Water Resources: Conflicts or a Cup of Tea?

By Erin Roberts

http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090904/OPINION/709039916

Robert Wright, author of “Take Me to the Source: In Search of Water” is of the surprising opinion that conflicts based on water availability are in fact not something to worry about at all. He argues that the likelihood of ‘water wars’ occurring is not very high because of several reasons; that the benefits of international cooperation in fresh water management such as increased trade lead to harmony more often than conflict; that the control of water has often fell to a community and therefore encourages cooperation; and those that lack water are generally too poor to start wars.

The evidence that Wright uses to prove each part of his argument do not support it enough to be convincing. For example, to defend the his first reasoning, that the benefits of cooperation outweigh the negatives, he relies on David Grey, the World Bank’s senior advisor on water, who Wright introduces by saying he has “spent much of his professional life trying to resolve water conflicts”. It seems contradictory to use such an authority to defend a position which rejects the likelihood of water conflicts. As well, many of Grey’s points argue why there should not be a problem, and not why there is not or will not be a problem. Grey is quoted when speaking about co-operation along rivers: “It’s a win-win situation. If you don’t do it, everybody loses. But you might argue for a country such as Turkey, which sits upstream on the Euphrates from Syria and Iraq. What’s in it for them? The answer is a basket of benefits, such as cross-border tariffs on trade and energy and many other issues.” By focusing on opinions instead of concrete evidence, this fails to defend his argument of low likelihood of future water conflicts.

The final two supports to his argument are not backed up by any evidence at all. He states first that community control of water supports co-operation, and yet does not provide any evidence of this being the case. Incidences of co-operation resulting from the community control of water would help to strengthen his argument. He also states that those who lack water are too poor to start wars. There are several ways to dispute this; when even a group with lesser power grows in size there are ways to first organize amongst themselves or inspire political action that can address the immense problem of lack of fresh water.

Wright also fails to thoroughly address noticeable fundamental flaws in his argument; one example being that the arguments are mainly based on events in the past. He argues that in the past water has not been a major cause for war; however, he ignores the twin powers of overpopulation and pollution, which today threaten the Earth’s water supplies like no other time in history. Since he does not address whether or not these will affect the situation, the argument is cast into doubt.

A further objection Wright did not address is the lack of evidence for co-operation in countries which do not have a readily available source of fresh water. He instead focuses on populations clustered around fresh water sources, such as the Nile and the Mekong Delta. It would provide a more full argument to support it with countries which are more likely to undergo water shortages.

Wright does not have the proper evidence to back up his heady claims, and therefore his argument fails because of lack of support. While his logic may be reasonable, he fails to address clear objections such as the future effects of pollution and overpopulation. He did not convince me of his side, without concrete evidence, and I think it is likely that fresh water resources are likely to cause conflict in the future.

References

Wright, R. (2009) “Water wars? More likely a reason for a nice cup of tea.” The National, Sept 4 2009. http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090904 -/OPINION/709039916. Accessed Sept 30 2009.

India's Water Crisis

by Laura Van Vliet

http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/693928

A recent article appearing in the Toronto Star discusses the current water shortages being experienced in India. As one of the fastest growing countries on the planet, in multiple regards, Rick Westhead in his article “India: Dying of Thirst” argues the cause of the present water situation.

Primarily, Westhead argues that “pollution and an exploding population are drying the subcontinent as never before.” The arguments Westhead make to support this statement present strong evidence, but the lack of certain key connections throughout the article and insufficient discussion of some important issues provide for an overall case which is less substantial than desired.

There are two principal issues Westhead focuses on: water shortages and water pollution in India. Pollution is in some ways a separate issue from water shortages, water may be available but not usable. However, in some instances in the article, such as the quote mentioned above, Westhead refers to India as “drying” or “water-starved”. In these examples, the author seems to claim that there is a general lack of water in India, while a more reasonable claim is that water pollution renders much of the water unsuitable for human use (in agriculture or other activities). As is discussed elsewhere in the article, India is full of “dead” rivers like the Ganges and Yamuna, and polluted watercourses which have tainted surrounding farmland. Thus, the clarification in language used makes the authors argument more viable. A complete drought in a country such as India, known for its monsoons and famous healing rivers, seems implausible.

