This is the second guest post coming from Michigan Law Professor Nicholson Price‘s seminar merging science fiction and legal analysis. The author here – Kamie Cashette points her sights on the 2015 novel by American SciFi author Paolo Bacigalupi – The Water Knife. – DC
Guest Post by Kamie Cashette
Paolo Bacigalupi’s novel The Water Knife depicts the American Southwest in the not-so-distant future. Climate change has exacerbated an already scarce water supply, corporate interests have severely weakened the federal government, and states fight for water rights in ways that put Don Corleone to shame. State water agencies send employees to engage in guerrilla warfare-style tactics, like blowing up water-treatment plants and bombing dams, to make sure their territories come out on top. The places that do not manage to secure enough precious water rights, like Arizona, house masses of refugees desperate to escape to water-wealthy havens.
The world portrayed by The Water Knife strikes a particularly terrifying chord, mostly because of how plausible it seems. Bacigalupi makes painstaking efforts to incorporate modern day references into the book, from the third intake valve in Lake Mead that finished construction in 2015 to the image of a toothless Britney Spears. Moreover, the impending disappearance of the water supply in major cities like Cape Town, South Africa[1] further bridges the gap between the dystopian universe portrayed in the book and reality.
Bacigalupi’s world also seems to fit into a potentially realizable legal sphere. Today, Western states follow the prior appropriation doctrine to allocate water rights: someone who established a use of water decades or even a century ago has a higher priority over that usage than someone who begins tapping into that water today.[3] In other words, all junior water rights holders lose all of their water before the senior water rights holder has to give up a single drop. In a world of water scarcity, that makes senior water rights invaluable.
The Water Knife takes the legal framework of water rights in the West and realistically portrays the incentivized behavior in situations of extreme resource scarcity. The book centers around water rights “senior to God” that give Phoenix, Arizona some of the most senior rights on record. If Phoenix had knowledge of those rights, it would have legal claim to the water before any other state, giving it the ability to rise from its drought-induced ashes and to lay waste to its neighboring competitors. The lengths people are willing to go to in the book to get their hands on the water rights illustrates how a system of senior water rights in a situation of resource scarcity compels actors to fight each other tooth and nail instead of cooperating. As one of the characters remarks, a “[l]ot of people end up dead around these rights.”
Moreover, while the book’s portrayal of militant states and the practically non-existent role of the federal government seems outrageous, it may be within the realm of possibility. In The Water Knife, Congress passes a piece of legislation called the State Sovereignty Act, which allows states to stop U.S. citizens from other states from crossing into their borders. Freedom of movement between states has long been recognized as a fundamental constitutional right, and any suspension of that right is subject to strict scrutiny.[4] However, as the infamous decision of Korematsu v. United States[5] illustrates, rights subject to strict scrutiny have yielded to emergency and security concerns in the past. A drought so severe that it causes entire states to utterly collapse as Bacigalupi depicts could arguably fit that bill.
While the predicted Water Knife world is plausible, it is certainly not set in stone. State and local governments are trying to step in to mitigate the effects of climate change where the federal government has not. Among these efforts are lawsuits filed by cities across the country against oil companies for their contributions to global warming.[6] Additionally, on the national level, Professor Rhett Larson proposes shifting from an environmental policy paradigm hinging on climate change to one based on water security.[7] Larson also suggests using a regional approach to water security based around water basins instead of a state-by-state prior appropriations system. A book like The Water Knife that highlights the dangers of the Western water rights system and water insecurity in general makes an approach like the one advocated for by Larson more salient, and it sends a clear warning about what the future could hold. Whether the United States heeds that warning remains to be seen.
= = = = =
Notes
[1] James Longman, The Apocalyptic Atmosphere in Cape Town as Residents Struggle to Survive: Reporter’s Notebook, ABC News (Feb. 21, 2018, 1:06 PM), http://abcnews.go.com/International/reporters-notebook-apocalyptic-atmosphere-cape-town-residents-struggle/story?id=53217859.
[2] Jon Kerrin, Theewaterskloof Dam, South Africa, South African (2017), https://www.thesouthafrican.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Jon-Kerrin-Theewaterskloof3.jpg.
[3] See, e.g., Prior Appropriation Law, Colo. Dep’t Nat. Resources, http://water.state.co.us/surfacewater/swrights/pages/priorapprop.aspx (last visited Feb. 23, 2018).
[4] See, e.g., United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281, 293 (1920); Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 500 (1999).
[5] 323 U.S. 214 (1944).
