one, i think congress should ensure or seek to ensure that there is the disclosure of the aggregate medical data that's being collected on nfl players. i think that's one. and number two, to take up your point earlier, i think it is congress' role to make sure that the business playing field or the other playing fields that businesses engage in is fair. is equal. so when congress assures itself that it has done everything that it can do in order to protect the safety of the people who play this game on the professional level, on the college level or on the youth level, i think that is congress serving its role. >> thank you. i'm about out of time. i'll just let anybody else weigh in on the last minute. anybody else want to weigh in on that. >> i'd like you to help me keep my grandson from being damaged. >> from what?

>> and how would you expect congress to do that? >> i think congress is very creative. i think -- i believe in congress. i believe in the united states. don't get me started on that. but i believe you have power that others of us don't and that's why we elect you to this office. as a constituent with six grandchildren, i'm asking you to please help the youth of our day now and the future football players of tomorrow to stay safe. call it an osha deal, call it anything you want. but they go from being our youth in america to our employees. and we have, i believe, as americans, an obligation to make this a safer sport. >> i appreciate that. the last comment, mr. chairman, as i mentioned, you're not the only person, grant you, i have

7.5 and four kids and i think it's the parents role at the very early age to take care of the safety of their children. i certainly don't think the federal government has a role in intervene in that. but congress may have a role in making sure that there may be some funds for research and development. but getting involved in the every day operation of an nfl football team, congress is not qualified to do that. maybe we should do -- stick to what we know best. with that, thank you, mr. chairman. i'll yield back the remaining portion of my time. >> we discuss things. [laughter] >> debate. >> the chair is pleased now to recognize attorney -- or former subcommittee chair linda sanchez of california. >> is this on? yeah. thank you, mr. chairman.

i want to start by making a comment first on some of the testimony before i move on to the questions that i had. and i want to start with something that mr. goodell said. you were quick to mention some improvements that the league has made in the last two years to try to minimize some of the red tape and some of the hurdles for nfl retirees who are applying for disability benefits. and i just wanted to point out to the skeptics on this dais that the changes that the league made were very much in keeping with some of the suggestions that came out of the subcommittee's hearing on this very issue in june of 2007, which is about two years ago. so for those of you that think congress is ineffective i think the congressional scrutiny might have had a little something to do with some of those positive changes. now, before i get to my questioning, i want to show a brief clip that is courtesy of hbo's real sports. you'ra cassen did a study of several hundred active players.

and reported that the concern overhead injuries is overblown. >> is there any evidence as far as you're concerned that links multiple head injuries among profootball players with depression? >> no. >> with dementia? >> no. >> with early onset of alzheimer's? >> no. >> is there any evidence as of today that that links multiple head injuries with any long-term problem like that? >> in nfl players? >> yeah. >> no. >> oh, and mr. goodell, you're about to be handed a copy of a pamphlet that i believe that is currently distributed to nfl players. and i would ask you to please read the highlighted portion of the pamphlet and if i may ask unanimous consent to also enter it into the record, mr. chairman. >> certainly, without objection. it will be. >> mr. goodell? >> yes, i read it. >> yes, please.

where it starts, if i had had more than one concussion -- >> yes. >> can you read that out loud, please. >> oh, i'm sorry. current research with professional -- >> pardon me, can you back up and read the question and then the answer that's in the pamphlet. >> if i have had more than one concussion i might increase risk for another injury, answer, current research with professional athletes has not shown that having more than one or two concussions leads to permanent problems. with each injury is managed properly. it is important to understand that there's no magic number for how many concussions is too many. >> okay. thank you. now, the questions that i have for you is, i'm a little concerned and i hear the concern expressed by some of the witnesses on the panel today. that the nfl sort of has this kind of blanket denial or minimizing of the fact that there may be this, you know, link.

and it sort of reminds me of the tobacco companies pre '90s when they kept saying oh, there's no link between smoking and damage to your health or ill health effects. and they were forced to admit that was incorrect through a spate of litigation in the 1990s. and my question to you is, wouldn't the league be better off legally? and wouldn't high school and college football players be better off if instead of trying to minimize this issue the league took the opposite perspective and said, look, even if there is a risk, however, minuscule that there may be this link we really need to jump on top of it and make kids and parents aware of this so that there isn't this sort of sense that the nfl is really just slow-walking the issue to death by saying well, we've been studying the issue for 15 years. we're going to maybe study it another 15 more years when there's already nonnfl paid-for research that suggests there's

this very high correlation with cognitive impairment. don't you think the league, you know, would be better off legally and that our youth might be a little bit better off in terms of knowledge if you guys just embraced there is research that suggests this and admitted to it? >> well, congresswoman, i do believe that we have embraced the research, and the medical study of this issue. as you point out. >> you're talking about one study and that's the nfl study. you're not talking about the independent studies that have been conducted by other researchers, am i correct, in stating that? >> i'm not sure of your question. >> there are other studies, research and dementia and cte to show there's a link. but again the league seems to downplay that and say, you know, we're conducting our own study and, you know, when we have that study completed then we'll know. >> no. i think what we're doing is because we have to a large extent driven this issue by

making sure that we have medical professionals studying this issue. i am not a medical professional. >> i understand that. and i understand that dr. ira cassen is who, unfortunately, is not here to testify because there are a number of really great questions i would have loved to ask him and i would think as the person who is spearheading the research and the one who is individually examining the players who will participate in this study, i think it really would have been important for him to be here today and i hope in the future -- maybe you didn't get asked to have him here today but i think in the future it'd be, you know, really appreciated by the congress if you could ask him to come so that we could put specific medical questions to him because, you know, without him here, i'm not going to get medical answers out of you and that's very clear to me. but i just want to briefly go through one of the big issues with respect to the research that's currently underway by the nfl. there are other professionals

who have looked at the methodology and some of the concerns have been already raised but i want to kind of go through them again. one of the criticisms of the study is that the statistical comparison is going to be between professional football players and people who played football in college. that's sort of like comparing two pack a day smokers with one pack a day smokers to see what the differences are instead of two pack a day smokers with the general population to see whether there's an increased risk of the activity that they're participating in to their health. so that's been an issue that i think merits your going back and talking to the doctors who are conducting this study about trying to tweak in the study. the second thing that really troubles me he is that the subjects are sort of self-selected. you sent out phone calls and letters and asked people to participate. homeless people typically don't have addresses where you can send letters and people with cognitive impairment -- some of the -- some of the, you know,

effects of which are slurred speech, trouble focusing, memory loss, you know, physical incapacity -- they're going to be unlikely to really respond to a phone call or to a letter or to physically -- many of the worst cases be able to travel to new york to be examined by dr. cassen. so i think you guys need to go back and rethink how you're selecting the participants in this so-called unbiased study. and third, and this is probably the most troubling as was exhibited by the clip. it appears dr. cassen, who is the only one again who's going to be examining these former players has already made up a determination of what the conclusion of the study is going to be. so my question is, why are you even going through, you know, the -- you know, charade of presenting the final analysis of going through this study if the determination in my opinion has already been made by dr. cassen and, you know, is denied in the pamphlet that they hand out to

nfl players? >> well, first let me say and i think you stated he's the only one examining these patients in the findings. that is not correct. >> he's not controlling the examinations or the findings. >> i would not say he's controlling that at all, no. >> he's participating in it, though. >> i do not know if he's participating in the examinations. i can find that out. >> and he's been a consultant to the nfl; is that correct? >> he's been on our committee for years. >> and others who have participated in the study have other conflicts of interest. one of the committee members on the concussion committee owns the company has makes and markets mainly through its use by most of the nfl teams the neuropsychological test that's used in the studies; isn't that true? >> i don't know that answer to that question but i'll find out. >> i'm just concerned because there are several people that are part of this study that are nfl-related either being paid by the nfl as consultants or actual employees of the payroll.

>> well, congresswoman, i go back to something that i stated early on in my early remarks. we had a conference in early 2007. and i will submit in the record 20 changes that we made that are significant to our player benefits. and i will submit that. and so we do acknowledge that and we appreciate that but i have also been commissioner for three years. so i want to make sure that that's clear. you're also raising sierra important point. -- raising a very important point. i don't control the output. the doctors we have involved in this i do not judge whether they have a particular view going in and going out. this is a collective group that are tremendous professionals. that have studied this and other issues on a scientific basis and this is part of medical debate and i think it's clear today

there is a significant medical debate about the impact, what that impact is and at what point. as i say, we are trying to move past the medical debate on one level, which is control what we can control and try to bring solutions. >> my suggestion would be and my time has expired. instead of having nfl-connected consultants and doctors that perhaps the true findings of a truly unbiased study would be better conducted by people who have not been on the payroll or not been retained by the nfl in any capacity. and with that, i will thank the chairman for his patience. i will yield back. >> thank you very much. tom rooney of recent amateur football fame -- he's now recognized, the gentleman from florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank representative

weiner for recognizing that the people on the line of scrimmage for allowing you to be heroic in getting the defensive game ball. i'm going to recuse myself from asking questions specifically of the panel. though, i do want to thank you for being here for your testimony today. i like the commissioner played college football at washington and jefferson. also on the other side of the table, although, i see that he's gone now is roommates with merril hoge for a year so i certainly empathize with both sides of this debate. although, like some of my colleagues, i'm not really sure what our role in congress should be in getting involved with the national football league. you know, football is a very violent game. and certainly as one who played it and suffered concussions myself, i can say that those that choose to play football, those who involve themselves with the sport fully understand that.

i will take the liberty briefly to say and to question the statement that was made earlier profootball teams don't care about their players beyond scoring touchdowns. i hope that's not true. i hope that that isn't what was meant. in fact, i know that's not true. beyond this hearing but at least this hearing i will say, mr. chairman, raises the serious issues of safety and head injuries and that's a good thing. and i'm confident that the nfl and the players union will work together to ensure they are doing everything they can to improve the league and improve player safety for years to come. i yield back. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, mr. rooney. and i thank the witnesses. commissioner goodell, in response to a question from the gentleman from new york, mr. weiner, you indicated that the committee never requested

that dr. ira cassen testify. i understand you would like to clarify that response? >> i was handed a note to respond to the congressman and i just been handed another note. tell them you will check further and get back to them in writing tomorrow. so i have not been contacted. >> okay. >> this record will be open for a while so you can submit any -- >> i will check with our staff further. >> well, i want to thank this panel. this has been surprisingly well attended. the views are various. but i think there are some things that we can come to an agreement on about the serious

nature of these injuries and the fact that there is still more that can be done about them. and for that reason i'm in your debt. i'm sorry that we took so long to complete this first panel. i thank you very much. and you're now excused or invited to stay to hear the second panel. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> you're welcome.

>> coming this thanksgiving on c-span, american icons, three nights of c-span original documentaries on the iconic homes of the three branches of american government. beginning thursday night at 8:00 eastern the supreme court home to america's highest court reveals the building in exquisite detail through the eyes of supreme court justices. then friday at 8:00 pm eastern, the white house inside america's most famous home. beyond the velvet ropes of public tours, our visit shows the grand public places as well as those rarely seen spaces. and saturday at 8:00 pm eastern the capitol, the history, art and architecture of one of america's most symbolic structures. american icons, three memorable nights, thursday, friday, and saturday at 8:00 pm eastern on c-span and get your own copy of american icons. a three-disk dvd set. it's $24.95 plus shipping and handling. order online at c-span.org/store.

