[wacor]

Originally Posted by pyritechips

My concern with the topic is, if we declare water to be a basic human right, does that lead to who controls it, or if the controlling person (or country) has an abundance does the one in need have a right to demand some? If you think you need water bad enough do you give yourself the right to take it?There are not a hypothetical questions. Water rights is a rapidly growing world-wide concern.

in 50 years it will be todays oil

[pyritechips]

I ask because with only 33 million people, Canada holds the bulk of the world's fresh water supply. How soon before others come asking, buying, begging, demanding, threatening? America is running a water deficit, especially in the South West, and California. Add in drought due to global warming and climate change (sorry Lan, it's real) and the diminishing supplies loom more serious.

[wacor]

We are a closed system. The water will be there but it will have been diverted or used in a manner where it does not return to its original source as rapidly.

There is more fresh water than the doomsayers are indicating. Just a matter of who has it and who does not. I believe if you took all the fresh water it would be the size of the United States 90 miles deep.

There eventually will be major struggles internationally over controlling it. Because like everything else govts like to let things turn into crises

[aka Brett]

Originally Posted by pyritechips

I ask because with only 33 million people, Canada holds the bulk of the world's fresh water supply. How soon before others come asking, buying, begging, demanding, threatening? America is running a water deficit, especially in the South West, and California. Add in drought due to global warming and climate change (sorry Lan, it's real) and the diminishing supplies loom more serious.

Lots of big clean lakes?
I believe some of our lakes were polluted may years ago with industry.
We make efforts now to not contaminate as in the past,but chemicals can last a long time

[pyritechips]

Originally Posted by wacor

We are a closed system. The water will be there but it will have been diverted or used in a manner where it does not return to its original source as rapidly.

There is more fresh water than the doomsayers are indicating. Just a matter of who has it and who does not. I believe if you took all the fresh water it would be the size of the United States 90 miles deep.

There eventually will be major struggles internationally over controlling it. Because like everything else govts like to let things turn into crises

Originally Posted by brett888

Lots of big clean lakes?
I believe some of our lakes were polluted may years ago with industry.
We make efforts now to not contaminate as in the past,but chemicals can last a long time

You can pile all the fresh water in the world as high as you want, and its a very graphic analogy, but you have to remember that not all that fresh water is available. Fresh water also includes the polar ice caps (which Lan has it on good authority are not melting) which account for a siginificant percentage. Another large part is tied up in industrial use ( our Alberta tarsands produce millions of barrels of oil a day and every litre requires the use of a litre of water, most of which is not recycled but sits in sludge ponds and eventually sink, contaminated, back into the soil. Desert areas like California suck a huge amount to irrigate previously unarable areas. Canada has the most fresh water lakes in the world, just sitting there in the northern wild. Is somebody going to come by and demand use just because we don't happen to be using it all up? It may seem trivial to you now, but not to us, and not to you in the not so distant future.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by wacor

There is more fresh water than the doomsayers are indicating. Just a matter of who has it and who does not.

from what i've seen there are very few nations that lack water for the foreseeable future .....even while there are regional problems within nations

like it or not, this speaks to me of the need, first, for intra-national co-operation

and 3rd world nations, as you might imagine, are only now beginning to deal with the idea of managing their resource...with the major exceptions of south africa and the band from africa north of the saraha across into the middle east, countries seem to be reasonably self-sufficient in terms of water...at least, in their current socio-economic state.....the problem seems to be with managing water when a country shifts from a subsistance economy to anything approximating industrial: that's when water use takes on significant geographic implications and management becomes necessary.

but water is also inseparable from the health of a population...and in the tropics especially, potable water is not simply the result of having a lot rainfall or lakes or rivers....this basic tenet of resource management is close to the heart of the problem, on a global scale....if economic expansion and the global market is the dream, it won't go far in countries that can't even provide potable water for personal use or agriculture

I believe if you took all the fresh water it would be the size of the United States 90 miles deep.

maybe....but almost 70% of it is locked up in ice caps and glaciers...as they melt, they're lost to us as an easily available resource....another 30% is ground water -from the big aquifers like the one in the midwest and under north africa, to the little one that me and my 600 drink from....leaving less that 1% laying around on the surface.

