To Reclaim a Divided West: Water, Law, and Policy, 1848-1902.

1994 ◽  
Vol 99 (1) ◽  
pp. 304
Author(s):  
Abraham Hoffman ◽  
Donald J. Pisani
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Joseph B. Agyenim ◽  
Joyeeta Gupta
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Paul Martin ◽  
John C Becker

This paper examines how the law governing water has evolved in the United States and Australia. The evolution of water law in these jurisdictions demonstrates that the ‘scientific modernism’ that prioritises economics and hydrology as the pivots around which water institutions are designed may be an incomplete model. From the history we recount, we suggest that, ranking equally with these considerations in shaping water law and policy, is the broader framework of laws and institutions, and legal culture within a society. These factors shape the types of solutions to conflicts in a society and determine, to a substantial degree, the solutions to water conflicts that become law, which then in part determine future legal solutions. This observation is of more than theoretical importance. Towards the end of this paper we consider the latest water modernist experiment, the Australian Water Act. We suggest that closer attention to social factors and legal traditions would have resulted in a more effective law. We believe this holds important lessons for water policy generally.


2020 ◽  
pp. 31-58
Author(s):  
Rhett B. Larson

This chapter discusses the Blue, Green, and Red Agendas of water law and policy. Thousands die every day from diseases related to water. Yet water law largely focuses on two agendas. The first agenda, the Blue Agenda, focuses on water supply and sustainability. The second agenda, the Green Agenda, focuses on water quality in nature and for human use and consumption. These two agendas often ignore, or are implemented in ways inconsistent with, the “Red Agenda.” The Red Agenda focuses on the prevention of waterborne infections, like cholera, and the control of water-related disease vectors, like mosquitoes transmitting malaria. Laws motivated by the Blue Agenda, like building a dam or irrigation system, can interfere with the Red Agenda by bringing mosquito habitat closer to humans. And laws motivated by the Green Agenda, like prohibiting discharges of pesticides into a river, can interfere with the Red Agenda by preventing a response to a malaria outbreak. This chapter describes these agendas, how and why they conflict, and how they can be better reconciled to achieve water security in public health.


2019 ◽  
Vol 77 (3) ◽  
pp. 538-546 ◽  
Author(s):  
Salam Abdulqadir Abdulrahman
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document