中国三亿农村人口饮用水不安全
水利部部长汪恕诚昨天在北京指出，中国有三亿农村人口用水不安全。
汪恕诚昨天在水利部举行的二00四年水利好新闻表彰会上说，水利部将把保障饮用水安全作为今后一个时期水利工作的第一任务。
据了解，中国河流的水环境系统中有四成遭到不同程度的污染。同时中国又是一个严重缺水的国家，专家认为，水资源短缺问题，已经成为未来二十年中国全面建设小康社会所面临的重大挑战之一。
汪恕诚说，一方面是中国严重缺水，另一方面是水污染严重。他说，目前中国有三亿农村人口用水不安全，城市用水也不容乐观，超过三分之一的城市用水不同程度的受到污染。
汪恕诚说，保障饮用水安全是全面建设小康社会的重要内容之一。无论是城市还是农村，都要把保障饮用水安全、维护人民群众的生命健康作为水利工作的第一任务、当务之急、重中之重。
目前中国三分之二的城市存在供水不足，其中比较严重的缺水城市达一百一十个，全国城市缺水总量为六十亿立方米。(记者 赵胜玉)
中新网2005年2月2日
我国饮水安全形势十分严峻
水利部副部长陈雷26日称，目前我国饮水安全形势十分严峻。全国水资源调查评价结果显示，我国一些地区饮水存在水质严重不达标、供水保证率低、水质性地方病等问题，农村有3亿多人饮水不安全，相当一部分城市水源污染严重，威胁到人的生命健康。今后，国家将为建立饮水安全工程提供规划基础和投资保障。
陈雷在全国水利规划计划工作会议上表示，2005年，水利部将组织制定《全国城乡饮水安全建设规划》，开展饮水安全问题普查。对广大农村地区，要摸清未达到饮水卫生标准的人口情况、饮用水质状况和地区分布，制定农村饮水安全工程建设的重点和实施方案。
陈雷说，近期我国将集中解决饮用高氟水、高砷水、苦咸水以及血吸虫病区群众的饮水安全问题。对城市地区，要摸清城市主要饮用水水源地（包括地表水和地下水）的水质状况，加强重要水源水质监测网络建设，推动城市水源地保护。此外，还将通过安排适当中央投资，支持实现水务体制改革的重要城市的水源地水质监测网络建设，加大投资，保障城乡居民饮水安全
全国七成河湖遭污染 3亿多人饮水不安全
水利部部长汪恕诚２２日在此间表示，目前全国７０％以上的河流湖泊遭受不同程度污染，水污染不仅加剧了水资源的短缺，水质的恶化严重威胁着人民群众的身心健康。目前全国有３亿多人饮水不安全，其中有１.９亿人饮用水有害物质含量超标。
记者从２２日召开的全国水利厅局长会议上了解到，新中国成立以来全国累计解决了２.７３亿农村人口的饮水困难。自２０００年我国提出分阶段解决我国农村饮水困难目标５年来，国家共安排国债资金９８亿元，加上各级地方政府的配套资金和群众自筹，总投入约１８０亿多元，共建成各类农村饮水工程８０多万处，５７００多万农村人口提前一年告别饮水难。
水利部副部长翟浩辉介绍说，目前我国农村饮水安全形势仍然十分严峻，一些地区饮水存在水质严重不达标、供水保证率低、水性地方病等问题。据初步调查，分布在华北、西北、东北和黄淮海平原地区的６３００多万农村人口饮用水含氟量超过生活饮用水卫生标准，内蒙古、山西、新疆、宁夏和吉林等地新发现饮用高砷水致病的受影响人口约２００万人。３８００多万农村人口还在饮用苦咸水。湖南、湖北、江西、安徽、江苏、四川、云南７省的１１０个县（市、区）的６０００万人口还生活在血吸虫病发病区。
“保障饮水安全是全国水利工作的第一任务。”汪恕诚说，水利部将按照“先急后缓、先重后轻、突出重点、分步实施”的原则，优先解决对农民生活和身体健康影响较大的饮水安全问题。根据国家发展改革委、水利部和卫生部近期编制完成的《农村饮水安全规划》，“十一五”期间，重点解决高氟水、高砷水、苦咸水、污染水、血吸虫等饮用水水质不达标以及局部地区饮用水供应严重不足问题；到２０１０年，使无法得到或负担不起安全饮用水的农村居民比例降低三分之一；到２０２０年，使农村居民饮水达到安全或基本安全。
（记者姚润丰）
安省发生102宗非法排污事件, 水污染仍严重
多伦多信息港 http://www.torontoservice.com
2005-3-21 星岛日报
【多伦多信息港】尽管沃克顿镇(Walkerton)大肠杆菌污染水源的悲剧已经过去5年，并且状况有所改善，但安大略省水源的工业污染现象仍然十分严重。政府公布的最新资料显示，仅在2003年，就发生了102宗向水源非法排泄污染物质的事件，这类污染物质包括：氨、砷及致癌溶液等。逾5百万升毒物被非法排放，对野生物及淡水资源带来威胁。
在2002-2003年期间，总共发现了逾2,000宗违反水源污染法案件，其中，超过1,000宗发生于2003年。
丛岭之友维护法纪基金(Sierra Legal Defence Fund)科学家麦克唐纳(Elaine MacDonald)指出，显然问题相当严重。每年有上千宗违法案件发生，受到调查的寥寥无己，而遭到控告的更少，只有一、两宗。
有机化学物质制造商Chinook Group与Stepan Canada Inc.就于2003年发生了大约550宗违反水源法案件。在违反超过10宗的21家公司中还包括公营企业安省发电公司(Ontario Power Generation)。
