I. INTRODUCTION
II. BACKGROUND
A. Texas Background
1. Original Adoption
2. From Tort Doctrine to Vested Property Right
3. Defining Absolute Ownership
4. Now Enter Senate Bill 1
5. Present Day Ownership
6. Persistence of the Rule of Capture
B. Middle East Background
1. Setting the Stage for Conflict
2. Turkey--Syria Iraq
3. Jordan Palestine--Israel
4. Saudi Arabia
III. PROSCRIPTIVE MEASURES FOR BOTH TEXAS AND THE
MIDDLE EAST
A. Reasonable Use Standard
B. Desalination
IV. CONCLUSION
I. INTRODUCTION
When you think Texas, you likely picture the current President of
the United States of America, George W. Bush. And, when you think
President Bush, you likely think of the war in the Middle East.
Regardless of political views on the matter, this serves as a connection
between Texas and the Middle East. Yet, there is another, less obvious,
connection that exists between these two areas: both face the challenge
of how to structure their water regulation systems in order to preserve
water for future generations. (1) After looking at the insufficient
water regulations of Texas and countries in the Middle East, it becomes
clear that both areas will need to undergo a massive overhaul in water
regulations to ensure they preserve access to water. Each area will
present two separate problems with regard to water regulations, but both
may benefit from the same proscriptive measures in attempting to solve
their water regulation problems.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Texas Background
1. Original Adoption
The English rule of capture (2) was adopted in the 1904 Texas case
of Houston & Texas Central Railway Co. v. East. (3) In East, the
plaintiff brought suit against the defendant railroad company for
damages caused by digging a well that made the plaintiffs well run dry.
(4) The Texas Supreme Court relied on the principles set forth in the
English case of Acton v. Bundell to determine that one had a right to
dig a well and, if that digging resulted in the drying of a
neighbor's well, it would be deemed unactionable. (5) The East
court necessitated the rule of capture doctrine by looking toward the
principles set forth in Frazier v. Brown. (6) In Frazier, the Ohio
Supreme Court found that no correlative rights with regard to
underground percolating waters were recognized by law. (7) In justifying
its decision, the Ohio court focused partly on policy considerations:
1. Because the existence, origin, movement and course of such
waters, and the causes which govern and direct their movements, are so
secret, occult and concealed, that an attempt to administer any set of
legal rules in respect to them would be involved in hopeless
uncertainty, and would be, therefore, practically impossible. 2. Because
any such recognition of correlative rights, would interfere, to the
material detriment of the common wealth, with drainage and agriculture,
mining, the construction of highways and railroads, with sanitary
regulations, building and the general progress of improvement in works
of embellishment and utility. (8)
During this time, courts treated the rule of capture as a tort
doctrine with regard to neighbors and the pumping of water. (9)
2. From Tort Doctrine to Vested Property Right
In Texas Co. v. Burkett, (10) the Texas Supreme Court fortified the
rule of capture by interpreting it to be a vested property right and no
longer a tort doctrine. In Burkett, the plaintiff sought to enact a
contractual agreement with the defendant. (11) The defendant argued that
the plaintiff did not own water and that the water actually belonged to
the state; therefore, the plaintiff did not have a right to sell. (12)
The court disagreed with the defendant and ruled that the plaintiff
"plainly had the right to grant access to [streams] and the use of
their waters for any purpose...." (13) The court in Burkett created
a common law rule classifying water ownership as a vested property
right. (14) There has been criticism with regard to groundwater falling
under the umbrella of property rights. (15) Water ownership cannot
satisfy the characteristics of an "efficient property rights
system" including universality, exclusivity, transferability, and
enforceability. (16)
3. Defining Absolute Ownership
After Burkett, other Texas courts began following the lead by
interpreting East as expressing an absolute ownership principle. (17)
The Texas Legislature codified this sentiment by enacting the Texas
Underground Water Conservation Act of 1949, which recognized ownership
and rights in underground water of "the owner of land, his lessees
and assigns." (18) The years following the state legislature's
adoption of the absolute ownership principle gave preference to
protecting the water rights of farmers and ranchers. (19) This can be
largely attributed to the rural influence present in that particular
legislature. (20) Not until the 1960s--when legislative seats were being
redistricted--did the Texas Legislature witness a rise in urban
interests. (21) These urban interests viewed water in the agricultural
sense until the 1980s. (22)
Notably, a majority of other states do not recognize private
ownership of groundwater. (23) It is important to distinguish two types
of water when discussing water ownership: surface water and groundwater.
