Aigües Freàtiques a Catalunya Ràdio amb Antoni Bassas, Josep Niñerola, i Enric Vazquez-Suñé

El 27 de febrer del 2008 en Antoni Bassas va entrevistar en Josep Niñerola (Agència Catalana de l'Aigua) i l'Enric Vazquez-Suñé (UPC) per comentar les condicions de les aigues soterrànies a Catalunya. Entre altres dades interesants, s'afirma que a tot Catalunya, el 35% del aigua que es consum es d'aigua soterrània.

També es evidencia una gran contradicció de l’actual sequera. Hi falta aigua pels rius, conreu i consum, pero hi sobre aigua sota la ciutat de Barcelona. Allà on hi ha la major demanda de l’aigua potable a Catalunya – la ciutat de Barcelona – també hi ha un problema d’inundacions soterrànies. No es poden regar les plantes, pero a la vegada ens sobre l’aigua a uns quants metres sota el carrer.

Per tant, s’ha de bombajar aquest aigua perque no sigui una molestia pel metro i les infrastructures soterràneas. Afortunadament, en Josep Niñerola i l’Enric Vazquez-Suñé ens expliquen que es tornen a aprofitar aquest aigua que tenim tan aprop, litaralment, sota els peus.

[The drought in Catalonia region of Spain is attracting media attention. Here I include a radio interview of two water experts discussing groundwater extraction and the recovery of old wells that were abandoned 40 years ago. Since the abandonment of these old wells, groundwater levels have increased beneath the city streets of Barcelona, causing problems with underground infrastructure such as subway lines. This has created the ultimate contradiction. Not enough water for ecological, agricultural and urban uses, yet "too much water" beneath the city streets. It highlights poor water management, and a dependence on engineered systems that bring water from afar, while not effectively managing water locally.]

How much is river restoration worth?

Ecosystems are undervalued. In practice this means that ecosystems provide us with valuable services that we rarely pay for. As a result, these ecosystems are degraded or destroyed. Once the ecosystem stops providing a service we depended on, then we might realize that our bank account is being degraded too.

Water purification is a good example of an ecosystem service. Undisturbed hydrological systems, those without the impacts of urbanization, are more likely to provide cleaner water for human consumption. The idea is that nature does part of the purification for us. That is, bio-geochemical processes assist us in our objective of obtaining clean water. Therefore it is in our interest to maintain healthy hydrological systems in order to protect these processes and reduce water purification costs. But what exactly is the relationship between "healthy hydrological systems" and reduced water treatment costs? Who has defined the marginal savings attributed to marginal improvements in biogeochemical processes? Does it make economic sense to protect lands and restore rivers? Does it make economic sense to protect biodiversity? These are hot questions, and within the academic community there is a race to figure out how to define the relationship between ecosystem protection and the economic benefits it brings.

New leaders in this effort include Gretchen Daily, Peter Kareiva, and Taylor Ricketts from the Natural Capital Project. Spearheaded by Stanford University, they are working with World Wildife Fund (WWF) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) to create practical tools to assess the value of ecosystem services and incorporate that information into the policy world. They have a lot of money and an amazing team so chances are good that something important will come out of this project.

But here is my question for them: Can we be sure that ecosystem services really provide economic benefits, or are they avoided costs? Economists make a clear distinction between the two, and the inclusion of avoided costs in the benefits column breaks the rules in a Cost-Benefit analysis. I posed this question to Robert Stavins, my environmental economics professor at Harvard, who agreed that the valuation of ecosystem services, as presently conducted in the mainstream literature, is in fact an avoided cost. This might be a minor glitch, and it is possible that someone has already responded to this problem. I would be interested in hearing who has.

I would also be interested in connecting with people who have studied the relationship between land conservation, river restoration and water treatment costs.

Water Framework Directive Timeline

Following up on my reading of Munne and Prat, I looked up the timeline for member states implementing the European Union's Water Framework Directive.

2004: Identification of water areas, including those heavily modified. Revision of pressures and impacts. Identification of sites that risk not meeting WFD objectives. The establishment of a catalogue of protected areas. An economic analysis of water use.

2006: Development of control and operational programs (What does this refer to?)

2008: Publication of draft watershed plans with a preliminary classification of water bodies.

2009: Completion of watershed plans and the classification of water bodies according to ecological status. The programming of restoration measures for each hydrographic area.

2012: Ensure all measures are underway.

2015: Deliver objectives for first river basin management plans and publish second river basin management plans.

And so it seems this is a good time to be conducting watershed planning in European rivers. Watershed plans should be drafted right now.

La Directiva Marc de l'Aigua a Catalunya: Conceptes, reptes i expectatives en la gestio dels recursos hidrics. 2006. Josep Mas-Pla (Coord). Consell Assessor per al Desenvolupament Sostenible. Generalitat de Catalunya. Barcelona.

Munne & Prat. La diagnosis y mejora de los ecosistemas fluviales mediante la DMA

The diagnosis and improvement of fluvial ecosystems through the Water Framework Directive

In 2000, the European Union released the Water Framework Directive, which required members of the European Union to establish restoration plans for their water bodies. This legislation is the new reference point for most water related activities throughout Europe. It has been heralded as a major turning point, and promises to invigorate the effort to clean up Europe's rivers, lakes, and wetlands. Each member state is responsible for implementing the details. The Water Framework Directive (WFD) only provides broad guidelines and general goals. Most importantly, the WFD has set the target that water bodies achieve "good ecological status".

But what does "good ecological status" really mean and how can member states measure it? These are the two questions that Antoni Munné and Narcís Prat attempt to answer in the paper "The diagnosis and improvement of fluvial ecosystems through the Water Framework Directive". For Munne and Prat, the ecological status of a water body can be broken down into three components:
1) Biological parameters
2) Hydro-morphological parameters
3) Physical and chemical parameters

The problem them becomes combining these three very different parameters into a unified indicator that represents "ecological status". They present a method that gives priority to the biological indicators first.

But even before getting to the stage of combing indicators, Munne and Prat point out that the existing literature on biological indicators does not necessarily fit the needs of Mediterranean rivers. The special climatic conditions, most notably, the highly variable water flow -- torrential rains followed by a long dry season -- has created an ecosystem that is not accurately measured by biological methods imported from northern Europe or elsewhere. In response to this deficiency, for the past 10 years, biologists in north eastern Spain have created their own protocols to assess water quality, biological diversity, "biological quality". These indexes and protocols are referred to by their acronyms IBMWP, BMWPC, IPS, IBD, CEE and of their vegetation index QBR.

This article made me reflect on Walters criticism of reductionism and the tension between the particular and the systemic. Clearly, the challenge is how to integrate these indicators, and the authors astutely point this out.

To complicate things further, the authors argue that not all water bodies should have the same restoration targets. They, and the Catalan Water Agency, propose a more granular restoration plan whereby each water body should reach certain targets depending on the characteristics of that water body. This makes intuitive sense. Not all rivers can be measured by the same metric. The question is how to operationalize this idea.

Again, Munne and Prat offer their solution. River bodies can be categorized into a typology. Catalonia has 5 fluvial systems, of which 3 have subtypes.

1. Ríos de montaña húmedea (Humid mountain rivers)
1a. Ríos de montaña húmedea
1b. Ríos de montaña húmedea sílica (silica)
1c. Ríos de montaña húmedea calcárica (calcareous)

2. Ríos de montaña mediterránea (Mediterranean mountains rivers)
2a. Ríos de montaña mediterránea sílica (silica)
2b. Ríos de montaña mediterránea calcárica (calcareous)
2c. Ríos de montaña mediterránea de elevado caudal (high flow)

3. Ríos de zona baja mediterránea (Lower Mediterranean Rivers)
3a. Ríos de zona baja mediterránea
3b. Ríos de zona baja mediterránea sílica (silica)
3c. Ríos de zona baja mediterránea cárstica (calcareous)

4. Ejes Principales (Principle axis)

5.Torrentes litorales (Coastal torrents)

The method used to define these river types has been published in Environmental Management, and is guiding the selection of restoration standards for each river type. This system contrasts with my understanding of river management in the US, where the EPA or the State sets universal standards for all rivers. I would welcome a correction if this is incorrect.

