Water & Rights

Water is bottled and sold. Think about that. Should water--something that everyone's life depends on--be just another market commodity? Should we trust the supposed efficiency of the "invisible hand" to provide everyone around the world with clean water?

I never really had to think much about water when I was a kid. It was always there. I walked into the kitchen, turned a little handle, and there it was. I could turn on the hose whenever I wanted and flood the grass with all the water it needed. I never had to walk anywhere to get water, and I certainly never went without. Did you?

I grew up in southern California. We never really SAVED water. But we sure did a good job of using it. And I'm not talking just about household use, but how much water was used in the aggregate sense. Yes, I remember some instances in which people were gently asked to be careful about their water use. There were times during hot summers that we were all supposed to use less water. But it's not like this was ever a real severe issue. People were asked not to wash their cars in the middle of summer, or maybe not water their lawns too much. But there was never a shortage of water--there was always water coming from the tap (this was after the big drought of 1977).

"Water", California, 2009. Photo by R.A.

There certainly were few moves toward changing the ways in which we used water--there was no major structural overhaul or attempt to rethink how we used water. All of those lawns and swimming pools throughout suburban neighborhoods illustrate this fact quite clearly. Lawns? If you think about it, the cultural habit of surrounding each and every little tract home with a small green swath of grass makes absolutely no sense. But making sense isn't what's at issue here--it's power that we're talking about (and this applies all over the world, not just to California). Power, and some well entrenched habits. Yes, access to water = power, and many people get used that to power. But this is going to become a bigger issue that more people (especially those in places like southern California) are going to have to think about.

Of course, there is a long history of water politics and conflicts in southern California. The battle between Owens Valley and the city of Los Angeles is one of the most well known examples (Here's one more link about this well known political battle). It's the story of a growing urban community living in a semi-desert environment that had to basically steal water to survive. And there's no way that Los Angeles could have ever grown to its present day size without making a power grab for water. There simply wasn't enough to support such a massive population. And, looking at Los Angeles, Orange County, Riverside County, and San Diego County today, it seems pretty clear that there really isn't enough water to go around--especially considering the absolute waste of so much water.

Some people think that water is basically the next oil, meaning that the international political conflicts that we see over oil today are going to be over water in the future. In many ways, this is already coming to fruition. Many people all over the world do not have access to clean water--and often this boils down to pure politics. A few days ago I watched the film "FLOW," which got me thinking a lot about water again. If you haven't seen it, the film is available via YouTube. It takes a global look at the politics of control of and access to water. Here's the first part:

Water access and use are issues that resonate with my research on development in Baja California as well. Large scale tourism development projects clearly control and use massive amounts of water. Hotels and resorts could not function without the "convenience" of clean water in each and every room. But then, there are the golf courses. Los Cabos already has a number of golf courses, many new development projects include yet another "world class" course. I'm not sure how this happened, but golf courses are one of the signs of prestige these days, so everyone tries to include one in their project in order to appeal to that "luxury" or "high-end" tourism market. But what happens to surrounding populations when these massive resorts and golf courses are built? What happens to water rights? What happens to the cost of access to water?

Tourism is a product. Tourism is sold via various forms of media; idealistic images of landscapes and environments become primary sales tools. Tourism businesses sell relaxation, romance, and luxury. They sell peace and quiet, and they sell adventure. Everything from surfing to diving to walking on those sandy beaches becomes a product for sale. But what are the trade-offs? What are the actual social and political costs of some of these products? What happens when these places are built? Are there winners and losers? And what about environmental damage and degradation? Where are the warning labels for "products" like international tourism? This is one way that I think we all need to look at tourism. We don't really need to look at the "impacts" of tourism as much as we need to look at the histories, relationships, and politics that pervade tourism development. And the effects of tourism development on water access is just one factor to consider. But it's a critical factor, and not one that you can expect to read about while perusing an in-flight magazine on your way to Cancun. Does it matter if someone else can't get clean water just a few miles away from your five star hotel? Maybe questions like this should at least become a part of the equation when tourists look for places to visit.

