Water in Mediterranean History

I am a historian, not a hydrologist, and it is well known that historians tell stories. So let me begin with one that opens up some of the themes I would like to consider. The date is around AD 400. The scene is the fringe of the small provincial town of Nola in Campania, Italy. Here was to be found the shrine of St Felix. It had recently been constructed in the middle of an elaborate complex by the bishop of Nola, Paulinus. Fountains gurgled in the courtyards of the basilica, offering natural refreshment. They also symbolized both the church’s and the saint’s therapeutic powers—the water of life, the rivers of paradise, baptismal regeneration. Rain-collecting cisterns initially met the requirements of the shrine, but these proved inadequate. The shrine became in effect parasitic on the water supply of Nola. This supply arrived both through the grand Aqua. Augusta, overall some 96 kilometres long, and from a small aqueduct that started in the hills of Abella. Now Abella was a very small nearby town that took its water into a reservoir through pipes from high mountain ridges and released the surplus down an aqueduct that both supplied Nola and irrigated the surrounding estates. The aqueduct was refurbished by the Abellans so that it fed St Felix’s shrine first and Nola second. The Nolans, however, felt deprived by the suburban complex to the point that they rioted. Yet another aqueduct, a disused one, had to be restored by the Abellans to appease the inhabitants of Nola, even though Bishop Paulinus had already been trying to persuade the Nolans that, by dividing their water with the saint, they reaped unexpected rewards, not just of a spiritual kind. The surrounding fields were better watered than they had been before; the area was better fed. Paulinus wrote in the poem (Carmen 21) that is our principal evidence for the local conflict: ‘Where rough stones lay arid in bare fields, there is now the pleasant transformation of greenery on the watered turf. . . Felix . . . has also brought here to your city the fountains that flow from heaven’ (Walsh 1975: 195-201, at p. 200; Trout 1999:192-4; Squatriti 1998:13-14).

Silent Springs: Groundwater Resources Under Threat

Springs are symbolic of the sustainability of life on earth. Since the earliest times flowing springs have been held as sacred and as a subject of awe and fascination. Subterranean water is identified in the creation myths on Babylonian tablets, where waters above the earth are separated from the ‘water of the deep’. The persistence of these creation myths is still reflected in the Arabic word ain or ayun, which has the double meaning of spring and eye (Issar 1991). Springs were the eyes of the gods. Springs (or fountains) were the focal point of many events in the Bible and other religious texts, and were the subject of veneration, as in Psalm 104: 10, ‘He sendeth the springs into the valleys, which run among the hills Modern scientific understanding of the origins of spring flow dates from the seventeenth century. The earliest explanations of the hydrological cycle, often termed the reversed hydrological cycle, probably stem from biblical sources (Ecclesiastes 1: 7). The unexplained constancy of the ocean volume was accounted for by the return of seawater through the rocks, which then purified them and returned the water to the surface as freshwater rivers and springs. This interpretation of the hydrological cycle persisted through the writings of ancient Greece and Rome as in Seneca’s Quaestiones Naturales and into the Middle Ages (Tuan 1968) until correctly explained by Edmond Halley(Halley 1691). In modern society spring waters are valued highly because they still embody an element of mystery and bring us face to face with the subsurface expression of the hydrological cycle or ‘groundwater’. There is also traditional belief that spring waters represent a source of perennial pure water. The properties of pure spring water command a high market value and in a world where tap water is (often wrongly) perceived as something less pure, the bottled water image-makers seek after evidence of the purity, longevity, and healing properties of the spring, with a zeal that echoes the reverence accorded to spring waters by early philosophers. The objective of this chapter is to explore the reasons for the decline of natural springs and the fragility of groundwater resources in general.