This article raises interesting questions:

• Which indicators most accurately measure "ecological status"?
• How are these combined?
• Should governments regulate based on all or some of these variables? Which ones?
• Will the Catalan government require different standards for each river body?
  
• How will these different standards be communicated to the public?
• Why are biological indicators given priority?
  
• Are there examples of improvement in physical / chemical variables not leading to improved biological status?

Finally, the article points out that most of the industrial pollution in Catalan rivers has been in the second half of the twentieth century (1950-2000). Given Spain's long history, I thought that perhaps major contamination could have gone back further, but with more reflection, it makes sense, since modern chemicals and major industry arrived much later.

Munné & Prat. no date. La diagnosis y mejora de los ecosistemas fluviales mediante la DMA
The diagnosis and improvment of fluvial ecosystems through the Water Directive Framework

Environmental History Informing River Restoration

I suspect that many overlook the contribution that history can make to improve restoration efforts. For others, the value of environmental history to inform restoration decisions may be self evident. Understanding historical uses and abuses seems like the obvious starting point for any restoration project.

Who historically has depended on the resource? Who had access and who was excluded? What was left behind and what was taken away? How quick were the changes to the ecosystem and how long ago were they? Has the ecosystem demonstrated any resilience? What restoration measures have already been tried, and what was the result?

Yesterday I listened to two excellent podcasts from Stanford University's iTunes (itunes.stanford.edu) about restoration work in the Monterey Bay (by Stephen Palumbi) and the San Francisco Bay (Richard White, David Freyberg, Jeff Koseff, Meg Caldwell). Both lectures/discussions emphasized the importance of placing a restoration project within a historical context.

In the case of the San Francisco Bay, environmental historian Richard White reminded us that we cannot recover teh ecosystem that existed centuries ago. That ecosystem is gone. In its place is a new San Francisco Bay that is responding to totally new oscillations and pressures. There was agreement among the discussants that restoration is not about going back, but about moving forward. At the same time, this movement forward must be grounded in an understanding of how historical uses have changed the system, and what those changes imply for its future.

Lee, K.N. 1999. Appraising Adaptive Management

Kai N. Lee argues that adaptive management has been more influential as an idea than as a practical means of gaining insight into the behavior of ecosystems. [Notice how Lee uses a social science term, "behavior", to describe a biophysical process. This must have been intentional.] Lee arrives to this conclusion by reviewing adaptive management according to 4 criteria: its conceptual soundness, its technical competence, ethical implications and pragmatic concerns. He finds that the concept remains attractive, but it is often implemented in a way that is unlikely to yield results. For adaptive management to work, stakeholders first must agree on the questions being asked and the method to answer them.

Lee is sensitive to the political context in which science must be performed. He recommends that adaptive management be used in a process to resolve conflict, but only after there is consensus that science and experimental design is the appropriate way to move forward.

Both Lee (1999) and Levine (2004) emphasize that adaptive management is costly and slow. Because of these limitations, Lee suggests that natural resource managers carefully evaluate if the scientific approach is in their best interest. But the apparent challenges for managers to integrate science into their daily program only reinforces the need for researchers to reach out to them and provide support. Science can elude managers because they don't have the resources or expertise. Or, they may have the expertise but don't have the time to write and follow up because they are overburdened by other obligations. This need can be filled by timely applied research. Couldn't collaboration between a government agency and an academic institution help fill this void and simultaneously benefit both institutions?

More insight by Lee that caught my attention: Management policies should be chosen in light of the assumptions they test so that the important uncertainties are tested rigorously and early.

As with other articles in Ecology and Society (formerly Conservation Ecology), Lee ends with open ended questions for his readers. Here I highlight one that may orient my dissertation:

Adaptive management appears to be unsuitable unless there is a governmental authority that monopolizes physical access to the resources being managed. This raises the question of what can be learned under conditions of partially open access or limited enforcement of regulations.

Question on my part: What are the methods and research designs that help distinguish treatment effects from background effects (confounding factors) in field experiments? This obstacle is frequently mentioned, but it is not clear what is being done to address this problem.

