This week, we will look at water and, importantly, how water and human society are interconnected. The two movies for this week look at water deals in California (Water and Power: A California Heist) and the impact of water privatization around the world (Flow: For Love of Water). The three readings for this week look at different aspects of hydropower development in Southeast Asia. While Bakker (1999) considers the geopolitics of the projects, Green and Baird (2016) understand projects from the scale of the project-affected persons. Finally, Ziv et al. (2012) take an environmental science lens to the development of hydropower projects on the Mekong river. 

Consider these questions as you go through the material for this week:

• Whom does water belong to? Who owns water?
• Does declaring water a human right ensure access for all? And if water is a human right, then how is it to be made available to all?
• Do the benefits of hydropower outweigh its costs? How are these benefits and costs distributed?

 

Week 9 Checklist

Tasks

To Read	Read the Week 9 course content.	Use the links below to continue moving through the lesson material.
To Read	Bakker, K. (1999). The politics of hydropower: developing the Mekong. Political Geography, 18, 209–232.	A link to the reading is located in the Lesson 9 module.
To Read	Randell, H., & Curley, A. (2023). Dams and tribal land loss in the United States. Environmental Research Letters, 18(9), 094001	A link to the reading is located in the Lesson 9 module.
To Read	Jerez, B., Garcés, I., & Torres, R. (2021). Lithium extractivism and water injustices in the Salar de Atacama, Chile: The colonial shadow of green electromobility. Political Geography, 87, 102382.	A link to the reading is located in the Lesson 9 module.
To Watch	Film: Water & Power: A California Heist OPTIONAL Film: Flow: How Did a Handful of Corporations Steal Our Water?	Links to the films are located in the Lesson 9 module.
To Submit	See Canvas, course announcements.

Note: Please refer to the Calendar in Canvas for specific time frames and due dates.

Water as a human right

The UN General Assembly recognized water and sanitation as basic human rights in July 2010. “The Resolution calls upon States and international organizations to provide financial resources, help capacity-building and technology transfer to help countries, in particular developing countries, to provide safe, clean, accessible and affordable drinking water and sanitation for all” (UNDESA, 2014). The Millennium Development Goals as well as the Sustainable Development Goals also recognized the importance of water. Goal #6 states “ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all” (UNDP, 2015). 

However, does declaring water a human right ensure access for all? How is water to be made available to all? Is private water supply capable of providing affordable water access to everyone?
Read the debates around water as a human right [1]and especially the idea that “the human right to water does not favor a particular economic model”:

From the 1980s onwards, criticisms of state managed water systems, especially the lack of consideration for environmental degradation and failure to ensure universal access, combined with increasing concerns of water scarcity and pollution, led to privatization of water supply systems in many cities, with the push of the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation. This resulted in increase in water prices in several cities and resulted in protests, famously at Cochabamba, Bolivia. However, the tide has turned against privatization in recent years, with around 180 cities and communities in 35 countries having placed their water system back in the hands of the public sector in the last decade (Vidal, 2015). 

In November 2018, the city of Baltimore recently became the first major city to ban privatization of its water and sewerage systems.

Instead new “public-public” partnerships are being conceived in places like Lagos, Nigeria which involve “cities partnering with non-profit organizations to keep prices low by taking advantage of the economies of scale and sidestepping many of the legal and corporate hurdles that accompany PPPs” (Vidal, 2015).

As Linton & Budds (2014) write “Recent work in political ecology has demonstrated the partial and contested nature of hydrologic data and has revealed how hydrologic concepts and studies are constructed according to particular views of nature and mobilized in line with vested interests. This emerging literature shows how hydrology – as an ‘orthodox’ science – is predicated upon ‘Western’ views of nature that reduce water to its material composition (H2O), the homogenization of different waters, and the characterization of hydrologic processes as ordered and universal” (p. 171).

