Category Default

Ecosystem health indicators assess how an ecosystem functions.

Environmental indicators have been defined as physical, chemical, biological or socio-economic measures that best represent the key elements of a complex ecosystem or environmental issue. An indicator is embedded in a well developed interpretative framework and has meaning beyond the measure it represents.

For an indicator to be effective it must provide a true measure of a component of the ecosystem. Selection of effective indicators is best achieved by developing conceptual models of the ecosystem and using these to pinpoint indicators that provide the required information. Examples of conceptual models can be viewed at:

• WetlandInfo

As well as being effective, indicators must also be efficient. The cost and effort to measure them should be reasonable, and preferably not require highly specialised skills. This means that some effective indicators cannot be used routinely. Often, the selected indicators will need to be a compromise between effectiveness and efficiency.

It is highly desirable to put significant effort into selecting indicators. However, for aquatic ecosystems there are a range of generally accepted indicators that are commonly used in most monitoring programs.

Aquatic ecosystem health indicators can be broadly divided into four categories:

• Physico-chemical indicators
• Biological indicators
• Habitat indicators
• Flow indicators
• More information

Physico-chemical indicators

Physico-chemical indicators are the traditional ‘water quality’ indicators that most people are familiar with. They include dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, salinity and nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus). They also include measures of toxicants such as insecticides, herbicides and metals. Physico-chemical indicators provide information on what is impacting on the system. For example, is it an organic waste that affects dissolved oxygen, or is it some type of toxicant? Although physico-chemical indicators can identify the cause of the problem, they only provide limited information on the extent that pollutants are actually impacting on fauna and flora. To assess this, we need to assess the biological indicators.

Biological indicators

Biological indicators are direct measures of the health of the fauna and flora in the waterway. Commonly used biological indicators in freshwater include various measures of macroinvertebrate or fish diversity, benthic algal growth and benthic oxygen demand. The SEQ Report Card(external link) website has more information on these indicators.

For estuaries, biological indicators are less developed. The only commonly used biological indicator in estuaries is chlorophyll-a, which is a measure of phytoplankton population density. In coastal embayments, indicators such as seagrass condition or condition of fringing coral reefs are sometimes used.

In many aquatic ecosystems, the key influences on aquatic ecosystem health can be factors other than water quality, including habitat degradation and changes to natural flow patterns. Therefore, it is important to include indicators of these factors in monitoring programs.

Habitat indicators

Habitat indicators include both fringing (riparian) habitat and instream habitats. Indicators of riparian habitat include the width, continuity, extent of shading and species composition. Indicators of instream habitat include measures of the extent of scouring and bank erosion and the presence of woody debris (fallen trees, etc) that provide important habitat for many species.

Flow indicators

In freshwater, changes to flow are often the main cause of aquatic ecosystem health degradation; the Murray-Darling system is an example of this. Assessing the changes is therefore important. Changes to natural flow caused by humans are varied and include changes to peak flows, base flows, no flow periods and seasonality of flows. To assess these different changes, a number of indicators are required. Unfortunately, nearly all of these indicators rely on the existence of good flow data for both current and pre-disturbance conditions. This type of data is often not available. In this situation, less precise indicators of flow change can be sourced from assessments of the amount of flow captured in storages or abstracted for agricultural or urban use. These are detailed in water plans.

Water pollution from industrial agriculture, including CAFOs, causes public health problems and huge environmental impacts.

Minnesota’s lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands, and groundwater are valuable public resources. In addition to being powerful symbols of our state, they provide drinking water, recreational and tourism opportunities, wildlife habitat, water for agriculture and industrial uses, and more. Protecting our water resources will also protect human health, our ecosystems, and Minnesota’s economy.

Potential or existing impacts of poor water quality in Minnesota

Human and animal health

Minnesotans get their drinking water from both surface glasses of water and groundwater. Though it is treated before we consume it, some types of contamination are still a challenge. Some communities in southern and central Minnesota are finding excess nitrates in their water from polluted runoff. Such water is unhealthy to drink, particularly for babies. Elsewhere, chemicals spilled or dumped at old industrial sites have seeped into groundwater at sites around the state.

Harmful algae blooms are also a common issue in Minnesota lakes during calm, sunny summer weather. People can become sick from contact with toxic blue-green algae, by swallowing or having skin contact with water or by breathing in tiny droplets of water in the air. Dogs are at particular risk because they’re more willing to wade into lakes with algal scum; several have died from blue-green algae exposure. Harmful algae are the result of excess nutrient pollution in the water.

Poor water quality has its most direct impact on aquatic wildlife, particularly fish, bugs, and plants. Excess nutrients, sediment, road salt, and other contaminants can reduce the variety and hardiness of organisms living in the state’s waters.

Our economy

Many industries in Minnesota are dependent on clean and abundant water, including agriculture, tourism, food processing facilities, power plants, and pulp and paper mills. Poor water quality can even affect real estate values for those who own waterfront properties.

Costs to taxpayers

Municipalities, counties, and other local units of government often bear the cost of trying to improve water quality. City wastewater and drinking water plants must ensure clean drinking water is reaching residents, and that wastewater is thoroughly treated before being discharged into lakes or streams. Soil and water conservation districts and other local partners implement conservation and water quality-improvement practices. If water quality declines, even more resources will be needed to restore it to acceptable conditions.

Transferring the burden

Minnesota is a headwaters state. We send water south in the Mississippi River, north in the Red and Rainy rivers, and east from the St. Louis River and Lake Superior. If our waters are contaminated, we are contributing to the water quality problems of our neighbors, too. In addition, we are leaving a pollution legacy that our children and grandchildren will have to address. It takes years and years to improve water quality once it has degraded.

