Population growth and
rising standards of living mean that more clean water will be needed. Where
will it come from? In the abstract, we need to think about ways of generating
more clean water, using it more efficiently and wasting less, and sharing it better,
where “better” will have different definitions to different interests, because
“where you stand depends on where you sit.”
The global scale of
the water crisis caused formation of international mechanisms for research and
regulation of the problem. The mechanism “UN - Water Resources”(unwater.org) is
aimed at the realization of the profile tasks. It coordinates the actions of 26
international organizations in the UN system and contributes to solving the
problems in the field of water supply and sanitation identified in the
discussions at the world summits on sustainable development and climate
conferences (UNESCO, 2009).
In
2003, having stated that water is essential for sustainable development,
including the preservation of the natural environment and the reduction of
poverty and hunger, and that without water we cannot ensure the health and
well-being of the population, the UN General Assembly declared 2005-2015 the
International Decade for Action, Water for Life (UNESCO, 2009). The primary
objective of this specific project is to encourage efforts to fulfill the
international commitments on water. The activities of the United Nations on the
formation of a system for the global regulation of water resources are based on
a variety of programs conducted through other multilateral institutions,
especially UNESCO (UN, 2009).
VIRTUAL WATER
An exceptional
contribution to the solution of problems of rational water consumption is made
by a program of the U.S. Air Force, “Virtual Water.” It is about determining
the volume of water that is contained in food or other products (Dang, Lin, and
Konar, 2015). For example, to produce one kilogram (2.2 pounds) of wheat, about
1000 liters (250 gallons) of water is needed: i.e., the “virtual water” of this
kilogram of wheat is 1000 liters, 1000 kg. For meat, approximately 5-10 times
more water is needed (Dang et al, 2015). The consumption of virtual water per
person in the diet is dependent on the type of diet and varies from one cubic
meter per day, 1 m3 / day, typical for the ration necessary for survival, up to
2.6 m3 / day, inherent in the vegetarian diet, and more than 5 m3 / day,
necessary for the American diet with consumption of a significant amount of
meat (Dang et al. 2015).
When trading food
crops, or any other goods, there is a virtual flow of water from producing or
exporting countries to countries that consume and import these goods. Countries
with water shortages can import products that require large volumes of water in
their production, instead of producing them at home. Thus, this allows
importers to save water, reducing the burden on their water resources or
releasing water for other purposes (Dang et al. 2015).
INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES
Both governmental and
non-governmental structures are involved in water issues. The most important is
the Global Water Partnership (GWP), which was established in 1996 as an
international network of organizations (public, private, regional, scientific,
project) involved in water resources management (Dang et al. 2015). The main
tasks of the GWP are the development and implementation of the principles of
integrated water resources management, the exchange of information and
experience (UNESCO, 2009). The GWP aims to promote ideas for the establishment
of Integrated Water Resources Management (Gayfer, 2008). The headquarters of
the GWP is in Stockholm. In its activities, this structure is guided by the
Dublin principles in the field of water resources (Gayfer, 2008).
The predominant
non-governmental organization (NGO) dealing with water issues is the
International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources,
established in 1948 in France (IUCN, 2018). Forecasting situations, as well as
assessing the state of natural resources, the IUCN continues to deal with the analysts
of the Club of Rome. They, as well as representatives of the academic
community, are actively working to replenish data banks on global water
resources, in cooperation with intergovernmental bodies, and participate in the
United Nations World Water Assessment Program. Several specialized research
organizations, such as the International Water Management Institute and the
Swedish International Water Institute, are involved in assessing the water
situation, forecasting, and studying the conflict potential of water resources
(Mancosu, Snyder, Kyriakakis, and Spano, 2015). The projects implemented within
these centers are essential for forming objective representations and
developing practical solutions for water issues (Mancosu et al. 2015).
At the same time, it
must be emphasized that, in general, the world’s water resources are still
regulated primarily by the interaction of countries located in the zone of
transboundary watercourses (for example, agreements on the joint use of the
water resources of rivers such as the Nile, the Rhine, the Danube, Mekong, and
others) (Mancosu et al. 2015). Each of these agreements is very specific – due
to the specifics of the basins they regulate, and universalization is
problematic.