>> and we're live at the white house now. this is the east room. president obama will welcome manmohan sing which today will feature a meeting in the oval office with the president welcoming the indian prime minister and his wife. we expect joint comments from them shortly. here in the east room of the white house. president obama today also has meetings with nancy pelosi, the speaker of the house in the afternoon, in between with meetings with senior advisors and others. live coverage here on c-span2. [inaudible conversations]7tww

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [applause]

[inaudible conversations] >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. accompanied by his excellency, the prime minister of the republic of india. ♪ ♪

♪ >> ladies and gentlemen, the national anthem of the republic of india followed by the national anthem of the united states of america. ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

>> prime minister singh, members of the indian delegation, on behalf of michelle and myself, it is a great pleasure to welcome you to the white house. on behalf of the american people, it is my great honor to welcome you to the united states. mr. prime minister, yours is the first official state visit of my presidency. and it is fitting that you and india be so recognized. [applause]

>> this visit reflects the high esteem in which i and the american people hold your wise leadership. it reflects the abiding bonds of respect and friendship between our people including our friends in the indian-american community who join us here today. but above all, your visit at this pivotal moment in history speaks to the opportunity before us. to build the relationship between our nations, bourne in the last century of the defining partnerships in the 21st century. for a while our two nations have taken different paths to reach this moment. ours is a common story. it's the story of two proud people who struggled to break free from an empire and declare their independence. two bold experts in democracy, with constitutions that begin with the same simple words, we the people. two great republics dedicated to

the ideals of liberty, justice, equality and the never ending work of perfecting their union. it's the story of two economic marvels fueled by an ethic of hard work and innovation. and today our nations are two global leaders driven, not to dominate other nations but to build a future of security and prosperity for all nations. mr. prime minister, as we work to build that future, india is indispensable. as leading economies, the united states and india can strengthen the global economic recovery, promote trade that creates jobs for both our people and pursue growth that is balanced and sustained. as nuclear powers we can be full partners in preventing the spread of the world's most deadly weapons, securing loose nuclear materials from terrorists and pursuing our shared vision of a world without nuclear weapons. as people who have known the pain and anguish of terrorism,

we can stand together, cooperating to prevent future attacks and promote the development and prosperity that undermines violent extremism. as india becomes an increasingly influential global power, we can partner to meet other transnational challenges developing clean energy partnerships, confronting climate change, stopping infectious disease, reducing hunger and working to end extreme poverty in our time. and as the world's largest democracies we can keep faith with our common values, speaking out and standing up for the rights and dignity to which all human beings are entitled. and showing the nations that respect the rights and aspirations of their people are ultimately more stable, more secure and more successful. this is the india that america welcome back today. a leader in asia and around the world. [applause]

>> these are the challenges we are summoned to meet in partnership. this is the progress that is possible. today and in the days and years ahead. and mr. prime minister, as we build our common future, we can draw strength from our shared past. for it was exactly 60 years ago in a ceremony not unlike this that an american president welcomed to the white house the first prime minister of an independent india. and while the decades that followed were not without their challenges, the spirit of that first visit is with us today. the same sense of possibility, the same hope for the future. so as president truman said of the then-president, it's my privilege to welcome the respected leader of a great nation of free people. and as the prime minister said of the work before them. they are two great nations, find many ways of working together in friendly and fruitful cooperation to our mutual advantage and for the good of

humanity. mr. prime minister, in that spirit i welcome to the united states of america. [applause] >> mr. president, first lady, mrs. obama, thank you very much for your warm words of welcome, mr. president.

my wife and i are deeply honored to be in your great country on the first state visit of your presidency. [applause] >> mr. president, i bring to you and the people of the united states of america the friendly greetings of over 1 billion people of india. [applause] >> india and america are separated by distance but bound together by the self-democracy, feudalism, rule of law and

respect for fundamental human freedoms. over the years, we have built upon these values and created a partnership that is based upon both principle and pragmaticism. . ..

this is a moment of great opportunity in our relationship. india and the united states can and must work together to harness the immense potential of our enterprising people, and support each of us, growth and prosperity. we should cooperate in addressing global challenges of combating terrorism, making our

environment cleaner, and moving towards a world free of nuclear. [applause] >> mr. president, we deeply appreciate your strong, personal commitment to our bilateral relationship. my wife and i are deeply grateful to you, and the first lady, for receiving us during this thanksgiving week. with these words, i once again thank you, mr mr. president. god bless america. god bless india. [applause]

>> president obama welcoming indian prime minister singh to the white house. that is scheduled for 11:35 a.m. eastern. and we will have that for you live on c-span.

>> and more coverage tonight. >> thanksgiving day on c-span at 10 eastern bill clinton is on hand to present steven spielberg with this year's liberty medal from the national constitution center. also stanley greenberg and part of a panel assessing the obama presidency, and from the jfk library and museum nick burns and lesley gill on terrorism and nuclear weapons. at five, hip-hop artist and

actor ludicrous on youth mentoring. coming this thanksgiving on c-span american icon, three nights of c-span or regional documentaries on the iconic homes of the three branches of american government. beginning thursday night at eight eastern, the supreme court, home to america's highest court review of the exquisite detail through the eyes of supreme court justices. then friday at 8 p.m. eastern the white house, inside america's most famous home, beyond the velvet ropes and public to his. our visit shows the grand public places as well as is rarely seen spaces. saturday at 8 p.m. eastern the capital, the history, art and architecture of one of america's most symbolic structures. american icons, three memorable nights, thursday, friday and saturday at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span. get your own copy of american icons, a three disc dvd set.

it is $24.95 plus shipping and handling. order online at c-span.org/store. >> a new report from the water resources predicts a 40% demand in the next 20 years the water resources group is a consortium made up mostly private companies. they hosted a discussion on water monday featuring world bank president robert zoellick, bruce babbitt and others. this is about two and a half hours. >> ladies and gentle and, if i could ask you to please, please take your seats.

good afternoon. my name is bruce moats and i'm the director of communications at ifc. good afternoon. president zelaya, to our distinguished panel is, honored guests, ladies and gentlemen. welcome and thank you for joining us for the launch of the charting of our water resources report. this report was published by the 2030 water resources group which was formed in 2008 to contribute new insights to the issue of growing water scarcity. the group worked to create integrated fact-based report in order to advance a solution driven dialogue among stakeholders. through this project we have a better understanding of the water challenges that we will face in the years to come. what solutions exist, and the cost of those solutions.

the report highlights the importance of collaboration, collaboration between business and finance, as well as collaboration among public and nonprofit sectors. indeed, it was a collaborative effort by a range of organizations from the private and social sectors. and issuing sponsorship for the project came from ifc, a member of the world bank group. mckinsey and company drove the analytical execution and develop the fact-based for the report itself. sponsorship guidance and expertise came from a diverse business consortium, including the group, the coca-cola company, nestlé, sa, sab miller, new holland agriculture, standard chartered bank, syngenta, and the world bank. this afternoons will serve to introduce the public to the work of the water resources group, and act as a catalyst to drive constructive dialogue among the

world decision-makers on water resource issues. wielder presentation of findings from the mckinsey team and a panel of distinguished experts. now i would like to invite the president of the world bank group, robert zoellick, to make some introductory remarks. mr. zoellick. [applause] >> me a untenanted welcome to the world bank for this assayed report charting our water future, which i hope will help change how people think and act about water. over the last century, the world's population has increased threefold. water use has increased six fold. today, over 1 billion people in developing countries lack clean drinking water. and according to the united nations, a child dies from water related disease every 15 seconds. if water use continues at

current levels, today's water supply may well be inadequate to meet the needs over the next few decades. for many countries, there is a real risk of water security and security. so global water security warrants much more attention by government seeking to achieve economic growth and development. and it needs attention now. it's an indication of how widely concerns are about water security and how widely they are shared that the report we are launching today has benefited from support, advice and analysis of so many different groups, drawing from academia, the nonprofit sector, international organizations and of course the private sector. and i see many representatives from those groups here with us today. i would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who have contributed to this report, particularly the 2030 water resources group led by mckinsey and company, ifc, the bank's private sector arm, and comprised of seven private-sector company.

the beretta group, coca-cola company, nestlé's, sab miller, new holland agriculture, standard chartered bank, and syngenta. thank you for your valuable work. having grown up in the american midwest and then moving to the east coast of the united states, i grew up in an environment of plenty of fresh water. it wasn't until i spent some more time in the american west i develop a better sense of the life and death nature of water security. there i could see the effects of water, or its absence, on history, exploration, migration, fauna, and development. water is probably our most valuable resource on earth. that has been overused, underpriced and overbloated. management of the water sector in most countries, the particular in the developing world where capacity is limited and competing demands are many is not received adequate attention. water is the crosscutting issue that affects all key economic

sectors in all countries, but most notably in food and energy security. water scarcity poses a serious threat to food supplies. for example, which has consequences for hunger, poverty, malnutrition, infant health and even conflict. efficient and effective water management is critical for agriculture and industry, which together represent 90 percent of total freshwater used globally. executives and cities have already realized that current water management practices pose unacceptable risks. many businesses are coming to the same conclusion for their industries. impeding pressures between these different groups are contributcontributing to a complex debate about who has access to water, and how it is used. climate change introduces additional uncertainty and stresses for water security much of the world's population already lives in water stressed areas. there is particular concern about the fate of more than one

sixth of the world's population, whose water supply depends on glaciers and river basins at beit melted snow, and will be threatened by a decrease in water volume stored in those glaciers. shaping and then intimating practical water policies will pose a serious challenge in many countries. i believe we're at a point where there is a real opportunity for the public and private sectors to work together based on shared interests to address water scarcity. removing away from the involvement of the private sector in this issue with suspicion, to one where private-sector participation is seen as a critical part of an integrated approach to water resource management. and we are starting to address the questions of why and how water, why they consider it a public good, needs to be priced to ensure effective management. these issues are not easy. but cooperation between the public and private sectors on border security is essential for

effective and sustainable efforts to solve this problem. time is running out. and that's where i hope that charting our water feature can help. the report presents a clear picture of the scale of the water challenge, and the cost of the solution. it also shows for the first time how future demand for water can be met through cost effective measures using existing technologies. it focuses on case studies conducted in china, india, south africa, and brazil, for growing economies with distinctly different water issues. this report aims to assist policymakers wrestling with these issues by giving them a much-needed, fact-based framework for analysis that can help them determine in a particular country context which actions may yield results and what costs and with what trade-offs. for example, in india, a deeper set of all water demand is from the agricultural sector. so the report recommends these

cost solutions in this area such as using your gated and rain fred measures. improved irrigation control and prevarication are not only smart for water management, but they make the land more productive. they save energy, they decrease emissions and they save topsoil. south africa on the other hand presents a completely different situation. their agriculture is expected to account for only 47 percent of demand in 2030, while urbanization and industrial demand will account for 53%. so a south africa water solutions will need to balance shifting demand from rural and urban populations. policymakers will face some difficult trade-offs among industrial activities such as mining, fast-growing urban centers, and agriculture. so this report can help by showing the range of options for addressing water management in each of these areas. how much water they save, and how much they cost. while some of the solutions

proposed in the report involves sophisticated intellectual organization or equipment, many are surprisingly simple and low tech. a metropolitan area such as, which has a high population density, water conservation and management can be significantly improved simply by installing water efficient showerheads. similar gains come from installing efficient toilets and faucets. the good news coming out of this report is that despite the depth and the extent of the challenges facing the water sector, it can be possible to meet competing demands for water without the cost being prohibitive. this kind of tactical measurement is only a starting point for looking at the broader issue of water security. but it does provide policymakers with a picture of water used across the economy. agriculture, industry, municipalities, and of available options and costs. it can help build up an integrated approach to water management that includes both

technical improvements to increase water supplies and measures to increase the productivity of existing water. these tools can open the way for a multi-stakeholder effort to implement sustainable and cost-effective solutions and countries or regions. more importantly, they can help countries avoid expensive mistakes. this report builds on some bible work and analysis the world bank group has already been doing to try to raise awareness and understanding of the challenges to our security, and to develop innovative tools and approaches to try to address this issue. we have been engaged with water security for some years now, from 2006 to 2009, the bank group invested over $15 billion in a water sector. next week on a trip that i'm taking to india, i will be visiting the water sector improvement project which we support with some concessionary financing. this is a project that aims to improve the management of surface and groundwater resources in village communities such as increasing the productivity of irrigated

agriculture. earlier this month, while in singapore, i took time out to visit the marina barrage, freshwater reservoir at the very heart of the city. for a century one of singapore's greatest risk was its dependence on outside reservoirs. today, singapore collects more than half of its rainwater and through new filtering technologies, is seeking to meet close to two thirds of its water needs by 2010. in many countries with coastal areas, rising sea levels may increase salinization of groundwater and estuaries. reducing available fresh water for humans and for ecosystems. so the bank is just completed an analysis of the potential impact of salinization and bangladesh, and measures that can be taken to protect the population. we're also helping some countries to address glacier melting. in bolivia we will be building a reservoir to compensate for the loss of water because of

melting. and in ecuador we are supporting alternative catchments to meet the city's water supply needs. ise is working to increase private sector engagement and investment in the water sector. and as this report shows we see the private sector's playing a key role in water resource management, not only in terms of financing, but critically in terms of efficiency's. private sector experience in operating water systems can bring significant water savings i reducing water use in efficiencies and industry, agriculture, and municipal water systems. these savings can be translated into energy savings which help reduce costs and carbon footprints. for example, one of ifc's private investment is the manila water company, a water and sewage privatization which took over and management of a state-owned utility works in 1997. today with ifc's help manoah water is transformed that public utility into a world-class

provider showing that water privatization can succeed economically, and to deliver for the poorest. is a great example of private sector involvement in water resource management that can provide bible lesson for potential investors. not all eriks reks or others have been so positive. so one of the things that also can help companies and actors do is to identify and manage some of the water related risks. would have been concerned about ensuring access not only to the needed quantity of water, but water of the right quality. just over a third of the complaints dealt with by the cao, ifc's independent accountability and dispute resolution body, are related to water actions. but we want to help companies learn from these experiences and help avoid some of these mistakes. drawing on the work is done with various communities, particularly in peru, cal has published a practical guide for companies on working with communities to him manage water data at the project will.

this guidance is being adopted by the private sector companies, banks, and multilateral finance institutions. at the world bank group, a core part of our water strategy is promoting an integrated approach to managing water resources that involves partnerships between the public and private sector players, and we are moving beyond traditional models focused on distribution to look at the supply-side gains from efficiency measures. but governments are the ones that have to take the lead. efforts to increase water supply needs to be coupled with improved productivity of existing water supplies. as well as ways to reduce and ensure that water by reducing demand. on the demand side we need creative approaches such as property rights that give users an incentive to protect their resources. both users and managers have to be in a position to make informed choices, which means regulated markets, strong institutions, and sharing information at all levels.

so i hope the report that we are launching today can contribute to discussion in all these areas and informed decisions at that level for both public and private sector actors. water is a key development in security issue for the 21st issue. and it's going to require all of us to work together, balanced demands i finance resource to meet the challenges. it will not be easy, but it is vital. so thank you for joining us today, and thank you for your partnership. [applause] >> i apologize. i'm going to have to run but i'm sure what all you're going to see, i had a chance to have some presentations on this order. this is a fantastic product that people have developed. as you look to the country case studies what i said to be most advocate was how these case studies really to show you the very ability for each country.

and believe a policymaker i said about how to approach this problem. so again, i really want to thank our partners and friends at mckinsey. we have done a lot of good work together but this is an excellent example of trying to apply some of the techniques to an issue that i think hasn't gotten enough attention. but it is important that we try to use this event and others to try to raise the profile of an. so thank you all for coming. [applause] >> water is so important. it is absolutely crucial to our growth and sustainability. >> it's also the most important for humankind. >> you can live without

television, without a car, without a bicycle, without extra close. you can't live without water. >> society is, using one of our most precious resources on the planet unsustainably. there are limits to what our natural system can provide and strains are beginning to show. >> the water issue is starting to impact. >> we are increasingly getting periods of drought, drought stress on plants all around the world. >> in australia the amount of water available for use as now 30 percent of what it was 10 years ago. >> in california a lot of the farmers have simply not been able to get the water they need to grow the crops that have historically been grown. >> london has had to consider a plan to cover peaks. >> atlanta is shutting down power plants during hot summer. >> there are signs of stress now, but will will it look like in 20 years if we did not take

concerted action? >> it will be something like a 40% gap between supply and demand on a global scale by 2030. >> nobody says challenging the water problems will be easy but what are the major barriers ahead? how will we overcome them to unlock new and existing solutions? >> the challenge of protecting water resources and using them responsibly is important and extremely competent. >> demand placed on the system are unique to each country. it is estimated that without efficiency gains and 2030, 80 percent of india's total water demand will come from agriculture. in contrast, china's water gap will be driven by the doubling of water demands from both industrial and power generation, as well as an urbanizing middle-class. it will take a mix of innovation of new and existing technologies and techniques, combined with

smart qualities. >> the key thing is that governments have to have the right amount of data, the right quality of data to be up to start making their decisions on the right framework. if they haven't got the right data, then yes, the public sector and private sector has to work together. >> i think it is not an either or. it is having both. >> everybody has a place at this table because the challenge is huge, and simply we need everybody to be involved in. >> although debacle, we need and face a water crisis. the water gap can be closed sustainably and at a reasonable cost. >> i do think it is solvable but we have to act. >> it requires a different kind of thinking. >> with the right technology, the right financial structure, and a key focus, conservation and efficiency, we can reverse the course and alleviate this throughout the world. >> together we must work to

solve the water challenge. our future depends on it. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. my name is usha rao-monari from the international finance corporation. i work in the department, specifically on water. on behalf of the 2030 water resources group i'm absolutely delighted to welcome you to this afternoon's event. particularly to the presentation on the work on the report that the group has produced. i would like to tell you a little bit of a story on why we did this, and how we came together. about a year ago, the world bank

group, mckenzie and a group of private sector companies came together on a common concern about water availability. availability for agriculture, developer industry, for energy, and for our use, for human consumption. we look at some of the numbers out there and we didn't get a complete picture. we were quite worried about the kind of contusions untrimmed conclusions on the basis of what we thought were an incomplete framework of numbers. we then spent the last one year or so putting together an analytical framework, rigorously put together from the basin level up any number of countries, to come up with what we hope is a fact-based vision on looking at the water sector. we hope that the framework that we will present today will be something that will be useful as a tool, in addition to all the other tools that are being used either by country, policy makers or by private investors who are looking for opportunities to

engage in the water sector. it is my great pleasure to introduce the two colleagues from mckenzie have been leading this work along with ourselves, martin and giulio boccaletti will present the work this afternoon. thank you very much. [applause]

>> a good afternoon. my name is martin. it is a great privilege for me to have the opportunity to gather with my colleague, giulio boccaletti, to present the results of our joint project. it has been a long project. and has been by all standards demanding project, it has been a very complex and the number of people involved, some of it amongst us today, is just unending and it is a good moment to thank everyone of you for the guidance, particularly those in our advisory group. i fully understand that all if you have read reports on water. all of you have been listening to presentations on water. because you care about water you invest in water. you write about water. you are shaping the public sector agenda of the civil society agenda. and still, i hope i am not ahead of myself in saying that we

sense that there is a joint sentiment, a sentiment of disenchantment is not a sentiment of frustration, of how the water sector has been stalled over the recent decade and how little progress there has been in something which is our most precious resource. the public sector might be disenchanted because the institution is deadlocked. it seems so difficult to overcome at times. private sector or corporate players may be disenchanted because their risk and their exposure to their production, but also to their license to operate an activist might just listen to. so over the recent months in doing this work we have failed increasing length startled, if not alarm, by some of the findings we made. but also, no one to say that we've also been -- we're very

hopeful and confident by some of finds that we have made. i would like to use the next 20 minutes to introduce you to our findings. we have had a chance over the last 12 months to build a huge database on the economics of water. and out of all of those data and findings we believe that there are three messages that stick out. the first one is that the water scarcity and the water challenge is real. is happening today, and the gaps between demand and supply is increasing at an accelerating speed. the second point that our research supports is that the old ways don't work anymore. we cannot continue any business as usual way. the third finding that we want to share with you is a hopeful one. because we believe that if they cost effectiveness solution to the water problem, however that

solution is settled differently from the solution that we look at in the past. it is distributed across the entire economy, and that's why it takes a completely new and a radical approach that we have to adopt in order to overcome the water challenge. so the first question that we ask ourselves is the water challenge real, and how big is the gap? giulio. >> naked very much. what is the situation and how big is the gap? lettuce considers how much water of using today, how much are we using in the economy today? today which i played about 4005 kilometers of water withdrawn across the country. this is agriculture, industry, 4500 kilometers cube waters drawn. as with project forward, we assume the economy stayed the same efficiency levels that we have today. we don't know anything to it if we let it go as if nothing were constraining it. by 2030, 2030 we land somewhere

around 7000 kilometers cubes of water demanded. visit for the entire economy unrestrained. agriculture, infrastructure, everything. the question is what should we compare this number against? will we have enough water to meet the demand represented by this future economy? in reality the number we should be comparing this against is not obviously the total number of molecules of water would have in the world. that's not the relevant number. the relevant number is what we have enough water to meet the demand where and when they are needed. where and when it is neither do we have enough water where and when it is needed? so the question how much water we have today, where and when it is needed, that is around 4200 kilometers cubes of water because the amount of water where and when it is needed at a certain level of a liability. so if nothing is done, and i want to stress this, we will face a gap of 40% globally by 20 projected demand and the amount of water that we can deliver. this gap will not happen if

something will close, and the question is how will they close it self? with a close by kirby and amanda will close by supply? how we close that gap? 40% will become that is the number. we know that water is not a global issue. is just the sum of many local issues. so if we now look at a different picture and would break that down, we break down the demand and supply picture by region, by basing that we look at 150 regions in the world that are shown here on this curve. on the fourth ou can see a population of the world from zero to 100 percent of each block is a region or a macro basin. on the vertical access, you see the gap. the gap i just described. the gap between demand and 2030 and the supply that we are able to deliver where and when it is needed. as you can see, a good third of the relation, the people that live in the blue boxes, if you will, actually live in basins where that gap is bigger than

