American water shortages

Jersay

House Member
Dec 1, 2005
4,837
2
38
Independent Palestine
Pressure to export fresh water likely to grow as U.S. shortages increase
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

at 12:49 on January 1, 2006, EST.
By DENNIS BUECKERT

OTTAWA (CP) - There was an edge of frustration in Paul Cellucci's voice when he raised the topic of fresh water exports in a radio interview last month.

"Canada has probably one of the largest resources of fresh water in the world," the former U.S. ambassador said during a debate on Canada-U.S. relations.

"Water is going to be - already is - a very valuable commodity and I've always found it odd where Canada is so willing to sell oil and natural gas and uranium and coal, which are by their very nature finite. But talking about water is off the table, and water is renewable.

"It doesn't make any sense to me."

It was as close as any high-profile American has come recently to saying what many Canadians have long suspected - Washington wants our water.

Officially, the U.S. government says it's not interested in Canadian water. But many believe the issue will soon break into the open.

Maclean's magazine recently ran a cover story arguing that Canada should sell its water "before they take it."

"This country is in a position to provide a solution that would yield enormous economic and humanitarian benefits for the entire continent, even the world," the magazine wrote. Such viewpoints don't sit well with Peter Lougheed, the former premier of Alberta.

In a recent speech to the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, Lougheed called for an all-party declaration in the House of Commons confirming Canada's refusal to allow large-scale water transfers to its southern neighbour.

"We should not export our fresh water - we need it and we should conserve it," Lougheed said. "And we should communicate to the United States very quickly how firm we are about it."

U.S. water shortages are becoming critical. Flow in the Colorado River, which feeds the Las Vegas Valley, dropped by almost half between 2000 and 2005 due to successive droughts. Yet Canada has major water problems of its own.

The International Joint Commission has repeatedly warned about declining water quality in the Great Lakes due to toxic contamination, and water levels in the lakes have dropped to record lows.

"Although the Great Lakes contain about 20 per cent of the fresh water on the Earth's surface, only one per cent of this water is renewed each year," the commission noted in a recent report.

Ontario, Quebec and eight states signed a deal earlier this month that will prevent thirsty jurisdictions in the southern U.S. from getting access to water from the Great Lakes.

But critics have said the deal still allows for water to be withdrawn at unacceptable levels.

The biggest threat, though, hangs over Western Canada. The most important rivers in the Prairies are fed by mountain glaciers, and the glaciers are melting due to climate change.

"The consequences of these hydrological changes for water availability . . . are likely to be severe," said a study published last month in the British science journal, Nature.

Cities like Calgary, Edmonton and Saskatoon are at risk of literally losing the rivers on which they are built over the next generation or two.

"It's a huge problem," says Andrew Weaver of the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria. "These glaciers are basically toast. They won't be around by the end of the century, or they'll be around in such insignificant amounts that it won't be a big source of water. You've got to start thinking about adaptation here."

The shrinkage of the glaciers is well-documented. Visitors to Glacier National Park in Alberta can follow the retreat of the Athabasca Glacier over the past century by visiting the cairns that used to mark the toe of the glacier.

"That's fossil water and when it's gone, it's gone," said Tim Barnett of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at La Jolla, California, lead author of the article in Nature. "If you really are glacier-fed in a warming world, you're up the creek without a paddle, no pun intended."

Maude Barlow, chairwoman of the Council of Canadians, argues that a global shortage of water will be the most threatening ecological, economic and political crisis in the 21st century. But she says Canada's apparent abundance of blue gold is illusory.

"There is no water to spare in the Great Lakes. The only place one could go for the kind of massive water they're talking about is up north and all those rivers are flowing north, so you'd have to be undertaking huge engineering projects to reverse the flow of water.

"So this notion that we have lots of water sitting around is absolutely false."

Barlow says the federal government can't legally ban bulk water exports because water is included in NAFTA. Ottawa has banned inter-basin transfers but she questions whether the ban could be enforced against a provincial government determined to export.

She rejects the suggestion that Canada would be doing a service to the world by sharing its water: "I think it would end up going to places that can buy it as opposed to places that need it."

Despite evidence that water is being wasted on a massive scale, municipalities still don't charge residents the real cost of water or effectively promote conservation.

Due to budget cuts in recent years, the federal government has cut back on water research, closing monitoring stations and reducing data collection on water supplies. The underground aquifers that store the nation's groundwater haven't been mapped, so there is no way to know if they are being depleted or contaminated.

"As a society we are largely forging ahead blindly when it comes to our management of water," the Senate environment committee said in a report tabled just before the government fell on Nov. 28. "We are in essence gambling with our most precious but often under-appreciated natural resource."

The committee recommended that Ottawa create a National Water Council to develop strategies on key water issues. But its report went virtually unnoticed amid the excitement of the election call.

http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/NationalNewsArticle.htm?src=n010108A.xml
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
I've already covered this I'll just copy and paste what I already posted.

Congress called for an assessment of the Nation's renewable resources in 1974, because they believed reliable information was necessary to properly manage those resources and make informed policy decisions. The need for reliable information on the status and trends of the Nation's resources continues today. However, the emphasis has broadened from a solely economic concern with supply and demand to concern about resource conditions, ecosystem health, and sustainability.

The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) requires the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct an assessment of the Nation's renewable resources every 10 years.

Brown, Thomas C. 1999. Past and future freshwater use in the United States: A technical document supporting the 2000 USDA Forest Service RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-39. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 47 p.

Water use in the United States to the year 2040 is estimated by extending past trends in basic water-use determinants. Those trends are largely encouraging. Over the past 35 years, withdrawals in industry and at thermoelectric plants have steadily dropped per unit of output, and over the past 15 years some irrigated regions have also increased the efficiency of their water use. Further, per-capita domestic withdrawals may have finally peaked. If these trends continue, aggregate withdrawals in the U.S. over the next 40 years will stay below 10% of the 1995 level, despite a 41% expected increase in population. However, not all areas of the U.S. are projected to fare as well. Of the 20 water resource regions in the U.S., withdrawals in seven are projected to increase by from 15% to 30% above 1995 levels. Most of the substantial increases are attributable to domestic and public or thermoelectric use, although the large increases in 3 regions are mainly due to growth in irrigated acreage. The most important and uncertain assumptions necessary to make these projections are those about future irrigated acreage. If irrigated acreage fails to drop in most Western basins, as assumed, withdrawals may be substantially above these projections.

This report does not include the desalination capacity of the US, which is second only to Saudi Arabia, of approximately 3 million cubic meters per day.

You can download the complete RPA report from this link - I think I'll go have a drink now
 

Jersay

House Member
Dec 1, 2005
4,837
2
38
Independent Palestine
Then what about your former ambassador. It might not be critical, but if he is talking about water, it should be getting serious. I am just putting down what the news says.
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
It's an election period, draw your own conclusions. Don't dismiss data, read the report with the link I provided. This issue with water has no factual data to go with.
 

Timetrvlr

Electoral Member
Dec 15, 2005
196
0
16
BC interior
Barlow says the federal government can't legally ban bulk water exports because water is included in NAFTA. Ottawa has banned inter-basin transfers but she questions whether the ban could be enforced against a provincial government determined to export.

This is the part that concerns me. If we ever do export water to the US, will we then be forced to continue and will the price be regulated by someone else? It seems that NAFTA only benefits the US. :?:
 

DasFX

Electoral Member
Dec 6, 2004
859
1
18
Whitby, Ontario
We should share our good fortune with the US based on humatiarian need. But I fear, as it often the case when dealing with the US, any deal will either be biased towards the US or the US will not honour stipulation which are not in their favour.

Besides, the US did this to themselves. It is obvious that the land they occupy cannot support 300 million people. Look at Australia, they realize that their large nation can only support a certain number of people and thus, they keep quite tight control of their population.
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Timetrvlr said:
Barlow says the federal government can't legally ban bulk water exports because water is included in NAFTA. Ottawa has banned inter-basin transfers but she questions whether the ban could be enforced against a provincial government determined to export.

This is the part that concerns me. If we ever do export water to the US, will we then be forced to continue and will the price be regulated by someone else? It seems that NAFTA only benefits the US. :?:

Trade
Canada's water belongs to Canadians. We are free to manage our water and protect our environment in our own best interests.

Nothing in NAFTA or in any of Canada's international trade agreements prevents us from protecting our water. These agreements do not create new obligations for us to sell our water, nor do they limit our ability to adopt laws for managing our own water resources. To ensure our sovereignty of this precious resource, Canada issued a joint statement with the United States and Mexico in 1993 declaring that NAFTA creates no rights to the natural water resources of any of the countries.

Environment Canada
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Re: RE: American water shortages

DasFX said:
We should share our good fortune with the US based on humatiarian need. But I fear, as it often the case when dealing with the US, any deal will either be biased towards the US or the US will not honour stipulation which are not in their favour.

Besides, the US did this to themselves. It is obvious that the land they occupy cannot support 300 million people. Look at Australia, they realize that their large nation can only support a certain number of people and thus, they keep quite tight control of their population.

We don't have a water problem DasFX and no problem in the foreseeable future, despite the anticipated increase of our population. You can read what I posted above if you wish.

Australia has always been front page center on their immigration policies that had nothing to do with their resources. In addition their economy had been dragging along for decades, only recently do they have a surge in immigration as their economy expands.
 

the caracal kid

the clan of the claw
Nov 28, 2005
1,947
2
38
www.kdm.ca
Yet ITN, the information you posted does not address the real issues of water supply in america. To see what is happening with water problems in the future we need to examine issues such as global warming, population migration, population change, usage changes, land use changes, changes to water supply in the U , ALL water usage and projections, to name a few.

A lot of talk has been going on in these areas, and they all discuss varying degrees of water shortages and supply problems in the future.
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Re: RE: American water shortages

the caracal kid said:
Yet ITN, the information you posted does not address the real issues of water supply in america. To see what is happening with water problems in the future we need to examine issues such as global warming, population migration, population change, usage changes, land use changes, changes to water supply in the U , ALL water usage and projections, to name a few.

A lot of talk has been going on in these areas, and they all discuss varying degrees of water shortages and supply problems in the future.

They address all the issues of water problems in America, you didn't bother downloading and reading the report ( I don't blame you as it doesn't directly affect you), but that doesn't mean they haven't been addressed.

All of the ones highlighted in bold have been addressed in the report. As far as global warming goes it would seem logical to me that melting of glaciers/ice would produce more fresh water, I don't pretend to know the science behind all this, I read the reports provided and take it from there.

I'm not implying the world isn't and will not be going through a water problem, but, again, the US has no issue of water in the foreseeable future. Unless you can produce some report contrary to what I have posted, I don't know why you are insisting on this.

There are two issues here as I see them. One, some are under the misguided belief that we need/want/steal/other your water. Second we have every right under NAFTA to force you to sell it.

I provided credible links to both issues, one from the Dept of Agriculture and the second from Environment Canada, both of which are the governing authorities over the water issue.
 

the caracal kid

the clan of the claw
Nov 28, 2005
1,947
2
38
www.kdm.ca
What americans want is CHEAP CLEAN water, and the more sources online to potentially access, the better.

I addressed this in the other thread, provided examples (links), and a comparison to the electricity industry.

What you have not addressed is the reality of how america accesses and delivers water (and how that is changing).