Implementing risk management for water supplies: a catalyst and incentive for change

Toward usable predictive climate information at decadal timescales

The majority of the cities across the developing countries have saddled water supply and quality management issues. Unfortunately, even cities with adequate water resources and infrastructures foresee safe drinking water supply as a challenge. The present study discusses the potential hazardous events associated with a drinking water supply and management strategies in the case of Mysuru city, India to realize water security through integrated modeling approaches. Here, the water demand and supply of the city is simulated by the WEAP decision-making tool using current and reference data in the perspective of water supply trends concerning social-economic and environmental parameters. The study also projects sustainable utilization of recycled sewage as a portfolio resource having maximum potentiality. Finally, the study infers that that water supply system and portfolio water resources utilization would contribute to the sustainability of socio-economic and environmental conditions in the city. It provides various management, technological approaches and alternatives for sustainable water supply to meet anticipated demand and to understand the dynamic interactions of the water-socio-economic-health-environment nexus.Graphical AbstractIntegrated urban water resource management options and dynamic interaction of water-energy-socio-economic-health-environment nexus

As water scarcity becomes the new norm in the Western United States, states such as California have increased their efforts to improve water resilience. Achieving water security under climate change and population growth requires an integrated multi-sectoral approach, where adaptation strategies combine water supply and demand management interventions. Yet, most studies consider supply-side and demand-side water management strategies separately. Further, publicly available data to assess the effectiveness of these strategies and their dependency on individual and collective human behavior is often hard to find and unstructured. Water conservation efforts are driven by water scarcity and policy requirements, with conservation targets and water use restrictions often designed assuming a degree of rationality of human behavior and based on cost-effective options and ease of implementation. In this work, we develop a data-driven analysis aimed at evaluating historical synergies and possible trade-offs between water supply and demand management strategies in California. Our analysis is based on CaRDS – the statewide California Residential water Demand and Supply open dataset, which contains monthly values of water supply and residential water demand for 404 water suppliers in California from 2013 to 2021. In this time span, Californian water agencies had to adapt and mitigate the effects of two droughts (in 2012-2016 and 2020-2022) through residential water demand reductions, as well as address rapid changes in demand associated with the global COVID-19 pandemic (2020). Our trade-off analysis integrates the following three sequential steps: (i) trend analysis – we use Random Forest regression to control for seasonal factors (i.e., temperature and precipitation) that affect water supply and demand at the utility scale; (ii) multi-criteria trade-off analysis – we examine the temporal relationship between water supply and demand by utilizing Dynamic Time Warping to identify trade-offs and management patterns. Next, we cluster water suppliers in 6 groups based on their combined management patterns; (iii) and driver analysis – we utilize explainable Machine Learning by combining SHAP (Shapley values) with LGBM (Light Gradient Boosting Method) to identify the drivers of each cluster. Potential drivers include climatic region, water supply portfolio, indoor vs. outdoor water use, local and state policies,  population, supplier size, and income. We finally validate the results of our analysis by comparing our findings with responses from water supplier interviews carried out in 2017 and reveal differences between intended and actual water management outcomes. This research contributes insights into the combined effects of policies on water supply and demand at a statewide level. Further it facilitates the formulation of adaptive resilience strategies for human actors in water management and decision makers alike to address vulnerability of small and large water systems to a rapidly changing climate and a society with non-linear changes in human behavior.

Water management presents a host of challenges and opportunities for operators developing unconventional onshore gas fields. Water supply, recycling and disposal issues affect each stage of field development and operation. Sourcing water and production of produced and flow back water has important implications for water availability and management of the unique environmental risks. All water source and produced water decisions come with costs. From the treatment and reuse of coal seam gas (CSG) produced water, through to the storage and ultimate disposal of water containing elevated salinity and organic loads in shale fields, the costs for water management fundamentally contribute to the economics of unconventional gas developments. In this paper, we will draw on experience in both CSG and shale field water management to compare the respective water management challenges and opportunities faced by operators in these industries. A series of case studies will be used to highlight the differences between the CSG and shale fields. This will include assessment of a West Texas shale field development, where field specific data, such as well-to-well distance and travel time between them, has been used to identify and compare produced water management options. We will use these indicators to demonstrate how alternative ways to assess produced water options, based on economics, can reveal creative management strategies that achieve a variety of goals at every stage of field development, including maximising reuse and minimising disposal.

