Priorities for water allocation

4.5.1. Who owns water?

The major problem of water allocation is in reaching the initial agreement or acceptance of ownership or the right to allocate. There is no universal agreement on the status of water as a commodity. It is similar to the status of land. Can it be owned? Should it be a common trust to be used according to agreements? Who has a right to ownership or to be a party to a use agreement? These are questions which have strong anthropological and cultural links for which solutions (or disputes) have developed through history. Cultural and anthropological understanding has been over-ridden in many instances by water scarcity, because in recent years water use has escalated, driven by increased population, rising standards of living and the economic advantages of water availability.

There is not space here for a broad discussion of cultural traditions of water rights and ownership. However in recent history many of these cultural links have been swept aside by the political and economic philosophies of majority population groups and in most places water resources have become a political issue both within and across political boundaries.

Understanding and development of strategies for coping with water scarcity must take account of this wide range of external forces. Strategies must be developed which are compatible with local political and cultural realities. One particular coping strategy may appear obvious to one cultural group but may be totally unacceptable to another, perhaps for reasons which have their origins in ancient history, but which appear to pragmatists to have no relevance today. In the long term a strategy such as this will not be sustainable.

Successful strategies will be those which recognise and either accommodate or over time, by education, change the cultural and political environment.

Our original question was who has the authority to allocate water? In modern sovereign states water is generally accepted as being linked to territory. It is linked to the location on which it settles from the atmosphere. But what of trans-boundary rivers? Does the upstream state have a right to consumptively use all of the water in the river? As technology develops who will have the right to trap water from the atmosphere and prevent its "natural" travel to precipitate on a different sovereign state or on a neighbour's land?

4.5.2. Water ownership

Is water to be shared equally by all, to be owned by the state, or to be used freely by those who care to access it? All these, and many more systems underpin the water law/water allocation systems currently operating in various parts of the world. First in, first served systems may be fine where the resource is much larger than the demands made upon it.

However few parts of the world still have this luxury. Similarly a totally unregulated market can only work where it is acceptable for large sections of the population to be denied any water – but genocide is clearly not acceptable. The intermittent and random nature of natural flow of rivers, quite different from the approximately constant rate of consumption demanded for most human activities, means that large scale intervention is required to smooth out the natural fluctuations and make the resource more useable. Large scale projects to provide this constancy of supply usually require state intervention and provide opportunities for states to appropriate ownership to themselves and to enact laws to regulate allocation of water. Ownership of this type usually provides opportunities to raise funds or charge for water. However, as we have seen, some states or regimes have decided for various political and cultural reasons not to charge for allocation or supply of water, but as a result have found it very difficult to provide adequate water supply systems for their citizens.

There can be no ideal ownership system for water. The system adopted must be compatible with and serve the needs of the constitution and population of each locality. The real need is to develop a system that is equitable and is seen by the majority of potential water users to be so.

In areas of water scarcity ownership/allocation systems will always be a focus of attention and potential conflict. Systems that are seen to be fair now rarely contain provision for managing the increased demands of the future (due to population increase and higher lifestyle expectations). Economic development and long term investment require certainty regarding future water supplies, but any system that provides for revision of allocations as population and demand increases introduces enough uncertainty to stifle investment and curtail development.

In all areas of water scarcity there is a need to build institutional frameworks and allocation systems that allow clear statements and guarantees of future (perhaps reduced, but by forecast amounts) supplies so that potential investors can adequately plan and estimate long term returns. Without long term planning and assurances of future water availability development will be stunted.

Therefore it would appear that in regions of water scarcity ownership of water is probably not the key issue. Rather political stability and water institutions which can provide guarantees of future amounts of water to be supplied, and of its price, are probably far more important.

4.5.3. Water for human life

The needs for access to water supplies are obvious but it is worthwhile to summarise them here.

Firstly water is needed for drinking and food preparation. This water needs to be of high quality but the amount needed is not large. Under most conditions a supply of as little as 10 l/person/day would not restrict activities. Secondly water is required for cleaning and basic hygiene. Again the amounts required are not large but tend to increase greatly with general standard of living and inversely with the price of water. The quality requirements of this water, for bathing, cleansing of utensils and living space and for transport of wastes is not high. In modern society very large quantities of water are used as a transport medium for wastes. While this may be an effective means of waste removal it does not make sense for regions of water scarcity. Use of methods of solids removal requiring little or no water should be investigated.

