meter resolution). Credit:
Jeff Schmaltz MODIS Land Rapid Response Team, NASA/GSFC.
agencies are going to provide United States Bureau
of Reclamation water resource managers with high
resolution satellite data, allowing them to analyze up-
to-date water-related information over large areas all at
once.
The pilot program is now underway with the Rio Grande
and Columbia River basins where water is scarce while
demands range from hydropower, to farming, fishing,
boating and protecting endangered species (Fig. 1). Water
resource managers in these areas grapple with the big
money stakes of distributing a finite amount of water to
many groups. NASA satellite data offer to fill the data
gaps in mountainous and drought-ridden terrain, and new
computer models let users quickly process that data.
Land Surface Models (LSMs) from NASA, other
agencies and universities, and NASA satellite data can
be used to determine snowpack, amounts of soil moisture,
and the loss of water into the atmosphere from plants
and the soil, a process known as evapotranspiration.
Understanding these variables in the water cycle is
a key to managing water in such resource-limited
areas.
‘‘The latest satellites provide so much up-to-date and
wide-ranging data, which we can use in the models to
monitor and better understand what is happening with
the water cycle in these areas,’’ said Kristi Arsenault,
research associate for the Land Data Assimilation System
(LDAS) team at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center,
and Research Associate at University of Maryland,
Baltimore County.
‘‘These efforts are designed to improve the efficiency
of the analysis and prediction of water supply and
demand using the emerging technologies of the Land
Figure 4. MODIS image of Rio Grande River Basin, February
22, 2003. This image from the Moderate Resolution Imaging
Spectroradiometer (MODIS) shows the Rio Grande River Basin
taken on February 22, 2003 (250 meter resolution). Credit: Jeff
Schmaltz MODIS Land Rapid Response Team, NASA/GSFC.
 NASA HELPING TO UNDERSTAND WATER FLOW IN THE WEST
Figure 5. U.S. rainfall (July 1 to 15, 2002). This animation
shows 3-hourly rainfall from July 1 through 15, 2002. Rainfall
is one of the main variables that drive land surface models
used by water resource managers and scientists. Credit: Images
by Robert Simmon, NASA GSFC Earth Observatory, based on
data provided by Kristi Arsenault, NASA GSFC and Univ. of
Maryland-Baltimore County.
Figure 6. U.S. soil moisture (July 1 to 15, 2002). This animation
shows changes in soil moisture from July 1 through 15, 2002,
derived from a land surface model. Soil moisture is important
for knowing how much water is contained in the soil, which is
vital for crop production, flood prediction, and evapotranspiration
estimates. Credit: Images by Robert Simmon, NASA GSFC Earth
Observatory, based on data provided by Kristi Arsenault, NASA
GSFC and Univ. of Maryland-Baltimore County.
Data Assimilation System,’’ said Dr. Dave Matthews,
manager of the River Systems and Meteorology Group of
the Technical Services Center, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
589
(Reclamation). Computer models, known as decision
support systems, that factor in ecological, human, and
legal restrictions are vital to managing and allocating
water, Matthews added. These systems will incorporate
NASA satellite and model data.
NASA’s tools may be of vital use in the Rio Grande and
Columbia River basins where the disparate and numerous
water demands have enormous economic implications.
In the Rio Grande Basin, for example, water managers
dole out water to farmers so they can irrigate their
land. At the same time, under the Endangered Species
Act, states are required by law to maintain river water
levels to protect the habitat of the endangered silvery
minnow. A recent seven-year drought has exacerbated
these demands.
Similarly, the Columbia River Basin provides water
for the Coulee Dam, the largest concrete dam in
North America, and a means for controlling floods.
This hydroelectric dam is the third largest producer
of electricity in the world. At the same time, the
basin is a source of water for a billion dollar agricul-
tural area.
To help make big decisions of allocating water, NASA’s
special technologies can provide a unique perspective from
space. For example, satellites can classify vegetation, a
task that is essential to calculating evapotranspiration,
which accounts for up to 60 percent of water loss into the
air in a region like the Rio Grande Basin. Some managers
have been relying on vegetation maps that dated back
to 1993, in areas where wild-lands, crops and farming
practices are subject to change.
Landsat data can provide highly detailed spatial
information, but these images may only be available once
a month, and are very expensive. The newer technologies
of the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer
(MODIS) instrument on the Terra and Aqua satellites
provides more frequent passes and day-to-day and week-
to-week changes in vegetation production (Fig. 2). In
addition, other variables of interest, like snow cover and
land surface temperatures, are updated more regularly by
MODIS, which can aid in identifying areas with potential
flooding and help with the daily management of the
water resources (Figs. 3 and 4).
LDAS has also begun to evaluate soil moisture data
from NASA’s Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer
(AMSR-E) aboard the Aqua satellite and 3-hour rainfall
estimates from NASA’s Tropical Rainfall Measuring
Mission (Figs. 5 and 6). All this data helps determine
how much water is being absorbed into the ground,
versus how much is evaporating into the atmosphere.
These observations will then be assimilated into Land
Surface Models so that water managers can assess
flood risks and other factors and act accordingly in a
timely manner.
Reclamation brings water to more than 31 million
people and provides one out of five Western farmers with
irrigation water for 10 million acres of farmland.
One mission of NASA’s Earth Science Enterprise is
to expand and accelerate the realization of economic
and societal benefits from Earth science information
and technology.
590 TRANSBOUNDARY WATER CONFLICTS IN THE NILE BASIN
TRANSBOUNDARY WATER CONFLICTS IN THE
NILE BASIN
RONGCHAO LI
Delft University of Technology
Delft, The Netherlands
WATER SCARCITY IN THE NILE
The Nile, the longest river in the world, has nourished
livelihoods, supported a vast array of ecosystems, and
played a central role in a rich diversity of cultures.
As shown in Fig. 1, from its major source, Lake
Victoria in east central Africa, the White Nile flows
generally north through Uganda and into Sudan where
it meets the Blue Nile at Khartoum, which rises in the
Ethiopian highlands. From the confluence of the White
and Blue Nile, the river continues to flow northward
into Egypt and on to the Mediterranean Sea. From
Lake Victoria to the Mediterranean Sea, the length
of the Nile is 5584 km (3470 mi). From its remotest
headstream, the Ruvyironza River in Burundi, the river
is 6671 km (4145 mi) long. The river basin has an area
of more than 3,349,000 sq km (1,293,049 sq mi) (source:
http://www.nilebasin.org/IntroNR.htm).
Figure 1. Nile basin map. (Source: http://www.nilebasin.org/
nilemap.htm.)
As a typical transboundary case, the Nile River Basin is
shared by ten countries: Burundi, Democratic Republic of
Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Sudan,
Tanzania, and Uganda.
Since the early 1970s, water scarcity has become a
matter of concern for the downstream states of the Nile.
The engagement of the two downstream states (Egypt
and the Sudan) in effective development of irrigated
agriculture marked the beginning of real scarcity. The
1960s, in particular, marked the beginning when the
two countries engaged in constructing large-scale water
projects; by the end of the decade, three dams (Roseires
and Khashm Al-Girba in Sudan and the High Dam in
Egypt) were constructed. Large-scale agricultural schemes
have become dependent on these dams.
In addition to damming the river and increasing
demand for irrigation, population growth is considered
a major cause of water scarcity in the Nile Basin. Since
the late 1940s, probably all Nile Basin countries started to
witness steady population increases. In the 1990s, the Nile
Basin region experienced one of the highest population
increments among the world’s regions. Striking evidence
of this is that 6 out of the top 20 countries in the world
in population increments in 1991 were Nile riparians.
The population of Ethiopia, Sudan, and Egypt will double
from 157 million to 388 million by the year 2050. The total
population of the Nile Basin will more than double when
it increases from its 1992 figure of 259 million (1, p. 82)
to 607 million by the year 2025. The Nile riparians will
remain, well into the first half of this century, among those
with the highest growth rate in the world; their rates range
from 2.4% to 3.6% (1, p. 82). The most important conclusion
to be derived is that more significant increases are taking
place in upstream than in downstream countries (2, p.
2). Moreover, it is observed that the countries that have
large populations are increasing their population faster
than those that have smaller populations. Thus, except
for the Democratic Republic of Congo, all large-populated
countries will be in dire need of Nile waters as irrigated
agriculture increases.
The 1980s witnessed yet another driving force in the
region that contributed to water scarcity, the recurrent
droughts and their consequential population concentration
along the banks of the Nile and its tributaries. The
1980s and 1990s seem to provide new causes that have
turned migration into ‘‘displacement.’’ Referring to the
Nile, Mageed (3, p. 159) stated that ‘‘The arid and semi-
arid regions of the Basin are experiencing a serious
breakdown of the environmental fabric and the spread
of desertification along with the collapse of socio-economic
systems.’’ The part of the Nile Basin that is crossed by
the Sudano–Sahelian zone has scored the highest rate
(88%) of desertification in the early 1980s compared
to the African average (84%) and the world average
(61%). The consequences of drought and land degradation
surfaced soon after the 1980s decade started and reached
their peaks in famines in Ethiopia and the Sudan
simultaneously in 1984. The effect of these, however,
has hit all the Nile riparians in different degrees. These
consequences have led/will lead to radical changes in the
population map in Ethiopia and the Sudan. These famines
 TRANSBOUNDARY WATER CONFLICTS IN THE NILE BASIN
have pushed large groups of population to the Nile River
zone and thus contributed to real population concentration
along the banks of the Nile and cultivable irrigable lands
in its vicinity. Computations from population census data
reveal that the river zone in central Sudan has increased
its relative population size by 5.61% between 1983 and
2000, and similarly, in Ethiopia, the relative size of the
population inside the Nile Basin increased by 6.5% in
just a decade between 1984 and 1994. The same census
data show that the population of urban areas in both
countries is increasing along the banks and tributaries
of the Nile/inside the Nile Basin. The population of Egypt
has always been concentrated along the borders of the Nile
except for some small oases in the deserts. Although the
government of Egypt is developing urban areas outside
the Nile valley, most of these developments still depend
on Nile water for their water supply.
Unlike population concentration on a regional scale,
population concentration in urban areas generates scarcity
of a much higher magnitude (4, p. 90). This concentration
generates water scarcity in several ways, including high
demand for safe water for drinking and sanitation and
high pollution rates, which render some water useless, or
even harmful. However, as no further facilities have been
installed, the concentrating of population has negatively
affected the provision of safe water for urban dwellers;
in Sudan, the rates decreased from 100% in 1980 to
86% in 2001. In all Nile Basin countries, except for
Egypt, provision of safe water has been very limited.
Water scarcity caused by population concentration is
increased by the in-stream demand for hydropower
generation, by the evaporation of reservoirs developed
for hydropower generation, by increasing demand due to
agricultural development, and by climate change due to
global warming.
WATER ALLOCATION AND DISPUTES IN THE NILE BASIN
In reality, water scarcity already causes violence and
conflict within and between nations, which is a threat
to social and political stability. Peter Gleick, who makes
an ongoing effort to understand the connections between
water resources and international conflict and security
issues, points out that ‘‘disputes over control of water
resources may reflect either political power disputes,
disagreements over approaches to economic development,
or both. It is evolving as international and regional politics
evolves. . .’’ (5). Water disputes typically are erupting
within countries in the downstream regions of stressed
river basins. Even if water disputes between countries
do not lead to war directly, they have fueled decades
of regional tensions and thwarted economic development
before eventually giving way to cooperation. The Nile is
an example in this respect.
Legal arrangements for the Nile in the nineteenth
century were much more comprehensive than today in
terms of legal obligations abided by all governments ruling
over almost all the territory of the Nile Basin. Britain
had been the main party to all these agreements; it
signed agreements with Italy, Congo Free State, Ethiopia
and Egypt. These agreements remained intact until
591
independence. The decolonization process left the Nile
with colonial agreements that were not respected by all
newly independent riparians other than Egypt.
Immediately after acquiring its independence, the
Sudan sought a new deal with Egypt over the Nile water
to replace the 1929 agreement signed between the Sudan
government (British administration) and Egypt. Conflicts
arising at the postindependence stage, unlike the previous
conflict, which was basically for securing the flow of rivers,
were about the allocation of specified quotas of the now
known as large quantities of water, yet scarce to meet
the heightening demand. Hence, the Sudan started to
confront the unfair division of water; it considered that
Egypt’s share was more than it actually should be, given
that all the Nile water flows into Egypt, save 4 billion
m3 allocated to the Sudan by the 1929 agreement. For
the Sudan, a new deal was thus seen as necessary. The
challenge of the Sudan did not stem from preserving rights
to the future realization of its agricultural potential; rather
it was the obstruction of its already developed policies for
bringing on board this competent potential. ‘‘The Sudan,
to prove its case, embarked on drawing up the ‘Nile Valley
Plan’. The main object of the plan was to provide for the
irrigation needs of Egypt and the Sudan and the assumed
needs of the other riparian states for irrigation, together
with the full development of hydro-electric potential in
Uganda, Ethiopia, the Sudan and Egypt’’ (6, p. 73). The
whole exercise was challenging Egypt’s monopoly of the
Nile by adding an element of egalitarian multilateralism.
What made this grow to a challenge was that Sudan was
seeking to mobilize the other riparians behind its plan.
Egypt, however, was striving to start the implementation
of the High Dam at Aswan. The Sudan, while opposing the
Aswan Dam project in principle, had put forward three
principles for resettling the water question. First, that
Sudan’s share should be determined before work began
on the High Dam. Second, that Egypt must provide for
the resettlement and ‘‘adequate alternative livelihood’’ of
the people of the Wadi Halfa town and district who would
be removed by the High Dam construction. Finally, that
the Sudan should have the right in the future to build
whatever works were deemed necessary for using her
share of the Nile waters (7, pp. 173–174).
Upon accepting these conditions, the conflict between
Egypt and the Sudan was bilaterally settled by the Full
Utilisation of the Nile Waters Agreement in (1959). The
1959 agreement ‘‘established a joint committee (PJTC) and
specifies quantitative allocations for the two countries:
assuming an inflow of 84 billion m3 from the Blue Nile
and the White Nile sources, the agreement allocates
55.5 billion m3 to Egypt and 18.5 billion m3 to Sudan’’
(8, p. 17; 9).
The deliberations leading to the signing of the 1959
agreement, however, had created a serious conflict with
Ethiopia. In 1957, Ethiopia sent a note to Egypt and Sudan
in which it asserted its ‘‘natural rights’’ to use the water
originating in her territory and in which it also referred to
Ethiopia’s projected water needs and requirements. These
projected needs would certainly decrease the discharge of
the Nile (10). The 1959 agreement was considered to favor
the Sudan (11,12), dismember Ethiopia (12), and neglect
592 TRANSBOUNDARY WATER CONFLICTS IN THE NILE BASIN
the other upstream countries. The outcome of the 1959
Agreement had effectively put Egypt and the Sudan in
one camp against the camp of all other riparians. The
newly independent upstream states—individually, but
sharing the same view—started to criticize Egypt and
the Sudan’s monopoly of the Nile waters. Egypt seemed
to have accepted the idea that the upstream states are
bound by agreements signed during the colonial time, but
Sudan’s position was different, namely, recognizing the
rights of upstream states (10, p. 12).
In the eyes of the Egyptians, Ethiopia has always
represented a potential threat to the Nile water. According
to Hultin (13, p. 37): ‘‘It is not so much what Ethiopian
governments—or other riparian governments for that
matter—have done with regard to the waters of the Nile,
but rather what they might be doing, that is the cause of
anxiety in Cairo.’’ Repeatedly, the Ethiopian governments
asserted that they are not bound by any agreements on the
Nile and that those agreements that were signed during
colonial rule were either not signed by them or they were
forced to sign by a colonial power. An important element
in the dispute is the difference between the states in their
starting argument. Egypt and the Sudan, bound by an
agreement, based their contest for the Nile waters on
real needs, but Ethiopia is driven by the awareness of its
future needs and, therefore, is not ready to risk her unused
resources (12). Egypt and the Sudan see that their 1959
Full Utilisation of the Nile Waters agreement can be the
foundation for any future agreement among all riparians,
but the other riparians, especially Ethiopia, want new
arrangements.
FORMULATION OF A BASIN-WIDE WATER
SHARING FRAMEWORK
The current environmental condition in general and the
water scarcity issue in particular require new regimes
of thinking and social organization or reorganization. As
stated above, there are a variety of driving forces in water
scarcity. For instance, until recently, the quarrel over the
Nile waters was driven by the states’ ambitions to develop
economically. In the last two decades, this necessity to
develop, in the Nile riparian, is being replaced by a much
more urgent need—food security. Two conditions in this
respect can be illustrated: one is a condition of abundance
that allowed states to expand their irrigated large-scale
agriculture endlessly to engage more and more in the
market and the second is the condition of scarcity which
brought new pressures that affect political stability and
necessitate responses from states to groups demands. The
condition of scarcity makes it a necessity that states adopt
certain regulations to cater to the pressures arising.
The first attempt at cooperation among the Nile
countries took place in 1960 through what is referred to
as the Hydromet Survey Project, basically aiming to build
a database for the Basin. In 1992, Hydromet was replaced
by TECCONILE (Technical Cooperation Committee for
the Promotion of the Development and Environmental
Protection of the Nile Basin). TECCONILE continued until
1999 when it was replaced by the Nile Basin Initiative
(NBI) as a wider framework with different operating
organs to pave the way for final legal and institutional
arrangements.
When competition reaches the crisis stage that the
likely win–lose balance turns into a lose–lose balance, the
contestants are likely to cooperate to survive the ordeal
(14). Developments in Nile Basin politics in the last half
of 1999 indicate that the co-Basin states have already
reached the situation indicated above. Unlike the first
half of the 1990s of national assertiveness and unilateral
approaches to use of the Nile waters, the co-Basins now
have (in the second half of the 1990) a new initiative, using
the Technical Advisory Committee as its technical arm.
The objective of the initiative is to reach a solution through
the equitable use of the Nile waters. The conference of
the Nile riparians in Addis Ababa in May 1999 moved
further in this direction, and the Nile co-riparians have
emphasized the sustainable development of the river.
Thus, already the issue of equitable water use has been
expressed together with the issue of sustainability.
Out of these initiatives, the shared vision of the NBI
arose that is meant ‘‘to achieve sustainable socio-economic
development through the equitable utilization of, and ben-
efit from, the common Nile Basin water resources.’’ The
initiative as a comprehensive cooperative framework pro-
vides for significant changes in the old formula that would
protect the co-riparians from inflicting harm on each other.
Significant harm is always the consequence of competi-
tion, whereas equity and reasonableness can be attained
through cooperation. The first is often defined by ideologi-
cal and political imperatives, whereas the latter is for cal-
culating mutual benefits or avoiding mutual losses—the
economic imperatives. In this regard, the request of the
Nile-COM for the World Bank and its partners to host a
consultative group (ICCON) as a forum for seeking funds
is a significant move toward emphasizing the economic
imperatives. The Ethiopia entry into the debate on legal
arrangements is likely to cool down the previous tension
and create a condition conducive to cooperation.
The emphasis on sustainability is what makes the NBI
different from the previous initiatives. Moreover, unlike
the previous ones, it is a vision shared by all riparians.
It means, in short, that awareness of the current envi-
ronmental problems that affect all riparians is finally on
its way toward institutionalization. It is the emphasis on
sustainability that gives way to the newest part in the
Initiative: the subsidiary action subprogram. The princi-
ple of subsidiary is considered ‘‘an important approach
to cooperative action within a Basin-wide framework’’
and is meant ‘‘to take decisions at the lowest appro-
priate level, to facilitate the development of real action
on the ground.’’ It is this part which gives place to
alternative developments by decentering the definition-
making and decision-making about the Nile waters, which
has been always the monopoly of central governments
or bodies representing them. Building the pillars of the
temple of cooperative framework (confidence building and
stakeholder involvement; socioeconomic, environment and
sectoral analysis; development and investment planning;
and applied training) in itself involves a necessary learning
process in which different levels will contribute. It, thus,
informs the new priorities to be set for the Nile Basin
 TRANSBOUNDARY WATER CONFLICTS IN THE NILE BASIN
countries as it translates to ‘‘capacity building and human
resource development.’’ As well, it makes place for priori-
ties depending on the needs and specific problems facing
each country or a sub-Basin that combines more that one
country. It caters to the communities dwelling in the Basin
that would be affected by the grand policies to be launched.
Another important aspect of NBI is that it will also
consider measures outside the basin when this will ease
the problems in the basin, in particular, measures with
respect to population and agriculture. Their approach will
be based on equitable regional economic development to
ensure the balance between upstream and downstream
and between inside and outside the basin.
What complicates the issues of water scarcity in
the future is that the Nile Basin countries are far
from providing water efficient alternatives. Thus, the
development of the river, necessarily sustainable, is an
urgent necessity.
PLAUSIBLE SOLUTIONS
Despite the fact that the Nile River is viewed as the
archetype for any future conflict over international water,
recent developments show that through cooperation, the
Nile riparians can overcome many of the hurdles and
establish a peaceful and sustainable solution to the
problems of water scarcity in the Nile. What is needed,
therefore, is:
1. Principle of equity. Egypt and the Sudan must
accommodate the position and demands of Ethiopia
and other upstream countries in an institutional
manner (15). Ethiopia which views itself as being
dismembered by the 1959 Nile water agreement will
likely offer greater cooperation should the down-
stream riparians recognize its right to development
of its part of the Basin and facilitate it. If Ethiopia
is allowed to go ahead with its Blue Nile basin
plan, Egypt and the Sudan would benefit from it
(see also Infrastructure Solutions). Governments
and international organizations must act early and
constructively. Tensions among the Nile basin coun-
tries are finally easing, thanks in part to unofficial
dialogue among scientists and technical specialists
that have been held since the early 1990s and more
recently at a ministerial level in the NBI. The key
is establishing a process of early cooperation before
serious hostilities erupt that make it difficult for
nations to sit around a negotiating table together.
2. Strong institutions. Treaties that provide for effec-
tive monitoring and enforcement are often remark-
ably resilient, holding even when the signatories
are engaged in hostilities over nonwater issues.
Long-term programs of joint fact-finding, technical
cooperation, and other initiatives that establish a
climate of cooperation among countries can pave the
way for resolving disputes when they do arise.
3. Effective rural development. To our understanding,
the major problems that the Nile Basin countries
are facing now are not merely the need for sharing
593
water; rather they have to do with what makes
the quest for sharing more feverish. In other
words, environmental degradation and population
concentration makes the quest for more water
endless. So dealing with these problems and similar
ones is what is urgent for all Nile riparians. The NBI
can be seen as a framework which allows overcoming
some of the factors contributing to water scarcity,
including rural development. The multiple billions
of dollars that are expected for the development
of the Nile basin should be spent on large-scale
hydraulic constructions and should also partly be
spent on rural development in the territory of the
co-riparians—not necessarily inside the Basin.
4. The import of ‘‘virtual water’’ represents one impor-
tant element in how states could solve their water
scarcity problems. In the Nile, this virtual water
importation can be thought of in a more inno-
vative way. The Nile Basin countries differ in
climate; therefore, crops produced as well as the
natural hazards, solutions, and therefore cooper-
ation should consider these differences. Ethiopia
faces severe soil erosion due to deforestation, and
this very soil erosion, among others, is what pushes
Ethiopia toward using Nile water. A fund for foresta-
tion and then benefiting from forest products (ser-
vice for the ecosystem, fruits and other products
which become part of the livelihood of rural pop-
ulation, and products for exportation) would thus
produce a double advantage. Downstream as well as
upstream Nile riparians can import virtual water
from Ethiopia necessary for the rehabilitation of
the latter. The Sudan, viewed as the breadbasket
of Africa and the Middle East, could import vir-
tual water from Ethiopia and export virtual water
too. The difference, however, is that virtual water
from Ethiopia, in the form of afforestation products,
would help rehabilitate this country’s highlands,
therefore, decrease its demand for Nile water. Simi-
larly Egypt can import virtual water from Ethiopia
and the Sudan, through a formula of less virtual
water from downstream and more virtual water from
upstream—less water-consuming products versus
more water-consuming products (rice).
5. Infrastructure solutions. Establishment of reser-
voirs on the Blue Nile in Ethiopia is suggested as
‘‘the greatest opportunity over the long term for dra-
matic improvement in the overall management of
Nile resources’’ (16, p. 152). What is interesting in
this regard is that the water savings so made, which
could be of the order of 12–21.4 billion m3 per year
(17), would quadruple Ethiopia’s irrigated area with-
out reducing supplies to Egypt and the Sudan. Some
other solutions are transfer of storage from reser-
voirs in Egypt and the Sudan to Lake Tana and the
Blue Nile basin combined with water conservation
in the Ethiopian highlands (by way of reducing evap-
oration and annual flooding losses) and will provide
regulated flow to downstream countries. Similar
schemes could be implemented in the equatorial lake
regions of the upper White Nile riparian countries,
594 PLANNING AND MANAGING WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
resulting in additional water saving construction of
a bypass canal (the Jonglei diversion canal) in south-
ern Sudan reducing the enormous evaporation losses
and increasing the contribution of the White Nile to
the main Nile appreciably. The Machar Marsh and
Bahr El Ghazal in southern Sudan can contribute
11 billion m3 (18, p. 139; also see 1, p. 92).
6. Water saving technologies. In all cases, maximum
use should be made of water saving technologies
(more crop per drop). This includes water saving
options in the surface water system (reduction of
losses of seepage and evaporation), more efficient
irrigation techniques (land leveling, drip irrigation,
etc.), and other management techniques (reuse,
nightirrigation, etc.).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Shapland, G. (1997). Water in The Middle East and North
Africa: The Political Economy and Ethics of Scarce Resource
Use, compiled and Edited by Timothy C. Weiskel, For the
Harvard Seminar on Environmental Values (1997–98)
‘‘Water—Symbol and Substance of Life’’.
2. Omar, A. and Takele, T. (1998). Egypt and the Horn of Africa:
That Serpent of Old Nile, Ethiopia Tribune (26.06.1998).
3. Mageed, Y.Abdel (1994). The Nile Basin: Lessons from
the Past. In: International Waters of the Middle East:
From Euphrates-Tigris to Nile. A.K. Biswas (Ed.). Oxford
University Press, Bombay.
4. Falkenmark, M. Lindh (1993). Global Changes and Water
Resources, www.water.hut.fi/wr/research/glob/egloshow/
egloshow2.pdf.
5. Gleick, P.H. (2000). The world’s water 2000–2001. The
Biennal Report on Freshwater Resources. Island Press (Ed.).
Island Press, Washington, DC, p. 315.
6. Mageed, Y.A. (1981). Integrated River Basin Development: A
Challenge to the Nile Basin Countries, in Sudan Notes and
Records No. 62, Vol. LXII.
7. Holt, P.M. and Daly M.W. (1979). The History of the Sudan.
From the Coming of Islam to the Present Day, 3rd Edn.
Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London.
8. Tadesse, H. (1998). The Nile river basin. Ethioscope 4(1).
9. Waterbury, J. (1979). Hydropolitics of the Nile Valley,
Syracuse, Syracuse University Press.
10. Khalid, M. (1984). The Nile waters: the case for an integrated
approach. In: The Nile Valley Countries: Continuity and
Change (Vol. 1), M.O. Beshir (Ed.). Institute of African and
Asian Studies—University of Khartoum—Sudanese Library
Series (12), Khartoum.
11. Davies, H.R.J. (1984). ‘‘Continuity and change in the nile
valley’’ a geographical viewpoint. In: The Nile Valley
Countries: Continuity and Change, Vol. 2, M.O. Beshir (Ed.).
Institute of African and Asian Studies—University of
Khartoum—Ethiopiaese Library Series (12), Khartoum.
12. Tilahun, W. (1979). Egypt’s Imperial Aspirations over Lake
Tana and the Blue Nile. United Printers Ltd, Addis Ababa.
13. Hultin, J. (1995). The Nile: source of life, source of conflict.
In: Hydropolitics: Conflicts over Water as Development
Constraint, Leif Ohlsson (Ed.). University Press, Dhaka and
Zed Books, London.
14. Wolf, A.T. (1997). Water Wars’ and Water Reality: Conflict and
Cooperation Along International Waterways. NATO Advanced
Research Workshop on Environmental Change, Adaptation,
and Human Security. Budapest, Hungary, 9–12 October.
15. Tafesse, T. (2001). The Nile question: hydropolitics, legal
wrangling, modus vivendi and perspectives. Münster, Lit.
pp. 131–145.
16. Whittington, D. and McClelland, E. (1992). Opportunities for
regional and international cooperation in the Nile Basin.
Water Int. 17: 144–154.
17. Kliot, N. (1994). Water Resources and Conflict in the Middle
East. Routledge, London.
18. Naff, T. and Matson, R. (Eds.) (1984). Water in the Middle
East: Conflict or Cooperation? Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
PLANNING AND MANAGING WATER
INFRASTRUCTURE
NEIL S. GRIGG
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado
Water infrastructure consists of the constructed elements
that control water for water supply, wastewater service,
flood control, hydropower, recreation, navigation, and
environmental protection (see articles on WATER RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT and WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND SYSTEMS).
Generally, these constructed elements involve conveyance
systems, including channels, canals, pipes, and bridges;
diversion structures; dams; reservoirs; locks; treatment
plants for water supply and wastewater management;
pumping stations; hydroelectric plants; spillways, valves,
and gates; and wells. Planning and managing water
system capital assets require provisions for capital
investment, operations, and maintenance.
Capital investment in water facilities requires a careful
process that begins with planning them, preparing the
designs, and constructing the systems. The goal of capital
investment is to obtain a maximum return over the
project’s ‘‘life cycle.’’ This means considering costs and
management needs over the full life of the facility and
requires that operations and maintenance, including
corrective maintenance, be carefully conducted to gain
maximum usage and life from the investment.
The planning process involves a series of steps that
include identifying the need; searching out alternative
ways to meet the need; evaluating economic, environ-
mental, and social costs and benefits; making decisions
about the alternatives to pursue; and implementing the
plan. The steps in planning drive the process, but they
involve many complex issues and substeps. Each project
has unique features and stakeholders, political issues in
gaining approval for infrastructure often control the pace
and agenda. Traditional planning processes now incorpo-
rate sophisticated environmental, social, and economic
investigations and are now much more complex than
in the past. For example, the United States’ experience
with environmental impact statements required by the
National Environmental Policy Act shows that it costs
more to add environmental impact analysis to planning,
and the decision process becomes more complex.
 APPLICATION OF THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE TO WATER SCIENCE
In an attempt to rationalize complex criteria, the
concept of ‘‘multiobjective evaluation’’ was developed
to consider economic development, social benefits, and
environmental enhancement when planning for water
purposes such as water supply, power, and flood control.
This concept was included in the ‘‘Principles and
Standards’’ that emerged from the Water Resources
Planning Act. These later were changed to ‘‘Principles
and Guidelines.’’
For a minor component, such as a new pump station,
the process may be straightforward and short term. For
major facilities such as dams, the process may take many
years and, in some cases, ultimately not succeed at all. In
addition to the planning steps cited, practical assessments
such as how to pay for facilities and identifying legal
obstacles are required. Also, stakeholders must be involved
at each step of the process through public involvement and
consultation.
The design process involves creative decision-making
about the configuration and details of projects. Design
includes drawings, documents, and plans necessary to
initiate construction. Construction begins with preparing
contract documents and involves bidding, review, award,
organization, construction itself, inspection, and accep-
tance. Keeping all of the phases going in the proper
direction and order is the task of the ‘‘project manage-
ment process.’’ Designing and constructing major water
resources projects require high levels of skill and orga-
nization involving risk to the public and environment.
For example, dam construction may require control of an
entire river over several seasons when floods might occur.
A wastewater treatment plant might involve large-scale
and sensitive biological processes.
After construction is completed, the project enters the
‘‘operations and maintenance’’ or ‘‘O&M’’ phase. Large
water systems such as dams and reservoirs are subject
to special operating rules. Water treatment plants require
trained operators who can monitor chemical and biological
parameters while adjusting operating controls. Far-flung
systems extending over several watersheds may have
sophisticated supervisory control and data acquisition
(SCADA) systems, consisting of instruments, wireless and
wired communications, computers, and control systems.
Decisions about water system operation are controlled
by complex sets of rules and guidelines. In some cases,
regulatory controls are very stringent, and violations
result in heavy penalties. Operations may be based on
computer simulations and multiobjective criteria, as in
following rule curves for reservoir operation. A science of
water resources systems analysis has emerged to provide
tools and techniques for operating complex systems.
Maintenance management is also required in a capi-
tal management system. Without adequate maintenance,
water resources infrastructure systems will usually not
perform well and will wear out sooner than planned.
The maintenance management system brings activities
together for investment, organization, scheduling, and
monitoring. Its general functions are inventory, condi-
tion assessment, preventive maintenance, and corrective
maintenance.
595
An inventory of facilities, components, and equipment
is the cornerstone of maintenance management. Inventory
methods differ for real property, fixed assets, and
equipment. An inventory can be as simple as, for example,
a set of drawings indicating where sewer pipes are located
in a section of a city. These drawings, with annotations,
are used by maintenance forces to locate and service pipes.
On a more sophisticated level, the drawings could indicate
other, nearby facilities, such as water and electricity lines,
and can also be used to coordinate between services. Even
more sophisticated would be coordinated data in a GIS and
database format, available on a common basis to different
sections of the organization whose work involves shared
data, processes, facilities, and staff.
Condition assessment requires inspection and analysis
of condition so that maintenance activities can be planned
and scheduled. It is used to plan and schedule capital man-
agement activities, such as maintenance, needs assess-
ments, budgeting, and capital improvement programs.
Preventive maintenance (PM) is the ongoing program
of care given to equipment or components. In general, PM
requires consistent, timely completion of tasks prescribed
by documented procedures according to set schedules that
include regular follow-up. Information sources for PM
are O&M manuals, product information, and experience
of workers. PM records include equipment data, the
preventive maintenance record, the repair record, and
a spare parts stock card.
Generally speaking, corrective maintenance means to
repair equipment or components that have failed or
deteriorated. It can range from minor to major repair and
drives the ‘‘3 R’s’’ of infrastructure—repair, rehabilitation,
and replacement. Corrective maintenance requires a
decision if the deficiency is minor or major enough to
require capital budgeting. If the problem is major, the
capital plan and budget incorporate information about
new standards and growth forecasts to lead to decisions
about rehabilitation and/or replacement.
When a water resources facility has reached the end
of its useful life, it must be removed, rehabilitated, or
replaced. Many dams around the world are now 50 or
more years old and will face these decisions in the future.
Wastewater treatment plants built during the 1970s in the
United States are now three decades old. In addition to new
investment to handle population growth, a discussion will
occur in the future about strategies for reinvestment and
modernization of these key infrastructure components.
APPLICATION OF THE PRECAUTIONARY
PRINCIPLE TO WATER SCIENCE
LEONARD I. SWEET
Engineering Labs Inc.
Canton, Michigan
Discussions of applying the precautionary principle
have received new momentum from several highly
contentious policy issues, including the bovine spongiform
encephalopathy crisis, blood donor screening, genetically
596 APPLICATION OF THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE TO WATER SCIENCE
modified foods, antibiotic feed additives, and phthalates
in baby toys. The level of precautionary interpretation
and its application to ‘‘decision-making under ambiguity’’
has wider ramifications for waste policy, ecological
toxicology, and especially water science. A balanced debate
is warranted over the merits of the two seemingly
rival environmental risk management paradigms—risk
assessment and the precautionary principle.
The basic definition of the precautionary principle has
three elements: threat of harm, scientific uncertainty,
and the precautionary action. As such, the principle
questions whether scientific knowledge is strong enough
to permit reasonably confident decision-making, and it
favors preventive action in the face of uncertainty as
well as a participatory public in decision-making. The
precautionary principle can be applied in general on two
fronts, the ex ante side that reflects a desire to avoid or
prevent undesirable adverse effects in policy frameworks
and legislation, and on the ex post side, reflecting the fact
of having to live with consequences of past decisions, side
effects, or accidents (e.g., historical liability or natural
resource damage assessments).
The relative constraints and uncertainties of risk
assessment suggest to some that risk managers should
abandon the risk framework in favor of the precautionary
approach. In water science, it is not prudent to propose
one as an alternative to the other. An immediate concern
is that the precautionary-based approach fails to account
for risk transfers, priority substances, and costs versus
benefits. It is proposed that a variety of precautionary
initiatives and decision analysis tools in risk manage-
ment (e.g., life cycle assessment, weight of evidence,
cost–benefit), as well as the open exchange of information
and rational thinking, will aid in bridging the dichotomy
between risk assessment and the precautionary principle.
INTRODUCTION
The momentum toward a paradigm shift to precautionary
approaches will be faced globally by government and
industry, and those in water science will have to rethink
radically their current safety, risk management, and
regulatory control schemes. The premise of precautionary
decision-making is that environmental or human health
threats are challenging to comprehend and resolve and
that it is necessary to establish an environmental
management paradigm to regulate suspect activities
before they cause harm. Although originally intended
for environmental management issues, the precautionary
principle has now expanded to address human health
and safety issues (i.e., toxicology, epidemiology, industrial
hygiene, medicine). For example, it is likely that a
precautionary approach was used in addressing the health
and safety risks of using thalidomide because the precise
mechanism by which thalidomide impacts the fetus was
not characterized until the late 1980s.
In general, precautionary approaches instruct envi-
ronmentally protective decisions before any potentially
harmful effects of a given action or technology are fully
proven. There are varying degrees of interpretation of
the precautionary principle, including the most stringent
or maximally precautionary versus the most permissive or
minimally precautionary: (1) strong precaution (where the
scientific evidence is uncertain but the public is informed
and the evidence indicates that the worst case is the most
probable outcome), (2) strong precaution (where the evi-
dence is too weak to justify abrupt changes, given costs,
but policymakers take a holding pattern and halt further
intervention until more risk evidence is available), and
(3) weak precaution (where the evidence is overly weak
to justify change in public policy, given costs and other
factors, and the public is informed of possible risk).
It can be seen that a regime based strictly on the
precautionary principle places the burden of proving the
harmlessness of a given action on the party who would
engage in that action. This version of the burden of
proof policy is a departure from the traditional toxic tort
approach in which no harm is presumed to result from
the activity of another until a party can demonstrate
damage and causation. In the environmental arena, the
tort-oriented nonprecautionary approach postpones the
regulation of activities until harm occurs and compels
a response to potential degradation. Consistent with
this continuum of approaches is the presumption that
precautionary action is acceptable as an interim measure
because, as the scientific evidence accumulates, it is only
a matter of time until an adequate level of certainty
is reached.
It is apparent that in the governance of risk, the risk-
based and precautionary approaches are divergent with
regard to scope, risk, and how best to handle uncertainties
and values (Table 1).
Rather than seeing that precaution is in conflict
with science-based regulations, some suggest that the
precautionary approach is consistent with sound scientific
practice: (1) in acknowledging and responding to difficult
problems in risk assessment such as ignorance (we don’t
know what we don’t know) and incommensurability (we
have to compare apples and pears) and (2) in critically
thinking about the ‘‘use’’ of scientific knowledge.
GLOBAL SCOPE
Reflecting the divergent values of risk management, the
precautionary principle has been defined, and the relative
importance weighted differently by various nations (e.g.,
lack of firmly established international or legal meanings
of the precautionary principle). The inconsistency in the
precautionary approach is further complicated because
actions within one state may cause identifiable harm to
another state’s environment, which in turn may create
international responsibilities.
In a global economy, there are certainly different
country-specific circumstances for interpreting the pre-
cautionary principle, including the level of industrializa-
tion, governance, economic and technical contexts, and
human resources available for monitoring and evaluat-
ing problems connected with chemical risks. The current
perception is that Europe believes that the earlier one
exercises precaution, especially when cumulative pollu-
tion and diverse chemical risks do not respect boundaries,
the more effectively it can be done.
 APPLICATION OF THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE TO WATER SCIENCE
Table 1. Highlights of Risk-Based and Precautionary Frameworks
Risk Framework
Scope:
• origins in quantification and hypothesis testing
• premise of threshold and assimilative capacity
• focus on individual and population risk
• methods (i.e., hazard identification and characterization,
appraisal of exposure, risk characterization)
• adheres to tenets of toxicology (i.e., Paracelsus, Pare’s,
Haber’s, Arndt–Schulz)a
Chemical innocent until proved guilty:
• ‘‘prove harm’’ regulatory approach
• burden of proof on regulatory agency, customer, or public
• pollution prevention/minimization opportunity if
established threat
• focus on preventing false positives
Optimistic view of
• best available data
• default values
• analytical techniques
• modeling methods
• margins of error
• statutory time constraints
• reasonable estimates
Risk recommendations viewed as
• entrenched in model and method uncertainty
• carried out on product versus process
• subject to cost/benefit analysis
a
Paracelsus: dose–response contains the notion of threshold of effect; Arndt/Arndt–Schulz: predicts continuum of physiological mode of action dependent
on strength of stimuli, that is, from hormesis/stimulation at low levels to retardation at high levels; Haber’s: includes the variables of time and dose as a
function of exposure to compare hazards better and formulate thresholds of toxicity; Pare’s: the specificity and toxicity of chemicals are due to their unique
structure and the laws of biology that govern the response interaction.
Regardless of the geographical complexities, however,
there appear to be two consistent global elements of
the precautionary principle: first, insufficient scientific
information and second, significant but uncertain risks.
Consider the European policy on chemicals and
the environment. Europe regards the precautionary
principle highly, and erring on the side of caution
when knowledge is limited and prediction speculative
is viewed as a sensible and sound approach to good
governance. The European community has also adopted
a variety of principles that are directly or indirectly also
designed to improve implementation of the precautionary
principle, including the following: (1) polluter pays,
(2) preventive principle, (3) sustainable development, and
(4) inter-/intragenerational equity. Taken together, the
core direction of these principles suggests that liability,
at a minimum, should enhance incentives for more
conservative, proactive, preventive, future-oriented, and
responsible actions.
The European community’s approach to the ‘‘polluter
pays’’ principle could lead to a structure of environmental
liability based on increased levels of precaution and
prevention. Such an approach may also introduce new
damage assessments, such as environmental damages to
nature or biological diversity (e.g., due to the discharge
of hazardous substances into waterways) when polluters
are identifiable, where the damages are quantifiable and
concrete, and where a causal link is established between
polluters and damage.
597
Precautionary Framework
Scope:
• origins in subjectivity and emotion
• does not support assimilative capacity or threshold in
environmental/human health
• focus on values and a unifying perspective of precaution
• methods not well defined; no cause–consequence chain
• adheres to caveat of primum non nocere or ‘‘first do no harm’’
Chemical guilty until proved innocent:
• ‘‘prove safety’’ regulatory approach
• burden of proof on innovator or manufacturer
• ensure safety or ban agent/activity before established threat
• focus on avoiding false negatives
Pessimistic view of
• data (inaccuracies, gaps, unsuitability)
• modeling (overly complex, nonrandom)
• analytical (detection limits, interference)
• timescales (inadequate for decision-making and legislation)
• uncertainty (e.g., smokescreen vs. scientific indeterminacy)
Risk recommendations viewed as
• proactive and adaptive in the face of new information or the
unforeseen
• not subject to cost/benefit analysis
Although there is no fully agreed upon version of the
precautionary principle, it is being embraced extensively
in international articles, treaties (International Joint
Commission on Great Lakes; EU Institutional Treaty),
summits (Rio Earth Summit), laws (e.g., German Vor-
sorgeprinzip legislation; Dutch wildlife laws), conventions
(e.g., United Nations’ Convention on Law of the Sea,
Climate Change, and Biodiversity; UN General Assem-
bly World Charter for Nature), conferences (e.g., 1998
Wingspread Conference Center), and other policy-making
formats (e.g., Communication from the European Commis-
sion about guidelines for EU research activities; Expert
Advisory Board on Children’s Health and the Environ-
ment). The precautionary principle is clearly viewed as a
logical corollary of the established international law norm
that no state has the right to engage in activities within
its borders that cause harm to other states.
Although the various interpretations of the role and
application of the precautionary principle revolve around
science and policy, the issue is steadily subjected to
political motivations in administration and legislation.
In particular, precautionary action has elevated such
issues as genetically modified organisms, acid rain,
radio-frequency fields, toxic waste disposal, and climate
change. However, the precautionary principle is currently
lacking in providing evidentiary standards for safety, (e.g.,
with medicines it revolves around quality, efficacy, and
dose–response constancy), as well as criteria for obtaining
regulatory approval. This is a serious shortcoming because
598 APPLICATION OF THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE TO WATER SCIENCE
it is conceivable that practitioners of precaution could
be overcautious or unscientific in considering whether
new technologies pose unique, extreme, or unmanageable
risks, without properly characterizing the many new
aspects that may confer net benefits and total hazard
reduction. Such a discriminatory policy could inflate the
costs of research or remedies, result in high taxation of
products, waste resources, inhibit the development of new
technologies, restrict consumer choice, and result in zero
hazard reduction, all potentially for theoretical risks.
DRIVERS TO ADOPT
Proponents of the precautionary principle believe that
existing environmental regulations and other decisions
based on risk appraisal techniques have failed to
protect environmental and industrial health. Recognized
drivers for adopting the precautionary principle include
the following:
• risk aversion
• reduced reliance on the quantitative risk in favor of
qualitative techniques and participative deliberation
• strong commonsense appeal to general public
• working to safe minimum standards
• adopting sustainability efforts
• following a win–win/least regrets regime with regard
to costs and benefits
• primary prevention
• data deficiency or uncertainty challenges, modeling
difficulties, analytical difficulties, and insufficient
time for adequate research
• commonsense appeal of having the polluter pay
• those in risk governance are frequently asked to
provide the final word of advice on safety or risk
before they have sufficient proof
• concern that too much focus on risk assessment could
delay needed protections
• provides additional rationale for environmental and
public health surveillance efforts, to use indicators,
and detect the probability of adverse consequences as
early as possible.
But in practice or in policy implementation, the
precautionary approach is not very popular among experts
in the risk arena because the potential benefits from the
drivers may not warrant the cost and it is a challenge to
make the principle a unified perspective that addresses
many of the concerns.
ANTIDRIVERS
Clearly, however, there are antidrivers to adopting the
precautionary principle. The main ones include:
1. the reverse onus that shifts the duty of care to be
placed on the developer’s actions to ‘‘prove safety,’’
which may ignore the tenets of toxicology that
demonstrate a need to regulate chemicals based on
both the beneficial as well as adverse; the other
concern is that this is potentially counter to notions
of liberty and freedom by shifting the burden of proof
from government onto innovators
2. the apparent advocating of controversial measures,
including bans or phaseouts, clean production, alter-
natives assessments, organic agriculture, ecosystem
management, health based occupational exposure
limits, and a requirement for premarket testing
3. the apparent lack of cost–benefit analyses, in that
for many cases that call for precautionary action, the
marketplace does not necessarily play a critical role
and good cost–benefit information is not available
4. the belief that the precautionary principle allows
controlling important resource allocation issues by
fear, emotion, and politics and that becoming more
‘‘safe’’ in some areas may involve spending resources
that cannot be used doing more ‘good’ in other areas
5. the continuing challenge for proponents to frame an
adequate and harmonized version of the principle.
This is a reflection that the principle is still
evolving—to some, it is already part of the risk
appraisal arsenal, to others it is not yet on the radar
screen, and to still others it is the antithesis of
risk assessment.
Other concerns in adopting precautionary approaches
revolve around the implications for the relationship
between environmental protection and economic devel-
opment, the economic consequences. Technologists and
scientists are concerned that the precautionary principle
is irrational and potentially based on nonobjective science
and that it is anti innovation/antibusiness. The concern
is that the precautionary principle is biased toward non-
corporate and nonindustrial opinions, is susceptible to
manipulation with regard to trade and equality, and may
become an excuse for arbitrary restrictions that may stifle
progress, prevent the use of newer and safer technolo-
gies, and possibly create more risk or uncertainty. Not
every action or technology that has associated uncertainty
should trigger precautionary action, and furthermore,
every chemical should not be a presumed or preestablished
carcinogen or endocrine disruptor.
The reticence to implement precautionary approaches
fully is likely to remain until a more wise and
balanced approach to chemical risk management is
established. Most would agree that uncertainties in
major decisions need to be weighed, analyzed, and
communicated to impacted parties, but a combination of
options in addition to the precautionary principle may
prove most effective in managing risk (e.g., perhaps
prioritized precautionary thinking in tandem with risk
characterization and the use of current and better/best
control technologies). It is also clear that the growing
interest in precautionary approaches is more likely
a reflection of shifting values on risk tolerance and
governance versus a preference for subjective versus
objective problem-solving techniques. Herein lies much
of the controversy around its implementation—what
constitutes sufficient proof, proof of safety, or proof
of negligence?
 APPLICATION OF THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE TO WATER SCIENCE
RISK TOLERANCE
One certainly must consider that the tolerability of
individual risk and the regulation of societal risk are
integral to our government and culture. Yet the concepts
of safety and risk are relative and subjective. In some areas
of regulation, an explicit treatment of risk is warranted,
whereas in other areas, risk appraisal is more implicit and
reliant on best professional judgment. But how safe is safe
enough with regard to personal, national, or international
risk criteria in water science?
To address this question practically, one must char-
acterize the time frame and magnitude of the hazard
and decide on a common language—the language of risk
analysis or the precautionary principle.
• Risk Analysis. Risk-based target levels, health-based
criteria, standards as low as reasonably practicable,
reasonable probability of no harm, an adequate
margin of safety, proportionality, weighing costs
and benefits, virtually safe doses, allowable daily
intakes, benchmarks, maximum allowable tissue
concentrations
• Precautionary Principle. Common sense, an ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of cure; better safe than
sorry; a stitch in time saves nine; if in doubt, don’t
pump it out; sentence first, verdict afterward
Apparently lacking in the language of the precautionary
principle are a cost–benefit analysis, risk communication
issues (e.g., regarding whether the hazard is imposed
upon, entertained voluntarily, controllable, inequitable,
and to what level the public is averse to the issue), and a
good characterization of the boundaries and dimensions of
uncertainty (i.e., ignorance, systemic, indeterminacy).
Risk informed decision-making must involve some
level of cost–benefit analysis to focus resources and
set priorities so that the greatest social benefits are
achieved at the lowest cost. Some practitioners may
strive to make a formal cost–benefit analysis the
determining factor for risk tolerability. However, a
formal cost–benefit analysis seemingly contradicts the
precautionary principle, as it assumes certainty where,
by definition, certainty does not exist. Furthermore,
there are some concerns that requiring a cost–benefit
analysis would render the precautionary principle less
effective, cumbersome, and bureaucratic. Cost–benefit
analysis may not be an appropriate methodology for
managing uncertainty, as it can be applied only if there
is full knowledge of the cost of that damage—and this is
challenging because precautionary actions are not based
on demonstrated risk, but rather on anticipated risks that
are considered plausible.
UNCERTAINTY
Uncertainty refers to the failure to address fully a
standard of proof/safety required by decision-makers and
to the recognition that one cannot fully characterize the
extent and potential seriousness of the consequences of
not meeting that standard. In the face of inherent and
irreducible uncertainty, it is clear that risk management
599
and precautionary principle paradigms need to be
adaptive and consider statistical significance (i.e., power,
probability of type I or type II error), as well as
environmental significance.
What level of causation, threshold of confidence, or lack
of proof is required to trigger use of the precautionary
principle to link an exposure to some possible harm? Var-
ious trigger criteria have emerged, including reasonable
suspicion, potential damages are serious or irreversible,
scientific certainty, cost-effectiveness, a single complaint,
a single case, a single animal study, a combination, only
where the probability and cost of impacts are completely
unknown, or some gradient or level lower than the bal-
ance of probabilities or prevailing probability. Whatever
the trigger, the precautionary principle should be subject
to review and assigning responsibility, as well as subject
to the European Commission criteria of proportionality,
nondiscrimination, consistency, and cost–benefit analysis.
The precautionary measures must also be proportionate
to the benefits to be achieved. Hence, there is a need for
an open and transparent procedure to identify the best
options for harm avoidance.
Uncertainty in detecting and evaluating chemical haz-
ards leads to challenges when conducting risk analyses
(e.g., robust estimates of exposure and risk for phar-
maceuticals in drinking water are not available). In the
absence of a scientifically rigorous approach to evaluating
the risk potential, actions may be guided by societal per-
ceptions of risk or safety (e.g., refractory pharmaceuticals
in wastewater) and may lead to malignment, restriction,
or banning of chemical agents. One has to balance care-
fully the perceived reduction in health risks to society
from precautionary action and the denial of public access
to materials or technologies that, under appropriate condi-
tions of safe handling and use, would not result in notable
risks and may have substantial net benefits.
In the end, one must recognize that the scientific
basis of modern water policy involves varying degrees
of uncertainty. But it is more certain that risk analysis
and precaution converge at the level where they are issue
driven and that, regardless of the paradigm or language
agreed upon, risk informed decision-making in water
science must be efficient and rational, even when data
are uncertain and the lines of evidence are imperfect.
POTENTIAL RELEVANCE TO WATER AND
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ISSUES
The precautionary principle can be applied to emerging
public concerns, such as large-scale environmental and
health issues, and to the associated changes in regulatory
frameworks. Most notably, issues include major indus-
trial accidents, agricultural and food sector (e.g., mad cow
disease), dioxin exposure and long-range transport, the
irreversibility of global issues (e.g., ozone layer deple-
tion, enhanced greenhouse effect), and biotechnologies
(e.g., cloning and genetic modification). For watersheds,
management decisions based on the relationship between
stressors and resources may include act now, protect,
restore, or watch.
These are current examples of the precautionary princi-
ple in action in the regulatory and environmental arenas:
600 APPLICATION OF THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE TO WATER SCIENCE
• DDT Use to Combat Malaria. The precautionary
principle demands no risk taking when there are
unpredictable consequences—the potential environ-
mental and health risks posed by future use of
DDT—and hence there is a strong push not to allow
it to be used or manufactured. The millions of peo-
ple suffering from malaria that could have benefited
from using DDT simply do not understand the argu-
ment of focusing only on potential future risks versus
present and clear benefits: the economic benefits of
the chemical if the threat of malaria were reduced,
health care costs reduced, needless morbidity and
mortality reduced, that is, the need to balance the
potential risks against the certainties and benefits.
• Global Climate Change. With climate change, proof
will be validated only after many years of data
collection. Given the scope, potential injury, and
irreversible consequences, the available information
should be given great deference.
• Biodiversity and Wetlands Loss. Consider unfore-
seen circumstances with regard to the Endangered
Species Act in the United States; it does not require
landowners to protect unlisted but declining species
on their lands.
• Fisheries Sustainability (Disease, Transgenics, Over-
fishing, etc.). The use of transgenic salmonid fish
that are reproductively sterile. Aquatic organism risk
analysis is proposed to evaluate the environmen-
tal safety of transgenic aquatic organisms, but its
primary weakness is that the probabilities and con-
sequences are based on subjective evaluations and
opinions. There is no requirement for scientific anal-
ysis or collection of experimental data in support of
the risk analysis process. The role of risk analysis as a
basis for fish health management is questioned, given
the uncertainties, including unrealistic expectations
of the ability to identify the right fisheries manage-
ment decision, stakeholder participation, inadequate
predictive ability of models, lack of integration of
management and science, and a tendency to overes-
timate possible versus likely hazards. There are also
considerations of failing to account for the unknown,
unexpected, or synergistic impacts.
• Substances of Concern. California’s Proposition 65
assumes that a listed chemical of concern is released
to waterways and that it is ‘‘guilty before proven
innocent.’’
Banning persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic sub-
stances. Sweden is considering banning substances
that persist in the environment and accumulate in
living tissue, regardless of whether they are proven
significantly toxic such as lead in leaded glass. Under
the current system, regulations are aimed at con-
trolling rather than preventing end of pipe versus
upstream pollution.
Restricting pesticide use. Canada is moving closer
to adopting the precautionary principle based on a
year 2001 Supreme Court ruling that upholds the
right of local governments to restrict pesticide use
to essential uses to protect human health and the
environment.
Northern Ireland is banning many pesticides used for
food production amid rising consumer concerns about
impacts on human health and the environment due
to chemical residues. This, of course, involves a ban
on any pesticide where there is doubt about its safety,
even if the weight of scientific evidence is insufficient
or inconclusive.
Potential bans on antibiotics, given the uncertainties
and risk of microbial resistance in the environment.
• Ocean Shipments or Dumping. Ocean shipments of
radioactive materials and the reprocessing of nuclear
wastes and acquiring stockpiles of plutonium. Propo-
nents may want to cite explicitly the precautionary
principle as a framework to regulate such shipments.
The principle might require users of the ocean to
exercise precaution, alertness, and effort by under-
taking relevant research, developing nonpolluting
technologies, and avoiding activities that present
uncertain risks to the marine ecosystem—and fur-
ther it would reject the current notion of a measurable
ability of the environment to assimilate wastes.
Proposals to dump sewage sludge on the seemingly
barren areas of the deep seabed. There is little known
about the ecology of this region, the harm to the
seabed and interconnected ecosystems. A traditional
tort approach would allow dumping until harm is
recognized, but a precautionary regime would require
the dumping state to prove that the dumping is
harmless before engaging in that activity.
• Water Reuse, Reclamation, and Safety. A precaution-
ary approach might stipulate that climate change and
increased urbanization may threaten to dry up wet-
lands, pushing species of those habitats to extinction.
The fix may be to increase the efficiency of water use
and stop wasteful irrigation practices where water
losses are highest. The principle might also stipu-
late that all types of water abstraction and water
transfers should be controlled. Certainly economic
instruments and regulation can provide a flexible
means of improving water resource issues.
The events of 9/11 may warrant conducting a security
sweep of the nation’s drinking water systems or for
facilities to develop specific security plans based on
vulnerability assessments.
• Sewage Sludge. In the United States, the biosolids
rule imposes limits on molybdenum and alkylphenol.
Some critics claim that the risk assessment process
is inadequate and does not address all potential or
foreseeable risks. Environmentalists, farmers, and
scientists have encouraged the U.S. EPA to adopt a
more protective program that uses the precautionary
principle to determine the safety of applying water
to land.
• Habitat Conservation. Involves dealing with data
deficiencies in species status and magnitude of
impacts in a manner that guards target species
from irreversible habitat loss yet does not preclude
development.
• Biotechnology. Consider genetically modified organ-
isms or foods. The benefits of genetically modified
 APPLICATION OF THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE TO WATER SCIENCE
plants include reduced use of fertilizer and pesti-
cides, increased yields, better adaptation to extreme
environmental conditions, and reduced allergenicity
versus the cost of impacts that may include aller-
genicity and exotic species that outcompete native
and nonmodified organisms.
• Antidegradation. Antidegradation and antibackslid-
ing rules are likely to become increasingly important
in water policy because the intention of the Clean
Water Act is to prevent perceptible downgrading
of designated water uses. The protection of high-
quality waters under the antidegradation rule might
be interpreted differently by risk analysis versus the
precautionary principle: For example, the precaution-
ary principle might interpret the rule as an absolute
prohibition on lowering water quality. The risk-based
approach would consider that avenue a no-growth
interpretation and propose a structure that provides
systematic evaluation of all available information
regarding the social, environmental, and economic
impacts of lowering water quality.
• Sustainable Development. Some would argue that to
achieve sustainable development, policies must be
based on the precautionary principle. Environmental
measures must anticipate, prevent, and attack the
causes of environmental degradation. Science alone
cannot determine the appropriate focus of the
management inquiry or how to define a just or
politically acceptable solution. Setting standards is
the confluence of science and policy determination.
Consider the example of applying the precautionary
approach to the risks of contaminants in surface
and groundwater, including biological, chemical, and
radiological agents. Certainly, on a global scale, pathogenic
contamination of drinking water can be considered a
significant health risk due to disease outbreaks, but there
are also exposures to nonpathogenic toxicants. Water
pollution comes from many routes, sources, and in various
forms; in each case, there are incomplete or lacking data,
certainly in the exposure, probability, and effects stages.
In contrast to the precautionary principle, risk-based
objectives in water science are typically technology-
based (e.g., best available technology, or best available
technology economically achievable). One clear advantage
of an approach based on technology includes national
consistence in treatment level, predictable economics,
and relative ease of enforcement—although it does not
guarantee improved environmental performance because
some areas may be under or overmanaged.
For some environmental practitioners, the precaution-
ary principle appears to focus only on the risk from the
agent or technology versus the clear benefits that may
result from its use or from the risk trade-offs or transfers
that may result from an alternative. Because the risks of
a new technology are often not apparent until the technol-
ogy is in use, some suggest it is then too late to undo the
harm (e.g., various case studies in the Great Lakes have
suggested to some investigators that the length of time
between the introduction of a new technology and the dis-
covery of its deleterious effects and the regulatory action
601
to reduce exposure is typically greater than 25 years). Cer-
tainly, unpredictable consequences are not new to water
science, considering the unanticipated challenges caused
by the use of asbestos and PCBs. The concepts of risks and
benefits in water science are not as clearly etched as some
may think.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BALANCING PROOF VERSUS
PRECAUTION
Proponents should proceed cautiously with the precau-
tionary principle. Potential problems in abandoning the
risk assessment framework in favor of following the pre-
cautionary principle are highlighted in Table 2:
There are certainly some refractory questions to
consider, such as:
1. What grounds justify applying the precautionary
principle, and what will be the trade-offs? Stifle new
technology and associated benefits (e.g., genomic
understanding of microbes, plants, animals) from
which there is little experience and lots of uncer-
tainty; increase the costs of developing and market-
ing; threaten freedom and trust of basic research.
2. Who will trigger use of the precautionary principle,
and how will they interpret the volume and breadth
of data generated from such areas as genomics and
proteomics in a positive manner? Risk related data
are increasingly in the form of biological markers,
gene expression, and protein level change, for which
there is an abundance of data generated; yet these
are possibly laden with uncertainty and lack of
validation. How will this data be processed by
the precautionary principle in characterizing new
products and assessing efficacy, safety, and so on?
3. What is ‘‘sustainable’’ about the precautionary
principle? If we apply the recognized working
definition that sustainability is ‘‘a challenge that
economic growth and development must take
place and be maintained over time within the
limits set by the physical, chemical, biological,
social, and political environments,’’ it follows that
environmental protection, product stewardship, and
economic development are complementary rather
than antagonistic processes, as the precautionary
principle would suggest.
4. What is the role of scientific evidence, and to what
extent can the precautionary regulatory approach
be thought of as without factual or scientific
justification, arbitrary and irrational, defensible or
enforceable in court, and vulnerable to scientific,
legal, and constitutional challenges?
5. To what extent can the precautionary regulatory
approach for setting risk standards be flexible
enough to consider site-specific conditions in which
it is applied (i.e., natural and anthropogenic factors,
chemical agent, receptor type and size, exposure
conditions, bioavailability, and cost)?
In the end, the relative strength and quality of the
precautionary policy will depend on legitimacy, degree of
602 APPLICATION OF THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE TO WATER SCIENCE

Table 2. Issues and Risks

Issue Recommendation

• Process and structure not costless and likely • Utilize cost–benefit and regulatory flexibility analyses
has high expenditures associated given • Rational decisions should account for the impact of benefit reduction
uncertainties
• Chemical use does not equal chemical risk • Account for the way chemical is used, materials handling, exposure
sources, potency to receptors
• Adopt guidelines to ensure chemical risk and substitution are balanced
and not harmful
• Potential risk transfers • Do not trade a known manageable risk for an uncertain alternative
• Actions to remove hazard may remove benefits; loss of benefits
introduces new risks
• Brainstorm unforeseen risk potentials, such as danger of responding to
wrong threat
• Utilize a ‘‘total hazard’’ approach
• Undefined and arbitrary methods or • Rigorous, prioritized; avoid overregulation that may lead to loss of
interpretation potential benefits
• Technological stagnation • Cessation or phaseout of regulatory prescription threatens to kill the
patient while inventing a cure for a disease that does not necessarily
exist; it may lead to arbitrary unscientific rejection of beneficial
technologies
• Lack of prioritization • Final assessment should involve prioritization of substances and relative
risk; should consider impacts of cessation or phaseout on international
legislation, production and use, economics, and alternatives
• No zero risk in a technology-based society • Neither risk assessment nor the precautionary principle can eliminate
all risks; these paradigms can only be refined to reduce the relevant
risks to a perceived acceptable level; proving no risk is a difficult if not
impossible task
• Risks of no action • The precautionary principle must include a full range of options,
including no action
• Tools for precautionary thinking • Life cycle analysis, waste-free product goals, cleaner production, green
building, environmental justice, ecoefficiency, benchmarking,
best practices
• Tolerability and meaningful restraints • Need to define and quantify risk acceptability criteria
• The margins of safety for descriptions of low risk must be defined and
should consider factors of uncertainty, cost–benefits, and lack of
knowledge
• Goal is to introduce reasonable/plausible conservatism
• Politicization • Balance technical, scientific, economic, and political
• Codes of ethics • Practitioners should adhere to a code of ethics that re-iterates the need
for validity of data and sound scientific approaches that are transparent,
systematic, subject to peer review, accountable, and independent

public trust, and actual quality of products and decisions.
Whether by traditional risk analysis or by precautionary
thinking, risk management should be determined case
by case and population by population, with a full
and transparent accounting of the bigger picture, the
consequences of different actions including no action, and
the public values surrounding those actions; even if the
details are obscure.
READING LIST
Burke, M. (2000). Promoting a greener European Union. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 17: 388A–393A.
Chapman, P.M. (1999). Does the precautionary principle have a
role in ecological risk assessment? Hum. Ecol. Risk Assessment
5: 885–888.
Charnley, G. and Donald Elliott, E. (2002). Risk versus precau-
tion: environmental law and public health protection. The
Environ. Law Report 32: 10363–10366.
European Commission. (2000). Communication from the Commis-
sion on the Precautionary Principle. COM 02.02.2000, Brussels.
Fairbrother, A. and Bennett, R.S. (1999). Ecological risk assess-
ment and the precautionary principle. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess-
ment 5: 943–949.
Foster, K.R., Vecchia, P., and Repacholi, M.H. (2000). Science and
the precautionary principle. Science 288: 979–981.
Gilbertson, M. (2002). The precautionary principle and early
warnings of chemical contamination of the Great Lakes. In:
EU Communication ‘‘Late Lessons from Early Warnings: The
Precautionary Principle 1896–2000.
Graham, J.D. (1999). Making sense of the precautionary principle.
Risk Perspect. 7: 1–6.
Graham, J.D. (2000). Decision-analytic refinements of the pre-
cautionary principle. J. Risk Res. in press.
Hansson, S.O. (1999). Adjusting scientific practices to the precau-
tionary principle. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assessment 5: 909–
921.

Mckinney, W.J. and Hammer Hill, H. (2000). Of sustainability
and precaution: The logical, epistemological, and moral
problems of the precautionary principle and their implications
for sustainable development. Ethics Environ. 5: 77–87.
Pittinger, C.A. and Bishop, W.E. (1999). Unraveling the chimera:
a corporate view of the precautionary principle. Hum. Ecol.
Risk Assessment 5: 951–962.
Raffensperger, C. and Tickner, J. (Eds.). (1999). Protecting Public
Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary
Principle, Island Press.
Raffensperger, C. and deFur, P.L. (1999). Implementing the
precautionary principle: rigorous science and solid ethics. Hum.
Ecol. Risk Assessment 5: 933–941.
Rasmussen, F.B. (1999). Precautionary principle and/or risk
assessment. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 6: 188–192.
Rogers, M.D. (2001). Scientific and technological uncertainty, the
precautionary principle, scenarios and risk management. J.
Risk Res. 4: 1–15.
Rogers, M.F., Sinden, J.A., and De Lacy, T. (1997). The precau-
tionary principle for environmental management: a defensive-
expenditure application. J. Environ. Manage. 51: 343–360.
Sandin, P. (1999). Dimensions of the precautionary principle.
Hum. Ecol. Risk Assessment 5: 889–907.
Santillo, D. and Johnston, P. (1999). Is there a role for risk
assessment within precautionary legislation? Hum. Ecol. Risk
Assessment 5: 923–932.
Santillo, D., Stringer, R.L., Johnston, P.A., and Tickner, J. (1998).
The precautionary principle: protecting against failures of
scientific method and risk assessment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 36:
939–950.
Shipworth, D. and Kenley, R. (1999). Fitness landscapes and the
precautionary principle: the geometry of environmental risk.
Environ. Manage. 24: 121–131.
Stijkel, A. and Reijnders, L. (1995). Implementation of the precau-
tionary principle in standards for the workplace. Occup.
Environ. Med. 52: 304–312.
Tucker, A. (2002). Life-cycle assessment and the precautionary
principle. Environ. Sci. Technol. 36(3): 70A–75A.
Underwood, A.J. (1997). Environmental decision-making and the
precautionary principle: what does this principle mean in
environmental sampling practice? Landscape Urban Plann.
37: 137146.
Wiener, J.B. and Rogers, M.D. (2001). Comparing Precaution
in the United States and Europe. Working Paper August
2001–01.
WATER PRICING
STEVEN J. RENZETTI
Brock University
St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada
INTRODUCTION
The price of water is measured by the value of the economic
resources that must be sacrificed to acquire potable water.
In many cases, this price is easily understood as the
number of dollars and cents that must be paid to obtain
a specific volume of water. In other cases, often in low-
income countries, the price of water is best understood as
WATER PRICING 603
the combination of out-of-pocket expenses plus the time
required for travel to and from a water source.
The purpose of this article is twofold. First, it describes
the nature and range of water prices around the world.
Second, it explains the significance of the price of water for
decisions regarding the supply of water and the demand for
water. The article concludes that, despite the potentially
important role of water prices, a lack of attention to water
pricing has been a major contributing factor to worldwide
problems of water allocation and water quality.
WATER PRICES AROUND THE WORLD
The level and form of water prices vary widely around
the world. Figure 1 gives an indication of the range of
residential water prices across a number of countries.
The form or structure of water prices also varies across
countries and across sectors (agricultural, residential,
commercial, and industrial). On the one hand, there are
many examples where users face a price of zero for their
water. This occurs in municipalities where household
water use is not metered and in rural areas where
households rely on, but do not pay for, groundwater. There
is also another way in which the price of using water can
be said to be zero in many cases. If a factory or sewage
treatment plant discharges wastes into a waterbody
without paying for that right, then these facilities are
using water free. It is important to remember, however,
that a zero price for water does not mean that there is no
cost for using it. This cost may come in the form of the
infrastructure needed to purify and transport the water
to users, in the form of reduced water quality, or it may
come in the form of foregone benefits that would have
been enjoyed by other water users had they access to
another’s water.
On the other hand, water prices can be quite
complex and have several components: a one-time
connection charge, a recurring fixed charge, a volumetric
charge, and supplemental charges for sewage treatment
and environmental protection. Further, the volumetric
component of the price of water can, itself, vary in
structure. It can be a constant amount (such as $0.76
U.S. per cubic meter in Toronto, Canada in 2002) or it
can be variable in the sense that the price charged on
the last unit of consumption either rises or falls with
consumption (these are termed increasing and decreasing
block rate structures, respectively). The City of Los
Angeles, for example, has a very complex rate structure for
residential consumers; the volumetric component varies by
season, the household’s location, and the quantity of water
consumed (2).
Table 1 provides a snapshot of water prices in
different sectors and countries. There are a number
of noteworthy features of the information presented.
First, the information is somewhat fragmentary because
information for a number of sectors is not included. Most
national governments do not collect data on water prices
in their countries. Second, in many sectors and countries,
the price of water is very low. The implications of this
observation for the viability of water supply systems
and for the level of water use are discussed in the next
604 WATER PRICING

Typical municipal water prices *All amounts are in 1992 Canadian dollars. In most
($/1000 liters*) countries, these prices are increasing from year to year.
These figures do not include the cost of waste treatment.

Source: National Utility Service International Water Price

Surveys as published in World Water and Environmental
Engineer.

Canada
$0.40

Norway
U.S.A. $0.46
$0.54

Ireland
$0.68
Sweden
$1.01
Finland
$1.06
U.K.
$1.18

Netherlands
$1.26 France
$1.30

Belgium
$1.45

Australia
$1.57

Germany
$1.72

Figure 1. International comparison of water prices. (Source: Reference 1. Note that 1 Canadian
dollar in 1992 is the approximate equivalent of $0.75 U.S. in 2001).

section. As Dinar and Subramanian (3) point out, within
any sector, prices may vary by the quantity consumed,
by the type of water use (e.g., what type of crop is
grown), by the time of consumption, and by location. Prices
also vary significantly across sectors; industry typically
faces the highest prices. Interestingly, prices appear to
differ less across countries than they do across sectors
within a given country. This may be due to some sectors’
political power that has allowed them to avoid facing
the full costs of their water use. Finally, there does not
appear to be a strong connection between a country’s
water prices and the scarcity of water in that country.
Canada’s low water prices might be explained, in part,
by its abundant water supplies, but low water prices are
also observed in water-scarce countries such as Australia
and Spain.
THE FUNCTIONS OF WATER PRICES
In principle, the price of water can play several important
roles. From the viewpoint of society as a whole, the price of
water informs users and suppliers of the value and scarcity
of water. From the viewpoint of the agency supplying
water, water prices generate the revenues needed to
ensure the financial viability of the agency. From the
viewpoint of an individual household, farm, or business,
water prices inform decision-makers what they must give
up in exchange for getting water. Thus, it can be seen
that water prices play many roles and that they have the
potential for influencing the demand for water, the supply
of water, and the allocation of water among competing
users (4,5).
To see how the price of water plays these multiple
roles, consider the impact of rising water prices (for
 WATER PRICING 605

Table 1. Water Pricesa for Various Sectors and Countries (1996 U.S.$/m3 )b
Country Agriculturec Domesticc Industryc

Algeria 0.019–0.22 0.057–2.7 4.64

Australia 0.0195 0.23–0.54 7.82
Botswana NA 0.28–1.48 NA
Brazil 0.0042–0.032 0.4 NA
Canada 0.0017–0.0019 0.34–1.36 0.17–1.52
France 0.11–0.39 0.36–2.58 0.36–2.16
India NA 0.0095–0.082 0.136–0.290
Israel 0.16–0.26 0.36 0.26
Italy NA 0.14–0.82 NA
Madagascar NA 0.325–1.75 NA
Namibia 0.0038–0.028 0.22–0.45 NA
New Zealand NA 0.31–0.69 NA
Pakistan NA 0.06–0.10 0.38–0.97
Portugal 0.0095–0.0193 0.153–0.529 1.19
Spain 0.0001–0.028 0.0004–0.0046 0.0004–0.0046
Sudan NA 0.08–0.10 0.08–0.10
Tanzania 0.260–0.398 0.062–0.241 0.261–0.398
Tunisia 0.02–0.078 0.096–0.529 0.583
Uganda NA 0.38–0.59 0.72–1.35
United Kingdom NA 0.0095–0.0248 NA
United States 0.0124–0.438 NA NA
a
Prices refer only to the volumetric component. They do not include any connection fees or other charges
not related to the volume of water consumed.
b
A cubic meter is approximately 220 Imperial gallons or 264 U.S. gallons.
c
‘‘NA’’ means that no number was reported in the original source.
Source: Adapted from Table 1.2 in Reference 3.

example, that might be brought on by the increased ASSESSING WATER PRICES

energy needed to pump water from shrinking aquifers).
Water users see increased prices as a signal of the
increased costs that result from using an increasingly
scarce (and, thus, valuable) resource. Users can then
be expected to reconsider their planned water uses
with an eye to conservation and/or substitution toward
less expensive alternatives. These types of responses
can include changing landscaping practices, retrofitting
plumbing fixtures, introducing water recycling, and
investing in more efficient water-using equipment. It is
important to notice that changing water prices, then, can
have an influence on water-use practices and also on the
use of other goods and services.
From the perspective of water suppliers, rising prices
are a signal that alternative sources of supply are now
more attractive options than previously thought. Securing
additional water can take the form of reducing system
losses, investing in new technologies (perhaps more
efficient pumps or water meters), extending the water
collection network, or purchasing or leasing water rights.
Rising water prices also provide valuable signals to
other decision-makers in society. Rising water prices
(and their signal of growing water scarcity) indicate to
government that there is an increasing possibility of
heightened conflicts among competing water users. As
a result, that there may be a need to review the adequacy
of water rights laws and water allocation regulations. In
addition, rising water prices are a signal to those firms who
design and build equipment that delivers or uses water.
These firms will see that there is a stronger incentive
to innovate and design improved forms of water-related
technologies and equipment.
The preceding section indicates that water prices, in
principle, play a variety of roles, including raising revenue
for water utilities and signaling relative scarcity to both
suppliers and demanders. Water prices are best able
to play these roles when they are free to rise and fall
according to changes in supply and demand. Furthermore,
the signal they send will be most informative when
prices accurately reflect the full costs to society of water
use (including any environmental damage). This section
briefly examines how well prices perform these roles.
Many researchers and analysts (6,7) are critical of the
history and current state of water pricing and argue
that, in most cases throughout the world, water prices
fail either to reflect accurately the full social costs
arising from water use or to fulfill their other functions.
Renzetti (8) demonstrates that municipal water prices in
Ontario, Canada, often understate the incremental cost
of supply by a factor of 2. Munasinghe (9) examines
water pricing in Manila and finds that it underestimates
the cost of supply by failing to reflect declining
groundwater levels. Underpricing water is hardly limited
to municipal water supply systems. Research indicates
that low prices for irrigation water have historically
provided significant subsidies to the agricultural sector.
Roodman (7) asserts that ‘‘The U.S. government spent
an estimated $45–93 billion more than it earned on
public irrigation projects between 1902 and 1986 (in 1995
dollars)’’ (p. 37). These researchers believe that inadequate
water prices are a major factor in many of the problems
relating to water management (6,10). These problems
include overuse of water, poor system reliability, reduced
606 SPOT PRICES, OPTION PRICES, AND WATER MARKETS
water quality, and the diversion of productive capital to
subsidized water projects.
It is sometimes thought that low water prices benefit
low-income farmers and households. Unfortunately, this
is unlikely to be the case. First, low water prices are an
inefficient way to assist the poor because water generally
makes up a relatively small share of total household
expenditures. In any case, a better option is to design
water prices so that families who use relatively little
water can be given a free allowance of a specific quantity of
water. Second, low water prices often translate into water
agencies that do not have adequate financial resources to
maintain water quality and system reliability. Middle and
high-income households may be able to shield themselves
by finding alternative sources of water supply, but the
poor can rarely do this. Thus, the general principle is
to set prices so that they may reflect, as fully as is
politically and administratively feasible, the forces of
supply and demand.
CONCLUSIONS
This article has examined the nature of water prices and
has demonstrated that the price of water can play an
important role in many decisions related to the supply
and demand of water and to the allocation of other
scarce resources such as investment capital. Despite this
potential, water prices have not played an important part
in the history of water management. For example, many
people remember the building of the Grand Coulee and
High Aswan dams, but how many know the prices charged
for water in these projects? This lack of attention to
water pricing has had important consequences. These
include prices that are far below the cost of supply,
overuse of water, reduced water quality, and the delayed
development of water-conserving technologies. Perhaps
because of these conditions, a growing amount of attention
is being directed toward water pricing.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Environment Canada (2002). Freshwater website http:
//www.ec.gc.ca/water/e main.html. Accessed February 27,
2002.
2. City of Los Angeles Department of Water Services (2002).
Water Rates For Service In The City And County Of
Los Angeles http://www.ladwp.com/water/rates/sch b.htm.
Accessed February 27, 2002.
3. Dinar, A. and Subramanian, A. (Eds.). (1997). Water Pricing
Experiences: An International Perspective. World Bank
Technical Paper 386, The World Bank, Washington, DC.
4. Hall, D. (Ed.). (1996). Marginal Cost Rate Design and
Wholesale Water Markets, Advances in the Economics of
Environmental Resources. Vol. 1. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
5. Renzetti, S. (2002). The Economics of Water Demands. Kluwer
Academic, Boston.
6. Postel, S. (1996). Forging a sustainable water strategy. In:
State of the World 1996. L. Brown (Ed.). Worldwatch Institute,
Washington, DC, pp. 40–59.
7. Roodman, D.M. (1996). Paying the Piper: Subsidies, Politics
and the Environment. Research paper 133, WorldWatch
Institute, Washington, DC.
8. Renzetti, S. (1999). Municipal water supply and sewage
treatment: costs, prices and distortions. Can J. Econ. 32(2):
688–704.
9. Munasinghe, M. (1992). Water Supply and Environmental
Management: Developing World Applications. Studies in
Water Policy and Management. Westview Press, Boulder,
CO.
10. Easter, K.W., Feder, G., Le Moigne, G., and Duda, A. (1993).
Water Resources Management: A World Bank Policy Paper.
The World Bank, Washington, DC.
SPOT PRICES, OPTION PRICES, AND WATER
MARKETS
TERENCE R. LEE
Santiago, Chile
Markets in water rights do not operate only for buying
and selling permanent water rights. Using a market
makes available a variety of other tools for increasing
the efficiency of water use. Among the most interesting
of these tools is the use of spot markets and water use
options or future markets. Both alternatives lead to a
broadening of the market and to an increase in the number
of participants on both the buyer and the seller sides of
the market. Their use also results in more stable demand
and supply conditions as the market has a larger number
of buyers and sellers. They also permit water users to
hedge against changes in the price and availability of
water rights and thus eliminate the need to hoard as a
hedge against this risk. On the other hand, the use of spot
and option or future markets requires developing storage
facilities and interconnected conveyance systems if their
full benefits are to be obtained.
Spot markets involve the leasing, not the sale of water
rights. The sale of rights is replaced by the sale of water. In
a spot market, the water right remains with the owner. The
temporary sale of water in a spot market is a preferred
market response to short-term changes in demand and
supply.
Water users may find it advantageous to engage to
engage in a spot market for a variety of reasons. The seller
has an opportunity to earn revenue in the temporary trade
of surplus water but does not give up any water rights.
This is particularly useful for accommodating a short-
term demand for additional water for any use that has a
predictable and fixed life span or for a use of uncertain
duration. For example, a farmer facing an unexpected
variation in normal supplies may buy on a spot market
when it is not economical to transport water in periods of
sufficient water supply. There are, however, examples of
the longer term use of spot markets when a water user is
unable or unwilling to commit the resources necessary to
buy a water right.
One example of a permanent spot market, where
farmers always pay spot prices for water, is found in
the community of Huerta in Alicante, Spain. Here the
ownership of water is separate from the ownership
of land. Water is distributed by rotation at a fixed
rate, approximately the same quantity of water in each

successive rotation, and the proportion of water available
to any water right holder varies for each rotation,
depending on the water rights acquired. Before each
rotation, a notice is posted that announces the date on
which the rotation will commence and informs water
rights holders that, within a prescribed period, they should
claim their ‘‘albalaes’’ or tickets for this rotation. Once
allocated, tickets, available in twelve denominations for
a constant supply of water from 1 hour to 1/3 minute,
are freely tradable in a public auction and an informal
market. The community makes a genuine effort to provide
information to farmers so they can buy and sell water
intelligently; there are brokers who facilitate trading. A
simulation model comparison of this system with those
found elsewhere in Spain, where trading is not permitted,
indicated that the spot market approach adopted in
Alicante is the most efficient in terms of net increases in
regional income. The differences are not great for moderate
water shortages but are significant in conditions of severe
water shortage (1).
In a typical spot market contract, the buyer pays
the owner of the water right, generally in periodic
installments, but there can also be an up-front payment
to initiate the sale. Such contracts are often renewable.
The length of a contract in irrigation districts is typically
a single season. Contracts can be, however, very short,
sometimes for as little as a few hours. In the short run,
spot prices usually provide a source of water cheaper than
the purchase of a permanent water right, but water on a
spot market can and will fluctuate in price. The supply
is secure only for the period of the contract. There is also
an expense in the constant renewal costs for those who
depend on short-term purchases in a spot market.
By providing immediate access to water, spot markets
can, however, accommodate the most varying needs. The
flexibility of spot markets makes them an attractive option
for many users, and they are often very active, particularly
among neighboring water rights holders in irrigation
districts, even where markets in permanent rights have
not been established. Spot purchases, often informal, are
usually the predominant form of market transactions,
whether or not a formal market exists.
In Chile, seasonal spot purchases of water have been
a much more active form of water reallocation than
water rights sales (2). The most common transaction
is an arrangement between neighboring farmers whose
water requirements differ through the cropping cycle (3,4).
Spot trading between neighbors is easier because it does
not require investment in storage facilities or elaborate
systems of interconnection between canal systems. In
California, as well, water marketing is characterized by
an emphasis on seasonal spot markets, although there
are good facilities for transferring water over very large
distances (5).
Option prices are based on longer term agreements to
lease, or sometimes, but less commonly, to sell a water
right. The option is taken up when a given event occurs,
typically a drought. There are examples of the use of
options in both the United States and in Chile. A typical
arrangement in Chile is the payment by a fruit farmer of
SPOT PRICES, OPTION PRICES, AND WATER MARKETS 607
a prenegotiated fee to a farmer growing annual crops for
an option on water supply in the case of drought (6).
Options can be and are also used to transfer water
from agricultural to nonagricultural users; this has been
common practice in the western United States. Dry
year option contracts are an attractive alternative when
supplies are normally adequate. Options provide supplies
during droughts at a cost lower than purchases or leases
of water rights.
Options are particularly attractive because the buyer
secures long-term water supplies and the seller receives
compensation for the option, including the income lost
when the option is exercised. For the buyer of an option,
the contract also provides a means of obtaining additional
water supply, under predetermined conditions, and at a
specified price.
Option contracts are, however, complex. The contract
must address the risk to the buyer that the water right
will not be available when the time comes to exercise the
option. The establishment of an option contract limits the
rights of the owner of the water right to sell. This issue
can be addressed by including in the contract the ‘‘right of
first refusal’’ which allows the seller to retain the option
of selling the right, but gives the option holder the right
to match the offered price (7). Moreover, to produce the
greatest benefits, options require long-term contractual
commitments, up to 20 or more years, which can introduce
many uncertainties into the arrangement.
Option contracts can include payments adjusted over
time to allow for changes in water use, production costs,
technology, and other conditions. Alternative methods of
charging can be used; a lump sum, annual payments,
or a combination of annual payments with a lump sum
when the option is exercised. The latter is a particularly
attractive alternative, because neither party needs to
anticipate fully the number of times the option will be
exercised over the contract period (8). The holders of
water rights on which option contracts have been agreed
to can also be compensated in kind, for example, by lower
rates for the option holder’s production; as in irrigation
to hydroelectricity generation transfers, farmers can be
compensated by lower electricity rates.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Maass, A.R. and Anderson, R.L. (1978). . . . and the Desert Shall
Rejoice: Conflict, Growth, and Justice in Arid Environments.
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
2. Chile, Trabajo de Asesorı́a Económica al Congreso Nacion-
al, ‘Nuevo proyecto de modificación al Código de Aguas’,
(1996). Trabajo de Asesorı́a Económica al Congreso Nacion-
0al, No. 74, December, Programa de Postgrado en Economı́a,
ILADES/Georgetown University.
3. Gazmuri, R. (1994). Chile’s market-oriented water policy:
institutional aspects and achievements. In: Water Policy and
Water Markets. Selected papers and proceedings from the
World Bank’s Ninth Annual Irrigation and Drainage Seminar,
Annapolis, Maryland, December 8–10, 1992. G. Le Moigne,
K.W. Easter, W.J. Ochs, and S. Giltner (Eds.). Technical Paper
Number 249, The World Bank, Washington, DC.
4. Gazmuri, R. and Rosegrant, M.W. (1994). Chilean Water Pol-
icy: The Role of Water Rights, Institutions, and Markets.
608 WATER MANAGED IN THE PUBLIC TRUST
Tradable water rights: experiences in reforming water allo-
cation policy by M.W. Rosegrant and R. Gazmuri, Irrigation
Support Project for Asia and the Near East.
5. Howitt, R.E. (1997). Initiating Option and Spot Price Water
Markets: Some Examples from California, Seminar on Eco-
nomic Instruments for Integrated Water Resources Man-
agement: Privatization, Water Markets and Tradable Water
Rights. Proceeding, Inter-American Development Bank, Wash-
ington, DC.
6. Thobani, M. (1997). Formal Water Markets: Why, When
and How to Introduce Tradable Rights in Developing
Countries, Seminar on Economic Instruments for Integrated
Water Resources Management: Privatization, Water Markets
and Tradable Water Rights. Proceedings, Inter-American
Development Bank, Washington, DC.
7. Michelsen, A.M. and Young, R.A. (1993). Optioning agricul-
tural water rights for urban water supplies during droughts.
Am. J. Agric. Econ. 73: 4.
8. Hamilton, J.R., Whittlesey, N.K., and Halverson, P. (1989).
Interruptible water markets in the Pacific Northwest. Am.
J. Agric. Econ. 71: 1.
WATER MANAGED IN THE PUBLIC TRUST
LAUREL PHOENIX
Green Bay, Wisconsin
Managing water in the public trust requires considering
the water demand of current and future citizens as well
as that of ecosystems, fish, and wildlife. This presumes
that water will be managed sustainably for human and
ecosystem benefit, despite the fact that ecosystems have
no voice in the political process. To understand how
complicated it is to accomplish this, the definition and
history of the public trust is examined. Next, water
management is briefly described to contrast current water
management methods with the finesse that managing
water in the public trust would require. Finally, some
of the difficulties of achieving this in a world of rising
demand and finite resources are highlighted, followed by
a set of principles describing government obligations to
uphold human rights.
WHAT IS THE PUBLIC TRUST?
The public trust is an enduring doctrine obligating
government to manage natural resources in the best
interests of its citizens. Because some vital natural
resources like oceans, air, and wildlife cannot be owned in
the same way a person can hold a property interest in land,
it is the responsibility of government to hold ownership
over these common resources in trust for its citizens, so
that their use may be regulated to ensure universal access
and prevent their overuse or degradation.
HISTORY OF THE PUBLIC TRUST
The common law doctrine in European history is first
attributed to the Roman Emperor Justinian, who declared
in 533–534 B.C.E. that running water, seas, and wildlife
were part of a ‘‘negative community’’ of things that could
not be owned but could be used under regulation to ensure
vital common resources were not exploited (1). A later
example is the Magna Carta signed in 1215, granting
guaranteed liberties to the people that not even King John
or future kinds could overrule. Because of its importance
to fisheries, commerce, and navigation, the public trust
doctrine in America was initially used at federal and state
levels only to apply to waterways, but court rulings since
then have expanded the public trust to include many other
environmental issues, such as protection of ecosystems,
recreation like swimming and boating, preservation of
views (scenic values), habitat (wildlife values), open space,
and beaches (2). Some states have taken a step further to
apply the public trust to nonenvironmental issues, such
as historical sites; civic sites or economically important
areas, such as aging downtown districts; or economic
development such as tearing down old, low value single
homes to be replaced with many more valuable units, such
as expensive condos.
Consequently, the public trust has evolved from rules
for equitably sharing the natural ‘‘commons’’ of the land to
case law expanding the multiple uses of water resources,
as well as rules looking at any social or economic good that
could be said to advance the public welfare.
HOW IS WATER ‘‘MANAGED’’?
Water resources management has been defined as ‘‘the
application of structural and nonstructural measures to
control natural and man-made water resources systems
for beneficial human and environmental purposes’’ (3).
Structural facilities include wells, dams, diversion struc-
tures, pipes, pumps, treatment plants, and hydroelectric
plants. Nonstructural measures are economic incentives,
regulations, public education, and planning. Numerous
individuals, agencies, and jurisdictions are involved in
these structural and nonstructural components. Beyond
this complexity, water managers must concomitantly
address needs for navigation, municipal water supply,
irrigation, fishing, industrial use, hydropower, recreation,
public access, and traditionally sacred sites, among others.
Water must also be managed to protect ecosystems, fish,
and wildlife and should not be unsustainably used to the
detriment of future generations.
In America, water resources management is a frag-
mented collection of federal, state, and local laws managed
by numerous and sometimes competing agencies, water
districts, ditch companies, acequias, and so on. There
are a haphazard mix of treatment and pollution laws
at the federal level, water allocation laws at the state
level, and sporadic conservation laws at some local lev-
els when supplies run low. It is complicated further by
outdated international treaties and interstate compacts.
Some states permit, measure, and track individual water
use, and others do not.
Two reasons for this lack of a more organized and
efficient water management system are (1) a long history,
until recently, of having enough water to meet the needs of
most users and (2) a variety of political influences on water
management decisions. First, competing human uses will

have great influence in politics, whereas ecosystems or
future generations have few advocates. Second, of the
current competing uses, some interest groups have more
political power than others, so water may be inequitably
or inefficiently managed, allocated, and used. Third, of
the current competing uses, some are mutually exclusive
in that they cannot happen at the same time in the same
location, causing more conflict and subsequent pressure on
water managers. For example, building a dam on a prime
salmon run damages their ability to spawn, reducing their
populations by 80–90%. Another incompatible use of a
stream or lake is jet skiing and fishing. Fourth, political
influences can cause the best science to be ignored, so, for
example, irrigators will get the water they want even after
biologists predict large fish kills will result (e.g., Klamath
River fish kills of 2002–2003). Fifth, politicians and other
decision-makers will be pressured to make decisions with
short-term benefits, ignoring long-term solutions. Finally,
land use decisions, usually made at a local level, rarely
are made with the goal of preserving/protecting water
resources. Thus, there are small but cumulative negative
effects on surface and ground water everywhere.
MANAGING WATER IN THE PUBLIC TRUST
Managing water in the public interest, therefore, would
be a complex and deliberate allocation of water resources
to meet the requirements of as many uses as possible,
consistent with protecting the resources from pollution
and allocating some water for users with no political voice
(e.g., ecosystems and future generations)—a Sisyphean
task. (Punished for his misdeeds, the Greek Sisyphus was
condemned by the gods to rolling a large boulder up a hill
for eternity, only to have it roll back down again and force
him to start over.) This is complicated enough, but how is
this to be done in a world with a fixed amount of water
but rapidly growing and often impoverished populations?
Already there is evidence of a current global crisis of not
enough water to meet human demand. If over 1.1 billion
people have no access to safe drinking water today (4),
and water conflicts have already been mapped over a large
part of the world (5), how can water be wisely managed
to provide for the larger populations predicted for the
future? There are 6.4 billion people on the Earth now, and
by 2050 there will be 9.3 billion (6). Can technological and
regulatory improvements produce enough water for these
future generations? Besides the inevitable greater demand
from additional people, water managers will also have to
prepare for climate changes that could alter the historic
precipitation and evaporation rates of different regions.
Set with such a task, where do we start?
GOVERNMENTAL OBLIGATIONS TO MANAGE WATER IN
THE PUBLIC INTEREST
The United Nations has set some guidelines for how
governments can fulfill their obligations to their people to
support their human rights. These directives of ‘‘respect,
protect, fulfill’’ were applied to water to give examples of
these governmental obligations (7):
WATER MANAGED IN THE PUBLIC TRUST 609
1. The obligation to respect means no interference with
anyone’s current access to water. Nations could no
longer be:
‘‘engaging in any practice or activity that denies or
limits equal access to adequate water;
artibrarily interfering with traditional arrange-
ments for water allocation;
unlawfully polluting water;
limiting access to, or destroying, water services and
infrastructure.’’
2. The obligation to protect means protecting citizens’
access to water from third parties, such as warring
clans or multinational water companies. Nations
would need to:
‘‘adopt the necessary and effective legislative
and other measures to restrain third parties
from denying access to adequate water and
from polluting and inequitably extracting from
water resources;
prevent third parties from compromising equal,
affordable, and physical access to sufficient and
safe water where water services are operated or
controlled by third parties.’’
3. The obligation to fulfill means government would
need to institute laws and policies to ensure that
every citizen finally had equal access to water. This
could be, for example, ‘‘legislative implementation,
adoption of a national water strategy and plan of
action to realize this right while ensuring that water
is affordable and available for everyone.’’
This framework of respect, protect, and fulfill would
use structural and nonstructural measures, but the goals
and responsibilities would be more clearly defined than
they are now, driving the laws, policies, and choices for
governmental expenditures.
FUTURE CHALLENGES
A world where water is managed in the public trust will
require major changes. First, it will need governments
responsive to and under the control of their citizens,
where there is full public participation and transparency
in decision-making regarding equitable allocation of water
and effective pollution control. Prioritization will then
need to be established in advance to deal with a triaged
allocation strategy in times of scarcity. Nonpoint and
point sources of pollution will need to be far more
rigorously monitored to prevent drinking water and
habitat degradation. We will no longer be able to pollute
with impunity. And finally, inefficient consumption across
all human uses, domestic, municipal, industrial, and
agricultural will need to be replaced with the most careful
consumption, as water becomes increasingly precious.
610 WATER RECYCLING AND REUSE: THE ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Getches, D.H. (1997). Water Law in a Nutshell, 3rd Edn. West
Publishing, St. Paul.
2. Bray, P. (2004). An Introduction to the Public Trust Doc-
trine. Government Law Center, Albany Law School, 80
New Scotland Ave., Albany, NY 12208. Available at
http://www.responsiblewildlifemanagement.org/an
introduction to public trust doctrine.htm.
3. Grigg, N.S. (1996). Water Resources Management: Principles,
Regulations, and Cases. McGraw-Hill, New York.
4. Intergovernmental Council of the IHP. IHP contribution to
the World Water Assessment Programme (WWAP). Document
# SC.2004/CONF.203/CLD.32; IHP/IC-XVI/INF.19.
5. Basins at Risk Project. A study by Dr. Aaron Wolf with
maps. Available at http://www.transboundarywaters.orst.edu/
projects/bar/.
6. The world population highlights (2004). Available at
http://www.prb.org/.
7. Scanlon, J., Cassar, A., and Nemes, N. (2004). Water as a
Human Right? IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper
# 51. International Union for Conservation of Nature and
Natural Resources (IUCN), p. 22.
WATER RECYCLING AND REUSE: THE
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
Environmental Protection
Agency
The Experience at Koele Golf Course, on the Island of Lanai, has
used recycled water for irrigation since 1994. The pond shown is
recycled water, as is all the water used to irrigate this world-class
golf course in the state of Hawaii.
‘‘Water recycling is a critical element for managing our water
resources. Through water conservation and water recycling,
we can meet environmental needs and still have sustainable
development and a viable economy.’’
—Felicia Marcus, Regional Administrator
This article is a U.S. Government work and, as such, is in the
public domain in the United States of America.
WHAT IS WATER RECYCLING?
Recycle: verb 1.a. To recover useful materials from
garbage or waste, b. To extract and reuse.
While recycling is a term generally applied to aluminum
cans, glass bottles, and newspapers, water can be
recycled as well. Water recycling is reusing treated
wastewater for beneficial purposes such as agricultural
and landscape irrigation, industrial processes, toilet
flushing, and replenishing a groundwater basin (referred
to as groundwater recharge). Water is sometimes recycled
and reused onsite; for example, when an industrial facility
recycles water used for cooling processes. A common
type of recycled water is water that has been reclaimed
from municipal wastewater, or sewage. The term water
recycling is generally used synonymously with water
reclamation and water reuse.
Through the natural water cycle, the earth has recycled
and reused water for millions of years. Water recycling,
though, generally refers to projects that use technology to
speed up these natural processes. Water recycling is often
characterized as ‘‘unplanned’’ or ‘‘planned.’’ A common
example of unplanned water recycling occurs when cities
draw their water supplies from rivers, such as the Colorado
River and the Mississippi River, that receive wastewater
discharges upstream from those cities. Water from these
rivers has been reused, treated, and piped into the water
supply a number of times before the last downstream user
withdraws the water. Planned projects are those that are
developed with the goal of beneficially reusing a recycled
water supply.
HOW CAN RECYCLED WATER BENEFIT US?
Recycled water can satisfy most water demands, as
long as it is adequately treated to ensure water quality
appropriate for the use. Figure 1 shows types of treatment
processes and suggested uses at each level of treatment. In
uses where there is a greater chance of human exposure
to the water, more treatment is required. As for any
water source that is not properly treated, health problems
could arise from drinking or being exposed to recycled
The Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, located near Phoenix,
Arizona, uses recycled water for cooling purposes.
 WATER RECYCLING AND REUSE: THE ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
Figure 1. While there are some exceptions, wastewater in the
United States is generally required to be treated to the secondary
level. Some uses are recommended at this level, but many common
uses of recycled water such as landscape irrigation generally
require further treatment.
The Irvine Ranch Water District provides recycled water for
toilet flushing in high rise buildings in Irvine, California. For new
buildings over seven stories, the additional cost of providing a
dual system added only 9% to the cost of plumbing.
water if it contains disease-causing organisms or other
contaminants.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulates
many aspects of wastewater treatment and drinking water
quality, and the majority of states in the United States
have established criteria or guidelines for the beneficial
use of recycled water. In addition, in 1992, EPA developed
a technical document entitled ‘‘Guidelines for Water
Reuse,’’ which contains such information as a summary
of state requirements, and guidelines for the treatment
and uses of recycled water. State and federal regulatory
oversight has successfully provided a framework to ensure
the safety of the many water recycling projects that have
been developed in the United States.
Recycled water is most commonly used for nonpotable
(not for drinking) purposes, such as agriculture, landscape,
public parks, and golf course irrigation. Other nonpotable
applications include cooling water for power plants and
oil refineries, industrial process water for such facilities
as paper mills and carpet dyers, toilet flushing, dust
611
control, construction activities, concrete mixing, and
artificial lakes.
Although most water recycling projects have been
developed to meet nonpotable water demands, a number of
projects use recycled water indirectly for potable purposes.
(Indirect potable reuse refers to projects that discharge
recycled water to a water body before reuse. Direct
potable reuse is the use of recycled water for drinking
purposes directly after treatment. While direct potable
reuse has been safely used in Namibia (Africa), it is
not a generally accepted practice in the United States.)
These projects include recharging groundwater aquifers
and augmenting surface water reservoirs with recycled
water. In groundwater recharge projects, recycled water
can be spread or injected into groundwater aquifers
to augment groundwater supplies, and to prevent salt
water intrusion in coastal areas. For example, since
1976, the Water Factory 21 Direct Injection Project,
located in Orange County, California, has been injecting
highly treated recycled water into the aquifer to prevent
salt water intrusion, while augmenting the potable
groundwater supply.
While numerous successful groundwater recharge
projects have been operated for many years, planned
augmentation of surface water reservoirs has been less
common. However, there are some existing projects and
others in the planning stages. For example, since 1978, the
upper Occoquan Sewage Authority has been discharging
recycled water into a stream above Occoquan Reservoir, a
potable water supply source for Fairfax County, Virginia.
In San Diego, California, the Water Repurification Project
is currently being planned to augment a drinking water
reservoir with 20,000 acre-feet per year of advanced
treated recycled water.
WHAT ARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF WATER
RECYCLING?
In addition to providing a dependable, locally controlled
water supply, water recycling provides tremendous
environmental benefits. By providing an additional source
For over 35 years, in the Montebello Forebay Groundwater
Recharge Project, recycled water has been applied to the Rio
Hondo spreading grounds to recharge a potable groundwater
aquifer in south-central Los Angeles County.
612 WATER RECYCLING AND REUSE: THE ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
In California, Mono Lake’s water quality and natural resources
were progressively declining from lack of stream flow. In 1994,
the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power was required to
stop diverting one-fifth of the water it historically exported from
the basin. The development of water recycling projects in Los
Angeles has provided a way to partially offset the loss of Mono
Basin water, and to allow the restoration of Mono Lake to move
ahead. Copyright 1994, Mono Lake Committee.
of water, water recycling can help us find ways to
decrease the diversion of water from sensitive ecosystems.
Other benefits include decreasing wastewater discharges
and reducing and preventing pollution. Recycled water
can also be used to create or enhance wetlands and
riparian habitats.
WATER RECYCLING CAN DECREASE DIVERSION OF
FRESHWATER FROM SENSITIVE ECOSYSTEMS
Plants, wildlife, and fish depend on sufficient water flows to
their habitats to live and reproduce. The lack of adequate
flow, as a result of diversion for agricultural, urban,
and industrial purposes, can cause deterioration of water
quality and ecosystem health. Water users can supplement
their demands by using recycled water, which can free
considerable amounts of water for the environment and
increase flows to vital ecosystems.
Incline Village, Nevada, uses a constructed wetland to dispose
of wastewater effluent, expand the existing wetland habitat for
wildlife, and provide an educational experience for visitors.
Recycled water has been used for a number of years to
irrigate vineyards at California wineries, and this use is
growing. Recently, Gallo Wineries and the City of Santa Rosa
completed facilities for the irrigation of 350 acres of vineyards
with recycled water from the Santa Rosa Subregional Water
Reclamation System.
WATER RECYCLING DECREASES DISCHARGE TO
SENSITIVE WATER BODIES
In some cases, the impetus for water recycling comes not
from a water supply need, but from a need to eliminate or
decrease wastewater discharge to the ocean, an estuary,
or a stream. For example, high volumes of treated
wastewater discharged from the San Jose/Santa Clara
Water Pollution Control Plant into the south San Francisco
Bay threatened the area’s natural salt water marsh. In
response, a $140 million recycling project was completed
in 1997. The South Bay Water Recycling Program has the
capacity to provide 21 million gallons per day of recycled
water for use in irrigation and industry. By avoiding the
conversion of salt water marsh to brackish marsh, the
habitat for two endangered species can be protected.
RECYCLED WATER MAY BE USED TO CREATE OR
ENHANCE WETLANDS AND RIPARIAN (STREAM)
HABITATS
Wetlands provide many benefits, which include wildlife
and wildfowl habitat, water quality improvement, flood
diminishment, and fisheries breeding grounds. For
streams that have been impaired or dried from water
diversion, water flow can be augmented with recy-
cled water to sustain and improve the aquatic and
wildlife habitat.
WATER RECYCLING CAN REDUCE AND PREVENT
POLLUTION
When pollutant discharges to oceans, rivers, and other
water bodies are curtailed, the pollutant loadings to these
bodies are decreased. Moreover, in some cases, substances
that can be pollutants when discharged to a body of water
can be beneficially reused for irrigation. For example,
recycled water may contain higher levels of nutrients, such
as nitrogen, than potable water. Application of recycled
water for agricultural and landscape irrigation can provide
an additional source of nutrients and lessen the need to
apply synthetic fertilizers.