1. Introduction

Irrigation systems have been under pressure to produce more with lower supplies of water. Various innovative practices can gain an economic advantage while also reducing environmental burdens such as water abstraction, energy use, pollutants, etc. (Faurès and Svendsen, 2007). Farmers can better use technological systems already installed, adopt extra technologies, enhance their skills in soil and water management, tailor cropping patterns to lower water demand and usage, reduce agrochemical inputs, etc. Water-efficient practices potentially enhance the economic viability and environmental sustainability of irrigated agriculture, without necessarily reducing water usage. To inform such practices, experts have developed various models of water efficiency, yet these are little used by farmers.

Through two case studies in the EU context, this paper will address the following questions:

•

When an IRR

igation area invests in innovative technology, how can its operation help

 farmers to achieve the full potential benefits together, e.g. an economic advantage, greater water-use efficiency, and lower resource burdens?

•

Why are innovative technologies often applied in ways which miss the full potential benefits?

•

What tensions arise among various objectives and potential benefits?

•

How can these difficulties be addressed?

The paper first surveys analytical perspectives on irrigation efficiency – especially the means, incentives, and limitations – as a basis to analyze two cases and draw general conclusions.

2. Innovative irrigation practices: Analytical perspectives

Innovative irrigation technology is generally promoted as raising water-use efficiency along with multiple benefits, but these remain elusive in practice, as outlined in the first sub-section below. The limitations have fundamental reasons, as outlined in Section 2.2. To address these issues, our case studies are introduced in Section 2.3.

2.1. Practical limitations of water-efficient irrigation technology

EU policy frameworks place great expectations upon technologies to improve water efficiency. The European Commission emphasizes ‘technological innovation in the field of water, given that water efficiency will be an increasingly important factor for competitiveness’ (CEC, 2008). According to the European Parliament, solutions should be found in ‘clean technologies that facilitate the efficient use of water’ (EP, 2008).

Such technological expectations arise in expert reports on agricultural water use:

Water-efficient irrigation, irrigation on demand and irrigation using brackish water are technologies that will enable the better husbandry of more scarce freshwater resources. Technological developments in respect of irrigation will encompass sensors and communication, intelligent watering systems and high-efficiency delivery mechanisms for water and nutrients, as well as the means of incorporating all of these elements into irrigation ‘packages’ (EIO, 2011: 25).

Likewise water efficiency can be enhanced by better using current installations and/or by adopting new equipment (WssTP, 2012: 9).

The main European farmers’ organisation has likewise advocated technological means to increase water efficiency. In particular, this needs ‘investments in more efficient irrigation systems, use of new technologies (e.g. soil moisture and canopy sensors) to better match irrigation with plant needs, and good agricultural practices’, such as conservation tillage, management of soil fertility, and water retention capacity, and scheduling of irrigation during the night to reduce evaporation (COPA-COGECA, 2007: 4). The basis for improvement is described as follows:

… water efficiency measures that provide complementary benefits, such as reduced energy needs or other environmental benefits, will also deliver better results. In many Member States, efforts are being made to increase the water storage capacity of soil under agricultural land use. The modernisation of irrigation systems has steadily progressed and water productivity has also improved considerably (COPA-COGECA, 2013: 3)

As indicated above, greater water-use efficiency depends on better agricultural practices alongside extra technology. Yet companies generally promote irrigation technology as if it inherently brings all the benefits (interview, COPA-COGECA, 08.07.13). Improperly managed ‘hi-tech’ systems can be as wasteful and unproductive as poorly managed traditional systems (Perry et al., 2009). When incorrectly applied, irrigation technology ‘can cause losses arising on investments made by farmers, thus decreasing the economic water productivity index and the overall sustainability’ (Battilani, 2012).

Beyond a problem-diagnosis of inefficiency, moreover, intensive farming practices can degrade soil and water resources, especially through more input-intensive farming in crops such as maize, vegetables, orchard, and vine cultivation:

Intensive arable production is partly responsible for poor soil structure, soil erosion, loss of soil OM [organic matter] and pollution from fertilisers and pesticides…. The expansion of maize cropping and the move to growing winter cereals in particular have contributed to soil erosion even further (Miller, 2007: 44–45).

Such harmful practices have been driven and supported by EU policies. In past decades CAP subsidies have tended to favour crops with high water demands, such as maize, thus increasing the risk of water shortages under climate-uncertain conditions (Garcia-Vila and Fereres, 2012). Either as price-support or area-based, CAP subsidies likewise have ensured the profitability of some water-intensive crops such as cotton which otherwise would be phased out under a market-orientated scenario; likewise water-price subsidies.

In some cases, water-price increases have induced farmers to adopt technology and appropriate practices for conserving water (Caswell and Zilberman, 1985). Yet water-pricing policies often have been ineffective means to reduce water demand (Molle and Berkoff, 2007, Molle, 2008). Farmers experience rising water prices as an extra penalty. Rather than higher water prices, administrative water allocation or re-allocation lowering the supply often has led farmers to adopt water-efficiency practices (Molden et al., 2010). If agricultural water demand is inelastic, then policies which encourage changes in cropping patterns can be more effective than higher prices (Fraiture and Perry, 2007, Iglesias and Blanco, 2008, Kampas, 2012).

Inelastic water demand results from farmers’ perspectives on water benefits. Water-use efficiency (WUE) and water productivity (WP) are often used interchangeably but have different meanings. WUE specifically means the ratio of biomass produced per unit of irrigation water used, i.e. the sum of transpiration by the crop and evaporation from the soil (Sinclair et al., 1984). By contrast, WP means the ratio of above-ground biomass per unit of water transpired by the crop (Steduto, 2007). Both terms have relevance to farmers’ economic goals. WUE interests mainly the water districts or management agencies, while WP interests more farmers and research community. WP better speaks to perspectives linking water usage with production levels and economic benefit (interview, COPA-COGECA, 08.07.13).

