SAVING WATER FOR THE 21st CENTURY: THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ALL
By
Dr Chan Ngai Weng, President - Water Watch Penang (WWP)

Introduction

Water is irreplaceable and cannot be substituted. Unlike food which one can switch from one type, for example chicken to fish, or from meat to vegetables, there is no substitute for water. Despite being so vital, everywhere we go we see water in rivers, our main source of water supply, being polluted, often deliberately. Industries dump their hazardous wastes which get into the water system, eventually polluting it. Untreated wastes from old houses, old hotels, small towns and farms (both animals and crops) are threatening to further pollute our waters. Water is expected to be increasing crucial to life in the 21st century as this vital resource becomes increasingly scarce. Unlike gold in the 19th century and oil in the 20th century, water will be the most vital resource in the 21st century. This is neither an exaggeration nor a threat, but a reality which is now becoming more and more apparent. Water is not only the vital resource for maintaining all our ecosystems and the survival of all forms of life, but it is also the common vector and essential capital for all types of development whether urban or rural. Since 1900 until now, the world’s annual demand for water has increased 5 times, i.e. roughly once in every two decades. During the last half century when development has been most rapid world-wide, water demand has tripled and the gaps between available water resources, population growth and demand for more water has been steadily increasing, leading to water stress and water crises in many parts of the world, particularly in developing countries such as Malaysia. The situation is critically severe in many parts of Africa (Baral, 1999). Hence, it is widely speculated that the fight for control over water sources would be a major cause of wars between countries, especially in water-stressed regions.

As water resources become scarce vis-a-vis increase in water demand due to growth in population, agriculture and industrial development, business and commercial expansion and other increase in water use, the concomitant increase in water supply is anticipated to fall short of the demand in the coming millennium. The increase in water demand doubles every two decades, but the increase in supply is much less than. Consequently, it is expected that water will become a critical constraint to development in the 21st century (Bouguerra, 1997). Currently, the approach to solving water demand is predominantly concentrated on the supply side, i.e. via increase in supply. This would not be sufficient to cater for the greater increase in demand. In many developing countries, the new millennium is witnessing many water crises leading to a great deal of suffering and economic losses. This has made all concerned to take note of the importance of water conservation. Unfortunately, people only take note when a crisis happens. The vast majority, including the relevant governments and water companies, tend to forget quickly as they have short memories. Consequently, water is still treated like “dirt” since it is extremely cheap, costing the average consumer less than a tenth of what they normally pay for electricity. As a result, people continue to waste water, or at least not take positive actions to conserve water. Water pollution is rampant, the chief culprits being factories, farmers and households. Water catchments continue to be destroyed as more and more forested catchments are opened for development, both legally and illegally.  

In the new millennium, water has already become a scarce commodity in many parts of the world. It is now the source of quarrels among neighbours, disputes among sovereign states, confrontation among countries and even war among larger groups. Indeed, one of the critical issues of the United Nations when reviewing the implementation of the Agenda 21 (or the lack of it) is the fast approaching crisis in freshwater resources which is expected to hit many countries at the beginning of the next millennium. The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio and the recently concluded World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg 2002 clearly recognised the importance of freshwater resources as one of the critical resources under threat from environmental degradation. The World Water Council has pointed out that the demand for freshwater resources doubles every 20 years or so. Thus, while in 1950 the council estimated that only 12 countries with a total of 20 million people suffered water shortages, this figure has increased more than two folds to afflict 26 countries in 1990 with the affected population increasing to more than 15 folds at 300 million. The Council has projected that by 2050, 65 countries will be hit by water supply problems with a total of seven billion people or 60 % of the world's population affected.

