Solving the world’s potability problems

Published on by

Solving the world’s potability problems

During the past two decades, there have been only incremental advances in technology but no transformational developments in water solutions.

BT200718.jpg

Asit K Biswas and Cecilia Tortajada

THE BUSINESS TIMES | July 20, 2018

THE Singapore International Water Week (SIWW) has just celebrated its 10th anniversary. Within only one decade, it has become the most important global meeting on urban water and wastewater management. Thousands of the world’s leading urban water experts and academics from different countries, chief executives and other senior officers of water utilities, business professionals and representatives of non-governmental organisations get together to discuss solutions to the world’s urban water and wastewater problems. The focus of SIWW, not unlike the rest of the world, has been mostly on technology to solve the world’s urban water problems.

After decades of work on urban water and wastewater management in some 40 countries around the world, we have concluded that there is no reason why urban centres of 200,000 or more people cannot have access to clean water that can be drunk straight from the tap without any health concerns. We already have the technology to make this possible, and a business model which would ensure both rich and poor households have access to clean water. People who can afford to pay should pay the full cost of water use. The poor – whose water bill exceeds 1.5 per cent of their household incomes – should receive targeted subsidies.

Equally, all citizens must be made aware that water is a limited and critical resource. They must use it rationally and efficiently. If this happens, total water use for domestic purposes will be reduced dramatically. Cost of treating bulk water will decline significantly. Since 80 to 90 per cent of water used in households return as wastewater, the quantity of wastewater that needs to be treated will decline as well. This will reduce significantly the cost of urban water provisioning.

This raises a fundamental question: how much water does a person need to live a healthy and productive life? Only one multi-year study is now available. It was conducted in the 1960s in Singapore. It concluded that a person needs 75 litres a day to lead a heathy life. In Singapore, per capita water use in 2017 was nearly double this amount. In many countries, it is significantly higher. In the United States, it varies from 300-380 litres. In South Africa, it is 235 litres.

There is a good reason to believe people can lead a healthy and productive life with 75-85 litres of water per day. Water consumption in the Czech Republic is now 88 litres per capita per day (lpcd). In several West European cities like Leipzig, Malaga, Tallinn, Barcelona and Zaragoza, average water use is 95 lpcd or less. Denmark now has an average water use of 104 litres. In all these places, the trend is progressively less water use.

The reduction has been made possible through different policy instruments. These include pricing water appropriately so that a sustainable business model could be developed as well as incentives for using less water (Zaragoza, Sao Paulo) and even significant fines for excessive water use (Sao Paulo). Equally necessary are policy measures that will encourage a strong water conservation ethos for all citizens as can be noted in several Scandinavian countries. During the drought years of 2014-2015, with proper use of economic instruments and public awareness, Sao Paulo’s per capita daily water use declined from 145 to 120 litres. Thanks to water pricing, initiatives for using less water and fines for excessive use and very effective public awareness campaigns, Sao Paulo reduced its per capita daily water use significantly. Since Sao Paulo Metropolitan Area has some 22 million inhabitants, these policies saved 550 million litres of drinking water every day and reduced wastewater generation by 470 million litres which otherwise would have had to be treated.

Behavioural Changes

Another important issue that has been completely missed is governance structure of the water utilities. In Mexico, the average stay of heads of water utilities is about 18 months. Their essential qualification is how close they are to the elected mayors. Experience in running utilities is secondary. In India, the average stay of heads of major water utilities is about 24 months. They must be Indian Administrative Service officers, but rarely do they have any expertise in water or running a utility.

The problems facing the Indian or Mexican water utilities are difficult and complex. Chief executives with no background in water or managing utilities have no incentive to learn about the problems since they know they can do very little during their brief tenures. Their stay is simply too short to understand the system and then even formulate a plan, let alone implement it. They thus try short-term ad hoc measures simply to maintain the status quo.

If chief executives of water utilities are headhunted and given a reasonable tenure of six to seven years, with specific key performance targets to be achieved during their stint, probably 60 per cent of urban water problems will be solved with current technology and available funds.

Currently, the world has between 2.5 and three billion people who do not have access to clean water. There is at least another 1.5 billion people in developed countries who may have access to clean water but they do not trust its quality. This is because well-publicised events in Walkerton, Canada; Flint, Michigan; Sydney, Australia; Hong Kong and many other cities have made people increasingly sceptical of the quality of water they receive at home. To be on the safe side, consumers all over the world are increasingly taking charge of their own drinking water supply. Installations of expensive point-of-use water treatment systems are expected to increase from US$17 billion in 2015 to US$69 billion in 2030.

Consumption of bottled water is expected to increase from US$123 billion in 2015 to US$429 billion by 2030. In cities like Tokyo, Berlin, London or New York, increasingly fewer and fewer people are drinking water from the tap.

Trust in water utilities in developing countries disappeared decades ago. Households from Delhi to Dakar have each become a mini utility. When water comes for a few hours every day, people collect it in their underground tanks. They then pump it to overhead tanks.

This means that even if they have two to four hours of water supply every day, they can transform it to a 24-hour continuous supply. They have their own point-of-use treatment systems that clean the water for drinking.

Global emphasis has mostly focused on technological developments to solve water problems. Individual countries are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on technological developments. During the past two decades, there have been only incremental advances in technology, no transformational developments. We expect this to continue for at least another decade.

But we think that during the next decade, transformational changes will come not from technological developments but from behavioural scientists working on “softer” aspects like management, governance and institutions. Currently, not enough attention is being paid to these issues.

Technological developments will undoubtedly help to solve the world’s urban water problems. However, there is increasing evidence that if everyone in the world is to have access to clean water, increasing focus must be placed on behavioural changes. Future SIWWs should put increasing emphasis on how to change the behavioural aspects of water management if the world’s drinking problem is to be solved within the next few decades.

The writers are from Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore. Asit K Biswas is Distinguished Visiting Professor, and Cecilia Tortajada is Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Water Policy.

This article was first published by THE BUSINESS TIMES, July 20, 2018.

Media

Taxonomy

4 Comments

  1. Asit Biswas raises an outlandish point, right in the title, that   “…there ​have been only ​incremental ​advances in ​technology but ​no transformational ​developments in ​water solutions.​”  This is true because *decision makers* do not make the right decisions, rather catering to the business needs of their various members.

    The Water Network is doing a commendable job, bringing together water professionals in such a way as to create dialogue.   But many here who profess to have a broad perspective in the urgent need to get safe drinking water to the poor, are not proactive in this effort. 

    There seem to be a lot of pet projects that take precedence, and it’s as if ‘others’ are expected to be the ones who take the bold steps in bringing about positive change. Granted, to make bold decisions requires courage, with some uncertainty as to personal benefit, but this is the situation in which we find ourselves.

    Sorry that in this forum I find myself hammering away at information on the kind of ‘transformative development in water solutions,’ of which Asit Biswas speaks, and this follows.  The water treatment technology indicated is a simple, sustainable, low cost, user friendly approach to reducing pathogens to the highest standard.  Development of this began in Nepal in 2003 and all that has happened in the product since then is a better understanding of the engineering:

    https://tzenvirohealth.wixsite.com/filtermedia

    One fine day the decision makers will make the right decisions, but getting there is an arduous process. Regrettably, non-threatening as we are, it’s necessary to appear as a thorn in their flesh with such comments as these.  (totally out of character for me personally).

    Reid Harvey

    1 Comment reply

  2. I read this article in great disbelief. How can it be possible to have so many experts in the potable water arena with so little knowledge. It is difficult to know which is more problematic. Having any level of government pushing chlorinated water or business of charging people for water and energy.  I understand experts can not see the forest for all of the trees.  Allow me to speak plainly. Rain water is free, can be collected at low cost, (gutters, barrels, long term storage). Chlorine is not nor has it ever been an acceptable treatment of potable water.  The scientific community has proven  microbial processing of all waste including waste water will be potable. Chlorine kills bacteria (good and bad). because some microbial lifeforms are out of the ph range of chlorine they get through despite adding more. Point in fact there is no water shortage anywhere in the world. Only waste water not treated properly and lack of organic material being returned to the soil to increase fertility, grow food and forests. This creates humid conditions, lowers temperature, increases annual rainfall. You can not beat nature. Your only adding to the pain and suffering of the poor and embarrassing supposed experts in this field. Not kidding here. 

    4 Comment replies

    1. I am sorry for your limited vocabulary. The US is a land of opportunities. I am saddened you have not availed yourself of even a basic education. You speak like a liberal politician about information common to high school students. If you have a specific question please ask. never too late to learn basic science.  If reading from an agenda script no need to reply. ... Read my profile, accomplishments and the water networks point system.

    3. If that were only true! Shall we allow common sense to enter this discussion

      Back in the 1920,s the first waste treatment facility was built in NY,NY. The head engineer of this massive project had asked pertinent questions. #1 on his list was Why are you going to use chlorine. Don't you know chlorine will kill bacteria good and bad. Most importantly in your gut. (of course if any one doubts this is true try drinking a bottle of bleach .) Microbiologists, nutritionists, and every day people are still fighting the bottle of chlorinated. The low ppm only hides the deadly effects.  If you had any education at all please take a chance and look this information up yourself. Since you seem to like short comments of inexcusable non facts let me give you some easy to verify data. (This is taught in high school.) After chlorine entered our water and fertilizers there have been an explosion of cancer, diabetes, infertility in woman, impotency in men, arthritis in children. To make it worse chemical fertilizers contain chlorine which ensures all necessary microbes in agricultural soil are greatly reduced. This results in US Farm soil now being down  to 5 or 10 % fertility.  So I do believe the quantity of people who die from chlorinated water is a million fold of the ones not given a chance to be educated.  Remember this. (to error is human. To really mess things up requires a government agency.) If you wish scientific facts and details they have hidden these dark secrets in a secure location.  The public library!.  Again Not kidding here.   

  3. Interesting article.

    All countries are confronted with water scarcity of varying types. The daunting biggest challenge for the authorities is in protecting groundwater from depletion and pollution, and making sound managing decisions on complex issues/activities that may affect water supply at local and basin scale. For short-term situation management when water supplies are affected, the managers usually adopt approaches, which involve eliminating immediate, unacceptable impacts on human and the environment, groundwater-use restrictions, regulation, balancing time and resources. However, these may require more research, time, regulations, funding, technology, etc., and as well as may be expensive/complex.

     

    In this context, I have pleasure to inform you that with my over four decades of experience and extensive field investigations on hydrological studies on groundwater covering fourteen river basins in India, I have authored a book 'BETTER GROUNDWATER GOVERNANCE ONLY CAN ENSURE SUSTAINED WATER SUPPLY', published by Lambert Academic Publishing, Germany. 

     

    This book identifies the issues that affect water supply; and makes scientific endeavors to improve all stakeholders’ awareness and understanding of real groundwater problems, and suggests governance approaches by relevant policies, with strong peoples’ participation efforts by behavioral change. In addition to need for better governance of groundwater, the book also discuses in detail and also highlights groundwater geo-ethical issues and dimensions in practical reality and the need of change in mental attitude and behavior in all the stakeholders. The analysis may be especially useful to professionals, academics, researchers, students in water governance and communication for implementing groundwater resources protection strategies, and long-term solutions to ensure sustained water supply for public benefit.

     

    It would be worthwhile to keep a few copies of the book in the library of your organizations, institutes, and agencies, or in your personal library.The price of the book is set at 32.90 Euro/copy. You may find the book available on the publisher’s general partner bookstore on the link given below:

    https://www.morebooks.de/store/gb/book/better-groundwater-governance-only-can-ensure-sustained-water-supply/isbn/978-3-330-32219-6

    I shall appreciate receiving your views on my book, and if you could please give wide publicity to the book.

    ------------------------------------------------------------

    Prof. Partha Sarathi Datta (M.Sc., Ph. D., IIT Kanpur)

    Experienced Adviser and Consultant on Water and Environment; Vice-President (IAPG-INDIA)

    (Former Director, NRL, IARI), New Delhi, India

    Author of 'BETTER GROUNDWATER GOVERNANCE ONLY CAN ENSURE SUSTAINED WATER SUPPLY', LAP Lambert Academic Publishing, ISBN-13: 978-3-330-32219-6.

    Available on Website: https://www.lap-publishing.com/catalog/details//store/gb/book/978-3-330-32219-6/better-groundwater-governance-only-can-ensure-sustained-water-supply

     

  4. Excellent and thoughtful article.  It is interesting that the public skepticism about drinking water quality and continuous increase in bottled water consumption and installation of POU filters, has grown in the USA, at least, starting after passage and implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Regulations have been implemented and sanitation -related identified waterborne disease outbreaks have been in continuous decline since then. The exception is the increase in distribution-related microbial regrowth disease-legionellosis, from inhalation of aerosols.  So water in the  USA is safer and  much higher quality than it has been in perhaps more than 100 years, yet bottled water sales continue to rise.  The rapid expansion of the abiliity to analyze trace chemicals at ppb and ppt is the cause  and the reports and press exageration and pressure group tactics have caused the public to lose confidence in public drinking water supplies. Obviously, the smaller the concentration the smaller the risk.

    You should also know that all of the press articles about lead in Flint and brain damaged children were wrong. Several good technical articles explain it.   Thousands of blood lead measurements from the Centers for Disease Control demonstrate that there was no significant increase of lead, and what small amount (about 2 ug/dl) that occurred was in about 2 % of the children. The situation was unconscionable, but the water was so bad that virtually no one drank it, thus no significant blood  lead increases. So, the moral of the story is that we should not expect to be educated by press reports written by people who do not understand science, and who are motivated to get headlines rather than to educate the public. .