Category: SSW

Brad writes*

Gainsborough is a small town in rural Lincolnshire, England. Their drinking water is supplied by Anglian Water. By geographic area, they are the largest water company in England and are responsible for supplying water utilities to nearly 7 million people in the agricultural heart of the country.

Unfortunately, the Environmental Agency has designated the region as one of the most water stressed in the country, with it seeing less than 700mm of rain annually (Met Office 2016). The task of maintaining a reliable water supply is already quite a challenge for the company in these conditions. However, the region is the fastest growing in the UK and, with droughts becoming more frequent (UKCEH 2024), maintaining this supply over the next 25 years will only add to the challenge.

Currently Gainsborough gets all of its water from the Sherwood Sandstone aquifer, the UK’s 2nd most important aquifer according to the Environmental Agency, and the regional demand is forecast to marginally increase in 25 years. The challenge for Anglian Water in Gainsborough is that the amount of water they can abstract from the aquifer will be capped below their current rates by 2030 to meet the Environmental Agency’s sustainability goals, sending the region into a deficit at current demands.

Anglian Water can tackle this deficit from the supply-side or the demand-side, but demand-side approaches seem to offer more hope.

Anglian Water has two supply-side solutions: increase the capacity of the existing borehole, or transfer water from outside the region. Due to oil drilling in the area, there is hydrocarbon pollution that is preventing the borehole from being fully utilised. The company’s solution  uses activated charcoal filters and installing extra pumps to remove the pollution and distribute the extra water. This solution will not increase the supply by as much as transferring water, so it is ranked as least preferable.

Demand-side solutions to the forecast water deficit may work better. These are reducing leakage, rolling out smart meters, and using technology and interventions to increase water efficiency. These proposed solutions are not unique to the Gainsborough region, instead they apply to the company’s whole service area – namely addressing leakage as it accounts for 15.4% of total demand. The Figure below shows that Gainsborough is only a small part of Anglian Water’s total coverage, and is an area at a comparably low risk of water deficit.

A recent meeting with Ofwat, Anglian Water’s regulator, about pricing for the next 5 years shows that the regulator mostly agrees with the early plans to improve its networks by approving a large increase in the company’s allowance. The main disagreement comes from how Anglian Water wishes to recover its costs: with the company preferring to recover more of them from current customers, and Ofwat arguing that it will be unfair to customers.

Bottom line: Gainsborough faces the threat of water scarcity. However, those responsible for supplying water know about it well in advance and already have plans in motion to prevent issues of scarcity. It is too early to say if the company will be successful in its plans, or even deliver on its promises but confidence from the regulator says there is at least some hope for the region.

---

* Please help my Water Scarcity students by commenting on unclear analysis, alternative perspectives, better data sources, or maybe just saying something nice 🙂

Simone writes*

The city of Barranquilla, Colombia, has petitioned to grant the Magdalena River the same legal rights as human citizens to better protect it from further degradation (Alcaldía de Barranquilla, 2023). This initiative builds upon a 2019 judicial decision that recognized future generations as legal subjects, entitling them to a clean and sustainable environment.

Inspired by this precedent, advocates are pushing to extend similar protections to the Magdalena River, Colombia’s most vital waterway. Although it is not the first river in Colombia to be granted rights, the Magdalena is unique in achieving this status through a legal process rather than jurisdictional declarations (José V. Zapata et al. 2024).

Given that the river traverses 22 of Colombia’s 32 departments and directly impacts nearly 80% of the population, ensuring its health is essential (Mongabay, 2019). The river is severely polluted and plagued by sedimentation, leading to reduced water flow. These issues threaten ecosystems, impede livelihoods, and jeopardize trade. Assigning legal rights to the river offers a promising pathway for addressing these challenges, fostering ecosystem protection, and improving navigability (Alcaldía de Barranquilla, 2023).

Historically, environmental concerns were not prioritized in Colombian policymaking, prompting citizens and judges to take action. To represent and protect the Magdalena River, a judge ordered the creation of the “Comisión de Guardianes del Río Magdalena”, a committee of legal representatives of the river. This commission includes representatives from the national government (through the Ministry of Environment), CORMagdalena (the Magdalena River Corporation), the Huila city council, and the Corporation of the High Magdalena (Mongabay, 2019). Their primary role is to develop and oversee a comprehensive protection plan aimed at reducing pollution and conserving the river basin’s ecosystems. Once approved, this plan must be implemented within a year and will receive funding from the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development. This plan will be in place for a decade.

