Frontier Centre touts water export: Manitoba could earn $1B

[Only The Lonely..]

Frontier Centre touts water export
Manitoba could earn $1B

Updated: June 24 at 11:36 AM CDT | Winnipeg Free Press

Water is the answer to Manitoba’s financial woes, says the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.


According to a recent report, Manitoba could earn $1.33 billion by simply exporting 1 per cent of the province’s water to the United States.


The report’s author, Daniel Klymchuck, said the province could build a 630 mile underground pipeline down the eastern side of the province - from the Hudson Bay to the U.S. border - without disturbing Manitoba’s ecological system.


In addition to being a great source of revenue, he said the pipeline could also serve the freshwater needs of Winnipeg and surrounding areas.


“Selling water would change Manitoba’s economic prospects dramatically,” Klymchuk said. “The province has become completely dependent on federal transfers and subsidies. This has had the unintended effect of creating a relatively moribund, high-tax province with little population growth.”

[drew]

Originally Posted by Only The Lonely..

[
The report’s author, Daniel Klymchuck, said the province could build a 630 mile underground pipeline down the eastern side of the province - from the Hudson Bay to the U.S. border - without disturbing Manitoba’s ecological system.

Ummm unless the US is in need of salt water, I am not sure if there is a reason to start draining Hudson Bay...

My vote for the stupidest idea ever.

[youngregina]

I vote NO. We should never, NEVER, EVER!! start selling our water to the most wastefull country in the world. No matter if it would bring us tons of money. No matter who says it wouldnt be a drain (no pun intended) on our ecosystem, I garuntee you that it would. This plan is deffinatley made up to be something short term. They are not thinkning about the long term effects of anything.

[Boreal]

I imagine we would divert and desalinate here. I hope we run an extensive feasibility study, but if it is deemed ecologically safe by the experts, that this is something I have long been in favour of. However, as a province, we have to have enough fortitude to turn the valve off if whoever is supposed to pay doesn't pay. In the future we can't get soft-hearted if we hear Americans say, "this is our water supply, you can't shut us off". If you don't pay the bill, be prepared to stay parched. As long as we can be rigid and vigilant as such, and ecologically it is safe, then I am behind it 100%. I'm sick of being a recipient province.

[hexrae]

Are there any examples of these transactions today? It feels like the idea of selling water, on this level, is an arrangement that could go south very quickly. But then again, Hydro already benefits on our water supply by selling electricity.

[Only The Lonely..]

Originally Posted by Jeff1987

I imagine we would divert and desalinate here. I hope we run an extensive feasibility study, but if it is deemed ecologically safe by the experts, that this is something I have long been in favour of. However, as a province, we have to have enough fortitude to turn the valve off if whoever is supposed to pay doesn't pay. In the future we can't get soft-hearted if we hear Americans say, "this is our water supply, you can't shut us off". If you don't pay the bill, be prepared to stay parched. As long as we can be rigid and vigilant as such, and ecologically it is safe, then I am behind it 100%. I'm sick of being a recipient province.

One percent of our water supply going south in exchange for a billion dollars sounds like a good idea.

We could use the money to pay down debt, or reduce taxes, or built a splashy piece of much needed infrastructure like a free flowing highway 75 which would have trade benefits of its own.

Presumably we would be taking in one billion per annum so one can only imagine the things we could do.

[drew]

This guy is on crack, and anyone who thinks this idea is even remotely economically feasible is smoking the same stuff.

Look at the most important factor:

A 630 mile (1000km) UNDERGROUND LARGE diameter insulated pipeline through some of the most inhospitable and remote terrain on earth. The construction costs required to build this would be astronomical.

Ontario won't even twin the trans-Canada highway through this terrain, and yet, this guy figures we can build a more technically challenging pipeline through it?

Once we build the pipeline, who is going to pay the premium on the water we will need to charge just to get it to the border? Who down south needs it THAT bad?

[Only The Lonely..]

Originally Posted by drew

This guy is on crack, and anyone who thinks this idea is even remotely economically feasible is smoking the same stuff.

