Sustainable Access to Water in Mexico City by Divya Chand

Table of contents Introduction

Materials and methods

Detailed analysis Urban Metabolism of Water in Mexico City Inflows Outflows Deconstructing discourses on water scarcity in CDMX

4 4 4 6 7

Discussion How conventional models for water provision fail Towards coproduction RWH Practices and Current Uses Limitations How to upscale the practice?

9 9 10 11 13 13

Conclusion

Bibliography

Abstract Mexico City is going through a serious water crisis due to the mismanagement of its

provision. The effects of a strongly unequal supply impact the less wealthy and exposes the city to an ever closer risk of collapsing. These entangled geographical, socio-political and environmental dynamics are investigated in this paper. First, a material flow analysis of the city aims to underline the mis-functions of the supply system which relies on remote and over-exploited resources. A discourse analysis then underlines the socio-political dimension of water provision and the discursive constructions around it are investigated. Finally, coproduction and more specifically rainwater harvesting are discussed as a possible approach for improving accessibility and sustainability of the water supply, looking at already existing practices and evaluating upscaling opportunities. Introduction

‘Water is a brutal delineator of social power which has at various times worked to either foster greater urban cohesion or generate new forms of political conflict’(Gandy 2004). When we look at a city as a system, an urban metabolism, with continuous resource exchanges between a city and the environment that supports it, water is of top priority; it is vital for human needs, health, for homes, agriculture, industry, the environment and the economy. However, both in and out-flows of materials lack sustainability. Cities are increasingly dependant on energy-intensive water sources, such as distant rivers and aquifers to meet their water demand. These are used by citizens but often in uneven ways. Drainage, untreated wastewater and its leakages are often let out of the city into the surrounding environment. This can have direct consequences on the environment, resource pools and the quality of lives everywhere. It thus becomes extremely important to study the urban metabolism of water; on the one hand its sustainability, to limit resource depletion and pollution, and on the other hand accessibility, as every individual of the city should be guaranteed equitable access to water resources. The aim of this paper is thus to find alternative systems to urban water provision, as conventional systems seem to fail. In the context of Mexico City. Our focus research question is “How can rainwater harvesting enhance water accessibility and sustainability in Mexico City?” Before beginning with the analysis it is important to define the regional names and boundaries we will use throughout our research for the sake of clarity. Mexico City (hereinafter referred to as CDMX) is more of an international nickname than a colloquial term. The Federal District (hereinafter referred to as D.F.) is the official capital and the most important administrative section in all of Mexico and is subdivided into sixteen administrative municipalities (Delgadillo 2016). The D.F. then falls into The Metropolitan Zone of the Valley of Mexico (hereinafter referred to as ZMCM) which is often referred to as Greater Mexico City in anglophone discourse and research and is what most Mexicans think of when simply referring to CDMX. ZMCM includes eighteen additional municipalities that constitute suburbs of formal and informal housing and economic activity (Delgadillo 2016). Several of these municipalities, although administratively part of ZMCM are officially situated in Hidalgo State (not in Mexico State) making the governmental responsibility of provision of certain resources such as water in these areas more unclear. 2

Furthermore, CDMX is one of the oldest and biggest cities in North America. With a population nearing 9 million in 2015, it makes one of the most populous cities of the western hemisphere. ZMCM has 20 million inhabitants, with population densities in some areas exceeding 13,500 persons/km2. Thus, the provision of water supplies and sanitation services in an efficient, equitable and timely manner presents a huge management and investment challenge for the giant metropolis (Tortajada 2006). Moreover, due to its geographical location, CDMX has two distinct dry and rainy seasons every year, raising water levels and the probability of floods in the warmer months and an acute scarcity of water in the colder months. Since this affects the availability of water over time so does the political and public discourse around it. First, the framework we used for measuring an urban metabolism is a material flow analysis, measuring water inflows and outflows of CDMX, presenting the numbers related to water in D.F. and using data provided by public authorities. This framework allows the identification not only of the dimensions and quantities of water flows, but also of technical and socio-ecological issues. We evaluate them from an urban political-ecology perspective, especially by pointing at issues related to water provision, such as unequal water quality and availability. Afterwards, we look at the public and individual discourses on these issues in CDMX. Then in the discussion section of this report, we propose coproduction of water supply as an alternative to conventional provision models. We illustrate this alternative model with successful implementations around the world. Finally, we look at a specific example, which is coproduction of rainwater harvesting in CDMX with further analysis on how this practice can be upscaled. Materials and methods We perceive urban metabolism as a framework for modelling complex urban systems’ flows. We use it to analyse how the urban area functions regarding resource use, to assess the efficiency of infrastructures and to better understand the relationship between human activities and their (natural) environment. The aim of the urban metabolism approach is to quantify flows and stocks of the urban system. Once recycling of resources and interconnection of flows within the urban environment is realised, a more circular urban metabolism appears. The morphology of infrastructure is directly linked to the quality of urban metabolism, hence an embedded design is of great importance (Van Timmeren 2014). In this paper we use the concept of political ecology to refer to a diversity of theoretical and methodological approaches that share a common interest in questions related to the politics of natural resource management and their interactive effects on livelihoods and environmental change dynamics (Bassett & Peimer 2015). Political ecology provides critiques and alternatives in environmental political, and socioeconomic factors (Robbins 2012) and looks at how unequal relations in society are affected by the intersection of politics and the natural environment. Another tool we use to analyse water scarcity in CDMX is Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), which is commonly used to analyse prevailing dominance and inequality, demonstrating the crucial role discourse has in reproducing social circumstances (Foucault 2005). Discourse analysis in this paper engages critically with relevant current legal and political statements to analyse how water scarcity is constructed around predominant social inequalities and power relations. A broad overview on the different constructions of water scarcity is proposed, in order to critically examine the lack of holistic approaches on water provision in CDMX. 3

It is important to mention that data limitations influenced all parts of our analysis. Only limited data was found on the distribution of water and the inequality laying behind it. The same must be said for the in- and outflow of water in CDMX, where data from different years had to be combined to coherently explain the water metabolism of the city. Detailed analysis Urban Metabolism of Water in Mexico City The information used for this part was mainly retrieved from the article Water and the political ecology of urban metabolism: the case of Mexico City (Delgado-Ramos 2015), combined with information issued by Mexico government, CONAGUA, INEGI and SACMEX.

Figure 1: Sankey diagram for Urban water metabolism of the Mexico City Metropolitan Area (m3/sec) . Source: own elaboration based on graphic elaborated by Delgado-Ramos 2015. Data based on Burns 2009; Delgado-Ramos 2014b; SM-DF 2012; EMARNAT/CONAGUA 2012; and data from INFO-DF, local access public information entity.

Inflows When it comes to the water inflows in ZMCM, the source are more than 600 wells that extract water from the Valley of Mexico aquifer (approximately 59 m3 /s (Delgado 2015)). This aquifer is currently being overexploited and the result is up to a 1m drop per year in the static water level and with a deficit of approximately 28 m3 /s (Ibid.). The infrastructure of ZMCM for the water supply consists of two sources: The Lerma System (LS) and The Cutzamala System (CS). The LS transfers 4.8 m3/s (Ibid.) of water (6% of total water supply to Greater Mexico City) from well fields in the upper basin of the Lerma River west of CDMX. The CS transfer 14.9 m3/s (Ibid.) (19% of total supply) of water from the Cutzamala River in the Balsas basin to the Southwest of ZMCM. 4

Figure 2: Lerma and Cutzamala systems reaching CDMX. Source: Translated by authors based on CONAGUA (2005)

The bulk of water coming from LS and CS is distributed by two administration entities: CDMX Water System (SACMEX) in D.F., and the Mexico State Water Commission (CAEM), which delivers water to the corresponding metropolitan municipalities throughout Mexico State. The ZMVM imports bottled drinking water from several places, some of them are national. Water consumption in D.F. averages some 318 liters-per-capita daily, without included bottled water (Jiménez et al. 2011; Peña 2012). According to Delgado, these are significant issues in environmental terms, especially because about one-third of the total water consumed by the metropolitan area comes from the LS-CS system and that it must be pumped more than 1,100 meters vertically. Moreover, in the case of the LS, installed capacity has been reduced from 15 m3/s to approximately 5 m3/s (Delgado 2015) because of over-pumping the aquifers of the region. The cost of moving water from lower to higher areas of the system has been increased due to over pumping. Total demand for bottled water in ZMVM has been calculated at 8.78 hm3/year (Delgado, 2015) when including additional water necessary for its production- virtual water. People without access to water from pipes are paying to private vendors. For this they are spending 6 to 25% (Ibid.) of their daily salaries. Much of the population is purchasing drinking water because of insecurity in quality of tap water. Mexico was ranked the third largest consumer of bottled water in 2009 (Illsley 2017). At the moment 76.94% of D.F. population consume bottled water, while 10.84% boil tap water to drink from; 4.37% filter or purify tap water by using other methods, and 4.58% consume water directly from the tap (Jiménez et al. 2011). Consumption has similar patterns in the rest of ZMVM. Apart from these difficulties and the economic and environmental costs, there are big differences in the availability of water. Based on Jiménez et al. (2011), the distribution in the municipality of Tláhuac is 177 liters, while in Cuajimalpa it is 525 liters. The consumption is in range of 400 liters to 525 liters per capita daily in municipalities with the highest income. It should be taken into consideration that a highly limited natural water availability yearly is 160 5

m3 per capita (Jiménez et al. 2011). In the figures below, access to drinking water is illustrated. Figure 3 reveals a correlation between access to drinking water and socioeconomic status. Figure 4 shows connectivity to the main water system in absolute numbers, revealing a high number of inhabitants still not being connected to the water network. Beside of the fact that there are water access inequalities when it comes to quantity, there are differences in terms of quality too (Jiménez et al. 2011; Díaz-Santos 2012). This is partially due to the SACMEX's purification capacity limitations. There are 38 purification plants in operation in SACMEX with an installed capacity of 5.1 m3/s, however purified flow rate is actually 3.7 m3/s (INEGI 2014; SEMARNAT/CONAGUA 2012; Delgado 2015).

Figure 3: Socioeconomic levels and the distribution of houses without drinking water in the Metropolitan Area of Mexico City Source: Tortajada 2006, Centro de Investigación en Geografía y Geomática "Ing. Jorge L. Tamayo", Mexico.

Figure 4: Connectivity of the population to the water provision system in D.F. Source: authors’ own elaboration based on Isla Urbana (2015)

Outflows The water outflows of the metropolitan area have been estimated at an average volume of 57 m3/s. Most of this water is not treated. Installed treatment capacity in CDMX is around 6.7 m3/s, with an actual treated flow rate of only 3 m3/s, while in the municipalities of the Mexico State that are part of ZMVM, the installed capacity is about 5.1 m3/s with an actual treated flow 6

rate of 3.6 m3/s (based on SEMARNAT/CONAGUA 2012). Afterwards through a deep drainage system and the Grand Canal, the remain of wastewater and storm water goes to the Tula Basin. Treated water in D.F. is mostly used in urban green spaces (83%), and the remainder is reused by industry (10%) or in food production (5%) (Delgado 2015). Besides, treated water is used for agricultural activities. The process of water treatment is a key issue for environmental and sanitary reasons. The private sector, in principle, defines who receives treated water and who doesn't (Delgado, 2015). Peña (2012) as well as Budds and McGranahan (2003) have already raised concerns about future de facto privatization of treated water. There is a new wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), built in Atotonilco, Hidalgo that opened in February 2015. The Atotonilco Plant cleans 60% of the wastewater from the ZMVM and is used by Hidalgo State as it is one of the principal sources of agriculture in Mexico. The Atotonilco Project was taken up as part of the Sustainable Water Programme for the Valley of Mexico and is therefore significantly improving the environmental conditions and raises the overall water treatment rate of the country. It improves living conditions of approximately 300,000 inhabitants in the region, who do not have access to treated water. To sum up, we see that increasing urbanization has created a situation of great complexity in CDMX. While there is overexploitation of resources, we see that the effects are not uniform everywhere, due to political schisms, physical geography as well as inefficient infrastructure, hence people often have to rely on bottled water, which is much more environmentally exploitative in nature. The unequal access to water combined with political schisms and the physical geography create a significant difference in the amount of the water people get. Land subsidence due to overexploitation of aquifers causes problems in the built structure, affecting the city beyond water issues. Major leakages in the supply lines are wasteful. The share of wastewater undergoing treatment is rather small, and much of it is dumped into the Moctezuma River basin. There are many health concerns about the reuse of wastewater in agriculture. We observe from the gathered data (cf. figure 1), that a large share of the received water through rainfall is lost to evaporation. Very little of this rainwater makes it to the shrinking aquifers. Rainwater thus emerges as an important untapped resource in such areas. Researchers have found that 60 percent of the average annual percent demand could be met with local rainwater (French 2017). Overall, overcoming the aforementioned challenges is complicated by the fragmented responsibility of water management in ZMVM, as well as on diverging discourses on how sustainability and accessibility should be reached, which are explained in the following section. Deconstructing discourses on water scarcity in CDMX Water scarcity discourse has been studied in various contexts and in different locations around the globe (Ashtana 2011, Linton 2004, Mehta 2003). The topic is often constructed as an absolute, purely environmental and technical problem in policy and the broader political discourse, fostering a linear, de-politicized conception of water provision and sustaining prevailing power relations (Perló Cohen and González Reynoso 2005). Only recently, alternatives to a linear water system have been discussed in policy making in Mexico City, but the discourse is led by discussions around big infrastructure projects (Hernández 2018). Private investments in the water systems and privatizations are often discussed as the key solution for Mexico's water supply problems, (Bitrán 1999). A new reform 7

of the “Ley General del Agua” (General Law of Water) is currently discussed in parliament, dissolving the public ownership of water and opening it towards private investments (Rivera 2017, Burns and Moctezuma 2018). This has been problematized by different non-governmental organizations, the media, and to some extent, the public, as water has for long been defined as a solely public good by law (Enciso 2018, Rivera 2017). Also, privatization has in other cases in the Global South produced limited results and drawbacks, which include partial improvements in the quality and efficiency of services, market failures, increased costs and socio-spatial fragmentation phenomena (Budds and McGranahan 2003). Research done on privatization of urban water systems in other Global South cities show that water privatization has mainly failed to improve water services, beyond levels attained during previous public water services (Vardacostas 2014).Yet, public administrations often mention the benefits of privatizations (gain of efficiency and limitations of indebtedness), leaving out the societal implications these could have (Bakker 2003; Burns and Moctezuma 2018). Furthermore, the yearly seasonal discourses of water again follow a linear logic of water use, almost always omitting the fact that water is a renewable resource (which can be captured and reused) and missing the interconnection of floods and droughts in a hydrological system. Both, floodings and water scarcity are often disasterized by politicians and media, policies being reactive rather than proactive, privileging technological fixes (Arredondo 2018, Olmos 2018, López 2018). Discourses on water scarcity thus clearly lack long term perspectives. However, integrating different issues and connecting them to wider resilience ambitions and climate change challenges will be key for every resident to access water in the long run. In addition, a strong socio-economic dimension of water scarcity is present in Mexico, which is not often emphasized in the political discourse. As described in the previous chapter, access to water differs highly between municipalities. Figure 2 shows the connection of socio-economic performance and access to water in the Metropolitan Area of Mexico City. Water scarcity is thus not experienced universally throughout D.F., but is most present in low-income neighbourhoods. While in official documents the differences of water access between neighbourhoods are discussed, the socio-economic inequalities behind them are not (Procuraduría Ambiental y del Ordenamiento Territorial del Distrito Federal 2008). Lastly, water scarcity has a gendered dimension, which can also be observed in Mexico (Mehta 2003). Women, especially in lower income households are responsible for the provision of water used for household activities (agua.org.mx 2017). This aspect is completely absent in the political discourse. More research should however be conducted on the topic for the case of CDMX. All by all, neither the circular potential of the water cycle (the idea of water being a renewable resource, which can be preserved and reused) nor the socio-economic dimension of water distribution (water provision shaping and being shaped by inequalities) are sufficiently considered in the political discourse. As budget constraints are a fact, projects of privatization are constructed around concerns of technical efficiency and debt limitation, rather than on equity and sustainability concerns. Thus, we propose the coproduction model as a potential solution to these structural problems.

Discussion How conventional models for water provision fail As we have seen through the water flow analysis of CDMX, urban water services are still mainly conceived and produced through a “conventional” model, which consists of “a network of interconnected structures, centrally planned and managed by a single monopoly-based public utility”, namely SACMEX and CAEM (Jaglin 2014). However, research on conventional services, repeatedly showed the limits and unsustainability of this model (Moretto and Ranzato, 2016; Tarr and Dupuy 1988), for several reasons. First, in the case of CDMX, public utilities have shown their inability to maintain the infrastructural network, generating shortages (Moretto and Ranzato 2016). As stated before, while privatization is a discussed solution, research in other Global South cities shows that in fact it would not necessarily improve the situation and could actually even make it worse (Vardacostas 2014). Second, it is important to highlight that the networked infrastructure of water in CDMX is almost entirely dependent on an extensive subterranean drainage system and complexes of technology, surpassing the city (Boer et al. 2018) and thus relies on infrastructures and ecosystems far beyond the urban bioregion as suppliers of natural resources (Monstadt 2009). It lacks a system which is more integrated in the urban landscape, closer to its users and which can be easily fixed. Hence, a centralized system is not as resilient as a decentralized system would. For example, if one decentralized unit of water provision breaks down, it can be rapidly fixed, while other units can still provide the service (Johannessen and Wamsler 2017). In the case of centralized systems, the whole city is paralysed when maintenance operations have to be done.

Figure 5: Cutzamala System water pipes maintenance operation in November 2018. Cost: $MXN500M. Thirteen municipalities were affected by water cuts during five days. Source: Alejandra Leyva/El Universal (2018).

Finally, it is worth mentioning that D.F. is coping with rapid urbanization, urban conditions of informality, “slums”, spatial fragmentation, and low investment in decaying infrastructures (Ziccardi 2014; Monstadt and Schramm 2013). Consequently, authorities often fail to deliver and sustain universal, affordable and adapted services. Thus, we see in CDMX the necessity to overcome the failures of conventional urban water services, both in terms of accessibility and environmental sustainability. Now, some scholars are turning their attention to decentralized infrastructural systems as alternatives or complements to the traditional centralized ones (Coutard et al. 2014). Towards coproduction Coproduction is defined as ‘the joint action of citizens to support public services, to enhance the quality and/or the quantity of the services they use’ (Bovaird et al. 2016), as well as ‘to enhance inclusiveness, empowerment, and citizenship’ (Batley 2006). Coproduction can either be the voluntary initiative of citizens, social movements or governments. It may include third sectors, public organizations, and for-profit organizations (Brandsen, Verschuere, and Pestoff 2012) and can be disaggregated into many different service activities (Bovaird and Loeffler 2012). Across the urban Global South, infrastructural deficits are being increasingly addressed by active experimentation in new ways. It is estimated that there are over 80,000 community-led water systems in Latin America alone, serving over 40 million people in rural and peri-urban areas, with the capacity to extend the system and serve an additional 18 million of people (Ochoa, Soto, and Burt 2011). In most Latin American countries, coproduction of water provision is realized through the establishment of local small-sized operator networks (OLPE). Under this denomination are included: tanker trucks or tank cars (private OLPE’s) to community organizations or associations (community OLPE’s) of diverse nature, generally called Boards (Juntas) and/or Committees (Comités) (Aguilar 2011). In CDMX the best established form of coproduction is the supply of water by trucks (pipas) (Pike 2005). In some municipalities, the trucked water service is organized through an evolving set of PPPs. In others, organized residents and local authorities support service accountability through coproduction (Pike 2005). Water provision through pipas should be in emergency cases only; however in some peripheries of the city, many people – usually mothers – have to take a bus to a pipa depot daily, to petition for water; it is supposed to be free, but residents customarily pay the driver a tip of 30 to 50 pesos (Watts 2015). The system hence is not viable anymore for many families, neither is sustainable nor accessible for everyone (Garcia 2016). Other forms of coproduction thus have to be implemented.

Figure 6: Citizens organizing water provision trough “pipa” (water tankers). Source: Mexico News Daily. October 2018.

In the following section, we will focus on RWH practices especially, while keeping in mind that these practices do not exclude - but rather pave the way to - other forms of coproduction, such as decentralized wastewater treatment. RWH Practices and Current Uses CDMX, inheriting on average 709 mm of rainfall per year (CONAGUA 2009), concentrated five months a year, is notorious for flooding (Garcia 2016). Knowing this, rainwater could be a precious and crucial resource in the current frame of the city’s water crisis.

Figure 7: Annual Mean precipitation in D.F. Source: CONAGUA (2009); graphic by authors

RWH is not a recent concept and it consists in the simple practice of collection and storage of rainfall water, especially in areas with frequent precipitations; many tools can be used to collect it, from tanks on rooftops, to dams or reservoirs (Cosgrove 2018). The technology input as well as the financial investment are generally not very big, with 500 to 1000$ being the cost for one family cistern (Garcia 2016), making this practice easily applicable both in rural and urban contexts, even within disadvantaged communities. Moreover, many Mexican houses are already equipped with cisterns, so for a basic system, the only cost to families are two filters, which last six months, and cost around $100 pesos (which is equivalent to 5 euro), which is drastically less than the cost of mains water (House 2016). In the specific case of CDMX, RWH could represent a viable solution to the water crisis, leading to a wide range of benefits, increasing both sustainability and accessibility of water provision systems. It could curtail the hydraulic stress and pollution risks, reducing the groundwater extraction from the overexploited municipal resources (Valdez et al. 2016); plus, rainwater is supposed to be free from salinity and, if properly treated, can be a good source of drinkable water (Ibid.). Nevertheless, other sources have underlined the complexity of the rain filtration process, which is often acid due to atmospheric problems, as explained by Garcia Martinez (CNN 2018). Furthermore, studies have proved RWH has a mitigating power on flood risk (Valdez et al., 2016). This feature too could be extremely important in the case of CDMX, prone to flooding for being located in an endorheic basin and highly urbanised (Ibid.). Lately, limited attempts of building and implementing RWH systems in CDMX have been introduced in a coproduction perspective. Isla Urbana is Mexico City’s main RWH project, a “hybrid social enterprise and non-profit” (Garcia 2016), supported by government funds and working as an NGO (Ibid.). Established in 2009, it designed a RWH model able to capture and filter rain for long-term storage purposes, exploiting already existing cisterns, common in Mexican households. Until 2016, more than 2,200 systems were installed, 170M litres of water were harvested, supporting 16,500 people (Ibid.). However, the project of extending the implementation of this system across the whole city still faces some constraints.

Figure 8: An example of I sla Urbana’s cisterns Source: The Guardian (2016). Photograph: Camaroni Producciones

Limitations Establishing a sufficient network of RWH will be complex given the geological, political and cultural backdrop of CDMX. First of all, the Mexican public is highly aware of the issue of pollution in the city’s water cycle and acid precipitation is well understood. Thus, the public will unlikely use rain water as a major source of the liquid for daily consumption. Indeed, more complex filtration systems would be needed in order to make acid rain water safe enough for more direct human consumption (such as for bathing and cooking). This means that installation prices and maintenance expenses could become a significant investment for mexican families. Even in the case of correct implementation and acceptance of RWH, these systems may have some indirect implications for the society as a whole. Button (2016) analyses the domestic water supply through coproduction in Mumbai’s middle class. Strikingly similar to CDMX, Mumbai’s monopolistic water provision system entirely relies on state agencies and cannot suit the rapidly growing population, coupled with changing climate and extreme weather events (Button 2016). This is why the middle class usually relies on rainwater collection in order to have access to a constant water supply. Button underlines that this phenomenon “has the potential to free-up main water supplies for poorer residents but could also have the opposite effect and actually decrease water availability through changes in governance or extended practices of water use” (2016); Another ambiguity shows that despite the fact that coproduction can increase political capital because of a greater control over resource provision, it could also set a precedent by which the municipality expects the citizens to coproduce water services by themselves, allowing the state to roll-back aims for universal provision. Hence, overall efforts to reduce water shortage might not be increased and coproduction may have less effect than expected on addressing current inequalities (Button 2016). These consequences are context-related and are not necessarily implied in the case of CDMX, but they shed light on the possible risks of implementing RWH systems through coproduction. How to upscale the practice? CDMX already possesses a set of binding regulations about RWH, which was put into effect in 2003. That includes measures for both new and already existing constructions: buildings with RWH systems are supposed to be awarded tax breaks; and individual actors involved in RWH practices ought to be given economic incentives and funding (La Asamblea Legislativa del D.F., II Legislaturea 2003). Despite this, the legislation is yet to be fully implemented and RWH systems are still few compared to the current needs of the populations. An interesting proposal for upscaling the RWH model is given by Deltares and De Urbanisten, two Dutch independent research institutes which designed the strategy “Delay, retain, store, reuse” to tackle the hydrogeological problems of DF and overall increase water ‘sensitivity’ (Boer et al. 2018). The project aims to mitigate the impacts of flooding and other water related vulnerabilities, by redesigning streets and parks for instance, which would collect 13

rainwater. It also aspires to enhance awareness on scarcity of resources and to reconstruct the city’s broken relationship with water by the creation of inventive design projects (Ibid.). An example was the introduction of functional urban seating elements in parks, that are used both to harvest rainwater and to water planters, as well as to educate citizens. The close relation of the citizens/users with the water provision system brings them nearer to the resources associated with the service. They become acquainted with what we can define Common Pool Resources. This generates concrete possibilities for citizens to understand how the resource systems operate and the effects their actions have on the systems (Moretto and Ranzato 2016).

Figure 9: Storing rainwater to raise awareness / to create art. Source: Boer et al. 2018

The coproduction of RWH is applied in many contexts worldwide, revealing other interesting ways on how the system could be upscaled. In Agra, India, the non-profit development organization Centre for Urban and Regional Excellence (CURE) and the Agra Municipal Corporation implemented RWH techniques, involving the communities in the planning, location and construction phases and implying traditional building techniques by local artisans, leaving a low ecological footprint. CURE combined this long-term resilience strategy in an economic, environmental, socio-political perspective. Nearly 1.000.000 litres of water over 2 years have been generated, benefitting over 10.500 households in 24 low-income settlements (Cure 2017). Another interesting upscaling proposal was devised for a congested situation such as the slums of Kampala, Uganda; a prototype of a foldable water tank was designed with a water filtering component as temporary storage. It can contain up to 1000 litres. The innovation would foster community engagement, allowing participating young people and women to earn a living by selling the excess water and using readily available local materials. (Naatujuna 2015). 14

In the Mohakhali slums of Dhaka, Bangladesh, a research was carried out by the charity organization WaterAid about the post implementation situation of rainwater facilities (Ahmed et al. 2014). The proposals focused on promotional strategies for massive awareness-raising: involvement of the educational and academic community, incorporating RWH in the curricula of technical institutes and linking research with implementation. Additionally, engaging real estate companies should be required, since proper infrastructure development precedes the integration of RWH system into buildings (Ibid.). Another remarkable case of RWH, similar to De Urbanisten and Deltares aforementioned project, is the design of Potsdamer Platz in Berlin. Here, through the buildingsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; green rooftops, rainwater is collected and used for irrigations, fire extinguishing systems and toilet flushing. Five underground cisterns save the rain in excess, locating it in artificial pools, integrated with vegetated biotopes that purify it organically. Plus, thanks to the moisture, summer temperatures are reduced with energy savings (Urban green blue grids 2006). The practices presented above come from different perspectives and are designed for different purposes, but they show the versatility of the RWH system and how it can be adapted on different contexts. Conclusion In conclusion, it is fair to say that no single miraculous solution can resolve the water crisis in CDMX, due to the complex and entangled nature of the issue. However, by following some guidelines, the coproduction of RWH could provide a viable solution to enhance accessibility and sustainability of water provision in Mexico City. Clearly, a multi-disciplinary, integrated and holistic approach needs to be implemented; this includes refreshing a planning practice that led to an uncontrolled urban development, giving more space to alternative paradigms and focusing more on innovative bottom-up approaches; a network of various RWH projects could be a considerable engine of change and thus deserves more financial and technical support. Parallel to this goes the appropriation of the urban public (and private) space and to enhance its multifunctionality: schools, parks and private roofs can be operated for rainwater harvesting alongside their other uses. Nonetheless, every effort is likely to be vain if not integrated with policies that aim at cultural and educational intervention: adequate provision should go along with efforts to keep resource waste at a minimum, disseminating the perception of water as an inestimable source, which canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t be spoiled. In regards to this, education should become a priority. Many authors also agree on the importance of making water related knowledge universally accessible and the need to gather existing data and statistics of CDMXâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; water distribution in one central database (currently absent), available for further innovation (Delgado-Ramos 2015; Salinas et al. 2018). Finally, the improvement of a more inclusive and participative political system is urgently needed: CDMX residents are the first to be impacted by this issue, having a direct interest in water provision and by virtue of this, they should be more involved in decision making.

Summary of recommendations How could a coproduction model of RWH be efficiently implemented and increase sustainability and accessibility of water in CDMX? 1.Through education ● Raise awareness. Every citizen should understand where its water comes from and what are the consequences of individual (in)action. Consciousness should also be raised about inequalities in water provision. ● Foster the sense of ‘collective responsibility’. Creating decentralized infrastructure, which is integrated in the urban landscape and managed by citizens could enhance this idea. Avoiding over-consumption is a responsibility shared by every citizen. ● Promote RWH practices as a viable solution. Through workshops for the general public, educational materials, arts-based programmes and access to personal testimonials (Garcia 2016). 2. By empowering citizens ● Create ownership. Provide financial and technical support to decentralized bottom-up rainwater harvesting projects. ● Appropriating the urban space and enhance its multifunctionality. Provide legal and financial incentives so that schools, gardens, parks, roofs and squares can also be used for RWH alongside their primary uses. 3. Through (shifts in) urban governance ● Build resilience through decentralization. Building resilience not only in cities’ physical infrastructures but also in social architecture, governance structures, financial systems, and ecosystems. A resilient city can adapt to changing conditions and withstand shocks while still providing essential services (Rodriguez and Gambrill 2015). ● Increase participation and include many actors. Citizens are directly impacted and have a direct interest in water provision. They should therefore also directly be involved in decision making. Moreover, research institutes, schools, companies and real estate developers, should also be included and incentivized to participate in RWH practices. ● Adopt a holistic approach and a long term vision: When thinking the city, consider current issues but also include the potential effects of climate change such as rising temperatures, changes in precipitation patterns, and climate variability, on water resource availability. Some tasks concerning different, but related issues, such as urban development, resilience ambitions and climate change, public and green space, water management, wealth and gender inequalities, should all be integrated in one design and policy approach. ● Public / political engagement: municipalities shouldn’t expect their citizens to coproduce and to fulfill their water needs completely on their own. Aims for universal provision should be maintained and public authorities should play a pivotal role in the transition towards a more sustainable water access (Button 2016). Moreover, they should be proactive rather than reactive.

4. Through research ● Centralize data : In order to tackle water issues, many authors agree (Delgado-Ramos 2015; Salinas et al. 2018) it is essential to make knowledge accessible and to gather existing data and statistics of Mexico City’s water distribution in one central database, in order to foster further innovation. ● Re-politicize water access. Water access is too often framed as a purely environmental issue which can be solved through infrastructural or technological fixes. Scarcity is disasterized and detached from socio-economic contexts. Water inequalities (in terms of gender and space) should thus be further researched.

Figure 10: A rain harvester and his daughter.

“Making sure to be positioned over a plant, rain harvester Edgar Serralde slowly pours water from a small container for his daughter Arantza to wash her hands, outside their home in Mexico City's borough Xochimilco. 'They've grown up their whole lives with this consciousness about how water is gold, and they're not just going to throw it away so easily or flush it down the toilet.' says Mexican nonprofit Isla Urbana's Jennifer White of residents who have had rain harvesting system installed.”

Source: AP Photo/Nick Wagner. Phys.org (September 2016).

Bibliography Aguilar, E. (2011). “Gestión comunitaria de los servicios de agua y saneamiento: su posible aplicación en Mexico”. MDG Achievement Fund (UN). 72p. Agua.org.mx (2017). El género en la gestión del agua. R etrieved December 05, 2018, from Agua.org.mx: https://agua.org.mx/editoriales/el-genero-en-la-gestion-del-agua/. Ahmed, W., Nusrat, F., & Hossain, S. (2014). A study on the alternate source of water and an implication of the rainwater harvesting system (RWHS) in Dhaka city slums (Publication). Arredondo, A. (2018, November 08). Qué está pasando con el agua en la Ciudad de México. Voa noticia. Retrieved December 05, 2018, from https://www.voanoticias.com/a/que-esta-pasando-con-el-agua-en-ciudad-de-mexico-df-/4650658 .html. Asthana, V. (2011): The urban water reform project: a critical discourse analysis of the water policy making process in Delhi, India. In Water Policy 13 (6), pp. 769–781. DOI: 10.2166/wp.2011.076. Bakker, K. J. (2003). A Political Ecology of Water Privatization. Studies in Political Economy, 70(1), 35–58. Beniston, M. (2002). Climatic change: Implications for the hydrological cycle and for water management. Advances in Global Change Research: v. 10. Dordrecht, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Bitrán, D. B. (1999). México: Inversiones en el sector agua, alcantarillado y saneamiento (Serie Reformas Económicas No. 21). CEPAL. Retrieved December 05, 2018, from https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/7467/1/S9900582_es.pdf. Boer, F., Espinola, V. R., Salinas, E. M., Van de Pas, B., (2018, January 15). TOWARDS A WATER SENSITIVE MEXICO CITY: Public space as a rain management strategy (Rep.). Retrieved December 1, 2018, from Deltares website: https://www.deltares.nl/en/news/adaptation-approach-for-a-water-sensitive-mexico-city/ Bovaird, T. 2007. “Beyond Engagement and Participation: User and Community Coproduction of Public Services.” Public Administration Review 67 (5): 846–860. doi:10.1111/puar.2007.67. issue-5. Bovaird, T., and E. Loeffler. 2012. “From Engagement to Co-production: The Contribution of Users and Communities to Outcomes and Public Value.” Voluntas 23 (4): 1119–1138. Bovaird, T., G. Stoker, T. Jones, E. Loeffler, and M. Roncancio. 2016. “Activating collective co-production of public services: Influencing citizens to participate in complex governance mechanisms in the UK.” International Review of Administrative Sciences 82 (1): 47–68.

Budds, J., and G. McGranaham. 2003. “Are the debates on water privatization missing the point? Experiences from Africa, Asia and Latin America.” Environment and Urbanisation 15 (2): 87–114 Burns, E., & Moctezuma, P. (2018, November 14). El futuro del agua: Privatizar o democratizar? sinembargo. R etrieved January 12, 2019, from https://www.sinembargo.mx/14-11-2018/3497324. Button, C. (2016). The co-production of a constant water supply in Mumbai’s middle-class apartments. Urban Research & Practice, 10(1), 102–119. Delgadillo, V. (2016) Selective modernization of Mexico City and its historic center. Gentrification without displacement?, Urban Geography, 37:8, 1154-1174, DOI: 10.1080/02723638.2015.1096114 Cleanawater (2015). Rainwater Harvesting Solutions: Which Countries Lead the Way? Available at:https://cleanawater.com.au/information-centre/rainwater-harvesting-solutions-which-countries -lead-the-way, checked on 1/2/2019 CNN, (2018, October 16). Aluminio, zinc, o arsénico: Todo esto hace peligrosa el agua de lluvia en Ciudad de México. CNN Espanol. Retrieved December 1, 2018, from CNN Español. (2018, October 16). Aluminio, zinc, o arsénico: Todo esto hace peligrosa el agua de lluvia en Ciudad de México. Retrieved January 1, 2019, from https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2018/10/16/aluminio-zinc-o-arsenico-todo-esto-hace-peligrosa-el-ag ua-de-lluvia-en-ciudad-de-mexico/ Comisión Nacional del Agua (Conagua) (2016). El uso de la Participación del Sector Privado (PSP) en Agua y Saneamiento. Comisión Nacional del Agua. Retrieved January 08, 2019, from https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/110725/El_uso_de_la_Participaci_n_del_Secto r_Privado__PSP__en_Agua_y_Saneamiento.pdf. Cosgrove, C. (2018). Rainwater Harvesting: A Plethora of Benefits. EcoMENA. Retrieved December 01, 2018, from https://www.ecomena.org/rainwater-harvesting/. Valdez, M. C., Adler, I., Barrett, M., Ochoa, R., & Pérez, A. (2016). The Water-Energy-Carbon Nexus: Optimising Rainwater Harvesting in Mexico City. Environmental Processes, 3(2), 307-323. doi:10.1007/s40710-016-0138-2 Cure (2017). Making a Water Resilient Agra: Rainwater Harvesting and Groundwater Recharging. Available at: http://cureindia.org/projects/project21.html, checked on 1/2/2019 Delgado-Ramos, (2015). Water and the political ecology of urban metabolism: the case of Mexico City. National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico. Journal of Political Ecology. Journal of Political Ecology Enciso, A. (2018, March 12). Si hay nueva ley se privatizará el agua, señalan organizaciones. La Jornada. Retrieved January 08, 2019, from 19

https://www.jornada.com.mx/ultimas/2018/03/12/si-hay-nueva-ley-se-privatizara-el-agua-senala n-organizaciones-9907.html. Feindt, P. H., & Oels, A. (2005). Does discourse matter? Discourse analysis in environmental policy making. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 7(3), 161–173. French, K. (2017, May 2). To ease Mexico City's water woes, look up, study suggests. Earth Institute, Columbia University. Retrieved January 8, 2019, from https://phys.org/news/2017-05-ease-mexico-city-woes.html Foucault, M. (2005). The Discourse on Language. In J. Medina & D. Wood (Eds.), Truth (pp. 315–335). Ames, Iowa, USA: Blackwell Publishing. Garcia, S. (2016, July 6). How capturing rain could save Mexico City from a water crisis. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2016/jul/06/capturing-r ain-save-mexico-city-water-crisis Garcia, S. (2016, July 6). Aluminio, zinc, o arsénico: Todo esto hace peligrosa el agua de lluvia en Ciudad de México. The Guardian. Retrieved December 1, 2016, from https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2016/jul/06/capturing-r ain-save-mexico-city-water-crisis Gleick, P. H. (1993). Water in Crisis: A Guide to the World's Fresh Water Resources. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gonzalez, C. “MXN$500 Million Poured down the Drain in Mexico City.” El Universal, 8 November. 2018, www.eluniversal.com.mx/english/mxn500-million-poured-down-the-drain-mexico-city. Hernández, A. (2018, November 12). Funciona ya a su 100 por ciento la PTAR de Atotonilco: Conagua. La Crónica de Hoy en Hidalgo. Retrieved December 05, 2018, from http://www.cronicahidalgo.com/2017/11/funciona-ya-a-su-100-por-ciento-la-ptar-de-atotonilco-c onagua/. Illsley, C.L. (2017). Top Bottled Water Consuming Countries. Worldatlas, retrieved from: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/top-bottled-water-consuming-countries.html Instituto Internacional de Recursos Renovables. (n.d.). Programa Agua - Proyectos. Retrieved January 1, 2019, from https://irrimexico.org/ProgAgua.html Jaglin, S. 2014. “Regulating Service Delivery in Southern Cities: Rethinking Urban Heterogeneity.” In The Routledge Handbook on Cities of the Global South, edited by S. Parnell and S. Oldfield. London: Routledge, p. 434) Janks, H. (1997). Critical Discourse Analysis as a Research Tool. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 18(3), 329–342. 20

Jiménez Cisneros B. & Gutiérrez Rivas R. & Marañón Pimentel B. & González Reynoso A. (2011). Evaluación de la política de acceso al agua potable en el Distrito Federal. Mexico: PUEC-UNAM. Johannessen, Å., and C. Wamsler. (2017). What does resilience mean for urban water services?. Ecology and Society 22(1):1. Linton, J. I. (2004). Global Hydrology and the Construction of Water Crisis. The Great Lakes Geographer, 11(2), 1–13. López, J. (2018, August 21). Lluvias dejan caos y ocho inundaciones en la CDMX. Excelsior. Retrieved December 05, 2018, from https://www.excelsior.com.mx/comunidad/lluvias-dejan-caos-y-ocho-inundaciones-en-la-cdmx/1 259807. Matthew, G. (2004) Rethinking urban metabolism: water, space and the modern city, City, 8:3,363-379, DOI: Mehta, Lyla (2003): Contexts and Constructions of Water Scarcity. In Economic and Political Weekly 3 8 (48), pp. 5066–5072. Monstadt, J. 2009. “Conceptualizing the Political Ecology of Urban Infrastructures: Insights from Technology and Urban Studies.” Environment and Planning A 41: 1924–1942. Monstadt, J., and S. Schramm. 2013. “Beyond the networked city? Suburban constellation in water and sanitation systems.” In Suburban constellation, edited by R. Keil. Berlin: Jovis, 93 Moretto, L. and Ranzato, M. (2017) A socio-natural standpoint to understand coproduction of water, energy and waste services, Urban Research & Practice, 10:1, 1-21 Naatujuna (2015). Updated Idea - attached-Experience Maps: A foldable Water Tank for Rain-water harvesting in a congested slum. Retrieved January 2, 2019, from https://challenges.openideo.com/challenge/urban-resilience/ideas/a-foldable-water-tank-for-rainwater-harvesting-in-a-congested-slum Ochoa, E., L. Soto, and P. Burt. 2011. “Organizaciones comunitarias de servicios de agua y saneamiento.” In Modelos de Gobernabilidad Democrática para el Acceso al Agua en América Latina, Fundación AVINA. Accessed 28 November 2018. http://avina.net/esp/wp-con tent/uploads/2011/11/agua.pdf Olmos, P. S. (2018, November 20). Ciudad de México, la capital sedienta. El Mundo. Retrieved December 05, 2018, from https://www.elmundo.es/internacional/2018/11/20/5bf2ef0846163f9a0b8b45e2.html. Peña-Ramírez, J. (2012). Crisis del agua en Monterrey, Guadalajara, San Luis Potosí, León y la Ciudad de México (1950 – 2010). Mexico: PUEC-UNAM.

Perló Cohen, M., & González Reynoso, A. E. (2005). Guerra por el Agua en el Valle de México?: Estudio sobre las relcaiones hidraulicas entre el distrito federal y el estado de México. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Retrieved January 12, 2019, from http://centro.paot.org.mx/documentos/unam/guerra_por_agua_digital.pdf. Pike, J. (2005). Water by truck in Mexico City. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 96p. Procuraduría Ambiental y del Ordenamiento Territorial del Distrito Federal (PAOT) (2008). Diagnóstico sobre la situación del riesgo y vulnerabilidad de los habitantes del Distrito Federal al no contar con el servicio de agua potable, como base para el análisis del derecho humano al agua y los derechos colectivos de los habitantes. Retrieved January 08, 2019, from http://centro.paot.org.mx/documentos/paot/estudios/Agua_potable_en_el_Distrito_Federal_-_rie sgo_y_vulnerabilidad.pdf. Rivera, A. (2017, December 10). ley General de Aguas, privatizante; dicen ONG. El Universal. Retrieved January 08, 2019, from https://www.eluniversal.com.mx/nacion/sociedad/ley-general-de-aguas-privatizante-dicen-ong. Rodriguez, D. J., & Gambrill, M. (2015, September 24). How can we ensure that we build water and climate resilient cities? Retrieved from http://blogs.worldbank.org/water/how-can-we-ensure-we-build-water-and-climate-resilient-cities Ruthgerford, J. and Florentin, D.. 2014. “Towards hybrid socio-technical solutions for water and energy provision.” In Innovations for Sustainable Development, edited by J. Y. Grosclaude, R. K. Pachauri, and L. Tubiana. Delhi: TERI Press, 91) Sharp, L., & Richardson, T. (2001). Reflections on Foucauldian discourse analysis in planning and environmental policy research. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 3(3), 193–209. Tarr, J. A., and G. Dupuy. 1988. “Technology and the Rise of the Networked City in Europe and America.” In Technology and Urban Growth, edited by B. Brownell, D. T. Critchlow, M. S. Foster, M. Rose, and J. A. Tarr. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Tortajada, C. (2006). Who Has Access to Water?: Case Study of Mexico City Metropolitan Area (Human Development Report No. 2006/16). United Nations Development Program. Retrieved January 12, 2019, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254419661_Who_Has_Access_to_Water_Case_Study _of_Mexico_City_Metropolitan_Area. Urban Green-Blue Grids (2006). Potsdamer Platz, Berlin, Germany. Retrieved January 3, 2019, from https://www.urbangreenbluegrids.com/projects/potsdamer-platz-berlin-germany/