Mekong at the crossroads

China Dialogue

Commotion is growing over a planned dam on the Mekong River. As the deadline for a decision on the project approaches, R Edward Grumbine and Xu Jianchu urge governments to support a construction freeze

Into the twenty-first century, the Mekong River has remained one of the world’s last great rivers with only a few dams across its mainstream. While China has for some time been constructing a series of eight large dams on the upper Mekong, no dams span the mainstream channel in the Lower Mekong Basin (LMB) that flows through Laos, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam. But this may change very soon.

In September 2010, the Lao Peoples Democratic Republic petitioned the Mekong River Commission (MRC) to begin the formal process of approving Xayaburi dam, the first of 11 proposed projects across the channel of the lower Mekong. While such a hydropower cascade would provide substantial economic benefits, it would almost certainly have great negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services in the LMB. And the dams would undercut the livelihood and food security of millions of people.

Using a regional decision-making process that was approved in 1995 but never used until today, the MRC countries (Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia) have until late April [this week] to evaluate Laos’ proposal and allow the project to go forward or not. And even if the MRC countries recommend against the project, Laos, as a sovereign state, may choose to continue building the dam. Whatever the countries decide will either promote high-impact hydropower development, or postpone such development until further studies can contribute to a more integrated, trans-boundary river basin management.

Three salient features lend Laos’ petition great importance to the future of the Mekong. First, river basin planning historically throughout this region has never integrated existing ecosystem and livelihood vulnerabilities with projections of regional natural resources development. For years, the MRC has struggled to carry out comprehensive environmental and social assessments. Reliable data on LMB natural resources can be difficult to obtain due to lack of collection and poor government transparency. Factoring in potential climate change impacts has also proved difficult. The MRC only hired a climate change staff member in late 2008.

Though providing integrated planning has not been easy, much is already known about the Mekong. The river flows through an area of Asia that has high poverty rates along with low levels of human development. Across the four LMB countries: one in five people earn less than US$1.25 a day; some 21% of LMB residents do not have access to clean water; over 30% do not use closed sanitation systems. Projected impacts of climate change by 2050 range from low (eg water availability) to moderate (eg increasing temperatures) to potentially high (eg decreasing food production and sea-level rise in the Mekong Delta). Two things are clear in the LMB: there exists a great need to provide for poor people and future environmental risks will be challenging.

The second factor that bears on Laos’ petition shows that the quality of river basin planning is improving —on the heels of Laos’ petition, the MRC released the first-ever Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the cumulative environmental and social impacts of all proposed mainstream dams. This document portrays the full scope of hydropower development in the LMB. If built, the 11 dams would generate enough power to account for 8% of projected regional demand to 2025. Income from hydropower generation could total US$3.7 billion (24.2 billion yuan) a year. Dam operators and investors, however, would garner most of this income during the first 25 years of dam operations. Nevertheless, Laos and Cambodia could stand to gain annual income equivalent to about 18% and 4% of their 2009 GDP respectively.

Environmental costs, however, would be very high. The SEA projects that the dams would create direct costs in reduced fisheries, inundation of river bank farms and gardens, and loss of nutrients for floodplain agriculture equivalent to US$500 million (3.3 billion yuan) a year. Ecological impacts would be severe. The Mekong ecosystem, which experiences seasonal “flood pulses” during the monsoon, harbors the second highest fish species diversity in the world. But the dams would turn over half of the length of the main river channel into reservoirs with slow-moving, slack water conditions. Despite the migratory nature of many Mekong fishes, only three of the proposed 11 dams incorporate fish ladders and none of these designs are adequate for local species. Fifty percent to 75% of total river sediments would be trapped behind the dams and prevented from moving downstream to nourish river primary productivity and floodplain agriculture.

These ecosystem impacts relate directly to loss of human livelihoods in the Mekong, for the river is the most productive inland fishery in the world. The populations of Cambodia and Laos would stand to lose up to 30% of their annual protein intake since their diets are heavily fish-dependent. The SEA projects some 2.1 million people would suffer direct and indirect losses to their livelihoods. Finding that the immensity of these risks were “beyond the current capacity of the LMB region and its governments to address”, the SEA team recommended deferring all mainstream dam building for at least 10 years.

This sobering assessment of current governmental capacities to manage the Mekong highlights the third factor at play over Laos’ petition to build the initial mainstream dam. While other reports agree with the SEA about poor governmental capacity, international rivers, by definition, require effective trans-boundary cooperation. In the past, much planning (and funding) for dam construction came from multilateral institutions such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and Asian Development Bank. But now these agencies, with their commitment to at least some minimal level of environmental and social assessment, are being replaced by private capitalists and state-owned banks. These new actors are focused on profits; they do not automatically abide by the recommendations of the World Commission on Dams or other corporate social responsibility guidelines. Laos’ Xayaburi dam, for example, would be constructed using capital from Thai Banks with 90% of the electricity bound for Thailand.

There are efforts now underway in the Mekong to implement SEA recommendations. But such planning will go nowhere without governments’ support for a dam building moratorium. If hydropower development was postponed, four steps could help to lay the foundation for LMB planning that could also serve as a model for efforts in other Asian river basins. The first step would recognise the political sensitivities involved in nurturing a shift from sovereign state-focused views of development to a trans-boundary approach. Strengthening the role of the MRC to foster regional dialogue would help to build trust that is essential to negotiate resource use in a world of increasing scarcity, rising uncertainty, and declining resiliency.

Another step would be to focus institution building on two arenas: constructing a trans-boundary knowledge network and a parallel trans-boundary government network. Both would emphasise sharing benefits through the balanced provision of water and power, regional trade, and livelihood and food security. Such networks are being pioneered by the Mekong Program on Water Environment and Resilience (M-POWER). A critical piece missing in the Mekong is neutral evaluation of alternatives to hydropower-based energy. Maybe dams are not the best answer in the Mekong, but a region-wide assessment of future power needs that weighs a range of alternatives to dams has never been done. Such assessments cannot, of course, be separated from building trans-boundary government networks for long term Mekong management. China and Myanmar have never joined the MRC.

A third essential step would encourage public participation and financial benefits for local peoples. This will continue to be tough work in the Mekong where government authority remains top-down and people most impacted by dams are still not part of decision making processes. But there are water planning frameworks such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature Negotiate process that include people from the beginning that could be applied in the Mekong.

Lastly, multilateral support to foster new knowledge and governmental networks in the Mekong remains essential. Even the wealthiest countries (Thailand, Vietnam and China) do not have the resources to address current environmental vulnerabilities and future risks. A full economic accounting of these costs has never been completed in the Mekong, but such a report would be useful to multilateral funding agencies as they seek to target monies more efficiently. Even private investors would benefit from greater understanding of the factors that bear on their exposure to long term environmental and social risks. One way to foster this would be to link government approval of dams to a standardised planning template such as the new Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol.

River basin management in the Mekong is at a crossroads. Today, all the pieces are falling into place to create an innovative management model that could be useful across Asia. After all, trans-boundary environmental and social vulnerabilities on the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna and Indus River are broadly similar.

But time is running short in the Mekong and not just because of the Laos proposal. Upstream, China’s dams are only partially built, but will increasingly influence dry season flows, sediment capture and overall river management. Political complexity is also increasing; what if Laos persists in building Xayaburi dam even if its MRC partners vote the project down? And in 2009, the US State Department announced funding for a Lower Mekong Initiative to build capacity for a range of environmental, education and health projects and to re-establish a political presence in the region.

Like historical river flows, however, past political relationships may not be the most useful guide to future environmental decision making in the Mekong. In an era of rising resource demands, reduced environmental resiliencies and ongoing climate-change impacts, international cooperation across the entire river basin is in the best interest of all.

Dr R Edward Grumbine is on a two year Chinese Academy of Sciences fellowship at the Key Laboratory of Biodiversity and Biogeography, Kunming Institute of Botany, Yunnan, China, where he is working on conservation and environmental security issues. Dr Xu Jianchu heads the China- East Asia node of the World Agroforestry Centre, Kunming Institute of Botany. He focuses on river basin biodiversity, agroforestry and local livelihoods throughout the region.

Source

Visit China Dialogue

Nepal Maoists storm Indian hydropower office

Press Trust Of India

The Maoists in Nepal have stormed a function organised by an Indian hydropower major GMR and demanded the scraping of its project in the western part of the country, alleging it was against the interest of Nepalese. Activists of Unified CPN-Maoist, the largest singly party and the main ally of the ruling CPN-UML coalition, Nepal Workers and Peasants’ Party and Rastriya Janamorcha disrupted the interaction programme organised by GMR.