At West Basin Wastewater Treatment Plant in California, reverse
osmosis, an advanced treatment process, is used to physically and
electrostatically remove impurities from the wastewater.
WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF WATER RECYCLING?
Water recycling has proved to be effective and successful
in creating a new and reliable water supply, while not
compromising public health. Nonpotable reuse is a widely
accepted practice that will continue to grow. However,
in many parts of the United States, the uses of recycled
water are expanding in order to accommodate the needs
of the environment and growing water supply demands.
Advances in wastewater treatment technology and health
studies of indirect potable reuse have led many to predict
that planned indirect potable reuse will soon become
more common.
While water recycling is a sustainable approach and
can be cost-effective in the long term, the treatment of
wastewater for reuse and the installation of distribution
systems can be initially expensive compared to such water
supply alternatives as imported water or groundwater.
Institutional barriers, as well as varying agency priorities,
can make it difficult to implement water recycling projects.
Finally, early in the planning process, agencies must
implement public outreach to address any concerns and to
keep the public involved in the planning process.
As water demands and environmental needs grow,
water recycling will play a greater role in our overall
water supply. By working together to overcome obsta-
cles, water recycling, along with water conservation, can
help us to conserve and sustainably manage our vital
water resources.
STATE AND REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY
TIMOTHY J. DOWNS
Clark University
Worcester, Massachusetts
INTRODUCTION
Integrated watershed management (IWM) seeks to com-
bine interests, priorities, and disciplines as a multistake-
holder planning and management process for natural
STATE AND REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY 613
resources within a watershed ecosystem, centered on
water quantity and water quality. Driven bottom-up by
local needs and priorities and top-down by regulatory
responsibilities, it must be adaptive, evolving dynamically
as conditions change (1). Water resource spatial and polit-
ical scales range from local/municipal, subregional, state,
regional (multistate), national, multinational (‘‘regional’’
in a global sense) to continental and global. Large water-
sheds occupy state and regional spatial scales, presenting
considerable challenges for IWM and water supply, in par-
ticular, because of the number and diversity of human
consumers and biodiverse habitat needs.
A watershed spatial scale is often used by ecologists to
analyze species distribution and biogeochemical cycling.
Watersheds can be characterized by the proportions of
land area taken up by five main land use/land cover
categories (2): urban land, agricultural land, rangeland,
forestland, and water. It is arguable whether a watershed
or ecoregion scale (region of relative homogeneity based on
soil, climate, and vegetative criteria) is most appropriate
for managing water quality and aquatic habitats (2). Even
in terms of water stocks and flows, the differences between
precipitation and evapotranspiration in one watershed
that determine the runoff and infiltration that can be used
for water supply are influenced by regional climatic and
hydrological processes.
Water has many users and uses: drinking, industrial
processing, irrigation, hydroelectricity, cooling water for
power plants, and recreation (swimming and fishing).
It also satisfies the needs of nonhuman species and
participates in hydrogeochemical cycles and climate.
Competing uses can be sources of conflict, especially
when supplies are scarce or degraded by pollution. For
example, using a river for industrial processing upstream
may conflict with its use as a drinking water supply
downstream if toxic discharges are significant. On a
state and regional scale, the number of users and
competing uses increases, and successful water supply
depends on effective communication and negotiation
among constituencies. Just as in small watersheds,
conflicts in one portion can affect other portions.
The state and regional hydrographic area becomes
an operational unit of analysis when water supply and
wastewater sanitation are administered on this scale;
this means that policies and practices are carried out
on a geopolitical scale larger than a municipality or a
subregional watershed. Such is the case in many countries,
like France, Mexico, parts of the United States, and the
United Kingdom. Examples of regional approaches are
(1) in France, six water agencies administer the six large
hydrographic regions of the country; (2) in the United
States, examples of regional management include the
Great Lakes Commission and the Ohio River Valley Water
Sanitation Commission; and (3) in Mexico, Watershed
Councils administer 26 hydrographic regions; several have
portions of two or three states.
Much of the emphasis on regional watershed protection
in the United States focuses on pollution and water
quality, which directly impacts water supply sources and
calls for an approach based on risk assessment. For
example, in the Mid-Atlantic region (consisting of 18 U.S.
614 STATE AND REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY
Geological Survey hydrologic units), the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is coordinating efforts to identify
watersheds that make the most significant contribution
to pollution (2). The GIS is employed to model the
relationships between water quality indicators and land
use/land cover. Water resources management on a state
or regional scale is sensitive to the resolution of data
gathered and the spatial scale on which predictive models
are run and boundaries for analysis set. The pollution of
lakes and rivers by nutrients and sediment from nonpoint
sources (NPS), it has been shown, is well predicted by land
use/land cover patterns (2). Two management strategies
are employed to manage NPS pollution: (1) planning
and source reduction, for example, limiting impervious
surfaces, keeping grazing animals out of streams; and
(2) structural and best management practices (BMPs), for
example, vegetative borders, conservation tillage.
Water supply on a state and regional hydrographic
scale requires drawing up plans that address the fol-
lowing (3): inter- and intra-agency coordination, technical
assistance to local agencies and the public, public par-
ticipation, and program boundaries (e.g., coastal zones
must include watersheds contributing NPS pollution).
And specifically NPS pollution control programs must
address (3) urban sources of pollution, marinas and boats,
agricultural sources of pollution, forestry, hydromodifica-
tion, and wetlands.
INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE
Howe (4) has identified key water management require-
ments for a watershed/multiwatershed scale: (1) coordi-
nated management of surface water and groundwater
resources, (2) coordinated management of both water
quantity and water quality, (3) provision of incentives
for greater economic and technical efficiencies in water
use, and (4) protection of public values associated with
water service (e.g., reliable, safe, clean, affordable supply).
To achieve this, the water institutions must develop the
following characteristics (after Ref. 4):
• the capacity to coordinate water plans with other
agencies (e.g., urban planning, agriculture, public
health, environment, industrial);
• the capacity to solve water problems creatively using
a variety of options and approaches (e.g., laws,
pricing, taxes, tradeable supply and/or pollution
permits, subsidies);
• the foresight to separate roles and responsibilities for
water resource planning and management activities
from construction activities (i.e., avoid conflicts
of interest);
• the multidisciplinary capacity to undertake multi-
criteria/multiobjective planning and evaluation of
alternatives;
• devolve decision-making power to the lowest
level—national, state/regional (provincial), local
or municipal—consistent with the scale of the
water issue;
• capacity and willingness to use appropriate partic-
ipatory methods involving different stakeholders at
different stages of a project (preplanning/conceptual,
planning and design, implementation, maintenance,
monitoring, and evaluation);
• ability to reward innovation and adapt to changing
conditions and priorities.
Federal, state, and regional laws and regulations are
crucial instruments that help us respond to the challenge
of water sustainability. Such responsive legal instruments
should do the following (after Ref. 5):
• Encourage administration at the appropriate
hydrological scale: watershed, multiwatershed or
aquifer system.
• Foster internalization of the values and ethics of
sustainable resource development.
• Encourage integrated approaches to water supply
and sanitation, ecology, and public health.
• Prevent water allocation and usage policy making
from fragmenting among agencies.
• Promote integrated appraisals, notably environmen-
tal, economic, and sociopolitical impacts assessment
of alternative actions.
• Encourage integrated capacity strengthening of gov-
ernmental institutions, NGOs, community associa-
tions, and businesses to transition into more sustain-
able policies and practices and work collaboratively.
• Enforce reward and penalty incentives that encour-
age sustainability.
WATER SUPPLY PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
These are the five categories of human consumption (6):
1. domestic (in-house and out-of-house);
2. industrial (e.g., factories, power stations), commer-
cial (e.g., shops and hotels), and institutional (e.g.,
hospitals, schools);
3. agricultural (e.g., farms, crops, livestock);
4. public (e.g., parks, fire fighting, sewer flushing;
5. Losses—distribution losses, consumer wastage,
metering errors, and/or unrecorded consumption.
Table 1 shows the water supply categories used by the
U.K. National Rivers Authority for watershed and regional
multiwatershed planning and the principal demand
considerations.
For state and regional water supply that may
include several watersheds and aquifers, coordinating
the forecasting of demand is essential for sustainable
supply. Forecasting beyond 15 years is highly uncertain;
so for longer time frames, we employ scenario projections
that ask the question: If these conditions or assumptions
apply (e.g., a certain population growth rate, unit demand,
supply losses), then what will the future water demand
be? The estimation of demand involves (6):
 STATE AND REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY 615

Table 1. Regional Water Use Categories Employed by the U.K. National Rivers Authority and Demand Considerations
Use Category Typical Uses Demand Considerations

Drinking water supply
Industrial water supply
Agricultural water supply
Flood control
Thermal power generation
Hydroelectric power generation
Navigation
Water-based recreation
Fish and wildlife habitat
Water quality management
Source: After References 7 and 8.
Municipal water supply (surface and/or
groundwater; private wells)
Process water supply; cooling waters
Irrigation waters; livestock watering; milkhouse
wash water; livestock housing wash water
Impoundment of high flows for controlled
release; construction of dams, reservoirs,
levees, channel protection
Cooling waters; settling pond waters; water for
pipe flushing and maintenance
Impoundment of water for power generation;
construction of dams and reservoirs; pumping
and drawdown of water levels
Recreational boating; commercial transport
shipping; commercial tourist shipping
Recreational fishing; boating; swimming; hiking,
picnicking; nature enjoyment (e.g., bird
watching); aesthetic enjoyment
Aquatic and riparian habitats; protection of
community structure; protection of rare and
endangered species
Protection of minimal flows for water quality
preservation; low-flow augmentation from
reservoirs; assimilation of waste discharges
from municipalities and industries;
assimilation of storm and combined sewer
discharges
Population levels, growth rates and
consumption patterns, pricing and wastage
Production process technologies and efficiencies
Cropland area and crop types and cultivation
methods; livestock populations; dairy
production
Flood risks, especially in the floodplain;
seasonality and intensity of rainfall and
snowmelt; vegetative buffers
Thermal cycle efficiency; power demand and
scheduling; capacity
Minimum head required for expected power
generation
Minimum depths and flows required for safe
passage
Cultural values, including water odor and color,
nature appreciation; seasonality of recreation;
numbers of recreators; laws
Sensitivity of species to disturbance; ecosystem
type; types and intensities of stressors (e.g.,
water loss, pollution)
Magnitude, duration and frequency of waste
flows; point or nonpoint sources; types and
toxicities of contaminants; health risks to
humans and other species

1. plotting the population trend for the past
10–20 years and estimating the proportion likely
to be due to immigration and that due to natural
increase (births minus deaths);
2. dividing the supply area into different socioeconomic
classes of domestic use;
3. estimating the typical domestic consumption per
capita in each class;
4. seeking values of future immigration and natural
increase for the different classes of housing;
5. Estimating distribution pipe loss rates, consumer
wastage, and unsatisfied demand;
6. Estimating the growth in industrial, commer-
cial, and service demands (a function of popula-
tion growth);
7. Estimating growth in agricultural demand, hydro-
electric demand, and public and ecosystem mainte-
nance demand.
Equation 1 is the general supply equation for any bounded
area (6).
Water can be supplied, and demand can be met by
one or a combination of the following options: (1) surface
freshwater withdrawal (lakes, reservoirs, rivers and
streams), (2) saltwater desalination, (3) groundwater
withdrawal (springs and aquifers), (4) rainfall harvest-
ing, (5) wastewater reuse, and (6) demand management
(efficiency measures and absolute reduction). For the lat-
ter, pricing water equitably is an important consideration,
and it has been postulated that there is a inverse power
relationship between demand (Q) and price (P), such
that (6)
Q = k P−x (2)
where k is a constant and x is the elasticity between Q
and P.
In addition, in developing countries, the price of water
must be tiered according to ability to pay, such that the
poorest people (those at a subsistence level without surplus
income) are fully subsidized, whereas high-end consumers
(more than 300–400 liters/person/day) pay the most and
have a financial incentive to reduce their consumption.

Total supply = total legitimate potential demand
+ consumer wastage + distribution
losses − unsatisfied demand
= water supply unreturned
+ wastewater return
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT AND DISTRIBUTION
Water treatment technologies seek to produce adequate
and continuous supplies of water that are of sufficient qual-
ity—chemically, microbiologically, and aesthetically—for
their intended uses. Treatment consists of a series of phys-
(1) ical and chemical unit processes that are designed as a
616 STATE AND REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY
function of the source and quality of the raw water, the
required water quality produced, and the throughput (or
flow rate). A typical full water treatment system consists of
eight stages (9): (1) intake, (2) pretreatment (e.g., screen-
ing, neutralization, aeration); (3) primary treatment (e.g.,
coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation); (4) secondary
treatment (rapid and slow sand filtration); (5) disinfection
(e.g., chlorination or ozonation); (6) advanced treatment
(activated carbon, membrane diffusion); (7) fluoridation;
and (8) distribution.
On a state and regional scale, sufficient water
treatment capacity must be built and planned for using
regional demand forecasting. The location of water
treatment plants depends on the location of the source
of raw water, the location of the users, and whether or
not it is more cost-effective to build a few large plants to
serve the region or a network of smaller local plants. This
treatment plant spatial configuration will also determine,
and be determined by, the distribution system design.
The distribution system consists of a network of pipes (9):
(1) trunk mains that bring large flows from the source
to the treatment plant and then to storage reservoirs
or towers; and (2) distribution mains that deliver water
from the service storage to the users, a highly branched
network. Service reservoirs and water towers cope with
the diurnal variation in demand by satisfying peak
demand, supplementing the average daily flows. Service
reservoirs must be able to satisfy the population for at
least 24–36 hours and provide enough pressure to reach
the storage tanks of individual users, perhaps more than
50,000 households (9). The hydraulic head for fire fighting
is at least 30m, and maximum head is about 70m (above
this, leaks and bursts are common). In flat areas, water
is fed by gravity from water towers, which can incur
high pumping costs. High-rise buildings require their
own pumping. Typically, each user has a supply pipe
that connects to the communication pipe at the property
boundary, which in turn connects to the service main.
Water distribution networks serve different zones, each
Table 2. Key Aspects of Water Supply in Developing Countries
Sources Selection Factors
• Springs • Distance from source to
• Rivers user
• Lakes • Water quality at source
• Aquifers • Cost of raw water and
• Rainfall delivery
• Scale of supply
• Snowmelt
• Alternatives available
• Recycled
• Sanitation method
wastewater
• Desalinated • Return drainage method
saltwater • Preferences of users
• Land and water rights
• Risk of shortfall, outage,
pollution
Source: After Reference 10.
one supplied by a service reservoir and/or tower (9). On a
regional and state scale, the planning and management
of such an infrastructure must be carefully coordinated
to meet the growing demands of a diverse set of users.
In times of drought, regional water supply is severely
tested, and the risk of drought must be addressed with
a careful regional provision of adaptive reserve storage
and aggressive water conservation strategies that penalize
nonessential use.
WATER SUPPLY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Table 2 summarizes the sources, decision criteria, delivery
methods, and levels of service for water supply in
developing countries. Three main factors affect the choice
of water supply in developing countries (11):
• institutional—land tenure, administrative structure,
finance level;
• population—demography, size, growth rate, socioe-
conomic levels, attitudes, and behaviors;
• technical—scale, geophysical conditions, urban lay-
out, alternatives, resources.
For the rural subsistence poor, the main water supply
problem is stable access to safe water. For the urban
poor and periurban marginalized communities, the main
problem of water supply is that the connection and supply
costs are too high.
On a state or regional scale, these water supply issues
become magnified, and it is no surprise that the most con-
troversial aspect of water supply in developing countries
is selling of water administration concessions to private
water companies by a central government. Recognizing
water as an economic good is essential for efficient man-
agement, but it should be priced equitably according to
users’ ability to pay. For subsistence communities, a full
Delivery Methods Levels of Service
• Hand transport in 1. Simple source with
containers disinfection
• Vehicular transport 2. Pump and supply line to
• Pipelines (gravity, reservoir or standpipe
pumped) 3. Household standpipes or
• Pipelines to troughs, connections
reservoirs, standpipes, 4. Individual household
communal ablutions, supplies
households, businesses,
public places, fields of
crops
• Channels

public subsidy is appropriate for basic needs (1): overpriva-
tization risks occur when water services are run purely for
profit and marginalized communities unable to pay incur
crippling water debts (12). This has occurred in South
Africa and touches a nerve in many other places where
water is viewed as both a public good and a human right
that should not be controlled by commercial interests. We
should also recognize that the problem with user willing-
ness to pay is cultural (habits of free water) and also one
of poor service quality: Why should a person pay for water
that is not clean and comes only intermittently?
WATER POLLUTION AND HEALTH RISKS
Pollution produced in one part of a watershed or
regional hydrographic area poses potential health risks to
other parts. Microbiological water pollution causes many
persistent water-related diseases worldwide, whereas
chemical water pollution adversely affects humans and
other species, especially sensitive aquatic organisms.
Much of the serious chemical pollution stems from runoff
of agricultural chemicals (fertilizers containing nutrients
and pesticides such as DDT) and industrial wastes such as
solvents and heavy metals. For example, many tributaries
of the Amazon Basin have been contaminated by mercury
from mining waste, resulting in methylmercury levels in
fish well above the World Health Organization (WHO)
standard (13). Another dramatic example of regional
mercury contamination occurred in Canada in 1984, where
64% of all Cree Indian residents of Chiasabi had levels
above the WHO standard (13). Nash (14) claims that the
main obstacles to effective water quality management are
cost and a lack of information. Downs argues that the
problems go much deeper to cultural obstacles and weak
societal capacity (15).
AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS
Freshwater lakes, ponds, rivers, streams, wetlands, and
aquifers are inextricably linked by hydrologic cycles acting
on watershed, multiwatershed, regional hydrographic,
and continental scales. A mere 1% of land surface is
covered by freshwater, but it contains 12% of the animal
species (16). Conservationists claim that freshwater biota
are being destroyed by anthropogenic impacts faster than
they can be studied or protected: overconsumption by
human populations, cultural eutrophication, acidification,
dam construction and hydromodification, the introduction
of invasive species, habitat loss from development, and
climate change. Examples are all too plentiful (16): (1) the
invasion by lampreys (an ocean parasite) of the Laurentian
Great Lakes after the construction of the Erie Canal,
resulting in the decimation of salmonid species; (2) the
invasion of the same system by the zebra mussel and
spiny water flea, upsetting native invertebrates and
zooplankton; and (3) the massive diversion of river water
to the Aral Sea on the border of Kazakhstan and
Uzbekistan to irrigate cropland, leading to a 65% decrease
in volume from 1926–1990, destruction of the fisheries,
economic collapse, and health problems.
STATE AND REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY 617
The Aral Sea is a dramatic example of the need
to take a regional approach to water supply and
wastewater sanitation and to account for the coupled
needs of humans and other species. Covitch (16) argues
that technology alone—such as GIS monitoring and
remote sensing—cannot hope to address the pace
or complexity of freshwater ecosystem degradation.
Rather, institutional reforms must provide water to
aquatic habitats and minimize adverse impacts, while
enabling multidisciplinary research is done on regionally
representative biotas and hydrologic regimes (16).
WATER SUPPLY FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION
The twentieth century’s Green Revolution boosted agri-
cultural production and was made possible in large
part by doubling the amount of irrigated land from
1950–1980 (17). In 1989, a third of the world’s food
harvested came from the 17% of the cropland that was
irrigated, and two-thirds of the freshwater supply is used
for irrigation (17). Clearly, on a state and regional scale, for
example, California, agricultural demands are often the
largest of all demands, and so savings derived from more
efficient irrigation technology and/or diversions to other
uses can have a huge impact on water supply sustainabil-
ity. There is concern that growing populations, especially
in water-scarce developing countries, will overwhelm the
capacity of irrigated cropland to provide sufficient food
and that water stress will become even more acute. The
cost of adding to land currently irrigated is high in places
such as Africa because of weak capacity and the need to
build supporting infrastructure. In addition, many rivers
are seasonal.
There is great scope for improving the efficiency and
management of irrigation water: (1) using much less
water per hectare [often less than half the water applied
benefits the plant (17)] and (2) ensuring that water is
delivered at the right time in sufficient quantities. Many
schemes that involve massive irrigation cause fields
to become waterlogged and soils to become salinized,
leach nutrients, and lose fertility. Grossly inefficient
schemes also contribute directly to the overexploitation
of aquifers and surface waters and the degradation of
aquatic ecosystems. Postel (17) has estimated that about
20% of the irrigated land in the United States relies on
overexploited groundwater and causes major state and
regional water supply impacts. Similar problems exist
in many other countries, such as China, India, and the
Middle East. Already, in the Great Plains of the United
States, farms have been abandoned because of falling
water tables; in the Texas High Plains Region, irrigated
land area shrunk by 34% from 1974–1989 because the
cost of overpumping the Ogallala Aquifer System exceeds
the value of crops grown there (17).
Diversions of irrigation water to other uses, especially
urban areas, is becoming a more common practice; some
farmers sell water for more than they would earn from
using it to grow crops. Los Angeles, Mexico City, and
Beijing are just three examples of megacities that rely
on importing water from rural farming zones. Unless
laws and regulations adequately compensate the regions
618 STATE AND REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY
that lose the water to thirsty cities, serious issues of
environmental justice exacerbate rural poverty.
WATER SUPPLY FOR ENERGY PRODUCTION
Water supply and energy supply are closely related, and
conflicts over access, costs, pricing, and the overarching
sustainability challenges for both resources invariably run
parallel (18). Energy production relies on reliable water
supplies: fossil fuel, geothermal, and nuclear power plants
draw vast amounts of water from lakes, rivers, or the
ocean for cooling. In water-scarce regions, either with-
drawals alter hydrologic regimes and impact ecosystems,
water scarcity places absolute limits on energy production,
or scarcity forces interbasin water transfers. Droughts in
Africa and Asia and even California have significantly
impacted hydroelectric production, causing shortfalls that
either go unmet or must be met by scaling up other energy
sources (18). For example, a decade of drought in Egypt
severely reduced the capacity of the Aswan Dam that
supplied half of Egypt’s power. The massive investment
worldwide in dams, aqueducts, and reservoirs was made
to overcome both the uneven distribution of freshwater
for water supply and to provide hydroelectricity for devel-
opment. Cheap energy has allowed water resources to be
superexploited, that is, pumping of deep fossil ground-
water and pumping of interbasin water transfers over
mountains in water-stressed regions. In this way, just as
coal and oil allowed industry to escape the solar budget,
cheap energy also allows settlements to escape the imme-
diate constraints of local hydrology. But on a regional
scale, such constraints are not escaped, merely reconfig-
ured temporarily. Sustainable regional water and energy
supply must be considered as coupled resources and man-
aged accordingly.
WATER SUPPLY POLITICS AND LAW
All regional issues impacting water supply—urban
demand, public health, ecosystem integrity, agricultural
demand, energy needs—can be effectively addressed only
by state and regional institutions that design and apply the
aforementioned responsive regulatory instruments and
allow the participation of regional stakeholders in water
supply planning and management. McCaffrey (19) states
that there are two major principles that underpin most
international water treaties: (1) the principle of equitable
utilization—the apportionment of uses and benefits of a
shared watercourse should be made in an equitable way;
and (2) that a country, through actions that affect an inter-
national watercourse, may not significantly harm other
countries. The key to successful comanagement is sharing
of information and communication, especially about devel-
opment plans. These same ideas should be applied to state
and regional water supply within a country.
CLOSING REMARKS
Water supply on a state and regional scale poses special
challenges for planning and management because of the
large number and wide diversity of users and habitats
to support; the related uncertain forecasting of demand;
the need to provide a reliable, affordable service; and the
number of potential multisectoral priority issues (energy,
agriculture, health, ecology) to address. In practice, the
success of this depends on communication and coordina-
tion on three levels: (1) between each village, town, city,
farm and industry of the region; (2) among the water,
industrial, energy and agricultural development sectors of
the state or region; and (3) among the water utility com-
panies, their customers, and local and state government
regulators. Responsive institutions and regulations are
vitally important to achieve this, to mitigate the risks of
drought and pollution, and to meet the growing demand,
especially in water-scarce/water-stressed regions where
the competition for safe water is increasingly intense.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Downs, T.J. (2002). A participatory integrated capacity build-
ing approach to the theory and practice of sustainabil-
ity—Mexico and New England Watershed Case Studies. In:
International Experiences on Sustainability. W.L. Filho (Ed.).
Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 179–205.
2. Hunsaker, C.T., Jackson, B.L., and Simcock, A. (1998).
Regional assessment for watershed management in the Mid-
Atlantic States. In: Watershed Management—Practice, Poli-
cies and Coordination. R.J. Reimold (Ed.). McGraw-Hill, New
York, pp. 11–29.
3. Smith, J.P., Carlisle, B.K., and Donovan, A.M. (1998). Water-
shed protection and coastal zone management. In: Water-
shed Management—Practice, Policies and Coordination.
R.J. Reimold (Ed.). McGraw-Hill, New York, p. 99.
4. Howe, C. (1995). Guidelines for the Design of Effective Water
Management Institutions Utilizing Economic Instruments.
Report presented at Workshop on the use of economic
principles for the integrated management of freshwater
resources, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),
Nairobi, Kenya.
5. Smith, D., and Rast, W. (1998). Environmentally sustainable
management and use of internationally shared freshwater
resources. In: Watershed Management—Practice, Policies
and Coordination. R.J. Reimold (Ed.). McGraw-Hill, New
York, p. 294.
6. Twort, A.C., Ratnayaka, D.D., and Brandt, M.J. (2000). Water
Supply, 5th Edn. Arnold and IWA, London, pp. 1–35.
7. NRA (National Rivers Authority) (1993). National Rivers
Authority Strategy. NRA Corporate Planning Branch, Bristol,
UK.
8. Heathcote, I.W. (1998). Integrated Watershed Management,
Principles and Practice. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ,
p. 74.
9. Gray, N.F. (1999). Water Technology, An Introduction
for Water Scientists and Engineers. Arnold, London,
pp. 205–226.
10. Stephensen, D. (2001). Problems of developing countries. In:
Frontiers in Urban Water Management. C. Maksimovic and
J.A. Tejada-Guibert (Eds.). UNESCO and IWA, London, p.
284.
11. Lyonnaise de Eaux. (1998). Alternative Solutions for Water
Supply and Sanitation in Areas with Limited Financial
Resources. Paris.
12. Gleik, P., Wolff, G., Chalecki, E.L., and Reyes, R. (2002).
The New Economy of Water: The Risks and Benefits of
 RIVER BASIN DECISIONS SUPPORT SYSTEMS 619

Globalization and Privatization of Fresh Water. Pacific
Institute, Oakland, CA.
13. Gleik, P. (1993). An introduction to global fresh water issues.
In: Water in Crisis, a Guide to the World’s Fresh Water
Resources. P. Gleik (Ed.). Oxford University Press, New York,
pp. 1–12.
14. Nash, L. Water quality and health. In: Water in Crisis, a
Guide to the World’s Fresh Water Resources. P. Gleik (Ed.).
Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 26–37.
15. Downs, T.J. (2001). Changing the culture of underdevelop-
ment and unsustainability. J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 43(5):
601–621.
16. Covitch, A.P. (1993). Water and ecosystems. In: Water in
Crisis, a Guide to the World’s Fresh Water Resources. P. Gleik
(Ed.). Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 40–55.
17. Postel, S. (1993). Water and agriculture. In: Water in Crisis,
a Guide to the World’s Fresh Water Resources. P. Gleik (Ed.).
Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 56–66.
18. Gleik, P. (1993). Water and energy. In: Water in Crisis, a
Guide to the World’s Fresh Water Resources. P. Gleik (Ed.).
Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 67–79.
19. McCaffrey, S.C. (1993). Water, politics and international law.
In: Water in Crisis, a Guide to the World’s Fresh Water
Resources. P. Gleik (Ed.). Oxford University Press, New York,
pp. 92–104.
RIVER BASIN DECISIONS SUPPORT SYSTEMS
CHARLES D.D. HOWARD
Water Resources
Victoria, British Columbia,
Canada
The interacting components of water resource systems
incorporate physical, biological, chemical, and institu-
tional constraints and objectives (Fig. 1). Water projects
are difficult to manage efficiently within potentially con-
flicting objectives and constraints on water quality, river
flows, and lake levels. There are many types of decisions,
and these must be made on a timely and reliable basis.
Decisions vary from timescales of minutes for assign-
ing loads to hydroelectric generating units to weeks and
months for managing water quality, reservoir levels, and
pumping from groundwater. On shorter timescales, deci-
sions are based on deterministic analyses. On longer
timescales, decisions are dominated by consideration of
probabilities.
Planning can benefit from decision support systems
developed for actual operations. Sound plans require
realistic analysis that these systems provide for changes

Water resource system

Thermal power

City

City

Diversion Pipeline

Irrigation Wells

Return flow
Hydropower
City
Purpose
Urban water supply
Irrigation
Hydro power
Fish Flood control
Cooling water
Connect city Fish habitat
Tides
to river and Recreational levels
ocean Stormwater/CSO/Effluents
Figure 1. Water resource systems are
complex.
620 RIVER BASIN DECISIONS SUPPORT SYSTEMS

in operating parameters, capacity expansion, and the
benefits and costs of potential new environmental
objectives. Figure 2 illustrates how many of the same
program modules and data are used for planning studies
and for actual operations.
Until recently, the data and computer simulation
analysis behind water management decisions simply
supported experience and judgments. In the latter half of
the twentieth century, decision support systems based on
optimization techniques were developed to recommend the
best possible decisions. These software systems develop
recommendations by continuous analysis of constantly
changing data and evolving priorities. The key components
of decision support systems are data, computer models of
processes, and trained people.
The purpose of a decision support system is to acquire
data and to increase its informational content. To be
effective, a decision support system should execute rapidly
in response to changing data. Computer input and output
should be in a form that is most convenient for the person
making the decisions. Modern computer systems minimize
the manual input required and automatically suggest
optimal operating decisions that recognize all current
factors.
available field data and scientific principles to interpolate
and to extrapolate. They in-fill missing information on how
the physical system is operating. A secondary purpose for
scientific models is to test how different assumptions about
future or past physical conditions would affect the system.
Management models are used primarily to suggest
water management decisions—they are the main tools
of decision support systems. They include a description
of the scientific, institutional, and economic factors that
bear on the decision-making process. To accomplish
this, they must be comprehensive in modeling the
interactions among components of these systems. For
some types of decisions, an approximate description of
the physical processes is adequate; for most types of
decisions, the institutional and economic factors must be
comprehensively described because they make up the key
objectives in water management decisions.
Scientists should not expect management models to be
absolutely accurate in scientific matters. Managers should
be prepared to have recommendations from management
models reality-checked by scientists.
SPREADSHEETS IN DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS

Spreadsheets can be the engine of a decision support

COMPUTER MODELS FOR WATER MANAGEMENT
There are two related, but fundamentally different
types of water resource models—scientific models and
management models. Scientific models are used primarily
to investigate physical relationships in some detail. They
provide a surrogate for extensive field monitoring by using
system for planning studies but are unsuitable for
supporting short-term operating decisions for data-
intensive water resource systems. They are used routinely
for hydrologic studies and for economic analysis of
water resource systems. A spreadsheet can model
operation of reservoirs, aqueducts, treatment plants,
and water quality. The sensitivity of decisions to data

Functional interaction of decision support system modules

Planning Hydrologic analysis Operational dispatch

and scheduling

Weather System
and status data
watershed (EMS)

On-line Real–time unit

Planning Hydrologic station commitments for
scenario simultion optimization
management plants & for
Deterministic system
short term
Seasonal forecast Unit 7 Day, 24 Hr
storage operations
(DDSS)
dispatch
operations Seasonal inflow schedule
forecast
(stochastic) Storage releases
Unit
operations
(DDSS) Baseline
meteorology Seasonal Maintenance plan
storage
Baseline operations Weekly storage
hydrology targets
Optimal
evaluation Conditional PMF Flood
of plans updates operations

Figure 2. A decision support system for hydroelectric planning and operations.


can be examined, and specific recommendations for
improvements in other models can be developed with the
aid of spreadsheets.
Macro capabilities in spreadsheets are used for
managing data files, displaying and printing graphs and
tables, and for eliminating the need for others to be experts
in programming. Macros can readily merge spreadsheets
and acquire data from servers without user interaction.
The detailed logic for water planning can be examined
to determine how it might be structured for optimization
routines in a more complex model.
Spreadsheet add-ons provide routines that can be very
useful for optimizing water management decisions. A
spreadsheet SOLVER function deals with nonlinear con-
straints and automatically drives the spreadsheet to max-
imize objectives within specified constraints. This elimi-
nates trial and error in using the spreadsheet, reduces
the number of explicit logical operators, and simplifies
technology transfer and user training. Aftermarket opti-
mization routines from third-party vendors extend this
capability to larger more complex management issues.
A spreadsheet offers the following advantages: It can
be a platform for quickly trying out new ideas, other
computer models and their output can be conveniently
evaluated, spreadsheets are widely used and upgradeable
as computer technology advances, and output tables and
graphics can be readily tailored to different needs. A
spreadsheet is an easy link with past methods of operating
a water resource system, and it can be carried forward into
the future with minimal risk of obsolescence.
Spreadsheets are not a good choice for large complex
systems that require comprehensive data management
and quality control, a high degree of automation, and
rapid execution. Special purpose water management
computer programs are more effective for large water
resource systems if they are structured conveniently
for the specific application. But, as part of an overall
decision support system, the spreadsheet format offers
advantages in rapid implementation, capabilities for data
manipulation, flexibility in presentation of results, and
ease of understanding.
DEALING WITH UNCERTAINTY IN HYDROLOGIC DATA
On longer timescales, allowances for uncertainty may
be intuitive—primarily colored by recent experience or
based on hydrologic ensembles. A hydrologic ensemble
is a set of inflow records used in a computer model
to test river and reservoir operations across a range of
possible inflow conditions. The ensemble members are
input to simulation or optimization routines that model
the operating constraints and objectives and provide
information that supports actual decisions.
In some applications, hydrologic ensembles are devel-
oped with a calibrated hydrologic forecasting model
from initial hydrologic conditions and historical weather
data. Meteorologic ensembles generated by medium-range
weather forecasting models offer the potential for condi-
tioning future weather on current atmospheric conditions,
and they eventually may replace historical weather data
for forecasting hydrologic ensembles.
RIVER BASIN DECISIONS SUPPORT SYSTEMS 621
Hydrologic ensembles also may consist of the records of
river discharge or synthetic streamflow sequences based
on the autocorrelation and cross correlation characteristics
of basin discharge records. Ensembles based on historical
discharges are missing the atmospheric and basin
moisture conditioning information that limits the range of
likely future discharges. It can be observed that historical
stream flow records contain a wider range of inflow
possibilities than it is realistic to expect for the current
conditions that are faced during operations. Heuristic
methods may consider that each member of an ensemble
is equally likely or some members of the ensemble may be
given more weight, for example, if an El Niño condition
is relevant or there is a heavy snow cover. Uncertainty
of hydrology is reduced to some extent in forecasts that
realistically deal with the initial watershed state and with
improved future medium-range weather forecasts.
The realities of water project operations are often
avoided in project planning. Postconstruction project
evaluations and benefits seldom, if ever, relate back
to the projections made during planning. Part of this
difficulty can be avoided if the planning methodology
simulates how actual operating decisions will be made.
It is unrealistic to plan a system without considering the
forecasted inflows during actual operations and how the
operators will respond. Deterministic optimization does
not consider uncertainty at all, and simulation studies
based on rule curves and historical flow data lack both
the finesse of optimization and a realistic expectation of
near-term inflows. Water resource planning studies should
include some measure to simulate the forecasts of water
supply and demand that are updated at each decision
point during actual operations.
EXAMPLE OF A HYDROELECTRIC DECISION
SUPPORT SYSTEM
With the advent of market competition, there are clear
advantages to being in position to provide quickly an
optimum generation schedule based on projections of
market prices and the availability and value of water.
For a cascade of dams, this is a complex decision process.
When water is in short supply, maximizing revenue or
ensuring that all generating stations are loaded so that
overall system generation is as efficient as possible will
optimize the 168-hour generating schedule. This requires
allocating load so that plants operate at the relatively
few discrete points of maximum efficiency determined by
optimal use of the generating units within each plant while
meeting operational constraints (Fig. 3). Water movement
between plants is considered in the optimization so that
head is maximized, spill is minimized, and generation
takes advantage of time of day variations in loads and
energy prices.
Additional considerations include very short-term
adjustments to generation and longer term plans for
the most effective use of reservoir storage. Planning for
maintenance of the machinery considers availability of
crews, seasonal variability of hydrology, environmental
constraints, and energy prices. The decision support
622 RIVER BASIN DECISIONS SUPPORT SYSTEMS
Figure 3. Hydroelectric plants have discrete points of maximum
efficiency.
system recommends the optimum decisions by considering
hydrologic probabilities and risks.
Each decision support system is slightly different,
depending on the requirements for water management
and the date when the software was developed. For
a hydroelectric decision support system, the following
functions are now supported by software (1):
water management through reservoir release schedul-
ing,
systemwide maintenance planning for generators,
forecasting hourly and seasonal local unregulated
inflows,
near-real-time unit loading optimization,
hourly schedules for all generators in the system, and
convenient data acquisition, quality control, archiving,
and retrieval
Each of these functions requires access to a common
pool of consistently reliable data. Static data describe
the physical facilities and operational constraints such as
minimum river flows and allowable ramping of river and
reservoir levels. Dynamic data include hydrometerologic
data, weather forecasts, discharge throughout the river
system, projected hourly value of energy, the state of
generating machinery, reservoir and tailwater levels, spill,
current system electrical load, and special operating goals
and constraints.
Some of these data are current, some are not—some
have been previously checked, and some are in a raw form
and may contain errors. The software provides quality
control that takes data from several sources, on different
time steps, of different quality, and concatenates it to
provide currently useful information.
Recent installations are PC-based; local workstations
use the Windows operating system. Data are stored on
dedicated central servers with an SQL or Oracle database.
The database sends and receives data from various servers
and workstations around the system via an internal
network. An archive of historical operating data supports
projections and comparisons with past conditions.
REQUIREMENTS FOR A WATER RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM
A customized modeling and database system will provide
convenient graphical current and historical information
and operating recommendations that are automatically
optimized by the system. Data handling must be
convenient with minimal opportunities for introducing
human error and maximum flexibility for editing storing,
retrieving, and displaying data and model results. There
should be an emphasis on realistically designed graphical
user interfaces and interactive graphical editing that
reflect the preferences of the intended operators.
The data management model consists of a database
system and site-specific capability for editing and
displaying data in a manner that is keyed to the basin
mapping. The model will be informative and practical for
routine quality control, storage, retrieval, and graphic
display. The database will provide a home for the
monitoring data and an integrated backbone for all of
the modeling software. The data will probably come from
more than one source, so the database must be compatible
with the communications facilities.
The hydrologic forecasting model establishes local
inflow forecasts for all of the reservoirs. Two types of
forecasts are necessary: deterministic hourly forecasts
for one week that support daily operating decisions
and weekly conditional probability forecasts for 1 year
that support longer term management strategies. Both
types are driven by weather data and weather forecasts.
Initial conditions for each forecast reflect the computed or
measured current moisture state of the basin, including
soil moisture and water in storage as snow. Conditional
probabilities are derived from historical weather data
and the current initial moisture conditions of the basin.
Deterministic forecasts include hydrodynamic routing in
river systems.
An effective implementation often uses a combination
of a calibrated conceptual model of the hydrologic
cycle and field monitoring of river discharges, soil
moisture, and snow cover. River discharge measurements
provide forecast verification and information for model
readjustment during operation. The local inflow forecasts
are routinely updated daily and more frequently when
there is concern for floods.
The water demand forecasting model considers the
planning objectives, past demands, current demands and
forecasts, and hydrologic forecasts. The model includes
individual subarea requirements that place significant
demands on the system. This is an important component
for ongoing water management planning in response

to changing circumstances, including water and energy
demand management during drought.
The reservoir operations models must be practical,
fast, and provide comprehensive optimizations that
reflect complex site-specific physical and institutional
details and prioritized or multiple objectives. River basin
operation may be simulated by suitably constraining the
optimization model(s) or by a special simulation model.
Generic river and reservoir models used for planning are
unsuitable for operational scheduling within a decision
support system if they lack features that minimize manual
data input and have excessive execution time during
optimization.
The river and reservoir operations optimization
model(s) use forecasts of local unregulated inflows to rec-
ommend the best long-term and short-term strategies. The
objective function may include water supply for irrigation
and cities, hydroelectric production, and flood manage-
ment within environmental and facilities management
constraints, specific discharge and water level targets,
and physical limitations of the system of reservoirs and
river channels. All components and operating constraints
of important facilities are represented in the optimiza-
tion modeling system. A simulation capability can be
used to test the viability of operating plans developed
by judgments that do not follow the recommendations
from deterministic and probabilistic optimization models.
When there are several operating objectives, optimiza-
tion can be accomplished in the software by using a set of
prioritized objectives. For example, in flood management,
the first priority might be to protect downstream prop-
erty from flooding. With this as the objective, the software
determines an operating sequence for spillway gate oper-
ations. Then, with the resulting minimized downstream
flood damage as a constraint, a new objective function
is used to determine the gate operations that will mini-
mize upstream flooding. Finally, with both the upstream
and downstream previously optimized flood damages as
constraints, a third optimization minimizes the number
of nighttime gate changes. This last step determines the
sequence of gate operations actually recommended for
managing the flood with available reservoir storage. With
a suitable optimization model, the method is quick because
each successive optimization uses the feasible solution
from the previous analysis as a starting point.
The method of prioritized objectives also may be
useful as a practical procedure for defining trade-offs for
other types of water management decisions that require
considering multiple objectives. Revising the priorities and
reoptimizing can examine trade-offs. This application of
a decision support system has the advantage of avoiding
the difficult and often confusing task of assigning relative
weights to objectives. The significance of priorities may be
more readily grasped than the relative value of objectives
that may be incommensurate.
BASIC REQUIREMENTS
The entire system of software must run on an operating
system that is compatible with standard word processing
and spreadsheet software. Maintenance for the entire
RIVER BASIN DECISIONS SUPPORT SYSTEMS 623
system should be minimal. The software and data should
be capable of being maintained and upgraded by computer
specialists readily available to the owner of the decision
support system. The water management models, operating
system software, and computer hardware should have
sufficient redundancy to provide a high level of reliability.
The entire modeling system must run on the owner’s
computer network and must provide remote access to the
database by users who are not connected to the network.
The system must have levels of password security to
control access to various portions of the database and
modeling modules.
WHY HAVE A DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM?
A common bottom line question among water resource
system managers is: What is the value of a decision support
system? The benefits are not uniform for all systems
because of the relative importance of uncertainties and
the multitude of institutional and physical constraints on
operation. The value of a specific decision support system
can be estimated by reconstructing the actual operating
history and optimizing at each step as each operating
decision was made. The decision support software can
be designed to automate such an audit as a routine
business practice aimed at raising overall efficiency within
an enterprise.
Since 1987, a decision support system has been
used to guide weekly reservoir release decisions at two
hydroelectric plants in the coastal mountains of British
Columbia, Canada. Studies of 1970–1974 operations
(a period before the decision support system became
operational) showed that, compared to operation with
perfect foresight, as determined by a deterministic
optimization model, the rule curve based operation had
produced 83.4% of the maximum attainable energy
compared to 95.1% with the full decision support
system. Without the hydrologic forecast component, the
optimization component would have produced 92.8% by
simply using long-term average monthly inflows in place
of the forecast. The actual energy produced by operating
with the DSS in each year between 1989 and 1993 was 100,
93, 98, 94, and 96% compared to the maximum possible.
The decision support system provides accessible data and
a consistent framework for improving operating decisions.
Decision support systems can be expensive, but they
bring improvements through more effective management
to achieve objectives, reduced personnel requirements,
fewer violations of environmental constraints, more
effectively trained personnel, and objective technical
performance evaluations. For a complex river system with
many control points and reservoirs, a team of operators
is trained to use the software modules and to interpret
their output. For systems with only two or three major
facilities, one or two trained operators can manage a highly
automated, complex decision support system.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Livingstone, A., Smith, D., Van Do, T., and Howard, C.D.D.
(1999). Optimizing the hydro system. Hydro Rev. 18 (5).
624 WATER RESOURCE SUSTAINABILITY: CONCEPTS AND PRACTICES
READING LIST
Van Do, T., and Howard, C.D.D. Hydro-power stochastic forecast-
ing and optimization. Proc. ASCE 3rd Water Resour. Operations
Manage. Workshop, Ft. Collins, CO, June 1988.
Howard, C.D.D. (1999). Death to rule curves. 26th ASCE Conf.,
WRPM, Tempe, AZ, June.
Stedinger, J.R. and Howard, C.D.D. (1996). Control room III:
finding work for humans. Hydro Rev. August.
Stedinger, J.R., and Howard, C.D.D. (1995). The control room of
the future II. Hydro Rev. July.
Howard, C.D.D., Shamir, U., and Crawford, N. (1995). Hydrologic
forecasting for reservoir operations. ASCE WRPM Div. Conf.
Boston, May.
Howard, C.D.D. (1994). Optimal integrated scheduling of reser-
voirs and generating units. Leading Edge Technol. Hydro-
Vision Conf., Phoenix, AZ, August.
Howard, C.D.D. (1993). Sewer and treatment plant operations
control for receiving water protection. Proc. 6th Int. Conf. Urban
Drainage Syst., Niagara Falls, Ont., Sept.
Stedinger, J.R. and Howard, C.D.D. (1993). A look at the control
room of the not-too-distant future. Hydro Rev. August.
Howard, C.D.D. (1992). Experience with probabilistic forecasts for
cumulative stochastic optimization. AWRA Annu. Conf., Reno,
NV., Nov.
Howard, C.D.D. (1992). Optimal operation of reservoirs and hydro
plants during floods. 4th Water Resour. Operations Manage.
Workshop, ASCE Water Resour. Plann. Manage. Div., Mobile,
AL, Mar.
Howard, C.D.D. (1992). Optimization methodology for hydropower
and instream flow operations. Annu. Conf. Northwest
Hydropower Assoc., Bellevue, WA., Jan.
Howard, C.D.D. (1990). Achieving effective technology transfer.
In: Decision Support Systems in Water Resources Planning,
Loucks et al. (Eds.). NATO sponsored workshop in Ericiera,
Portugal, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Howard, C.D.D. (1988). Expert systems analysis of hydropower
scheduling with forecasting uncertainty. 15th Specialty Conf.,
ASCE Water Resour. Plann. Manage. Div., Norfolk, VA, June.
Howard, C.D.D. (1984). Very short term forecasts for optimal flood
control and hydroelectric peaking operations. AWRA Symp.
Forecasting Water Manage., Seattle, WA, June.
Howard, C.D.D. and Flatt, P.E. (1976). Multiple objective opti-
mization model for real-time operation of a water supply system.
Int. Symp. Large Scale Syst., Univ. of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Aug.
WATER RESOURCE SUSTAINABILITY:
CONCEPTS AND PRACTICES
TIMOTHY J. DOWNS
Clark University
Worcester, Massachusetts
INTRODUCTION
The most famous definition of sustainable development is
‘‘development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs’’ (1). This unifying concept was the theme
of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro that produced
the so-called Blueprint for Sustainable Development,
Agenda 21 (2). At the core of the sustainability paradigm
is the desire to reframe the perceived competition
between development and environment (economy vs.
ecology) into new forms of development ethics, thought,
practice, and policy, reconciling enhancement of the
quality of (human) life and social well-being with the
conservation of ecological integrity. Underpinning this
lofty goal was the ethical pursuit of a more equitable
society both today (intragenerational equity) and in the
future (intergenerational equity). The term sustainable
development is somewhat of an oxymoron because it
implies stability, yet change, and begs the coupled
questions: What to sustain, for how long, and for whom?
This has led to confusion and a plethora of debate over
the conceptual validity of the model. A useful working
definition of a sustainable project, program, practice, or
policy is one that yields a steady stream of benefits (or
positive impacts) that exceed costs (negative impacts) over
intergenerational timescales (25 years and beyond), while
conserving ecological integrity.
Too much talk of ‘‘achieving’’ sustainable development
has led to some disenchantment with the concept when it is
not delivered, or even approximated. The real power of the
sustainable development idea lies in its ability to change
the way we think about intra- and intergenerational
equity and our responsibility as custodians of biodiversity
(3). It is much more helpful to view sustainability as
a relative, dynamic state of development practice, one
that can be degraded or improved substantially, but
never reached absolutely. Sustainability becomes very
useful when we work with stakeholders to explore
development alternatives that are compared against the
status quo, business-as-usual baseline state. So, one key
criterion for comparison is the relative sustainability of
an option compared to others, for example, one water
supply alternative versus others. In practice, this criterion
is broken down into social, economic, and ecological
subcriteria, the comparative evaluation of alternatives
is done by a multicriteria method such as environmental
and social impacts assessment (ESIA).
Viewing development in terms of helping people help
themselves, finding alternative policies, plans, programs,
and actions, and comparing them for positive and negative
impacts is a useful simplifying approach that cuts
through skepticism about sustainability and its inherent
complexity. This is exactly what lawmakers had in
mind when they enacted the landmark U.S. National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1969, the law that
gave birth to environmental impact assessment (EIA).
But in few cases has compliance with this law led to more
sustainable solutions, and the public is skeptical that it
is merely a technical process that endorses preconceived
actions (3).
The fact that Earth Summit 2002 in Johannesburg was
oriented strongly toward understanding why the plans
and lofty goals of Earth Summit 1992 have not been
reached, even approximated,—prospects are worsening
for sustainability according to global trends (4–6)—adds
considerable impetus to our quest to understand what
makes the sustainability concept operational. What are
the underlying concepts and philosophies that describe
 WATER RESOURCE SUSTAINABILITY: CONCEPTS AND PRACTICES 625