There eventually will be major struggles internationally over controlling it. Because like everything else govts like to let things turn into crises

currently, nearly all countries fulfill between 75-90% of their current water needs in country....so it's growth/development rates that'll push the envelope of confrontation wrt it.

for the life of me, i cannot understand how government co-operation isn't one component of this issue: it would seem to benefit both free enterprise and society alike....their symbiotic relationship looks undenyable, regardless of any disparities of wealth or progress.

this is how i interpret tom's point about "developing a perspective"

[wacor]

anybody who thinks there will be govts cooperating with each other has not paid attention to mankind. We have at least a couple thousand years of known history to show what to expect.

You guys act like the water disappears. It ends up back in the ground. The problem is we have population growth, irrigation and now bottled water that removes if from its natural place. As I said it either gets shifted to another area where it ends up returning to the ground or if it stays local it takes longer to return to aquifers than it is removed.

A good example of a problem I know of is a little village nearby. For years south of one road there was a percentage of lots that could not perk so there were no homes built on several lots. Then the village decided there were problems with too many septic systems so they had a pressure sewer installed. I am not sure but I think most people were forced to hook up to the pressure sewer. Anyway since now there was no issue with perk tests any longer probably 5% more homes were added which filled up all the lots in this area that is a mile wide and about 1/3 mile deep on lots that probably ranged from 1/2 to one acre or larger.

During a couple of very severe drought periods the water table dropped and some wells were impacted. All but a couple homes they were able to lower the pumps and maintain the water flow. So what happened is two fold. A location that was ok with what was available prior now had a serious problem during severe droughts because .. (a)more homes and water usage (b)sewage was not returned into the ground directly as in the past so that recharge was lost. I should add that the idiots took no measures to curb their irrigation usage. These spoiled rich folk did not want their precious lawns to look anything less than spectacular. With reasonable conservation of merely limiting irrigation to every other day the problem likely would have been alleviated.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by wacor

anybody who thinks there will be govts cooperating with each other has not paid attention to mankind. We have at least a couple thousand years of known history to show what to expect.

well, nothing's perfect ....but governments DO co-operate, Bill, and have even been known to realize a mutual benefit from that co-operation

Jim's explanation of Canada's need for water helps me to understand why it may have joined with Russia and America in refusing to recognize water as a basic human right....all three countries are huge, and their size, climate, and geography contribute to them being relatively water rich

and TooBad was right, imo, when he distinguished between our NEED for water and it being a right that we should all enjoy.....but only because the difference is a more accurate picture of the way nation states see things and operate in the world.....

it's the same thing you're sayin, imo....it's need that determines co-operative effort, not an understanding of human rights...and need is, by definition, i believe, an economic transaction.

all i'm wonderin' is whether or not what seems clear to me -that what we, as americans, perceive as "outsourcing" of our economic deteminism is in fact just evidence that a transnational economy is fundamentally apolitical- has implications for political systems in terms of self-determinism

i think it does.....and so conclude that america and canada and russia -wealthy as they are- can only conclude that water is a need, not a right...it's just a recognition that resources are one of the few bargaining chips for political units in a transnational economy.

the UN -in spite of all the bad mouthing it recieves for its "one world, feel good" solutions- is basically on the same page.....they just approach the problem from the standpoint of poor nations, rather than rich ones.

but they are essentially saying the same thing.....underdeveloped political units need the same control over their resources as well developed ones

and that's where the idea of political co-operation comes in, imo
and why the efforts to "internationalize" the economic control of water is dangerous.

the thing i'm skeptical about is the role of the IMF and WB....historically, they strike me a soldiers of forture, serving the wealthiest political units by investing in the poorer ones to develop resource managment and political interdependance for lopsided economic gain.

an apolitical, transnational economy only emphasizes what a short term -and short sighted- solution that is, imo......another reason i understand the point Tom is making.

You guys act like the water disappears. It ends up back in the ground. The problem is we have population growth, irrigation and now bottled water that removes if from its natural place. As I said it either gets shifted to another area where it ends up returning to the ground or if it stays local it takes longer to return to aquifers than it is removed.

