Water Rights and the Appropriative Doctrine on Film

 

Documentary films such as Blue Gold: World Water Wars (2008) begin to elucidate U.S. water rights issues like the appropriative doctrine. In contrast to the Clean Water Act, the appropriative doctrine, “is a queuing system that rewards first movers.” Although those with water rights again hold only usufruct rights, “in this system, the first claimant to a water source has the highest priority to divert water, so long as the withdrawal is for a ‘reasonable and beneficial use’” (Donohew 89). The appropriative water rights doctrine, however, serves as “a basis for water markets. The doctrine allows for water to be claimed, diverted, and separated from land through which water flows. It can be transported out of a basin for use elsewhere. 

As such, those who buy water rights or lease water can change the location of diversion, timing of use, and nature and site of ultimate use, subject to regulatory approval to protect downstream claimants” (Donohew 90). Vandana Shiva agrees, arguing “the doctrine of prior appropriation established absolute rights to property, including the right to sell and trade water” (22). Because the appropriative doctrine “gave no preference to riparian landowners,” even those far from water sources could compete for water, a principle that “provided the essential ingredients for an efficient market in water wherein property rights were well-defined, enforced and transferable” (Anderson and Snyder 75). 

 As the title suggests, Blue Gold: World Water Wars also examines the worldwide consequences of commodifying water and offers grounding for narratives explored in fictional films like Quantum of Solace (2008), released the same year. And Blue Gold defines its purpose and rhetorical approach in its opening claim: “This is not a film about saving the environment. This is a film about saving ourselves,” narrator Malcolm McDowell declares. “Whoever goes without water for a week cries blood.” An historical overview of ancient cultures’ attempts to manage water reinforces the film’s premise. The Egyptians and Romans succeeded, where the Mayans did not because they had too little water, the film argues. Today water is a source of profit for a few but necessary for us all. Negotiating a viable resolution between these two world views serves as an objective for the film.