What is ‘equitable access to water’?

I appreciate the author for raising this question.
Water is a resource which is unevenly distributed across the globe. While some regions are well endowed with the resource, some other regions are grossly deficient in water supply. Also, it is understood that economic prosperity across the globe is not even. While some regions are blessed with natural resources, technology advancement and buoyant economies, vast are the other regions that poor gifted or poorly developed in term of economic prosperity.
In view of these diverse characteristics, all of which have been reportedly found to exert impact on water use for different purposes, then equitable access to water can be described as "a situation of human access to the volume or quantity of water needed for a given purpose at a point in time and space". Looking at this, it is expected that water needs in a country that is economically or technologically buoyant is bound to be vary from the other country that is less endowed.
In conclusion, Water access becomes equitable when every individual could obtain the tight water volume needed for any purpose in time and space.

Equitable access to water strengthens food security, boosts economic growth, and fosters stability. Governments, businesses, and communities must invest in efficient water management, infrastructure, and policies to ensure water is accessible to all, creating a more sustainable and prosperous future.

Watercare lease.

Over the last 200 years water has become a closed resource. As I write those words I can hear the protests down the WiFi. Some will claim that it was closed long before then and with certain systems such as the qanats in Iran that is true but in most cases the limits were water distribution rather than the actual water resource itself. At the other ned of the scale the closure depends on whether you are prepared to chase the last extreme rainfall event into storage. Closing the water resource is never as precise as closing the land resource.
Once you have closure, even if it is not as precise as land, you have property rights. There is no point in buying some property if it is still freely available. The transformation of property rights has been developing over thousands of years with land and some sort of freehold has become default. Freehold assumes all the rights and privileges belong to the freeholder but there are variations between for example the carpet and the car. The carpet is the most extreme. You can do what you like without limit. The car is also a piece of freehold property but you need a licence to drive it. There are speed limits and other restrictions on its use. We need to move water ownership away from the carpet model to the car model.
One way to do this is the watercare lease. The watercare lease gives a title for say 20 years to the water. This title carries certain conditions – a bit like driving a car. After 5 years the conditions are reviewed. If they are being met the lease is renewed for 5 years. There are reviews every 5 years and if they are always good the lease is renewed every time. If the owner fails the review the lease is not renewed and it is not cancelled. It can be renewed to the full 20 years at the next 10 year review or the 15 year review and even at 20 years. If it fails all the reviews the watercare lease simply expires. It is not cancelled or confiscated.
The watercare lease gives security to the holder to invest. I have used 20 years but this is determined locally. It may be more or less. Conditions can be put on a freehold but it is a continual fight as there is a bias in law towards the freeholder. The freeholder can be fined but the wealthy may see this as just another business expense or decide they can frustrate it with endless legal action. At the other end of the scale we want users to improve their skills and experience which will cost money. Fines will not help them to change. At the most extreme end confiscation of the freehold is extremely difficult and in the case of foreign investors can lead to huge compensation payments by the national government.
The watercare lease does not confiscate. The lease merely expires. The reviews can be challenged but they don't result in a fine but rather a subtle reduction in the capital value of the lease. This reduction is not however permanent and can be reversed. Hopefully the lease holder will see compliance as the most practical solution. At the end when non compliance leads to the lease expiring legal action is difficult because the lease holder had many warnings.
The length of the watercare lease and the reviews are determined locally according to the social needs and the resource constraints. It would deal with such matters as the volume of water, the return flow and other aspects of water management that incorporated the needs of the community and the environment.. A similar system is in operation in the rangeland of South Australia. The lease is 28 years with 7 year reviews but that is historic not due to any particular logic. It is not for water but for the conservation of the flora and fauna.

Brian Chatterton

Water has many values and uses - and many of them conflict with each other.

Affordable access to adequate amounts of safe water is a human right. But the details of what is 'affordable' and 'access'; and what is an 'adequate amount' will be contested and eventually determined in a manner that reflects the values, politics and capabilities of the society concerned.

Beyond that, in any society, explicit or implicit social policy determines how further amounts of water can/will be made available for domestic use and how they will be shared within and between communities.

Water is also an essential input to a multitude of economic processes - from agriculture to manufacturing industry and its supply in a variety of qualities and volumes is determined by economic policy which, again, may be explicit or implicit. How available water is allocated between potential uses and users is a policy matter and will reflect the wider policy priorities of the society.

