Where's tomorrow's water?

Posted by John McGrath (Guest Contributor) at 10:41 PM on 17 May 2006

We Canadians can be a prickly sort. So I for one wasn't particularly surprised to see that large majorities of us are opposed to selling water to the U.S. (This is the same country that's gotten extremely wealthy -- and abandoned its Kyoto commitment -- by selling the U.S. as much tar sand oil as we can make.) Still, Jim Margolis' recent article at The American Prospect has some interesting bits.

Now looms a U.S. invasion Canadians take more seriously. This one is real, and its target is more tangible -- their water. They think we're coming after it. They're right.

It isn't that the water wars are the talk of the nation; they were rarely mentioned in the recent federal election campaign. But the dispute bobs beneath the surface, a regular topic of conversation among the political elites. From the left, the Council of Canadians calls for a national water policy that would prevent "bulk water exports and diversions." From the right, former Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed predicted that, "the United States will be coming after our fresh water aggressively within three to five years."

One newsmagazine here, Macleans, had a cover article last year about the American desire for Canadian water. And you can get an idea of the coming talking points from the right by the tone of the article:

But Canada, the most water-rich nation on the planet, wants no part of this new world. And that puts our priorities on a collision course with the needs of our biggest trading partner and most essential ally. Already the White House has mused about the need to open the Canada-U.S. border to water exports, and dozens of communities are lining up to reform a 96-year-old treaty that limits the amount drawn from the Great Lakes. 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.

Wow! Sign me up! After all, we're talking about feeding the hungry, feeding the poor, right?

Not so fast. A few paragraphs earlier, Macleans tells us what this is actually about:

Lake Mead is the principal source of drinking water for the Las Vegas valley -- the fastest growing urban area in the United States. In all, more than three trillion gallons of water have disappeared due to drought, evaporation and overuse in five years, raising profound questions about the sustainability of growth in the U.S. southwest. The Colorado River, which not only feeds Lake Mead but also drives the turbines of the Hoover Dam, is a critical source of drinking water and power for much of southern California and Arizona. And between 2000 and early 2005, its flow dropped by almost half.

Las Vegas -- despite pursuing aggressive water conservation -- is having to reconsider its development plans, and this is a humanitarian crisis? Gee, how about we don't move so many people in to the desert? How's that for a solution? Never mind the fact that this entire idea is based on a flawed premise: Canada's water resources don't just belong to Canadian people. Surely we have gotten to the point where we can ask about the justice in destroying animal habitats, too?

That said, the problem of global water-poverty is a real one, even if the American case is about as unsympathetic as you could find. Countries with far fewer resources -- and far poorer populations -- face real water shortages. Aside from the social-justice angle, there's the geopolitical one: countries like Turkey or China (which control the sources of water for Iraq and Indochina, respectively) have a huge incentive to stiff their neighbors down the river. What happens when China builds the next Three Gorges and turns off the tap to Vietnam?

One usual answer is seawater desalination. And desalination costs have come down as the price of tapping new sources of water has gone up. But the scale is truly daunting: the U.S. uses 137 billion gallons of water a day for agriculture alone. The "plus" side is that U.S. irrigation is so inefficient that there's plenty of savings to be had. Only 4.2 million acres use micro-irrigation, for example. It gets better, actually -- micro-irrigation systems also allow farmers to dramatically reduce pesticide and fertilizer use, so we get a trifecta, ecologically speaking: Less water, less fertilizer, less pesticide.

So there's the choice: Either the U.S. can start using water more efficiently or start importing water from Canada. Given that mass water exports could ruin sensitive Canadian ecosystems, I know where I stand.

Just so long as we don't see "Operation: Thirsty Eagle," complete with an armored assault on Toronto, anytime soon.

For story: Where's tomorrow's water?
15 Comments | Post a Comment

Enough is enough

I'm a pretty conservative type of guy on a whole bunch of issues, so it should come as no surprise that i take a conservationist stance on this one...

I also happen to disagree with Canadian policy on many things, most notably the anti-jihadist war, etc.

But...you folks need to keep your water to yourselves. We have gotten way too wasteful with our water and taken way too much for granted. We've already damned up nearly every single river in the Lower 48--wrecking fisheries in the process. People who want to live in the desert should learn to live with a lot less water.

There comes a point where some of our lifestyles reach a point of absurdity.

Keep your water, keep some of your rivers wild and tell the US to get used to it.

by OutdoorsPro at 10:56 PM on 17 May 2006

living in the desert

The continental US is actually fairly well watered, save in the Southwest. In the Northeast there are occasionally water shortages following unusually dry winters, but we manage to conserve our way through. In the Northwest, it is hard to understand the trouble with the Columbia and the Klamath: why is competition between farmers wanting to irrigate, the hydroelectric power people and the friends of the salmon so difficult to manage?

But while nobody in the US has been an excellent, long-sighted conserver of water resources, the overdevelopment of the Southwest is incredible, an astounding example of lazy and selfish idiocy. How is it that first LA, then San Diego and Phoenix, and now Las Vegas have been permitted to grow as big as they are? It is simply amazing.

As for the Canadians, though, it would be right neighborly of them to make some of their water available to us, bad managers as we are. They have an ample supply, apparently, so there need not be any ill feeling if we want to buy some.