***

A golf course built in the middle of the desert may be picturesque to some people. I suppose it all depends on your personal ideals about beauty. To me golf courses are blatant symbols of power. The ability (and desire) to control water and use it for purely recreational purposes is astounding, all things considered. And I'm not just talking about all of the existing and proposed golf courses in Baja California, I'm talking about the courses that exist all over places like Southern California. Nothing against the sport of golf, but sometimes the use of resources is just beyond the pale. One of the first that always comes to mind when I think about this is Palm Springs. But then, I think my own home town of Carlsbad, CA has about three golf courses now. I understand the fact that golf courses appeal to tourists, and that they seem to improve the image of a city. But at some point, things are going to have to change. As the populations keep growing, people are going to have to rethink how they use water. This applies to everything from golf courses to washing dishes. But it seems to me that lots of Americans, at least, are trying to avoid thinking about these issues for as long as possible.

Drain, Southern California, 2008. Photo by R.A.

A lot of times when we think about water we think about where it ends up. We see water flowing along gutters or into drains and we wonder about waste. We wonder where it goes, how it will be treated, and then what will be done about it after that. But we should also think about things that happen long before we even reach for the tap. We should think about who has control of our water (and everyone else's water), and how some people can get it easily and others cannot. In the US, water is seemingly everywhere. Take a look at your local grocery store. Look at public parks, where drinking fountains are routine parts of the landscape. There surely doesn't seem to be any shortage, right? Distant histories, such as those of Owens Valley, speak otherwise. Water has been an issue in places like Southern California, and for a long time.

But California is just one aspect of the problem. It's a model, in many ways, of what NOT to do with water. Fortunately, there are some people who are thinking very seriously about water and making changes. But this is an issue that extends far beyond Los Angeles, Palm Springs, Owens Valley, and Baja California Sur. Yes, it matters how we use water. But we also have to think about water access and rights around the world, and specifically how some of our own politics and practices are connected to these issues. Water is a crucial resource that many people around the world simply cannot take for granted. Recently, the UN has declared access to clean water and sanitation a human right. Is that enough?

A List of 1300 in Utah

Apparently someone or some group circulated a list in Utah that contains the social security numbers and other highly personal information of 1300 suspected undocumented immigrants. State officials in Utah are now investigating the origin of that list. From TPM:

State agencies are investigating whether any of their employees leaked Social Security numbers and other personal information after a list of 1,300 people who an anonymous group claims are illegal immigrants was circulated around Utah.

The anonymous group mailed the list to several media outlets, law enforcement agencies and others this week, frightening the state's Hispanic community. A letter accompanying the list demanded that those on it be deported immediately.

The list also contains highly detailed personal information such as Social Security numbers, birth dates, workplaces, addresses and phone numbers. Names of children are included, along with due dates of pregnant women on the list.

This is not the way that things should be handled. There is a reason why we have a law enforcement system, and a reason why even suspected criminals have rights. The same laws that protect suspects also protects everyone else. Hopefully more information about this comes out soon.

*I found this via Jay Tea's post over at Wizbang.

Arizona, Citizenship, and Rights

All of the recent events in Arizona have me thinking about citizenship and rights. Where do our laws begin and end? Do US ideals about inalienable rights stop at our borders? What kinds of rights should be afforded to all people in all places? In his 2008 book The Latino Threat, Leo Chavez writes,

For many, especially anti-immigration groups such as the Minutemen project, citizenship is also about rights, privileges, and responsibilities. What distinguishes citizens from aliens are precisely the rights and privileges reserved for citizens. However, immigrants, including undocumented immigrants, also have rights in many nations, including the United States, where the Constitution speaks of "persons," not citizens, when describing inalienable rights. Consequently, immigrants have enjoyed rights to juridical due process, fair labor standards and practices, education, emergency medical care, and more. Complicating this issue further are claims to basic human rights or rights based on universal or extranational agreements, such as the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights (2008: 12).