Water shortages is the second main argument used by Westhead. Westhead focuses on the increased demand for water because of growing population and industry – as India grows it requires more water to complete human activities and thus water is removed from natural sources. Indeed, the article refers to satellite imagery proving the water table is dropping. In agriculture in particular, new strains of rice and wheat burden the water system, though they increase productivity. However, Westhead fails to explain the causal relationship for overall drops in the water table and the increased human need for water. Westhead similarly uses failing city infrastructure as a cause of dropping water table levels, without properly explaining their significance. The explanation surrounding infrastructure, while explaining the lack of water resources available to the human population in large cities, does not explain the decreasing water table levels or pollution of resources. Water cannot simply disappear, and Westhead does not explain how the usage of this water can alter the water cycle. To create a more convincing argument, Westhead would be wise to make the connections between water table levels and the overuse of water.

Climate change and global warming are important factors related to water problems around the globe. Changes in weather patterns are reflected by suffering ecosystems and peoples. However, Westhead fails to properly attribute blame to these issues in his work. Both climate change and global warming are mentioned as contributing to the problem, but they are expressed as minor factors. The article reads: “and Climate change – combined with a severe drought this year – have created critical water shortages...” further on in the article it states “when you factor in global warming, India’s ...” Through these statements, one can see that Westhead seems to pass off climate change and global warming as insignificant causes of these problems. However, it would be more fitting to the overwhelming evidence of climate change to give more weight to these issues in the article; climate change and global warming are a major cause of these problems and not so much an insignificant addition. The drought previously mentioned in relation in the quotation is compounded by and perhaps the result of climate changes, and is not a separate issue. Similarly, global warming is a likely cause of decreasing water table levels – not an addition to an existent problem. Failing to recognize the real effects of climate change diminishes the strength of Westhead’s arguments.

In conclusion, Rick Westhead supports his claims of water shortages in India convincingly. Compelling evidence is used to suggest that water levels have been depleted and remaining water supplies are often polluted so much so that they leave surrounding ecosystems virtually useless for agriculture. However, in my opinion, some key relationships and explanations in his arguments are underdeveloped. If these were to be expanded, the argument Westhead makes in “India: Dying of Thirst” would more clear and convincing.


References:

Westhead, Rick. (2009) India: Dying of Thirst. The Star, 12 September 2009. http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/693928. Accessed 29 September 2009.

India's Water Crisis

Alabama and Atlanta Water Dispute

Alabama and Atlanta Water Dispute

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/metro.ssf?/base/news/125421214169761.xml&coll=2&thispage=2

The dispute of water between Alabama and Atlanta is still going on and is only getting worse. A federal judge ordered Atlanta to stop drawing water from Lake Lanier in three years. This has caused some serious problems for Atlanta which is now searching for somewhere to draw water from. To solve this problem, Atlanta is planning to build a reservoir to pump 100 gallons a day to Atlanta.
Atlanta’s plan to build a reservoir sounds like a very good plan, however the author, Mary Orndorff, states her point in explaining that it is planned on being put on 2,000 acres of Dawson forest, a wildlife preserve, owned by the city of Atlanta. The plan of putting a water reservoir on a wildlife management area will not be very welcomed by the general public, but when it comes to needing water people may do whatever it takes. The plan also costs 650 million to build the reservoir.
Mary talks about the possible downstream impact of building the reservoir on Lake Lanier. However, she never talks about anything that will happen. It is unknown exactly what will happen until the reservoir is actually built but with a recent flood in Atlanta caused by twenty inches of rain. Lake Lanier is a huge lake that will not be easily drained or emptied.
The author talks a lot about how big of an impact losing the wildlife management area would be, but doesn’t talk about other possible building spots. For a project like this there would likely be multiple building spots up and down the river. Also, a reservoir would be controlled by dams, so if the Lake was lowering at a rate that was deemed too much, the water levels could be monitored.
Since Atlanta and Alabama are both countries in the Unites States, it is difficult to understand why they are fighting over water. With an argument of this magnitude, it is strange that the federal government doesn’t step in and make a final decision. If the government was to make a decision, they would most likely fulfill all citizens to have access to water resources. Considering that the government has not stepped in makes it seem like this is an issue that does not need to be handled immediately.
This article is a very good article and on the whole is not very bias. It was very informative and very well written. Although destroying the wildlife management area is bad, I think it would be best to build the reservoir there, because it could go well with the wildlife area to have a body of water there for the animals to drink and to possibly have more wildlife come in. If the problem of Atlanta not getting water is not solved soon, it might lead to people moving out of Atlanta which would hurt their economy.