Socioeconomic sphere

Compatible Sustainable Integrated

Poverty Management Improvement
trade & Sustainable development decision making
reduction of population of public
environment consumption of & stakeholder
policies growth health
policies settlements participation

Sound
Sustainable
management
development Indirect link
of solid
of energy
waste and
resources
sewage
Sustainability
of water Strong direct link
Marine & resources Sound
coastal zone supply & management
protection & sanitation of chemicals
development & toxic
(e.g. tourism) wastes

Integrated Reducing Promoting

Conserving
land deforestation Managing sustainable Sound
Atmosphere biodiversity
resources /Sustainable fragile agriculture development of
protection & ecosystem
planning & forest ecosystems & rural biotechnology
health
management development development

Natural resource/Ecological sphere

Figure 1. Agenda 21 components of sustainable development. Water resource sustainability
influences many sectors and is a strategic operational focal point (7) (permission of University of
Newcastle–upon-Tyne).

sustainability, and how can these be put into practice?
Notably, freshwater resource sustainability is of great
strategic importance to sustainable development as a
whole because it has by far the highest degree of
structural and functional interdependency with the other
sectors/topics considered in Agenda 21 (Fig. 1). This
means, in theory, if we can solve water problems, many
others will follow.
SUSTAINABILITY CONCEPTS
Human activities—agriculture, industry, urban develop-
ment, and the like—stress environment and ecological
health (including human health) in three main ways that
often overlap and magnify each others’ effects (3):
• through overexploitation of natural capital/resources
(soils, water, plants, animals),
• through overproduction of wastes beyond the assim-
ilative/attenuative capacity of ecosystems, and
• through land use/land cover changes that alter
ecological structure and function.
The literature of the late 1980s and early 1990s is
replete with discussions of sustainability as a concept,
model, idea, paradigm, and philosophy. Hardin’s seminal
article called ‘‘The Tragedy of the Commons’’ in 1968
(8) was an important work that provoked discussion and
raised awareness of the risk of overexploiting common
natural resources without property rights. Hardin’s theory
held that individuals who have access to a common
resource would seek to overexploit the resource to
maximize their benefits and that the aggregate cost of
overexploitation borne by the population as a whole would
exceed the benefits. Such a scheme would be neither
optimal for the society nor sustainable. The field of
Common-Pool Resources (CPR) seeks to find governance
solutions to sustainable natural resource management
(9,10), investigating institutional predisposing conditions
for successful governance of common natural resources, a
partial refutation of Hardin’s theory. Critics of CPR state
that it is predicated on a single resource concept isolated
from the ecosystem context of many resources, that studies
are about self-governance that excludes the state, and that
it is based on assumptions that resources and people do
not change (11).
Another seminal publication was The Limits to
Growth (12), which predicted the collapse of natural
resources such as fossil fuel, metals, timber, and
fish from overexploitation. This ‘‘crisis’’ scenario proved
largely erroneous because of a gross underestimation of
available reserves. Initially, it heightened concern over
the sustainability of development, but then it undermined
these same concerns by exaggerating the risks of collapse
and losing legitimacy.
In 1987, the United Nations Commission on Environ-
ment and Development produced a report called Our
626 WATER RESOURCE SUSTAINABILITY: CONCEPTS AND PRACTICES

Common Future (1), widely known as the Bruntland Table 1. Sustainability Imperatives and Preconditions
Report after the chairperson, Norwegian Prime Minis- Preconditionsa
ter Gro Harlem Bruntland. Focusing on satisfying basic Strategic Imperatives (Capital Needs)
human needs—water, food, shelter, energy, health—the
Commission promoted seven strategic imperatives for sus- 1. Economic growth must be 1. A responsive political
tainability and seven preconditions (Table 1). The report revived in developing decision-making process
nations to alleviate poverty (S).
went on to suggest that the transition to sustainability will
and reduce pressure on the
be driven by industrial wealth and that wealth creation environment.
be made more equitable and environmentally responsi- 2. Equity and nonmaterial 2. More efficient economic
ble. Its value has been to stimulate activity, though it value must be included in systems that use less
has been criticized for failing to fully consider the depen- the consideration of growth. natural resources (N, S, H,
dence of industrial economic growth on natural resource F, P)
exploitation (13). 3. Basic human needs for 3. Responsive social systems
The physical thermodynamic aspects of sustainability food, water, shelter, energy that redistribute the costs
have been addressed by the Natural Step philosophy, must be met, accepting that and benefits of development
set up in Sweden, based on a set of four systemic changing (more equitable) (S, H, F).
patterns of consumption
principles (14):
are needed.
4. Reduce population growth 4. Production processes that
1. Substances from the earth’s crust may not be by reducing economic operate within ecological
extracted at a rate faster than their slow redeposit pressures to have children. limits (N, S, H).
into the earth’s crust. 5. Conserve and enhance the 5. Technology development
2. Substances must not be produced by society faster natural resource base. that supports efficient
than they can be broken down in nature or deposited energy and resource
solutions (N, S, H, F, P).
into the earth’s crust.
6. Environmental risk 6. International order that
3. The physical basis for nature’s productivity and management technology maintains cohesion globally
diversity must not be allowed to deteriorate. must be developed and (S).
4. There must be fair and efficient use of energy and made available to the
other resources to meet human needs. developing world.
7. Decision making should 7. Responsive, flexible,
consider ecological and self-correcting government
Despite the obvious difficulty of meeting the first three economic criteria. institutions (S, H).
principles, the World Business Council for Sustainable
a
Development (WBCSD), a coalition of 125 companies S: social capital; H: human capital; F: financial capital; P: physical capital;
N: natural capital.
worldwide, endorses Natural Step, as do conservation
Source: After Reference 1.
groups such as the International Union for the Conserva-
tion of Nature (IUCN) (14). The interests of the business
sector are addressed by the concept of triple bottom line,
or below the assimilative capacity of the environment;
the three dimensions being economic, social, and environ-
and (3) optimize the efficiency with which nonrenewable
mental. The main issues among these three are as follows
resources are used, subject to substitutability between
(after Ref. 14):
resources and technological progress. The first two are
absolute physical thermodynamic sustainability criteria
• Economy–environment issues: How to promote
readily applicable to water quantity and water quality,
ecoefficiency, clean production, and waste prevention
whereas the third is an economic criterion. Examples of
and minimization? How to employ ecotaxation and
violations of rule 1 and 2 are the depletion of aquifers by
create a market for tradable environmental permits?
withdrawing more water than is being recharged and the
How to account for nonmarket costs and benefits?
degradation of water quality, respectively.
• Society–environment issues: How to raise awareness Sustainability fundamentally challenges cultural
and environmental literacy? How to counter environ- norms, values, and behaviors. Using a historical cultural
mental injustice and foster generational equity? evolution argument, Downs (16) argues strongly that
• Economy–society issues: How companies consider a combination of ethics, productive social interaction,
social costs and benefits of their investments? How and knowledge integration are cultural prerequisites for
wealth generation can address human rights and improving sustainability. Professionals and academics
business adhere to an ethical code of practice. in the environmental field are now (and for the
foreseeable future) centrally concerned with the pursuit
Pearce and Turner (15) have defined sustainable devel- of ‘sustainable solutions’ to priority problems of natural
opment as ‘‘maximizing the net benefits of economic devel- resource degradation. Reflecting the triple bottom line,
opment subject to maintaining the services and quality sustainable solutions are those that are at the same
of natural resources over time.’’ They state several sus- time ecologically viable, economically feasible, and socially
tainability rules: (1) use renewable resources at rates less desirable (Fig. 2).
than or equal to the natural rate at which they can regen- The International Union for the Conservation of
erate; (2) always keep waste flows to the environment at Nature (IUCN) has actively promoted green accounting,
 WATER RESOURCE SUSTAINABILITY: CONCEPTS AND PRACTICES
Socially
desirable Sustainable solution
Economically
feasible Ecologically
viable
Figure 2. Sustainable solutions must satisfy three sets of
criteria: social, ecological, and economic (17).
a process by which the economic costs and benefits
of natural environment exploitation are measured (14).
Norway has institutionalized this process to track the
state of natural resource stocks and pollution rates. The
United States has developed a supplement to normal
economic accounting called the Integrated Economic and
Environmental Satellite Account (IEESA) that seeks to
account for the economic impact of environmental changes
in water quantity, water quality, mineral stocks, forest
stocks, and fish stocks (14). To do this will require new
concepts, methods, and data, and impetus that can counter
lobbying against such policies by special interests.
Spearheading what has been called the Blue Revolu-
tion for water sustainability (14) is the method of inte-
grated watershed management (IWM)/integrated water
resources management (IWRM). IWM/IWRM seeks to
combine interests, priorities, and disciplines as a multi-
stakeholder planning and management process for natural
resources within the watershed ecosystem, centered on
water quantity and water quality. Driven bottom-up by
local needs and priorities and top-down by regulatory
responsibilities, it must be adaptive, evolving dynamically
as conditions change (3). Two global institutions play a
key role in strengthening the social capital to sustain
water resources: (1) the Global Water Partnership (GWP,
founded 1996) that seeks to translate principles into prac-
tice through partnerships based on integrating knowledge
and experience and (2) the World Water Council (WWC,
founded 1996) that seeks to raise awareness of water
problems and promote solutions (14).
IWM/IWRM is new and still evolving: ‘‘IWRM has
neither been unambiguously defined nor has the question
of how it is to be implemented been fully addressed.
What has to be integrated and how is it best done?
Can the broad principles of IWRM be operationalized in
practice—and, if so, how?’’ (18). There are four broadly
accepted IWRM principles, as set down by the 1992
International Conference on Water and the Environment
in Dublin (19):
• Fresh water is a finite and vulnerable resource, essen-
tial to sustain life, development, and environment.
• Water development and management should be
based on a participatory approach, involving users,
planners, and policy-makers at all levels.
627
• Women play a central part in the provision,
management, and safeguarding of water.
• Water has an economic value in all its competing uses
and should be recognized as an economic good.
Building on these principles, water resource analysis,
planning and management must be (after Ref. 3)
• holistic—incorporate the governing aspects of the
‘‘whole ecosystem’’ (watershed links to other water-
sheds, aquifer systems, bays, and estuaries), includ-
ing interrelated natural resources (air, water, soil,
biota), and humans as an integral, supermodifier of
the ecosystem;
• integrated and participatory—incorporate relevant
knowledge from the natural sciences, engineering,
social sciences, and humanities, and accommodate
the diverse set of interests, concerns, roles, and
responsibilities of different stakeholders (including
marginalized groups like periurban poor and rural
subsistence farmers);
• strategic—identify and focus primarily on governing
dynamics (the few drivers and responses that govern
the way the system behaves), gather priority data,
identify and address priority problems most cost-
effectively;
• adaptive—adapt to changing geophysical and
sociopolitical conditions; and
• sustainable—provide a steady stream of use benefits
(or positive impacts) to present and future popu-
lations of humans and other species that exceed
costs (negative impacts), while conserving ecosystem
integrity and environmental quality.
Laws and regulations are crucial instruments that help
us respond to the challenge of water sustainability. Such
responsive legal instruments should do the following (after
Ref. 20):
• Encourage administration at the appropriate hydro-
logical scale: watershed, multiwatershed, or aquifer
system.
• Foster internalization of the values and ethics of
sustainable resource development.
• Encourage integrated approaches to water supply
and sanitation, ecology, and public health.
• Prevent water allocation and usage policy making
from fragmenting among agencies.
• Promote integrated appraisals, notably environmen-
tal, economic, and sociopolitical impacts assessment
of alternative actions.
• Encourage integrated capacity strengthening of gov-
ernmental institutions, NGOs, community associa-
tions, and businesses to transit into more sustainable
policies and practices, and work collaboratively.
• Enforce reward and penalty incentives that encour-
age sustainability.
628 WATER RESOURCE SUSTAINABILITY: CONCEPTS AND PRACTICES
SUSTAINABILITY PRACTICES
The numerous rules and principles that populate the con-
cepts of sustainability can be translated into indicators
that can be measured quantitatively (e.g., waste flows are
being assimilated/waste accumulation is zero) or qualita-
tively (e.g., the quality of stakeholder collaboration). These
ecological, economic, and social sustainability indicators
should be used to assess existing conditions and identify
priorities for action, comparing action alternatives (impact
assessment), and monitoring/evaluating the performance
of the chosen alternative.
Earth Summit 2002 in Johannesburg tried to come
to grips with ways to make the concept operational,
how to put into practice the aspirations of Rio 1992.
Howe (21) identified key water management requirements
for a watershed/multiwatershed scale: (1) coordinated
management of surface water and groundwater resources,
(2) coordinated management of both water quantity and
water quality, (3) provision of incentives for greater
economic and technical efficiencies in water use, and
(4) protection of public values associated with water
service (e.g., reliable, safe, clean, affordable supply). And to
achieve this, water institutions must develop the following
characteristics (21):
• the capacity to coordinate water plans with other
agencies (e.g., urban planning, agriculture, public
health, environment, industrial);
• the capacity to solve water problems creatively
using a variety of options and approaches (e.g.,
laws, pricing, taxes, tradable supply and/or pollution
permits, subsidies);
• the foresight to separate roles and responsibilities for
water resource planning and management activities
from construction activities (i.e., avoid conflicts
of interest);
• the multidisciplinary capacity to undertake multi-
criteria/multiobjective planning and evaluation of
alternatives;
• devolve decision-making power to the lowest
level—national, state/regional (provincial), local,
or municipal—consistent with the scale of the
water issue;
• the capacity and willingness to use appropriate
participatory methods involving different stake-
holders at different stages of a project (preplan-
ning/conceptual, planning and design, implementa-
tion, maintenance, monitoring, and evaluation).
• the ability to reward innovation and adapt to
changing conditions and priorities.
It is clear that to do most of what sustainability
challenges society to do requires us to strengthen our
capacity to respond to those challenges and opportunities.
‘‘Capacity building is the sum of efforts needed to develop,
enhance and utilize the skills of people and institutions to
follow a path of sustainable development’’ (22). A UNDP
program Capacity 21 (22), seeks to build capacity to
implement Agenda 21.
Considerable community-based water management
experience worldwide provides empirical evidence of
what works on the community scale and why (see
23–26 among many others). IRC (23) found that the
following are major factors for success in community
water projects: baseline community capacity, community
demand, donor and government support (financial and
as policy), sufficient water resources, and the capacity
of implementation agencies. But work has tended to
focus on one population context alone (e.g., rural
subsistence), and on one aspect (water supply and/or
sanitation, or irrigation, or land degradation), instead
of the more integrated watershed management approach
advocated for sustainability. A considerable body of
knowledge exists on participatory methods, methods
include participatory rural appraisal (PRA), participatory
action research (PAR), rapid rural appraisal (RRA), and
participatory action development (PAD); all have been
applied to strengthening community water management.
But calls have been made to move beyond traditional
participatory methods to more integrated analysis and
planning methods with community and government
stakeholders (27).
How do we make sustainability progress in a field
that builds on successes, learns from failures? From
1998–2000, local working groups in collaboration with
the Mexican National Water Commission (CNA), coor-
dinated by Downs (7), developed a participatory inte-
grated capacity-building (PICB) approach to water sector
sustainability. Following an analysis comparing rela-
tively sustainable development projects worldwide during
the past 10–15 years (those yielding a steady stream
of benefits after external support was removed) with
a much larger number of unsustainable projects, six
broad synergistic levels of capacity building emerged as
critical components for success: (1) strengthening politi-
cal and financial commitment; (2) strengthening human
resources, including education, training, and awareness-
raising; (3) strengthening information resources for poli-
cymaking (e.g., monitoring and GIS tools for data integra-
tion); (4) strengthening policies, regulations, enforcement,
and verification; (5) applying appropriate technology and
basic infrastructure (e.g., for water and wastewater treat-
ment); and (6) stimulating local enterprise development
(i.e., support products and services providing socioeco-
nomic sustainability). Each one builds on those before it
with positive feedback. Crucially, we see that operational
sustainability is a function of participation and integrated
capacity building (7).
Figure 3 shows a desirable participatory project
sequence. On the analytical (science) side, we need strate-
gic information on watershed conditions, especially water
quantity, water quality, and use requirements (present
and future users are humans and other species). On the
policy and management sides, we need strategic planning
methods that accommodate stakeholder inputs, evaluate
options, choose a preferred option (by multiple criteria),
and support the implementation and sustainable opera-
tion of this option. PICB is used to make the selected
preferred management option (PMO) sustainable (for more
 WATER RESOURCE SUSTAINABILITY: CONCEPTS AND PRACTICES 629

1. Stakeholder 2. Strategic analysis 3. Strategic planning 4–6. Design,

participation
implementation,
Baseline conditions and Options selection. operation, maintenance,
Form needs assessment — Screening of all options and monitoring
multistakeholder identification of priority to identify viable options.
strategic problems. Examples of Preliminary designs of
options for impact 4. Detailed design and
analysis and data needs:
assessment. work plan that includes
strategic Hydrology — water the ICB5 needs of PMO.
planning balance ICB is phased in or
group. Pollution source Multicriteria appraisal tiered over time.
inventory and risk of viable options and
Social science mapping selection of preferred 5. Implement project or
Land use and land management option action with ICB priorities
cover changes, and (PMO) – EIA2 + SEA3 + phased in first.
priority conservation SIA4 tools.
Use requirements —
present and future, Management and 6. Operation and
humans and other decision science maintenance.
species Monitor performance and
Key Supply potential from modify/Improve
1
Participatory appraisal various sources operation as needed.
2
Environmental impact assessment
3
Strategic environmental assessment
4 Social impacts assessment Environmental science Environmental
5 and geographic technology,
Integrated capacity building
information science management and
(includes PA1) decision science

Figure 3. Six stages of operational water sustainability. Strategic participatory planning selects
an alternative using sustainability criteria (impact assessment), and integrated capacity building
sustains it (after Ref. 3).

information, see the article INTEGRATED CAPACITY BUILDING
NEEDS FOR WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER SANITATION).
An integrated, sustainable watershed management
plan must be based on reliable information (PICB Level
3) about baseline geophysical, hydrologic, water quality,
pollution source, ecological and socioeconomic conditions.
Identifying key indicators, integrating data on them, inter-
preting and disseminating information to watershed–bay
stakeholders informs policy and raises awareness of
priority issues. It also facilitates collaborative actions
to mitigate those issues. This strategic data can be
fed into a GIS database that can be manipulated for
decision-making. The GIS format can be used to engage
community, NGO and government stakeholders in the
strategic analysis process that must underpin the water-
shed–bay planning, design, implementation, and mainte-
nance/monitoring stages (Fig. 3). A web-accessible GIS can
also provide actors with a powerful means to understand
how their interests fit into the wider multi-interest context
of a watershed ecosystem. Such visualization and infor-
mation is conducive to multistakeholder participation and
dispute mediation: Actors internalize the stakes of others
and can better negotiate compromises to meet common
goals (3). Such information resource/planning tools do not
yet exist, data are scattered, of varied formats, and have
significant gaps that flag primary data gathering needs.
Close collaboration with watershed NGOs engaging in
community capacity building and state and local environ-
mental agencies will ensure that results have the greatest
impact and utility (3).
The term strategic is stressed: We must choose to collect
data of the highest information value for our objectives
and only this data (3). In this way, what appears to be a
huge project scope is reduced to its critical components,
is manageable, and most importantly, effective. This also
keeps volunteer data gatherers engaged because they see
the impacts of their efforts on policy. We already know
what most of these key data are (priority pollutants, use
data, hydrologic balance, etc.); often some exists, though
dispersed and must be integrated. Other priority data
needs emerge as part of the analysis.
Empirical evidence points strongly to community-
based natural resource management as a key to social
sustainability. But how can this be done on the watershed
scale required for hydrologic sustainability? The answer
lies in strengthening the social capital of the watershed
by forming collaborative networks of communities. Often
in developing countries, marginalized rural agroforesters
occupy the upper reaches of the watershed and become, de
facto, producers of water resources for downstream users.
Evidently, both producers and users share the common
interest of watershed sustainability, and both must be
involved in strategic planning. By networking and through
capacity building coordinated by NGOs, marginalized
communities can gain the power they need to negotiate
with influential user groups and government agencies.
CLOSING REMARKS
Integrated watershed management and integrated capac-
ity building seem to confirm that the challenges of sus-
tainability are primarily cultural and sociopolitical, not
economic, scientific, or technical. Echoing the cultural
prerequisites of Downs (16), any sustainability process,
method, or approach—certainly IWM, PICB, EIA—will
630 THE PROVISION OF DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
ultimately depend for its success on two cultural determi-
nants:
• an ethical core—values and attitudes respectful
of intra- and intergenerational equity and natural
resource conservation; and
• a participatory culture—swapping ‘‘win–lose’’ for
‘‘win–win’’; choosing the philosophy of collaboration
and mutual gains over conflict negotiation and trade-
offs.
Providentially, international case studies reveal that
water sustainability challenges and opportunities are
similar across cultures and geographical contexts and
yield significant economies of scale in the development
of theory and practice.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. WCED (World Commission on Environment and Develop-
ment). (1987). Our Common Future, Oxford University Press,
New York.
2. UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development). (1992). Earth Summit 1992—the United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development, The
Regency Press, London.
3. Downs, T.J. (2002). A participatory integrated capacity build-
ing approach to the theory and practice of sustainabil-
ity—Mexico and New England Watershed Case Studies. In:
International Experiences on Sustainability. W.L. Filho (Ed.).
Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 179–205.
4. UN. Earth Summit 2002 Briefing Documents, available at:
http://www.earthsummit2002.org/, consulted 2002.
5. UN. Earth Summit +5: Programme of action adopted by the
Assembly, Special Session of the Assembly to review and
appraise the implementation of Agenda 21, UN Department
of Economic and Social Affairs, New York, available at:
http://www.un.org/esa/earsummit/, authored 1997, consulted
2000.
6. World Watch. (2002). State of the World 2002. WW Norton,
New York.
7. Downs, T.J. (2001). Making sustainable development opera-
tional: Capacity building for the water supply and sanitation
sector in Mexico. J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 44(4): 525–544.
8. Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:
1243–1248.
9. Ostrom, E. (1999). Coping with the tragedy of the commons.
Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 2: 493–535.
10. Dietz, T. et al. (2002). The drama of the commons. In: The
Drama of the Commons. E. Ostrum (Ed.). National Academy
Press, Washington, DC.
11. Steins, N., Roling, N., and Edwards, V. (2000). Redesigning
the principles: an interactive perspective to CPR theory. Proc.,
8th Conf. Int. Assoc. Study Common Property, Bloomington,
IN, June 1–4.
12. Meadows, D.H., Meadow, D.L., Randers, J., and Behrens,
W.W. (1972). The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club
of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. Universe
Books, New York.
13. Clayton, M.H. and Radcliffe, J. (1996). Sustainability, a
Systems Approach. Earthscan, London, p. 65.
14. Calder, I.R. (1999). The Blue Revolution, Land Use and
Integrated Water Resources Management. Earthscan, London,
pp. 62–71.
15. Pearce, D. and Turner, R.K. (1990). Economics of Natural
Resources and the Environment, Johns Hopkins University
Press, Baltimore, pp. 24–44.
16. Downs, T.J. (2001). Changing the culture of underdevelop-
ment and unsustainability. J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 43(5):
601–621.
17. Doyle, K. (2002). Environmental Career Trends. Environmen-
tal Careers Organization, Boston.
18. GWP (Global Water Partnership). (2000). Framework for
Action: Responding to the Forum. Report reflecting on the
Framework for Action presented at the Second World Water
Forum, Stockholm, Sweden, March.
19. GWP/TAC (Global Water Partnership/Technical Advisory
Committee). (1999). The Dublin Principles for Water. TAC
Background Papers, No. 3, Global Water Partnership,
Stockholm, Sweden.
20. Smith, D. and Rast, W. (1998). Environmentally sustainable
management and use of internationally shared freshwater
resources. In: Watershed Management—Practice, Policies
and Coordination. R.J. Reimold (Ed.). McGraw-Hill, New
York, p. 294.
21. Howe, C. (1995). Guidelines for the Design of Effective Water
Management Institutions Utilizing Economic Instruments.
Report presented at Workshop on the use of economic
principles for the integrated management of freshwater
resources, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),
Nairobi, Kenya.
22. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme), About
Capacity 21, Available at: www.sdnp.undp.org/c21, consulted
2001.
23. IRC. (2001). Community Management: The Way Forward.
Report of the workshop, November 19–27, Rockanje,
Netherlands.
24. IRC. (2001). From System to Service—Scaling-up Community
Management. Report of the conference, The Hague, Nether-
lands, December 12–13.
25. World Bank. (1994). World Development Report: Infrastruc-
ture for Development, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
26. WSSCC. (2000). Vision 21: Water for People—a Shared Vision
for Hygiene, Sanitation and Water Supply. Water Supply and
Sanitation Collaborative Council, Geneva, Switzerland.
27. Hailey, J. Beyond the PRA Formula, Paper presented at the
Symposium on Participation: the New Tyranny? Institute
for Development Policy and Management, Manchester, UK,
November 3, 1998.
THE PROVISION OF DRINKING WATER AND
SANITATION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
TERENCE R. LEE
Santiago, Chile
Few die from a lack of water, but many die from
water. Despite all the resolutions made at international
congresses and all the pledges from governments and
international organizations, more than 3 million people
die each year from water-related diseases (Fig. 1). These
deaths occur in circumstances where safe water and
 THE PROVISION OF DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
sanitation would have cut by at least one-third the number
of diarrhea cases (currently at 4 billion worldwide every
year) which result in 2.2 million of those deaths (1).
The U.S. National Academy of Engineering includes
drinking water supply as one of the great engineering
achievements of the twentieth century. For those fortunate
to live in a developed country, it was. However, the failure
to provide universal safe drinking water and adequate
sanitation is amongst the gravest contradictions of our
world at the beginning of the twenty-first century. The
necessary technology has existed for at least two millennia,
but there remain serious obstacles to its application. The
result is that at least 1 billion people remain without access
to a reliable and safe source of water, and more than 2.5
billion lack safe sanitation. This population is concentrated
in countries at the lowest levels of development.
The deficits in services are greatest in Africa where
38% of its population remains without safe water and 40%
without sanitation; Asia has 19% of its population without
access to safe water, 52% without adequate sanitation; and
in Latin America and the Caribbean, 15% of the population
is without a potable water supply and 22% without
adequate sanitation. Although, it has been estimated that
a large number of additional people obtained access to
services in the 1990s (800 million to water and 750 million
to sanitation), population migrations and growth have
meant that the proportion of the urban population with
access to a safe water supply actually decreased, whereas
the absolute number of people without access to water and
sanitation remained the same (3).
An example of what these statistics can mean in reality
for the population of a city can be illustrated by the
situation in Dakar, the capital of Senegal in West Africa. In
Dakar, the urban area can be subdivided into three zones:
• The first zone is completely laid out in lots and
endowed with water supply and sanitation. It
corresponds to the area of the colonial city founded
in the second half of the nineteenth century. Today,
it is the commercial and administrative center.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 Water supply
High Sanitation
Middle
Low
Least
Sanitation Water supply
Figure 1. Percentage of population with access to improved
water source and sanitation, by level of development.
(Source: Reference 2.)
631
• The second zone is the formal suburban area, which is
partly parceled in legally constituted lots. However,
only part of this area has public water supply and
sanitation. In the rest, where the majority of houses
have been built on public land without permission,
the inhabitants eliminate domestic wastes in situ.
Of the inhabitants, 40% use latrines, 40% use
abandoned wells, and 20% use dug holes.
• The third zone is entirely without any public water
supply or sanitation (4).
In the suburbs of Dakar, only 40% of the population
receives drinking water from a protected source, usually
public taps; the remainder of the population relies on
water from shallow wells, running the risk of contracting
diseases as the groundwater quality is menaced through
the existence of poor quality latrines and of excreta
deposited directly on the soil.
The menace of well contamination is present even in
rural areas that have much lower population densities
than those of the suburbs of Dakar. The problem is the
reliance on shallow wells when excreta are also disposed
of into the shallow aquifer. Problems due to contamination
are compounded by the restrictions on water consumption
imposed by the need to carry water over long distances
(Table 1). People will go a very long distance to get water,
even more than 2000 meters, but consumption drops
drastically when water has to be carried so far. It has
been estimated by the World Health Organisation that
something of the order of 50 liters per person a day is
needed to live safe from disease, which, the data in the
table suggest, means a tap in the dwelling.
For the rural population, water may be free, even if
not close by. In urban areas, even for low levels of supply,
water has to be paid for. It has long been known that
the poor pay more when the source is not a public utility
(Table 2).
Rural water supply service can be extended through
the successful change to a demand-led provision of both
technologies for the individual household (hand dug
wells, hand pumps, roof catchments) and community
technologies (gravity flow and simple pumped systems
manageable by community members). The main issue is
to overcome the operations and maintenance problems,
which, in the past, have made up to one-third of even such
Table 1. Water Consumption in Rural Areas
Average Daily
Consumption, Liters
Type of Water Supply per Person
Communal source
Well or tap farther than 1000 meters 7
Well or tap between 250 and 1000 meters 12
Well less than 250 meters 20
Tap less than 250 meters 30
Tap in yard 40
Tap in house
Single tap 50
Multiple taps 150
Source: Reference 5.
632 THE PROVISION OF DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Table 2. Ratio Between the Price Charged by Water
Vendor and by Public Utilities, Selected Cities
City Ratio
Dacca, Bangladesh 12–25
Cali, Colombia 10
Guayaquil, Ecuador 20
Port-au-Prince, Haiti 17–100
Tegulcigalpa, Honduras 16–34
Jakarta, Indonesia 4–60
Adidjan, Ivory Coast 5 Even where historically services have been provided by
Nairobi, Kenya 7–11
Lagos, Nigeria 4–10
Karachi, Pakistan 28–83
Lima, Peru 17
Istanbul, Turkey 10
Kampala, Uganda 4–9
Source: Reference 6.
relatively low technology systems out of order soon after
installation (7). Any improvement will require continuing
support once the systems are installed. It is now accepted
that increased private sector involvement and the transfer
of many water points from community to private household
management can improve performance. For example, a
World Bank survey in the 1980s showed that 60% of
the public hand pumps in rural India were out of order,
compared to only 10% of privately owned pumps (8).
Rural sanitation normally takes the form of on-
plot sanitation, which does not impose high external
investment costs or significant operation and maintenance
responsibilities outside the household. Public support is
required for the critical tasks of health and sanitation
education and promotion, and there is a need for effective
provision of small-scale credits to allow the purchase of
components, such as latrine slabs. Some of these activities
could be successfully delegated to the private sector, as
has been done with both rural water supply and sanitation
installation and maintenance support in Chile (9).
In urban areas, self-help solutions have limited
application. Urban water supply systems, even where they
exist, commonly do not cover the entire population, have
not expanded to keep pace with population growth, and fail
to provide either adequate pressure or a continuous supply.
The shortfall in coverage always means the absence of
service for lower income groups. In addition to the failure of
systems to expand or provide continuous supply, demand
for water grows as industrial and commercial demands
rise with economic growth. At the same time, increased
household demand for drinking water is in part driven by
higher living standards resulting from economic growth
and by the use of conventional waterborne sewerage, which
significantly increases per capita water use.
Because of economies of scale and the low value
of the product supplied, urban water supply has been
considered a ‘natural’ monopoly. It is certainly not
practicable or economical to have direct competition
in the provision of network services at the household
level. Traditionally, providing water supply and sewerage
services has been a local responsibility where services
are overwhelmingly run through municipal governments.
One consequence of local municipal ownership and
management of services has been the creation of serious
difficulties for the transfer of successful experience. In the
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, technological
and administrative transfers, even if restricted, did occur
through colonial governments. Now, transfer has been
largely left to international aid organizations which,
whether governmental or nongovernmental, have failed
to provide continuity in commitment over the long term.
private companies, these too have tended to be small and
local. Water supply and sewerage services have largely
resisted globalization and even today foreign operation
and investment in services is very limited. There has
been, therefore, little transfer of the ways and means
of providing service from the successful to the rest of
the world.
Where transfers have occurred, advances and inno-
vation in water supply and sewerage have been related
mainly to the technical aspects of the operation and admin-
istration of large organized urban systems. There has been
little or no innovation for the provision of services to the
informal suburbs of the large cities in developing coun-
tries, and this is why the use of the shallow well for water
supply and the latrine for excreta disposal remain the
methods of choice.
Moreover, it has been the conventional wisdom that a
large and relatively sophisticated institution is required
to plan, organize, and control this monopoly provision.
However, there is considerable potential for private
sector involvement in managing, or supporting the
management of, all or parts of a system, as well as in
contributing to the capital requirements in middle-income
metropolitan areas.
Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania, presents an example of one
possible alternative approach. Residents of Dar-es-Salaam
face chronic water shortages and often have to combine
several sources of water at different costs and quality to
fill their needs. The Dar-es-Salaam Water and Sewerage
Authority provides most of the bulk water supplies to the
city. The Authority is relatively efficient; some 80% of
the water produced is billed, although only 50% of the
bills is collected. However, only one-third of households
receive their water directly from the utility, creating a
large niche for the private sector in water distribution.
Large parts of the distribution system—both the piped
system and nonpiped supply—are in private hands (10).
This ‘‘privatization by default’’ is manifested in two ways:
• through the private redistribution of water, that is,
water vending, ranging from home-based, quasi-legal
resellers and informal low-income pushcart vendors
to more formalized and regulated distributors
delivering water to people’s homes by tank truck; and
• by the ‘‘spaghettization’’ of the piped water network,
where privately financed individual service lines are,
in practice, directing investments and expansion of
the distribution system.
Urban sanitation needs may be met through on-plot
systems, communal facilities, or traditional sewerage

systems. Privatization by default of network sewerage
services is rarely, if ever, found. On-plot systems involve
households in providing their own facilities through
different types of latrines, but contamination of the
groundwater results in densely populated communities.
Communal facilities economize on investment and water
but may not be acceptable in all cultures, however.
Alternative systems to traditional sewerage systems can
reduce costs and could be provided communally. The
provision of simplified sewers is one alternative. Simplified
sewerage is essentially conventional sewerage without
any of its conservative design requirements. It can be
considered as the latter stripped down to its hydraulic
basics. It is also called shallow sewerage, and its in-block
variant is often called backyard or condominial sewerage.
Under this system, the sewers are laid on private rather
than public land, household labor is accepted as partial
payment for the connection, and smaller bore sewers are
used. It is estimated that the costs of service delivery can
be reduced by 30% using this system.
The provision of sewerage through conventional
waterborne sewers has considerable economies of scale
leading to monopolistic provision and needs complex
institutional support. However, smaller scale provision
is possible with simplified sewerage systems. This means
that the private sector and local communities could become
more involved in supplying and servicing such systems
as well as in providing on-plot sanitation, where this is
possible, and also in providing and managing communal
sanitation facilities.
The provision of services to the rural population, or
even to less dense urban areas, should not and does not
require such high levels of investment, and the same
technology can be applied that has existed for milennia.
However, a serious obstacle to improving water supply and
sanitation in large third-world cities is the cost of modern
centralized water supply and waterborne sewage systems.
These require a capital investment of, at least, US$ 1000
per connection even without sewage treatment. It is in the
cities that innovation is required and alternative systems
must be sought.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. World Health Organization (WHO), UNICEF and the Water
Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council. (2001). Global
Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment 2000 Report. Avail-
able at: www.who.int/water-sanitation-health/Globassesment/
GlasspdfToC.htm.
2. United Nations Development Programme. (2003). Human
Development Report, New York.
3. Report of the World Panel on Financing Water Infrastructure.
(2003). Financing Water for All. Presentation to the 3rd World
Water Forum, Kyoto, Japan.
4. Tandia, A.A., Gaye, C.B., and Faye, A. (1998). Origin, Process
and Migration of Nitrate Compounds in the Aquifer of Dakar
Region, Senegal. IAEA-TECDOC-1046, Application of isotope
techniques to investigate groundwater pollution, Joanneum
Research, Vienna, pp. 67–80.
5. International Referral Centre. (1981). Small Community Water
Supplies. International Reference Centre for Community
SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 633
Water Supply and Sanitation, Technical Paper No.18, The
Hague.
6. Bhatia, R. and Falkenmark, M. (1992). Water Resource Policies
and the Urban Poor: Innovative Approaches and Policy
Imperatives. Background paper ICWE, Dublin.
7. Franceys, R. (1997). Private Waters?—A Bias Towards the
Poor. Department for International Development, Occasional
paper No. 3, London.
8. Cairncross, S. (1989). Water supply and sanitation: An agenda
for research. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 92: 571–577.
9. Chile, Ministerio de Obras Públicas. (1999). Memoria,
Santiago, Chile.
10. Kjellén, M. (2001). Water Provisioning in Dar-es-Salaam,
Tanzania: The Public—Private Interface. Paper presented
to the UNESCO symposium: Frontiers in Urban Water
Management, Marseilles, France.
SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES
LUCAS REIJNDERS
University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
INTRODUCTION
It is easier to agree on what is unsustainable than on what
is sustainable. The once great Newfoundland cod fishery
collapsed in 1992, causing 20,000 people to lose their
jobs (1). It is uncontroversial to call the fishing practices
that led to this collapse unsustainable. Similarly, it is
uncontroversial to call mining of fossil water for corn
production in Saudi Arabia unsustainable. However, by
now there are probably more than 100 definitions of
sustainability. Such definitions include environmental
and often also social and economic aspects of human
activities. They may either stress matters that can in
principle be objectively established (such as fish stocks)
or be social constructivist, emphasizing divergent views
of stakeholders, different world views, or procedures to
come to agreement about what sustainability means in a
specific social context.
Here sustainability will be defined according to the
World Conservation Strategy (2) that introduced the
concept among policy makers. This definition fits a steady-
state economy (3)—an equilibrium relation between
human activities and the physical environment. The
definition is also in line with long-standing approaches
to safeguard the long-term productivity of forestry and
fisheries (4). The main underlying principle of so defined
sustainability is that of justice between the generations.
This principle comes back in the most famous of later
definitions of sustainability, given in the report Our
Common Future (5): ‘‘meeting the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their needs.’’
‘‘Natural resources’’ is a concept less controversial than
sustainability. It includes all that we use or take from
nature to provide for our existence. Mineral oil, river
water, North Atlantic cod, and iron ore all belong to
634 SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
our natural resources. Efforts are needed to obtain these
resources. They can be considered natural capital and are
not technologically replaceable by other forms of capital,
such as social or financial capital (6). There is also a
category of services of nature that we use, whether or not
we are aware of it. These include degradation of toxic
substances, maintenance of atmospheric composition,
sequestration and cycling of minerals, and structuring
services. Many of these services are ecosystem services.
There is no reason to believe that financial or social capital
can be an effective substitute for nature in producing
ecosystem services (7).
In this article, sustainable management of natural
resources comes down to maintaining natural capital so
that it can be used by all future generations of humans.
This is based on a production level that can be sustained
indefinitely without threatening the living conditions of
future generations (8).
First, sustainability is discussed in the context of four
different types of natural resources. Thereafter, three
aspects of sustainability are discussed in more detail:
• sustainable management of fresh water resources,
• sustainable management of fisheries, and
• sustainable management of ecosystems.
TYPES OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND THEIR
SUSTAINABLE USE
In the context of resource management, several important
types of natural resources can be distinguished. First,
there are flux-type natural resources. These can be used
without any impact on future availability. Examples of
such flux-type natural resources are wind and solar
radiation. Second, there are renewable natural resources.
In this case, there are currently substantial additions to
the stock. Such resources include freshwater in rivers and
fish in the seas. Aquifers that are replenished, mostly at
a rate of 0.1–0.3%/year (9), also belong to the category of
renewable resources.
A third type of natural resource is the product of slow
geological processes. This is the category of the (virtually)
nonrenewables and includes metal ores, fossil water,
and fossil carbon compounds. Compared with the total
stock, there are no or relatively small additions to these
resources. Total stocks may vary strongly. For instance,
stocks of iron ore are large, but the stocks of, for instance,
Ag (silver), Sn (tin), or Pt (platinum) ores and fossil water
are relatively small. A fourth type of resource covers living
nature, which provides for ecosystem services.
From the viewpoint of sustainable resource manage-
ment, flux-type resources may be freely used. This is not
so for the other three types of resources.
To conserve renewables over long periods of time,
the usage of renewables should not exceed the addition
to stock. Moreover, the quality of the stock should be
maintained. For instance, as to groundwater, the condition
should be met that water tables do not fall, and also
pollution that negatively affects the future value of the
resource should be prevented.
The concern for (virtually) nonrenewable natural
resources is mainly with geochemically scarce natural
resources that are currently being depleted rapidly. In
this category belong fossil water resources in North Africa
and Southwest Asia that are currently ‘‘mined’’ (10). Fossil
carbon compounds and ores for phosphates and metals
such as silver, platina, tin, and nickel are other examples.
If the stocks that are formed by slow geological processes
are to last during the normal lifetime of a primate species
(∼106 years), losses from stocks (including stocks in
the economy) due to dissipation should be kept small.
When substitutes that are dependent on flux-type or
renewable resources are made available in a sustainable
way, relatively large reductions of the stock that was
formed by geological processes are defensible (11).
In ecosystem functions that are important to us,
both the area available to natural ecosystems and
species composition (‘‘biodiversity’’) of ecosystems matter.
Moreover, for proper functioning, a number of conditions
regarding the abiotic aspects of the ecosystem should
be met. Requirements as to the quantity and quality of
water available function, often prominently, among such
conditions (12).
SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF FRESHWATER
RESOURCES
Freshwater is a vital natural resource for humankind.
Only 3% of the world’s water is fresh, and of that over 98%
occurs as groundwater and less than 2% in surface water
such as rivers and lakes. Desalinized seawater is used to
a very limited extent as a resource. This is closely related
to its high price (9).
To meet the criterion of sustainability, as defined
here, the usage of renewable freshwater resources should
not exceed additions to stocks. Withdrawal of seawater
is by itself insignificant in view of sustainability, but
desalinization should be powered by energy from flux-type
resources (wind solar) or by sustainable biomass chains.
The use of fossil freshwater stocks may be considered to
bridge gaps temporarily on the way to sustainability.
Traditionally, management of freshwater resources has
been strongly focused on the supply side: trying to supply
adequate amounts of good-quality water and limiting
the negative impacts of excessive water. Interest in
sustainable management has shifted the focus. Demand-
side management, reuse of water, and water conservation
have become important. Though there is substantial scope
for improvement at current price levels, it has rightly been
argued that sustainable management of water resources is
dependent on major changes in economic arrangements for
dealing with water resources. A number of proposals for
such changes have focused on rationing, where the sum of
rations reflects sustainable management. Most proposals,
however, argue in favor of water pricing that reflects the
true full cost, including external costs.
In demand-side management, providing for freshwater-
based services with less water (‘‘improving efficiency’’)
matters. As agriculture is the most important consumer
of freshwater, requiring an estimated 65–75% of all water

