WaterWired

The Golan Gamble: Middle East Peace...Or Not?

Okay, here's a good one: Turkey provides Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria with just about all the water they could possibly use, Israel withdraws from the Golan Heights, and everybody is happy!

Someone's been smoking too much of the evil weed, right? Actually, maybe not.

Check out this story from the Jerusalem Report in the 5 June 2008 Jerusalem Post.

The plan would provide water in the amount of 2 - 3 billion cubic meters ( 1.6 - 2.4 million acre-feet) per year from the Ceyhan and Seyhan Rivers of Turkey.The plan was originally proposed by Turkey in the 1980s, but was shelved when Turkish-Syrian relations soured in the 1990s.  

From the article by Leslie Susser:

The water would be channeled from Turkey, which enjoys a huge water surplus, in underground pipes and overland canals through western Syria to the southern slopes of Mount Hermon, where it would flow into a dam along the length of the northern stretch of a new Israeli-Syrian border, providing hydro-electric power and serving as a major obstacle against a tank blitz from the Golan Heights, which would be returned to Syria as part of the projected peace package. Some of the water en route would be diverted to Lebanon and water from the dam channeled to Israel, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority.

"Everybody wins," says the plan's author, water engineer Boaz Wachtel, an Israeli fellow at the Washington-based Freedom House, which promotes democracy, peace and human rights. "The Arabs and Israelis get water and stability, the Turks hard currency and enhanced international status."

But this is not a done deal. Again, from the article:

But the dream of peace with Syria with all its attendant benefits - Syria in the pro-Western Arab camp, freed from Iranian tutelage and no longer supporting Palestinian and Lebanese militants - is not universally shared. Israeli hawks, who oppose any withdrawal from the Golan, accuse Wachtel and Liel of living in a fantasy world - and the government of Ehud Olmert of playing dangerous games in its efforts to survive the corruption scandals engulfing the prime minister. There is, they say, no chance of Syria breaking away from the radical Iranian-led axis and handing over the Golan would simply be turning it into an Iranian forward base for attacking Israel. "All this talk about making peace and sharing water is pie in the sky," scoffs the Likud's Yisrael Katz, chairman of the Knesset's Golan caucus.

And more:

The outcome of negotiations with Syria as well as the fate of Wachtel's ambitious water scheme could depend on the results of the next Israeli election. With Olmert wobbling over corruption allegations, pundits are talking about a November ballot, with the Likud's Benjamin Netanyahu, who opposes territorial compromise with Syria, the front-runner according to public opinion polls.

Here's what Likud leader and former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu thinks of the idea. No, he's not a fan.

Ah, water - the great peacemaker! This will get interesting.

"You don't make peace with friends. You make it with very unsavory enemies." -- Yitzhak Rabin

Is Water The 'New Oil'? Tell Me Something I Don't Know

The 28 May 2008 issue of the Christian Science Monitor (arguably the best newspaper in the USA, by the way) has a story by Mark Clayton that asks "Is water becoming the new oil?"

For readers of this and other water blogs, this is not a provocative headline: the media has been full of water shortage and water privatization stories in the past few years. Some of the usual suspects are cited: the always logical Peter Gleick, and the always peripatetic Maude Barlow, who weighs in with her usual dose of enlightenment:

“Water is a public resource and a human right that should be available to all,” she says. “All these companies are doing is recycling dirty water, selling it back to utilities and us at a huge price. But they haven’t been as successful as they want to be. People are concerned about their drinking water and they’ve met resistance.”

Yes, water should be available to all. But "All these companies...recycling dirty water" - does she mean water reuse, whereby water is treated to drinking-water standards and then sold as such? How despicable! Public utilities do this too, Maude - try the Orange County Water District in SoCal. Shouldn't the OCWD be allowed to recover the cost of water treatment?  

The article does focus heavily on privatization, and of course, cites the pathetic case of Cochabamba, Bolivia, out of which Bechtel was tossed in 2000 over high prices for water. What you never hear about is what a mess the public utility had made of the city's water-supply system. That does not justify turning over the keys to the safe to multinationals like Bechtel, but if the city had done a good job of managing the water supply and maintaining the infrastructure, Bechtel would not have been needed.

People forget that you don't have to have a private, profit-making utility to have a good water system. A publicly-owned system can charge a "fair price" for water, one that ensures the utility can maintain the system and yet not give the resource away. I don't care what your economic status is; if you get water for free or for an unreasoably low price, you won't value it and you will waste it. That is the last thing we need in these times. That is what people like Maude Barlow forget: you cannot give water away for nothing or next to nothing. Well, you can, but...

And a private utility is not necessarily the devil incarnate. If a community votes to turn over its water supply utility to a private utility because they think it can do a better job, they should do so with their eyes open, ensuring that there are oversight and lifeline rates. 

The article notes that the Canadian House of Commons voted last year to begin talks with Mexico and the USA to exclude water from NAFTA.

