Should Canada help quench America’s thirst?

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 08/09/2022 (1124 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Our closest neighbour to the south has a serious problem — and I’m not talking about racial animus, gun violence or political polarization. No, I’m referring to water shortages of a magnitude the United States has never experienced.

To put it bluntly, the U.S. is literally running out of accessible water. And without water, the lives of millions of Americans are in immediate danger. I mean, you can’t live without safe water to drink.

So, do water shortages and major drought in the U.S. have implications for Canada? Do we have extra water to spare for our American friends?

Or could this country turn the growing U.S. need for large-scale water into a huge bargaining advantage? What could Canada extract from the U.S. in exchange for us diverting huge volumes of fresh water southward?

Much of the U.S. southwest, in particular, is now struggling with the worst drought (the so-called 22-year “megadrought”) in the last 1,200 years. And climate change, accelerating populations and increased industrial/agricultural usage have only exacerbated this regional crisis.

In the words of Teri Viswanath of CoBank ACB, a part of the U.S. farm credit system: “Given the length and intensity of drought conditions in the West, there is a growing sense that low hydro availability is the ‘new normal.’”

How bad are things in the U.S. today? And what exactly are Americans doing about the water crisis?

A plea by California Gov. Gavin Newsom for that state’s residents to voluntarily reduce their water usage by 15 per cent was a flop. As long as people could get water from their taps, they felt there was no need to implement such a draconian measure. Guess again.

More than 97 per cent of California is now under conditions of severe, extreme or exceptional drought. Furthermore, many of the region’s vital water reservoirs are at half capacity or even less.

In May, strict water regulations for roughly six million southern Californians went into effect to curb usage. An aim of the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of Southern California is to reduce water use by a startling and unprecedented 35 per cent.

These severe cuts will obviously have a significant impact on ordinary life in southern California. But as MWD general manager Adel Hageklalil put it, “We have not had the supply to meet the normal demands that we have, and now we need to prioritize between watering our lawns and having water for our children and our grandchildren and livelihood and health.”

As a result, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) will restrict just about everyone to a two-day-a-week watering window, for only eight minutes per day, or fifteen minutes for water-conserving sprinklers. No watering, however, will be permitted between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., irrespective of the assigned watering days for L.A. residents.

If you decide to violate these regulations, you will initially face a warning letter, to be followed up with escalating fines for any additional violation. According to the Los Angeles Times, the “LADWP will ramp up patrols to look for people violating or wasting water.” And the possibility exists of a full outdoor ban on watering being imposed in September if things don’t improve conservation-wise.

Lastly, the Biden administration released a “water security” plan in June as one of its top foreign-policy priorities. Besides pledging to defuse potential conflicts over access to scarce water resources in various regions of the world, the plan calls for new efforts to ensure there is enough water to support health-care systems and sufficient supplies of food.

Though it doesn’t mention Canada specifically, it makes one point very clear: “Many of our most fundamental national security interests depend on water security.”

Over the years, various engineering proposals have been floated to divert significant sums of Canadian freshwater southward. None of them have succeeded in getting off the drawing board. But should that change, given the looming crisis in the U.S.?

If they haven’t already, I believe politicians and government officials in Ottawa ought to start thinking about what they are going to say when the U.S. inevitably comes knocking on our door to discuss water exports. And, of course, identifying what the implications would be if Canada unequivocally said no to the U.S. request.

I’m afraid that when it comes to the issue of Canadian water exports to the U.S., I have more questions than answers. For example, would the U.S. consider military action if Ottawa flatly turned it down?

If the U.S. is going to make a grab for our water anyway — especially since human life is at risk — should we not try to get something for it? Could Canada name its price in dollars? How about an end to U.S. border impediments and its contingency protection laws, such as trade tariffs and countervailing duties?

Oh, there is one other key question: if Canada decides to turn the water tap on, will we be able to turn it off later if we change our mind? I wouldn’t bank on that pipe dream.

Peter McKenna is professor of political science at the University of Prince Edward Island in Charlottetown.