Way back in 1997, while I was still an active-duty Air Force officer, I was working a summer temporary duty assignment during the academic break at the Air Force Academy. I ended up doing this work for two summers, and it was some of the most exciting work I ever did in my 25-plus year military career.

Specifically, I was assigned to the National Security Council at the White House. It was a magical place to work, frankly. Having taught courses on our national government and the presidency in particular, it was a thrill, every day, to work my way through the tourists muddling around and passing through security and onto the White House grounds. I never forgot to tingle, just a little bit, as I walked up the road between the White House proper and the Old Executive Office Building, now called the Eisenhower Office Building, where my own office was. But I spent as much time as I could in the West Wing (spoiler: though a great TV show, “The West Wing” is wildly inaccurate in terms of the layout of that building. They got the Oval Office about right, but the rest, not so much…

Anyway…

My Ph.D. work and dissertation focused on environmental security for the U.S. and the world, and I worked on lots of environmental issues with security implications, large and small. I was, for example, the White House point person on what I started calling “the Great Canadian Salmon War.” It was actually a minor kerfuffle about fishing rights, but it got tense there for a bit.

Toward the end of my first White House tour, I was tasked by my NSC boss, at the suggestion of the DOD undersecretary for environmental issues, to write up a very interesting document. President Bill Clinton had ordered each cabinet department to report on the likely future effects of climate change (often mistakenly called “global warming”) on that department’s primary missions.

Because of my background, I was tasked with evaluating and summarizing the effects of climate change on the Department of Defense (sorry, certain current officials, it is still the DOD, and not the “Department of War.” It takes an act of Congress to change a department’s name, not just some bold claim by a foolish president and some new letterhead).

But I digress…

Ultimately, back in 1997 I concluded that, for the DOD, many of the most significant effects would be around water and water use. For example, rising sea levels due to ice melting would cause some Navy facilities to need to raise their docks, a costly exercise. And that is exactly what is happening now, some 29 years later. Oh, and an interesting aside — ice that is floating in water, such as icebergs and the Arctic ice pack, do not contribute to sea level rise, as ice takes up more physical space as ice than it does as water when it melts. That’s why your iced drink doesn’t run over the top of the glass when the ice melts.

What really matters is when ice located on land melts.

Think Iceland and Antarctica. That ice is out of the water and when it melts, the runoff raises ocean levels. There are places like Bangladesh where the highest point in the country is only four meters above sea level, and you can imagine the problem.

The other main conclusion my report reached concerned drinking water, obviously a vital interest of any nation. I predicted there would be two types of future wars over drinking water. The first type would be war fought over access to drinking water (think Lebanon today), wherein militaries would fight to gain access and control over sources of water for drinking, agriculture and other needs.

The second type of war I predicted would involve water would be conflicts that are seemingly “traditional” in nature, but where water becomes a force multiplier, an added complication to achieving peace.

My report was accepted and served as the basis for the final DOD product, I’m told.

But what about conflicts over water within a country? Let’s turn to Colorado, shall we? (Editor: it’s about time). A recent Colorado Politics story, based on a press release from U.S. Rep Jeff Hurd of the 3rd Congressional District, notes quite a bit of cooperation, across the aisle, on critical water issues related to tribal communities, especially in western and southern Colorado.

Last week I startled my editor by saying nice things about Hurd, and here’s even more good stuff: he’s working across the aisle with my old boss, U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, as well as Sen. John Hickenlooper and U.S. Rep. Brittany Pettersen to introduce the “Western Tribal Water Act.” Reliable water is both vital and problematic in many tribal areas

Building on earlier legislation, this new act would specifically reauthorize the existing Indian Reservation drinking water program through 2028, as well as increase water spending and prioritizing 10 different tribal drinking water programs in the Upper Colorado River Basin.

There are so many reasons why this is a good proposal, not the least of which is it is about darn time we recognize the moral obligation our nation has to tend to our first citizens.

I admit, it pains me a bit to — twice now — praise Rep. Hurd, but when someone does the right thing, he or she should be applauded. I confess I’m not terribly optimistic this legislation will make it through the House and Senate, let along get a signature from a president who seems to have declared war on quite a few things, including the environment, but I hope so.

It is a good piece of legislation, proffered in a bipartisan manner, specifically to help groups of Americans all too often overlooked. But, fingers crossed, let’s hope for the best.

Stay tuned.

Hal Bidlack is a retired professor of political science and a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who taught more than 17 years at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.