Due to the country’s expanding population, inadequate urban water management practices, limited community knowledge of water management, and urbanization, urban water management in Ethiopia is of great importance to the administration of the country. This study draws on a qualitative and quantitative research approach to evaluate the available water supply resources and management techniques in three Ethiopian metropolitan districts, factor in the sustainability of the urban water supply services, and then recommend a workable plan for a sustainable urban water management system. Open-ended and semi-structured questionnaires were used to interview urban water utility officials to reveal important information on water demand management and current water supply services. Documented secondary data analysis and field observations are also used to identify the existing problem in order to draw future suggestions. The findings of this study indicate that some of the common issues with urban water supply systems in towns include outdated water supply infrastructures, rapid population growth and corresponding water demand, high water losses in the distribution system, poor water management practices, and a lack of appropriate institutional framework. The assessments of the three study regions demonstrate that while the percentage of water supply coverage hasn’t changed significantly over the previous 10 years, both the number of customers and the overall population growth have increased by nearly 50%. In order to address this, the Ethiopian government would need to put up a lot of effort into developing water use policies and raising consumer understanding of water demand management techniques.

Managing water in an integrated and sustainable manner is currently challenging water resource managers throughout the world. It requires professionals from many disciplines working together with impacted stakeholders in crafting a strategy that is economically efficient, ecologically sound, and acceptable to all who are impacted by how this resource is managed over space and time. We at universities are continually thinking about how we can better prepare our students who elect to become our future water resources planners and managers. This paper identifies some of the issues and challenges facing educators in this field, and some possible ways of addressing them. The amount of water available and suitable for human use in the world is limited. Too many humans must live with less water than what they would like, and even need, to maintain their health let alone their overall welfare. Currently the world's water resource systems are not able to provide everyone reliable potable water at reasonable costs. Populations are increasing, as are per capita demands for water. The United Nations tells us about one person in six, on average, in this world has no access to safe drinking water, and about one in three lacks adequate sanitation. In many countries these percentages are substantially higher. One can assume that those without clean water to drink are sick. The World Health Organization (WHO) tells us more than 30 thousand children under the age of five die from either hunger or from water-borne and easily-preventable diseases. We use about 70 percent of our freshwater resources for agriculture. What we get for that varies considerably. The World Water Council believes that by 2020 we shall need 17 percent more water than is currently available if we are to feed everyone. Do all these grim statistics suggest a water crisis? Will there be a water crisis in the future? Much depends on how we manage our water and our watersheds (Rogers et al. 2006). And this in turn depends on our abilities at universities to provide the personnel with the training and capacity to manage this resource effectively. With perhaps a few exceptions, those of us who live in North America are not dying from lack of water or sanitation. We are fortunate. We seem to have enough water, although the recent droughts in the southeast and in the west suggests we may be increasingly challenged to meet our demands for water supplies, to keep our rivers flowing and clean and our aquatic ecosystems functioning as they should. We can manage all our natural resources better, and professionals know this, but deciding what is better and implementing measures to be better involves more than just professionals. Politicians representing the public, and increasingly the public itself, are participants in this decision-making process. They define what is “better” and when and how to act. And inevitably acting requires money. Acting in ways to prevent crises is not always easy to do. There are always more pressing matters that get people's attention – and their money – until of course there really is a water crisis. This has prompted the well-known concept called the hydro-illogical cycle illustrating the lack of interest in planning for floods during periods of drought, or in planning for droughts when experiencing a flood. Many of the issues facing water and environmental resource managers today generally stem from the following factors: changing priorities of water and environmental management objectives over time – for example from economic efficiency to ecological health and diversity that require changes in past policies and even infrastructure, the way our institutions work, the need for multiple disciplinary inputs and public participation, uncertainties regarding future demands, supplies, and pollutant types and loads, and a lack of adequate understanding of many natural and social processes affecting, and affected by, the management of water and environmental resources. Managers and planners are challenged to develop plans and policies for serving often conflicting multiple purposes and satisfying multiple objectives expressed by multiple stakeholders representing multiple interests and backgrounds, all lacking perfect knowledge of what economic, physical, chemical, biological, ecological and social impacts will result from what ever decisions they make. We all could benefit from better science, better management tools, better training of professionals in all the applicable disciplines, and political institutions that can provide the expertise and leadership that will result in more timely, integrated, and sustainable water resources and environmental management plans and policies. The remainder of this paper outlines some current issues related to the training of individuals who wish to accept the challenges just described and contribute to improving how we manage our water and environmental resources. Recent decades have witnessed a shift in emphasis by U.S. agencies providing funds for research and training of graduates interested in environmental and water resources management. The emphasis has been on addressing scientific uncertainties and less toward planning and management issues. This runs counter to those who claim there is a need for improved environmental and water resource management. One result of this shift away from research in planning and managerial issues has been the decline of academic programs in water management and