INDEPTH: WATER
Devils Lake dilemma
CBC News Online | August 5, 2005

The devil really is in the details when it comes to resolving an increasingly nasty dispute over the proposed diversion of water to Manitoba from North Dakota's Devils Lake, a plan Manitoba says may cause great damage to the province's ecosystem.

As well as Manitoba's specific concerns, at stake is the fate of a quietly effective organization called the International Joint Commission. For nearly 100 years, the IJC has resolved trans-border water disputes between Canada and the United States.

But water activists now worry that because the U.S. has bypassed the IJC in the case of Devils Lake, the commission's authority is leaking away.

"I'm very concerned. It sets a very dangerous precedent," says Susan Howatt, national water campaigner for the Council of Canadians.

The reason a functioning IJC is so important is that we share jurisdiction with the U.S. over more than 300 rivers and over the Great Lakes, which harbour 20 per cent of the world's fresh water.

And as agricultural and industrial demand for water continues to rise, some commentators say water will become "the oil of the 21st century."

Clearly, Canada and the U.S. need a workable solution for settling their water fights. Up until recently, that solution was the IJC.

The commission is the result of a 1909 treaty to manage all waters shared between the two neighbours. Three representatives from each country sit on the commission; the prime minister appoints Canada's members while the U.S. members are appointed by the president.

"It's the best place to take disputes because of the power-sharing," says Howatt. "Canada and the U.S. have equal seats at the table. It's equal, not equitable."

In the absence of a strong IJC where both nations share power, water disputes get resolved on a case-by-case basis, a potentially dangerous situation for Canada.

"It affects Canadian sovereignty. It affects our ability to manage our own resources," says Howatt. Simply put, the U.S. is the more powerful nation and may be better able to get its way by working outside the IJC.

Traditionally, the commissioners make their ruling only after both countries have agreed to refer their dispute to the IJC.

This is where Devils Lake comes in.

U.S. officials have resisted Canada's request to let the commission deal with North Dakota's plan. Of course, this has more immediate implications, especially for Manitoba.

North Dakota says it will now unilaterally go ahead with its plan for dealing with flooding that over the last decade has swallowed more than 28,000 hectares of farmland and forced 300 households to move.

The state has already spent an estimated $400 million US to deal with the problem by building a levee, raising roadways, and moving buildings and people. Now it wants to pump water out of Devils Lake into the Sheyenne River, which connects to the Red River and Lake Winnipeg in Manitoba.

The problem is that Devils Lake, about 160 kilometres south of the border, has no natural outlet. It loses water only through evaporation.

No outlet means Devils Lake has accumulated high levels of pollutants, such as sulphates, arsenic and phosphorus, and Canadian officials fear it also contains invasive species, including parasites that will flow along with the released water into Lake Winnipeg.

The dispute has caused political turmoil at the highest levels – Prime Minister Paul Martin has repeatedly raised Canada's concerns with U.S. President George W. Bush.

Despite this, North Dakota appears poised to go ahead with its diversion plan, foregoing a full environmental review and building only a rudimentary filter to screen potentially harmful foreign fish from the outflow.

The drainage channel was due to open July 1, 2005, but was held up, ironically, because of heavy rains. However, it is expected that in August 2005, the diversion project will finally go ahead, despite Canadian protests.

^TOP