Twenty-seven years ago, while gathering for a company meeting, an informal discussion was held as to the current state of world affairs. Those arriving early had the chance to offer their opinion. Surprisingly the discussion turned to the future availability of water in the United States. While most dismissed this as a non-issue, one person insisted this would be the cause for future conflicts.
"Water will become more valuable than oil" he insisted. None of those in attendance felt this would take place. One senior executive laughed, and then in his loud voice told the whole room, "No way this is going to happen. Living in the Midwest we have the Great Lakes that will keep us supplied for years,"
Fast forward to this past week, when during a conversation with an elderly woman, she asked this writer if water was going to be the reason for a future war. Her question came as a surprise, for we have had many wide-ranging discussions but never on this topic.
At first thought, the idea of a conflict over a resource that is readily available made little sense. However, this thought process might be the reason there is trouble on the horizon. For what we have plenty of, others will need for survival. The overall concern is when it comes time to share, will it be done with humanity in mind or will the ability to control those who have-not, be the driving force?
Looking around the world, water rationing is taking place in Africa, Yemen, Mexico, China, Australia, Chile, United States, and so on. No country will be spared of the coming crisis. The question then becomes, can this diverse group of people, most with different political and cultural views, overcome their beliefs to do what is right for all?
Unfortunately, it seems this will not be the case. The director-general of the United Nations Environment Program, Klaus Toepfer, stated in an interview published in 1999, that he is completely convinced there will be a conflict over natural resources, particularly water. "Everybody knows that we have an increase in population, but we do not have a corresponding increase in drinking water, so the result in the regional dimension is conflict." (1)
There is a belief that if the water source starts here, falls here, or runs through here, than I have the right to do whatever I want with it no matter the needs downstream. This idea actually is called, "The Harmon Doctrine," named after a U.S. Attorney General in the 1890's. At that time, he stated that Mexico had no right to any water that originates in the U.S., even if the river flows into Mexico.
This proposal may have made sense in that era but in the twentieth century, both international and U.S. laws have renounced the doctrine. Additionally, this thought of who has the water first outweighs any other concerns, goes beyond the bounds of all ethical rules.
Still, three nations voted no on the "Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses, a United Nations adopted agreement pertaining to the uses and conservation of all waters that cross international boundaries, including both surface and groundwater.
China, one of the three, the others being Burundi and Turkey, has several water projects in west-central Tibet that have a bearing on river-water flows into India according to Brahma Chellany in an article for the International Herald Tribune. He went on to say the Chinese refuse to share this information with countries downstream.
Turkey on the other hand finds itself in a dispute with Syria and Iraq over the flow of water in the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Both countries have appealed for more water amid a sever drought but Turkey said it was already too overstretched to comply with their request.
Here in the United States the dispute with Mexico regarding the release of water, continues to grow over the allocation from the Rio Grande and Colorado Rivers. With a drought in Mexico, that government has not been able to meet an agreement to provide water for agriculture in Texas. As expected, complaints have increased in direct proportion to the decrease in water flow from south of the border.
The U.S. has held up its side of the agreement by allowing the Colorado to flow into Mexico, but recent changes in water-usage policies for western states may cut into the amount flowing south. Here too agriculture will suffer a serious blow due to reduced water supplies.
Each of these locations and many others like it around the globe has the potential of growing into a land grab of tremendous proportions, in other words war. This will happen unless leaders understand this resource, that will soon be more valuable than oil, is beyond the bounds of fighting. Which leader will face the world and do what is morally correct?
(1) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/01/9901060 75344.htm