Yet even WP remains distant from farmers’ perspectives. They generally perceive ‘irrigation efficiency’ as maximising net revenue rather than saving water (Knox et al., 2012). Policies seek to lower water usage, and river basin managers try to allocate limited supplies, yet water-saving is not a priority for most farmers (Luquet et al., 2005). They manage labour and other inputs to get better economic gains (Molden et al., 2010). Towards that economic aim, most growers make irrigation decisions by relying on subjective judgements, based only on their practical experience and observation (Knox et al., 2012). Consequently, there have been limited benefits from irrigation technology, as well documented in the technical literature; the following examples compare various techniques.

For example, mobile-laboratory evaluations compared the distribution uniformity and irrigation efficiency of various irrigation systems in California. Although micro irrigation systems are seen as ‘efficient technologies’, they were performing less well than traditional surface irrigation methods such as furrows and borders. To gain the extra benefits of such technology, most important is adequate system design, alongside proper installation, operation and maintenance, regardless of the irrigation method used (Hanson et al., 1995).

Howell (2003) and Irmak et al. (2011) reported the attainable application efficiencies for different irrigation methods, assuming irrigations are applied to meet the crops’ water needs. Microirrigation has the potential to achieve the highest uniformity (90%) in water applied to each plant, yet poor uniformity and application efficiency can result from various causes, e.g., inadequate maintenance, low inlet pressure or pressure fluctuations, emitter clogging, and inadequate system design (Hsiao et al., 2007). Consequently, micro irrigation technology has on-farm efficiencies varying from 0.7 to 0.95 (Howell, 2003).

As another example, a Spanish study compared various irrigation methods via the annual relative irrigation supply index (ARIS), i.e. a ratio of water applied versus water required. It found a greater efficiency of solid-set and drip than surface irrigation. But average annual figures conceal great variations in water applied to a given crop and irrigation efficiency at farm level, partly for lack of adequate knowledge. A remedy would be ‘actions to improve farmers’ water management via a combination of irrigation advisory services and policy measures’ (Salvador et al., 2011: 586).

2.2. Reasons for those limitations and ways to overcome them

Given the above water-efficiency limitations in applying irrigation technology, the literature has outlined some fundamental reasons. They include the following: irrigation equipment is promoted as if the technology per se brings various benefits, farmers seek to maximize net income rather than water productivity per se, innovative technologies can achieve the full potential benefits only through appropriate technical advice, and farmers lack a knowledge-system for anticipating effects of specific irrigation practices or for retrospectively evaluating their irrigation efficiency.

Although research has developed technical scheduling procedures to improve agricultural water management, these have been little adopted, for many reasons.

The one most frequently mentioned by growers is the lack of perceived [financial] benefits relative to their current practices, which they consider adequate. Ease of use and the expenses involved are also important grower considerations (FAO, 2012).

Technical advice on irrigation scheduling is little used at farm level; at most, it helps retrospectively to evaluate seasonal approaches (ibid.).

One obstacle is inadequate knowledge about proper irrigation levels and scheduling over a growing season. Farmers generally lack adequate assistance to develop and adopt better approaches for environmental sustainability, while also maintaining their financial and social objectives (Pereira et al., 2012: 39). For example, sub-surface moisture sensors can improve knowledge about a crop’s need for water. But the technology has limitations, so farmers need technical advice to interpret the measurements; for example, ‘soil humidity sensors are still neither easy to handle nor reliable’ (WssTP, 2012: 33). Moreover, these sensors are not well adapted to all soil types; their installation and maintenance requires the employment of specialised technical staff. The same is true for the canopy sensors, whose proper application is limited to some crops and during specific growing stages, periods of day and climatic conditions.

Improvements in irrigation practices depend on quantitative knowledge of farmers’ current practices in relation to actual and potential crop water use:

Any effort to improve water use efficiency needs to start with the assessment of the actual and attainable efficiencies for the given situation, as quantitatively as possible. This information is fundamental for making rational improvements aiming at raising the overall efficiency to the attainable level (Hsiao et al., 2007: 228, 218).

But such information is rarely available to farmers.

Such difficulties arise for water-management improvements through expert systems. Decision Support Systems (DSS) have aimed to improve crop water use efficiency at farm and water basin scale, but few are widely applied, given the necessary specialised skills. For a DSS to be successful, the key elements have been: giving farmers a simple, timely, user-friendly, free-of-charge, informative system helpful to decide how much to irrigate in everyday practice; tailoring the tools for a large number of crops; calculating the irrigation profitability; and assessing the economic benefit, especially its relevance to the next irrigation. Such benefits have been demonstrated by the Irrinet project in Italy’s Emilia Romagna (Battilani, 2012). Thus more reliable information systems and expert capacity are necessary to guide farmers in using water more efficiently (Battilani, 2013). This exemplifies the broader need for farmer training and education in order to improve modern irrigation management.

As a way forward in the UK, expert support has been recently linking farmers’ responsibility, economic benefits and practical knowledge. A ‘pathway to efficiency’ improves the irrigation network, alongside better practices of soil and water management, e.g. by monitoring whether the right amounts are used at the right place and time. ‘Using financial criteria for water efficiency rather than an engineering one appears a sensible approach when assessing irrigation performance at the farm level since any managerial (e.g. scheduling) and operational (e.g. equipment) inefficiencies associated with irrigation are implicitly included in the assessment’ (Knox et al., 2012: 3). In particular, ‘On-farm water auditing and benchmarking have the potential to provide useful information to farmer decision making, with respect to identifying operational and management changes to improve irrigation system performance and water productivity, and evaluating potential investments in new technology (and advanced practices) or infrastructures’ (ibid: 7).