Major Water Management Issues

High Water Wastage

One major water issue that needs to be urgently addressed is that of the high domestic per capita water usage in many countries. In the USA and Canada, it is more than 800 litres of water per capita per day (LPD)( though in many arid countries in Africa, the amount used per person is less than 50 LPD. This effectively means that one person in the USA is using 16 times the amount of water a person in Sudan is using. Ironically, the bulk of the water used by North Americans are for non-consumptive purposes, i.e. for flushing, watering the lawn and washing. Hence, the amount wasted is a crime. In comparison, the amount used in India is about 100 LPD. In the case of Malaysia, a country with abundant water resources, the average usage is about 300 LPD. Strangely, this amount has increased over the years. In the 1970s, Malaysians used only about less than 200 LPD. This figure then increased to about 250 LPD in the 1980s and then to more than 300 LPD now. In urban areas, it has been estimated that the average person uses about 500 LPD. If we consider the fact that the International Standard for water use recommended by the United Nations is 200 LPD, then Malaysians now are guilty of wasting 100 LPD. Malaysians living in the urban areas waste more than 300 LPD, i.e. an amount that can be used to sustain six persons in Sudan. In Malaysia, most of the wasted water goes to flushing toilets, bathing, washing cars, clothes, floors, watering plants (gardening) and other unnecessary chores - i.e. activities that can be reduced thereby reducing water usage. Hence, reduction of usage is a key to saving water. In the case of Malaysia, if only each person could reduce his/her water use, even by a small amount per day, the amount of water saved can be significant. Picture the following scenarios:

Scenario 1:  If every person in Malaysia reduces his/her consumption of water by a mere 10 % of his/her daily needs, i.e. 30 LPD, the total amount saved by the 23.26 million people (Government of Malaysia, 1996) in the country would be about 697.8 million litres per day (MLD). This amounts to about 20.9 billion litres per month or 251.2 billion litres per year.

Scenario 2:  If every person in Malaysia can reduce his/her consumption of water by a mere 20 % of his/her daily needs, i.e. 60 LPD, the country could save about 1.4 billion litres per day. This amounts to about 41.9 billion litres per month or 502.4 billion litres per year.

Scenario 3:  If every person in Malaysia can reduce his/her consumption of water by a drastic 50 % of his/her daily needs, i.e. 150 LPD, the country could save about 3.5 billion litres per day. This amounts to about 104.7 billion litres per month or 1256.0 billion litres per year.

Single Approach of Supply Management Based on Top-Down Approach

Water management in the world has always been one of Supply Management, possibly because of the misconception that water resources are renewable via the hydrological cycle. What people do not realise is that even though the total amount of water is “renewable”, the total amount of clean water is not. Hence, what is the use of having the mighty Ganges when you cannot treat the water? Equally, the over-emphasis in using the “Top-down” supply management approach is ineffective. Governments the world over have always been responsible for water supply and should rightly remain so as it has a moral obligation to the citizens for providing adequate, uninterrupted, safe and quality water to all. However, we now know that water is a finite resource and that water resources in many countries  are unevenly distributed both over time as well as space. Governments cannot keep on increasing supply as the number of dams one can build is limited. The truth is that supply can never keep up with demand. While not suggesting that governments should stop building dams and building treatment plants to increase supply, it is recommended that governments employ a comprehensive approach that includes addressing the demand side of the equation. Demand management can be used effectively to complement supply. More importantly, it is timely that governments come out with a vision for water resources rather than the fragmented development of this vital resource by individual states, as is the case in many countries. In the case of India and many parts of the middle east, local communities are taking water management into their own hands via traditional water management systems. And these have been found successful. So, why not integrate the top-down approach with the bottom-up approach? Certainly, a comprehensive approach will be more effective. Let’s not overly praise western and modern systems while discarding traditional systems that are based over centuries of wisdom.

