logo
Zombie water apocalypse: Is Trump's rhetoric over Canada's water science-fiction or reality?

Zombie water apocalypse: Is Trump's rhetoric over Canada's water science-fiction or reality?

Yahoo15-03-2025
The Yukon River in Whitehorse, Yukon, in June 2024. The U.S. has been proposing a plan for decades s that would divert water from the Yukon and other western rivers to American agricultural areas. (Photo by Mike Thomas/THE CANADIAN PRESS)
Interest from the United States in Canada's water is concerning, though nothing new. In the most recent development, the U.S. has paused negotiations the Columbia River Treaty, a key water-sharing agreement between both countries.
Geopolitical tensions, when coupled with demand that is outpacing a decreasing supply under a changing climate, are posing an imminent and very real threat to Canada.
An abandoned water project known as the North American Water and Power Alliance (NAWAPA) was tabled by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the 1950s. It's considered a zombie project, always resurfacing, never dead.
The $80 billion plan proposed construction of 369 structures that would divert water from the Yukon, Liard and Peace Rivers through a 'Rocky Mountain trench' connecting Alaska to the Mississippi and Colorado River basins, and Alberta to the Great Lakes.
The goal was to convey massive volumes from the 'water-rich' north to 'water-deficient' but highly productive agricultural landscapes. Marc Reisner — an American environmentalist and author of Cadillac Desert, an account of water management and development across the Midwest — estimated that 'six nuclear power plants worth of energy' would be required to pump the required volume of water across the Rockies.
Sounds like science fiction, except that it was — and remains — a genuine threat to Canadian water security.
Canada was simply in the way decades ago. Benefits from an American perspective were clear: improving water security and agricultural dominance of the American Midwest, and massive energy (hydropower) generation potential.
However, within the project's blueprint is some of the most ecologically sensitive and protected wilderness in North America.
NAWAPA would have profound consequences for Indigenous communities and the environment. If enacted, it would alter the Rocky Mountain landscape and open the door to cross-border water trading. When first proposed, Canadians had little appetite for the plan.
The need for water in the U.S. has and always will be greater than Canada's due to its population and industrial dominance; therefore Canadian justification to hold back water is regarded as weak from an American perspective.
NAWAPA has always walked a fine line politically, with water being exempt from free-trade agreements and opinions on water export historically divisive in Canada. Decades ago, the Canadian government was resistant to bilateral talks on water, and NAWAPA was considered impractical. That was until there was a 'change of heart and attitude' in Canada. But in 2025, Canadian officials appear back to being firmly opposed.
While NAWAPA has not been seriously considered since the 1970s, there is growing speculation about whether it's truly dead or just buried in bureaucracy, which is why it's been coined a zombie project.
Talk of NAWAPA recently resurfaced amid construction of BC Hydro's Site C that would reportedly enable water transfers east of the Rockies and south to Texas.
A few key moments of the first Trump administrations have also resembled the early days of NAWAPA. In 2018, a memorandum of understanding gave the Secretary of the Department of the Interior a mandate to secure more water for the arid Midwest.
Soon after, the Columbia River Treaty between the U.S. and Canada was opened for renegotiation with the intent of optimizing energy generation in the U.S. through water storage on the Canadian side, despite an increased potential flood risk for Canada.
Significant concerns were also raised at the time over highly sensitive fish populations, the need to ensure adequate habitats for sensitive species and spawning, as well as Indigenous water rights and allocations.
This was followed by a 2020 executive order by Trump to modernize America's water resource management and water infrastructure. The order was aimed at improving co-ordination among U.S. agencies managing water or infrastructure issues and streamlining resources to improve the efficiency of water management.
Through this order, a mandate was issued to 'increase water storage, water supply reliability and drought resiliency' through internal co-ordination, but also to seek new external opportunities.
In late 2024 — at the end of President Joe Biden's term — an agreement in principle between Canada and the U.S. was reached on the Columbia River that appeared to strike a compromise over many of the aforementioned concerns by adjusting the timing of when water could be stored, how much could be stored and when it would be released.
Trump's recent 'Putting People Over Fish' executive order, however, makes clear his stance on some of the Columbia River issues, calling into question whether the new treaty terms negotiated under the Biden administration will ever be ratified by Congress, especially now that final negotiations have been officially paused.
Trump's 'Unleashing American Energy' executive order highlights the over-reach of his administration as it deliberately defies the National Environmental Policy Act to ensure water and energy supply is allocated to people first, disregarding environmental and ecological concerns.
For Canada, this has important implications for the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty, which oversees sharing of international waters along the Canada-U.S. border. In some cases, the treaty allows Canada to hold back or divert water from the U.S., provisions that would be in direct violation of the Unleashing American Energy executive order even though Canada isn't mentioned explicitly.
The Boundary Waters Treaty has long since been the envy of other nations struggling to come to agreeable terms over transboundary water-sharing and rights. Historically, it has been framed as a sign of a mutually beneficial, co-operative relationship between Canada and the U.S., a state of affairs that seemingly no longer exists under the Trump administration.
One thing is clear — despite uncertain times, Canadians must hold firm when it comes to water. Former Alberta premier Peter Lougheed perhaps said it best when he warned against sharing Canada's water, reminding Canadians that 'we should communicate to the United States very quickly how firm we are.'
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Boston mayor to Bondi on ‘sanctuary' threats: ‘Stop attacking our cities'
Boston mayor to Bondi on ‘sanctuary' threats: ‘Stop attacking our cities'

The Hill

timea few seconds ago

  • The Hill

Boston mayor to Bondi on ‘sanctuary' threats: ‘Stop attacking our cities'

Boston Mayor Michelle Wu (D) struck back Tuesday at the Trump administration's legal threats over her city's immigration policies with a blistering letter asserting Boston won't 'bow down to unconstitutional threats or unlawful coercion' from the federal government. 'The U.S. Attorney General asked for a response by today, so here it is: stop attacking our cities to hide your administration's failures,' Wu wrote in a social media post linking to her formal letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi. Bondi sent letters last week to 32 state and local governments that have been deemed ' sanctuary jurisdictions,' including Boston, warning that they could lose federal funds or face legal action if they do not assist with President Trump's sweeping immigration enforcement efforts. 'For too long, so-called sanctuary jurisdiction policies have undermined this necessary cooperation and obstructed federal immigration enforcement, giving aliens cover to perpetrate crimes in our communities and evade the immigration consequences that federal law requires,' Bondi wrote to Wu and other local letters. In her formal reply to Bondi, Wu lauded safety measures Boston has taken to tackle crime, often in partnership with federal authorities. 'Our City's longstanding and productive partnership with state and federal law enforcement to protect the people of Boston far predates your tenure,' Wu wrote to Bondi. 'The Boston Police Department, the first municipal police department in the United States, works closely with state and federal agencies to address counterterrorism threats, protect our airport and our harbor, combat drug and human trafficking and hold perpetrators accountable for crimes.' She blasted the Trump administration for lobbing 'false and continuous attacks on American cities.' 'On behalf of the people of Boston, and in solidarity with the cities and communities targeted by this federal administration for our refusal to bow down to unconstitutional threats and unlawful coercion, we affirm our support for each other and for our democracy,' Wu wrote. 'Boston will never back down from being a beacon of freedom, and a home for everyone.' The Justice Department didn't immediately respond to The Hill's request for comment. The Trump administration has taken aim at cities and states — mostly ones led by Democrats — that have high crime rates or have not aided the mass immigration arrests and deportations that Trump has pushed. The president last week declared a public safety emergency in the District of Columbia and seized control of the Metropolitan Police Force (MPD) and sent members of the National Guard and federal law enforcement agencies in a sweeping crime crackdown in the nation's capital. Trump deployed Marines and National Guard troops in Los Angeles in June amid protests over Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids.

California regulators back moves to boost zero-emissions vehicles as feds take on state's standards
California regulators back moves to boost zero-emissions vehicles as feds take on state's standards

The Hill

timea few seconds ago

  • The Hill

California regulators back moves to boost zero-emissions vehicles as feds take on state's standards

California regulators on Tuesday vowed to strengthen their commitment to slashing harmful vehicular emissions as the Trump administration ramps up efforts to overturn the state's pollution policies. 'Clean air efforts are under siege, putting the health of every American at risk,' Liane Randolph, chair of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), said on a Tuesday press call. 'California is continuing to fight back and will not give up on cleaner air and better public health — we have a legal and moral obligation,' she added. Randolph spoke alongside the publication of a new CARB report that outlined ways the state could fight back: by accelerating zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) adoption via increased private investment, government incentives and changes in ZEV fuel pricing. The report, submitted to Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), identified these specific priority action areas and others relating to state regulations and ZEV procurement, as requested by the governor in a June executive order. Chief among the CARB report's priorities was ensuring that private investment continues to support the ZEV market. To do so, the agency recommended sustaining California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard, a program designed to reduce the carbon intensity of fuels, decrease petroleum dependency and achieve air quality gains. As far as government incentives are concerned, CARB suggested that the governor and the legislature consider backfilling federal clean vehicle tax credits, which are set to expire at the end of September. Those credits could take the form of point-of-sale rebates or vouchers and could be scaled to match state policy goals, per the report. The agency also proposed creating an education pipeline for high-paying jobs in the clean transportation industry, as well as investigating opportunities to reinstate high-occupancy vehicle lane access for ZEVs. Regarding infrastructure, CARB identified a need for collaborative buildouts of charging and refueling infrastructure. As for the price of fuels, the agency suggested implementing an electric bill crediting system for EV charging, while support Western grid regionalization and leveraging private investments to bring down the cost of hydrogen. In the regulations area, the agency recommended advancing ZEV consumer assurance measures and working with local air districts on reducing 'indirect sources' of pollution, such as warehouses or railyards. The final priority, procurement, would benefit from the purchase of ZEVs for state fleets and support for doing so in local governments, according to the report. The recommendations, Randolph said, serve to steer near-term actions and 'ensure the state stays on track to meet its air quality and climate goals.' Newsom's June executive order — which mandated the CARB report — occurred after President Trump signed three congressional resolutions revoking California's previously approved emissions rules. That approval had come from the Biden administration, which granted California a waiver to set stricter-than-federal rules via the 1970 Clean Air Act. One such rule was the Advanced Clean Cars II standard, which sought to require that all cars sold in California would be zero-emissions by 2035. A second was the Advanced Clean Trucks rule, requiring 7.5 percent of heavy-duty vehicles to be emissions-free by 2035. A third, the Omnibus Regulation, focused on slashing nitrogen oxide releases. Just last week — in an about-face on compliance with the Golden State's standards — four major truck manufacturers sued California regulators over the latter two rules. Soon after, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that a voluntary ' Clean Truck Partnership ' between the companies and the state was 'unenforceable.' Then, Friday, the Department of Justice declared its intent to sue California about the same partnership, in a bid to 'advance President Donald J. Trump's commitment to end the electric vehicle (EV) mandate.' Later that day, CARB only said that it would not comment on pending litigation. On Tuesday, however, Randolph said that regardless of federal government's waiver revocation, California is continuing 'to fight hard for the emissions reductions that can easily be achieved in the heavy-duty sector and are already being achieved.' Referring specifically to the Advanced Clean Trucks regulation, she noted that 'the actual adoption is way ahead of the compliance obligation in that regulation.' 'The market is there, and the market is moving,' she said. Randolph also told reporters that CARB is already working on updating Advanced Clean Cars, with the idea that rulemaking processes can take two to four years. By starting now, she explained, the rule might 'be ready, ideally, for a more receptive U.S. EPA.' Slamming the current federal administration for 'choosing to quit the race,' she stressed that 'California is still in.' 'The world is accelerating forward toward cleaner vehicle technologies and is going to watch the U.S. fade into the rearview mirror,' Randolph added.

MAGA isolationists brace for details of Ukraine security guarantees
MAGA isolationists brace for details of Ukraine security guarantees

Axios

timea few seconds ago

  • Axios

MAGA isolationists brace for details of Ukraine security guarantees

MAGA is anxious for clarity on U.S. security guarantees for Ukraine, torn between trusting President Trump's peace efforts and the movement's deep-rooted aversion to foreign interventionism. Why it matters: As an essential precondition for ending the war, Ukraine wants written, binding assurances that its allies — namely Europe, but preferably the U.S. — will defend it from future Russian attacks. The details of those security guarantees will be negotiated in the coming weeks, but could potentially involve European peacekeepers in Ukraine backed by U.S. air power. As leader of the "America First" movement, Trump must navigate a delicate balance: offering enough security to satisfy Kyiv without making military commitments that could fracture his base. What they're saying: "These are tripwires. This is where things go from regional conflicts to world wars," MAGA godfather Steve Bannon said on his "War Room" podcast, blasting U.S. security guarantees as a recipe for decades-long involvement in Ukraine. Driving the news: In his recent burst of diplomacy — beginning with Friday's summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin — Trump has repeatedly stressed that Ukraine will not join NATO and that no U.S. troops will be on the ground in Ukraine. "You have my assurance, you know, I'm president," Trump told Fox News Tuesday morning when pressed on how he could ensure that U.S. troops wouldn't be patrolling the Ukraine-Russia border after he leaves office. Yes, but: White House envoy Steve Witkoff suggested Sunday that the U.S. guarantee could resemble "Article Five-like protection" — the core NATO principle that an attack on one ally is treated as an attack on all. That would open the door to direct U.S. intervention if Russia were to attack the peacekeeping mission of a NATO ally in Ukraine. Trump also told Fox that the U.S. "will help by air" — presumably meaning American pilots would be involved in the mission, and thus vulnerable to a potential Russian attack. How it's playing: Breitbart News Editor-in-Chief Alex Marlow told Axios that there's "no reason to be a Panican at this point" — Trump's jab at Republicans who panic in response to media alarmism. But he warned that U.S. involvement could escalate quickly, and that questions remain about the potential for the U.S. to get sucked into a shooting war with Russia. "We know full well what happens if those [European] troops get attacked: all those nations will expect American forces to get involved. That's when things get complicated," Marlow said. Libby Emmons, the editor-in-chief of The Post Millennial and Human Events, said "there aren't enough answers yet as to what those guarantees will look like or what it means for U.S. involvement." But so far, she told Axios, the sentiment among MAGA is one of "cautious optimism." "The base is always willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt, but it makes people anxious," added conservative commentator Ryan Girdusky. Zoom out: Trump still retains a deep well of goodwill from his base as he pushes to end to the yearslong war in Ukraine. While one MAGAworld operative acknowledged the "uncertainty" in negotiatoins, the movement finds it "reassuring" to hear confirmation from Trump that Ukraine won't join NATO. Past fissures between Trump and his base have almost always healed — either through policy pivots or the simple passage of time binding together two parties reluctant to part ways.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store