Lee, K.N. 1999. Appraising Adaptive Management. Conservation Ecology 3(2):3. [online] http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss2/art3/

Levine, J. 2004. Adaptive Management in River Restoration: Theory vs. Practice in Western North America

A student at UC Berkeley, Jessie Levine, has reviewed river restoration projects that have applied adaptive management concepts. Levine finds that the benefits of adaptive management have yet to be realized. The concept is still moving from idea to practice. Adaptive management also struggles to distinguish itself from trial and error learning, and practictioners often confuse the concepts. In its purist form, "active adaptive management" are deliberate experiments where managers test a range of hypothesis about how a system works (she sites Walters and Hilborn 1978 & Walters and Holling 1990).

Her review of restoration projects shows that only 3 of 10 projects met the stringent definition of adaptive management. Plus, they were expensive, ranging from $2.5 million to $12 million USD a year. In addition, there appears to be consensus that to gather valuable information, the experiements needed to last for several years or decades.

Levine, J. 2004. Adaptive management in river restoration: theory vs. practice in western North America. Water Resource Center Archives. UC Berkeley. [Available online: http://repositories.cdlib.org/wrca/restoration/levine/]

Challenges in adaptive management of riparian coastal ecosystems

Adaptive management is the attractive notion that we can learn about natural systems as we manage them. Carl Walters succinctly calls adaptive management "learning by doing". More specifically, he describes adaptive management as "a concerted effort to integrate existing interdisciplinary experience and scientific information into dynamic models that attempt to make predictions about the impacts of policy alternatives."

I can't address all issues Walters raises in the article, but there are definately a few worth highlighting. When Walters introduced the article talking about the importance of creating accurate ecological models, I expected him to laud this approach for answering important management questions. I was surprised then, when Walters pointed out several weaknesses in ecosystem modeling. In fact, he argued that there is too much modeling and not enough field experimentation. Walters laments that few of the adaptive-management planning processes have moved beyond the modeling stage to the field experimentation. He suggests that a disproportiante amount of energy has been dedicated to model refinement, and not field testing.

Walters also argues that more complex models are not necessarily better at providing accurate predictions. Error can be compounded multiplicatively, or the model may fail for being reductionists, while giving the appearance of being wholistic.

As I consider applying the principles of adaptive management to the management of the Llobregat watershed, it was useful for me to think about what problem needs to be modeled. Walters suggests four types of models for riparian and coastal ecosystems:

(1) A hydrodynamic submodel for space-time variation in water flows [water volume]
(2) A hydrochemistry submodel for transport and transformation of key chemical variables such as nutrients and sediments [water quality]
(3) "Lower trophic level" submodels for primary, invertebrate, and small "forage" fish production
(4) Population dynamics submodels for key animal indicator species.

As it stands today, I would probably be most interested in looking at (2) water quality.

Walters is unabashed at pointing out how scientists position themselves strategically to obtain funding research. "An emergent principle of adaptive management is that, for every difficult functional relationship, there is a scientist willing to claim the ability to measure it for you if you will provide enough research money to measure details of how the relationship arises."

Another key point is that the Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management process (AEAM) helps take bad propositions off the table. By narrowing down the field of policy prescriptions, adaptive management permits managers to be more strategic in testing potential measures.

Walters concludes calling for "more creative thinking about how to make management experimentation an irresistible opportunity". He also ends with a few really good questions, including one particuarly relevant for me: "Why is the development of innovative methods for large-scale monitoring not usually considered a good research topic, especially for aspiring graduate students?"

Walters, C. 1997. Challenges in adaptive management of riparian coastal ecosystems. Conservation Ecology [online]1(2):1. Available from the Internet. URG:http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss2/art1

Landfills and Rubbish!

In my Urban Ecology course we have read segments from the book Rubbish! by William Rathje and Cullen Murphy. The book reminded me that landfills can be a major source of groundwater and river contamination. Landfills secrete a toxic cocktail called leachate, that is soaked up into the ground and can potentially leak into groundwater. The authors point out that newer landfills are strategically located far from drinking water sources, and lined with plastic and clay to prevent leachate sepage. Unfortunately, most old landfills do not have leachate controls protection, therefore the risk remains.

