I woke up on the morning of October 5th, poured a cup of coffee, and opened the paper.  Unusual for me, but I had just arrived in my home state of South Carolina the previous evening from New York.  As I enjoyed that tactile experience of holding the printed news in my hand, my eyes scanned the pages for topics that usually interest me: art, design, architecture, planning, politics, and the environment. “What’s doing here down south?” I thought.

I came across this article, Carolinas water dispute goes to court. In summary, South Carolina has brought a case before the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that South Carolina’s water supply risks being significantly diminished through unchecked divertment plans proposed by South Carolina’s neighbor to the north. The water source at issue in this case is the Catawba River, which starts in western McDowell County, NC and is a tributary to the Wateree River in central South Carolina. The Attorney General for South Carolina, Henry McMaster, believes that if North Carolina’s plans are successful, it would establish a precedent that would give other states, namely Georgia, reason to divert significant amounts of water that would adversely impact South Carolina’s water supplies.

Map of Santee River watershed showing Catawba River and tributaries.

There is a doctrine of equitable apportionment in the U.S. Constitution that basically protects states’ rights to natural resources that cross our otherwise arbitrary political boundaries.  This battle between North Carolina and South Carolina – yes, they are two separate sovereign states – isn’t the first squabble over interstate resources and how the equitable apportionment doctrine should be applied. Wyoming v. Colorado (1922), New Jersey v. New York (1931), Arizona v. California (1931), Colorado v. Kansas (1943), Idaho v. Oregon (1983), and Texas v. New Mexico (1983) stand as cases that reveal a long history in the distribution of natural resources among political entities. Although the severe draught in the southeastern United States was declared over as early as April of this year by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, there’s no doubt that should climate change scenarios become realities, the equitable apportionment doctrine will be revisited as resources are impacted.

What are the regional planning and administrative implications involving access and distribution of interstate resources? Would redrawing our political boundaries along geological, hydrological, and ecological boundaries be result in a better organizing system? Perhaps, but the more likely action is to overlay resource jurisdictions that  span our existing political boundaries. Throw in the interests of private corporations, such as Duke Energy in the debate between North Carolina and South Carolina, and you get what McMaster calls a “complex question that will be based on a comprehensive analysis of the past, present and future needs of the state of North Carolina and the state of South Carolina…”

Water has been a largely undervalued resource for most of us living in the United States today.  The question of access and distribution of this resource will become only more complicated as the Catawba River debate suggests.  Bear in mind that water is essential in so many aspects of our lifes; energy production, recreation, economic development, mining, agricultural irrigation, drink water, tourism,  historical and cultural significance, the list goes on, and yet we have yet to place a value on this particular resource that accurately reflects the extent to which it impacts our lives.

The article reminded me to pick up Robert Glennon’s new book “Unquenchable.” The publisher, Island Press, says this:

The looming catastrophe remains hidden as government diverts supplies from one area to another to keep water flowing from the tap. But sooner rather than later, the shell game has to end. And when it does, shortages will threaten not only the environment, but every aspect of American life: we face shuttered power plants and jobless workers, decimated fi sheries and contaminated drinking water.

I’d like to launch into more philosophical ground on how our propensity to carve up the world into neat little bounded areas runs counter to the way natural systems work and how this inevitably gets us, and the rest of our world, into trouble.  Perhaps another post. In any event, this issue of access to resources, particularly water,  is something that is both big and small and it doesn’t end at the tap.

]]> http://aribra.com/dividing-water-and-other-calamities-between-arbitrary-boundaries/feed 1