Omega produces improved ecosystem conditions, renewable biofuels, and clean water through the use of waste products and non-invasive algae

Desalination Fails

Desalination Tech is too expensive and favors wealthy countries

Colonel Byron Jorns 30 MAR 2007

Water Wars The Need for a National Water Policy USAWC STRATEGY RESEARCH PROJECT http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a469088.pdf. Accessed 7/17/14

Ever since Aristotle discovered that “vapor produced from seawater, when condensed, is no longer salty”, thoughts of the sea becoming a source of drinking water source have endured.17 However, the popular belief that saltwater desalinization is the cure-all for the world’s freshwater challenges remains more of an ideal that a reality. On average, seawater contains 3.5-percent salt. The threshold for typical municipal drinking water standards is less than 0.05-percent salt.18 Although desalinization is a proven technology, its usefulness is outweighed by the enormous costs involved. Desalinization currently accounts for less than 0.1-percent of total world water usage.19 Capital costs to build a sizeable desalinization plant, let alone operate one, is several millions of dollars. Saudi Arabia’s Shoaiba desalinization plant was completed in 2003 at a total project cost of $1.06 billion.20 The cost of desalinated water is about $2 to $3 per cubic meter.21 This is 4 to 8 times the average cost of municipal water and 10 to 20 times typical agricultural water costs. It is estimated that a large scale reliance on desalinated water to replace current freshwater usage would approach $3 trillion per year or roughly 12-percent of the 2004 gross world product.22 This basic cost estimate does not capture plant replacement costs or water “losses” necessary to sustain livestock, croplands, and other items to sustain human activity. Despite established desalination operations in parts of the world, it remains a highly expensive and energy intensive process. Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Bahrain are some of the few countries utilizing desalinization extensively.23 In a sense, these countries are turning oil into water and can afford to do so. In the foreseeable future, saltwater desalinization will likely remain an option reserved for wealthy nations and provide only a minor contribution to the world’s total water supply.

Desalination is only a short term deterrence, doesn’t solve water crisis

Francis A. Galgano. 2012. Middle States Geographer. WATER AND CONFLICT: THE EVOLVING ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY LANDSCAPE

. Department of Geography and the Environment Villanova University. http://www.msaag.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/4-Galgano-MSG4529-392012.pdf. Accessed 7/17/14

There are short–term solutions to mitigate the effects of water scarcity and governments have been able to forestall the consequences of escalating water deficits. In the 1970s, water demands in the Middle East could be met from within the region. However, population growth has forced the region into an acute water deficit; and yet, there has been no water–related war since 1967. Many think that the answer lies in so–called virtual water, which is the water contained in imported food (Allen 1998). In fact, more water flows into the region annually as virtual water than flows along the Nile (Darwish 1994). Virtual water has enabled the region to augment its water resources with grain imports and devote scarce resources to domestic use rather than irrigation, which has reduced tensions and raised the threshold for conflict. However, it is not an enduring solution because virtual water is heavily subsidized and the continued reliance on virtual water is on insecure ground (Allen 1998). Water scarce states account for 26 percent of grain imports, however, as an additional billion people are added to these water–stressed basins during the next 15 years, and more states join the ranks of food importers, the demand for international grain will exceed supply, thus unbalancing the virtual water flow into the Middle East (Postel and Wolf 2001). De–Stalinization is often presented as a popular solution to chronic water shortages and it is being used extensively in localized situations. Nevertheless, desalinization is enormously expensive and cannot meet long–term water demands in the Middle East (Amery 2002). In 2005, more than 13 million cubic meters of fresh water were produced from desalinization each day; nonetheless, this represents just under one one–hundredth of fresh water consumption per day (Conca 2006). Desalination can only be viewed as a short–term solution to resolve or mitigate localized water shortage scenarios. If warfare over water is to be avoided, we must ensure an equitable distribution of water in a basin and permit a fair resolution of conflicts (Soffer 1999). International agreements and treaties are certainly desirable, but international law is not very robust. Water law in the U.S. and other parts of the world is well developed and backed by many precedents, and thus conflict resolution can typically rely on well–established doctrine (Butts 1997). For example, in many regions, the legal distribution of water is based on riparian rights. This doctrine works well in places where there is a considerable renewable water supply. However, in arid regions, appropriations doctrine is more accepted, and under this doctrine, priority is given to the first user of the water (Darwish 1994).

No Water Wars

Turn- Water Scarcity Increases cooperation between Political enemies- Solves Instability

Annabel van Gelder 2012

Rivalis Using Water Wars theory and Resource Curse theory to discover if water scarcity played a role in causing the Darfur conflict and the environmental conflicts in China https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/19454/Master%20Thesis%20AE%20van%20Gelder.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed 7/16/14

Finally, a large amount of the discourse over water management between nations is focused on how shared water resources more often stimulated negotiations and cooperation instead of leading to conflict. Despite tremendous tension, nations who have been at war with one another have stayed at the negotiation table when water was concerned. So Indians and Pakistani, Arabs and Israeli and Azeris and Armenians have negotiated water treaties while being political and military enemies.73 According to Wolf et al, the acts of cooperation outnumber the acts of violence over shared water resources. Politicians seem to use fiery rhetoric when water is concerned, but rarely use violence. The harsh words are more often aimed at their own constituencies than towards the enemy.74 Different scientific studies advocate unitary basin-wide agreements under the guidance of international institutions as the