许多公司每年一犯再犯。
2000年5月，安省沃克顿镇的大肠杆菌污染水源事件造成7人死亡，2,300人生病。从那时起，省环境厅加强了执法。尽管如此，问题依然存在。
沃克顿水源污染事件触发了政策改变，即从鼓励自愿守法转向更严格的执法。结果，违反保护水源法案件比90年代保守党省长夏里斯时代的高峰期下降了大约30%。
麦克唐纳表示，新的资料进一步表明，政府需要采取更加严厉的执法措施，施行更重的处罚，并且增加透明度。
环境厅发言人史蒂尔(John Steele)表示，政府已经采取了措施。目前的情况大有改善。环境保护分子敦促政府严格执行去年秋季通过的133号法案。史蒂尔说，根据新法律，环境厅可以对140家大型工业设施征收高额罚款，若这类大型企业排泄污染物，每天可遭罚款10万元。新法律的原则是，污染肇事者必须为清洁水源付出代价，即便污染是因事故造成。史蒂尔还表示，环境厅计划今后数月内将在互联网上公布更多信息。
加拿大团体全力反对大湖水改道
星岛日报
批评者警告说，美国八州要求大湖水改道的建议威胁环境和加拿大主权。一些团体将在周一举行的听证会上提交材料，说明美国八州提出的建议是危险的，该建议的目前形式尤其危险。
这项名为"2001年附件实施协议"(IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT FOR ANNEX 2001)的建议，将结束暂时禁止美国新增或扩大五大湖湖水改道的状况。
水文专家顾问潘特兰(RALPH PENTLAND)警告说，尽管国会将只允许小规模改道，影响仍然会很大。
加拿大人协会(COUNCIL OF CANADIANS)也竭尽全力反对该建议。该团体将参加五大湖地区州省长会议主持的多伦多听证会。
该团体负责水文问题的鄂哈特(SARA EHRHARDT)表示，美国大湖地区八州正在起草一项协议，他们将出售大湖的水。这将打开大规模出售五大湖湖水的大门。
环境保护主义者担心，大大扩大现有的将水引入密西西比河的芝加哥改道工程，将使数亿升湖水远离其水源。他们担心气候变化、消费和新改道的综合影响可能最终使大湖干枯。潘特兰说，这并不是杞人忧天。虽然大湖水不会完全干枯，但是很可能于50年后降低5至10英尺水位。
湖水水位降低3米可能是灾难性的，毁坏或严重破坏航运、娱乐、水生物和水力发电，最终破坏整个地区的经济。
美方的建议加重了这些担忧。
大约三分之一的加拿大人(1,000万)和总共3,500万美国人依靠这个世界最大的淡水生态系统供应淡水。
US-Canada Water Wars
Communities Clash Along the St. Mary and Milk Rivers in Southern Alberta and Montana, USA
Christie Mclaren
Whisky's for drinking.
Water's for fighting over.
? popularly attributed to Mark Twain
Nowhere is this witty observation more fitting than on the dry, short-grass prairie where the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan and the state of Montana meet. For more than a century, farmers on both sides of the border have been squabbling over the fluid that makes life in this semi-arid region of North America possible.
But this liquid gold isn't oil ? it's the water of the St. Mary and Milk rivers. "It's critical to my livelihood, it's critical to our communities," says Montana farmer Randy Reed, as he hauls in the potato crop on the family farm east of Chinook. The 40-year-old father of four would like to grow more acres of seed potatoes on his mixed-crop farm. But "six years out of 10," he says, "we are limited in some way by a lack of water" in the Milk River basin.