Water Laws for Water Security in the Twenty-First Century

Concern for the long-term sustainability of water resources development and use has gained definitive prominence on the agenda of the world community at the Second World Water Forum and Ministerial Conference held at The Hague in March 2000. The concept and goal of water security were loosely articulated there, by reference to ‘key challenges’, namely, meeting basic needs; securing the food supply; protecting ecosystems; sharing water resources; managing risks; valuing water; and governing water wisely. Governance, in particular, attracted attention and debate at the International Freshwater Conference held in Bonn, in December 2001, preparatory to the United Nations World Summit for Sustainable Development (Johannesburg, 2002) and to the Third World Water Forum (Kyoto, 2003). Governance has also attracted the attention of the water ministers of African countries meeting in Abuja, Nigeria, in April 2002, and it has been echoed in the ensuing Abuja Ministerial Declaration on Water committing African countries to put in place ‘arrangements for the governance of water affairs at all levels’. It is readily apparent that water security, and the governance issues which that concept and goal trigger in train, will be the mainstay of much contemporary international and domestic discourse about water resources. However, the authoritative pronouncements recalled earlier invariably fail to pin down with accuracy the concepts of ‘water security’, and of ‘good governance’ in relation to water. The ‘Recommendations for Action’ issued from the Bonn Freshwater Conference articulate seventeen priority actions in the field of water-related governance at the domestic and the international levels, which, in effect, help substantiate that elusive concept and translate it into measurable goals. Implicitly, action, in particular, at the domestic level is underpinned by legislation for the management and development of water resources, setting out a web of rights and obligations for the resource users, for government, and the members of civil society. This chapter will focus on such legislation, and, in particular, on the requirements for a supportive legal framework for the ‘priority actions’ recommended by the Bonn conference. A comparative state-of-the-art review and analysis of the contemporary legal framework for the management of water resources will first be made, and salient features and main trends highlighted.

Water and Development: A Southern African Perspective

Water is acknowledged as the most indispensable of all natural resources, and neither biological diversity nor social and economic development can be sustained in its absence (Hudson 1996; Ashton 2002). Every country faces a similar challenge, namely, providing sufficient water to meet the escalating needs of expanding populations while continuing to ensure that the available resources are used equitably and efficiently (Biswas 1993; Gleick 1998; Ashton and Haasbroek 2002). Increasing rates of industrialization, urbanization, and mechanization aggravate the pressures imposed by population growth, while increasing rates of utilization and pollution place further demands on dwindling resources (Falkenmark 1994,1999; Rosegrant 1997; Gleick 1998; Ashton 2002). This situation is especially serious in arid regions where water scarcity hinders social and economic development and is linked closely to the prevalence of poverty, hunger, and disease (Falkenmark 1989; Gleick 2000; Ashton 2002). In southern Africa, water resources are unevenly distributed in both geographical extent and time, and large areas of the region regularly experience prolonged and extreme droughts. Ironically, these droughts are often ‘relieved’ by equally extreme flood events (Christie and Hanlon 2001). Whilst the availability of water resources is naturally variable and often unpredictable, there is also compelling, though as yet unverified, evidence that projected trends in global climate change could worsen this situation (Ashton 2002). Falkenmark (1989) noted that several African countries had approached or would soon pass the point indicating severe water stress or water deficit, and that this could hinder further development in these countries. Recent estimates suggest that more African countries will exceed the limits of their economically usable, land-based water resources before the year 2025 (Ashton 2002). These disturbing statistics emphasize the urgent need to find sustainable solutions to the problem of ensuring secure and adequate water supplies for all countries in the region. The consequences of social and political dispensations imposed by previous colonial and apartheid administrations in southern Africa are reflected in the disparate levels of social, economic, and political development attained by these countries. These unequal levels of development have been accompanied by differing levels of need for water, further complicating the search for equitable and sustainable solutions to water supply problems (Ashton 2000, 2002).

Water and Conflicts, Hobbes v. Ibn Khaldun: The Real Clash of Civilizations?