Unfortunately, just as the Bush foreign policy has gravely damaged the hope of Americans finding good will towards them almost anywhere else in the world, so our problems with the Canadians seem to be increasing. Another recent difficulty to emerge is over the "Northwest Passage": now that the Arctic is melting, American business and military interests want to go sailing around up there as they like, while the Canadians are complaining, so far feebly and futilely, that that is not right.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 12:33 AM on 18 May 2006

Canadian Water

Gooood grief!! I lived for a few years in Phoenix - and no one should! It is a desert, or was. Now it is a polluted, humid pollen zone. Just because we can transform a desert into a green oasis, does not mean we should.
There are cities all over the north east with water, houses, commercial property and all of the necessary services just sitting there waiting to be put back into use after the migration to the promised land of sand, sun and swimming pools.
How crazy is it to import water a thousand miles or more to make fountains, golf courses and swimming pools ( not to mention basic infrastructure needs), in a place where most people run from air conditioning to air conditioning and where pale, Anglo-Saxon bred folks spend thousants of dollars to have pre-cancerous lesions removed, caused by over exposure to a semi-tropical sun?
Canada should keep its water. We just waste and pollute most of it anyway.

by Barefoot at 12:35 PM on 18 May 2006

It's the water, stupid!

After all the years of making fun of anyone foolish enough to live in the northern clime now they're thirsty?
Take a listen to "World Hunger" Sam Kinison's most brilliant piece ever; he begs people to stop sending money to world-hunger organizations because they don't tell desert dwellers to move where food can grow -- send 'em U-Hauls and luggage instead!
Same thing applies to sendind the nit wits water...from anywhere.

by molliemous at 12:45 PM on 18 May 2006

Canadian water to the US Southwest?

NO! In case that wasn't clear enough, NO NO NO NO NO!!!

You made your bed, so lie in it, already. Canada's water is needed where it is, especially now that the ice is melting -- facilitating US invasion of the Northwest Passage.

BTW, Canada has objected more than "feebly" to that; "futilely" is more like it, because the US arrogantly refuses to recognize Canadian sovereignty over its own internal waterway. That's like claiming the Mississippi River is international.

Canadian negotiators made sure fresh water was excluded from NAFTA, but the US is already siphoning illegally from the Great Lakes in spite of the Boundary Waters Treaty (another "goddamn scrap of paper," eh?). So what's next?

The US never gives up trying to conquer Canada, one way or another. The 800-pound guerilla/gorilla (or elephant, pace Trudeau) will just take what it wants, as usual.

by Jody Aliesan at 4:09 PM on 18 May 2006

So Far South it Looks Like North to Me

I remember writing a college term paper 25 or more years ago on just such a proposal to transport water from Western Canada to the Los Angeles/Las Vegas area. It was called NAWAPA (North American Water and Power Alliance) and would use natural features like lakes, rivers (e.g. the Columbia) and desert valleys east of the Sierra Madre to move the water with a minimum of tunnels and pumping.

The power part was about capturing hydroelectricity at appropriate points and using the electricity to pump the water where it needed to go up hill.

The engineers had worked out the details so that it looked like a doable, if expensive project--it's not so far-fetched as one would assume.

Note that I'm not saying that it would be a good or smart thing to do this. What I am saying is that Canadians should be very afraid!

by TrashTsar at 5:41 PM on 18 May 2006

Welcome to the USA (canada branch)

My dear Canadian friends,

As Glocal Warming continues and gets worse, the US will need more water sources, and you are the closest and best source.

Look at Iraq. Do you really think you are immune (you surely have weapons of mass destruction!).

Not sure what you can do to protect yourselves, but trying to get your own government to be serious about Global Warming might be a start.

Ummm, good luck, you're going to need it.

patrick

by bookerly at 7:09 PM on 18 May 2006

Good advice for the Canadians

The brilliance of the Bush Doctrine shines brightly indeed! I for one would welcome a Canadian "preemptive" strike on the United States.
We could benefit from having just a few provinces instead of all of these silly states and learn to love the French language and customs.

by molliemous at 9:00 AM on 19 May 2006
[ Parent ]

United States Of Canada

I say the northern blue states secede and join Canada. Let's have a re-evolution!

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 10:31 AM on 19 May 2006

Hmmmmm...

water often looks blue while desert sand is often red..... coincidence??

by kmp at 11:10 AM on 19 May 2006

Good enough!

"coincidence??"

Coincidence is real, linear cause and effect thinking is the illusion. Awaken from the dream of reason.

Synchronicity rules!

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 10:34 PM on 19 May 2006

Kinnison for Canada

I thought I was the only one who remembered Sam-they -live-in-a-freaking-desert!-Kinnison. Too bad he slid under a gas truck and tasted his own blood, or he'd be my pick for the new Climate Alliance Spokesperson. Better yet, Canada would hire him to protect their ass-et(s) Some quote from years ago sticks in my head: Water will be the gold of the 21st century, and all the people who didn't see that coming live in Phoenix.

by kkafka at 3:32 PM on 20 May 2006
[ Parent ]

Oil

"Water will be the..."

Water will be the oil of this century, not quite there yet. But it's coming. Fuel farming with oil-based chemical agriculture destroys aquifers.

The mass migration from the red zone to the blue zone has barely started.

The good news. Global climate disaster is reversible. The science backs that up, conversion to renewable energy and organic agriculture could do that.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 8:59 AM on 21 May 2006

Maybe not

Just because global climate is reversible does not mean that it will be reversed. It's also a little hard to imagine that water is going to take a role as strong as important as oil...at least not in this century.

Just my 2 pence

MUST DRINK BEER

by risinglucifer at 9:07 AM on 21 May 2006
[ Parent ]

Agricultural use of water

The average person consumes about 300 gallons of water per day for bathing, washing clothes, cooking and drinking. It takes 10,000 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef. Think about that the next time you order a quarter pounder.

by SkyHunter at 11:12 AM on 21 May 2006

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.