use, agriculture is a useful primary focus for efforts
to improve water efficiency and reuse (9,12,13). This is
especially so in semiarid areas that are currently ‘‘water
starved’’ or where current practices cannot be sustained.
Moreover, the share of agriculture in water withdrawals
in such areas is often >85% (14). Water losses from
agricultural systems in semiarid areas due to leakage
during storage and conveyance (in case of irrigation), and
to runoff, drainage, and evaporation are usually of the
order of 70–85%. In some parts of sub-Saharan Africa,
the loss for rain-fed agriculture may be 95% (13). Though
a substantial part of these losses is unavoidable, there is
also scope for improvement. For instance, when current
water efficiency in sub-Saharan Africa is 5%, an increase
to 10% (doubling vegetation yield) can often be achieved
by the introduction of dwarf shrubs and improved tillage
and nutrient management (13).
In irrigated agriculture, now responsible for about
one-third of worldwide food and fiber harvests, better
efficiencies are also possible. Options for efficiency
improvement include better provisions for storage and
conveyance, better scheduling, furrow diking, direct
seeding, land leveling, microirrigation systems (drip
irrigation and microsprinklers), and better regulation of
the groundwater table (12,13).
Reuse of water in agriculture is a way to limit
water withdrawals. In practice, both water from
wastewater treatment plants and drainage water are
reused (10,13–16). In the latter case, such water is often
used to irrigate relatively salt-resistant crops. In manag-
ing reuse, the quality of water is important. The salinity
and sodicity of water may negatively affect the future pro-
ductivity of agricultural land. Excessive levels of nitrate,
pesticides, and the presence of agents causative of infec-
tious diseases may pose a direct threat to animal and
human health. Receiving soils may, furthermore, act as
a ‘‘sink’’ for hazardous compounds that may subsequently
enter human and animal food chains. When persistent haz-
ardous pollutants enter deep groundwater, they can result
in long-term contamination of this important freshwater
stock. Negative aspects of the secondary water supply may
be influenced by pollution prevention (‘‘source reduction’’)
and treatment. Often there are possibilities for source
reduction that are profitable at current prices (18).
Though both improvements in agricultural water
efficiency and reuse offer scope for a more sustainable
management of resources, it should be realized that in
an increasing number of countries, especially due to
increasing population pressure, such improvements will
not be sufficient to feed the population in a sustainable
way. This leads to the need for such countries to
import ‘‘water-intensive’’ food from countries that have
no water shortages.
Improvements in efficiency and reuse are also possible
outside agriculture. An obvious object for improved
efficiency is excessive loss and illegal withdrawal from
distribution systems. In industrialized countries, losses of
the order of 6% to more than 25% are common (17,19).
Higher percentages have been noted elsewhere. In
Jordanian cities, for instance, 55% and more of the input
in distribution systems is ‘‘unaccounted for water’’ (10).
SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 635
Water-efficiency improvement in industry and house-
holds has advanced. In industry, much of the improvement
has come from internal reuse and process optimization,
and there is still scope for further reductions in industrial-
ized countries. For instance, a detailed study in the United
Kingdom (20) suggested that industrial water consump-
tion can be cut by 30% in a profitable way at current price
levels. When water prices for industry increase to reflect
true costs, profitable efficiency gains may increase consid-
erably (17,21). Studies pertinent to developing and emerg-
ing industrial countries also tend to show a large potential
for profitable water efficiency improvements (22–24).
Substantial improvements are underway in household
water efficiency. Water use by water closets has been
reduced by 75% or more, and major improvements in
water efficiency have also been achieved in showers and
appliances such as (dish and clothes) washing machines.
Such efficiency improvements are usually profitable if
current lifetime costs of appliances are considered (12,25).
Internal reuse of household water, for instance, by using
gray water for flushing water closets is practiced to a
limited extent.
Finally, stocks of water may be improved by better
water conservation. An eye-catching example of water
conservation is in Sun Valley in the Los Angeles basin
(USA). This valley was beset by floods from periodic winter
rains. This led to regular press coverage showing vehicles
driving in heavy (rain) water. To solve this problem,
the County’s Public Works Department initially opted
for a storm drain to carry surplus water to the ocean.
However, public discussion led to another solution. Water
from winter rain is now increasingly collected in Sun
Valley to recharge groundwater. In Europe, new urban
developments increasingly rely on keeping rainwater out
of the sewer systems and allowing it to infiltrate to add to
groundwater stocks.
SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF FISHERIES
Fisheries catch renewable natural resources. When
catches systematically exceed additions to stock, such
resources can be depleted. If catches that exceed
additions to stock are stopped, in a number of cases, the
population rebounds. However, there are also cases where
stocks do not rebound and remain at low equilibrium
populations.
To be sustainable, catches should not exceed additions
to stock in quality and quantity. Regarding cod, for
instance, it is not only important to maintain a constant
number of fish but also to safeguard that such fish are in
the right age and size classes to maintain predation and
reproduction (8). Moreover, for economic, biological, and
social reasons, fisheries should manage stocks toward the
higher end of abundance (1).
Sustainable management of fisheries is a long-standing
issue. At least since the thirteenth century, European
kings and other people in high places are on record
opposing unsustainable fishing in their realms. The
earliest recorded government-sponsored efforts to manage
fisheries in a sustainable way in Europe date from the
same time (26).
636 SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
There is evidence that a number of traditional
management systems have operated sustainably while
managing stocks toward the higher end of abundance.
Such systems have usually been characterized by
ownership and controlled access; closed seasons during
which fishing was prohibited; a taboo on fishing in refuge
areas; and gear, size, and species restrictions (27,28).
By present standards, fishing effort has been low
under such traditional arrangements. When efforts
increase (usually linked to financial pressures, population
pressure, and technological development), stocks tend
to decrease—especially when there is open access. The
unregulated dynamic of fisheries is to deplete a stock as
far as markets and technology will allow and then move
on to the next stock (1,29).
A variety of approaches have been tried to counter the
tendency of fisheries to deplete stocks. In many cases,
such efforts have failed. Consequently, prices paid for
the produce of fisheries are now often much higher than
they would have been under conditions of sustainable
management (8). Moreover, it has been estimated that the
revenues of the worlds fishing fleets are approximately
US$20–40 × 109 below their operating costs (30,31).
Against this sobering background, there is no shortage
of suggestions for improvement, all focusing on the
supply side. Some have argued in favor of a revival of
traditional arrangements that have worked well, such
as the community-based fisheries management systems
in the Pacific Islands and Japanese inshore fisherman’s
traditional user rights (28,32). Whether such a revival
can be successful is dependent on meeting a number of
conditions (28). Current developments are not necessarily
conducive to this (27).
Recently, based on an initiative of the Worldwide
Fund for Nature (WWF) and the company Unilever, a
nongovernmental initiative emerged to certify sustainable
fisheries. This is the Marine Stewardship Council that, by
March 2004, had certified eight fisheries as sustainable.
There is considerable favorable consumer interest in this
approach (33), but it is too early to offer a verdict on the
success of this scheme.
Most proposals for improving management practices
have focused on government intervention. The use of
incentive-based price instruments, such as landings and
vessel taxes, has been advocated (31). Though, in the case
of freshwater, adapting prices is increasingly popular
as a means to attain sustainable management, this is
different for fisheries. To the extent that efforts have been
undertaken by governments, the focus has been firmly
on trying to manage ‘‘physical’’ aspects of fisheries by
measures such as limitation of effort, minimum allowable
sizes for individual species, maximum allowable catches,
and protected areas.
There have been both failures and cases of successful
governmental management of fisheries focusing on physi-
cal aspects of fisheries. From the successes and failures so
far, a number of lessons can be drawn (1,32,34–37).
• The problem of illegal catches exists, especially if
stocks are close to the market. When the policing
effort is not up to the ingenuity of illegal fishing,
management efforts may well become a failure.
• With few exceptions (‘‘dolphin safe’’ tuna fishing,
the use of turtle excluders, and the Norwegian no-
discard policy), management systems have been poor
at limiting the negative impacts on stocks of by-catch
and discards. Globally, discarding may be about 30%
of landed tonnage.
• Many management strategies have opted for limita-
tion of effort, for instance, by regulating the efficiency
of fishing gear; engine size; fishing season; and/or
limiting the number, size, and storage capacity of
fishing boats. Only in a limited number of cases (e.g.,
the rock lobster fishery in West Australia) have such
approaches been successful.
• A number of efforts have opted for allocating
total allowable catches to political entities such
as countries. In some cases, these efforts have
been successes and in other cases, they have been
failures. An important reason for failure, apart from
illegal catches, has been that conservation goals
were not separated from allocation, which resulted
in losing conservation goals in allocation battles.
Electoral considerations favoring perceived (short-
term) interests of the fishing industry have also
contributed to failure.
• More recently, there has been the tendency to base
management on the allocation of long-term or even
perpetual individual rights or individual transferable
rights for their fishermen. In most cases, these rights
have been based on past catch histories (‘‘grandfather
rights’’). In some cases, such individual rights have
been auctioned. There have been failures of such
systems, such as the abalone fishery of British
Columbia and the Southern school sharks fishery
of Australia. But in other cases, this approach has
worked relatively well. Success may be partly linked
to the fact that individual rights that are allocated for
a long time become more valuable if fishing practices
are sustainable.
• The establishment of marine protected areas that
are protected from fishing (which are aimed at
conservation of fish stock but may also conserve or
restore ecosystems) has so far not been practiced to
an extent that allows a verdict on its effectiveness.
The same holds for the allocation of fishing rights to
cooperatives.
SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF ECOSYSTEMS
Natural ecosystems provide for a wide variety of services.
Part of the services of natural ecosystems relate to water.
Natural ecosystems are important in determining levels
of greenhouse gases, and thereby climate, that in turn is a
determinant of the global water cycle. Such ecosystems are
also a major determinant of worldwide evapotranspiration.
There are, furthermore, local quantitative and qualitative
links between ecosystems and water. For instance, deep-
rooted natural vegetation along watercourses catches

minerals and returns these to topsoils. Thereby, it reduces
the mineral content of surface waters, while increasing
primary productivity on topsoils (38,39). Tropical rain
forests are characterized by high levels of water recycling.
When there is clear felling of such forests at low levels of
externally added precipitation, the area may be converted
into a savanna (40).
Marine, freshwater, and wetland ecosystems generate
extensive services. It is estimated that the value of a
number of ecosystem services in the entire biosphere
is in the range of US$16–54 × 1012 ; the average (US
$33 × 1012 ) is in excess of the gross world product (41).
Of the average value of US $33 × 1012 , somewhat over US
$27 × 1012 comes from marine, freshwater, and wetland
ecosystem services. There is even a case to attribute
infinite monetary value to ecosystem services provided
by living nature because human life would be impossible
without them.
For sustainability, as defined here, ecosystem services
should be maintained at their present level. To attain this,
the area allocated to nature and the abiotic conditions
under which nature functions should be such that
ecosystem services do not change.
A debate has developed regarding the question, how
much biodiversity can be reduced without reducing
ecosystem services. Loss of a species should not lead to loss
of function when there is functional redundancy. However,
experimental evidence suggests that the statistical
relation between species diversity and ecosystem functions
important to humans may well be strong, though it is
likely that actual contributions may show large differences
between species (42–45). Even when a species seems
functionally redundant, it has been found that the actual
loss of apparent functional redundancy may come at great
cost (46). Also a ‘‘redundant species’’ may still have an
insurance function in case of ecosystem perturbation (47).
So sustainable management is presumably strongly
dependent on maintaining species diversity in ecosystems
as that has developed.
A main problem in attaining criteria for sustainability
is that many ecosystem services in practice do not have
a price. There are economic incentives that may be
conducive to the sustainable management of ecosystems.
These include user fees for national parks, royalties from
bioprospecting, conservation easements, and mitigation
banking. So far, however, the application and effect of
economic incentives are very limited (35). Legal systems
for protecting nature are, with a few exceptions, rather
focused on preventing the extinction of specific species
than on ecosystem services. A major effort is needed
to base nature conservation on the true value of
ecosystem services.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Hilborn, R. et al. (2003). State of the world’s fisheries. Annu.
Rev. Environ. Resour. 28: 359–399.
2. IUCN, UNEP, WWF. (1980). The World Conservation
Strategy. WWF, Gland, Switzerland.
3. Daly, H. (1973). Toward a Steady State Economy. Freeman,
San Francisco.
SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 637
4. Becker, B. (1998). Sustainability Assessment: A Review of
Values, Concepts and Methodological Approaches. World
Bank, Washington, DC.
5. World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987).
Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
6. Ayres, R.U. (1996). Statistical measures of unsustainability.
Ecol. Econ. 16: 239–255.
7. Batabyal, A.A., Kahn, J.R., and O’ Neill, R.V. (2004). On
the scarcity value of ecosystem services. J. Environ. Econ.
Manage. in press.
8. Hueting, R. and Reijnders, L. (2004). Broad sustainability
contra sustainability: the proper construction of sustainabil-
ity indicators. Ecol. Econ., in press.
9. Pimentel, D. and Houser, J. (1997). Water resources, agricul-
ture, the environment and society. Bioscience 47: 97–107.
10. Haddadin, M.J. (2002). Water issues in the Middle East.
Challenges and opportunities. Water Policy 4: 205–222.
11. Reijnders, L. (2000). A normative strategy for sustainable
resource choice and recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recycling 28:
121–133.
12. Gleick, P.H. (2003). Water use. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.
28: 275–314.
13. Quadir, M. et al. (2003). Agricultural water management in
water-starved countries. Challenges and opportunities. Agric.
Water Manage. 62: 165–185.
14. Araus, J.L. (2004). The problems of sustainable water
use in the Mediterranean and research requirements for
agriculture. Ann. Appl. Biol. 144: 259–272.
15. Crites, R., Reed, S., and Bastian, R. (2001). Applying treated
wastewater to land. Biocycle April: 32–36.
16. Tsagarakis, K.P., Dialynas, G.E., and Angelakis, A.N. (2004).
Water resources management in Crete (Greece) including
water recycling and reuse and proposed quality criteria. Agric.
Water Manage. 66: 35–47.
17. Levin, R.B. et al. (2002). US drinking water challenges in the
twenty-first century. Environ. Health Perspect. 110: 43–52.
18. Reijnders, L. (1996). Environmentally Improved Production
Process and Products. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
19. Antolioni, B. and Filipppini, M. (2001). The use of a variable
cost function in the regulation of the Italian water industry.
Utilities Policy 10: 181–187.
20. Holt, C.P., Philips, P.S., and Bates, M.P. (2002). Analysis of
the role of waste minimization clubs in reducing industrial
water demand in the UK. Resour. Conserv. Recycling 30:
315–331.
21. Braeken, L., van der Bruggen, B., and Vandecasteele, C.
(2004). Regeneration of brewery waste water using nanofil-
tration. Water Res. 38: 3073–3082.
22. Van Berkel, C.W.M. (1996). Cleaner Production in Practice.
IVAM Environmental Research, Amsterdam, The Nether-
lands.
23. Rao, J.R. et al. (2003). Recouping the wastewater: A way
forward for cleaner leather processing. J. Cleaner Prod. 11:
591–599.
24. Puplampu, E. and Siebel, M. (2005). Minimisation of water
use in a Ghanaian brewery: Effects of personnel practices. J.
Cleaner Prod. in press.
25. Allen, J. (2004). Water efficiency. Environ. Design Constr.,
May, pp. 65–66.
26. Hoffmann, R.C. (1996). Economic development and aquatic
ecosystems in medieval Europe. Am. Hist. Rev. 101: 631–699.
27. Evans, S.M. et al. (1997). Traditional management practices
and the conservation of the gastropod (Trochus nilitocus) and
638 SUSTAINABLE WATER MANAGEMENT ON MEDITERRANEAN ISLANDS: RESEARCH AND EDUCATION
fish stocks in the Maluku Province (eastern Indonesia). Fish.
Res. 31: 83–91.
28. Ruddle, K. (1998). The context of policy design for existing
community-bases fisheries management systems in the
Pacific Islands. Ocean Coastal Manage. 40: 105–126.
29. Kirby, M.X. (2004). Fishing down the coast: historical
expansion and collapse of oyster fisheries along continen-
tal margins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101: 13096–
13099.
30. Cochrane, K.L. (2000). Reconciling sustainability, economic
efficiency and equity in fisheries: the one that got away. Fish
Fish. 1: 2–21.
31. Sanchirico, J.N. (2003). Managing marine capture fisheries
with incentive based price instruments. Public Finance
Manage. 3: 67–93.
32. Caddy, J.F. (1999). Fisheries management in the twenty-first
century: Will new paradigms apply? Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 9:
1–49.
33. Jaffry, S. et al. (2004). Consumer choices for quality and
sustainability labeled seafood products in the UK. Food Policy
29: 215–228.
34. National Research Council. (1999). Sharing the Fish, Toward
a National Policy on Individual Fishing Quota. National
Academy Press, Washington, DC.
35. Leva, C.E.di (2001). The conservation of nature and natural
resources through legal and market-based instruments.
Reciel 11: 8495.
36. Baskaran, R. and Anderson, J.L. (2004). Atlantic sea scal-
lop management: an alternative rights-based coopera-
tive approach to resources sustainability. Mar. Policy
in press.
37. Daw, T. and Gray, T. (2004). Fisheries science and sustain-
ability in international policy: a study of failure in the
European Union’s Common Fisheries Policy. Mar. Policy,
in press.
38. Schlesinger, W.H. (1991). Biogeochemistry. Academic Press,
San Diego.
39. Christinaty, L., Kimmins, J.P., and Maily, S. (1997). Without
bamboo, the land dies. Forest Ecol. Manage. 91: 83–91.
40. Silveira, L.da and Sternberg, L. (2001). Savanna-forest hys-
teresis in the tropics. Global Ecol. Biogeography 10:
369–378.
41. Constanza, R. et al. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem
services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253–260.
42. Tilman, D., Wedin, D., and Knops, J. (1996). Productivity
and sustainability influenced by biodiversity in grassland
ecosystems. Nature 379: 718–720.
43. Duarte, C.M. (2000). Marine biodiversity and ecosystem
services: an elusive link. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 250:
117–131.
44. Hector, A. et al. (2001). Community diversity and invasion
resistance. Ecol. Res. 16: 819–831.
45. Symstad, A.J. et al. (2003). Long term and large scale
perspectives on the relationship of biodiversity and ecosystem
functioning. Bioscience 53: 89–98.
46. Bellwood, D.R., Hughes, T.P., Folke, C., and Nystrom, M.
(2004). Confronting the coral reef crisis. Nature 429:
827–833.
47. Walker, B. (1995). Conserving biological diversity through
ecosystems resilience. Conserv. Biol. 9: 747–752.
SUSTAINABLE WATER MANAGEMENT ON
MEDITERRANEAN ISLANDS: RESEARCH AND
EDUCATION
MANFRED A. LANGE
DÖRTE POSZIG
ANTONIA A. DONTA
University of Münster
Centre for Environmental
Research
Münster, Germany
INTRODUCTION
The availability of water in adequate quality and sufficient
quantity is indispensable for human beings and the
functioning of the biosphere. Shortcomings in integrated
water management practices aimed at linking natural,
social, and economic needs in a given region, wasteful and
inadequate use of water, and inadequate administrative
practices have often resulted in depleted water resources.
Pollution has exacerbated these problems.
Addressing issues of water quality and water supply,
the European Union-Water Framework Directive (WFD)
came into force on December 22, 2000 (1). Two basic goals
are to be achieved by the parties within the following 10
to 15 years: (1) users will have to bear the full cost of the
water supplied (1, Annex III, WFD), and (2) water will
have to be provided based on ‘‘good ecological status’’ by
adhering to practices that do not harm the environment.
Moreover, the WFD strives toward implementing the
‘‘polluter pays principle.’’
Considering the long-term perspectives for sustainable
water use in the European Union, the Mediterranean
in general and its islands in particular deserve special
attention for a number of reasons:
• Island water resources are largely influenced by the
(non)existence, timing, and amount of precipitation.
In some parts of the Mediterranean, the amount
of (winter) precipitation has decreased (2), and the
main precipitation period has shortened during the
last few decades. This trend may continue as a result
of regional climate change, thus exacerbating the
problem (2,3).
• Overabstraction of aquifers, in many instances,
has led to lowering of the water table and the
deterioration of water quality, primarily through
saltwater intrusion in coastal areas. In some cases,
this has resulted in exploitation of lower lying
aquifers, thereby further reducing the remaining
reserves of the islands.
• The demand for water is expected to increase on
Mediterranean islands because of, among others, an
expected increase in the population and the number of
tourists. Conflicts between competing users of water
will inevitably intensify.
• Agriculture is the predominant consumer of water
on most Mediterranean islands (Fig. 1). Agricultural
activities threaten the availability (quantity) but
 SUSTAINABLE WATER MANAGEMENT ON MEDITERRANEAN ISLANDS: RESEARCH AND EDUCATION
also the quality of water due to the use of
fertilizers, pesticides, and the release of olive-oil-mill
wastes. During the summer months, tourism also
becomes a major water consumer, and competition
between agriculture and tourism can lead to serious
stakeholder conflicts.
• The rational distribution and use of water requires
resolving conflicts among the different end users of
water. Such conflicting interests have contributed to
the unsustainable use of water in the past.
• Given the need for the protection and the sustainable
use of island water resources, coupled with the
need to satisfy the increasing water demand, the
islands have to formulate strategic policies based on
integrated water management and should pay proper
attention to the objectives of the WFD.
The WFD may introduce an effective avenue to address
these problems, but at the same time its implementation
presents a challenge. The problems that govern the
availability of water in the Mediterranean have specific
manifestations on each of the islands, but the islands also
share a number of general characteristics and patterns.
Thus, learning how to implement the WFD best on selected
Mediterranean islands through comparisons, mutual
learning, and experience sharing offers the prospects of
deriving a more generic set of recommendations.
The overriding characteristic that governs most of the
problems mentioned lies in their complex and multifaceted
nature, which requires a holistic approach involving
the integration of natural and social sciences. Thus, in
considering water availability and water use and deriving
strategies for sustainable and equitable distribution of
water, interdisciplinarity is a necessary condition.
Moreover, lasting solutions for sustainable water man-
agement in the Mediterranean will be found only through
recommendations and/or regulations that are based on
mutually agreed principles among the stakeholders. This
requires a stakeholder-based, participatory process that
builds on the results of scientific investigations, on the one
hand, and on the consent of major stakeholders, on the
other (5).
Environment
5%
Industry
1%
Tourism
5%
Domestic excl.
tourism
20%
Agriculture
69%
Figure 1. Distribution of water consumers on Cyprus in 2000
(after Reference 4). The predominance of agriculture as the major
user is typical of most Mediterranean islands.
639
TOWARD SUSTAINABLE, STAKEHOLDER-BASED WATER
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES: THE MEDIS PROJECT
To address the problems of water management on Mediter-
ranean islands in accordance with the criteria just intro-
duced and by observing the need to implement the WFD
swiftly and effectively on these islands, an EU-funded
research project, MEDIS (toward sustainable water use
on Mediterranean islands: addressing conflicting demands
and varying hydrological, social, and economic conditions),
has been implemented. MEDIS is carried out by a consor-
tium of 12 institutions from seven countries.
Goals and Objectives
The overall goal of MEDIS is to contribute to sustainable
and equitable use of water on Mediterranean islands.
This is to be achieved through a set of recommendations
to implement sustainable, equitable water management
regimes on each island that reflect the current and
possible future (climatic) conditions on each island.
These recommendations will comply with the WFD and
will build on the conclusions reached in consultation
with stakeholders from all five islands involved. More
specifically, work in MEDIS
• concentrates on a synthesis of results from previous
studies and integrating information from various
disciplines;
• is carried out on a catchment scale on major islands
of the Mediterranean stretching from the west to the
east: Majorca, Corsica, Sicily, Crete, and Cyprus;
• seeks to develop an infrastructure for participatory
stakeholder involvement that will enable estab-
lishing sustainable and equitable water manage-
ment schemes;
• considers (possibly drastically) altered conditions
that may arise due to changed climatic conditions
through a set of what-if scenarios;
• concentrates on agriculture as the predominant
consumer of water on Mediterranean islands; and
• undertakes comparative analyses between the
islands to derive generic conclusions/recommenda-
tions and to use possible common solutions to water
management problems in compliance with the WFD.
Methodology
The major stages of the research strategy applied in
MEDIS, which are carried out during a 4-year period,
are depicted in Fig. 2. The initial phase of the project
comprises a thorough assessment of the major character-
istics that determine the availability and the demand of
water on each island. This includes (current and future)
climatic conditions; (geo) physical, pedological, and hydro-
logic characteristics as well as the vegetative cover on each
island; major sources and consumers of water; agricultural
practices in irrigation and agrochemical use; conditions
governing water management and administration; basic
demographic and social conditions; and major economic
indicators, particularly related to water-dependent eco-
nomic sectors. This assessment leads to a typology of water
management regimes for each island, based on a number
640 SUSTAINABLE WATER MANAGEMENT ON MEDITERRANEAN ISLANDS: RESEARCH AND EDUCATION
Proposals for sustainable water
management in the Mediterranean
Hearings of experts; development of Comparison
feasible /justifiable recommendations between
islands
Consultation with main user groups and
consensus building
Recommendations for sustainable
water management
Scenario Assessment of present characteristics: Comparison
studies hydrology, agriculture, socioeconomy between
islands
Figure 2. Schematic of major stages of the MEDIS research
strategy (for details, see text).
of well-defined parameters, that share similar quantita-
tive or qualitative ranges for each of the types specified.
The final result of this project stage is a first set of rec-
ommendations for improved water management practices
geared to each of the management types identified.
An integral part of the work during this stage of
the project is involving stakeholders and gaining their
help in specifying some of the previously mentioned
parameters. They are either part of the supply network
for water and/or consumers of water, so their experience
and expertise are indispensable for the initial assessment.
Therefore, an important activity during the first project
stage is identifying relevant stakeholders and involving
them in Intra-Island Workshops. In addition, Inter-
Island Workshops among the islands under consideration
are conducted.
Current physical/climatic conditions and possible
future variations (i.e., scenario studies) are also consid-
ered. For climate, the results of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenarios (6) are used
in a downscaled format (or through a dedicated regional
climate model). When considering prospective situations
on each of the islands, future scenarios of other major
determinants of water supply and demand are taken into
account accordingly.
The spatial scales of the investigations depend on the
specific questions asked. MEDIS is being carried out on
a local (hundreds of m to km) and/or catchment scale,
and inferences for all islands are drawn by appropriate
upscaling. The Mediterranean scale is being addressed by
comparing islands. As for temporal scales, MEDIS focuses
on two time slices of 20 years centered at 2020 and 2050,
corresponding to the IPCC assessments.
The second stage in the project comprises inten-
sive consultation with the stakeholders on each island.
Typical stakeholders include regional or national water
administrative bodies, representatives of institutions or
enterprises representing major water users, agricultural
or industrial enterprises that develop and/or maintain
water management schemes, nongovernmental organiza-
tions concerned with water issues, farmers and farming
cooperatives, tourist enterprises and operators, and com-
munities/residents in need of water.
The major goal comprises a consensus among the
different stakeholder groups concerning their major
objectives for an improved water management regime.
At the same time, the stakeholders should bear in
mind the recommendations from the first stage of
MEDIS and specify possible alterations and amendments
to these recommendations. Ultimately, a new set of
recommendations will be obtained that represents both
the factual basis and the mutually agreed upon principles
for an improved water management regime on each island.
During the third stage of the project the second set of
recommendations will be subject to scrutiny by legal and
institutional experts. The objective here is to ensure that
the recommendations comply with regional and national
laws and regulations, and agree with the goals and
principles of the WFD. This may result in a third set
of recommendations that reflect the factual basis, the
stakeholder consensus, and the legal and institutional
requirements on national and European scales.
In the final stage of the project, island-specific
conclusions will be discussed in the broader context of
the Mediterranean Basin through Inter-Island Workshops
and attempts to synthesize conclusions. The common
solutions and possible deviations in the conclusions among
the islands will be discussed and resolution attempted.
Ultimately, this results in desired recommendations for
improved, sustainable and equitable water management
in compliance with the WFD and national rules and
regulations. It is expected that these recommendations
will significantly enhance the implementation of the WFD
in the Mediterranean Basin.
First Results
Essential information was compiled in a series of Island
Reports. In summary, the islands
• comprise areas between 3600 km2 (Majorca) and
28,000 km2 (Sicily),
• have permanent populations between 0.26 million
(Corsica) and 5.6 million (Sicily),
• receive mean annual precipitation between 500
(Cyprus) and 1000 mm (Corsica, Sicily),
• attain a total annual water supply (through precipi-
tation) from 2400 × 106 m3 (Majorca) to 14,000 × 106
m3 (Sicily; these numbers have partly been derived
from the mean annual precipitation and the total
area of the islands under consideration and are thus
only rough estimates),
• have increasing water demand trends in the foresee-
able future, and
• a water consumption structure clearly dominated by
agricultural needs.
Though climatically similar, the amount of water supplied
to various users differs greatly among the islands. This
will have obvious consequences for the measures to be
taken to implement the WFD.
The Island Reports and their synthesis led to recom-
mendations aimed at reducing the vulnerability to water
scarcity and implementing a sustainable and stakeholder-
driven water management regime on the islands. In
considering vulnerabilities, three different dimensions of
water management have to be taken into account: a phys-
ical/environmental dimension, an economic/regulatory
 SUSTAINABLE WATER MANAGEMENT ON MEDITERRANEAN ISLANDS: RESEARCH AND EDUCATION
dimension, and a social/institutional/political dimension.
Details of current and future vulnerabilities to water
scarcity are described elsewhere (7), but some of the rec-
ommendations are presented in the following. These rec-
ommendations are interrelated and overlapping in many
ways. They require a holistic, interdisciplinary approach
to implement them.
Physical/Environmental Dimensions. The following rec-
ommendations have been formulated with regard to the
physical and environmental dimensions of water scarcity:
• Reduce Water Consumption: The most promising
strategies embrace (1) water pricing, an increase in
consumer prices or alternatively/additionally quotas
on water extraction may be imposed (possibly
differentiated between different user groups); and
(2) establishment of incentives for reduced water
consumption, for example, subsidies for water saving
and not—as has often been the case—for water
consumption.
• Change in Water Allocation: Support of economic sec-
tors accounting for maximum gross-domestic-product
generation and employment through government
programs. However, care must be taken to avoid pos-
sible one-sided economic advantages for specific sec-
tors. Incentives for saving water in water-intensive
sectors should be introduced in parallel.
• Reduce Losses: (1) Loss of water to the sea either as
riverine discharge or through subsea groundwater
discharge should be reduced (8), though care must be
taken to avoid adverse impacts on biogeochemical
cycles and on marine ecosystems in near-coastal
waters; (2) reduce losses and contamination of water
in distribution networks. On Cyprus, annual losses of
drinking water in the distribution network account
for 40 × 106 m3 , corresponding to 15% of the total
demand and 23% of the total domestic demand (G.
Constantinou, Geological Survey of Cyprus, pers.
comm., March 2003). Improvement and/or renewal
of distribution networks should be pursued where
appropriate.
• Increase Use of Additional Water Resources: Though
largely neglected for a long time, increasing attention
is paid to this possible remedy. In particular,
potable or irrigation water can be obtained through
wastewater recycling, use of brackish water, and
rainwater harvesting.
Economic/Regulatory Dimensions. The following actions
addressing vulnerability related to economic/regulatory
dimensions are recommended:
• Support sectors with high economic potential and
small water needs.
• Change agricultural practices: (1) Consult and inform
stakeholders about possible alternatives to current
cropping patterns with regard to water requirements
of plants, watering schedules, and the amount of
irrigation water applied per plant (for a summary
of possible alternatives, see Reference 9), optimize
tillage systems as well as weeding and harvest
641
controls to minimize irrigation; (2) optimize the
application of agrochemicals to avoid adverse effects
on groundwater quality. The use of agrochemicals
and changes in agricultural techniques should be
considered holistically to arrive at best practices
that maximize yield and also minimize water
use and the possible impact of agrochemicals on
groundwater quality.
• Eliminate/reduce subsidies for water prices (in the
past, subsidies have often contributed either to exces-
sive water use and/or—in the case of agriculture—to
cropping patterns that are economically and environ-
mentally unsustainable).
• Promote cultivation of crops that have a high
potential on the domestic and the foreign market
(eliminate wasting products and water).
• Provide assistance in capacity building of farmers
and for investments in modern irrigation technology.
• Provide economic incentives for rational water use
in all sectors (e.g., specific water tariffs or relaxation
of quotas and limitations in water consumption to
those sectors that strive for a more rational use of
potable water).
Social/Institutional/Political Dimensions. Reducing vul-
nerabilities related to social, institutional, and political
aspects may be pursued through the following actions:
• Increase public awareness (water use, ownership,
conflicts) to enhance the capacity to deal with water
scarcity problems.
• Implement comprehensive monitoring of water
extraction.
• Improve enforcement of existing rules and regula-
tions.
• Simplify administrative mechanisms to enhance the
efficiency of water administration.
• Transfer power from central government institutions
to regional and local decision makers that seem
better suited to become partners in the EU-
WFD than individual users or single municipalities
(e.g., TOEBs, Farmers Irrigation Organizations,
in Greece).
• Encourage stakeholder-controlled water manage-
ment structures.
• Ensure/improve an adequate factual basis for politi-
cal decision making through input from science and
stakeholders.
THE NEED FOR INTERDISCIPLINARY WATER STUDIES:
THE ADVANCED STUDY COURSE SUSTAINIS
In addressing water management through research and
technology projects, one is often faced with a problem
different from those outlined. This is the lack of well-
trained and motivated young professionals able to face
the challenge of interdisciplinary water studies and the
implementation of management options. The underlying
reason for this problem is in the prevalent focus of
traditional universities on specialized and discipline-
focused curricula. Though quite adequate and successful
642 SUSTAINABLE WATER MANAGEMENT ON MEDITERRANEAN ISLANDS: RESEARCH AND EDUCATION
in many instances, this kind of training leaves graduates
ill-prepared for the type of work required in cross-
disciplinary investigations. To resolve this problem at
least partly, an Advanced Study Course, SUSTAINIS
(Sustainable Use of Water on Mediterranean Islands:
Conditions, Obstacles and Perspectives), was devised and
implemented. SUSTAINIS was funded by the European
Commission and was closely linked to the MEDIS project
and its objectives.
Goals and Rationale
The course aimed at introducing 24 graduate students
from various disciplinary and national backgrounds to
the patterns of water supply and demand, to obstacles
preventing rational use of water resources, and to
perspectives for sustainable, equitable, and stakeholder-
based use of water on Mediterranean islands. To
provide them with an opportunity to learn about the
specific environmental and socioeconomic features of
Mediterranean islands, the course was carried out
in Cyprus.
Curriculum and Structure
The emphasis in the teaching lay on demonstrating
the complex interrelationships between environmental
and societal systems that govern water regimes on
Mediterranean islands and the importance of stakeholder-
based strategies.
The course comprised lectures by 23 researchers from
a variety of professional and national backgrounds,
field trips, and discussion forums in the form of role
games. The discussion forums were prepared by small,
interdisciplinary, international groups of students and
exposed the participants to the challenges but also to the
advantages of interdisciplinary work.
The curriculum included eight modules:
Module 1: Introduction, Historical and Cultural Back-
ground of Water Use in the Mediterranean and Basic Concepts
of Environmental Ethics. Cultural practices of management
of freshwater resources from antiquity to the present,
the recent history of water management and its impor-
tance for health, well-being, and prosperity of inhabitants
of Mediterranean islands, and concepts of environmental
ethics addressing normative issues in water management.
Module 2: Perspectives on Sustainable, Equitable, and
Stakeholder-Based Water Management on Mediterranean
Islands. Principles and tools for supporting participative
water resource planning and management, design and
implementation of an integrated water management
approach and portrayal of research projects on integrated
and sustainable water resources management in the
Mediterranean.
Module 3: Essential Geologic and Hydrologic Character-
istics of Mediterranean Islands. Characteristics and prop-
erties of the geology and hydrology of Mediterranean
islands, description of subsurface aquifer conditions
and problems related to overabstraction of groundwater
resources (saltwater intrusion), and application of models
in water management.
Module 4: Current and Possible Future Climatic Conditions
and Their Impacts on the Hydrologic Regime. Climatic
conditions in the Mediterranean and their effects on the
timing and magnitude of precipitation, global and regional
climate models and their strengths and weaknesses,
review of expected future trends of climate development
and their repercussions for water availability in the
Mediterranean, and basic concepts and methodologies for
integrated climate impact assessments.
Module 5: Current Patterns of Water Consumption,
Major Stakeholders, Existing Conflicts, and Resource Poli-
cies. Conditions of water resources and common trends
of water use with case studies from Cyprus, Malta, and
Majorca; irrigation scheduling and water quality for agri-
culture; threat of deteriorating water quality through the
application of agrochemicals and wastewater practices;
water and tourism; examples of conflicts between users
and possible solutions; and basic resource policies and
patterns of political decision making.
Module 6: A Review of Nonconventional Technolo-
gies Aimed at Rational Water Management. Optimization
of water consumption by employing appropriate and
innovative technology like novel irrigation practices in
agriculture, water recycling, and reuse for domestic and
agricultural purposes, desalinization.
Module 7: Socioeconomic and Administrative Conditions
of Water Use on Mediterranean Islands. Estimation of the
value of water in its different uses, cost–benefit analysis
of water projects, water consumption, public awareness,
and alternative models of water management.
Module 8: Political Options, Initiatives, and Conditions for
Sustainable Water Management, Specifically in the Context
of the EU-WFD. Description of the EU Water Framework
Directive, water pricing policies and the implications
of the WFD, economic approaches in Integrated River
Basin Management, and examples of integrated water
management from European countries.
Results of the discussion forums as well as the
lectures are published as course proceedings. In addition,
a documentary film about the course and the issue
of sustainable water use on Mediterranean islands
for universities and passing on to stakeholders has
been produced.
Student Feedback and Perspective
The student feedback showed that exposure to a wide
variety of disciplines and research fields, and interacting
with a group of individuals from a wide spectrum
of disciplinary and cultural backgrounds were the
most important contributing factors for the success of
SUSTAINIS. It is expected that the SUSTAINIS course
succeeded in teaching students about sustainable water
use and management in the Mediterranean and in
motivating them to pursue integrated regional studies
in their careers.
 MEETING WATER NEEDS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES WITH TRADABLE RIGHTS
Acknowledgments
MEDIS and SUSTAINIS were funded by the European Com-
mission (contract numbers EVK1-CT-2001-00092 and EVK1-CT-
2002-60001, respectively). We would like to thank Dr. Panagiotis
Balabanis, the responsible officer at the Commission, for his
support. Thanks are also extended to all partners in MEDIS, all
colleagues who served as lecturers in SUSTAINIS, as well as
the participants who contributed substantially to the success of
the course.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Commission of the European Communities. (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, Off. J. Eur. Communities L
327: L 327/1–L 327/72.
2. Xoplaki, E. (2002). Climate variability over the Mediterranean,
Ph.D. thesis, University of Bern, Switzerland.
3. Bolle, H.-J. (Ed.). (2003). Mediterranean Climate—Variability
and Trends, Vol. 1 of Series in Regional Climate Studies,
H.-J. Bolle, M. Menenti, and I. Rasool (Eds.), Springer-Verlag,
New York.
4. Savvides, L., Dörflinger, G., and Alexandrou, K. (2001). The
assessment of water demand of Cyprus. Ministry of Agriculture,
Natural Resources and Environment, and Food and Agricul-
ture Organization of the United Nations report TCP/CYP/8921.
5. Lange, M.A., Cohen, S.J., and Kuhry, P. (1999). Integrated
global change impacts studies in the Arctic: the role of the
stakeholders. Polar Res. 18 (2): 389–396.
6. Houghton, J.T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D.J., Noguer, M., van der
Linden, P.J., Dai, X., Maskell, K., and Johnson, C.A. (Eds.).
(2001). Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribu-
tion of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK.
7. Lange, M.A. and MEDIS Consortium. (2004). Water man-
agement on Mediterranean islands: current issues and per-
spectives. In Proc. IDS Water 2004, http://www.idswater.com/
Admin/Images/Paper/Paper 47/Manfred%20Lange-Paper.pdf,
15 pp., May 10–28 2004.
8. Burnett, W.C., Bokuniewicz, H., Huettel, M., Moore, W.S., and
Taniguchi, M. (2003). Groundwater and pore water inputs to
the coastal zone. Biogeochemistry 66: 3–33.
9. Olesen, J.E. and Bindi, M. (2002). Consequences of climate
change for European agricultural productivity, land use and
policy, Eur. J. Agron. 16: 239–262.
MEETING WATER NEEDS IN DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES WITH TRADABLE RIGHTS
TERENCE R. LEE
Santiago, Chile
The most serious current issue in water management is
not water scarcity, but the allocation of water among
competing uses and users. The issue of allocation
overshadows all other aspects of water management.
Unfortunately, almost everywhere, the methods used for
water allocation are woefully inadequate to achieve an
effective, efficient, and timely distribution of water among
643
uses and users. This failure to allocate water efficiently
is the root cause of the widespread perception that water
is becoming so scarce as to amount to a crisis. Almost
everywhere, water is allocated either according to tradition
or by bureaucratic processes subject to political pressures.
Economists have long argued that water should be treated
as an economic good. If it is treated as an economic good,
then its use can be allocated by creating water rights
through a market.
In most developing countries, where agriculture
accounts for around 80% of water use, the reallocation
of the use of water is crucial if water is not to be a
limiting resource for future economic growth. It has been
convincingly argued that permitting trade in water rights
will increase available supplies because consumption will
be reduced as water is used more efficiently by all users.
This will not only alleviate, but probably even reverse,
what many perceive as the coming water crisis.
In any country, however, the decision to introduce
a system of tradable water rights requires considering
of many issues so that the proposed water market can
function smoothly and equitably to meet water needs:
1. In the initial distribution of rights, consideration
must be given to both the rights of existing water
users and the need to limit any windfall gains that
they may receive as the owners of rights.
2. Once rights are allocated, the holder must be assured
that the right is clearly and securely defined and
appropriately registered.
3. The establishment of individual rights must not give
the holders benefits at the expense of society as
a whole.
4. Whatever decisions are taken and policies adopted,
the system must be as simple as possible.
5. Once a system of water rights is clearly defined and
the market is used as the mechanism for water
allocation, then the intervention of government
should be kept to a minimum.
The approach taken in the initial distribution of water
rights is very important if trading in water rights is, in the
future, to be the main means for water allocation. The size
of any political opposition to the introduction of a water
rights market is usually proportionate to the fairness seen
in the initial distribution of water rights.
PRINCIPAL ISSUES
Under free market conditions, the trading of rights would
result ultimately in the same allocation of water rights
regardless of their initial distribution. However, in the
expected presence of significant costs in any exchange of
rights, the nature of the initial distribution of rights can
affect the future efficiency of the market. Information,
bargaining, contracting, and enforcement are required
for a market to function, and they are not without cost.
The initial distribution of water rights can also affect
the quantity of transactions, the equilibrium allocation of
rights, and the aggregate benefits of water marketing. If
644 MEETING WATER NEEDS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES WITH TRADABLE RIGHTS
the costs of trading in rights are large enough to deter
trading, then exchanges will not occur. There will always
be a trade-off between promoting efficiency and equity
considerations in the initial distribution of water rights.
Alternative initial assignments of water rights among
users, whether individuals, ethnic groups, local govern-
ments, or environmental protection agencies, will also
result in entirely different future sets of bargaining rela-
tionships and potentially different patterns of transfers.
Basing the initial distribution of water rights on historic
water use is the easiest and the most commonly used
system. The rule that has been usually adopted is the
historic record of possession of licences or permits for water
use under the previous allocation system, or, where such
evidence is lacking, according to other benchmarks, such
as land holdings. This is usually called ‘‘grandfathering.’’
However, it does represent a transfer of wealth, the new
water rights, to current water users.
Once a market is established, water rights will be
reallocated through voluntary transfers between willing
buyers and sellers in the same way as other goods are
traded. It must be emphasized that the social impact of
market transactions will depend on the initial distribution
of water rights and bargaining power. The initial
distribution will determine how the benefits from owning
water rights are distributed, who has the protection of the
state to use water, and who must pay to obtain water rights
in the future.
An issue often raised in opposition to establishing
markets in water rights is the possibility of windfall
gains if existing water users are favored in the initial
distribution of rights. Proposed solutions to this issue
include taxing transfers, prohibiting transfers, and other
restrictions on trading. Such restrictions, however, defeat
the purpose of assigning rights and establishing a market.
It might be simpler to ignore the problem, which will
facilitate the reallocation of water to higher value uses but
provide windfall gains to original users. One mechanism
that has been used for the initial distribution of rights to
avoid windfall gains is auctions, but these can raise the
problem of rights going only to those who can pay.
In the initial distribution, care needs to be taken to
respect the rights of the disadvantaged, such as poor
farmers and indigenous peoples. In Chile, in introducing
the market allocation of water, the government put in place
and maintains a program to facilitate the legalization of
property titles to water rights by poorer farmers; it has
been spending more than US$320, 000 annually for this
purpose during the last 20 years.
In the initial distribution of water rights, consideration
should also be given to establishing minimum flows to
protect aquatic and riparian habitats and other uses
which, because of strong public goods characteristics
from which everyone benefits, cannot compete in the
market for water. Where historic uses have preempted
the total supply, an argument can be made for a one-time
reallocation of water. In Chile, although no provision of
this kind is included in the law, the interpretation of the
protection of the rights of third parties has been expanded
to include environmental protection and ecological flows.
The main advantage of adopting ‘‘grandfathering’’ is
that it avoids conflicts and reduces the opposition of
existing water users, typically farmers, to the introduction
of a market. Irrigation farmers usually argue that they are
entitled to receive water rights without charge because
they have already paid for the rights implicitly in the
purchase price of the land. Under the auction approach,
although payments for rights do not represent real
economic costs to society as a whole but merely transfers
from one group to another, to the users, the payments
constitute a financial burden.
THE MARKET ALLOCATION OF WATER
A water market is a water management tool. It is,
moreover, a tool that spreads the burden and difficulties of
water management among a larger population; it permits
greater popular participation in management decisions
and can introduce greater flexibility into management
systems. The creation of a water market will also demand
new skills and attitudes from public administration,
judicial systems, and water users, as well as investment
in the registration of rights, monitoring and measurement
systems and, possibly, in improving water distribution and
transportation systems.
A water market will allocate water rights at a price
set by the free exchange of the right either for a limited
period of time through a lease or in perpetuity by a sale.
For a market to work, it is necessary only that there be
a tradable margin in water rights, even if the number
of rights traded is marginal to the total supply. Water
markets can normally be expected to be relatively small
or ‘‘thin,’’ with few transactions.
Any water allocation system should be both flexible
and secure. At the same time, all costs and benefits
should be reflected in the decisions that participants
make; otherwise, these decisions will be inefficient from
an overall social perspective. The system must also
be predictable, equable, and fair. This is particularly
important in developing societies where economic growth
and water use efficiency require achieving a balance in the
allocation of water between flexibility and security. Water
markets are flexible because markets are by their very
nature a decentralized and incentive-oriented institution,
rather than centralized and regulatory.
SECURITY OF TENURE
Markets require security of ownership to function.
Therefore, it is important that rights be clearly defined and
publicly registered. Security of ownership of the right, in
turn, helps encourage efficient use, resource conservation,
and capital investment. It also helps strengthen and
consolidate the autonomy of water user organizations.
Security of ownership and the possibility of acquiring
water rights in the market, it has been shown, encourage
investment and growth in activities that require secure
water supplies. Moreover, the reallocation of rights by
voluntary exchanges allows market systems to defuse
potential political conflicts over water allocation.

The political dimension of a system of secure and
transferable water rights arises from the definition and
clarification of property rights, which the introduction of
such a system requires. The market transfer of water
rights reduces political conflicts, as these transfers are
always voluntary transactions in which owners of rights
will participate only if they believe that it is in their best
interest, given the alternative opportunities available.
Administrative allocation, in contrast, often generates
intense conflicts because granting a water right to one
user necessarily precludes another.
Markets can, therefore, reduce conflicts among environ-
mental interests, water suppliers, and polluters by provid-
ing natural economic incentives for water conservation and
wastewater treatment. Environmental economists often
prefer property-right systems to pricing systems because
property-right systems can be ecologically more depend-
able than pricing systems.
WATER MARKETS IN CHILE
Chile is the only country where tradable rights are
universal and all water allocation is the result of
market transactions. The introduction of water markets
in Chile coincided with a major increase in agricultural
production and productivity. It is reasonable to conclude
that the introduction of tradable, and particularly
secure, property rights in water made a noticeable
contribution to this overall growth in the value of Chile’s
agricultural production. This increase occurred within
an agricultural sector largely dependent on irrigation,
without a significant increase in either the supply of
water or the area under irrigation. There has been,
however, considerable private investment in improving
the existing irrigation infrastructure both on and off the
farm. The influence of water markets, however, cannot be
fully separated from the effects of other economic factors,
especially stable economic policies, trade liberalization,
and secure land rights. This notwithstanding, it is
recognized that trading in water rights reduced the
need for new hydraulic infrastructure, improved overall
irrigation efficiency, and has reduced the number of
conflicts over water allocation. It also appears to have
facilitated the shift from low-value, water-intensive crops
to higher value, less-water-intensive crops.
In addition, market transfers of water rights have
produced substantial economic gains from trade in some
river basins. These gains occur both in trades between
farmers and in trades between farmers and other sectors.
The economic gains from trade tend to be large between
farmers but relatively modest in intersector trade because
water has been transferred from profitable farmers to
urban drinking water supply; even though the financial
gain to the farmer who sells is large, the overall economic
gains of the reallocation are relatively small, because both
uses have similar social benefits. In Chile, as in other
areas of irrigation agriculture, if, prior to the sale, water
was not being taken from river or canal by the owner of
the right, other farmers would have used it downstream.
Transfers among farmers, however, lead to using the water
for higher value crops.
WATER USE IN THE UNITED STATES 645
READING LIST
Anderson, T.L. and Snyder, P. (1997). Water Markets. Cato
Institute, Washington, DC.
Holden, P. and Thobani, M. (1995). Tradable water rights: a
property rights approach to improving water use and promoting
investment. Cuadernos de Economı́a 32(97): 263–316.
Frederick, K.D. (1993). Balancing Water Demands with Supplies.
The Role of Management in a World of Increasing Scarcity.
Technical Paper No. 189, The World Bank, Washington, DC.
Lee, T. and Jouravlev, A. (1998). Prices, Property and Markets
in Water Allocation. United Nations, Economic Commission for
Latin America and the Caribbean, Santiago.
Lee, T. (2000). Water Management in the 21st Century: The
Allocation Imperative. Elgar, Cheltenham.
Peña, H. (1996). Water markets in Chile: what they are, how they
have worked and what needs to be done to strengthen them.
Paper Presented at the Fourth Annual World Bank Conference
on Environmentally Sustainable Development. Washington,
DC, pp. 25–27.
Rosegrant, M.W. and Binswanger, H.P. (1994). Markets in
tradable water rights: potential for efficiency gains in
developing country water resource allocation. World Dev.
22(11): 1613–1625.
WATER USE IN THE UNITED STATES
FRÉDÉRIC LASSERRE
Université Laval
Ste-Foy, Québec, Canada
A STABILIZATION IN TOTAL WITHDRAWALS?
Total water withdrawals in the United States are
estimated at 402 billion gallons per day (Bgal/day) in
1995. This is 1.5% less than withdrawals for 1990
and confirms an overall stabilization of withdrawals
throughout the country since 1975. That was the first time
that withdrawals growth stopped outpacing population
increases, implying an intensification of the use of water
withdrawn. All major users, thermoelectric, irrigation,
and industrial uses, saw their withdrawals stabilize; rural
(domestic and livestock) and urban use, on the contrary,
witnessed an ongoing trend of withdrawal increase.
The decline in overall water use does not translate
into the same pattern for all water sources (Table 1).
Saline surface water use grew rapidly after 1965, to
reach 71 Bgal/d in 1980, but has declined since then to
59.7 Bgal/d; groundwater use also declined after the 1980
peak. After a similar trend from 1980 to 1990, surface
freshwater use, however, started growing again by 1.9%
between 1990 and 1995.
On the other hand, after a decrease between 1980 and
1985 and a small increase from 1985 to 1990, consumptive
use was back to growing faster than that of population.
This trend could be linked to increased urban water use in
suburbs. Particularly as urban sprawl takes place in the
West, that implies a large share of consumption, such as
lawn watering and pools, as will be seen below.
646 WATER USE IN THE UNITED STATES

Table 1. Evolution of Water Use in the United States, 1950–1995a

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

Population, in millions 150.7 164 179.3 193.8 205.9 216.4 229.6 242.4 252.3 267.1
Variation, % 8.8 9.3 8.1 6.2 5.1 6.1 5.6 4.1 5.9
Total withdrawals, Bgal/d 180 240 270 310 370 420 440 399 408 402
Variation, % 33.3 12.5 14.8 19.4 13.5 4.8 −9.3 2.3 −1.5
Of which:
Thermoelectric 40 72 100 130 170 200 210 187 195 190
Other industrial 37 39 38 46 47 45 45 30.5 29.9 29.1
Irrigation 89 110 110 120 130 140 150 137 137 134
Rural domestic and livestock 3.6 3.6 3.6 4 4.5 4.9 5.6 7.8 7.9 8.9
Public supply 14 17 21 24 27 29 34 36.5 38.5 40.2
Source of water
Ground freshwater 34 47 50 60 68 82 83 73.2 79.4 76.4
Surface, fresh 140 180 190 210 250 260 290 265 259 264
Surface, saline 10 18 31 43 53 69 71 59.6 68.2 59.7
Consumptiveb use NA NA 61 77 87 96 100 92.3 94 100
Variation, % 26.2 13 10.3 4.2 −7.7 1.8 6.4
a
Water-related data in billion gallons per day, Bgal/d.
b
Consumptive use as of 1970: freshwater only.
Source: Adapted from Reference 1.

Table 2. Total Water Withdrawals by Water-Use Category Among

Selected States, 1995, in Million Gallons per Day
Public,
Domestic, and Industrial, Incl.
State Commercial Agriculture Mining Thermoelectric

Alabama 880 268 753 5200

Arizona 867 5702 197 62
Arkansas 519 6294 187 1770
California 6125 29359 801 9655
Colorado 741 12759 192 114
Connecticut 475 29 12 3940
Delaware 104 52 64 1326
Florida 2417 3526 649 11636
Georgia 1295 770 677 3073
Idaho 560 14460 76 0
Illinois 2053 236 2407 17100
Kansas 399 3489 77 1270
Maine 146 29 16 135
Maryland 931 97 331 6360
Michigan 1535 241 1913 8370
Montana 161 8602 80 22
New Jersey 1144 127 486 4360
New York 3344 64 320 13060
Ohio 1628 54 650 8190
Texas 3464 9765 2916 13460
Utah 511 3638 252 55
Vermont 92 9 12 453

Source: Adapted from Reference 1.

THE DRY WEST STILL THE LARGEST USER AND
CONSUMER
Regional Water Use
Wide discrepancies show up immediately when the
structure of water use in the United States is examined.
Patterns do appear: they highlight very industrialized
and urbanized states such as New Jersey, New York,
and Michigan, where water used is concentrated in
domestic, industrial, and power generating uses (Table 2).
States that have rain-fed agriculture and a small urban
population, such as Maine and Vermont, use water mainly
for their power and their cities. In highly urbanized and
industrialized Texas and California, all uses are strong,
except industrial use in California because of an industrial
base that does not use a large amount of water; other
Western States do show a large dominance of agricultural
use, such as in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, and Montana.
 WATER USE IN THE UNITED STATES 647

Figure 1. Water consumptive use by state, 1995 (adapted from Reference 2).

Consumptive Use water for agriculture, but water can also be largely used
in more humid places that have traditionally rain-fed
Regionally, states in the West do show much greater
agriculture, such as Belgium, Germany, and Denmark
per capita consumptive use, up to 4288 gallons per day
(Table 5). This trend is explained, as observed in the
per person (gal/d/p) for Nebraska, but it is not the
United States, by farmers turning to irrigation to avoid all
urban use that is responsible for their high consumption
risk of yield decrease.
(Table 3). Highly urbanized California displays a more
moderate figure of 795 gal/d/p (Fig. 1). Large withdrawals
for irrigation are required in a dry climate. WATER USE MANAGEMENT : RECONCILING DIFFERENT
USE STRUCTURES ACROSS THE COUNTRY
AMERICAN WATER USE STRUCTURE COMPARED TO
OTHER COUNTRIES The geography of withdrawals and consumption, illus-
trated by the consumptive use map shown above, is all
Agriculture remains the main user and consumer of water the harder to manage globally as Western states con-
in the United States, as it is, by a large margin, among sume more and more (states west of the 100th meridian
developing countries (Table 4). The picture is somewhat accounted for 75.1% of total consumption in 1995), but
subtler among developed countries. Drier countries such draw on a smaller share of the resource; water is far more
as Spain and Greece, unsurprisingly, use a large share of plentiful in the eastern part of the country. From the end
of the Civil War, this relative scarcity of water never pre-
vented development schemes and led to large engineering
Table 3. Consumptive Use in Selected States, in gal/d/p, designs that were built to harness the West’s major rivers
1995
and make up for nature’s pattern of groundwater, surface
Arizona California Colorado Florida Idaho water, and precipitation distribution.
On the other hand, urbanized states in the eastern
908 795 1396 196 3732
United States display small consumptive use structures,
Illinois Maine New York Ohio Rhode Island as low as 19 gal/d/p for Rhode Island and 26 for New
York. It is the sheer size of the urban area that is
72 39 26 71 19
responsible for New York’s freshwater supply, not the
Source: Adapted from Reference 1. profligacy of its inhabitants. However, New York and
648 WATER USE IN THE UNITED STATES

Table 4. Share of Withdrawals in Selected Countries, by Economic Sector

Withdrawals, Share of Total, %

Domestic and
Country Year Agriculture Industry Commercial

Developing countries
India 1992 91 4 5
Uzbekistan 1994 94 2 4
Thailand 1992 90 6 4
Tanzania 1994 89 2 9
Vietnam 1992 78 9 13
China 1993 77 18 5

Developed countries
Greece 1990 63 29 8
Spain 1994 62 26 12
Italy 1990 53 33 14
Portugal 1990 48 37 15
Denmark 1990 43 27 30
United States 1995 35 54 11
Germany 1990 18 68 14
France 1994 15 69 16
Ireland 1990 10 74 16
Norway 1985 8 72 20
Austria 1991 8 73 19
Belgium 1990 4 85 11
United Kingdom 1994 3 77 20
Source: Reference 3, pp. 208–211.

Table 5. Comparison of Withdrawals and Consumption by Main Sector

Between France and the United States, 1995
In % of Total Domestic/Commercial Industrial Thermoelectric Agriculture

United States :
Withdrawals 12.2 8.2 38.7 40.9
Consumption 8 4.1 3.3 84.6
France :
Withdrawals 15 10 62.5 12.5
Consumption 24 5 3 68
Source: Reference 4, p. 102.

Los Angeles authorities, for instance, have aggressively Table 6. Population of Selected States, 1970–2000, in
promoted water-saving programs with effective results. Millions
Local authorities are acutely conscious of serious water Average
problems in the country. These are twofold. First, although Annual Growth,
withdrawals are on a stabilizing trend, and consumption 1970 1980 1990 2000 1970–2000, %
was up until a few years ago, withdrawal levels are
Florida 6.79 9.75 12.94 16 +2.9
often locally unsustainable in the long term, especially California 19.95 23.67 29.76 33.9 +1.8
in the West. Aquifers are being overpumped. The now Arizona 1.77 2.72 3.67 5.13 +3.6
famous Ogallala aquifer, in the Midwest, is expected Nevada 0.49 0.8 1.2 2 +4.8
to run unusable—not totally dry—in 50 to 70 years Colorado 2.21 2.89 3.3 4.3 +2.2
at present withdrawal rates. California saw its water New Mexico 1.02 1.3 1.52 1.82 +1.9
consumption increase by 41.5% between 1980 and 2000, Utah 1.06 1.46 1.72 2.23 +2.5
still untapped available resources are dwindling rapidly. Source: Adapted from Reference 6. Average population growth in the
As other upstream states withdrew small amounts of United States 1970–2000: +1.1%.
water for small populations, even Colorado water that
California long took for granted is now being reallocated Texas, 58.2% in Florida, and 70% in Arizona. Groundwater
to the ‘‘New West’’ states under the Colorado Compact withdrawals in California exceed its aquifer renewal
provisions because Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico capacity by 15% (5).
boast extremely fast population growth (Table 6). Between Second, the American society changes, and its geo-
1980 and 2000, consumptive uses also grew by 42% in graphical setting and consumption structures evolve. The
 WATER USE IN THE UNITED STATES 649

Table 7. Reclaimed Wastewater Use, 1995, in Gallons/Days/Person, Top 10 States

State Arizona California Colorado Florida Maryland

Reclaimed water 42.7 10.4 2.9 16.7 13.9

State Missouri Nevada Texas Utah Wyoming

Reclaimed water 2.1 15.7 5.8 7.2 19

Source: Reference 8.

Table 8. Desalination Capacity by Country, January 1999

Total Capacity, Total Capacity,a Total Capacity, Total Capacity,a

Country Mgal/day Mm3 /day Country Mgal/day Mm3 /day

Saudi Arabia 1.344 5.1 Japan 204.7 0.78

United States 851 3.2 Libya 185 0.7
United Arab Emirates 574.7 2.18 Qatar 149 0.57
Kuwait 338.4 1.29 Italy 137.1 0.52
Spain 210 0.8 Iran 115.3 0.44
a
1 m3 = 263.16 gal.
Source: Reference 3, p. 288.

past 20 years have witnessed several phenomena that will
question the water use structure: the acceleration of subur-
ban growth, especially in the West; and the persistence of
population shifts toward the Sun Belt in the West, Texas,
and Florida; and more particularly toward what some
geographers call the ‘‘New West,’’ interior states such
as Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico, where
water resources are even more delicate to manage than
in California.
This fast increasing population fuels the suburban
sprawl that poses a great challenge to water management
and distribution authorities; the newcomers are quick
to adopt a new lifestyle and behavior that embodies,
in their eyes, economic and societal achievement—green
lawns, pools, frequent car washes. As a whole, Americans
consume about 40 gal/d/p; in the Southwest, per capita
daily consumption averages 120 gallons. In cities such as
Phoenix and Las Vegas, residents consume more than
300 gal/d/p. In Denver, more than half of the water
consumed is attributable to outdoor landscaping (7).
CONSUMING LESS
Water saving measures have thus been enforced by local
authorities in various ways. Higher water pricing, for
instance, led to a sharp rationalization of industrial water
use, water had become a substantial cost for large water
users, although trends in industrial restructuring led
to a decline in water-intense processes. The same basic
economic mechanism is also expected to prevent citizens
from using too much water.
Total irrigation withdrawals decreased since 1980 to
stabilize around 136 Bgal/d, although risk-averse farmers
are more prone to irrigating their fields for fear of a
decrease in their yield, even in more humid areas (4,
p. 86); irrigated acreage remained stable at 58 million
acres since 1980. This stabilization does not mean that
there is no room for improvement, especially in the West,
where extensive irrigation still often uses flood irrigation.
In Idaho, porous soils require constant watering, up to
12 feet of water an acre per season.
This decrease in withdrawals stems from pricing,
though it remains very low for farmers compared to urban
and industrial users. This discrepancy fuels ‘‘water wars’’
in the West, as urban communities are confronting the
first appropriation rights of rural irrigation districts to
increase their share of a relatively scarce resource. It also
stems from the idea the main resource would become too
scarce. These two factors drove farmers to adopt improved
irrigation systems and techniques.
DEVELOPING NEW SOURCES
Using and consuming less is an option more and more
favored in the United States due to the transition
from water-supply management to water-demand man-
agement. This shift in focus is attested to by changes
in pricing policies as well as in recurring awareness
campaigns targeted at citizens, industry managers, and
farmers. But increasing supply is not a forgotten option.
Grand schemes of damming Canada’s untamed rivers and
diverting them toward the thirsty Midwest were part of
some engineering firms’ and government agendas, notably
in Québec, up until 1986; large-scale water exports were
again contemplated in Canada from 1997 to 2001 but are
now banned by a federal law. These projects no longer
have the favor of an environmentally aware public, espe-
cially in a decade that saw large dams become the focus of
environmentalists’ anger and campaigning in the United
States and throughout the Western world and even against
some large projects in developing countries, such as the
Narmada Dam project in India.
Reclaimed Wastewater
Reclaimed wastewater, for instance, was long thought of
as irrelevant because of cost and safety issues. In 1995,
650 HOW WE USE WATER IN THESE UNITED STATES

total wastewater use amounted to 1.02 Bgal/d, a 36%

increase since 1990 (Table 7). Water recycling is mainly
a feature of the dry West. Florida, confronted with acute
freshwater supply problems, has invested in extensive
reuse programs. Arizona, Wyoming, and Florida appear to
be the most effective states in recycling wastewater.

Desalting
Desalting also used to be considered an irrelevant solution
because it produced very expensive water. During the
last 15 years, improved technological processes have led
to a fast decrease in the cost per gallon of water produced,
although only urban or industrial users can afford it. Local
governments are keenly interested in this technology, as
attested to by recent major contracts in Florida, where
a plant of 95,000 m3 / day (25 million gal/d) approved by
Figure 1. Total daily offstream water use in the United States.
regional water officials in March 1999, is to be located near
Tampa Bay. The water produced should cost between 45
and 55 ¢/m3 , or $1.71 to $2.08/1000 gal.
Desalination is proving very popular in the United
States, where built capacity in early 1999 ranked second by evaporation, transpiration, incorporation into crops or
in the world (Table 8). a product, or other consumption. Conversely, return flow is
the portion of a withdrawal that is actually not consumed
but is instead returned to a surface or ground water source
BIBLIOGRAPHY from a point of use and becomes available for further use.
Water use can also be divided into offstream and
1. USGS. (1995). Water Use in the United States. instream uses. Offstream water use (see Fig. 1) involves
2. USGS data. (2001). the withdrawal or diversion of water from a surface or
3. Gleick, P. (Ed.). (2000). The World’s Water 2000–2001. Island ground water source for
Press, Washington, DC, pp. 208–211, 288.
4. Lasserre, F. (2002). L’eau rare? Des solutions pour assurer
l’approvisionnement. In: Lasserre and Descroix, Eaux et
• Domestic and residential uses
territoires: tensions, coopérations et géopolitique de l’eau. • Industrial uses
Presses Universitaires du Québec, Québec, p. 102.
• Agricultural uses
5. Mayrand, K. (1999). Les marchés internationaux de l’eau:
exportations d’eau douce et marché des infrastructures et des • Energy development uses
services urbains. Ministry of International Relations, Québec,
pp. 8–9. Instream water uses are those that do not require a
6. US Census Bureau. (2001). diversion or withdrawal from the surface or ground water
7. Riebsame, W.E. (Ed.). (1997). Water for the west. Atlas of the sources, such as:
New West. WW Norton & Company, New York, p. 81.
8. USGS. (1995). Offstream Use.
• Water quality and habitat improvement
• Recreation
HOW WE USE WATER IN THESE UNITED • Navigation
STATES • Fish propagation
• Hydroelectric power production
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
NATIONAL TRENDS IN WATER USE

Water use is usually defined and measured in terms of

withdrawal or consumption—that which is taken and that
which is used up. Withdrawal refers to water extracted
from surface or ground water sources, with consumption
being that part of a withdrawal that is ultimately used and
removed from the immediate water environment whether
This article is a US Government work and, as such, is in the
public domain in the United States of America.
National patterns of water use indicate that the largest
demand for water withdrawals (fresh and saline) is
for thermoelectric generation (47 percent), followed by
irrigation (34 percent), public supply (9 percent), indus-
trial (6 percent), mining (1 percent), livestock (1 percent),
domestic (1 percent), and commercial uses (1 percent).
While thermoelectric generation represents the largest
demand for fresh and saline withdrawals, irrigation rep-
resents the largest demand for freshwater withdrawal

Figure 2. Comparison of freshwater consumptive use in the
United States for 1990 by category.
alone (see Fig. 1). Activities that reduce the need to with-
draw surface and ground water will lead to many of the
beneficial effects of conserving water.
NATIONAL CONSUMPTION PATTERNS
Water consumption varies by water use category, with
irrigation consuming the highest percent (81 percent)
and commercial the lowest (1 percent) (see Fig. 2). The
difference between the volume of water withdrawn and
that consumed is the return flow. As more good-quality
HOW WE USE WATER IN THESE UNITED STATES 651
water is available in return flows, more water is available
for other beneficial uses.
Some categories of water use, such as irrigation and
livestock watering, consume a high percentage of water
that is withdrawn from surface and ground water sources.
Thus, less water is available for return flows from these
high-consumption activities. Other categories of use like
thermoelectric power consume only a small fraction of the
water they withdraw.
CATEGORIES OF WATER USE
With several different ways to categorize water use in the
United States, this article separates offstream uses into
• Municipal/public supply
• Domestic and commercial
• Industrial and mining
• Agricultural
• Thermoelectric power
MUNICIPAL/PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY
While water withdrawals for public use can be applied to
street cleaning, fire fighting, municipal parks, and pub-
lic swimming pools, keep in mind that municipalities
and private suppliers might also provide water for other
purposes (domestic/commercial, agricultural, thermoelec-
tric power).
Per capita (per person) use of public water supplies
in the United States (1990) averaged 183 gallons per
day (gal/d). The average per capita use can vary
greatly between communities for any number of reasons,
including, but not limited to:
• Climate differences
• The mix of domestic, commercial, and industrial uses
• Household sizes
• Lot sizes
• Public uses
• Income brackets
• Age and condition of distribution system
For instance, per capita use of public water is about
50 percent higher in the West than the East mostly due
to the amount of landscape irrigation in the West (see
Fig. 3). However, per capita use can also vary greatly
within a single state. For example, in 1985 the demand for
municipal water in Ancho, New Mexico, totaled 54 gallons
per capita per day (gal/cap/day) while in Tyrone, New
Mexico, municipal demand topped off at 423 gal/cap/day.
Rural areas typically consume less water for domestic
purposes than larger towns.
In 1990, water withdrawn nationwide for public
supplies totaled 38,530 million gallons per day (Mgal/d)
(see Table 1). Although this withdrawal rate represents
a 5 percent increase over 1985 amounts, the number of
people supplied with water distributed through public
systems also increased 5 percent during that same 5-
year period. Again in 1990, surface water supplied about
652 HOW WE USE WATER IN THESE UNITED STATES

When divided into indoor uses and outdoor uses, the

amount of indoor water use remains fairly constant
throughout the year, with the breakdown of typical indoor
water uses depicted in Fig. 4. By far the largest percentage
of indoor water use occurs in the bathroom, with 41 percent
used for toilet flushing and 33 percent for bathing.
Outdoor residential water use, however, varies greatly
depending on geographic location and season. On an
annual average basis, outdoor water use in the arid
West and Southwest is much greater than that in
the East or Midwest. Figure 5 compares the national
average for residential outdoor water use with that of
Pennsylvania and California, with landscape irrigation
the primary application. While average outdoor water use
Figure 3. Average use per person (gal/day) of public water in the in Pennsylvania represents only approximately 7 percent
United States by USGS water region. of the total residential demand, in California average
outdoor use climbs to about 44 percent of the demand.
Table 1. Fate of Water in Public Water Supplies of the
United States, 1990
INDUSTRIAL AND MINING
Volume, Percentage of
Receiving Category Mgal/day Total
Industrial water uses, estimated to be 8 percent of total
Domestic 21,900 57 freshwater use for all offstream categories, include cooling
Commercial 5,900 15 in factories and washing and rinsing in manufacturing
Public Use Losses 5,460 14
processes. Some of the major water-use industries
Industrial 5,190 13
include mining, steel, paper and associated products, and
ThermoelectricPower 80 <1
Total 38,530 100 chemicals and associated products.
Water for both industrial and mining uses comes from
public supplies, surface sources, and ground water. During
61 percent of the public water supply, with ground water the 5-year span from 1985 to 1990, industrial water use
supplying the other 39 percent. in the United States decreased approximately 13 percent.
Of the total water withdrawn in 1990 for public supplies In the same period, mining water use increased about
representing 11 percent of total U.S. offstream freshwater 24 percent.
withdrawals 72 percent went to domestic and commercial
uses, 13 percent to industrial uses, and 0.2 percent to
thermoelectric power. The remaining 14 percent went to
public uses such as fire protection or was lost during
distribution (usually due to leaks).

DOMESTIC/COMMERCIAL

Domestic water use includes everyday uses that take

place in residential homes, whereas commercial water
uses are those which take place in office buildings,
hotels, restaurants, civilian and military institutions,
public and private golf courses, and other nonindustrial
commercial facilities. Combined freshwater withdrawals
for domestic and commercial use in 1990 totaled 33,600
Mgal/d, or 10 percent of total freshwater withdrawals for
all offstream categories (see Fig. 2).
Typical categories of residential water use include
normal household uses such as

• Drinking and cooking

• Bathing
• Toilet flushing
• Washing clothes and dishes
• Watering lawns and gardens
• Maintaining swimming pools
• Washing cars Figure 4. Typical breakdown of interior water use.

Figure 5. Comparison of average national residential outdoor
water use with that of Pennsylvania and California.
AGRICULTURAL
Agricultural water use can be divided between irrigation
and livestock. Irrigation includes all water applied to
farm or horticultural crops; livestock incorporates water
used for livestock, dairies, feedlots, fish farms, and other
farm needs.
Estimated annual water use for irrigation remained
at about the same level between 1985 and 1990, with
approximately 63 percent of the water used for irrigation
in 1990 coming from surface water. Approximately
60 percent of the water used for livestock came from
ground water sources and the remaining 40 percent
from surface water sources. Combined water use for
irrigation and livestock represents about 41 percent of
total offstream freshwater use for 1990, (see previous
Fig. 1) with 40 percent going to irrigation and the lone
1 percent to livestock uses.
Not only can the loss of water from irrigation
conveyance systems be significant, but the percentage
of consumptive water use for agriculture is high as well
an estimated 54 percent consumption in 1985. By 1990
this had climbed to an estimated 56 percent consumption
for irrigation uses and 67 percent for livestock uses (see
Fig. 2).
THERMOELECTRIC POWER GENERATION
This final category includes water used for the production
of energy from fossil fuels, nuclear energy, or geothermal
energy. Most water withdrawn for thermoelectric power
production is used for condenser and reactor cooling.
While 1990 estimates of freshwater withdrawals remained
constant from 1985, nearly half again as much saline water
was also used.
More than 99 percent of the water used for thermo-
electric power production comes from self-supplied surface
water, less than 0.2 percent from public supplies. In 1990,
water used for thermoelectric power production repre-
sented close to 39 percent of total offstream freshwater
VALUING WATER RESOURCES 653
use in the United States, but only about 3 percent was
consumed.
The Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic Gulf, Ohio, and Great
Lakes water resource regions use the largest amounts of
water for thermoelectric production. The eastern United
States uses about five times more water than the West to
produce about twice as much thermoelectric power.
VALUING WATER RESOURCES
DIANE DUPONT
STEVEN J. RENZETTI
Brock University
St. Catharines, Ontario,
Canada
INTRODUCTION
Suppose that consideration is being given to dam a
river. The dam will provide benefits in the form of
hydroelectric power, water for irrigation, and protection
from floods. Conversely, building the dam will also destroy
wetlands, fish spawning grounds, and impair recreational
opportunities. In deciding whether to build the dam, one
important type of information is the value to society of the
benefits and damages that will arise. Obtaining estimates
of these values requires an understanding of the services
that society derives from water, how those services will
change with the building of the dam, and the value that
society attaches to each service. It is the last of these
tasks that this article addresses. Specifically, the purpose
of this article is to review briefly how economists estimate
the value of water. Because of the importance of water
and the increasing costs of maintaining clean water, there
has been a large amount of research into this topic (1–5).
This article reviews the methods developed by economists
to estimate water’s value in the next section. Empirical
estimates of the various uses of water are discussed later.
THE ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE ON VALUATION
The starting point for most economic methods for
measuring the value of water is an understanding of the
structure of household tastes or preferences and firms’
productive technologies. This understanding can then be
used to develop measures of the benefits of water use and
the change in household welfare or firm profits that arise
from changes in the price, quantity, or quality of water.
These measures, in turn, allow the analyst to determine
the maximum willingness to pay (in the case of a change
leading to an improvement in welfare) for water. This idea
of willingness to pay forms the cornerstone of economic
measures of value. (This approach to understanding
and measuring value is not without its critics; see the
discussion in Reference 1.)
These measures provide estimates of the value of water
to the individual user (i.e., the ‘‘private’’ value). This may
differ from the social value of water use (the value to
all of society) by an individual household, firm, or farm.
654 VALUING WATER RESOURCES
There are a number of reasons that social and private
values of water use may differ. First, an individual’s water
use may result in lowered water quality from pollution,
and this, in turn, would lower the value of that water for
other users and, thus, to society. Second, a farm may use
water to increase production of crops that are supported by
government subsidies. In this case, the farmer’s valuation
of the increased output will be higher than society’s
because of the cost of the subsidies to society.
Another issue complicating the measurement of the
value of water is that, like many environmental goods,
the value of some of the uses to which water is put are
reflected in market transactions and others are not. An
example of the former is a farmer purchasing water to
irrigate crops—an analyst may be able to infer the value
of water to the farmer by using market information on the
increase in crop yield brought on by irrigation. An example
of the latter is a family enjoying a day of swimming
at a municipal beach. In this case, analysts must use
‘‘nonmarket’’ methods to estimate the family’s valuation
of its recreation.
As Table 1 indicates, economic valuation methods may
be categorized into indirect and direct methods. Indirect
valuation methods are those that infer a household
or firm’s valuation of water from its observed market
behavior. There are a number of indirect valuation
techniques. The derived demand method applies statistical
or mathematical programming techniques to observations
on market transactions in water to estimate a household’s
or firm’s demand for water. The estimated demand
relationship can, in turn, be used to calculate the user’s
willingness to pay for water. The avoided cost method
assesses the value of water by examining the costs that
are avoided because water is available. (A related method
is the averting behavior method. If households purchase
water filters to remove waterborne impurities, then the
value to the household of removing the impurities can be
estimated by the cost of water filtration.) For example,
if a firm is able to release effluents into a lake rather
than treating them, then the avoided cost of treatment
Table 1. Economic Valuation Methods
Method Applications
Indirect
Derived demand Residential, industrial
Avoided cost Residential, industrial
Residual imputation Agricultural, industrial
Hedonics Residential, recreation
Travel cost Recreation
Direct
Contingent valuation Recreation, changes in water
quality, ecosystems
provides an estimate of the value of the lake’s assimilative
capacity to the firm. The residual imputation method
calculates the value of water to a firm or farm as the
difference between the operation’s revenues and the cost
of all of its nonwater inputs. The hedonic method uses
statistical techniques to determine the contribution of
water to the total value of marketed commodities. For
example, a house of a given size is usually more valuable,
the closer it is to a body of water, and hedonic methods
can estimate the increase in value that is related to the
proximity to water. Finally, the travel cost method is
used to estimate households’ valuation of water-related
recreation experiences by examining the time traveled to
a recreational site and out-of-pocket expenses incurred by
a family. A greater time traveled implicitly raises the cost
of recreation because it usually means more time away
from work.
Direct valuation methods are those that survey
households to obtain their valuations. The most important
direct valuation technique is contingent valuation. In
this approach, individuals are presented with information
concerning a hypothetical or constructed market and
asked to indicate their willingness to pay to achieve
a desired good or service. For example, a respondent
might be asked to value a potential improvement in water
treatment that reduces the risk of illness. This method is
valuable for assessing projects before they are undertaken
and for assessing households’ ‘‘nonuse’’ values of water.
For example, some households may be willing to pay a
positive amount to ensure access to water some time in
the future (6).
EMPIRICAL ESTIMATES OF THE VALUE OF WATER
The preceding section demonstrates that economic
researchers have developed the conceptual framework and
measurement methods for estimating the value of water.
This section briefly points to a number of examples of
the results of estimation studies. (The interested reader
Comments
Estimated demand curve yields user’s valuation
of water
Access to clean water allows firms and homes to
avoid costs such as water filters
Requires information on revenues and costs of
nonwater inputs
Good for assessing the impacts of changes in
water quality
One of the earliest methods—in use since the
1960s
Only method that can estimate nonuse values
(values that arise from an aesthetic
appreciation of water or a desire to hold an
option to use water in the future)

Table 2. Representative Valuation Studies
Author Sector/Use
Indirect
Moore (8) Agriculture
Young and Gray (9) Industrial waste disposal
Gibbons (2) Industrial water intake
Abdalla (10) Residential
Smith, Desvousges and Recreation
McGivney (11)
Direct
Whitehead and Blomquist (12) Wetland preservation
Carson and Mitchell (13) Recreation
should consult the valuable compilation of empirical esti-
mates of water’s value in Reference 7.) The results of a
number of representative studies are reported in Table 2
and are discussed briefly below.
Indirect Valuation Studies
Moore (8) compares estimates of the value of irrigation
water using the derived demand and residual imputation
methods. The author finds that the two methods yield quite
different results (the derived demand method provides
higher estimated values). This is an important finding as
the price paid by some American farmers for irrigation
water is based, in part, on their estimated valuation of
that water.
Young and Gray (9) and Gibbons (2) employ the avoided
cost approach to value industrial water use. In both cases,
the authors calculate the costs that firms are able to
avoid by being able to dispose of effluents in waterbodies
and by using increased water intake rather than in-plant
water recirculation. Young and Gray find that the value
of water used in industrial waste disposal is relatively
low as few costs are actually avoided. Conversely, Gibbons
finds a wider range of values for increased intake water
substituting for water recirculation because, in some
applications, in-plant recirculation must also address
reduced water quality.
Abdalla (10) examines household valuation of improve-
ments in the quality of their drinking water supplies by
measuring the cost savings of those improvements. These
cost savings arise from decreased purchases of water fil-
ters and bottled water and from less time needed to boil
water. The authors also find that households with children
place a higher value on water quality improvements than
those without.
Smith et al. (11) address the change in the valuation
of sport fishing from changes in water quality at specific
sites. The authors do this by investigating the role of water
quality in approximately 20 published studies of water-
based recreation that use the travel cost method. The
principal finding of the Smith et al. study is that increases
in water quality increase the demand for, and valuation
of, water-based recreation. For example, when applied
to data derived from users of the Monongahela River, the
average consumer surplus (a measure of willingness to pay
net of fishing expenses) for water quality improvements
VALUING WATER RESOURCES 655
Method Estimate/Year
Derived demand $42–70/acre-foot (1989 US$)
Avoided cost $0.07–1.28/acre-foot (1972 US$)
Avoided cost $6–78/acre-foot (1980 US$).
Avoided cost $125–330/household (1987 US$)
Travel cost $10–20/household (1977 US$)
Contingent valuation $6–21/household (1992 CAN$).
Contingent valuation $70–90/household (1990 US$)
from boatable to game fishing conditions was $9.96 per
household per season (1977 US$).
Direct Valuation Studies
One of the most important advantages of direct valuation
methods is that they can be employed to consider
household ‘nonuse’ values of water. These values arise
not from household use of water but rather because
households may have an interest in knowing that a
particular waterbody has been preserved (possibly for
their use in the future). For example, Whitehead and
Blomquist (12) employ a contingent valuation survey
to examine household willingness to pay for wetlands
preservation and the role that information provision plays
in determining that value. The authors find that, while
many households are willing to contribute toward the
preservation of wetlands, as more information is provided
about the availability of substitutes for an endangered
wetland, respondents’ willingness to pay for preservation
falls off.
Finally, Carson and Mitchell (13) report on an influen-
tial study of American household valuation of enhanced
water-based recreational opportunities that could arise
from improved water quality. A particularly important
feature of this study’s methodology is the contingent val-
uation survey that employs the water quality ‘‘ladder’’ to
set out for respondents the various levels of water quality
that they are asked to consider. In doing so, the authors
frame or present differ levels of water quality (‘‘boatable,
fishable, and swimmable’’, p. 2447) in a way that is com-
prehensible for most respondents. The results indicate
that the sample of households places significant value on
improving water quality.
CONCLUSION
The growing scarcity of water creates the need to develop
and implement rational methods for allocating water
across competing needs. Part of this process of decision-
making requires understanding the value that individual
households, firms, and farms obtain from their various
uses of water. This article has briefly outlined the methods
developed by economists to estimate those values.
656 WATER—HERE, THERE, AND EVERYWHERE IN CANADA
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Donahue, J. and Johnston, B. (Eds.). (1998). Water, Culture
and Power: Local Struggles in a Global Context. Island Press,
Washington, DC.
2. Gibbons, D. (1986). The Economic Value of Water. Resources
for the Future, Baltimore.
3. Young, R. (1996). Measuring Economic Benefits for Water
Investments and Policies. Technical Paper No. 338. The World
Bank, Washington, DC.
4. Bergstrom, J., Boyle, K., and Poe, G. (2001). Economic value
of water quality: introduction and conceptual background. In:
The Economic Value of Water Quality. J. Bergstrom, K. Boyle,
and G. Poe (Eds.). Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 1–17.
5. Renzetti, S. (2002). The Economics of Water Demands. Kluwer
Academic Press, Norwell, MA.
6. Desvousges, W., Smith, V.K., and Fisher, A. (1987). Option
price for water quality improvements: a contingent valuation
study for the monongahela river. J. Environ. Econ. Manage.
14: 248–267.
7. Frederick, K., VandenBerg, T., and Hanson, J. (1997). Eco-
nomic Values of Freshwater in the United States. Discussion
Paper 97-03, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
8. Moore, M. (1999). Estimating irrigators’ ability to pay for
reclamation water. Land Econ. 75(4): 562–578.
9. Young, R., Gray, S., Held, R., and Mack, R. (1972). Economic
Value of Water: Concepts and Empirical Estimates Report
to the National Water Commission, NTIS no. PB210356,
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, MA.
10. Abdalla, C. (1994). Groundwater values from avoidance cost
studies: implications for policy and future research. Am. J.
Agric. Econ. 76: 1062–1067.
11. Smith, V.K., Desvousges, W., and McGivney, M. (1983).
Estimating water quality benefits: an econometric analysis.
South Econ. J. 50: 422–437.
12. Whitehead, J. and Blomquist, G. (1991). Measuring contin-
gent valuation for wetlands: effects of information about
related environmental goods. Water Resour. Res. 27(10):
2523–2531.
Figure 1.
13. Carson, R.T. and Mitchell, R.C. (1993). The value of clean
water: the public’s willingness to pay for boatable, fishable,
and swimmable quality water. Water Resour. Res. 29(7):
2445–2454.
WATER—HERE, THERE, AND EVERYWHERE IN
CANADA
Environment Canada
How much water is there in the world? Scientists estimate
over one billion cubic kilometers (one cubic kilometer
of water would fill 300 Olympic-sized swimming pools).
Water covers nearly three quarters of the earth’s surface
in oceans as well as rivers, lakes, snow and glaciers.
There is water in the atmosphere and water underground.
Water evaporates and returns to the land surface in what
is known as the hydrologic cycle.
In the hydrologic cycle, water evaporates from the ocean
into the atmosphere, from there it can precipitate back into
the ocean, or onto the land surface. From the land, it can
evaporate or transpire back into the atmosphere, or flow
overland or percolate underground before flowing back
into the ocean. The distribution of the water around the
globe varies from season to season and year to year, but
the total quantity of water on the earth’s surface remains
essentially constant. The hydrologic cycle is discussed in
detail in Freshwater Series No. A-1, ‘‘Water—Nature’s
Magician.’’
Although water exists in other forms in the hydrologic
cycle, this issue in the Freshwater Series focuses on surface
water as it is this water which we see in our everyday lives.
Most of the earth’s water is salty or permanently frozen.
Figure 1 illustrates the proportion of fresh water that is
available to us from the world’s water supply.
This article is produced by Environment Canada and is
reproduced with permission.

Figure 2 lists quantities that scientists have estimated
for the various types of water that make up the world’s
supply. These amounts should be regarded as indicators
of the relative quantities of water on earth. Owing to the
difficulties in estimating volumes of water on a global
scale, especially water underground, estimates can vary
considerably. What is important is the overall picture that
these estimates give.
RIVERS
A river’s watershed or drainage basin—the area supplying
it with water—is separated from the watersheds of
neighboring rivers by higher lands called drainage divides.
The map shows Canada’s continental watersheds, one to
WATER—HERE, THERE, AND EVERYWHERE IN CANADA 657
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
each surrounding ocean: the Pacific, the Arctic, and the
Atlantic as well as to Hudson Bay and to the Gulf of
Mexico. Small watersheds combine to make up regional
watersheds, which in turn join others to form continental
watersheds.
The world’s largest rivers are shown in Fig. 3.
Sculpting the Earth
As a swiftly flowing river, water can erode the underlying
terrain. Where the river slope is flatter, the river slows
down and deposits materials. This usually occurs in the
lower reaches and especially near the mouth of the river,
either at a lake or an ocean. A river can carve steep
valleys, especially in higher parts of the drainage basin.
658 WATER—HERE, THERE, AND EVERYWHERE IN CANADA

In the lower parts of the basin, deposits may create deltas
at the river’s mouth.
The volume of water flowing in a river, together with
the speed and timing of the flows, determines how a river
shapes the surrounding landscape and how people can
use its waters. Rainfall, snowmelt, and groundwater all
contribute to the volume of flow, producing variations from
season to season and year to year.
In Canada, most high flows are caused by spring
snowmelt. This is the season when floods are most likely
to occur. Rainstorms can also cause high flows and floods,
especially on small streams. The effects of floods and
storms can be much less severe on rivers with large
drainage basins. The lowest flows for rivers in Canada
generally occur in late summer, when precipitation is
low and evaporation along with consumption by plants is
high, and in late winter, when rivers are ice covered and
the precipitation is stored until spring in the form of ice
and snow.
LAKES
Canada has more lake area than any other country in
the world (Fig. 4), with 563 lakes larger than 100 square
kilometers. The Great Lakes, straddling the Canada–U.S.
boundary, contain 18% of the world’s fresh lake water.
How is Water Measured?
The Water Survey of Canada, Environment Canada, along
with many contributing agencies, measure the rate of flow
(discharge) in rivers and record the levels of lakes and
rivers at more than 2,600 locations in Canada. Typical
river flows are listed in Fig. 5.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.
 WATER—HERE, THERE, AND EVERYWHERE IN CANADA 659

Figure 6.

• Water levels are read manually by gauge readers
or continuously recorded either digitally or on
graph paper.
• Rate of flow (or discharge) requires multiple mea-
surements of channel depth, width, and flow velocity
to yield the average discharge in the stream crossing
for a given water level. Measurements can be made
from a bridge, by wading in a stream, by boat or from
a cableway strung across the river. In winter, the
measurements are made through the ice.
660 WATER CONSERVATION—EVERY DROP COUNTS IN CANADA
• With sufficient measurements of flow over a variety
of water levels (including extreme lows and highs),
a water level-discharge relationship is established
at each location. The discharge rate can then be
computed from measured water levels.
• Historical records from 5,000 active and discontin-
ued sites permit the estimation of streamflow at
ungauged locations.
Creating a Balance—Naturally
The importance of lakes lies in their ability to store water
during times of plenty and release it gradually. Thus lakes
perform an extremely valuable task in balancing the flow
of the rivers on which they are located. For example,
the Saskatchewan River, with few lakes, has a maximum
recorded flow of 59 times its minimum flow. On the other
hand, the St. Lawrence River, which drains the Great
Lakes, has a maximum flow of only twice its minimum
flow. The difference in flow patterns in these two rivers is
partly due to precipitation differences, but results mainly
from the vast storage provided by the Great Lakes for
the St. Lawrence River compared with the negligible lake
storage on the Saskatchewan River.
Creating a Balance—Artificially
Since ancient times, people have built dams to control the
outflow from existing lakes or to create new lakes. Dams
and their reservoirs have provided:
• A stable source of inexpensive energy
• A more dependable water supply throughout the year
• Flood control downstream
• Recreation
THE UNDERGROUND RESERVOIR
Beneath the surface of the earth is a huge reservoir of fresh
water. Groundwater does not rest; it moves continuously,
but at a snail’s pace, from its point of entry to areas
of natural discharge. Groundwater moves so slowly that
its speed is measured in meters per day, and even per
year. (Surface water velocities are described in meters per
second.) Wells intercept some groundwater but most of
it continues until it reappears naturally in a spring or a
seepage area and joins a watercourse.
Groundwater contributes to Canada’s water supply by:
• Feeding streams, producing the entire flow of some
streams during dry periods
• Replenishing wells—a valuable source of supply
for individuals, communities, industries, and irri-
gated farms
• Supporting important ecological systems such
as wetlands
• Moderating the adverse impacts of acid rain on
surface water systems
Additional information on groundwater can be found
in: Freshwater Series No. A-5, Groundwater—Nature’s
Hidden Treasure.
NATURE’S FROZEN RIVERS
A huge quantity of fresh water is frozen in polar ice caps
and in high mountain glaciers. Snow that is packed down
over many years at high elevations becomes glacial ice,
which slowly proceeds downslope like a frozen river, under
the pull of gravity, and eventually melts to become part
of streamflow at lower elevations. If the rate of melting is
greater than the rate of accumulation, the glacier recedes;
if it is less, the glacier advances.
Glaciers exert a direct influence on the hydrologic cycle
by slowing the passage of water through the cycle. Like
lakes and groundwater reservoirs, glaciers are excellent
natural storehouses, releasing water when it is needed
most. Glaciers, however, can release water when you need
it least. Glacier-outburst floods, called jökulhlaups, can be
devastating. Glacier-fed rivers reach their peak during hot
summer weather.
SNOWFALL
Much of Canada’s annual precipitation comes as snow: in
the North, 50%; in the Prairies, 25%; and on both coasts
and in southern Ontario, as little as 5%. Snow exerts a
marked effect on the distribution of streamflow throughout
the year. Instead of immediately infiltrating the soil or
running off into stream channels as rainfall does, this
water is first stored in the snowpack for several months.
The relatively quick melting of snow in spring causes
peak flows, sometimes resulting in floods. Some of the
worst and most unpredictable flooding occurs when ice
that has not yet melted is carried along in the swollen
rivers until it jams, blocking the flow of water and creating
a lake behind the jam with attendant flooding. When the
ice jam breaks, a tremendous amount of water is suddenly
released downstream, and more flooding may result.
FRESHWATER SERIES A-2
Note: A resource guide, entitled Let’s Not Take Water For
Granted, is available to help classroom teachers of grades
5–7 use the information from the Water Fact Sheets.
WATER CONSERVATION—EVERY DROP
COUNTS IN CANADA
Environment Canada
The importance of protecting our water resource cannot
be overstated. In economic terms, the measurable
contribution of water to the Canadian economy is difficult
to estimate. In environmental terms, water is the lifeblood
of the planet. Without a steady supply of clean, fresh
water, all life, including human, would cease to exist.
This article is produced by Environment Canada and is
reproduced with permission.
 WATER CONSERVATION—EVERY DROP COUNTS IN CANADA
The perception that Canada is blessed with an
abundance of fresh water has led to misuse and abuse
of the resource: from household toilets that use 18
liters per flush where 6 liters would do, to industrial
plants—and some municipalities—that use water bodies
as convenient sewers.
In 1999, the average Canadian daily domestic use of
fresh water per capita was 343 liters. The quantity, quality
and economic problems we face as a result of our use of
water are complex but, at least one of the causes of these
problems is easy to manage—the way we waste water.
And, the solution is straight forward—water conservation.
Simply stated, water conservation means doing the same
with less, by using water more efficiently or reducing
where appropriate, in order to protect the resource now,
and for the future. Using water wisely will reduce pollution
and health risks, lower water costs, and extend the useful
life of existing supply and waste treatment facilities.
And it’s easy. With little change to the way we do
things now, or the equipment we use, we can reduce water
consumption in the home, and in business, by 40% or
more. These pages outline the role of water conservation
in addressing problems related to water use and water
quality. It also shows us what part we can play as
residential consumers in finding solutions.
SUSTAINING OUR WATER SUPPLY
Water is considered a renewable resource: ‘‘renewable’’
referring to that portion which circulates back and
forth in the hydrological cycle (described more fully
in Freshwater Series A-1, Water—Nature’s Magician).
However, pressures on the resource are growing. For
example, between 1972 and 1996, Canada’s rate of water
withdrawals increased by almost 90%, from 24 billion
m3 /yr (cubic meters per year) to 45 billion m3 /yr. But, our
population increased by only 33.6% over the same period,
661
illustrating the growth in our thirsty lifestyles. As the
readily available supplies of fresh water are being used
up, we begin to see that there are real limits to how much
water we can count on.
LIMITING FACTORS
• Although Canada has a significant amount of fresh
water, we possess only 7% of the world’s renewable
freshwater supply.
• In Canada, 84% of the population lives in a narrow
southern band, while 60% of our water supply flows
north to the Arctic Circle.
• Our growing population, and our growing thirst
for water, are being concentrated in expanding
metropolitan areas, and are forcing water regulators
and policy makers to find ways to stretch available
supplies even further.
• Increasing pollution of surface and groundwater is
further reducing the supplies of readily available,
clean water.
• Because our water use almost always leads to some
degree of deterioration in water quality, the less
water we withdraw, the less we upset the natural
balance of our aquatic ecosystems. And, the less we
upset the ecosystem, the less we have to spend to
restore the water quality to an acceptable standard
for public use.
• Finally, financing by municipal governments for
the treatment of water supplies and wastewater is
becoming increasingly constrained.
We can, however, make a significant contribution to
solving these problems by reducing unnecessary levels of
water use. To do so requires that we identify the areas
within our homes, businesses, buildings and processes
where we waste water and then make appropriate
changes, either in our fixtures, or in our water-
using habits.
HOW WATER IS USED
We use water in many ways, and assign different values
to those uses. Instream uses (e.g., for transportation and
recreation) are valued highly, but it has proven difficult to
give them a dollar value that has any real meaning. For
example, just what would the average consumer be willing
to pay to swim in a clean lake or for a chance to catch fish
in a clean, unpolluted river?
By far the greater number and variety of water uses
occur on land. These are called withdrawal uses and,
although important to our daily lives, they have tended to
be assigned a low value. Water is withdrawn, used and
then discharged. Most withdrawal uses ‘‘consume’’ some of
the water, which means less is returned to the source than
was taken out. And, after it has been used, the quality of
the water that is returned is often diminished, which has a
negative impact on both the environment and recreational
instream uses.
662 WATER CONSERVATION—EVERY DROP COUNTS IN CANADA

In 1996, five main withdrawal uses accounted for a total • distribution system pressure reduction
annual water intake (extractive uses) of 44.6 billion m3 . • water saving devices (efficient fixtures, appliances
These uses are described more fully in Freshwater Series and retrofits)
A-4, Water Works!.
• drought resistant landscaping (xeriscaping)
Thermal power generation includes both conventional
and nuclear power generating plants, which withdrew • efficient sprinkling/irrigation technology
slightly more than 64% of the total water intake in 1996. • new process technologies
Manufacturing accounted for 14% of water withdrawals • plant improvements
in 1996. Paper and allied products, primary metals and
chemicals were the main industrial users. Operational
Agriculture accounted for nearly 9% of total with-
drawals, with the semi-arid Prairie region of Canada • leak detection and repair
accounting for 75% of this total. Agriculture consumes • water use restrictions
a large portion of what it uses, returning less than 30% • elimination of combined sanitary/storm sewers to
to its source where it can be used again. Irrigation is the reduce loadings on sewage treatment plants
largest agricultural consumer of water. • plant improvements
Municipal use accounted for 10% of all water
withdrawals in 1996, or 12% when similar rural uses Economic
were included (excludes industrial uses and large-scale
agriculture). In the municipal sector, more than half of the • rate structures
water demand is a result of residential use.
• pricing policies
Mining use, including metal mining, non-metal mining,
and the extraction of coal, accounted for 1% of all water • incentives through rebates and tax credits
withdrawals in 1996. Water is used by the mining industry • other sanctions (fines)
to separate ore from rock, to cool drills, to wash the ore
during production, and to carry away unwanted material. Socio-political