This shift towards recognizing rivers as legal subjects marks a significant step towards more ecocentric policies (José V. Zapata et al. 2024). On March 5, 2024, the Fifth Senate Commission approved the plan, signaling political support.

However, challenges remain. Some senators expressed concerns about potential conflicts with Colombia’s Constitutional Court, particularly regarding economic interests tied to improving the river’s navigability for trade, since the law is meant to guarantee ecological protection, not trade. A senator from the Green Party also highlighted the lack of concrete proposals from the Ministry of Environment and CORMagdalena, raising doubts about the effectiveness of the implementation (Senado de la República de Colombia, 2024).

While the law has been approved, the key question remains: Will it genuinely protect the Magdalena River’s vulnerable ecosystems, or will economic priorities take precedence?

---

* Please help my Water Scarcity students by commenting on unclear analysis, alternative perspectives, better data sources, or maybe just saying something nice 🙂

Demir writes*

The Euphrates River is a vital resource for Turkey, Syria, and Iraq, providing water for agriculture, energy production, and domestic use. Stretching from Turkey to Iraq, this transboundary river symbolizes both life and conflict in the Middle East. As water scarcity worsens and demands rise, competition for control over its flow intensifies, revealing a complex web of national interests and disputes.

Turkey’s upstream position gives it significant control over the Euphrates’ flow, contributing 89% of the river’s water (Climate-Diplomacy). Through the Southeastern Anatolia Project (GAP), Turkey has constructed 22 dams and 19 hydroelectric plants to generate 27 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity annually and irrigate 1.7 million hectares of farmland (Wikipedia). This project aims to alleviate poverty in southeastern Turkey and achieve agricultural self-sufficiency (The Water Project).

While Turkey argues that these developments stabilize water flows and benefit downstream countries by preventing seasonal flooding, its unilateral approach has drawn criticism. According to The Water Project, Syria and Iraq claim that Turkey’s use of the Euphrates limits water availability for their populations, harming agriculture and contributing to desertification).

The Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which promotes GAP as a model for regional cooperation, contends that Turkey has adhered to international norms. It highlights measures such as releasing a guaranteed 500 cubic meters of water per second to Syria under a UN protocol signed in 1987 according to the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. However, this narrative may underplay the downstream challenges posed by reduced flows, especially during droughts​.

Syria and Iraq heavily rely on the Euphrates for agriculture and drinking water, but they face severe shortages. Syria’s infrastructure has been decimated by years of conflict, leaving many regions dependent on costly private water sources. Meanwhile, Iraq’s outdated irrigation systems and increasing salinity in farmlands have compounded its water crisis (The Water Project). Both countries assert historical rights to the Euphrates, framing Turkey’s extensive development as a breach of international water-sharing norms. They argue that Turkey prioritizes its development over the collective needs of all riparian states, intensifying geopolitical tensions (Climate-Diplomacy).

Efforts to address the dispute include initiatives like the Euphrates-Tigris Initiative for Cooperation (ETIC), a platform for scientific and diplomatic dialogue. However, mistrust and conflicting national agendas have hindered progress. According to the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, a “Three-Staged Plan” was proposed to Syria and Iraq, which proposes basin-wide resource inventories and equitable water-sharing but remains stalled as Syria and Iraq demand greater downstream guarantees​.

Bottom Line: The Euphrates illustrates the Middle East’s struggle with resource management and geopolitical rivalries. While Turkey’s development projects showcase its ambition and capability, the downstream challenges faced by Syria and Iraq highlight the need for equitable and sustainable solutions. Without comprehensive cooperation, the region risks worsening humanitarian and environmental crises.

---

* Please help my Water Scarcity students by commenting on unclear analysis, alternative perspectives, better data sources, or maybe just saying something nice 🙂

Karl writes*

Marseille’s divisions and socio-economic inequalities also extend to water distribution, with a worrying accessibility gap between affluent and disadvantaged communities.

Marseille’s urban layout reflects this divide. The wealthy southern neighborhoods on the Mediterranean Sea, characterized by good infrastructure and high property values, enjoy modern, high quality and very reliable water services. These areas are often prioritized for maintenance, with regular investments in the canalization system dating from the 19th century, ensuring minimal issues in water access.