(24) Both surface water and groundwater have "different allocation
rules, distinct conflict resolution frameworks, and separate
administrative agencies." (25) In recognizing the value of water
resources, however, the Texas Legislature has expressed a common goal of
effective utilization of both groundwater and surface water sources to
meet the present and future water needs in Texas. (26)
4. Now Enter Senate Bill 1
In 1997, the Texas Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1, which
demonstrated that groundwater regulation should be "tailored to
meet local water supply and population needs." (27) In order to
accomplish this goal, the Texas Legislature created Underground Water
Conservation Districts (UWCD). (28) Texas regulates its groundwater with
UWCDs instead of using a regulatory scheme that creates a uniform set of
rules across the state. (29) Subject to regional and state approval,
UWCDs give residents who live close to water sources the power to
establish rules with regard to water management. (30) This requires that
each district analyze both available and anticipated water supply and
demand in that particular district. (31) Once this analysis is
completed, districts are to develop a plan addressing their management
goals and objectives. (32) After this plan is submitted and approved by
the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), it is then integrated into the
regional water plan and serves as the basis of action for a district.
(33)
5. Present Day Ownership
The present day understanding of the rule of capture rests on the
idea that a "landowner possesses the water beneath the surface by
virtue of control over the surface." (34) Three principles guide
the rule of capture in Texas: (1) water under the land belongs to the
owner; (35) (2) the owner or assignee may pump as much water as he likes
without being held accountable to others affected; (36) and (3) a party
may sell whatever water is pumped to third parties, and such water may
be used in other locations. (37)
To better understand the rule of capture, one must examine the
limitations in place for owning, pumping, and selling groundwater. (38)
One limitation on water ownership is the defining of exactly what water
belongs to the state and what water belongs to the surface owner. (39)
There are four categories of groundwater sources that determine to whom
the water belongs: (1) underflow, (2) underground stream, (3) artesian,
or (4) percolating. (40) Underflow of a watercourse and underground
streams in defined channels belong to the state. (41) Watercourse
underflow is defined as the portion of a surface watercourse that flows
through sand and gravel deposits beneath the surface of the stream bed.
(42) Courts will treat underground streams in defined channels as
surface water--thus, not the sole property of the surface owner--if it
has the same characteristics of a surface watercourse. (43) These
characteristics include the presence of banks, beds that form a channel,
and a current of water. (44) The importance of the artesian water
restriction involves statutory provisions that prevent waste of this
source and require permits for its withdrawal. (45) Percolating water
belongs solely to the surface property owner. (46) Once a landowner has
ownership over percolating water, further limitations are set in place
to restrict what kind of usage may occur. (47)
There are two common law restrictions on a landowner's right
to capture, pump, and sell percolating water. (48) First, a surface
owner may not "maliciously take water for the sole purpose of
injuring his neighbor ... or wantonly and willfully waste it." (49)
There is, however, criticism of this limitation because some feel that
proving the malice intent element is too difficult and, therefore, makes
such a limitation ineffectual. (50) Additionally, there is a belief that
the Texas Supreme Court created a major escape hatch by stating that
"waste" refers only to "waste in use" and not
"water lost during transport." (51) This distinction between
use and transport was articulated in City of Corpus Christi v. City of
Pleasanton where the court allowed a city to extract ten million gallons
of water a day for transport without classifying it as waste. (52) The
Texas Supreme Court, however, later came back in Bragg v. Edwards
Aquifer Authority (53) with a broader definition of "waste" as
it applied to the rule of capture limitation. It has been suggested that
Bragg "opened the door for future Texas Legislatures to finally
empower locally elected groundwater conservation districts with the
powers necessary to regulate groundwater withdrawals without running
afoul of the rule of capture." (54)
The second limitation stipulates that a landowner may not cause
subsidence in neighboring land to occur through use of water on his
land. (55) This limitation was created in Friendswood Development Co. v.
Smith-Southwest Industries where the Texas Supreme Court ruled that a
negligent subsidence exception allows for deterrence of excessive
underground water withdrawals and resulting land subsidence. (56) The
basic policy behind the court's ruling rested on the idea that
"ownership and rights of all landowners will be better protected
against subsidence if each [landowner] has a duty to produce water from
his land in a manner that will not negligently damage or destroy the
lands of others." (57)
With these restrictions in place, however effective they may or may
not be, the rule of capture still allows a landowner to appropriate
waters while on his land and make whatever use of that water he chooses.