And I just heard about a local Pacific Northwest legislator who annually wants to sell one million acre feet (1 MAF) of Pacific Northwest water "internationally" at a penny per gallon to make $3.26 billion per year for the public coffers! Such a deal! Why sell it internationally? Just ship it to Las Vegas or SoCal.

This person will likely have his head handed to him. But what if entrepreneurs in the PNW used 1 MAF to produce or grow widgets, then sold these things overseas for a hefty profit? People would applaud them. But they are still shipping 1 MAF of water overseas, only it is "virtual water". Why not eliminate the middleman and just sell the water?

Oh yeah, the article does have one flaw: it says Canada (which has often been mentioned as a supply for the USA) has 20% of the world's fresh water. If you have been a faithful reader of this blog, you will know the error of that statement.

But don't let that stop you from reading a great article.

“Never underestimate the collective stupidity of very smart people in small groups.” – Unknown

 

South Caucasus River Monitoring Project: Water for Peace in a Volatile and Strategic Region

So after all these travel posts, you're perhaps wondering what bearing they have on water and why I'm posting them on WaterWired.

My reason for traveling to Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Armenia is the South Caucasus River Monitoring project, which is funded by NATO (Science for Peace sub-Programme, part of the Science for Peace and Security Programme) and OSCE. The NATO program is specifically aimed at scientists in former Soviet republics and Eastern-bloc countries, to engage them in peaceful activities. 

Our project deals with the Kura-Araks basin, outlined in blue below. From the SCRM WWW site above, you can access the project's official WWW site (hosted by Azerbaijan) with the water quality and quantity data collected by teams from each of the three countires. Monthly sampling at about 10 surface-water sites in each country (12 in Azerbaijan) is performed for a variety of constituents: major and minor ions, selected heavy metals, POPs (persistent organic pollutants - e.g., pesticides), and radionuclides.

There are no water agreements (use, allocation, quality) in the Kura-Araks basin among the three South Caucasus countries. During the Soviet period, all decisions came from Moscow.  

Much of the project funding has gone for state-of-the-art analytical equipment for each country. Along with standard sampling and analytical protocols, this will ensure that each country can "trust" the work of the other ones.

This trust is important in an area that has been, and still is, rife with disagreements, conflict, and mistrust. With mutual trust, cooperation is enhanced and the prospect of conflict is reduced.

We hope that this cooperation (excellent, by the way) at the technical level can then "diffuse upward" into the political arena. We're essentially using water as an agent of peace in a volatile, strategic, region.

We are particularly proud of the SCRM project, because it was the first one funded by NATO that dealt specifically with the environment. We are in our sixth and final year.

At the SCRM WWW site you can also download a couple of Master's reports prepared by two former students of mine, Amy Ewing and Berrin Basak Vener. Below you can also download a paper by Berrin and me that I presented at 'The Last Drop' conference in The Hague in December 2006. It's a summary of her Master's report with some additional information.

Download venercampana_last_drop_paper.pdf

Water does not necessarily have to be a source of conflict. Indeed, it can bring people together.

And bring on that 'Great Game'!

“Handguns are acceptable; semi-automatic weapons must be checked at reception.” – sign on the door of the Metechi Palace Hotel in Tbilisi, Georgia (the sign was removed when the hotel became a Sheraton)

      

WaterWired and Campanastan Head for the South Caucasus

WaterWired needs a little break, so along with my alter ego Campanastan, I am heading to the oily shores of the Caspian Sea for a five-day stop in Baku, Azerbaijan, then an overnight stay in Tbilisi, Georgia, and finally to Yerevan, Armenia, for five days. I return home on Memorial Day evening.

So is this a true vacation? Not really. I am going over in my role as the director of the South Caucasus River Monitoring project, which is funded by NATO and OSCE. It's our sixth and final year.

I work with some great people over there - Professor Nodar Kekelidze (Georgia), Dr. Bahruz Suleymanov (Azerbaijan), and Dr. Armen Saghatelyan in Armenia. They and their colleagues do all the heavy lifting, along with NATO experts Dr. Freddy Adams (Belgium; analytical chemistry) and Dr. Eiliv Steinnes (Norway; environmental chemistry).

I doubt I'll be posting daily, but should be able to get a few out. At least I'll have some travel tales when I return home.

"Surround yourself with the best people you can find, delegate authority, and don't interfere." -- Ronald Reagan, cover of Fortune, 15 September 1986

China, Tibet, and Water

The Tibetan Plateau, source to great rivers (Brahmaputra, Ganges, Yellow, Yangtze, Indus, Irrawaddy, Mekong) in whose basins live well over 2 billion people, may be at the heart of the China-Tibet "debate".

Why? Water, that's why.

The region (shown in red), at 2.5 million square kilometers about four times the size of Texas, covers almost 2% of the Earth's land surface. It is the world's biggest plateau, and has an average elevation of almost 15,000 feet (4500 meters). It plays a significant role in the climate of the planet. Its glaciers nourish the aforementioned rivers and others. And it is those glaciers that may be at the heart of China's "interest" in keeping Tibet on a tight leash.

