Water war

During trilateral free trade pact renegotiations in 2018, the United States and Canada agreed to take bulk export of water off the table.

With the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) up for review in 2026, could the Americans put water exports from Canada back on the agenda?

There are signs things could be headed that way, as some comments and moves make waves.

Even before his second-term election win in November, President Donald Trump talked about a “very large faucet” in Canada that could help California with its ongoing water woes.

The “faucet” carries water from the Columbia River, with its headwaters in British Columbia, through Washington and Oregon.

Trump claims he’s seen it. 

“You have millions of gallons of water pouring down from the north with the snow caps and Canada, and all pouring down, and they have essentially a very large faucet,” he said in November.

“You turn the faucet, and it takes one day to turn it, and it’s massive. It’s as big as the wall of that building right there behind you. You turn that, and all of that water aimlessly goes into the Pacific (Ocean), and if they turned it back, all of that water would come right down here and right into Los Angeles.”

‘Absolute nonsense’

University of Calgary emeritus law professor Nigel Bankes says the Columbia River, with flood control, hydro-electricity production and irrigation on both sides of the border, flows into the Pacific “about 1,000 kilometres north of Los Angeles.”

Moving that water to Southern California would be costly.“Big basin transfers involve massive investments,” he says. 

“It’s absolute nonsense what he is talking about.”

The New York Times reported that during a call in February, Trump told former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau he wanted to abandon various border agreements, including those concerning water.  

“He wanted to tear up the Great Lakes agreements and conventions between the two nations that lay out how they share and manage Lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie and Ontario,” according to the newspaper.

Such agreements date back to the 1909 Boundary Water Treaty and creation of the International Joint Commission, with three members each from the U.S. and Canada, and a mandate to prevent and resolve disputes related to the use and quality of shared boundary waters.

“President Trump seems to have an unusual view of treaties,” says Bankes.

“They are convenient diplomatic instruments rather than binding agreements.”

'Ready for any action the U.S. may take’

In March, amid trade tensions and threats to annex Canada, the U.S. paused water-sharing negotiations over the Columbia River. The talks aimed to modernize the 61-year-old Columbia River Treaty, which governs water supply, power generation, transnational flood control, and salmon restoration.

A new in-principle deal was reached last summer but wasn’t finalized before last fall’s U.S. election.

In his call with Trudeau, Trump reportedly said the treaty is unfair to the U.S. and demanded changes. In the current climate, British Columbia is preparing for circumstances where the U.S. might take unilateral action.

The provincial government is “concerned and ready for any action the U.S. may take,” Energy Minister Adrian Dix told reporters.

Where this is all headed remains to be seen, but asked what recourse there would be if Trump wants water back in the CUSMA talks, Bankes says Canada does have an option: “Decline to agree.”

Adopted in 2013, Canada’s Transboundary Waters Protection Act prohibits the bulk removal of transboundary waters.

He says Canada opposes water basin transfers, “not so much on economic grounds but on ecological grounds.” Canada is against such transfers “within a province, between provinces or internationally.”

Also, the Great Lakes–Saint Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement, signed by Ontario, Quebec and the eight U.S. states bordering the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence, prohibits bulk water exports from the basin. The agreement is enshrined in the Great Lakes Compact — a statute signed by former U.S. President George W. Bush in 2008.

“There’s a collective interest in keeping it (water) there,” Bankes says.

‘Canada has a target on its back’

Tricia Stadnyk, a hydrologist forecasting water availability and a professor at the University of Calgary's Schulich School of Engineering, sees a potential loophole in CUSMA’s predecessor — the North American Free Trade Agreement — excluding water exported “in its natural state in lakes and rivers.”

She says it could be argued that once extracted or collected, in a dam or reservoir, such water would no longer be “natural,” but a tradable good.

“Canada has a target on its back,” Stadnyk says.

Marie-France Fortin, a University of Ottawa law professor and lead investigator with the school’s Forum on Water and Law and Governance, says the provinces would be involved if water is pulled into the CUSMA review.

With provinces, territories and Indigenous governments at play, the issue becomes coordination, she says, pointing to a paper she co-authored with her water forum associates, which identified “regulatory inertia” as a challenge in Canada’s water laws.

“The growing number of water-related issues also creates intergovernmental challenges in the Canadian federal system,” they wrote, pointing to “a patchwork of international, federal, provincial, territorial, municipal, and intergovernmental actions occurring simultaneously.”

The newly created Canada Water Agency aims to foster better coordination.

Stadnyk says the provinces and territories control water, which precludes the federal government from having any decision-making power over it. That would have to change for the agency to have a more significant role. As it stands, its role remains unclear beyond coordinating data dissemination and research funding.

“The reality is that the Canada Water Agency that exists today has no legislative or legal brief, and no specific policy mandate around water,” she says.

‘A David and Goliath fight’

Further, the actual legislative responsibilities for water fall under eight different portfolios at the federal level. In contrast, the U.S. Geological Survey, a federal agency, controls water on the American side.

“That makes it very difficult for us to combat threats from the U.S., whether it’s rhetoric or not,” Stadnyk says.

“It’s not a fair fight right now; it’s a David and Goliath fight.”

Like Fortin, Stadnyk says we need a cooperative federalism model around water, some way for the federal government to coordinate the provinces' and territories' actions and decisions.

Francis Scarpaleggia, the Liberal MP in Montreal’s Lac-Saint-Louis riding, chaired the House of Commons standing committee on environment and sustainable development.

He believes the states and provinces that have signed cross-border safeguard agreements for water would speak in one voice against any attempt by Trump to force water exports from Canada.

“It’s non-negotiable and it's a non-starter,” he says.

Liz Kirkwood, executive director of FLOW—For the Love of Water—in Traverse City, Michigan, agrees.

“I imagine there would be public outcry on both sides of the border,” she says, given the Great Lakes Compact ban on water diversion.

She praises the International Joint Commission as “a catalyst for change,” from its early study on cholera transmission to the ban on phosphorus in laundry detergent that was killing Lake Erie.

“The eyes of the world look to the U.S. and Canada for successful water management,” Kirkwood says.

“You have something that’s working, why do you change it?”

Peter Gleick, a California-based research scientist and member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, says, “the United States does not need Canadian water.” 

He points to sustainable water use as “cost-competitive and environmentally preferable, especially in water-scarce parts of the United States.”

“I can see no circumstances where Canada would be willing, politically, to sell or give water to the United States, and no way the United States can compel Canada to do so,” he said in an email.

Stadnyk echoes that sentiment.

“We are not for sale. Our water is not for sale, and if you want our resources, you need to negotiate with us. Period. Full stop.”