The protection of the water environment is sometimes regarded as an over-arching social objective but it is, again, determined by social policy. Contrary to the assertions of many environmental advocates, there are no absolute values for environmental protection although there are obvious limits where environmental impacts need to be managed because they impose social and economic costs on communities and the wider society.

This highlights the many interactions between the different social and economic objectives for the management and use of water. Environmental quality must be managed to avoid unacceptable social and economic impacts. Water use for economic purposes will be guided by economic policy which will determine whether water is allocated to high economic productivity activities (which support many jobs and economic development) or to lower productivity activities (which may support household livelihoods but benefit fewer people). The politics of each society will determine how decisions are reached and how conflicting objectives are resolved (or not).

Given these complex social, economic and political interactions, it may be advisable to maintain a focus on the basic right to enough safe water. Beyond that, decisions about other values and uses of water which involve a multitude of other activities and communities should be taken through wider political processes. They should not be the prerogative of the 'water sector' and water lobbyists although the sector and its lobbyists should participate in and inform the policy processes

Equity is a term that sounds simple but quite deeply difficult. Has any community in the world ever achieved 100% equitable access to water? In my opinion, no. If any one was to do so, it would require meeting a large range of things, some of which are:
1)Tackle climate-induced inequities.
2)Resolve conflict-induced inequities.
3)Address poverty-related inequities.
4)Thoroughly understand geographies of equity.

Though the equity rhetoric often sounds nice and attractive, equitable access to water also requires that a large range of actors and stakeholders work together to achieve common goals, which is often a challenging thing. Simply put, equitable access to water may oblige actors and stakeholders to relook issues around sharing gains and loses relating to water access. And this boils down to politics, which is what makes it complicated. Once water becomes a good that is used to build or destroy political capital, anyone undertaking advocacy like Juan López may be treading a dangerous path. The rhetoric may say that the rich should pay for the poor to have improved access to water. However, the poor require a voice to compel the rich to pay and quite often it is slippery ground particularly in the developing world. So what is the better way forward? The poor must acquire political influence and use it to radically change policy and practice. Only then can they effectively "defend".

Thank you. You raised the most complex issue in water management and security. What is water equity and how to quantify it? Let me please outline my suggestions (1).

Equity as fairness has different meaning to different water stakeholders (almost all of us). Its definition is based on three dimensions, two of which are need and value. The first affirms a minimum and is mostly about survival. However, this low level and essential fairness (i.e., water equality) is not sufficient for some of the stakeholders, hence the second one. Here, more value should be given to those that can achieve it for the betterment of the society, including higher benefits for themselves. However, there are limits (i.e., maximums), particularly under water scarcity. Hence, for a water use system, both minimum and maximum water access (allocation) need to be set, which also guide us for learning about water trade-offs.

Furthermore, it is crucial to understand that sustainable equity (Sequity) can not be achieved if fairness is not seen wholistically. It is impossible to allocate excessive amount of water to some, knowing that very little water will remain for others, particularly under water scarcity. In other words, there is an essential association between distributive and aggregative dimensions of Sequity. This complex requirement will balance all kinds of interests of the stakeholders (including the political side) in a more transparent manner.

Finally, there is a confusion between water adaptation and mitigation (2). Focussing on water adaptation and considering the above general outline, we can logically develop indicators based on universal principles that can quantify Sequity.


(1) Haie, Naim (2024) Reasonable water management shift via Sefficiency in Sequity. International Journal of Water Resources Development (IJWRD), 40(6), 1094–1101. doi 10.1080/07900627.2024.2372580

(2) "First, mitigation refers to the measures taken to reduce the underlying causes of water issues (scarcity), such as climate change and population. Adaptation, on the other hand, refers to the measures taken to manage the (limited) availability of quality water under uncertainty (IPCC, 2022). Hence, adaptive management must promote, as its priority, sustainable development of the (scarce) water itself in space and time." (1)

Thanks @Naim Haie, for your input. I wonder if you have given any thought to what the indicators for Sequity might look like? I'd love to hear your view

In my opinion in order to define equitable access to waters it should be necessary to reset all the determinants of water policy effecting from diversified economical, social and political variables. Than we could try to consider the essence of this term taking into account the ecological and climate feedback. The definition of equitable access to waters shall include qualitative and quantitative criteria regarding surface and groundwater bodies as well as type of use of resources (individual, collective, industrial). Moreover today the resources of fresh waters are temporarily “non renewable” what has been indirectly indicated in the provisions of RED III directive and directly in reports of International Energy Agency. It means that „equitable access” must have exemptional meaning with a more restrictive objectives as regards current status as well as nature restoration policy especially in the field of Free Flowing Rivers. In my opinion we can indicate leading conditions of sustainable water management policy which includes:
1) Clear and precise hierarchy of interests where the primary activities are dedicated to achievement of objectives established as regards quantitative, ecological and chemical status of surface water (appropriately quantitative and chemical status of groundwater bodies);
2) Supporting of the abovementioned activities by restoration of longitudinal, lateral and vertical connectivity of flowing river stretches;
3) Preferences concerning nature based solutions for the purposes of flood risk management, water retention and prevention of hydrological droughts;
4) Limitation of activities significantly affecting HYMO status of waters to circumstances where the lack of alternatives has been undoubtfully proved (e.g. Loara River case shows that without artificial water reservoirs the energetical safety would be seriously endangered in case of Nuclear Plants; on the other hand decision made by German Government as regards closing Nuclear Plants resulted in energetic breakdown at the first night and in necessity of importing of nuclear energy from foreign countries).
5) However the crucial vector of integrated water management should be based on consciousness that “equitable access to waters” reflects the paradigmat assuming that the “blue” and “green” infrastructure plays the outstanding role as regards food and drinking water safety as well as mitigation and adaptation to climate changes (see role of wetlands in LULUCF scheme). That’s why the European Parliament has called the Commission to establish legal and financial frameworks guaranteeing recognizing waters resources as a “critical”. Unfortunately only in the form of resolution of “soft law” nature”.
With best wishes
Marcin Pchałek

The entry of @Mike Muller (and a few others) gives the ideas that has been employed for decades and made water poverty more severe. These ideas have been prevalent because of strong lobbyists for land, food, ecosystem, oil... and never allowed water to become the priority issue for making final decisions. The saying goes something like this:

I have to increase my profits and interests and I have to have more water. The resulting water poverty is not my problem - it is water sector's (government's) problems.

This is actually a reflection of the basic ideas of our societies today (not just water): I get as much as I can - poverty and degradation are the problems of the 'others'.

Changing this kind of mindset in the world is very hard. But a fundamental shift is inevitable.

The blog and a few comments have touched on this: after over 50 years working on various aspects of water management, it is clear to me that we cannot use water interventions to achieve a fair level of equity (however it is defined). The fact that a few interests (e.g., the alfalfa farmers mentioned above) have the social, economic and political clout to hold on to "their" water resource illustrates the point. The South African experience which in the first decade or so anyway, tried harder than just about anyone else to make water access more equitable, is a source of lessons: without deeper economic and political reforms, redistributing water is never going to happen.

All this means we "water folks" need to create alliances with other groups working to achieve more equitable societies.

Thank you Barbara and Barbara for raising this important issue! I’ve much enjoyed reading your introduction and the rich insightful comments from others.

Of the many answers to the question ‘what is equitable access to water?’, I’d like to consider ‘processual pragmatism’. By this I mean taking a combined approach that is; 1) local, 2) participatory, and 3) incremental. I have written about this before under the idea of ‘expedient allocation’, plus it is embodied in my river basin game (aka the marbles game - which Barbara van Koppen knows about).

To introduce this, I first argue it could be problematic to rely on a universal (or global or theoretical) approach to ‘what is equity’ on the basis of formal indicators that invariably end up examining mathematical equivalences of water volumes allocated to and between sectors. (And which might miss out on the other properties of water such as quality, affordability, location, timing, depth, kinetic energy and so on). For example, irrigation might consume 90% of water in a semi-arid river basin and that statistic looks highly inequitable. But imagine we get it down to 80% and allocate that 10% to other sectors in a timely, clean and affordable way. The remaining fraction 80% to irrigation still looks inequitable. In other words, we have to be careful of putting too much on percent fractions per se as a means to understand equity. But we need to measure water allocations, withdrawals and consumption over time to know current patterns, and whether and how we are making progress. And lack of knowledge about flows of water supply and demand is why we struggle to bear down on equity.