A few years ago, Reed spent $40,000 US on a sprinkler system to bring water from the Milk River to his fields. But he only used it a few times before the flow dried up in midsummer. Like other farmers in northern Montana, Reed blames these troubles on a 95-year-old water treaty between Canada and the United States. The Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 was supposed to put an end to a festering dispute over the two rivers, by dividing their waters equally.
But, at best, it produced an uneasy truce.
Now, the long-simmering disagreement is threatening to rise to a boil as Montana ? which insists that Canada is getting more than its fair share of the water ? seeks to overturn a 1921 order that dictates how the water is doled out. And farmers on both sides of the border speak with an uncharacteristic frustration about neighbours they have shared this difficult land with for decades.
"All we're asking for is fairness in the interpretation of the treaty," says Reed. "It's been 83 years [since the 1921 order] ? we need to look it over and make sure it's [fulfilling] the intent of the treaty." But if that means Canada has to relinquish any water, some irrigators say, Montana is in for a fight.
"There'd be an uproar," says Jim Csabay, who grows malt barley, sugar beets and soft wheat on his farm east of Lethbridge. "I can tell you, there'd be a million court cases. The lawyers would get fat and rich ? it would go all the way to the world court ..."
The economy of southern Alberta needs all the water it receives, Csabay says. "We'd fight for our share, and we would fight to retain our share." The task of settling the dispute falls to the International Joint Commission, a quasijudicial body created to manage disputes over all waters shared between Canada and the United States.
The stakes are high. Both countries want more water for irrigation. A variety of new players are making their own demands on the rivers. And the prospect of climate change makes it hard to predict how much water there will be in the future.
"This is a major matter, involving tens of thousands of people and hundreds of millions of dollars ? and few know about it," says former Liberal MP Herb Gray, chairman of the Canadian Section of the IJC. Neither country has a quarrel with the general intent of the Boundary Waters Treaty ? to share the water. But Montana has never been happy with the way the treaty works in practice. Since 1950, Montana has consistently received less than half the water from the two rivers ? 40 per cent on average ? while Canada has been getting 60 per cent, Governor Judy Martz says in her appeal to the IJC. Martz says the Order of 1921 should be reviewed and likely rewritten, for three main reasons.
She says it misinterprets the treaty; that conditions have changed in 83 years, including the rights of native Americans to some of the water; and that there are problems with the way the order is carried out on the ground. Most importantly, the order ignores the overall intent of the treaty, spelled out in the key first sentence of Article VI (the portion governing the St. Mary and Milk rivers).
That sentence says the two rivers and their tributaries "are to be treated as one stream" and their waters "shall be apportioned equally" between Canada and the United States. To do this, it adds, different amounts might be taken from different rivers by each country.
The second sentence ? somewhat confusingly ? gives each country first dibs on a particular river during the critical irrigation season. From April 1 through October 31, the United States is entitled to a "prior apportionment" of 500 cubic feet per second, or 75 per cent of the natural flow, of the Milk River; Canada can have three-quarters of the natural flow of the St. Mary. The leftover water in either river is to divided equally, and all water outside irrigation season is to be divided equally.
Montana argues that the 1921 order implements the second sentence of the treaty, but that it fails to address the first sentence; it fails to ensure the water the treaty doles out during the growing season is counted as part of the overall, equal allotment between the two countries over the course of the full year.
This is a problem because the St. Mary is a much bigger river than the Milk, especially during irrigation season. The order "hasn't been fair with us, because 75 per cent of the St. Mary River equals a whole lot more than 75 per cent of the Milk River," says Montana farmer Kay Blatter, chairman of a group of eight irrigation districts in the Milk River Valley in Montana. Montana also has quarrels with the way the water is measured and divided every two weeks throughout the season. "The timing of the flows is greatly in Canada's favour," says Reed.
In the end, Montana receives about 181,000 acre-feet of water less than Canada does each year ? enough water to irrigate thousands of acres of farmland, according to data from the state.
The IJC believed it had divided the water evenly in 1921, Martz says in a letter to today's commissioners. "However, history and the actual flow records have shown that this is not the case, and that Canada clearly came out ahead." Saskatchewan and Alberta say this is not strictly true. The provinces and their farmers are urging the IJC to leave the 1921 order under lock and key.
"There's no reason to change the 1921 apportionment order ? it has functioned very well these many years," says Alberta beef-cattle rancher Tom Gilchrist, whose Deer Creek Ranch has used water from the Milk River or its tributaries since 1902.
The Alberta government argues the treaty and the 1921 order intentionally awarded different amounts of water to Canada and the United States, with ranchers like Gilchrist in mind. They were trying to honour existing water licences on both sides of the border that pre-dated the 1909 Treaty, Alberta Environment Minister Lorne Taylor argues in a letter to the IJC.
Canadian farmers have invested "many billions of dollars" in modern, efficient waterstorage and irrigation systems ? including dozens of reservoirs and hundreds of kilometres of canals ? based on the guaranteed supply of water provided by the 1921 Order, Taylor says. Any attempt to change the status quo "will have devastating impact on the economy and citizens of Alberta."
About 3,500 Alberta farmers, with half the irrigated acres in the province, rely on water from the St. Mary and Milk rivers, says David Hill, executive-director of the Alberta Irrigation Projects Association, which represents all 13 of the province's irrigation districts.
Hill and other Canadians say Montana has only itself to blame for its water shortages. Montana's "facilities don't let them even access the water they are entitled to" because they were mostly built before the Second World War, and have been poorly maintained since, Hill says.
As a result, the state is losing between 60,000 and 80,000 acre-feet of Milk River water that it is entitled to annually, Gilchrist says. If that water "arrives in Alberta because Montana wasn't able to divert its share ... certainly it's used in Alberta."
Montana officials don't draw attention to their water-management problems, but they don't deny them. The state and federal governments are planning to upgrade the state's biggest water-diversion project, on the St. Mary River, but they need to know how much water the treaty will end up giving them in the future, Martz says.
All the same, under the existing rules, even if Montana was capturing every drop of water it is entitled to, Canada would still be getting more, Kay Blatter and other Montana farmers say. Demands unforeseen in 1909 or 1921 have produced new claims on the waters from the rivers.
Both countries want more water from the Milk River for agriculture ? Montana wants to upgrade its diversion system and Alberta farmers hope to build a water-storage facility on the river that would allow them to irrigate 33,000 more acres each year.
Native people on both sides of the border also want more water. U.S. natives "are entitled to large amounts of water" from the two rivers, Martz says. This wasn't known in 1909, because it wasn't until the 1970s that the U.S. Supreme Court fully defined the rights of four native American tribes to federal water in Montana.
And drought is becoming more prevalent, and climate change will only make today's problems worse over time, experts predict.
In a presentation last summer to the IJC, James Byrne, an associate professor of geography at the University of Lethbridge, pointed out that Montana's Glacier National Park ? the source of the St. Mary River ? had 150 glaciers in 1850 and, today, there are just 37. And between 2020 and 2050, Byrne said, the spring snowmelt in the Oldman River basin could decline by 40 per cent from today's levels. But scientists and environmental groups on both sides of the border are pleading for more water to be left in the riverbeds.
Both rivers "are stressed and degraded by current water management," the Alberta Wilderness Association said in a July letter that urged the IJC to consider restoring some of the natural flows. Low water levels are hurting fish populations, including that of the bull trout, a species listed as "threatened" in 1999 under the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The U.S. government proposes to list portions of the St. Mary River system as "critical habitat" for bull trout. Plans to upgrade irrigation facilities are "the most significant threat to bull trout," and the projects must be designed in a way that doesn't jeopardize the fish any further, according to U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials. "Irrigation should definitely be reduced," argues Lethbridge resident Klaus Jericho, of the Southern Alberta Environment Group. Instead, it's "increasing all the time, and the [provinces'] attitude is: ‘To hell with the rivers ? we want more water.' "
Asked about the environment, farmers cite the economy. "What's the economic value of that water in the river, versus the economic value if it's put on the land and judiciously used for crop production?" Csabay argues. "It's a saw-off there."
What does Ottawa say? The federal government appears to have reversed its position over the past 12 months. One year ago, the Liberal government was not rushing to the defence of Saskatchewan and Alberta. In a letter to the IJC in October, 2003, then-Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham suggested Montana's request for a fresh look at the 1921 Order should be considered, given today's conditions.
"In light of the environmental, social and economic changes that have occurred since [the order] was first drafted," Graham said, " ... I support the commission's decision to explore whether a review is necessary."
Now it is saying the opposite. In a letter to the IJC dated October 8, 2004, a senior bureaucrat in Foreign Affairs says Canada's position is that "there is no need to review the IJC's 1921 Order. In our view, circumstances have not changed in the region, to warrant a review." The letter says the dispute can be resolved through co-operation between people from both countries who carry out the Order on the ground.
Martz wants a quick resolution, a sentiment that echoes her predecessor 83 years ago. In 1921, Joseph M. Dixon, then-governor of the State of Montana, begged the IJC to resolve the fight over the Milk and St. Mary rivers, once and for all.
"As the question becomes bitter on both sides, we all realize that it is more difficult to settle," Dixon said. But "... in the name of a hundred years of peace and amity between these great nations, in the name of the friendship that has got to prevail and will prevail, every man along the Milk River and in Montana sincerely hopes and prays before you gentlemen that the Milk River question will forever be a thing of the past."
© Prairie Peaks News
水利部部长汪恕诚昨天在北京指出，中国有三亿农村人口用水不安全。
汪恕诚昨天在水利部举行的二00四年水利好新闻表彰会上说，水利部将把保障饮用水安全作为今后一个时期水利工作的第一任务。
据了解，中国河流的水环境系统中有四成遭到不同程度的污染。同时中国又是一个严重缺水的国家，专家认为，水资源短缺问题，已经成为未来二十年中国全面建设小康社会所面临的重大挑战之一。
汪恕诚说，一方面是中国严重缺水，另一方面是水污染严重。他说，目前中国有三亿农村人口用水不安全，城市用水也不容乐观，超过三分之一的城市用水不同程度的受到污染。
汪恕诚说，保障饮用水安全是全面建设小康社会的重要内容之一。无论是城市还是农村，都要把保障饮用水安全、维护人民群众的生命健康作为水利工作的第一任务、当务之急、重中之重。
目前中国三分之二的城市存在供水不足，其中比较严重的缺水城市达一百一十个，全国城市缺水总量为六十亿立方米。(记者 赵胜玉)
中新网2005年2月2日
我国饮水安全形势十分严峻
水利部副部长陈雷26日称，目前我国饮水安全形势十分严峻。全国水资源调查评价结果显示，我国一些地区饮水存在水质严重不达标、供水保证率低、水质性地方病等问题，农村有3亿多人饮水不安全，相当一部分城市水源污染严重，威胁到人的生命健康。今后，国家将为建立饮水安全工程提供规划基础和投资保障。
陈雷在全国水利规划计划工作会议上表示，2005年，水利部将组织制定《全国城乡饮水安全建设规划》，开展饮水安全问题普查。对广大农村地区，要摸清未达到饮水卫生标准的人口情况、饮用水质状况和地区分布，制定农村饮水安全工程建设的重点和实施方案。
陈雷说，近期我国将集中解决饮用高氟水、高砷水、苦咸水以及血吸虫病区群众的饮水安全问题。对城市地区，要摸清城市主要饮用水水源地（包括地表水和地下水）的水质状况，加强重要水源水质监测网络建设，推动城市水源地保护。此外，还将通过安排适当中央投资，支持实现水务体制改革的重要城市的水源地水质监测网络建设，加大投资，保障城乡居民饮水安全
全国七成河湖遭污染 3亿多人饮水不安全
水利部部长汪恕诚２２日在此间表示，目前全国７０％以上的河流湖泊遭受不同程度污染，水污染不仅加剧了水资源的短缺，水质的恶化严重威胁着人民群众的身心健康。目前全国有３亿多人饮水不安全，其中有１.９亿人饮用水有害物质含量超标。
记者从２２日召开的全国水利厅局长会议上了解到，新中国成立以来全国累计解决了２.７３亿农村人口的饮水困难。自２０００年我国提出分阶段解决我国农村饮水困难目标５年来，国家共安排国债资金９８亿元，加上各级地方政府的配套资金和群众自筹，总投入约１８０亿多元，共建成各类农村饮水工程８０多万处，５７００多万农村人口提前一年告别饮水难。
水利部副部长翟浩辉介绍说，目前我国农村饮水安全形势仍然十分严峻，一些地区饮水存在水质严重不达标、供水保证率低、水性地方病等问题。据初步调查，分布在华北、西北、东北和黄淮海平原地区的６３００多万农村人口饮用水含氟量超过生活饮用水卫生标准，内蒙古、山西、新疆、宁夏和吉林等地新发现饮用高砷水致病的受影响人口约２００万人。３８００多万农村人口还在饮用苦咸水。湖南、湖北、江西、安徽、江苏、四川、云南７省的１１０个县（市、区）的６０００万人口还生活在血吸虫病发病区。
“保障饮水安全是全国水利工作的第一任务。”汪恕诚说，水利部将按照“先急后缓、先重后轻、突出重点、分步实施”的原则，优先解决对农民生活和身体健康影响较大的饮水安全问题。根据国家发展改革委、水利部和卫生部近期编制完成的《农村饮水安全规划》，“十一五”期间，重点解决高氟水、高砷水、苦咸水、污染水、血吸虫等饮用水水质不达标以及局部地区饮用水供应严重不足问题；到２０１０年，使无法得到或负担不起安全饮用水的农村居民比例降低三分之一；到２０２０年，使农村居民饮水达到安全或基本安全。
（记者姚润丰）
安省发生102宗非法排污事件, 水污染仍严重
多伦多信息港 http://www.torontoservice.com
2005-3-21 星岛日报
【多伦多信息港】尽管沃克顿镇(Walkerton)大肠杆菌污染水源的悲剧已经过去5年，并且状况有所改善，但安大略省水源的工业污染现象仍然十分严重。政府公布的最新资料显示，仅在2003年，就发生了102宗向水源非法排泄污染物质的事件，这类污染物质包括：氨、砷及致癌溶液等。逾5百万升毒物被非法排放，对野生物及淡水资源带来威胁。
在2002-2003年期间，总共发现了逾2,000宗违反水源污染法案件，其中，超过1,000宗发生于2003年。
丛岭之友维护法纪基金(Sierra Legal Defence Fund)科学家麦克唐纳(Elaine MacDonald)指出，显然问题相当严重。每年有上千宗违法案件发生，受到调查的寥寥无己，而遭到控告的更少，只有一、两宗。
有机化学物质制造商Chinook Group与Stepan Canada Inc.就于2003年发生了大约550宗违反水源法案件。在违反超过10宗的21家公司中还包括公营企业安省发电公司(Ontario Power Generation)。
