Why not sell water to the US?

[August1991]

I have seen numerous comments about preventing Americans getting their grubby fingers on our water.

Water is a public trust; it belongs to everyone. No one should have the right to appropriate it or profit from it at someone else's expense. Yet that's what corporations and investors want to do. And they see Canada's freshwater lakes, rivers and aquifers as a rich reservoir to tap.

In early 1999, the Council launched its campaign to ban the bulk export of Canadian water and head off what it sees as the gradual commodification and privatization of this priceless, public resource.

Council of Canadians

At the same time, people seem upset that Americans won't buy our lumber.

What gives? What's so special about water? Is this connected to some deeply rooted need to cleanse oneself?

[The Terrible Sweal]

I have seen numerous comments about preventing Americans getting their grubby fingers on our water.

Water is a public trust; it belongs to everyone. No one should have the right to appropriate it or profit from it at someone else's expense. Yet that's what corporations and investors want to do. And they see Canada's freshwater lakes, rivers and aquifers as a rich reservoir to tap.

In early 1999, the Council launched its campaign to ban the bulk export of Canadian water and head off what it sees as the gradual commodification and privatization of this priceless, public resource.

Council of Canadians

At the same time, people seem upset that Americans won't buy our lumber.

What gives? What's so special about water? Is this connected to some deeply rooted need to cleanse oneself?

They argue that water 'belongs to everyone', and it shouldn't be 'appropriated for profit'. I'm not sure what they mean by all that exactly. But perhaps they mean that as a natural resource vital for life the state (on behalf of society at large) can and should assert control over it for the public good.

Apart from this general principle, however, there is also a technical trade-law risk in that commodifying water puts it under the jurisdiction of NAFTA.

[caesar]

What gives? What's so special about water? Is this connected to some deeply rooted need to cleanse oneself?

We need all our own good clean drinking water ourselves. Canadians first. Why would we want to put ourselves in the position of fighting for our own water in times of a drought? Although, I am sure we would help the USA in such a case; it would be Canadians first. Water is not as easily renewable as is forests. Man can help with forest renewal; we must look to nations respecting kyoto to prevent global warming to prevent our water supply drying up. Let them drink wine hehe

[August1991]

They argue that water 'belongs to everyone', and it shouldn't be 'appropriated for profit'.

Meat and wheat are "appropriated for profit".

Apart from this general principle, however, there is also a technical trade-law risk in that commodifying water puts it under the jurisdiction of NAFTA.

Meat and wheat are presumably commodities. And what does NAFTA have to do with it? Despite claims to the contrary, sellers can always refuse to sell. (Expropriation might be the exception.) At issue with NAFTA is non-discrimination.

But perhaps they mean that as a natural resource vital for life the state (on behalf of society at large) can and should assert control over it for the public good.

By that logic, the State should also control meat and wheat production since food is vital for life.

TS, I'm not arguing with you. I'm curious why water gets singled out.

We are upset when Americans won't buy our meat and wood and we are upset when Americans want to buy our water.

Are we being capricious children or is there something special about water? Or in fact is it simply that individual Canadians are consistent but different Canadians hold different views on this.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Apart from this general principle, however, there is also a technical trade-law risk in that commodifying water puts it under the jurisdiction of NAFTA.

Meat and wheat are presumably commodities. And what does NAFTA have to do with it? Despite claims to the contrary, sellers can always refuse to sell. (Expropriation might be the exception.) At issue with NAFTA is non-discrimination.

The merits of their argument or yours rise and fall on the question of how NAFTA is enforced. I'm afraid that discussion is beyond my time resources just now.

But perhaps they mean that as a natural resource vital for life the state (on behalf of society at large) can and should assert control over it for the public good.

By that logic, the State should also control meat and wheat production since food is vital for life.

TS, I'm not arguing with you. I'm curious why water gets singled out. We are upset when Americans won't buy our meat and wood and we are upset when Americans want to buy our water.

Meat and wheat are renewable, have effective substitutes, and are already commodified.

Also, our trade relations in respect of these commodities are afflicted by certain difficulties which perhaps some think we shouldn't expose ourselves to over an additional 'commodity', i.e water.

[B. Max]

There is no reason not to sell water to the US, but there are those in this country that would rather watch it run out into the ocean that sell it to the americans. It's typical of the blame america first, crowd.

[The Terrible Sweal]

There is no reason not to sell water to the US

But look, we are just now discussing the very reasons not to sell water. Didn't you notice, or do you have some 'reason' why the reasons aren't reason in your view?

[B. Max]

There is no reason not to sell water to the US

But look, we are just now discussing the very reasons not to sell water. Didn't you notice, or do you have some 'reason' why the reasons aren't reason in your view?

I don't consider them reasons, just nonsense and excuses.

[The Terrible Sweal]

There is no reason not to sell water to the US

But look, we are just now discussing the very reasons not to sell water. Didn't you notice, or do you have some 'reason' why the reasons aren't reason in your view?

I don't consider them reasons, just nonsense and excuses.

So you say. But why should anyone take note of your considerations?

[B. Max]

There is no reason not to sell water to the US

But look, we are just now discussing the very reasons not to sell water. Didn't you notice, or do you have some 'reason' why the reasons aren't reason in your view?

I don't consider them reasons, just nonsense and excuses.

So you say. But why should anyone take note of your considerations?

Did you have a case to make.

[Black Dog]

What gives? What's so special about water? Is this connected to some deeply rooted need to cleanse oneself?

Who owns water?

[The Terrible Sweal]

There is no reason not to sell water to the US

But look, we are just now discussing the very reasons not to sell water. Didn't you notice, or do you have some 'reason' why the reasons aren't reason in your view?

I don't consider them reasons, just nonsense and excuses.

So you say. But why should anyone take note of your considerations?

Did you have a case to make.

I have outlined (briefly) some basis for opposing water sales.

You have asserted opposition, but have yet to articulate your basis for that position. Do you have any?

[caesar]

Water is not a resource that we can produce; such as is meat and wheat. Including water in Nafta; may allow the sale of our water without proper control We have limited drinking water of our own. Extricating water under NAFTA could include risks to opur environment.

[caesar]

Here is some information on the matter:

http://www.canadianculture.com/issues/issues0003.html

[Hugo]

Firstly, nothing can belong to everyone. Everyone will never reach a consensus on the useage of something, and with publicly owned goods this means that some of the "owners" won't have the right to dispose of their supposed property as they see fit, which means that they do not own it at all in any meaningful sense of the word. The problem we then get is that the minority who don't get to decide the disposal of a good still have to contribute to its procurement, which amounts to forced labour or slavery.

I'd suggest that water belongs to the owner of the land from which it is procured. He can decide if he will sell it and to whom, and if government prevents him from doing so then once again he is prevented from owning his property and is rendered a slave.

As to whether or not we sell to Americans, who cares? They're human beings, the same as we are, and an individual's standing does not, in my eyes, change according to which latitude they live at. Judging Americans as a group is no better than judging Jews, blacks or women as a group.

The manner in which water is produced is neither here nor there. Of course supply is limited, everything is limited, and this is why we have economics. We don't produce sunlight either, would there be something wrong with building solar plants and selling the energy to Americans?

[caesar]

Read the article. Once we start selling them our water supply; we cannot turn off the taps once we start under NAFTA. Water on one's land; just like mineral rights; does not make him the owner. If you dam a river or creek running through your land; you cut off other access. You are very limited on what you can do with water on your land. Water rights do not come with the land. This is what much of the fighting was about in the wild west. Water is not as simple as other things.

It is not about any Canada/ USA thing; it is simply a matter of controlling our own resources of water which is essential to life, agriculture, fishing, etc. It is not the same as selling a cow or lumber.

[Hugo]

Once we start selling them our water supply; we cannot turn off the taps once we start under NAFTA.

NAFTA goes against every word of what I have just said. For government treaties and agreements to override individual decisions made over private property is a massive violation of property rights and, once again, brings us back to slavery.

If you dam a river or creek running through your land; you cut off other access.

Then would the people downstream of you not have the right to be recompensed for their loss?

It is not about any Canada/ USA thing; it is simply a matter of controlling our own resources of water which is essential to life, agriculture, fishing, etc.

Why can that not be done on an individual rather than a national basis?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Everyone will never reach a consensus on the useage of something, and with publicly owned goods this means that some of the "owners" won't have the right to dispose of their supposed property as they see fit, which means that they do not own it at all in any meaningful sense of the word.

Ah, but that's just it, isn't it? What is a 'meaningful' sense of ownership anyway?

For example, do you believe Canadians 'own' their land property?

I'd suggest that water belongs to the owner of the land from which it is procured. He can decide if he will sell it and to whom, and if government prevents him from doing so then once again he is prevented from owning his property and is rendered a slave.

Unfortunately, that system would have unacceptable consequences. Siphoning your own land drains your neighbors' too. Your freedom to take the water from 'your' land, would deprive them of 'their' water, or force them into a race with you to remove the water in toto.

As to whether or not we sell to Americans, who cares?

You forget the unfortunate NAFTA constraint.

... would there be something wrong with building solar plants and selling the energy ...?

If your collecting it interferes with the 'rights' of others, then, obviously Yes.

[August1991]

We don't produce sunlight either, would there be something wrong with building solar plants and selling the energy to Americans?

Hmmm. (Thinks out loud.) If I collect rain water, and sell it to Americans is that different from collecting sunlight and selling it as electricity? Well, sold rain water is no longer available (but then neither is sunlight).

You forget the unfortunate NAFTA constraint.

NAFTA merely states that we can't treat a Canadian buyer/seller differently from an American buyer/seller because of their nationality alone. In the energy provisions, this takes form by stating that we must make proportional quantities available in times of shortage.

TS, you noted wisely that no one knows how these provisions would be interpreted or enforced.

I'll add that individual Canadian would have no reason to refuse a better American deal in favour of a bad Canadian deal. As government policy, I cannot imagine why we collectively would want to see the US suffer - while we did well. We share the same continent. Our collective interests are common.

There is no reason not to sell water to the US, but there are those in this country that would rather watch it run out into the ocean that sell it to the americans.

If we don't sell it, that's what happens. Good point. Fresh water is a renewable resource.

Siphoning your own land drains your neighbors' too. Your freedom to take the water from 'your' land, would deprive them of 'their' water, or force them into a race with you to remove the water in toto.

This is true of many subterranean resources. It doesn't stop oil or gas from being privately owned and exploited.

The issue seems visceral:

Half the respondents were asked about the export of large quantities of Canada’s fresh water. Sixty-nine percent disapproved, while 29% approved.

CRIC Opinion Poll

[caesar]

I'll add that individual Canadian would have no reason to refuse a better American deal in favour of a bad Canadian deal. As government policy, I cannot imagine why we collectively would want to see the US suffer - while we did well. We share the same continent. Our collective interests are common.

As in most things; we would not watch them suffer; that is not the Canadian way. We would share what we can. Could we really say they would do the same. Especially if there were a vindictive government similar to the Bush regime. The USA does not think it should abide by any international agreements in many areas.

[Hugo]

For example, do you believe Canadians 'own' their land property?

While eminent domain is in effect? Don't be silly!

Unfortunately, that system would have unacceptable consequences. Siphoning your own land drains your neighbors' too. Your freedom to take the water from 'your' land, would deprive them of 'their' water, or force them into a race with you to remove the water in toto.

Are you telling me that you think the only possible way to resolve such incidents is through state intervention or state ownership?

[The Terrible Sweal]

We don't produce sunlight either, would there be something wrong with building solar plants and selling the energy to Americans?

Hmmm. (Thinks out loud.) If I collect rain water, and sell it to Americans is that different from collecting sunlight and selling it as electricity? Well, sold rain water is no longer available (but then neither is sunlight).

Rainwater, hmmm.

If the 'owner' of a mountain wants to collect all the precipitation from it, she could conceivably dry out entire towns and villages down-stream from it. Interesting problem.

As government policy, I cannot imagine why we collectively would want to see the US suffer - while we did well.  We share the same continent.  Our collective interests are common.

It would be more precise to say that our interests are for the most part common, for the foreseeable future. The italics portions define areas of risk.

There is no reason not to sell water to the US, but there are those in this country that would rather watch it run out into the ocean that sell it to the americans.

If we don't sell it, that's what happens. Good point. Fresh water is a renewable resource.

Well, no. First, it doesn't just 'run out' into the ocean. It travels through streams and aquifers providing an essential characteristic of the physical/resource environment. Each molecule that finds its way to sea has in doing so carried out a whole lot of important 'work' along the way.

Second, it is certainly not 'renewable' in the sense that any human action can renew it. (Unlike new-growth forests, for example.) It may appear to renew, but we don't have a hand in it doing so.

Siphoning your own land drains your neighbors' too. Your freedom to take the water from 'your' land, would deprive them of 'their' water, or force them into a race with you to remove the water in toto.

This is true of many subterranean resources. It doesn't stop oil or gas from being privately owned and exploited.

That was a response on a different point, actually.

[caesar]

Are you telling me that you think the only possible way to resolve such incidents is through state intervention or state ownership?

Naturally, what would you suggest???? range wars again. A step back wouldn't you say. Laws that protect our environment and / or interference in our water supply are the better solution

[Hugo]

Naturally, what would you suggest???? range wars again. A step back wouldn't you say. Laws that protect our environment and / or interference in our water supply are the better solution

Then should the government not nationalize and control the food industry? Farming has a big impact on the environment, and food is just as important for life as water.

But what you are saying is that government is the only possible way to resolve disputes. Do private courts not really exist, then? Private arbitrators are a figment of the collective imagination? Contracts are just a fiction?

[The Terrible Sweal]

But what you are saying is that government is the only possible way to resolve disputes.

I would say rather, that any agency which purports to resolve disputes is an appendage or variation of government.

Do private courts not really exist, then? Private arbitrators are a figment of the collective imagination? Contracts are just a fiction?

All of those things are underpinned by either or both of:

1-underlying government law

2-residual or delegated government enforcement authority.