We also know that there are considerable legacy effects that sustain either a status quo, or allow powerful sectors to keep growing their water withdrawals and consumption. I’ve written about this in a blog on my website on how irrigation colonises freshwater. I believe current mainstream water disciplines of law, engineering, social science and economics are not that good at holistic system interpretation. A bitty disciplinary approach is insufficient to address wider and cross-scalar system dynamics and outcomes. Thus, I think a straightforward engagement with legacy modalities of water law, water engineering and water economics seems to be ‘less solution’ and ‘more problem’ regarding redressing water equity. I also worry that relying on formal water solutions (e.g. satellite data and soil sensors) delivered in participatory ways to local farmers is not sufficient. Here, the power remains with the expert, their ‘water solution’ and their convenient diagnoses that everyone is not managing water correctly.

Moreover, this solution-, expert-driven approach manages to occlude a fundamental participatory principle (when defined by Robert Chamber’s idea of empowerment) – which is this: We need to facilitate robust local conversations between water users, asking 'who among them are the experts in water management - and how and why do they know that?' Once irrigators, including quieter voices, have carefully discussed cross-scale system factors that shape their water management and sharing, experts can partner with them with new ideas and, if required, resources. Also external advisors might play a useful role in ratifying the new sharing arrangements, and agree these fall within their disciplinary understanding of water sharing to agree; 'yes, this is more equitable than before'.

Summarising, to address equitable access and allocation, I believe we need a robust participatory dialogue process that seeks to incrementally adjust today’s allocations so that each year we gradually shift to new shares deemed to be more equitable than previous shares. This must be done locally and employ all voices in a catchment/aquifer, not just the expert or expert-parroting voices in the room. There are many local excellent water managers who, in their locality, are influential or marginalised, and who have insightful views on water sharing. We need to find them, give them a functioning local platform, and then have external experts support their views and attempts to change things, as well as helping to synthesise difficult-to-gather data on progress made. Measuring progress at different scales is also important in order to account for - and control - paradoxical reversals and rebounds.

I’m not saying anything new here about the importance of participation and dialogue, and I don't discount the need for some serious reforms of water institutions, law, engineering, economics that shape water allocation. And I appreciate how we need to examine the political economies of food security, rural employment, the energy sector also shape water allocations.

But I am calling for a more expedient redistribution of water via through practical adjustments in water management. However my interpretation of the current state of water management is that influence and power is back with the formal/external expert and their solutions, albeit with a participatory add-on. (BTW, I think the cause of this is the funding- and donor-facing environment that researchers encounter, in order to showcase sciencey interventions that lead to intermediate uptake and impact). But I don’t think this formal expertise is sufficient to readjust current water (in)equity. Catchment water sharing patterns are also a function of many cumulative local per-hectare or per-household effects, and at this scale at the bottom end, there are not enough external experts and sensors to go round.

With all best wishes to all working in this most fascinating of puzzles! Bruce

The authors are right saying that there is inequality in acessing current water ressources. But please don't forget that on of the biggest inequalities on water used is between the current and future generations. In countries where you have a significant, over many years continuing drawdown on groundwater, this is a significant indicator for much less water ressources available than used. Falling water table is like a 'credit' on fresh water that we take on future water users that have to live with groundwater tables being much lower are even vanished completely. Most of the MENA countries are facing the same situation. STrange anogh that very often in exactly these countries, water used is subsidized what is just having the opposite effect of what should be done in reality: giving water a price that reflect its avalability. At the contrary many countries water managers and governments in exactlu theses countries behave as if the water ressources are just an endless ressource. Valueing financially water ressources better would be -among managing access through concessions and permits - a simple method to show that it's a rare ressource that - as any products in the world that gets rare - increases in price. By applying a water pricing - availabilty method cleverly (f.e. progressive water ressources and drinking water prices), intergenerational but as well current inequalities could be tackled. Access to water should be affordabale - thats right - but not on the expense of those who don't have a voice: The Poor from the today and future generations in generell.

I am adding a few cents as a human rights lawyer. My answer is based on an assumed place where dialogue between the different people concerned is possible - the hard struggles that the kick-off post mention need different approaches.
First off, we seem to all agree that it's a process. I am convinced that human rights cna support that process, for at least two reasons:
1. As an analytical framework,
2. as guidance for the process itself.
On the analytical framework: Equity is not legally defined, but we seem to all mean the fair distribution of the resource water. If we look at that from a human rights perspective, different rights need to be considered. The right to water for everone living there. For a farmer needing water for irrigation, the rights to food and work are relevant. The right to work can be relevant for the workers of a factory next door. The right to health and-or a healthy environment is relevant for the prevention of pollution. And so forth... So analytically, what is the available water needed for in the place we are talking about - and how can the different needs be balanced out such that all the rights of the people living there can be realised best?
Using human rights analytically can be helpful because of the common legal definition they come with. And because the legal commitment and definition are somewhat removed from doubt because states have internationally committed to them.
On the guidance that human rights can bring to the process itself: All human rights are underpinned by common principles. Participation, accountability, sustainability, transparency, equality and non-discrimination. If a process to balance out the different rights and legitimate interests integrates these principles, then equitable results become more achievable.
This is not easy. Where I have seen it work is in the use of the Make Rights Real approach, which I had the pleasure to co-develop with an interdisciplinary group of people. Three core ideas underpin it, and I am paraphrasing here from this article https://www.mdpi.com/629022
Human rights can be constructive and enabling for WASH professionals.
Local government is a critical institution to focus on.
Human rights need to become relevant and useful to local government.
The approach then uses a process of engagement with local government officials that starts from the aspect of duty or responsibility: You, the local government officials, are tasked by e.g. policy X to ensure that... It then builds empathy by seeking a conversation about challenges with fulfilling this duty, structured along a common routine of local government processes. Followed by a conversation about how human rights principles can improve results towards implementation of policy implementation. Simple example: You are responsible for ensuring everyone has adequate water services. Who are the people most marginalised - why is it difficult to ensure services for them - what can you do about it. One of the most inspiring examples of success was a local government official who realised through this process that looking at marginalised people was part of his job; that the difficulty for piped water supply in a marginalised rural village was to get the equiptment to the village that did not have an access road. He then set out to plan for gradual improvement - building an access road so that then a piped supply system could be built.
Does the approach always work this well? No. There are many factors underpinning success, and it's not always easy (and I no longer work with it these days). But I am convinced that using human rights as an analytical framework and for process guidance can help.

Is there a clear, measurable agreement on what equity means? How to go beyond this core minimum floor of just 50-100 litres per capita per day for universal basic domestic uses, while all domestic uses still only represent 3 percent of all water withdrawals? Is it enough to just expand this core minimum with the higher quantities for basic productive uses to realize the right to food and an adequate standard of living? Instead of these - important, and, as you say, Hannah, legally binding- floors, the standard for equity can also be a thriving life. This is the approach of the Global Commission on the Economics of Water. They quantified water requirements for a dignified life, so thriving instead of just surviving. They calculated a minimum of about 4000 litres per capita per day. This is rounded down from approximately 3800 lpcd for food plus 50 lpcd for domestic uses plus a nominal 322 lpcd for industry. (Global Commission on the Economics of Water. 2024. The economics of water. Valuing the Hydrological Cycle as a Global Common Good. https://economicsofwater.watercommission.org/report/economics-of-water.pdf ).

Thanks for sharing such valuable content. This platform is a great resource for tracking live USD to EGP rates in the open market. Whether you're monitoring currency trends or planning an exchange, it provides up-to-date data and helpful tools to make informed decisions.

What concluding take-aways can be derived from the many excellent reflections on the question in this Dissensus: “What is equitable access to water?” Are there recommendations for follow-up? Peeling the layers off the onion, we see four take-aways and a recommendation.

1. An equitable starting point: 4000 litres per capita per day.
Contributors to this Dissensus defined equity as: “the right water volume needed for any purpose in time and space by every individual” (Timothy O. Ogunbode) and “holistic fairness” (Naim Haie). According to Global Commission on the Economics of Water. water for a dignified life can be quantified as an amount of 4000 litres per capita per day (lpcd). This is an equitable starting point and goes well beyond Sustainable Development Goal 6.1 “safe and affordable drinking water for all”. Water for drinking really only amounts to around 3 lpcd - the figure of 50 lpcd, which is often used in practice, includes other domestic uses as well. Compared to 4000 lpcd, this narrow policy focus on a core minimum is just ‘equity washing’.

2. Water: nature’s distributional inequities
There is no equity in the planet’s global water hydrological cycle, neither across locations, nor across seasons. Variability is becoming even worse and less predictable under climate change. There is too much and too little. Precipitation can lead to floods, raising equity issues in flood risk management. Or there can be enough for everyone, so there is already equity. But nature’s water resources can also be too limited. Competition and trade-offs become inevitable, especially in the dry seasons, but increasingly year-round, through, for example, falling groundwater tables (Manfred Matz) and over-abstraction from rivers. Water use by the one means depriving the other. It is in this context that human intervention is needed to ensure that there is equity in access to water for domestic and productive purposes.
And so, another layer of the onion needs consideration: what water scarcity precisely?

