Latest news with #NAWAPA
Yahoo
15-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Zombie water apocalypse: Is Trump's rhetoric over Canada's water science-fiction or reality?
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
CBC
18-02-2025
- Politics
- CBC
Trump's musings on 'very large faucet' in Canada part of looming water crisis, say researchers
Water sharing between Canada and the United States has long been a contentious issue. In 2005, former Alberta premier Peter Lougheed warned against sharing Canada's water supply with the United States, suggesting Alberta's most important resource was water, not oil and gas. "We should communicate to the United States very quickly how firm we are about it," Lougheed said. Lougheed's concern didn't emerge in a vacuum. It came in the context of a long history of water-sharing proposals, some more radical than others. Take the North American Water and Power Alliance (NAWAPA), a massive, abandoned engineering megaproject that aimed to "replumb" the continent, diverting water from rivers in Alaska through Canada to the United States in northern Montana through the Rocky Mountain Trench. Those proposals come and go, even if some researchers see NAWAPA as something of a "zombie" project, always resurfacing, never dead. The actual history of water-sharing between the U.S. and Canada has been much less dramatic — orderly and bureaucratic, managed through institutions, boards and treaties. So when Donald Trump, as the Republican presidential nominee, made comments in September 2024 about there being a "very large faucet" that could be turned on to drain water from Canada to help with American water shortages, the ears of Canadian hydrologists perked up. "There's a bit of an inflammatory nature to it," said Prof. Tricia Stadnyk, a Canada Research Chair in hydrologic modelling with the University of Calgary's Schulich School of Engineering. "However, I think there's a demonstrated history of him being … maybe the right word is 'interested' over Canada's water." For water experts, there's worry that climate change and shifting U.S. policies could put pressure on long-standing cross-border water agreements. And century-old infrastructure isn't helping matters. Take, for instance, failed siphons in Montana, where water is diverted from the St. Mary River through northern Montana and across southern Alberta, supplying essential water for some Canadian agricultural operators and an Alberta community near the border. Repairs on those siphons are now facing a U.S. federal funding pause under an executive order. John Pomeroy, a University of Saskatchewan water scientist, said he's very concerned about where this issue is heading for three reasons. First, water management regimes in North America are not fulfilling the requirements they need for sustainable water supply and management for ecosystems and people, he said. "Second, rapid climate change, which is bringing greater extremes of drought and floods and loss of snow and glaciers in high mountains, is changing the basic calculus on which we base our water management," Pomeroy said. "Third, the idea of conflict, that one country can take another country's water resources and divert arbitrarily for its own means.… "We're breaking down a century of co-operation to solve these problems. When those three come together, then you can see the ingredients for a continental disaster." Turning on the taps The issue has always represented a political, economic and environmental challenge, said Peter Gleick, a climate scientist and co-founder of the Pacific Institute, a California research organization that focuses on water. "The new administration has laid down several challenges associated with U.S.-Canada relationships, tariffs, all sorts of challenges that are a little bizarre," Gleick said. "So far as I know, water has not yet entered into the conversation on the U.S. side … but who knows what strange ideas might come out of Washington now that he's back in power." Trump has a "strange fascination" with water, in Gleick's view, that goes well beyond outsized faucets and valves, including his long fascination with California water politics. In the wake of the recent Los Angeles wildfires, Trump blamed California Gov. Gavin Newsom for the blazes' escalation, telling the American cable news outlet Newsmax that during his first administration, he had "demanded" the governor accept "the water coming from the north." "From way up in Canada, and you know, the north. It flows down right through Los Angeles… Massive amounts coming out from the mountains, from the melts," Trump said in January. "And even without it, even during the summer, it's a natural flow of water. They would have had so much water they wouldn't have known what to do with it. You would have never had the fires." The idea that water could be diverted from Canada down to Los Angeles is technically very expensive and would be very difficult to engineer, Pomeroy said. There's also large issues with invasive species and habitats along the way. "I think with Trump, you see these wild speculations, but they reflect a broader appreciation that the U.S. is ... short of water in many regions, including the southwest, and is approaching a water crisis in the southern Great Plains," Pomeroy said. "At the same time, climate change is continuing to warm up Canada faster than the rest of the world. And our summers are becoming drier, and that will impose severe water management constraints, just on managing our own water resources." Turning on a "very large faucet" isn't so simple. And some, including Gleick, don't see water being put on the table in trade negotiations. There have been tensions simmering for years over water, but joint agreements have long ensured both countries manage water fairly and avoid problems, he said. To be sure, those commissions have their work cut out for them. The wild card? That Trump gets it into his head that he really wants Canadian water, Gleick said. "Then, it becomes a political issue. And then the question is, how is that managed?" he said. Cross-border co-operation Alberta has a case study in cross-border water relations ongoing right now. Last summer, two century-old siphons located east of Glacier National Park near the Canada-U.S. border burst. Those siphons were a critical component of the Milk River Project, which diverts water from the St. Mary River through northern Montana and across southern Alberta. This diversion traces its history to the 1909 Boundary Water Treaty between Canada and the United States, and under it, the U.S. is bound to send water to Canada. Given the natural flow of the Milk River being reduced, the town of Milk River, Alta., situated near the U.S.-Canada border, was forced to prohibit all non-essential water use. At the time, the mayor of the small community called it a "dry town — literally." Repair work on those siphons is ongoing, though recently hit a roadblock due to an "Unleashing American Energy" executive order issued by the Trump administration. Jennifer Patrick, project manager of the Milk River Joint Board of Control, said repairs are still ongoing thanks to a loan from the state of Montana, but federal money has been frozen due to the executive order. Patrick said she believes the pause is part of a broad evaluation of U.S. government spending across multiple infrastructure projects. Other regional water projects, which provide drinking water to rural areas, are also caught up in the review. "Our funding is caught up in that, but we're pretty confident still that the Department of Interior will put it through a review process and look at how we're spending the money," Patrick said. "It's a good project." The infrastructure is important to farmers on both sides of the border, and the Alberta government says it has been in close contact with the town of Milk River, water co-ops and agricultural operators to help support them in any way possible. During a recent interview with Alberta Finance Minister Nate Horner on the Calgary Eyeopener, Horner discussed investment opportunities and strategic advantages that could be seized by a new Crown corporation that would oversee policy for the Heritage Fund, Alberta's rainy day fund. "I try to think about things that are important to us going forward into the coming decades," Horner said. "I think about … the water challenges in the state south of us, our opportunities with fresh water, freshwater infrastructure, things like that." His office later clarified that water infrastructure is not an active investment policy. However, the newly formed, arm's-length Heritage Fund Opportunities Corporation could consider directing investment in areas of water infrastructure should it so choose, a spokesperson said. Still, the repair will be closely watched by Canadians whose livelihoods rely on it. And it's emblematic for some Canadian water researchers about the importance of being aware that aging infrastructure and shifting climate pressures could put pressure on long-standing treaties. "None of these treaties are really immune from being reopened and discussed under these very dynamic times, where water supplies are changing due to flood and drought, and also that the infrastructure that was put in to manage a lot of the diversions or allocations is aging," said Stadnyk, the Canada Research Chair in hydrologic modelling. With climate change making Canada warmer and drier, managing water is becoming even more difficult. Pomeroy, the University of Saskatchewan water scientist, said as glaciers shrink and water demands grow, Canada must take a stronger role in tracking and managing its water, especially as U.S. pressure for access isn't going away — regardless of who is in power.