Such approaches have addressed various obstacles to water-efficiency measures. To exploit the full technological potential requires a broader dissemination of their benefits, specific training of farmers, and coupling properly-designed technological solutions with more precise operational practices to benefit farm economic performance (e.g. Tollefson and Wahab, 1994). In particular, advisory-extension services have enhanced irrigation practices which better fulfil potential benefits of irrigation technology (Hergert et al., 1994, Benham et al., 2000, Ahearn et al., 2003, Genius et al., 2014, Parker et al., 2000, Gold et al., 2013).

Beyond the farm level, greater resource efficiency also depends on shared responsibility among stakeholders, according to the World Business Council for Sustainable Development:

Business undoubtedly has many opportunities to increase its eco-efficient performance and thereby to help de-couple use of nature from overall economic growth… Establishing framework conditions which foster innovation and transparency and which allow sharing responsibility among stakeholders will amplify eco-efficiency for the entire economy and deliver progress toward sustainability (WBCSD, 2000: 6–7).

Analogous issues arise for service-oriented irrigation schemes, designed so that farmers can flexibly obtain water at their convenience, e.g. through on-demand delivery schedules. Here responsibility has institutional complexities. For example, a water users’ organisation (WUO) bears largely fixed costs, as well as somewhat variable energy costs from drainage, excess water application, reuse, disposal, etc. If a WUO or water district relies on gravity-fed water conveyance and delivery systems, then its costs do not vary according to water-volume delivery. In such contexts, if farmers decrease water use, then the WUO must increase water prices to recover its fixed costs. Facing higher water prices, farmers may increase groundwater pumping, thus abstracting more water from aquifers, while distancing their individual practices from any group responsibility. Paradoxically, fostering greater water-use efficiency can generate a financial, environmental and institutional problem.

Given those difficulties for water-efficient techniques, their effective adoption depends on several enabling conditions, especially a policy and institutional context aligning incentives of producers, resource managers and society. Significant synergistic effects can emerge when water-efficiency practices are combined with other agronomic practices such as maintaining soil health and fertility, controlling weeds and avoiding diseases (Molden et al., 2010).

2.3. Methods and sources: EcoWater project

The above issues and earlier questions have been explored through two case studies of service-oriented irrigation schemes within a larger EU-funded research project, EcoWater (see Acknowledgements). It develops a methodology for assessing eco-efficiency at the meso level. The latter is defined as interactions among heterogeneous actors, e.g. between water-service users and providers. As generally understood, eco-efficiency means a ratio between economic advantage and resource burdens, as a basis to evaluate past or potential changes in a system.

The project uses eco-efficiency indicators to evaluate potential innovative practices including technology adoption. The project aims to: assess various options for innovative practices within a specific system; analyse the factors influencing decisions to adopt such practices; and improve understanding of the socio-technical dynamics that influence such decisions.

In the project’s two agricultural case studies, farmers and/or their organisations have already invested in water-efficient technology, going beyond state subsidy alone. The irrigation distribution systems were designed for on-demand water delivery. SCADA technology at hydrants allow farmers to abstract water on demand any time and charges them according to a volumetric tiered water pricing. Each case-study area has strong stimuli for farmers to improve water efficiency, yet the full potential benefits of the technology investment were not being realised, for reasons analysed in the next two sections.

3. Sinistra Ofanto case

Dating from the 1980s, the Sinistra Ofanto irrigation scheme is among the largest multi-cropped irrigated areas in Italy. It is located in south-eastern Foggia province within the Apulia region. Irrigation is crucial for the region’s agricultural production and income, but it also generates resource burdens. Nearly 18.5% of Apulia’s agricultural area is under irrigation; consequently, irrigated crops have contributed 69% of the total value of regional agricultural production, recently quantified as 3.8bn Euros (Fabiani, 2010). The entire study area is characterised by a high number of small land-holdings with intensive, market-oriented practices. The main crops are vineyards, olives, vegetables and fruit orchards (in descending order). The pedo-climatic conditions are favourable for intensive cropping, but profitable farming is strongly dependent on irrigation, due to the scant rainfall and its uneven distribution across the year.

The Sinistra Ofanto system commands an area of 40,500 ha stretching along the left side of the Ofanto River, of which 38,815 ha are irrigable lands and 28,165 ha are serviced with irrigation distribution. Designed and constructed for pressurised on-demand delivery schedule, the irrigation system is managed by a large water users’ organisation (WUO), the Consorzio per la Bonifica della Capitanata (CBC, 1984, Altieri, 1995). The system diverts water from the Ofanto River and supplies it to growers both by gravity and lifting/pumping, ensuring a pressure head of at least 2 bar at each hydrant to enable farmers using micro-irrigation methods.

The system is already equipped with modern technologies to deliver and use water efficiently. From the diversion structure on the Ofanto River, water is conveyed to the Capacciotti reservoir through concrete-lined canals and pipe conduits, along which the flow regulation devices are downstream-controlled, thus manually or automatically adjusted through calibrated control devices enabling Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA). The Capacciotti reservoir^, supplies seven concrete-lined storage and compensation reservoirs equipped with downstream-control flow regulation devices that adjust inflows and outflows to feed the district’s piped distribution networks based on the downstream water demand.

PVC buried pipes comprise the open-branched distribution networks. Each sector’s inlet has a control unit, equipped with flow and pressure metering-control devices. Water is supplied to farms on demand by means of multi-users electronically-fed hydrants that control and regulate the deliveries, as well as the discharges demanded and thus flowing in the pipe distribution network. These technologies installed along the main infrastructure help keeping conveyance and distribution losses within 5–10% of the total water abstracted from the Ofanto River, as reported by the WUO’s engineering staff.

