our WATER file | EVIRONMENT | NAFTA

Find [168] W-Ns hits on Water | Wikipedia | clusty | video

Home

Climate change

Conservation

Travel

Energy

Food

Water

Water

rights;

Pollution

2006

Thursday 26 October 2006 GREAT LAKES ACCORD SAID TO NEED UPDATE
A report is recommending that a Canada-United States agreement to keep the five Great Lakes clean should be replaced with something more relevant. The International Joint Commission says the 1972 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement is outdated and does not deal with modern problems. It was last updated in 1987. The Commission says a new plan would have specific timelines for improvements to water quality and would make governments more accountable for reaching targets. Herb Gray, a former Canadian cabinet minister who is on the Commission, says this is the first time in many years that there's been a strong desire for change. The Canada-U.S. commission was established by the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909.

The Great Lakes

New threats, new hopes

MANY of the world's big lakes are threatened by pollution or huge drainage schemes. But there is at least one (fairly) bright spot. The Great Lakes and the St Lawrence river system between Canada and the United States, which together account for a fifth of the world's non-polar fresh water, are much healthier than they were. Can they stay that way?

Though Lake Michigan is wholly within the United States, all five lakes are governed by the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, implemented by an independent binational joint commission. In 1978, both countries agreed to try to clean up the water in the lakes, several of which were heavily polluted. They have done so—though in fact the improvement owes as much to economic change as to government action. Steel and other heavy industry have given way to cleaner industries and services, both in Ontario and in American lakeside states. The result: tests on fish and birds show residues of heavy metals have declined (though dangerous levels of mercury are still found), while in the past ten years the rivers near Toronto have been successfully stocked with salmon.

There are still worries. One problem is farming. This uses much lake water (29% of the total that is withdrawn) for irrigation, while also polluting the lakes and river systems. The huge quantities of manure spread on farms in Ontario and Quebec also causes pollution, by running off the land into streams, rivers and then lakes. Neither local, provincial nor national governments have programmes to tackle this. Then there is a plan to route a natural-gas pipeline in a 150km (93-mile) trench across Lake Erie. Critics say this might disturb the toxic sediment lying on the lake bottom, while ice scouring might rupture the pipe.

Some scientists also worry that water levels will fall permanently. Climate change is likely to cut rainfall in the Great Lakes basin, while ever more water will be drawn from the lakes by a rising urban population. General consumption in the basin will increase by 25% in the next 25 years, according to a forecast by a consultant to the commission.

Other threats include some 140 exotic species of flora, fish and shellfish that have found their way into the lakes, some via ships' ballast. The zebra mussel from Eastern Europe is the most notorious and probably most damaging to the environment. It consumes a lot of oxygen (though it also helps to clean the water). Lastly, there is the hazardous prospect of decommissioning Ontario's two dozen ageing nuclear reactors, which line the shores of Lake Ontario and Lake Huron.

Fortunately, the long history of successful co-operation between the two countries and among local governments suggests these threats can be managed. The commission has long run the St Lawrence hydro-power project at Cornwall, Ontario, and regulated the river flow without dispute or political interference. In June, the governors of eight American states and the premiers of Ontario and Quebec signed an accord setting out principles for controlling bulk-water exports. They are due to work out binding rules on these within three years. Canada's Parliament is close to approving a government bill to protect boundary waters against bulk removals.

Both governments have approved the commission's plan to set up international watershed boards across the continent. These are to take a “holistic” approach to ecosystems. Maybe the Zebra mussel and the farm run-offs have met their match.

CANADIANS have been worrying about water this summer. First severe drought hit southern Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario, turning crops to dust. Then contaminated drinking water left seven people dead in Ontario, and thousands sick in Newfoundland and Saskatchewan. A proposal to export tanker-loads of water from Newfoundland to the United States has triggered alarm. Some Canadians even fear that the North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA) threatens their government’s ability to exercise sovereign control over their water.

Canada contains about one fifth of the world’s fresh water. That abundance has long been the target of covetous eyes from drier Americans to the south. Inconveniently, most of Canada’s big rivers flow north or east. In the 1960s American engineers dreamed up fanciful schemes to divert some of them to the south. Now some Canadian politicians see profit in exporting water southwards by easier means.

In the spring Newfoundland’s premier, Roger Grimes, said he would consider a businessman’s proposal to pay C$20m ($12.8m) a month to take 13 billion gallons of water a year from a lake and ship it to the United States. Mr Grimes said he was ready to lift Newfoundland’s ban on such exports, but only after public hearings.

Opponents fear that this opens a hole in the dyke. Water has long been publicly owned and supplied in Canada (though there is an export trade in bottled water). However, if a province starts to export bulk water, that would turn it into a traded commodity. Critics claim that NAFTA would oblige Canada to supply its trading partners with water on the same terms it gives to its own consumers.

In fact, NAFTA says nothing about water supplies. Officials insist there is no need to worry. They point out that an amendment to the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, due to be approved later this year, will prohibit the bulk removal of water from basins that straddle the border, notably the Great Lakes (Newfoundland will not be affected).

However, provincial governments have constitutional authority over natural resources. The federal government is pushing the provinces to agree to a national ban on the bulk removal of water from all drainage basins. Only half of the provinces have signed this, but the others have their own bans on removing water.

Even so, the government faces vocal demands to enact a national ban on bulk water exports. It has no plans to do so. “Water is not a [tradable] good, it is a resource that needs to be managed,” says Pierre Pettigrew, the trade minister. Indeed: rising demand, pollution and climate change all mean that Canada is using most of its easily accessible water. That is partly because consumers pay a low tariff, unrelated to the amount used, which encourages waste. The environment ministry is now studying ways of pricing water.

In fact, it is not clear whether a federal law banning bulk water exports would trump provincial authority over natural resources. With Alberta and Quebec (and now Newfoundland?) jealous of provincial rights, such a law could trigger a constitutional squabble—something for which Canada’s prime minister, Jean Chrétien, may have no stomach. The political splashing looks unlikely to stop.