50%. in some cases it goes up to 75%. 75% or more demand met with the current available supply. in some cases, cases like india and china we have to look even greater detail. so we went to the baselevel. the story repeats itself. this is a story of a difference between bases or not. in some cases large gaps. so we look at this global picture with fragmented across the hundred and 54 basin and we asked which look at a specific case studies, specific case studies that can tell us how the water challenge changes. the water challenge is different across many countries. so we look at china, a fraction of world gdp today and 2030 with that india and its agriculture challenges. we look at south africa and the challenge of meeting the man. we look at the macro metropolitan area of são paulo.

so let's look at some of these. india for example. this is a picture for any and 2030. these are the gaps and 2030, india. as you can see most of the basins, most will face a gap in 2030. what is driving that gap you can ask. what is causing the increase in demand, and the answer of course is a growing consumption, growing needs, growing withdrawals of water of agriculture. today agriculture requires around 700 kilometers cube of water to primary by rice, wheat, sugar. by 2030 come again, if we maintain the same practices and just go with the cultural use, forward we find that the economy, india's economy, will require almost 1200 kilometers cube of water. on agricultural store in india, is water soli and agricultural story though? no, and lest you think it is let us look at the case of china.

china, 2030. similar strike exum the main basins in china, all face gaps again different strains out of 2030. what is driving those? in that case agriculture plays the accordance, an important role of course but the growth in the demand, the growth is industry and municipal. at least half of that withdrawal from and social processes is for power, power generation. so the second question we ask ourselves, can we allow ourselves to continue in a business as usual. and the answer is looking at the historical improvements is simply no, we can't. let me tell you why. here we are looking at the water to that giulio has described it is going to be about 3000 kilometers cube in 2030 and the gap is widening and the speed of lightning is increasing. it has to do with essentially

stable supply but at the same time driven by economic population growth, driven by changes in dietary and also in the increasing water intensity of the energy sector. we ask ourselves could it be that suppliers could be helping us to close the wage that we see in front of us as we look at 2030. and what we find if we continue to increase our supply infrastructure is going to close 20 percent of the gap. so the second question as we ask ourselves is operation, is that improvements in water productivity that actual help us to close the gap. again, if we assume historical rates in the improvements here we'll have another 20%. so we are effectively left with a 60% remaining gap for which we don't have good answer. i'm sure that we all agree for something that is so essential for our economic, or social and environmental well being, we cannot afford not to have a good

answer for 60 percent of which 60% just to put it in numbers comes to close to 2000 kilometers cubes with 50 percent of all withdrawals that humanity is using today. so what did we do in the past, business as usual, what can we do in the past. in the past that essentially two answers, and both of them. the first and has been one thing that the study can't ambiguously show is that the marginal cost of additional supply for water are exploding. we expect that if we wanted to close the wedge just like supply-side measures the cost, it would be any area of 200 billion u.s. dollars prohibitively. the second answer that we had in the past is basically just to let the man go unmet, which again with regards to the opportunity cost to social economic seems to be an unviable solution.

so what do discussions with many of you have actually surfaced, and what the question is that keeps water ministers of sleep that night, or a wake at night or finance ministers are sometimes prime ministers, is there a third way? is there a better way to manage water and to move towards what we call a blue economy. is to question on top of their my. first, do we have an opportunity to close the gap and secondly watched the cost of it? during our work we found all kinds of disjoined piecemeal solutions that there's a lot hypothesis and a lot of information about all the different leaders about desalinization. their stock speculations around it. about integrated management, what was missing in the full answer, to our understanding was a framework that helps you to organize to answer the two big questions, can we close the gap

and what will it cost to close the gap? what the team came up with is an organizing framework we wanted to go the water availability cost. what it does, it assembled all the available levers that we do have to close the water gap essentially in one chance. all believers means not just does a highside levers but the supply-side levers as a efficiency drivers in agriculture but also in industry but also in municipal use like the more innovative showerheads that have been mentioned. so in also looking at these levers from all the sectors it is looking at the levers according to a very stringent definition so that you can make them comparable. so that's what he does pick and then it is describing those levers to force along the horizontal access, we are trying to quantify what's the point increment that this brings to the solution or to the closure of the water gap? imprecisely describing it along

the vertical and what is the cost and let those levers for the water user? and what we found startling was the fact that some of those measures in fact give you a net gain so you don't pay for them. in fact, they give you a net gain because water saving and cost savings go hand-in-hand if it is not causing, there is additional revenue that if you increase the productivity of your crop for example, so you might find all that very technical, and it is. at the same time it puts us in a unique position to elevate the quality of the dialogue with key decision-makers because it's able to answer that to question. first, can you close the gap and the answer is yes. the captors indicated at the gray shade on the curve which is again country by country specific. and the answer is yes, even on the basis of two technology close to get. the second question can we pay for it? and here again, just like all of

because of the different levers we come back with a number. we want to make one comment up front. we are not saying that she do have to implement all of those levers from the left to the right. because there are many reasons not to do it because each of those levers is a very complicated animal. because you might not have the political means that you might not have the capital in order to do that. what we do want to state you should make a water decision without knowing what you are foregoing if you don't, if you let go of one lever, and to what extent you are increasing the average cost of your total water solution. that's what we are after. let us see how this works in practice. as giulio said we looked at four geographies. and just like looking at it you find that the solution has very different patterns.

china, india, são paulo, south africa, india has a very yellow solution because that's the color we chose for agriculture. so here most of the solution comes from the agriculture sector that it is different in china which is a green and blue country, if you want, where there's a number of very cost effective supply-side measures available. let's look at two of those examples in more detail. >> let's look at china, india and china's solution. start with india. this is india's cost measure. it is all the yellow levers. this was put together as an aggregation of cost curves for 19 different areas. kind of a summary of what that picture would look like. the question is of course can india solve its water gap, the water gap we are projecting?

can it be solved? how much will it cost? so we did an analysis. we overlay the gap that we project for india over the cost and you can see two important facts. the first thing, it can solve. it can solve this water get. it can do so with some room to spare. the second point which is also an important point is how much will it cost? if we added up all the cost on an annual basis, across all of the measures, we found a number of round 6 billion u.s. dollars. that is not a very large number for a country the size of india in 2030. $6 billion. i hasten to add this does not mean it will be easy but it does mean that the financial commitment requires are not that large. but maybe elsewhere. the financial commitment are not that large. you can see that the solution, if we stick to the part that is under gap, the solution is largely dominated by agricultural measures. 80 percent in fact isn't agricultural measures. let me show you first the full range of things we look at from

the very left hand side, farming, all the way to the right hand side. there are three different types of levers that we looked at. levers that increase the efficiency of agriculture production. you can produce the same amount of crops with less water. things like systems of drip irrigation, sprinkler irrigation. we have other effects as well but primarily increase the efficiency of agricultural production. another type of levers that still reside in agriculture, which is equally important, in fact it is possibly more important. fertilizer, plant stress management. these increase the amount of production that can be expected from a piece of land which need to don't have to extend irrigation into new pieces of land which means it will reduce the over mount of irrigation

requires. these are two types of agricultural measures. i said that 80 percent of the solution is yellow, meaning agricultural measures. therefore, 20% that is not. we should almost never a silver bullet if it is always a combination. this will be a theme across the presentation that you can see that some of the supply measures are needed. india has a large infrastructure that needs rehabilitate. things like that do play a role actually and ensuring that the gap is filled. so this is the story for india. and let us now shipped to china, which was the earlier the gaps, which i know the gap for india being driven by agriculture. the solution i show you is agriculture that if we look at china recite much more complex picture with industry and municipalities playing a role. this is the picture in china. you can see course across the entire spectrum meaning the solution is a mixture of everything from industrial efficiency all the way to

agricultural efficiency, all the way to additional supply. we can ask the same question. will china be able to meet its gap? and what we find is again, yes, again this is an aggregation of solutions. what we find is china can indeed solve its water gap. it can do so at a net saving, that we calculate under these conditions that about $20 billion per animal be saved in china if we adopt measures that save both water and other inputs. and thus, this is a full picture of what this cost looks like. there is an analysis behind each of those but the point i would like to make is if you just concentrate on the left hand side come on the things that result in net savings coming you end up with about 30 billion, 30 billion savings by efficiency. >> they are very difficult to read and we are very labor to produce, that's why we want to

show that they are more in three, they can in fact support these situations. let's choose the example of south africa. south africa is a country as we know and we are expecting a water deficit of about 3 kilometers cubed in 2030. and there is need to close this water gap. one could do with the least consolation which is described here, and it is one that in fact has net gains because you will have saved as you do that to 150. and it is a problem of wood to be able to close the water get. you could decide that you want to shoot for improvements on the infrastructure side only. or you might decide that you want to choose improvements productivity boost, something like a revolution of agriculture only. and what this data does, it shows you to what extent can come you're able to close the gap and b what the financial

implications of that are. so within the future, with a given set of economic activities, that much of agriculture production, that choice of crops, that activity, you can choose different options of how to optimize your water sector and close the water gap. however, which also can do is you can broaden the chessboard. you can look at different scenarios, some of them are indigenous scenarios where you can choose to go want to step up my economic activities. i want to get rid of wheat production in saudi arabia. and see what the water implications again both hydrological and financial are for a given geography. you can also do that for extrogenous scenarios which is of course something that is on all of our, top of our minds right now, like the effects of climate change. where you can again say if we have a certain assumption, how climate should work for our job, what with the water, the

economic water repercussions actually be. >> and so we have shown you some analysis. window at the end of the day this is not about analysis. this is about transforming the way in which people use water and is much more complicated than that. people often will raise questions like what about pricing and incentives, what about the role of large water users. there are a whole host of questions around how do we get to be better stewards of water that come up when you engage in this. we have no illusion that this is a simple answer and that analysis will get us there. but we do believe the work that we have done our partners and the help of a number of experts on the advisory board and also expert in countries come is a helpful step. we hope it is a helpful step toward answering some of those components. so for example, we believe that in order to get, we need a fact-based a vision of what a sustainable state should look

like. what does it look like, how do we get there, what kind economy do we need, what kind of economy will go towards that can actually sustain with the amount of water that we have? this sort of work is the sort of work that can help describe that economy. who needs to be involved? who needs to be involved in the leadership level? is there a water ministry only problem or is it actually all the government and all the private sectors of the countries combined together something that should involve everyone, given the types of lovers? again, i think this fact-based helps us. thirdly, what kind of regime, where there's pricing plays, what role does it play? again, what this does is it underscores the role of economics and the role of understand the costs and the perceived economics of users. and how the letters are adopted. will people see deficiencies, if not, why not? fourthly, the private sector,

almost half of the things that are on the cost need to be adopted by the private sector in one form or another making cars more efficient, making industry more efficient, making power plants more efficient. that will require up front cost to the private sector will have to be involved. is a big role for the private sector to play here. thirdly, last users. which are all the time the role of different sectors of the economy, manufacturing, textiles, also paper, mining, power, all of these have a role to play. then finally, technology. technology capabilities. at the end of the day was on the cost curve is the existing measures but we'll need to make sure that we can maintain the capability but continue to develop and innovate so we'll be able to maintain. >> let me summarize the three major messages that we wanted to send, a, the water is happening

today and the water gap between supply and demand is all repaired and is fighting. second, we cannot afford to go in the usual way anymore. and thirdly, we believe that there are costs effective ways to close the water gap for ever, as the nature of the solution is so different from the nature of the solution that we have been drawing on in the past. we need to adopt a completely new approach. before i close, we haven't done this work in isolation. we had a lot of opportunity to discuss this working to develop with many of you along the way. also the decision-makers. we are sending all of those discussions that there is a very high willingness to raise the cost of water and to go new ways and to try new approaches. we would be very happy if the work of the group would see as helpful and timely. thanks a lot.