Vasilinda, Mike. "Atlanta Floods May Bring Temporary Peace To Water Wars". Capitol News Service. September 30, 2009 .

The Effects of Water Distribution

http://www.canada.com/life/Despair+Valley+dries/1402193/story.html

Issues involving water shortages and increasing droughts, as a result of climate change, are contributing to serious fluctuations in the economy and lifestyles of the current areas being affected by this new trend. In the article “Despair as California’s Central Valley dries up” (2009, March 18) the author, Tangi Quemener, explains how produce farmers in California’s Central Valley are having to deal with their government’s decisions regarding the distribution of available water.

The farmer interviewed in this article has 640 acres that used to produce a total of 50,000 tonnes of tomatoes that he would have sold for four million dollars. The problem is that he doesn’t have enough water to grow those tomatoes and as a result, the irrigation system he has installed is now sitting unused wasting even more of his money. The water that is available to him costs $400 US per 1,200 cubic meters. Farmers in California are really feeling the effects of the water shortage.

In the article, the farmer states, “ the storages are so low, the main population is number one, the fisheries, wetlands, are second, and the farmers third”. This is the main argument of this article, that farmers should be treated as more important and allocated more water resources.

I have to disagree with this statement. California’s Central Valley was originally a semi-desert and has since become a large source of produce for the United States as a result of a large irrigation system (Gordon 2009). This land was not meant to provide the necessary resources for the production of mass quantities of produce. In the article the farmer said “…a federal judge ordered water pumping cutbacks from the Sacramento River Delta in August 2007 to protect an endangered fish species.” This is proving that there are serious implications occurring that are resulting from the overuse of water in the Central Valley. In order for farmers to continue to successfully produce crops, they would need the water that is currently protecting an endangered group of Chinook salmon (NASA 2009). The effects of agriculture in this once natural desert are causing drastic changes in the ecological populations of other species.

What the author of this article should be promoting is the growth of produce in a natural environment that provides the necessary climate and growing conditions to cheaply and efficiently produce the product. Tomato crops could be successfully grown in the mid-west to southwestern Ontario, where water is cheap and available and the climate suits. During the winter, produce can be grown in greenhouses to simulate the all year seasons that are present in California. However, it is understandable that the author could be considering the amount of jobs that would be lost if farming was stopped in the Central Valley. The unemployment rate would rise substantially and the state would have to find another industry, perhaps with a lesser impact, to pursue. The author may also be unsure in the regards of finding farmers to grow the produce in Ontario. There are jobs needed here, in fact the Heinz plant in Leamington, Ontario has recently made major cutbacks in its production of tomato products. This was due to the increasing cost of supplies, which includes the tomato paste, some of which came from California (3).

Overall I don’t understand why we would let a marsh run dry, affecting all the species inhabiting it, or endanger a species in order to divert water from its natural path. Yes, the farmer wants to make a profit, but is it worth the risk of several species and habitats? It would be beneficial to the environment, but maybe not the state of California, to grow produce in a more natural climate where water is available, and the crop can be grown more cheaply and efficiently.

