"Control of Water Resources (state and non-state actors): where water supplies or access to water is at root of tensions. Military Tool (state actors): where water resources, or water systems themselves, are used by a nation or state as a weapon during a military action. Political Tool (state and non-state actors): where water resources, or water systems themselves, are used by a nation, state, or non-state actor for a political goal. Terrorism (non-state actors): where water resources, or water systems, are either targets or tools of violence or coercion by non-state actors. Military Target (state actors): where water resource systems are targets of military actions by nations or states. Development Disputes (state and non-state actors): where water resources or water systems are a major source of contention and dispute in context of economic and social development." Mark de Villiers, author of "Water Wars" contrasts, in ITT's aforementioned Guidebook, two opposing views about likelihood of water-related conflicts. Thomas Homer-Dixon, Canadian security analyst says:

"Water supplies are needed for all aspects of national activity, including production and use of military power, and rich countries are as dependent on water as poor countries are ... Moreover, about 40 percent of world's population lives in 250 river basins shared by more than one country ... But ... wars over river water between upstream and downstream neighbors are likely only in a narrow set of circumstances. The downstream country must be highly dependent on water for its national well-being; upstream country must be able to restrict river's flow; there must be a history of antagonism between two countries; and, most important, downstream country must be militarily much stronger than upstream country."

Frederick Frey, of University of Pennsylvania, disagrees:

"Water has four primary characteristics of political importance: extreme importance, scarcity, maldistribution, and being shared. These make internecine conflict over water more likely than similar conflicts over other resources. Moreover, tendencies towards water conflicts are exacerbated by rampant population growth and water-wasteful economic development. A national and international 'power shortage,' in sense of an inability to control these two trends, makes problem even more alarming."

Who is right?

The citizens of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu states in India are enmeshed in bloody skirmishes over waters of Carvery River. Colonel Quaddafi has been depleting Iittoral aquifer in Sahara for decades now - to detriment of all his neighbors - yet, not a single violent incident has been recorded. Last year, Rio Grande has failed to reach Gulf of Mexico - for first time in many decades. Yet, no war erupted between USA and Mexico.

As water become more scarce, market solutions are bound to emerge. Water is heavily subsidized and, as a direct result, atrociously wasted. More realistic pricing would do wonders on demand side. Water rights are already traded electronically in USA. Private utilities and water markets are next logical step.

Water recycling is another feasible alternative. Despite unmanageable financial problems and laughable prices, municipality of Moscow maintains enormous treatment plants and re-uses most of its water.

Wars are outcomes of cultures and mores. Not every casus belli leads to belligerence. Not every conflict, however severe, ends in battle. Mankind has invented numerous other conflict-resolution mechanisms. There is no reason to assume that water would cause more warfare than oil or national pride. But water scarcity sure causes dislocation, ethnic tension, impoverishment, social anomy, and a host of other ills. It is in fending off these pernicious, all-pervasive, and slow-acting social processes that we should concentrate our efforts.

Automation of public nuisance was inevitable. As cities expanded, it was getting harder and harder for public nuisance to be everywhere at once and provide adequate disturbance to entire population.

It was also very inefficient to have individual public nuisances repeating same tasks in each part of town.

And then there was issue of quality control. Who would ensure that all public nuisances were serving community to same standards? Who would ensure accountability and integrity? Some public nuisances have been known to take payola.

"Hey. You. What's that stench?"

"I'm just cracking a few eggs to throw at your house."

"Why at my house? What did I do?"

"Nothing. But you have a fancy house and I figured you would be most willing to provide me an incentive to throw them somewhere else."

"What!? This is extortion!"

"Yes."

"I see. Well, Smithers down road has been way too uppity this week, so here's a little something to go be a his public nuisance tonight."

"Thank you, Sir. It's been a pleasure disturbing you."

I was stumped. I really had no idea how to end this column. "Maybe public nuisance should be a she," I mused

"Why a she?" my wife asked.

"Because people complain if I just assume my characters are "he". The trouble is, whenever I make them "she", somebody wants to know why I'm picking on women."

"They would if you make public nuisance a woman," my wife observed.

"Are you saying women are never nuisances?"

"Everybody knows that you men cause all public disturbances," my wife poked me.

"That's because men get bored you women try on more clothes and more clothes and more clothes. We are just trying to keep things interesting"

"Men have such a short attention span..."

Suddenly I knew how to end column: In our household, we have no need for a public nuisance – automated or manual. We each have our own private nuisance, whom we love very much.

"That's no way to end a column," my private nuisance insisted. "Why not tell them about how you would get rid of public nuisances once and for all?"

"Shhh. Don't tell them. That's next week's column."