planning. Ironically, weather- and climate-related research programs, as well as large-scale observation initiatives promoted by many in the hydrologic, ecological, environmental engineering and other communities, increasingly cite benefits for water resources, environmental, and ecological management as central to their programmatic justification. Having more scientific information and the understanding that comes from it does not automatically mean we know how best to use it. There are many scientific, technical, political, practical, and regulatory challenges to integrating advances in hydrologic science into policies for managing environmental and water resources. There may be an unrealized potential, for instance, for using improvements in hydrologic forecasting based on new data sources and methods, such as embedded environmental sensors and data assimilation techniques. As science teaches us more about the processes taking place at the interface of hydrology and climate, and as the hydrologic, water quality, and associated ecological implications of land cover change become better understood, ways are needed to incorporate this knowledge into management plans and policies. Research is needed to figure out how best to do that, and trained professional planners and managers are needed to make it happen. At various universities, debates are taking place over a variety of issues, some of which are listed below. Issue #1: Educational policy – should universities turn out more well-trained engineering professionals and scientists, or more broadly trained generalists? Many will argue that there is an overarching need for people who know there is a world beyond where they live and work and can appreciate how history and culture affects current events. There is a need for individuals who can evaluate, think, and speak and write effectively at technical and non-technical levels. In my opinion, such skills should be obtained at the undergraduate level. One way to get this background is to obtain a liberal arts education (including study in a foreign country). Expertise in specific technical disciplines can be obtained at the master's level. After all, medicine, law, and business are graduate subjects. Why not in this multidisciplinary water resource field as well? Obviously for those desiring engineering or the sciences some basic introductory courses would be expected at the undergraduate level, just as pre-med courses are expected for admission to most medical schools. This is not to say we cannot train students to become competent technical professionals with engineering, economic, ecological, or natural resource degrees, for example, at the undergraduate level, but doing that eliminates the time needed for students to obtain the other skills that all should have who expect to become tomorrow's leaders in whatever they do. Yet in much of the world, attending universities costs money, especially at private universities and colleges. This means we need fellowships and training grants to attract the best and brightest students we can to our water resources profession. Issue #2: Course curricula – do they need changing? Many universities need to take a serious look at their curricula more often than they do. It seems much easier to change course contents than the overall plan. Most educators support exposing students to interdisciplinary projects at both graduate and undergraduate levels, so that students learn to participate productively in such projects and recognize the approaches and issues of fields other than their own. Engineers, economists, and ecologists especially need to appreciate each other's approaches to problem solving. Being exposed to case studies, including failed projects and those that get students out in the field is also beneficial. This gives them an appreciation of multidisciplinary team-building and dealing with multiple conflicting goals such as drought mitigation, flood management, flash flood prediction, water supply, transportation, emergency management, agriculture, and ecosystem stewardship – and conflicting opinions about how to achieve them. Issue #3: Continuing education: How can it best be provided to all professionals? Some have suggested that whatever the technical information students learn, it will be obsolete by the time they get their first job. The rate of increase in knowledge and changes in technology seem to be increasing over time. The half-life of the technical information we teach our students is decreasing. On-the-job training and continuing education throughout one's professional career is an absolute necessity. How can universities best meet this need? Some governmental agencies concerned with environmental and water resources management have programs for continuing education. However, a high turnover rate often makes this uneconomic. Professors themselves need continuing education as well. Their research provides some of this, but they also can learn from their consulting and what they do on their sabbatical leaves. All professionals should be provided such opportunities, not just academics. Issue #4: Funding. Can the needed changes in education be accomplished in the absence of changes in funding “carrots and sticks”? Difficulties in supporting students studying water and environmental resources management have led to the relative lack of students studying these subjects. University deans look for where the money is when they analyze continuing and new directions for their academic departments. The availability of fellowships, traineeships, and research grants are noticed. Industry can also provide support, and in many disciplines they do, but in the water and environmental resources arena the private sector has not been a major player. Managing water and environmental resources is primarily a public responsibility. Nevertheless industry has provided some support, for example to the American Water Works Association Research Foundation which promotes research and technology transfer. Coop programs, internships, and traineeships that expose students to the real world may be a partial solution. The USDA-CSREES coop funding program is an example for agricultural water management. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers master's degree program in planning is another example. Employers working in the water management area often report difficulties in finding employees with the appropriate backgrounds. Because of the decrease in funding of research and training grants in the water planning and management area, few young graduate students are finding their way into the field. This leads to fewer students being trained in the areas of most interest to these employers. The report Freshwater Ecosystems: Revitalizing Educational Programs in Limnology (National Research Council 1996) included a chapter on linking education and water resource management. Water is viewed as a public good, and thus those who manage it are often associated with government agencies. At a recent meeting of the National Research Council (Logan 2006), several government agencies stated their need for articulate young people prepared for working in interdisciplinary and multi-disciplinary teams, which is the nature of modern water management, viewing problems in a broad systems context – water management decisions made upstream “reverberate” downstream influencing eco-systems, fisheries, and the coastal zone in general, linking societal goals and objectives with performance measures and conceptual eco-logical models, adaptability in general and adaptive manage-ment in particular, quantifying and dealing with risk and uncertainty, and conflict management and resolution in a stakeholder-driven participatory political process. One can think of other skills needed to address some of our current and future management challenges. For example, how can managers most effectively design, manage and operate infrastructure in the face of non-stationarity in water supply and demand; identify and provide environmental flows in already over-allocated systems, especially in times of drought, and environmental effects of reservoir operation and dam removal; alter reservoir regulation in the face of changing uses and priorities, environmental and ecological uncertainties and needs, and possibly the removal of past engineering infrastructure such as dams and canals; predict and then respond to hydrologic responses to precipitation, surface water generation and transport, environmental stresses on aquatic ecosystems, the relationships between landscape changes, sediment fluxes, and subsurface transport, as well as mapping ground water recharge and discharge vulnerability; respond to the environmental, economic, health and social impacts caused by floods, droughts, sedimentation, and contamination including from pharmaceuticals and other household chemicals and products; provide an early warning for flooding, droughts, habitat degradation, and health hazards, increase the efficiency of water use, especially in the agricultural sector; address questions whose answers require knowledge of the quantitative relationships among various physical, chemical, biological, and social process occurring at disparate spatial or temporal scales. For example, how can we scale up to larger area forecasts from knowledge of smaller habitat patch scale ones? How can we estimate regional aquatic ecosystem processes over entire river basins often based on small plot experiments and observations? deal with deforestation, suburbanization, road construction, agriculture, and other human land-use activities that impact economies and ecosystems (changes in land cover, climate, and land use affect water quantity and quality regimes which impact ecosystem health and other uses of water such as for drinking, irrigation, industry and recreation); manage chemical and biological components of the hydrological cycle under changing land uses and habitats, and control invasive species … This list could continue. Suffice to say there are many subjects a competent water resource manager should be familiar with, at least to the extent that the issues are appreciated and that effective communication can take place between the manager and experts or specialists when appropriate. Today's planning and management environment involves public participation, not just at the final stages of planning, but throughout the process, including decision making. Tools are being developed to help all stakeholders gain a “shared vision” of how their system works, and the physical, economic, environmental, ecological and sometimes the social impacts of various plans and management policies. Such public participation does not make the planning and management processes any easier, or more efficient, or cheaper. In fact often the opposite happens. But the end result has a far better chance of being robust to multiple interests and thus more sustainable in the long run (ASCE 1998). Future water resources managers need to know how to facilitate such participation. Water resources professors cannot rest on their laurels. Planning and management issues continue to evolve as do their demands on this profession. Students today will be faced with problems and technology we can only speculate about today. But they have to be prepared to effectively address those issues and use that technology. It's the job of those of us involved in water resources planning and management programs at universities to ensure our graduates have that capability. The increasing breadth, complexity, and rate of change of professional practice places a greater emphasis not only on continuing education but also on what a basic professional education must deliver at the undergraduate as well as graduate levels. The body of knowledge necessary to effectively manage water resources is beyond the scope of the traditional bachelor's degree, even when coupled with early-career experience. Education must meld technical excellence with the ability to lead, influence, and integrate a diverse number of disciplines and stakeholders – all required to meet societal goals in some ‘best’ and most sustainable way. Ideally, graduates from university programs in water resources planning and management should be knowledgeable in their particular discipline, as well as conversant with other applicable disciplines. An engineer, for example, should not only understand how to use the theories, principles, and/or fundamentals of mathematics, physics, chemistry, engineering economics, biology, and probability and statistics underlying engineering but also be exposed to political processes, systems analysis and computer modeling, laws and regulations, history, sociology, and ethics. Most importantly, they should know how to work in interdisciplinary teams and effectively and clearly communicate orally and in writing. They must be optimistic in the face of challenges and setbacks they will surely face, and be committed to ethical behavior, both personally and professionally. After graduation they must remain curious and willing to continue learning fresh approaches, develop and use new technology or innovative applications of existing technology, and take on new endeavors that require research and ingenuity. Managing our water resources, including our ecosystems in our natural and built environments, involves both technical and administrative expertise. It involves both the “hard” as well as the “soft” sciences. In the hard sciences, the laws of physics, biology, chemistry, and mathematics are well established. The same cannot be said of the soft social and political sciences. Thus the “hard” sciences are easy. The “soft” sciences are hard. Clearly, however, we need more people competent in both to address many of the issues water resource managers are facing today. Daniel P. Loucks is a professor in the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY, USA, (www.cornell.edu) where he teaches and directs research in the development and application of economics, ecology and systems analysis methods for estimating the impacts of alternative policies aimed at solving environmental and regional water resources problems. He has authored articles and book chapters in these subject areas and has been involved in various development and environmental restoration projects throughout the world. He may be reached at Loucks@cornell.edu.

