The water cycle: an infinite resource, a manufactured scarcity
I thought it was good to remind everyone that "nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed" on our beautiful Mother Earth.
Water is no exception to this essential principle of transmutation, as there will always be the same amount of water on the "Blue Planet," to the last drop.
Since we are mostly made of water, we will review some simple principles of the water cycle, adding my own little twist by talking about the virtues of seawater, which is abundant and could help revitalize agriculture in a beautiful way. And much more...
A reminder from elementary school
1,400 million km³.
That's the amount of water on Earth.
A figure that has remained virtually unchanged for 3.8 billion years.
The water flowing from your tap today may have been drunk by animals from a distant past or humans from another era, frozen in an ice cap 20,000 years ago, or evaporated over a vanished ocean.
Nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed: Lavoisier's formula applies literally here. Water follows a closed cycle—evaporation, condensation, precipitation, runoff, infiltration, and then evaporation again—that knows neither beginning nor end, and especially no net loss.
It is not a resource that is consumed and depleted, like coal or oil.
It is a resource that circulates indefinitely, in constant quantity.
So why are we talking today about "water shortage," "water stress," rising bills, restrictions, and water markets?
If the global quantity doesn't change, where does this scarcity come from, which is presented to us as a natural inevitability?
The water cycle, in short
Before going further, a quick reminder of the mechanism itself:
- Evaporation: The sun heats oceans, lakes, and rivers; liquid water transforms into vapor and rises into the atmosphere.
- Condensation: At altitude, vapor cools and forms clouds.
- Precipitation: Water falls back as rain, snow, or hail.
- Runoff and infiltration: Part directly joins waterways, another part infiltrates the soil to recharge aquifers.
- Return to the sea: Rivers and streams carry water back to the oceans, and the cycle begins again.
This circuit is autonomous, free, and has been operating for billions of years without human intervention.
Therefore, "scarcity" is never a question of the available quantity on a planetary scale; it is a question of distribution, access, and above all, who controls the infrastructure that allows access to it.
From natural abundance to economic scarcity
This is where the parallel with oil becomes illuminating. Oil, we have been told for several decades, is a "finite" resource; it cannot be regenerated on a human scale.
An example to show you that all of this is false and that industrial markets are created to produce scarcity of an element or product.
"I invented nothing. I simply pieced together three processes that have been in all good chemistry books for over a century," modestly claims Grégoire Kaplan, creator of K fuel.
With this process, 4 kg of dry grass yield 1 kilo of black gold in less than a week!
"Studies conducted by a consortium of laboratories co-funded by the European Union to the tune of 9 million francs have also shown that the process could be industrialized and that the product was even more stable than gasoline, derived from fossil energy."
To learn more, there's a newspaper article here:
https://www.estrepublicain.fr/actualite/2011/05/09/l-homme-qui-fabrique-du-petrole
The parallel between water and oil is interesting because its price has never solely reflected its geological scarcity: it has been constructed, negotiated, and regulated by cartels (OPEC being the best-known example), geopolitical agreements, and voluntarily restricted production quotas to maintain prices.
Oil scarcity is organized, and the state adds its share of taxes.
And since it comes from drilling and originates underground, we cannot "see" how it is created, nor how much oil there truly is, whereas for water, the seas and oceans, as well as lakes, rivers, and streams, cannot be obscured... Nor can rain... when it falls...
With water, then, we have a resource that is truly abundant and renewable.
The mechanism may seem paradoxical, but it follows a similar logic: it is not the resource itself that is scarce, but the obligatory access points that become so.
- Control of infrastructure: pipelines, dams, treatment plants, distribution networks. Owning or operating these infrastructures—via concessions to private companies, as is the case in many French municipalities—amounts to owning a tollbooth on a commodity that, at its source, costs nothing.
- Standards and regulations: quality thresholds, treatment procedures, certifications, define who has the right to distribute, invoice, sell. These standards are necessary for public health—but they also become entry barriers that consolidate market positions.
- Taxation and pricing: each cubic meter billed includes taxes, basin agency fees, and operating margins. The price paid does not reflect the value of the water itself (zero, since it is naturally abundant) but the cost—and profitability—of the system put in place to capture, treat, and circulate it.
-
Creation of markets: water exchanges, tradable withdrawal rights, futures markets for agricultural water (as already exists in California, where water has been traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange since 2020). Yes, you read that right, since 2020. What was a natural cycle becomes a financial asset that can be speculated upon.
From Roman aqueducts to cut networks: a story of choice, not inevitability
France offers a particularly rich observation ground for understanding that the water network has never been unique or fixed: several generations of networks have overlapped, and some were abandoned long before they became technically obsolete. This will help us better understand how scarcity was created over the centuries.
The most spectacular example remains the Roman aqueduct of Nîmes, whose Pont du Gard is the best-known section. I know it well because when I was little, I often went swimming there as I am from Nîmes. My aunt, who still lives in the area, allowed me to discover this incredible place, kayak there, and rejuvenate in its water while observing this ancient structure.
