Water Conflict

Rights to and ownership of water and land that have caused arguments, disputes and even wars. Water disputes have existed from the founding of America up to the current time. New and better ways to resolve conflicts have developed through the years, and now most conflicts are in the courts and progressing in a more structured way than many older conflicts. Even so, there are still some conflicts that flare up and are the lead TV and print news items in certain parts of the country. The problems with water usually revolve around who has rights to the water, what uses can be made of the water, and what condition does it need to be in when it is returned to the common pool. When there is not enough water to meet all the users’ needs, what can be done? What is a fair way to prioritize who will get water and how much? These are some of the problems that currently exist in America and throughout the world. The following presents some of the types of conflicts that have occurred in the United States regarding water. They are by no means all that have been and are occurring.

Riparian Water Rights

There needs to be a means to associate water rights with persons near a water body. In the East the states use a legal system of water rights named Riparian Water Rights. This is the system that had been in use in England and was brought to America. When there is plenty of water, this form of law was found to work quite well. The ownership of land along a waterway gives the owner the right to use the water. In times of water shortage, all the users must reduce their use of the water.

Prior Appropriation

Riparian Water Rights were found not to work well in the West. This was particularly evident during the Gold Rush in 1849. The problem is that the water is often not plentiful in arid climates, and river and stream flows can even cease at some times of the year. The miners often needed to divert water from the stream to go to their operations. In addition to this was the need of the water for cattle by ranchers, crops by farmers, and towns and cities. Everything was in place for conflicts and disputes over limited water. There needed to be major modifications for water law to work in these situations. The Western states mainly use the idea of prior appropriation. Under prior appropriation, the first group to divert the water for beneficial use (farming, mining, etc.) has priority in its use. The date of first usage gives the strength of the seniority. In low flows the water needs of the highest priority users must be met first, then the next level and on down the seniority chain. In some cases the lower priority members may not receive any water at all. To complicate things even further, some states use prior appropriation for surface water allocation and another system for groundwater allocation.

The Western states mainly use state law for water rights. In some cases, this has led to fairly strong differences from state to state in water law. In recent times the signing of the Endangered Species Act has placed even more demands on the limited water resources in the West. This act has brought another player to the table—to have the courts decide how the water is to be divided. Currently, the courts are the main avenue used to settle most of the numerous conflicts and disputes over water.

Water 2025

In the long run, the West will not have enough water to meet the fast-growing needs of city residents, farmers, ranchers, Native Americans and wildlife. The demand is increasing; the supply is not. The Department of the Interior felt it was time for Americans to become proactive in their efforts to resolve the problem. Crisis management is not a long-term solution. To accomplish this, the Department of the Interior launched Water 2025—a problem-solving initiative that will help manage scarce water resources and develop partnerships to nourish a healthy environment and sustain a vibrant economy. Water 2025 will encourage voluntary water banks and other market-based measures, improve technology for water conservation and efficiency, and remove institutional barriers to increase cooperation and collaboration among federal, state, tribal and private organizations. In 2009, the Bureau of Reclamation will partner with the United States Geological Survey, states and local water users to begin this initiative to conserve and expand existing water supplies, develop new sources, and protect endangered species in major river systems. The U.S. Geological Survey will also carry out the first national water census in 30 years, modernize stream gages, and plan for the nation’s future water use in partnership with state and local governments.

Endangered Species Act

Just as people were getting the idea how to resolve some of their water disputes, a new player came to the table. The rights of endangered species and the condition of ecosystems and wetlands needed to be addressed in the division of water to users. They are part of the water user group and have certain rights. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) has been associated with numerous water conflicts. One aspect of the ESA is to provide a means for conserving ecosystems on which endangered and threatened species depend. This problem occurs more and more as human populations increase and put pressures on wildlands and natural resources. Conserving species and their habitats can cause economic conflicts. The following three situations show how water conflicts have been linked with the ESA.

Klamath River Basin

This problem became severe in 2001 when the Bureau of Reclamation announced it would not release water from part of the Klamath irrigation project to approximately 200,000 acres of farm and pasture lands within the roughly 235,000-acre project. This was done to make more water available to three fish species under ESA protection. Upstream farmers pointed to their contractual rights to water from the Klamath Project and to the hardships for their families if water was cut off. Others argued that downstream salmon fishery was more valuable and farmers should be offered temporary economic assistance as salmon extinction would be permanent. The issue was how to operate the project facilities to meet irrigation contract obligations without jeopardizing the three listed fish species. The problem involved numerous players from several tribes, fishermen, farmers, environmentalists and recreationists.