References

Gorman, S. (2009 February 20). California’s arms lose main water source to drought. Thomson Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE51J6MO20090221

NASA Earth Observatory. (2009 July 27). Drought in California’s Central Valley.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=39810

Hill, S. (2009 August 25). Heinz slashes Leamington tomato production. The Windsor Star. http://www.windsorstar.com/life/Heinz+slashes+Leamington+tomato+production/1929117/story.html

Quemener, T. (2009, March 18). Despair as California’s Central Valley dries up.

Associated Free Press. http://www.canada.com/life/Despair+Valley+dries/1402193/story.html

The future of water wars

By Geneviève Lalonde

Bennett Gordon posted an interesting blog on “Why water wars won’t come”. His blog is supported by recent examples of history that while true, are not sufficient evidence to guarantee a future with no water wars. He draws from some good articles written by authors such as Wendy Burnaby and Aaron Wolf who make strong arguments for his position. A more complete analysis shows that there are other important aspects to consider.

His position that wars over water are not likely draws on statements such as “The wars have been more about borders, security, and statehood”. While in fact this in true, it does not necessarily predict the future; He further supports his contention by quoting Wendy Burnaby; “India and Pakistan have a water treaty that has survived since 1960—through two wars. In the middle of one of the wars, India made payments to Pakistan as part of its treaty obligations.” If India and Pakistan have worked it out then this does not really have a great representation of the rest of the world in my view.

That is where I wish to intervene with some reflections. I found a few interesting facts about this subject. If Gordon had wanted to elaborate more on the India and Pakistan treaty, he could have easily showed that both India and Pakistan were safe from water wars in other articles. Since he did not, I do not see how we can apply this example to other parts of the world? As Tony, Allan posted in his article in Avoiding War Over Natural Resources, 1998. “Individuals and communities can pick a fight over any issue, including tangibles like territory and resources - water among them. ”

To further defend his position, Gordon takes another claim from Wendy Burnaby’s article in conservation Magazine. She states “Predictions of armed conflict come from the media and from popular, non-peer-reviewed work,” If this were reality, it would be sufficient to take her word. Unfortunately, that evidence is hard to find.

There are a couple key points that this author does not evaluate. He does not mention that the world is going through very significant changes. They include Global climate changes and likely a warming of the equator and tropics concluding in a declining water supply base, as well as economic growth in the undeveloped world such as Africa and parts of Asia and that there continues to be a population growth on what many already consider to be an overcrowded planet. These certainly will increase the stress on populations and countries and on the need for water. Pollution is today certainly major contributors to lack of clean water supplies across the world. If we were talking about the potential of wars for water in the future, I would find these considerations difficult to neglect.

The question of trade and in particular that of the relative water trade, (i.e. food supplies whose base for growing is water in other parts of the world) also adds to the complexity of the equation. This question is raised by Tony Allan in his 1998 article “avoiding war over natural resources”.

Therefore, I would strongly suggest that if we are talking about the future we would need to pay attention to all of these details in trying to predict outcomes and possible conflicts over water. Furthermore our conclusions might be different depending on the conditions in different part of the world.

As Tony Allan states in his 1998 article, “it is a paradox that the water pessimists are wrong but their pessimism is a very useful political tool” to preempt and prevent conflicts while the optimists (while right so far) are dangerous in that they render the issue of lower priority and might be ignored at our peril.

In conclusion, I prefer siding on the more cautious side in stating we cannot count on water wars from not occurring. The double negative in this statement is intentional. The author Bennett Gordon does not seem to be looking at all sides of the argument. His reasoning is based on a few examples in history and yet there are reasons to believe all outcomes remain possible. We must take all the information into account in assembling the puzzle including trends that may influence the outcome. It would seem quite probable that water will not be accessible to everyone short of significant technological advancements. We cannot predict the future but if we have a more complete and clearer view of all issues, it will be easier to attempt.