Circle of Blue has an excellent article about the strategic power of water in the China-Tibet debate (thanks to Eric Daigh).

Like many other resources, water is of great concern to China. I've previously posted on China's water issues: Three Gorges Dam; the Great South-to-North water transfer; and the dust-up with Kazakhstan over Lake Balkhash.

The take-away: what with Tibtean Plateau glaciers shrinking because of climate change and China's water development plans, the Indians, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Bangladeshis, Burmese, et al. might have cause for concern.

And perhaps the rest of us, too.

"In the world there is nothing more submissive and weak than water. Yet for attacking that which is hard and strong, there is nothing that can surpass it." -- Lao-tze, 6th century BCE

'The Economist' Looks At Water Wars: What, No Ground Water?

The current (3 May 2008) issue of The Economist contains a piece on 'Streams of blood, or streams of peace', about the potential for nations going to war over water. It's a good article, examining a number of river basins around the world with the potential for conflict.

This map shows the Nile, Tigris-Euphrates, and Jordan River Basins, three of the 263 transboundary river basins where cooperation exists but where conflict could arise.

Some of the work in cited in the article has been done by my colleagues at Oregon State University (OSU). We have a remarkable database, the Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database (TFDD), a resource for the entire world.

My friend and colleague at Oregon State University, Aaron Wolf, creator of the TFDD and arguably the world's expert on water conflict, contends that the only documented instance of two states going to war solely over water involved two Mesopotamian city-states about 4,500 years ago.

One interesting story he tells involves Turkey's refusal to "shut off" river water to Iraq during the first Gulf War, despite the Americans' pleas. The Turks let the USA use bases, conduct overflights and troop movements for the first Iraq War, but drew the line at using water as a weapon.

But the article, like many others on the topic, conveniently neglects to mention ground water. Yet there are aquifer systems that could foment conflict; in fact, there are about 240 aquifer systems that underlie two or more nations.

There are programs underway to delineate these aquifers.The ISARM (International Shared Aquifer Resource Management) project is one, as is WHYMAP (World-wide Hydrogeological Mapping and Assessment Programme).

The world map shows transboundary aquifers; it is available from the WHYMAP WWW site.

The Guarani aquifer of South America, which may be the largest body of unfrozen fresh water in the world, has the potential for generating conflict among Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay.

Aquifers underlying North Africa have similar conflict potential. Here in North America, the USA shares ground water basins with both Canada and Mexico, so conflict is a possibility.

It's all too easy to forget about ground water; after all, out of sight, out of mind. But we must remember that when it comes to unfrozen water, fresh ground water far exceeds fresh surface water. It's not even close; one estimate puts the amount at 100x more.

That huge reservoir of subsurface water could figure prominently in any future water wars.

"War is the unfolding of miscalculations." -- Barbara Tuchman

OSU Offers New Graduate Certificate in Water Conflict Management and Transformation

Oregon State University (OSU) is now offering a new Professional/Graduate Certificate in Water Conflict Management and Transformation. Click here for more information. [Disclosure notice: I am at OSU and am an affiliated faculty member with this program.]

The following text is from the Program's WWW site.

This program is designed to provide decision-makers and water professionals with the required specialized resources and skills that go beyond the traditional physical systems approach to water resources management. It will explicitly integrate human, policy and scientific dimensions of water resources within the framework of governance and sustainability.

The Professional/Graduate Certificate in Water Conflict Management and Transformation will invite instructors, students, and professionals from across the state, the country and internationally to participate in case-based, interactive course and fieldwork in a multicultural and multidisciplinary learning environment. This 18-credit graduate certificate provides in-depth skills-building training to enhance personal and institutional capacity in water governance issues and strategies across distinct and overlapping contexts: Water Governance, Water and Ecosystems, Water and Society, and Water and Economics.

A highlight of the professional/graduate certificate program is a capstone course (Water Governance and Conflict Management) coupled with an intersession practicum working with watershed councils, landowners, and agencies in Northeast Oregon; and a guided and critiqued project in which two teams take on, for example, the roles of Jordan and Israel to negotiate a treaty for water resource allocation in a simulated water negotiation. These techniques will hone student skills, understanding and thought development. Students will also take part in fieldwork in a watershed or basin at risk of, or in, water conflict. Read about the 2007 practicum, in the article entitled "Outside looking in: OSU students get a taste of community-based restoration in the Grande Ronde Watershed."

It is expected that candidates entering this program will already have a Bachelor's Degree and will enroll in the university, either into a graduate degree program or into the graduate certificate program. All the courses listed in the program are currently offered at OSU and some are offered as online courses. Presently, we are also working towards developing new e-courses to provide online candidates with an opportunity to successfully complete the entire program online.