Non-Revenue Water

Demand management implies managing water demand through water conservation, reuse and reduction of use. One important way is for the Government to reduce the rate of Non-Revenue Water (NRW) or water that is lost either through breakage, theft, seepage or other unaccountable ways once it leaves the treatment plant. In many developed countries, NRW is between 10-15 %, as is the case in Japan, the UK and Singapore. However, in many developing countries (especially poor countries), NRW may be anything between 40 to 80 %.  For example in Malaysia, the average NRW is about 38 % in 1995 while some states in the country have NRW as much as more than 50 %. For the governments, NRW is an embarrassing issue. Notwithstanding all the unsavoury aspects of NRW, governments should change their mindset from one of solely concentrating on increasing water supply, i.e. Supply Management (more prestigious and more profitable), to a more balanced approach involving both Supply and Demand Management (one of which is via reduction of NRW). They should realise that the losses from NRW is substantial. Everyday, millions of litres of precious treated water are lost. One can argue that not all NRW is “lost” as someone (public use and thieves) is using it, but however one looks at the issue, water unaccounted for is water lost.

Reckless and Unplanned Development without Land Use Control

Land use control is yet another demand management strategy which many governments can employ to protect water catchments. Planning authorities at federal, state and local government levels can play an important role by including judicious land use control in conserving water catchment. Rather than merely focusing on the economic and aesthetic benefits of development planning, planners must incorporate “Green” development into their plans. By this is meant giving more consideration to saving green areas, particularly forested water catchments. Major water catchments such as in hill regions should be well protected by land use control, either in the form of forest reserves or better still gazetted as State or National parks. Also, city and country planners can use prudent town and country planning to restrict urbanisation and urban sprawl to control their encroachment into green areas. In Bangkok and Mexico City, rapid and unplanned urban expansion has resulted in the two cities sinking. This land submergence has caused water pipes and sewage pipes to break apart, and the water supply contaminated. Certainly, all governments should examine the use of land use control seriously so that no such undesirable effects occur.

PublicAwareness and Education

In the field of public awareness and education, Government can use water saving campaigns to urge the public to conserve and reduce water use. One good example is Malaysia’s “Love Our River” campaign. The idea is to start the campaign amongst school children. The ultimate aim of such campaigns is to incorporate environmental education (inclusive of water conservation) in the school curriculum and make it a compulsory examination subject. Even though we tend to believe that “Old habits die hard”, the adults too need to be educated about water conservation. Others governmental programmes include advertisements to be aired on the national TV on water pollution, fostering the love for nature and the need to protect and save our water, and other programmes relating to wise water use. Given the expensive nature of air time, the Government should have a regulation on all TV channels specifying a certain number of such educational “advertisements” in between the large numbers of “market oriented” commercial advertisements now being aired.

The government should emphasize the need to reduce water use amongst government agencies. Perhaps a minimum water use may be calculated with indicators such as the number of employees and type of activity/function. Government agencies using more than the stipulated minimum water allowed should be fined or charged accordingly. Pumps and a system of pipes should be connected to rivers, ex-mining ponds and lakes for the purpose of fire fighting, watering plants in public parks, public fountains, public toilets and other public amenities. Currently, it is claimed that a sizable portion of NRW goes to such “public use”. Another demand management strategy that can be effectively used is that of encouraging water recycling amongst big users of water, notably hotels and factories. Currently, recycling of water amongst these big users is almost non-existent. In many states, the amount of water used by a few large factories and hotels may be as much as that, if not more, than a small town. Factories are unwilling to recycle water mainly because it is so dirt cheap at the moment. It certainly does not make economic sense to install a recycling plant costing a few million Ringgit when water is so cheap. There is simply no incentive to recycle. Hence, the Government can help by providing  tax incentives for industries to install recycling plants. Or alternatively, increase water tariffs for industrial use to such an extent that recycling becomes an attractive option. Governments can also make it mandatory for large businesses to obtain the ISO 14,000 certification.

Low Water Tariffs

Water tariffs are cheap the world over. So, governments can use “pricing” of water tariffs to control the abuse of water. Admittedly, pricing is one sensitive issue which has often been deliberately avoided by politicians, especially so during an impending election year. Based on the current water rates for domestic consumers in Table 1, it is clear that no one will pay any attention to saving water.

