Joining the discussion a little late, but just wanted to follow up on something that Cheyenne said. You mentioned the idea of water and dehydration not being “sexy” enough to get the attention it deserves. Your comment reminded me of a video I just saw about water’s less “sexy” cousin sanitation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tA6X2QUo0XA) posted recently by an EWB-Canada volunteer working in Zambia.

Keep fighting the good fight.

Jane

This has all been such great info. & quite helpful, & I really want to thank you. These are things I haven’t read about so haven’t been able to consider.

“And few countries have been willing to ask for direct assistance because of the appearance that such requests disgraces the government’s authority and right to rule.” I know that culturally certain things are no no’s. It seems opening ppl’s hearts to accept human life is a greater good than so-called losing face politically; that changing ppl’s reasoning has a ways to go. I actually had absolutely no idea things were as they are until I started writing about rivers a year ago- was astounded so many people have no water & that rivers are in the state they’re in.

And I know the whole armchair revolutionary is all good & well as I sit at my desk, with gallons of fresh, distilled water on the floor next to me. I did wonder about Jensen’s 90% stat.

Anyway, I started a blog, though all –italics– on the thesis writings got –lost (& that makes a huge difference in the work). I’ll figure out how to post links soon, stuff like that. So here’s the address: http://strangeh2os.wordpress.com/page/2/ The writing on rivers on page 2 my thesis advisors like the most, mainly semi-sarcastic writing on rivers in America. All work is draft form.

If anyone has a specific river they want me to write on, please feel free to contact me. & I’m a fellow at the University of Iowa, & at the museum here, giving a public reading at the Old Capitol Bldg. on rivers Sept. 24, 7pm if anyone’s in the area.

Thanks again,
=)
Cheyenne

As for international law, the only rules related to water apply to countries that are riparian to the same transboundary waters. While most nations have abandoned the traditional notions – absolute territorial sovereignty (the right to do anything with the water in your territory regardless of the downstream impacts, which was championed by upstream states) and absolute territorial integrity (the right to receive the full natural flow from upstream states without any diminishment, which obviously which was championed by downstream states) – the prevailing rule today is that of equitable and reasonable utilization (riparian state are entitled to obtain an equitable share of the benefits of a transboundary river/aquifer and to the reasonable use of that water body). But none of these rules really address the human rights conundrum facing many water scare regions.

Regarding the Jensen opinion you mentioned, I do not necessarily agree with Jensen’s premise that all of the world’s ills are the fault of the power elites or that the solution is to “take down” the current system. I agree, however, that the current system needs a major overhaul and believe that the working the system is a better path than anarchy. Also, I do need to correct Jensen’s slight exaggerations: while agriculture does take 90% of water in a number of developing countries, the global average is 70%, while the global averages for industrial use and human consumption (for domestic use and sanitation) are approximately 20% and 10% respectively (you can find a neat graph of water withdrawals and use rates here; see also The United Nations World Water Development Report 3: Water in a Changing World (2009) at pp. 99 and 106, which you can download here).

Let us know if you do start a blog on water & rivers. The more people become concerned, informed, and involved, the better a legacy we will leave for our children.

Lastly, thanks for letting me know about the anonymity in my postings. I need to correct this in the blog software. Your humble IWLP servant is Gabriel Eckstein.

I guess ethically I think if hto were the priority of those in power- let’s say for whatever reason they suddenly ran out of water for their lattes- I’m absolutely certain any kind of legislature, water divining, or standing under the last spigot or meter reader would be real fast. It’s the fact they simply don’t- I’ll say it- care- about their fellow humans that 5 times as many kids, for instance, die of water-related issues than aids/hiv. Yet a vaccine is ‘sexy’ – & makes drug co’s rich. Saving ppl from dying of dehydration isn’t going to line the leaders’ pockets anytime soon.

Lastly, while I know these are complicated issues that take time to resolve I also think, as we’ve been on earth however many millenia, we’ve had enough time to figure out ethically it’s ‘bad’ when fellow humans die, & we’ve had the wherewithitall to solve far more complicated issues- gene splicing, space probes, et al., so really, it’s human resistance that’s the problem. Greed, hatred, & delusion, as the Buddhists say. I’m just a writer & new at researching all this but I’m still not getting how & why over a third of folks get virtually nothing when there is more than enough for that third. I read in the book This Will Kill You just how gnarly dying of dehydration is… even one’s brain shrinks inside ones head. –thank you

I read an eye-opening column or whatever this week by someone named Derrick Jensen- I think it was in this month’s Orion. He talked about power systems & water & the last line reads, “We can follow the example of those who remembered that the role of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power with as much integrity as possible, but rather to confront & take down those systems.” I have to wonder if history bears this out & what it might mean as the demand for water doubles every 21 years (i don’t know if that stat is valid).

Thanks again for your time. This is inspiring. I might start a blog on water & rivers.

As for your questions on “how & why States are getting away with & seemingly will continue to get away with upholding these violations,” that unfortunately is a function of our international system of state relations. Under the system, state sovereignty is paramount, and only grave violations of non-derogable obligations (obligations from which the international community has deemed that states cannot derogate) can elicit international enforcement action. So far, the main non-derogable state obligations that have been accepted by the international community fall under the rubric of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Human rights, which are supposed to be non-derogable, do not seem to justify international intervention unless it is shown that the degree of violation becomes grave. Where that line lies is open to great debate, although, it seems to lie somewhere between the ongoing situation in China with its Tibetans, Uyghurs, and other minorities (not grave enough), and the situation in Darfur (for which the Sudanese president has been indicted by the International Criminal Court, albeit for war crimes and not human rights violations).

Even if a human right to water became formally recognized by the US and other nations, as it is now, enforcement will continue to be a major hurdle.

Acts of commission: the direct actions of States parties or other entities insufficiently regulated by States, and
Acts of omission, including the failure to take appropriate steps toward the full realization of everyone’s right to water & the failure to have a national policy on water.”

I guess I’m still unclear on how & why States are getting away with & seemingly will continue to get away with upholding these violations. I like what Mr. Gleick said about the right to water existing even in the face of lack of recognition or action toward such.

Thank you,

Cheyenne Nimes
MFA Candidate
University of Iowa
Thesis: Water Rights
i hope there were no typos; wrote this on iphone.