Durable solutions for water security
Wednesday, 31 Jul 2019
MINISTER of Water, Land and Natural Resources Dr Xavier Jayakumar’s proposal to tap into Malaysia’s groundwater supply to meet growing water demand is baffling, considering that there are many other less costly and destructive means of meeting our country’s water needs.
That the minister reported of forests in Kedah catching fire due to drought is precisely what environmentalists and concerned citizens have been warning the authorities about for years – protect water catchment areas, gazette the Ulu Muda forest complex and end deforestation or we will face a water crisis.
A fully-grown tree releases 1,000 litres of water vapour a day into the atmosphere. Thus, logging leads to higher temperatures and a decline in rainfall due to the reduced ability of a cleared or decimated forest to absorb solar energy and release water vapour.
The drought in the northern states of Peninsular Malaysia in 2016 was directly linked to logging activities in the Ulu Muda forest complex, which affected climate and water cycle patterns, resulting in a massive decline in dam water levels and a postponement of the padi planting season.
Now that a water crisis is imminent, the minister has made the alarming proposal to drain other sources of water rather than manage the resource that best ensures a sustainable and consistent supply of water – our tropical rainforests, which act as vital water catchment zones.
It is essential that we protect our remaining forests and maintain the health of our rivers, wetlands and water catchment areas to ensure that water resources are safe for us and can be sustained for future generations.
Tapping into our groundwater supply while failing to protect water catchment areas, manage water demand and end non-revenue water loss is like withdrawing funds from an already overdrawn bank account.
The sustained pumping of groundwater can lead to groundwater depletion and deterioration of water quality. As water levels in lakes and rivers are also linked to groundwater seepage, the excessive drawing of groundwater can result in a decline in the water levels of lakes and rivers and loss of riparian vegetation and wildlife habitats.
When groundwater is continually pumped out of the earth, it can result in land subsidence, namely the collapse and sinking of soil. This can result in disasters such as the opening up of sink holes and surface cavities such as in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, tilting and cracking of buildings such as in Mexico City, and severe flooding such as in Bangkok. Studies have shown that land subsidence can continue for decades even after groundwater pumping has been stopped, as was observed in Arizona.
The minister should instead seriously consider water conservation measures while options are still available to us, and before our water supply has dropped to crisis levels.
We can learn from the example of the state of California, which faced a drought and water crisis in 2015. In April 2015, California Governor Jerry Brown ordered a 25% reduction in urban water usage. Amazingly, within one month of the water reduction law being implemented, California’s water usage went down by not merely 25% but 29%.
California’s water conservation measures included emergency adoption of building codes to conserve water, rebates for water-saving devices and landscape conversion and irrigation, water-efficient landscaping, imposing a fine for water wastage, local outdoor watering restrictions, state-wide regulations requiring businesses to serve water to customers and launder linens and towels only when specifically requested, and hefty penalties for farmers who pump water from drought-stricken rivers.
In a world where clean water is becoming increasingly scarce, it is important that we adopt the best and most cost-effective water conservation practices from around the world, including those implemented by the government in California.
The solution to our country’s water problems lies not in tapping into underground water reserves, the construction of an infinite number of dams or in water rationing for domestic users but in protecting vital watershed areas, repairing and maintaining the existing water supply infrastructure to minimise non-revenue water loss and to promote and enforce more efficient water use.
By the minister’s own admission, non-revenue water loss in Malaysia is calculated to be at the rate of 5,929 million litres per day of treated water, which is sufficient to meet the demand in both Selangor and Johor (3,316 million litres and 1,320 million litres a day respectively).
Surely, the priority of the minister should be to replace leaky and damaged water infrastructure and end water theft rather than to extract water from an ever-increasing number of natural sources.
As for the argument that watershed conservation, water-saving measures and the replacement of old pipes and water supply systems to plug non-revenue water loss will burden the rakyat, it is submitted that constructing yet more dams and groundwater extraction infrastructure will cost taxpayers even more.
Given the choice between paying for a temporary solution to water shortage issues (i.e. dams and groundwater wells that will result in environmental destruction or will eventually dry up) and a more durable solution to protect water security (i.e. protection of watersheds, replacement of unsafe and leaking water supply pipes with safer and sturdier pipes, tiered pricing system to penalise only water wastage and heavy water use), I believe most taxpayers and consumers would make the rational decision to spend their money on the latter.
A responsible government is one that makes decisions that will protect the safety, health and food and water security of its citizens, and environmental and ecological integrity for generations to come, regardless of who will hold political power by then.
WONG EE LYNN
Petaling Jaya
That the minister reported of forests in Kedah catching fire due to drought is precisely what environmentalists and concerned citizens have been warning the authorities about for years – protect water catchment areas, gazette the Ulu Muda forest complex and end deforestation or we will face a water crisis.
The drought in the northern states of Peninsular Malaysia in 2016 was directly linked to logging activities in the Ulu Muda forest complex, which affected climate and water cycle patterns, resulting in a massive decline in dam water levels and a postponement of the padi planting season.
Now that a water crisis is imminent, the minister has made the alarming proposal to drain other sources of water rather than manage the resource that best ensures a sustainable and consistent supply of water – our tropical rainforests, which act as vital water catchment zones.
It is essential that we protect our remaining forests and maintain the health of our rivers, wetlands and water catchment areas to ensure that water resources are safe for us and can be sustained for future generations.
Tapping into our groundwater supply while failing to protect water catchment areas, manage water demand and end non-revenue water loss is like withdrawing funds from an already overdrawn bank account.
The sustained pumping of groundwater can lead to groundwater depletion and deterioration of water quality. As water levels in lakes and rivers are also linked to groundwater seepage, the excessive drawing of groundwater can result in a decline in the water levels of lakes and rivers and loss of riparian vegetation and wildlife habitats.
When groundwater is continually pumped out of the earth, it can result in land subsidence, namely the collapse and sinking of soil. This can result in disasters such as the opening up of sink holes and surface cavities such as in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, tilting and cracking of buildings such as in Mexico City, and severe flooding such as in Bangkok. Studies have shown that land subsidence can continue for decades even after groundwater pumping has been stopped, as was observed in Arizona.
The minister should instead seriously consider water conservation measures while options are still available to us, and before our water supply has dropped to crisis levels.
We can learn from the example of the state of California, which faced a drought and water crisis in 2015. In April 2015, California Governor Jerry Brown ordered a 25% reduction in urban water usage. Amazingly, within one month of the water reduction law being implemented, California’s water usage went down by not merely 25% but 29%.
California’s water conservation measures included emergency adoption of building codes to conserve water, rebates for water-saving devices and landscape conversion and irrigation, water-efficient landscaping, imposing a fine for water wastage, local outdoor watering restrictions, state-wide regulations requiring businesses to serve water to customers and launder linens and towels only when specifically requested, and hefty penalties for farmers who pump water from drought-stricken rivers.
In a world where clean water is becoming increasingly scarce, it is important that we adopt the best and most cost-effective water conservation practices from around the world, including those implemented by the government in California.
The solution to our country’s water problems lies not in tapping into underground water reserves, the construction of an infinite number of dams or in water rationing for domestic users but in protecting vital watershed areas, repairing and maintaining the existing water supply infrastructure to minimise non-revenue water loss and to promote and enforce more efficient water use.
By the minister’s own admission, non-revenue water loss in Malaysia is calculated to be at the rate of 5,929 million litres per day of treated water, which is sufficient to meet the demand in both Selangor and Johor (3,316 million litres and 1,320 million litres a day respectively).
Surely, the priority of the minister should be to replace leaky and damaged water infrastructure and end water theft rather than to extract water from an ever-increasing number of natural sources.
As for the argument that watershed conservation, water-saving measures and the replacement of old pipes and water supply systems to plug non-revenue water loss will burden the rakyat, it is submitted that constructing yet more dams and groundwater extraction infrastructure will cost taxpayers even more.
Given the choice between paying for a temporary solution to water shortage issues (i.e. dams and groundwater wells that will result in environmental destruction or will eventually dry up) and a more durable solution to protect water security (i.e. protection of watersheds, replacement of unsafe and leaking water supply pipes with safer and sturdier pipes, tiered pricing system to penalise only water wastage and heavy water use), I believe most taxpayers and consumers would make the rational decision to spend their money on the latter.
A responsible government is one that makes decisions that will protect the safety, health and food and water security of its citizens, and environmental and ecological integrity for generations to come, regardless of who will hold political power by then.
WONG EE LYNN
Petaling Jaya
Comments
Post a Comment