Subject: Water: Thirsty Uncle looks north & Baltimore Sun, Lack
of Water hinders growth de
Many thanks to Hart Haidn for (1) and to Elaine Hughes for
(2). ================================ A thirsty Uncle looks north It's
not the crude: What the U.S. most needs is our water. We must not let it flow
through our hands, says former Alberta premier PETER LOUGHEED
By PETER
LOUGHEED Friday, November 11, 2005 Page A19, Globe & Mail
I
predict that the United States will be coming after our fresh
water aggressively within three to five years. We must prepare, to ensure
we aren't trapped in an ill-advised response. It would be a major mistake
for Canada to handle this issue badly. With climate change and growing
needs, Canadians will need all the fresh water we can conserve, particularly
in the western provinces. I've been involved in this issue for years. In
the early 1980s, when I was Alberta premier and worked with the knowledgeable
Henry Kroeger, then Alberta's minister for water management, he convinced me
that we should transfer water from Alberta's more northerly rivers to the dry
areas in the southern and eastern parts of our province. When we took the
proposal to caucus (we held almost every seat) we were shocked by the
aggressively negative reaction. I learned then that water is an emotional
political issue; I was usually able to get support from the caucus -- but not
when it came to fresh water. As Alberta premier, I'd travel to Washington
each spring to lobby U.S. senators for market access to our surplus oil and
natural gas (we finally obtained this access through the free-trade
agreement). I became friends with the U.S. senator from Washington state,
Henry "Scoop" Jackson, who was chairman of the Senate's energy committee. He
visited Alberta and was the first senior elected U.S. official to recognize
the potential of the oil sands. One evening "Scoop" asked me what I knew
about Section 21 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Next to
nothing, I responded. He convinced me that it would be a great positive for
Canada to take advantage of Section 21 of GATT and secure a free-trade
agreement between Canada and the United States.
I took this idea up at
my final first-ministers' conference in the spring of 1985, and proposed the
concept to then prime minister Brian Mulroney. As history records, he quickly
adopted the idea. (The Macdonald Royal Commission on the Economic Union and
Development Prospects for Canada was coming to the same conclusion). The
free-trade agreement was negotiated with President Ronald Reagan. After I
left government, I worked with the Business Council on National Issues (now
the Canadian Council of Chief Executives) to help implement the FTA.
Remember, Canada was a supplicant in this matter. In the spring of 1987, a
number of us were in Washington making the pitch for the FTA to a group of
senior senators. At a crunch time, Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas asked us
whether fresh water should be included in the deal. It was quite a moment: I
bent down to tie my shoelace, one colleague dropped his book, another
colleague dropped his pencil. The moment passed; another senator changed the
subject. Fresh water was not included in the FTA. (Had we been pressured, the
Canadian strategy, as I recall, was to reject the inclusion of water, but we
would have had to trade something else of major value in exchange.) Fast
forward to today. I spend time in Arizona and observe the dryness, the barren
riverbeds and the constant concern about water shortage there and
in neighbouring states, including California. I talk to a lot of people
about water. My political instincts tell me that some time soon water
availability is going to rise to the top of the U.S. domestic agenda and the
Senator Bentsen of the day will say: "What about Canada? They have lots of
excess water and we have the free-trade agreement. Let's demand they share
their water with us." With the population and political shift from the
U.S. northeast to Texas, Arizona, Nevada and California, what has not been on
the agenda soon will be. My strongly-held view is, we Canadians should be
prepared to respond firmly with a forceful "No. We need it for
ourselves!" Why should we not export fresh water? There are many
compelling reasons. Water is essential to our life and its supply is not
always certain. Water is essential to our food production, and why increase
our dependence on foreign food supplies? Water can be a determinant in job
location; let's bring good jobs to Canadians. Finally, if there is an
acceptable way for inter-basin transfers, let's confine such
to Canada. So, how can Canadians prepare for this thirst for our
water? 1. Governments and their departments of environment must put out
current, reliable data and encourage the exchange of data across Canada. We
must include the entire 49th parallel as well as the Great Lakes, which
have their own important water issues. 2. The federal government House
Leader should join with other house leaders to hold a special "water debate"
in the House of Commons no later than next spring. 3. The provincial
governments through their premiers should move the water issue to the
forefront and prepare for legislative debates next spring, perhaps on a
resolution framed as: "Should we export any of our fresh water to the United
States?" 4. The first ministers planning secretariat should plan for a late
spring meeting with the water issue specifically at the forefront. 5.