[6] See, e.g., David Zahniser, L.A. Lawmakers Look to Sue Big Oil Companies Over Climate Change—And the Costs that Stem from It, L.A. Times (Jan. 13, 2018, 5:00 AM), http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-climate-change-lawsuit-20180113-story.html.
[7] Rhett B. Larson, Water Security, 112 Nw. U. L. Rev. 139 (2017).
“like Arizona, house masses of refugees desperate to escape to water-wealthy havens.”
Oh god, not MORE of them.
lol jk, that’s merica, there won’t be any.
Without delving into the science fiction book itself, I have to wonder if the water rich states (derisively termed “flyover states” currently), obtain a greater shift in power, turning rust into (liquid) gold, as it were…
However, as the infamous decision of Korematsu v. United States[5] illustrates, rights subject to strict scrutiny have yielded to emergency and security concerns in the past.
Nothing is more terrifying than a brown person with a gun. Just ask Perznert Mango Hairball who explained yesterday that confiscation comes first, then due process. Or you can ask one of the many (white, privileged, rich, entitled, male, ig n0r ant r@ cist) patent maximalist types over at Big Jeans place who proudly voted for Mango Hairball.
They get it. As do the glibertarian types who pretend to be “above it all.”
MM, you do know the source of the second amendment? It had to do with a Catholic Monarch who try to take away the weapons of Protestants so that he could reimpose Catholicism on England.
I think American’s are naturally suspicious of anybody who tries to take away the right to keep and bear arms.
Why do you think that Americans should be stripped of their guns? For the protection of Americans?
Ned,
Here’s Malcolm’s response boiled down to its essence:
“Guns bad.”
American’s are naturally suspicious
So sayeth the r@ cist shertstain who proudly voted from the Herrpiece.
Too funny.
Now Ned’s a raycyst as well? Come on bruh.
6,
You haven’t been attention to his one-bucketing…
Why do you think that Americans should be stripped of their guns?
For the same reason that you stopped beating your wife, I guess.
I know it’s hard for the Re pu k kk e li z@rd brain to process nuance but there’s a big difference between “stripping merkins of their guns”, on one hand, and banning ownership of assault weapons on the other hand. And requiring licenses before ownership of any gun. And limiting the number of guns that can be owned.
Like I said: super nuanced stuff! Probably just too difficult to explain to an adult with a legal degree.
So let’s just wait for your family to get slaughtered. Yay! Check out the of blood flowin’ from that kids head, dude. Tree of liberty is growing! So awesome.
“of assault weapons”
Assault weapons are banned already brusufoulous. What “assault weapons” (under your no doubt new and revised definition which totally doesn’t keep expanding) are you looking to ban now?
“Why do you think that Americans should be stripped of their guns? For the protection of Americans?”
MM is a Yes-man State-man… its pretty clear he thinks regular peoples aint got sense enough to handle them things but the know its in the gov and proper spectable positions in society do.
After all, the people don’t need protections against the State cause who ever the demos is i.e. who ever the majority chooses is the very definition of good… the very legitness of the rig is the “athoriTay of de most” …’sides we should trust those is authority … they’z ones did all that learnin’ ‘n skoolin’ needed to know what’n what, and they should be the only ones with the guns.
In fact, guns should be taken away from most everybody even the police… set them up with tazers and nets and cameras…maybe the only peoples with guns should be the Pres himself, matter of fact he should be packin’ on his person 24/7 .. only right for a genteel-man, and his of course his own personal army, under his personal full command… with all the guns, all the time.
See? MM KNOWS what a safe society IS. Yes – State – Yes!
Your satire is on spot (except for who is in power now).
Your satire actually better fits Ned Heller, and Ned’s rather peculiar denial of inalienable rights, which is reflected in the natural outcome of his cart-before-the-horse view of Might makes Right.
As has been noted, such Might makes Right and “Stateism” can lead to a host of different flavors of ills, depending on who has captured control of the State.
From the “state is the commune,” to Fascism, to crony capitalism, even to the old Papism and “Church-State.”
The critical advance of the US “experiment” is captured in one of the founding documents of this country: the advance of the recognition of, the “sanctity” of, and the fact that this item is a driver for the follow-one of use of Might: inalienable rights.
Certainly not government for itself and the aggrandizements of power that follow when government is viewed as the Ends rather than merely a (limited) Means to those Ends.
BTW: Any reference to the “personage” of the Prez was meant in the abstract, and was merely to reinforce the state of affairs which MM clearly and expressly has stated he abhors, a Republican at the helm… it is not a statement of the person (not quite sure I get what “genteel” really means anyhow, (and the current Prez is no Southerner)…but I thought it should be an accoutrement of any gun-toting leader MM would likely despise) but that the person changes and has stripes determined by the whim of the demos.
For the illustration to be effective, the pyramidal hierarchy of weaponry, must go to the pinnacle of the State, the Prez himself, AND it must be understood that the State’s “colors” sometimes do not align the smallest minority… the individual… which fact is lost on collectivists when their cartel is running the show.
“The critical advance of the US “experiment” is captured in one of the founding documents of this country: the advance of the recognition of, the “sanctity” of, and the fact that this item is a driver for the follow-one of use of Might: inalienable rights.”
Yes but those inalienable rights enable “white supremacy” today and thus are ra cist and thus must be abo lished. They are the very tool of white supremacy.
Also what inalienable rights do you reckon are the ones you’re talking about specific-like?
Well anon2, it just seems counterintuitive. People don’t invade other people’s homes for good reason. However, if people knew that the residents would not put up any resistance whatsoever, the incidence of crime would skyrocket.
In this most recent incident in Florida, there was a tale of a teacher who risked his own life to save students. Had that teacher been armed, his efforts might have the been (more) successful. In fact, the discussion about what to do about the events in Florida included hardening of targets that the presence of armed teachers would provide a deterrent against assault.
I have never understood why those who think disarming the United States of nuclear weapons makes us safer. It is the opposite that is true.
Thus I suspect the motives of anybody who advocates disarming the United States or who advocates the disarming of Americans. I think there purpose is to make us more vulnerable not only is a nation but as a people.
“I have never understood why those who think disarming the United States of nuclear weapons makes us safer. ”
I think they generally presume that we’d disarm all other nations of them as well Ned. And yes, that would make the whole world safer.
“we’d disarm all other nations of them as well Ned”
How exactly?
By force?
By “asking nicely?”
You seriously cannot be that naïve.
6, let me assure you that they wanted to disarm the United States unilaterally. There thinking was that if we unilaterally disarmed, everybody else would as well – as if.
Somewhat the same kind of thinking was recently on display with the Iran deal. The idea was “we” play nice, give them a stack of money, look the other way and they would soon join the family of nations as good citizens. How did that work out?
Also, a nuclear free world is hardly a better, more safer place for humanity. The presence of nuclear weapons prevents major powers from actually going to war.
The folks behind this kind of thinking think that the US IS the problem, not the solution.
Enjoy that swagger yet Ned?
“MM is a Yes-man State-man… its pretty clear he thinks regular peoples aint got sense enough to handle them things but the know its in the gov and proper spectable positions in society do.”
This is a true statement. Unless republicans are controlling those know its in the gov in which case they’re “knee-capped” and screw it all up. Or unless they’re the PTO trying to handle new fangled compooter inventions. Or unless the know its are white.
“This is a true statement.”
This is also a true statement regarding Ned.
While Ned and Malcolm may differ as to the type of ideology that they wish controlled the state, they both put the state before the individual and the notion of an individual having inalienable rights.
“Nothing is more terrifying than a brown person with a gun.”
That’s only true for some people MM. Like this dirty dirty racycyst mom and daughter that had a non-white person attempt armed robbery this week. Unfortunately (or fortunately? Idk? Whichever is less offensive in our diverse nation) his attempts to fight the white cis hetero christianish capitalist patriarchy were in vain because they were armed. Maybe when he’s out you and him can get together to really fight the man, or women as it were.
link to kxan.com
Paolo Bacigalupi is one good science fiction writer. His book The Wind up Doll was set in the future where gene modification had all but killed off most plant life. Apparently some gene that prevented sexual reproduction had gotten into the wild. This led to global warming and mass starvation. It was quite believable.
Speaking of the LA lawmakers suing oil companies, why don’t they simply ban automobiles in LA? They are not really serious about global warming. It is clear what they are trying to do is to get money for themselves at the expense of everybody else.
why don’t they simply ban automobiles in LA
Are you in favor of banning automobiles, Ned?
MM, why of course – in LA. It would the be quite an object lesson, would it not? It would demonstrate that government can pass laws, but it cannot enforce them against a people who would refuse to obey.
Might be the basis of an interesting book though.
I would dare say Ned that enforcement of a ban of driving in LA would be far easier than you imagine.
It would kill business and then cause riots. The police would be using what? Horses? Or do they get to use cars? Maybe motorcycles?
It would demonstrate that government can pass laws, but it cannot enforce them against a people who would refuse to obey.
Kids will be very surprised to learn about this!
My goodness but you’re a piece of work.
Comments are closed.