To solve the problem of water scarcity we need to save water,
which every person on Earth can do. To achieve this, it is necessary to reduce
the amount of its consumption in industry, agriculture, households, avoid
leakage, not pollute and rationally use water resources.
The second way is to
form more and larger reservoirs with fresh water. Experts such as Qian Dang,
Xiaowen Lin, and Megan Konar recommend improving the technology of water
treatment and catchment. While a surface reservoir can safely be filled and
emptied without damage, that is not true of underground reservoirs, aquifers,
which cannot be raised and lowered so easily. In some regions it may be
economically and technologically feasible to process salt water into fresh
water, another promising way to solve the water deficit problem. It is
essential to use other sources of the hydrosphere - to use glaciers and to
increase the number of resources used and the amount of each harvested (Gayfer,
2008). If developed nations continue to work to develop water technology, then
shortly it should be possible to solve the problem of the freshwater deficit.
Furthermore, it is
necessary to change the methods of water consumption. In agriculture, for
example, use drip irrigation. Practical use of water resources contributes to a
sharp increase in the competitiveness of the economy. A system of practical
water use can be built at a regional level (when a river or lake is perceived
as a single object), and at the national level (International Atomic Energy
Agency, 2011). In this connection, it would be logical to assume that the
states such as Colorado that are located upstream should not only not seek to
build regional regimes for managing international water resources, but also
resist this, to prevent the increase in the influence of their downstream
neighbors. However, this go-it-alone strategy has relatively clear limits and
needs to be balanced against the loss of the benefits of regional cooperation.
Alternatives that the
downstream state can offer in exchange for a mutually beneficial regional water
use system are multiplying as the world market becomes more dynamic and
multi-agent (International Atomic Energy Agency, 2011). In this regard, the
value of such benefits as the creation of free-trade zones, facilitated access
to the national labor and capital markets, access to innovative technologies
for practical water use and hydro-power facilities is continually growing
(International Atomic Energy Agency, 2011).
Gleick and Iceland
(2018) noted that increasing populations and industrialization along with
predicted climate changes threaten freshwater supplies. Water insecurity is
“much more likely if governance is weak, infrastructure is inadequate, and
institutions are fragile.”
Gleick and Iceland
list some risk-reducing options:
•
putting caps on water usage;
•
improving irrigation practices and technology
(irrigation being
70% of water withdrawals
worldwide);
•
planting water-conserving crops;
•
“introducing social safety net programs;”
•
reducing food loss and waste;
•
slowing population growth;
•
establishing urban water conservation programs;
•
improving water treatment and conservation;
•
negotiating watershed agreements;
•
updating water information systems;
•
investing in water reuse and in water capture by
dams, dikes, and levees;
•
protecting the forests and wetlands, and • strengthening the relevant governance
bodies.
They classify the threats as
•
diminished water supply or quality • increased water demand
•
extreme flood events.
They write that
analysts are emphasizing now that conflicts arise not only due to political
differences, but also to economic, demographic, and social factors somewhat
affected by resource constraints.
Anderson and Libecap
(2014) favor greater use of property rights and market mechanisms in
determining the ownership and usage of water resources. Property rights are
ownership of an asset that, with the owner paying the costs and obtaining the
benefits, avoid the problem of the “tragedy of the commons.” “There is no
simple analysis, however, that can tell us whether markets are better than
regulation or vice versa. The answer depends on the relative costs and benefits
of alternative institutions.”
Award-winning
economist, the late Elinor Ostrom (2014) studied in detail the
common-pool-resource (CPR) governance issues described in her Governing the Commons. Ostrom proposes
another model, one in which the participants can regulate themselves with
binding laws/contracts, established unanimously. The players have an incentive
to monitor each other and a referee to enforce penalties. She gives as an
example the successful use of agreed-upon daily rotation through a set of
fishing locations in Turkey, with monitoring (and enforcement) handled by the
fishermen themselves. Factors internal to the group involved or external to it
may make some arrangements feasible and others not. She lists the difficulties
faced by “centralizers” and “privatizers” that make any sweeping generalization
likely to be wrong. “Policies based on metaphors can be harmful” she concludes.
One might say, “the devil is in the details.” As with other complex issues,
further study is desirable.
Focusing on the
Colorado River is the in-depth study, “The Colorado River and the Inevitability
of Institutional Change,” the
extensive and definitive work (Kenney et al., 2011) of a team of scholars
(Douglas Kenney, Sara Bates, Anne Bensard, and John Berggren). Noting that the
Colorado River is one of the most thoroughly studied natural resources in the
world, the authors comment, “By almost any standard, it is the jewel of the
American Southwest–and it is in trouble.” Its many major contributions to the
region are threatened by predicted increases in the demand for its waters,
while its flow is likely to decrease. The fundamental
problems are: a complex set of legal
arrangements for its use, a projected
shortfall between the allowed allocations and the expected flow in the
future, and the legal ambiguities
involved in settling claims to the flow.
Five issues are
highlighted by Kenney et al. (2011):
•
The Upper Basin Delivery Obligation
•
The Interbasin Apportionment
•
Deliveries to Mexico
•
Administration of Compact Calls
•
Compact Rescission or Reformation
Much of the latter
part of the document involves describing the opinions of many of the leaders of
the Colorado River Basin. In sum,
•
they recognized the need for change due to
increased risk of shortages;
•
they preferred conflict resolution to
litigation;
•
they desired more diverse input into resolving
the issues.
Options favored
included:
•
getting more public involvement in the issues,
•
obtaining more agreement on the ways to handle a
variety of river-flow scenarios,
•
studying the current and future use of the river
water,
•
harnessing the political modalities to regulate
the relationships between the Upper and Lower Basins and among the states
involved.
An extensive analysis
and evaluation of options for assuring adequate water supplies in the Colorado
River Basin was published in 2012 by the Bureau of Reclamation. Four
water-supply scenarios and six water-demand scenarios were studied to try to
predict the future needs. Comparing the medians from the supply and demand scenarios,
the likely imbalance by 2060 is 3.2 maf [million acre-feet volume of water],
with a wide range of uncertainty. Some of this can be met with reservoir
storage to smooth out variability. By
2010, the ten-year running average of demand had already exceeded the ten-year
running average of supply, and the trends were for this difference to increase.
Over 20,000 computer simulations were run to study the impact of the various
options considered. Figure 4 of the report shows the various options and their
cost estimates and the percentage of the 2010-2060 years in which the system is
vulnerable. There are wide ranges of vulnerabilities, and the costs vary as
well, but are limited to about $2 billion to $7 billion per year. The report
does not choose the best option, leaving that to others.
Western Resource
Advocates put forth the following proposals in 2014
[https://westernresourceadvocates.org/publications/the-hardest-working-river-in-the-west-colorado-river-basin/]
“The Hardest Working River in the West: Common-Sense Solutions for a Reliable
Water Future for the Colorado River Basin” identifies five innovative solutions
that could eliminate Western water shortages stemming from the over-taxed and
stressed Colorado River and meet the water needs of the West’s business,
agricultural and growing population through 2060.
The facts are clear: the demand for water from the Colorado River
exceeds the supply. By 2060, we can expect a 3.8-million-acre-foot deficit
in river supply. Coming up short could put 36 million people’s drinking water,
agriculture, future economic growth, the $26.4 billion outdoor recreational
economy, and a quarter-million jobs in jeopardy. In addition, the river’s
imbalance is wreaking havoc on the West’s natural ecosystems, harming world-class
fisheries and unique natural wonders. In addition to identifying the
challenges, the report details five
affordable solutions to ensure a reliable water future, improve the health
of the Colorado River, grow the economies of the seven Basin states, and
protect essential Western natural habitats:
•
Municipal
conservation, saving 1 million acre-feet through improved landscaping
techniques, rebate programs that incentivize water-saving devices, installing
new appliances and fixtures, and standardized, routine water audits across
municipalities.
•
Municipal
reuse, saving 1.2 million acre-feet—Wastewater and gray water can be
treated for potable use, and reused for irrigation, industrial processing and
cooling, dust control, artificial lakes and replenishing groundwater supply.
Rainwater harvesting using innovative new technologies is a simple additional
step.
•
Agricultural
efficiency and water banking, saving 1 million acre-feet— Agriculture is
the river’s largest water use, extending across 5.7 million acres of arid
Western land and consuming more than 70% of the river’s water. Voluntary
improved irrigation efficiency, regulated irrigation, rotational fallowing,
crop shifting, and innovative irrigation technologies are already being used by
farmers. In addition, water banking is a marketbased approach that allows
farmers (and others) to bank their unused water voluntarily.
•
Clean,
water-efficient energy supplies, saving 160 thousand acre-feet—To reduce
the need for water to cool thermoelectric power plants, Colorado River Basin
states can continue to pursue energy efficiency and renewable sources of energy
like wind, solar photovoltaics, and geothermal, which require little or no
water.
•
Innovative
water opportunities, generating up to 1 million acre-feet— Inland
desalination in certain areas with brackish groundwater and surface water is a
viable option to stretch water supplies, potentially generating 620,000
acre-feet of water. In addition, dust-on-snow management can help save a
minimum of 400,000 acre-feet of water while removing dense invasive plants in
upland areas will save a minimum of 30,000 acre-feet of water.
In the end, we can say
that almost all the solutions to the problem of providing drinking water in the
future are in the hands of man. Nature gives us practically inexhaustible
sources of life; from all of us, from each of us, only one thing is required -
to preserve what nature is providing.
Unfortunately, some changes to Blogger have made this blog harder to manage.
