Dispute over rights to river water - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

lofhay · 07-26-2009, 01:19 PM

South Carolina’s attorney general, Henry McMaster, recently had an article in the paper concerning the legal battle between South Carolina and North Carolina over the use of water from the rivers which come through N. C. on the way to S.C. He pointed out how the granting of permits by N. C. to certain cities and utilities for the diversion of millions of gallons of water per day could endanger the availablity of water to the citizens of S. C. He called the federal law suit which he had filed a “fight for S. C. rights”.

My question is: how can such a conflict be resolved in a way that is fair to all without also coming to grips with the whole problem of population growth? On what basis can anyone decide that limits can be put on the withdrawal of the water that is necessary for life? And, even if legislation is passed establishing such limits, how can such legislation be enforced?

Regardless of how these questions are answered, if we do not include a plan to limit population growth, it will be only a temporary solution, if any solution at all.

yournamehere · 07-26-2009, 07:55 PM

Living in the Western U.S., we're used to this - everything has to do with water rights. Currently, the water from the Colorado River is divided up among 7 U.S. States and Mexico. Unfortunately, everyone's share was determined by the predicted average annual flow rate of the Colorado, but guess what? Turns out whoever did the math overestimated it - not even once since then has it reached that "average flow," and right now we've been in a decade-long drought. Which means no one is getting as much water as they've been promised - and planned for. Presently, Colorado doesn't even allow its citizens to capture the rain that falls on their roofs and property - they insist it belongs to the State.

It's been said the next big war will be fought over water. Access to potable water is becoming a big problem, across the globe; and not just in third world countries. Currently, less than 3% of the planet's water is potable - and that number shrinks as global warming melts the glaciers which used to hold vast amounts of pure water.

Conservation is the key - and recycling. Also - the prudent use of graywater. We've got to stop using potable water for things like irrigation, flushing toilets, and filling swimming pools. These things can be done with either recycled water or harvested rainwater. People need to get over their fear and "ick" factor at using recycled water. The technology today is adequate for water recycling with no health concerns. The biggest concern left is proper removal of hormones and other proteins before recycled water is truly drinkable, but the products of water treatment plants today are fine for the uses mentioned above. Yes - even swimming pools.

But hey - I'm also for a reversal of the poplulation explosion. This planet would be much better off if a generation or two would limit themselves to one child, like the Chinese.

lofhay · 08-04-2009, 02:58 PM

I am pessimistic about our future because so few people are even aware, much less concerned, about what population growth is doing to my state, my nation and my world. It depresses me to think about what my grandchildren will face concerning air to breathe, water to drink, food to eat, and the conflicts which will surely come over rights to these things. It could get ugly, and probably will, if we don't soon learn how to cut population growth to zero, or even to a negative.

yournamehere · 08-07-2009, 12:38 PM

Nature has a way of controlling overpopulation. 700 years ago, the population of Europe was reduced by 30% by The Plague. Just 90 years ago, 7% of the world's population was culled by the Spanish Flu - a very close relative to our current Swine Flu, which is due to return in force in a few months.

hunnychile · 08-07-2009, 03:49 PM

It will be interesting to see which demographic areas will be able to get the swine flu vaccination first and whether the US runs out of the vaccine before it runs it's course.

The big pharmaceutical companies do rule the World and that's why we still do not have a cure for HIV or cancer yet, either.

Schwan · 08-12-2009, 12:30 PM

Well, a problem of such complexity and so many variables can't really be solved per se, because you'd have to have a perfect picture of the current situation (tough with water) and incredibly accurate prognosis of how the local population would grow and what would happen to the river in the future. As yournamehere stated, it's been tried and IMHO, it's impossible. The way to solve problems like this is to revert to the most basic available data, compromise and set frequent re-evaluations.

That's theory, though. If you really wanna know, look up the river Jordan in the middle east. Now I'm not saying it's gonna be like that, but...

