In his essay, Armstrong provides us with a ‘water ethic’.

This ethic attempts to identify

water as a scarce resource in need of protection by humans and from humans. It outlines what

actions are “right” and “wrong” when it comes to water and how water should be shared

between human and non-human ecosystems, but fails to address to whom water should be

allocated when two of the same ecosystem are in conflict over the resource. In Water and

Power, we are introduced to the conflict for water not between humans and nature, but

between humans alone. I agree with Armstrong’s creation of a ‘water ethic’ that provides a

balance between humans and nature, but I hope to expand upon his ideas by introducing the

argument for a balance between humans, especially in California.

Armstrong states that humans have a moral obligation to protect water and everything

that relies on it. In his essay, he states that “water does not then become the end of our action

and concern, but the focus for developing a concern for the whole of landscape, the whole of

the complex matrix of life, both human and non-human that depends on it” (Armstrong 13). In

this way, Armstrong’s ‘water ethic’ reflects the biocentric view of Taylor who calls for the

environment to be regarded not as simply and end to human means, but as an intrinsically

valuable resource. An important distinction between Taylor and Armstrong, however, is that

Armstrong does not call for zero human interference, but simply for the least harmful amount.

He recognizes that human interference may cause some damage to the environment but the

‘water ethic’ would allow for only the minimum amount. The ‘water ethic’ is concerned with

the role water plays in not only human satisfaction, but also the role it plays in maintaining the

health of the natural ecosystem it provides for. Armstrong calls for human action in preserving
water sustainability so that no resource is depleted or tainted for both current human and non-

human entities in addition to future human and non-human entities.

Armstrong’s four bases for concern for the environment are Utilitarian,

Consequentialist, Intrinsic, and Theistic. Armstrong states that the Utilitarian principle for

concern “identifies value in the environment because it is useful to us” (Armstrong 10). This

principle only protects water insofar as it serves us as a species of humans. The essential

question here is who determines who “us” is? In Water and Power, “us” seems to clearly be

defined as only the major farmers and billionaires who control the massive reservoirs of water.

Armstrong stresses that Utilitarianism places a monetary value on water, rather than an

intrinsic value. In the case of the Kern County water situation, this principle seems to be held

above all others. The Consequentialist principle for concern “argues that we are responsible for

the consequences of our actions, that this responsibility rests on all human beings, and extends

to the consequences for all human beings, both present and in the future” (Armstrong 10). This

principle again takes into account the need to preserve water for human beings, however;

unlike the Utilitarian principle, the Consequentialist principle states that we must preserve so

that distant people may have access to clean and ample water sources just as we do now. In

Water and Power, the concern of those who control the water banks clearly does not include

distant people as the water needs for even current people are not being met. The Intrinsic

principle of concern “states that the environment, however defined, has value of itself, and is

not just as an object for human exploitation or enjoyment” (Armstrong 10). This more closely

flows the views of Armstrong’s ‘water ethic’. Armstrong stresses the importance of valuing an

ecosystem intrinsically over economically for the most efficient preservation of that ecosystem.
Once an ecosystem is simply regarded in terms of its economic worth, it is much easier to

destroy or deplete without feeling a sense of wrong. This is a large issue in Water and Power.

Those who control the water see it only for its investment value, not for the value it holds by

just being a staple in the environment, not just to the natural world, but also to the people

living in the counties where water shortages are most severe. The Theistic principle of concern

states that “[the environment] is the creation of a divine being, and that human beings have

responsibility to that god for their use of creation” (Armstrong 11). Christianity can be both a

powerful conserving force and a destructive force depending on how it is interpreted.

Armstrong’s ‘water ethic’ does not take into account divinity when determining the value of

water.

Armstrong’s main principle is that “a thing is right if it preserves or enhances the ability

of the water within the ecosystem to sustain life: and wrong if it decreases that ability”

(Armstrong 13). In Water and Power, there are many cases of what Armstrong defines as

“wrong”. In Lost Hills, for example, the people are impoverished and living without water while

the crops are flourishing. This only enhances the ability of water to sustain some life: the life of

the trees, but almost completely diminishes the ability of water to sustain human life. Here too

we can call upon Taylor’s theories in saying that though agricultural crops are non-human, they

are also non-natural. In this way we do not have a conflict between the human and non-human

need for water, we have a conflict between humans. Armstrong does not account for this type

of conflict in his ‘water ethic’, however the principles of “right” and “wrong” still seem to be

obvious in this scenario. The uneven distribution of water’s ability to sustain human life while

allocating all of the water resources to the crops is what makes this situation “wrong”.
 Armstrong’s ‘water ethic’ might address the competing demands for water between

humans in addition to addressing the demands for water between humans and nature by taking

into account the Fairness and Justice approach to ethics. How does one group of people receive

more value than another? How do people know where it is best to allocate their resources? In

the case of California in Water and Power, who determines whether crops that feed millions of

people or the people who live in the areas surrounding the crops are supposed to receive more

water? It is simply unfair and wrong to give some people less of an advantage than others. As

seen in California, the billionaires are the ones who are at the political center when determining

what to do with the water, and those who are poorer are left to fend for themselves. In

Australia, the exchange of stocks in water left the poor people behind because they were

unable to make large investments in large quantities of water, so they were the ones who

suffered when a drought came. All of this can be solved by simply asking the question, “is this

fair”. By putting people in office who are aware and concerned with fairness, the ‘water ethic’

can be well rounded.