(58) All of this is without regard to the fact that his use may cut off
the flow of water toward neighboring land, thus depriving that
neighboring landowner of water use. (59)
As one might imagine, the rule of capture has led to controversy,
(60) but more importantly, it has also led to a massive depletion of
water supplies. (61) A major part of this depletion can be accredited to
the large growth of urban areas in Texas, which has put a strain on
groundwater resources. (62)
6. Persistence of the Rule of Capture
With all of its negative effects and the inundation of criticism
with regard to the rule of capture, why do courts still adhere to it?
Two justifications have been posed to help answer this question:
reliance on the rule and legislative deference.
For courts adhering to the rule of capture, reliance is an
ever-weakening argument as time progresses and water management problems
increase. (63) One rationale that has been offered to explain why
reliance is a diluted basis for following the rule of capture is that
although a landowner can rely on this rule to release him from liability
for pumping his neighbor's well, this same landowner, in turn,
realizes that the rule does not protect his well from his neighbor. (64)
In fact, rural parties, such as farmers and ranchers--once the most
devoted of supporters for the rule of capture and antiregulation
(65)--now stand as parties calling for regulation in order to create
"firm water rights." (66)
This leads to the next justification for sticking with the rule of
capture: legislative deference. Texas courts point to the Texas
constitution, which states that "the preservation and conservation
of all such natural resources of the State are each and all hereby
declared public rights and duties[,] and the Legislature shall pass all
such laws as may appropriate thereto." (67) An example of such
application is Sipriano v. Great Spring Waters of America, in which the
court stated that "[i]t would be improper for courts to intercede
at this time by changing the common law framework within which the
Legislature has attempted to craft regulations to meet this state's
groundwater-conservation needs." (68) This decision was due to the
then-recent passing of Senate Bill 1 and the legislature's creation
of a water district system to address water concerns for individual
areas. (69)
Although the Texas Supreme Court has yielded to the legislature,
lower Texas courts have not given such deference to Senate Bill 1. (70)
In South Plains Lamesa Railroad v. High Plains Underground Water
Conservation Dist. No. 1, plaintiff landowner brought action against the
water district for revoking a water well permit and denying another.
(71) The court held that the water district lacked the authority to deny
and revoke water well permits for "disproportionate taking" in
relation to track size and, by doing so, exceeded their authority. (72)
Discussing the Texas Supreme Court's prior decisions, (73) the
court in South Plains determined it was in a position to define aspects
of the water district's power rather than deferring to the
legislature. (74) This discrepancy between the more activist lower
courts and the Texas Supreme Court has led some to conclude that
although courts defer to the legislature, they are also the ones who are
impeding the legislature from changing water regulation. (75)
B. Middle East Background
The Middle East, as a whole rather than a single country, offers a
beneficial comparison to the Texas water regulation system. (76) This is
due to the water problem in the Middle East, as in Texas, being a
growing problem among neighbors. (77) Water has always been scarce in
the Middle East, (78) but the growing need from increased populations
and agricultural sectors is elevating this scarcity toward the level of
crisis. (79) A major part of this problem arises from the fact that most
countries in the Middle East share the same aquifers. (80) This problem
is exacerbated by the number of countries that do not take into account
their impact on a neighboring country's water resources. (81) It
has been argued that the conflict over water rights serves as a major
barrier to reaching a peaceful relationship among the countries in the
Middle East. (82)
1. Setting the Stage for Conflict
Use, share, control, and management of water creates high levels of
tension among Middle Eastern neighbors. (83) The Middle East, along with
North Africa, represents five percent of the global population, but only
.09% of global water resources. (84) A problem arises for the Middle
East due to the Tigris, Euphrates, and Jordan River systems serving as
the only main waterways for the region. (85) By 1990, there were eleven
water-scarce countries in the Middle East and North Africa. (86) By
2025, it is predicted that an additional seven countries in this region
will be added to the list. (87)
A number of factors have contributed to the increasing scarcity of
water in the region. First, population rates in the Middle East are
growing rapidly, and water is being consumed at such a rate that it is
impossible for the water to replenish itself naturally. (88) This growth