No sooner had the staff finished presenting the progress report, the group started breaking and destroying items at the venue, including the projector, mike and banner, according to GMR sources.

The Indian company has undertaken the construction of the Upper Karnali project with 300 MW capacity. The government sanctioned the project to the company in 2008. GMR is presently conducting the preliminary survey and assessment of the project on the environment.

Later, UCPN-Maoist lawmaker Bharat Kumari Regmi and NWPP’s parliamentarian Jagya Bahadur Shahi said they would not allow the Indian company to continue the project “as it would not benefit the Nepali people”. At a local meeting soon after the rampage, they demanded that the project be scrapped.

The Maoists have frequently targeted Indian joint ventures in Nepal.

In the past, Maoist supremo Prachanda has accused India of interfering in the affairs of the country.

The fresh attack on the Indian company comes ahead of a planned visit of External Affairs Minister S M Krishna. India has expressed concern in the past over attacks on Indian investment projects in Nepal.

Sources have said India is expected to raise the issue of security for Indian joint ventures in the country.


Source

Visit The Hindustan Times

Substandard dam assessment opens way to fisheries destruction on Mekong

WWF

Bangkok, Thailand: Disruptions to fish migration and food supplies for millions in the Mekong basin are likely if the first mainstream dam on the lower Mekong is allowed to go ahead, WWF predicted as it released expert analysis showing the dam feasibility study and environmental impact assessment failed to address key environmental risks.

The WWF commissioned review – coordinated by the WorldFish Centre with participation from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) found that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the proposed Xayaburi dam in Laos and assessment were woefully inadequate and fell well below international standards for such studies.

Xayaburi is the first of 11 dams proposed for the lower Mekong mainstream. Lower Mekong countries are scheduled to decide on whether the dam project can move ahead on April 22.

Ignored published studies

The review found that the EIA ignored published studies and relied heavily on “a very light field sampling” that captured “less than a third” of the biodiversity in the impact area.

Just five migratory species from a list compiled in 1994 were mentioned and just three of more than 28 studies of Mekong fish migration were referenced. In contrast, current studies show that 229 fish species exploit habitats upstream of the dam site for spawning or dry season refuges, with 70 classified as migratory.

The review finds the proposed fish passes for the dam ignore design guidelines, lack critical detail including any specification of target species and have a slope and steps which would be challenging even for salmon – not a Mekong species.

Among the species threatened is the Mekong’s famed giant catfish with only known spawning areas in the upper Mekong between Chiang Rai province (Thailand) and Bokeo (Laos). While the Mekong Giant Catfish is symbolic and culturally important, smaller fish like the Pa Soi are important food sources for villagers in the Mekong River.

“How can you devise mitigation measures for fish passage without addressing the biology and the needs of target species, which in this case range from a small Siamese Mud Carp or Pa Soi to a 3 metre long giant catfish,” said Dr Jian-hua Meng, WWF International Sustainable Hydropower Specialist.

“Fish ladders of the design proposed have had some success in Europe and North America, but this is where only a handful of species are migratory, and many of those are of the salmon family, that are much stronger swimmers and jumpers than most Mekong migratory species.”

Repeating mistakes of Pak Mun Dam

The review noted other studies that concluded that fish passes are not a realistic mitigation option for Mekong mainstream dams, and “that the Mekong should never be used as a test case” for proving or improving fish passages technologies.

WWF fears a much larger scale repeat of the environmental damage of the dam on the Mun River in Thailand, a key Mekong tributary. After similar bland assurances of only low level impacts on fisheries prior to construction, the first decade of the dam’s operation saw damaging impacts on 85 per cent of fish species present before the dam’s construction, with 56 species disappearing entirely and reduced catches for a further 169 species, according to a World Commission on Dams study.

Consultations on the Xayaburi dam have so far had to proceed in the absence of much detail on the project, with the abbreviated Feasibility Study dated 2008 but made available only in February this year which was prepared by Thai group TEAM Consulting and Swiss company AF-Colenco and the final EIA by TEAM completed in August 2010 but made available only in March 2011.

WWF was unsuccessful in attempts to brief the consultants on the risks posed by the project.