Rio Grande Silvery Minnow

This conflict was related to efforts to hold back water necessary for the Rio Grande silvery minnow from other New Mexico water users such as the city of Albuquerque and irrigators. The operations of two Bureau of Reclamation water projects on the Middle Rio Grande were at issue. These were the San-Juan-Chama Project and the Middle Rio Grande Project. The New Mexico District Court held that withholding water from irrigators for ESA-related purposes was permissible under the water contracts at issue. Later Congress halted implementation and an agreement has been negotiated.

Pacific Salmon Restoration

Salmon protection in the Pacific Northwest presents many difficult choices because of fish harvest rates, droughts and connections between regional hydropower facilities and the fishery management decisions and other factors. Recent problems have focused on three issues ranging from biological opinions on operations of the Federal Columbia River Power System as it relates to retaining or removing four dams on the lower Snake river and how to factor in the dams to the evaluation of fish jeopardy. Other ideas are whether or not salmon produced in hatcheries should be listed and included in ESUs of Pacific salmon. Interim decisions of the federal court have invalidated the approach to evaluating jeopardy to salmon from dam operations and have ordered increased spills of water to assist transit of juvenile salmon to the sea. Most recently the populations of salmon have dropped significantly. Many commercial fishing operations are closed, as are tourist salmon fishing operations. It is not clear what can be done to restore or turn around the drop in the populations.

Pyramid Lake

The Pyramid Lake conflict was a dispute over water supplies and water quality in two interconnected river basins in western Nevada. The parties included two tribes, several cities and counties, the states of Nevada and California and multiple federal agencies and environmental interests concerned with endangered species of fish and wetland preservation. At issue were the access and rights to water flowing through the Truckee and Carson River basins and the level of water necessary for Pyramid Lake and the Lahontan Valley. The dispute has been ongoing since the early 1900s. Over the last 20 years, through litigation, negotiations, legislation and voluntary transfers, a consensus has been reached.

Competing Interests for Water

Many conflicts arrive from several groups wanting water resources at the detriment to other competing potential users of the water. In some cases the volume of the water resource is not adequate to fulfill all the potential users’ needs and some must get less than they seek. How to divide this up varies from case to case.

Big Horn

The Big Horn case involves a dispute between two tribes and their neighboring non-Indian irrigators over water for tribal purposes on the Wind River Reservation in western Wyoming. Litigation has been the primary conflict resolution mechanism employed.

Lower Colorado River

The lower Colorado River case involves the states of Nevada, California and Arizona, along with agricultural, urban, tribal and environmental interests. The conflicts and dispute began in the early 1900s and has been addressed through litigation, multi-party negotiations, and state and federal legislation and administrative actions. At times questions arose as to how the flow of the Colorado was to be measured or described. In some cases the means to describe the flow can result in dividing up more water than there was, causing even more conflict. One objective of the conflict was to arrive at a fair means to describe the flow of the river

Mono Lake

The Mono Lake case involves a dispute over the effects of water diversions in the Sierra Nevada mountains among rural, urban, tribal and environmental interests in Southern California. The concern is about the effects of water diversions by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power on Mono Lake and its ecosystem. A target level of the lake was set and means to arrive at it agreed upon. Part of the settlement addressed how to develop plans to restore Mono Basin fisheries and waterfowl habitat.

Pecos River

The Pecos River case involves areas of eastern New Mexico and western Texas. The basic dispute involves the amount of water flow in the Pecos River from New Mexico into Texas according to the Pecos River Compact of 1947. Issues ranged from the appropriate method to measure the amount of water to be delivered to the payment (in water or money) for the water not delivered. Part of this examined the economic/ environmental feasibility for New Mexico to deliver the required water amount and the damages to West Texas agriculture due to reduced water deliveries. Also at issue was the sustainability of agriculture in the New Mexico portion of the Pecos River Basin.

Water Quality

Various activities can adversely affect the water quality in an area. These range from fertilizer and pesticide residue in farming operations to runoff of liquid wastes from cattle operations and even the flow of drain water from septic tank drain fields.

Other problems that occur are associated with the flow of water from one state to another. The water may meet all water quality requirements in one state but not meet the requirements in the state into which it flows.

Water Shortage

In many areas there are water shortages developing due to diversion of water flows to suit the needs that did not occur in the past. In some of these areas the water flow base levels are dictated by law that they meet the needs of existing users. When these flow levels are not met, then lawsuits have developed. This occurs not only on small streams but on all sizes of rivers up to and including the Colorado River.

Groundwater Depletion

New demands have been placed on groundwater resources by not only irrigation but also by mining, industrial operations, and the marketing or export of water to other areas. This decline in the water table requires additional energy to pump the water. In some cases the decline in the water table has resulted in a situation where the well cannot be extended in depth and has to be abandoned. One question in the additional charges due to the lowering of the water table is who should pay for additional costs of pumping. Many solutions have been found in the courts.

Groundwater Sold to Cities, Water Farms, Water Transfer

In more and more places there is the sale or lease of water rights to cities so that the water can be pumped from its home location and moved to the city. Some of these contracts are for the lease of the water, and other cases are the sale of the water rights on the original site. Many conflicts arise regarding the question of whose water is it. Can it be sold or moved from one groundwater basin to another?

Mining

The use of water by mining may result in the decline of the water table and the introduction of pollutants in surface and subsurface waters. How to avoid this and how to cause those responsible to stop it are complicated problems. At times the surface and subsurface hydrogeology are complex and the identification of the polluters are not always evident. When they are identified or surmised, then court cases often occur to try to have them stop or clean up the pollution.

Municipal

As cities grow, they have more and more need for water. This results in their going to outlying areas and leasing or buying water. This water then is transported by canals and pipes to the city where it is used. Conflicts arise by various groups that think that the water should not be sold and transferred from a local site, sometimes hundreds of miles to a city. The impacts of the transfer on local groups, wildlife, wetlands and ecosystems are some of the cases that arise in such transfers.

Wastewater from cities increases in volume as the city grows. New and better means are often needed to dispose of this increased flow of partially reclaimed wastewater. In some cases the water needs to be cleaned better than was done in the past due to the magnitude of the flow and its fate in the environment. Conflicts sometimes arise as to the volume of wastewater and its quality and the potential to adversely impact users, wildlife, ecosystems, wetlands, etc.

Industrial

The location of industrial operations can cause water problems. These may be associated with the lowering of the water table due to the operations using large quantities of water or by the discharge of chemicals in the streams near the area. In some cases the water is brought into the facility and used for cooling. This heated water is then discharged into the main stream or river. The heated water can have a severe impact on the stream ecosystem and be fatal to some fish and other creatures living in the water. Conflicts arise by recreationists and others who seek to maintain the river ecosystem for fishing and wildlife at states consistent with those before the diversion of the water.

Agriculture

Agriculture has often been associated with problems where farmers may impart chemicals in water flowing from their operation, but they also can have problems with the level of the groundwater they pump. The water level may be dropping from the action of surrounding farming or by the pumping of water to housing developments. Various conflicts often arise and the identification of the source and what needs to be done can be complicated.

Future Conflicts

In general, there are still a large number of conflicts over water in America. With the increased demands of water by cities and the demands for additional food to be grown, there will likely continue to be a large number of water conflicts in the future. Hopefully some of the solutions to past conflicts can be used to help solve these cases before they grow into large, complicated problems.

— William O. Rasmussen

See also 

Conflict, Community; Conflict, Natural Resources; Natural Resources Management; Policy, Water; Water Use; Water, Value of; Watersheds; Wetlands

References

• Estre´e, Tamra, and Bonnie Colby. Braving the Currents: Evaluating Environmental Conflict Resolution to the River Basins of the American West. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004.
• Gollehon, Noel R. “Water Markets: Implications for Rural Areas of the West.” Rural Development Perspectives 14, no. 2 (1999): 57-63. Available online at: http://www. ers.usda.gov/publications/rdp/rdpsept99/rdpsept99i. pdf.
• Hipp, Janie. “Water Wars among Friends: Pointing the Finger Upstream: The Story of Water Issues Between Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri in 2004.” Paper presented at the Triennial Conference, Changes in Rural America, Lexington, KY, June, 2004.
• Miller, Char, ed. Fluid Arguments: Five Centuries of Western Water Conflict. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press, 2001.
• Singletary, Loreta. 2003. “Calming the Waters: Learning to Manage Water Conflicts in the West.” CM-03-02. Reno, NV: University of Nevada Cooperative Extension. Available online at: http://www.unce.unr.edu/publications/ files/nr/2003/cm0302.pdf.
• U.S. Department of Agriculture. Amber Waves. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2003. Available online at: http://www. ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/November03/Features/emphasis_ shifts.htm.
• U.S. Department of Interior. Water 2025. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior, 2008. Available online at: http://www.doi.gov/initiatives/water2025.html.
• U.S. Geological Survey. “Water for America Initiative.” Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey, 2008. Available online at: http://water.usgs.gov/wsi.
• U.S. Geological Survey. Concepts for National Assessment of Water Availability and Use. USGS Circular 1223. Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey, 2005. Available online at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1223.