References

Changing Climate, Part IV

By Andrea Brower – Special to The Garden Island-Published: Saturday, September 26, 2009

http://www.kauaiworld.com/articles/2009/09/27/business/kauai_business/doc4abf0805abcc5356732707.txt

Avoiding War Over Natural Resources

By Tony Allan

Forum: Water and War

November 1, 1998

http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/198-natural-resources/32890.html

Why the Water Wars Won’t Come

by Bennett Gordon- UTNE reader

September 11,2009

http://www.utne.com/Environment/Why-the-Water-Wars-Wont-Come.aspx#comments

Water Negotiator Aaron Wolf Spreads Liquid Hope

by Tom Jacobs, from Miller-McCune –UTNE reader

July-August 2009

http://www.utne.com/Politics/Water-War-Peace-Conflict-Negotiations-Hope.aspx

Conservation Magazine article

By Wendy Barnaby

Summer 2009

http://www.conservationmagazine.org/contents/table-of-contents-summer-2009/

Companies Fault!

Among the CSR Asia article “ Time to look at your water footprint?” written by Richard Welford on September 9^th 2009 reported 3 different analysis that affects the yields of crops in developing countries. Richard believes by controlling our use of water and preserving this resource it will diminish our water footprint on freshwater. I found 3 statements I would like to discuss:

1) “Companies with close links to food and beverage production are already aware of the stresses being put on this most valuable resource.” (Welford 2009)

2) “A good starting point for any business is therefore to have a good hard look at your own water footprint.” (Welford 2009)

3) “However, many companies are actually unable to really measure their impact on water resources.” (Welford 2009)

Within his argument, there are two things that were stated that seem to contradict one another. In one phrase he claims that companies are well aware of their impact on fresh water, and then Welford goes on telling the reader that many companies are unable to have a water footprint. Welford’s argument appears to be that large water based companies are required to keep track of the amount of water that is used, this will better the management of water.

A better presentation of this argument would include:

1) To begin, within every argument it is required that there is some form of evidence. Without the evidence no one would trust that the claim is valid or not.

2) It may be true that freshwater is only 2.5% of the world’s entire supply of water, however out of the 2.5% of freshwater how much is really used by these large companies. It may also be true by having a water footprint it is clear to see where the water is being used, and where the water is being abused, but that isn’t enough to say that only companies are consuming freshwater. My point is that the entire world uses water as a necessity or as leisure. Water is used when hands are being washed, toilets being flushed, plants being watered. All of these functions used by everyday people are for their satisfaction, so including everyday people into the argument would provide a stronger claim.

3) A portion of the article made references to the companies that use the largest quantities of water. However, these companies use the water to benefit the people. For example it was mentioned that water was used to power Electrical generators. The electricity is generated to help power the: city buildings, street lights, and lights in homes. Since people living in cities use electricity, it could be said they are consuming water indirectly. This is another point that could be added to the claim to help show a specific direction the claim is taking.

Even though Welford claims seem to contradict each other it all points to our problem of not being able to control our use of water. He has made his point that our freshwater supply is decreasing but did not mention how much. Also he provided a solution but did not explain it fully to clarify what he meant by a water footprint. I think the next few steps for the claim to be improved is to provide reliable evidence to prove that freshwater supplies are decreasing, and be more specific when stating the claim because it was very general. My suggestion is to include the human population as a target considering we use quantities of water as well. Although it may seem that the freshwater amounts are decreasing, I do not believe it is true. They say that 2.5% of the total amount of water is fresh water and 2/3 of the freshwater is trapped in the polar icecaps, since the icecaps are melting shouldn’t our freshwater supply be going up? This is just my own personal thought on the topic, however this is our first steps to help with the issue.

References:

Krebs, Michael. "Digital Journal: Your News Network." Digital Journal: Your News Network. 29 Sep. 2009 .

Welford, Richard. "CSR Asia - Corporate Social Responsibility in Asia." CSR Asia. 28 Sep. 2009 .