The Era of Desalination: Israel’s Success & The Future of Water in the Middle East

The Water Crisis in the Middle East

For many living in the developed world, a day spent thinking about where their next glass of water will be coming from is an oddity. Although many countries in Europe suffer from issues concerning water scarcity, these are more exceptions to the rule. The issue of water stress and scarcity primarily concerns the developing world, especially the Middle East and North Africa, where access to potable drinking water (or any water at all for that matter) is extremely limited. For instance, while 8% of France and 10% of the Netherlands reside in water-scarce areas, more than 49% of Egypt and 63% of Saudi Arabia lack this essential resource, due to a variety of factors both natural and man-made. Climate change aside, the environment of the Middle East—hot, arid, and seldom rainy—makes for a harsh lifestyle devoid of water. More importantly though is the overuse of water for agricultural purposes. Close to 85% of the region’s water is allocated for irrigation, and often inefficiently. Even wealthier Arab countries find themselves confronted with this issue. As awe-inspiring as the infrastructural marvels of Dubai may appear; even the UAE is close to the breaking point, with groundwater scarcity and water reuse mismanagement creating a deadly storm on the horizon. Combining these aforementioned points with rising populations and increasing water sanitation costs, it is no wonder that so many suffer from this emergency.

Understandably, the question must be asked: How can the governments of these countries provide enough water for the needs and wants of their populations? As the water crisis of the Middle East has become increasingly dire, countries have developed a slew of solutions to the problem, along with mixed results. Initiative include repairing piping infrastructure and water trading, and many countries have focused on sequential water management, which involves sanitizing wastewater for industrial or domestic purposes. Even still, the numbers don’t lie; swaths of the Middle East rely on insufficient water resources. While water reserves continue to plunge and water quality issues constantly spring up, water conflicts—armed and otherwise—are on the horizon.

The answer to this devastating issue lies with Israel’s success. Reeling from its water crisis of the late-2000s, Israel has developed techniques in desalination, water treatment, and drip-irrigation that may aid the entire region. How is it that a country which once teetered on the brink of full-scale collapse from water shortages is now the only country which doesn’t suffer from acute water shortages? And how can we apply these lessons of success in confronting the water crisis of the region as a whole?

What is Desalination?

Before jumping into the specifics, it is important to identify what exactly “desalination” means and what constructing desalination plants actually entails. As the word implies, desalination involves the removal of salt (as well as other minerals and potential inorganic and organic contaminants) from water to make it potable. Desalinated water is most often processed from seawater, although desalination sites might be erected as salt interception schemes (SIS) along irrigation lines to desalinate agricultural runoff or as temporary infrastructure to desalinate waterways along desertified areas. Likewise, the purpose of the desalinated water can vary by context. While a majority of desalination plants are used for drinking water or auxilliary uses (showering, dishwashing, latrines, etc.), the aforementioned salt interception schemes are used to desalinate water to be piped back into natural rivers and waterways as “blue water” for ecological purposes. After all, freshwater fish need water too.

Two primary desalination methods exist: reverse osmosis and thermal distillation. The former works on the science of “water equalization”, whereby the natural properties of water demand equal volumes of water in two separate spaces if divided by a semi-permeable membrane. In layman’s terms: A container is divided in two by a wall of microscopic netting, one half empty and the other half with water. The netting selectively allows water to pass through while leaving salt, minerals, and other contaminants behind. In the case of reverse osmosis, the benefit is its increased thoroughness, especially in separating organic contaminants from the water. Unfortunately, the process remains extremely expensive and energy-intensive—leaving reverse osmosis a strategy that has popularized in Europe and the United States rather than elsewhere in the world.

As for thermal distillation, one can derive the basic premise from the word as well. Rapidly heated water produces steam, which in turn—having separated the water from the leftover compounds—can be recondensed into distilled water for drinking or other various uses. Thermal desalination has become popular in the greater Middle East and North Africa, mostly for the lower energy requirements and the simplicity of design. Admittedly, in contrast to other desalination plants in the area, a majority of Israeli sites utilize reverse osmosis technology, which may not be appropriate for the bulk of Middle Eastern countries which suffer from debt and frequent budget misallocations. However, by taking advanatage of the simplicity and the lower energy requirement associated with thermal desalination technology, it is possible for the region to harness the same wealth of water that Israel enjoys.

Timeline of the Water Crisis in Israel

Not so long ago, Israel itself was another unfortunate example of the rampant water crisis afflicting the Middle East. Historically, Israel’s water was provided from a variety of sources like groundwater spots, natural bodies of water like the Sea of Galilee and Lake Kinneret, and wastewater reuse systems. Further sources, like personal wells and runoff from Mount Camel, provide Israelis with the water they need on a day-to-day basis. Israel’s water politics are heavily influenced by its 1959 Water Law, which designated water as a national public good. This not only confirmed the government’s responsibility in providing safe water to all citizens of Israel, but also the government’s monopoly of power concerning the handling and allocation of water.