best way of preventing interstate violence.75 But the cost of war in combination with the difference in strength between nations often already seems to prevent the outbreak of armed conflict, so cooperation and international negotiations are not even necessary to prevent conflict over water. Water is just not valuable and not hard enough to attain to be a reason for war between states. States still have many alternatives of obtaining water before reverting to warfare and this prevents water tension from becoming water war. That said about water war between states, water scarcity within states is also often named as a reason for armed conflict or violent protests. Although often not the root cause of conflict, water seems to lead to conflict within states as protest erupts over the over tapping of water resources. Water has been named a contributing reason for the internal conflicts in Rwanda, China, Sudan and Karachi.76 But the systems and methods of scholars studying Water Wars is often inexplicit. The overall argument seems to be that Water Wars will occur because water is becoming a scarcer commodity. How scholars reach this conclusion and based on which cases is often unclear. There does not seem to be a lot of proof for the Water Wars theory except that it does sound logical that scarcity will lead to conflict. But the overall evidence for Water Wars is very thin. Because Resource Curse does offer tools to study internal resource conflicts, the next paragraph deals with this topic. With the tools Resource Curse theory provides, hopefully we will be able to look into local water conflicts and see if water is a contributing factor or even the driver of conflicts.

Rhetoric of Water Was is alarmist and not accepted by the academic world

Annabel van Gelder 2012

Rivalis Using Water Wars theory and Resource Curse theory to discover if water scarcity played a role in causing the Darfur conflict and the environmental conflicts in China https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/19454/Master%20Thesis%20AE%20van%20Gelder.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed 7/16/14

Often Water Wars literature has the tendency to be alarmist, raise awareness and spot potential conflicts. Politicians, United Nations publications and NGO’s are very fond of using water conflict rhetoric; as the quotes at the beginning of the chapter exemplify. Water Wars theory is widely used in journalistic publications and quoted by policy makers because Water Wars has credibility with the public. But Water Wars is not a theory which is widely accepted in the academic world. A vast amount of literature has been written which doubts the assumption that water scarcity will inevitably lead to conflict. Since the water war in Mesopotamia no war, where water was the main driver of conflict between nations, has occurred.62 Scholars publishing about Water Wars have provided a wide variety of description of water related tensions and a few conflicts in which water was a contributing factor.63 But researchers at Oregon State University found that if water was a contributing factor in violence between states, in 30 of the 37 cases of water related violence, the conflict was between Israel and its neighbors. 64 Since this relation cannot be described as stable, even without water as a factor on can question why water war still causes so much stir in the academic circles? And what is the reason that even though water is becoming scarce, water scarcity does not translate to hostilities, violence and interstate wars?

Water Wars impacts are politically unrealistic

Annabel van Gelder 2012

Rivalis Using Water Wars theory and Resource Curse theory to discover if water scarcity played a role in causing the Darfur conflict and the environmental conflicts in China https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/19454/Master%20Thesis%20AE%20van%20Gelder.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed 7/16/14

The second critique of Water Wars is based on political realism. Nations only go to war if there is a likeliness that they will win and if the proceeds of victory are high. Otherwise the risks of going to war are greater than the eventual benefits. Kevin Freeman, a professor in the study of government and public services, offers a simple matrix based on the research (1984) by Naff and Matson about water and cooperation/conflict in the Middle East. 69 The matrix (see table 1) shows the likeliness of nations going into conflict over water of the Euphrates River. The matrix

shows three criteria for water related conflict, 1) state interest and issues in the watershed, 2) riparian position, and 3) external and internal power. He applies a weight to the criteria with 1 being weak and 5 being strong. Conflict potential is high when the sum of the criteria is roughly equal.70

Because Turkey is militarily so much stronger than the other states and Syria is stronger than Iraq the chance of conflict over water erupting in the Euphrates River basin is unlikely. The fact that in most shared water resources one of the shareholders is a much stronger political and military power reduces the probability of military conflict over water. Power politics deters the likeliness of conflict over shared water resources.

No Water Wars- Cheaper to buy water or invest in better water Infrastructure

Annabel van Gelder 2012

Rivalis Using Water Wars theory and Resource Curse theory to discover if water scarcity played a role in causing the Darfur conflict and the environmental conflicts in China https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/19454/Master%20Thesis%20AE%20van%20Gelder.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed 7/16/14

There are a number of possible explanations for this. First of all, wars are expensive and resource wars rarely achieve their goals. The First Gulf War is a very good example of why resource conflict is unlikely to erupt in the near future. Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait cost approximately $100 billion, and he was not able to secure the Kuwait oil production of 1.5 million barrels a day. In fact, this risky move eventually cost him his regime and his head. In comparison, on the stock market Exxon paid $80 billion to secure Mobil’s 1.7 million oil-barrels

a day, a merger which was very successful. Trade offers a much cheaper and more reliable way of attaining resources than war.65 In chapter 1 I have argued that water is not a normal resource which can be traded as easily as oil. But still economic viable options besides war are available to nations. War is very expensive and as long as states have cheaper options for attaining water they will not go to war over water. Water is simply not valuable enough. To cite an Israeli mayor-general responsible for military strategy during the 1967 and 1982 wars: “For the price of one week of fighting, you could build five desalination plants. No loss of life, no international pressure, and a reliable supply you don’t have to defend in hostile territory”. 66 This critique of the Water Wars theory is based on the Cornucopian model which beliefs that the free market will eventually relieve scarcity.67 As water becomes more scarce, prices will increase, which will lower demand and prolong depletion of the resource. In the meantime technological innovations can help relieve water scarcity pressures.68 Part of this theory is supported by the water saving options still available in the world. At this moment, water saving options are not always the politically and financially viable solution for a country. However as water scarcity will put more pressure on the water resources of nations, these investments might prove more feasible in the future. Rising oil prices made deep sea drillings for oil an economically viable investment. In the past the technically complicated off shore oil platforms where too expensive to operate, but rising oil prices made these oil platforms, despite of high cost, profitable. The same mechanism might occur with water saving options.