# Future US-Canada Water disputes due to Global Warming?



## CougarKing (12 Apr 2007)

I am aware there is already an old, whimsical thread about this, titled "Will Canada be invaded for its water?"  : at Radio Chatter, but here is a little article I spotted this morning that I thought some of you needed to look at.

Don't get me wrong. I am not taking sides in the ongoing debate between the "Prevent Global Warming" crowd or the "Global Warming is a Myth" side, but just thought I needed to post the article here.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070412/sc_nm/globalwarming_water_dc



> Warming could spark N. American water scramble: U.N.
> By Timothy Gardner
> Thu Apr 12, 4:20 AM ET
> 
> ...



Any thoughts to refute or support this?


----------



## casing (16 Apr 2007)

Sure, some sort of conflict could arise over fresh water in the future.  But it isn't going to be as a result of the type of global warming and climate change the media and other interested parties are trying to hoodwink the public with.  Ahhh... I better stop now before I get all worked up.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Apr 2007)

Just as "global Warming" alarmism is caused and spread by ignorance of science and history, fears of mass water diversion and sales are driven by ignorance of economics and technology.

The short answer is water is a heavy and inert substance, which can only be transported great distances at great expense. This explains why every "great" hydraulic engineering project in history has always been a government project; the Pharaoh, King, Commissar, New Dealer etc. has no need to conform to economic reality (and the project silts up with the end of government subsidies......).

It is far cheaper and more economical to allow market forces to set water prices, which will encourage consumers to adopt meathods to minimize water consumption. Recycling water is an option as well, and becomes viable at certain supply/demand points.


----------



## KwaiLo (16 Apr 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Recycling water is an option as well, and becomes viable at certain supply/demand points.



And these points are starting to meet lower down on the graph than in previous years.  I look after our waste water treatment where I work, and the focus for me this year is to recycle the water through our processes instead of just preparing it for sewer.  The cost of the treatment equipment and chemistry is much higher than the cost of the equipment required to hold the water for return to the process.

In a few years, I expect that self cleaning pot fiters and UV purifiers will come down enough in price to allow for new home usage as well.  I am not sure that recycling will ever be practical as a retrofit to a house however.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Apr 2007)

Recycling can be done at many points in the chain, I can think of a number of emerging technologies which would allow clean, potable water to be extracted from the municipal sewage stream for example, but would really require the entire municipal supply to justify the capital cost.

On a much smaller scale, homeowners can use rain barrels and expended grey water from the washing machine to water their lawns and gardens, and there are intermediate systems for industrial use. Based on these known technologies and the presumptive introduction of market pricing and its effect on demand, the sky is neither falling or even lowering. People can invest in water import/export schemes if they wish, I am sure they will be very disappointed with the resulting ROI.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Apr 2007)

Canada and the US already have a number of agreements regarding water use that impacts both nations. Most of the states suffering water shortages are to far south to be helped by our water. Look up the “International Rivers Improvement Act”


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Apr 2007)

The alternate solution is that people move to where water is economically available......The problem then becomes one of managing immigration and borders.


----------



## time expired (16 Apr 2007)

A long time ago I read about a proposed plan to dam the Fraser river and import the water south
to alleviate the water problems of California,an environmental disaster in the making,however the
Socreds led by "Wacky"Bennet thought it was a great idea.Does anyone remember more about this
plan?
                Regards


----------



## GAP (16 Apr 2007)

Is there not something like 5 or 6 dams already on the Columbia River?....Apparently, between the hydro and irrigation systems tapping it, it is just a puddle by the time it gets to its' outlet.


----------



## foresterab (16 Apr 2007)

GAP,

I think you might be thinking more the Colorado river.  The Columbia river still have significant flow but the quality of that flow has drastically changed due to human activities...especially when dealing with fish populations.  Not sure how accurate the numbers are but I recall being told by a state official at a salmon hatchery down in Washington State that 50 million salmon used to spawn there...now less than 15 million do (this was in 1995).


----------



## GAP (16 Apr 2007)

I stand corrected....you're right.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Apr 2007)

You may be referring to the North American Water and Power Alliance Plan (NAWAPA), which seems to be the US Army Corps of Engineers saying they can do things bigger and better than the Soviet Union (divert rivers fron the Arctic Ocean? HA! We will reverse the entire flow of the North American Continent!)

From an engineering point of view, everything proposed is feasable (i.e. does not violate the laws of physics), but from an economic or environmental point of view, the plan makes no sense whatsoever. It is perhaps the ulimate evolution of the "capstone dams" built during the great depression; Socialist/New Deal wealth redistribution where the taxpayers of the United States got to supply water at sub market rates to California. Now of course, we Canadians are also invited to pony up.......

The map (if it attaches), shows the extent of the proposed North American Water and Power Alliance Plan (NAWAPA), otherwise go to this link: http://www.schillerinstitute.org/economy/maps/maps2.html#nawapa


----------



## GAP (17 Apr 2007)

Living in Manitoba with the ongoing Garrison Diversion Project coming up regularly and the whole bio transfer issue, this could be a real nightmare. From the map, it looks like the North Saskatchewan River being entirely diverted to the central U.S., leaving "what" for Canada. 

You want a North American war? Try implementing this.


----------



## CougarKing (17 Apr 2007)

Speaking of future conflicts over natural resources...

We should all hope it never comes down to this...

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,132519,00.html



> Military: Global Warming may Cause War
> Associated Press  |  April 17, 2007
> WASHINGTON - As the world warms, water - either too little or too much of it - is going to be the major problem for the United States, scientists and military experts said Monday. It will be a domestic problem, with states clashing over controls of rivers, and a national security problem as water shortages and floods worsen conflicts and terrorism elsewhere in the world, they said.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Apr 2007)

http://www.last.fm/music/R.E.M./_/Its+the+end+of+the+world+as+we+know+it+(and+I+feel+fine)

Edit: S_Baker - you know that you are wrong on this one.  You forgot a couple of Oceans and a fair number of seas.  I can't help but wonder what happens when all that water heats up due to global warming, evaporates and creates one giant cloud that blocks out the sun.  Do you suppose it might rain?


----------



## a_majoor (17 Apr 2007)

I can only imagine a board of this type in Elizabethen England crying disaster as deforestation engulfs the Kingdom. No wood for ships, no firewood and especially no charcoal for metal smelting.....Oddly enough, with the price of wood going through the roof, it becomes economically feasable to put more effort into mining coal.

Fast forward to the mid 1800's, when whale oil became scarce and expensive. Suddenly it becomes economical to drill for that icky stuff seeping from the ground in Pennsylvania.

Although there is no water substitute, economics and history tells us that when there is a demand for a product, a means will be found to supply that product. If you drive along the Pacific coast of Chile, you will see large screens of very fine netting hung in the air to collect the morning dew. Saudi Arabia distills water from the Persian Gulf, the Japanese collect rain water for gardening and washing and there are plenty of other examples out there. If things get really bad we can send a space ship to Europa (orbiting Jupiter) since that planet is 40% water  

Maybe we should pack up the global warming alarmists and send them to Europa. It is nice and cool there and they should have little difficulty finding all the water they need...........


----------



## Adrian_888 (1 May 2007)

Let em come, I hope they like the taste of blood in there water.  >

But seriously, there are lots of other solutions to water shortages, you can boil or evaporate sea water and then recolect it, it would sooner become economic (or at least combined with moral reasons) to build large filtering plants like that then go to war.


----------



## a_majoor (2 May 2007)

Interestingly enough, the best way to avoid water shortages is through renewing urban infrastructure. Chennai, India (formerly Madras) loses almost 40% of its water through leaking pipes in the municipal system. Just so you see this isn't a third world problem, London Ontario discharges raw sewage into the Thames River during rain storms since the local infrastructure has been neglected in favor of flashy "urban renewal" projects. Since these projects have a uniform negative rate of return, taxpayers see their resources literally flowing into the river.........


----------



## vonGarvin (2 May 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> If things get really bad we can send a space ship to Europa (orbiting Jupiter) since that planet is 40% water



What ship should we send?  DISCOVERY went there in 2001 (alternate universe), but didn't land.  Of course, later expeditions were turned away after Jupiter morphed into Lucifer!    THOSE expeditions didn't turn out that well.....;D


----------



## p_imbeault (2 May 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> London Ontario discharges raw sewage into the Thames River


Isn't London Ontario quite a ways away from the Thames? Or am I missing something?


----------



## Mike Baker (2 May 2007)

Imbeault said:
			
		

> Isn't London Ontario quite a ways away from the Thames? Or am I missing something?


You know I thought it was far away from it too


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 May 2007)

Imbeault said:
			
		

> Isn't London Ontario quite a ways away from the Thames? Or am I missing something?



Best get out an atlas....you are missing something.


----------



## vonGarvin (2 May 2007)

Just as there is more than one London on this planet, so too is there more than one Thames.  London Ontario, named after the capital of the Empire way back when, also had the river running through it named after the river running through "Londres".  Trust me, I know.  I lived within 100 metres of the North Branch of the Thames along Adelaide Street from 1992-1998.

Trivia: London (England) in French is "Londres", while London (Ontario) is "London" in French.  I brought it up to the Air Canada "steward" upon landing at London a few years back, after he said "Bievenue a Londres".  I said "J'ai pense que Londres est en Angleterre, et London est en Ontario".  He just looked at me and smiled....