Program affiliated faculty have designed and implemented a broad spectrum of applied activities in the Western U.S. and throughout the world, including: facilitations and skills-building workshops between stakeholders at both the transnational and international levels; skills-building workshops and training courses for graduate students and professionals from mid-career through the ministerial level; and collaborative learning processes in which stakeholders develop conflict management skills while enhancing dialog on current issues of dispute.

See a list of courses related to water conflict and management that are currently offered at OSU.

"If we work together, a secure and sustainable water future can be ours ." -- Kofi Annan, February 2002

Indian Water Rights: What Goes Around Comes Around

USA Today had an interesting article about Indian tribes exercising their Federal reserved water rights that the Supreme Court guaranteed in a 1908 court case, Winters vs. United States. These rights are sometimes known as Winters rights.

Here is a little document describing these reserved rights, which have been applied to Federal lands other than Indian reservations:

Download FedResWaterRights.pdf

Here are the first few paragraphs of the story:

GREAT FALLS, Mont. — For decades, ranchers and farmers across the West have tapped into rivers and streams on or near Indian reservations. Now, as drought conditions plague big parts of the region, they're concerned their access to those sources could dry up.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court gave tribes the primary rights to streams on their reservations in 1908, until recently, 19 tribes in the West had not exercised those rights. This year, tribes in Montana, New Mexico, Idaho, Nevada and California are on the verge of securing their claims.

That could result in less water, or higher water prices, for non-Indian agricultural producers and communities downstream, according to Victor Marshall, an attorney who represents irrigators in New Mexico's San Juan Valley.

Marshall acknowledges that Indian tribes have more water coming to them. But he argues the amounts they are seeking are more than they can realistically use on the reservation.

One serious problem is that not all these "Winters rights" have been quantified, so state water officials are concerned because they don't yet know how these claims will impact their state water budgets. In deciding Indian water allotments, courts have usually used a concept called "practicable irrigable acreage" (PIA). The tribes are entitled to the amount of water needed to irrigate these PIAs. But how do you define PIA?

The article continues:

States and tribes must negotiate how much the tribes have coming before the federal rights are exercised, said Craig Bell, executive director of the Western States Water Council in Salt Lake City. He expects Congress to consider seven or eight settlements in 2008. Congress has ratified 21 Indian water rights deals in the past 25 years, Bell said.

After reaching an agreement with the states, tribes ask Congress for millions of dollars to build reservoirs and pipelines.

Give and take produced satisfactory results to both sides in the largest Indian water rights settlement in history in 2004 in Arizona, according to John Hestand, senior water counsel for the Gila River Indian Community, and John Sullivan of the Salt River Project, which delivers water to the Phoenix area.

The 40-year, $2.4 billion deal involved the Pima, Maricopa and Tohono O'odham tribes and non-Indian users.

The largest bill before Congress this year is the Navajo's claim to the New Mexico portion of the San Juan River, which would authorize $800 million over 20 years. Votes could come this spring in Senate and House committees.

New Mexico state engineer John D'Antonio said concerns being raised in some quarters about the Navajo bill are overblown. He said the deal would benefit non-Indians, too. "We've got to reconcile the sovereignty issue with the state-based rights," D'Antonio said. The Blackfeet Tribe in Montana, which reached a settlement with Montana in January, will ask Congress for more than $200 million, said Don Wilson, the tribe's water rights director.

In other pending cases:

•A bill giving Shoshone and Paiute —who share the Duck Valley Reservation straddling the Idaho-Nevada border — $60 million passed the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in July 2007. It awaits action by the full Senate.

•A $21 million bill quantifying the water rights of the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians in Riverside County, Calif., was introduced in the House in December. A hearing before a subcommittee of the House Committee on Natural Resources is scheduled March 13.

If you look at yesterday's post, you'll see that the Western governors listed Indian water rights as a major issue. This has long been of concern to the governors, but with climate change potentially diminishing water supplies and the prolonged drought in the Southwest, it looms larger than ever.

We live in interesting times, with the "best" yet to come.

'"Jackson Hole: where California plays and Mexico works." -- "suggested" new slogan for Jackson Hole, WY, Jackson Hole News & Guide, as reported in the High Country News, 18 February 2008

Georgia-Tennessee Border War for Water Access

The 20 February 2008 NBC Nightly News had a feature on the Georgia-Tennessee "border war" for access to the Tennessee River. Here is the video clip (you will have to watch a 30-second commerical).

Colleague Aaron Wolf sent me this story from the 17 February 2008 issue of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The accompanying picture is from the story.

The article reports that some Tennesseans are sympathetic to Georgia's argument and its drought-stricken plight. Here's one:

"It's not necessarily our water," said Kate McBryar. "I don't see why Georgia can't use our water if they are having a drought. Why not help our countrymen?"

I suspect most of her fellow Tennesseans might not be so generous towards Georgia, and Atlanta, the "Las Vegas" of Southeastern water.

"I was pretty much just having fun. I didn't expect anything to come from it." surveyor Bart Crattie, commenting on the 1818 surveying error he pointed out.

Solution to Georgia's Water Woes: Annex Part of Tennessee

You've know doubt read by now that Georgia has lost its dispute with Alabama and Florida about water withdrawals from Lake Sidney Lanier (see these New York Times and Environment News Service articles). A federal appellate-court panel ruled that the state can not withdraw as much water as it wanted to from the reservoir. So Atlanta must look elsewhere for more drinking water, or better conserve what they have.

The picture of Buford Dam on Lake Sidney Lanier is from the Environment News Service article, courtesy of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

It is unclear whether Georgia will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Looks like the "lovey-dovey" relationship among Alabama, Florida, and Georgia (see my earlier post) may be on hold for a while.

From the NYT story:

Though the fast-growing Atlanta area relies on the reservoir, the other states have argued that Georgia has done little water planning over the decades and has not tied growth and development to water resources.

On Wednesday, Gov. Sonny Perdue is scheduled to sign into law Georgia’s first comprehensive water management plan, which was hastily approved by both houses of the General Assembly last month in the opening days of the 2008 legislative session. Environmental groups have already criticized the plan as ineffectual in the face of a record drought, which could threaten the drinking water for four million people.

What? Not tied growth and development to water resources? Are those folks daft?

But these Easterners are proving themselves adept at water wars. Want more water? Just annex part of another state!

Here's a story by Ben Smith from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

A couple of state lawmakers want to annex a piece of Tennessee to get more water for Georgia.

State Sen. David Shafer (R-Duluth) and state Rep. Harry Geisinger (R-Roswell) on Wednesday introduced companion resolutions to stake a claim on a one-mile stretch of disputed land that they say rightfully belongs to Georgia.

If Georgia were to take that land, the state's new border would stretch beyond the south bank of the Tennessee River, one of the largest tributaries in the Southeast.

Georgia was shortchanged of the land because of a "flawed survey conducted in 1818 and never accepted by the state of Georgia," Shafer said.

"A misplaced survey marker is just that and nothing more," he said. "A state boundary can only be changed by the legislatures of the states, with the consent of Congress. It cannot be changed by a mathematician with a faulty compass or a skittish surveying party afraid of the Indians."

Nobody need be alarmed that such resolutions might be a prelude to a second, much smaller, War Between the States.

They merely call for the creation of two panels to investigate Georgia's possible legal claims to land on the other side of the Tennessee and North Carolina borders.

See what Tennessee thinks of all this - read the article in the Chattanooga Times Free Press. Chattanooga is on the Tennessee River, just across the border from Georgia. One Tennessee lawmaker, House Majority Leader Gary Odom (D-Nashville) quipped "I think we need to have our militia down there."

Note added 15 February 2008: Here is an article from the 15 February 2008 edition of the Christian Science Monitor. The accompanying map is from the article.

"What's the best thing to come out of Alabama? Interstate 85. What's the second-best thing? Interstate 20. " -- Georgia joke

Salmon Restoration....in Nevada?

Salmon restoration in Nevada? Come on now! I worked in Nevada for over 12 years and never heard anything about salmon in Nevada's streams - not that I recall, anyway. But then again, most of my work there was in the central and southern parts of the state, dealing with regional ground water flow and radioactive waste disposal. Salmon?

Obviously, for a region to have a natural salmon fishery it needs to have a water connection to the ocean. A small portion of Nevada lies within the Columbia-Snake River basin (see map from the High Country News). The recent (4 February 2008) HCN has an article (you may have to register for a free trial subscription) about a renewed interest in returning salmon to Nevada's streams.   

Nevada still has a law on the books requiring fish ladders on dams. The law has been there since the 1800s, indicating how important salmon once were to the state. Tens of thousands of Nevada-bound adult salmon would swim up the Columbia, then the Snake, to return to their spawning grounds in the Snake River tributaries Owyhee, Jarbridge, and Bruneau Rivers and Salmon Falls Creek. Native Americans relied heavily on the salmon as did some of the whites.

Despite the state law requiring fish ladders, the salmon fell victim to dams downstream in Oregon and Idaho. When the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) closed the gates on the Owyhee Dam in 1932, the salmon disappeared from Nevada forever. 

But things may be changing. Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) has thrown his weight behind an effort to restore salmon to the aforementioned streams. And Reid, now in the majority with his longtime foe Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) on the sidelines, is flexing his muscles.

Reid wants the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to deny license renewal to Idaho Power Company's Hells Canyon dams on the Snake River unless they install fish ladders, as required by its original 1955 license. A broad constituency - not just in Nevada - supports Reid: tribes, environmentalists, fisheries scientists, sportsmen, and sportswomen.

Salmon and steelhead in the larger Columbia-Snake Basin are in trouble, so the problem is not simply in the Nevada streams.  The eight dams on the Columbia and Lower Snake (below Hells Canyon) are the prime culprits.

The article suggests that Reid's action could break the logjam in the Columbia-Snake Basin. If nothing else, it signals that Nevada will be a player in larger Columbia-Snake Basin issues.

