Ours - Not Yours: If water belongs to everyone, then immediately two principles become very clear. The first is that water can only ever be owned collectively – and never individually. The second is that whatever the collective entity in which public ownership is vested, be it the state or a local authority, public officials cannot ethically permit collectively owned water to be diverted for private profit without first extracting from the profit-seeker an appropriate fee for its use.
NO ONE OWNS THE WATER. It sounds so reasonable. How could
anyone “own” water? It “droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven”, according to
Shakespeare, and is sent to fall “on the just and on the unjust”, if you
believe the New Testament. Playing no part in its creation, what plausible
claim could we, as human-beings, possibly advance for its ownership?
Well, that all depends on how human-beings organise
themselves. A hunter-gatherer society takes its water pretty much as Mother
Nature delivers it. From springs and streams and rivers, and directly, from the
sky above.
Agricultural and/or pastoral societies, however, tend to
take a much more proprietary view of water. Without a reliable water supply
crops cannot flourish and herds die of thirst. The human-beings who live in
these kinds of societies are not disposed to share “their” springs and streams
and rivers with anyone – not without a fight.
And then there are the human-beings who live in cities.
Without water, cities simply can’t exist. Indeed, it is possible to argue that
the key capability which makes any sort of enduring civilisation possible is
the ability to collect, transfer and distribute large quantities of water for
the consumption and use of large numbers of human-beings. How would the ancient
civilisations of Mesopotamia and Egypt have survived without their
sophisticated systems of water storage and irrigation? Where would Rome have
been without her aqueducts and cisterns?
Civilised Collectivism: Where would Rome have been without her aqueducts?
In a civilised society, the bald assertion that “no one owns
the water” is, therefore, nonsense. Because, in a civilised society, water
belongs to everyone.
But, if water belongs to everyone, then immediately two
principles become very clear.
The first is that water can only ever be owned collectively – and never individually. (In the simplest terms, you can’t own it – because we own it.) The second principle is that
whatever the collective entity in which public ownership is vested, be it the state
or a local authority, public officials cannot ethically permit collectively
owned water to be diverted for private profit without first extracting from the
profit-seeker an appropriate fee for its use.
It is only when we work back from these first principles
that the bitter controversy over the use (and misuse) of water which has arisen
in New Zealand is explained. They make it all-too-clear why politicians and
officials in the thrall of farmers – especially dairy farmers – are so
determined to make us believe that: “no one owns the water”.
Like all good agriculturalists and pastoralists, New
Zealand’s dairy farmers claim a proprietary interest in the springs, streams,
rivers and aquifers which water their crops, preserve their herds and wash out
their cowsheds.
Their problem, of course, is that they can’t claim ownership
of these water sources openly because New Zealand isn’t ancient Mesopotamia or
medieval England. They live in a society in which the overwhelming majority of
their fellow citizens dwell in towns and cities and where the collective
ownership and protection of potable water constitutes the foundation of urban
health and comfort.
Bluntly, the springs, streams, rivers and aquifers of New
Zealand are not the de facto property of the farming sector, they belong to the
whole nation. This is the truth that has, at all costs, to be kept hidden. So
long as the whole nation can be hoodwinked into believing that they are not the
collective owners of New Zealand’s water; so long as they adhere to the
nonsensical notion that “no one owns the water”; so long will the farming
sector go on extracting profit from this critical resource without paying a
cent for the massive collateral environmental damage they’re causing.
This was the motivation behind the shutting down of Ecan,
the Canterbury Regional Council; the reason why democracy has been suspended in
that part of New Zealand for more than six years. So reckless had the greed and
selfishness of the Canterbury farming community become that they were willing
to strip their city-dwelling compatriots of their political rights rather than
be denied the massive, publicly-subsidised, irrigation schemes that would make
them and their neighbours rich.
When the Prime Minister’s brother, Conor English, shortly
after National’s election victory in 2008, vouchsafed to me his prediction that
the single biggest issue facing New Zealand for the next twenty years would be
“water”, I thought he was joking.
He wasn’t.
This essay was
originally published in The Waikato Times, The Taranaki Daily News, The
Timaru Herald, The Otago Daily Times and The Greymouth Star of Friday, 24 March 2017.
Comments
Post a Comment