A good example of a problem I know of is a little village nearby. For years south of one road there was a percentage of lots that could not perk so there were no homes built on several lots. Then the village decided there were problems with too many septic systems so they had a pressure sewer installed. I am not sure but I think most people were forced to hook up to the pressure sewer. Anyway since now there was no issue with perk tests any longer probably 5% more homes were added which filled up all the lots in this area that is a mile wide and about 1/3 mile deep on lots that probably ranged from 1/2 to one acre or larger.

During a couple of very severe drought periods the water table dropped and some wells were impacted. All but a couple homes they were able to lower the pumps and maintain the water flow. So what happened is two fold. A location that was ok with what was available prior now had a serious problem during severe droughts because .. (a)more homes and water usage (b)sewage was not returned into the ground directly as in the past so that recharge was lost. I should add that the idiots took no measures to curb their irrigation usage. These spoiled rich folk did not want their precious lawns to look anything less than spectacular. With reasonable conservation of merely limiting irrigation to every other day the problem likely would have been alleviated.

interesting example.....isn't it kind of a microcosm of the entire apolitical free enterprise vs. political co-operation junk?....demonstrating the dangers of economic development (from some outside developer, no doubt) for short term gain in the absence of self-determism that takes into account long term management and political interdependence?

if that's the current definition of socialism, we'd do well not to ignore it, imo....wealth does not give anyone the right to be ignorant of the need to be interconnected.

[lotuseclat79]

Originally Posted by pyritechips

I ask because with only 33 million people, Canada holds the bulk of the world's fresh water supply. How soon before others come asking, buying, begging, demanding, threatening? America is running a water deficit, especially in the South West, and California. Add in drought due to global warming and climate change (sorry Lan, it's real) and the diminishing supplies loom more serious.

Hi Jim,

Sorry to burst your bubble about Canada holding the bulk of the world's fresh water supply, but there is a lake in Russia that holds that title - from recent memory of browsing the Web.

-- Tom

[iltos]

here's some figures for "raw" water resources available by country/per capita.....it says nothing about how much is developed or even capable of being developed -so greenland tops the list by virture of it's icecap and low population, followed by little rainforest watering holes like suriname......

i had a table at one point yesterday that looked at the same data in terms of usable water resources per capita....i'll try and find it again

for now, all i've got is this cool map of actual water use/per capita

[wacor]

also makes a difference what is fresh surface water versus groundwater. Some places have poor quality water because they do not know how to produce it and or filter it.

I knew a guy that was about 5 years ago stationed somewhere in Africa doing stuff. Not sure what it would be as he was a Navy seal. Their water supply came from a hippo pond. It was picked up and dumped into large vessels and then filtered into potable water. They had issues with the rate of flow and he had sent me some pics asking if their filters were set up right. Kind of funny as I was going thru the hoops for licensing issues here and I am giving the Seals advice on how to do things.

[Knotbored]

I would like to see this thread split between the problem of arid (desert) areas lacking moisture and poluted water supplies in some (most) major cities and many third-world countries.
I don't think society in general owes a water supply to anyone choosing to live in dry areas, but I do believe society in general should police polution of water supplies by industry and should help with technology for inadequate sewage supplies in poor countries. I have no problem financung a water treatment plant beside a lake in darkest Africa cleaning mud and disease from their water supply. I do also have a problem with Victoria BC Canada dumping raw sewage into Puget Sound even years after warnings and threats from both the Canadian and USA government agencies- poluting Washington state fishing waters (as well as their own.) The problem isn't only poor countries and its not only manufacturing polution.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Knotbored

I do also have a problem with Victoria BC Canada dumping raw sewage into Puget Sound even years after warnings and threats from both the Canadian and USA government agencies- poluting Washington state fishing waters (as well as their own.) The problem isn't only poor countries and its not only manufacturing polution.

welpers.....
the World Health Organization did an exhaustive bit of research into both global water supplies and santitation in 2000.
on pg 35, they concluded

Lack of water supply, sanitation and hygiene causes both social and individual problems. There is increasing consensus that solutions are only achieved in a local context, in which the appropriate mix of government, private sector, individual and civil society contributions must be locally appropriate; that all sectors have a part to play; and that the part must be locally determined.

bein' on the border only complicates the nature of "local context", making the idea of a co-operative solution more difficult
i guess the WHO does this kind of assessment on a regular basis, to monitor the global return on investment for both water management and sanitation, particularly wrt developing nations.
and they acknowledge the change that the growing transnational economy has had in the 3rd world.

