MPs unite against Devils Lake project (Water)

[CHIMO]

MPs unite against Devils Lake project
Last Updated Jun 14 2005 05:32 PM CDT

WINNIPEG – An all-party environment committee in Ottawa is demanding decisive action on North Dakota's plans to operate a controversial flood outlet this summer.

North Dakota has almost completed construction on an outlet to send flood water out of Devils Lake and into the Sheyenne River, which joins the Red River and flows north into Lake Winnipeg. Rainy weather has put construction of the outlet behind schedule, but the project manager says he still hopes it will go into operation as planned on July 1.

Canada's ambassador to the United States, Frank McKenna, says high-level talks are continuing, but it's a complicated issue.

"The problem is compounded by the fact they have some very powerful state representatives who are causing a lot of pressure to be put on in Washington to let them do as they wish and simply release the water," he said.

http://winnipeg.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=mb_devils-lake-20050614

Hey Great Lakes people. If you value the water around you then this better be resolved quickly. Otherwise the IJC is out the window and it will be a free for all for water.

http://www.ijc.org/en/home/main_accueil.htm

[applegrove]

1. I am sure part of this is precedent setting. That is part of the plan.

Hidden under "oh let us send you more water!!! and it will not make more than a food of difference to the shoreline of that huge lake Winnipeg in the end - see problem solved (precedent set for US to act unilaterally)" And then they'll wave and smile. :hi:

I would imagine that with the Nebraska Aquifer, in its last twenty years of life, that such precedents on unilateral USA water Action will become very, very popular. So that when the court cases do happen when water will be diverted from Canada in 30 years..they have established a history.

[CHIMO]

2. If

This does not go to the IJC then the IJC is of no use. Look for everyone to set up plants for exporting water. It need not be approved by the IJC. Once the precedent is set it becomes only the benefit of the individual state or province that is of concern.

[applegrove]

3. The Americans refuse to uphold the DSM part of NAFTA. They refuse

to recognize any court or 'higher authority'. They are likely "creating a history". Reminds me of what 'some WH staffer said to Ron Suskind just a few years ago:

"'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"

http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=3822


Someone should tell CAFTA that the US under Bush does not follow the rules of the treaty.

[oblivious]

8. Yes, it's the precedent that is the nightmare here. This is very dangerous

[ovidsen]

4. Is this a Great Lakes issue?

It sure is a serious environmental one, and that's why Canadians are so upset. By all accounts, Devil's Lake is a cesspool, filled with agricultural runoff (fertilizer, pesticides, manure). But it's also landlocked (for now), sort of like The Great Salt Lake. The poisons are confined. But they won't be once the outlet to the Sheyenne is opened. I can understand why this is one "export" Canada wants no part of. In fact, I'm surprised that folks in Fargo and Grand Forks aren't upset about this. I think these cities get their water from the Red River too, so now they can look forward to sipping whatever is now in that lake.

Canada won't retaliate by sending crap into the Great Lakes, though. It's their water source, too, and as my grandma used to say, "never s**t where you eat (drink)".

However, this will set an ugly precedent.

[K-W]

5. And another wedge between us and our most important economic partner nt

[CHIMO]

7. I Don't See It That Way

I see it as a water issue.

If one looks at the cost/benefit between the two countries then I think that one would have to assume that the US has more reason to maintain the agreement.

Based on populations I would think that Canada would benefit more per person than the US from the sale of the water.

If the people in the US don't want the agreement then I would think that all efforts will be taken by companies to show how they are giving employment and taxes to the local area.

The local issue in this instance is only a justification to break the agreement. It is in to ones benefit to break the agreement, other than the corporations.

To make it a Canada/US fight just hides the issue. But perhaps that is the way we have to go now.

[CHIMO]

6. It Is

An issue that embodies all water that touches or crosses the international border. Take a look at the last link that I posted above. Thus all rivers or lakes that affect the two countries are covered by the IJC. It was signed in 1909 and has been held up as one of the great agreements between two countries.

If the agreement fails what it means is that there is no need for any agreement between the two countries on how anyone wants to utilize the water within their boundary other than their own requirements. It is more than just the Great Lakes.

[CHIMO]

9. Turning the taps on a toxic dispute

WASHINGTON - The Sheyenne River begins in North Dakota, leisurely meanders its way eastward, takes a little dip south, then joins the Red River for its northward jaunt into Manitoba.

There it runs smack into what has become the most acrimonious dispute in the growing cauldron of bilateral battles between Ottawa and Washington.

Not only is the environment threatened, but also a nearly century-old treaty governing Canada-U.S. border waters.

To allow North Dakota to ignore the treaty is to essentially render the bilateral agreement useless and set a precedent that threatens any Canadian region bordering on the Great Lakes or other transnational water bodies, Ottawa says.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1118785813223&call_pageid=968332188492

Get the tankers ready for water shipments all over the world.

[maddezmom]

10. kick to combine

[Wonk]

11. Canadian Politicians Ratchet Up River Row With US

Ottawa (CNSNews.com) - A controversial plan by North Dakota to divert waters from its Devils Lake into the Sheyenne River, ostensibly to avoid future flooding, is angering Canadian politicians, including Prime Minister Paul Martin, who called it "unacceptable."

Some opponents have called on Canada to retaliate by cutting energy supplies to the United States.

(snip)

In Ottawa, the House of Commons' all-party environment committee unanimously passed a resolution Tuesday saying the North Dakota decision would violate the 1909 Boundary Waters Convention between Canada and the United States.

Members of all four political parties called on the Canadian government "to immediately exhaust any and all diplomatic and/or legal options available to prevent any water diversion from Devils Lake ... until the project has been reviewed by the International Joint Commission."

The IJC is the binational panel set up under the 1909 convention to monitor all water developments straddling the border between the two countries. It also has been used often in the past to mediate in cross-border water disputes.

(snip)

Referring the matter to the IJC would merely delay the important project, said Senators Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan and Rep. Earl Pomeroy -- all Democrats -- and Republican Governor John Hoeven.

more...
http://www.townhall.com/news/politics/200506/FOR20050615b.shtml

[bobbieinok]

12. input/more input from North Dakotans?????

[CHIMO]

13. Devils Lake — Threat to Boundary Waters Treaty

Letters from politicans, NGO's and others. The individual documents are in pdf format.

http://www.ambassadeducanada.org/devilslake/index-en.asp

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[maddezmom]

15. Is that a knock knock joke?

:hi: