U.S.-Canada Transboundary Water Management
| Geolocation: | 49° 0' 0", -96° 0' 0" |
|---|---|
| Total Population | 4545,000,000 millionmillion |
| Climate Descriptors | alpine |
| Predominent Land Use Descriptors | agricultural- cropland and pasture, conservation lands, industrial use, forest land, rangeland, urban, religious/cultural sites |
| Important Uses of Water | Agriculture or Irrigation, Domestic/Urban Supply, Fisheries - wild, Hydropower Generation, Industry - consumptive use, Other Ecological Services, Recreation or Tourism |
| Water Features: | Columbia River Basin, Devil's Lake Basin, The St. Mary and Milk Rivers |
| Riparians: | The United States of America, Canada |
| Water Projects: | Devils Lake Outlet |
| Agreements: | The Boundary Waters Treaty (BWT) |
Contents
Summary
The United States and Canada share a 5,000 mile border, crossed by over 150 rivers and lakes (Hall, 2007). The flow of transboundary rivers is surprisingly even, with about half flowing into each country Lemarquand, 1986), which creates what would presumably be an ideal environment for excellent transboundary relations. U.S.-Canada Transboundary waters have been managed largely successfully since the signing of the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 (BWT). One especially important part of the success of the BWT was the creation of an independent fact-finding organization called the International Joint Commission (IJC). Recent growth in population, economic activity, environmental impacts and land development along both sides of the border have led to rising tensions over shared water resources. Though after more than 100 years the BWT has successfully prevented and resolved many disagreements, unresolved disputes and contentious issues have occurred, and may grow more frequent as economic pressures rise along the border. The Columbia River Agreement and Devil’s Lake Outlet are two particularly clear cases which continue to put strain on the transboundary water relations of the two countries.
Natural, Historic, Economic, Regional, and Political Framework
Background
The U.S. and Canada share many water resources which cross their shared border, including four out of five great lakes and the St. Lawrence River, making up the world’s largest surface freshwater system and providing 95% of the fresh surface water available in the United States.[2]. Management of these resources became necessary in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when conflicts began to arise over navigation and use of the water in the great lakes. In 1909, the Boundary Waters Treaty (BWT), a comprehensive treaty governing the management of shared water resources by both countries, was signed. A key part of the BWT was the establishment of the International Joint Commission (IJC), which was created to be a neutral source of information, investigation, and advice for both countries in managing their shared water resources fairly. Interestingly, most attempts at resolution of conflicts in the Great Lakes region have been successful, while those in the prairie region (North Dakota, Montana) have led to unresolved conflicts.[3]
The Problem
The Boundary Waters treaty is unique in the breadth of ecological, political and economic situations it covers. It has generally been successful in solving transboundary water disputes between the U.S. and Canada, but 100 years after its initial signing it is unclear if it can properly address transboundary water issues in a new economic, environmental and political context. In the case of the Devil’s Lake outlet dispute, political sentiment in North Dakota may be responsible for hasty decision-making which led to transboundary water disputes. The potential for new conflicts in all regions of the border is growing as populations and industry grow, bringing with them disagreements over environmental and trade policy. Key issues like the equity of the Columbia River Treaty and the Devil’s Lake Outlet have further contributed to the tension between the two states. [4]
Attempts at Conflict Management
The Boundary Waters Treaty has led to several agreements and treaties between Canada and the U.S., including the Trail Smelter Arbitration (1941), Columbia River Treaty (1961), Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (1972), and the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Agreement (2005).
Issues and Stakeholders
General issues
Responsible and equitable use of shared water resources between the U.S. and Canada. Issues include water pollution, hydropower and flood control, control of invasive species, and first nation rights.
The Devil's Lake Outlet
Issues: Frequent flooding in a basin in North Dakota necessitated the construction of emergency outlets which drain to the Sheyenne River, risking the ecological integrity of downstream biotic communities in Canada. Management solutions have been largely unsuccessful to the present, and flooding continues.
Stakeholders: The town of Devil’s Lake, U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers, The State of Manitoba (Canada), The States Minnesota and North Dakota (U.S.), traditional and commercial fishermen of the Sheyenne and Red rivers, International Joint Commission.
