96
6 Applications
Table 6.5 Input data for the urban example of equality and conservation
Item
L3/T/person
L3/T
Comments
M1 population
800,000
M2 population
200,000
Total population
1,000,000
VU
30,000,000
DSreq, min
3,000,000 minimum downstream required
Amin threshold
10
2,000,000 Target A for M2
Min threshold
20
16,000,000 Target B for M1
Min threshold
20
4,000,000 Target B for M2
Max threshold
45
36,000,000 Target C for M1
Amax threshold
48
38,400,000 for M1
M1
35
28,000,000
M2
7
1,400,000 Sg13; PtII
M1+M2 (VA)
29,400,000
downstream after VA
600,000 downstream after VA is not ok
VD
24,120,000 assuming 80% return (RF)
To solve these problems, we recognize that G is in segment 13, which belongs
to Policy type II – PtII (Table 5.6). Table 6.6 presents three steps to highlight the
processes that lead to solving the two issues. The numbers are demonstrative and the
comments on them are self-explanatory having in mind the subsection in Chap. 5 on
PtII. The following points are also helpful in understanding the table.
• There are two different Min thresholds in the volume column per time (L
3 T
−1 )
because M1 and M2 population are different.
• Reaf is first calculated using Eq. 5.1) and then should be adjusted in a reflection
meeting with the stakeholders (Sect. 3.2).
• First step takes M2 out of the Extreme Water Poverty with a little help from M1,
which can happen by reallocating 5% of its excess water.
• Second step takes M2 out of Water Poverty into Water Wise by reallocating 17.6%
of M1 water. This puts both M1 and M2 in Water Wise category with M1 still in
a more comfortable condition.
• Third step deals with the downstream problem. In solving this question the Reaf
that is assumed should be greater than or equal to (VA + DS req, min − VU)/ZW1.
In reality and as was explained (Sect. 5.6) its value depends on the consensus of
water managers and M1 population.
• In this simple and widespread problem, the final solution satisfies DS req, min and
allocates about 23 and 4 million to M1 and M2, respectively, pushing the system
toward equality. Since both are in Sg33, PtIV should be followed and the Sefficiency of the urban WUS analysed (Sect. 1.2). In pursuing system efficiency,
M2 and downstream water should not go below the Min threshold and DS req, min ,
respectively.
6 Applications
Table 6.5 Input data for the urban example of equality and conservation
Item
L3/T/person
L3/T
Comments
M1 population
800,000
M2 population
200,000
Total population
1,000,000
VU
30,000,000
DSreq, min
3,000,000 minimum downstream required
Amin threshold
10
2,000,000 Target A for M2
Min threshold
20
16,000,000 Target B for M1
Min threshold
20
4,000,000 Target B for M2
Max threshold
45
36,000,000 Target C for M1
Amax threshold
48
38,400,000 for M1
M1
35
28,000,000
M2
7
1,400,000 Sg13; PtII
M1+M2 (VA)
29,400,000
downstream after VA
600,000 downstream after VA is not ok
VD
24,120,000 assuming 80% return (RF)
To solve these problems, we recognize that G is in segment 13, which belongs
to Policy type II – PtII (Table 5.6). Table 6.6 presents three steps to highlight the
processes that lead to solving the two issues. The numbers are demonstrative and the
comments on them are self-explanatory having in mind the subsection in Chap. 5 on
PtII. The following points are also helpful in understanding the table.
• There are two different Min thresholds in the volume column per time (L
3 T
−1 )
because M1 and M2 population are different.
• Reaf is first calculated using Eq. 5.1) and then should be adjusted in a reflection
meeting with the stakeholders (Sect. 3.2).
• First step takes M2 out of the Extreme Water Poverty with a little help from M1,
which can happen by reallocating 5% of its excess water.
• Second step takes M2 out of Water Poverty into Water Wise by reallocating 17.6%
of M1 water. This puts both M1 and M2 in Water Wise category with M1 still in
a more comfortable condition.
• Third step deals with the downstream problem. In solving this question the Reaf
that is assumed should be greater than or equal to (VA + DS req, min − VU)/ZW1.
In reality and as was explained (Sect. 5.6) its value depends on the consensus of
water managers and M1 population.
• In this simple and widespread problem, the final solution satisfies DS req, min and
allocates about 23 and 4 million to M1 and M2, respectively, pushing the system
toward equality. Since both are in Sg33, PtIV should be followed and the Sefficiency of the urban WUS analysed (Sect. 1.2). In pursuing system efficiency,
M2 and downstream water should not go below the Min threshold and DS req, min ,
respectively.