Although the main water supply is surface water, during recurrent water shortages farmers pump groundwater from medium-depth (100–150 m) aquifers, especially since the late 1990s (Portoghese et al., 2013). Furthermore, studies found qualitative degradation of groundwater resources, most likely resulting from seawater intrusion into the coastal aquifer and to deep percolation of pollutants, such as fertilisers and pesticides, from intensive farming activities. Given the urgent need to assess these processes and to avoid their adverse environmental impacts, what are the prospects for water-efficiency improvements of irrigated agriculture in the Sinistra Ofanto area?

3.1. Irrigation patterns and resource burdens

The water users organisation (WUO), Consorzio per la Bonifica della Capitanata (henceforth the CBC), is the main irrigation management agency. It is responsible for all the sequential steps along the agriculture water supply chain, i.e. abstraction, conveyance, storage, distribution and final water delivery to farm gates. Established in 1933 by national law of public interest, the CBC is by statute a non-profit organization; it bears all the costs for performing its functions, and these costs are recovered through the water tariffs paid by farmers.

The CBC enforces the principle of solidarity among the different service areas. Even though the costs for supplying irrigation water differ significantly among areas supplied by gravity and by pumping, the tariff structure does not make such a distinction. Rather, as a tool to manage water use, water fees vary according to demand: volumetric tiered water tariffs progressively increase with the seasonal cumulative volumes withdrawn by each farmer. This structure is enforced through individual water metering at the delivery points; all farm hydrants are equipped with an electro-mechanical delivery device allowing the supply of water only to authorised users and storing information of each irrigation event. Besides simplifying the network operations, this technology proved to be very useful for accurate monitoring and control of water distribution, and for achieving better understanding of the irrigation management practices followed by farmers, especially through the possibility to retrieve and analyse historical data series (Zaccaria et al., 2013).

As an irrigation service provider, the CBC is composed of irrigation service users, i.e. farmers. In performing its daily activities, the CBC attempts to reconcile objectives which may be in conflict. Its technical and administrative choices aim to achieve high water-distribution efficiency in order to maximise the economic benefit to farmers. It aims to improve water distribution and use—at the farm level, through an effective operation of the delivery network, and at field and crop level through the technical support to growers aiming at improved water management skills (ibid). Technical support to farmers was effective in the 1980s–1990s but has declined in the last decade, due to WUO budget constraints and lower revenues from Italy’s farm activities.

Irrigation water demand is driven mainly by farmers’ perceptions, by the climatic conditions, and by the economic value of crop yields and production factors. Even beyond periods of water shortage, in some areas farmers pump groundwater in order to avoid the following problems: (i) the restricted-flow demand delivery-schedule that prevents the quick completion of irrigation cycles in medium-large farms, (ii) the restricted-frequency demand-delivery often imposed by the CBC during water shortage periods, (iii) the need to arrange water withdrawals with neighbour farmers supplied by the same hydrants, or (iv) the tiered water fees enforced by the CBC. Also, many farmers still perceive groundwater pumping as somewhat cheaper than water supplied by the CBC, even though the contrary was shown by economic analyses (e.g. Portoghese et al., 2013).

As a more fundamental problem, both the farmers’ perception and the CBC’s analyses ignore the ecological costs of groundwater degradation and remediation. The CBC accepts no responsibility for water-management practices beyond the farm gate. From the growers’ standpoint, groundwater pumping aims to increase and/or stabilise the economic benefits of farming activities. Often farmers combine surface water and groundwater for various reasons such as to maximise crop yields and farm net benefit, or to minimise the seasonal water fees payable to the CBC, or to prevent yield reduction arising from high salinity in the groundwater during peak-demand periods. However, this conjunctive use of surface and groundwater is based solely on farmers’ economic and technical considerations, regardless of environmental burdens such as aquifer depletion and degradation. Furthermore, fields close to the river banks are often irrigated by growers with water pumped out the river. In all these situations, return flows may result from run-off through the drainage networks, as well as from percolation through the soil profile, finally reaching the downstream reaches of the river, wetlands or the aquifer.

Farm activities generate various pressures on land and water resources, including quantitative depletion and qualitative degradation, especially biodiversity loss in farmland and in the natural environment. This harm has several sources: (i) intensive farming and tillage practices, (ii) fertilizers and pesticides application on cultivated fields, (iii) water abstraction from the Ofanto River, (iv) return flows of degraded water to downstream wetlands and aquifers, (v) over-drafting of groundwater, (vi) salinity build-up in cultivated soils, (vii) energy consumption for water pumping, and (viii) increased CO2 emissions from the energy usage related to pumping, transport, machinery, etc.

Relative to those ecological problems, much greater impetus for innovative practices comes from recurrent scarcity of water supply and the prospect of even greater future scarcity and uncertainty. Those problems in turn result from high water-demanding crops and from irrigation scheduling practices. Such decisions are often based solely on farmers’ perceptions; their systems and practices are not monitored to assess the actual performance and efficiency achievements. No systematic technical support is available to growers for their daily or seasonal irrigation planning and scheduling.

Moreover there is detailed evidence of water-use inefficiency at farm level. According to a study of farmers’ irrigation practices in a nearby irrigated area with similar features, there were often mis-matches between crops’ water demand and irrigation applications on several occasions during the season. Although the overall seasonal applied irrigation depths may match a crop’s water demand, farmers often under-irrigate during the early crop stages and over-irrigate during later stages; many choose inadequate timings and application depths. Such inadequate applications may be combined with uneven in-field water distribution, often due to the average low uniformity of irrigation systems—especially when not properly designed, evaluated and maintained; consequently, the farm may have up to 20% lower crop yields and income, along with inefficiencies between 20 and 40% due to excessive water applications (Zaccaria et al., 2010). As the main reason for the mismatch, irrigation scheduling practices are based only on farmers’ perceptions and experiences; missing is status monitoring of soil or plant water, use of ET-based irrigation scheduling, or any other quantitative techniques (ibid). This study confirms a general problem of water-inefficient practices, as also found in the wider technical literature (e.g. Hanson et al., 1995, Hanson et al., 1996, Burt, 2004, Salvador et al., 2011; see Section 1).