WWF supports a 10-year delay in the approval of lower Mekong mainstream dams, including the Xayaburi hydropower dam, to ensure a comprehensive understanding of all the impacts of their construction and operation, while immediate needs are met with less challenging projects applying state of the art sustainable hydropower solutions are fast tracked on selected tributaries.

Further information:
Vu Ngoc Tram, [email protected]

Source

Visit WWF

Dalai Lama Voices Concern Over ‘Third Pole’

Saransh Sehgal for The Irrawaddy

NEW DELHI, India—While keeping in him the quest to fight for his homeland Tibet, the Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama used concerns for the ecology of Tibet as a major tool to counter China.

The Tibetan plateau, which is also known as Earth’s “Third Pole” needed special attention, the Dalai Lama said. He asked Asia’s other giant India to pressure Beijing over climate change in Tibet, blaming China’s environmental policies in Tibet as hugely impacting the South Asian region.

Climate change has become such a hot topic attracting huge attention and support not only from neighboring countries of the Tibetan plateau, but also but also from foreign countries and environmental organizations which are pressuring countries to save the global ecosystem.

As for the Dalai Lama, many believe if his voice were raised to save the ecology of Tibet, it could add more support and be a game-changer—a political agenda sidelined in favor of climate issues.

The Dalai Lama has called for special attention to ecology in Tibet. “It’s something very, very essential,” he said in a function in New Delhi on April 2. Quoting Chinese experts the spiritual leader said that the Tibetan glaciers were retreating faster than any elsewhere in the world. The glaciers are considered vital lifelines for Asian rivers, including the Indus, the Mekong and the Ganges. Once they vanish, water supplies in those regions will be threatened.

As these major rivers come from the Tibetan plateau and “since millions of Indians use water coming from the Himalayan glacier, so you have certain rights to show your concern about the ecology of that plateau,” the Dalai Lama told a large audience, wanting India to take up the issue forcefully with China.

India and China, which constitute more than a third of the world’s population, are served by these Tibetan glaciers. Rising demand has put a strain on access to freshwater between the two big nations. The Tibetan region is the world’s largest and highest plateau, and contains the biggest ice fields outside the Antarctic or Arctic, which is why many environmentalists call it the Earth’s “Third Pole.”

Global warming in the glacial region has direct aftereffects, not only in Tibet but to most of the South Asian region. The water repository in Tibet serves as a lifeline to millions of people in countries in the Asian continent.

Greenpeace has predicted that if the current trend of warming continues, 80 percent of Himalayan glaciers will be gone in 30 years. Environmental problems on the plateau are made up because of the greater demand for water in the region and countries downstream.

Interestingly the Dalai Lama’s warning comes in the kindle of a rare US recommendation that the United States should work with the Chinese regime for the economic development and cultural preservation of the region. “There are steps that the United States can take that might not only bring direct benefits to the Tibetan people, but also to build a foundation of trust between Washington and Beijing on Tibetan affairs,” the report by the senate foreign relations committee recently said.

Last year the whistle blower website WikiLeaks disclosed US secret diplomatic documents which revealed that the Dalai Lama told Timothy Roemer, the US ambassador to India, that the political agenda should be sidelined in favor of climate issues.

“The political agenda should be sidelined for five to 10 years and the international community should shift its focus to climate change on the Tibetan plateau. Melting glaciers, deforestation and increasingly polluted water from mining projects were problems that cannot wait, but the Tibetans could wait five to 10 years for a political solution,” the leaked memo quoted the Dalai Lama as telling ambassador Roemer during a 2009 meeting, according to the cable obtained by WikiLeaks.

Western environmentalists and activists have been discussing the danger on the third pole and support the Dalai Lama’s call for environment first.

The function organized by the Tibet Initiative Deutschland in late March had environmental experts in Berlin discussing China’s environmental policies in Tibet—the ongoing environmental destruction inside Tibet, the reckless extraction of natural resources, China’s water policies and the situation of Tibetan nomads.

In his speech, Kelsang Gyaltsen, the special envoy of the Dalai Lama, identified the environmental issue as “symptomatic for the disenfranchisement of the Tibetan people.

These kinds of problems could only be solved if there was a political solution for Tibet.”

Beijing, despite large industrial development in the Tibetan cities, have been uprooting nomadic life in the high Himalayan plateau in a move to urbanize and stabilize the region concerning border issues, and exercise better social and political control.

