The Clean Water Restoration Act of 2007 (CWRA 2007) was first introduced in the 110th Congress. It didn't get far, but that has never stopped a politician from trying. Immediately after the swearing in of the 111th Congress on April 2, 2009, the bill was reintroduced in the Senate by Senator Russ Feingold on behalf of a host of senators from other states. Now titled the Clean Water Restoration Act (CWRA) (S.787), it has broad support. Amidst the ruckus over the economy, landowners haven't noticed that the jesters in Washington are about to steal something more valuable than gold, natural gas, or oil. They're coming for the water, all of the water.

Drove my Chevy to the levee

We've all heard the statistics. Americans use more oil than any other country. We consume massive amounts of energy and goods. We also consume more water than anyone else, and like oil, gas, gold, and other non-renewable resources, there's only so much to go around. People can live without fuel and precious metals. We can live for quite some time without food, as long as there's potable water. After three days without water, however, death is certain and slow. Water is the most valuable resource on the planet, and the most profitable.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, every American uses 80-100 gallons of fresh water daily. Add to that the nearly two million gallons of water used each day by the nation's 140 ethanol plants; what we end up with is a staggering amount of consumption with almost no thought about where the water comes from. We just turn on the faucet and there it is—clean and clear. But it has to come from somewhere. As the sources of fresh water are depleted, corporations, utilities and governments are forced to look for new reserves. The problem is, nearly all the sources of fresh water on the planet have been claimed.

The marching band refused to yield

The ongoing drought in the Southeast has spawned a flurry of legal action between states. The State of Mississippi sued the city of Memphis, Tennessee for a billion dollars, claiming Memphis has not paid for 372 million gallons of water it has pumped from an aquifer across the state line since 1965. The case was ultimately thrown out by a federal judge, but not before a similar suit was filed against the Army Corps of Engineers by the State of Georgia. The State claimed that the Corps was illegally diverting water to Florida and Alabama. Georgia lost when the Supreme Court refused to reverse a lower court ruling against the State.

Hoover Dam supplies hydro electricity to millions of people in the southwest.

As the water supply dwindled, so did Atlanta's charm. Tourism dropped dramatically and the mood was as burnt and brown as the formerly well-preened lawns of the suburbs. In what was either a desperate move or a poorly executed attempt at productivity, two Georgia legislatures introduced a bill that would move the northern border of Georgia one mile further north, ensuring the Tennessee River would be firmly inside of the Georgia state line. As one might expect, neither Tennessee nor North Carolina were agreeable.

In Colorado, it's the same issue, water rights, but a different struggle. Colorado landowners are selling their water rights to the burgeoning shale oil extraction business. To produce 1.5 million barrels of oil it takes roughly 375,000 acre-feet of water, and while the West is ripe with shale oil, it is decidedly short on water.

Colorado law allows for generous use of water from the rivers in the Western region. Anyone who can show that such a diversion would be put to good use is allowed to siphon water from the rivers, including big oil companies like Exxon Mobil and Shell. By some estimates, big energy corporations have bought the rights to enough water to supply the entire city of Denver for six years, or 6.5 billion gallons. The argument for allowing this is based on the current economic conditions and our dependence on foreign oil, and a promise that ethanol will somehow free us from both. However, as most reasoned people understand, this arrangement amounts to nothing more than exchanging one dependency for another. As water is diverted for oil extraction, less is available to irrigate farm fields, leading to a higher dependence on imported food.

This isn't the first time in American history that business interests and agricultural interests have clashed over water. November 21, 1924 was the beginning of what historians call the Owens Valley War. In the pre-dawn hours, an explosion destroyed part of the critical infrastructure of the Los Angeles Aqueduct. The structure for carrying water from outlying areas into the growing city of Los Angeles was the crowning achievement of the head of the Los Angeles Department Water and Power, William Mulholland. He used his connections to buy, and some suggest out-and-out steal, water rights from landowners in Owens Valley some 200 miles from Los Angeles. The farmers of Owens Valley quickly found themselves with no water to raise their animals and crops, and no income.

The residents of Owens Valley watched with muted bewilderment as government workers destroyed their orchards, roads, fields and buildings in order to divert water from the Owens River. The people fought back, and the attacks on the aqueduct continued for months. Mulholland, however, remained undeterred, announcing his only regret about the level of destruction was that there weren't enough trees left in Owens Valley to hang all the resistors that lived there.

Them good ol' boys

Enter the Federal Government. Against the backdrop of our gluttonous over-consumption of water, members of Congress are trying to ensure that there is enough water to go around. That's their first error in logic. There isn't enough to go around, not in the U.S. and not anywhere else either at the rate we're consuming it. According to Charity: Water, a non-profit organization bringing clean water to developing countries, 1.1 billion people don't have access to clean, safe water. This global shortage of available, accessible water has led to open conflict among villages and tribes in these regions. The Global Policy Forum warns that a lack of water now threatens to send 50 nations on five continents to the brink of war.

Melissa Ida refills her water bottle and thermos at a public artisian spring in Chequamegon National Forest, Wisconsin.

In order to head off what could be a crisis far more severe than the one we are now enveloped in, members of the Senate reintroduced the Clean Water Restoration Act. It's not a long bill, as bills go. It gets straight to the point. The Government will control all of the water on all land, public or private, in the United States. The purpose of CWRA is clearly stated: "To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify the jurisdiction of the United States over waters of the United States." And what do they want to amend? They want to change the definition of the term "waters of the United States." The current language only includes water on federal land and navigable waterways. Here's the new language:

(25) WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES- The term "waters of the United States" means all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, the territorial seas, and all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries, including lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds, and all impoundments of the foregoing, to the fullest extent that these waters, or activities affecting these waters, are subject to the legislative power of Congress under the Constitution. (Click Here to read the bill in its entirety.)

In short, every body of water, even that ditch out front that temporarily fills up in the spring, will be controlled by the Army Corp of engineers and other yet-to-be-determined government agencies. The new language gives federal agencies, not Congress, the ability to divert water from areas like the Great Lakes to parched states thousands of miles away. Proponents point to the certain creation of high-paying jobs that will be created through nationalization of the country's water. Opponents point to the rights of landowners and states to manage their own resources. Everywhere you look, someone's pointing, but very few are thinking.

Drinking whiskey and rye

The second error in logic made by the bill's sponsors is that the federal government can be an effective steward of all that water. Passing CWRA will result in new agencies, new personnel, new litigation, and a host of other new creations, all requiring exorbitant amounts of tax-payer money. We've all seen how well Congress handled the last batch of tax-payer cash they commandeered. What proof do we have that they will be effective with additional funds they are sure to need? Surely it would be a far more cost-effective strategy to curb consumption.

While reasoned people agree the issue of water rights is a complex one, the thought of putting a federal agency in charge of every last drop of water in the United States is unsettling, to say the least. Yet, if the current level of consumption is allowed to go unchecked, the resulting environmental and economic damage could catapult us from the frying pan into the fire.

Once again, the answer lies in personal responsibility. Each of us can curb our unnecessary consumption. Over the years, Countryside readers have shown a great deal of forward-thinking initiative and have devised ways to conserve this life-sustaining resource:

• Save the water from your bath/shower as well as dish water and use it to water house plants and outside plants near the house.
• Get rid of your dishwasher.
• Put a brick or a gallon-jug full of water in the tank of the commode.
• Build a composting toilet—they don't use any water at all.
• Collect rainwater for use in the garden.
• Don't let the water run while you brush your teeth or wash your face.
• Limit showers to 10 minutes or less.
• Install low-flow faucets and shower heads.
• Fix all leaks as soon as they are discovered.
• Shorten the wash cycle on your washer. (You'll find many more tips in the 1999 Countryside Anthology.)

We have to be mindful of our water consumption. Do we really need that bottle of water from Fiji, where the indigenous population has almost no access to clean drinking water? Is it worth the extra cost in money and human suffering to be chic? After all, test after test has confirmed that there is no discernable taste from one bottle of water to the next. A simple awareness of how much water we use, and a commitment to cut down even a little, will have a profound effect on the price and availability across the country and around the world.

Barring the effort of responsible individuals to conserve water, the federal government will see themselves as forced to act. They perform poorly enough when they act of their own free will. When they're forced to act, the consequences are always harshest for the most responsible among us. If CWRA passes, small-scale farmers and homesteading landowners will suffer a blow to their sustainable lifestyles. No longer will we be able to allow our animals to drink from a swollen spring or creek without government approval. The water in our wells will be subject to government restrictions on use. The water on our land will be subject to diversion to another area any time a government agency sees fit to do so.

We'll be following this bill as it moves through committee. Be sure to check for updates on our blog, The Scarecrow Chronicles.