Home Environment Devils Lake Devil's Brew in Devils Lake

Devil's Brew in Devils Lake

London Free Press
17 May 2005

North Dakota's rejection of Canada's call for an International Joint Commission environmental review of its plan to divert water from polluted Devils Lake into Manitoba is troubling on more than one level.

In a bid to shrink Devils Lake, where heavy rain and the lack of a natural outlet have combined to cause a nine-metre rise since 1993, North Dakota has gone ahead with plans to divert water via a 22-kilometre diversion channel to the Sheyenne River. From there, it joins the Red River, Lake Winnipeg and Hudson's Bay.

Manitoba, the Canadian government, the state of Minnesota and some environmental groups are rightly concerned this diversion would enable species of fish, plants, parasites and viruses to spread into other watersheds. Minnesota's concerns centre on two tapeworms found in Devils Lake that can make fish sick and more vulnerable to predators. The lake also contains high levels of salt and phosphorus.

One only has to look at the havoc zebra mussels have caused in the Great Lakes to understand the ramifications of introducing foreign species.

But concerns go beyond this diversion. If North Dakota can bypass the IJC, created by the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 to deal with transboundary water disputes, what is to stop it from happening again in diverting water out of the Great Lakes basin? Witness the debate over the Great Lakes Charter Annex, a pact between Ontario, Quebec and eight Great Lakes states that some fear will result in more diversions of water from its basin, not less.

Whether it's unwanted diversions out of the Great Lakes basin, or diversions into Canada of polluted water and foreign species, dispute resolution processes that have worked for a century must not be circumvented. The IJC has been asked to intervene in 53 disputes, of which it arrived at 51 mutually agreed settlements. That's a good track record.

To North Dakota claims that an environmental review would take more than eight years, Canada has responded by getting the IJC to speed it up to one year and has pledged to honour its ruling. North Dakota argues Canada rejected a review in 2002 and says it's too late now. Canada denies that charge and adds it asked for a referral to the IJC in April 2004, which means it could have been completed by now.

Last week, Ottawa appealed to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to stop the project until a review is completed. In an editorial published yesterday, the Minneapolis Star Tribune called on Washington, through Rice's office, to join with Ottawa in seeking an IJC review.

To North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad's curt statement his state "will not allow Canada to block progress on protecting life and property," the Star Tribune editorial countered: "That's a needlessly belligerent characterization of Canadian attitudes, which seem, from this vantage, to have been marked by patience, diplomacy and trust in established processes."

We couldn't have said it better ourselves.