Erb Institute Report No. 145 | White Paper
Navigating Troubled Waters
Navigating Troubled Waters: A Primer for Managers on Water Challenges and Opportunities By: Wren Montgomery
Photo credit: Tom Lyon
Creating a sustainable world through the power of business
Erb Institute Report No. 145 | White Paper
Introduction
W
orld water resources, once seen as plentiful and virtually infinite, are under increasing pressure from population growth, urbanization, industrial demands, and climate change. These water challenges are now hitting closer and closer to home. Multi-year droughts in California, toxic spills in West Virginia rivers, polluted drinking water in Toledo, and thousands demonstrating over municipal water rates and human rights in Detroit are just a few of the ways water has recently entered our collective consciousness. Taking our water for granted is no longer an option for citizens, governments, or businesses reliant on water resources. This report offers managers seeking to understand the water crisis an introductory overview of an increasingly waterconstrained world, its impacts, and key points of contention. However, while water presents growing challenges, the very nature of this fluid resource pushes us to find novel system-wide solutions to these problems. Finding opportunities for innovative solutions will require collaborative, cross-sectoral and systems-level thinking, but also a rich understanding of the pressures and tensions of each of these sectors and how they interrelate. This report aims to support that conversation.
Water everywhere? An emerging global water crisis
I
n 2014 the World Economic Forum identified the water crisis as number three in its annual list of world economic risks, stating that the “potential impacts are real and happening today� (World Economic Forum, 2014, p. 14). United Nations estimates suggest that given average economic growth, global demand for water will exceed supply by 40% by 2030, and far earlier in many jurisdictions (UN Environment Programme, 2011). Although isolated local water shortages and conflicts have presented ongoing challenges historically, the Dublin Statement of 1992, crafted at a meeting of global ministers of the environment and water, was among the first to recognize emerging global pressures on scarce freshwater resources (Bakker, 2007). While broader recognition of growing global water scarcity has developed only more recently, today there is extensive agreement that water resources are reaching, or have already reached, a crisis point. Global governments and institutions (UNESCO, 2006; United Nations, 2010; WBCSD, 2009; WHO, 2012), environment and social justice movements (Barlow, 2007; Goldman, 2007), and corporate actors (2030 Water Resource Group, 2013; Ernst & Young, 2012; KPMG, 2012) are all now calling attention to this crisis.
Navigating Troubled Waters
Understanding water scarcity
A
lthough water appears plentiful, almost 97% of the Earth’s water is saline and unsuitable for most human and industrial uses. Of the earth’s available freshwater, about 68% is currently in the form of ice or glaciers, leaving roughly 1% of the earth’s water available for the use of an expanding global population of over 7 billion people (USGS, 2014; National Geographic, 2014). The causes of this water crisis are complex and multifaceted. On the supply side, factors such as climate change are increasing pressures on water sources. Rising temperatures combined with more frequent incidences of weather events such as floods and earthquakes threaten local freshwater supplies, change precipitation patterns in already drought-prone regions, and reduce the glaciers and snowpack that feed many key global waterways (Morrison, Morikawa, Murphy, & Schulte, 2009). Similarly, increased urbanization reduces the ability of rainwater to replenish groundwater resources, while pollution of freshwater supplies from sewage effluent, deforestation, and urban and agricultural runoff further reduce the quality of diminished freshwater supplies (KPMG, 2012; UNESCO, 2006). On the demand side, growing pressures on water resources stem from factors including population increases, expanding needs for irrigated agriculture, new industrial methods that demand intensive water supplies (IT, clothing, etc.), increased energy production, and new energy production methods that pollute and may irreversibly remove freshwater supplies from the hydrological cycle (Feldman, 2012; UNESCO, 2006). The often touted reclaimed wastewater and desalination solutions to the crisis hold promise but may themselves pose challenges due to the significant expense they entail as well as excessive land and energy requirements, highly polluting effluents, local marine impacts, and further contributions to climate change (Feldman, 2012). Adding to this complexity, water has frequently been regarded as distinct from other resources, leading to inherent management challenges that are exacerbated under current conditions. First, water is non-fungible, with no known substitutes for many of its current uses, including human consumption. Water is also fugitive, moving across the globe and varying significantly in both quantity (across seasons and annually) and form (from vapor to rain, snow, and ice). The bulky nature of water also exacerbates these issues, presenting challenges in moving water resources from more plentiful regions to regions with higher demand, and presents transportation costs that are exorbitant for many users and uses. Further, water resources are often open access, with limited ability to regulate usage and with significant potential for misuse, presenting a typical problem of the ‘commons’ (Hardin, 1968; Ostrom, 1990). Finally, water is often characterized by deep cultural meanings and community attachments (Johnston & Donahue, 1998) and may even have spiritual and religious meanings in many communities – such as the principles of water usage and rights prescribed by Islamic law (Hassoun, 1998) – which further complicate water regulation and management.
Erb Institute Report No. 145 | White paper
The impacts of a water crisis Social and environmental impacts
W
ater scarcity and quality deterioration are having profound impacts on both humans and natural environments. Vast numbers of the world’s population lack access to safe drinking water and sanitation. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 780 million people worldwide lacked safe drinking water in 2010 while 2.5 billion lacked access to sufficient sanitation (WHO, 2012). The United Nations (UN) estimates that annual deaths from the waterborne diseases of diarrhea and malaria alone are 1.8 and 1.3 million respectively, with over 90% of such deaths occurring in children under the age of five (UNESCO, 2006). The WHO reports that over 80% of all sicknesses and disease worldwide can be traced to contaminated water (WHO, 2009). Water stresses are also having serious impacts on local ecosystems and the human and natural systems they sustain. The World Wildlife Fund’s (WWF) Freshwater Living Planet Index which tracks populations of 737 species of fish, birds, reptiles and mammals in freshwater ecosystems shows a 37% decline in global freshwater systems since 1970 (WWF, 2013). Local examples of such declines include China, where despite secrecy over environmental indicators local officials have acknowledged that up to 60% of rivers and up to 90% of urban groundwater sources are severely polluted (Kaiman, 2013; The Wall Street Journal, 2013). In North America, the once mighty Colorado River has been so heavily diverted and dammed for human uses that it had not reached its Pacific delta consistently for almost 50 years until a bi-national government and NGO agreement in 2012 negotiated a limited annual release of water to help restore habitats in the area (The Nature Conservancy, 2014). The EPA reports that “large portions of the U.S. Southwest, Lower Mississippi Basin, and Florida appear to be on unsustainable trajectories with respect to water use” (see Figure 1) and that climate change is likely to exacerbate these risks even further than is estimated by the EPRI figures (EPA, 2013, p. 20). Figure 1: Water Supply Sustainability Risk Index 2030 (EPRI, 2011)
Business impacts
T
he water crisis and its resulting challenges have also impacted business and industry around the world, and will continue to do so. The expanding global industry in water-related products and services includes bottled water, water purification, desalination, and recovery technologies in addition to dam and pipeline construction, urban water and sewage infrastructure, irrigation technologies, and agribusiness. In addition, numerous other sectors are deemed to be particularly vulnerable to water stresses including waterintensive sectors such as clothing, automobiles, food and beverage, biotech and pharmaceutical, electronics, mining, refining, and electric utilities (Pacific Institute, 2007).
In line with many businesses’ dependence on plentiful, high-quality and low-cost water resources, industry associations around the globe are beginning to recognize the fundamental challenges that growing water shortages represent for operations (2030 Water Resource Group, 2013; CDP and Deloitte, 2011; KPMG, 2012). Industrial and agricultural water usage are forecasted to be key contributors to increased water demands, with estimates suggesting that China alone
Navigating Troubled Waters
could account for 40% (see Figure 2) of increased industrial water demand globally by 2030 (2030 Water Resource Group, 2013). Accordingly, water scarcity has been identified as a leading business concern among executives involved in corporate sustainability, as well as a key point of vulnerability for business (Ernst & Young, 2012). Water is also increasingly being recognized as an important business risk for a variety of reasons including: water shortages, quality issues, price and access volatility, brand and reputational threats, increased community and regulatory pressures, and employee and consumer health (KPMG, 2012; WBCSD, 2009). These risks, and the threats they pose to businesses and their supply chains, are only expected to increase as climate change exacerbates water scarcity in given regions (Columbia Water Center, 2013). Figure 2: Increase in Annual Water Demand 2005-2030 (2030 Water Resource Group, 2009)
This increased exposure to water risk has not gone unnoticed by investors and shareholders. Several initiatives are now emerging to assess business vulnerability to water risk as well as to track actions being taken to mitigate exposure. In many cases theses mitigations activities are seen as lacking. For example, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), while working with corporate actors to improve their water stewardship and lauding some of these efforts, notes that many activities are “weak and unsubstantiated”, “inconsequential”, “meaningless” or “ad hoc” (WWF, 2013, p. 1). The CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project), along with Deloitte, introduced annual water disclosure reporting in 2011, and tracks responses of 593 businesses to questions posed by 530 institutional investors with US$57 trillion in assets. These reports similarly find that although 80% of corporations see water issues affecting their business in the next five years and a full 70% see water as posing a substantial risk, many companies are failing to adequately address water risk (CDP and Deloitte, 2013). Non-profit corporate sustainability advocate Ceres has also partnered with the WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development) and the IRRC Institute to create The Ceres Aqua Gauge, another tool to help investors and managers assess water risks and enhance stewardship (Ceres, 2014). Finally, just as many managers have lagged behind the growing global attention to water, management scholarship and education has also offered only limited insight into the business implications of water scarcity, the role of mitigation and stewardship, and the stakeholder and institutional forces which businesses face in an emerging ‘water-constrained’ reality (Kurland & Zell, 2010).
Erb Institute Report No. 145 | White paper
‘Water Wars’: Understanding emerging conflicts Ownership and control of water
C
onflicts over water usage and ownership, be it between rural property owners in the mid-West or across Middle East borders, are by no means new. However, as a result of growing pressures on finite water resources, several new and related conflicts are emerging around the ownership and control of water. Even local water crises, such as droughts and floods, are having ripple effects through the world economy and impacting global political unrest and security (World Economic Forum, 2014). With increasing frequency businesses requiring water in their production process and supply chains, or participating in water-dependent industries, have found themselves at “Coca-Cola Morocco” by ciukes - Flickr. Licensed under Creative the centre of these debates as they Commons Attribution 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons seek to reduce risks by enhancing control over such resources. The much publicized conflicts in which Coca-Cola has found itself embroiled in India, or Nestlé’s controversial attempts to extract and bottle Michigan aquifer water, are just two of many examples of how these emerging political conflicts over water may impact corporate actors. While these issues are just beginning to emerge more explicitly on the North American stage, for instance in Detroit in the spring and summer of 2014, they have led to deep strife and violent conflicts, or ‘water wars,’ in various locales around the world.
Water rights
A
property owner’s rights to the water under or abutting a piece of land vary significantly around the world. In the United States these rights have primarily developed under two distinct systems, the riparian doctrine in the East and appropriative doctrine in the Western states. Riparian rights allow users of a property adjacent to a waterway to reasonable use of that water that doesn’t impair the rights of other users. By contrast, appropriative rights permit the holder to use and consume a given amount of water, with rights often lost if not used. Often described as “first in time, first in right” (or FITFIR), these appropriative rights also mean that a user’s right to water is generally assigned chronologically and is subordinate to those of all other prior users. More suited to industrial and agricultural uses that demand diversions, the appropriative doctrine has often been seen as more economically efficient despite the disincentives to water conservation that it may create (Burness & Quirk, 1979). The challenges of appropriative water rights have often been addressed through water trading schemes, which allow water rights or allocations to be traded between users, between uses (often to higher value sectors), or across geographic locales (such as the long distance transfers common in California, China and India). While such water markets are growing, current trading schemes have encountered various problems. For example, the world’s largest water trading market, in Australia’s Murray-Darling basin, has seen transfers away from seasonal agriculture to higher value crops or industrial uses and extensive costs to government to purchase rights for environmental and social needs (Maddocks, 2013). While we are likely to see increased pressure for water trading analysts caution that water-markets may in fact exacerbate overallocation and ineffective water governance regimes and discount third-party effects (Varghese, 2013).
Navigating Troubled Waters
Human right to water
T
he United Nations General Assembly passed the human right to water and sanitation on July 28th 2010, recognized “the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as a human right that is essential for the full enjoyment of the right to life” (United Nations, 2010). This resolution places the onus on nation states to ensure access to water and sanitation that is not free but is sufficient (between 50 and 100 litres per person), safe, acceptable, accessible, and affordable (less than 3% of income) (UN, 2014). Subsequently, several national and sub-national governments have also begun to enshrine a human right to water in their own legislation, including California (Berkeley School of Law, 2013). While often seen as an issue for less developed countries, this right – and the fact that the U.S. is a signatory – was at the forefront of the Detroit demonstrations over water shut-offs and affordability in 2014 and in media coverage of these events, suggesting that it may be a growing issue in Western politics going forward. A broad global constituency of social and environmental groups loosely collected under the term ‘water justice movement’ was the driving force behind the passage of the right to water at the UN in 2010 and continue to strive to have the right recognized at the local level, protect public ownership of water, and have water recognized as a public trust or commons, as outlined further below. Although the terminology is similar and often confused or conflated, ‘water rights’ are entirely distinct from the ‘right to water.’ However, it is interesting to note that the appropriative rights of certain agricultural water users are beginning to impinge on the basic water needs of vulnerable populations. For example, in the summer of 2014, amidst California’s record droughts, almost 200 households in the St. Joaquin Valley had their taps run dry as a result of agricultural demands (Associated Press, 2014). Situations such as this pose questions over rights prioritization in water scarce locales and potential for future conflicts between holders of these different rights.
Pricing water
P
roponents of market-based mechanisms for the distribution of scarce resources argue that pricing water at its full economic and environmental value will provide the most efficient mechanism for its allocation and distribution to the highest-value uses, while also maintaining quality, limiting degradation, and ensuring efficient use of the resource (Gardner & Simmons, 2012). This position first became prominent in the international arena with the 1992 Dublin Principles, written in response to concerns over scarcity and misuse of water resources. This agreement recognized the economic value of water, declaring that it should be regarded as an “economic good,” and was later adopted by numerous global governments and organizations (WMO, 1992). However, despite general agreement among ‘water justice’ advocates that there is a need to better value and protect water resources, they are concerned that assigning an economic value to nature will lead to natural resources and ecological systems being valued solely on their economic worth and auctioned to the highest bidder. The movement’s concerns center around the monetization of resources and the inability of markets to represent and respond to the preferences of the “inarticulate” including the poor, future generations, and nonhumans (Levin & Espeland, 2002).
Erb Institute Report No. 145 | White paper
Commons vs. commodity and public vs. private debates
C
onnected to but distinct from the previous two issues are several interrelated and more ideologically driven debates about the definitions and legal status of water resources more broadly. This emerging battle is pitting two divergent views of water access and control against one another, as those who believe that water is a public right and shared “commons” struggle to retain control against those who argue that privatization of water and distribution through market-mechanisms as a “commodity” is a more efficient means of managing scarce water resources (Barlow, 2007; Gardner & Simmons, 2012; The Economist, 2011). As a result, the push for marketization, privatization and commoditization of water has been met by resistance from those attempting to maintain traditional models of public ownership and delivery of water as well as to protect water as a public and shared commons (Barlow, 2007). In the U.S. this commodity vs. commons argument is becoming more salient as a variety of stakeholders debate the usage of increasingly scarce water resources ranging from the Ogalla Aquifer to the Colorado River. Related to this is the growing debate over water privatization as corporations buy land and their attached water rights or invest in previously publicly owned water systems, such as in Atlanta, Indianapolis or Detroit. Several activist groups are actively tracking and organizing to protest such sales (Food and Water Watch, 2010).
Photo credit: Tom Lyon
Industry focus: Sectors facing tensions
N
umerous industries and sectors are under pressure in an environment where water resources are increasingly scarce, face numerous demands, may be more costly, and are at the center of political conflict. While these range from mining to bottled water to fashion and beyond, three industries are highlighted here that have been at the crux of recent media and stakeholder attention.
Energy
B
e they hydro, solar, geothermal, nuclear or carbon-based, most energy options require plentiful water resources. Tensions between growing energy demands and water stresses are posing challenges for many energy producers and governments. These have been exacerbated as energy production moves from uses such as thermelectric power generation that was long the leading U.S. user of water (USGS, 2014), but was largely non-consumptive, to more consumptive uses that “diminish the quantity, flow, or quality of the water its source can provide for other purposes” (EPA, 2013, p. v). For example, the World Resources Institute (WRI) notes the business risks for the energy industry of water scarcity, pointing out that the extraction of shale gas through the process of hydraulic fracturing (or “fracking”) can use between 7 million and 23 million litres of water per well. In addition, 25 to 90% of that water use may be consumptive and is drawn from local water resources (World Resources Institute, 2014). To exacerbate this situation, the WRI (2014) estimates that 38% of the world’s shale gas is located in global regions that are already water-stressed. Water and energy security will be closely linked in the future, leading to potential conflicts for producers and demanding more integrated solutions.
Navigating Troubled Waters
Agriculture
L
ike the energy-water nexus, the intersection between food and water is becoming more volatile as feeding a growing world population puts increased stresses on water resources. Agriculture is the leading global user of water resources, with an average of between 70% and 90% of fresh water withdrawals in most nations being used for food production (2030 Water Resource Group, 2013). In the U.S. agriculture is the largest consumptive user of freshwater resources consuming roughly two-thirds of groundwater (such as aquifer) withdrawals alone. (EPA, 2013; USGS, 2014). Droughts and the resulting food shortages have already caused economic, political and social tensions and upheavals around the world, including the Arab Spring (World Economic Forum, 2014). Even with expected efficiency improvements Asian governments alone predict their water demand across all sectors will increase 65% by 2030 (2030 Water Resource Group, 2013). The much publicized 3-year drought in California has had a major impact on agricultural production in one of the most productive regions in the world, with estimates suggesting 17,000 jobs lost and a $US 43 billion impact on the U.S. economy (Walton, 2014). The demands of industrial agriculture on water resources show no signs of decreasing and will entail reexamining the locations and technologies of food production, and the global food system itself.
Municipal water services
W
hile most other utilities were privatized throughout the 19th and 20th centuries in OECD and Western nations, water is uniquely characterized by a long and consistent history of public delivery in most industrialized societies including Canada and the United States (Masten, 2010; Pérard, 2009). In OECD nations with developed water supply infrastructure, 17-25% of the population receive water from private operators, with private supply being the major source of water in only five nations: France, England, Chile, Malaysia and the Czech Republic (Pérard, 2009). This institutionalized public access and supply is vastly different from the supply of almost all other public utilities, ranging from energy to telecommunications and railroads, which are predominately private across OECD nations (Pérard, 2009). However, NGO reports suggest growing pressures to privatize U.S. municipal water services, including large municipal systems such as Indianapolis, Chicago, and Detroit (Food and Water Watch, 2010). These changes are being met with resistance in certain areas as water rights groups attempt to defend the institutionalized public system of water delivery, leading analysts to note the impact of this “potent” opposition to privatization efforts (Connors & Purtill, 2010).
Moving forward: Opportunities and solutions
D
espite the challenges water presents, a water-wise and water-constrained world also offers numerous opportunities for innovative and responsible leaders who are helping to find sustainable water solutions. Below are just a few of the areas where entrepreneurial business leaders may both address their own water challenges as well as lead the way in water stewardship in the local and global community.
Water efficiency innovations
W
ith increasing public and investor awareness of corporate water use, as well as the risks posed by water quantity, quality and cost challenges, businesses that innovate enhance their water efficiency may gain significant competitive advantages. Such efficiency measures broadly include water recycling and closed-loop processes as well as product innovations that demand less, or no, water (KPMG, 2012). For example, CDP (2013) reports that General Electric is realizing significant cost savings through water use reductions in its Texas operations, while General Motors forecasts enhanced brand value through water stewardship practices in water-stressed regions of Mexico. Manufacturers such as Nike and Adidas are beginning to explore ‘water free’ dyeing processes that could significantly reduce the water dependence and significant environmental impact of the textile industry (Ferris, 2012). Research helping corporations to develop integrated and long-term frameworks and investment for site-specific water-scarcity planning is becoming increasingly important. (Gerding, Kennedy, Lyon, & Taylor, 2013).
Erb Institute Report No. 145 | White paper
Collaborative watershed management
W
hile numerous corporations are making strides to recognize and reduce their own water use through efficiency and innovation, this may not be sufficient to eliminate water risk. The fugitive nature of water and the costs and challenges involved in relocating it mean that many businesses face significant watershed risks and may be heavily exposed to the overall health of the watershed or basin in which they are located, as well as to the practices of other users. As a result, many communities and corporations are beginning to recognize that working ‘beyond the fence line’ (WWF, 2013) with all stakeholders in a given watershed is essential to maintaining water resource quality and quantity and reducing water-risk through better stewardship. For instance, after finding itself at the heart of several conflicts over water extraction in India and other locales, Coca-Cola is attempting to lead local water source protection initiatives to both protect supply quality and sustainability and to avoid “being associated with water stress conditions” (Koch, 2012). Private water operators and economists have also begun to acknowledge the value and necessity of negotiating collaborative local governance agreements to protect water quality, quantity, and ecosystem services (Dépres, Grolleau, & Mzoughi, 2008). The role of local community governance regimes and collaboration as a means of managing common pool resources more effectively has been highlighted by the research of Nobel Laureate Eleanor Ostrom and colleagues (Ostrom, 1990) in studies of shared resources ranging from fisheries and irrigation to forest and pasture management. However, in a study of rights negotiations between Nestlé Water and the largely agrarian community of Vittel France, Deprés et al. (2008) recognize the potential for serious transaction costs and information asymmetries in such negotiations, especially when conducted between large and sophisticated private companies and small communities with limited resources. It is vital that corporations seeking to effectively manage their own water risks work equitably with local communities and smaller actors, or risk losing both legitimacy and the license to operate.
Community monitoring
D
ue to the dispersed nature of water resources and limited funding, monitoring water quantity and quality, in order to both provide benchmarks and protect watersheds and water users, has traditionally proven challenging. In order to address this lack of knowledge, emerging research and community efforts have begun to develop novel approaches for community monitoring. This growing movement has led to the successful development of several promising technological and social media applications, suggesting a promising future for emerging water technologies and innovations. These include (Balch, 2014): NextDrop, an India-developed app that announces service disruptions to users and allows users to report the same; mWater, being piloted in Tanzania, which allows community members to test, report and share water quality data to avoid illness from contaminated water sources; Dropcountr, a water efficiency app for homeowners to enhance awareness of water use; and, the slightly more controversial ViZSafe that allows homeowners to report water use waste and violations by neighbours.
The water-food-energy nexus
A
s a recent EPA water report states – “everything is connected” (EPA, 2013). These interrelationships mean that all water users’ actions are impacted by actions of other users and will impact others either directly or through a variety of feedback loops. The shared need for water also connects diverse industries and user groups across the economy and ecosystems. As mentioned at the outset, among the key developments in the water space in recent years has been the emerging recognition of the system-level links and interactions between emerging global challenges. At the heart of this approach is understanding the need for cross-sectoral and systems-level thinking. Although all water uses are important the intersection of the two major water uses – energy and food – account for over 94% of all off-stream water use in the U.S. (EPA, 2013). Research and solutions at the heart of this vital ‘water-food-energy nexus’ in particular seek to address challenges across these vital areas simultaneously with integrated and balanced approaches. The 2030 Resources Group (2013, p. 5) calls for all stakeholders to work together to reduce water scarcity including industries, NGOs, businesses and government, while linking the role of “economic development and ecological resistance” to secure food and energy production as well as water supplies. Leaders and organizations who are able to spearhead these efforts and use systems thinking will be at the cutting edge of a water-constrained reality, while offering untold value to their local communities.
Navigating Troubled Waters
References -2030 Water Resource Group. (2013). Charting our Water Future: Economic Frameworks to Inform Decision-Making. McKinsey & Company. -Associated Press. (2014 йил 25-9). Drought leaves San Joaquin Valley homes without water. Retrieved 2014 йил August from San Jose Mercury News: http://www.mercurynews.com/drought/ci_26402510/drought-leaves-san-joaquin-valley-homes-without-water -Bakker, K. (2007). The “commons” versus the “commodity”: Alter-globalization, anti-privatization and the human right to water in the global South. Antipode , 39 (3), 430-455. -Balch, O. (2014 27-August). Water Hub. Retrieved 2014 йил August from www.theguardian.com: http://www.theguardian.com/sustainablebusiness/2014/aug/27/mobile-apps-california-drought-uk-floods-india-drinking-water -Barlow, M. (2007). Blue Covenant: The Global Water Crisis and the Coming Battle for the Right to Water. Toronto, ON: McClelland & Stewart Ltd. -Berkeley School of Law. (2013). The Human Right to Water Bill in California. Berkeley, CA: International Human Rights Law Clinic, University of California. -Burness, H. S., & Quirk, J. P. (1979). AssociationAppropriative Water Rights and the Efficient Allocation of Resources. The American Economic Review , 69 (1), 25-37. -CDP and Deloitte. (2011). CDP Water Disclosure Global Report 2011. Carbon Disclosure Project. Carbon Disclousre Project. -CDP and Deloitte. (2013). Moving Beyond Business as Usual. London: Carbon Disclosure Project. -Ceres. (2014 August). Valuing Every Drop. From www.ceres.org: http://www.ceres.org/issues/water/corporate-water-stewardship/aqua-gauge/aquagauge -Columbia Water Center. (2013). America’s Water Risk: Water Stress and Climate Variability. New York: Earth Institute, Columbia University. -Connors, R. M., & Purtill, C. (2010 йил July-August). Water consolidation is a myth. Public Works Financing , 251. -Dépres, C., Grolleau, G., & Mzoughi, N. (2008). Contracting environmental property rights: The case of Vittel. Economica , 75, 412-434. -EPA. (2013). The Importance of Water to the U.S. Economy. United States Environmental Protection Agency. -EPRI. (2011). Water Use for Electricity Generation and Other Sectors: Recent Changes (1985-2005) and Future Projections (2005-2030). Palo Alto: Electronic Power Research Institute. -Ernst & Young. (2012). Six Growing Trends in Corporate Sustainability. Ernst & Young and GreenBiz Group. -Feldman, D. L. (2012). Water. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. -Ferris, D. (2012 30-8). Nike, Adidas want to dye your shirt with no water. From Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidferris/2012/08/30/nikeadidas-want-to-color-your-shirt-with-no-water/ -Food and Water Watch. (2010). Trends in Water Privatization. Washington D.C.: Food and Water Watch. -Gardner, B. D., & Simmons, R. T. (2012). Introduction. In B. D. Gardner, & R. T. Simmons (Eds.), Aquanomics: Water Markets and the Environment (pp. 1-16). Oakland, CA: The Independent Institute. -Gerding, D., Kennedy, B., Lyon, M., & Taylor, E. (2013). Designing Innovative Corporate Water Risk Management Strategies from an Ecosystem Services Perspective. Ann Arbor: Erb Institute, University of Michigan. -Goldman, M. (2007). How ‘‘Water for All!’’ policy became hegemonic: The power of the World Bank and its transnational policy networks. Geoforum , 38, 786-800. -Hardin, G. (1968 13-December). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science , 1243-1248. -Hassoun, R. (1998). Water between Arabs and Israelis: Researching twice-promised resources. In J. M. Donahue, & B. R. Johnston, Water, Culture, and Power: Local Struggles in a Global Context (pp. 313-338). Washignton, DC: Island Press. -Johnston, B. R., & Donahue, J. M. (1998). Introduction. In B. R. Johnston, & J. M. Donahue (Eds.), Water, Culture, and Power: Local Struggles in a Global Context (pp. 1-5). Washington, DC: Island Press. -Kaiman, J. (2013 21-February). Chinese environment official challenged to swim in polluted river. Retrieved 2014 йил August from www. theguardian.com: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/21/chinese-official-swim-polluted-river -Koch, G. (2012 20-January). IRRC Webinar. -KPMG. (2012). Expect the Unexpected: Building Business Value in a Changing World. KPMG International. -Kurland, N. B., & Zell, D. (2010). Water and business: A taxonomy and review of the research. Organization and Environment , 23 (3), 316-353. -Levin, P., & Espeland, W. N. (2002). Pollution futures: Commensuration, commodification, and the market for air. In A. J. Hoffman, & M. J. -Ventresca (Eds.), Organizations, Policy and the Natural Environment (pp. 119-147). Stanford, CA: Stanford Univesrity Press. -Maddocks, A. (2013, February 20). Australia’s Water Markets Succeeding, Yet Severe Challenges Loom. Retrieved from Circle of Blue: http://www. circleofblue.org/waternews/2013/world/australias-water-markets-succeeding-yet-severe-challenges-loom/ -Masten, S. E. (2010). Public utility ownership in 19th-Century America: The “aberrant” case of water. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization , 27 (3), 604-654. -Morrison, J., Morikawa, M., Murphy, M., & Schulte, P. (2009). Water Scaricty adn Climate Change: Growing Risks for Businesses and Investors. Ceres & The Pacific Institute. Ceres & The Pacific Institute. -National Geographic. (2014 August). A Clean Water Crisis. From nationalgeographic.com: http://water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html
Erb Institute Report No. 145 | White paper
Navigating Troubled Waters
References (cont.) -Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. New York: Cambridge University Press. -Pacific Institute. (2007). Pacifc Institute’s Corporate Reporting on Water: A Review of Eleven Global Industries. -Pérard, E. (2009). Water supply: Public or Private? An approach based on cost of funds, transaction costs, efficiency and political costs. Policy and Society , 27, 193-219. -The Economist . (201119th-Nov. ). Unquenchable thirst. Retrieved 2013 йил January from Economist.com: http://www.economist.com/ node/21538687 -The Nature Conservancy. (2014 йил 27-March ). Water pulses across U.S.-Mexico border through historic cooperation. Retrieved 2014 йил August from www.nature.org: http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/areas/coloradoriver/newsroom/water-pulses-into-colorado-riverdelta.xml -The Wall Street Journal. (201315-March). What’s in China’s water? Of floating pigs and political change. Retrieved 2014 йил August from www. wsj.com: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/21/chinese-official-swim-polluted-river -UN Environment Programme. (2011). Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication. United Nations Environment Programme. -UN. (2014). The Human Right to Water and Sanitation . Retrieved September 2014, from The United Nations: www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/ human_right_to_water.shtml -UNESCO. (2006). Water, A Shared Responsibility: The UN World Water Development Report 2. The United Nations. Paris: UNESCO and Berghahn Books. -United Nations. (2010 28-July). UN General Assembly, Department of Public Information. Retrieved 2012 йил April from www.un.org: http://www. un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/ga10967.doc -USGS. (2014 August). United States Geological Survey Water Science. From water.usgs.gov: http://water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html -Varghese, S. (2013). Water Trading in the U.S. and Australia: Lessons for Water Governance in the 21st Century. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. -Walton, B. (2014 15-July). Drough to cost California agriculture. Retrieved 2014 йил August from Circle of Blue: http://www.mercurynews.com/ drought/ci_26402510/drought-leaves-san-joaquin-valley-homes-without-water -WBCSD. (2009). Water for business: Initiatives guiding sustainable water management in the private sector. World Business Council for Sustainable Development. www.wbcsd.org. -WHO. (2009). Global Health Risks: Mortality and Burden of Disease Attributable to Selected Major Risks. Geneva: World Health Organization. -WHO. (2012). Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: 2012 Update. UNICEF and World Health Organization. -WMO. (1992). The Dublin Statement on Water and Sustanable Development. From http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/hwrp/documents/english/ icwedece.html -World Economic Forum. (2014). Global Risks 2014. Geneva: World Economic Forum. -World Resources Institute. (2014). Global Shale Gas Development: Water Availability and Business Risks. Washington D.C.: World Resources Institute. -WWF. (2013). Water Stewardship: Persepctives on Business Risks and Responses to Water Challanges. Galnd, Switzerland: World Wildlife Fund for Nature.
About the Author
W
ren Montgomery is a PhD student in Organizational Behavior at the Queen’s School of Business and an Erb Institute visiting scholar. Her dissertation research focuses on emerging pressures on water resources and institutions, specifically tensions over public versus private management of municipal water services and the impact of the UN’s recognition of a human right to water. She is currently conducting detailed case studies and interviews with a multitude of stakeholders in both Detroit and Chicago. Prior to her PhD, Wren worked as a management and government relations consultant and as a policy analyst and strategist at senior levels of government.
Creating a sustainable world through the power of business | Subscribe