• public education
• information transfer and training
Solutions—the Municipal Challenge • regulatory (legislation, codes, standards and by-
laws)
Municipal governments across Canada are beginning to
take action to manage the demand for water, instead of
seeking new sources of supply. Demand management, SUSTAINING OUR INFRASTRUCTURE
incorporating water efficient applications, is rapidly
gaining popularity as a low cost, effective way to get While many communities have access to an abundant
more service out of existing systems, thus delaying or water supply, the costs of the infrastructure that provides
deferring the need for constructing new works. The homes and industry with water and sewer services are
benefits of water efficient techniques apply equally well straining the available municipal financial resources.
to rural, private wells and septic disposal systems, as By infrastructure, we mean the water treatment plants
they do to central water and sewer systems in the city. that purify our water, the water mains in the ground
The wide range of water efficiency initiatives that transport water, and the towers and reservoirs that
currently being undertaken, can be grouped under four store water. The term includes the sewer pipes that carry
principal categories: away wastewater and the sewage treatment plants that
treat wastewater before returning it to the environment
1. Structural, where it often becomes the source of water for communities
2. Operational, downstream.
3. Economic, and Experts are predicting a growing problem involving
municipal water and sewer infrastructure in Canada. In
4. Socio-political.
1991, the value of this investment was estimated to be
worth over 90 billion dollars, of which a significant amount
Most of these water conservation activities fall
is deteriorating with age.
within the jurisdiction of municipal governments and/or
An increasing number of Canadian municipalities are
public utilities.
considering water conservation as the key to keeping
expansion needs to a minimum. Water conservation also
Structural
optimizes plant efficiency, while assisting municipalities
in financing the replacement of infrastructure that may
• metering
be over 50 years old in some communities and up to 100
• water recycling systems years old in several others.
• wastewater re-use Communities with older systems in need of extensive
• flow control devices repairs or replacement face the most difficult problems.
 WATER CONSERVATION—EVERY DROP COUNTS IN CANADA
With all levels of government adopting policies of realistic
water pricing and user pay principles, many municipalities
have instituted full cost pricing to recover the total cost
of providing both water and sewer services—including
the costs of financing the replacement of older systems
and the upgrading of overloaded treatment plants.
Higher municipal costs, in turn, mean higher water—and
sewer—bills.
The problem of stressed treatment systems is not
restricted to communities with piped water and sewer
systems. Over the past 25 years, there has been a
substantial migration of urban dwellers to the countryside.
City-bred water using habits and attitudes are, in many
instances, lowering the water table. And, the flood of
wastewater produced is stressing the soil’s ability to treat
septic effluent adequately.
For both urban and rural communities, water conserva-
tion can extend the life of this over-stressed infrastructure.
Metering
Tied to price increases, metered households generally
show reductions in water use, with the greatest savings
occurring during the summer months, when water
use is usually much higher due to frequency of lawn
watering, car washing and other outdoor uses. In 1999,
water use was 70% higher when consumers faced flat
rates rather than volume-based rates. And yet, only
about 56% of Canada’s urban population was metered
in 1999.
Metering of industry has been common for some
time. What’s new is the metering of the return flow
to the sewer system, particularly as it relates to the
industrial sector. Case studies show that including
sewage treatment in rate calculations generates
greater water savings. An increasing number of
municipalities are applying sewer surcharges to
residential water bills.
Water Efficient Residential Technology
More than half of municipal water is used by the resi-
dential sector. As a consequence, the residential sector
represents a logical target for demand management
activities. Depending on the nature of the water effi-
ciency program developed, each household can reduce
water use by 40% or more.
Leak Detection and Repair
Up to 30% of the total water entering supply-line
systems is lost to leaking pipes. In most cases, if
unaccounted for water in a municipal system exceeds
10 to 15%, a leak detection and repair program is cost-
effective. For example, studies have shown that for
every $1.00 spent in communities with leak detection
programs, up to $3.00 can be saved.
Rates, Pricing and Public Education
About 55% of Canadians served municipal water pay in
ways that do not promote conservation. A 2001 study
663
of rate structures by Environment Canada showed that
in 1999, 43% of the population was under a flat rate
structure (where the charge or assessment is fixed,
regardless of the amount of water used). Another 12%
were under a declining block rate structure (where the
consumer’s bill rises at a slower rate as higher volumes
of water are used); i.e., the more you use, the less you
pay per unit.
Only about 45% of the population served was found
to be under a rate structure that provided a definite
incentive to conserve water: 36% were under a constant
rate structure (where the bill to the consumer climbs
uniformly with the volume used); and 9% were under
an increasing block rate structure (where a successively
higher price is changed as larger volumes of water
are used).
Introducing conservation-oriented pricing or raising
the price has reduced water use in some jurisdictions,
but it must be accompanied by a well articulated public
education program that informs the consumer what
to expect.
SUSTAINING OUR WATER QUALITY
In addition to water supply and infrastructure issues,
water quality is a problem in many Canadian communi-
ties. Generally speaking, the decline in water quality is
a function of the way we use water. Even something as
simple as rinsing dishes in the kitchen creates wastewa-
ter that is contaminated to some degree. Once this water
enters the sewer system, it must be treated in a sewage
treatment plant. These facilities are never 100% effec-
tive, which means that some water quality deterioration
remains after the treatment process.
Specific causes of impaired water quality are numerous,
including: agricultural runoff containing the residues
of fertilizers, pesticides and other chemicals, industrial
pollution, either directly from the facility, or indirectly
from the leaching of chemicals from landfills, or pollution
from average households in the form of improperly treated
municipal sewage (refer to Freshwater Series A-3, Clean
Water—Life Depends on It). Nearly 75% of Canadians
are serviced by municipal sewer systems. In 1999, 97%
of the Canadian population on sewers received some
form of wastewater treatment. The remaining 3% of
Canadians served by sewage collection systems were not
connected to wastewater treatment facilities in 1999 and
discharged their untreated sewage directly into receiving
water bodies.
For the roughly 25% of the Canadian population served
by private wells and septic disposal systems, the news is
not much better. These systems were originally designed
for houses that were widely separated from their nearest
neighbor, such as farmhouses and the occasional rural
residence. Yet, today, in many parts of the country,
individual private wells are being installed in subdivisions
at suburban densities. The primary danger here is that
too many wells may pump too much water for the aquifer
to sustain itself.
Septic treatment systems associated with these devel-
opments can stress the environment in a number of other
664 WATER CONSERVATION—EVERY DROP COUNTS IN CANADA
ways. They are often allowed in less than satisfactory
soil conditions and are seldom maintained properly. They
are also unable to treat many household cleaners and
chemicals which, when flushed down the drain or toilet,
often impair or kill the bacterium needed to make the
system work (The same applies in urban systems). The
end results are improper treatment of wastewater—if not
outright failure of the system—and the contamination of
adjacent wells with septic effluent containing bacterium,
nitrates and other pollutants.
Once these contaminants are in the groundwater, they
eventually reach rivers and lakes. In other words, once
we have a pollution problem, we may be only a step away
from a water supply problem.
Solutions—in the City and in the Countryside
The irony in all of this is that water quality impacts
from overloaded or poorly maintained and operated
municipal and private sewage disposal systems are the
number one preventable type of pollution in Canada.
The answer lies in better, more thorough treatment.
And, one of the ways to enhance the treatment process
is to limit the amounts of wastewater entering the
wastewater stream. Again, water conservation is one of
the easiest and cheapest ways to reduce the volume of
wastewater flows and improve water quality.
Following a few common sense rules, it should be
possible to safeguard your water supply while extending
the life of your sewage disposal system, regardless of
whether you live in the country or in the city.
Think carefully about the quantities of wastewater
your household or business produces, as well as the
quality of the wastewater. Do you make it a habit
of discarding solvents, cleaners and related chemicals
down your drains? If you do, you may be introducing
substances that are toxic to the bacterium and other
organisms that play a vital role in the treatment of
sewage. This statement applies equally well to urban
and rural households and businesses.
INDIVIDUAL ACTION—CONSERVING WATER IN THE
HOME, COMMUNITY AND AT WORK
As we have seen, water quality and quantity are two
sides of the same coin. How does saving water help water
quality? Because water saved is water that does not end
up in the wastewater stream requiring treatment. This,
in turn, reduces municipal pumping and treatment costs
and frees up monies that can be used for infrastructure
renewal and replacement and protection of supply sources.
Less wastewater in the sewage treatment plant also means
that the plant has a better chance of doing the job it was
intended to do.
So where do we start? The first step is to identify where
we use water in the home. Then we need to decide on
what to do to reduce the amount of water we use, either by
eliminating wasteful practices and habits, or by improving
the efficiency of our water using fixtures and devices. Since
we waste so much, this should be a relatively easy and
painless process. The prime area to target is the bathroom,
where nearly 65% of all indoor water use occurs.
What follows are some suggestions for how to get your
house or business in order. Based on the three rules of
water conservation—reduce, repair and retrofit—a typical
household can reduce water consumption by 40% or more,
with or no effect on lifestyle.
REDUCE
Much of the water ‘‘consumed’’ in our daily activities is
simply wasted. Taps are left running while we brush our
teeth. Dishwashers and laundry machines are operated
without full loads. Really, everywhere we use water there
is room for improvement. Here are just a few examples for
both indoor and outdoor water use.
• Don’t use the toilet as a wastebasket or flush it
unnecessarily.
• A quick shower uses less hot water than a full tub
(and saves energy too).
• Keep a bottle of drinking water in the refrigerator
rather than letting your tap run to get cold water
when you want a drink. (Rinse the bottle every
few days.)
• More than 50% of the water applied to lawns and
gardens is lost due to evaporation, or run-off because
of overwatering. Find out how much water your lawn
really needs. As a general rule, most lawns and
gardens require little more than 2 to 3 cm (1 inch) of
water per week.
• To reduce loses due to evaporation, water early in the
morning (after the dew has dried).
• When washing a car, fill a bucket with water and use
a sponge. This can save about 300 liters of water.
REPAIR
Leaks can be costly. A leak of only one drop per second
wastes about 10,000 liters of water per year. Most leaks
are easy to find and to fix, at very little cost.
• Leaking faucets are often caused by a worn out
washer that costs pennies to replace. Most hardware
stores will have faucet repair kits with illustrations
showing how to replace a washer.
• A toilet that continues to run after flushing, if the
leak is large enough, can waste up to 200,000 liters
of water in a single year! To find out if your toilet is
leaking, put two or three drops of food coloring in the
tank at the back of the toilet. Wait a few minutes. If
the colour shows up in the bowl, there’s a leak.
• Toilet leaks are often due to a flush valve or
flapper valve that isn’t sitting properly in the valve
seat, bent or misaligned flush valve lift wires, or a
corroded valve seat. All of these can be fixed easily
and inexpensively. To get at the valve seat, which
surrounds the outlet hole at the bottom of the tank,
 WATER CONSERVATION—EVERY DROP COUNTS IN CANADA
you must first empty the tank. This is accomplished
by turning off the inlet tap under the tank and
flushing the toilet, making sure to keep depressing
the flush lever until no more water drains out of the
tank. Then, holding the valve out of the way, sand the
corroded or warped valve seat smooth with a piece
of emery cloth, if, however, the leak is around the
base of the toilet where it sits on the floor, call a
professional.
RETROFIT
Retrofit means adapting or replacing an older water-
using fixture or appliance with one of the many water-
efficient devices now on the market. While these solutions
cost more, they also save the most water and money.
Retrofitting offers considerable water saving potential in
the home and business, so this issue in the Freshwater
Series is devoting considerable space to it.
Toilet Retrofits
When it comes to retrofitting, the prime fixture to target
is the toilet. You can: (i) adapt your existing toilet in a
number of ways, by installing certain water-saving devices
inside the tank at the back of the toilet; or, (ii) if the toilet
is more than fifteen years old—which means it probably
uses about 18 or more liters of water per flush—you
can replace it with one of the growing number of ultra-
low-volume (ULV) toilets, that can be ordered from most
plumbing outlets, and use only 6 liters or less per flush.
There are many toilet adaptations you can install in
the tank of an existing toilet to reduce the amount of
water used in a flush cycle. These devices fall into three
generic categories:
• water retention devices;
• water displacement devices; and,
• alternate flushing devices.
The most common water retention device available is
the toilet dam. A set will save about 5 liters per flush
when installed properly. Their main attraction is their
low cost (under $10.00 per set) and the fact that they are
easy to distribute and install for example, as part of a
wider municipally-sponsored retrofit program. Their main
disadvantage is that they tend to leak over time by slipping
out of adjustment and can slip free and interfere with
the moving parts inside the toilet tank, if not routinely
checked.
Toilet dam and displacement bag:
The water displacement devices familiar to most people
are the plastic bags or bottles filled with water which are
suspended inside the toilet tank. As the name implies,
these devices displace several liters of water, saving an
equivalent amount during each flush. Like the toilet dam,
most displacement devices are inexpensive and easy to
install. Their chief disadvantage is that they don’t save as
much water as other devices and, if they are not installed
carefully, they can interfere with the proper operation of
the toilet.
665
One displacement device to stay away from is the
brick! It can disintegrate inside the toilet tank, leading
to excessive leakage at the flapper valve and may even be
heavy enough to actually crack the tank.
There are essentially two types of alternative flush
devices: early-closure and dual-flush. They are usually
attached to the overflow tube inside the toilet tank. In
both cases, they close the flush valve or flapper after the
tank is only partially emptied. In theory, this interruption
in the flush cycle occurs after the bowl has been cleared.
In the case of the dual-flush mechanism, the amount of
water saved is dependent upon how long the flush lever
is activated—a partial flush for light duty or full flush or
heavy duty.
While all of the above toilet adaptations appear to work
as intended when first installed, their performance may
vary considerably, depending on the toilet design. The
best advice is to monitor the performance of the devices
periodically. If you discover that it becomes necessary to
double flush the toilet, something is in need of adjustment
or replacement. Remember that double flushing defeats
the purpose of your water conservation efforts and is
costing you money.
If you decide that it is time for a toilet replacement
in your home or business, you are well on your way to
significant water savings that you can bank on over the
life of the toilet. Replacing a 18 liter per flush toilet with
an ultra-low-volume (ULV) 6 liter flush model represents
a 70% savings in water flushed and will cut indoor water
use by about 30%. Keep in mind that 18 liters per flush,
assuming 4.5 flushes per person per day, translates into
nearly 30,000 liters of clean, fresh water per year just to
get rid of 650 liters of body waste. A 6 liter flush toilet
only uses about 10,000 liters to do the same task. Low
flush toilets are available for less than $150.00 at most
plumbing and supply stores.
Remember, the ULV toilet not only uses less water, it
produces less wastewater. If your municipality applies a
sewer surcharge on your water bill, the investment in the
better toilet could translate into a 50% reduction in your
combined water/sewer bill. If you are on a private well and
septic system, you are significantly reducing the loading
on your tile field while extending its useful life. To a lesser
degree, the same applies to the other water-saving devices
described here.
Showerheads and Faucets
After the toilet, the shower and bath consume the most
water inside the home. Conventional showerheads have
flow rates up to 15 to 20 liters per minute. A properly
designed low-flow showerhead can reduce that flow by
half and still provide proper shower performance. Low-
flow showerheads can be purchased in most plumbing
supply outlets.
Depending on your preference for finish and appear-
ance, you can select a serviceable low-flow showerhead
starting at around ten dollars. Consider one with a shut-
off button. The advantage of the shut-off button is that
it allows you to be really water efficient if you so choose,
by being able to interrupt the flow, while you lather up
666 WATER CONSERVATION—EVERY DROP COUNTS IN CANADA
or shampoo, and then resume at the same flow rate and
temperature.
Beware of the type of showerheads that produce such a
fine mist that the water is quite cool by the time it reaches
your feet. And, stay away from so-called flow restrictors
that are inserted inside your existing showerhead. They
look like a small plastic washer and can produce a fierce,
stinging spray pattern which may significantly reduce the
enjoyment of taking a shower.
Conventional faucets have an average flow rate of 13.5
liters of water per minute. Install low flow aerators to
reduce this flow. In the bathroom, a flow rate of 2 liters
per minute should do the trick, and in the kitchen a
flow rate of 6 to 9 liters per minute is sufficient. Don’t
bother retrofitting the tap in the utility sink; it is intended
to provide large volumes of water quickly, for example,
for cleaning or washing, such that low flows will only
inconvenience the user.
Outdoors
During the growing season water use can increase by as
much as 50%. While lawns require a lot of water, much
of this water is wasted—lost due to overwatering and
evaporation (see Reduce).
Watering equipment also plays a part in how much
water is saved and lost. Ideally, sprinklers should be
suited to the size and shape of the lawn. That way, you
avoid watering driveways and sidewalks. Installing timers
on outdoor taps can be a wise investment.
Sprinklers that lay water down in a flat pattern are
better than oscillating sprinklers which lose as much
as 50% of what they disperse through evaporation.
Drip irrigation systems which apply water only to
the roots zone are the most efficient—and the most
expensive—alternative.
The water you use to water your lawn doesn’t have to
come out of a tap. A cistern, which captures and stores
rainwater, can be used as a source of irrigation water. A
rain barrel can adequately fulfil this function.
Finally, consider a low-maintenance landscape—one
which requires little more water than nature provides.
Often called xeriscaping, the principles of a low-
maintenance landscape are as follows:
• a reduced amount of lawn;
• proper plan selection making use of native grasses,
shrubs and trees;
• mulching to reduce evaporative losses around shrubs
and trees;
• the use of rain barrels and roof drainage;
• improvements to soils;
• a proper irrigation system; and
• planned maintenance.
The most significant savings of course, come from a
reduction in lawn area and switching from exotic plant
forms to native species which require less water. In
general, lawn areas should not exceed what is useful
for play and social activities, and should be limited to
the backyard where the family spends the majority of
its time.
Solutions—At Work and in the Community
Many of the suggestions made for reducing water use in
the home have wider application, both in the workplace,
and in the community at large. Low-flow equipment are
available for most commercial and toilet applications,
instituting them may mean taking a leading role
yourself, for example, forming and leading a committee
that would address the following questions:
• do your workplace bathrooms, kitchens, etc. have
water-efficient toilets, faucets, etc. similar to those
discussed for the household?
• if your workplace uses water in its production
process or for washing goods or equipment, is this
being done efficiently?
• does your community have a water-efficiency
assistance program that helps households and
business improve their water-use efficiency?
• is the water distribution system properly main-
tained so that no pollution leaks into it and so that
no water is wasted through leaky mains?
THE BOTTOM LINE
Water conservation. The message is clear. If we each save
a little, it can add up to major savings in water, energy and
money. For the average household, reductions in water use
as high as 40% or more are feasible, just by following the
steps outlined in this issue in the Freshwater Series.
The benefits don’t stop at the household or business.
The municipal water and sewer department gets a
break on the amount of water it has to pump to our
homes and businesses and on the amount of wastewater
it has to treat in sewage treatment plants. Water
conservation can extend the useful life of municipal
water supply and treatment plants, and will benefit
the operating efficiency—and life expectancy—of private
septic disposal systems.
And, finally, water conservation can generate signifi-
cant environmental benefits. It can reduce water diverted
and the pollution loadings on our lakes and rivers by
reducing the volumes of wastewater which we have to
treat. This can help to protect our drinking water and the
ecological balance in sensitive aquatic ecosystems.
If we all practice water conservation, everyone—and
everything—benefits.
FRESHWATER SERIES A-6
Note: A resource guide, entitled Let’s Not Take Water For
Granted, is available to help classroom teachers of grades
5–7 use the information from the Water Fact Sheets.
 ECOREGIONS: A SPATIAL FRAMEWORK FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ECOREGIONS: A SPATIAL FRAMEWORK FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
MD. SALEQUZZAMAN
Khulna University
Khulna, Bangladesh
DEFINITION
An ecoregion may be defined as a scale for planning and
analysis in the hierarchy of the earth’s ecosystem. It has
broad applicability for modeling and sampling, strategic
planning and assessment, and international planning of
domain, division, and provincial ecological units.
Ecoregionization is a process of delineating and
classifying ecologically distinctive areas of ecological land.
Each area can be viewed as a discrete system that has
resulted from the mesh and interplay of the geologic,
landform, soil, vegetative, climatic, wildlife, water, and
human factors where ecological functions and processes
are continuing. The dominance of any one or more of
these factors varies with the given ecological land unit.
This holistic approach to land classification can be applied
incrementally on a scale-related basis from site-specific
ecosystems to very broad ecosystems (1). Ecological
processes, evolutionary mechanisms, and geological forces
are continually reshaping landscapes across various scales
of time and space and result in distinctive but dynamic
ecoregions. All of the world’s food and most medicines
and raw materials are derived from these processes
and associated biodiversity. Thus ecoregions gain their
identity through spatial differences in a combination
of landscape characteristics. Several factors such as
topography, hydrology, and nutrients are important to
identify these characteristics that may vary from one place
to another in an ecoregion.
OBJECTIVE OF ECOREGIONIZATION
The main objective of using the ecoregion as a spatial
framework for environmental management is to maximize
ecoefficiency by minimizing resource-use conflicts and har-
monizing sociocultural needs in the ecoregion. Ecoregions
are also used to isolate areas for the interpretation of envi-
ronmental quality (2). Countries such as Canada and the
United States are now using the ecoregion as the coarsest
scale for evaluating representative areas (3). This process
needs lots of information. The baseline information on
ecosystem properties and changing conditions of ecosys-
tems in any specific ecoregion may be collected through
a series of monitoring, which affects the management
practices in that ecoregion. Knowledge of the ecoregion
facilitates; the allocation or linking of sites to a standard
ecological hierarchy minimizes the sampling variance and
increases the ability to extrapolate results for areas with
similar properties.
IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY OF AN ECOREGION
Ecological integrity, natural capital, and biodiversity
are three ecological requirements for environmental
667
management in any ecosystem (4). These three factors
should be present as a prerequisite for a healthy ecoregion
because an ecoregion itself is a big ecosystem. Among these
factors, biodiversity has global importance and combines
wildlife value with a rich cultural heritage. Thus each
ecoregion has an immense natural value with a colorful
and rich cultural heritage bound up with the unique
natural heritage of age-old cultural traditions. As each
ecoregion is ecologically distinct and strikingly beautiful,
an ecoregion attracts the ecotourism that has a great
potential to improve the local economy as well as develop
a global network for ecobusiness and globalization.
SOME IMPORTANT ISSUES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT IN THE ECOREGIONS AROUND THE
WORLD
Ensure a Balanced Ecosystem
Every organism, including animals and plants, no matter
how small they are, plays a vital role in keeping the
systems of the earth as healthy and functioning ecoregions.
Removing any species from the complex web of life
disturbs the balance of the entire system, resulting in
the impoverished life zones left today. Scientific studies
have made it clear that a balanced ecosystem is teeming
with abundant life in quality and quantity, such as
a wetland ecosystem or the ocean. Historical evidence
clearly suggests that once the oceans were filled with
whales, sea turtles, fish, and other forms of life that
seem more identical to a scientific fantasy than reality.
Many of them are now extinct. The reality is that the
actual populations were exponentially greater than they
are today (before human predation began). Once humans
began hunting, their appetites were insatiable, and a
pattern of imbalance started that may culminate in the
complete collapse of some ecosystems of the ecoregion.
Thus one of the important aspects of ecoregionization is to
keep the ecosystem balance in any ecoregion.
Ensure the Protection of the Natural Heritage and the
Environment
The natural heritage and its environment are the identity
of any ecoregion, which are also the natural wealth that
sustained human communities in comfort and plenty for
millennia, such as the rain forest in many countries of
the world, for example, Alaska. Recently, the Alaskan
rain forest is being destroyed in such a way that the
region faces a graver, more permanent threat: the same
razed-earth logging that has already devastated the Pacific
Northwest. Rain forest logging is perfectly in step with
the boom-and-bust rhythm of the Alaskan economy due
to poorly planned development spread out over wildlands,
slashing of shorelines for beach homes and resorts, limiting
public access, and destroying fragile barrier beaches and
wetlands. Besides this destruction, it is also destroying a
lot of wildlife habitats as well.
Ensure the Protection of the Ethnic Community of the World
Each ecoregion has a special characteristic of the specific
group of ethnic community people. They preserve a
668 FLOOD OF PORTALS ON WATER
sustainable livelihood from generation to generation. Now,
this sustainability livelihood is challenged for survival.
The ethnic community people attempt overexploitation of
natural resources such as fish, oil, gas, forest products,
and minerals to satisfy their mounting needs induced by
globalization and modernization. Recently, some nations
have agreed to monitor environmental damage in their
ecoregion, establish an emergency response program,
protect the sensitive environment, and conserve endemic
flora and fauna. However, huge chunks of the ecoregion
still lack essential wilderness protections. Oil and gas
development threatens the coastal plain and millions of
acres at the heart of biological refuges. Recently, a large
portion of coral bleaching (hot spot) in coral reefs was
discovered throughout the world (5). Coral bleaching is
the loss of color from the living coral animal and can cause
their death. The color of coral comes from microalgae living
in the coral’s tissue; when the water surrounding the coral
becomes too warm, corals become stressed and expel the
microalgae. These microalgae also provide the coral with
food, and as the algae fade away, corals starve to death.
Therefore, environmental management and conserva-
tion should be adopted first to quickly protect the ecore-
gion, including its organisms, people, and its total effective
surroundings from misuse or damage by human activities;
second, to ensure that life support systems and renewable
resources are used in an ecologically sustainable manner
while supplying the conditions for a satisfactory human
existence. Community-based projects will demonstrate the
benefits for local people and the environment combining
sustainable development and conservation and building
up coordination among various activities in the ecoregion.
In addition, ecologically sustainable management should
be adopted in every ecoregion that will be used to assess
the ecological sustainability of the biological resources in
the ecoregion.
Environmental justice often plays itself out as a
disparity between the rich and the poor, between the
‘‘haves’’ and the ‘‘have-nots.’’ Just as environmental justice
speaks to issues of poor people and people of color who
are disproportionately subject to environmental pollution
and public health risks, it also should speak of issues
where poor people and people of color do not equally derive
opportunities to obtain benefits and values associated with
environmental resources.
CONCLUSION
Sustaining ecological processes, the landscape function,
and the biological diversity of any ecoregion are important
globally, nationally, and locally. Pressure to accommo-
date a rapidly increasing human population together
with increased provision of goods and services has been
growing for decades. This has impacted each ecoregion
in its sociocultural, economic, and environmental char-
acteristics. Therefore, a multiple scale, transdisciplinary
integrated approach, and strategic framework for sus-
tainable environmental planning and management of an
ecoregion are needed. In addition, pressure to take action
to halt land degradation, breakdown in production sys-
tems, decreasing water quality, loss of biodiversity, and
global climate change is also needed for any government
to improve the way it conserves, protects, and manages
ecological processes, habitats, and species in the ecoregion.
Furthermore, it must integrate planning and management
across multiple scales, nesting the functional require-
ments of ecological systems and social systems to uphold
and restore resilience in the ecological and social systems
of the ecoregion for long-term sustainability.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Wiken, E.B. (1986). Terrestrial ecozones of Canada. Ecological
Land Classification Series No. 19. Environment Canada, p. 26.
2. Jarvis, I.E., MacDonald, K.B., and Betz, T. (1995). Develop-
ment and application of a Canadian ecological framework.
In: Proc. GIS 95, 9th Ann. Symp. Geogr. Inf. Syst., Van-
couver, British Columbia. GIS World Inc., Ft. Collins, CO,
pp. 605–612.
3. Gauthier, D. (1992). Framework for developing a nationwide
system of ecological areas: Part 1-A Strategy. Occasional Paper
No. 12, Canadian Council on Ecological Areas. Secretariat,
Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, p. 47.
4. Brunckhorst, D.J. (2000). Bioregional Planning: Resource
Management- Beyond the New Millennium. Harwood Aca-
demic, Australia, p. 5.
5. Greg, R. (2002) Coral Threat Renews Push on Protocol,
Wednesday 9 January 2002, http://www.theage.com.au/news/
national/2002/01/09/FFX715DK6WC.html (access on 12 Sep-
tember 2002).
FLOOD OF PORTALS ON WATER
DICK DE JONG
IRC International Water and
Sanitation Centre
Delft, The Netherlands
MARTA BRYCE
CEPIS/PAHO
Delft, The Netherlands
INTRODUCTION
The Internet has been inundated with new gateways
and portals on water over the last couple of years,
as witnessed by information specialists at the IRC
International Water and Sanitation Centre. The New on
the Net section in Source Water and Sanitation News
(http://www.irc.nl/source/section.php/12) carries 54 news
items since July 2002, of which seven refer to ‘‘gateway’’ or
portal. Unfortunately, many of them only serve to confuse
instead of help people who search the web for water-related
information. Part of the problem resides in defining what
constitutes a ‘‘portal’’ and what doesn’t. Another issue is
that most portals do not seem to have a clear notion of
their intended visitors—and their motives for visiting. As
a result, the portals lack much-needed focus.
Here, we give some recent examples, try to create more
clarity by providing definitions and types, discuss key
lessons learned, and raise key issues for further discussion
and research. This is based on various Internet searches

and an annotated selection of various gateways/portals by
IRC staff.
Here are five examples of sites, none of which have all
the functionality of a portal yet.
1. The closest example of a portal is the BBC Water
Portal—The Water Debate (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/
hi/in depth/world/2003/world forum/water/default.
stm) that was launched early June 2003. This is
not only an impressive interactive site for the gen-
eral public with video, audio, expert views, fact files,
and water stories; it also provides fun options such
as online opinion polls and a water quiz. However, it
does not contain an option for online collaboration.
2. The IRC International Water and Sanitation
Centre (established in 1968) family of websites
(http://www.irc.nl) provides news and information
(including advocacy/communication, publications,
and bibliographic database) on low cost water supply
and sanitation in developing countries. It has a num-
ber of topic sites. It also provides a starting point for
the Source Water and Sanitation News service and
the InterWATER guide to more than 650 organiza-
tions, in collaboration with the Water Supply and
Sanitation Collaborative Council. The search engine
(Atomz) provides access to all these related sites.
The IRC DOC online database contains 15,000 bibli-
ographical entries on developing country water, san-
itation and hygiene documents, books, periodicals,
videos, and so on. The (www.worldwaterday.org) site
maintained by IRC contains information on one topic
per year that is selected by the UN. Visitors can add
comments and events.
3. Sanitation Connection (http://www.sanicon.net/) is
an Internet-based resource that gives access to accu-
rate, reliable, and up-to-date information on tech-
nologies, institutions, and financing of sanitation
systems around the world. Institutions of interna-
tional standing contribute to the information base
by providing and maintaining a topic of their spe-
cialization.
4. Water Portal of the Americas (http://www.Water-
Portal-Americas.org) is a combination of a gateway
(entryway or portal) and a community of practice. It
is basically a search engine, a structure and system
for other organizations to copy or fit in. It is still a
prototype that may grow into a collaborative portal.
‘‘The goal is to provide both an entryway (portal) to
water information and to create a water information
network, community, and resource that will provide
qualified, trusted, and verifiable information and
contacts.’’
At the March 2003 Third World Water Forum
the prototype of a ‘‘Water Portal for the America’s’’
was shown by UNESCO/World Water Assessment
Programme and the Waterweb Consortium, a year
and a half after it was first announced at the
Fifth Water Information Summit. The prototype
gave an impression of what will be on the site,
with only limited content. This is the first regional
water portal that is scheduled to become part of the
FLOOD OF PORTALS ON WATER 669
UNESCO WWAP/Waterweb Global Water Portal, as
was announced in Japan. Funding for this started in
April 2002.
5. The U.S.-based WaterTechOnline (http://www.wa-
tertechonline.com/news.asp?mode=4&N ID=31857)
is one of the commercial portals addressing busi-
ness needs. It contains breaking daily news stories
about the water and wastewater treatment indus-
try, as well as industry bulletin boards, searchable
supplier directories and article archives, industry
opinion polls, new product announcements, and
other industry-specific information.
These examples illustrate the proliferation of water
portals, gateways, and websites. It also raises questions
about the definitions, users, and relevance of these
internet-based initiatives.
DEFINITIONS AND TYPOLOGIES
General information on portals can be found on the
Portals Community site. This advertises on Google.com
as ‘‘The Definite Enterprise Portal Resource’’ and offers
Portals information, White papers, networking, and
research (http://www.portalscommunity.com/registration/
member.cfm?code=TDXTL05).
Defining Water Portals
From About.com and our own sources, a portal is a
kind of website and provides a single point of access to
aggregated information—a virtual front door. The term
originated with large, well-known Internet search engine
sites that expanded their features to include e-mail, news,
stock quotes, and an array of other functionality. Some
corporations took a similar approach in implementing
their intranet sites, which then became known as
enterprise information or corporate portals.
There are general portals and specialized or niche
portals. Some major general portals include Yahoo,
CNET, AOL, and MSN. Examples of niche portals that
are accessible to the public include Garden.com (for
gardeners), Fool.com (for investors), and DPReview.com
(for photographers). These are sometimes also called
vortals—vertical portals. Private niche portals are those
that are used by employees of a company.
Typical services offered by public portal sites include
a start page with rich navigation, a directory of websites,
a facility to search for other sites, news, a collection
of loosely integrated features (some of which may be
provided by partners or other third parties) like weather
information, stock quotes, phone, and map information, e-
mail, and sometimes a community forum. Private portals
often include access to payroll information, internal phone
directories, company news, and employee documentation.
Here, we define a portal as ‘‘a one-stop, client-oriented
website that offers visitors a broad array of interactive
resources such as news, databases, discussion forums,
search options, space to collaborate online, and links on
water-related topics.’’
670 FLOOD OF PORTALS ON WATER
Searches
IRC staff did various online literature searches:
• On ‘‘Water Portals’’ on all the web search engines in
April, May, and June 2003. Of the 45 results shown,
32 were relevant. On Google.com, 22 out of 42 were
relevant. The other results were mainly related to
game sites.
• On the specialized ICT site Whatis.com there is a lot
of information on corporate portals through Best web
links, news headlines expert technical advice, and
web results.
CONCLUSIONS
Our main conclusions are:
1. There is a wide variety of ‘‘portals’’ on water,
definition wise, topic wise, and language wise.
2. Even in the world of corporate portals the con-
cept is subject to confusion in the marketplace
(Peter A. Buxbaum, Nov 2001, searchEBusiness).
Buxbaum quotes:
There are several different types of corporate portals,
each sporting different capabilities and each requiring
different technologies and technology providers. Experts
segment the enterprise portal arena into at least three
components. Information portals emphasize data and
document retrieval and management. Knowledge portals
enable collaboration and information sharing as well
as expertise and knowledge capture. Application portals
provide end-users with interfaces to enterprise systems.
What do all these have in common? As IDC defines it, they
all manage end-user access to multiple applications and
information sources on the corporate intranet.
Looking at the software giant SAP’s recent steps
in its portal strategy, Buxbaum leaves us with
a nagging question: If a software giant like SAP
can’t explain portals clearly, how are its potential
customers supposed to understand them?
3. Most of the sites that claim to provide a water
‘‘portal’’ can be more correctly described as providing
a start page or gateway to web information. There is
in fact a flood of gateways, but too many providers
are drowning in ambition.
4. An interesting paper that describes pros and cons of a
portal from a university point of view in easily under-
standable language is Kevin Lowey’s University
Portals FAQ, University Web Developers’ Mailing
List 2002 (http://www.usask.ca/web project/uwebd/
portals faq.html).
5. Some interesting findings emerge from a user survey
of electronic information services (EIS) among 25
U.K. institutions of higher education. The effect of
the Internet on information seeking by staff and
students is hugely significant; search engines and
known sites are the first resort for most academic
queries, as well as for many personal domestic
queries. There was a wide range of engines used
and indications of haphazard searching.
6. Another major conclusion from the same survey is
that subject gateways are notable only for their
lack of mention among students and academic staff,
although there is some use among library and
information staff.
LESSONS LEARNED
The majority of the gateways/portals described here focus
on the broadest possible water topic: water resources
and management.
The claims for ‘‘The Water Portal’’ cannot be justified.
At best we can help clarify what the sites we have selected
are focusing on, what they are, what they deliver to visitors
(who?), and how interactive they are.
Two good examples of the different approaches are
The Netherlands-based start page on water (www.water-
pagina.nl) that provides four pages of clickable names
divided over 32 categories, compared to the recently
established www.h2o-scanner.com. This has a start page
from where searches can be done combining countries,
segments, issues, and content.
With a portal the emphasis is shifting from a
public website showing online pamphlets to a user-
oriented website that provides tools, reports, and services
specifically designed for that individual.
WHAT NEXT?
By offering its new website architecture to interested
partners, IRC started since mid-2003 to develop a family
of related websites on water sanitation and hygiene, using
the same technical foundation: A Water Portal Is Born.
The STREAMS coalition of resource centers is going to
be the first partner using this opportunity to contribute
content through its own segment of this shared platform.
More partners will be added.
In 2004 the Portal functionality will be expanded to also
contain login functionality to provide Intra- and Extranet
opportunities, moderated lists to enable E-conferences,
workflow management, and others.
INTERNET ACCESS GAP
A few data on Internet connectivity according to
CIA’s World Factbook (http://cyberatlas.internet.com/big
picture/geographics/article/0,,5911 151151,00.html) show
the enormous gap between Internet use in the developed
and developing world.
The percentage of the population of Internet users in
the world in 2002 was around 9%. In The Netherlands and
Denmark it was around 61%, in the United States some
59%, in Canada 50%, and in Belgium 36%. In Colombia
it was about 2.8%, in Bolivia 0.9%, in India 0.7%, in
Nepal 0.23%, in Mozambique and Bangladesh 0.1%, and
in Ethiopia 0.03%.
Kamel from Nepal Telcom indicates that there are
8 phone lines per 1000 persons in Nepal. E-mail was

introduced in 1993 and Internet in 1994. They have 50
cyber cafes in Kathmandu and 20 in Pokhara. Government
official Vandya indicates that IT development is important
and Nepal has to continue to develop it. This needs to be
done in parallel with other media such as wall newspapers,
taking into account that basic literacy is 55% and English
literacy 2%.
In Burkina Faso the literacy is only 20% and they
have 60 spoken local languages in a population of 2.6
million. A local priest is making a very interesting effort
by publishing a quarterly farmers magazine in some of the
local languages. He indicates that Internet is useful to find
information, but a considerable part of the information in
the magazine comes from local farmers.
In terms of difficulties it is clear that the number of
users is very low in the South and even more so in rural
areas. Another difficulty is that Internet performance gives
problems. Downloading in the South, for example, is slow
and the cost of access is high. It is often a struggle to access
a telephone line let alone high bandwidth facilities. In the
preparation for a knowledge management workshop at
the Sixth Water Information Summit in September 2003,
it was already very clear that files over 1 MB gave a lot
of problems. Only after simplifying and zipping them did
they become more manageable.
LATIN AMERICA: VIRTUAL LIBRARY ON
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
A good example from the achievements and challenges
of web use in the developing world is the Virtual
Library on Environmental Health (VLEH) of the Pan
American Information Network on Environmental Health,
REPIDISCA, which has been operating since 1982 in
FLOOD OF PORTALS ON WATER 671
21 countries of Latin America and the Caribbean with
370 Cooperating Centres. The Pan American Center
for Sanitary Engineering and Environmental Sciences,
CEPIS/PAHO, of the Pan American Health Organization,
PAHO/WHO, is in charge of the regional coordination.
The VLEH disseminates information on water sup-
ply, sanitation, and related topics (http://www.cepis.ops-
oms.org/indexeng.html). It uses the same methodology
as the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences
Information Centre, BIREME, another information sys-
tem sponsored by PAHO/WHO. Its architecture is based
on six types of information sources and services: elec-
tronic publications in full text, secondary sources, teaching
material, SDI service, news and discussion lists, and inte-
grating components. The bibliographic database contains
more than 134,000 records with abstracts, of which 7553
are full text.
The principles of the VLEH are:
• Equitable access to environmental health informa-
tion.
• Alliances and consortia for maximizing resource
sharing.
• Cooperative work and exchange of experiences.
• Decentralized development and operation at all
levels.
• Development based on local conditions.
• Integrated mechanisms for evaluation and qual-
ity control.
The VLEH architecture (Fig. 1) is based on the character-
istics of its information sources. An information source is
any resource that responds to information needs, including
information products and services, persons or networks of
Figure 1. The VLEH main page.
672 FLOOD OF PORTALS ON WATER

Table 1. Number of Records in Each Information Source of the VLEH

Number Source 1981–1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 5 June 2003

Secondary
1 Bibliographic 96,467 106,577 117,925 119,321 120,784 130,087 134,972
2 Institutions 1,953 1,986 2,043 1,914 1,779 2,106 2,283
3 Specialists 103 103 136
4 Events (current) 186 475 1,065 1,005 1,100
5 Academic programs 129 284 298
6 Journals 451 475 483 505 516
7 Videos 398 404 475 494 500
Primary
8 Full texts 404 927 1,568 3,159 6,071 7,553
9 Legislation 165 547 1,079 1,235 1,004
10 HDT 70 73 76 79 82 88 88
11 Repindex 63 66 69 72 75 78 78
12 Indicators ALC ALC ALC
Teaching Material
13 Teaching material 607 829 879
14 Self-instruction courses 9 9
SDI Service
15 SDI data base 452 519 654 765 2,020 2,114
News/Discussion Lists
16 News 119 263 322 973 1356
17 Open discussion lists 7 11 11
18 Restricted discussion lists 12 11 13
Integrating Components
19 LISA (www links) 175 314 1,448 1,682 1,754
20 Thesaurus in five languages 3,000 3,143 3,259

persons, and computer programs. The VLEH architecture
is organized as follows (Table 1):
1. Secondary Sources. Composed of the following
databases: bibliographic (more than 134,000 re-
cords); institutions (includes the address and
names of authorities); events (includes seminars,
congresses, and short courses); academic programs
(includes diplomas, master, and doctoral programs);
journals (includes the titles, electronic availability,
and access to full texts); videos (includes material
available at CEPIS and Cooperating Centres).
2. Primary Sources. Composed of the following data-
bases: full text documents (more than 7500 docu-
ments in Acrobat); legislation (more than 1000 laws
and regulations in full text related to water qual-
ity); HDT (includes 78 issues of the series Technical
Dissemination Sheets, published by REPIDISCA);
Repindex (includes 88 issues of this series also pub-
lished by REPIDISCA); indicators (includes data
from 45 countries of the Latin American and
Caribbean region based on the global assessment
of water and sanitation services, 2000).
3. Teaching Material. The material training database
contains electronic and multimedia sources with
added value for teaching purposes; the database
on self-instruction courses contains nine courses
prepared by PAHO/CEPIS which are also available
on CD-ROM.
4. SDI Service. Selective dissemination of information
(SDI) to update users based on their specific interest
profiles. It is also a mechanism for providing
information through e-mail to users that lack or
have communication constraints via the Internet.
5. News and Discussion Lists. Fosters communication
among persons, including discussion lists, forums,
and virtual communities.
6. Integrating Components. Ensure the integration
of decentralized information sources, like the
REPIDISCA Thesaurus (more than 3000 terms
in five languages: Spanish, English, Portuguese,
French, and German, with its corresponding hierar-
chical structure and synonyms) and the Health and
Environment Information Locator (gathers other
Internet sources on environmental health, based
on the Global Information Locator Service, GILS,
adopted by the Global Program of the Information
Society and the Dublin Core).
Building the virtual library implies the development,
adoption, and adaptation of tools to operate information
sources according to its architecture.
PAHO’s Headquarters, in Washington, DC, hosts the
virtual library because its server has higher connection
speed. Statistics show that the number of visitors increases
every year: 549,469 users have visited our website up to
June 18, 2003 (Fig. 2).
Figure 3 shows the number of users per information
source from January to June 2003. The source of
full-text documents had the highest number of users,
indicating that efforts should be concentrated on this
information resource.
 FLOOD OF PORTALS ON WATER 673

600,000 549,469 The VLEH includes 17 additional topics related to

CEPIS/PAHO working scope and that of the Sustain-
500,000 458,654 able Development and Environmental Health Area of
PAHO/WHO. In 2002, the topic with the highest num-
400,000
ber of visitors was Workers’ Health, in 2001 it was the
268,949 Assessment in Drinking Water and Sanitation, and in
300,000
2002 it was the Solid Wastes Assessment.
200,000 145,433
Throughout its 20 years, REPIDISCA has carried out
66,539 several user surveys. The last one in 2000 focused on
100,000 5,800 30,661 web users and 424 persons replied to the questionnaire.
0 Figure 5 shows the percentage of users per sector.
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 18/6/3 Regarding the type of user, 35% of them were
professionals and technicians, as shown in Fig. 6. It is
Figure 2. VLEH visitors, 1997–2003 (cumulative).
worthwhile to note that the use of the VLEH increases
during weekends.

DIFFICULTIES
Every year, comparisons of statistics are done to
analyze the trend of the VLEH use, as shown in Fig. 4 The difficulties that CEPIS/PAHO faces now with
regarding the number of visitors per water-related subject. VLEH are:

30,000

24.732
25,000

20,000

15,000
11.043
10.465
10,000

5,000 4.162 3.937 3.473

2.736
1.483 1.305 1.269 1.261
0
Full text Bibliographic Links Educational Journals Meetings Self- Legislation Academic Institutions News
material learning studies
courses

Figure 3. VLEH visitors per information source, January–June 6, 2003.

8,740
9.000
7,717
8.000
6,530
7.000 6,140
6.000
5.000 3,913
4.000
3.000
2.000 1,038
1.000
0
Wastewater Drinking Water Water quality Water Interamerican
water and treatment resources water day Figure 4. Visitors per water-related subject,
sanitation January–June 2003.
674 FUZZY CRITERIA FOR WATER RESOURCES SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Others Governmental regular export and sending of new information to CEPIS

Non 10% 41% and the subsequent follow-up and control of duplicates
governmental that is done currently. Finally, regular training should
14% be considered as a must to enable national institutions
the use of the VLEH methodology. Workshops have been
carried out in eleven countries and as a result they are
already operating their own national VLEH.
Private
35%

Figure 5. Users by sectors. FUZZY CRITERIA FOR WATER RESOURCES

• Weakness of national institutions; in many countries
water and sanitation utilities have undergone a
privatization process.
• Staff reduction in public and private organizations;
lack of investment in technical information and lack
of resource sharing.
• Poor budgets for acquisition of information.
• Use of commercial software and methodologies in
large universities that would not be willing to
change their information system to follow the VLEH
procedures; thus they need to duplicate the recording
of the information they want to record into the VLEH.
• Inadequate updating of the VLEH at the regional
and national levels.
Now CEPIS/PAHO has a great deal of information,
but the VLEH cannot be just a space to make links with
other websites. Users need a place where information
is gathered, organized, and contained. Toward this
end, CEPIS/PAHO and BIREME are implementing
Shared, a Dutch technology that allows the production
of ‘‘fingerprints’’ of every piece of information that is
physically located in another web. These ‘‘fingerprints’’ are
kept in a centralized file and weights may also be assigned
to the topics of every information item. Institutions using
the VLEH methodology will do this work more easily.
In the future, it will be necessary to sign agreements to
extract information automatically using Shared.
If Shared is implemented successfully, CEPIS would be
able to enter into the Water Web Portal and other relevant
sites updating their server of ‘‘fingerprints’’ and repeating
the operation every month. The same procedure may be
applied by each Cooperating Centre; thus national VLEH
would be updated automatically. This will also avoid their
SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
SLOBODAN P. SIMONOVIC
The University of Western Ontario
London, Ontario, Canada
INTRODUCTION
One of the main goals of engineering design is to ensure
that a system performs satisfactorily under a wide range
of possible future conditions. This premise is particularly
true of large and complex water resources systems.
Water resources systems usually include conveyance
facilities such as pipes and pumps, treatment facilities
such as sedimentation tanks and filters, and storage
facilities such as reservoirs and tanks. These elements
are interconnected in complicated networks serving broad
geographical regions. Each element is vulnerable to
temporary disruption in service due to natural hazards
or human error whether unintentional, as in the case
of operational errors and mistakes, or due to intentional
causes such as a terrorist act. Most of the hazards cannot
be controlled or predicted with an acceptable degree of
accuracy. Uncontrollable external factors also affect the
capacity and the performance of water resource systems.
The determination of the load pattern presents unique
challenges. Ang and Tang (1) point out that there is
uncertainty in all engineering-based systems because
these systems rely on the modeling of physical phenomena
that are either inherently random or difficult to model
with a high degree of accuracy.
The sources of uncertainty are many and diverse and,
as a result, impose a great challenge to water resources
systems design, planning, and management. The goal to
ensure failsafe system performance may be unattainable.
Adopting high safety factors is one means to avoid
the uncertainty of potential failures. However, making

35%
160 148 30%
140 126
120 19%
100 81 13%
No.

80
54
60
40 2% 2%
20 8 7
0
Professionals Reserchers, Policy makers Managers Information Others
and technicians professors, and professionals
students

Figure 6. Types of user.