This chapter will begin by considering the two opposing schools of thought concerning water wars. A first school of thought has maintained since the 19805 that competition over water will lead to wars as relative water scarcity increases around the planet. A second school of thought has emerged as a response, arguing that competition for water, far from leading states to wage war on each other, will rather incite them to cooperate. The arguments of each of these schools of thought and the common hypotheses that underlie both sets of theories will be explored. The evolution of war in an era of globalization and of a state’s involvement in competition for water will be examined, which will lead to revisiting the concepts of water wars and water cooperation. How the various theories of war that emerged from the three great Western ideologies, conservatism, liberalism, and radicalism, limited the definition of issues and the choice of factors that were deemed relevant when examining water conflicts will be studied. This chapter details how a Hobbesian prism was used to look on a Khaldunian reality, which has prevented us from understanding the coming water conflicts and has left us ill equipped to deal with them. ‘Water conflicts will cause the wars of the twenty-first century.’ This is more than a catchy statement: it is the object of numerous arguments and counter-arguments in the scientific community as much effort has been devoted to either proving or disproving the causal connection between water scarcity and water wars. Thomas Naff and Ruth Matson (1984: 181) seem to have launched the debate by arguing that ‘water runs both on and under the surface of politics in the Middle East’, and analysing the role played by water in riparian state relations. A series of publications followed that supported the concept of the causal link between water and war (Starr 1988,1991) (Bulloch and Darwish 1993; Biswas 1994; Soffer 1999). The development of this literature led Hussein Amery (2001: 51) to refer to ‘the well-established and thoroughly documented positive link between resource scarcity and violent conflict’.

The Development of American Water Resources: Planners, Politicians, and Constitutional Interpretation

To understand the development of American water resources, one must first look at American political and social values and American governmental institutions. Even a cursory examination shows the lasting influence of decisions and attitudes moulded as the country took its first hesitant steps as a republic. Historian Joyce Appleby (2000: 249) has argued that the first generation of Americans bequeathed ‘open opportunity, an unfettered spirit of inquiry, [and] personal liberty’ to future generations—qualities, we might note, that often introduce an element of uncertainty into public administration. But if we extend the analysis a bit, we might not only gain an appreciation of the many challenges facing water resource developers, but also illuminate a fundamental question facing democratic nations: to what extent should human liberty be constrained in order to provide and manage a human necessity—water. Beyond Appleby’s observations, one notes at least two pervasive elements woven into American political behaviour. The first, the inescapable, element is distrust of powerful governments. Power corrupts, the first Americans agreed without much hesitation, and the challenge was how to minimize that corruption, how to ensure that good men will not be enticed to do evil, and how to disperse power to minimize oppression. Loudly over the years, Americans continue to proclaim their distrust of big government; even popular presidents generate scepticism when they appear to reach for increased power and authority. Only as a last resort, and then with resignation, not enthusiasm, as during the Great Depression, do Americans turn to the national government to solve their problems (Kelley 1989: 30-1; Wills 1999). The result can be truly impressive: Grand Coulee and Bonneville dams, locks and dams on the Upper Mississippi, the California Central Valley Project, and the Los Angeles flood control system all came out of depression era politics, but, as I will argue, all are aberrations in the story of American water resources. The second element, almost as pervasive as the first, is that power and liberty are fundamental antagonists. The dispersion of power among the three branches of government purposely sets power at war with itself rather than with ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’.

Water for Europe: The Creation of the European Water Framework Directive

When the French politician Clemenceau visited Athens in 1899, he was taken on a tour of the city and briefed on the social, political, and economic problems facing both the city and the young Greek state. Afterwards, he addressed the local political and intellectual elites, starting his speech by exclaiming: ‘The best politician amongst you shall be the one who will bring water into Athens’ (Clemenceau 1899, cited in Gerontas and Skouzes 1963: in). Indeed, water supply was one of the most important and intricate political and social issues of the nineteenth century. Although water supply and management is today often presented as a purely technological and engineering problem, it remains, as we shall see, a deeply political issue, implicated in relations of social power (Reisner 1990; Postel 1992). Indeed, today, more than a century onwards from Clemenceau’s comment, his aphorism still holds true. Despite the fact that Western economies have undergone a period of ‘fierce modernization’ during the twentieth century, and despite technological advances and innovation, water supply and management remain major socio-technical issues at the heart of the political agenda (Bank 1992). Whilst contemporary Europe is not faced with severe water shortages (although many areas, particularly but not exclusively in the European South still face disruptions in water supply during dry months (ETC/IW 1996; ICWS 1996)), water supply and management remain amongst the most important political issues at the European and international level (Hundley 1992; Faure and Rubin 1993; Gleick 1993). Today, if anything, the political ecology of water has become more complex, and more important politically than in the nineteenth century. With the increasing internationalization and complexity of water resource management, with the emergence of an increasingly larger number of actors and institutions involved in this process, with the newly vested economic interests in water supply, and with the increasing concern and sensitivity towards environmental protection, if Clemenceau were alive today, he would probably maintain his aphorism— rephrasing it for the contemporary era: ‘The best politician amongst you shall be the one who will bring clean water into Europe, while keeping happy all the parties involved in water supply, use, and management, at the local, regional, national, and European level.’

Managing Water for the Future: The Case of England and Wales

To understand how things have worked is the best preparation for looking ahead. So I will not gaze into a crystal ball but explain what is happening in England and Wales. I will, however, set out and discuss some scenarios for the future. In 1989 the water industry emerged from the nationalization era which it had entered only fifteen years earlier. It was a late entrant into the world of public corporations that had emerged between the wars, and particularly after 1945—a world that was a product of Fabian thinking and wartime experience. The Fabians provided the intellectual base for ‘gas and water socialism’ in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Two world wars encouraged people to believe that the state could manage our basic industries efficiently, and the inter-war depression drew attention to deficiencies in the working of the market economy. ‘Gas and water socialism’ started in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, in the municipalities, with gas, water, electricity, and tramways. In the inter-war years there was a movement towards regional, then national operations, culminating in the post-war Nationalization Acts. Consolidation in water followed slowly. The amalgamation of municipal undertakings into ten Regional Water Authorities did not take place until 1973. It brought a host of water and wastewater undertakings onto a river basin basis. A further step was taken in 1983 with the substitution of smaller, more executive boards for the much larger bodies that had included local authority representatives. The model for nationalization in the UK developed from the experience of Herbert Morrison, a key figure in the post-war Labour Government. It involved an arm’s-length relationship with government. By the 19705, the flaws in this model were evident. The boards of the nationalized industries were required to act in the social interest, subject to breaking even financially. The definition of the social interest was the responsibility of the boards, without any clear mechanisms for ministers to influence their decisions. It was never clear what ‘breaking-even’, ‘taking one year with the next’, meant in practice. Moreover, having delegated social functions to such a public not-for-profit body, ministers found it difficult to stay clear.

Introduction

The need for interdisciplinary research on water is now widely acknowledged. Successful flood management, solutions to water scarcity, and adequate sanitation cannot be achieved otherwise. International organizations and national research councils have been promoting interdisciplinary research on water management and water development for several years. Yet, interdisciplinary research efforts generally fail, whether they are directed at water or at any other subject. Understanding the stumbling blocks that prevented successful inter-disciplinarity in the past is therefore important. This is a preliminary step to the construction of interdisciplinary methodologies that will allow water issues to be investigated successfully. A first stumbling-block arises from the issue of the definitions offered by the various disciplines. What is perceived as an objective problem by an engineer or a natural scientist is often described as a transient social construction by a sociologist or a geographer. Consequently the natural scientist often tends to focus on finding solutions to problems whereas the sociologist wants to move away from impact-oriented modes of understanding. This difference in issue definition often leads researchers to consider each other's pursuits as irrelevant, a phenomenon that constitutes an important obstacle in the quest for inter-disciplinarity. How can we build an interdisciplinary theoretical framework together when people are not asking the same questions? Many an interdisciplinary endeavour has shattered at this point and turned into a multidisciplinary project, harbouring parallel researches that defined issues and framed problems differently and each could not possibly feed the other. If we are successfully to take up the challenge of inter-disciplinarity we must start with an understanding of the various definitions and the perceptions of problems generated by the paradigms prevalent in every discipline. This volume of Linacre Lectures allows us to embark on such a path. Every contributor offers an analysis of a water issue as it emerges from his or her own disciplinary framework. This allows us to understand how issues appear differently within these disciplines. Identifying which issues are deemed to be independent and which dependent variables in each discipline allows us to begin a dialogue that can lead to the development of a truly interdisciplinary research framework.