Super El Niño: Who Pays When the Water Runs Short

In my previous column, I wrote that it was time to press the panic button on El Niño.

That warning was not meant to create panic for panic’s sake. It was a call to prepare while we still have the opportunity to do so. Today, that window is getting smaller.

The Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration’s (PAGASA) latest monitoring shows that a strong to very strong El Niño is already present in the tropical Pacific, may peak before the end of 2026, and is expected to continue through the first half of 2027. The weather bureau has warned that prolonged rainfall deficits could cause drought and water supply stress, with consequences for agriculture, energy, public health, and the wider economy.

The question therefore is no longer simply whether the Philippines will experience the effects of El Niño. A more practical question is this: Who pays when the water runs short?

The answer is all of us, although not equally.

For ordinary Filipinos, a water shortage can transform the most routine parts of daily life. Cooking, bathing, washing clothes, cleaning the house and even flushing a toilet suddenly require planning. Families may have to store water, adjust schedules around service interruptions, or buy water when the tap does not provide enough.

Those inconveniences become much more serious for families with young children, senior citizens, or sick family members. Schools, hospitals, and other essential facilities likewise depend on reliable water service.

And the burden is often heaviest on people with the least capacity to absorb it. A household that can afford additional storage tanks, pumps or delivered water has options. A low-income family dependent entirely on the public supply may have very few.

But the shortage will not end at the household faucet.

Water is an economic input.

This means a prolonged water shortage can quickly become a business problem. Production may have to be curtailed. Operating costs can rise as companies purchase, transport, or store additional water. Farmers may suffer lower yields. Food processors may face tighter supplies of agricultural inputs. Higher costs can eventually find their way into the prices paid by consumers.

The effects can also spread into electricity and food security. PAGASA itself has identified water resources, energy production and food security among the areas threatened by prolonged rainfall deficits.

We have seen some versions of this before.

Metro Manila's 2019 water crisis exposed the consequences of insufficient alternative water sources when reservoirs became severely constrained. Water interruptions affected households and businesses and underscored the vulnerability created by dependence on limited sources. Since then, water concessionaires have invested in diversification and additional capacity. Manila Water, for example, says its system today has substantially more alternatives than it did during previous periods of severe water stress.

Maynilad has similarly diversified through Laguna Lake, deep wells and other facilities while reducing water loss within its network. It reported that Angat now represents about 83% of its supply capacity compared with 100% historically.

These investments illustrate an important lesson: resilience is built before the crisis, not during it.

Preparing before the taps run dry

Government has perhaps the greatest responsibility because water security extends beyond any individual household or company.

National agencies, local governments, water districts and utilities should be looking now at where supply is most vulnerable. Contingency plans cannot begin when reservoirs have already reached critical levels.

There are encouraging signs. The Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) has called on LGUs to update their El Niño contingency plans, strengthen water and energy security, prepare critical facilities and promote measures such as water recycling and rainwater harvesting. It has also urged preparedness for hospitals, schools, evacuation centers and other essential services.

In Cebu, provincial preparations include identifying water-deficient communities, developing rationing arrangements, prepositioning tankers and storage facilities, assessing existing water sources, and considering emergency wells and rainwater harvesting.

These types of measures should not be exceptional responses by a few local governments. They should increasingly become part of how communities plan for a more climate-uncertain future.

Businesses, meanwhile, should ask a question that sounds deceptively simple: What happens to our operations if our normal water supply is significantly reduced?

For some organizations, the effects could be insignificant. For others, that single risk could disrupt production, affect employees, interrupt supply chains, and materially increase costs.

Companies should understand how much water they consume, where it comes from, which operations are most dependent upon it, and what alternatives exist. They can examine opportunities to reduce consumption, reuse water where appropriate, invest in storage or alternative sources and work with suppliers whose operations may be vulnerable to drought.

That is not simply conservation. It is business continuity.

For Filipino households, preparation can be less complicated but equally important. Fix leaks. Avoid unnecessary water use. Store a reasonable emergency supply safely rather than waiting for interruptions to begin. Where practical, collect rainwater for appropriate non-potable uses. Most importantly, pay attention to advisories from PAGASA, local governments, and water providers.

Individual conservation alone cannot solve a national water shortage. But multiplied across millions of consumers, responsible use can help stretch limited supply.

Water shortage is a climate risk

There is also a bigger lesson here for businesses.

Climate risk is sometimes discussed as though it belongs only to sustainability reports, disclosure frameworks, or presentations to boards and investors. But climate risk becomes very real when a factory lacks water; crops cannot be irrigated, employees cannot safely work because of extreme heat, or a supplier can no longer deliver.

This is why correctly identifying climate-related risks and opportunities matters.

A meaningful climate-risk assessment should not be a compliance exercise or a list of generic risks copied from somewhere else. Companies must understand their own operations, locations, supply chains, and dependencies.

For a water-intensive manufacturer, drought may be a significant operational risk. For a food company, the larger exposure may lie in several layers down its agricultural supply chain. For property developers, hospitals, hotels and retailers, water availability may affect both costs and continuity of service.

But risks can also reveal opportunities. Water-efficient technologies, recycling systems, alternative sources, and more resilient infrastructure can reduce operating costs and vulnerability over the longer term. Companies that understand their exposures early have more time to invest, redesign processes, and build resilience.

That is ultimately the value of good climate-risk management. It allows organizations to move from reacting to anticipating.

The coming months may test how much we learned from previous droughts and water crises.

If the worst forecasts do not materialize, investments in conservation, diversified water sources, and resilient infrastructure will not have been wasted. They will leave communities and businesses better prepared for the next drought.

But if severe water shortages do come, the cost of failing to prepare will be far greater.

In my previous column, I argued that it was time to press the panic button. Perhaps the better metaphor now is the warning light on a dashboard. It is already blinking.

We can ignore it until the engine stops, or we can act while it is still running.

Because when water becomes scarce, the real question is not simply who gets less.

It is who was prepared when there was less to go around.

As published in The Manila Times, dated 04 November 2026