Built in the 1st century, it transported by simple gravity between 30,000 and 40,000 m³ of water per day from the springs of Uzès to Nîmes, over 50 km, with a ridiculously low average gradient of 25 cm per kilometer—a technical feat that no one would repeat for several centuries. It functioned fully for only about 140 years before a gradual decline from the 3rd century, then a complete abandonment around the 6th century, as we are told in history books. No sabotage or brutal political decision here: it was the collapse of Roman administration, scaling of the canal, and cessation of maintenance that caused the work's demise. A case where abandonment follows the disappearance of the power capable of financing the network, not a lack of water. In short, we had a very efficient system that had been installed, and it was "left to die"...
Under the Ancien Régime, a completely different system was set up in Paris, for example:
Henri IV had the Samaritaine pump built on the Pont-Neuf in 1608 to draw water from the Seine, then Marie de Médicis had the Médicis aqueduct built in 1613 to supply the public fountains on the Left Bank and the Luxembourg Gardens. 
However, this royal network remained sparse and concentrated in a few districts. The essential link in distribution was the public fountains, supplied notably by the Belleville springs since the 13th century, and the water carriers, those "masters of water" who drew from the Seine or fountains to deliver to homes, for a few sous per floor.
An organized corporation, which even obtained exclusive access to certain fountains in 1698, and which numbered up to 29,000 members at the end of the 18th century:
water, a common good free at the source, then circulated via a paid but decentralized service, without meters or individual subscriptions.
It was the industrial boom of the 19th century that reshuffled the cards.
Under Napoleon III, engineer Eugène Belgrand designed a vast water supply and sanitation program between 1860 and 1866 for a capital whose population doubled in one generation. In parallel, a Water Company developed, selling individual subscriptions: 20,273 in 1861, 39,104 by 1874. A complex network developed under the city to convey water through the sewers, of which here are different types to give you an idea of the scale of engineering produced at that time.
The water carriers, meanwhile, declined at the same rate; there were still 1,253 in 1860 and only 800 in 1875 before disappearing completely on the eve of the First World War, supplanted by the arrival of running water directly into buildings from 1880.
It is precisely this shift that deserves to be questioned.
Officially, the end of fountains and water carriers was explained by hygiene: after the great cholera epidemics of the century, filtered water transported under pressure in closed pipes was considered safer than water drawn from the surface.
The health argument could be real and should not be dismissed.
(We created the problem because we wanted to impose another solution.)
However, it coincides, almost feature for feature, with the transition from a collective and lowly-charged access model "the fountain," open to all, with the carrier paid per delivery, to an individual subscription model, metered, and billed by a company.
It is also important to note that this type of disease develops with the concentration of individuals in a confined space, coupled with the problem of fecal matter management and a certain lack of hygiene among a portion of the population. Some foods can allow the proliferation of bacteria such as Vibrio cholerae (cholera vibrio), as the primary mode of contamination is the ingestion of water or food contaminated by infected fecal matter.
If we separate the networks, water cannot be subject to this kind of problem that occurred, as we see with the swine flu for example, due to an over-concentration of population and a definite lack of strategy for "living together."
When we have so much engineering serving the "common good," we still wonder how these contaminations are possible...
Could there sometimes be a deliberate oversight, to provoke interested changes?
The network of fountains was not dismantled overnight due to lack of technology: it was made secondary as another network, more profitable for its operators, established itself as the norm.
Even today, many large French cities have closed or walled up old fountains and springs that continue, beneath the roadways, to flow somewhere, cut off from the official water map more by choice of development and management than by physical necessity.
The word "potable": an admission?
There's something telling in the vocabulary itself. "Potable" does not mean "pure," "excellent," or "premium."
It literally means that which can be drunk without immediate danger.
It's a minimum threshold, not an ideal.
The word comes from the Latin potabilis, "drinkable," a standard of passable, not demanding.
Yet, at the same time, water beyond potable—filtered, mineralized, bottled, "spring," "premium"—becomes a market in its own right, with its own margins, often much more comfortable than those of tap water. We find here a dynamic common to other essential sectors (health, energy, food): a public service ensures the vital minimum, while a private offer captures the added value above this threshold.
Seawater, the forgotten element of the cycle
In this reflection on the natural abundance of water, seawater deserves a special place. It represents approximately 97% of the total volume mentioned in the introduction, the essential part of those 1,400 million km³, yet it remains largely absent from redistribution policies, confined to the role of a simple stage in the cycle rather than being considered a resource in itself.
Its composition is far from insignificant. Seawater is a complex solution that contains major mineral salts like sodium, chlorine, magnesium, calcium, potassium, sulfates, bicarbonates, but also an impressive quantity of trace elements: zinc, iron, copper, selenium, manganese, iodine, silicon. Almost all natural elements of the periodic table are found, in infinitesimal proportions, in forms that living organisms naturally assimilate.
This observation particularly fascinated the French physiologist René Quinton at the beginning of the 20th century. By comparing the mineral composition of blood plasma to that of diluted seawater, he formulated his "law of marine constancy": according to him, life originated in the oceans, and the cells of all complex organisms have retained the memory of this original environment. Based on this, he developed "marine plasma" as early as 1897, a preparation of filtered seawater which he used in dispensaries to treat patients suffering from cholera, tuberculosis, or infant malnutrition. Quinton's story remains significant, and current medicine, tied to the interests of multinationals, has never scientifically proven that marine plasma offers a superior benefit to a simple physiological solution. This is because, as you will have understood with "potable" water networks, this solution is very accessible, inexpensive to implement, and, with the notion of capitalism, becomes a significant competitor to industries that have established "lucrative" economic markets.
Seawater agriculture, still a niche approach
The same principle—using seawater as a nutrient input rather than merely a constraint to desalinate—is now inspiring agricultural experiments. Colombian journalist and researcher Laureano Domínguez, who has drawn on work with the University of Antioquia in Colombia, has for several decades promoted the use of diluted seawater for irrigating halotolerant crops (corn, rice, coffee), as well as the creation of "mareductos," systems for transporting seawater to arid lands, and salt-resistant seed banks, developed in collaboration with similar initiatives in Mexico, Argentina, and Eritrea.
I met Laureano at the Aquamour festival last year in Venice in March because I was also invited to present my work on water (including the frequencies of H2O and H3O2-). Dr. Emmanuel Carrière was also present in the same "Aquapavilion" so that the three of us could share our knowledge on informed water and seawater.
Myself with Coco Tache and Laureano Dominguez on the Venice lagoon - March 2025
Program available here:
https://sumus.community/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Programme-V.2-English-.pdf
In May 2025, I had the opportunity to go with Laureano to meet people who use seawater near Barcelona, Spain, and film several interviews, at Laureano's request, to better understand the possible applications in health and for regenerative agriculture. It's simply incredible and very encouraging because seawater is a forgotten tool that allows living organisms to have a hydrating resource with essential elements.
I am delighted to meet him again next month in Colombia, but I will explain that in a future article, along with why I am going to this beautiful country, because there is the topic of water, but also that of "inter-species bio-communication," which will be the main reason for my trip, and you will love discovering this new episode of exchanges with plants... To be continued.
The possibilities of using seawater are increasingly being explored to demonstrate its incredible potential for soil regeneration.
I was able to witness this use firsthand at Khana Shanti Vanam in India.
Located in the state of Telangana, central India, near the city of Hyderabad, this place transformed from a desert to a lush green area in less than 10 years.
I went there twice in 2024 to meet the people behind this green transformation and understand how they turned a desert into an oasis in just a few years. How they created a "rain forest." For this, I had the honor of discussing it with Dr. V Ramakantha and his daughter Ananya, along with my friends Sofia Stril-rever and Khoa Nguyen, to better understand the approach of this truly incredible place.
https://heartfulness.org/forests/ourteam/
Here is an example in a photo, showing the area hosting the world's largest Ashram, construction of which began in 2018.
And a photo from 2024:
The uses of seawater thus raise a consistent question with the rest of this article:
in a world bordered by oceans across almost all its inhabited territory, why does seawater, free at the source, available in virtually unlimited quantities, remain so underutilized compared to freshwater, which is increasingly disputed and priced?
Redistribute rather than regulate?
The argument this article makes is not that water should be absolutely free—treatment, transportation, and network maintenance all incur real human and material costs. The point is elsewhere: the scarcity presented to us as a natural constraint is, in reality, largely an organizational construct. The same infrastructures that allow water distribution could, in theory, be conceived as a common good redistributed according to needs rather than as a network generating revenue streams, financial instruments, and derivative markets.
And the other side of the coin
It would be dishonest to stop here without mentioning the opposing arguments, as the debate is far from settled:
- Pricing as a tool for sobriety: Many economists argue that a price—even symbolic—remains the most effective lever for limiting waste, especially in intensive agriculture or industry, which consume the majority of freshwater mobilized by humans.
- The real cost of infrastructure: Capturing, treating, and transporting water to the tap requires massive investments (treatment plants, aging networks, sanitary security) that public budgetary solidarity alone sometimes struggles to finance without a pricing mechanism.
- The distinction between blue water and accessible water: The 1,400 million km³ do exist, but most of it is salty (oceans) or inaccessible (ice caps, deep aquifers). Easily mobilizable freshwater represents only an infinitesimal fraction of this total—which qualifies the idea of total and immediately available abundance everywhere.
- The risk of total gratuity: Some water economists argue that totally free water, without any price signal, could encourage overconsumption in regions already experiencing water stress, aggravating imbalances between river basins.
The water cycle, meanwhile, will continue to turn, indifferent to our market structures.
The real question it poses to us is perhaps not "how much does water cost," but "who benefits from the price we put on it." Just like oil, we see that with its stock market introduction since 2020, there is a strong desire to make us believe that water is a rare commodity, even though I have just shared a sum of arguments and historical facts that clearly demonstrate a desire to create wealth from this life-giving element, rather than to care for it, preserve it as vibrantly as possible, and redistribute it as a heritage belonging to all living organisms.
Naturasounds is a project for public utility and health, aimed at reconnecting with the natural cycles around us.
Life speaks to us; let's listen.