In poorer northern districts, home to working-class, immigrant and poorer families, water infrastructure is often outdated. Leaks are significantly higher than the French average. These neighborhoods also face delays in the repairs and a lack of investment, not only from Société des Eaux de Marseille (SEM), the private firm managing water services, but also from the municipal authorities. Moreover, public facilities, like free drinking fountains or public toilets are much rarer in these areas, stressing the already existing divide. Poor service sometimes forces residents to rely on expensive alternatives like buying bottled water or water transported from public facilities.

The privatization of Marseille’s water management exacerbates the problems of inequality. The delegation of the water services to SEM, who is now being operated by the two French giants Veolia and Suez, but overseen by the municipality of Marseille métropole, was initially intended to improve service delivery through efficiency and innovation. While the privatization has led to the development of a highly effective water distribution system, especially in the past, it has also led to a profit-driven approach to water distribution. High income areas generate more revenue, so they are prioritized for infrastructure improvements and renovations. In 2015, SEM made three times more profit than expected, which raises questions about SEM’s prices and services.

Since multiple scandals of budgetary transparency and a report from the Ministry of Environment in 1992 stating that tariffs by private providers were 22% higher than for public providers, we have seen a will to remunicipalise water management in French cities.

While other big cities like Paris or Grenoble managed to end the domination of corporate heavyweights, the municipality of Marseille is still struggling to regain the full control over its own water management because of the economic, political and historical weight Veolia and Suez have.

Bottom line: The French system of privatized water distribution delivered  infrastructure development in the past, but it now seems to be worsening inequality in the quest for profits.

---

* Please help my Water Scarcity students by commenting on unclear analysis, alternative perspectives, better data sources, or maybe just saying something nice 🙂

Anna writes*

Since the Roman Empire, Tunis has received water from off-site water sources. Back then, the water was transported via the Zaghouan aqueduct from 132 kilometers away. The capital now receives a substantial amount of water from two dams: oued El Kebir, 70 kilometers away, and Sidi Salem,
80 kilometers away. The latter is in the main watershed for Tunis, formed by the Medjerda, a rain-fed river that nourishes essential aquifers and the man-made Lac de Tunis. Looking at this information, one would assume that the water in Tunis is scarce and treated as such. However, it is not managed that way, mainly due to a misallocation of resources and issues of corruption.

SONEDE is the water regulator for Tunis and is ultimately supervised and directed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Hydraulic Resources and Fishing. According to the World Bank, this creates issues regarding “institutional and policy incentives to conserve water and allocate it to the most economically productive use”, implying an inherent potential for corruption within SONEDE’s framework. Such corruption is partially evident in the prices for agricultural and industrial users who pay 0.200 dinars (€0.06) euros per m3 of water — the lowest price in the system (SONEDE), and a price that does not rise with consumption. SONEDE also loses 32% of its water as non-revenue water due to “bad governance” (Gasteli, 2023). The Ministry of Agriculture refuses to answer questions related to water management or transparency.

Another point of contention is the allocation of water. This scarce resource is mainly used by the agricultural sector and at times this excessive use results in water supply cuts in Tunis. Due to interventions by the Ministry
of Agriculture, the water does not cost a lot, so farmers can afford to irrigate more lucrative water-intensive crops such as citrus and tomatoes. This unsustainable practice is draining reserves and harming citizens in Tunis.

An article from Le Monde, expresses that “from the minute that there is drought, the citizen is the first one affected by the water cuts while 70% of water is used for irrigation”. Such preferential treatment in water policies can result in inadequate water supply for people when the government supports agriculture. A recent corruption case exposed grand corruption as “660,000 dinars [€200,000] worth of water meters went missing” and the second case concerned “300,000 dinars worth of missing materials at the Central Supply Directorate” (Une Deuxième Affaire De Corruption à La Sonede, 17/11/2023). Corruption inhibits conservation, which is necessary in the face of continuing declines in rainfall — as much as 5% per decade (World Bank).

There has been some effort to deal with this corruption and the regulation of water. The amount of water allocated for irrigation for Tunis from the Sidi Salem dam was 0.35 million cubic meters in 2016. Such quotas do pose issues when the total amount of water decreases but they are reassessed every year. Projects in collaboration with the UNEP promote more efficient water systems and increase water metering, which provokes more awareness of water consumption, leading to a decrease in demand.

