Transcript Document

10th Conference on Applied Infrastructure Research
“Institutional Models in Infrastructure Sectors –
Conceptual Issues and Empirical Evidence”
Friday, 7 October, 2011
14:15 – 15:00
Technical University Berlin
“Water Allocation and Use: Recent Research and
Policy Issues”
Frank A. Ward
New Mexico State University USA
Q: What modern water policy
debates influence the allocation and
use of water?
A: Dividing Transboundary Waters
Focus of Talk: Dividing the Waters for
Peace
Road Map
•
•
•
•
•
River Basins
Background Issue
Principles
Need for Water Sharing Agreements
A Successful Agreement: The Rio Grande
Compact
• A Controversial Agreement: The Pecos
Compact
• A Model Agreement: Sharing Inflows
Hypothetical Basin
Watershed runoff
Compact Obligation
Reservoir
Fish and wildlife
Irrigated crops
Hydropower
Groundwater
Flooding
Urban water supply
Treaty obligation
1
6
Nile Basin,
Egypt
7
Nile
• Could IRBA help inform debates on alternative
ways of sharing the Nile’s flows among its
countries? Especially
– Ethiopia
– Sudan
– Egypt
Rio
Grande
Basin
9
Rio Grande
• Rio Grande Compact: It defines rules for
sharing water among the US riparians:
– Colorado
– New Mexico
– Texas
Tigris-Euphrates
Basin
11
Tigris-Euphrates
• Can IRBA help identify economic effects of
water sharing arrangements among riparians?
12
Balkh Basin, Afghanistan
13
Balkh Basin, Afghanistan
•
•
•
•
Main staple is wheat
14 canal systems share River’s water.
Mirabs’ communication
Little central or regional govt. authority to enforce
water rights.
• Water wasted at top of watershed. So no reliable
water at lower lands.
• How should water rights be defined and river flows
shared for promoting peace and food security?
14
Background
• Previous IRBA
– Nile, Egypt
– Balkh, Afghanistan
– Murray, Australia
– Rio Grande, USA
– Amu Darya, Central Asia
– Tigris-Euphrates
– Nilufur, Turkey
– Jordan
Background
• Aims: Examine barriers and opportunities for forging
sustainable international water sharing agreements.
Background
• Means: Identify and illustrate principles that
motivate cooperation among states to draft and
implement lasting settlements.
Principle
• For a water sharing agreement to last, all parties
must secure and sustain a greater benefit with the
agreement than without.
• For an agreement to sustain these benefits, it must
have flexibility to adapt to future changes in
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
water supplies
population
climate
technology
infrastructure
political boundaries
economic activity
Benefits of Transboundary Water Sharing
Agreement (in promoting peace)
• Each state develops water independently,
needing only to meets downstream
obligations…new lands, new reservoirs,
growing populations,…
• Reduces uncertainty
– Future population
– Future industry, environmental needs
Example Structure of
Integrated River Basin
Analysis: Rio Grande
Objective
NBuut
Max NPV  

t
u
t (1  ru )
NBeet

t
e
t (1  re )
NBAuckt
NPV Ag  
t
u
c
k
t (1  ru )
NBAuckt [ Pct Yielduckt  Cost uckt ] Luckt
NBut (e.g, urban), NBet (e.g., wetlands)
21
Constraints
•
•
•
•
•
•
Irrigable land, Headwater supplies
Sustain key ecological assets
Hydrologic balance
Reservoir starting levels (sw, gw)
Reservoir sustainability constraints (sw, gw)
Institutional
– Endangered Species Act
– Rio Grande Compact (CO-NM; NM-TX)
– US Mexico Treaty of 1906
– Rio Grande Project water sharing history (NM/TX)
22
Gauged Flows: Hydro Balance
X vt 
B
hv
h
X ht   Bvv X vt   Bdv X dt
  Brv X rt 
r
B
v
Lv
d
X Lt
L
• E.g.: Lobatos gauge (CO-NM border):
X(Lobatos_v,1) = X(RG_h,1) - X(SLV_d,1) + X(SLV_r,1)
23
Results: Rio Grande Basin
• Policy: Subsidize drip irrigation with an upper
bound on existing depletions to guarantee
downstream delivery obligations
Economic Value of Water by Supply, Source, and
Drip Irrigation Subsidy, Rio Grande Project,
$US/Acre Foot Depletion
Water
Supply
Scenario
Water
source
0
25
50
75
100
normal
surface
0.00
11.58
23.16
34.75
46.33
normal
ground
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
dry
surface
69.35
79.00
89.54
dry
ground
0.00
0.00
0.00
% Capital Subsidy, Drip irrigation
101.12 112.70
0.00
0.00
One Successful Sharing Agreement:
The Rio Grande Compact
Divides Annual Natural Flows
Rio Grande Compact:
Has a Water Sharing Formula
(1000 acre feet / year)
• Colorado delivers to New Mexico
LobatosFlows > - 10 + 0.27* Conejos + 0.11* Del Norte
+ .00005* Conejos2 + 0.0003* Del Norte2
• New Mexico delivers to Texas
Elephant ButteFlows > + 0.56*Otowi + .00001*Otowi 2
Results: Economic value of water sharing
under the Rio Grande Compact
• Colorado: knows it has an upper bound on
delivery requirements
• New Mexico: has a guaranteed water supply
from CO and an upper bound on deliveries to
Texas.
• Texas: has a guaranteed supply
• Total Value of Compact: about 30% of economic
value of water would be lost without RG
Compact. All states would have a lower value of
water because of greater uncertainty of supplies
One Controversial Agreement:
The Pecos River Compact
• “. . . New Mexico shall not deplete by man's
activities the flow of the Pecos River at the
New Mexico-Texas state line below an amount
which will give to Texas a quantity of water
equivalent to that available to Texas under the
1947 condition. . . “
Water Sharing Agreements and
Infrastructure
• Sustained international water agreements can
enhance the development of water
infrastructure. Examples
– reservoirs
– irrigation facilities
– water treatment facilities
– piped in water
– peace pipelines
– environmental restorations
Needs for future Research
• What can be done to promote establishment
of water sharing agreements when current
conditions don’t favor them?
– When governments are corrupt
– When there is no history of water sharing among
the communities?
– When water rights are poorly defined or assigned
to the most powerful
– When two countries won’t talk to each other?
– Could an IRBA promote discussion?
Thank You