Title: Water, Conflict, and Hope. By: Greenberg, Michael R.

, American Journal of Public Health, 00900036, Nov2009, Vol. 99, Issue 11 Database: Academic Search Elite

Water, Conflict, and Hope

Contents

1. UNITED STATES PERSPECTIVE 2. GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE 3. References

Section: EDITORIALS

Water has been both a source of conflict and a weapon used in conflicts, and water systems have been targets in conflicts started for a wide range of reasons. Water-related disputes often end before obvious ecological and human health consequences emerge, but not always.[ 1-5]

UNITED STATES PERSPECTIVE

Part of US western lore, memorialized in books, television, and film, are conflicts between farmers, ranchers, and urban dwellers over limited water supplies. For example, a century ago (1907-1913), the Los Angeles, California, aqueduct was attacked to try to prevent diversion of water from Owen Valley to the growing city of Los Angeles. In 1935, Arizona called out the National Guard and militia to its border with California to demonstrate its anger with the construction of the Parker Dam that would transfer water from the Colorado Basin to California. With metropolises growing in Los Angeles; Phoenix, Arizona; Las Vegas, Nevada; and other dry Sunbelt locations, the potential for conflict is growing.[ 3]

The western Sunbelt is not the only area in the United States with water-related conflicts. Florida, although surrounded by water, nevertheless has limited freshwater sources, and the state government is under pressure to redirect suburban encroachment and waste management sites away from the Everglades, inland freshwater bodies, and Florida's major aquifers. This is a nonviolent, but exceedingly important struggle that will impact the economy, the environment, and the quality of life in Florida.[ 6][ 7] Moreover, Florida is engaged in an ongoing and unresolved water dispute with Georgia and Alabama just one of several interstate conflicts over water.

Even the Northeast, despite its abundant rainfall and snow, has had water resource disputes, especially during droughts. For example, during the late 1960s, the Northeast experienced a severe drought. For 36 months, low precipitation led to calls for bathless and shaveless days, curtailment of toilet flushing, business closings, and other conservation measures. Some fire departments faced increasing threat of fire and less water pressure to fight fires. As the drought worsened, flow in rivers declined to the point where almost half of what was flowing downstream to be used as public potable water was treated sewage. Some areas had more water than others because they had instituted more effective conservation practices and relied on underground supplies that could be drawn upon during a drought. Rather than share dwindling water supplies, some local governments and private water companies rebuffed requests to spread limited resources. There was serious intercity political conflict. In New Jersey, former Governor Richard Hughes declared a public health emergency and ordered the water departments to share water.[ 8] Overall, the United States has legal processes for adjudicating these disputes, thereby reducing potential human and ecological consequences and allowing for strategic planning and investments rather than violence.

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

International conflicts are so numerous that it would be remarkable to identify a day when water was not in dispute as a scarce resource or in use or threatened as a weapon. Peter Gleick and The Pacific Institute (www.pacinst.org) maintain a "Water Conflict Chronology," which in late 2008 contained over 175 entries in more than 40 existing nations.[ 9] The list highlights disputes over water sources and identifies local populations and rebel groups that have attacked dams, dikes, and other water infrastructure to prevent diversion of water. The list includes references to deliberate destruction of dams to flood areas, thereby killing enemies and preventing them from moving supplies or using the water to support an attack. The Chronology also identifies an increasing number of incidents of deliberate or threatened poisoning of water supplies with chemical, biological, and physical agents.

Almost all water-related conflicts are managed diplomatically through political and legal systems, and economic, ecological, and public health consequences have been largely avoided. For example, in 1992, Hungary changed its mind about a 1977 agreement with Czechoslovakia to construct dams on the Danube (Gabcikovo-Nagymaros) that were intended to reduce daily floods, increase navigability, and provide electricity. Slovakia completed part of the project and redirected the Danube, leading to a legal dispute before the International Court of Justice, which ruled that neither side had lived up to the agreement. This conflict, along with the vast majority of international water-related ones, are resolved through negotiations.[ 1][ 2][ 4][ 5][ 10] Water agreements can be used to determine the quantity of water resources that should be allocated to each party, the purpose of allocation (urban consumption, export-oriented agriculture, local agriculture, electricity generation, recreation mining, and manufacturing), and the party responsible for allocation control. In essence, when disputants focus on the 3 points of quantity, purpose, and control, the conflict can often be managed.

