Econstudentlog

Water Supply in Emergency Situations (I)

I didn’t think much of this book (here’s my goodreads review), but I did learn some new things from reading it. Some of the coverage in the book overlapped a little bit with stuff I’d read before, e.g. coverage provided in publications such as Rodricks and Fong and Alibek, but I read those books in 2013 and 2014 respectively (so I’ve already forgot a great deal) and most of the stuff in the book was new stuff. Below I’ve added a few observations and data from the first half of the publication.

“Mediterranean basin demands for water are high. Today, the region uses around 300 billion cubic meters per year. Two thirds of Mediterranean countries now use over 500  per year per inhabitant mainly because of heavy use of irrigation. But these per capita demands are irregular and vary across a wide range – from a little over 100 to more than 1,000 per year. Globally, demand has doubled since the beginning of the 20th century and increased by 60% over the last 25 years. […] the Middle East ecosystems […]  populate some 6% of the world population, but have only some 1% of its renewable fresh water. […] Seasonality of both supply and demand due to tourism […] aggravate water resource problems. During the summer months, water shortages become more frequent. Distribution networks left unused during the winter period face overload pressures in the summer. On the other hand, designing the system with excess capability to satisfy tourism-related summer peak demands raises construction and maintenance costs significantly.”

“There are over 30,000 km of mains within London and over 30% of these are over 150 years old, they serve 7.5 million people with 2,500 million liters of water a day.”

“A major flooding of the Seine River would have tremendous consequences and would impact very significantly the daily life of the 10 million people living in the Parisian area. A deep study of the impacts of such a catastrophic natural hazard has recently been initiated by the French authorities. […] The rise of the water level in the Seine during the last two major floods occurred slowly over several weeks which may explain their low number of fatalities: 50 deaths in 1658 and only one death in 1910. The damage and destruction to buildings and infrastructure, and the resulting effect on economic activity were, however, of major proportions […] Dams have been constructed on the rivers upstream from Paris, but their capacity to stock water is only 830 million cubic meters, which would be insufficient when compared to the volume of 4 billion cubic meters of water produced by a big flood. […] The drinkable water supply system in Paris, as well as that of the sewer network, is still constrained by the decisions and orientations taken during the second half of the 19th century during the large public works projects realized under Napoleon III. […] two of the three water plants which treat river water and supply half of Paris with drinkable water existed in 1910. Water treatment technology has radically changed, but the production sites have remained the same. New reservoirs for potable water have been added, but the principles of distribution have not changed […] The average drinking water production in Paris is 615,000 /day.”

They note in the chapter from which the above quotes are taken that a flood comparable to that which took place in 1910 would in 2005 have resulted in 20% of the surface of Paris being flooded, and 600.000 people being without electricity, among other things. The water distribution system currently in place would also be unable to deal with the load, however a plan for how to deal with this problem in an emergency setting does exist. In that context it’s perhaps worth noting that Paris is hardly unique in terms of the structure of the distribution system – elsewhere in the book it is observed that: “The water infrastructure developed in Europe during the 19th century and still applied, is almost completely based on options of centralized systems: huge supply and disposal networks with few, but large waterworks and sewage treatment plants.” Having both centralized and decentralized systems working at the same time/in the same area tends to increase costs, but may also lower risk; it’s observed in the book during the coverage of an Indonesian case-study that in that region the centralized service provider may take a long time to repair broken water pipes, which is … not very nice if you live in a tropical climate and prefer to have drinking water available to you.

“Water resources management challenges differ enormously in Romania, depending on the type of human settlement. The spectrum of settlement types stretches from the very low-density scattered single dwellings found in rural areas, through villages and small towns, to the much more dense and crowded cities. […] Water resources management will always face the challenge of balancing the needs of different water users. This is the case both in large urban or relatively small rural communities. The water needs of the agricultural production, energy and industrial sectors are often in competition. […] Romania’s water resources are relatively poor and unequally distributed in time and space […] There is a vast differential between urban and rural settlements when it comes to centralized drinking water systems; all the 263 municipalities and towns have such systems, while only 17% of rural communities benefit from this service. […] In Braila and Harghita counties, no village has a sewage network, and Giurgiu and Ialomita counties have only one a piece each. Around 47 of the largest cities which do not have wastewater treatment plants (Bucharest, Braila, Craiova, Turnu Severin Tulcea, etc.) produce ∼20 /s of wastewater, which is directly discharged untreated into surface water.”

There is a difference in quality between water from centralized and decentralized supply systems [in the Ukraine (and likely elsewhere as well)]. Water quality in decentralized systems is the worst (some 30% of samples fail to meet standards, compared to 5.7% in the centralized supply). […] The Sanitary epidemiological stations draw random samples from 1,139 municipal, 6,899 departmental, and 8,179 rural pipes, and from 158,254 points of decentralized water supply, including 152,440 wells, 996 springs, and 4,818 artesian wells. […] From the first day following the accident at Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant (ChNPP), one of the most serious problems was to prevent general contamination of the Dnieper water system and to guarantee safe water consumption for people living in the affected zone. The water protection and development of monitoring programs for the affected water bodies were among the most important post-accident countermeasures taken by the Government Bodies in Ukraine. […] To solve the water quality problem for Kiev, an emergency water intake at the Desna River was constructed within a very short period. […] During 1986 and the early months of 1987, over 130 special filtration dams […] with sorbing screens containing zeolite (klinoptilolite) were installed for detaining radionuclides while letting the water through. […] After the spring flood of 1987, the construction of new dams was terminated and the decision was made to destroy most of the existing dams. It was found that the 90Sr concentration reduction by the dams studied was insignificant […] Although some countermeasures and cleanup activities applied to radionuclides sources on catchments proved to have positive effects, many other actions were evaluated as ineffective and even useless. […] The most effective measures to reduce radioactivity in drinking water are those, which operate at the water treatment and distribution stage.

“Diversification and redundancy are important technical features to make infrastructure systems less vulnerable to natural and social (man-made) hazards. […] risk management does not only encompass strategies to avoid the occurrence of certain events which might lead to damages or catastrophes, but also strategies of adaptation to limit damages.

The loss of potable water supply typically leads to waterborne diseases, such as typhus and cholera.”

Water velocity in a water supply system is about 1 \s. Therefore, time is a primordial factor in contamination spread along the system. In order to minimize the damage caused by contamination of water, it is essential to act with maximum speed to achieve minimum spread of the contaminant”

October 21, 2016 - Posted by | books, Geography

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: