Our planet is blessed with a generous amount of water. Unfortunately, more than 97 percent of that amount is either trapped in the salty seas or locked up in ice. Only a tiny percentage of the leftover is the water that we use to drink, wash, generate electricity and irrigate our crops.

More unfortunately, the amount of freshwater on our planet is pretty much the same as 2000 years ago. The current population growth of 80 million a year has incredibly increased demands for water and at the same time polluted and decreased a significant number of the sources.

According to the US National Wildlife Federation, the current human population consumes approximately 54 percent of all the accessible freshwater contained in rivers, lakes and underground aquifers. By 2025, the figure could be pushed to 70 percent, further stretching the global water supplies to the breaking point.

Different sectors of society view the water stress situation differently.

Environmental and human rights activists would see this as a threat to our future generations; hence they promote conservation, recycling and making it the obligation of the states to ensure water security.

Scientists would see the need of technology to minimise, if not avoid, the impacts on humankind and environment.

Consumer groups would foresee increase of water prices or other forms of taxation due to unsustainable consumption and production patterns.

The business sector would consider freshwater to be very a lucrative commodity — with water woes meaning more projects and opportunities for the key players.

Unfortunately, the business sector outshines all other sectors combined. They are the ones who have enough resources and political connection to influence governments on implementation of business-friendly policies. As a result, governments are favouring privitisation of water, instead of mending the fragmented state of planning, management and control of resources in their countries. This in turn will further regress the fragmentation because public accountability as well as social and environmental ethics will be greatly compromised.

'Feel good' strategies

A good example of the influence of businesses over government is the UN process towards the World Summit on Sustainable Development to be held in Johannesburg, South Africa in August-September 2002.

It was reported in the Third World Resurgence (Issue 139-140, March/April 02) that corporations and their lobby groups from all over the world had gathered in Paris early October last year for their first major strategy meeting for the summit. The meeting was hosted by Business Action for Sustainable Development (BASD) with plans for "rallying the collective forces of world business in the lead up to 2002 Earth Summit".

One of the decisions made was not to (directly) fund the sustainable development summit in order to sidestep criticism from NGOs that financial contribution is being used to influence a major UN event. Instead, BASD decided to fund 'legacy projects' in Johannesburg and other parts of Africa, which includes several nuclear energy projects, and the West African Gas Pipeline.

These projects are supposed to be the "grassroots sustainable development projects in the most needy communities in Africa", but the gas pipeline project alone is reported to be actively resisted by numerous communities in the region and grassroots groups around the world for displacing some 50,000 families.

Back to our water problem, since early 2001, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development has sponsored a section in the International Herald Tribune called 'Business and the Rio Decade' to publish articles about best practices of business towards sustainable development.

One of the stories applauded water giant Suez Lyonnaisse des Eaux for its participation in a scheme to provide water in poor neighbourhoods of Buenos Aires. However, the article failed to inform its readers about how this French transnational company (TNC) was aggressively pushing privatisation of water services worldwide, depriving many low-income people from access to basic necessities and turning it into a profit-making activity.

Similar strategies have been employed by our local water businesses as well. Konsortium TSWA-Gamuda-KDEB (known as Splash), the consortium responsible for SSP3 (Sungai Selangor Water Supply Scheme Phase III) water supply project that includes the controversial Selangor dam, did quite some work on corporate 'greenwashing' to counter voices of concerned citizens over the environment, social and economical impact.

Among Splash's publicity stunts were full-page newspaper advertisements, photo opportunities such as giving free bags and dental check-ups for Orang Asli children, and occasional statements from its top officers labelling concerned citizens as tree-huggers.

All these are meant to make the public feel good about Splash. However, the public were kept in the dark about the mudslides and industrial accidents at the dam site, the non-compliance with some of the 45 conditions imposed by the Department of Environment. The public was also not told of the results of the RM900,000 downstream impact study conducted by the Malaysian Nature Society, or how the resettled the Orang Asli are faring in the new social economic setting.

Quenching the Big Apple's thirst

In February 2001, the Scientific American reported that more than one billion gallons of water flow through New York City every day, and hardly a drop is wasted. The report is really an inspirational piece for other areas to reduce water demand instead of sourcing more supply.

About a decade ago, the Big Apple was facing an imminent water shortage, and it was getting worse with every flush, shower and tooth brushing. The influx of new residents and increase in the number of drought years in the early 1990s was forcing the city to find an extra 90 million gallons (341 million litres) of water a day. That was about seven percent of the city's total water use and would cost the city nearly US$1 billion to install extra facilities to keep up with the demand.

In the end, city officials opted for a simple and cheaper alternative: reduce the demand.

The city's Department of Environmental Protection started a three-year toilet rebate programme which began in 1994. With a budget of US$295 million, the scheme set out to replace one-third of the city's inefficient toilets (less than five gallons per flush) with models using only 1.6 gallons per flush to do the same job. The project managed to replace 1.33 million inefficient flushes, close to the target of 1.5 million.

The result: a startling 29 percent reduction in water use per building per year. The department estimates that it helped to save 70 million to 90 million gallons a day citywide.

The toilet rebate programme went concurrently with the city's water audit programme, which continues to today. It is about keeping tabs on water use and charging accordingly through metering. Homeowners who want to keep their water bills down could request a free water-efficiency survey. Inspectors would check for leaky plumbing, offer advice on retrofitting with water-efficient fixtures and distribute free faucet aerators and low-flow showerheads. Faucet aerators can reduce up to 70 percent of water flow compared to the conventional screens in the faucet heads — and low-flow showerheads use about half as much water as the old ones.

This exercise managed to save an estimated 11 million gallons (41.6 million litres) of water a day. Elimination of leaks also went to the streets. Magnetic-locking caps have been installed on fire hydrants to keep people from turning them on unnecessarily and computerised sonar equipment were installed to scan for leaks along all 9,892km of pipes.

Although the population of the Big Apple continues to grow, per person water use has actually dropped between 1991 and 1999. This trend is following its upward path and the New Yorkers are proving that water conservation really works and can make a difference.

The moral of story is that it is the political will of those in power that makes the difference. It is the commitment of those in power to the people and the environment that counts.

People, environment first

RM2.1 billion is currently being spent for SSP3 and another RM3.8 billion is to be spent for the coming Pahang-Selangor Water Transfer project which includes a dam to satisfy the water-hungry people of Selangor and Kuala Lumpur.

The simpler, cheaper and less destructive water conservation alternative has been sidelined for four years now since the 1998 water crisis. Four years was what the New Yorkers took to overcome their water crisis in the 1990's. With less than a third of New York City's population, a water conservation programme for Selangor and Kuala Lumpur would be much easier to implement.

Again, it is the political will that counts. A political will that is independent of business interest and one that puts people and the environment first.

Malaysia has been proud to claim several achievements in the past. Let's hope that Malaysia Boleh!, that Malaysia can make another first this time too.

SAM HUI is an avid nature lover and photographer. He is a member of SOS Selangor, a campaign body against the Sungai Selangor dam project.