Look at the most important factor:

A 630 mile (1000km) UNDERGROUND LARGE diameter insulated pipeline through some of the most inhospitable and remote terrain on earth. The construction costs required to build this would be astronomical.

Ontario won't even twin the trans-Canada highway through this terrain, and yet, this guy figures we can build a more technically challenging pipeline through it?

Once we build the pipeline, who is going to pay the premium on the water we will need to charge just to get it to the border? Who down south needs it THAT bad?

It might not be so lucrative now, but statisticians figure that the population of Arizona seniors alone will probably triple in the next 20 years, never mind the fact that Las Vegas is currently the fastest growing city in America.

[youngregina]

It's their fault they are building and moving into some of the most inhospitable places in america. Like i mean, this cannot possibly be sustainable.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by Only The Lonely..

One percent of our water supply going south in exchange for a billion dollars sounds like a good idea.

We could use the money to pay down debt, or reduce taxes, or built a splashy piece of much needed infrastructure like a free flowing highway 75 which would have trade benefits of its own.

Presumably we would be taking in one billion per annum so one can only imagine the things we could do.

doesnt work that way...the free trade agreement would kick in the second anyone in canada sells a single drop of water south....it is no coincidence that the lead american negotiator of the free trade agreement did his doctoral thesis on the need for a continental water strategy.

as soon as the commodity becomes part of that agreement, americans are considered the same as canadians and we would lose control of our water supply....americans could take ownership of our water sources, build pipelines anywhere they want, and we would be powerless to stop it....as well, once we turned on the tap, there would be no way to turn it off, even if there were shortages in canada....canada's water would instantly become north america's water because FTA eliminates the nationalist ownership regulations and both countries would be treated equally....that's why it is such a huge deal anytime anyone has suggested this.

many experts regard this issue as the single greatest reason the americans entered into free trade 20 years ago....

[Greco Roman]

Originally Posted by hexrae

Are there any examples of these transactions today? It feels like the idea of selling water, on this level, is an arrangement that could go south very quickly. But then again, Hydro already benefits on our water supply by selling electricity.

There are so many reasons why this would become a mess of a situation. And I agree that the Americans would find loopholes to get an even larger stranglehold on our water; and it is OUR water.

And there are claims that this is ecologically safe? As a qualified conservation biologist, I want to see whatever reports they are basing this on in order to get a sense of just how "safe" this really would be and judge for myself.

All in all, my vote is overwhelmingly NO. I'm all for Manitoba to become more of an economic powerhouse, but I don't see this as a "safe" solution in any regard.

[Ruckus]

Originally Posted by trueviking

doesnt work that way...the free trade agreement would kick in the second anyone in canada sells a single drop of water south....it is no coincidence that the lead american negotiator of the free trade agreement did his doctoral thesis on the need for a continental water strategy.

as soon as the commodity becomes part of that agreement, americans are considered the same as canadians and we would lose control of our water supply....americans could take ownership of our water sources, build pipelines anywhere they want, and we would be powerless to stop it....as well, once we turned on the tap, there would be no way to turn it off, even if there were shortages in canada....canada's water would instantly become north america's water because FTA eliminates the nationalist ownership regulations and both countries would be treated equally....that's why it is such a huge deal anytime anyone has suggested this.

many experts regard this issue as the single greatest reason the americans entered into free trade 20 years ago....

Bingo!

At first glance, water pipelines to the U.S. may seem like a great idea (e.g. source of revenue), however, there are far greater implications for Canadians if such a proposal were to establish itself and become official (e.g. lose control of our country's future well being).

[trueviking]

i wouldnt be surprised if the "frontier centre" was a front for the nevada homeowners association.

selling water is not a provincial decision it is a federal one....if one province sold water to the US, the next day, there would be a pipeline built to drain the mckenie river into northern california and there would legally be nothing that we could do about it...