has also caused increased pressure for economic development and
irresponsible patterns of urbanization and industrialization. (89)
Second, domestic pollution has contributed to the deterioration in the
quality of available water. (90) This can partly be attributed to the
lack of environmentally conscious technology that has accompanied the
industrialization of the Middle East. (91) Finally, the expansion of
agriculture and industry has also eroded available water resources in
the region. (92) These three factors combined have caused the per capita
water availability in the Middle East to become one of the worst in the
world. (93) Because water resources are continually shrinking, a number
of Middle Eastern countries have turned to using treated wastewater for
industry, agriculture, and the recharging of aquifers. (94) This, of
course, gives rise to health risks due to the bacteria, viruses, and
organisms present in the water. (95)
One of the factors contributing to tension over water in the Middle
East is the fact that upwards of fifty percent of the population has to
rely on water coming from another sovereign state. (96) This
transboundary aspect, along with the scarcity of water in the Middle
East, has been the spark of a number of conflicts. (97) Such conflicts
include ones among Turkey, Iraq, and Syria over the Tigris and Euphrates
River; among Israel, the Palestine Authority, and Jordan over the Jordan
River Basin; and within Saudi Arabia itself. (98)
2. Turkey--Syria--Iraq
Since the 1970s, there has been a growing tension between Turkey,
Syria, and Iraq over water. (99) This is due to the Tigris-Euphrates
River system being the only real source of water in the region. (100)
For six thousand years, the basins formed by both the Tigris and
Euphrates Rivers have been part of a number of struggles for domination.
(101) Turkey sits toward the north of both Syria and Iraq. For Syria,
the main water source is the Euphrates River, (102) which flows down
from Turkey and then into Iraq. (103) Iraq, on the other hand, relies
both on the Euphrates River water supply as well as water from the
Tigris River that flows from Turkey into Iraq, thus giving them an
additional source of water. (104) Notably, Iraq is the country with the
highest consumption of water from the Euphrates River among the other
countries in the region. (105) In 1987, a protocol was signed, which
allowed for Syrian access to the Euphrates River Basin. (106) However,
"Turkish development efforts have increasingly threatened to
marginalize and even eliminate Syrian access to water." (107) One
such development effort is the Southeast Anotolia Project (GAP). (108)
The goal of this project was the development of the area consisting of
nine provinces in the Euphrates-Tigris basins known as the "GAP
Region". (109) Originally, the GAP started as an energy production
and irrigation project but has since been expanded to cover urban,
rural, and agricultural infrastructures. (110)
It has been argued that this development has essentially given
Turkey control of the only upstream water source for Syria. (111) In
fact, the GAP will have a great impact on the water supply of Syria and
Iraq flowing from the Euphrates River. (112)
3. Jordan--Palestine--Israel
Turning toward another water conflict in the Middle East, the
Jordan, Palestine, and Israel region demonstrates the problems of
overuse due to population growth and pollution. (113) Their water source
originates in Lebanon and has a total average flow of around 1,200 cubic
meters a year. (114) This water system is made up of both the Jordan and
Yarmouk Rivers. (115) The Jordan River basin is viewed as the most
controversial in the region due to it being the most developed and
politically intricate. (116) Because a number of states that rely on the
Jordan River for water are not able to harvest enough water to meet
their needs, they must also rely on groundwater aquifers as a main
source of water. (117) This reliance is due to Jordan's per capita
water consumption, which, although one of the lowest among countries in
the Middle East, is still more than the amount of water it can harvest
from rainfall and from the Yarmuk River. (118) In 1994, the
Israeli-Jordanian Treaty was signed, creating guidelines regarding the
distribution, preservation, and availability of water from the Yarmouk
and Jordan Rivers. (119) However, despite this agreement, conflict is
continually rising. (120) In 1999, the climate of the region and harsh
droughts caused Israel to be unable to adhere to the stipulations of the
1994 treaty and cut the annual allocation of water to Jordan by half.
(121) This caused Jordan to be unable to sustain its current levels of
water consumption and move toward a water rationing system. (122)
Because of Jordan's limited access to water resources, its
escalating water deficit is expected to reach 250 cubic meters by the
year 2010. (123) With Jordan placing a high value on the "hydraulic
imperative" and Israel's decreasing internal water sources,
fears of a grab-for-resources is increasing among the two countries.
(124)
Israel, on the other hand, has relied almost entirely on its
National Water System, which is made up of the West Bank Mountain
Aquifer, the Coastal Aquifer, and the Lake Kinneret Basin. (125) Because
of this reliance, the "Mountain Aquifer underneath the West Bank is
a point of contention between Israelis and Palestinians." (126)
More specifically, one of the major issues between Israel and Palestine
is Israel's blocking of Palestinian access to water supplies. (127)
This has caused Israel to overexploit available resources in order to
expand agricultural and industrial ventures. (128)
4. Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia serves as another demonstration of a country quickly
approaching a water crisis. The difference between Saudi Arabia and the
countries discussed above is that this particular country's problem
arises from a lack of permanent bodies of waters and rivers. (129)
Because of this, Saudi Arabia is forced to rely heavily on underground
sources of water. (130)
A number of these underwater resources have been contaminated in
various ways as a result of the Gulf War. (131) This contamination was
caused, in part, by agricultural-related seepage and Iraq's burning
of oil wells during the conflict. (132) Additionally, the Gulf War
brought increased strain on water resources due to the bombing of water
treatment facilities by U.S. troops. (133) Further straining water
resources, multiple oil spills in the Persian Gulf damaged Saudi Arabian
desalination facilities. (134)
As can be seen, water serves as a catalyst for conflict among
various Middle Eastern countries. As with neighbors in Texas, neighbors
in the Middle East recognize the importance of protecting water rights
in order to ensure continued access to this valuable resource. And, as
might be imagined, conflict soon follows this recognition.
III. PROSCRIPTIVE MEASURES FOR BOTH TEXAS AND THE MIDDLE EAST
Both Texas and the Middle East have severe problems with their
water regulation systems. If poor management and conflict over water
continues, then it will not be an available resource for future
generations. (135) The issue of water security is of increasing
importance due to the already existing water shortage, which will only
become more prevalent in the coming years. (136) The question arises:
What can be done in these two areas to ensure the water lasts? A brief
examination of various theories of water rights provides guidance to
answering this question.
One theory is that of absolute territorial sovereignty over water
within the state's boundaries. (137) This theory is demonstrated in
the 1895 Harmon Doctrine that addressed a dispute between the United
States and Mexico regarding pollution in the Rio Grande River. (138)
Under this doctrine, "an upstream State can freely deplete or
utilize a river's flow within its boundaries without considering
the effect of its actions on a downstream State." (139) However,
this theory has become increasingly disfavored due to its inability to
accord differences between areas sharing the common resource. (140)
The next theory to examine is the principle of prior appropriation.
This theory does not give preference to either the upstream or
downstream state, but rather to the state that used the water first.
(141) However, as with the previous theory, this theory has not received
wide international support. (142)
Another theory known as absolute territorial integrity rests on the
idea that a downstream state should not have its flow of water
interrupted regardless of priority. (143) Again, this is a theory that
has received little international support. (144) This is due to the view
that this theory places a burden on an upstream state without placing a
similar burden on the downstream state. (145) Under a more general
umbrella of theories, including sic utere, (146) "restricted
territorial sovereignty," (147) and "restricted territorial
integrity" (148) theories, a state may use water within its
territorial boundaries so long as it does not prejudice the rights of
access to water for other states. (149) This more general group of
theories view whether a state has prejudiced another state by looking
toward the degree of harm to the state allegedly prejudiced. (150) The
final, more contemporary theory, known as the community of interests
theory, "treats the entire river as one hydrological unit that
should be managed as an integrated whole." (151) A problem arises
with this theory in that it does not account for the lack of political
cooperation between the various states. (152) With a basic knowledge of
these above theories, the solutions discussed below may offer some
guidance as to what both Texas and Middle Eastern countries can do to
improve their water regulation systems.