Progress in improving the quality and quantity of water used by people in rural areas of the developing world has been unsatisfactory in two respects: (1) supplies that have been built are frequently neither used correctly nor properly maintained and (2) extension of improved service to unserved populations has been slow. Though this poor record is not the result of a single factor, a major impediment to improved performance is inadequate information on the response of consumers to new service options. The behavioral assumptions that typically underlie most rural water supply planning efforts are simple. It is commonly assumed that so long as financial requirements do not exceed 5% of income, rural consumers will choose to abandon their existing water supply in favor of the "improved" system. Several reviews by the World Bank, bilateral donors, and water supply agencies in developing countries have shown, however, that this simple model of behavioral response to improved water supplies has usually proved incorrect.1 In rural areas many of those "served" by new systems have chosen to continue with their traditional water use practices.

Potable water is essential for the survival of flood victims in flood evacuation centers. This paper review water supply issues during flood events. Several water supply issues experienced by flood victims were identified such as contaminated water resource, scarcity of safe drinking water, flood-related disease outbreak and disruption of water treatment facilities. This paper also discusses on the challenges to overcome the water supply problems during flood such as lack of access to potable water, unable to treat water properly, accessibility of potable water, speedy restoration process of water supply and accessibility of health services. Hence, the management of water supply during the flood should be done efficiently and systematically to ensure sufficient and safe water supply for flood victims. In this effort, roles and cooperation’s of various agencies are very important in ensuring the affected flood victims obtain clean and continuous water supply despite flooding.

In New Jersey, existing water supply problems involve water availability during droughts and other emergencies, contamination, especially of ground water, and institutional problems. A drought occurred in 1980, just as the new Water Supply Master Plan was completed; and a large bond issue was approved, together with statutes greatly strengthening the State's authority for water supply management. As a consequence, the State has a very advanced water supply planning, regulatory and management program, which includes both positive and negative incentives to follow State guidance. To date, the State has built and manages only three water supply projects, and the Federal government, none. Thus, the greater part of new development and of system rehabilitation, is carried out by the 620 public water supply systems of the State (many of which are privately owned). New Jersey policy emphasizes management and problem‐solving. Feasibility planning, backed up by regulatory requirements to provide an adequate standard of service, encourages local initiative. Low interest loans, rather than grants, are used to encourage high priority programs such as remedial work in contaminated well fields.

