And now:Ish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: From: David McLaren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 00:59:18 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: NAWASH BULLETIN: IJC hears presentations on bulk water transfers 29 March 1998 [Recipient List Suppressed] NAWASH CHIEF SAYS TO IJC: "NO BULK WATER TAKING" On March 18, 1998, Chippewas of Nawash Chief Ralph Akiwenzie delivered two simple statements to the International Joint Commission (IJC): 1. Our only position is to oppose ANY plan to remove water in quantity from an ecosystem. Our opposition includes the taking of ground water and the taking of surface water. 2. Our only recommendation to non-Native governments and agencies, whose job it is to protect the environment, is to BAN, for environmental reasons, ALL water takings of quantity from any ecosystem. The IJC held a week of hearings beginning March 15 in various cities around the Great Lakes as part of their investigation into the question of bulk water transfers out of the Great Lakes basin. An attempt last year on the part of the Nova Corp. to take billions of litres of water from Lake Superior for shipping to Asia focussed attention from both sides of the border on proposals to take water. Sun Belt of Santa Barbara had been foiled in an earlier attempt to ship fresh water from BC down to California when the BC government banned large water takings. However, Sun Belt is now suing Canada under the North American Free Trade Agreement for the actions of the BC government. If they are successful, it may not be possible to stop bulk exports once they begin. In fact, some trade lawyers feel the bottling and exporting of water (and Grey County in Ontario is a premier source for this) has already turned water into a commodity. In other words, the tap may already be turned on. The Nawash Brief to the IJC is about 8 pages long. The text is on the Dibaudjimoh Nawash web site at: http://www.bmts.com/~dibaudjimoh/page68.html. HERE ARE SOME OF THE MAIN POINTS IN THE NAWASH BRIEF TO THE IJC: ** Once the commercialization of water on a large scale begins, it will be hard to shut it down. Indeed, from our reading of Chapters 3 and 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), it would be impossible. ** We believe that large water transfers or exports will, in the long run, adversely affect the ecosystems from which they are taken. ** We believe such transfers will affect our ability to practice, enjoy and benefit from our aboriginal and treaty rights as recognized in s. 35 of the Constitution and as affirmed by the courts. In the case of the Chippewas of Nawash (and our sister Band, the Chippewas of Saugeen) these rights include the right to fish for trade and commerce in the waters around the Bruce Peninsula as recognized and affirmed by the Jones-Nadjiwon decision of 1993. ** The traditional waters of the Chippewas of Nawash and Saugeen are "section 35" waters and, as such, anything that impacts adversely on them must be subject to an Environmental Assessment (Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, section 48). ** When it comes to protecting First Nations� rights, Canada is our fiduciary. It is an obligation clearly stated by the Supreme Court (most notably in Sparrow). If the treaties were signed between two sovereign nations, as we believe they were, then Canada has a problem. Which treaties will Canada honour-those it signed 150 years ago with us or the free trade agreements it signed with the US ten years ago? For if bulk water takings are allowed under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), it would certainly result in a breach of Canada�s treaty obligations to First Nations. THE EXPERIENCES OF THE JAMES BAY CREE with the serious impacts of the James Bay Project are lessons we should keep in mind while formulating a water policy. For example: ** The biodiversity of the area has been harmed forever. At least one sturgeon population has been destroyed. Sea grass beds along the James Bay coast are in danger of disappearing. They require a moderate salinity that the huge outpouring of fresh water from La Grande is displacing. Migratory fish stocks are in danger. The critical area where salt water meets fresh (the FSTZ-fresh water-salt water transfer zone) is a breeding ground for a number of species of animals; now it has been flushed out into the Bay. IN THE US, GROUND WATER IS BEING TAKEN IN MASSIVE AMOUNTS for agri- business and to satisfy a growing population. The effects are now being felt-one of the reasons why US companies are looking enviously at Canadian fresh water: ** After decades of taking Florida ground water, combined with massive tourism and resettlement, underground water resources are being depleted, sinkholes are opening up and sea- water is being sucked into near-empty water-tables. ** The Ogallala Aquifier that runs under the plains states of Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and west Texas is being emptied by the thirst of agribusiness at a much higher rate than expected. When the US Army Corps of Engineers checked it out in 1976, water was being pumped out of the Aquifier at a rate of 27 billion cubic metres a year. The Corps recommended it be filled up with Great Lakes water. [Joyce Nelson, Canada Dry, This Magazine, October 1987]. THE ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF MASSIVE DISPLACEMENTS OF WATER IN THE ST. LAWRENCE RIVER. Here there is more information, much of it being gathered by Warwick Vincent and Julian Dodson of the D�partment de biologie, Universit� Laval, Qu�bec. The following quote is taken from their paper, "The St. Lawrence River, Canada-USA: the need for an Ecosystem-Level Understanding of Large Rivers" (currently in press in a symposium edition of the Japanese Journal of Limnology (1999). For example: ** Discharge plays a pivotal role in the structure and functioning of all flowing water ecosystems including large rivers. According to the analysis by DYNESIUS and NILSSON (1994), the hydrological regime of 77% of the 139 largest rivers in North America and Eurasia has now been subject to modification by dams and other control structures, with deleterious effects (including fragmentation) on habitat quality, land-water interactions and migration corridors for aquatic wildlife. [We wish to thank Warwick Vincent for sharing his paper with us.] The Nawsh brief quotes extensively from the Vincent-Dodson paper in order to make one, crucial point: the ecosystems of large bodies of water and tremendously complex and extremely fragile. The best scientists admit our scientific knowledge of their complexity is shallow. No one can say with certainty what will or won�t happen when those ecosystems are thrown out of balance. It begs the question: "If we don�t know, what do we do?" Our answer is: "Nothing. Let it be." The taking of water offends the spirit and is a violation of core Anishnabe values. "This we know: the earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth ... Man did not weave the web of life; he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself. -Chief Seattle to the President of the United States, 1854 FOR MORE INFORMATION: Canadian Environmental Law Association: http://www.web.net/cela International Joint Commission offices: http://ijc.com US Section: 1250 23rd St. NW, suite 100, Washington DC 20440. Phone: 202-736-9000. Fax: 202-736-9015. Canadian Section: 100 Metcalfe St., 18th Floor, Ottawa, ON, K1P 5M1. Phone: 613-995-2984. Fax: 613-993-5583. The IJC is accepting submissions until the end of its study period, February 10, 2000. ------------------------------------------ David McLaren [EMAIL PROTECTED] 519-534-4107 Visit Nawash on the Web: http://www.bmts.com/~dibaudjimoh ------------------------------------------ &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Tsonkwadiyonrat (We are ONE Spirit) Unenh onhwa' Awayaton http://www.tdi.net/ishgooda/ &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