许多公司每年一犯再犯。
2000年5月，安省沃克顿镇的大肠杆菌污染水源事件造成7人死亡，2,300人生病。从那时起，省环境厅加强了执法。尽管如此，问题依然存在。
沃克顿水源污染事件触发了政策改变，即从鼓励自愿守法转向更严格的执法。结果，违反保护水源法案件比90年代保守党省长夏里斯时代的高峰期下降了大约30%。
麦克唐纳表示，新的资料进一步表明，政府需要采取更加严厉的执法措施，施行更重的处罚，并且增加透明度。
环境厅发言人史蒂尔(John Steele)表示，政府已经采取了措施。目前的情况大有改善。环境保护分子敦促政府严格执行去年秋季通过的133号法案。史蒂尔说，根据新法律，环境厅可以对140家大型工业设施征收高额罚款，若这类大型企业排泄污染物，每天可遭罚款10万元。新法律的原则是，污染肇事者必须为清洁水源付出代价，即便污染是因事故造成。史蒂尔还表示，环境厅计划今后数月内将在互联网上公布更多信息。
加拿大团体全力反对大湖水改道
星岛日报
批评者警告说，美国八州要求大湖水改道的建议威胁环境和加拿大主权。一些团体将在周一举行的听证会上提交材料，说明美国八州提出的建议是危险的，该建议的目前形式尤其危险。
这项名为"2001年附件实施协议"(IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT FOR ANNEX 2001)的建议，将结束暂时禁止美国新增或扩大五大湖湖水改道的状况。
水文专家顾问潘特兰(RALPH PENTLAND)警告说，尽管国会将只允许小规模改道，影响仍然会很大。
加拿大人协会(COUNCIL OF CANADIANS)也竭尽全力反对该建议。该团体将参加五大湖地区州省长会议主持的多伦多听证会。
该团体负责水文问题的鄂哈特(SARA EHRHARDT)表示，美国大湖地区八州正在起草一项协议，他们将出售大湖的水。这将打开大规模出售五大湖湖水的大门。
环境保护主义者担心，大大扩大现有的将水引入密西西比河的芝加哥改道工程，将使数亿升湖水远离其水源。他们担心气候变化、消费和新改道的综合影响可能最终使大湖干枯。潘特兰说，这并不是杞人忧天。虽然大湖水不会完全干枯，但是很可能于50年后降低5至10英尺水位。
湖水水位降低3米可能是灾难性的，毁坏或严重破坏航运、娱乐、水生物和水力发电，最终破坏整个地区的经济。
美方的建议加重了这些担忧。
大约三分之一的加拿大人(1,000万)和总共3,500万美国人依靠这个世界最大的淡水生态系统供应淡水。
US-Canada Water Wars
Communities Clash Along the St. Mary and Milk Rivers in Southern Alberta and Montana, USA
Christie Mclaren
Whisky's for drinking.
Water's for fighting over.
? popularly attributed to Mark Twain
Nowhere is this witty observation more fitting than on the dry, short-grass prairie where the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan and the state of Montana meet. For more than a century, farmers on both sides of the border have been squabbling over the fluid that makes life in this semi-arid region of North America possible.
But this liquid gold isn't oil ? it's the water of the St. Mary and Milk rivers. "It's critical to my livelihood, it's critical to our communities," says Montana farmer Randy Reed, as he hauls in the potato crop on the family farm east of Chinook. The 40-year-old father of four would like to grow more acres of seed potatoes on his mixed-crop farm. But "six years out of 10," he says, "we are limited in some way by a lack of water" in the Milk River basin.