Bottom line: Tunis faces water scarcity due to corruption, falling efficiency and policies that favor farms over citizens.

---

* Please help my Water Scarcity students by commenting on unclear analysis, alternative perspectives, better data sources, or maybe just saying something nice 🙂

Suhotra writes*

Istanbul is thirsty. One of Europe’s few megacities, with a population of over 15 million people spread across two continents struggles with water security (Turkish Statistical Institute). Fluctuating water reservoir levels, drought threats, a growing population, urbanisation, the uncertainty brought by climate change and poor governance marked by conflicting priorities are pushing Istanbul to the verge of a potentially irreversible crisis. Around a year ago, the Turkish Agriculture Minister said the country was on the brink of a severe water crisis (Turkish Minute), and the Mayor of Istanbul urged residents to save “every precious water drop flowing from the tap” (Middle East Eye).

 

At the beginning of 2021, Turkey suffered intense droughts and low rainfall, which resulted in average reservoir levels below 25%, the lowest it had been in 15 years (NASA Earth Observatory). More recently in November of 2024 average water levels were below 30%, once again due to low rainfall (Hürriyet Daily News).

Nearly all clean water in Istanbul comes from surface water sources supplied by over a dozen reservoirs around and within the city. The Omerli-Darlik system on the Anatolian (Asian) side and the Terkos-Alibeykoy system on the European side are the most important water sources, and many of the reservoirs within the city are exposed to pollution (European Water)

However there are not enough water sources around Istanbul to provide for the large water demand, so in 2007, after another drought, the government completed the first stage of the “Great Melen Project” which aims to supplement water demand in the city by piping water directly from the Melen River which originates in the Düzce province around 200km away (Green European Journal). Other stages are in the making to provide an extra 1 billion metres-cubed of water, to better meet the city’s demand by 2040. The enactment of the Melen Project also came as a result of the uneven distribution of water resources and people in the city (Hidropolitik Akademi). Even though the Melen Project has ensured a higher provision of water in the city, alleviating water stress to an extent, other government initiatives may worsen water scarcity.

The “Canal Istanbul Project” is an ongoing construction of a new shipping route that would link the Black Sea to the Sea of Marmara in the Mediterranean. The project is presented as being economically advantageous to the Turkish economy, strategically helping them better their geopolitical leverage on international trade and alleviate pressure along the Bosphorus Strait, which currently acts as the only waterway for trade. However, despite the economic benefits of this Canal, it would exacerbate water-related or environmental issues. It would involve the partial or full destruction of an existing reservoir on the higher-populated European Side, reduce overall freshwater resources and possibly even pollute other water sources via salinisation. Additionally, this would displace locals and attract migrants in a city facing many issues with overpopulation (Green European Journal,  Snapshots of Contested Istanbul).

The contradictions between the Canal Istanbul project, which could disrupt vital water resources, and the Melen Project, intended to secure Istanbul’s water supply, highlight a troubling inconsistency in addressing the city’s water crisis. To secure a prosperous future, Istanbul must prioritise sustainable and cohesive water management strategies. Water security isn’t just an environmental necessity, it’s the foundation for the city’s resilience and the well-being of millions of residents.

Bottom Line: Istanbul has consistently struggled with water security due to droughts and growing demand, resulting in low water reservoir levels. They must confront their water crisis with cohesive, forward-thinking policies that prioritise water management and sustainability over politically motivated initiatives.

---

* Please help my Water Scarcity students by commenting on unclear analysis, alternative perspectives, better data sources, or maybe just saying something nice 🙂

Paulis writes*

A year after the country suffered from extreme flooding, extreme drought arose. On the 29th February 2024, the government declared a state of emergency (AfricaNews). Despite it being the rainy season, some areas suffered from no rain for five weeks at a time. Water levels in the Kafue river, the main water source for Lusaka, dropped. At its peak this year, water levels were still a metre below the average (DAHITI). This is particularly concerning as more than half of the country’s population lives in the Kafue River Basin (Wikipedia).

The Kafue river provides for half of Lusaka’s water needs, is used in more than half of all irrigation in the country, and sustains one fifth of Zambia’s cattle. Additionally, the two dams located on the river: the Itezhi-Tezhi and the Kafue Gorge, ensure around 50% of Zambia’s electricity needs. The Kafue river also flows through Kafue National Park, one of the largest in Africa, and provides a safe habitat for the wildlife and contributes to the country’s economy though the tourism sector. All these activities have been impacted by the water scarcity the country is currently facing (WWF).

