The U.S. Thirst for Canadian Waters: A Century of Negotiations and Near Misses
For more than a century, the United States has eyed Canada’s abundant water resources, sometimes subtly, other times with grand proposals involving hundreds of billions of dollars, all aimed at diverting that precious “blue gold” southward across the 49th parallel.
Early Conflicts and the Birth of Cooperation
At the dawn of the 20th Century, several disputes highlighted the critical need for coordinated water management between the two nations.One such instance involved Montana settlers who dug a channel to divert the waters of the St. Mary and Milk Rivers for their own use. The response from Alberta farmers, who constructed a competing channel, escalated the conflict, demonstrating that cooperation, not confrontation, was essential when it came to water.
Further east, the “Diversion of Chicago,” a channel initiated in the early 19th Century, became a diplomatic sticking point. This engineering endeavor, designed to divert water from Lake Michigan into the Mississippi River Basin to serve Chicago, resulted in an average decrease of 15 cm in the water level of the Great Lakes.
Faced with escalating conflicts as populations and industries boomed along the shared border, The United States and Canada established the Boundary Waters Treaty in 1909, a foundational agreement that set the principles for sharing water resources, which continue to shape the relationship today.The International Joint Commission (IJC) was created by the treaty to prevent and resolve disputes related to boundary waters.
Grandiose Schemes: The Grand Canal and NAWAPA
In 1959, a Newfoundland engineer, Thomas Kierans, proposed the Great Recycling and northern Development (Grand) Canal. This ambitious plan involved building a dam between James Bay and Hudson Bay to create a vast freshwater lake that could replenish the Great Lakes and irrigate the arid American Southwest. Despite generating interest in the 1980s from governments led by Robert Bourassa and Brian Mulroney, the project never advanced due to its astronomical environmental and financial costs.By 1994, the estimated cost had soared to $100 billion.
Frédéric Lasserre, a professor of geography at Laval University, noted, “At the time, the water was valued at about three or four dollars per cubic meter. While that may seem insignificant, farmers pay five or six hundred per cubic meter, making it clear that thay would not be interested in purchasing it.”
another ambitious project, conceived by the Ralph M.Parsons Company in 1964, was the North American Water and Power Alliance (NAWAPA). It aimed to supply water to all of North America through an immense network of channels, dams, and reservoirs, capable of delivering 125 billion cubic meters of water annually and generating 73 million-kilowatt hours in Canada, the United States, and Mexico.
NAWAPA proposed diverting “surplus” waters from the yukon, Alaska, and the Northwest Territories to arid regions. The centerpiece of this project, a continental reservoir 800 km long between Jasper and Banff, illustrates its sheer scale. NAWAPA required the construction of 240 dams, 112 diversions, and 17 aqueducts or canals, with an estimated cost of $300 billion USD and a 40-year construction timeline. The project was intended to provide water for centuries.
NAFTA and The Water Question
Canadian water could potentially be diverted to the United States through a loophole in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA),which came into force in 1994. Chapter 11 of NAFTA gave businesses the power to challenge laws that they believed hindered their operations.
How could the commodification of water be prevented under these circumstances?
Lasserre explained, “We had to present it as a product, which was a delicate matter. In the 1990s, ottawa wanted to legislate by prohibiting water exports, but doing so would imply that water was a product, potentially falling under NAFTA regulations. Instead, the federal government approached the issue from an environmental standpoint, enacting a law that prohibits water from leaving cross-border watersheds, a non-discriminatory measure not prohibited by NAFTA.”
The Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), negotiated during Donald Trump’s presidency, closed this potential loophole.However, there are lingering worries that the White House might reopen it during future renegotiations of the agreement. According to the United Nations, water use has increased at more than twice the rate of population growth in the last century, and an increasing number of regions are chronically short of water. Source: UN Water Statistics.
The appointment of a minister of Energy and Natural Resources with a background in finance has also raised concerns. “Tim Hodgson, like Mark carney, comes from a corporate culture that believes the market offers the best solution to the climate crisis,” says Maude Barlow, a leading Canadian environmentalist. “While I have no doubt about their commitment to the environmental crisis,relying solely on the market is a serious mistake.”
The Duty sought the new government’s position on potentially using water as a bargaining chip with Washington, D.C., amidst current tensions.Mr. Hodgson’s office referred the newspaper to the ministry of Foreign Affairs on May 20th, but a response was still pending at the time of writing.
key Proposals and Agreements
| Project/Agreement | Year | Description | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Boundary Waters Treaty | 1909 | Established principles for water sharing and created the International Joint commission (IJC). | Ongoing framework for U.S.-Canada water relations. |
| Grand Canal | 1959 | Proposed damming james Bay and Hudson Bay to create a freshwater lake for supply. | Never implemented due to high costs and environmental concerns. |
| NAWAPA | 1964 | Aimed to divert water from Alaska, Yukon, and Northwest Territories to arid regions. | Deemed too expensive and environmentally damaging; never implemented. |
| NAFTA | 1994 | Raised concerns about commodification of water; addressed by environmental laws. | Potential loopholes closed by CUSMA, but concerns remain about future negotiations. |
The Future of Water Negotiations
Water scarcity is becoming an increasingly pressing global issue, driven by climate change and population growth. The Colorado River Basin, for example, is facing unprecedented water shortages, impacting agriculture and urban areas alike.
Frequently Asked Questions
The United States, particularly its arid Southwestern states, has long been interested in supplementing its water supply with the abundant water resources found in Canada. This interest has spurred numerous proposals and negotiations over the past century.
The Grand Canal, proposed in 1959 by thomas Kierans, aimed to create a massive freshwater lake by damming James Bay and Hudson Bay. This lake would then supply the Great Lakes and other arid regions, including the American Southwest.
NAWAPA was a massive project proposed in 1964 to divert water from Alaska, Yukon, and the Northwest Territories to arid regions in Canada, the United States, and Mexico. It involved constructing numerous dams, canals, and reservoirs, but it was deemed too costly and environmentally damaging.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) raised concerns about the potential commodification of Canadian water. A provision allowed businesses to contest laws that hindered their operations, leading to fears that companies might challenge restrictions on water exports. However, Canada addressed these concerns through environmental laws that restricted cross-border watershed diversions.
Canada currently prohibits the export of water across cross-border watersheds. This policy, framed from an environmental perspective, aims to avoid potential challenges under trade agreements like NAFTA, which could arise if water were explicitly defined as a commodity.
While the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement has addressed some concerns,worries persist that future negotiations,particularly under administrations prioritizing market-based solutions,could revisit the issue of water as a tradable commodity.
What are your thoughts on these past proposals? Do you believe water should be treated as a commodity?
Share your comments below and spread this report to inform others!
