By Rachel Bronsther
Contributing Writer

Kenneth M. Strzepek from the University of Colorado presented his views on global water development in a lecture entitled, "Integrated Assessment of Global Environmental Change: From Climate Change, Water Resources, to AIDS," on Monday night. 

The lecture was the second in a series being underwritten by the Schulman Foundation. 

Strzepek is an associate professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, a visiting teaching faculty in the Department of Economics and an affiliate faculty in the College of
Architecture and Planning at the University of Colorado.

He is currently the team leader for the Methodological Development for new UN World Water Development Report to be released at "Earth Summit+10", also known as "Rio+10", and on
the steering committee of the Comprehensive Assessment of the Global Impact of Irrigated Agriculture. 

"He’s pretty qualified," said Professor of Economics Gary Yohe.

In 2002 world leaders are planning on meeting for "Earth Summit+10", a conference with the agenda of examining how society is progressing towards meeting the goals set forth at the
Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, at which time they drafted Agenda 21, a reference book on the environment titled "Program for Action for Sustainable Development". 

"Some goals were set, and since then they’ve been trying to meet these goals," Strzepek said at the summit.

Stzepek’s lecture addressed the issues found in Agenda 21. These included climate change, freshwater resources and human health. 

"The talk I am about to give is from an aqua-centric point of view," Stzepek said at the start of the lecture. "It’s going to have a water bias, which is probably why it’s snowing."

Although Monday night was hit by a snowstorm, at least 40 people showed up for the talk.

The first case study Stzepek presented was of the globe. On Earth, there are 40, 700 km3 of fresh water, but 20% exists in regions that are too remote, which leaves 32,900 km3 of fresh
water technically available to people. 

"We have twice as much sustainable [water] as we use, maybe. There are people who look at this and say, let’s develop, while others say look we’ve taken too much, we need to put this
back," Strzepek said.

"We are not in a global water crisis, but we do have hot spots where there isn’t enough water. In regards to L.A., for example, they shouldn’t be there, they steal water from Colorado."

Strzepek addressed the history of global analysis, and said that the Japanese are now taking over a lot of responsibility and providing funds for work in water analysis. The United States,
however, is not very involved in this process. 

"[The US] is an important player that needs to be involved in the process and we don’t know why they aren’t," Strzepek said.

When analyzing the water situation on a global scale, countries are classified as: surplus, not-stress, stressed, and high-stress. The problem with this scale is that it is determined by
country borders, not geographical regions. 

"Over half of the world lives in conditions that are water-stressed," Stzepek said. 

This classification is based on a demand/supply ratio. If a country’s ratio is over 20%, then it is considered stressed, if the ratio is over 40%, then it is under high stress. 

"These numbers are misleading though," Strzepek said. "There’s plenty of water is [southern] Africa, just not where the people are. Their demand/supply ratios are only 5 or 6%. The
national values don’t make sense, even though national numbers have been used for the last 10 years."

The second case study presented was Botswana. In 1995, the use/supply ratio there was 1.1%, while some parts of the country used less than .1%, other parts used 7.6%, and water
stress there is actually at a demand/supply ratio of 73.1%.

"We need to take into account how much water nature needs. The globe said there is no water problem, but when we take into account nature’s needs, we find problems. You need to
look at things on a more accurate scale.

"If water is variable, you can’t plan. Usually, in Botswana, when water comes it’s often in excess, flooding and such and then they won’t have water for extended periods of time,"
Strzepek said. 

One possible solution is reservoirs. 

"Are reservoirs good things?" Strzepek asked. "Maybe."

According to Strzepek dams have positive and negative impacts. While they destroy area, places where people live and buildings, they also provide a good water supply.

"We need to look at welfare issues for communities in regard to building dams, if it’s better to have a water shortage or if it’s better to deal with the effects of the dam," Strzepek said.

Strzepek is in favor of integrated analysis which relies on the Population Development Environment (PDE) system. This dictates that all perspectives should be examined when analyzing
anything.

"The perspective that you take on this depends on your view," he said, "but through integrated analysis, you get more correct analyses."

This led the discussion towards the AIDS crisis in Botswana. 

"The tragedy that is going on is going to get worse," Strzepek said. "In Botswana 40% of the population between [ages] 18 and 40 are infected with HIV or AIDS."

Strzepek said many people who are infected are moving to urban areas, because they wish to be closer to medical care. The urban population is growing, but since it looked like the population as a whole had leveled, reservoirs were not built. People use five times more water in a city than in rural areas, which has led to severe water shortages.

This drought has an impact of the AIDS crisis. When there are water shortages, people will turn to poor sources of water. Often, this water is infected with water bacteria called kryptoseridium which causes illness, creating greater suffering especially for those with lowered immune systems.

In Milwaukee this bacteria made its way into the water supply a few years ago, causing 300,000 people to get sick. 300 people died, all of whom had HIV or AIDS.

"The problem of that is not only that just being tragic in Botswana, but 25% of skilled labor could be gone in one year. This would have a devastating effect on the country," Strzepek
said.

"Scale does matter," Strzepek said in conclusion. "You have to look at the people. You have to come to this work being humble, because we really don’t know, we have to work together... Build a solid foundation upon which to build."