3.2. Innovative practices for stakeholders’ consideration

Resource-efficiency could be enhanced by properly utilising several innovative technologies and practices. As listed in Table 1, several feasible options are already installed and implemented in the Sinistra Ofanto area, i.e. along the water conveyance and distribution system or on some progressive farms, but require either some refinements or significant operational improvements to gain their full economic and environmental benefits.

What are Water Filters?

Water Filters remove unwanted impurities from water such as sediment, taste and odor, hardness, and bacteria to result in better quality water. From producing better-tasting drinking water to more specialist applications such as brewing coffee and making crystal clear ice, we offer a huge range of filters and cartridges to solve any number of water-related issues.

The 5 Types of Filters

Subject to your application, i.e. what you’re trying to remove or in some circumstances trying to stop, there are 5 types of water filters:

1. Mechanical Filters
2. Absorption Filters
3. Sequestration Filters
4. Ion Exchange Filters
5. Reverse Osmosis Filters

Each one of these addresses a different water problem and many filters actually use a combination of these methods to perform multiple levels of filtration.

How Do They Work?

Water is one of the most important substances on the planet, it covers 71% of the Earth’s surface and the human body can contain as much as 75% of the stuff. Water is vital to a huge number of applications including agriculture, science, medical, transportation, heating, recreation, and food processing as well as washing, and perhaps most important of all: drinking.

For the majority of us, drinking water comes from a treated municipal supply that is safe to drink but will often feature unpleasant tastes and odors from chemicals such as chlorine which are used to disinfect the water and keep it free of germs and bacteria. Depending on where you live, you may also find that your mains water causes limescale deposits to form which can block pipes and damage appliances. These issues, chlorine taste/odor, and limescale formation are just two among a host of other common water problems which can be solved by water filtration. But how do water filters actually work?

Mechanical

The basic idea of mechanical filtration is to physically remove sediment, dirt or any particles in the water using a barrier. Mechanical filters can be anything from a basic mesh that filters out large debris to a ceramic filter that has an extremely complex pore structure for ultra-fine filtration of pathogenic organisms.

A filter that utilizes mechanical filtration will usually be given a micron rating which indicates how effective the filters are in terms of the size of the particles it is capable of removing. Common ratings you might see include:

• 5 micron – Will remove most particles visible to the naked eye.
• 1 micron – Will remove particles that are too small to see without a microscope.
• 0.5 micron – Will remove cysts (giardia and cryptosporidium).

 

Absorption

Absorption in water filters is most commonly carried out by carbon, which is highly effective at capturing water-borne contaminants. The reason carbon absorbs contaminants so readily is that it has a huge internal surface that is jam-packed with nooks and crannies that can trap chemical impurities such as chlorine.

Most common domestic filters contain granular activated carbon (GAC) which reduces unwanted tastes and odors by absorption. More expensive filters use carbon block elements which are generally more effective and usually carry a micron rating for particle removal.

A variety of different substances can be used to make carbon for filters including wood and coconut shell, with coconut shell filters being more effective but also more expensive.

 

Sequestration

Sequestration is the action of chemically isolating a substance. Food grade polyphosphate is commonly used in scale inhibiting filters to sequester the calcium and magnesium minerals that cause limescale and corrosion. However, polyphosphate is generally only introduced in very small amounts and it only inhibits scale rather than eradicating it. This means that polyphosphate does not soften the water but instead works to keep the minerals within the solution, preventing them from forming as scale on any surfaces they come into contact with.

Due to the hard minerals still being present in the water, scale inhibition isn’t suitable for all applications. Instead, water softening using a process such as an ion exchange is usually recommended in water areas with alkalinity levels of 180ppm or more (very hard water) and applications where water is kept at a constant temperature of 95°C or more.

 

Ion Exchange

Ion exchange is a process used to soften hard water by exchanging the magnesium and calcium ions found in hard water with other ions such as sodium or hydrogen ions. Unlike scale inhibition, ion exchange physically removes the hard minerals, reducing limescale and making the water suitable for applications where it is kept at a constant high temperature e.g. in commercial coffee machines.

Ion exchange is most commonly carried out using an ion exchange resin which normally comes in the form of small beads. A similar type of resin is used in some Water Softeners and in the case of a water softener the resin utilizes sodium ions which need to be periodically recharged to prevent the resin from becoming ineffective. As water filters are usually sealed units you would simply replace the filter with a new one though it should be noted that
Calcium Treatment Units (CTUs) can be returned to the supplier and regenerated.

Resins that utilize sodium ions aren’t usually used in drinking water filters as the amount of salt (sodium) that can be present in drinking water is legally limited to 200 milligrams/liter. As sodium ion exchange increases salt levels, a hydrogen-based ion exchange resin is the preferred option for filters.

Reverse Osmosis

Reverse osmosis (RO) is the process of removing dissolved inorganic solids (such as magnesium and calcium ions) from water by forcing it through a semipermeable membrane under pressure so that the water passes through but most of the contaminants are left behind.

Reverse osmosis is a highly effective way of purifying water and is usually combined with a number of other filters such as a mechanical (sediment) filter and an absorption (activated carbon) filter in order to return water with few contaminants remaining.

Reverse osmosis systems use water pressure to force water through the membrane so it uses no electricity, though a certain amount of wastewater is produced that has to be sent to the drain. The extra filters involved in multi-stage water filtration can make a reverse osmosis unit more expensive than other filtration methods but in applications where 99.9% pure water is required, RO offers the finest level of filtration available as is increasingly being used to treat water made for Coffee

Combinations

Each filtration method has limitations on what it can remove, so most water filters or filtration systems use a combination of methods to achieve a specific level of water purity. To give an example, household water jug filters will generally use mechanical, absorption, and ion-exchange whereas inline filters will utilize mechanically and absorption with the possible inclusion of sequestration if the filter is designed to inhibit scale. Reverse osmosis systems can utilize mechanically, absorption, and of course, reverse osmosis depending on how many stages the RO system has.