At the turn of the 21st century, Israel was in the midst of one of the greatest droughts the country had seen since its founding (lasting from 1998-2002). Israel’s government acknowledged the problem by encouraging water conservation, but continued to distribute water arbitrarily to industry, pollute waterways, and over-sanitize non-drinking water. Much of this misallocation can be attributed to Mekorot: the nationalized water company of Israel. In the absence of competition, Mekorot remained a poorly-managed government monopoly which substantially undercut the price of water to levels that did not meet operation costs. Further mismanagement and lack of attention to the growing crisis from the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development meant that the crisis only worsened. Attempts were made to compensate with water conservation efforts; installation of low-flow toilets and showerheads and investment into innovative water treatment systems. Israeli officials even advised their constituents to take “zionist showers”, or shared family showers. Still, the nation was struggling more than it ever had in providing adequate water.

It was not until 2005 that the government finally built its salvation: the Ashkelon desalination plant. Then-providing over 101 million cubic meters of water to the state of Israel, the Ashkelon plant’s success transformed the state of the Israeli water crisis. Since then, Israel has constructed five more desalination plants, with a bid for a seventh plant in northern Israel to provide >100 million more cubic meters of water. Overall, more than 585 million cubic meters of water are provided by desalination plants in Israel. Today, desalination is an essential part of day-to-day life for a near-majority of Israelis, with 35% of Israel having received their water through desalination channels in 2014, and a projected 70% to be drinking desalinated water by 2050.

Challenges to the Israeli Model

Of course, a solution which seems too good to be true is, quite often, simply that. Plenty of evidence exists to support desalination’s promise for the Middle East, but plenty also exists to point out the risks that come with feverishly constructing desalination plants. Two primary concerns lie with expanding desalination: cost and environmental impact.

With regard to the first, it cannot be overstated how expensive a desalination plan can often become. Projections vary, but according to a survey from the Texas Water Development Board, construction of a 2.5 million gallon per day plant (equivalent to ~100,000 cubic meters per day, less than half the daily production of Israel’s planned seventh desalination plant) would cost more than $32 million. Combine this with supply-chain problems, corruption, and a host of other barriers, and it is little wonder why countries in the Middle East are so unwilling to throw money at a problem which could yield very little. Low returns on desalinated water further dissuade most companies or national agencies even willing to look into desalination.

As for environmental impact, this itself can be further broken down into concern over the power source and the ramifications for sea life because of wastewater. Powering desalination plants can be a heavy undertaking—estimates for the carbon output of Australia’s construction of desalination plants alone in 2015 are around 1,200 kt of carbon dioxide, a number which skyrockets when accounting for year-by-year emissions once the plant goes into operation. Effects on marine life also remain a concern as the amount of wastewater pumped back into the environment increases. Desalination is not a zero-waste process; the contents removed from the salinated water have to go somewhere, which very often means right back into the ocean. Dozens of desalination sites, all pumping gallons of warm, brackish water back into the coastal waterways, could seal the fate of innumerable species of sealife.

All of this is certainly a concern, and few reasonable people would argue that these issues should be ignored in favor of securing freshwater for humans alone. Much of humanity’s mission today involves securing the environment for future generations and not plunging them into unpayable debt. But there are alternatives; desalination sites can easily be powered via renewable energy sources like solar or geothermal power. Studies have shown the positive yields from reverse osmosis plants coupled with renewable energy sources, not only in reducing carbon outputs but in reducing future energy costs too. Additionally, as new processes develop, the outlook on brine treatement techniques has become optimistic. Instead of simply pumping wastewater directly back into the environment, water treatment can further purify water bound for the sea and dispose of contaminants elsewhere (repurposing salt and minerals, etc.).

The Future of Water in the Middle East

At this very moment, more than 66 million people in the Middle East lack basic sanitation. Of the 17 most water-stressed countries in the world, 11 of them lie in the Middle East and North Africa. Water provided a catalyst for conflict when ISIS threatened to take over the entire region (such as when the Islamic State captured the Taqba Dam in Iraq in 2013 which was only reclaimed in 2017) and it continues to provide a spark for political disputes and military clashes alike. In Yemen, where potable water stores have reached a mere 198 cubic meters per capita, widespread water shortage contributes heavily to the famine and in-fighting amongst rebel groups. In northeastern Africa, Ethiopia’s construction of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam—which would greatly restrict the already-lessening upstream flow of the Nile which provides for Egypt’s and Sudan’s agro-economies—threatens to spark war between these countries and others upstream. As has become increasingly evident, awareness campaigns and changes to individual consumption are not enough. Macro-problems demand macro-solutions, and desalination could be just the answer the Middle East is looking for.

