Nigeria is ranked among the most fragile states in the world. The country faces significant water challenges, which vary greatly from one region to another. Weak governance exacerbates these water challenges, while conflicts over water resources make governance more difficult. There are three main geographical flashpoints where conflict over water is likely to break out. In the north and northeast, Boko Haram has waged a violent insurgent campaign since 2010; among their demands is government provision of clean water. In Nigeria’s Middle Belt, changing rainfall patterns are limiting the grazing area of Muslim Fulani herders, who then encroach on the land of predominantly Christian farmers. Conflict over these lands killed more Nigerians than Boko Haram in 2016. Finally, in the Niger Delta, militant groups are attacking oil infrastructure, partially motivated by conflict over rights to land and waterways. Oil spills also contribute to food insecurity and malnutrition in this region.

In Jordan—one of the driest, most water poor countries in the world—population growth is straining the country’s aging infrastructure and limited water resources. As the Jordan country director for the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), I’ve met urban residents and business owners who have only received water from the city utility once every two weeks, relying on storage tanks to fill the gaps. I’ve spoken with water utility managers who could no longer keep up with urgent repairs, leading to bursting water pipes and sewage overflowing into streets. And farmers in the Jordan Valley have told me that each year their wells have grown drier, and they feared the next generation would be forced to give up farming olives, tomatoes, grapes, and strawberries.

“The United States should maintain a unique leadership role in global food security,” said former Senator Richard Lugar at a recent Center for International & Strategic Studies event, “The U.S. Global Food Security Strategy: Progress, Setbacks, and Forward Momentum,” which marked the one-year anniversary of the passage of the Global Food Security Act. Signed into law on July 20, 2016, the act required the interagency Feed the Future initiative to develop the first-ever U.S. Global Food Security Strategy.

“Interest in earth observation—and in particular, the value to what we do in development internationally—has never been higher,” said Jenny Frankel-Reed, adaptation team lead at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Frankel-Reed spoke at the Wilson Center’s recent panel discussion of the earth observation data program known as SERVIR, which included insights from USAID’s soon-to-be-released evaluation of the program.

In 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency charged its federal advisory committee with exploring how citizen science and crowdsourcing should be integrated into the agency’s mission. The resulting report eloquently describes how if the environment is to be protected then it’s the duty of all – the government, institutions, and citizens – to work together to achieve this.

In 2012, the U.S. National Intelligence Council judged that within the next 10 years, water problems would be a major contributor to instability in “many” countries that are of interest to the United States. South and Southeast Asia, with its many transboundary river basins, large populations, and geopolitical flashpoints, is one among a number of hotspots where such instability could occur.

Pray for rain. Mega-drought. Winter salmon run nearly extinguished. Sierra snowpack dismal. These were just some of the headlines in California newspapers over the last five years during a historic drought that elevated water security to the top of everyone’s minds.

In March, the Trump Administration released a new budget proposal that would cut funding to the Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development by 28 percent. The proposal also reduces funding to the United Nations for ongoing climate change efforts. At the same time, the White House is publicly considered withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accords, with a final decision anticipated any day. Critics both outside the administration and within have pointed to the drawbacks of these moves, but the sum of the policy changes could have an even greater impact than the individual parts.