07-26-2009, 01:19 PM	#1 (permalink)
lofhay Tilted Location: Charleston, SC	Dispute over rights to river water South Carolina’s attorney general, Henry McMaster, recently had an article in the paper concerning the legal battle between South Carolina and North Carolina over the use of water from the rivers which come through N. C. on the way to S.C. He pointed out how the granting of permits by N. C. to certain cities and utilities for the diversion of millions of gallons of water per day could endanger the availablity of water to the citizens of S. C. He called the federal law suit which he had filed a “fight for S. C. rights”. My question is: how can such a conflict be resolved in a way that is fair to all without also coming to grips with the whole problem of population growth? On what basis can anyone decide that limits can be put on the withdrawal of the water that is necessary for life? And, even if legislation is passed establishing such limits, how can such legislation be enforced? Regardless of how these questions are answered, if we do not include a plan to limit population growth, it will be only a temporary solution, if any solution at all.

07-26-2009, 07:55 PM	#2 (permalink)
yournamehere Invisible Location: tentative, at best	Living in the Western U.S., we're used to this - everything has to do with water rights. Currently, the water from the Colorado River is divided up among 7 U.S. States and Mexico. Unfortunately, everyone's share was determined by the predicted average annual flow rate of the Colorado, but guess what? Turns out whoever did the math overestimated it - not even once since then has it reached that "average flow," and right now we've been in a decade-long drought. Which means no one is getting as much water as they've been promised - and planned for. Presently, Colorado doesn't even allow its citizens to capture the rain that falls on their roofs and property - they insist it belongs to the State. It's been said the next big war will be fought over water. Access to potable water is becoming a big problem, across the globe; and not just in third world countries. Currently, less than 3% of the planet's water is potable - and that number shrinks as global warming melts the glaciers which used to hold vast amounts of pure water. Conservation is the key - and recycling. Also - the prudent use of graywater. We've got to stop using potable water for things like irrigation, flushing toilets, and filling swimming pools. These things can be done with either recycled water or harvested rainwater. People need to get over their fear and "ick" factor at using recycled water. The technology today is adequate for water recycling with no health concerns. The biggest concern left is proper removal of hormones and other proteins before recycled water is truly drinkable, but the products of water treatment plants today are fine for the uses mentioned above. Yes - even swimming pools. But hey - I'm also for a reversal of the poplulation explosion. This planet would be much better off if a generation or two would limit themselves to one child, like the Chinese. __________________ If you want to avoid 95% of internet spelling errors: "If your ridiculous pants are too loose, you're definitely going to lose them. Tell your two loser friends over there that they're going to lose theirs, too." It won't hurt your fashion sense, either.

08-07-2009, 12:38 PM	#4 (permalink)
yournamehere Invisible Location: tentative, at best	Nature has a way of controlling overpopulation. 700 years ago, the population of Europe was reduced by 30% by The Plague. Just 90 years ago, 7% of the world's population was culled by the Spanish Flu - a very close relative to our current Swine Flu, which is due to return in force in a few months. __________________ If you want to avoid 95% of internet spelling errors: "If your ridiculous pants are too loose, you're definitely going to lose them. Tell your two loser friends over there that they're going to lose theirs, too." It won't hurt your fashion sense, either.

08-07-2009, 03:49 PM	#5 (permalink)
hunnychile Alien Anthropologist Location: Between Boredom and Nirvana	It will be interesting to see which demographic areas will be able to get the swine flu vaccination first and whether the US runs out of the vaccine before it runs it's course. The big pharmaceutical companies do rule the World and that's why we still do not have a cure for HIV or cancer yet, either. __________________ "I need compassion, understanding and chocolate." - NJB

08-04-2009, 02:58 PM	#3 (permalink)
lofhay Tilted Location: Charleston, SC	I am pessimistic about our future because so few people are even aware, much less concerned, about what population growth is doing to my state, my nation and my world. It depresses me to think about what my grandchildren will face concerning air to breathe, water to drink, food to eat, and the conflicts which will surely come over rights to these things. It could get ugly, and probably will, if we don't soon learn how to cut population growth to zero, or even to a negative.

08-12-2009, 12:30 PM	#6 (permalink)
Schwan A boy and his dog Location: EU!	Well, a problem of such complexity and so many variables can't really be solved per se, because you'd have to have a perfect picture of the current situation (tough with water) and incredibly accurate prognosis of how the local population would grow and what would happen to the river in the future. As yournamehere stated, it's been tried and IMHO, it's impossible. The way to solve problems like this is to revert to the most basic available data, compromise and set frequent re-evaluations. That's theory, though. If you really wanna know, look up the river Jordan in the middle east. Now I'm not saying it's gonna be like that, but...