....much of the debate during the 1990s focused upon....governmental capacity to provide water supply and sanitation services
{In contrast}...some now see the private sector or civil society (led by nongovernmental organizations or the community itself) as the preferred provider of the services that government could not provide in a more efficient and more accountable way. The evidence is only now beginning to trickle in and the results are mixed. For example, preliminary studies show that multinational companies are playing an increasing role in water supply in developing countries, and it is plausible that the private sector outlook promotes greater efficiency. These same studies suggest, however, that multinationals are
not necessarily bringing much new capital investment to the sector. In any discharge of responsibility from the public to the private sector, care must always be taken to ensure that enforceable regulatory, contractual mechanisms are in place to meet public objectives, and to provide the private sector with sufficient stability to attract continuing investment in extending and upgrading service. Without such mechanisms, it is unrealistic to expect the private sector to invest in services and not maximize their return or investment. Similarly, field studies have suggested that community-managed systems are not necessarily more effective or fairer than systems run by traditional government agencies.

again, this seems to point to the political requirement that local government assert its role as the "guardian" of its citizenry, enforcing that transnational investment meet a population's requirement for sustainable growth

long term, imo, this model is a co-operative endeavor, providing political benefits to the population and its government, while realizing the investment return for transnationals -a developing marketplace- and promoting local economic development, as well

Much of the rhetoric on both sides of the public-private debate has been confused because it does not always consider the full diversity of the private sector. While large multinational water companies are significantplayers, many other players are much smaller in size. These include localwater vendors, contractors and masons who build latrines. While none ofthese smaller actors may bring in large amounts of capital, all can have adirect impact upon the quantity and quality of services provided.

what i keep coming back to, tho, it that big, complex issues like this have no one solution....transnational investment can be beneficial, but it's not essential: local economic efforts can succeed, as well....but both require the political desire for co-operation and stability to avoid failure through exploitation or stagnation, and that desire is not limited only to the third world

Institutional sustainability and the mobilization of individual resources for water supply and sanitation depend upon the existence of a reliable and fair legal framework. The enormous energy that individuals and families can mobilize for water supply and sanitation depends greatly upon the security of their future. No family will invest in sanitation if they will not benefit from it; for example, if they fear eviction. Similarly, the
problem of groundwater depletion in south Asia and other parts of the world has much to do with poorly defined property rights between drinking-water consumers and those who irrigate agricultural fields.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Knotbored

I would like to see this thread split between the problem of arid (desert) areas lacking moisture and poluted water supplies in some (most) major cities and many third-world countries.

sort of off topic...but since water and santitation and energy and food are all interdependent, this seems kind of interesting, in light of your comment
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/bu.../03renew.html?

A series of projects is under construction on the nearly lifeless plateau to the southeast of Dunhuang, including one of six immense wind power projects now being built around China, each with the capacity of more than 16 large coal-fired power plants.

Each of the six projects “totally dwarfs anything else, anywhere else in the world,” said Steve Sawyer, the secretary general of the Global Wind Energy Council, an industry group in Brussels.......

......“It’s the Gobi Desert,” said Wang Yu, the vice director of economic planning. “There’s not much other use for it.”

we put huge federally sponsored projects in other countries out to bid in the private sector...lots of stuff got built in iraq this way.......
can it be all that disgusting to our sense of freedom to do the same thing at home?

[pyritechips]

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

Hi Jim,

Sorry to burst your bubble about Canada holding the bulk of the world's fresh water supply, but there is a lake in Russia that holds that title - from recent memory of browsing the Web.

-- Tom

Umm, you're not bursting my bubble. You have either misquoted me or misunderstood what I said. I am not doubting the size of Lake Baikal (if you are going to refer to something it is at least proper to name it. A size and link would be even better). At 23,600 cubic Kilometers it is huge, but that is only one lake. Look here and look at the Great Lakes system (which is one large lake geologically, if not by nomenculture) then add in such lakes as Great Bear and Great Slave in Northern Canada. Use Google Earth to zoom over Canada and see how the landscape is literally spotted with lakes, both large and small, all due thanks to our last Ice Age. There has already been talks concerning the sale of Canadian water to the drought-ridden American South West. That area has reduced the mighty Colorado to a trickle at its mouth.