Read Ken Olsen's article - it's worth it.

Stay tuned.

"Gentleman, if we do not succeed, then we run the risk of failure." -- former Vice President Dan Quayle

Mississippi vs. Memphis: Case Dismissed, But It Ain't Over Till It's Over

A Federal District Court Judge dismissed the $1B lawsuit filed by Mississippi against Memphis Light, Gas and Water (MLGW) over MLGW's pumping of ground water from beneath Mississippi (see my earlier post about this issue).

Judge Glen H. Davidson ruled that his court does not have jurisdiction, since the case involves two states, and such disputes must be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.  Although Tennessee is not a defendant, the judge ruled that the state must be brought into the case as a "necessary and indispensable" party, making it a dispute between two states.

The court dismissed the case without prejudice. Mississippi can now appeal the case or file with the Supreme Court. Attorneys for the state said they will appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and, if unsuccessful there, file before the Supreme Court.

Tom Charlier of the Memphis Commercial-Appeal gives the full story.

But stay tuned, because the fat lady hasn't sung yet.

"The opera isn't over till the fat lady sings." -- Dick Motta, former NBA coach

Pumping from the Memphis Sand Aquifer: Is Memphis Kicking Sand in Mississippi's Face?

So what business do I have posting on the Memphis Sand aquifer and the lawsuit between Mississippi and Memphis it has spawned? None, really, except that I was quoted in an article by Tom Charlier about the impending trial in Oxford, MS, in last Sunday's edition of the Memphis Commercial-Appeal. And I just finished a 30-minute phone interview with reporter Stephen Koranda from Mississippi Public Broadcasting (MPB).

I am reminded of an adage we used back in the 1970s:

Definition of an expert: someone who comes from more than 500 miles away and has colored transparencies.

In this case, I did not even have colored transparencies.

I am not an expert on this aquifer; I was contacted to opine because I know something about transboundary aquifers. And one reason for seeking out-of-area experts is that local ones may be called upon to testify and don't want to make comments to the media.

In a nutshell, the case boils down to Mississippi claiming that Memphis Light, Gas and Water (MLGW), the municipally-utility for the Memphis area (Shelby County), is deriving about 30% of the water it pumps from the Memphis Sand aquifer (aka the Sparta aquifer) from beneath Mississippi. This amounts to about 60 mgd (million gallons per day) coming from beneath the Mississipians' land. Total MLGW pumpage from the aquifer is about 160-200 mgd. The Memphis Sand's water is reputedly some of the best ground water in the USA, and the aquifer supplies drinking water to over 1.1 million residents of Shelby County.

This is no nickel-and-dime lawsuit; the damages sought by Mississippi amount to $1 billion, and if the Memphis utility loses, it would be forced to reduce its pumping and obtain some of its water from the Mississippi River, which would entail the construction of an expensive water treatment plant.

Most of the "harm" to Mississippi occurs in DeSoto County, a rapidly-growing suburb of Memphis. Well water levels there have been dropping -- that's what happens when you pump water from an aquifer, folks, until you increase recharge or decrease discharge to offset the pumping rate.  Mississippi contends that some of the declines are due to Memphis' pumping and constitute "harm". Memphis claims that its use is "reasonable" and not reducing the water availability in Mississippi.

Here are some additional background articles (thanks to Ricky Clifton):

1. Business TN (February 2007); and
2. U.S. Water News (March 2005)

The Memphis Sand underlies about 10,000 square miles of AR, TN, MS and KY; some reports state that parts of it extend into IL, MO, and northern LA. It occurs within a geologic-physiographic feature known as the Mississippi Embayment, a northward extension of the Mississippi River Delta's fluvial sediments from southern Louisiana to the Mississippi's confluence with the Ohio River at Cairo (that's "Cay-ro"), IL (see relief diagram). It is a topographic low, filled with sediments.

The cross-section from Mississippi State University's Department of Geosciences shows the Memphis Sand, which is up to 700 feet thick beneath Memphis and estimated to contain up to 1 trillion gallons of high-quality water. Note that the vertical exaggeration of the cross section is huge; the dip angles of the individual strata are under 1 degree.

 

Here is what the University of Tennessee's Energy, Environment and Resources Center (EERC) said about the case in a report several years ago (from the Business TN article):

*The appellate court in Tennessee has rejected the absolute dominion rule, which allows a surface owner to pump any amount of water from an aquifer regardless of the damage it does to the rights of other landowners overlying the same aquifer. The court concluded that overlying landowners are restricted to a reasonable exercise of their mutual rights in the common source.

* Under common law, water pumped from an aquifer can only be used on land overlying the aquifer that is owned by the pumper. This is a situation where the common law has not yet caught up with the contemporary reality of large scale pumping for use [and sale] off-site.

*If MLGW has been pumping water from the aquifer so as to diminish the flow and pressure to others wells for a period sufficient to allow the company to acquire rights to the water through prescription (probably 20 years), then the company may have acquired rights to this water.