Some scholars have suggested promoting the synergystic relationship between water and other resources like food and energy (hydroelectricity). Part of the impasse with politicians may be the fact that water may be a necessity, but it’s difficult to profit off of in our existing economic system. If we then expand water’s necessity to include agricultural production and hydropower production, we could expand the interest in powerful groups to secure wider access to water resources. 

The reality is that increasing access to water in the Middle East will involve more than internal solutions; a problem that transcends borders such as this demands collaboration and diplomacy between states. Arab-Israeli hydropolitics are complicated, and it’s unfortunately unlikely that the inevitable catastrophe that would come with remaining politically-unilateral would mean Arabs and Israelis finally seeing each other as more than enemies. Perhaps there will come a day when people of Muslim and Jewish faith can live harmoniously in their respective homelands, and perhaps the water crisis will not be that watershed event. But the present and growing problem does provide an opportunity for interstate relations that rises above differences in identity or ideology. We cannot continue to ignore the suffering of those experiencing this crisis, just as we cannot continue to ignore the opportunity that this creates for diplomacy and greater peace in the Middle East.

Water For All? An Examination of Water Scarcity and Privatization in South Africa

The importance of water cannot be overstated: it allows every form of life to flourish while also fulfilling a role of vital significance within different cultures and religions. In South Africa, it is believed that sacred waters are filled with spirits and mermaids. The Xhosa, a prominent ethnic group in the country, traditionally believe that diviners, or amagqirha, are trained to understand the health of rivers. Yet despite water’s obvious value, whether it be physical or cultural, there are many within the international community who are subjected to water scarcity, a phenomenon that refers to either a physical shortage or the failure of certain institutions to ensure a regular supply of clean water. It should be established that no matter the root cause of a water shortage, the global water supply remains fixed- it is accessibility that mutates throughout time. 

While there are instances of water shortages in specific areas resulting from natural phenomena- such as droughts- human activity has also played a central role in creating and institutionalizing disparities of who can access clean water. These disparities manifest in multiple ways, including along racial lines. South Africa, where diversity of cultural traditions find water to be sacred, is a prime example of the ways in which water access has been racialized. While black South Africans have a tradition of tending to local rivers, this relationship has been severely hindered through the policies of the Apartheid and the post-Apartheid regimes that have made beloved water sources inaccessible. 

The Institutionalization of Water Scarcity 

South Africa is known for having a progressive constitution that goes beyond simply enshrining civil and political rights- for one, it includes a mandate that everyone has the right to sufficient food and water. While outsiders may see this as a unique, or even strange, clause to include in a constitution, it is a product of British colonization and the subsequent Apartheid regime. In 1913, the British implemented the Native Lands Act, which entailed the forcible removal of rural black Africans to designated areas within the interior where the land was less fertile and had a natural scarcity of water. These designated areas were known as reservations and black Africans could not legally step foot outside of them unless they were employed. British riparian law, a subset of property law that relates to the utilization of surface water, specifically stated that only those who owned land adjacent to rivers had legal access to water. This meant that black communities, who were forcibly relocated from these waterways, could no longer legally access water on their own accord. On the other hand, the white settlers, who made up less than 20 percent of the population, had control over virtually all of the waterways. This not only gave them an economic advantage- water is, after all, a boon to agriculture, industry, and trade- but it also gave them the luxury to not have to worry about whether or not they had drinking water.

In 1923, the Native Urban Areas Act stipulated that black Africans could work in urban industrial areas but could not live there. Subsequently, black Africans were relocated to townships and forced to live in government housing whose construction and expenses, which included electricity and water, were meant to be paid back in full by its inhabitants. Many people were unable, or unwilling, to pay for these costs. As a reaction to the government’s racist and exploitative practices, many individuals established “informal settlements,” where water usually came from a rudimentary standpipe and its cleanliness could not be guaranteed. When the Apartheid government officially ascended to power in 1948, these discriminatory policies were exacerbated. As Karen Piper asserts in her book, The Price of Thirst, South Africa is one of the most natural water-scarce regions in the world, yet Afrikaaners, the white minority, were able to enjoy green lawns and swimming pools while black Africans were deprived of a basic necessity as a reinforcement mechanism for the country’s white supremacy. 

The People of South Africa versus Water Privatization 

By the time Apartheid finally came to an end, a majority of the population had access to only a small portion of the country’s water. When President Mandela first began to shape a new, inclusive South Africa, he created the Reconstruction and Development Program (RDP), whose policy objectives included recognizing water as an “indivisible national asset belonging to all South Africans” and making water and sanitation services community-based. The plan that the government created to achieve these goals was meant to be completed in stages. In the short term, all households would be supplied with twenty to thirty liters per capita per day. Furthermore, an access point could not be located more than 600 feet away from every house. In the medium term, households were promised an on-site supply of water, with a subsidy for the poor. Another crucial element was that city limits would be redrawn to include the black townships that were formally excluded. This would increase the tax base, and services, such as proper access to water and sanitation infrastructure, would be available to all. This plan was purposefully designed as a way to end the racialized hierarchy of water access and begin a new era of racial equity. 

While President Mandela had envisioned water for all, these plans were derailed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, otherwise known as the Bretton-Woods Institutions. When it was clear that the Apartheid regime was not going to last much longer, these institutions saw an opportunity for investment and implementation of neoliberal policy. When President Mandela’s new government began negotiations with the IMF and the World Bank, it became apparent to the South African representatives that the conditions attached to any potential IMF loan were too similar to the economic policies of the Apartheid regime that solely benefited white people. The IMF’s push for water privatization was especially troubling as it directly contradicted the country’s constitution and would perpetuate water inequity. At the same time that negotiations were taking place, the worst drought in living memory was devastating the country. It was considered to be an economic and public health disaster that needed to be immediately dealt with through an IMF loan, thus severely reducing any leverage the South African team could wield at the negotiation table. Although the IMF was willing to grant the necessary funding for disaster relief, there was an important stipulation: the drought relief money would only appear if the African National Congress, the new ruling party, would follow its economic policies. 

These policies included not increasing wages, completely opening up the country to trade, and reducing the government’s debt by cutting public services. This was exactly what President Mandela’s team had been trying to avoid throughout the negotiation process, yet the severity of the drought gave them virtually no choice. In 1996, a new economic plan known as the Growth, Employment, a Redistribution (GEAR) program was implemented. It was problematic from its very conception. It did not mention the country’s economic history of race and Apartheid, prompting the question: How can economic policy rectify horrendous inequality when it doesn’t even recognize its existence?

GEAR’s economic policies perpetuated the inequitable water access system of the Apartheid regime. The public had to pay the full cost of water and sanitation infrastructure; this cost was often levied on poor, black communities. For example, in 2003-2004, these communities faced a 30 percent price increase versus a 10 percent price increase for “high-end” users (i.e. corporations and the wealthiest communities). Suez, the private water company in charge of water distribution, essentially inherited a similar role as the Apartheid government. Since Suez has taken over distribution, the poor have been presented with high bills which they cannot- or even will not- pay. As a result, Suez typically shuts off the water supply. Though not unique to any city, in Johannesburg, water bills are a part of monthly housing payments. When residents did not pay their water bill, they were evicted. According to Piper in The Price of Thirst, by 2007, more than two million people had been evicted from their homes for not paying their water bills. The brutal irony of it all was that residents, who had previously fought for better water access, began to protest having water connections installed as they now saw it as a threat to their livelihood. 

Water Privatization as the New Apartheid? 

Since 1994, black residents perceive that their quality of life has declined, which is astonishing considering the Apartheid government specifically existed to maintain white supremacy, yet black South Africans continue to be denied basic goods. Service delivery protests, which are often attributed to xenophobia, are actually due to a lack of basic services, such as sanitation and clean water, and often manifest in violent ways. The number of protests that had taken place by June of 2019 had already eclipsed the total for 2016 which indicates that the problem is only getting worse, not better.  

Throughout South Africa’s modern history, water has been utilized as a marker for power within a racial hierarchy. Beginning with British colonial rule, white people’s ability to access clean water represented a political, economic, and social power that black natives had been violently deprived of. Furthermore, water was not only used as a way for whites to extract power, but it was also weaponized to protect it. The threat of having a basic necessity taken away is an easy way to ensure compliance; this is something both the Apartheid government and Suez have done, albeit for slightly different reasons. The Apartheid regime shut off the water when they wanted to quell anti-Apartheid protests, while Suez does so in order to elicit payment. It is easier for Suez to maintain superficial innocence as they are not a government explicitly subjecting its citizens to racist and violent policies. However, that veneer of innocence is stripped away as it becomes clear that both are responsible for producing and maintaining racial inequities, particularly when it comes to water. 

President Mandela’s economic plan sought to equalize a country whose foundations were rooted in white supremacy. However, this plan was compromised by the Bretton-Woods institutions whose policies did not address the country’s history. The implementation of water privatization was emblematic of this ignorance: it was neglectful of the needs of black, low-income communities who needed to be empowered the most and instead perpetuated a white hegemony over water. In order to make water truly accessible to all people, it is necessary that policy leaders return to President Mandela’s original vision of water being a public good. Water is a necessity for political, economic, and social prosperity, and its privatization means that specific groups would be disconnected. Although many would argue that privatization is meant to eliminate the inefficiencies of the government, the case of South Africa has made it clear that it has done quite the opposite. By making it a collective good, the government would be honoring its own constitution and would be forced to ensure that everyone has access to clean water. This makes institutions, and its representatives, more accountable and South Africans would have a better say in water policy, thus equalizing one facet of a notoriously unequal society. 

The Ganga Herself: India’s Most Critical Environmental Disaster

No river in the world is as religiously revered, as economically crucial or as devastatingly polluted as the Ganges [Ganga] River.  Former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru proudly declared that, “The Ganga, especially, is the river of India, beloved of her people, round which are intertwined her racial memories, her hopes and fears, her songs of triumph, her victories and her defeats. She has been a symbol of India’s age-long culture and civilization, ever changing, ever-flowing, Ganga.” Yet, the Ganga is sadly changing for the worst, as pollution continues to dirty the sacred waters. The personified goddess, is becoming unrecognizable with pollution levels reaching unprecedented levels. The Ganges, is arguably the most important river in the world not only because of the water supply and economic accessibility, but for the cultural significance. Ganges water is in many Hindu houses around the world and for massive pilgrimages to cities such as Varanasi or Allahabad the river is foundational to these cities themselves.

The Ganges river runs more than 1500 miles from the Himalaya mountains to the Bay of Bengal. As of 2015, the river itself supports 500 million people, and accounts for twenty-five percent of India’s water resources. The use of the river spans from Hindu religious rituals, irrigation of crops, daily water supply and a habitat for many animals. The Ganges is essential to life of many people around the world along with those who live closest to the banks of the river.

Wading Through the Waters in Varanasi

From early European visitors who encountered the murky, muddy waters to locals who bathe daily at the ghats in Varanasi, India, the cleanliness of the Ganges has always been a question. Whereas early visitors were concerned about the mud, today the level of pollution has increased dramatically that the Ganges is the fourth most polluted river in the world.

Victor Mallet, in his book, River of Life, River of Death: The Ganges and India’s Future, takes the reader on a journey on the Ganges from mouth to delta. Mallet states that it is critical to consider the massive scale that this river supports, 700 million people (a little less than the total population of Europe). With every use of the Ganges, the toxic water directly or circuitously impacts about one tenth of the world’s population. From providing much needed water supply in the irrigation of crops in Uttar Pradesh to the fish collected for consumption in West Bengal, to the daily ritual dip in cities such as Allahabad, Rishikesh or Varanasi  – when in contact with the river, a once rich resource, now can have devastating even deadly impacts.

Industrial Waste and Domestic Waste

Industrial and domestic waste are the chief culprits in polluting the Ganges River, especially in cities like Varanasi. The water is often tested in Varanasi at various places and the findings are not surprising. From industrial waste, high levels arsenic and mercury are above permissible levels, along with an array of various other poisons. Mallet reported that India has no standard for toxins found in sediment. So when testing the impact of Ganges water, the samples are compared to the international toxicity standards for drinking water, which are stricter than sediment standards but nonetheless a base comparison. Researchers found in the Ganges sediment “796 part per million of chromium and 4.7 ppm of mercury, thousands of times above the international toxicity standards for drinking water. Research done by Anand Singh and Jitendra Pandey of Banaras Hindu University found that the concentration of heavy metals only steadily increases downstream, becoming more dangerous as the river flows. In 2017,  65 percent of the water stations, that had data available, were at unsatisfactory levels. In Bihar, that number rose to 76 percent of the water tested was unsatisfactory – “with no station reporting satisfactory water quality”.

The problem: the sewage capacity for many treatment plants in Varanasi and other cities is only able to treat half of the sewage that is generated. Anil Kumar Singh, an official at the UP Pollution Control Board, stated that, ‘Treatment capacity [in Varanasi] is about a quarter of the total discharge’. The current infrastructure simply cannot handle the sheer amount of it all especially as India’s population continues to grow.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has taken upon himself to make cleaning the Ganges his personal mission and also divine purpose. Modi stated that, “Ma Ganga is screaming for help. She is saying, ‘There must be one of my sons who will come and pull me out of this filth’ … There are many tasks that perhaps God has set for me”. However very little has been done beyond the superficial.  While personally living in Varanasi, Prime Minister Modi has visited twice, and both times major temporary construction has occurred before his visit. The first visit in fall 2017 included the covering of the Assi river, a small river that flows into the Ganges. The Assi River is better known by locals as the Assi sewer, that is filled with high levels of plastics caught between bridges as well as so much human waste that it gives off a powerful stench. The second time, was when French President Macron visited, in Spring 2018 and Assi Ghat was completely swept, resurfaced  and even had a red carpet along the steps leading down to the river. Such superficial and surface level action is often described in India as ‘putting lipstick on a woman with a dirty sari’. Resources spent on pretending the problem does not exist but never addressing the core issues.

Who’s Doing What

The local government, central government and non-governmental organizations(NGOs) has taken action to address this issue, however, resulting in little to no progress.

Local Government

The local initiative for Clean Ganga in Varanasi reported that most change has been on superficial levels. The change that has occurred: the addition of 3,000 trash cans along the ghats, nighttime street sweeping and a garbage disposal plant, is much needed, but has been having no major impacts. The biggest change is the addition of two sewage disposal projects still in the building stages. Little progress has been seen made on any noticeable differences in the water quality, and many people feel that the condition of the water is continuously getting worse. With the end of the monsoon and increased water levels, the concentration of the pollutants is lower, but now they are just defused until the water levels lower.

Central Government

The Finance Minister, Arun Jaitely stated in the Union budget of 2018-2019 that the Central Government initiative, Namami Gange, has completed 47 of the 187, and the rest are in “various stages of execution”. The Namami Gange projects seek to address: “sewage treatment infrastructure, river surface cleaning, afforestation, industrial effluent monitoring, making villages on the banks of Ganges open defecation free, riverfront development, among others. The bulk of the projects sanctioned are sewage treatment plants”. While this governmental action is exactly what needs to happen, both local and central government are showing to be ineffective at the implementation of these programs. While the Finance Minister stated that 47 projects have been completed, data suggest otherwise. The National Mission for Clean Ganga reported that only 18 projects have been completed out of the 95 sanctioned with no project being completed in Bihar, Delhi, Haryana, and Jharkhand. Namami Gange, was launched in 2014, with 20,000 core equivalent to about 3.52 million USD allocated for the project.

Non-Governmental Organizations

The Sankat Mochan Temple started a campaign, later an organization, called the Sankat Mochan Foundation whose slogan was “not one drop of sewage”. The founder Veer Bhadra Mishra, the temple’s senior priest, was also a water engineer. Spending years lobbying politicians and government authorities to work towards addressing the problem of sewage pollution in Varanasi. Toward the end of his life, Veer became disheartened by his extraneous 40 years of campaigning and very little action done by the government. At his death in 2013, his son took over religious responsibilities as well as the foundation. While passionate about the work his father started, he continues to meet politicians in hopes of persuading them into action.      

The Sankat Mochan foundation along with an array of other NGOs have campaigned and work towards addressing the need of the cleaning of the Ganges but the little action that they do has had very little impact. The work that these NGOs have done is valuable – but ineffective. Inquiry being conducted by Fullbright researcher, Olivia Trombadore has found that the Sankat Mocha Foundation tests the water in Varanasi for an array of harmful substances, yet these recordings have done very little beyond continuing to provide evidence that pollution exists. Providing concrete data is essential in the process, but not enough work is being done.  In an interview with Vinod, a wood seller who has spent time researching pollution levels, he even stated that, “a lot of money is going into a slogan[targeting the Sankat Mochan Foundation]”.

The common theme amongst the local government, central government and NGOs, is that inaction and ineffective action is the course of action. The problem is known and solutions are in place – but why is there little to no change in the condition of the river? This answer lies in the lack of collaboration between the local government, central government and NGOs. Rather than working together, each entity focuses on one particularity. Which is resulting in the expansion of the sewer treatment plan but no simultaneous growth to the infrastructure of the sewage lines. Resulting in the potential of more sewage to be treated but falls short when crumbling infrastructure makes it impossible for the sewage to even reach the treatment plant.

Solutions

A local solution for Varanasi could be the addition of simple programs such as the publishing of data and informing the public about the dire state of the Ganges. With renown Banaras Hindu University, combining resources could be both a project for the university and further inform the public. Free water testing for households with questionable water sources is another implementation that would help improve the community with little investment done by the Sankat Mochan Foundation.      

The Central Government needs to simply better implement and accountability to the programs they have allocated funds to as well as sanctioned. An alternative solution was offered in March of 2017, when Indian High Court of Uttarakhand state declared the Ganges and Yamuna river legal status as people . It was believed that giving the rivers rights would serve in helping conserve and protect the sacred waters. However, just four months later, the Indian Supreme Court determined that the cause was legally unsustainable. On October 11, 2018, G.D. Agrawal, a renown Indian environmental professor, engineer and activist, who dedicated his life to the cause of the Ganga, died after a four month hunger strike. Agrawa’s self-sacrifice was an attempt to pressure the Indian government to take immediate action to rescue the Ganges by writing a list of demands to PM Modi. A governmental minister was sent to meet Agrawal; he refused give up his fast and his demands were not met.

International solutions have been seen in 2014  Kyoto-Varanasi partner city agreement in which the city of Varanasi, India and Kyoto, Japan cultural exchange as well as the mingling of local university and solutions to environmental problems and cultural preservation with development. The main intention of turning Varanasi into a 21st city that maintains the deep historical traditions. A major focus was the implementation of Japanese water cleaning technology to be introduced and used in Varanasi. Little evidence of this has been seen in the impact of the partner city agreement.

The most damaging part of all this information is how few Indians understand what is happening each time they turn on the faucet or buy vegetables at the local markets. The degree and level that pollution is at, especially in the context of the Ganges, is practically invisible to the public. The information is not hidden, rather the information is not often sought out by the general populous. India is a classist society, those who are being impacted the most, the poor, do not have water filters in their house, regularly bathe, wash clothes and dishes in the Ganges and are the ones who do not have the accessibility to the information they desperately need. Information that could save their life. Pollution of the Ganges is as momentous as the mountains in which the river comes from, but is on the verge of becoming an environmental massacre.

A Divining Rod for Conflict: The Dangers of Faltering Water Infrastructure in Asian Metropolises

As the world changes around us, we are soon to be thrust into a future in which the availability of a particular natural resource that has formed the foundations of every human civilization throughout history is being called into question: water. At the end of 2016, former UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon spoke to diplomats gathered in Marrakech for the United Nations Climate Change Conference, gravely warning them that “no country, irrespective of its size or strength, is immune from the impacts of climate change, and no country can afford to tackle the climate challenge alone.” Indeed, the world is gradually becoming united in recognizing the importance of protecting our water resources, with 90% of countries referencing agricultural development as important to alleviating the stresses of climate change. Undoubtedly, the rural poor who conduct most of the agricultural work in these countries are among the most at risk and most egregiously affected by water scarcity because it constitutes not only a human necessity for them, but also a foundation of their livelihood. Yet, the ramifications of water scarcity are growing and encroaching on urban metropolises at a rate that will threaten significantly larger subsets of the population in the near future. While many leaders have focused on the impact of rural water scarcity, soon-to-be thirsting urban populaces will force their political representatives to address the equally vital topic of water scarcity in urban areas of Asia.

The urgency of addressing this growing threat to our planet cannot be denied when one listens to José Graziano da Silva, Director-General the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, who espouses that “from California to China’s eastern provinces and from Jordan to the southern tip of Africa, an estimated four billion people – almost two-thirds of the global population – live with severe water shortages for at least some of the time.” This problem becomes specifically pronounced in Asia when one considers that more than half of all 29 megacities (defined by the United Nations as a city with a population of more than 10 million people) are located in Asia. As our global populace urbanizes and begins to self-stratify to cities, population centers accelerate in growth to placate the need for concentrated labor sources in developing Asian economies. Population division to cities does not always align with the natural distribution of water resources, resulting in 1/3 of the global population currently living with consistent and reliable access to clean drinking water. With the populations of cities around the world projected to continue to grow, so too grows the preeminent importance of planning secure urban water supplies to quench all of these new mouths so that states are not forced to resort to violence.

It is important to differentiate between the problems caused by demand, called “water stress,” and scarcity driven by overflowing population, called “water shortage.” While economies of scale create the potential for sweeping water resource sustainability projects, megacities have not always adapted to the rapidly approaching threat of water scarcity well. With our global aquifers depleting and ice caps melting, the clock is ticking to find a solution to water stress driven by the massive populations of metropolises which will soon have serious political and human security implications – especially in Asia where the majority of these megacities lie. The first step to combatting water stress is evaluating how urgent the problem has become. With many Asian cities operating with an incredibly low buffer for water scarcity in the future, the problem of water shortage has accelerated to the point that it will pose a serious threat to the lives of tens of millions of people in Asia’s megacities if not dealt with imminently.

With a low buffer for error, many Asia metropolises are forced to wrestle with water shortage earlier than they are prepared for, which elevates the importance of the issue in the eyes of local bureaucrats but also can result in short-term stopgap solutions. Water shortage is a problem of both preparedness and infrastructure, the shortcomings of both of which were highlighted by the recent incursion of El Niño’s scorching weather patterns throughout Southeast Asia. In July of 2015, city authorities in Bangkok warned that taps may be shut off, as dams supplying the megacity with water see their usual water level of 8 billion cubic meters of water being reduced to a scant 660 million cubic meters of water. Residents were instructed to keep a reserve store of 60 liters of water on hand in case the city was no longer able to provide running water. This water stress resulted, at least partially, from poor infrastructure, for Thailand’s water is collected from rivers which become unusable in times of drought when salt water levels rise leaving the city unequipped to treat. Kuala Lumpur experienced similar strife during a period of dry weather in 2014 that was brought on from the fact that the entirety of the nation’s water comes from surface sources. These examples highlight the tribulations incurred by inadequate preparation, giving us a spyglass to a not-so-distant future if the proper steps are not taken to fight water shortage.

More than half of the world’s urban population now lives in Asian cities. If water stress remains unaddressed in these population centers, it’s possibly violent effects may likely become more pronounced and more serious. As massive population centers struggle to match the pace of their solutions to rapidly approaching water scarcity, it can easily become a conflict resource. Roughly 260 rivers run across borders through two or more Asian countries, and few treaties dictate who owns the rights to use the water from the river basins many nations rely upon. This ambiguity is bound to result in conflict as we move forward into the new world of water scarcity. Furthermore, in situations where water is scarce problems with water quality often follow, so we may end up fighting wars for water we are even apprehensive to drink. Infrastructure in cities must be expanded and modernized to bulwark against shocks to the system wrought from human-influenced changes in weather patterns.

The majority of responses to water stress have been classified by recent research in the International Journal of Water Resources Development as “crisis management.” Yet, the problem with addressing a crisis is that the crisis is seen as an isolated problem to be resolved. When the crisis dissipates, any potential long term solutions to urban water scarcity evaporate with the passing crisis. City administrations are apt to deal with a problem when it is being thrust in their face by citizens who incur the immediate effects of a water shortage, but to truly handle the threat posed by water stress in megacities, urban governments must look farther than just the next conflict to bulwark against the centuries of water strife that will likely follow. In Marrakech the UN Secretary General called for the world to become more resilient, and that is exactly what countries must do. Even if droughts end, the ever-exacerbated problem of global climate change is here to stay and we must adapt our solutions to water stress as such. As our ground water depletes and rivers stop running, securing readily available water resources for population centers is key to preventing a future wrought with water-incited conflicts.

The potentially violent political ramifications of water stress in megacities can neither be downplayed nor ignored as they have the potential to become the largest drivers of conflict in the developing world. The history of China, where in the near future there will be nine cities qualifying as megacities, illustrates that “he who controls the water controls the people.” This holds true throughout the nation’s history, from the first emperor, who tamed the country’s rivers with canals, to Mao Zedong who constructed more than 80,000 dams. Marvyn Piesse, a Research Analyst at Future Directions International argues that “to maintain a hold on political power, maintain control over water.” If the grasp governments have on their water resources evaporate, so too will the governments unless they can ascertain ways to modernize and prevent shortages from turning into lasting conflicts. A world where water wars occur is often posited as a threat for the future, but few realize that it is a world we already live in. From Golan Heights to the Kashmir Glacier, the locations of water resources have contributed to conflicts for longer than is often recognized. The presence of water on land adds and additional layer of complexity to conflicts often viewed as purely territorial, for with control over aquafers comes control of the people who drink from them. Water is a resource that is inherently unevenly distributed, and when that fact is combined with inept and unstable political regimes, the propensity for conflict is high. The likelihood of larger and more widespread water-driven conflicts is more than the impetus we need to actively take a role in bulwarking against water insecurity in metropolises for the future.

To fight water stress in megacity population centers, strides must be made in three key sectors: water resources must be diversified, water infrastructure must be updated to accommodate ballooning populations, and efficiency and austerity must be introduced into water use itself. In China, efforts are being made to construct “sponge” cities, which diversify the water supply of cities to include stormwater. Many cities in China have experienced difficulties from the huge amount of concrete used in their construction, but through strategic placement, and careful urban planning and interspersing of water-collecting city parks, new cities in China are able to rely less on water from ground and surface sources and rely more on the water readily available falling from the skies for needs from toilet flushing to being purified for drinking water. The new cities hold such promise that the Chinese government has promised to fund the construction of 16 sponge cities in the near future. Singapore has similarly set an example for how to diversify water resources, implementing the “Four National Taps” policy to ensure that water comes from four different sources. While half of the country’s water comes from Malaysia, they also desalinate saltwater, collect rainwater through a system of canals and ponds, and have a sewage system with two water reclamation plants. In India, sewage reclamation has become a pillar of its water resource. Between 70-80% of domestically used water originates as wastewater before it is treated in one of 234 sewage water treatment plants. This system is crucial as India accounts for 4% of the world’s water resources but constitutes 16% of the world’s population. In the megacity of Bangalore, they fought back against 48% of their water being sent through their pipes being unaccounted for by installing approximately 4,000 sensors in their pipes and pumping helium through their pipes to find leakages to be able to address them as soon as they are identified. Phnom Penh in Cambodia is a prime example of the benefits of implementing water austerity all the way up from the infrastructure. In 1993, only 20% of the city had access to running water, and that was only available for 10 hours a day, but by cutting down on the 70% leakage they were experiencing in their pipes and cracking down on corruption to eliminate illegal connections they were able to extend reliable water access to include 90% of the city. By today, under careful leadership, the city has 24/7 access to clean water, five times the treatment capacity, and a water loss rate of only 6.63%. Some other cities are taking their infrastructure systems to the next level, such as Hoi An, Vietnam, which plans to install a smart water sensor system that can actively respond to the changing water needs of the population. Some scholars go further than to recommend modernizing infrastructure and instead recommend that we start constructing new infrastructure through dams and canals. Only be pursuing solutions such as those discussed above that transcend the parameters of passing dilemmas can we buttress against future water wars driven by human-influenced climate change.

The threats to our water supply can be dealt with in an urban environment, as demonstrated by the examples above, through a combination of diversifying water sources, updating water infrastructure, and eliminating waste. These changes are crucial to Asia megacities, who are a window into what our rapidly urbanizing future will look like. Without adequately accommodating for obstacles to come, water wars could become more than a possibility; they could become an inevitability.