Human Rights Watch recently issued a press release, stating that the law in Arizona is a violation of an international treaty that the US signed. Again, this issue brings up the conflict between individual notions of rights based upon citizenship, and a more universal conception of human rights that cuts across national boundaries. From the press release:

(San Francisco) - Arizona's new immigration law violates an international anti-racism treaty that is binding on all government officials in the United States, Human Rights Watch said today.

Key provisions of the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act," enacted by Arizona on April 23, 2010, conflict with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which the United States ratified in 1994, Human Rights Watch said. "LWL - living while Latino - has become hazardous in Arizona," said Alison Parker, US director at Human Rights Watch. "Arizona's governor and law enforcement officials should know that with this law, they are violating an international treaty."

Under the new law, police officers will be empowered to stop and interrogate any person whom they "reasonably suspect" might be in the United States illegally. The law includes provisions allowing Arizona residents who believe the local police are not enforcing the law vigorously enough to sue a city or town. As a result, police officers will be under pressure to make an arrest, even when in doubt, rather than risk a lawsuit, resulting in wrongful arrests and unfair enforcement, Human Rights Watch said.

This clash between national boundaries and human rights gets really complex and fraught with tension. The public debate about immigration in the United States is certainly polarizing. Often, many issues get conflated into one overheated subject. But it's important to separate out all of the details and attempt to gain understanding of the wider picture. There is the drug trade issue, and then there is the issue with migrants who come to the US in search of work. In much public debate, these two factors are all too often treated as if they stem from the same root causes, but they don't. The drug trade is fueled in large part by the massive demand in the US. There is a reason why cartels are so heavily armed; because they are in a lucrative business. As for the people who migrate in search of work, it might be important to consider not only the demand in the US, but also some of the larger structural issues (like NAFTA, or the relationship between the Mexican State and many of its poor citizens) when trying to gain a deeper understanding of why so many people are willing to take such huge risks in order to find work.

There is definitely a need to address the immigration issue. It is most definitely not a good thing to have this many people crossing the border in dangerous conditions where they are at risk of assault, extortion, and abuse. So there is a need to change the ways in which the immigration system work, absolutely. But this does not mean that the US should go down the road that Arizona is heading, which basically upholds the "Latino Threat Narrative" (blaming Latinos as the principal cause of the issue) that Chavez talks about:

The Latino Threat Narrative is a social imaginary in which Latinos are "virtual characters." They exist as "illegal aliens," "illegitimate recipients of organ donations," "highly fertile invaders," and "unassimilable separatists bent on a reconquest of the Southwestern United States" (Chavez 2008: 42).

The narrative about Latinos (whether Mexican, Honduran, Guatemalan, or otherwise) has a long history in the United States, and has gone through various stages. One of the most persistent themes characterizes Latinos as outsiders on the inside who never truly become American citizens (despite substantial ties to the US and years of living in the country). The narrative that Chavez talks about casts Latinos as a subgroup that for some reason or another never quite fits in (and this is a common trend in anti-immigrant rhetoric). This is the kind of logic that is being used to justify the recent legislation in Arizona.

However, there is no need to start profiling people based upon physical and cultural characteristics. In a search for a solution to the immigration issues that the US faces, there is also a need to maintain basic notions about human rights, dignity, and due process. The Arizona law, which opens the door for highly subjective law enforcement, is only going to lead to more conflicts. As Chavez writes,

It is time to put the Latino Threat Narrative to rest. It is counterproductive and divisive and creates self-fulfilling prophesies. It is an inaccurate depiction of the everyday lives of Latino immigrants and Latinos in general. Citizenship in all its manifestations is hard enough to construct, and it deserves honest, productive, clear-eyed representations of all members of society, as well as public policies that reduce obstacles to integration and social and economic mobility (2008: 186).

I agree that this narrative needs to be challenged and dispelled. Stereotypical notions about massive groups of people--in this case Latinos--only serves to uphold unjust practices, whether at the individual or state level. In the search for answers to complex problems like immigration, it's all the more important to retain notions of rights that extend beyond national boundaries. This makes sense, in the end, because humanity clearly extends far beyond political borders.