The Ethics of Water

Some 13 percent of the world’s population does not have access to improved water (about 910 million people).  

Water access efforts (USAID.GOV)

For most Americans, few things are more easily taken for granted than the water tap. The ability to turn on any tap, anywhere, and receive clean, clear, potable water is a privilege to which we have grown numb. As one author states it: “For at the heart of the matter is society’s disconnection from water’s life-giving qualities. For many of us, water simply flows from a faucet, and we think little about it beyond this immediate point of contact. We have lost a sense of respect…” ¹  And although the author is alluding to our loss of respect for water, I would posit that we have also lost our respect for each other when it comes to water and its fair distribution, for although most of the developed world has access to clean water, approximately 87 percent, according to one source, ²; by contrast, then, some 13 percent of the world’s population, does not have access to improved water. Applying this percentage to the currently estimated world population figure of seven billion people means some 910 million people are without safe drinking water. This fact raises many ethical issues regarding water usage and distribution. Is everyone entitled to be given water no matter where they live? How much water is one entitled to use? Answering these kinds of questions requires a water ethic. This article hopes to raise an issue most of us take for granted, but one that is important, ethically and globally, and one which could be preached about and thought about from a more theological view.

The Fundamental Question

The first question one should ask when formulating a water ethic is: What is the most important guiding principle? In other words, what should be the overarching point of reference when making decisions regarding water policy, water technologies, rights of access, etc.? David Gushee describes three categories or points of view: theocentric, anthropocentric, and biocentric. According to him, “theocentric creation care is motivated by a desire to honor God as Creator, and obey his commands in relation to creation” whereas “anthropocentric approaches elevate human well-being to the center of concern.” ³ These two perspectives should be compatible, right? After all, “as we honor our Creator God and obey God’s commands, we act in ways that advance human well-being.” ⁴  Gushee claims that this turns out to be the case only if one adheres to a concept of human well-being that brings in all human beings—both from immediate and long-term perspectives—but not all do. There are some who adhere to what Gushee calls “hard anthropocentrism … These thinkers tend to emphasize the goods provided by economic growth, unfettered laissez-faire capitalism and a ‘natural resources’ approach…” In other words, dominion over creation is understood as domination rather than as stewardship, as man is entitled to use whatever goods, whenever he desires, without regard to consequences.

The Pontifical Council on Justice and Peace (PCJP) proposes an anthropocentric view of water ethics. “The centrality of the human person must thus be foremost in any consideration of the issues of water.” ⁵ Although their teaching is anthropocentric, within the context of the note “Water, An Essential Element for Life,” it is definitely oriented toward the good of all human beings.

The biocentric approach attempts to “…find ways to ascribe intrinsic moral value to the other living creatures, the various species, and the planetary ecological order itself. These are sometimes called biocentric approaches because of their celebration and valuation of life…” In Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, ⁶ Pope John Paul II stated that:

 “…one cannot use with impunity the different categories of beings, whether living or inanimate—animals, plants, the natural elements—simply as one wishes, according to one’s own economic needs. On the contrary, one must take into account the nature of each being and of its mutual connection in an ordered system, which is precisely the cosmos.” ⁷

For some individuals, the biocentric viewpoint can be taken to an extreme position of worshiping nature itself. Taken further, there are those who would raise non-human creatures to the same moral level of importance as humanity, or even see humanity as the enemy of nature. This viewpoint disregards the distinctive nature of humanity as made in the image of God, and it also disregards the appointment of humanity over creation as its stewards.

I believe that, as Christians, an ethic of water should place the human person at the center of concern. Thus, it naturally follows that “Water policy, to be sustainable, must promote the good of every person and of the whole person … For water users living in poverty, this is rapidly becoming an issue crucial for life and, in the broad sense of the concept, a right to life issue.” ⁸ Indeed, throughout most of Catholic social thought, the “basic necessities of life (such as earth, air, water, and food) are seen as non-negotiable entitlements that are due to human beings qua humans…” ⁹ The Church understands that the dignity and well-being of humanity should be the focus of water policy, and that all humans are entitled to potable and clean water. Which brings up the next dilemma: if all humanity is entitled to clean water by virtue of being human, then how do we resolve the problem of ownership of water sources? ¹⁰

Who Owns and Manages the Water?

Fights over water, and its ownership, have been a part of human experience down through the ages as humans compete over the right to control water. Sandra Postel points out that nearly 40 percent of the world’s people live in river basins shared by more than two countries. As a result, a body of law has been developed to mediate disputes over shared water resources. “International law embodies an ethic of equity among nations within a watershed or river basin, and lays out basic notions of rights and responsibilities with regard to shared watercourses,” Postel states. ¹¹ Yet, even with a body of law, it is not surprising that conflicts break out over water as when, for example, one country downstream must rely on the country upstream to release a satisfactory flow of water, and it fails to do so. On these occasions, the country with the position of control must be brought to the realization that equity is required. As an example, the Colorado River in the United States flows into Mexico, and empties into the Gulf of California at the northern reaches of  Baja. Because of water usage in the U.S., the Colorado River will sometimes be reduced to a trickle before it makes it into Mexico. “The Nature Conservancy helped negotiate a five-year pilot program between the United States and Mexico to allow more water to flow…” The U.S. has also agreed to store some of Mexico’s water allotment until Mexico is able to repair its earthquake damaged irrigation infrastructure. ¹² This experience illustrates what is said by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, which points out that the goods of creation are to be universally available to all. Since “water is a common good … therefore, all people have a fundamental right to access. ‘The few with the means to control cannot destroy or exhaust this resource, which is destined for the use of all.’” ¹³ Therefore, it can be expected that one of the side benefits of water availability is the promotion of peace.

Since water needs to be universally available, how do societies resolve the fair distribution of water?  Michael Guebert has written that “…the right must be secured through development of legislative, economic, management and organizational strategies. Such a task is difficult, as the majority of people who lack adequate access to water and sanitation have ‘multiple marginal identities’…and their voice is not heard.” ¹⁴  In other words, we are speaking of the poor and disenfranchised. It might seem obvious, then, that all water supplies should be declared as public domain entities so that water is more easily accessed. “For many decades, groundwater has been a public domain in a good number of countries. Nevertheless, sustainable groundwater management continues to be a significant challenge in many of those countries,” according to Ramon Llamas. ¹⁵ So, the mere fact of public domain declaration has not resolved the issue. The problem may be related to the fact that water management is controlled by central entities which, as typical of government organizations, can be subject to bureaucratic corruption and mismanagement, as well as narrowly focused allocation. “Highly centralized management of groundwater resources is not the solution but to promote solidarity in the use of groundwater as a ‘common good,’” Llamas believes.¹⁶  Therefore, it may be appropriate to place the management of water in the hands of those who have a stake in it. “Groundwater management should be in the hands of the stakeholders of the aquifer, under the supervision of the corresponding water authority. The stakeholders’ participation has to be promoted bottom-up and not top-down,” according to Llamas. ¹⁷

This raises the important issue of who is permitted to participate as a stakeholder:  “…despite their role as important stakeholders, women are often prevented from participating in the governance of water resources and rarely benefit from governance arrangements,” Michael Guebert points out. ¹⁸ He adds that this is in spite of the fact that:

When water and sanitation projects are designed and developed with the participation of women, the projects are more sustainable and effective. Therefore, the process of water resource development must focus on educating women about, and involving women in, the water management process. By approaching water supply and sanitation management from a gender perspective, improvements in access to safe water and sanitation will also lead to reduction in poverty, improved educational opportunities for girls, and reduced child illness and mortality.¹⁹

This may require education in societies that are patriarchal in nature, and may be, for them, a major paradigm shift, requiring one or more generations to overcome this bias. Nonetheless, Guebert states, the effort must be made since:

… {in} communities that lack sufficient water, women and children often carry water long distances, making multiple trips every day to meet the needs of the family … reducing their energy for other responsibilities and their resistance to disease, while increasing their risk of chronic back and neck ailments … they become vulnerable to accidents and assault, and are prevented from participation in education, not to mention rest and recreation.” ²⁰

So how do we make this change happen?

The Challenge of Implementation

According to co-authors Elena Lopez-Gunn, Lucia De Stefano, and Ramon Llamas, water projects fall into the category of  “ethical problems in which there is consensus on what is ethical, but there are limited or misaligned incentives for individuals or groups to behave ethically … the main stumbling block to solving it is not technical, or due to a lack of knowledge, but rather to a lack of political will.” ²¹ Some might argue that we lack the financial ability or the technology. To that, it might be said: “untrue!”  “It would take…roughly four percent of the world’s military expenditures to bring to all of humanity what most of us now take for granted—clean drinking water and a sanitary means of waste disposal,” Sandra Postel states.²² As regards to technology being available to assist those in need, methods such as desalination (salt-removal using reverse osmosis), water re-use, and groundwater recharge are available, in addition to the standard techniques of drilling and pumping of existing water sources. What I think is wrong is that we are guilty of an unwillingness to help, and/or an indifference toward those who suffer from a lack of adequate safe water. It might also be that we have become greedy or selfish, and are unwilling to spend the money required to help our brothers and sisters. ²³ We must remember, however, that Jesus reminded us how we will be judged which is based on how we have loved: “…for I was thirsty and you gave me drink…” (Mt 25:35) It is the poor who always suffer the most when material goods are unequally distributed, and the Church reminds us that we should always exercise a “preferential option for the poor.”

Summary

This essay has merely skimmed over the top of a vast sea of ethical issues related to water. A number of possible areas of discussion have not been mentioned. For example:

• The ethics of the impact of water removal and transportation on the environment (as in the case of diversion from the Colorado River);
• Water conservation versus ever expanding the water supply;
• Economics of water (who pays, and how much do they pay);
• How much water should be allocated to individuals, and how much to business/industry—to name just a few. ²⁴

What has been determined from this review is that human-centered ethics should be the basis for decisions regarding water because:

• All humanity is entitled to water, since God has provided it for all;
• Those using water should have a say in its allocation and use;
• No one individual, government, or corporation has a right to dominate, or entirely control,  any supply of water.

Technology and financial means exist for bringing water to all people, and that what is lacking is the will—individually and collectively to make this problem go away.

I wish to acknowledge the valuable comments and suggestions made by Dr. Randall J. “Woody” Woodard of St. Leo University.