2013 World Water Day - All 365 of Them!

Most folks in the water community know there is an annual World Water Day that comes around every year, and March 22, 2013 was the most current of these annual events.  But many are not aware that 2013 has been proclaimed the United Nations International Year of Water Cooperation - yep, the whole year!

The year kicked off with World Water day on March 22, but there are various other water events scheduled throughout the year, including selection of the "Water for Life" (UN-Water Best Practices) award - with nominations being accepted through September 15. There is also the Out of the Blue poetry competition for young people (in three age categories) which this year involves creating short water videos.  Submissions for this competitive judging event are open until October 30.

Anyway, while the material I've looked at is largely focused on surface water systems, there are a smattering of groundwater mentions as well.  Yes, groundwater always seems to be the stepchild in water resources.  One groundwater mention on these pages involves a reported decision by Saudi Arabia to offer incentives for Saudi corporations to lease large tracts of African agricultural lands for the importation of up to 12% of the country's cereal grains - thus being able to reduce their groundwater use (and groundwater depletion) by the same amount.  I don't know what this arrangement has to do with water cooperation, as it seems strictly a business proposition to me.

Yet the need for cooperation in surface water systems is undeniable.  According to the material there are 276 transboundary river basins in the world - 64 in Africa; 60 in Asia; 68 in Europe; 46 in North America and 38 in South America.  And over these basins, there are approaching 450 international agreements that have been negotiated and signed in the last 190 years or so (between 1820 and 2007).

That's a lot of cooperation it would seem, but it's only half the story.  Maintaining these agreements over time can be challenging at best.  You need only look to the Republican River Compact (Kansas, Nebraska and Colorado); the Arkansas River Compact (Kansas, Colorado and Oklahoma); the Platte River Agreement (Colorado, Wyoming and Nebraska); the Colorado River Compact (Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada; California and Mexico) and probably every other western US compact to see evidence of deteriorating cooperation.  Of course, there are rumblings of water discontent throughout Asia, the Middle East and Africa as well.

It seems to me that the model of cooperation might go to the Danube River Basin - which starts in Germany and courses through 18 (or 19) countries before it discharges to the Black Sea in Romania and Ukraine.  Kudos to these countries for developing the Danube River Basin District Management Plan - and for including related groundwater elements, too.

Anyway, 2013 has been designated the Year of Water Cooperation, for all the right reasons.  I hate to tell them, but they're going to need at least a decade.  Nah, that's not even enough time.

Transboundary Groundwater?

The U.S. Supreme Court has recently taken on the lawsuit Mississippi filed first against Memphis Light, Gas and Water, and later the state of Tennessee, over Memphis' pumping of groundwater from the Sparta Aquifer - a very prolific fresh water aquifer underlying both states.  Some are calling this the first transboundary groundwater case in the US.  Anyway, Mississippipi is claiming that as much as 30% of the water Memphis has been pumping for many years has been coming from under Mississippi, and that use of Mississippi groundwater is causing the state economic harm.  GMDA has covered this story and even captured some other coverages as well.  This will be an interesting court case, because as Michael Campana and others have already said, this will not be a small ruling - Mississippi is seeking a very large penalty.

Oops.  Did I miss this one!  My apologies.  All the above was true at one time, but as Jesse Richardson pointed out in a comment, I was in fact confused.  However, while the Supreme Court did effectively close Mississippi’s current claims over withdrawals from the aquifer back in 2010, they did so without prejudice, so Mississippi is still free to file an original action with the Supreme Court whenever they think they can sufficiently demonstrate injury.  The legal pundits are guessng that the two states will work out something by mutual agreement.  I'm betting this won't happen as amicably as the pundits are thinking it will.

Anyway, it still gets one to thinking about the nature and extent of transboundary groundwater, and whether or not the Ogallala might become the poster child for such legal actions.    I recall a Kansas Geological Survey study done a while back that quantified the impacts of northeast Colorado well production on the groundwater underflows crossing the state line into northwest Kansas.  Due to groundwater declines upgradient in Colorado caused by their pumping, the natural groundwater underflow into Kansas has been reduced.  Does this qualify for a lawsuit?   

There have to be scores of major and minor transboundary aquifers in the US, assuming an aquifer underlying two or more states qualifies as such.  Be advised that in the international community, a transboundary aquifer is only one that underlies two or more countries.  In their listing of the 274 known transboundary aquifers of the world, the Ogallala doesn't even show up.  In any case, another issue has to be the very wide range of influences caused by pumping centers likely to be present in any or all the states claiming damages.  This'll become a prior appropriation impairment call on steroids I'm afraid.  Oh well, it's a new day every day in groundwater - and thank you Jesse for such a diplomatic correction.

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?