Along with these
pacts, acts of international legal regulation of the regime of transboundary
waters operate. The primary documents of this kind are the “Rules for the Use
of Waters of International Rivers” (Helsinki Rules), the “UN Convention on the
Non-Navigational Usage of International Watercourses,” and the “Convention on
the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes”
(Mancosu et al., 2015). The importance of these documents cannot be
overestimated, but they are of a relatively general (recommendatory) nature,
affecting mainly environmental problems. To a lesser extent, they concern the
problems of river water management. They generally lack mechanisms for
resolving disputes, and only the legislative and regulatory framework has been
initially developed.
The need to develop
conventional approaches to the distribution of water resources of Transboundary
Rivers is obvious (Mancosu et al., 2015). The most developed and comprehensive
is the EU regulatory framework. In 2000, the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD)
came into force (Arpon, Giakoumis, and Voulvolis, 2017). It sets out the
principles, objectives, and methods for achieving an “appropriate ecological
state” in the basins of national and international rivers of 27 Member States,
as well as Switzerland, Norway, and neighboring countries (Arpon et al., 2017).
The WFD establishes framework requirements for the protection of all types of
waters, including surface water of dry land, transit and coastal waters, and
groundwater (Arpon et al., 2017).
Although some
approaches can be adopted to increase the supply of potable water in the
world’s rivers, lakes, and reservoirs, much of the emphasis in policy
development has been with respect to managing demand.
According to Betsy
Otto, director of the World Resources Institute’s global water program,
economic development and adequate clean water have often come in conflict
[https://www.WEForum.org/
agenda/2015/01/why-world-water-crises-are-a-top-global-risk/]. She maintains
that water conservation is almost always less expensive than developing new
sources. She makes the case for a two-tier pricing structure, with a modest
quantity of water available at reduced rates, and more than that at much higher
charges. The same article quotes Vanda Felbab-Brown, a senior policy analyst at
the Brookings Institution to the effect that one cannot expect free water any
more than one can expect free food, and there are ways of reducing water theft,
such as better law enforcement, careful water monitoring, and the creation of
comprehensive databases.
California has had
periods of extreme water shortage, giving rise to proposals to limit the
private citizens’ water use. Cape Town, South Africa, has its own “water
police” to enforce rules to take the average daily water consumption to 13
gallons per day. To put this in perspective, the average American uses 80 to
100 gallons daily [http://www.
pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2018/04/17/
drought-returns-to-huge-swaths-of-us-fueling-fears-of-a-thirsty-future]. This
reference also notes that Arizona has passed a law that new housing
developments must show they can expect 100 years of water supply. Arizona is
using less water than 50 years ago despite having 5 million more people. The
State Water Implementation Fund for Texas (SWIFT) empowers the granting of
low-interest loans for water projects. Texas will be putting in new reservoirs
and taking steps to prevent water leaks and wastage.
TAX POLICIES
One way that government
influences environmental markets is through the tax policies it adopts.
Recently, a bill entitled “H.R. 519 Water and Agricultural Tax Reform Act of
2018” has been introduced through the U.S. House of Representatives, with its
stated purpose, “To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to facilitate water
leasing and water transfers to promote conservation and efficiency.” The
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analyzed the impacts of the bill, which it
described as follows (cbo.gov/publication/54141), “H.R. 519 would amend the
Internal Revenue Code by modifying the tax exemption requirements for mutual
ditch and irrigation companies. The bill excludes certain types of income when
determining whether those companies qualify for a Federal income tax exemption
in a given year, potentially qualifying more of those companies for the
exemption.”
The CBO Summary
concludes, “The staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates that
enacting H.R. 519 would reduce revenues by $39 million over the 2018-2028
period.”
Despite the grand
title of the Act, it appears to expect to have about a $4 million/year impact
on the totality of these companies. This would seem rather small.
“THE COLORADO RIVER AND THE INEVITABILITY OF
INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE”
This section of ours
takes its title from the extensive and definitive work (Kenney et al., 2011) of
scholars Douglas Kenney, Sara Bates, Anne Bensard, and John Berggren
[http://www.riversimulator.org/
Resources/LawOfTheRiver/ColoradoRiverInevitabilityOfInstitutional
ChangeKenney2011.pdf], published in Volume 32 of the Public Land and Resources Law Review, pp.103-152.
Noting that the
Colorado River is one of the most thoroughly studied natural resources in the
world, the authors comment, “By almost any standard, it is the jewel of the
American Southwest–and it is in trouble.” Its many major contributions to the
region are threatened by predicted increases in the demand for its waters while
its flow is likely to decrease. [http://www.riversimulator.org/Resources/LawOfTheRiver/
ColoradoRiverInevitabilityOfInstitutionalChangeKenney2011.pdf] The fundamental problems are: a complex set
of legal arrangements for its use, a
projected shortfall between the
allowed allocations and the expected flow in the future, and the legal ambiguities involved in settling
claims to the flow.
The authors begin
with a review of the Law of the River, the web of some fifty or so laws and
agreements that covers the use of waters of the Colorado River. The Law governs
the sharing of the rivers water between the states of the Upper Basin
(Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico) and the Lower Basin (California,
Arizona, and Nevada) and provides for future development of the region as well
as for the contingencies that may arise from reduced flow of the Colorado
River. The fundamental document is the Colorado River Compact of 1922, but
there have been many subsequent legislative and judicial additions. Subsidiary
issues include the rights of Mexico and the Navajo nation to water allocations,
too.
Unfortunately, the
water allocations in the Law are largely based on an assumed total flow of 15
million acre-feet (maf), characteristic perhaps of an earlier era, but now an
over-estimate, aggravating the mismatch between supply and demand that is
increasing yearly.
Five issues are highlighted:
•
The Upper Basin Delivery Obligation
•
The Interbasin Apportionment
•
Deliveries to Mexico
•
Administration of Compact Calls
•
Compact Rescission or Reformation
Most readings of the
laws have concluded that the Upper Basin rights are subsidiary to those of the
Lower Basin, which these interpretations give first call on the water flow in
times of shortage.
The Compact of 1922
called for “equitable” division of the waters of the Colorado between the Upper
and Lower Basins, but some interpretations have read this as “equal” division.
During non-drought
periods, the Upper Basin is obligated to allow the delivery of half of the 1.5
maf of water due yearly to Mexico, per the Treaty of 1944. Whether tributary
flows in the Lower Basin can be counted to reduce what the Upper Basin must
supply is in question. When shortage conditions exist, however, the proper
allocation becomes disputed, especially during “extraordinary drought.”
Under the Compact and
its prior-appropriation system, if there is a shortage, the administrator
issues a “call,” requiring those with less senior rights to forego some or all
their usage in favor of those with the most senior rights. Although this has
yet to happen, it could. If it should, the authors expect “bitterness, data
deficiencies, and legal challenges.”
Rescission (voiding)
or reformation (revising, altering) of the compact is possible, but fraught
with legal complexities.
Much of the latter
part of the document involves describing the opinions of many of the leaders of
the Colorado River Basin. In sum,
•
they recognized the need for change due to
increased risk of shortages;
•
they preferred conflict resolution to
litigation;
•
they desired more diverse input into resolving
the issues.
Options favored included:
•
getting more public involvement in the issues,
•
obtaining more agreement on the ways to handle a
variety of river-flow scenarios,
•
studying the current and future use of the river
water,
•
harnessing the political modalities to regulate
the relationships between the Upper and Lower Basins and among the states
involved.
This summary has only
scratched the surface of this extensive work of 49 pages and 283 footnotes.
I will continue serializing here the Microsoft Word transcription of the final galley proof .pdf copy ot WATER WARS, and the book itself is most conveniently found at amazon.com https://www.amazon.com/Water-Wars-Sharing-Colorado-River-ebook/dp/B07VGNLSMX/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=water+wars+by+carter+and+cooper&qid=1577030877&sr=8-1
or at DWC's amazon.com author's book title list https://www.amazon.com/s?k=douglas+winslow+cooper&i=digital-text&ref=nb_sb_noss
No comments:
Post a Comment