By understanding the five different methods by which water can be filtered and the way they can be combined, you should hopefully find it easier to establish which kind of filters you need for any given application.

Water Filter Systems

Water Filter systems remove unwanted tastes and odors from mains water to provide clean, fresh-tasting water straight from your tap. Domestic systems such as a Watergem are compact and easy to install under a sink or small space. Commercial water filter systems are slightly different depending on the use in the kitchen or on the specialty equipment. Water filter systems come fully equipped with the kit to get you set up and tapped into the existing water line.

Coffee Machine Water Filters

Water is imperative in making the perfect coffee. Normal filtration rules don’t apply to the coffee bean which needs a very special blend of minerals before it will release its full flavor. This, complete with protecting and cleaning expensive espresso machinery means coffee machine filters are another level, luckily we are well equipped to handle coffee machine water filters

Inline Water Filters

Inline filters sit directly on the water line or appliance and the water passes through the filter before reaching the tap or appliance. Commonly used in households this type of filtration is perfect for under-sink installations due to its small size.

Inline filters can reduce common problems with municipal water such as chlorine taste, odor, and bacteria’s providing bottled water tasting water without the plastic waste. The Hydro + range of inline water filters is one of Europe’s top-selling filters.

Drop-In Filters

Drop-in filters are made to fit inside of a water filter housing. Housings vary depending on the use but the most common sizes are 10″ and 20″. We also stock Jumbo housings and the Watts Big Bubba housing

Fridge Filters

Fridge filters are required to filter the feed water coming through to the drinking water and ice mechanism. Most commonly found on American-style fridge freezers, the size and compatibility of the filter vary depending on the make/model and style of the fridge freezer.

Water Filters for Commercial Foodservice

Combi ovens rely on good quality water for their steam. The chemical reaction of poor-quality water being heated to produce steam or hot water is a main contributing factor of causing limescale which can lead to breakdowns. Everpure Claris is one of the most trusted brands and supplies catering equipment manufacturers and their service partners tailored combi oven filters

The world is running out of clean, fresh water to feed—and nourish—a growing global population, ensure sustainable development, and maintain the health of our planet. There is not enough water—as currently managed—to adequately sustain the world’s population and end hunger and malnutrition. Therefore, better water management is crucial to global food and nutrition security.

Obviously, irrigation is key to increasing food production and farm income and improves resilience against weather variability. But water also affects food security and nutrition through other pathways. More precise irrigation management increases not just the volume but also the diversity of food that can be produced, including dry season crops and micronutrient-rich foods such as fruits and vegetables. Improvements in the proximity and cleanliness of water sources and technologies for water extraction supports women’s empowerment and well-being, saving time and improving health. Effective management of multiple uses of water and wastewater reduces exposure to fecal contamination and the risk of infectious diseases.

To contribute decisively to ending hunger, water management, policies and investments must overcome daunting challenges. Rising global population, incomes, and urbanization are driving strong and diversified growth in food and water demand—and intensified competition for water within agriculture and across agricultural, domestic, and industrial uses. The global population is projected to reach 9.8 billion by 2050, with by far the largest growth occurring in Africa and South Asia, where food security problems are the most severe. Meanwhile, rising incomes and urbanization will increase demand for meat and more nutritious diets—and therefore more water for livestock feed, and the need for more precise water management for fruits and vegetables.

Rapid urbanization also boosts water demand for household and industry, creating competition with irrigation in important water-scarce agricultural regions. That competition can turn into outright conflict, disrupting local livelihoods and triggering migration and transborder disputes.

Developing new sources of water to alleviate competition is difficult: the cost of developing water for irrigation and other uses is increasing, as the more accessible sources have already been utilized.

Even projected increases in global production of cereals of 37% between 2010 and 2050, meat by 66%, and fruits and vegetables by 85%, progress on hunger and nutrition will be too slow, Water scarcity could compound this problem, further jeopardizing production growth and continued progress on hunger and nutrition.

Climate change presents another serious challenge. Climate impacts across the entire water cycle could substantially slow progress on water management, agricultural production, and food and nutrition.  Increased variability in rainfall and streamflow, reduced rainfall in many dry regions, and thirstier crops due to higher temperatures will all require new policies and management to create more predictable and precise supplies of water. Sea level rise will lead to inundation and salt water intrusion in existing irrigated and rainfed areas, putting further pressure on the land base.

Intensive groundwater pumping for irrigation has depleted aquifers in many arid and semiarid agricultural regions, leading to saltwater intrusion and declining water tables. India’s Green Revolution, for example, relied on irrigation to greatly improve productivity, but it also massively reduced groundwater reserves.

Finally, water pollution in both agricultural and non-agricultural sectors damages health and nutrition and reduces food production, constraining agricultural and economic development, especially in densely populated regions where water is already scarce and wastewater treatment is poor.

These global water security challenges are immense—as are the risks of inaction. But they can be overcome. If this vital resource is properly managed, it will be possible to meet both the food and water needs of current generations and begin building a sustainable, nourishing food system for the future.

The broad strategies outlined below can guide the design of regional and local priorities and begin to move the world toward greater food and nutrition security.