To add on to this, Zambia has simultaneously been struggling with the worst cholera outbreak in more than 20 years, with most of the cases concentrated in Lusaka. With the drought severely decreasing the availability of water, many people have no choice but to use and drink contaminated water (UNICEF). With such a large portion of the country living so concentrated in this one river basin, the situation has been exacerbated. Both the drought and the cholera outbreak have worsened food insecurity, which adds one more issue the government is struggling to manage.

The government’s response was to reallocate their 2024 budget to mitigate the impacts of the drought and to focus more on humanitarian relief (Zambia Monitor). Furthermore, they have been relying on food, water infrastructure, and health aid from NGOs. However, these NGOs are currently going through budgeting issues too and cannot provide for all the people who need help (UNICEF). Although this might work in the short-term, in the long-term it will still leave both the Kafue basin, and all other basins in Zambia vulnerable to water scarcity made worse by climate change. With increasing amounts of extreme weather events occurring, unless the government develops a better adaptation plan, the future does not look too bright.

Disappointed in the government’s lack of action, many people have taken it on to supply water for themselves. Some people, even before these extreme droughts, have chosen not to rely on the Lusaka Water Supply and Sanitation Company for their water, but have instead dug boreholes in their backyard that tap into Lusaka’s aquifer system. Others have started to fundraise to be able to clean what little dirty water is available. One such example is the students at the International School of Lusaka who have started a campaign asking people to donate money to help provide a local school, Fountain of Life, with clean water. However, these are also mainly short-term solutions.

Lusaka is still dealing with these issues. While the number of cholera cases has significantly decreased with the help of UNICEF, residents of Lusaka are still experiencing extreme electricity and water shortages.

Bottom Line: Drought in Zambia has worsened the cholera outbreak, food insecurity, and water and electricity scarcity. The government does not have enough resources to deal with the issue on their own.

---

* Please help my Water Scarcity students by commenting on unclear analysis, alternative perspectives, better data sources, or maybe just saying something nice 🙂

Carlotta writes*

London is in the driest area of the UK, and it will become even drier, as climate change will increase the frequency and severity of dry, hot summers. Additionally, London’s population, currently estimated at 9.7 million, is expected to rise to 10.6 million by the year 2035, which raises the question of whether and how Thames Water, London’s utility, will be able to ensure reliable water supply in the future.

Thames Water obtains around 80% of its water supply from the river Thames and reservoirs that are fed by rainfall and the river itself, but as already mentioned, this water source is becoming more vulnerable in the future due to climate change. According to the Environment Agency, London could run out of water by the year 2050. Apart from climate change, there are two other contributors to this prediction: leaking water pipes and overconsumption. London’s water infrastructure partly dates back to the Victorian era, which explains the enormous amount of leaked water due to deteriorating water pipes.

Although, since the privatisation of the UK’s water system, leakage has improved, Thames Water still reports a leakage of 570 ML per day in the year 2023/24, which creates a leakage of almost 60l per person per day. Compared to the mayor’s aim to reduce water consumption to 105l per person per day, this high amount of leakage is concerning, as it is more than 50% of the targeted usage. Thames Water already failed to meet its target to reduce leakage by 12% in 2023/24, with only a 7% reduction. Thus, Thames Water is under great pressure to secure the future of London’s reliable water supply by increasing its efforts to refurbish the city’s ageing water infrastructure.

Moreover, Londoner’s current average water consumption is above the industry’s average of 140l per day. The government’s plan to reduce overall water usage includes the widespread installation of more smart water meters which are expected to increase the consumer’s awareness of consumption.

Apart from London’s increasing risk of water scarcity, Thames Water has been criticised and fined for non-compliance with sewage regulations repeatedly over the past years, as billions of litres of untreated sewage water have entered the Thames, causing harm to the environment and public health. As climate change increases the risk of heavy, unpredictable rainfall which creates quick run-off, increasing stress on sewage systems, these problems will only exacerbate if Thames Water does not maximise its efforts to fix London’s water infrastructure.

Bottom Line: London’s water infrastructure is unprepared for the future impacts of climate change on water supply and quality, because water leakage is only reduced slowly while demand is expected to rise.