[applause] >> good afternoon. it gives me great pleasure to introduce to you deputy secretary of the interior, mr. david hayes. deputy secretary hayes is the second highest ranking official of the department of the interior. he served as the departments chief operating officer and has authority over all of the departments bureaus and agencies. throughout his career, deputy secretary hayes has been involved in developing progressive solutions to environmental and natural resources challenges. he previously served as the deputy secretary and counsel to the clinton administration. is a former chairman of the board of the environmental law

institute that he served as a senior fellow for the world wildlife fund, and was vice chair of the board of american rivers. among his many other professional activities, he also worked for a number of years in the private sector where he chaired the environment land and resources department. said he is superbly qualified to give us the keynote talk. so thank you very much for joining us. [applause] . .

>> what are the impacts going to be in terms of economics, in terms of social impacts. how is it going to affect our energy needs, and opportunities? what investments are we going to have to make? these are hugely important issues. and i would to share with you briefly a few perspectives. but first i have to establish my credentials. because despite the very kind introduction some of you might say, he's with the interior department. why are we listening to this guy? let me explain, and see if i can justify by existence here in front of you as a keynote

speaker. in fact, the interior department is deeply e meshed in the water issues affecting the united states. i would argue that we are a bit of a microchasm of the issues affecting the globe. we are the largest water wholesaler in the world. we supply drinking water to 30 million americans. we irrigate one out of five acres of land that is irrigated in the united states with water from our projects. and the secretary of the interior is a water master for the colorado river which serves the entire southwest and the primary water source for colorado. probably not primary, important for colorado. primary for arizona, nevada, extraordinary important for

california, as well. in addition, we are the largest project proponent, i should say, overseeing, i guess, of the water projects in the state of california. including the california water -- california valley project which brings 1/3 of the water supply from northern california down through the bay delta and serves the coastal south and 20 million americans that live in los angeles through san diego. we are deeply involved as a water provider. we're also deeply involved in the environmental consequences of water use. and seeing that interface between the use of water and the environment. let me give you a few examples. among other things we are a bit of a federation. not only are we a major water

supplier, but we also have environmental stewardship responsibilities. when there is not enough water for the environment because we are supplying it or helping to supply it, we have to bear the implications for that. where in california in the third year of a severe drought, we operate the system that brings water through the bay delta to california to southern california. the combination of the drought and environmental degradation on the west coast of the americas and the bay delta has led to the crashing of native species, salmon, native, fish species, and under the endangerrered species act, we have to protect those species. we are turning down the pumps. the combination of the drought and the effect of the species has limited water supplies

through our system from a normal delivery of 5.7 million acres feet to this year 3.6 million acre feet of water. leading to great political implications as unemployment in the valley has spiked. and concerns has arisen about whether our department is favoring fish over farmers. we are seeing some of the conflicts between water supply and environment. believe me, up close and personal that i think are spreading across the globe. likewise, even on systems like the missouri river, we've had operational issues associated with the decline of certain native species. and in the northwest where our department operates some of the largest water projects and damns, including the grand dam and others, we see the downside

of water management, namely impact on native salmon species, and the implications of there too. am i doing well? do i have the credentials well? i'm going to do a few more. and then some observations. the interior is the primary agency involved in energy production in the united states. now that's a surprise to most of you, isn't it? we're not the department of energy, we're the department of interior. however, the department of interior has the responsibility for developing conventional and renewable supplies on our public land. 30% of the land mass of the united states is public lands. rather 80% or 20% as the land mass is operated directly by us. the balance is a fore service. but we manage energy production on those lands as well.

and we have responsibilities for the 1.7 billion acres. so we have in terms of energy production, offshore, oil and gas now renewable in terms of energy production onshore, and oil and gas. but also renewable now in the southwest. and off of the coast. we're all about that. and we are seeing the interplay between energy development and water. on an upfront and personal basis . salazar and president obama, as part of his team, we are pushing hard for the new energy frontier in the united states. we traditional have focused on the department of interior almost on oil and gas development. 1/p of our domestic oil and gas supplies come from our lands in the interior department. virtually none of our renewable

energy comes from the public lands. we're pushing hard a to open up new solar facilities in the southwest. what are we bumping up? water. the water cool plants versus dry cool plants. we're in the middle of those discussions. and throw into the mix not only the question of the water needs for the communities thriving communities like las vegas, los angeles, phoenix, but also the need for the species. and the effect on native americans, et cetera, and you get a conflict mix. final example i'm going to reference in terms of our departments interest in water deals with the science side. we're a major science agency. the united states survey is part of the department of the interior. and we, through the u.s. g.s. has the longest and most comprehensive analysis of water

supply mt. united states. we run thousands of string gauges in rivers and lakes and waterways throughout the country. and have for years. this water data case is supplying the guts of our analysis of water impact due to climate change. likewise, a terrific ground water analysis, analytical capabilities, many of you are scientists, know that. so we're a bit of a laboratory, i would argue, as the department of the interior were for the intersection between the water challenges of the future, and our economic needs of the future, our energy needs of the future, et cetera. and let me just share with you a few observations in that regard as we look ahead. and what we are focusing our attention on at the current time. i'm going to focus on three issues in particular.

one is climate change impact. and what is going to mean for our water supplies. on that issue, we are finding, now i should say first of all, the interior department tilts west somewhat. many of our public lands are in the west. fully 85% of the state of nevada is interior department managed. very high percentaged of the western states in general are interior department managed. and our water projects are focused on the west primarily. our department really had its hay day 100 years ago as efforts were made to attract americans to the west, and to make the great desert bloom. so we are quite acutely interested in what is happening climatewise in the west. and it's dramatic. we are seeing advantage temperatures rising. that's increasing of van ration,

and potentially the severity of droughts. we're seeing a greater proportion of precipitation falling in the mountains as rain, rather than reducing the winter snow pack which is our biggest that we rely on if you will. we're seeing low temperatures rising and snow back melting earlier. these trends are producinger -- producing the earlier runoff. they are affecting all of our assumptions about how we are going to deliver water to the millions of americans in the west. and at the same time, i should say, the western united states has accounted for 50% of our nation's population growth from 1990 to 200. --2000. with the fastest growth with in

arizona, nevada, southern california. we are concerned about the impact of climate change. and i will tell you, the example i gave earlier about the bay delta system, apart from the colorado river, where we are seeing long-term, severe droughts, likewise, we're seeing it in the central california. and affecting our ability to deliver water. these are changing all of our assumptions about what water will be available in the future. and putting a premium on our ability to down scale global models to more regional levels to be able to get better data and predictions about what we'll have to deal with in the future, in order to deal with the water supply needs. and yes, for our fish. i will say very briefly that our

response -- we're entering new territory here. and as all of you know, it's hard that know the way forward here. do you respond by going to more infrastructure. or do you respond by pushing for more conservation? do you respond by other techniques? do you do all of the above? the answer is yes, yes, and yes. one the things we are pushing for as the secretary recently put the secretary order out is really partnering with other decision makers in the region that were affected by water needs. so that we work together, we get a common scientific data base, and we make collected decisions about how we're going to deal with water supply. it's a grand experiment. it's a place we have to go. i think it's a template for what we're going to have to do globally in terms of getting steak holders have an interest,

getting science, and making collective decisions. it'll be a challenge for our democracy. the second future perspective we have, in addition to looking at climate change impacts, is -- and it's related obviously. we're trying to get a handle on how to deal with the increased conflict between water needs and the environment. we are aware of it, because of our corresponding obligations to -- on the water supply side, and the one hand and environmental protection on the other. and that ladder responsibility reflects itself not only in our administration of the endangered species act, but we at the interior department also are stewards for our national parks, for our national wildlife, both of which depend largely on water. our national wildlife is the

best created along fly ways. the pothole region in the upper planes down to the coast of texas. the eastern fly way. all about water. and wildlife interactions. and as the water pattern changes and wildlife migration pattern changes, our ability to maintain our environmental stewardship responsibilities are challenged. likewise, our national parks, the everglades, where we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to restore natural water flow. next thursday ken salazar will be in the florida with every politician worth his or her salt in florida, because it'll be a lot of cameras, as they announce and move on toward the release of water through the miami trial

and restore the natural water flow of the everglades and the remarkable environment down there. well, the everglades is not far above sea level. @ restoration obligations is another challenge. so we are trying to deal with these conflicts. and i would say the answer we're coming up with. and it's not new, in fact, it was pioneered by mr. bruce babbitt here. and the interior department of the clinton era is to look at ecosystems and look at the water users alike. and come up with grand solutioning. that's the only way through this mess. routed in science, i should say too. the third area of the future

that we are looking at is deals with the area of energy. the relationship between water and energy is a relationship that we're becoming more aware of. and i know you are too. and it's a subject of a bunch of your conversation today. did you know that in the state of california, fully 20% of the energy budget of the state is used to move water. 20%. the engineering that we have done to move water where it's needed creates energy challenges as well. now on the flip side, there are opportunities that many of which have not been mined as we move the water to move generate energy and folks are looking at that in a way we never have before. because of the necessity of doing so. and of bringing solar energy in to move water.

and just throwing out the rule book and realizing whoa, we have an energy water interface that is far more significant than we realized. meanwhile, of course, i should say, we're interested in the issue. because the department of the interior is a second largest hydropower producer in the country. we run some of the largest hydropower in the country, with hoover dam, grand canyon dam. so we're interested in the intier -- interface. we're trying to figure out how to produce the energy use, and take advantage of moving water to reduce energy. we're not going to be building new dams. certainly not traditional, run of the river dams. but we do need to think creatively about how to take advantage of moving water. the final thing i'll mention is in terms of how we're looking at the future, and i know this is

meshes with what many of you are looking at, how do we deal with with water scarety, with the reality of the combination of increased demand on the resource, the increase uncertainties associated with climate change, the growing recognition that the environment has water needs too. all of those factors are leading to a recognition that we can't use water like we have traditionally. certainly not in this country. which is with inpuberty, and without regard to water shy. on the assumption that it'll always be there. that's a reality that the sinking in. we have a ways to go. but perhaps thanks to the reality of climate change and of challenges from droughts, raging from the southeast to the west, there is a recorder recognition of that. and our responsibility, certainly as an administration,

working across our agencies, with the environmental protection agency, with the army core of engineers, with other agencies that deal in the water arena is to be sinking more broadly about how we can stretch our water supplies. that means the new emphasis on conservation. you will see this administration moving out on water continues vision in a big way. it's overdue. it needs to be -- it needs to happen. and much more attention on water reuse, and recycling. which is to the traditional we call them water buffaloes here who disstain those kinds of programs. i will tell you though as a concrete example of our repriorityization along those lines, in the president's stimulus package, the recovery act, your reclamation as $1

billion on water issues in the west. we have spent -- we have deck indicated more than $140 million of that $1 billion on water reuse projects, reclamation projects that are using gray water systems, et cetera. we are committed to much more leadership on the water conservation side. so i will close there. i wanted to give you a flavor that you were not alone. as in terms of challenges in the water future. those of us in the brawl administration are aware of the importance of this issue. we are committed to tackling this in a meaningful way. i hope we will have the opportunity to work together on any number of levels. thank you very of.

[applause] >> thank you very much. as we move into the panel part of the afternoon, we are going to introduce the panel theme. and after the video, we will ask the panel to be seated. with that video, please. >> we really need to start looking at how we have to make adjustments, so that our water resources can get to our goals. which is having food, health, safe and secure home settings, desirable fittings to live in,

having water that comes out of the past. >> the issue is we hate to be looking at water from the sky. and the irrigation system. >> water solutions are different. this is why it is much more complex to find solutions. >> to move to a blue economy. we need more integrated planning on the basis of economic data. >> the answers to come of the problems are not overly expensive. >> the enormous amount we could do with existing technologies. there are things that have been known for a long time. the problem is not cost. the problem is actually getting everybody to do this. >> i think the way forward needs to be a rational approach. we all have a role to play.

>> the panel is still preparing the microphones. it will make just another minute or so. it shouldn't take more than a minute or too. -- two. thank you. [silence]

[silence] >> looks like they have now been miced. thanks. let me start with welcoming crook. those of you who don't know him, he's the chief washington affairs commentator, and also a senior editor of the "atlantic" and frequent columnist in the "washington journal." >> pleasure to be here. thanks for having me.

i won't spend any time describing my credentials. that would be a very brief set of remarks. unfortunately, the other members of the panel are supplied with credentials. i'll say a quick word of introduction, and then get the ball rolling. i think we're going to have a consideration up here on the panel for perhaps 40 minutes, something of that kind. and then it'll be an opportunity for people from the audience. so you guys to make comments and ask questions. some moderators frown on comments as opposed to questions. i don't. all comments as well as questions will be welcomed. let me introduce members of the panel. moving from my left to right, john briscoe is the director of the water security initiative in harvard university, bruce babbitt is the chairman of the

wwf, and heiner markoff is the ceo of ge water, michael mack is the ceo of syngenta. one the things that that was on my mind in listening to the presentation was what is the answer to this question? what does it not get the attention it deserve? is occurs to me the main reason is possibility the complexity of the issue, and the fact of course of the consideration of pair -- paramounting. one tends to think about what should be done. this is not a global problem. all of the difficulty addressing climate change posing. it looks straightforward compared to water security. when you go through the material that we're listening to today.

so what i'd like to do is putting just the first question. and i hope each of them can speak for just two or three minutes to get the ball rolling on this. when you encounter this material. when you get a sense of the complexity of the problem. what are your own priorities in thinking about it? i mean what are the issues that you were drawn to the attention of the public in getting minds focused on an issue which is -- i think you'll agree has been negligented. perhaps i can move along the panel. if i can just make a disclosure. it's part of the advisory team to the project. and also an introduction to say i'd like to compliment lars on the ifc. and the relationship with the private sector makes an environment contribution to. for me, a couple of things.

the fact base that the teams produces. as julio showed, it really is the start of six-part process that can lead to observation. the second observation i would make it to need to look at interage nayty. and one mention of that that's important when we listen to the department of interior, we're sitting on 9,000 cuber feet of water in storage. if you go to ethiopia, the number is 40. the infrastructure is a completely different issue in the developing world. that said, institutions matter a lot. and it'll come back to this. for me the great example of the most interesting example in the contemporary world is that of australia. it has been hit by climate change already. you are not getting 1/3 of the water that you got ten years ago. the amazing fact of that is in

the agricultural heartland of australia, it's about the same as it was when they have 100 than when they had 30. the institutions is at the heart of this. but what we are seeing in place of like australia is once you have exhausted the constitutional frontier, technology has become key. there i would highlight three areas. i think the area from the biotechnology as we saw agriculture, this is hugely important. secondly, the whole area of treatment technology again is hugely important. and the third i would produce information technology which are also transformative. now the last point i'd like to make is i think the discussions on water in countries and globally have historically been government in many recent years, government with ngo and academia. they have looked at somebody else's problem. we will do our thing. and they have to sort this out. i think this is the fact that

the business has yet to do the technology side. but it also has to engage in the public debate. and i think that has happened beautifully on the support of the sponsors on a global level. now moving to the real next step and making things happen. i think it can happen at the national level too. if i had the discussion on the future of india, in dubai, and it was very interesting to speak to the private sector colleagues. the national reaction is the government's responsibility. are you going to be able to do your businesses and raise your children if they continue? and the answer is no. i think there for the progressive private sector, developing technologies, but also becoming engaged is for me what this report is all about. >> thank you very much. bruce? >> well, you are really asking a politician for two minutes? >> no more than three. >> okay. you spoke of complexity. i thinks this was really quite a

simple issue. this report unequivocally teaches and describes the pathway toward a solution. and it's quite simply subjecting it to the disciplines of market analysis and economics. so what's the problem? let me say i can tell you the problem in the united states. it is simply that this country, the market capitalism runs its water system on a federal model from top to bottom. he should have spoken of it as the people's republican in

california. because the philosophy and political fearing of water in this country is that they magnificent all seeing state must deliver water as a free good, and all times, to all people. if sharp contrast to a nasty capitalist model which would require people in a deficient system to pay for water. [applause] >> okay? that's the issue. and it's just that simple. now the question, realizing that my two minutes are up, is of course do i have an equally simple answer as to how we break

free of our lennonist addiction and incorporate these mckenzie findings into a new vision? maybe there's be a second round of comments. >> there'll be a second round. thank you very much. that's extraordinary value for money, actually. [applause] >> just the first look at study. yeah, i really like it because it kind of brings tools to the policymakers, governments, and whoever is involved with that. water is not a global problem, it's a multifaceted problems, depending on where you are, and what situation of the specific country or society. it provides tools from your high cost to low cost. and that's how you conserve water and culture to water reuse

systems. boarder is a multifaceted issue in terms of scarcity in terms of quality, energy and water which are both critical goods that are both on the rise, big time. and if you just look at solutions, these solutions have to be attacked from multiple sides. one is technology, and that's where i think we as industry and water and technology companies comes into a play. some of the right standards for the reuse, for setting the right environmental standards and incentives for companies to implement those technologies.

it's -- and it's economic. and it needs to make economic sense, whether it's for the farmer or for companies or industry to use this scarce resource in a wise way. so i think this study gets to the complexity, the study provides some tools, and to move it inside. so i think it's a great starting point to drive the style up forward, which really is necessary to get, you know, everybody behind a certain movement to make the needle move. >> thanks. >> i react to reading the report. my first fault was that five years ago, i wasn't debating, i was debating what to do in the northeast, which is a very direct place. and i tried things to go and i was not so successful and these reports have been past my effort

to be easier. let me give the context. our present president of brazil was born in a dry place. when he was a child, there was a big drought, and he left the place. he climbed into a truck, with his family, without money, and they left. what they should do is to fulfill what one century's dream of bringing water to suffer to the that region. the discussion was is this -- not it's been done. do you work there? central work is under way. the discussion of the time five years ago was is this just inagain knewty, this debate? no, it's not so difficult to five lines of the channels and the stations.

but, at the end, why it was something else. because the amount of water that should be abstracted from the river to that dry place would stand on improvement technology, irrigation technology, and it would fay the forecast, the forecast of the man that's current practice or something that would embrace p improvements. and it's not take that into account. and second, once you are bringing water, you always motion that perhaps some new policy to the region like rather than relying on the culture. would this make it a lot difference on the amount of water to get? it has been done. and the regyp -- recipient is

very happy. and that particular project could be less money spent with the same result. even better result. >> first of all, introduced in agricultural all around the world. for those of you who get a chance to read the report, they count for 71% of the fresh water usage. any solution that they have must involve agriculture. just as the math would take you there. and i think it's important to realize that we shouldn't think about water in a silo. because the whole idea of water security can't really be diversed from food security. you don't have to go long. as you heard them describe. the business of water security and energy security are also related. because we move a lot of water and. i do agree the opening comment

that says in the main, water is overused and undervalued. and get the opportunity in my role to travel all around the world. it is a bit of an overgemmization, this is a place where water is valued. and it has drawn a lot of value. people are able to do a lot with the water. people have gotten efficient with the water that they have in pursuit to such things as food curt. you know, the parts of the world, you saw the water cost curves by themselves whether water is undervalued. india is one such country. there is much we can do, just very basic, and very simple approaches to wednesday i'm not talking about big infrastructure. you got some experience for the breath and death of the many levels that you can pull. it's not about brand new

technology. it's not billions of dollars. it's just quite literally, valuing water more and, we can get, in fact, more food with less water. so many things we can do all around the world with. but it's not one thing. the solution is india, in fact, in the east is a very different solution in india, than in the north. generalizations don't help, they can hurt. in the end, it's local, governments has to be involved. technology, and being able to think about putting these silo things together, water, energy, and food. of course industry and commerce have to be taken into a very ho listic ways. but the cost curves do go a long way for helping us with the dialogue and very unemotional and in that case. >> okay. thank you very much. i think we ought to say with the point that bruce made about pricing.

certainly as someone by no means an expert in that area. that was the thing i felt again and again listening to the material, reading through the material. that some of the practices described, included devoting such energy to hewing water to and fro. while both water and energy was price, of course, i'm a sucker for arguments. to say it's very simple. if each member of the panel, and don't wait for me to put the question, just speak up and respond to each other is saying. i think it'll be an interesting thing to respond to the view that pricing with getting the price of water right is a key to everything. so there is an organizizing principal for moving this issue forward. that is it. innovation, that coming on stream. projects that are correctly

boarded. all good things follow if we get prices right. but is that true? bruce, please. yeah. you elaborate on what you said by all means. no, bruce, because you were brief. >> getting prices right, and getting the market perform is 90%. it's 90% of the issue. but the other 10%, david hayes in his world encyclopedia of the deeds of the interior department from the beginning of time made one important point, and that is -- [laughter] >> he was my employee. you do have to have a few

regulatory premises. the first one is the environment. there does need to be a frontline in a framework which says even if you can't entirely price it, there ought to be some water leftover for fisheries. and you shouldn't have rivers go dry like the colorado river, which is a salt flat. and it's not not like the jordan river. you call the allenby bridge and there's no water at your feet. that's one. the other one is a social equity issue. but you take care of that in a context of a pricing system. not by doing what governments all do these days. which say we will never get there because we reject the market model as a solution to water issues. >> tell us your response? >> very good. i can hardly answer.

but perhaps one slight detail of this, that's the part that said this pressing in the model, which is basically the state is going to tell you so many cents for cubic meter. and let me take the case because it helps to illustrate the case. if you think about you the state going out to australian farmer. and you said, i want to charge you for water. what exactly are going to charge for? the thing that you can exchange that there's a dam and canal and there's pump and people. you pay for all of that. no, no, no, but there's a value to the water. and he says, i've got to pay for that? there is no cost occurred in that. if you look at that some of calculations, that amounts to one or two cents a cubic meter. if you have a trading system, the water is trading the 50% a

cubic meter. it's basically no incentive for agriculture to change. or is the incentive is when you have your fall. and you have water for 50%. that you can sell to me for 50 cents. you are going to get out. and you're going to move to high value. and i think that's in my view is what the secretary was saying. is you need not on admitted. it's very important for maintaining your infrastructure. but for the census, you have to have some other market system in which willing buyers and sellers will exchange at a price that drives towards efficiency and reallocation of the system. i think there's a great misconception if only the state will charge, this will be solved. it does not work in agriculture. >> any other responses to this issue? >> well, i agree with the prices. they are there.

but it's very difficult. from experience. when we put the law, we tried to put the market mechanism. and there is a huge reaction to that. going back to the story, the thinking, the suggestion that was given was that the water that would be diverted from the river, and dragged apert should be splitted. and people, the recipients would buy quarters. and these will not be the whole cost of the infrastructure. we cannot be beat. you have to have subsidy. but there is a part of it that would be related, no, to the input of money that's the beneficiaries would get. and yes, this is right. use one here that you ask in colorado. the diversion of the new deal.

this was the the -- this could be the exchangeable so by the more of them. >> i was going to say. i think the market mechanism absolutely can work. but this is what john is getting at. you have to establish who owns the water in the first instance. and if that is unclear, then i agree that it's not so simple in agriculture. but there are plenty of examples where the agricultural text is just turned off. and they do that. they either change in the crops, or they change the practices. even though what was water flowing at or near their farm one day disappeared. and it's because someone has redirected the water to another use. one could argue that's it's a good public use of water. and to first establish who owns it. >> okay. you know, i think like pricing,

it can -- it's either scarce or not. if you take places like israel and singapore, they were able to drive much more efficient water system up to 70% of 30% in the case of singapore. we are setting standards and by pricing it in the right way. and that comes back to political willingness to do that. but it's not just that, also do we set standards that can be reused. do we set standards for environmental or standard. so it comes to -- it's not just. i wouldn't. the question go often times just goes to the one spot price. it's not just that. it's more than that. it's different regular laces that we all have to think about. and they need to come together in order to make it work. >> the making it, members of the audience don't need this assistance as much as i do, but

i'd be very grateful if you could give me a sense of how much flexibility in the response to a more intelligent producing of this resource. one could access. or on the demand side. plainly, this math is very important. how limited are the options. we're speaking to one of your competitors, mike, the other day. he was telling me about precision agriculture, which is something i hadn't previously heard of. it gave me the sense of the extraordinary opportunities thereafter for using water much more efficient. not a little bit more, but vastly. this technology hinges on

appropriate price. it's how you see that. how flexible can the system respond? >> i'll give you three antipots, but they are perhaps useful. we had a situation just a few -- actually last summer. where the municipality. think what you want about water and gloving. you know, the superintendent called us. what can we do? if you use this product, it's a growth regulator, the grass won't grow as much. it doesn't need any water. the golfers were happy. and they were able to continue to offer their product without having additional water. now that was it. and it had nothing to do, actually, with the water per se. it was more accessible and more free one day, and more

accessible, more expensive, the next day. some equal situation in russia, just this past summer, municipal area said no more water for these particular farms. they call us. what should we do. we don't want to lose the corn crop. they said why do you need to plant corn. sunflower, great profitability. you put this? . you can make as much money. here's an example it wasn't about the washer, it was about uninsurer that it can be able to have a living and do something with that land. and have it be more efficient with water. i was in the valley in kenya, just a few months ago. the situation where the government turned the taps off. they recorded it as urgent. they changed their practices. and went to something called no-till farming. which leads to more of a crust on the earth. didn't need any in additional

water. it was the same crop. and again three examples, it wasn't about new technology, it wasn't about buying new equipment, it wasn't about turning the world upsidedown with less water. and there is thousands of additional examples that i could use just that way. >> or just add on to this, to use existing technologies to reuse the water we have today. if using great water on the municipal, using that as feed water for our plants. using that as water for irrigation purposes, for golf courses, or industrial site settings. so there are technology available today to use this scarce resource much more efficientty all over again. >> but it had to be to mace it scarce in the first place. >> right. in the all of the dramatic way of just turning off the supply. that was pretty brutal way to

send the message right. >> i understand, you're point is that the response is not large. i mean, the response is significant. there's a difference. an altogether different state of the world. john, you wanted to say something. >> it was just -- i just comment on it. i think i agree with all of the cases. it's something we discuss in the generation as a report as rob and julius said. if you look at the left-hand side, you can make lots more money doing things like that. why haven't people done it, if it's so easy and obviously. the answer is in all of these cases there's a, you know, the case was given of just get everybody to change their shot. it's not the easier i want to do. it's the billion indians. and they won't have to do this. the numbers are very large. it's not so easy to do. the capacity to manage these.

it's really the critical concern. i think the report shows that it's not actually the money that's the critical problem. but the institutions which induce the environment in the sort of things that mike was talking about that people stopped responding in a sensible way to the scarcity value of the resource. and that's why i think the engagement of the private sector. not to defend particular interest but to start showing some the management techniques, some of the tools and sorts of things like the cost. many others in order to help management the capability. >> bruce, do you have an answer? >> just an example or a suggestion. obviously the inner face between pricing and supply/demand economics, and regulations. my favorite example is you listen to all of the tremendous vails that california is going

through right now with water scarcity. what percentage of the water supply used by greater los angeles is used to water lawns. anybody want to guess? 50%. now there are two ways to go about dealing with this. one is a simple regulation that says they are going to go. there's also a market solution. that is to have step water rates. which have free for marginal for hundred gallons per capita per day. and a thousand dollars for over 5,000 gallons per capita per day. my suggestion to though of you

in the -- those of you in the bank. my earlier question, how do you drive the political systems toward awakening to the mckenzie reality. i think one important way is to begin thinking of infrastructure investments. particularly those of us in the political arena who are against infrastructure from president obama down to the loaniest rice farmer in india. we all support more infrastructure. and you at the bank, for years have been complicit. if going up the demand for infrastructure. my suggestion is to begin to think of infrastructure as a

leverages opportunity. and all of the infrastructure from this moment forward should have a conditionality clause on it. which says as we spend for infrastructure, how do we load in the conditionality of market reforms for the supply flows out. i no long herb work for the world banks. but i think with all do respect, that's a very dangerous view of what the bank does. >> if you look, and i think actually, baited in my view in the negative way. when i talk abouteth -- ethiopia have been 40 feet of storage, if it rains a lot, there's nothing to mediate the affects of

rainfall. now in california where you have 9,000 rather than 40, you might not need it. when we do projects of that sort, that is what we do. it is absolutely an institutional along with management. where i think there is a great problem, and that is the bank having been driven largely out of this business. if you look at large infrastructure now, the bank probably financing no more than five dams in the world. the chinese are financing 220. and i think that the extreme position of the bank shouldn't do this, is in fact, thrown out if you are committed. by not being at that dialogue. and then you are having others go in who may not have the same dialogue. i think we've had this discussion a lot in the bank. i think it's very important for the bank to be in. but exiting this is in the the adoption. >> but we should go in with

conditionality. :

>> i mean, there is an expectation, you know, that water will be provided free or in effect free. there is resistance, isn't there, too charging these prices? what is the answer given the way the political system works, what do you propose about? you know, what do you say to the people on capitol hill about this? >> it's a fair question. i think bolivia, introducing privatization into the water system, coach obama was not only run out of the country at gunpoint, the government was brought down over one proposal to privatize, one community in bolivia. same thing happened in atlanta, georgia, where none other than got ran out of town in their efforts to do a partial privatization.

there has to be i think of better appreciation of the dynamics of this among old politicians and the private sector. bechtold learned a lot in cochabamba. a surprising naïve operation, bechtel came to town and said were going to give you lots of water but nor to give you lots of water we are raising all of your rates to a full amortization cost of all future projects tomorrow. my professor friend was a dos hyperbola spirit it is. that's what bechtel learned. fair, fair enough. [laughter] >> i think the answer is that you can do these things byfield. the political art always here and elsewhere is plucking the goose to get the most feathers

from the least squawking. [laughter] >> is that officially specific? >> i will have to settle for that. i just wanted to point out the fact that we have microphones here in the auditorium, so if people have questions or comments, please go to the mics, okay, and if i see people standing at a microphone, i will turn to that person and invite the question or comment that if no one is standing there when i look, i will keep going up here. okay. you were waving enthusiastically. first i would ask you if what you absolutely are dismayed that this mckinsey report doesn't put the price of water right at the top. if you look at that in india, the first block should be ending in electricity for subsidies so that you have free electricity

for pumping groundwater in india. and that is a basic way of trying. it is not in that report. i just don't see anything about tariff reforms or anything about this crisis. but clearly on this panel, the price of water is the issue, but it is not in the report. are you dismayed? [laughter] [applause] >> are you dismayed? >> how about trying to run for office in india? have you ever tried that? no, i think it is far too naïve with all due respect to simply wave your hands into india should charge for water. i think -- [inaudible] okay to charge for electricity. i misspoke. if you look at what's happening in india however, i think it is a very interesting case. you take one of the areas of india which the groundwater overexploitation is most severe. if you are trying to say we're going to charge the full cost of price for electricity, no way

you'd get an office. one thing is very interesting and very clever, what they have done is they basically disconnected the village and town electricity supply from the waters that electricity supplies for pumping. the first is now 24 hours a day fully reliable, the second is eight hours a day of much more reliable electricity than you ever got before but heavily restricted. they have capulet does he and in that light actually capped water from the well. this has turned out to have both a politically very clever because you the whole group gaining from this even the farmers are now getting, they are not getting up in the other night to do it. and the second best, solution in fact the only solutions that are politically viable. so are they thinking, are you

thinking about the marginal cost, yes? but if he gets up and were instead i'm going to charge everybody full price, he can leave office that afternoon. and that i think is what the mckinsey report says this is a piece which goes into a process that has to be run through political process and what's possible in these things and that next up which i think to launch that is hugely important so i was merely an adviser but that is my feeling. >> for those of you who might not appreciate this, in many parts of india you only get during the day in electricity one day a week. and so what are the political realities of saying for the one day you're going to get electricity, we're going to tell you exactly how you're going to do that and when you only have some eight hours in order to take care of your farm, to take care of the rest of your business. but for this that we're going to go and charge you for that, they