The Columbia River Treaty
Issues: Frequent flooding in a basin in North Dakota necessitated the construction of emergency outlets which drain to the Sheyenne River, risking the ecological integrity of downstream biotic communities in Canada. Management solutions have been largely unsuccessful to the present, and flooding continues.
Stakeholders: The town of Devil’s Lake, U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers, The State of Manitoba (Canada), The States Minnesota and North Dakota (U.S.), traditional and commercial fishermen of the Sheyenne and Red rivers, International Joint Commission.
Outcome
Most transboundary agreements between the U.S. and Canada have ended favorably for both countries. Interestingly, most attempts at resolution of conflicts in the Great Lakes region have been successful, while those in the prairie region (North Dakota, Montana) have led to unresolved conflicts.[5] Distrust and tension over decisions like the Columbia River Treaty and Devils Lake Outlet project area a source of continuing irritation to water management relations between the two countries. The possibility for new points of conflict continues to grow.
Analysis, Synthesis, and Insight
Individuals may add their own Analysis, Synthesis, and Insight (ASI) to a case. ASI sub-articles are protected, so that each contributor retains authorship and control of their own content. Edit the case to add your own ASI.
Learn moreASI:The International Joint Commission as a model mechanism for transboundary water relations
Contributed by: Charles van Rees (last edit: 17 May 2013)
Key Questions
Transboundary Water Issues: What mechanisms beyond simple allocation can be incorporated into transboundary water agreements to add value and facilitate resolution?
The IJC is a near-perfect example of the type of organization which provides the basis the powerful fact-finding practices that lead to value creation in water negotiation. Not only does the IJC employ expertise and technical knowledge in providing information on a given issue, but it operates in a well-maintained state of political neutrality, and maintains a high degree of legitimacy. It has been suggested by other authors that, in addition to legitimacy, it may in fact need more authority to direct the governments it serves or act on its own accord without waiting for the full consent of both parties.
Hydropower Dams and Large Storage Infrastructure: What role(s) can hydropower play in a nation's energy strategy?
As in the Columbia River Treaty, hydropower can be a form of added value in addition to other benefits like flood control and drought protection, enabling payments and exchange to occur between countries which may facilitate or fund the construction of projects that might otherwise not be feasible. As recent controversy over the treaty indicates, it is best to consider the effects of engineering projects of the scale of hydroelectric dams on a multitude of stakeholders, because of their far-reaching ecological and hydrological impacts. Hydropower is a powerful tool for a nation’s energy strategy, but one that must be used prudently and with attention to impacts on “outsider” groups like endangered species and indigenous people.
Hydropower Dams and Large Storage Infrastructure: How do issues of equity and development impact the identification of stakeholders in cases involving hydropower or other revenue generating water infrastructure?
Because hydropower projects require large financial investments, groups that are unable to make financial contributions may be marginalized. This seems to be the case for the Columbia River Treaty, in which the traditional fishing grounds of a large number of Native American tribes were altered and fisheries destroyed to provide protection for cities in the United States and economic opportunities for Canada. Because of this tendency to undervalue stakeholders who are unable to invest in the project itself, it may be necessary for decision-makers to be especially vigilant and sensitive to stakeholder needs when dealing with hydropower projects.
External Links
- International Joint Commission Website — The official website of the International Joint Commission. Includes lists of all agreements and meeting minutes, also a text version of the Boundary Waters Treaty.
- ^ Taken from the International Joint Commission Website. (c) International Joint Commission, 2013. http://www.ijc.org/en_/
- ^ Great Lakes Commission, 2003. Toward a Water Resources Management Decision Support System for the Great Lakes-St.Lawrence River Basin 9. Available at http://www.glc.org/wateruse/wrmdss/finalreport/pdf/WR-ExSum-2003.pdf.
- ^ Heinmiller, B.T. 2008. The Boundary Waters Treat and Canada-U.S. Relations in Abundance and Scarcity. The Wayne Law Review 54:4, 1499-1524.
- ^ Schindler, D.W. and A.M. Hurley. 2004. Rising Tensions: Canada/U.S. Cross-Border Water Issues in the 21st Century. Notes for Remarks to the Centre for Global Studies Conference on Canada/U.S. Relations, University of Victoria. November, 2004.
- ^ Heinmiller, B.T. 2008. The Boundary Waters Treat and Canada-U.S. Relations in Abundance and Scarcity. The Wayne Law Review 54:4, 1499-1524.