Table 1: Selected Water Tariffs in the World
___________________________________________________________________________________
Desalinated Water - US$1.76 – US$2.06/m3
Hong Kong – US$0.92/m3
Dubai -  US$0.8985/m3
Singapore -  US$0.62/m3
Australia (PAWA) – $0.60/m3  
Texas, USA - US$0.5947/m3
Malawi – US$0.30/m3
Indonesia  - US$0.2105/m3
Malaysia  -  US$0.0947/m3
India, Chandigarh - US$0.037/m3
The current rates are ridiculously low. Such a low tariff, while ensuring that everybody has access to water, is counter-productive as it inadvertently encourages over-usage and wastage. The international standard recommends that each person have access to at least 165 litres of water per day (As a comparison the per capita average use in Africa is about 50 litres per day. The average Malaysian probably uses slightly less than 300 litres per day). But to make sure nobody suffers any water stress and that everybody has more than enough water for all their daily needs, a 200 litres per day limit is proposed. It can be calculated that based on an average family of 5 persons, a family would need 200 litres X 5 = 1000 litres per day or 30,000 litres per month. This is the basic amount that a family of 5 needs. A family using not more than this amount is considered to be using water normally without wastage. Families using 40,000 litres per month would be classified as “Slight Water Wasters”; those using 50,000 litres per month will be “Moderate Water Wasters”; those with water consumption of 60,000 are “High Water Wasters”; and those using 70,000 litres or more per month are “Excessive Water Wasters”. Families should be charged on an escalating rate, known as “Phasing” of water tariffs. Hence, contrary to popular belief, use of pricing to control wasteful water consumption can be fair and not necessarily “burden” the people. Once implemented, the authorities could stipulate that the “Extra” income derived by water authorities and water companies be set aside for replacement of old mains, rebuilding old infrastructure or for new schemes. It should not go directly into the profits of the companies.  

Wastage from Industry

To say that industries/businesses are big users of water is an understatement. They are in fact the greatest users of water. In 1997, the Malaysian Water Industry Report indicated that the consumption per non-domestic user (i.e. commercial, industrial and other businesses) averaged about 100 m3/month (about 100,000 litres/month) . In an industrialised state such as Penang, for example, the figure is as high as 234 m3/month (about 234,000 litres/month). As a comparison, the average consumption of domestic users are 31 m3/month (31,000 litres/month) and 35 m3/month (35,000 litres/month) for Malaysia and Penang respectively. This means that the average factory/business in Penang uses as much water as nearly seven households. This is, however, an under-estimation when it comes to the “big boys” of industry/businesses, i.e. multi-nationals (MNCs), international hotels, large factories and others. It is also widely known that international class hotels in big cities use more water than villages and even small towns. This is unacceptable.

Many studies have shown that some factories which have taken the necessary steps to reduce water usage, including the installation of recycling plants have managed to save huge quantities of water. For example, factories reported that using the following methods enabled them to save up to more than 650 million gallons (2460 million litres) of water for a 36 months period. (i) the RO/DI pre-treatment backwash reclaim system; (ii) recycling of RO Reject water for chemical drum washing; and (iii) the recycling of sampling water. Hence, the monthly amount of water saved is about 68 million litres, i.e. enough water for 2,193 household. In terms of Ringgits, the savings amounted to about RM1.722 million for the entire period. Hence, it makes sense for these big businesses to install recycling and water reclaiming mechanisms in their plants. Furthermore, many overseas importers will only import environmentally friendly goods. Hence, they will only import from establishments with ISO14,000 certification. Installing water recycling plants for big water users is the first step towards achieving this certification, without which it would be difficult to compete in the international market. Currently, most factories and businesses in Malaysia are reluctant to install water recycling plants because most feel that the water tariffs are so cheap that it is not economical to recycle. This approach/view is narrow and short-sighted. While the cost of water may be cheap at the present moment in time, it may not be so in the near future. As water resources become scarce, the government and water agencies/corporations may be forced to review and raise water tariffs, especially for businesses. In any case, industries should be responsible enough to recycle and save water. It is their responsibility to do so considering the enormous amount of water they use.    