On the brighter side, their study found that many toxics do not move very far within the landfill matrix. After digging through garbage dumps around the country, including my home town of Sunnyvale California, the authors found that heavy metals such as lead and mercury are unlikely to spread within the dump. This is good news.

Still, the risk of leachate contamination reinforces a watershed analysis of the Llobregat river. As I prepare to conduct my dissertation research, I am still unsure what scale I should use: regional scale (Forman), watershed scale, a river bank, or the scale an experimental project. The scalar choice is an important one, and will define the level of detail I can measure certain variables.

This summer, I hope to beging Field Research in the Llobregat with support from the Tinker Foundation and the Center for Latin American Studies at UIUC. As I move forward, I'll be keeping in mind the potential impact of landfills, and mapping where they are located within the Llobregat watershed.

Vázquez-Suñé et al 2006. Groundwater modelling as a tool for the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) application: The Llobregat case.

As I dig into the Llobregat River Valley, I found an interesting publication by a large team of Spanish/Catalan researchers modelling the lower Llobregat aquifer. This is a major source of drinking water for Barcelona and surrounding regions. Excessive pumping of groundwater has caused seawater intrusion, which threatens to pollute drinking sources.

The authors distinguish two aquifers in the Llobregat Delta: the Main Aquifer and the Upper Aquifer. The Main Aquifer is divided into three management administrations: Cubeta de San Andreu in the north, Vall Baixa in the center and the Delta.

One challenge for the modelers has been to obtain reliable recharge data. Infiltration from rain and irrigation are the main water sources. River discharge in the Llobregat is estimated at 15.7 cubic hectometers per year. Groundwater extraction from the Main Aquifer is 49.48 cubic hectometers per year. That is, Barcelona pumps 3 times as much water from the ground than what they see flow in the Llobregat River.

The authors recommend a reduction in groundwater pumping, and warn that current withdrawls are not sustainable. They recommend seawater barriers through the artificial pumping of treated wastewater into the aquifer along the coastal fringe. The model predicts that this water will be pumped to the surface again for urban treatment, and not be lost to the sea.

There is also fear that ancient landfills could become flooded if the aquifer recharges too much. This would exacerbate existing contamination problems. Therefore groundwater managers seek to keep groundwater high enough to prevent seawater intrusion, but not so high as to flood brownfields, or cause problems with underground infrastructure projects.


Vázquez-Suñé, E., E. Abarca, J. Carrera, B. Capino, D. Gámez, M. Pool, T. Simó, F. Batlle, J.M. Niñerota, X. Ibáñez. 2006. Groundwater modelling as a tool for the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) application: The Llobregat case. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth. 31: 1015-1029. [Article]

The Llobregat River Valley and Watershed in Barcelona, Spain

Spain’s deficient water management practices manifest themselves in the Llobregat watershed near Barcelona. This valley provides fertile ground for PhD research on water resource management in arid climates. The Llobregat River is Catalonia’s largest river, stretching from the Pyrenees mountains to the Mediterranean Sea just south-east of Barcelona. It ends in a flat and agriculturally rich delta that has provided food for Barcelona residents for centuries. The Llobregat Valley has historically connected Barcelona and coastal cities to the Catalan hinterland. Today, the banks of the lower Llobregat River are filled with industrial uses, freeways, railways, and major urban infrastructure. Approximately 50 kilometers upstream, salt mines have heavily polluted the river. The saltwater oozes into the Llobregat River from flooded mines and rainwater that washes away salt mountains left in the open air. The salinization of the Llobregat River has been an issue that Catalans have been dealing with for decades (Esteban & Prat 2006). In addition to killing aquatic life, the salt water has increased water treatment costs. Downstream Barcelona depends on the Llobregat River for drinking supplies. The water treatment process to remove the salt leaves a poor taste, making Barcelona’s tap water unpalatable.

The restoration of the Llobregat River valley is a priority for the Barcelona Metropolitan Region (Forman 2004). The river valley has tremendous potential to be a new recreation area for Barcelona residents and visitors. As a first-class European city, Barcelona has been held up as an architectural gem. Yet at the same time, Barcelona has turned its back to the industrial corridor of the Llobregat River Valley.