Beijing—in its own way of worrying—has been doing its bit to protect Tibet’s ecology. China’s State Council, the country’s top government body, last week approved a 20-year plan to protect ecosystems of the Tibetan plateau, according to the website of the Environmental Protection Ministry.

“The Tibetan plateau is important not only to China but also to central and southeast Asia,” says Yao Tandong, the director of the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Beijing-based Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research. “The significance of the plan cannot be overstated.”

In a move to save the ecology of the region, a large solar plant will be operational in May in the Tibetan Autonomous Region supplying electricity to more than 100,000 farming and herding families in its first phase.

Many campaigners and Western NGOs are in unity with the Tibetan exiles, advocating the fundamental human right of Tibetans to environmental self-determination in their homeland.

“In terms of the ecological aspect of the issue, more than a billion people in the Asian region may be dependent on the water that comes from rivers that originate on the Tibetan plateau,” the Dalai Lama said during the sixth International conference of Tibet Support Groups in November. “Therefore, people in the region who will be impacted by changes to the Tibetan environment have the right to express their concern at the future of Tibet.”

Saransh Sehgal is a writer based in Dharamsala, India, who can be reached at [email protected]

Source

Visit The Irrawaddy

What happens when we run out of water?

BY CHARLES FISHMAN for Salon

Over the last century, H20 has become so convenient we take it for granted. That’s about to change.

Water is both mythic and real. It manages to be at once part of the mystery of life and part of the routine of life. We can use water to wash our dishes and our dogs and our cars without giving it a second thought, but few of us can resist simply standing and watching breakers crash on the beach. Water has all kinds of associations and connections, implications and suggestiveness. It also has an indispensable practicality.

Water is the most familiar substance in our lives. It is also unquestionably the most important substance in our lives. Water vapor is the insulation in our atmosphere that makes Earth a comfortable place for us to live. Water drives our weather and shapes our geography. Water is the lubricant that allows the continents themselves to move. Water is the secret ingredient of our fuel-hungry society. That new flat-screen TV, it turns out, needs not just a wall outlet and a cable connection but also its own water supply to get going. Who would have guessed?

Water is also the secret ingredient in the computer chips that make possible everything from MRI machines to Twitter accounts. Indeed, from blue jeans to iPhones, from Kleenex to basmati rice to the steel in your Toyota Prius, every product of modern life is awash in water. And water is, quite literally, everywhere. When you take a carton of milk from the refrigerator and set it on the table, within a minute or two the outside is covered in a film of condensation— water that has migrated almost instantly from the air of the kitchen to the cold surface of the milk carton.

Everything human beings do is, quite literally, a function of water, because every cell in our bodies is plumped full of it, and every cell is bathed in watery fluid. Blood is 83 percent water. Every heartbeat is mediated by chemicals in water; when we gaze at a starry night sky, the cells in our eyes execute all their seeing functions in water; thinking about water requires neurons filled with water.

Given that water is both the most familiar substance in our lives, and the most important substance in our lives, the really astonishing thing is that most of us don’t think of ourselves as having a relationship to water. It’s perfectly natural to talk about our relationship to our car or our relationship to food, our relationship to alcohol, or money, or to God. But water has achieved an invisibility in our lives that is only more remarkable given how central it is.

Back in 1999, a team of researchers recorded 289,000 toilet flushes of Americans in twelve cities, from Seattle to Tampa. The researchers used electronic water-flow sensors to record not just toilet flushes but every “water event” in each of 1,188 homes for four weeks. Although the study cost less than $1 million, it is considered so detailed and so pioneering that it hasn’t been duplicated in the decade since; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency continues to cite it as the definitive look at how Americans use water at home.

The researchers measured everything we do with water at home — how many gallons a bath takes, how often the clothes washer runs, how much water the dishwasher uses, who has low-flow showerheads and who has regular, how many times we flush the toilet each day, and how many gallons of water each flush uses.

The study’s overall conclusion can be summed up in four words: We like to flush.

For Americans, flushing the toilet is the main way we use water. We use more water flushing toilets than bathing or cooking or washing our hands, our dishes, or our clothes. When we think about the big ways we use water, flushing the toilet doesn’t typically leap to mind. It’s one of those unnoticed parts of our daily water use — our daily water-mark — that turns out to be both startling and significant.