A. Reasonable Use Standard
One solution for each area's water problems rests in what is
known as reasonable use. (153) In 1997, the International Law Commission
established the Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of
International Water Courses (the Convention). (154) Although the
Convention deals with international watercourses applicable to
neighboring Middle Eastern countries, it may also serve as a guide for
neighbors in Texas. In determining the level of reasonable utilization,
the Convention sets forth seven factors to consider. (155) These factors
include:
(a) [g]eographic, hydrographic, hydrological, climatic, ecological
and other factors of a natural character; (b) [t]he social and economic
needs of the watercourse States concerned; (c) [t]he population
dependent on the watercourse in each watercourse State; (d) [t]he
effects of the use or uses of the watercourses in one watercourse State
on other watercourse states; (e) [e]xisting and potential uses of the
watercourse; (f) [c]onservation, protection, development, and economy of
use of the water resources of the watercourse and the costs of measures
taken to that effect; (g) [t]he availability of alternatives, of
comparable value, to a particular planned or existing use. (156)
Considering these factors when evaluating a water issue in Texas or
the Middle East will allow for a thorough analysis to take place before
a neighbors use crosses the unreasonable threshold. (157) Notably, those
areas in the Middle East categorized as "upstream states"
(158) have declined to sign the Convention because of the belief it
would be a loss for their country. (159) This idea of refusing to give
part of one's benefit to another demonstrates an issue regarding
the lack of cooperation among neighbors. These neighbors have
constructed their livelihoods based on the assumption that fresh water
would be available. (160) As seen in the Middle East, settlements were
developed near permanent wells and in fertile valleys. (161) Because
this resource has been so heavily relied upon, the shortage of water has
had the effect of creating fragile relationships between nations,
economic sectors, and individuals. (162)
A regional development plan would allow for the fortification of
relationships among countries in the Middle East and between neighbors
in Texas. (163) In a regional development plan, the area in issue is
divided into different sectors, and each sector creates and enacts a
water plan for that particular sector. (164) One step in enacting such a
plan is the creation of separate control of water resources in a way
that will suffocate past grievances. (165) Arguably, this could be
accomplished by taking the control of water away from Texas and Middle
Eastern governments and essentially turning water over to the private
sector. (166) Some have argued that for such a transition to occur, it
must be shown that profits can be made from the privatization of water.
(167) Because of the increasing scarcity and continual dependence on
water resources, it is highly unlikely that the profit aspect of water
privatization would be a problem. (168) This privatization of water
could also extend beyond mere property rights of water to the
"water storage, treatment, and distribution stages." (169) All
of this would involve negotiating property rights for the existing
resources and any new resources that may come into play. (170) If the
private sector were to control the distribution of water, then economic
principles, such as competition, would "[breed] efficiency and
innovation while protecting consumers from exploitation." (171)
Because both Texas and Middle Eastern governments control water
resources, there is no competition, and therefore, the protection for
consumers against exploitation is replaced by regulation. (172) Even if
the privatization of water does not take place, the need for regulation
over the quality and amount of water use will continue to be required in
the water resource arena. (173) Although this idea of privatization
seems drastic, one can look to other countries that have enacted such a
system to see that such a transition is possible. For example, in 1988,
the British government sold its state-owned utilities to private
investors who then sold one hundred percent of its stock to the public.
(174) Additionally, the French government designed another model for
privatization of water resources. Basically, the French municipalities
have the responsibility of running water and sewage programs. (175) In
doing this, the municipality has "the option of running their own
operations or contracting them via public service concessions."
(176) At the very least, some consideration must be given to the idea
that the public may benefit from a partnership between governments,
which would regulate health standards and water subsidies, and the
private sector, which would regulate distribution. (177)
Regardless of whether the water regulation systems are governmental
or privatized, it is important that there be more clearly defined lines
for neighbors in both the Middle East and Texas. Each neighbor will need
to be aware of what areas to harvest and what quantities of water they
are entitled to use. More strongly defined boundaries of water resources
would also allow for a water source to be controlled more efficiently
and, therefore, produce a higher chance of water for future generations.
(178) Additionally, defining property rights with regard to water and
usage would allow for more equity among neighbors. This equity element
will help to steer the view away from a "win-lose" situation
toward more of a "win-win" integrated system of cooperation.
(179) In order to ensure a smooth transition to a new regulation system,
a minimal set of rules should be implemented so both Texas and Middle
Eastern neighbors may adjust to the new system. Once people have
adjusted to following a more integrated system, then additional
regulations may be added as needed to correct problems that may arise.
In order to accomplish such a system, there are a number of tools to
consider when discussing the enactment of this type of demand management
program. (180)
First, one can turn to the area made up of institutions and laws.
(181) Supply and demand for water resources falls within the areas of
land and water rights, which both fit within the legal arena. (182)
Using the traditional institution of the law will help create and
monitor water rights through