Book Reviews

This article discusses the distinction between lack of water supply and inefficient water management. It states that it is all too often assumed that there is not adequate water supply because shortages develop under status quo water management strategies, when new approaches could result in a more efficient allocation of water resources. The article provides an example of questionably sustainable water supply practices currently in use that will require significant management improvements in the future to remain sustainable. The article lists considerations that share a common basis in institutional legal policies for water resource allocation, and discusses the fact that effective and efficient water management should combine public interest regulation with clearly defined rights to use water resources.

<p><em>Water Supply and Water Management in the Metal Ages</em> gathers papers originally presented at the Metal Ages 2022 colloquium, hosted by the Archaeology Department of Bilkent University, Ankara and bringing together the UISPP’s Scientific Commissions ‘Metal Ages in Europe and the Mediterranean’ and ‘Archaeometry of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Inorganic Artefacts, Materials and their Technologies’ for their respective annual meetings.</p> <p><br> </p> <p>Five of the papers included here focus specifically on water supply and water management. Others cover copper metallurgy, pottery studies and fighting techniques, and overall they range chronologically from the Chalcolithic to the Late Iron Age, and geographically from Iran to Iberia. A significant number of papers cover topics focusing on artefact archaeometry, due to the participation in the Ankara colloquium of many colleagues from the UISPP’s Archaeometry commission.</p> <p><br> </p> <p>The publication of these proceedings in their present format was made possible thanks to generous financial support by Valentín de Torres Solanot and E2IN2.</p>

Water agencies, governmental organizations, and non-governmental organizations accountable for water use, development, and conservation are dealing with ways to address changes in water data collection, maintenance, storage, visualization, and communication. As demand for water resources and variability of water availability increases, water data are essential to monitoring changes and finding solutions. Coupled with other data efforts to enhance “big data” and serve critical environmental issues, water data reveal the complex data-scape that demands streamlined data standards across scientific communities where data processing systems are fragmented due to multiple sources and methodologies, limited data sharing, and incomplete data coverage. With a better understanding of some of the discrepancies in the science, practice, and policy of water data systems, we need to consider and implement innovative ways to foster stronger water data sharing arrangements. This special issue on Water Data explores the science, practice, and policy of water data systems, provides examples in which data integration has been successful or ineffective, and explores the technological frontier of water data systems.

East central Florida, including the Orlando metropolitan area, has traditionally used fresh groundwater to provide a safe, reliable, and inexpensive water supply source to meet both public supply and agricultural irrigation needs. Approximately 1.99 billion liters per day (526 mgd) of fresh groundwater was withdrawn from the Floridan aquifer in this region, in 1995. By the year 2020, average day water supply demands are expected to increase by about 61 percent, to approximately 3.21 billion liters per day (848 mgd). Investigations conducted by St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), as part of the Water 2020 planning process, indicated that all future water supply needs cannot be fully met by fresh groundwater alone without incurring unacceptable harm, including reduction in spring flow discharge, and de-watering of sensitive isolated wetland systems resulting in changes in wetland vegetation and wetland type. These investigations, conclude that substantial new alternative water supply sources and new water management strategies, will likely need to be developed, to supplement existing fresh groundwater withdrawals, if the potential adverse impacts are to be avoided while meeting future water supply needs. Alternative water supply sources and management strategies investigated include; optimization of groundwater withdrawals, brackish groundwater development, surface water development, artificial recharge, increased water conservation and reuse, interconnection of water supply systems, aquifer storage recovery (ASR), and avoidance or mitigation of adverse wetland impacts resulting from increased groundwater withdrawals. This paper provides an overview of the Water 2020 process as well as a summary of the major regional planning tools developed. Each of the water supply sources and water management strategies investigated is discussed, and the concept of adaptive management is introduced. The Water 2020 process provides an informative case study in integrated water resources planning and management that may prove useful in other regions facing increased demands placed on finite and varied water resources.

Community-based urban water management in fringe neighbourhoods: the case of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania