Canadian Water Exports:Will NAWAPA Return?

Robert Kennedy, Jr., recently urged Canadians not to sell or share water with the USA. Nick Lees wrote this article for the 18 January 2008 edition of the Edmonton Journal.

Kennedy and Hollywood gliterati were in Banff to raise funds for the Waterkeeper Alliance. Along with Kennedy were such luminaries as Alec Baldwin, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Jason Priestly, Christie Brinkley, Daryl Hannah, and Kelsey Grammer.

Here are some excerpts from Lees' article:

"The U.S. southwest is already experiencing a water crisis, with lots of people moving there and development increasing exponentially," said Kennedy. "They have already run out of water.

"If you talk to government officials, everybody says they are looking for Canada to bail them out."

Water from the Colorado River is being routed for development to such places as Las Vegas and Los Angeles.

"This is in the short-term interest of a few developers," said Kennedy, who has a master's degree in environmental law.

"It's not a sustainable practice. The Colorado now dies in the Sonoran Desert. It was once a river that fed a great estuary full of fish and migratory birds."

The Waterkeeper model began in New York in the 1960s when commercial and recreational fishermen, concerned about depleted fish stocks and industrial pollution, decided to organize and restore the health of the Hudson River. A major water contamination issue in the Hudson is the PCB contamination by the General Electric Co. 

Later, Kennedy was among those who rejuvenated laws that protected environmental rights and helped clean up the Hudson. He and others formed the Waterkeeper Alliance in 1999, the year the first chapter appeared in Canada. There are now 171 Waterkeeper chapters on six continents.

Kennedy is the son of the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy and nephew of the late President John F. Kennedy.

I understand that at meetings such as this hyperbole is often the order of the day; after all, Kennedy was trying to raise money. I question whether the development in the Southwest is "exponential" and I am unsure "everyone" wants Canada to bail the USA out. But he is right - some people are casting their eyes north of the border.

But Kennedy's vent does raise the interesting issue of Canada, which has huge amounts of fresh water. I wasn't going to elaborate on this but I might as well.

I remember Marc Reisner recounting (in the 'Epilogue' of Cadillac Desert) a 21 April 1981 visit to San Francisco by British Columbia premier Bill Bennett to address the Commonwealth Club. He castigated those who wanted to stop building dams. But when asked by a questioner if BC would consider selling some of its water to the USA, he firmly replied "No". Then he added: "But come and see me in twenty years." Looks like we are overdue.

That brings us to the North American Water and Power Alliance (NAWAPA), a plan conceived in the early 1950s by Donald Baker, an engineer with the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. The plan would divert water from Canada to the USA (see map below). He took his plan to Ralph M. Parsons, head of the Pasadena engineering firm bearing his name, who instantly fell in love with it.

Parsons started the nonprofit NAWAPA Foundation to "spread the Gospel" about NAWAPA.

NAWAPA attracted the interest of some folks in Congress, especially Sen. Frank Moss (D-UT) and Sen. Hiram Fong (R-HI). Even Gov. Tom McCall, Republican governor of Oregon, and Stewart Udall (initially, when he was Secretary of the Interior) were supporters, but the plan eventually fell into disfavor by the late 1970s. However, I have heard talk about "bringing NAWAPA back", just as I have heard people suggest reviving a plan to study the diversion of Columbia River water to the Southwest USA.

Here is an article about NAWAPA by Lyndon H. LaRouche, so you might consider the source as you read it. There is even a Canadian site proclaiming "Why NAWAPA is Necessary". Reisner also has a good discussion of NAWAPA in the 'Epilogue' of Cadillac Desert (the source of much of my NAWAPA information).

As a graduate student at the University of Arrizona in the early 1970s I remember some of my professors discussing NAWAPA and the Columbia River scheme, and plans to tap Alaskan water (a component of NAWAPA). In those days it was common for people to say that fresh water flowing into the sea was "wasted"; some people still say that.

Not all Canadians think selling water to the USA is a bad idea. When I was at the University of New Mexico I received a call in the late 1990s from a staffer of Canadian MP Alan Mills, a Conservative who represented Toronto suburbs. She wanted to know if the Southwest USA could use Great Lakes water. "Do fish swim?" I said. She said MP Mills was supportive of such exports and was trying to get the Great Lakes region to agree to them. Dream on, Mr. Mills.

It sure is an interesting time to be in the water business in the western USA - and western Canada.

"Water flows uphill to power and money." -- Unknown

Comments

[Howie Copywriter]

NAWAPA is back for sane people all the time. As for the Kennedy family, they have gone bad, with their banking of Fascist stars like Schwartznegger, and the confused Mr. Obama.

[Leif Nelson]

First of all, great blog, it's nice to get such a wide range of information in one place.

However, I think saying that Canada has "huge amounts of freshwater" is a bit misleading. While it's true that Canada's lake and wetlands do contain lots of water, it's not replenished very quickly (evaporation rates in the Arctic are pretty low). Canada has the same amount of renewable fresh water resources as the United States, and many of the same water related problems.

[Michael]

Hi, Leif.

You may be right about the equality of fresh water resources, but Canada has 10% of the USA's population.

[Bob]

The issue for Canadians is not that we wouldn't be happy to send the USA some surplus water if it comes to that, we have always had great affection for our neighbours, especially in time of need. It's the draconian NAFTA "national treatment" clause that causes complete loss of sovereignty over our own resources, that needs to first be addressed.

Under NAFTA, if one lone drop of bulk water is sold to the USA, Canada MUST then by law sell water to everyone and anyone. The government of canada has no teeth left and has already been sued successfully by those claiming equal access under NAFTA.

To add further insult to injury, NAFTA demands that an exported commodity can never be slowed down, even in times of domestic shortage!!! In fact, once the process of water exportation begins, just like our Natural Gas and Oil, water becomes a tradeable commodity, under the control of the marketplace, usually private companies hell bent on profit for shareholders, while Canada reaps paltry royalties and has no say in regulating quantities or controls.

Canadians have been hoodwinked into a deal that enables complete foreign control and dominance of our resources and the worst part about it is, our own politicians sold us down this NAFTA river in the name of free and fair trade.

While I would never underestimate the power of mass conditioning to force the Canadian people to acquiesce (it worked well to get us into NAFTA), I suspect, as more NAFTA stranglehold facts are exposed to the common citizen, there will be growing resistance to giving up control of Canadian bulk water exports.

[Bob]

Here's a little backgrounder from an outspoken previous minister in the Canadian Government, Paul Hellyer, for those who are interested: http://tinyurl.com/2d2a7d

http://www.exchangemagazine.com/morningpost/2008/week11/Friday/031402.html

[Mark]

One of the reasons that I submitting a comment for public view is that I wrote an essay as a submission to my college english class in the early 80s about NAWAPA. Coupled with that is the recent viewing of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) program POLITICS, of the 18th of this month (yesterday)in which one of the topics was the NAFTA and the possibility of large bulk water transfers south to the US. Mr. Lloyd Axeworthy was one of the guests on the program and was heard to say that water would probably be on the table for negotiation for possible future implementation.

For those who don't know Mr. Axeworthy, he was a cabinet minister is in past political administrations filling a number of cabinet posts. He is probably well connected with movers and shakers of the political landscape of present day Canadian politics, but seems to be more of a behind the scenes person today. Needless to say I was a bit disturbed that his comments had the ring of being sold down the river once again by our political servants.

Having water is tantamount to having life. You can't have life on this planet without water. If people want to live in an area where there is little water then conservation, inovation should be imperative for survival.

Moving great amounts of water to those areas may solve the problems of those in the drier locations, but that leaves a deficit of water in those areas that did the supplying. Less water in those areas means huge and possibly catastrophic changes to the flora and fauna.

I have read articles about the costs, the improvements to those areas getting the influx of water, the improvements to growing of crops, the jobs created etc, but nothing about the damage that all these things would create.

For instance, given that the cost of the NAWAPA plan, if it were to go into effect, would be in possibly the trillions of dollars. Wouldn't that same amount of money being put into reverse osmosis plants provide the same relief to the drier areas of the US? This would also aleviate the requirement of destroying huge amounts of natural habitat in areas that would never recover. Habitat that was created over millenia. Habitat that has the possibility of being destroyed because people want to use more water than the area, in which they live, can provide.

The view that this kind of destruction is being contemplated should be viewed with great suspision. The persons in the political and business arenas and those who would promote these ideas are being cavalier in the extreme with the future of the areas of water supply. In this case Canada.

Remember folks we already have proof of what happens to politicians and business persons who make decisions to move large amounts of water from place to place. Southern Russia used to have a great inland sea, a rather large fishing industry and flora and fauna in the area. Now there is a desert.

Yes, I'm Canadian. I swore allegiance to this country and did my service. I find, unfortunately, that it seems I must serve again, if only in a small way, to be a bit of a thinker with respect to the protection of the control of our natural resourses, NAFTA notwithstanding.

[Johnnyb]

I'm trying to better understand the negative impacts that NAWAPA will have on Canada, and any information that the reader could direct to me would be most useful. From what I can understand the environmental impacts on Canada would not be all that great, and not enough to out weigh the benefits of NAWAPA to humans, not only in the US but also the World as we produce a much greater amount of food than we consume. As I see the Ogallala going drying, and the government seemingly doing nothing but aggravating its demise, I am very fearful of what will happen when the US experiences a drop in its ag output.

Do the environmental benefits of opposing NAWAPA really outweigh the human costs in terms of a potential mass starvation?

[Michael]

Hi, Johnnyb.

Thanks for commenting.

Your last sentence says it all. I suspect that moving this much water will substantially impact some Canadian ecosystems. The Canadians will have to decide whether the environmental costs are worth it.

[Neil Craig]

Would I not be right in thinking that the estuary of the Colorado is actually the estuary of the Mississippi beyond New Orleans?

If so Mr Kennedy's claim that it no longer exists would seem to be dishonest even compared to the normal level of dishonesty of such [politicians & eco-fascists].

The strange thing is that such people get away with the most outrageous & ridiculous untruths without anybody in the media ever calling them on it, or mentioning it next time they assert something.

As for Canada they should certainly charge what the market will bear, like good capitalists, & that may include adding a clause to NAFTA saying they weren't thinking of water at the time. It would be a shame to keep pouring good money down the drain.

[Michael]

Hi, Neil.

Thanks for commenting.

I think what Kennedy means is that for all practical purposes, the Colorado River no longer flows into the Sea of Cortez (aka Gulf of California) because it is so depleted by diversions. So the fishery that used to exist there has been decimated.

I am unsure what you mean by the Colorado actually being the estuary of the Mississippi below New Orleans. It's not. Am I missing something?

[William]

Hooray It's done! Thanks to all the engineers politicians and regular people who helped get this done.
Too bad the water treatment plant in Albuquerque was just the end of the Project. Now let's start on the beginning. The San Juan and Colorado river diversions and the (CAP) Central Arizona Project were only part of the original (NAWAPA) North American Water and Power Alliance, started back in the sixty's. This vision for sustainability was visionary back then and needed even more now.
Ever since the US Supreme court 1982 decision in a case between El Paso, Texas and the State of New Mexico, in which the Supreme Court ruled that water is an article of commerce, the flood gates of corporate greed have advanced the full scale erosion of water as a right in the west, and in our country and world as a whole.
I lived in New Mexico until I was twenty, and never really realized how much water there is on this continent until I did a lot of travel. In the US, about 70 percent of the water pumped out of the ground is for agriculture use and is running low. I did my gardening in NM with fossil water pumped out of the ground in the Rio Grande valley. There is a long tradition of water "wars" in New Mexico. If you like water movies, get a copy of the 'THE MILAGRO BEANFIELD WAR', or See the movie FLOW,
I now spend most of my time on an organic farm up in the Midwest, or Arkansas in the winter. Last year in the summer/fall I saw flooding in Wisconsin and the upper Midwest, in January flooding in Arkansas and the mid-south, and then again this spring, flooding on the Mississippi all the way from Wisconsin and Iowa to the Gulf of Mexico. Most of this water ended up flooding out and destroying farms or towns all the way. Polluting the Gulf of Mexico and adding to the problem of the 20,000 square kilometer hypoxic dead zone. We do not have any lack of fresh water on the North American continent. What we have is a lack of water-use and transport infrastructure.

Here is the beginning of the plan. We put hydroelectric plants on every stream, river or spring big enough to run a micro hydro system. Water is the largest form of renewable distilled solar energy we have. These would all feed into the power grid. These are hooked up to a water transport system that is powered by this electricity. When we know that floods are coming, these systems are turned on by hand or automatically, and the water is pumped to the places in the country where it is dry at the time. The water can be used several times to produce electricity on the way to where it is eventually used.

If the people in the car industry go down in smoke, we can put some of those factories that already make generators, bearings, shafts, and other needed items to work making several sizes of hydro systems for small streams to large systems on the great rivers. This power can also power cars!

Most of these systems on private land would be best owned by the people on the land, so the system does not become a giant corporate monopoly like we have now with oil and electricity, and coming soon to a city near you, the water monopoly. Cancel on that thought: don't tell them I said that.
Water must be returned to the status of a natural right and not an article of commerce or the whole world be slaves working for a cup of water!
Water is just the lens that brings into focus the great destruction we have done to our planet. So for every month of the year we drive a car we plant a tree. For every thousand kilowatts of power we use plant a tree. For every cow we eat plant a tree, and don’t forget to water it till it is great BIG.

Michael Pollen talked about the problems of fossil sun for agriculture in the open letter to the President about food security issues. It’s time to talk serious about the issues of fossil water, energy, and water security on our planet.

Power and water to the people right now!

Bill at the Paradigm Change project.