Suppressing the Role of NGOs

By and large, NGOs are non-profit organisations made up of caring people. Currently, their role in water conservation is grossly under-valued. They not only help raise greater awareness of the need to conserve water but also help to educate the public on water education, provide water saving tips to both industry and public, become the link between the public, organisations/industries and government, and mobilise all the players towards creating a water saving society. All over the world, NGOs have worked closely with their governments and have contributed significantly towards greater environmental protection, awareness and conservation. They do community work, creating greater awareness for water saving, writing articles in newspapers, educating people and school children about the importance of water conservation, contributing their expertise in national forums and workshops on water, helping the government draw up plans and programmes for water conservation and a lot more. Projects such as “River Walk - Caring For Our Rivers Campaign”; “Clinic for Water Conservation & on the importance of looking after rivers”; “Adopt a river project”; and “Water Conservation and Educational Programme are invaluable tools for water conservation. NGOs work at the grassroots level and are close to the people. They can form the missing link between government and people.

Public Apathy

People in developing countries, who are more concerned about getting food on the table than about how clean their river is, have been generally blamed for having an “apathetic” attitude when it comes to water conservation. However, this is changing as people become more educated, informed and caring. Gone are the days when the people are “sleeping partners” and rely fully on government for the development of the state. Increasingly, like it or not, the public has a very important role in shaping the kind of society we want to live in the future. Many countries have governments that are very “people friendly” and “environmental friendly” in the sense that they allow for public views and opinions in relation to the development of water resources. In all fairness, however, it is not just the water authorities and the water companies that are responsible for water loss and wastage. Community wastage is a big problem. Everyday there are hundreds of public taps left running, leaking pipes unattended to, and burst mains on the streets. Not many people bother to report such cases to the relevant authorities. In fact, very few know the telephone numbers of the right authority to report to. Hence, every year a substantial amount of water is lost through public wastage.. Water thefts are another problem. It appears almost impossible to stop illegal tapping of water as the mains and other auxiliary pipes in each country are extensive. Catching all the thieves may be impossible and should not be the main concern. Instead they should concentrate on catching a few “big thieves” and slapping hefty fines and jailing them as an example. Greater monitoring and identification of water thefts must be carried out. 

There are, of course, many ways in which the public can employ in conserving water. The answer lies in making some adjustments to our way of life. Ideally, the people should live according to the 3Rs, i.e. “Reduce, ReUse and Recycle”, whether in terms of water or otherwise. Hence, reduction of usage is a key to water saving. If only each person could reduce his/her water use, even by a small amount per day, the amount of water saved can be significant.

Conclusions

In the new millennium, the majority of world citizens are already well educated, informed and affluent and they should play an increasingly active role as a “partner” of the government in helping to chart the future of the country. Even people who are less educated or illiterate can do their part in water conservation. Governments are also changing by employing a more “people friendly” approach as it is to everybody’s advantage to consult the people, as the latter has much to offer. 0Total development of the country and overall welfare of the people, including the vital life-giving water supply, should always be a joint effort on the part of government and people. In this respect, government should even increase the consultation and participation of  the people in all relevant developments. In fact, the government can go one better, and that is to tap on the expertise of the people (including NGOs) in water resource conservation and other areas. between government and NGO. Notwithstanding the government-NGO partnership, it is equally important for the industrial and business community to be in partnership with government as well. There are even avenues for industry-NGO partnerships. More than that, water conservation partnerships should involve all concerned. It should be everyone’s responsibility ranging from the government to water corporations, water authorities, water companies, consultants, industries (including hotels, resorts and theme parks), businesses, NGOs, and the people. Equally, the role of the public should never be underestimated. It is with all these partnerships that we can ensure that water resources remain sustainable and our children and future generations guaranteed with adequate and clean water.