Water is like wheat; both are tradeable commodities.
In a stunning surrender of Canada’s food sovereignty Prime Minister Stephen Harper converted the Wheat Board into a money-making opportunity for the ultra-wealthy, including the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Canadians must now stand on guard to make sure that Harpers loyal follower, Pierre Poilievre, does not the same thing with Canada’s water now that Donald Trump wants it? Just as Vincent Van Gogh looked at a field of wheat and saw the beauty of Gods creation, Trump can look at a source of fresh water and see money. It is often said in California that water flows uphill toward money. That old saying may has new meaning now that Trump will soon be sworn in as the 47th president of the United States. He has made no secret of the fact that he believes that the water problems of the western states, primarily California, can be solved by diverting water from Canada. And he has gone further than that vowing to use economic pressure to turn Canada into the 51st state.
The current dispute among the United States, Canada and Mexico is, on the surface, driven by Trump’s threat to impose 25% tariffs on all goods coming from Canada and Mexico unless they take a broad range of steps to balance trade and control illegal migration and drug trafficking by Day One of his presidency. Mexico’s President and now Prime Minister Trudeau have taken the very strong public position of vowing equivalent retaliation against Trump’s threatened tarriffs. Member of parliament Charlie Angus explains Trump’s ambitions to acquire Canada’s water and predatory nature far more accutarely than Trudeau ever managed to do. You can find the speech made in the House of Commons by Angus at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXGMHwsSOjg.
The Los Angeles Times recently reported that the seven western states which depend on the Colorado River for water are now at an impasse in negotiations over the writing of new rules for dealing with their chronic water shortage.
Apparently disagreements over competing proposals have created a deep split between two camps; the three states in the river’s lower basin—California, Arizona and Nevada—and the four states in the upper basin—Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico. The Colorado River provides water for cities from Denver to Los Angeles. The river has long been over allocated and its reservoirs have been declining dramatically since 2000. The Colorado River has been managed under the Colorado River Compact, which was negotiated among the states in
1922. That agreement requires the four states of the upper basis to deliver an annual average of 7.5 million acre-feet to California, Arizona and Nevada over a 10 year period.
Apparently the upper basin states will not agree to cut back their allocation when water shortages occur which means the lower states may not receive their allocation. At the time of this writing, unprecedented wildfires, fuelled by the Santa Ana winds gusting to over 80 MPH, are causing massive damage in the Los Angeles area. This brings water issues into the public eye even though there is more than enough water in the Pacific Ocean to douse these fires.
Canada does have the water likely to be needed for many decades and perhaps centuries to come.
Why does this matter to Canada? Trump has often referred to Canada as a “giant faucet”. More recently he has taken to calling Canada the 51st state. Canada does have the water that the US southwest needs now and long into the future. It has been said that “Water is not for drinking; whiskey is for drinking. Water is for fighting over.” We don’t know how hard Trump will fight to get access to Canadian water. We don’t even know if he will have enough political power to achieve much of anything beyond harassing the individuals and groups that he and his MAGA allies don’t like. The idea of diverting water originating in Canada to the US southwest has been discussed for decades but. But Canada must now be prepared for anything that Trump may want to do in any event. The water problem in the US southwest is real and is almost certainly going to get worse over the coming decades.
Canadians have somehow been led to believe that the US cannot force Canada to supply water to the US under any conditions including under the trade agreements Canada has negotiated with the US. This message was delivered very forcefully by several senior federal officials at a water law conference I attended in Ottawa not long after NAFTA came into effect. To that I would simply say Canada and Canadians must never be so naïve as to trust the US to abide by its treaty obligations. After all Trump wants to annex Canada by economic pressure and recently refused to rule out the use of military force to acquire Greenland which is protected under the NATO treaty and the Panama Canal.
It is often said “If wheat (food) doesn’t cross borders, then armies will.” That certainly applies to water as well. Not so long ago the US invaded Iraq to secure access to middle eastern oil. The idea of Canada allowing any US access to Canadian water seems unthinkable today but there can be of great value in planning for the previously unthinkable. Indeed, it may be enormously beneficial to Canada as a whole to allow US access to Canadian water where it can be
reasonably supplied. To borrow a phrase, if Canada’s water does flow uphill toward money then that money can be made to flow back to Canada. ( Again, art reflects reality. The movie Chinatown, featuring Jack Nicholson, portrays the extreme steps which were taken to bring water to Los Angeles. And Marc Reisers excellent book Cadillac Desert covers US water politics and history thoroughly. Reiser was the keynote speaker at one of the US water law conferences I attended 20 + years ago. He was also selling autographed copies of Cadillac Desert and included a DVD of Chinatown in the package.)
If Canada is compelled by circumstances to sell it’s water to the US then it is essential that such sales be managed at the Federal level.I propose this be done only through a single desk marketing structure if it is to be done at all. That structure will ensure revenue from water sales is shared fairly among all Canadians. It will also ensure that Canada’s water wealth is not simply handed over to entrepreneurs who happen to be good friends of whoever is the Prime Minister at the time. The water issue will likely rise to the surface well before Canada’s next election. Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives seem to be very friendly to Trump and his policies and ambitions. Can Canadians really trust Poilievre to handle Canada’s water weath properly? Or any other political party for that matter. Perhaps this issue can be brought onto Canadas political stage in the upcoming Liberal leadership contest and from there onto centre stage for the next federal election.