The largest single consumer of water in the United States, in fact, is virtually invisible. Every day, the nation’s power plants use 201 billion gallons of water in the course of generating electricity. That isn’t water used by hydroelectric plants — it’s the water used by coal, gas, and nuclear power plants for cooling and to make steam.

Toilets and electric outlets may be stealthy consumers of water, but they at least serve vital functions. One of the largest daily consumers of water isn’t a use at all. One of every six gallons of water pumped into water mains by U.S. utilities simply leaks away, back into the ground.

Sixteen percent of the water disappears from the pipes before it makes it to a home or business or factory. Every six days, U.S. water utilities lose an entire day’s water. And that 16 percent U.S. loss rate isn’t too bad — British utilities lose 19 percent of the water they pump; the French lose 26 percent. There is perhaps no better symbol of the golden age of water, of the carefree, almost cavalier, attitude that our abundance has fostered. We go to the trouble and expense to find city-size quantities of water, build dams, reservoirs, and tanks to store it and plants to treat it, then we pump it out to customers, only to let it dribble away before anyone can use it.

One of the hallmarks of the twentieth century, at least in the developed world, is that we have gradually been able to stop thinking about water. We use more of it than ever, we rely on it for purposes we not only never see but can hardly imagine, and we think about it not at all. It is a striking achievement. We used to build monuments — even temples — to water. The aqueducts of the Roman Empire are marvels of engineering and soaringly elegant design. They were plumbing presented as civic achievement and as a tribute to the water itself. Today, water has drifted so far from civic celebration that many people visit the Roman aqueducts without any sense at all that they moved water, or how.

- - - - - - - - - -

Many cities in the world are located where they are because of their proximity to water. For most of human history, in most settings, getting water was part of the daily routine; it was a constant part of our mental landscape. At the same time, humanity’s relationship to its water supply was wary, because water often made people sick. That’s why Poland Spring water was so popular in Boston and New York even a century ago — it was safe.

One hundred years ago, with the dawn of bacteriology, two things happened. Cities started aggressively separating their freshwater supplies from their sewage disposal, something they had been surprisingly slow to do. (Philadelphia is just one of many cities whose sewage system, a hundred years ago, emptied into a river upstream of the city water supply intakes from the same river.)

And water utilities discovered that basic sand filters and chlorination could clean and disinfect water supplies, all but assuring their safety. In the decade from 1905 to 1915, as dozens of water systems around the country installed filters and chlorination systems, we went through a water revolution that profoundly improved human life forever.

Between 1900 and 1940, mortality rates in the United States fell 40 percent. How much did clean water matter? Harvard economist David Cutler and Stanford professor of medicine Grant Miller conducted a remarkable analysis, published in 2005, teasing out the impact of the new water treatment methods on the most dramatic reduction in death rates in U.S. history. By 1936, they conclude, simple filtration and chlorination of city water supplies reduced overall mortality in U.S. cities by 13 percent. Clean water cut child mortality in half.

Clean municipal water encouraged cities to grow, and it also encouraged the expansion of “mains water” during the twentieth century as the way most Americans got their water. (By 2005, only 14 percent of Americans still relied on wells or some other “self-supplied” water.) That first water revolution ushered in an era — the one we think we still live in — in which water was unlimited, free, and safe. And once it was unlimited, free, and safe, we could stop thinking about it.

The fact that it was unfailingly available “on demand” meant that we would use it more, even as we thought about it less.

Our very success with water ushered in not just a golden age of water, but a century-long era in which water became increasingly invisible. Our home water bills, which are less than half our monthly cable TV or cell phone bills, provide almost no insight into how much water we use, or how we use it — even if we study them.

The new class of micropollutants we are beginning to hear about — infinitesimal, almost molecular, traces of plastics, birth control pills, antidepressants — have literally been invisible even to chemists until very recently; you certainly can’t tell if they’re in your water by looking at it or drinking it. The impact of those micropollutants on our health, if any, may remain invisible for years — and may be almost impossible to predict or trace.

Even our emotional connections to water have become submerged and camouflaged — the ease with which water enters and leaves our lives allows us an indifference to our water supply. We are utterly ignorant of our own water-mark, of the amount of water required to float us through the day, and we are utterly indifferent to the mark our daily life leaves on the water supply.

But the golden age of water is rapidly coming to an end. The last century has conditioned us to think that water is naturally abundant, safe, and cheap — that it should be, that it will be. We’re in for a rude shock.

- - - - - - - - - -

We are in the middle of a water crisis already, in the United States and around the world. The experts realize it (the Weather Channel already has a dedicated burning-orange logo for its drought reports), but even in areas with serious water problems, most people don’t seem to understand. We are entering a new era of water scarcity — not just in traditionally dry or hard-pressed places like the U.S. Southwest and the Middle East, but in places we think of as water-wealthy, like Atlanta and Melbourne.

The world has 6.9 billion people. At least 1.1 billion of us don’t have access to clean, safe drinking water — that’s one out of six people in the world. Another 1.8 billion people don’t have access to water in their homes or yard, but do have access within a kilometer. So at least 40 percent of the world either doesn’t have good access to water, or has to walk to get it.

In the next fifteen years, by 2025, the world will add 1.2 billion people. By 2050, we will add 2.4 billion people. So between now and forty years from now, more new people will join the total population than were alive worldwide in 1900. They will be thirsty.

And then there is the unpredictability of climate change. Water availability is intensely weather- and climate-dependent, in both the developed world and the developing world. At one point in 2008, during the years-long drought across the southeastern United States, 80 percent of the residents of North Carolina were living under water-use restrictions.

The Las Vegas area has 2 million residents and 36 million visitors a year, and its water source in January 2011 was lower than it had been in any January going back to 1965. At that time, Las Vegas had about 200,000 residents; today, on a typical day, there are twice that many tourists in town.

Beyond population and climate change, the other huge and growing pressure on water supplies is economic development. China and India are modernizing at a whirling pace, and together those two countries account for one out of three people in the world. Economic development requires rivers full of water, not just because people want more secure and more abundant water as their incomes improve but because modern factories and businesses use such huge volumes of water.

It is a mistake to think that big water issues are not manageable, however. One of the most startling, inspiring and least well-known examples involves the United States. The United States uses less water today than it did in 1980. Not in per capita terms, in absolute terms. Water use in the United States peaked in 1980, at 440 billion gallons a day for all purposes. Today, the country is using about 410 billion gallons of water a day.

That performance is amazing in many ways. Since 1980, the U.S. population has grown by 70 million people. And since 1980, the U.S. GDP in real terms has more than doubled. We use less water to create a $13 trillion economy today than we needed to create a $6 trillion economy then.

In fact, the most unsettling attitude we’ve begun to develop about water is a kind of disdain for the era we’ve just lived through. The very universal access that has been the core of our water philosophy for the last hundred years — the provision of clean, dependable tap water that created the golden age of water — that very principle has turned on its head.

The brilliant invisibility of our water system — the sources of water unknown to the people who use it, the pipes buried under pavement, the treatment plants anonymous and tucked away, the water service itself so reliable that even the reliability is a kind of invisibility — that invisibility has become the system’s most significant vulnerability.

That invisibility makes it difficult for people to understand the effort and money required to sustain a system that has been in place for decades, but has in fact been quietly corroding from decades of neglect. Why should I pay higher taxes just to replace some old water pipes? I’ll just drink bottled water if I don’t like what comes out of the tap. It is almost as if tap water is regarded not with respect and appreciation but with a hint of condescension, even contempt.

Of course, you can’t call Dasani if your house catches on fire. We are in danger of allowing ourselves to imagine that since we’ve got FedEx, we don’t also need the postal service. When universal, twenty-four-hour-a-day access to water starts to slip away, it becomes very hard to bring back. But sustaining it requires more than paying the monthly water bill. If we’re going to be ready for a new era of water, we need to reclaim water from our superficial sense of it, we need to reclaim it from the clichés. We need to rediscover its true value, and also the serious commitment required to provide it. It is one of the ironies of our relationship to water that the moment it becomes unavailable, the moment it really disappears — that’s when water becomes most urgently visible.

From “The Big Thirst” by Charles Fishman. Copyright © 2011 by Charles Fishman. Excerpted with permission by Free Press, a Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc.

Charles Fishman is the author of “The Wal-Mart Effect,” and a three-time winner of the Gerald Loch Award for business journalism. His new book is “The Big Thirst: The Secret Life and Turbulent Future of Water.”

Source

Visit Salon