A few years ago, Reed spent $40,000 US on a sprinkler system to bring water from the Milk River to his fields. But he only used it a few times before the flow dried up in midsummer. Like other farmers in northern Montana, Reed blames these troubles on a 95-year-old water treaty between Canada and the United States. The Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 was supposed to put an end to a festering dispute over the two rivers, by dividing their waters equally.
But, at best, it produced an uneasy truce.
Now, the long-simmering disagreement is threatening to rise to a boil as Montana ? which insists that Canada is getting more than its fair share of the water ? seeks to overturn a 1921 order that dictates how the water is doled out. And farmers on both sides of the border speak with an uncharacteristic frustration about neighbours they have shared this difficult land with for decades.
"All we're asking for is fairness in the interpretation of the treaty," says Reed. "It's been 83 years [since the 1921 order] ? we need to look it over and make sure it's [fulfilling] the intent of the treaty." But if that means Canada has to relinquish any water, some irrigators say, Montana is in for a fight.
"There'd be an uproar," says Jim Csabay, who grows malt barley, sugar beets and soft wheat on his farm east of Lethbridge. "I can tell you, there'd be a million court cases. The lawyers would get fat and rich ? it would go all the way to the world court ..."
The economy of southern Alberta needs all the water it receives, Csabay says. "We'd fight for our share, and we would fight to retain our share." The task of settling the dispute falls to the International Joint Commission, a quasijudicial body created to manage disputes over all waters shared between Canada and the United States.
The stakes are high. Both countries want more water for irrigation. A variety of new players are making their own demands on the rivers. And the prospect of climate change makes it hard to predict how much water there will be in the future.
"This is a major matter, involving tens of thousands of people and hundreds of millions of dollars ? and few know about it," says former Liberal MP Herb Gray, chairman of the Canadian Section of the IJC. Neither country has a quarrel with the general intent of the Boundary Waters Treaty ? to share the water. But Montana has never been happy with the way the treaty works in practice. Since 1950, Montana has consistently received less than half the water from the two rivers ? 40 per cent on average ? while Canada has been getting 60 per cent, Governor Judy Martz says in her appeal to the IJC. Martz says the Order of 1921 should be reviewed and likely rewritten, for three main reasons.
She says it misinterprets the treaty; that conditions have changed in 83 years, including the rights of native Americans to some of the water; and that there are problems with the way the order is carried out on the ground. Most importantly, the order ignores the overall intent of the treaty, spelled out in the key first sentence of Article VI (the portion governing the St. Mary and Milk rivers).
That sentence says the two rivers and their tributaries "are to be treated as one stream" and their waters "shall be apportioned equally" between Canada and the United States. To do this, it adds, different amounts might be taken from different rivers by each country.
The second sentence ? somewhat confusingly ? gives each country first dibs on a particular river during the critical irrigation season. From April 1 through October 31, the United States is entitled to a "prior apportionment" of 500 cubic feet per second, or 75 per cent of the natural flow, of the Milk River; Canada can have three-quarters of the natural flow of the St. Mary. The leftover water in either river is to divided equally, and all water outside irrigation season is to be divided equally.
Montana argues that the 1921 order implements the second sentence of the treaty, but that it fails to address the first sentence; it fails to ensure the water the treaty doles out during the growing season is counted as part of the overall, equal allotment between the two countries over the course of the full year.
This is a problem because the St. Mary is a much bigger river than the Milk, especially during irrigation season. The order "hasn't been fair with us, because 75 per cent of the St. Mary River equals a whole lot more than 75 per cent of the Milk River," says Montana farmer Kay Blatter, chairman of a group of eight irrigation districts in the Milk River Valley in Montana. Montana also has quarrels with the way the water is measured and divided every two weeks throughout the season. "The timing of the flows is greatly in Canada's favour," says Reed.
In the end, Montana receives about 181,000 acre-feet of water less than Canada does each year ? enough water to irrigate thousands of acres of farmland, according to data from the state.
The IJC believed it had divided the water evenly in 1921, Martz says in a letter to today's commissioners. "However, history and the actual flow records have shown that this is not the case, and that Canada clearly came out ahead." Saskatchewan and Alberta say this is not strictly true. The provinces and their farmers are urging the IJC to leave the 1921 order under lock and key.
"There's no reason to change the 1921 apportionment order ? it has functioned very well these many years," says Alberta beef-cattle rancher Tom Gilchrist, whose Deer Creek Ranch has used water from the Milk River or its tributaries since 1902.
The Alberta government argues the treaty and the 1921 order intentionally awarded different amounts of water to Canada and the United States, with ranchers like Gilchrist in mind. They were trying to honour existing water licences on both sides of the border that pre-dated the 1909 Treaty, Alberta Environment Minister Lorne Taylor argues in a letter to the IJC.
Canadian farmers have invested "many billions of dollars" in modern, efficient waterstorage and irrigation systems ? including dozens of reservoirs and hundreds of kilometres of canals ? based on the guaranteed supply of water provided by the 1921 Order, Taylor says. Any attempt to change the status quo "will have devastating impact on the economy and citizens of Alberta."
About 3,500 Alberta farmers, with half the irrigated acres in the province, rely on water from the St. Mary and Milk rivers, says David Hill, executive-director of the Alberta Irrigation Projects Association, which represents all 13 of the province's irrigation districts.
Hill and other Canadians say Montana has only itself to blame for its water shortages. Montana's "facilities don't let them even access the water they are entitled to" because they were mostly built before the Second World War, and have been poorly maintained since, Hill says.
As a result, the state is losing between 60,000 and 80,000 acre-feet of Milk River water that it is entitled to annually, Gilchrist says. If that water "arrives in Alberta because Montana wasn't able to divert its share ... certainly it's used in Alberta."
Montana officials don't draw attention to their water-management problems, but they don't deny them. The state and federal governments are planning to upgrade the state's biggest water-diversion project, on the St. Mary River, but they need to know how much water the treaty will end up giving them in the future, Martz says.
All the same, under the existing rules, even if Montana was capturing every drop of water it is entitled to, Canada would still be getting more, Kay Blatter and other Montana farmers say. Demands unforeseen in 1909 or 1921 have produced new claims on the waters from the rivers.
Both countries want more water from the Milk River for agriculture ? Montana wants to upgrade its diversion system and Alberta farmers hope to build a water-storage facility on the river that would allow them to irrigate 33,000 more acres each year.
Native people on both sides of the border also want more water. U.S. natives "are entitled to large amounts of water" from the two rivers, Martz says. This wasn't known in 1909, because it wasn't until the 1970s that the U.S. Supreme Court fully defined the rights of four native American tribes to federal water in Montana.
And drought is becoming more prevalent, and climate change will only make today's problems worse over time, experts predict.
In a presentation last summer to the IJC, James Byrne, an associate professor of geography at the University of Lethbridge, pointed out that Montana's Glacier National Park ? the source of the St. Mary River ? had 150 glaciers in 1850 and, today, there are just 37. And between 2020 and 2050, Byrne said, the spring snowmelt in the Oldman River basin could decline by 40 per cent from today's levels. But scientists and environmental groups on both sides of the border are pleading for more water to be left in the riverbeds.
Both rivers "are stressed and degraded by current water management," the Alberta Wilderness Association said in a July letter that urged the IJC to consider restoring some of the natural flows. Low water levels are hurting fish populations, including that of the bull trout, a species listed as "threatened" in 1999 under the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The U.S. government proposes to list portions of the St. Mary River system as "critical habitat" for bull trout. Plans to upgrade irrigation facilities are "the most significant threat to bull trout," and the projects must be designed in a way that doesn't jeopardize the fish any further, according to U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials. "Irrigation should definitely be reduced," argues Lethbridge resident Klaus Jericho, of the Southern Alberta Environment Group. Instead, it's "increasing all the time, and the [provinces'] attitude is: ‘To hell with the rivers ? we want more water.' "
Asked about the environment, farmers cite the economy. "What's the economic value of that water in the river, versus the economic value if it's put on the land and judiciously used for crop production?" Csabay argues. "It's a saw-off there."
What does Ottawa say? The federal government appears to have reversed its position over the past 12 months. One year ago, the Liberal government was not rushing to the defence of Saskatchewan and Alberta. In a letter to the IJC in October, 2003, then-Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham suggested Montana's request for a fresh look at the 1921 Order should be considered, given today's conditions.
"In light of the environmental, social and economic changes that have occurred since [the order] was first drafted," Graham said, " ... I support the commission's decision to explore whether a review is necessary."
Now it is saying the opposite. In a letter to the IJC dated October 8, 2004, a senior bureaucrat in Foreign Affairs says Canada's position is that "there is no need to review the IJC's 1921 Order. In our view, circumstances have not changed in the region, to warrant a review." The letter says the dispute can be resolved through co-operation between people from both countries who carry out the Order on the ground.
Martz wants a quick resolution, a sentiment that echoes her predecessor 83 years ago. In 1921, Joseph M. Dixon, then-governor of the State of Montana, begged the IJC to resolve the fight over the Milk and St. Mary rivers, once and for all.
"As the question becomes bitter on both sides, we all realize that it is more difficult to settle," Dixon said. But "... in the name of a hundred years of peace and amity between these great nations, in the name of the friendship that has got to prevail and will prevail, every man along the Milk River and in Montana sincerely hopes and prays before you gentlemen that the Milk River question will forever be a thing of the past."
© Prairie Peaks News