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by trueviking

doesnt work that way...the free trade agreement would kick in the second anyone in canada sells a single drop of water south....it is no coincidence that the lead american negotiator of the free trade agreement did his doctoral thesis on the need for a continental water strategy.

as soon as the commodity becomes part of that agreement, americans are considered the same as canadians and we would lose control of our water supply....americans could take ownership of our water sources, build pipelines anywhere they want, and we would be powerless to stop it....as well, once we turned on the tap, there would be no way to turn it off, even if there were shortages in canada....canada's water would instantly become north america's water because FTA eliminates the nationalist ownership regulations and both countries would be treated equally....that's why it is such a huge deal anytime anyone has suggested this.

many experts regard this issue as the single greatest reason the americans entered into free trade 20 years ago....

Couldn't Canada just withdraw from the FTA/NAFTA if this were likely to happen, or make it clear that it would withdraw if the Americans decided to use their rights under the agreements in such a way as would deprive us of water (supposing for the sake of argument that the account of the agreement given above is accurate)?

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by trueviking

i wouldnt be surprised if the "frontier centre" was a front for the nevada homeowners association.

selling water is not a provincial decision it is a federal one....if one province sold water to the US, the next day, there would be a pipeline built to drain the mckenie river into northern california and there would legally be nothing that we could do about it...

Really? They can just build a pipeline anywhere, without regard to Canadian law? No Canadian could build a water pipeline from the Mackenzie River to southern Canada, so how could NAFTA give an American the right to build one to the U.S.?

[hexrae]

Don't the US democrats want to re-evaluate NAFTA?

Anyways, if Manitoba was to "desalinate" the water, why don't the Americans surpass us and go directly to either ocean on their coasts?

[vid]

What's the harm, right?

1% is more than you think. A 0.5% change in water levels can fuck things up. Lake Superior went down just 28 inches (about 0.05% of it's water volume was lost) and it almost cut us off from the rest of the Great Lakes.

They don't mean water from Hudson's Bay itself, they mean water from waterways between Hudson Bay and the US border.

People have to stop fucking with the environment.

[Greco Roman]

Originally Posted by vid

What's the harm, right?

1% is more than you think. A 0.5% change in water levels can fuck things up. Lake Superior went down just 28 inches (about 0.05% of it's water volume was lost) and it almost cut us off from the rest of the Great Lakes.

They don't mean water from Hudson's Bay itself, they mean water from waterways between Hudson Bay and the US border.

People have to stop fucking with the environment.

Americans have had all sorts of ideas to get ahold of OUR water:

There was a concept of sealing off James Bay from Hudson Bay with some sort of osmotic fence and desalinazing the water, digging a huge channel from there right through the Great Lakes and into the needy areas of the states.

Another plan called for funneling water from the larger lakes in the NWT, Lake Winnipeg and Manitoba in Manitoba, Lake of the Woods on the Ontario and Manitoba and Minnesota borders and Lake Okanagan in BC again through large channels and into the States.


I hope to God that nothing like this ever occurs.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by vid

What's the harm, right?

1% is more than you think. A 0.5% change in water levels can fuck things up. Lake Superior went down just 28 inches (about 0.05% of it's water volume was lost) and it almost cut us off from the rest of the Great Lakes.

They don't mean water from Hudson's Bay itself, they mean water from waterways between Hudson Bay and the US border.

People have to stop fucking with the environment.

The changes in question probably pale in comparison to the changes that were made for Manitoba Hydro, including the diversion of the Churchill River into the Nelson and the creation of several new lakes. Life went on when that happened. Why not help our neighbours and get rich in the process?

I would point out that Thunder Bay wouldn't exist if people hadn't messed with "the environment". And the world would have been much the poorer for it.

[Greco Roman]

Originally Posted by Andy6

The changes in question probably pale in comparison to the changes that were made for Manitoba Hydro, including the diversion of the Churchill River into the Nelson and the creation of several new lakes. Life went on when that happened. Why not help our neighbours and get rich in the process?

I would point out that Thunder Bay wouldn't exist if people hadn't messed with "the environment". And the world would have been much the poorer for it.

That's the kind of old school attitude that I hope will become extinct asap, as ecosystems worldwide have suffered because of it.