---

* Please help my Water Scarcity students by commenting on unclear analysis, alternative perspectives, better data sources, or maybe just saying something nice 🙂

Leo writes*

Annecy is a city in eastern France whose lake and vibrant colours attract tourists from all around the country. Boasting a modest population of around 120 000 people, Annecy is a small city with seemingly not many problems in regard to water (Wikipedia). The main attraction is its lake “Lac d’ Annecy.” Often called the blue lung of the region, Lac d’ Annecy helps with droughts and other water issues (Annecy Lake saves local ski station from drought).

This has not always been the case, as the lake’s water was not always so clean. In the last century, the lake was overwhelmed with water demand from growth in development and population (Barraqué, 1986).

When the lake’s water was initially used in 1908, water quality was good enough to forego treatment (Barraqué, 1986). But quality started to deteriorate in the “entre-deux-guerres” (interbellum) period (Barraqué, 1986), as waste waters were discharged into the lake (Le Dauphine). Numerous carnivorous fish species started to disappear — notably the famous Omble chevalier.

After the liberation of France in 1945, growing industry and tourism increased water demand as well as pollution (Barraqué, 1986).

It was only ten years later that the alarm was rung in face of the dire situation. Charles Bosson the maire of Annecy at the time, expedited the complete renovations of sewer systems and water treatment for all municipalities around the lake (Barraqué, 1986). A new syndicate was created in order to address water quality, the SILA (Intercommunal Syndicate of Annecy Lake) which still exists to this day (Le Dauphine).

A completely new system was designed: a collection belt around the lake brought waste water to Annecy for treatment. This solution, although more costly for Annecy spread the costs and benefits of the new system between the communes of the lake. For the scale of the town at the time, this construction was massive: 47km of collection pipes, 190 km of new sewer pipes and a new purification facility (Barraqué, 1986). All for 2,275 billion French francs or the equivalent of 350 million euros today (Le Dauphine). With the system’s completion in 1976, water quality improved (Le Dauphine). Today, Lake Annecy has a reputation as the purest and cleanest lake in Europe.

Bottom Line: The modernisation of Annecy’s water management systems permitted its transition from a polluted body of water to one of Europe’s purest lakes.

---

* Please help my Water Scarcity students by commenting on unclear analysis, alternative perspectives, better data sources, or maybe just saying something nice 🙂

Bodil writes*

Valencia is known for its recurrent floods, with the first documented one occurring in October 1321. Since then, the city has experienced nearly 80 devastating floods over the years, caused by excess rainfall overwhelming the soil’s capacity to absorb the water fast enough. The river Turia, which runs through the city, brings death and destruction. The most impactful flood occurred in October 1957, when hundreds of people died, and three quarters of buildings were destroyed by waters rising five meters over their normal level. Something needed to be done to prevent such disasters from happening again (Valencia International).

Spain’s dictator Franco promised funding to reconstruct the city. Plan Sur proposed to divert the river around the city, and 16 years after the disaster, the Turia River was running 3 km south of Valencia for 12 km over a 175m-wide river bed (Caroline Angus).  The old river bed, now one of the biggest city parks in Europe (the Turia Gardens), is full of life and activities.

To regulate their waters, Valencia created reservoirs in case of drought and water escape routes in case of floods. Although the project might seem extreme and expensive, it is a necessary precaution to save lives and prevent the need for constant rebuilding. However, there are still very big quantities of water falling into this region, leading to a high risk of flooding. The 2022 record saw 260 mm of rain falling in 24 hours, with 2023’s record being about 150 mm in 24 hours. Considering that it rains on average 45 days a year and the annual rainfall is a bit less than 500 mm, this is a huge amount of water in just a few days.

In comparison, London receives approximately 600 mm of rainfall annually, yet it is known for experiencing a lot of rain as it rains approximately 112 days a year.  We would expect a bigger difference in mm, this shows just how immense the quantity of water that falls on the Valencia region in a day is. Even though the infrastructure has improved with the creation of immense storm drains, there are still many incidents of people getting trapped in their vehicles and houses getting flooded every year. In September 2023, there were already 30 severe incidents of flooding reported. Valencia’s greatest challenge is fighting drought for most of the year and then dealing with immense bodies of water that fall all at once.

Bottom Line: Valencia, a city going to extreme measures to keep the rare and great quantities of water out of the city.

---

* Please help my Water Scarcity students by commenting on unclear analysis, alternative perspectives, better data sources, or maybe just saying something nice 🙂