Water Rights Simulation

Conflict can also occur within a country, for example the states situated within the Colorado river basin have been constantly squabbling over who owns the water supply and who should be allocated the most water. In the 1920s the ‘Law of the River’ established the division of water amongst the upper basin states, it also defined their responsibility to supply water to the lower basin states. This division had been based on an estimated annual flow of 21 billion m3/yr in 1920, however this was a time of above normal flows, recent studies have indicated that long term average flows are around 18 billion m3/yr. The deficit between the flow and the allocation has become more apparent as the population in the clorado basin states continues to rise. As a result of this deficit tensions are rising between the states, California receives a large percentage of the water as a result of its large population and political power even though the river does not directly flow through it. This has heightened tensions with the states

How serious is the problem? Since 1930, the aquifer's water has been reduced by 11 percent (Lewis). The volume of water has decreased because the use of irrigation has increased so much since World War II. In 1949, 2.1 million acres were under irrigation. In 1969, the amount of irrigation land rose to 9.0 million acres; and in 1978, it rose to 13 million acres

The upper basin states (including Colorado) were allocated a much greater percentage of the water than the lower basin states, while the upper basin states were developing at a much slower rate than those in the lower basin, notably California. Nevada (as of 1997) anticipated being unable to rely just on this water by 2015, while in 1997 California was already exceeding its originally allocated supply by diverting unused water from the upper basin states (Arizona.edu, 1997). It goes without saying that this legislation from the early twentieth century is not going to be sufficient in coming years as the development of these regions has progressed at a much faster rate than originally anticipated, and it is the responsibility of state and federal governments, water management companies, as well as appeals from farmers and non-farming residents alike to come to an agreement on how to apportion water and how to implement secondary hydration plans due to the rapidly declining resource that the once-magnificent Colorado River was able to supply us

Yet, humans have limited control on natural events, so this only reinforces the importance of managing water wisely. Recently California’s government has begun to focus more on sustaining and restoring the water supply. Dale Kasler (2016) articulates in his article some of the steps they have decided to make to solve this serious issue. The government has made the following investments: “$415 million for watershed restoration and other environmental aid for Lake Tahoe; up to $335 million for two proposed reservoirs in California, including the Sites reservoir north of Sacramento; $880 million for flood-control projects on the American and Sacramento rivers in Sacramento; and $780 million for flood-control projects in West Sacramento” (para. 10). This could be the first step to restoring the water to California. But these

The Texas Constitution clearly states that investment in a water storage project is necessary “to encourage the optimum regional development of systems built for the filtration, treatment, and transmission of water and wastewater”. This statement gives justification for spending tax revenue on this project, as water is a basic human necessity. In addition, the Texas Constitution provides grounds for reasonable expenditure on the needy or disabled in Article 3, Section 51. These provisions directly impact citizen’s daily lives and leave little room for interpretation.

Texas, with its abundances of natural resources, is facing a new demon, one that doesn’t even seem possible, a shortage of water. Water, without it nothing can survive. Texas is the second largest state for landmass in the nation and ninth for water square miles. Within the borders of Texas are more than 100 lakes, 14 major rivers, and 23 aquifers, so why has water become such an important issue for the state? Politicians and conservationists all agree that without a new working water plan, the state could be facing one of the most damaging environmental disasters they have ever seen. The issues that shape the states positions are population growth, current drought conditions, and who actually owns the water.

The rule of capture in water property rights has a consequence for the development of underground water resources in the state. It encourages landowners to take as much water as possible from groundwater, which can work against conservation efforts. In 1949, the Texas Legislature decided to pass the Texas Groundwater Act (Champagne). This act established water districts so they can have the authority to enforce rules for conserving and protecting the underground water.

Water governance in this case is not limited to even the state of Georgia’s government to handle despite most of the system traveling through Georgia. Controversy arises

Water rights policies have been an important topic throughout the history of California, as the resource is perpetually

In my opinion, Yuma farmers should keep their existing water rights because they are big farmers of lettuce. Lettuce is one of the most popular vegetable in the United States. A fact that proves claim #1 is in paragraph 1. It says that if you eat lettuce at Thanksgiving to April than it is most likely from Yuma. So if they cut Yuma's water supply, the lettuce might die. If the lettuce dies, than there is going to be a lettuce shortage. Another fact from the article is in the section that is titled "Older Rights Means more Water." In this section, it staits that Yuma has one of the oldest water rights which leads to more water. If their rights were taken away, then you wouldn't have the leafy greens that you love during late fall, winter, or

In the United States, there are two primary water right laws; the first is riparian water rights and the second is prior appropriation water rights. Riparian water rights has two methods of use. One method is the person who owns the land by the water source owns the water, but cannot interfere with the natural flow of the water. The other is based upon reasonable use. A person can use the water if it is reasonable for the purpose of his needs. This is based on case by case usage. Prior appropriation water rights gives the right of the water to whoever claimed the land by it first. The person with seniority has right to use as much water as wanted.

International law allows individual states the right to utilize rivers, lakes, and aquifers in an equitable and reasonable manner (Haftendorn, 2000, p.51). Of course, reasonable and equitable are open to interpretation and each sovereign nation has its own ideas about what is best, especially when other nations are adversely affected by that nation's actions. Conflicts can arise related to pollution, usage, or distribution of the water source.

Numerous studies have been conducted on the benefits and cost of oil and gas industry in California. According to California Policy Center, California is the nation’s third largest producer of crude oil and has significant potential to increase its production by 50 thousand barrels per day from current 560 thousand barrels (Considine, Tim, 2014). Therefore, expanding California’s oil and gas resources provides important net economic benefits to society. However, this benefit is threatening lives of thousands people when last November, the state officials was accused of allowing oil and gas companies to pump nearly three billion gallons of waste water into underground aquifers that could have been used for drinking water or irrigation.

Solving the global water crisis moves beyond the technical feasibility stage.(2011). Trends Magazine, (104), 19-24.

Water is a human right, not a commodity. It is the essence of life, sustaining every living being on the planet. Without it we would have no plants, no animals, no people. However, while water consumption doubles every twenty years our water sources are being depleted, polluted and exploited by multinational corporations. Water privatization has been promoted by corporations and international lending institutions as the solution to the global water crises but the only one’s who benefit from water privatization are investors and international banks. The essential dilemma of privatization is that the profit interests of private water utilities ultimately jeopardizes the safeguarding of the human right to water. Access to clean, sufficient