• Water rights. The establishment of secure water rights is fundamental to improving water management. This means ensuring recognition of existing formal and informal rights and gender equity, to empower farmers and provide a framework for water management that is more effective and equitable. When small farmers have secure water rights, they know that they can retain access while investing in farm improvement, new crop varieties, and improved irrigation technology and crop management – all of which can change water use patterns. Physical controls on water usage, including rationing or quotas through enforcement of water rights, can maintain or reduce basin-wide water use after new technologies are introduced.
• Incentives encouraging efficient water use. These include water brokering to water user associations (WUAs); paying farmers for reduced water use; and payment for environmental services to integrated soil and water management or upper watershed management that improves downstream water quality.
• Reducing high subsidies for water, energy, and fertilizer use. These general support programs have caused overuse of these resources and environmental degradation. Cutting them can encourage the adoption of conservation incentives and practices, as well as the uptake of new technologies. The money governments save should be invested in increased agricultural and water research and development to boost productivity growth; in compensatory income support to small farmers; and in carefully targeted smart subsidies to achieve specific water management goals such as initial adoption of efficient technologies.  Thanks to rapidly increasing access to information and communication technologies, smart cards or phones can be used for the efficient transfer of compensatory funds to small farmers.
• Reform education and extension systems. These should be overhauled to increase gender-sensitive farmer knowledge, disseminate information, and improve adoption of appropriate existing and new water technologies. Radio, TV, social media, mobile phones, and other advanced information and communication technologies can be used to reach farmers quickly and directly. Decentralized, demand-driven, and participatory extension services with increased participation by the private sector, NGOs, WUAs and producer organizations can engage farmers in programs whose goals coincide with their own.
• Better data collection and mapping. Public-private partnerships are needed to develop satellite-based remote sensing and ground sensors to map groundwater and measure water availability and use; integrated information processing and dissemination of this information can inform real-time water and crop management decisions. In addition, increased public and private investments in infrastructure – including rural roads, cold chains, and water recycling and re-use – would reduce postharvest losses of food and water and increase farmer incomes.
• Expand small-scale irrigation. Although some potential still exists for large-scale irrigation, the emphasis should be on selective investment in farmer-led small-scale irrigation, particularly in Africa south of the Sahara. This will require targeted access to credit, weather insurance, and smart subsidies during the initial adoption stage.
• Reduce international trade and macroeconomic distortions. Addressing this problem will become more urgent as climate change increases the reliance of many developing countries on food imports. As water scarcity worsens and climate variability increases, imports of food (and the virtual water embodied in that food) will be crucial in water-scarce areas to ensure food security and to facilitate short-term term imports to address food shortages caused by weather-induced production shortfalls.
• Promote balanced diets for health and sustainability. This should include encouraging more responsible water use through collective action across government and business. Schools can be a platform for early nutrition education, fostering healthy eating behaviors in school meals; corporations can convey positive health messages and promote healthier sourcing and products; and health and nutrition campaigns can improve diets and nutrition by carefully targeting populations, communication activities and channels, message content and presentation.

These policy reforms and investments will be difficult to implement and take time, political commitment, and money. Prevailing policies have strong constituencies that can be resistant to change. But overcoming these challenges will only get harder the longer they go unaddressed. The time to act on fundamental reform of water policies for food and nutrition security is now.

Mark Rosegrant is Research Fellow Emeritus with IFPRI’s Director General’s Office. This post first appeared on the Chicago Council blog. Join the Council June 13 for a related event: Water and Sustainability – The Coversation Continues. 

Water is an absolute necessity of life. It takes about 60% of your body and is involved in many essential body functions ranging from regulating body temperature to flushing out toxins and protecting body tissues, joints as well as the spinal cord. Water also plays a critical role in carrying out many of the body’s chemical reactions. Without water, parts of your body such as the skin would lack its proper shape and fullness. This article will go into detail about the importance of water filtration so that you’re drinking the best quality of your water to keep you healthy.

Importance of Water Filtration and Purification

Due to the high risk associated with impure water, the demand for water filtration has never been higher. Our natural resources are also under pressure, as we grapple with pollution, climate change, and a rapidly growing population. Unfortunately, tap water, which is meant to be safe for drinking, can be quite harmful as contaminants affect overall water quality.  Additionally, physical, chemical and microbiological impurities from various water sources make water even more unsafe for consumption.

Boiling water used to be sufficient enough to kill many germs and bacteria, making it safe to consume. However, things have since changed as boiling water, even for more than 20 minutes will not get rid of new age contaminants such as pesticides and other dangerous chemicals that find their way into our water sources. That’s why it’s crucial to understand the importance of water filtration, and purification options to keep your families drinking water safe. Water filters remove bacteria and harmful chemicals which can cause diseases and poor health. Here are some of the reasons to filter your water:

Reasons to Filter Your Tap Water

1. Filtering water can result in not only better tasting, but also better smelling water by removing chemicals, pesticides, chlorine, bacterial contaminants and heavy metals.
2. Point-of-use water treatment filters remove a wide range of contaminants from drinking water including chlorine, chemicals, and up to 240 other volatile organic compounds.
3. Research has established that water filters reduce the risk of certain cancers including colon cancer, rectal cancer, and bladder cancer by ridding water of chlorine and chlorine by-products.
4. Carbon water filters are designed to selectively remove toxic contaminants from drinking water and still retain healthy mineral deposits that help to balance the pH of drinking water.
5. By removing giardia, e-coli and cryptosporidium, water purification systems like reverse osmosis technology have been shown to reduce the risk of gastrointestinal disease by more than 80%.
6. Filtered water is vital for children as it provides, clean, healthy water that’s essential for their immune systems.
7. Water filters act as the last line of defense against over 2,100 known toxins that may enter the body through drinking water.
8. Drinking clean, filtered water leads to general overall wellbeing and also helps to prevent disease.

Bottom Line

Given the significance of water in sustaining life, it’s no surprise that access to clean water is a basic human right. Your body needs safe drinking water for it to remain healthy. Impure water, on the other hand, can be very deadly. That’s why the importance of water filtration is incredibly high. Water filtration experts at our service will be able to help you with anything ranging from whole-house water filtration systems to water softeners to improve the water quality in your home.