----------



## p_imbeault (2 May 2007)

Oops my mistake, they don't teach us kids Canadian Geography as well as they used to apparently.  ;D


----------



## Mike Baker (2 May 2007)

Imbeault said:
			
		

> Oops my mistake, they don't teach us kids Canadian Geography as well as they used to apparently.  ;D


No, they don't, and I am a geography wiz


----------



## a_majoor (3 May 2007)

Captain Sensible said:
			
		

> What ship should we send?  DISCOVERY went there in 2001 (alternate universe), but didn't land.  Of course, later expeditions were turned away after Jupiter morphed into Lucifer!    THOSE expeditions didn't turn out that well.....;D



To fit with the general mindset of the "Greens", I was thinking of the good ship "Lollypop". ;D ;D ;D

I'm glad the geography debate was settled. On the other hand, If I was to do a pub night in London there would be a few rounds I wouldn't have to buy........ >

(Back to being serious)

The simple solution to all this is to set municipal water prices according to the market (and looking at bottled water, H2O is more expensive than gasoline!). Public behaviour regarding consumption would change pretty quick, and it would not result in social or economic devastation. Israel has a GDP/person similar to California, yet uses aprox 1/5 the water the Californians do. The fact that water costs about 5 times as much in Isreal than California may have something to do with it.


----------



## TCBF (4 May 2007)

Ask any homeowner in SoCal if there water rates have skyrocketed, and you may get a shock:

"What water rates?  I pay taxes for that!"

Free water being a right and all....

 :

Never thought we would be preaching "The Market Never Lies" to the experts...


----------



## Benny (4 May 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I can't help but wonder what happens when all that water heats up due to global warming, evaporates and creates one giant cloud that blocks out the sun.  Do you suppose it might rain?


Oddly enough, the opposite is likely to take place.
Water evaporation (at temperatures well below boiling point) is due primarily to light intensity, not heat. The same polluters that have increased CO2 levels, have greatly increased airborne particulate matter (aka, dust). This allows water droplets to form more smaller drops resulting in vapor clouds, rather than fewer heavier droplets resulting in rain. This effect is known as 'Global Dimming'. No, Michael Moore's fanbase isn't breeding, the smaller sized droplets increase the earths albedo, reflecting sunlight back into space, thus dimming the surface light level. Estimates vary, but roughly 2-4% less sunlight is hitting the ground each decade.
Less light -> less evaporation -> less rain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming


----------



## LakeSup (4 May 2007)

"Let em come, I hope they like the taste of blood in there water.  

But seriously, there are lots of other solutions to water shortages, you can boil or evaporate sea water and then recolect it, it would sooner become economic (or at least combined with moral reasons) to build large filtering plants like that then go to war"

Can be done , and desalination is done in Israel ,but is expensive relative to getting water , as we do now, freely in the ground or surface.  Even more expensive as it would come at a time where energy costs will be higher.  A perfect storm of resource shortages and high population rates.   One of the problems is overuse of underground aquifers, especially in very arid reagions....water there is like oil,,,once it's gone, its gone and its being used , rather friviously, irrigating water intensive crops in hot, dry climates (S US and Calif) where it is maily lost due to evap.  Whatever happens in the US, I think the Great Lakes bordering states would be on the Canadian side.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 May 2007)

WarmandVertical:

Those same hot,dry places supply three other critical components to supply food -

Space - desert land is cheap land
Heat - plants don't grow in the cold
Light - plants don't grow in the dark

Also the ground is relatively pest free compared to wet, humid climates where everything grows uncontrollably demanding more controls.

So your choices are - cover vast acreages in Canada with expensive greenhouses that require heating, augmented lighting and CO2 to be manufactured to make the plants grow, or you can continue to ship water to places where the space, heat and light are free.

Cheers.


----------



## JackD (7 May 2007)

or you can invest in an industry, do some breeding work, grow appropriate crops - The University of Saskatchewan had for decades an apple/ sour cherry/ strawberry breeding program and in the 90's got it out to the farmers - nothing but profit for them - people want apples that taste like apples - not some product that has been dumped in an area after 2 years of storage. With some knowledge in crop production, some breeding for hardiness, good and unconventional crops can be grown on the prairies - its advantage being it's a pest-free growing area and the product is safe - unlike what's come from California lately...


----------



## a_majoor (9 May 2007)

Sometimes I wonder about people. Crop research has suffered due to the backlash engineered against GM crops, yet it takes 1000 tonnes of water to grow one tonne of corn. It also takes outlandish amoounts of water to make and process other products like steel or silicon chips (despite these items being "dry")

Solutions do exist, but until counterproductive behaviour like subsidizing water, or subsidizing crops and processes which use large amounts of water are dropped, there will be little or no incentive to curb waterr usage until the crunch comes 9at which point only panic driven solutions will be considered and implimented). Withdrawing subsidies and allowing market pricing mechanisms to control water usage will work without panic and only a few tears......


----------



## JackD (9 May 2007)

In regard to water use - there are all sorts of conserving solutions - trickle irrigation... appropriate choices of land cover - native prairie grasses for example - instead of water-intensive imports, snow cover conservation, appropriate cultivars and crops - or even ranching instead of cultivation (the bison is making a comeback) - many tricks out there.... Actually when it comes to 'green' , one of the 'greenest'  in Canada - and no pun intended - is the Canadian Armed Forces - the land management practices of the CAF should be lauded.


----------



## TCBF (23 May 2007)

JackD said:
			
		

> Actually when it comes to 'green' , one of the 'greenest'  in Canada - and no pun intended - is the Canadian Armed Forces - the land management practices of the CAF should be lauded.



Nope.  Ban on lead shot on DND trap and skeet ranges while we fill our impact areas with lead cored IVI Ball?

Politics.

How about the pollution created by moving a seacan village to a new hunk of trg area because an EA was not done before the 'ville was put in place?  How about doing the damn EA and saving the deisel oil?  How about firing all of our Environmental sections and hiring the guys at the Canada's Wonderland environmental section instead?  Then we can terra-form our training areas into Combat Maneouvre Theme Parks instead of second tier game preserves.


----------



## Greymatters (24 May 2007)

You'd think these people would have heard about desalination plants...


----------



## nowhere_man (24 May 2007)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Nope.  Ban on lead shot on DND trap and skeet ranges while we fill our impact areas with lead cored IVI Ball?



You're joking right, Their is no way that the led balls from skeet shot is going to kill the environment.  
So you guys have to use Steel Shot for skeet shooting? Steel is garbage stuff, 
I've seen a Duck take a full shot of #2 steel and go on, Do that with led and see how far that duck goes.


----------



## Greymatters (24 May 2007)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Then we can terra-form our training areas into Combat Maneouvre Theme Parks instead of second tier game preserves.



What kind of rides and games did you have in mind for this...?


----------



## foresterab (25 May 2007)

Okay....hot topic for me but I'll try to add some more insight.

Kirkhill...While canadian temperatures limit many types of crops we've also got an advantage that many southern growers would love.  Durainal Day or Growing Degree Days means that the lack of "night" in the more northern latitudes actually produce a more effective growing season than areas with long periods of darkness.  Only a small portion of the time during the photosynthesis process requires darkness and as a result long days with warm temperatures are very effective.   We also have the advantage of relatively low evapo-transpiration rates due to the cool (20-25 degree) days compared to the California 30+...more effective water use is the result.  Given the large amounts of forested land and muskeg in these climates you also have a constant natural source of oxgen and carbon dioxide.

Add it all together and you end up with agriculture settlement in northern alberta all along the Peace River and as far north as High Level.  For comparison sake local climate up there supports grain crops even though you're further north than Churchill, Manitoba.  Downside is frost sensitive crops such as fruits and vegtables offer much fewer growing options.

JackD...Excellent comment on the university of Saskatchewan.  The northern fruit program has been going on since at least the 1960's but in the last 15 years or so turned over the Universities while the federal gov't got out of many of the programs.  The work with shelterbelt tree species in Indian Head, Sask. is also worth mentioning as we're starting to see the results of that reseach showing up accross Canada, the northern US states and some work in China.  This is due to the high growth rate of the hybrid tree species and thier potential use as wood fiber for the forestry industry...currently only allowed on private land though.

In regards to the DND sites and training facilites.   CFB Petewawa is also the location of the Canadian Forest Service experimental farm...over 100 years of forest research on management of public lands.  CFB Suffield has been cited numerous times for its state of preservation of native prairie grasses.  CFB Wainwright and Cold Lake I know are often referred to as excellent conservation/multiple use lands due to their wildlife population.  While live weapons ranges/drop zones do suffer culmative contamination issues I think the bigger issue is how much good work is being done in the less used areas of these lands.  CFB's represent very large tracts of land which are fairly undistrubed and work as a good complement to the Parks and Protected Areas of Canada.  

Lots more to say but less is more for now.


----------



## SiG_22_Qc (25 May 2007)

They can get as much water in Lag Vegas that in the bottom of lake Ontario. I'm not too worried bout that.

2nd. Who drinks water from the great lakes? Isnt it polluted like hell....?


----------



## Kirkhill (25 May 2007)

good points foresterab - I remember seeing some reports on ginormous vegetables being grown up a Fairbanks Alaska because of the combination of soil (volcanic?), long days and very hot continental temperatures in the summer time. (Fairbank swings from something like -50C to +40C).


----------



## Greymatters (26 May 2007)

Would that be this link?

http://www.recordholders.org/en/records/vegetables2.html


----------



## Kirkhill (26 May 2007)

That's not the report I was thinking of but it'll do.


----------



## tomahawk6 (26 May 2007)

Since global warming is a non-issue I dont see the US-Canada coming to blows over water. Far greater liklihood of having problems over potential oil deposits in waters the US-Canada dispute.


----------



## foresterab (28 May 2007)

Tomahawk,

Don't underestimate the power of water.  In Alberta legistation has been around for close to a century restricting activities in the mountains due to the need to ensure drinking water for the cities on the plains.  If they were worried about water in the 1930's and given today's population...well things aren't much easier.

Also given the amount of water used in residential, agriculture, and industrial use currently and we've got serious issues.  Many of the underground aquifers are having trouble recharging due to the constant drain and yet we keep placing more pressure on them.  

The offshore oil rights are a more simple dispute and are better understood.  But what makes more sense?  Fighting over 2 million barrels of oil which may or may not be developed versus a source of water for 4 million people and a large portion of Alberta's industry?

Each province has twists and local variations on thier value of water but I've used Alberta as that is the province I'm most familiar with.


----------



## GAP (28 May 2007)

In doing Agri Surveys for Stats Can......I found, a couple of years ago when everything was pretty dry in Ab & Sask., that people were complaining about not being able to plant water hog crops (eg: beets) because the snow cap was thin, and they were being restricted in their availability to water for the irrigation systems.

There is an unreasonable high expectation of water availability by the farmers (and probably industial users), just because because they can make more $$ from this crop over this other crop....that is going to have to change.


----------



## foresterab (28 May 2007)

GAP,

You hit it on the head there.  Not only are there going to have to be tough choices made on crop selection but also upon residendential development/usuage and industrial usuage.

When it takes the equavialent of 6 barrels of steam to produce one barrel of oil from the oil sands....we've got a lot of water going underground.   Citing the one post earlier where they were talking about urban infrastructure losing 40% of it's water due to leaky pipes....we've got another major water loss.

Unfortunately to make those decisions you're now getting into some pretty nasty political realms.


----------



## a_majoor (31 May 2007)

I remember reading that the huge aquifer under the US midwest was being depleted at a furious rate, until a price mechanism was put in place for drilling and water usage. Farmers suddenly smartened up, started using moisture indicators in the soil to irrigate with just the right amount of water, switched to more efficient irrigation methods and turned to different crops that required less water. They _could have_ done this at any time, but since water had been subsidized and farmers could treat it as essentially "free", there was no incentive for them to do so.

You can consider why other industries don't swithch to more efficient production methods or cities do not police their infrastructure better, but the answer is usually the same; there is no real cost for them to continue as they are and thus no incentive to change.

Of course there are also perverse incentives, such as subsidizing corn to create ethanol. Corn (maize) is a very water and "input" intensive crop, so the subsidies to create "environmentally friendly" fuel will end up using more fossil fuel (to power trucks and farm machinery, create fertilizer and pesticides and power the distilleries) as well as put higher demands on available water supplies.


----------



## AJFitzpatrick (1 Jun 2007)

I wonder how much of industrial water use is cooling and how much is "process" water. Presumably the cooling water can be recovered and reused, preferably with some sort of heat recovery. Such water probably doesn't have to be at the standard of drinking water either. However I can't see  municipalities developing an "industrial" water distribution systems to meet this need.


----------



## Greymatters (1 Jun 2007)

Some numbers for you from a 1995 report on USA water use...

http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/pdf1995/pdf/abstract.pdf
_Total freshwater withdrawals are an estimated 341,000 Mgal/d for 1995, or about the same as in 1990. 
Estimates of withdrawals by source indicate that during 1995, total surface-water withdrawals were 324,000 Mgal/d, which is about the same as during 1990
The use of reclaimed wastewater is estimated to have been 1,020 Mgal/d during 1995, which is 36 percent more than the 750 Mgal/d used during 1990.
Offstream water-use categories are classified in this report as public supply, domestic, commercial, irrigation, livestock, industrial, mining, and thermoelectric power. 
The two largest water-use categories continue to be thermoelectric power (190,000 Mgal/d, of which 57,900 Mgal/d was saline) and irrigation (134,000 Mgal/d). _ 

And in 2000...

http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/circ1268/
_Estimates of water use in the United States indicate that about 408 billion gallons per day were withdrawn for all uses during 2000. 
Withdrawals have stabilized for the two largest uses—thermoelectric power and irrigation.
About 195 Bgal/d, or 48 percent of all freshwater and saline-water withdrawals for 2000, were used for thermoelectric power. Most of this water was derived from surface water and used for once-through cooling at power plants. About 52 percent of fresh surface-water withdrawals and about 96 percent of saline-water withdrawals were for thermoelectric-power use. 
Irrigation remained the largest use of freshwater in the United States and totaled 137 Bgal/d for 2000. Since 1950, irrigation has accounted for about 65 percent of total water withdrawals, excluding those for thermoelectric power.  The number of acres irrigated with sprinkler and microirrigation systems has continued to increase and now comprises more than one-half the total irrigated acreage.
Public-supply withdrawals were more than 43 Bgal/d for 2000. Public-supply withdrawals during 1950 were 14 Bgal/d. During 2000, about 85 percent of the population in the United States obtained drinking water from public suppliers, compared to 62 percent during 1950. Surface water provided 63 percent of the total during 2000, whereas surface water provided 74 percent during 1950. 
Self-supplied industrial withdrawals totaled nearly 20 Bgal/d in 2000, or 12 percent less than in 1995. Compared to 1985, industrial self-supplied withdrawals declined by 24 percent. Estimates of industrial water use in the United States were largest during the years from 1965 to 1980, but during 2000, estimates were at the lowest level since reporting began in 1950. Combined withdrawals for self-supplied domestic, livestock, aquaculture, and mining were less than 13 Bgal/d for 2000, and represented about 3 percent of total withdrawals.
California, Texas, and Florida accounted for one-fourth of all water withdrawals for 2000. States with the largest surface-water withdrawals were California, which had large withdrawals for irrigation and thermoelectric power, and Texas, which had large withdrawals for thermoelectric power. States with the largest ground-water withdrawals were California, Texas, and Nebraska, all of which had large withdrawals for irrigation._

Apparently they are still rying to total up the water usage for the 2005 report...


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Jun 2007)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act, is an interesting article from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070622.wusdrought0622/BNStory/International/home/?pageRequested=1


> The Dehydrated States of America
> *Like other regions across the southern United States, Arizona's water supply is dwindling while its population grows like wildfire*
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> ...



A couple of observations:

1. Despite near record rainfalls this spring the largest reservoir in the Dallas region still needs years of much above average rain to bring them to a situation which will allow the Dallas area municipalities to permit something like regular lawn watering – restrictions have been in place for two or three years.  Dry, brown lawns are the ‘norm’ – year round; and

2. A few residential subdivisions in the North Dallas area are eschewing lawns in favour of desert landscapes and oriental style gardens.

For the conspiracy theorists: I think this is the key paragraph –



> Some Canadians fear that the shrinking domestic water supplies in the United States will tempt the Americans to ask for, and tempt Canadians to sell, water from our abundant supply of lakes and rivers, through some sort of diversion scheme. Such concerns are far-fetched. *In most cases, the engineering obstacles alone would price such water out of any conceivable market*.



I think that is a fair representation of the current engineering consensus, *but* there are compelling reasons to consider some water diversion – most of North America’s water is in places where most people cannot live and where crops cannot be grown.  We *might* consider huge hydroponic operations in Canada’s North but it may, eventually, be cost effective to move the water to drought ridden but otherwise ‘good’ land where the sun shines.

China also has severe and growing drought problems – in their case the abundant water is in East and Central Siberia.


----------



## GAP (23 Jun 2007)

Is it the Columbia River or the Colorado River that is piped to LA? Huge project.


----------



## LakeSup (23 Jun 2007)

Is it the Columbia River or the Colorado River that is piped to LA? Huge project.  
 _________________________________________________________________
Colorado R supplies a lot of the SW.  Las V, Phoenix (I believe) and others.  San Diego and So Cal  ground water is almost too saline to support agricultural irrigation and most drinking water comes from reservoirs on the Colorado and others.  When you read about the water problems around the world, it is really quite revealing....wars for oil are not hard to belive but fighting over water is something ppl don't think about.   The 67 war in the ME was partially based on water needs and the ground water situation in the Gaza and West Bank are a major (not widely reported) irritant.
Some of this may or may not be a result of Global warming... a lot is new demands for irrigation and damming of rivers resulting in disruption downstream.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Jun 2007)

There are many reasons to believe that simple economics can resolve the situation without diverting the Columbia or Colorado rivers (much less the Mackenzie river as envisioned by the 1960 era NAWPA plan). Allowing the utility companies to charge market prices for water will serve to discourage more people from moving to droubt stricken or water poor regions. People who are currently there will certainly become enthusiastic converts to conservation (or leave for damper climates).

At the same time, the attraction of high economic returns will attract new suppliers to the market. In places like Arizona, the solution might turn out to be recycling waste water (i.e. extracting drinkable water from the "grey" and "black" water currently flowing into the sewers). In Florida and California, distillation of sea water makes the most sense, since the ocean is right there, eliminating the cost of transportation. In any case, conservation, waste water recycling and distillation can be accomplished far more quickly and cheaply than massive diversion schemes.

The stumbling block (and the reason for the problem in the first place) is the inability of people to get over the idea that water should be "free".


----------



## Kat Stevens (23 Jun 2007)

Vapour compression distillers are HUGE energy whores, and the electricity required would be horrendous.  Cal has an inexhaustible water supply literally at its doorstep.  Initial cost of RO desal plants is huge, but the benefit would be almost immediately felt.  The technology exists, it's more a matter of the will, and of course, the cash, to use it.


----------



## LakeSup (23 Jun 2007)

You may be referring to the North American Water and Power Alliance Plan (NAWAPA), which seems to be the US Army Corps of Engineers saying they can do things bigger and better than the Soviet Union (divert rivers fron the Arctic Ocean? HA! We will reverse the entire flow of the North American Continent!)
_____________________________________________________________________________

Not to mention the (rapidly disappearing) Aral Sea.


----------



## time expired (23 Jun 2007)

I find it very heart warming to read the IMHO naive belief that technology
will find a way to solve all the multitude of problems facing us,energy,water
and other disappearing resources.And no one from either side of the political
spectrum will even discuss the real problem,which is overpopulation,too
many people chasing our fast disappearing resources.
Enter the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse ,stage right.
             Regards


----------



## Kat Stevens (23 Jun 2007)

Absolutely right! Fire the ovens up, and lets cull the herd.  Who gets to pick?  The population is out of control, no question about that, but we can't undo that part of the equation. Water is not disappearing,  It's becoming unusable and inaccessible, not the same thing at all, and the technology does exist to fix water quality.  I know this because I do it for a living, but thanks all the same for calling my opinion naive, makes me feel all warm and fluffy to know that a well informed genius like you is watching out for me.



edited for clarity only


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Jun 2007)

time expired said:
			
		

> I find it very heart warming to read the IMHO naive belief that technology
> will find a way to solve all the multitude of problems facing us,energy,water
> and other disappearing resources.And no one from either side of the political
> spectrum will even discuss the real problem,which is overpopulation,too
> ...



It is not technology, per se, that will solve pour problems; it is the simple and immutable law of supply and demand.  As long as we can afford to buy technology rather than 'sell' lives we will do so - for better or worse.

Now, it may eventually happen, that we will be unable to afford any 'solution' to some of our problems and allowing millions, maybe tens or even hundreds of millions to die - maybe year after year after year will be the only tolerable answer.  I rather hope not, despite my oft expressed distaste for about 97.5% of my fellow humans.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Jun 2007)

The real problem is that quaint 1648 concept of an immutable world that permitted the establishment of permanent borders with an expectation of unchanging populations, technologies and resources.

When the Chinese experienced the same problems as the Romans and the Americans they adopted the same solutions: create walls to keep out the nomads.   The Europeans and the rest of the Indo-Aryans adopted the same strategy but on a smaller scale.  They built city walls.

In all cases though the walls were overwhelmed by the nomads.  The country wide walls were just too long to defend effectively indefinitely.  The city walls were ignored and the nomads cut the city dwellers off from their supply base - at least until the nomads renegotiated trade deals favourable to themselves and became the ruling classes.  The men on horseback, or camels.

The nomads came from cultures that constantly adapted to the world as they found it.  The city dwellers have expectations of permanence and are much slower to accept change and adapt.  They either die (witness the number of cities available for archaeologists to explore), or move on (like wise) or are forced to adjust their world to continue to survive (irrigation and the rise of central authority).

We have had a relatively stable 5000 years or so and the last 300 years have been particularly stable.  Now that we are entering a period of instability the question is still one of fight (stay in place and change), flee (move and don't change) or die (stay in place and don't change).

Our permanent borders work against the flee option but they seem to have been ineffective in the past so they might just as easily be ineffective in the future.  They seem to be ineffective at present.

That leaves us with change or die - or become forced nomads ourselves.

I don't believe in the apocalypse - the world will survive and so will mankind and so will our technology.  However history is replete with examples of individuals and communities that bet on the wrong horse.

Back to the question at hand - it is not inconceivable to me that the first pressure that we are likely to see is American companies moving north to follow the sun and the water and American tourists buying up lakefront property.  This will slowly put pressure on Americans, with cities that are being hollowed out to follow the money to where the jobs are.  A prime example of this just now is Alberta.  Similar circumstances exist on the Mexican-American border, the Guatemalan-Mexican border, the North African-European border and the East European borders.

My sense is that the change is happening at a manageable rate - the time-scale seems to be one of decades and generations.  Frictions are evident but adjustment is happening.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Jun 2007)

A Michael Yon tale of a rich Bedu.  He chooses to wander rather than trade in his camels for a house and cars.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/death-or-glory-part-iv.htm


----------



## time expired (23 Jun 2007)

Kat S. sorry if I came across as an all knowing expert,which I am definitely not,
this is merely my take on what is happening to the planet.
                                            Regards


----------



## Kat Stevens (24 Jun 2007)

Pre-first coffee knee jerk reaction on my part... caffeine and blood sugar levels are now at optimum levels.  Sorry for the blowup.


----------



## Yrys (24 Jun 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> A Michael Yon tale of a rich Bedu.  He chooses to wander rather than trade in his camels for a house and cars.
> 
> http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/death-or-glory-part-iv.htm



I like the story. The Bedu seem to know what make him happy ...


----------



## TCBF (24 Jun 2007)

time expired said:
			
		

> I find it very heart warming to read the IMHO naive belief that technology
> will find a way to solve all the multitude of problems facing us,energy,water
> and other disappearing resources.And no one from either side of the political
> spectrum will even discuss the real problem,which is overpopulation,too
> ...



- Overpopulation?  More like UNDERpopulation.  Russia, Europe and Japan are starting a steep population decline. Canada is steady ONLY because we continue to import a few hundred thousand people a year, however many of them cannot or WILL NOT adapt to our culture, so any advantage is moot.  The USA is doing fine.  Never in the history of this planet have there been as many people doing so well.  Where democracy reigns - people eat.

-Start having more babies - the world needs more Canada!

 ;D


----------



## Greymatters (25 Jun 2007)

I imagine there is a whole forum of men here willing to help with the idea...   :blotto:


----------



## Yrys (14 Jun 2009)

Canada, U.S. to update Great Lakes water pact

The Canadian and U.S. governments will update the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement to "preserve the 
needs of our shared ecosystem," U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced Saturday during a visit 
to Niagara Falls. Clinton made the announcement during a ceremony in which she joined Foreign Affairs 
Minister Lawrence Cannon at the Rainbow Bridge to mark the 100th anniversary of the Canada-U.S. Boundary 
Waters Treaty.

Activists have long pushed for changes to the Great Lakes agreement to account for new environmental 
challenges such as invasive species, climate change, and new chemicals and contamination.

"We have to update it to reflect new knowledge, new technologies and, unfortunately, new threats," Clinton 
said. "The agreement was last amended in 1987, and since then, new invasive species have appeared in our 
lakes; new worrisome chemicals have emerged from our industrial processes; our knowledge of the ecology 
of the region and how to protect it has grown considerably. In its current form, the Great Lakes agreement 
does not sufficiently address the needs of our shared ecosystem."

Speaking after Clinton, Cannon called the Great Lakes "fundamental to our mutual health and wellbeing," and 
said the two countries would work together to ensure that citizens, "have access to clean, safe and healthy 
water."

Clinton marked her first visit to Canada as secretary of state to celebrate the Boundary Waters Treaty, which 
created the independent International Joint Commission to "prevent and resolve boundary waters disputes 
between Canada and the United States," according to a U.S. State Department news release. The IJC handles 
applications for, and then oversees, projects slated for boundary waters, such as dams. The commission also 
helps set policies to preserve the waters' chemical, physical and biological integrity.

"The Boundary Water Treaty of 1909 made official something that people on both sides of the border had known 
for generations," Clinton said. "That the rivers, the lakes, the streams, the watersheds along our boundary do 
not belong to one nation or the other, but to both of us, and we are therefore called to be good stewards in the 
care of these precious resources."

After the ceremony, Clinton and Cannon met on the Canadian side of the bridge for about an hour to discuss a 
number of bilateral and international issues. The meeting covered a wide range of issues, both said afterward, 
including the two countries' missions in Afghanistan, security issues in Pakistan, the ongoing global economic 
crisis, peace in the Middle East, and improving relations within the Americas.

"Our country's prosperity and security are inseparable from those of the United States," Cannon said. 
"Americans, as you know, are our closest neighbours, allies and trading partners." Cannon said he spoke with 
Clinton about concerns the Canadian government has regarding the Buy American provisions that are part of 
Barack Obama's economic stimulus bill. The provision requires the use of American-made steel and other 
goods in infrastructure projects that receive stimulus funding.

Clinton repeated statements made by Obama and other U.S. officials in recent months, saying the provision 
includes exemptions to coincide with international trade obligations. "As President Obama said, nothing in our 
legislation will interfere with our international trade obligations, including with Canada," Clinton said. "But we 
want to take a hard look as to what more we can do to ensure that the free flow of trade continues. We 
consider it to be in the interest of both our countries and our people."


----------