Commodification of water

Commodification can be thought of as the processes by which objects are assigned monetary value for exchange on the market, with little consideration (or complete erasure) of their social and cultural value. Bakker (2014) makes a distinction between economic valuation, full-cost pricing and commodification. She defines economic valuation as “the process of calculating monetary values for environmental goods and services and incorporating this valuation into policy and management” (p. 481). This valuation is supposed to provide price signals for improving behavior and using water more efficiently. Bakker sees this evaluation as one part of full cost recovery, wherein “prices should reflect the full cost of infrastructure and maintenance and consumers pay for what they use” (p. 481). The full price recovery, with its technologies of measuring and billing, results in a different conception of water as an economic good rather than a public good. The commodification of water occurs only “when private property rights, full-cost pricing, and marketization (the introduction of water markets as trading mechanisms) are in place” (p. 482). While water proves a difficult resource to fully commodify, bottled water is an example of commodified water.

How much do you agree about the distinction between valuation and commodification? 

Water and Food:

Domestic use of water accounts for only 10% of water use globally. Agriculture is the biggest consumer of global water, almost 70%. Many of your favorite foods may have been in the news recently for the amount of water the require, as well as the social impact of the water scarcity they create. From beef [2], that requires more water per calorie than most other foods; to export avocado [3] production in Chile that requires so much water that villagers are left without enough water to grow other foods; to almonds [4] and pistachios [5] that are fueling conflict over water in California and the Middle East alike!

Water and Energy:

Hydropower has seen a resurgence since the mid-2000s after almost a decade of near halt. The reason behind this resurgence are pressing concerns of climate change and the presentation of hydropower as ‘clean’ energy, capable of meeting the predicted increase in global energy demand. Today, there are over 3500 hydropower dams under construction or planned around the world, with the majority in South East Asia and South America.

Read more on the global hydropower boom. [6]To date, between 40 million and 80 million people worldwide have been displaced by dams. However, the world over, the burden of displacement and livelihood loss from hydropower falls disproportionately on the indigenous peoples, tribal communities, the poor, and the politically marginalized. Apart from the economic hardships that hydropower brings to displaced communities, it also has significant impacts on their social and cultural wellbeing. In flooding places out of existence, dams also destroy ‘the sense of place’ of communities (Windsor & Mcvey, 2005). This sense of place reflects a deep emotional tie between the people and the location, and impact the value, which may or may not be monetary, that people assign to the place.

Hydropower projects also have massive impacts on the river ecology, which has negative impacts of local community livelihoods, especially fishing communities. The impact of the local economy as a result of hydropower projects impacts the economic, social and cultural wellbeing of the communities, but also impacts the health of the communities through changes in food choices and consumption patterns. As Waldram (1985) finds in the case of the Whitefish Lake community in Canada, the impact of hydropower development damaged the local resource base and the local economy, which resulted in an increase in social assistance payments to the community, and a decline in consumption of fish and bush meat, while the simultaneous increase in infrastructure such as electricity, television, roads, stores, etc. resulted in a switching to the consumption of less nutritious store-bought food and refined carbohydrates.

There are many other ways water and energy are interrelated; for example oil and gas extraction may contaminate water sources and solar panels require washing to remove dust and maintain energy production! 

References:

Windsor, J. E., & Mcvey, J. A. (2005). Annihilation of Both Place and Sense of Place: The Experience of the Cheslatta T’En Canadian First Nation with the Context of Large-Scale Environmental Projects. The Geographical Journal, 171(2), 146–165. 

Waldram’s article here: Waldram, J. B. (1985). Hydroelectric Development and Dietary Delocalization in Northern Manitoba, Canada. Human Organization, 44(1), 41–49. 

Required Reading for the week includes:

Bakker, K. (1999). The politics of hydropower: developing the Mekong. Political Geography, 18, 209–232.

Bakker analyzes the two dominant discourses around hydropower development of the Mekong River Basin. The two discourse are “water as a scarce resource; and capitalism as a neutral force for growth, development and integration in the post-Cold War era” (p. 210). Through an analysis of the discourses, Bakker aims to highlight the real material effects (impact of fisheries, inequitable distribution of benefits between countries, etc.) that these discourses obscure. Bakker argues that the scarcity of water discourse rests on the idea that water is scarce and inefficiently utilized, and that this global discourse plays out even in areas where water is available in abundance. This framing of water tends to devalue the local uses and economies dependent on water, presents them as the problem to which efficient water management through hydropower development are the “solution”. The second discourse of neutral capital comes from the idea of private capital promoting efficiency in water management. However, this tends to hide the “lack of accountability, absence of rigorous environmental and social impact studies, and conflict of interest apparent in the close links between ‘tied aid’ [from development banks etc.] and private investment” (p. 225).  

