This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Photo: www.nature.org


gan thereby bringing into question the ban on moving bulk water out of the Great Lakes Basin. There’s even talk of a canal or pipeline that would move Great Lakes water to the increasingly parched U.S. southwest. Climate change-induced desertification and population growth-induced water demand affect nearly 30% of the global population living in just 18 countries, of which the U.S. is one. The laws of demand and supply will, indeed, force


the price of water up. This is why many municipal and community potable water distribution systems are being eyed by private investors. Cash starved munici- palities might be tempted to securitise future income or sell them outright. In many European countries this has been a very painful experience for consumers while being a source of McMansions, yachts and luxury cars for directors of privatised water utilities. Annual bonus payouts have often taken precedent over critical infra- structure investment.


The water magnet The Great Lakes region has added approximately


10 days a year to its growing season as a result of climate change and increasingly acts as a magnet to farmers from water-starved areas. Northwest Ohio and Michigan are landing places for many migrant farmers resulting in a significant increase in water permits as a hedge against the unpredictability of natural rainfall. Non-farm industries, unless they can accept increasing onerous water restrictions, will eye the Great Lakes region as a place of relative abundance and perhaps invest here. With thirsty industry come thirsty people. Associated with this is the potential for increased ani- mal fecal, crop nutrient, pharmaceutical and pesticide runoff into watercourses. It’s therefore easy to see why the problem for Great Lakes water resources is not lin- ear but compounding.


21


Robustness of legislation As we have witnessed under the North American


Free Trade Agreement, a set of rules crafted in the interest of fairness and prosperity can be open to wide interpretation and easily subverted by special interests and parochial politics. The political and economic clout of the U.S. is much more powerful than that of Canada which brings into question the ability of the bi-national Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement to be equally effective on both sides of the border. It cannot prevent the closure of early-warning monitoring such as the Experimental Lakes Area or governments deliberately turning blind-eye to the health of rivers and streams. Neither can it drive industry and environmental interests to have honest and open dialogue on best sustainabil- ity practices. And yet, for the Great Lakes to survive as a healthy


ecosystem, providing continued prosperity to the broadest number of people, it must be guarded with rules that are more draconian than the framework agreements currently in place. Unfortunately, this is going to cost up-front money since the cost of pollu- tion and water abstraction cannot be externalised like it has in the past. The finite quantity of Great Lakes water will be subjected to a higher “turn rate” as demand increases and supply decreases. Damage done today will be apparent tomorrow. Control, enforcement and remediation will come with a steep price.


Bottled as the default Some political factions might think the whole issue


can be resolved by privatising the resource. This would introduce market-based pricing and supposedly bring equilibrium to the demand/supply equation just like it does with other many commodities. But privatisation is not practical as the Great Lakes are a resource shared


May 2014


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29