Food production can be the largest user of water. However in regions of water scarcity there is a need to find crops that can survive rain-fed conditions or which need minimal irrigation. For example it makes no sense to grow rice in areas of high water scarcity. However rice is currently grown in some water-scarce countries to obtain foreign exchange and for local political reasons, but the water loss to the atmosphere, rising water table and soil salinisation that results makes no sense at all. Research is needed to investigate the types of food that can be produced with less water. At the same time studies are needed to investigate possible dietary changes towards the low-water requirement food.

These investigations need anthropological and cultural input as well as biological and agricultural expertise.

4.5.4. Water for industry

As was stated above it makes little sense to site high water demand industries in areas of water scarcity. However this situation does occur, as a result of historical developments and for cultural reasons. Effort is needed to change this situation, either by moving the industry or by implementing a comprehensive water recycling program to reduce the water consumption. Implementation of recycling schemes is often resisted and strategies involving real supply and demand pricing, environmental restrictions and public education probably need to be used together to achieve change. Most industries can reduce their water use but there is always a cost. However with realistic water pricing it may be cheaper to use less water but at the same time to raise employment. In most parts of the world there is little

real incentive to save water, "it is a free renewable resource". If the real economic value of water was charged, many users, particularly industries, would quickly change their water-use practices.

4.5.5. Irrigation

Irrigation is the human activity which consumes most water. Irrigation water use is primarily for production of raw materials of food and fibre. Irrigation farmers must compete with their fellow irrigators and with dry-land farmers and as a result they can generally only operate where water input costs are low. In general, irrigation water is not treated in any way so the costs are those of collection and application of the water plus taxes. In some countries government tax raising measures are linked to water usage. Where water is collected, stored and then distributed to irrigators by government agencies the taxes are a form of cost recovery for the capital and operating expenses of the scheme. However on a price basis alone irrigation has difficulty competing for water because it needs large volumes and the returns from sale of agricultural products is low, distorted by social and political considerations. As a result most irrigation schemes are subsidised from more broadly based taxation systems. This subsidisation can usually be justified in terms of overall social equity. However the unfortunate result of these subsidy schemes, where the user does not pay the real price for the water consumed is that the water users themselves cause distortions in the economy. Over time very uneconomic or environmentally damaging practices become entrenched.

Common sense may suggest certain traditions or practices should be stopped or changed but these changes may involve sufficient upheaval and social dislocation that there is not the political will to force a change of activities. As a result subsidies and environmental damage increase until only drastic measures and devastation, or payment of large compensation, or even revolution can bring about sensible change. For example it makes no sense to encourage irrigated rice growing in an arid area where irrigation farms are going out of production due to rising, saline water tables. Yet in the Murray-Darling Basin in Australia rice growing for export is encouraged by low water costs and an ideal climate, but it is causing huge environmental damage, and particularly damage to the farms of the neighbours of the rice growers. When it is suggested water prices should rise to pay a larger part of operating costs (but no contribution to scheme debt) the irrigators pressure their local politicians for assistance. At the same time they pressure their politicians to be active on the international stage to demand entry to markets for their rice, markets which already have adequate supplies from sources where rice-growing is much less damaging to the environment. They also pressure politicians to assist their hapless neighbours with their water logging and salinity problems. Simply charging the real price for water, to cover all collection, storage and distribution costs, and the cost of repairing environmental damage would stop these questionable practices. But social upheaval of a very small part of the population would also occur.

Similar problems occur in many irrigation regions of the world. Not only does irrigation provide for national food and fibre needs, and export earnings but it also provides some employment. These benefits, plus the mistaken notion that fresh water is a free gift of nature, means that irrigation is often seen by politicians solely as a solution to problems, not as what it really is, a potentially beneficial practice which needs very careful social,

economic, environmental and political management. Without careful management irrigation destroys itself or its neighbours by water logging, salinity, pests or pesticides.

Many irrigation systems have been short lived, ultimately succumbing to the effects of water logging, salinity or pests. Use of pesticides will soon be added to this list.