*Under Tennessee law, incomplete as the record is, if the volume that MLGW is pumping is unreasonably high, much more than their share of the water from the aquifer, their actions are illegal if another overlying user complains.

*Because the Memphis Sand aquifer underlies land in several states, it is entirely possible that this dispute could also lead to a suit for apportionment of the waters of the aquifer … Such a suit would likely originate in the U.S. Supreme Court as an equitable apportionment suit. The Supreme Court has never apportioned the water in an underground aquifer ... the outcome might be unfavorable to MLGW and Memphis water users because there is another source, the Mississippi River.

This a fascinating case; it is more akin to what we'd expect out here in the West. My water-lawyer friends also agree this is a very interesting case, what with a state suing a city utility in another state for supplying water to its residents. It may result in the states agreeing to the allocation of the aquifer's water. That's what should be happening now.

The trial begins 4 February 2008. Stay tuned.

                                       Happy World Wetlands Day!

Update, 4 February 2008: Well, that was quick - the judge dismissed the case, saying that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction (thanks again to Ricky Clifton). See my post.

"Nobody ever forgets where he buried the hatchet." -- Frank Hubbard

1000 Wells for Darfur: Update from Dr. Farouk El-Baz

Bev Herzog of the Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS) and my friends at the National Ground Water Association (NGWA) forwarded this email from Dr. Farouk El-Baz of Boston University's Center for Remote Sensing. Dr. El-Baz is the man behind the "1000 Wells for Darfur" project. He sent the email on 16 January 2008.

I have posted a number of items on the Darfur water issue:

• Water for Darfur? A Geologist Meets with Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir;
• The "Lake" in Darfur: Euphoria and Myopia "Rain";
• Darfur "Lake" - Oversold?;
• Darfur: Farouk El-Baz Meets with UN's Ban Ki-moon;
• 1000 Wells for Darfur: Time to Do Some Drilling

Here is Dr. El-Baz's email:

I am in Khartoum and just completed a visit to the State of Northern Darfur This journey might be the crown of my career! The people of Darfur are absolutely wonderful and deserve the help and support of every human being.

As soon as arrived I went to pay respects to the Governor, Osman Kibir. He is a large man with a friendly disposition and great character. He took me to the place where he arranged my lecture. I was absolutely astounded that the hall was huge and filled with people, where there was a computer and projector for a power point presentation with one large front screen and two screens on the sides! I started my lecture by telling them I did not expect this at all and brought paper maps to hand hold. My admiration brought the first round of clapping cheers!

The lecture was followed by a steam of very good questions, which proved that they understood all the science aspects. In his last remarks the Governor stated that among the best lessons is that sand was born by water and later shaped by wind... which is the basic premise of my scientific opinions.

The UN forces arranged for a helicopter to ferry us around to the western part of the State on the first day and the southern on the second. On the third day I called El-Fashir's Mayor to get permission to travel by car, and he insisted to join us, bring the minister of water and all the local technical people of water resources for 2 additional days. This allowed me a good view of the local setting.

I was able to point out new sites for additional wells, and just as important some sites for earth-dams to save water in the wet season for use during the dry season. I now know what details they need, and what I need to impress on the UN and other parties that are concerned about the provision of water in Darfur.

The use of space data to accomplish this might be the best outcome of the space photography yet. I have spoken to local farmers and cattle herders who all emphasized that shortage of water is the root cause of the problem and they all await the provision of more water for a better future. All those I met in Darfur are very smart, well read and are appreciative of the smallest of gestures. God help us all in trying to help them.

An ABC crew (Bob Woodruff) joined me on this trip and they will air a segment on water for Darfur . I hope that this will initiate much support.

--Farouk El-Baz

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." -- Margaret Mead

Klamath Basin: Serenity Now, or Later?

A group of Klamath Basin stakeholders - government agencies, irrigators, Indian tribes, fishermen, and environmental groups - announced on 15 January 2008 an historic accord that they hope will restore the Klamath fishery while providing enough water to farmers. One of the key components of the agreement is the removal of four PacifiCorp dams on the lower Klamath River.

Here are links to stories from the Los Angeles Times (the accompanying map is from the story) and the Oregonian.

I also recently posted items about the Klamath situation: the NRC Committee report and related news stories. [Disclosure notice: I am a member of the NRC committee.]

Here you can download the agreement's press release and summary.

Download pr_proposed_klamath_basin_restoration_agreement_011508.pdf

Download summary_klamath_restoration_agreement_11508.pdf 

The entire agreement can be downloaded here.

There are several items worth noting about the agreement:

• it will cost about $1B over 10 years, presumably from Oregon, California, and the Federal government (Congress), none of whom has committed funds;
• it hinges upon the removal of PacifiCorp's four dams, yet the company was excluded from the negotiations and has not signed on; and
• it excludes the Trinity River watershed above its confluence with the Klamath River.

Some of the $1B will be used to create a water bank and to retire water rights, which can then be dedicated to environmental flows.

The parties to the agreement feel that PacifiCorp will sign on, since the relicensing of its four dams will likely require the installation of fish ladders at a cost of $300M or so, an amount that would probably exceed the cost of the dams' removal.

So what's important about this agreement? The fact that a diverse group of stakeholders agreed on a plan of action. The groups who did not acquiesce were the Hoopa Valley Tribe, Oregon Wild, and WaterWatch. 

Even if PacifiCorp agrees to take down the dams, will the implementation of the agreement produce restoration? I don't know; I have not read the entire 256-page agreement. But in the few documents I read, I did not see the essential elements I view as critical (these are from the NRC report, of which I was a co-author):

• a formal science plan for the Klamath Basin that defines research activities, their interconnections, and how they relate to management and policy;
• an independent science review and management mechanism;
• a whole-basin perspective - something that has not been done in all the years of study and tens of millions of dollars spent;
• a transparent data and analysis process; and
• an adaptive management approach.

The proposed Klamath Basin Coordinating Council (KBCC), the Techncal Advisory Team (TAT) and the Upper Basin Team (UBT) may fulfill the roles described in the second bullet. But unless the bulleted items are implemented, I fear the Klamath River Basin is doomed to the status quo.

"Wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then." -- Bob Seger, 'Against the Wind'

States Seek Curbs on Great Lakes Water Exports

The Great Lakes states and provinces are casting wary eyes at their brethren in both the USA and Canada. I have previously posted about this, including Gov. Bill Richardson's (D-NM) now-infamous comment,  "States like Wisconsin are awash in water."

Today there was another article about this issue by Richard Mertens  in the Christian Science Monitor. Mertens' article is the basis for this post.

Two years ago, the eight Great Lakes Basin (GLB) states and two Canadian provinces signed a compact to ban diversions outside the GLB. Six of the eight state legislatures must approve the compact, and then Conbgress must approve it. But there are objections to the ban. Some in Ohio have argued that it infringes upon local property rights. In Wisconsin, there is some opposition to a ban on exports to communities at the edge of the GLB. 

It's that latter issue that has impacted Waukesha, WI, a community that wants water from the Great Lakes. As the map from the CSM article shows, the City of Waukesha is just outside the GLB; Waukesha County actually straddles the basin divide (see James Rowen's comment below).

Not all are supportive of the city's bid for GLB water, although exceptions have been made in the past. Chicago is the best example; it can withdraw up to 2.1 bgd (billion gallons per day), enough to supply suburbs outside the GLB.

Below you can download a two-pager on the Waukesha water issues from the Great Lakes WATER Institute at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM).

Download WaukeshaHandoutBWeb.pdf

One way to keep on t0p of this and related GLB issues is to subscribe to Brown and Caldwell's Great Lakes Water News and read James Rowen's blog.

And let's not forget that the Great Lakes contain about 20% of the earth's fresh unfrozen surface water, about the same amount as Lake Baikal. Don't forget those qualifiers!

For today's quote, I could not help but think of the following, supposedly the English translation of a Chinese proverb that was supposedly meant as a curse. Whether it's a curse or not, when it comes to water, we certainly do live in interesting times.

"May you live in interesting times." -- Chinese proverb

Climate Conflicts Ahead? Two Reports For Your Reading Pleasure

Continuing in the vein of upbeat topics, I learned about these publications from The Australian. Downloads of the Pew report and the Zhang paper, both discussed below, are available here.

Environmental experts in Britain have identified 46 countries - home to 2.7 billion people - where climate change and water-related crises will create a high risk of violent conflict. A further 56 countries, representing another 1.2 billion people, are at high risk of political instability, says a report by International Alert.

Download climate_conflict.pdf

The report concludes it is "too late to believe the situation can be made safe solely by reducing carbon emissions worldwide and mitigating climate change".

Janani Vivekananda, one of the report's authors, said: "Water management will be a huge tinderbox (in Asia) and now is the time for international organisations to come together. There is huge potential not just for conflict but for co-operation."

At the first Asia-Pacific Water Summit UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon commented that the planet faced an impending water crisis that was especially troubling for Asia. His comments were echoed by many speakers at the water summit, who gathered in Beppu in southwest Japan to discuss a range of issues, including policies that might prevent the various aspects of an Asian water crisis deepening into armed conflict.

Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda vowed on Monday that water and climate change would be at the top of the agenda for the Group of Eight summit in Japan next northern summer.

The Beppu summit, which began on the same day as UN climate change talks in Bali, also coincides with a study directly linking water shortages to violence throughout history.

In a report published yesterday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, David Zhang of Hong Kong University has analyzed half a millennium's worth of human conflict - more than 8000 wars - and concluded that climate change and resulting water shortage has been a far greater trigger than imagined previously.

Download zhang_paper_climate_change_conflict.pdf

If global warming were to continue, water shortages could trigger more wars. "We are on alert, because this gives us the indication that resource shortage is the main cause of war," Dr. Zhang s