3. Infrastructure or water resources
Water is complex because both water sources and infrastructure are needed to channel water for human use. “Closing the water resource is never as precise as closing the land resource” (Brian Chatterton). Without infrastructure, water resources just flow by or lurk underground. Storage, pumping, transportation renders more water available to all. Under so-called economic water scarcity, investment in infrastructure is lacking, as poor women and men carrying water on their heads know. Investments and subsidies for infrastructure are critical. However, in a world of increasing financialization of services, we see shareholders pursuing profits, not equity. The 2010 Human Right to Water for Drinking and Sanitation implies the requirement of both the infrastructure and the resources that flow into that infrastructure.
The planet’s natural hydrological cycle of surface and groundwater resources that flow into the infrastructure is typically a public trust or common good, often in the hands of the state as public trustee. Many values count. Aquatic and terrestrial life need water. Pollution needs to be prevented. Existing users may have to limit their water uptake to equitably share the limited available resources among expanding populations with higher needs, also in the future (Manfred Matz). With growing competition, rising prices and commodification of property claims to nature’s resources favours those who can pay. This is highly inequitable.
The onion has more layers.

4. Sectors and intra-sectoral differences
Water equity is also complex because water is often only one input into an overall activity. It is not even necessarily the limiting factor. This underpins the connection with other struggles and power relations, such as land grabs. Without deeper economic and political reforms, redistributing water is never going to happen (Doug Merrey).
Instead of defining equitable sharing of water resources as between people seeking to meet their multiple uses, the water sector persistently refers to monolithic sectoral water uses, such as ‘irrigation’. This hides deep intra-sectoral differences, for example between a large-scale commercial plantation of export produce and a smallholder. The Special Rapporteur on the Human Right to Water and Sanitation elaborated on this with regard to the right to water and food.
This approach is problematic when water sharing in the zero-sum situation is guided by prioritizing monolithic sectors, with domestic use typically as the highest priority. However, is water for private swimming pools and washing cars more important than irrigation of vegetables at a homestead? Is the high monetary value of washed diamonds sufficient reason to forbid anybody outside the diamond mine any access to the same waters?
Indeed, as Brian Chatterton writes: “The fact that irrigation water for the alfalfa fields that produce hay for the horse in the Royal Saudi Stables receives priority over showers and flushing toilets for poor people shocks me”. What can the meaning of this shock be, also for follow-up research?

5. Recommendation: rights-based prioritization
The starting point for equity is an equal share in the public trust – provided sustainability, for example the above-mentioned 4000 lpcd. The Special Rapporteur on the Human Right to Water recognizes that, in the zero-sum situation under seasonal or year-round competition, prioritization is inevitable. These are:
• first, water for life. Life depends on both domestic and, certainly in rural areas, productive uses, and includes ecosystems’ life.
• second, water in a general interest; and,
• third, water for economic purposes, so uses that go beyond serving life and a general interest.
This internationally defined prioritization is valid across scales. It allows “a large range of actors and stakeholders to work together to achieve common goals” even though that “is often a challenging thing” (Martin), It echoes participation, accountability, sustainability, transparency, equality and non-discrimination (Hannah Neumeyer). At the more localized levels, including the important local government (Hannah Neumeyer), this becomes the processual pragmatism of a combined approach that is; 1) local, 2) participatory, and 3) incremental, and which fully taps local hydrological knowledge (Bruce Lankford). Or “nothing about us without us” (Barbara Schreiner). At these localized scales, the trade-offs at stake become very concrete. This “either - or” holds both for the “sharing in” of water resources within that lower scale, and for the “sharing out” of water resources with neighbouring scales, up to regional, national and transboundary, and, yes, the planet’s scale of water sharing.
This prioritization can be legally binding, as in South Africa’s prioritization in the National Water Resources Strategy. The burden of the risk of climate’s vagaries and inevitable curtailment is targeted at the lowest priority uses. These are the economic uses beyond life and beyond a general interest. This can be achieved by targeting permits, concessions or investor contracts to such economic uses as the “water care leases” that Brian Chatterton proposes, and which exists on rangeland in South Australia. States can tie conditions to permits or concessions and indicate the duration and expiry date of uses for review or cancellation for reallocation to higher priority uses. In this way, permits and concessions stop being a superior entitlement than being exempted from that obligation. Instead, they become an effective regulatory tool.