tampered with, even though the pipeline doesn't run directly through the lake. lake oahe provides basic water necessities for the sioux tribe such as drinking water and for sanitation. the construction of the oil pipeline means that there is a higher risk of an oil spill into lake oahe, which made the tribe concerned. the sioux tribe sued the dapl company as they believed that the creation of the pipeline was violating the national environmental policy act and the national historic preservation act. after the 2016 briefing, the court was unable to come to a conclusion, so the court decided to do additional briefings. after 5 briefings in 2017 and 1 briefing in 2018, the court has allowed the construction of the pipeline, but the standing rock tribe continues to fight to ensure that pipeline is removed. australia the attention in australia is focused on the rights of indigenous australians to water and sanitation. history of settler-colonialism overshadows today's state governance that regulates water use to indigenous australians. there are many governmental agreements, but most of them are incomplete to fully influence power to the indigenous right to water and sanitation. in mabo v queensland, 1992, native rights were legally recognized at the first time. indigenous australians often claim cultural bonds to the land. although "culture" was recognized in the court as much as land resources, cultural and spiritual value of aborigines to water body are fuzzy. it is challenging but needed to transcend their cultural and spiritual values into legal sphere. for now, there is virtually no progress. australian water law basically prescribes surface water for citizens who can use surface water but cannot own. in the constitution, however, there is no description about inland and riparian water. therefore, the sphere of inland/riparian water rights are the primary mandates of the state. the commonwealth government obtains authority over water by borrowing the help of external relationship, including the grants power, trade and commerce power. in 2000, the federal court concluded the agreement that allowed indigenous landowners to take water for traditional purposes. however, the use is limited to traditional purpose, which did not include irrigation as a traditional practice. in june 2004, coac concluded an intergovernmental accord on a national water initiative (nwi), promoting recognition of indigenous right to water. however, nwi is not concerned broadly about complex history of settler-colonialism, which has systematically created an unequal pattern of water distribution. indigenous people in australia are constantly seeking the right to water. remaining discussions transboundary effects ethiopia's move to fill the grand ethiopian renaissance dam's reservoir could reduce nile flows by as much as 25% and devastate egyptian farmlands. following russia's annexation of crimea, ukraine blocked the north crimean canal, which provided 85% of crimea's fresh water. given the fact that access to water is a cross-border source of concern and potential conflict in the middle east, south asia, the eastern mediterranean and parts of north america amongst other places, some non-governmental organizations (ngos) and scholars argue that the right to water also has a trans-national or extraterritorial aspect. they argue that given the fact that water supplies naturally overlap and cross borders, states also have a legal obligation not to act in a way that might have a negative effect on the enjoyment of human rights in other states. the formal acknowledgement of this legal obligation could prevent the negative effects of the global "water crunch" (as a future threat and one negative result of human over-population). water shortages and increasing consumption of freshwater make this right incredibly complicated. as the world population rapidly increases, freshwater shortages will cause many problems. a shortage in the quantity of water brings up the question of whether or not water should be transferred from one country to another. water dispute between india and pakistan the water dispute between india and pakistan is influenced by the scarcity of water in the south asian region. the two countries have a pre-existing agreement known as the indus waters treaty. the treaty was formed to limit the conflict between india and pakistan regarding the use of the indus basin and allocate water supply for both countries after the countries gained independence. however, disagreements regarding it have surfaced. according to the treaty, india is allowed to use the western river basin for irrigation and non-consumptive purposes, while pakistan has the majority of control over the basin. however, pakistan has voiced concerns that india's construction on the rivers may lead to severe water scarcity in pakistan. moreover, pakistan voiced that the dams constructed by india for non-consumptive purposes may be used to divert water flow and disrupt pakistan's water supply. in addition, the treaty involves rivers that originate from jammu and kashmir, which have been excluded from control over their own water bodies. water commercialization versus state provision contention exists regarding whose, if anyone's, responsibility it is to ensure the human right to water and sanitation. often, two schools of thought emerge from such discourse: it is the state's responsibility to provide access to clean water to people versus the privatization of distribution and sanitation. the commercialization of water is offered as a response to the increased scarcity of water that has resulted due to the world population tripling while the demand for water has increased six-fold. market environmentalism uses the markets as a solution to environmental problems such as environmental degradation and an inefficient use of resources. supporters of market environmentalism believe that the managing of water as an economic good by private companies will be more efficient than governments providing water resources to their citizens. such proponents claim that the government costs of developing infrastructure for water resource allocation is not worth the marginal benefits of water provision, thus deeming the state as an ineffective provider of water. moreover, it is argued that water commodification leads to more sustainable water management due to the economic incentives for consumers to use water more efficiently. the opponents believe that the consequence of water being a human right excludes private sector involvement and requires that water should be given to all people because it is essential to life. access to water as a human right is used by some ngos as a means to combat privatization efforts. a human right to water "generally rests on two justifications: the non-substitutability of drinking water ("essential for life"), and the fact that many other human rights which are explicitly recognized in the un conventions are predicated upon an (assumed) availability of water (e.g. the right to food)." organizations organizations working on the rights to water and sanitation are listed below. united nations organizations ohchr (un office of the high commissioner on human rights) undp unicef sanitation and water for all governmental cooperation agencies dfid (united kingdom's cooperation agency) giz (german corporation for international cooperation) sdc (swiss agency for development and cooperation) epa (united states environmental protection agency) international non-governmental organizations and networks action against hunger (acf) blood:water center for water security and cooperation freshwater action network (fan) pure water for the world the digdeep right to water project the pacific institute the water project transnational institute with the water justice project uusc wateraid waterlex (defunct as of 2020) peacejam