US attack on Canada via water contaminants

DasFX

Electoral Member
Dec 6, 2004
859
1
18
Whitby, Ontario
Turning the taps on a toxic dispute
North Dakota set to launch flood plan
Canada fears pollution will flow in


TIM HARPER
WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON - The Sheyenne River begins in North Dakota, leisurely meanders its way eastward, takes a little dip south, then joins the Red River for its northward jaunt into Manitoba.

There it runs smack into what has become the most acrimonious dispute in the growing cauldron of bilateral battles between Ottawa and Washington.

At issue is North Dakota's determination to open the taps, possibly by July 1, on a $28 million (U.S.) water diversion project that Canada maintains will send mercury, salts, sulphates and fish parasites north of the border, polluting Manitoba waters.

Not only is the environment threatened, but also a nearly century-old treaty governing Canada-U.S. border waters.

"How can the United States impose `democratic values' around the world when it can't implement democratic treaties between Canada and the United States?" asks Manitoba Premier Gary Doer.


Canada says the Devils Lake project, intended to prevent flooding in North Dakota, threatens Lake Winnipeg's multimillion recreational and commercial fishery, and could ultimate flush contamination all the way up to Hudson Bay.

The project would reduce the level of flood-prone Devils Lake by letting 170,000 litres per minute flow into the Sheyenne.

North Dakota denies the water is polluted.

Earlier this month, the North Dakota State Supreme Court agreed the Devils Lake outlet will degrade the water quality of the Red River — but it refused Manitoba's bid to stop construction of the 23-kilometre project.

Canada, led by Doer, is asking U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to refer the dispute to the International Joint Commission, the cross-border authority created to resolve disputes as part of the 96-year-old Canada-U.S. Boundary Waters Treaty.

To allow North Dakota to ignore the treaty is to essentially render the bilateral agreement useless and set a precedent that threatens any Canadian region bordering on the Great Lakes or other transnational water bodies, Ottawa says.

"We certainly don't want to celebrate Canada Day with North Dakota unilaterally turning on the taps," Doer said.

In the Commons yesterday, Prime Minister Paul Martin called North Dakota's actions "simply unacceptable" and said Canada would continue to press the U.S. In Texas earlier this year, Martin went out of his way to publicly raise the Devils Lake dispute at a joint news conference with U.S. President George W. Bush.

"The fact is that I have raised this with the president and ... we are in constant negotiation now with the Americans," Martin said. "I am not in a position to say when those negotiations will conclude but ... we will leave no stone unturned in solving this problem."

Doer is convinced the White House, through Martin's efforts, realizes the importance and urgency of the matter.

"If a state or a province can develop a state or provincial project that has water cross the international border with no scientific review of its impact, it ignores a treaty which has been there for almost 100 years," Doer said. "We'd hate to blow 100 years of treaty over a couple of inches of water because no one has the backbone to take on North Dakota."

Some observers in North Dakota have accused Doer of playing the always-popular anti-American card and suggested Washington's lack of eagerness to move stems from lingering coolness over Martin's decision to opt out of the U.S. missile defence plan and a sense here that until recently it appeared his government was going to collapse.

Privately, some Canadian officials complain that some powerful legislators who would be expected to rally to Ottawa's environmental argument are more occupied with the politics in Washington, watching how alliances unfold.

The object of most of the Canadian frustration is North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad, who got into a war of words two months ago with Reg Alcock, Martin's political minister for Manitoba.

Conrad accused Alcock of engaging in "theatrics" after he claimed Conrad had snubbed him by not meeting him in Washington to discuss the Devils Lake project.

The state's senior senator, Conrad, a 57-year-old Democrat with almost two decades in the Senate, also helped lead the recent Senate resolution to keep Canadian beef exports banned from the U.S. He is backed by his fellow Democrat, Byron Dorgan, and the pair wield unusual power on Capitol Hill.

Doer and Ottawa have lined up support from powerful allies to the north, south, east and west of North Dakota — but Dorgan and Conrad are using their seniority and key positions on the Senate appropriations committee to their advantage.

The Grand Forks Herald, in an editorial last month, pointed out that anti-Americanism plays well on the Canadian left, but also pointed out that North Dakota politicians play to the xenophobia of the tiny state. The newspaper pointed out that Dorgan has made Canada the scapegoat on several issues.

Last week, Conrad had a private meeting with David Wilkins, the new U.S. ambassador to Canada, then released a statement saying he stressed to the new envoy the diversion project cannot be delayed. He told Wilkins the average length of time for the International Joint Commission to decide on a dispute is 8 1/2 years.

Canadian embassy spokesperson Jasmine Pantakhy called the 8 1/2-year claim "spurious." That average time includes dispute resolution hearings that were interrupted by such things as world wars.

Canada, she said, has agreed to abide by any decision of the joint commission and said some disputes have been resolved in as a few as six months. Of 53 disputes referred to the commission, 51 have been resolved by mutual agreement.

Doer has managed to cobble together Canadian support at all political levels and the embassy here has brought many influential U.S. voices on side.

In Canada, Quebec Environment Minister Thomas Mulcair and Premier Jean Charest as well as Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty have spoken out in support of Doer. And Toronto Mayor David Miller has teamed with Chicago Mayor Richard Daley to spearhead opposition to North Dakota on behalf of mayors of Great Lakes cities.

"If this is not referred to the (International Joint Commission)," Mulcair said at a recent conference, "I'm really concerned that 100 years of a stable institutional relationship with the Americans on this important issue of water might be lost and that would be a tragedy."

In Ottawa, Winnipeg Centre MP Pat Martin said yesterday Canada should use trade sanctions if necessary to stop North Dakota from diverting polluted water into his province.

The New Democrat made the comment after the Commons environment committee demanded decisive federal action to stop the water diversion.

With files from Susan Delacourt

and Canadian Press
 

mrmom2

Senate Member
Mar 8, 2005
5,380
6
38
Kamloops BC
Typical US response these assholes don't care about anybody or thing :evil: Your with us or you can lick our boots :evil:
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: US attack on Canada v

North Dakota has quite a reputation of solving their problems by dumping them on somebody else. That's why Doer was able to garner support from so many US states...they've all had North Dakota try to screw them over in the past.

That Bush is too stupid to understand exactly how important this is and what it will do to the water treaty and the IJC should be a national embarrassment to the United States.

Hopefully, whether Ottawa introduces sanctions or not, the US will smarten the f*ck up and stop this mess. If they don't, North Dakota can kiss their tourism industry goodbye at any rate. Manitoba is North Dakota's tourism industry. We are a major part of their economy. That will be gone for them...Minnesota is almost as handy to drive to and prettier to look at. Montana has better prices on cigarettes and beer and you can drive fast there.

North Dakotans will also find themselves unwelcome around here to a large extent. Winnipeg is the closest big city for most of them, and Lake Winnipeg, especially Gimli because of the Icelandic connection, is a popular destination for North Dakotans. It won't be if they turn that spigot on. The fishery is the biggest industry in Gimli and these bastards are endangering it.
 

mrmom2

Senate Member
Mar 8, 2005
5,380
6
38
Kamloops BC
Hey Rev i've got a uncle that lives in Gimli 8) I love it there his wife is one of those blonde hair blue eyed beautys from iceland :wink:
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: US attack on Canada v

All the women out there look like that. It's amazing. I went out to look at a Spitfire once and the guy sold it before I got there. I didn't mind though...seeing his wife and sister in-law made the trip worth while.
 

no1important

Time Out
Jan 9, 2003
4,125
0
36
56
Vancouver
members.shaw.ca
RE: US attack on Canada v

I guess there will be more floods in Manitoba because of this. I see Red river is 3 metres (10 feet) higher than normal for this time of year, so with all that extra water, Manitoba would flood every spring???????
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: US attack on Canada v

During flood years it will be worse. We can manage most of that without much additional damage though. The real problem is the foreign biota they will release into the Red River/Lake Winnipeg system though. The effects could reach all the way to Hudson's Bay.
 

s_lone

Council Member
Feb 16, 2005
2,233
30
48
42
Montreal
Canada absolutely has to win this battle. I am a not-so-convinced seperatist from Quebec willing to consider the option of staying Canadian and even feeling Canadian. But if I stay Canadian, I want a country who will stand up for itself and not be bullied around by the big fat guy down south.

If Canada loses this battle, it would be exactly the type of thing that would kill my enthusiasm for being Canadian. I can assure you that Canada has a much bigger chance of keeping Quebec if it stands up for itself. Quebecers are proud and resistant people and they want to feel that the "rest of canadians" are the same.
 

no1important

Time Out
Jan 9, 2003
4,125
0
36
56
Vancouver
members.shaw.ca
RE: US attack on Canada v

I guess it could hurt the fishing on Lake Winnipeg? When I lived in Winnipeg back in late 80's the commercial whitefish fishery was pretty big.

Couldn't the Americans send their polluted water to an American system instead?
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: US attack on Canada v

It will most defintiely hurt the fishery, No 1. The pollutants will do enough damage, but the foreign biota are the worst. That's what will kill Lake Winnipeg in the end.
 

DasFX

Electoral Member
Dec 6, 2004
859
1
18
Whitby, Ontario
I think North Dakota is bitter at Manitoba for taking over their World Junior tournament in Grand Forks and turning it into a Canadian event.

Canada is fighting, but the US is so stubborn and does not follow international law. The US only understands one language, the language of bullets and bombs.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
I think its a bit of a strech to say "US attack on Canada via water contaminants"

I'm 100% sure they are not attacking us....
 

DasFX

Electoral Member
Dec 6, 2004
859
1
18
Whitby, Ontario
Jay said:
I think its a bit of a strech to say "US attack on Canada via water contaminants"

I'm 100% sure they are not attacking us....

Oh, so I can down to London and release various pollutants and biological agents into your water supply, that wouldn't be an attack?
 

s_lone

Council Member
Feb 16, 2005
2,233
30
48
42
Montreal
Jay said:
I think its a bit of a strech to say "US attack on Canada via water contaminants"

I'm 100% sure they are not attacking us....

I believe the selfish arrogant and ignorant attitude adopted by North Dakota is not only an attack to Canada but to the intelligence of every North American. Come on! Ecological responsibility isn't an option in 2005.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
Were not worried about being "attacked" by Whitby....


I suppose than you think Ontario is "attacking" Quebec and Eastern provinces with our nickel mine's air pollutants, and Detroit is "attacking" Southwestern Ontario, and England is "attacking" France and Norway....

Attack just isn't a good description.
 

DasFX

Electoral Member
Dec 6, 2004
859
1
18
Whitby, Ontario
Re: RE: US attack on Canada via water contaminants

Jay said:
Were not worried about being "attacked" by Whitby....


I suppose than you think Ontario is "attacking" Quebec and Eastern provinces with our nickel mine's air pollutants, and Detroit is "attacking" Southwestern Ontario, and England is "attacking" France and Norway....

Attack just isn't a good description.

When it is willful, it is. If we could honestly prevent the wind from blowing the pollutants over there we would. Sure we could stop the cause of air pollutants but it isn't feasible at this time.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
We could prevent it. Sudbury had a little smoke stack for the nickel mines, but it contaminated the area and it was starting to look like the moon.... how did they reverse that? They built a huge stack, and now the pollution blows into Quebec and Labrador......

I guess they are now under siege....
 

DasFX

Electoral Member
Dec 6, 2004
859
1
18
Whitby, Ontario
Re: RE: US attack on Canada via water contaminants

Jay said:
I guess they are now under siege....

That being true, then Ontario is attacking Quebec and Labrador.

What is the difference between shooting someone and poisoning them? Usually with a gun, it is quicker and less painful.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: US attack on Canada v

Yesterday Reg Alcock's office said that the governor of North Dakota was going to keep the taps turned off until talks were done. Today the Governor's office released a statement saying that the tap will open on July 1 no matter what.

Why the rush? One of Canada's strongest arguments against this is that foreign biota will be released into our water. Once they turn on the tap, that argument goes away because the biota will already have been released.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
"I walked into a hog barn the other day. Daryl Reid was there. At first I thought he might be waiting for his turn at the trough, then I noticed his pants were unzipped..."

hehehe....trouble on the home front Rev?