The United States and the Right to Water
Michael Ellement
November 08, 2009
Currently, the United States does recognize a right to water, neither in a domestic sense nor as an international human right. This has placed the country´s government at odds with multiple nations around the world, who have codified a right to water in their nation´s constitution, as well as prominent NGOs, who have called for the United Nations to recognize the right to water as a fundamental human right.
On the domestic front, the US´s failure to recognize a right to water follows in the traditional understanding of the country´s Constitution. The liberties included in the Bill of Rights section of the Constitution are commonly referred to as "negative rights", meaning they do not grant individual privileges to citizens by which they are able to demand goods or services from the government. Instead, the Constitution and its Amendments set out a list of actions that the Federal Government is forbidden to engage in.
This view of rights is contrary to fundamental human rights documents, such as The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which have always contained "positive rights". These rights are not merely stopping blocks against government control but, instead, grant onto the individual the ability to demand from government a service which is considered to be fundamental. A right to water would assuredly be considered a positive right, as it would place a requirement on the federal government to ensure that every citizen had access to water resources.
Currently, 15 countries recognize a right to water in their Constitution. They include South Africa, Spain, Belgium, and Ethiopia. Two American states have also taken upon themselves to include a right to water in their state constitution, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania. California attempted to pass a similar provision, but it was veto by Governor Schwarzenegger. It appears unlikely that the United States government will move for any legislation on the federal level for such a right, given tradition and fears that the government would not live up to its end of the bargain.
On the international level, the United States government has been characterized as an extreme hindrance to declaring access to water a basic human right for all. In 2002, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights issued a resolution calling water "fundamental". This was seen as a major step forward in water rights.
The UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) further released a resolution in 2008 on access to safe drinking water and sanitation, determining the issue needed more study. According to reports, the resolution was lobbied against heavily by the United States and Canada. In the end, the Council was convinced the to remove a "right to water" from the documents language. While encouraged that the issue is on the table, water rights advocated were incredibly discouraged with the handling of the resolution and its end result.
There have been several calls in the last decade to issue a UN Convention on the right to water. This would establish strict criteria for member nations in terms of water distribution in their home country. However, the US seems opposed to such a policy. While the new administration has aimed at opening relations with foreign nations, it appears unlikely that they will push for such a right anytime soon.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
http://www.worldwatercouncil.org/fileadmin/wwc/Programs/Right_to_Water/Pdf_doct/Story_RTW_CD_March07_compressed.pdf
http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2009/world/california-right-to-water-bill-vetoed/
http://www.unac.org/en/library/unacresearch/2007RightToWater_e.pdf
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/rtwrev.pdf
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2009/04/americas-role-in-protecting-right-to.php
http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2009/world/california-right-to-water-bill-vetoed/
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/world-water/right/un-convention-right-to-water
On the domestic front, the US´s failure to recognize a right to water follows in the traditional understanding of the country´s Constitution. The liberties included in the Bill of Rights section of the Constitution are commonly referred to as "negative rights", meaning they do not grant individual privileges to citizens by which they are able to demand goods or services from the government. Instead, the Constitution and its Amendments set out a list of actions that the Federal Government is forbidden to engage in.
This view of rights is contrary to fundamental human rights documents, such as The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which have always contained "positive rights". These rights are not merely stopping blocks against government control but, instead, grant onto the individual the ability to demand from government a service which is considered to be fundamental. A right to water would assuredly be considered a positive right, as it would place a requirement on the federal government to ensure that every citizen had access to water resources.
Currently, 15 countries recognize a right to water in their Constitution. They include South Africa, Spain, Belgium, and Ethiopia. Two American states have also taken upon themselves to include a right to water in their state constitution, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania. California attempted to pass a similar provision, but it was veto by Governor Schwarzenegger. It appears unlikely that the United States government will move for any legislation on the federal level for such a right, given tradition and fears that the government would not live up to its end of the bargain.
On the international level, the United States government has been characterized as an extreme hindrance to declaring access to water a basic human right for all. In 2002, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights issued a resolution calling water "fundamental". This was seen as a major step forward in water rights.
The UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) further released a resolution in 2008 on access to safe drinking water and sanitation, determining the issue needed more study. According to reports, the resolution was lobbied against heavily by the United States and Canada. In the end, the Council was convinced the to remove a "right to water" from the documents language. While encouraged that the issue is on the table, water rights advocated were incredibly discouraged with the handling of the resolution and its end result.
There have been several calls in the last decade to issue a UN Convention on the right to water. This would establish strict criteria for member nations in terms of water distribution in their home country. However, the US seems opposed to such a policy. While the new administration has aimed at opening relations with foreign nations, it appears unlikely that they will push for such a right anytime soon.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
http://www.worldwatercouncil.org/fileadmin/wwc/Programs/Right_to_Water/Pdf_doct/Story_RTW_CD_March07_compressed.pdf
http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2009/world/california-right-to-water-bill-vetoed/
http://www.unac.org/en/library/unacresearch/2007RightToWater_e.pdf
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/rtwrev.pdf
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2009/04/americas-role-in-protecting-right-to.php
http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2009/world/california-right-to-water-bill-vetoed/
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/world-water/right/un-convention-right-to-water
Print
Email