In a minority of water-related disputes countries have fired weapons, attacked a dam, or engaged in other military actions.[ 2] Those disputes that threaten to become violent or become violent are often grounded in preexisting and long-standing animosity over differences in religion, ethnicity, race, or lifestyle (e.g., nomadic, agricultural, urban). The list of recent water-related disputes that were violent or came close to violence includes countries that have a history of multifaceted disputes including: Bangladesh-India-Pakistan, EgyptSudan-Ethiopia-Somalia, Iran-Iraq, Angola-South Africa, Bosnia-Kosovo-Yugoslavia, Argentina-Brazil ColumbiaParaguay, Ecuador-Peru, and Israel-Jordan-Lebanon-Palestine-Syria.

At this time, water in the Middle East, such as the Jordan River Basin, is probably the most threatening to public health, environmental, and economic stability.[ 11][ 12] Israel controls the majority of the water supply, and Jordan most of the rest. Israel's contentious relationships with the Palestinians, Syrians, and other neighbors are deeply embedded, but exacerbated by Israel's control of important water supplies that these states believe should wholly or partly be their supplies. Water supply experts from these countries realistically assess the safe yield of the supply; the network of pipes, pumps and values; and options for improving the distribution system and forecast future demands. The experts know that the region needs more water and a better water delivery network. Some have indicated that desalinization and a shared delivery network makes sense for the region as a whole. However, it is difficult for these historical adversaries to set aside their long-standing grievances to jointly solve water problems.

Although the Jordan Basin is a prominent concern, the world population is increasing, and while the freshwater supply is currently stable, global warming threatens to potentially destabilize the world's current water supplyand-demand patterns; it is not crying wolf to suggest that disputes over water could become an increasing source of conflict. Will limited water resources further exacerbate Middle Eastern, African, Asian and other conflicts, or will a need to allocate a scarce resource lead to peaceful cooperation among nations that truly need to share information, planning, and management of limited water resources? I hope for the latter, and reiterate an often heard suggestion that the world's more affluent nations would be well served by offering to support strategic planning and water resource development efforts with financial and technical resources. This will not only promote regional and world peace but advance public health's most important practical priority: the prevention of unnecessary disability, disease, and death.

PHOTO (COLOR): The Benson Bubblers were very innovative in their heyday, as they use 45% less water than standard public fountains and were designed for beauty. Photograph by Jennie Day-Burget. Printed with permission of the Portland Water Bureau.

References

1. Grover V, ed. Water: A Source of Conflict or Cooperation? Enfield, NH: Science Publishers; 2007.

2. Postel SL, Wolf AT. Dehydrating conflict. Foreign Policy. 2001;Sept/Oct: 60-67. Available http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/natres/water/2001/1001fpol.htm. Accessed January 7, 2008.

at:

3. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Water 2025: Preventing Crises and Conflict in the West. 2008. Available at: http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LSP77383. Accessed January 7, 2008.

4. Fisher F, Huber-Lee A, Amir I. Liquid Assets: An Economic Approach for Water Management and Conflict Resolution in the Middle East and Beyond. Washington, DC: RFF; 2005.

5. Scholz J, Stiffel B. Governance and Water Conflict: New Institutions for Collaborative Planning. Washington, D.C.: RFF; 2005.

6. Barnett C. Mirage: Florida and the Vanishing Water of the Eastern U.S. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press; 2007.

7. Hodding WC. Stolen Water: Saving the Everglades From Its Friends, Foes, and Florida. New York, NY: Atria Books; 2004.

8. Greenberg MR, Carey GW, Zobler L, Hordon RM. A geographical systems analysis of the water supply networks of the New York metropolitan region. Geogr Rev. 1971;61:339-354.

9. Gleick P, ed. The World's Water 2008-2009. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2008.

10. Dinar A, Dinar S, McCaffrey S, Mckinney D. Bridges Over Water: Understanding Transboundary Water Conflict, Negotiation and Cooperation. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co; 2007.

11. Trondalen JM. Water and Peace for the People: Possible Solutions to Water Disputes in the Middle East. Paris, France: UNESCO; 2008.

12. Zeitoun M. Power and Water in the Middle East: The Hidden Politics of the Palestinian-Israeli Water Conflict. New York, NY: I.B. Tauris; 2008.

~~~~~~~~
By Michael R. Greenberg, PhD

Copyright of American Journal of Public Health is the property of American Public Health Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.