 FUZZY CRITERIA FOR WATER RESOURCES SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
safety the first priority may render the system solution
infeasible. Therefore, known uncertainty sources must be
quantified. Engineering risk and reliability analysis is a
general methodology for the quantification of uncertainty
and the evaluation of its consequences for the safety of
engineering systems (2). The first step in any risk analysis
is to identify the risk, clearly detailing all sources of
uncertainty that may contribute to the risk of failure.
The quantification of risk is the second step, where the
effects of the uncertainties are measured using different
system performance indices and figures of merit. The early
works of Hashimoto et al. (3,4) are the basis for the use of
performance indices to evaluate the risk and reliability
of water resources systems. They suggest reliability,
resiliency, vulnerability, and robustness indices as criteria
for evaluating the performance of water resources systems.
Prior knowledge of the probability density functions of
both resistance and load and/or their joint probability
distribution function is a prerequisite to the probabilistic
approach. In practice, data on previous failure experience
is usually insufficient to provide such information. The
subjective judgment of the decision-maker to estimate
the probability distribution of a random event [subjective
probability approach of Vick (5)] is another approach
to deal with data insufficiency. The third approach is
Bayes’s theory, where engineering judgment is integrated
with observed information. Until now the probabilistic
approach was the only approach for water resources
systems reliability analyses. But it fails to address the
problem of uncertainty that goes along with human input,
subjectivity, and lack of history and records. There is a
practical and urgent need to investigate new approaches
that can compensate for the ambiguity or uncertainty of
human perception.
This contribution investigates the different approaches
used to handle the problem of system reliability.
Three new fuzzy reliability measures are presented (6):
(1) the combined reliability–vulnerability index, (2) the
robustness index, and (3) the resiliency index. They
are developed to evaluate the operational performance
of water resources systems. These measures could be
useful decision-making aids in a fuzzy environment where
subjectivity, human input, and lack of previous records
impede the decision-making process.
FUZZY SETS
Zadeh (7), the founder of the theory of fuzzy sets, defines
it as a formal attempt to capture, represent, and work
with objects with unclear or ambiguous boundaries.
This concept, although relatively new, has its origins
in the early application of a multivalued logic notion
to overcome the difficulties faced by the dual-logic
representation in set theory. Water resources systems are
potentially vulnerable to a wide variety of hazards that
could limit their satisfactory performance. As a result,
risks of future systems failure are often unavoidable (1).
The engineering risk index characterizes the safety of
water resources systems. The uncertainties associated
with various sources of risk undermine the efficiency
of this index. Because of these inevitable inefficiencies,
675
all properties of water resources systems are subject
to unavoidable and uncertain risk conditions. Different
performance measures have been used in water resources
systems reliability analyses to describe the system
performance under extreme loading conditions (2). The
majority of engineering reliability analyses rely on the use
of a probabilistic approach. Both resistance and load are
considered random variables. However, the characteristics
of resistance and/or load cannot always be measured
precisely or treated as random variables. Therefore, the
fuzzy representation of either must be examined. The case
of both fuzzy resistance and fuzzy load is rarely addressed
in studies on the subject (6,8).
FUZZY CRITERIA FOR SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION
Key Definitions
Failure. The calculation of performance indices depends
on the exact definition of unsatisfactory system perfor-
mance. It is difficult to arrive at a precise definition of
failure because of the uncertainty in determining sys-
tem resistance, load, and the accepted unsatisfactory
performance threshold. Figure 1 depicts a typical system
performance (resistance time series), with a constant load
during the operation horizon. According to the classical
definition, the failure state is the state when resistance
falls below the load, margin of safety M < 0.0 or safety
factor
< 1.0, which is represented by the ratio between
the system’s resistance and load, shown in Fig. 1 by the
dashed horizontal line.
Sometimes water resources systems fail to perform
their intended function. For example, the available
resistance from different sources in the case of water
resources systems is highly variable. The actual load may
also fluctuate significantly. Consequently, in the design of
water resources systems, certain periods of water shortage
may be a given. The precise identification of failure is
neither realistic nor practical. It is more realistic to build
in the inevitability of partial failure. A degree of acceptable
system failure was introduced using the solid horizontal
line, as shown in Fig. 1.
System-state
Region of complete
∼ safety
M = 0.0
or
∼
Θ = 1.0
Region of
∼
M < 0.0 acceptable failure
or
∼
Θ < 1.0 Region of complete failure
Time
Figure 1. Variable system performance.
676 FUZZY CRITERIA FOR WATER RESOURCES SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

The boundary of the acceptable failure region is that is, high values for both m1 and m2 (or θ1 and
ambiguous and varies from one decision-maker to the θ2 ). The difference between m1 and m2 (or θ1 and θ2 )
other depending on personal perception of risk. Boundaries inversely affects the system reliability: that is, the higher
cannot be determined precisely. Fuzzy sets, on the the difference, the lower the reliability. Therefore, the
other hand, are capable of representing the notion of reliability reflected by the definition of an acceptable level
imprecision better than ordinary sets. The acceptable level of performance can be quantified in the following way:
of performance can be represented as a fuzzy membership
function in the following form: m 1 × m2 θ1 × θ2
LR = or LR = (2)
 m 2 − m1 θ2 − θ1
 0, if m ≤ m1
M̃(m) = φ(m), if m ∈ [m1 , m2 ] where LR is the reliability measure of the acceptable level

1, if m ≥ m2 of performance.
(1) The subjectivity of decision-makers will always result
or  in a degree of ambiguity of risk perception. This alternate
 0, if θ ≤ θ1
˜ ) = φ(θ ), definition of failure allows for a choice among the lower

(θ if θ ∈ [θ1 , θ2 ]
 bound, upper bound, and the function φ(m) [or φ(θ )]. This
1, if θ ≥ θ2
approach also provides an easy and comprehensive tool for
risk communication.
where M̃ is the fuzzy membership function of the margin
of safety; φ(m) and φ(θ ) are functional relationships
representing the subjective view of the acceptable risk; m1 Fuzzy System-State. System resistance and load can be
and m2 are the lower and upper bounds of the acceptable represented in a fuzzy form to capture the uncertainty
failure region, respectively;
˜ is the fuzzy membership inherent in the system performance. The fuzzy form allows
function of the factor of safety; and θ1 and θ2 are the for the determination of the membership function of the
lower and upper bounds of the acceptable failure region, resistance and load in a straightforward way even when
respectively. there is limited available data. Fuzzy arithmetic can be
Figure 2 is a graphical representation of the definition used to calculate the resulting margin of safety (or factor
presented in Equation 1. The lower and upper bounds of of safety) membership function as a representation of the
the acceptable failure region are introduced in Equation 1 system-state at any time:
by m1 (or θ1 ) and m2 (or θ2 ). The value of the margin
M̃ = X̃(−)Ỹ and ˜ = X̃(/)Ỹ

(3)
of safety (or factor of safety) below m1 (or θ1 ) is definitely
unacceptable. Therefore, the membership function value is
zero. The value of the margin of safety (or factor of safety) where M̃ is the fuzzy margin of safety; X̃ is the fuzzy
above m2 (or θ2 ) is definitely acceptable and therefore resistance capacity; Ỹ is the fuzzy load requirement; (−)
belongs in the acceptable failure region. Consequently, is the fuzzy subtraction operator; (/) is the fuzzy division
the membership value is one. The membership of the in- operator; and
˜ is the fuzzy factor of safety.
between values varies with the subjective assessment of
a decision-maker. Different functional forms may be used Compatibility. The purpose of comparing two fuzzy
for φ(m) [or φ(θ )] to reflect the subjectivity of different membership functions is to illustrate the extent to which
decision-makers’ assessments. the two fuzzy sets match. Several classes of methods
High system reliability is reflected through the use of are available, none of which can be described as the
high values of the margin of safety (or factor of safety), best method. The reliability assessment, presented here,
involves a comparative analysis of the system-state
membership function and the predefined acceptable level
Failure type 1 of the performance membership function. Therefore, the
t=0 t11 t21 t12 t22 t13 t23 Time compliance of two fuzzy membership functions can be
quantified using the fuzzy compatibility measure.
1st Failure 2nd Failure 3rd Failure Possibility and necessity lead to the quantification
event event event of the compatibility of two fuzzy sets. The possibility
measure quantifies the overlap between two fuzzy sets,
Failure type 2 while the necessity measure describes the degree of
t=0 t11 t21 t12 t22 Time inclusion of one fuzzy set into another fuzzy set (9).
However, in some cases, high possibility and necessity
1st Failure 2nd Failure values do not reflect clearly the compliance between the
event event system-state membership function and the acceptable
Failure type 3
level of performance membership function. For example,
t11 t21 t12 t22 t13 t23 t14 t24 Time let’s consider the two system-state functions A and B
t=0 with the same possibility and necessity values. However,
assume that system-state A has a larger overlap with
1st Failure 2nd Failure 3rd Failure 4th Failure
event event event event
the performance membership function than the system-
state B. The overlap area between the two membership
Figure 2. Fuzzy representation of acceptable failure region. functions, as a fraction of the total area of the system-state,
 FUZZY CRITERIA FOR WATER RESOURCES SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
illustrates compliance more clearly than the possibility
and necessity measures; that is,
OAS,L
CS,L =
AS
where CS,L is the compliance between the system-state
membership function (S) and the acceptable level of
performance membership function (L); OAS,L is the overlap
area between the system-state membership function (S)
and the acceptable level of performance membership
function (L); and AS is the area of the system-state
membership function (S). An overlap in a high significance
area (area with high membership values) is preferable to
an overlap in a low significance area. The compatibility
measure can be calculated using
WOAS,L
CMS,L =
WAS
where CMS,L is the compatibility measure between the
system-state membership function (S) and the acceptable
level of performance membership function (L); WOAS,L
is the weighted overlap area between the system-
state membership function (S) and the acceptable level
of performance membership function (L); and WAS is
the weighted area of the system-state membership
function (S).
Combined Fuzzy Reliability–Vulnerability Criteria
Reliability and vulnerability were used to provide a
complete description of system performance in case of
failure and to determine the magnitude of the failure
event. Once an acceptable level of performance is
determined in a fuzzy form, the anticipated performance
in the event of failure as well as the expected severity of
failure can be determined.
When certain values are specified for the lower and
upper bounds [m1 and m2 (or θ1 and θ2 ) in Equation 1], thus
establishing a predefined acceptable level of performance,
the anticipated system failure is limited to a specified
range. Systems that are highly compatible with the
predefined acceptable level of performance will yield a
similar performance; that is, the expected system failure
will be within the specified range ([m1 , m2 ] or [θ1 , θ2 ]). In
order to calculate system reliability, several acceptable
levels of performance must be defined to reflect the
different perceptions of the decision-makers. A comparison
between the fuzzy system-state membership function and
the predefined fuzzy acceptable level of performance
membership function provides information about both
system reliability and system vulnerability at the same
time (Fig. 3).
The system reliability is based on the proximity of
the system-state to the predefined acceptable level of
performance. The measure of proximity is expressed by
the compatibility measure suggested in Equation 5. The
new combined fuzzy reliability–vulnerability index is
formulated as follows:
max{CM1 , CM2 , . . . , CMi } × LRmax
i∈K
REf =
max{LR1 , LR2 , . . . , LRi }
i∈K
677
Membership
Acceptable level
value
of performance
1.0
(4) System
state
Highly satisfactory
Satisfactory
Risky
Universe of discourse
Figure 3. Compatibility with different level of performance
membership functions.
where REf is the new combined fuzzy reliabil-
ity–vulnerability index; LRmax is the reliability measure
of acceptable level of performance corresponding to the
(5)
system-state with maximum compatibility value; LRi is
the reliability measure of the ith acceptable level of
performance; CMi is the compatibility measure for the
system-state with the ith acceptable level of performance;
and K is the total number of the defined acceptable lev-
els of performance. The reliability–vulnerability index
is normalized to attain a maximum value of 1.0, by the
introduction of the maxi∈K {LR1 , LR2 , . . . , LRi } value as the
maximum achievable reliability.
Fuzzy Robustness
Robustness measures the system’s ability to adapt to a
wide range of possible future load conditions, at little
additional cost (4). The fuzzy form of change in future
conditions can be obtained through a redefinition of
the acceptable level of performance and a change in
the system-state membership function. As a result, the
system’s robustness is defined as the change in the
compatibility measure:
1
ROf = (7)
CM1 − CM2
where ROf is the new fuzzy robustness index; CM1 is the
compatibility measure before the change in conditions; and
CM2 is the compatibility after the change in conditions.
Equation 7 reveals that the higher the change in
compatibility, the lower the value of the fuzzy robustness.
Therefore, high robustness values allow the system to
better adapt to new conditions.
Fuzzy Resiliency
The time required to recover from the failure state can
be represented as a fuzzy set. Because the reasons for a
failure may be different, system recovery times will vary
depending on the type of failure, as shown in Fig. 4. A
series of fuzzy membership functions can be developed to
allow for various types of failure. The maximum recovery
time is used to represent the system recovery time (10):
T̃(α) = (max[t11 (α), t12 (α), . . . , t1J (α)]
j∈J
(6)
× max[t21 (α), t22 (α), . . . , t2J (α)]) (8)
j∈J
678 PARTICIPATORY MULTICRITERIA FLOOD MANAGEMENT

where T̃(α) is the system fuzzy maximum recovery time at relationship between the fuzzy system’s state of safety
α level; t1J (α) is the lower bound of the jth recovery time at and the fuzzy failure events. The contribution also shows
α level; t2J (α) is the upper bound of the jth recovery time a fuzzy measure, capable of determining the system’s abil-
at α level; and J is total number of failure events. ity to adapt to changing conditions. This measure of fuzzy
The center of gravity of the maximum fuzzy recovery robustness provides a vital tool to assess the system’s
time can be used as a real number representation of behavior through the introduction of a wide variety of
the system recovery time. Therefore, system resilience is uncertain conditions. A fuzzy resiliency measure was also
determined to be the inverse value of the center of gravity: presented to capture the system’s response to uncertain
future failure events. This measure is able to incorporate
 t2
−1 all types of system responses to potential failure events
 t T̃(t) dt  throughout the life of the design.
 t 
RSf =  1 t2  (9) The presented fuzzy performance criteria were evalu-
  ated using two simple hypothetical cases by El-Baroudi
T̃(t) dt
t1 and Simonovic (6).

where RSf is the new fuzzy resiliency index; T̃(t) is the

system fuzzy maximum recovery time; t1 is the lower
bound of the support of the system recovery time; and
t2 is the upper bound of the support of the system
recovery time.
The inverse operation can be used to illustrate the
relationship between the value of the recovery time and
the resilience. The longer the recovery time, the lower the
system’s ability to recover from the failure, and the lower
the resilience.
CONCLUSIONS
Water resources systems are vulnerable to a wide variety
of hazards that could potentially limit their ability to
perform satisfactorily. The diversity of uncertainty sources
presents a great challenge to water resources systems
design, planning, and management. The probabilistic
approach usually fails to address the problems of human
error, subjectivity, and the lack of system performance
history and records. The fuzzy set approach addresses
those issues. A fuzzy system reliability analysis is
ideally based on the comparison between the fuzzy sets
representing both the system’s state of safety and the
potential for system failure.
A fuzzy reliability–vulnerability measure clearly quan-
tifies the reliability and the vulnerability of multicompo-
nent systems. The quantification is based on the use of
appropriate fuzzy compatibility measures to illustrate the
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Ang, H.-S. and Tang, H. (1984). Probability Concepts in
Engineering Planning and Design. John Wiley & Sons,
Hoboken, NJ.
2. Ganoulis, J.G. (1994). Engineering Risk Analysis of Water
Pollution: Probabilities. VCH, Weinheim, The Netherlands.
3. Hashimoto, T., Stedinger, J.R., and Loucks, D.P. (1982).
Reliability, resiliency, and vulnerability criteria for water
resources system performance evaluation. Water Resour. Res.
18(1): 14–20.
4. Hashimoto, T., Loucks, D.P., and Stedinger, J.R. (1982).
Robustness of water resources systems. Water Resour. Res.
18(1): 21–26.
5. Vick, S. (2002). Degrees of Belief: Subjective Probability and
Engineering Judgment. ASCE Press, Reston, VA.
6. El-Baroudy, I. and Simonovic, S.P. (2004). Fuzzy criteria for
the evaluation of water resources systems performance. Water
Resour. Res. 40(10): W10503.
7. Zadeh, L.A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8: 338–353.
8. Sherstha, B. and Duckstein, L. (1998). A fuzzy reliability
measure for engineering applications. In: Uncertainty Mod-
elling and Analysis in Civil Engineering. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL, pp. 120–135.
9. Pedrycz, W. and Gomide, F. (1998). An Introduction to Fuzzy
Sets. MIT Press, Cambridge.
10. Kaufmann, A. and Gupta, M. (1985). Introduction to Fuzzy
Arithmetic: Theory and Applications. Van Nostrand Reinhold,
New York.

PARTICIPATORY MULTICRITERIA FLOOD

~
M (m )
MANAGEMENT
or SLOBODAN P. SIMONOVIC
∼ Complete Acceptable Complete
Θ (q) The University of Western Ontario
failure failure region safety region
region London, Ontario, Canada
1.0
M (m )
or INTRODUCTION
Θ(q)
Flood management in general comprises different water
resources activities aimed at reducing the potentially
m or q harmful impact of floods on people, the environment, and
m1 or q1 m 2 or q2 the economy of a region. Sustainable flood management
decision-making requires integrated consideration of
Figure 4. Recovery times for different types of failure. economic, ecological, and social consequences of disastrous
 PARTICIPATORY MULTICRITERIA FLOOD MANAGEMENT 679

flood. While economic consideration gets priority in Table 1. Conceptual

traditional approaches to decision-making, empowerment Decision Matrix for a
of stakeholders is an issue that is demanding increasing Discrete Multicriteria
Multiparticipant
attention today in many decision-making processes.
Decision Problem
Flood management activities (i.e., disaster mitigation,
preparedness, and emergency management) may be O1 ... Op
designed and achieved without the direct participation of
stakeholders; however, it cannot be implemented without A1 a11 ... A1p
them (1). In order to decide what flood control measures to ... ... ... ...
adopt in a floodplain, the decision-making process should
include different stakeholders. Am am1 ... amp
Government policy-makers and professional planners DM1 w11 ... w1p
are the first to consider. However, others such as the gen-
eral public, communities affected by the decision outcomes, ... ... ... ...
nongovernmental organizations, and different interest DMn wn1 ... wnp
groups should be included as well. This contribution
describes a multicriteria decision-making methodology for
participatory flood management (2,3). The methodology
of the decision-maker k (k = 1, . . . , n) for the objective j
should (1) evaluate potential alternatives based on multi-
(j = 1, . . . , p) is expressed by wjk , and aij is the performance
ple criteria under uncertainty; (2) accommodate the high
evaluation of the alternative i (i = 1, . . . , m) for each
diversity and uncertainty inherent in human preferences;
objective j.
and (3) handle a large amount of data collected from stake-
The classical outcome of the decision matrix is
holders.
the ranking of the alternatives. To obtain that, a
number of steps are necessary, such as establishing
METHODOLOGY the preference structure, the weights, and also the
performance evaluations. All these can be termed as the
Flood management decision-making problems are com- inputs for the decision matrix. These inputs come from the
plex due to their multicriteria nature. For a given stakeholder/decision-maker. The decision matrix shows
goal, many alternative solutions may exist that pro- that the inputs can be for the preference of criteria as well
vide different levels of satisfaction for different issues, as for the performance evaluations. The decision-maker
such as environmental, social, institutional, and politi- might also have a preference structure for the alternatives.
cal. These concerns naturally lead to the use of multi- In the case of a multiparticipant decision-making problem,
criteria decision-making techniques, in which trade-offs these inputs are to be collected from all the stakeholders.
among the single objectives can lead to the most desir- Equation 1 is a general mathematical formulation of
able solution. Multicriteria decision-making becomes more this multicriteria, multiparticipant problem. A payoff
complicated with the increase in the number of individ- matrix can be obtained for the problem where m alter-
uals/groups involved in the decision-making process. In natives are to be evaluated by n stakeholders/decision-
reality, the decision-making process often involves multi- makers, who are using p criteria:
ple stakeholders/decision-makers. Multiple stakeholders’  
participation introduces a great deal of complexity into the a11 ... ... a1p
analysis. The decision problem is no longer limited to the  a21 ... ... a2p 
Ak = (aij )k = 
 ...
, (k = 1, . . . , n) (1)
selection of the most preferred alternative among the pos- ... ... ... 
sible solutions according to a single set of preferences. The am1 ... ... amp
analysis must also be extended to account for the conflicts
among different stakeholders with different objectives. Here Aki. = (ai1 , . . . , aip )k means that alternatives i are
Most of the existing approaches in multicriteria decision- being evaluated by criteria from 1 to p by decision-
making with a single stakeholder/decision-maker consist maker k. The symbol Ak.j = (a1j , . . . , amj )k means that the
of two phases (4): (1) the aggregation of the judgments objective j is being used by decision-maker k to evaluate
with respect to all criteria and per decision alternatives; all alternatives from 1 to m.
and (2) the ranking of the decision alternatives accord- The solution to this problem is to have each alternative
ing to the aggregated judgment. In the case of multiple evaluated by all the decision-makers using all criteria.
stakeholders, an additional aggregation is necessary with The process can be summarized as the following mapping
respect to the judgments of all the stakeholders. function:
Consider a multicriteria multiparticipant decision-  : {Ak |k = 1, . . . , n} → {G} (2)
making problem where m alternatives are to be evaluated
by n decision-makers, who are using p objectives. The where G is a collective weighted agreement matrix.
general conceptual decision matrix for the discrete It is crucial that this mapping function represents all
multicriteria multiparticipant problem is shown in criteria that the decision-makers use in judging all the
Table 1. alternatives.
In Table 1, A denotes the alternative, O is the criterion, Flood management decision-making is always associ-
and DM is the decision-maker/stakeholder. The preference ated with some degree of uncertainty. This uncertainty
680 PARTICIPATORY MULTICRITERIA FLOOD MANAGEMENT
could be categorized into two basic types: uncertainty
caused by inherent hydrologic variability and uncertainty
due to a lack of knowledge (5). Uncertainty of the first
type is associated with the spatial and temporal changes
of hydrologic variables such as flow, precipitation, and
water quality. The second type of uncertainty occurs when
the particular value of interest cannot be assessed exactly
because of the limitation in the available knowledge. The
second type of decision uncertainty is more profound in the
area of public decision-making such as in the case of flood
management. Capturing the views of individuals presents
the problem of uncertainty. The major challenge while
collecting these views is to find out the technique that will
capture those uncertainties and also will be usable in a
multicriteria tool.
Participation of Multiple Stakeholders
An aggregation procedure is one of the ways to include
information from the participating decision-makers into
the decision matrix. The available methods do not seem to
be appropriate for flood management for two reasons.
The methodology (3) includes representation of inputs
from a large number of participants and the analysis
of inputs to make them usable for application to various
multicriteria decision-making methods. Fuzzy set theory
and fuzzy logic are used to represent the uncertainties
in stakeholders’ opinions. Three possible types of fuzzy
input have been considered to capture the subjectivity
of the responses from stakeholders. When a stakeholder
is asked to evaluate an alternative against a particular
criterion, the answer may take one of the following forms:
(1) a numeric scale response; (2) a linguistic answer (e.g.,
poor, fair, good, very good); or (3) an argument (e.g., ‘‘if
some other condition is satisfied then it is good’’). For the
first type, the input is quite straightforward. For a type
(2) answer, it will be necessary to develop the membership
functions for the linguistic terms. Type (3) input can
be described by using a fuzzy inference system, which
includes membership functions, fuzzy logic operators, and
the if–then rule. For this, the membership functions for
the input arguments need to be developed first. Then fuzzy
operator and fuzzy logic are applied to obtain the output.
It should be noted that the interpretation of type (2) and
type (3) input values is highly dependent on the shape
of the membership functions and the degree of severity
chosen by the expert for a particular application.
After receiving the inputs from all stakeholders,
the next step is to aggregate those inputs to find a
representative value. It is obvious that for all input types
considered above, the responses are sure to be influenced
by a number of repetitions. This means many respondents
can provide the same response. This implies that the
general methodologies of fuzzy aggregation cannot be
applied for deriving the resultant input from a large
number of decision-makers. The fuzzy expected value
(FEV) method can be used instead to get the resulting
opinion of the stakeholders. Following is the definition
of the fuzzy expected value: Let χA be a B-measurable
function such that χA ∈ [0, 1]. The FEV of χA over the set
A, with respect to the fuzzy measure µ, is defined as
FEV(χA ) = sup {min[T, µ(ξT )]} (3)
T∈[0,1]
where
ξT = {x|χA (x) ≥ T} (4)
and
µ{x|χA (x) ≥ T) = fA (T) is a function of the threshold T
(5)
Figure 1 provides a geometric interpretation of the
FEV. Performing the minimum operator, the two curves
create the boundaries for the remaining triangular curve.
The supremum operator returns the highest value of
fA (T), which graphically represents the highest point of
the triangular curve. This corresponds to the intersection
of the two curves where T = H.
The FEV can be computed for all three types of inputs
mentioned earlier in this section. For type (1) input, the
resultant FEV should be a numeric value between 0 and
1. For both type (2) and type (3) inputs, the resultant
FEVs are membership functions. The crisp numeric
equivalents of these membership functions can be obtained
by applying a defuzzification method and can then be
compared with type (1) answers. The centroid of area
defuzzification method has been used to return a value
obtained by averaging the moment area of a given fuzzy
set. Mathematically, the centroid, x, of a fuzzy set, A, is
defined as
1
x · µA (x)dx
x= 0 1 (6)
0 µA (x)dx
where µA (x) is the membership function of the fuzzy set A.
The resultant FEVs are now the aggregated evaluation
of the alternatives from all the stakeholders. They can
now be used as the input value in the decision matrix for
the multicriteria analysis.
1
fA(T )
fA(T ) T
H
H 1
T
Figure 1. Participatory multicriteria flood management.

Participatory Multicriteria Decision-making Under
Uncertainty
Here an innovative modification has been made to the
compromise programming multicriteria decision-making
technique to accommodate participatory flood decision-
making under uncertainty. Bender and Simonovic (6)
fuzzified compromise programming entirely and thus
formulated fuzzy compromise programming (FCP). The
driving force for the transformation from a classical
to a fuzzy environment is that there is a need for
accurate representation of subjective data in the flood
decision-making. It is the theory of fuzzy sets that can
represent the subjective data well. Thus, instead of using
crisp numbers in the compromise programming distance
metric equation, fuzzy numbers are used; instead of using
classical arithmetic, fuzzy arithmetic is applied; instead of
simply sorting distance metrics, fuzzy set ranking methods
must be applied to sort the fuzzy distance metrics. In
other words, the fuzzy transformation complicates the
interpretation of the results but, on the other hand,
models the decision-making process more realistically.
Mathematically, the compromise programming distance
metric in its discrete form can be presented as
t   ∗ p 1/p
f z − fz
Lj = wpz (7)
fz∗ − fz−
z=1
where z = 1, 2, 3, . . . , t and represents t criteria; j =
1, 2, 3, . . . , n and represents n alternatives; Lj is the
distance metric of alternative j; wz corresponds to a
weight of a particular criterion; p is a parameter (p = 1,
2, ∞); fz∗ and fz− are the best and the worst value for
criterion z, respectively (also referred to as positive and
negative ideals); and fz is the actual value of criterion z.
The parameter p is used to represent the importance of
the maximal deviation from the ideal point. Varying the
parameter p from 1 to infinity allows one to move from
minimizing the sum of individual regrets (i.e., having a
perfect compensation among the criteria) to minimizing
the maximum regret (i.e., having no compensation among
the criteria) in the decision-making process. The choice of a
particular value of this compensation parameter p depends
on the type of problem and desired solution. The weight
parameter, wz , characterizes decision-makers’ preference
concerning the relative importance of criteria. Simply
stated, the parameter places emphasis on the criteria
that the decision-maker deems important. The parameter
is needed because different participants in the decision-
making process have different viewpoints concerning the
importance of a criterion.
Bender and Simonovic (6) fuzzified compromise pro-
gramming and thus formulated fuzzy compromise pro-
gramming (FCP). The driving force for the transformation
from a classical to a fuzzy environment is that there is a
need for accurate representation of subjective data in the
flood decision-making. It is the theory of fuzzy sets that can
represent the subjective data well. Thus, instead of using
crisp numbers in the distance metric, Equation 7, fuzzy
numbers are used; instead of using classical arithmetic,
fuzzy arithmetic is applied; instead of simply sorting dis-
tance metrics, fuzzy set ranking methods must be applied
PARTICIPATORY MULTICRITERIA FLOOD MANAGEMENT 681
to sort the fuzzy distance metrics. In other words, the
fuzzy transformation complicates the interpretation of the
results but, on the other hand, models the flood decision-
making process more realistically.
In fuzzy compromise programming, obtaining the
smallest distance metric values is not easy, because the
distance metrics are also fuzzy. To pick out a smallest
fuzzy distance metric, from a group of distance metrics,
fuzzy set ranking methods have to be used. A study by
Prodanovic and Simonovic (7) compared fuzzy set ranking
methods for use in fuzzy compromise programming and
recommended using the method of Chang and Lee (8).
This recommendation was founded on the fact that Chang
and Lee’s (8) method gave the most control in the ranking
process—with degree of membership weighting and the
weighting of the subjective type. The overall existence
ranking index (OERI) suggested by Chang and Lee (8) has
the following mathematical form:
 1
OERI(j) = ω(α)[χ1 µ−1 −1
jL (α) + χ2 µjR (α)]dα (8)
0
where the subscript j stands for alternative j, while α
represents the degree of membership; χ1 and χ2 are the
subjective type weighting indicating neutral, optimistic,
or pessimistic preferences of the decision-maker, with
the restriction that χ1 + χ2 = 1; parameter ω(α) is used
to specify weights, which are to be given to certain
degrees of distance metric membership (if any); and
µ−1
jL (α) represents an inverse of the left part, and µjR
−1
(α) the inverse of the right part of the distance metric
membership function.
For χ1 values greater than 0.5, the left side of the
membership function is weighted more than the right side,
which in turn makes the decision-maker more optimistic.
Of course, if the right side is weighted more, the decision-
maker is more of a pessimist (this is because he/she prefers
larger distance metric values, which means the solution
farther from the ideal solution). In summary, the risk
preferences are: if χ1 < 0.5, the user is a pessimist (risk
averse); if χ1 = 0.5, the user is neutral; and if χ1 > 0.5, the
user is an optimist (risk taker). Simply stated, Chang and
Lee’s (8) overall existence ranking index is a sum of the
weighted areas between the distance metric membership
axis and the left and right inverses of a fuzzy number.
FLOOD MANAGEMENT IN THE RED RIVER BASIN,
MANITOBA, CANADA
The proposed methodology is applied to flood management
in the Red River Basin (9–11). One of the flood man-
agement problems at the planning stage in the Red River
Basin is the complex, large-scale problem of ranking poten-
tial flood management alternatives. During the evaluation
of alternatives, it is necessary to consider multiple crite-
ria that may be quantitative and qualitative. The flood
management process in the basin also involves numerous
stakeholders. They include different levels of government,
different agencies, private organizations, interest groups,
and the general public. They all have different and specific
682 PARTICIPATORY MULTICRITERIA FLOOD MANAGEMENT

Table 2. Resultant FEVs

Alternative Structural Nonstructural Combination
Type
A B C A B C A B C
Question
Number FEV FEV FEV FEV FEV FEV FEV FEV FEV

Community Involvement
1 0.600 0.650 0.544 0.647 0.650 0.544 0.600 0.625 0.544
2 0.529 0.517 0.500 0.500 0.517 0.491 0.500 0.570 0.544
3 0.618 0.700 0.529 0.559 0.625 0.529 0.600 0.625 0.544
4 0.600 0.650 0.544 0.657 0.650 0.559 0.686 0.650 0.544
5 0.700 0.700 0.559 0.629 0.650 0.544 0.700 0.650 0.544
6a 0.800 0.825 0.677 0.704 0.770 0.588 0.800 0.825 0.647
6b 0.771 0.770 0.588 0.714 0.717 0.574 0.743 0.770 0.574
6c 0.700 0.700 0.574 0.629 0.650 0.574 0.686 0.700 0.574
7 0.800 0.825 0.735 0.829 0.850 0.718 0.857 0.825 0.718
8 0.700 0.717 0.574 0.700 0.650 0.574 0.700 0.700 0.574

Personal Loss
1 0.800 0.770 0.718 0.700 0.700 0.574 0.700 0.717 0.671
2 0.588 0.570 0.544 0.600 0.650 0.544 0.600 0.625 0.574
3a 0.500 0.570 0.574 0.559 0.625 0.574 0.559 0.570 0.574
3b 0.700 0.717 0.625 0.700 0.717 0.588 0.706 0.717 0.588
4 0.771 0.770 0.574 0.700 0.650 0.574 0.700 0.717 0.544
5 0.500 0.570 0.529 0.700 0.570 0.544 0.571 0.570 0.544

needs and responsibilities during all stages of flood man-
agement—planning, emergency management, and flood
recovery. There has been increasing concern by the gen-
eral public about the decisions to be taken on the selection
of flood control measures. During the 1997 flood, it was
indicated that certain stakeholders in the basin, partic-
ularly the floodplain residents, did not have adequate
involvement in flood management decision-making. Dis-
satisfaction has been observed among the stakeholders
about evacuation decisions during the emergency man-
agement and about compensation decisions during the
postflood recovery (10).
The methodology presented in the previous section has
been used to collect information from the stakeholders
across the Canadian portion of the Red River Basin. In
order to evaluate the utility of the methodology, a generic
experiment was considered for the study to evaluate three
alternative options for improved flood management. Three
generic options considered are (1) structural alternatives,
(2) nonstructural alternatives, and (3) a combination
of both. The selection of criteria against which the
alternatives are ranked is one of the most difficult but
important tasks of any multicriteria decision analysis.
The following two social objectives have been considered
in our case study: level of community involvement and
amount of personal losses (include financial, health, and
psychological losses). A detailed survey has been conducted
in the basin to collect the information on the two selected
social criteria (12). All three types of inputs obtained
from all the stakeholders were processed using the fuzzy
expected value method. Table 2 summarizes the results of
all three types of inputs (scale, linguistic, and conditional
types, which are termed A, B, and C, respectively,
in the table) as the evaluation of three alternatives
(structural, nonstructural, combination) against two
criteria (community development, personal loss). Obtained
results show good correlation between the numeric scale
type and linguistic type of inputs with an average
difference of only 0.029.
The FEVs obtained in Table 2 are used further
to rank the three generic alternatives. All questions
are considered to carry the same weight. A set of
ranking experiments has been conducted to evaluate
the impact of different stakeholder groups on the final
rank of alternatives: (a) experiment 1—all stakeholders
interviewed; (b) experiment 2—stakeholders from the city
of Winnipeg; (c) experiment 3—stakeholders from the
Morris area (south of Winnipeg); and (d) experiment
4—stakeholders from the Selkirk area (north from
Winnipeg).
The final results of four ranking experiments with three
generic alternatives and two social criteria are shown in
the Table 3 (defuzzified distance metric value and the rank
in parentheses). It is obvious that the final rank varies with
the experiment, therefore confirming that preferences of
different stakeholders are being captured by the developed
methodology.
CONCLUSIONS
The analyses of flood management options in the Red
River Basin, Manitoba, Canada (3) show the applicability
of the methodology for a real flood management decision-
making problem. The stakeholders can now express their
concerns regarding flood hazard in an informal way, and
 WATER RESOURCES SYSTEMS ANALYSIS 683

Table 3. Final Rank of Flood Management Alternatives WATER RESOURCES SYSTEMS ANALYSIS
Participants Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
SLOBODAN P. SIMONOVIC
All stakeholders 13.22 13.72 13.29 The University of Western Ontario
(1) (3) (2) London, Ontario, Canada
Morris 15.43 16.09 13.63
(2) (3) (1)
Selkirk 14.63 14.42 14.58 INTRODUCTION
(3) (1) (2)
Winnipeg 13.74 15.25 13.92
Water resources planning and management process is a
(1) (3) (2)
search for the solution of how to meet the needs of a pop-
ulation with the available resources (1). Water resources
planning and management is as old as humanity. How-
ever, with knowledge and technology development, a
that can be incorporated into the multicriteria decision- change in the living standard of people, and further eco-
making model. The application of methodology helps in nomic development, the analysis procedure changes.
solving the problem of incorporating a large number of
Principal Objectives for Industrialized Countries
stakeholders in the flood decision-making process.
An example of the principal water resources planning
and management objectives for industrialized countries is
based on the Principles and Standards for Planning Water
BIBLIOGRAPHY
and Related Land Resources used in the United States
and introduced by the U.S. Water Resources Council in
1. Affeltranger, B. (2001). Public Participation in the Design of 1973 and modified in 1979 and 1980 (2). According to
Local Strategies for Flood Mitigation and Control, UNESCO them the overall purpose of water resources planning
IHP-V, Technical Documents in Hydrology, Vol. 48. and management is improvement of the quality of life
2. Simonovic, S.P. (2004). Sustainable floodplain manage- through contributions to national economic development,
ment—participatory planning in the Red River Basin, environmental quality, regional economic development,
Canada. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Modelling and and other social effects. Under these ‘‘principles and
Control for Participatory Planning and Managing Water Sys- standards,’’ the water resources planning process consists
tems, IFAC, CD-ROM. of six major steps: (1) specification of the water and related
3. Akter, T. and Simonovic, S.P. (2004). Aggregation of fuzzy land resources problems and opportunities; (2) inventory,
views of a large number of stakeholders for multiobjective forecast, and analysis of water and related land resource
flood management decision making. J. Environ. Manage. conditions within the planning area relevant to the
22(1–2): 57–72. identified problems and opportunities; (3) formulation of
4. Zimmerman, H.J. (2001). Fuzzy Set Theory—and Its Appli- alternative plans; (4) evaluation of the effects of the
cation, Academic Publishers, Boston. alternative plans; (5) comparison of alternative plans;
5. Simonovic, S.P. (2000). Tools for water management: one view and (6) selection of a recommended plan based on the
of the future. Water Int. IWRA 25(1): 1–8. comparison of alternative plans.
6. Bender, M.J. and Simonovic, S.P. (2000). A fuzzy compromise
approach to water resources planning under uncertainty. Principal Objectives for Developing Countries
Fuzzy Sets Syst. 115(1): 35–44.
Water resources planning and management in developing
7. Prodanovic, P.P. and Simonovic, S.P. (2002). Comparison
countries should correspond to a set of criteria distinct
of fuzzy set ranking methods for implementation in
water resources decision-making. Can. J. Civil Eng. 29: from those used in industrialized countries. These criteria
692–701. should reflect prevailing constraints on physical, financial,
8. Chang, P.T. and Lee, E.S. (1994). Ranking of fuzzy sets
and human resources and the need to allocate critically
based on the concept of existence. Comput. Math. Appl. 27: sparse resources to programs that correspond to short-
1–21. and long-term sociopolitical objectives and promise to be
9. Simonovic, S.P. (1999). Decision support system for flood the most cost effective.
management in the Red River Basin. Can. Water Res. J. The United Nations Industrial Development Organi-
24(3): 203–223. zation (UNIDO) (3) recommended that planning analy-
10. International Joint Commission (2000). Living with the Red. sis consider the following objectives: (1) aggregate con-
Ottawa, Washington. Available at http://www.ijc.org/php/ sumption, (2) income redistribution, (3) growth rate of
publications/html/living.html. national income, (4) employment level, (5) self-reliance,
11. Simonovic, S.P. and Carson, R.W. (2003). Flooding in the Red and (6) merit wants. The UN publication treats the prob-
River Basin—lessons from post flood activities. Nat. Hazards lems of evaluating the extent to which projects advance
28: 345–365. each of the objectives and presents their combination as a
12. Salonga, J. (2004). Aggregation methods for multi-objective measure of ‘‘aggregate economic profitability.’’ The UNIDO
flood management decision making with multiple stakehold- guidelines, in developing a system of objectives, do not lay
ers: Red River Basin case study [Civil Engineering thesis]. any stress on the quality of the environment or other
The University of Western Ontario, London. intangible descriptors applied to the quality of human life.
684 WATER RESOURCES SYSTEMS ANALYSIS
SYSTEMS ANALYSIS
Systems analysis is the use of rigorous methods to
help determine preferred plans and designs for complex,
often large-scale systems. It combines knowledge of the
available analytic tools, understanding of when each is
more appropriate, and skill in applying them to practical
problems. It is both mathematical and intuitive, as is all
planning and design.
Systems analysis is a relatively new field. Its develop-
ment parallels that of the computer, the computational
power of which enables us to analyze complex relation-
ships, involving many variables, at reasonable cost. Most
of its techniques depend on the use of the computer for
practical applications. Systems analysis may be thought
of as the set of computer-based methods essential for the
planning of major water resources projects. It is thus cen-
tral to a modern water resources engineering curriculum.
Systems analysis covers much of the same material
as operations research, in particular, linear and dynamic
programming and decision analysis. The two fields differ
substantially in direction, however. Operations research
tends to be interested in specific techniques and their
mathematical properties. Systems analysis focuses on the
use of the methods.
Systems analysis emphasizes the kinds of real problems
to be solved; considers the relevant range of useful
techniques, including many besides those of operations
research; and concentrates on the guidance they can
provide toward improving plans and designs. Use of
systems analysis instead of the more traditional set of tools
generally leads to substantial improvements in design
and reductions in cost. Gains of 30% are not uncommon.
These translate into an enormous advantage when one is
considering projects worth tens and hundreds of millions
of dollars.
DEFINITIONS
There are many variations in the definition of what a
system is, but all of the definitions share many common
traits. Some kind of system is inherent in all but the
most trivial water resources engineering planning and
design problems. To understand a problem, the engineer
must be able to recognize and understand the system
that surrounds and includes it. Some of the reasons for
poor system definition in former projects include poor
communications, lack of knowledge of interrelationships,
politics, limited objectives, and transportation difficulties.
What, then, is a system? The dictionary definition
of the term ‘‘system’’ is a mass of verbiage providing
no less than 15 ways to define the word. In the most
general sense, a system may be defined as a collection of
various structural and nonstructural elements that are
connected and organized in such a way as to achieve
some specific objective by the control and distribution of
material resources, energy, and information.
A more formal definition of a system can be stated as
S:X→Y (1)
where X is an input vector and Y is an output vector. So, a
system is a set of operations that transforms input vector
X into output vector Y.
The usual representation of the system definition is
presented in Fig. 1. The system’s objects are input, output,
process, feedback, and a restriction. Input energizes the
operation of a given process. The final state of the process
is known as the output. Feedback performs a number of
operations to compare the actual output with an objective
and identifies the discrepancies that exist between them.
To avoid any misunderstanding, let’s define some terms
often in use: mathematical model—a set of equations that
describes and represents the real system; decision vari-
ables—the controllable and partially controllable inputs;
policy—resulting set of decision variables, when each
decision variable is assigned a particular value; objec-
tive function—quantity used to measure the effectiveness
of a particular policy, expressed as a function of the
decision variables; constraints—physical, economic, or
any other restrictions applied to the model; feasible pol-
icy—a policy that does not violate any constraints; and
policy space—the subset consisting of all possible feasi-
ble policies.
WATER RESOURCES SYSTEM
General formulation of water resources system (4) may
be presented as the transformation of available water
resources,
WA = {QA , KA , LA } (2)
into required water resources,
WD = {QD , KD , LD } (3)
taking into consideration water quality protection,
flood control, and regional and national development
plans. Notation used in Equations 2 and 3 includes:
QA —available quantity of water; QD —required quantity
of water; KA —quality of available water; KD —required
water quality; LA —location of available resources; and
LD —location of demand points.
Mathematical expression of the transformation prob-
lem can be given as
WD = T × WA (4)
X Y
Input Output
Controlled Desirable
Uncontrolled S Undesirable
System
Partially Neutral
Feedback
Figure 1. System presentation.

This transformation may be performed through the
following three processes:
1. Water Resources Planning—formulation of goals
and objectives that are consistent with politi-
cal, social, environmental, economic, technological,
and aesthetic constraints; and the general defini-
tion of procedures designed to meet those goals
and objectives.
2. Water Resources Design—selection of a particular
combination of resources and a way to use them.
3. Water Resources Operations—implementation of
procedures in order to achieve preselected goals
and objectives.
SYSTEMS APPROACH
The systems approach is a general problem-solving
technique that brings more objectivity to the water
resources planning/design processes. It is, in essence, good
design; a logical and systematic approach to problem
solution in which assumptions, goals, objectives, and
criteria are clearly defined and specified. Emphasis is
placed on relating system performance to these goals. A
hierarchy of systems, which allows handling of a complex
system by looking at its component parts or subsystems,
is identified. Quantifiable and nonquantifiable aspects of
the problem are identified, and immediate and long-range
implications of suggested alternatives are evaluated.
The systems approach establishes the proper order
of inquiry and helps in the selection of the best course
of action that will accomplish a prescribed goal by
broadening the information base of the decision-maker;
by providing a better understanding of the system and
the interrelatedness of the system and its component
subsystems; and by facilitating the prediction of the
consequences of several alternative courses of action.
The systems approach is a framework for analysis
and decision-making. It does not solve problems, but it
does allow the decision-maker to undertake resolution
of a problem in a logical, rational manner. While there
is some art involved in the efficient application of the
systems approach, other factors play equally important
roles. The magnitude and complexity of decision processes
require the most effective use possible of the scientific
(quantitative) methods of systems analysis. However, one
has to be careful not to rely too heavily on the methods of
systems analysis. Outputs from simplified analyses have
a tendency to take on a false validity because of their
complexity and technical elegance.
The steps in the systems approach include (5): defini-
tion of the problem; gathering of data; development of crite-
ria for evaluating alternatives; formulation of alternatives;
evaluation of alternatives; choosing the best alternative;
and final design/plan implementation. Often several steps
in the systems approach are considered simultaneously,
facilitating feedback and allowing a natural progression
in the problem-solving process.
The systems approach has several defining characteris-
tics. It is a repetitive process, with feedback allowed from
any step to any previous step. Frequently, because systems
WATER RESOURCES SYSTEMS ANALYSIS 685
analysis takes such a broad approach to problem-solving,
interdisciplinary teams must be called in. Coordination
and commonality of technique among the disciplines is
sometimes hard to achieve. Close communication among
the parties involved in applying the systems approach is
essential if this understanding is to be achieved.
Definition of the Problem
Problem definition may require iteration and careful
investigation, because problem symptoms may mask the
true cause of the problem. A key step of problem definition
requires the identification of any systems and subsystems
that are part of the problem, or related in some way to
it. This set of systems and interrelationships is called the
environment of the problem. This environment sets the
limit on factors that will be considered when analyzing
the problem. Any factors that cannot be included in the
problem environment must be included as inputs to, or
outputs from, the problem environment.
Gathering of Data
Gathering of data to assist in planning and design decision-
making through the systems approach will generally be
done in conjunction with several steps. Some background
data will have to be gathered at the problem definition
stage and data gathering and analysis will continue
through the final plan/design and implementation stage.
Data that are gathered as the approach continues will help
to identify when feedback to a previous step is required.
Data will be required at the problem definition stage
to evaluate if a problem really exists; to establish what
components, subsystems, and elements can reasonably be
included in the delineation of the problem environment;
and to define interactions between components and
subsystems. Data will be needed during later steps to
establish constraints on the problem and systems involved
in it, to increase the set of quantifiable variables and
parameters (constants) through statistical observation
or development of measuring techniques, to suggest
what mathematical models might contribute effectively
to the analysis, to estimate values for coefficients and
parameters used in any mathematical models of the
system, and to check the validity of any estimated system
outputs. When feedback is required, the data previously
acquired can assist in redefining the problem, systems, or
system models.
Development of Evaluative Criteria
Evaluative criteria must be developed to measure
the degree of attainment of system objectives. These
evaluative criteria will facilitate a rational choice of a
particular set of actions (from among a large number
of feasible alternatives), which will best accomplish
the established objectives. Some evaluative criteria will
provide an absolute value of how good the solution is, such
as the cost of producing one unit of some product. Other
evaluative criteria will only produce relative values that
can be compared among the alternatives to rank them in
order of preference, as in economic comparisons such as
benefit/cost analysis.
686 WATER RESOURCES SYSTEMS ANALYSIS
In most complex real-world water problems, more
than one objective can be identified. A quantitative
or qualitative analysis of the trade-offs between the
objectives must be made. For many problems, cost
effectiveness would be the primary objective. Cost
effectiveness can be defined as the lowest possible cost
for a set level of control of a system, or the highest level of
system control for a set cost.
Formulation of Alternatives
Formulation of alternatives is essentially the development
of system models that, in conjunction with evaluative
criteria, will be used in later analysis and decision-making.
If at all possible, these models should be mathematical
in nature. However, it should not be assumed that
mathematical model building and optimization techniques
are either required or sufficient for application of the
systems approach. Many problems contain unquantifiable
variables and parameters that would render results
generated by even the most elegant mathematical model
meaningless. If it is not practical to develop mathematical
models, subjective models that describe the problem
environment and systems included can be constructed.
Models allow a more explicit description of the problem
and its systems and facilitate the rapid examination of
alternatives. Effective model building is a combination
of art and science. The science includes the technical
principles of mathematics, physics, and engineering
science. The art is the creative application of these
principles to describe physical or social phenomena.
Evaluation of Alternatives
To evaluate the alternatives that have been developed,
some form of analysis procedure must be used. Numer-
ous mathematical techniques are available, including the
simplex method for linear programming models, the var-
ious methods for solving ordinary and partial differential
equations or systems of differential equations, matrix
algebra, various economic analyses, and deterministic
or stochastic computer simulation. Subjective analysis
techniques may be used for multiobjective analysis, or
subjective analysis of intangibles. The appropriate analy-
sis procedures for a particular problem will generate a set
of solutions for the alternatives that can be tested accord-
ing to the established evaluative criteria. In addition,
these solution procedures should allow efficient utilization
of personnel and computational resources.
Choosing the Best Alternative
Choice of the best alternative from among those analyzed
must be made in the context of the objectives and
evaluative criteria previously established, but also must
take into account nonquantifiable aspects of the problem
such as aesthetic and political considerations. The chosen
alternative will greatly influence the development of the
final plan/design and will determine in large part the
implementability of the suggested solution. Preferably,
the best alternative can be chosen from the mathematical
optimization within feasibility constraints. Frequently,
however, a system cannot be completely optimized.
Near optimum solutions can still be useful, especially
if sensitivity analysis has shown that the solution (and
thus the objective function) is not sensitive to changes in
the decision variables near the optimum point.
Final Plan/Design Implementation
Actual final planning/design is primarily a technical mat-
ter that is conducted within the constraints and specifica-
tions developed in earlier stages of the systems approach.
One of the end products of final planning or design is a
report that describes the recommendations made.
MATHEMATICAL MODELING
In general, to obtain a way to control or manage a
water resources system we use a mathematical model
that closely represents the physical system. Then the
mathematical model is solved and its solution is applied to
the physical system. Models, or idealized representations,
are an integral part of everyday life. Mathematical models
are also idealized representations, but they are expressed
in terms of mathematical symbols and expressions.
Such laws of physics as F = ma and E = mc2 are
familiar examples. Similarly, the mathematical model of
a business problem is the system of equations and related
mathematical expressions that describe the essence of
the problem. Thus, if there are n related quantifiable
decisions to be made, they are represented as decision
variables (say, x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ) whose respective values are
to be determined. The appropriate measure of performance
(e.g., profit) is then expressed as a mathematical function
of these decision variables (e.g., P = 3x1 + 2x2 + · · · + 5xn ).
This function is called the objective function. Any
restrictions on the values that can be assigned to these
decision variables are also expressed mathematically,
typically by means of inequalities or equations (e.g.,
x1 + 3x1 x2 + 2x2 ≤ 10). Such mathematical expressions for
the restrictions often are called constraints. The constants
(coefficients or right-hand sides) in the constraints and the
objective function are called the parameters of the model.
The mathematical model might then say that the problem
is to choose the values of the decision variables so as to
maximize the objective function, subject to the specified
constraints.
Mathematical models have many advantages over a
verbal description of the problem. One obvious advantage
is that a mathematical model describes a problem much
more concisely. This tends to make the overall structure of
the problem more comprehensible, and it helps to reveal
important cause-and-effect relationships. In this way, it
indicates more clearly what additional data are relevant
to the analysis. It also facilitates dealing with the problem
in its entirety and considering all its interrelationships
simultaneously. Finally, a mathematical model forms
a bridge to the use of high-powered mathematical
techniques and computers to analyze the problem.
Indeed, packaged software for both microcomputers and
mainframe computers is becoming widely available for
many mathematical models.
The procedure of selecting the set of decision variables
that maximizes/minimizes the objective function, subject
to the systems constraints, is called the optimization

procedure. The following is a general optimization
problem. Select the set of decision variables x∗1 , x∗2 , . . . , x∗n
such that
Min or Max f (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn )
subject to
g1 (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ) ≤ b1
g2 (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ) ≤ b2 (5)
gm (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ) ≤ bm
where b1 , b2 , . . . , bm are known values.
If we use matrix notation, Equation 5 can be rewrit-
ten as
Min or Max f (x) (6)
subject to
gj (x) ≤ bj , j = 1, 2, . . . , m
When optimization fails, due to system complexity or
computational difficulty, a reasonable attempt at a
solution may often be obtained by simulation. Apart
from facilitating trial and error design, simulation is
a valuable technique for studying the sensitivity of
system performance to changes in design parameters or
operating procedure.
According to Equations 5 and 6, our main goal is the
search for an optimal or best solution. However, it needs
to be recognized that these solutions are optimal only with
respect to the model being used. Since the model necessar-
ily is an idealized rather than an exact representation of
the real problem, there cannot be any utopian guarantee
that the optimal solution for the model will prove to be the
best possible solution that could have been implemented
for the real problem. There just are too many imponder-
ables and uncertainties associated with real problems.
However, if the model is well formulated and tested, the
resulting solution should tend to be a good approximation
to the ideal course of action for the real problem. Therefore,
rather than be deluded into demanding the impossible, the
WATER RESOURCES SYSTEMS ANALYSIS 687
test of the practical success of an operations research study
should be whether it provides a better guide for action than
can be obtained by other means.
The eminent management scientist and Nobel Laureate
in Economics, Herbert Simon, points out that satisficing is
much more prevalent than optimizing in actual practice.
In coining the term satisficing as a combination of the
words satisfactory and optimizing, Simon is describing the
tendency of water resources managers to seek a solution
that is ‘‘good enough’’ for the problem at hand. Rather than
trying to develop various desirable objectives (including
well-established criteria for judging the performance of
different segments of the organization), a more pragmatic
approach may be used. Goals may be set to establish
minimum satisfactory levels of performance in various
areas, based perhaps on past levels of performance or
on what the competition is achieving. If a solution is
found that enables all of these goals to be met, it is
likely to be adopted without further ado. Such is the
nature of satisficing. The distinction between optimizing
and satisficing reflects the difference between theory and
the realities frequently faced in trying to implement that
theory in practice.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Goodman, A.S. (1984). Principles of Water Resources Planning.
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
2. U.S. Water Resources Council (1973). Principles and
Standards for Planning Water and Related Land Resources,
September 10, 1973; Rev. December 14, 1979; Rev. September
29, 1980.
3. Dasgupta, P., Sen, A., and Marglin, S. (1972). Guidelines for
Project Evaluation. United National Industrial Development
Organization, Vienna.
4. Simonovic, S.P. (1989). Application of water resources systems
concept to the formulation of a water master plan. Water Int.
14: 37–50.
5. Jewell, T.K. (1986). A Systems Approach to Civil Engineering
Planning and Design. Harper and Row, New York.