This week, over 30,000 diplomats and delegates are converging on Paris for what has been called one of the largest gatherings of world leaders in history.  The Paris climate summit has captivated the attention of the world, including both supporters and critics of a potential climate pact.  Another, much less publicized conference is getting underway in Paris today, December 2: the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (“UNESCO”) “Eaumega 2015” conference.  The name is taken from the beginning of the French phrase for “Water, Megacities, and Global Climate Change.”

It’s no coincidence that the two conferences are being held simultaneously and in the same city.  Most scientists predict that the impacts of a changing climate on water will be severe, and may include increasingly unstable and extreme weather patterns: heavier rainfall and increased flood risk in some areas, and increased periods of drought in other areas, coupled with changes in water availability due to quantity and quality restrictions.

In light of these risks, forward-looking water policy is particularly important for megacities – generally defined as cities with a population over ten million – due to their sheer size, often complex governance models, and social heterogeneity.  Many are located in coastal areas that may experience rising sea levels.  As I have discussed in previous blog posts, water impacts will also be felt in related industries such as energy and agriculture.  The UNESCO conference is an opportunity for megacity representatives to initiate dialogue on adapting to or mitigating the effects of climate change on water resources in megacities.

Chicago – a megacity in which Marquette Law School has taken an increasing role and interest (see, for example, here, here, here, and here) – is among ten megacities that are both represented and being studied at the Paris “Eaumega” conference.  Chicago’s policymakers are presenting five new water policy initiatives. 

Process, in its various forms, is foundational to our legal system.  Water law is no exception.  For thousands of years, transboundary waters have been the root of conflict and even war.  A recent report commissioned by the State Department concluded that many more such disputes are likely in the future.  The Great Lakes Compact, a binding regional agreement between Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, has so far at least provided an interesting counter-example to this trend, in large part because the signatories were able to agree on a common decision-making process.

In many ways, in fact, the Compact is a process-driven document.  Substantively, it generally prevents new or increased diversions of Great Lakes water outside the Great Lakes Basin.  Member states must use a common, consistent decision-making standard to evaluate proposed uses of Basin water in their jurisdictions.  Some more controversial proposals, such as diversions of water to communities in “straddling” counties (more on this later) are subject to a regional review process requiring unanimous consent of the member states.  The Compact’s ultimate impact will not be known for years to come, but two early Wisconsin test cases provide interesting data points demonstrating how the process works on both state and regional levels.