"Hydrodevelopment at any scale will operate primarily, and most importantly, as a means of commodification, and simultaneously as a means of extending state control into predominantly rural areas (Dodds, 1994; Escobar, 1996). This progressive capitalisation, mediated by the state, will increase the likelihood that revenue flows of hydrodevelopment will, once captured, be redirected away from local people and local use."

"Without state-sanctioned property rights, for example, highland peoples, in many cases ethnic minorities, living in the areas affected by dam-building are without recourse if hydropower developers refuse their claims for compensation (Ryder, 1996)."

"This supposedly apolitical rescripting of boundaries is, however, a profoundly political move, not least because of the inequitable distribution of costs and benefits of resource exploitation between upstream and downstream riparian nations, and between urban and rural communities."

In reading this piece, consider how discourses around development also privilege large infrastructure projects like dams. How do these discourses affect our ability to think of alternatives to large dams?

Randell, H., & Curley, A. (2023). Dams and tribal land loss in the United States. Environmental Research Letters, 18(9), 094001

This paper provides insight into the magnitude of impact damns installed primarily for hydroelectric energy generation on Indigenous land loss in the US. The paper used a geospatial analysis of dams and federal Indian reservation boundaries to map and quantifying the amount of tribal land flooded by dam reservoirs. The authors call for dam removal or tribal ownership as a form of restitutions for the negative effects on tribal communities. 

Jerez, B., Garcés, I., & Torres, R. (2021). Lithium extractivism and water injustices in the Salar de Atacama, Chile: The colonial shadow of green electromobility. Political Geography, 87, 102382.

Energy transitions in the Global North produces green extractivisms in the Global South. Lithium extractivism carries the potential for major injustices in terms of water access and marginalization of minoritized communities. At the same time, water depletion of the Salar de Atacama has increased protests and social mobilizations for water justice. 

“The results demonstrate how the linkages and feedback between global and local dynamics of lithium mining in the Salar de Atacama constitute a form of green extractivism that further replicates the historical inequalities between the Northern and Southern hemispheres and especially affects the indigenous Andean territories and the water ecosystems in the Global South. We call this phenomenon the colonial shadow of green electromobility.” 

In reading this piece, consider our reading on social-ecological systems and the ways processes at different scales and in very different locations are internreated. 

NOTE: Links to the readings are located in the Week 9 module in Canvas.

Required Films:

Zenovich, M. (Producer/Director). (2017). Water and Power: A California Heist [Documentary]. United States: Jigsaw Productions. 

The following synopsis is taken from IMDB:

"Water and Power: A California Heist uncovers the alarming exploits of California's most notorious water barons, who profit off of the state's resource while everyday citizens, unincorporated towns, and small farmers endure debilitating water crises. The film peels back the layers of a manipulative, backroom rewrite of California's water contracts in the 1990s, and investigates today's rise of luxury crops and illicit water transfers, all in the face of record drought. As the divide between water haves and have-nots grows, we face a humbling reality: water is the new oil, and as it becomes less accessible, it is rapidly growing more valuable." --IMDB [7]  (2017)

When watching the film, consider the following: Are we reaching a time when the next wars will be over water instead of oil? Where do we draw the line for who should and should not have a right to water?

The film is available to stream for FREE through Disney+ and NatGeo and for a small renal fee from Amazon and Apple TV. [There is also one copy of a DVD of this film in the library]

OPTIONAL FILM:

Salina, I. (Director), with Starr, S., Holland G. and Tomlinson, Y. (Producers). (2008) Flow: For love of Water, United States; Oscilloscope Laboratories.

Irena Salina’s award-winning documentary asks the question: who owns water? The documentary moves across different countries, from the US to Bolivia, South Africa to Lesotho to India, highlighting the scarcity of fresh drinking water. It looks at issues of pollution from pesticides and chemical use, water privatization, the construction of large dams and bottled water. It examines the role of the World Bank, large multi-national corporations involved in the business of water, as well as the role of politics in the privatization of water to the detriment of the poor, the marginalized as well as to the detriment of local water management techniques. The movie was made to garner support for a petition to the UN to recognize water as a fundamental human right. 

The film is available to stream through Apple TV, and YouTube [8].