Six years ago, Àlvar Escriva-Bou received the extraordinary award from the Universitat Politècnica de València in the area of civil engineering for his thesis on the analysis of water and energy consumption. Since then he has lived practically settled in the United States, where he has been an adjunct member of the Water Policy Center of the Public Policy Institute of California. Recently signed as a professor at the University of Los Angeles California (UCLA), he has taken advantage of his stay in Barcelona as a speaker at the Agricultural Institute to talk to La Vanguardia about the drought that is plaguing Catalonia.
What can California teach us in crises like the current one?
California and Spain, at an environmental, physical and infrastructure level, are very similar. Both there and here 80% of the water is destined for agricultural use, but in addition, both have practically the same irrigated area, with populations that live in truly arid areas. They have in common a very strong climatic contrast between rainfall in the north and south, although here in Spain it is more the contrast with the Mediterranean slope, which is more arid or more climatically variable, because the Atlantic side has higher and more constant rainfall. And that has led us to build a very powerful infrastructure system and an irrigation system in canals to save water when it rains and use it when it doesn't rain.
Although sometimes there is a lack of water.
What is happening is that with climate change we have climate variability and interannual precipitation varies every year, droughts and floods are intensifying. And that is adding more water stress to the system. Stress that, on the other hand, we also have beyond the variability, we have used more water than we have and we have overexploited the aquifers. And that causes two problems: a long-term structural deficit, which is added to the effects of that climate variability that I mentioned.
And is a good solution possible?
There are solutions. Both in California and here we can deploy a portfolio of actions. We have surface water, groundwater, desalinated, and now we are in the regenerated water, which is that of the treatment plants. And there are also water demand options, which in Spain are not yet used much. Here we have historically focused on building new infrastructure to continue increasing consumption.
And do we continue along that line?
In California there is greater water stress than here and that means that under normal conditions there are people who are left without water, especially farmers. That's why they have water markets to try to reallocate that available water. What I ask myself there and here is to what point of view we have to pay for new infrastructure... Are we willing even though its benefit is going to be low?
You have to reflect.
Here, I think we are considering to what extent, economically speaking, it is interesting to pay for infrastructure when the value that this water produces is not optimal. And then, also, to what point of view we can manage demand, saving both in agricultural and urban issues, trying to reduce demand. There is a difference in this too. In California, a lot of water is used in homes, generally everyone has a house with a garden.
Pool and garden, that is a typical image of California
Yes, yes, it is like that. And, in fact, per capita water consumption is three or four times higher per person than here. But what I want to say is that many cities have been investing in a portfolio of stocks and they are both supply and demand. One thing that can be learned from California is that it has chosen not to build dams or major transfers and opts for two things: the management of aquifers and their recharge, which consists of trying to take water from the river floods and treat to put it in the aquifers. It is as if they were underground reservoirs. Because now there is a drought, but it will rain again.
Is it how to open an underground deposit?
Exactly, it's like nailing it to the ground. This is cheap enough on a budget level, compared to most other options out there. And it is one of the few options that farmers can afford.
And the second thing?
Reclaimed water, which in English is called direct potable reuse, is like direct water reuse. Water can be taken from a treatment plant and, with adequate treatment, reinserted into a system for urban use. There was an important regulatory change last December and that is why it is expected that in the coming years it will be a revolution, especially at the urban level. Here today it is done indirectly, what we do is take it from the treatment plant and put it back into the river.
Is a water market compatible with the idea that water is a common good?
Spanish legislation allows the exchange of water rights. Last year it took place in Andalusia. What we must understand is that human consumption, that is, the right to water is a human right, and that right is protected. And the right to environmental water is also protected. Obviously, we need water to live and for our environment. What is proposed is that a large part, 80% of the water, goes to agriculture and industrial uses. And I would also add that, for me, when you are filling a pool with water we are talking about an economic right, water that you do not need.
Water for the shower and for the pool is treated differently.
Exact. So, the State is granting us all, free of charge, water. In agricultural companies and farmers and industrial companies, it is used as an economic input. So what is being done in California is that companies have the right to assign or sell their water rights even on a permanent level. What is this for? Well, so that the economic costs of the drought are much lower. For example, two or three years ago, with the drought so severe in California, urban consumption was maintained in urban and industrial areas by purchasing irrigated water in the central valley, from farmers who made an investment for 20-25 years and are going to the market to ensure that they will not lack water. In the long term, the market serves to reallocate water in a way so that it goes to the most expensive uses.
The water that is bought and sold in the market
I want to clarify that there is a non-economic use of water, there is a human use, an environmental use and economic use. Also, as a society, we can take into account sociocultural factors. For example, small farmers could be excluded from the water market. Today we have data and tools to be able to exclude what we do not want to enter the market. Something important that exists in California is that when you enter the market to sell or buy water, it is regulated by the authorities, who have to approve environmental impact statements, ensuring that you will not harm third-party users. It is a regulated market.
To avoid possible speculation?
Speculation can occur and then the regulator must intervene. But this also happens in energy and other markets.
Does it mean that water for the pool should be bought in a water market and water for priority uses should not?
What you say is important. Because we have to value water much more than we do today. In California, for example, the first 50 liters per capita are paid at a very cheap price, because it is considered to be what you spend for personal and family use. And from that figure onwards, water begins to be charged more expensively. And if you want to water the garden and fill the pool in your chalet you have to pay much more. They are urban rates designed to save and to value water at the appropriate price. Because every cost of water has externalities in the environment, in other users. We should better value the water we use to distribute it more rationally.
The price of water will rise a lot, it is expected.
Yes, it will go up. We know that there is climate change and we must adapt to it. And, let's be honest, that will be expensive. So we must know how we are going to pay for it. It is important to talk about supply projects, but also to think that we cannot maintain all water demands over time, we must save water.
And the future lies in taking advantage of sea water?
It depends on the options you have. Here we have enough water, because it rains and we have dams. Desalinated water is the most expensive of all the options available, more expensive than reuse and regeneration, and reservoirs, but in exchange it has the good thing that it guarantees you water in any episode of drought. I don't think the solution is just to desalinate the water. I think it is better to manage the options we have well. And the desalination plant is an expensive option and, in Spain, without European subsidies it would be even more so. We must assess whether it is worth using it for agriculture. At the urban level you can pay, but prices increase.
What are the other options we should bet on?
Other options are reuse and better managing what we already have, increasing recharging and thinking about demand systems that are more flexible. The markets, for example. What is happening in Catalonia today is very extraordinary. I think of the car analogy. If I live in Barcelona all year round and use it once or twice a year, I don't buy one, I rent it when I need it. So, for example, water markets can be used for very exceptional times as well, to guarantee that you can get the water you need for a year and not have to build infrastructure that you will not use for 20 years.
Farmers complain that when it rains again all promises are forgotten
This is very important. Droughts or floods are very sad and very costly, we must prepare to face them. But I wouldn't recommend making decisions in advance. Planning is very important.
