Addressing Growing Water Needs in Providenciales, the Turks and Caicos Islands: The Bottled Water Conundrum and Future Infrastructure Recommendations

Abstract

Abstract Globally, four billion people experience severe water scarcity for at least one month every year (Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2016). Coastal regions and islands are particularly at risk of threatened water resources as sea levels rise and recipitation patterns have become increasingly more erratic and unpredictable. Specifically, Caribbean nations are susceptible to water scarcity due to increases in tourism visitation, lack of governance, and failing water infrastructure. Small Island Developing States (SIDS) in the Caribbean have largely turned to ocean water desalination, which is both energetically expensive and environmentally damaging. Providenciales (Provo), the most populated of the Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI), relies entirely upon desalination for its drinking water. The production of desalinated water increases TCI’s carbon footprint because the island relies on nearly 100% diesel-generated electricity. As tourism on Provo continues to expand, Provo Water, the sole water utility on the island, will have to increase production. However, the company’s water distribution system is inadequate and does not supply 24-hour access to in-home drinking water for local residents. Moving forward, Provo Water will be forced to prioritize either expanding production capacity or improving distribution infrastructure. Currently, a significant portion of desalinated water are utilized for non-potable uses within the tourism industry. Other Caribbean SIDS, and particularly tourism entities in these nations, have begun utilizing wastewater reuse for non-potable uses as a water conservation method. I address two major questions in this research: (1) What are the economic and environmental costs and benefits associated with construction of additional desalination facilities on Provo and how would the integration of solar power for desalination affect water production and energy consumption on Provo? (2) How much are residents of Provo willing to pay as a monthly premium for improved access to piped water 24 hours a day, and are residents open to potable reuse of wastewater? My hypotheses are: Adding additional desalination capacity will significantly increase Provo’s carbon footprint; construction of additional diesel-powered desalination capacity is less profitable than powering additional desalination solely with solar power; greater than 75% of surveyed residents will be willing to pay for 24-hour in-home access to potable water; and greater than 50% of surveyed residents will be willing to drink reused wastewater. I utilized historical data, deployed surveys, and conducted interviews to make projections for financial costs of added desalination capacity. Data from Provo Water and existing solar desalination projects in the Caribbean helped estimate financial costs of improving distribution infrastructure and constructing solar-powered desalination plants. The results of my study revealed that Provo residents were generally satisfied with their drinking water source, and that residents were, on average, not willing to try recycled wastewater. Additionally, only 60% of respondents were willing to pay more than $25 dollars per month for in-home, uninterrupted access to piped drinking water. Results also revealed that the cost of implementing solar tied with desalination production may be prohibitive to incentivizing the development of such projects. The results of this research should inform future water production policy in Provo and aid in providing equitable access to drinking water for all Provo residents.