Private sector research groups across Canada should pick up on the
Canada West Foundation's January 2005 report Balancing Act: Water
Conservation and Economic Growth (the export issue is targeted on page
16). 6. Environmental groups and business associations should form an
alliance to pressure political parties to make the water issue a
priority. No doubt there will be a significant segment (I'd guess a minority)
who either believe the water issue is overblown or that bulk water sales to
the United States should not be discouraged. My sense is that once they
are alerted to the probability of a U.S. grab for our fresh water,
most Canadians will react as the Alberta government caucus did in the early
1980s when they told their then premier: "Get lost!" I hope that when the
time comes, Canada will be ready. The reality is that fresh water is more
valuable than crude oil. Peter Lougheed is a former premier of
Alberta. ========================================= (2) LACK OF WATER
HINDERS GROWTH, BALTIMORE SUN
Water shortages and burdened
public facilities are deterring development throughout Carroll County, but
particularly in areas where officials are trying to encourage
growth.
A lack of new water sources is curtailing residential and
industrial development in Taneytown. New Windsor and Hampstead cannot add
more homes or businesses until they expand wastewater treatment plants.
Future development in South Carroll, already the county's most populous area,
depends on the success of several new wells and millions of dollars in
upgrades to the Freedom Water Treatment Plant that will take at least two
years to complete.
After Mount Airy drilled a dozen test wells and failed
to find more water, town officials are considering a developer's offer to
build a reservoir fed by water from the South Branch of the Patapsco
River.
The problems are sending growth from established communities into
outlying areas, where homes are spread across farmland, on large lots with
private wells and septic systems, officials said.
"If developers
cannot build in the towns, we are going contrary to what the county's plan is
for growth," said Edwin Singer, director of the county's Bureau of
Environmental Health. "We want to focus growth around the towns."
The
Health Department reviews building projects in relation to available water
capacity and decides whether the supply is adequate. If the supply is deemed
insufficient, a town has to look for more water.
"Smart growth and
environmental issues are sometimes in conflict," Singer said.
No
jurisdiction can drill a public well or expand the water system
without appropriate permits from the Maryland Department of the Environment,
an agency that monitors public water and wastewater
systems.
Commissioner Dean L. Minnich said federal and state restrictions
on water resources "are painting us into a corner. They call for smart growth
and then we can't build around towns because of inadequate
facilities."
And finding more water is becoming increasingly
difficult.
In Taneytown, new projects hinge on increasing the water
supply. The city of about 6,300 had to agree to repairs to its system,
conservation measures and capacity-management programs before the state would
allow an increase in the draws from town wells. But even those increases are
not enough.
"We are basically at the end of our limit for drawing water,"
said James Schumacher, Taneytown city manager. "Our situation is the most
dire of the towns, because we are close to reaching maximum
allocation."
In December, the MDE and Taneytown will meet to review the
city's water allocation. Other municipalities in Carroll and elsewhere also
are bargaining with the state over their water-use permits and calling
for increases in the groundwater allocations, set by the state.
The
state and town of Mount Airy will allow CVI Development Group to look into
construction of a small reservoir, fed by waters from the South Branch of the
Patapsco River.
If the estimated $14.5 million project moves forward, it
would be at the developer's expense.
"Surface water could be a good
option for us," said Mount Airy Mayor James S. Holt. "Without it, we won't
see any more economic development. We are already over our limit with
MDE."
The county commissioners said the reservoir proposal runs counter
to Carroll's master plan, which has long included a large reservoir fed by
the Gillis Falls - a plan federal officials have rejected
repeatedly.
As long as surface water is available, the county will have
difficulty building the Gillis Falls Reservoir, said Commissioner Julia Walsh
Gouge. Even a much smaller reservoir could push the county's project further
into the future.
"This plan goes completely against ours," Gouge
said.
According to the Mount Airy developer's proposal, water would be
pumped from the river and impounded in a reservoir.
In a letter to the
MDE, the county commissioners stated their concerns with the project,
particularly pollution. The developer's proposed watershed lies in a
substantially urbanized area that includes Interstate 70 and a railroad line,
both with relatively direct runoff to the river.
The county has
previously rejected the river as a water resource, calling it unreliable for
quantity and quality, the letter says.
"Surface water is much more
expensive to treat," Gouge said.
Singer will lead a discussion on water
issues at the next meeting early next year of the Carroll County Council of
Governments, a forum for the towns and community growth areas. The
commissioners will ask the Maryland Association of Counties to consider the
problems many areas are facing with lagging water resources.
"We have
to put consistency and balance into the development process," Minnich said.
"We need to get science and all the other players into a discussion so that
everybody is on the right track."