Interview by Sumbul Mashhadi  

Morgan Shimabuku co-leads one of the most consequential and sobering datasets in the global water space: the Water Conflict Chronology (now part of the Water and Peace Initiative). It is the world’s most comprehensive open-source record of water-related violence, spanning more than 4,500 years of human history and now documenting over 2,700 incidents where water has served as a trigger, a weapon, or a casualty of conflict. The most recent update, released in November 2025, added more than 840 new events and the numbers have never been higher. 

Sumbul: You work closely with the Water Conflict Chronology data. When you saw the sharp rise in incidents over the past few years, what stood out to you most? 

Morgan: Three things really stood out. The first is the question of whether this rise is happening because there is genuinely more violence in the world, or because water is becoming a more specific flashpoint and trigger in more places? Or maybe it’s both. That’s something we are still working to understand. 

The second thing is that while larger international conflicts tend to dominate media attention, the data tells a different story. Subnational conflicts including small, local-level events, make up over 60% of all water-related incidents. It’s community-level disputes, not just headline wars, that are driving much of the increase. 

And the third is where these conflicts concentrate, which is the Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Southern Asia. These are places where water governance may be weak, access deeply inequitable, and infrastructure is not always sufficient to meet basic human, economic, and environmental needs. That teaches us something important about the relationship between water insecurity and violence. 

Sumbul: Water infrastructure is increasingly being targeted in conflicts around the world. What does this shift tell us about how water is being viewed in today’s geopolitical landscape? 

Morgan: Wells, irrigation systems, hydroelectric dams, water and wastewater treatment plants – these are being destroyed or damaged in active conflict zones. But this does not reflect a fundamental change in how those waging conflict view water. 

What may have changed is how we are reporting on it. 

Journalists are increasingly recognizing what it means when a desalination plant is taken out, not just as a military event, but as a human one. The people who depend on that plant for drinking water, for their livelihoods, are severely affected. That impact is now being surfaced in ways it wasn’t before. 

What hasn’t changed is the behavior itself. Some of the earliest entries in the Chronology from thousands of years ago, document kings and warriors attacking the irrigation canals of their enemies. Targeting water is as old as conflict itself. What is new is that the world has started to pay closer attention. 

Sumbul: Some people may think of water conflict as something that happens primarily in war zones or lower-income countries. What vulnerabilities in places like the United States or Europe are still widely underestimated? 

Morgan: Water-related violence has been recorded on every continent except Antarctica, so far. That alone is a signal that this is not a problem confined to one part of the world. 

Even in wealthier nations, disputes over water scarcity, pollution, and inequitable access have led to violent protests in France, Spain, the United States, and acts of sabotage to water systems in Ireland, the UK, and Greece. It happens everywhere.  

And then there is a growing category that we are tracking which is cyberattacks on critical water infrastructure like dams, treatment plants, and water systems. These incidents are likely underreported because utilities have a strong incentive not to appear vulnerable. But the fact that industry associations are now actively training members on how to prevent these attacks is itself evidence that the threat is real and growing. As more infrastructure becomes internet-connected, the risk only rises. 

Sumbul: Behind every data point is a real community. In your work, how do you think about the human impact of these incidents? 

Morgan: That’s a hard question. Only because it is something I have to do in this work. I do at times try to separate myself from thinking about the human impact too deeply, because it is so upsetting. 

What the data consistently show is that water conflict hits the most vulnerable people hardest. Women and children who travel long distances every day just to collect water, and face violence in the process. Refugees who have already been displaced once, then targeted again while trying to find water, or caught in conflict within camps where there simply isn’t enough. Indigenous communities whose water resources are being taken or threatened by outside interests, without their consent or meaningful participation. 

Probably the hardest part of this job is reading the accounts and seeing how it really affects people on the ground. 

I want our work to help mitigate and reduce the incidence of violence. I want it to contribute to a more peaceful world so that people and families can do that without fear of violence. 

For more information, contact: