Sensitivity over water rights is not an issue restricted to distant parts of the globe, as illustrated by a recent occurrence in the United States.
New York threatens to create panic
In 1961, after decades of water wars and costly legal fights that twice reached the United States Supreme Court, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware finally reached an agreement regarding the waters of the Delaware river that ended the squabbling. Now, in a move that would cut New York’s $5 billion deficit by a paltry $481,000, Gov. George E. Pataki is threatening a move that could wreak havoc in the region.
“Gov. Pataki wants to withdraw New York’s funding from the four-state Delaware River Basin Commission, which drafts rules on water allocation, conservation, pollution, flood control and drought management” (New York Times, April 9, 1995).
Should the governor succeed in his attempt, near panic will ensue. His reason for withdrawing from the commission is water allotment. Gov. Pataki wants to take more for New York State without securing approval from the other states. Since New York State has full control of the headwaters of the Delaware River, from a physical point of view, they can unilaterally implement their plans. The downstream states rely on the Delaware as a valuable source of drinking water and will not willingly accede to New York’s plan.
Similar tensions in many places
The situation facing the four eastern states is typical of similar problems around the globe. Countries that control the headwaters of rivers are demanding the right to control the amount of water flow to the downstream nations. With growing populations giving more mouths to feed every day, the water crisis is certain to grow.
Turkey
In November 1994, Turkish President Sullyeyman Demirel formally inaugurated a $20 billion irrigation system along the Euphrates River. The Anatolia project has taken ten years to complete and consists of 22 dams, 19 hydro electric plants and two underground channels 25 feet across and nearly 1,000 miles long. Prior to this project, Turkey used the Euphrates only for power generation.
The use of the river for irrigation and water diversion has had a serious impact on relations with two of Turkey’s neighbors, Iraq and Syria. Prior to the Anatolia project, Syria and Iraq received almost all of the flow of the Euphrates (estimated at 750 cubic meters a second). With the completion of the project, the flow has been cut in half. “Turkey argues that the upper Mesopotamian basin (the Euphrates, the Tigress and the Orontes) should be treated as a whole, with Turkey title to the river’s headwaters” (Toronto Globe and Mail, November 8, 1994). Roughly interpreted, this means Turkey could unilaterally impose its decisions on the waters in its territory, which just happens to include the major source of the rivers.
It is interesting Turkey would name the irrigation project Anatolia. Anatolia is a Greek word which literally means, “Rising of the sun.” One of Bro. John Thomas’ initial publications was titled “Anatolia.” In that work, Bro. Thomas contended the drying up of the Euphrates and the prophecies associated with it (Rev. 16:12) alluded to the decline of the Ottoman Empire. Quite possibly the development of this Anatolia irrigation project will mark the literal fulfillment of the prophecy which has already been largely fulfilled from a political standpoint.
The Middle East
Isaiah prophesies of a time when the land will suffer greatly because it has been defiled by its people. “The earth is defiled by its people; they have disobeyed the laws, violated the statutes and broken the everlasting covenant…the new wine dries up and the vine withers; all the merrymakers groan” (Isa. 24:5,7). During the last decade, the water resources of the Middle Fast have steadily declined.
The primary reason for the decline is readily seen as man’s selfishness and inconsideration of others which makes it so difficult for people to work together. When we see it in four states of the United States, we are hardly surprised to find it amongst ancient enemies in the Middle East.
The Jordan River watershed borders four countries — Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Israel — as well as the newly created Palestinian territory. Similar to both the Delaware River and Euphrates watershed situations, the country which controls the major portion of the headwaters tries to mandate consumption rates.
One of the most equitable ways of distributing the water wealth is to allocate resources based on watershed area and population requirements, not headwaters control. In 1992, Israel utilized close to 75% of the total available water produced by the Jordan river. This consumption is great when it is recognized Israel has only 25% of the population and only 20% of the land of the total area of the Jordan watershed. Primarily as a result of Israel’s water needs, the Jordan is reduced to a meager stream when it enters the Dead Sea.
With the inequities around the world, we look forward to the day when the kingdom is established — a day when the land shall thirst no more both literally and figuratively. “Then will the lame leap like a deer, and the mute tongue shout for joy. Water will gush forth in the wilderness and streams in the desert. The burning sand will become a pool, the thirsty ground bubbling springs. In the haunts where jackals once lay, grass and reeds and papyrus will grow” (Isa. 35:6-7).
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One