Smart Water Management: the way to (artificially) intelligent water management, or just another pretty name?

This is the second special issue prepared on behalf of the International Water Resources Association (IWRA) under the aegis of its Science, Technology and Publications Committee. The first, we hope you recall, appeared in April 2018 (vol. 41, no. 3): The Wicked Problems of Water Governance. These IWRA special issues are intended to complement existing IWRA initiatives.

As foreshadowed in the earlier special issue, the focus of this one is Smart Water Management (SWM). It evolved from a collaboration with K-water, the Korean water authority, that resulted in a report including a number of case studies of SWM from around the world. Following this introduction is a summary of the findings of that report, including a description of what SWM is (in a nutshell, the application of new technologies to water management), a general characterization of its progress to date, a summary of findings (benefits, factors for success and policy recommendations), and prospects for further development (Kuisma, Clench, et al., 2020).

We follow with a small sample of summaries of the cases in that collection, from Mexico (Villareal et al., 2020), Korea (Yi et al., 2020) and France (Tabuchi et al., 2020), covering a range of issues and domains, from water quality monitoring at a campus level, to a nationwide flood monitoring system, to the sanitation sector of a global city.

Villeareal et al. present a case of the development of SWM technology on a major university campus (UNAM) in Mexico. Here the project, focused on data monitors managed by a specific programme with the acronym PUMAGUA, has been aimed at improving water quality, reducing water consumption and encouraging behavioural change in students and the university community. This programme has reduced potable water consumption by 50% through improved practices and leak detection, while improving the quality of drinking water, treating wastewater to levels specified in Mexican regulations, and promoting participation of the entire university community in using water more efficiently. Yet the authors note that while SWM can build trust in water users, it requires a lot of time and effort to manage and maintain, especially in the early stages of its implementation. Given the speed and scope of technological change, they further argue that it is essential to have the financial resources and capacity to maintain and upgrade technology to ensure that is continues to yield benefits.

Yi et al. (2020) showcase the ability of SWM to significantly improve drought and flood management for an entire country (in this case, South Korea) through the use of an integrated SWM Hydro Intelligent Toolkit (K-HIT). By combining the use of real-time hydrological data acquisition, precipitation forecasting, flood analysis, reservoir water supply and hydropower generation, the authors demonstrate K-HIT’s potential to minimize flood damage through the storage of water during the rainy season, which can then be used to prevent droughts during the dry season. To support successful large-scale implementation of SWM, Yi et al. advocate long-term investment, budgeting and support from the public sector. They further recommend proceeding step by step so as to adapt as necessary. Alongside water management benefits, the authors also highlight the increased capacity that SWM affords K-water to address water quality and reduce flood risk. SWM centred on K-HIT proved its worth by enabling K-water to effectively manage major floods in 2012, 2013 and 2015.

From Paris, Tabuchi et al. (2020) describe how a real-time control system (MAGES) was developed to better manage the Greater Paris sanitation system, with the search for optimal use of its treatment facilities, in particular for stormwater pollution caused by a combined sewer system. MAGES has been developed and implemented for over 20 years, the product of a strong collaborative process, with shared goals and strong commitment, the opportunity to develop advanced skills in hydraulics and urban hydrology, and to test ideas. The Greater Paris sewer system is decentralized; MAGES allows all to take into account the overall operation of the sanitation system, and to adapt the system to integrate many different systems, without merging all systems under a single administration. The system has greatly improved all the sanitation system management but will face significant challenges in the future, with probable reduction of the flow of the Seine due to climate change. Continuous improvements, enabled by technological advance, facilitating even smarter water management, are foreseeable and necessary.

After this global tour of existing practices in applying SWM, we move on to interrogate the concept in a broader context, exploring areas for its further application but also stepping back to look at present and potential limits to its application.

For starters, we posted on the IWRA website as our Question of the Year:

Is Smart Water Management Really a Smart Idea?

• If so, in what ways? If not, why not?

• Or is it smart in some ways and not in others?

• What could make it smarter (institutions, policy, other)? (www.iwra.org/questionoftheyear2019)

A sample of the 17 very thoughtful responses we received awaits the reader to launch the next part of the issue. To simplify grossly, the consensus answer is ‘Yes, but …’.

We follow with a number of research articles and commentaries that look at SWM in three general ways: within the ‘conventional’ utility framework (Grigg, 2020); stretching the domain of SWM without questioning its purpose (Bjornlund et al., 2020; Moniz et al., 2020; Schweitzer et al.,2020); and stepping back and looking at SWM with a critical but not dismissive eye (Hartley & Kuecker, 2020; Trudeau, 2020).

Grigg (2020) sees SWM as definitely positive in its ability to increase the operational capacity of water utilities. He also sees great potential in an area where others have concerns about SWM – how it can improve access and affordability for end users, such as local communities that are at risk of being, or have already been, left behind. SWM could help those water providers with effective utility operations to leapfrog over the barriers to access that currently plague those communities.

Nonetheless, these anticipated long-term benefits are speculative. As in other areas where black box algorithms are coming to rule our lives, it will be necessary to address security and privacy issues.

Bjornlund et al. (2020) argue that SWM also has potential for small-scale irrigators in sub-Saharan Africa and, by ensuring consistent and ongoing use, can provide data for higher-level water planning and management. This presents additional challenges, as the technology needs to be used by often poor and illiterate farmers. In this context providing technology in isolation can be counterproductive, as it might not be sustainable and consistently adopted and used. To achieve this the technology must be people-centred, tailored in collaboration with end users (so it helps them achieve their objectives), easy to use, cost-effective and robust. The introduction of the technology must therefore use a two-pronged approach combining smart technology with innovative institutional processes that facilitate learning and capacity building, leading to behaviour change. Only if using the tools is beneficial to the end users will reliable data be collected on a large scale to inform higher-level decision making.

Schweitzer et al. (2020) describe how the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has used SWM technologies to ensure delivery of safe drinking water to South Sudanese refugees in Uganda, where tanker delivery often did not reach the camps because drivers would sell some or all of the water in transit. UNHCR introduced technologies that can be used to monitor both water trucks and static water reservoirs, to ensure that water is delivered as intended and equitably distributed. The system is based on an open source software platform that has the capacity to visualize the data. UNHCR hopes to expand the system to include additional SWM sensor applications for measuring water quality, groundwater resources, and the operational performance of distribution networks.

Moniz et al. (2020) discuss a pilot project to use free and open access source software to improve the quality of data for urban water use on the Canary Islands. By digitizing the errors, this system can quickly identify issues that need to be addressed. The data can be integrated into other existing systems, and predictive tools can help in developing consumption plans and shared solutions. The authors argue that the pilot project has shown that the system enables flexible and reliable systems for advanced, tailored solutions to improve water quality and supply, save the utilities money, and improve the quality of service from the utility and its ability to inspect water infrastructure. It might also facilitate further automation of current manual operations.

In her contribution, Trudeau, 2020 argues that SWM is not a means of fixing systemic inefficiencies inherent in the traditional design of urban water infrastructure. SWM can support the existing infrastructure, but systemic inefficiencies need to be addressed as part of a long-term plan to reconsider the underlying approach to potable, wastewater and stormwater system designs. In many places, especially Europe and North America, water infrastructure was built in a way that does not recognize the cyclical nature of water. For instance, we need to rethink the assumption that wastes should be disposed to waterbodies, and that we should use potable water for purposes such as suppressing fires and flushing toilets.

This leads us in turn outside the confines of the water sector, to core issues of urban design and land use and their interconnection with waterways. We need to consider how we would design water infrastructure and support systems if we could do so from scratch, through developing a shared long-term vision involving political leaders, communities and experts, backed by appropriate funding commitments beyond the myopia of a short-term political or budgetary cycles. At the same time, existing infrastructure must be maintained, and solutions have to be tailored to individual watersheds and local water resources. This is a tall order – reimagining the city as well as its water – but unless issues such as these are addressed, SWM will continue to be applied to fundamentally inefficient infrastructure.

Similarly, Hartley and Kuecker (2020) explore the moral hazards of SWM as a technological fix for a broken system that does not address the cause of the problem, but allows society more time to continue convenient but wasteful habits. Measures of success are currently set by the SWM technologies. The authors argue that both hard (technological) and soft (behavioural and conceptual) approaches are needed to address problems. If critical thinking is not used to challenge and curb the technocratic powers of SWM there is a risk of social and environmental costs. Policy makers need to think of all possible narratives, consider what could go wrong, and assume that it probably will. Hence the precautionary principle should be applied to the planning, design and implementation of SWM solutions. There could be long-term consequences if we do not think outside the current lenses of goals (even the Sustainable Development Goals) and technologies.

We close with a checklist for you to review before you go (Kuisma, Nickum, et al., 2020). Then we send you on your way to do what you can to make a smarter water future.

Overall, this special issue provides a cutting-edge overview of existing practice, potential benefits, and the pitfalls of limiting our consideration of SWM to the current relatively narrow, technological definition. It makes some critical observations of measures that policy makers, planner and practitioners need to take to increase the likelihood of reaping the benefits while avoiding the pitfalls.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.