Chapter 3 explores the role of water in everyday life in rural Nampula before the handpumps were constructed. Based on my ethnographic data, I describe how water was used in social, ritual, and everyday contexts, and the meanings water acquired through these activities. I argue that water has much to teach us about culture and society: its flows illuminate economic systems, social values, gender roles, power dynamics, exchange networks, and a person’s status in society. I also describe how gender roles influence men’s and women’s water practices and shape notions of what it means to be a ‘good wife and mother’. My analysis devotes special attention to the experience of water collection and the social interactions that take place between women at the water site. This theme complicates the development narrative that water collection is oppressive to women and that customary water sites should be replaced by more modern ones. The rich connections between water, gender, and society are not seen or addressed in the dominant water planning models, which treat water as an economic good that can be ‘improved’ through technology.

The Jucar Basin faces the challenge of meeting an enormous demand for irrigation while water quality degrades from urban, industrial, and agricultural pollution. Relying on engineering solutions is not enough. Empirical evidence in Jucar indicates that water markets and institutional policies seem to deal with water scarcity more successfully than water pricing and irrigation subsidies. A first water governance priority is to convince farmers of substituting freshwater for the available urban recycled water. Second, seawater desalination plants must be upgraded so they will work at full capacity. More long-term governance goals are to curtail surface irrigation diversions and groundwater extractions, and reallocating water to urban, industrial, and environmental uses. These reforms will only work if they get the support and cooperation of farmers by compensating them for the reallocation of water from agriculture to other sectors.

Water rights and water market mechanisms are key characteristics to describe water management and allocation in the Limarí Basin in Chile. The 1981 Water Code strengthens private water use rights and declares them freely tradable. Engineering infrastructure, climatic conditions, and institutional capacities in terms of tradable water rights and private water user associations allowed economic development in the Limarí Valley. However, the lack of governmental regulation has led to overexploitation of water resources threatening water security, such as environmental and agricultural sustainability. In the face of climate change and decreasing water availability, the current infrastructural and management system requires reforms.

In Chapters 8 and 9 I bring together the findings from the comparative country studies to generalise some observations about the current state of, and potential for, indigenous water rights in state law. I argue that governments must finally address historical water injustice, and respond to the exclusion indigenous people have experienced, and continue to experience, from water law frameworks. I argue that this cannot be done, if indigenous peoples lack either the jurisdiction to exercise authority and influence over water management and governance in their territories, or a fair distribution of substantive rights to use water under legal and policy frameworks. I conclude the book with a reflection on how a more complete response to indigenous water injustice might look.

In Chapters 8 and 9 I bring together the findings from the comparative country studies to generalise some observations about the current state of, and potential for, indigenous water rights in state law. I argue that governments must finally address historical water injustice, and respond to the exclusion indigenous people have experienced, and continue to experience, from water law frameworks. I argue that this cannot be done, if indigenous peoples lack either the jurisdiction to exercise authority and influence over water management and governance in their territories, or a fair distribution of substantive rights to use water under legal and policy frameworks. I conclude the book with a reflection on how a more complete response to indigenous water injustice might look.

In Chapters 8 and 9 I bring together the findings from the comparative country studies to generalise some observations about the current state of, and potential for, indigenous water rights in state law. I argue that governments must finally address historical water injustice, and respond to the exclusion indigenous people have experienced, and continue to experience, from water law frameworks. I argue that this cannot be done, if indigenous peoples lack either the jurisdiction to exercise authority and influence over water management and governance in their territories, or a fair distribution of substantive rights to use water under legal and policy frameworks. I conclude the book with a reflection on how a more complete response to indigenous water injustice might look.

In Chapter 6 I examine indigenous water rights in Colombia, specifically, the declaration by Colombia’s highest court that the Atrato River is a ‘legal subject’ in response to indigenous concerns about water management. This watershed case of November 2016 was an action for protection of constitutional rights brought in the Colombian Constitutional Court on behalf of a number of indigenous and afrodescendent communities, in response to serious environmental and humanitarian damage caused by illegal mining in the region of Chocó. I show in this chapter how the legal person model for the Atrato is adopted in recognition of the ‘biocultural rights’ of indigenous communities, but the approach is clearly not a complete answer to indigenous water injustice. Indigenous peoples also need substantive water allocations, in order to have a voice in decision making about river management and use. Yet, because the river is a subject it has representatives from the community, or guardians, and they have a voice on behalf of the river, where previously they had none. The Colombian case is highly significant, in that it underscores the strength of legal person models in creating new jurisdictions for indigenous peoples in which to participate in river sharing, governance and use.

In Chapter 4 I consider the limited recognition of traditional, cultural water rights in Australian law. In the Australian model, property rights in water and water markets accompany government oversight and planning. Australian water law has undergone drastic reforms since the early 1990s, yet little has been done to provide indigenous peoples with the right to use water on their lands for commercial and productive purposes. Native title rights to water have been interpreted narrowly by the courts according to traditional and cultural uses, and are usually accounted for as in-stream cultural and conservation values in water catchments, distinguishing them from the consumptive rights held by other users. Yet indigenous Australians continue to make up the most disadvantaged sector of Australian society and Australian governments have committed to reducing that disadvantage, including by supporting the productive use of indigenous lands. The Australian experience demonstrates the difficulties inherent in recognising historical indigenous rights to land and resources, as indigenous water practices change over time and conflict with other uses. The study highlights the need for an allocative model, enabling both the reservation of water for indigenous allocation and the redistribution of water rights in fully allocated catchments.

In Chapter 5 I consider water rights for Maori in Aotearoa New Zealand. Pursuant to a settlement between Whanganui Iwi and the Crown, made in 2017, the Whanganui River was recognised as ‘Te Awa Tupua’ (‘an indivisible and living whole, incorporating all its physical and meta-physical elements’), declaring the River to be a ‘legal person’. The arrangement accords certain guardianship and governance rights, but not property rights, to the Maori people that traditionally owned the River. However, Maori continue to agitate at a national level, both politically and before courts and tribunals, for the right to ‘own’ their water resources, amid cautious government plans for water law reform. The New Zealand study raises interesting questions about the nature of water in law; as a private right to be held and allocated, or a public interest incapable of ownership. Maori are seeking both recognition of their distinctive water relationships and influence and control over water governance and a substantive share of the consumptive pool of water for any purpose including economic development. The study of Maori rights to water in this chapter demonstrates the variability of indigenous water demands, and a need for multifaceted responses to indigenous water exclusion.