don't really have the mechanisms. so you can't defend why at some sublevel they're going to have to come to grips with the business of over pumping water out of these aquifers, but to be able to just slap in place today is not political reality. >> take another question. please identify yourself. >> my name is toby from sweden. i would like to say a few things if i may. look at the financial industry. look at the oil industry. it is controlled by huge companies. look at this industry. they have invested hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars, so i haven't something changed? so this is part of this kind of problems, the new technologies doesn't get a chance to grow. that's a key. and this is a key, and i think it is very important, i came here to criticize and i hear the

world bank and isolate the heaven doing is a great start. this is what it is all about, gentlemen. it is all about that. we have to look at new technologies, the chances of new technologies. it is in the brains of the people, not the corporations, etc. that's a very important thing. because you managed to take over their own interest. thank you very much. >> that was a useful comment. i will not put it to the panel. i think it speaks for itself. thank you very much for that. could you tell us who you are? >> gas. mr. wyden from switzerland, working for the swiss government. you ought not make comments, but one comment. let me commend you, let me commend you all having written this report and taking opposition, this as a comment, and thank you to accomplish to israel, my father-in-law. you was involved in attribute to

water. so this is a common. now my question is, for you, the multilateral financial institutions, not only of the world bank but also of the regional bank, where should the league, where should they follow, and where should they just quit and not stay in the way? >> that's a good question. maybe you want to kick off on that. >> i think returning to the position that it held in the first, it should be helping the developing countries to invest in infrastructure. for many years the award bank was afraid of demonstrators that would gather, involve the world bank and make demonstrations saying that they were speaking on behalf of countries, half a dozen of people, and sometimes they were against the positions

of elected governments. this is not fair. but i'm saying something, now the word banking in my view is in the right path of supporting more infrastructure in developing countries. i think that is the way to go. >> please. no more questions? i thought i saw what. just let us know who you are. >> my name is tim, i would ibm. and i think one of the interesting things in the report that mckinsey did is obviously they went out and they came across all sort of different data and try to measure it and one of the areas we're particularly interested and i think i need for a comment in reference for architecture on how you manage or how you measure all kinds of water, streambeds, basins or rivers. do you see a role on the international work?

we are trying get something going within the united states just to work this issue. i think this is so important, but internationally i would be interested in your thoughts on that, because frankly i think the information available to management water resources is just horrible. it's all over. it is driven by politics. as secretary said, it's as much about politics in spinning the information and tell your story rather than coming up with enough smart people to be able to do that. i would say that would be a huge investment, but if we got it right when they take a look across the whole world and be in a much better position to manage the information and the water systems. >> i think that is a very valid point that comes back to the state of affairs you have an different countries and different societies. i think if you look at new york city, if you look at the developed world, it makes a lot of sense to apply this information technology, and

build databases, might apply modern technology to find out the system, the leaks, find all the things that can be done better. i think that's something to really start to optimize the system in the developed world. at might not necessary apply to the farmer in india or a similar situation, but for the developed world i think this is a very, very important step that we all need to take to better understand the infrastructure and all the needs around what it takes to optimize the use of water. >> just a word to our swiss friend regarding the i.t. infrastructure. i think there is overall for the multilateral banks in infrastructure and i think idb has some excellent examples of

how the stamp of approval of the bank participation has really improved infrastructure of financing the most controversial and i think the most, best example is the gas project in peru where the idb put its efforts into making that into an excellent player, project. the bank's efforts i think have been slacking in recent years, and if you are who i think you are, that is an executive director of the bank, i would encourage you to go back into this and take them on a little bit, hold them to that kind of standard. >> yes, we were talking before about the price of water. and there are some predicates to reaching this point. one of them is to have very

precise, get better on ideological data. and also countries just disregarding those are spending less on hydrological and data gathering. perhaps the word bank and organizations could play some role in these countries, in the same way they keep demographic information, they keep collecting demographic information. and the use of water. because if you want to grant water rides, in some way you have to know how the water is being used today. >> we have time for one last question or comment. so make it a quick one. >> pressure. i was very interested in comments of the mckinsey report that you could take into account the impact of climate change. in reducing water supply,

because what we found in the '80s and 90s in australia and doing predictions of the water levels, what ever we predicted, it was much, much worse than we had ever anticipated. so in terms of the solutions of the mckinsey report that you are putting together, how do you allow them to take into account that might be much, much -- the gap might be much greater are much worse than they had anticipated? >> that is a good question. who wants to try and talk about? >> as an admirer of the australian system, the point is well taken, but i think the amazing thing in the australian system was not that the predicted that they miss predicted how soon and how dramatic climate change would hit them. but that they put in place and institutional system which was able to react to something much more severe than anybody had anticipated. and it is certainly a lot of environmental problems associated, but form an economic

point of view you have no more rise cultivation. it has all moved very rapidly and have not had unemployment and you have not had a lot of loss of economic production. there is an enormous uncertainty, the best preparation is an institutional systems which can react to changes and i think for me, the australian is a shiny case of a system which didn't do that because of climate change, they did it for other circumstances. that's what you want to be ready for an case is much worse than you thought. >> i think it is appropriate to end with a shiny case. we overran a little bit but we started a bit late so i hope you forgive me for the. please join me in thanking the panel. [applause] >> thank you very much for those who thought that water was

boring. i think you have proven a strong. so thank you very much. and with that, i would like to invite lars thunell, for closing remarks, please. >> thank you, bruce, and good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. it's kind of heart after a lively panel like that to come in and tried to say something new, but i thought i would just try to sum up a little bit. first of all, i think the discussions today has been extremely interesting. and was brought to get a group of people with a concerned over the looming water crisis. i think the discussions not only laid out the magnitude of the issues, but more important, potential solutions.

water has become a mainstream concern today, affecting as you have seen policymakers, private sector, and the common citizen. for many countries and regions, the water crisis exists already today. we heard from bob zoellick about 1 million people did not have access to clean water, and 2.6 billion people do not have access to sanitation. this is part of the story that hits all of us as human beings. and we have looked at industrial sectors who use water. it is interesting to note that agriculture uses 70 percent of the water and 40 percent of that in turn is wasted. it takes about 21000 liters of water to produce 1 kilogram of roasted coffee. 21000 liters of water. that's something to think about.

in industry and energy, they are large uses of water. how much water do you think it takes to produce one cotton t-shirt? if you look at those facts, it is clear that water is the common denominator effect in all parts of the economy. and there's a very strong as we heard, very strong nexus between water and energy and agriculture with an overlay of climate change. i visited central asia sometime ago, and that is a country where you clearly see these things. the former soviet union was a division of labor. so the water that was coming out into the cat 610 was used for agriculture. and in the winter, you could actually move power in so that

people could get warm and have some heat during that time. today, with the breakup of the soviet union, you find that the kazakhstan's are using the water or electricity in the winter. because it is sometimes 40 degrees celsius minus up there. and so there is no water available for the summer. for agriculture. which means that there is no food produced. and people have to close down their farms. this is the reality and this is creating a tragedy at the very individual level, but it also creates tensions between countries, real tensions. i think this is the type of things you will see more and more as we move forward. that's why i think this is, this study, the study by the 2030 water resource group and headed by mckinsey, is so important.

it lays out the magnitude of the global scarcity issue as well as provides a framework for practical solutions to the problem. and it provides us with a fact based tool to really look at choices and go beyond the motions to very practical solutions. there are a number of compelling findings in the study. first, what has to be considered in taking account all users on an integrated basis. second, the cost of finding solutions to water scarcity are manageable. i think it is a very important thing. this is a solvable problem if we were together. third, the benefit of reducing use is as great, even greater than increasing supply. and forth, the solution must be through collaboration between public and private sector. and again, let me just take one

or two examples from what i have seen as i have traveled. i opened the water to the islam's image of a. we had helped privatize manila water. at that time they had about 3 million users on the water. we have helped increase that to 5 million. the losses when it was taken over, or privatize, was 70%. 70%. it is now down to 20%. but most important was so fantastic to see that by combination of aid money and the private investment through manila water, we could help link up, hook up to the individual's houses in and for the first time bring water to the poor. these are the type of things,

replying to the question on what the multilateral's can do. that's what i think we can come in and make a real difference, showing that these are very good projects. the other thing i think we can do to the answer questions about technology. last week i was in india, and they met with some fantastic entrepreneurs. they are developed a water cleaning system that can be put in place out in the villages with a very cheap, affordable cost for the people. and now looking at how they can multiply that into thousands of villages. these again are things we can help provide some of the risk capital. but i think all this brings out the issue that was discussed very much, the point about valuing water, about pricing water, as the most pressures, resource on earth, on one hand.

but also something as a human rights for people to have enough water to drink and wash themselves every day. i think the panel discussion on this study, obviously policymakers can use this framework for potential options on an objective and more informed basis. and the framework allows for a constructive dialogue at the political economic level around possible solutions. and the framework also allows for private-sector investors to participate and investing in somebody's solutions. the study shows that private-sector participants are critical for addressing water dniester and for the private sector, i think you also see that there are huge areas of opportunities, whether it is drip irrigation in india, industrial deficiency in china, the gauge reduction in brazil. the power sector has a role to

play and can do it in a profitable way. i think that is the important part of this. at ifc, we would use the study to scale up our interventions in both the demand and supply side of the sector. this means that only traditional side, but more important increased focus on efficiency. we are doing this and cross sector, agriculture, mining, manufacturing and of course energy. and we will continue to also focus on the access to water through the water companies we work with today, we provide indirectly, i wish i could take all the credit for it, but it is 35 million customers. we intend, as you are today, have 100 million. how many years? three years. so 100 million within three years is our target and that is our commitment as a result of this study. the world bank on the public

site in evaluating options to close the supply and demand get. it will be that they are used their policy advice. and i hope that many of you, with your private firms or collateral's or ngos, will also find these tools useful in the dialogue and in your decision-making. in conclusion, i think that historically water has been framed as a problem, especially the rural. i think looking into the future, water and security will create a much wider constraint on growth. and that is why now needs to be brought into and involve many, many more stakeholders and a wider audience. and this is why i think now we

can open up the conversation about possible policies, institutions, technologies, and perhaps most important pricing policies in a totally new way. and it is all about making the right choices, to get both water for the poor as well as sustainable growth and development. now finally, let me just end by thanking everybody who has played a very important role in this today and in the study. first of all, mckinsey and company. thank you very much. you have done most of the analytical work. the group of sponsors have provided funding and also very important, guidance on the problem i can project. the panelists that were here today, many of them have contributed. thank you. and of course our colleagues throughout the world bank group.

i would like to particularly mention at the world bank, thank you very much. and mullarkey at ifc husband a key person on our side getting this going. and then we have the logistics and all the things around this event. thank you very much. i would also like to thank you finally for coming and being interested in this issue that as we heard, was growing importance as we move forward. and i think we all care about our planet. so thank you very much for coming. thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> president obama welcomed indian prime minister