Irrigation is not sustainable if water supplies are not reliable. Therefore decisions to permit or encourage irrigation imply an effort to provide an adequate reliable supply. Large investment is usually needed to set up irrigation systems and so a long term view must be adopted, with a recognition that success will attract further potential entrants who will also expect a share of the "naturally available, free water".

The major need for development of irrigation in areas of water scarcity is to minimise water use. Effort is needed to find attractive economic crops needing minimal water, to find and use application methods that minimise loss of water by evaporation from the soil or percolation of water beyond the depth of the root zone and to minimise losses of water from storage and delivery systems. For example it is common for good irrigation land adjacent to delivery canals to be waterlogged, indicating severe leakage from the delivery system and loss of both productive land and water. If the real price is paid for water, investors may be willing to lend funds for leak reduction and maintenance. If leaks cannot be reduced it may become uneconomic to continue use of a particular delivery system. Land holders taking delivery from such a system would then need to change their land use practices.

Use of irrigation implies water scarcity — at least for part of the year and for the crops that land holders wish to grow. However in some water scarce areas irrigation may not be an optimal use for the available water, but there will always be potential users desirous of irrigating. In these cases there is a need to discourage irrigation by suitable pricing mechanisms or by regulation. However as mentioned earlier once a practice is established it is difficult to change, particularly by regulation, because regulation needs a person (usually a politician or an appointed manager) who is subject to many competing arguments from vested interests, to change the regulations. Price changes, made gradually, can often be more easily implemented and would have the added benefit that they would discourage waste and inefficient water use. However the rate of price change must be large enough to have real effects. It must be much larger than the inflation rate, and implementing such price increases is difficult. During a period of dramatic change such as this, there is a need to provide some support and encouragement to farmers to move from their traditional high-water demand cropping and irrigation practices to modern, reduced demand systems and technologies, particularly where farms are small and the farmers are poor and have limited education.

4.5.6. Water self reliance

In a sense this is the oldest system of water management. Individuals collect water to meet their own needs. Modern developments, particularly urbanisation and intensive irrigation farming have led to development of broad scale water collection and distribution enterprises, many of them government run. However in areas of water scarcity there is a need to change thinking back, not to total self reliance, but to taking responsibility for your own water. This may mean greater emphasis on self reliance but it should also lead to development of cooperative institutions and a legal framework with sufficient flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances.

The legal system needs to serve the interests of both the majority and individuals so that no-one is disadvantaged for the gain of others. This is a very idealistic requirement but as demands for access to a finite resource continue to increase such a system will be necessary to avoid ongoing resentment, conflict and violence.

4.5.7. Gender issues

This is a delicate subject as it is impacted by cultural and traditional sensitivities. However, it is important because in most parts of the world water collection is carried out by women and children, but funding, institutional and infrastructure development are largely in the control of men. For many families in regions of water scarcity the major expenditure of labour is on water collection, either by animal power or by family members. In many of these situations labour use could be reduced by development of innovative water collection schemes. Unfortunately if those who provide the labour are permitted little or no input to the thinking about possible innovation the chances of finding more effective, less laborious water collection methods are limited.

There is a need for widespread education on all aspects of water — on methods of collection and storage, water quality and hygiene, the need to guard against contamination etc. In the 21st century many of the traditional methods of water collection and storage are very inefficient and wasteful of labour — mainly female labour.

One of the approaches that could encourage education on water issues is emphasis on the benefits for the whole family of developing more efficient, less labour intensive methods of water collection and storage. The cost of small plastic pipes is little more than the cost of electric wiring. Why do most homes which do not have a connection to a safe water supply have connection to electricity supply? Is this a gender issue? Probably.

4.5.8. Planning for optimal water and land use

In many political jurisdictions water and land go together. Water in rivers is often shared between land holders, either equal shares for each individual, or on some proportional basis, such as an amount related to the size of the landholding or the amount of landholding potentially irrigable. However, no matter what the system, human nature is such that any system adopted will be seen to benefit some and disadvantage others. Therefore there will always be pressures to change whatever system is currently in place.

When opportunity is available, such as during development of an irrigation system, or when major political changes are occurring, it is wise to examine the existing system and perhaps to attempt to devise a fairer system. Since there can be no perfect system, an adopted system needs to be seen to be fair by the majority of potential users, not just by actual current users. This means the systems adopted will be different from place to place and from time to time, depending on the cultural and political environment.