The Right to Water

The international "right to water" was more or less formalized in the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights back in 2002 when General Comment No. 15 was adopted.  It was a generalized statement at that time, but in the intervening years it has begun to catch on and today certain political and social efforts are beginning to focus on realizing this ideal - at least in some specific contexts and places.  While some celebrate these fledgling efforts as ensuring fair access to basic resources, others question the means and direction of the concept altogether.

I guess I'm in between.  While I likely agree with the underlying ideal that every living soul on earth should have a basic right to enough water to at least sustain its living existence, I'm lost in the many, many periperal issues that also must be addressed.  Does this position include a right to the well or diversion device needed to get the water?  The transmisson system to distribute it?  The treatment plant to purify it?  Who assumes the responsibility to provide and manage these individual rights?  If we are all to have a truely "inalienable right" to domestic water, there should be no monetary cost to us, should there?  If there is, it has to be so inexpensive as to not exclude anyone.  With water that cheap, what's to prevent people from wasting it?  Who decides if I need 25, 50, 75 liters/day or more?

My conclusion:  As right and moral as it may be, this is a very tricky concept with so too many logistics to ever become the rule rather than the exception.  It will take the unquestioning adoption of a completely new, universal mindset, which, by the way, will require virtually every existing mindset to change radically.  Heck, we can do that!

UN Resolution on Transboundary Aquifers

I have just read the UN's recently adopted resolution RE: Transboundary Aquifers - underlying two or more states or countries.  If we were to fully comply with this resolution for the Ogallala Aquifer, Kansas would be:  1) granted sovereignty over its portion of the aquifer; 2) obligated to use the aquifer in an equitable and reasonable and sustainable manner that maximizes the long-term benefits; and 3) required to develop a utilization plan factoring in population, social and economic needs, natural aquifer conditions, alternative supplies and the ecosystem -  any of which can be weighted - so long as special regard is given to vital human needs.

Kansas would also be required to:  1) prevent harm to other states in its use of the aquifer or to the discharge zones located in other states; 2) take all steps to eliminate such harm to other states if occuring - in consultation with the affected states(s); 3) cooperate on the basis of sovereign equality with other states to attain equitable aquifer utilization and protection - establishing joint mechanisms for cooperation; and 4)  exchange all relevant data and information - generating such data and information if not already known.

Kansas would be:  1) encouraged to enter into regional agreements with other state(s) for management purposes; 2) obligated to prevent and control pollution that may affect another state; 3) required to monitor our aquifer to accepatble standards (jointly with other states when possible);  and 4) required to develop a management plan - jointly where appropariate.

Whenever Kansas does any activity that may affect another state, it must assess that activity, notify the affected state(s) and when disagreement occurs, consult with or negotiate eqitable solutions.  This is especially vital in cases of emergencies - natural or human induced activities which will immently affect another state(s) - or when vital human needs are affected.  All states would be bound by international law to protect the aquifer in cases of armed conflict. (IMHO not even the Texans would resort to this!) :)

Whew.  It's not clear how in the US the encouraged cooperative agreements between states would be done.  This sounds more like an interstate compact to me, but I guess less formal MOA's between states would not be precluded.  I asked about such an informal agreement with our neighboring GMD in Colorado once early in my career and was told definitively that it would require an interstate compact - only possible with the consent of Congress.

Anyway, lots of good ideas in the resolution, but...  I wonder how closely the agreement between Utah and Nevada on the Snake Valley Aquifer follows this UN roadmap?