Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

How Water Has Become a National Security Issue

By Maude Barlow, YES! Magazine. Posted June 6, 2008.


Water has become a key strategic security issue for the U.S. government and that has some very concerned.
Advertisement

It's a colossal failure of political foresight that water has not emerged as an important issue in the U.S. Presidential campaign. The links between oil, war, and U.S. foreign policy are well known. But water -- whether we treat it as a public good or as a commodity that can be bought and sold -- will in large part determine whether our future is peaceful or perilous.

Americans use water even more wastefully than oil. The U.S relies on non-renewable groundwater for 50 percent of its daily use, and 36 states now face serious water shortages, some verging on crisis.

Meanwhile, dwindling freshwater supplies around the world, inequitable access to water, and corporate control of water, together with impending climate change from fossil fuel emissions, have created a life-or-death situation across the planet. Both Democrats and Republicans have emphasized loosening U.S. dependence on nonrenewable energy resources in their platforms, but neither party gives significant air time to the threats posed by water shortages.

This is not to say that no one is paying attention. In fact, water has become a key strategic security and foreign policy priority for the United States government.

Cut Deals, Carry Water

Corporate interests have pursued schemes to privatize, commodify, and export water for decades. We have seen how this plays out in Canada. For instance, in the late 1990s, Sun Belt Water, Inc., sued the Canadian government under NAFTA because British Columbia banned water exports, preventing a deal that would have sent B.C. water to California.

Corporations have also made attempts to ship Canadian water as far as Asia and the Middle East, proposals that fizzled after fierce opposition from public citizens who were beginning to understand the dangers of permanently removing water from local ecosystems and placing it under corporate control.

Now the Pentagon, as well as various U.S. security think tanks, have decided that water supplies, like energy supplies, must be secured if the United States is to maintain its current economic and military power in the world. And the United States is exerting pressure to access Canadian water, despite Canada's own shortages.

Under the name, "North American Future 2025 Project," the U.S. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) brought together high level government officials and business executives from Canada, the United States, and Mexico for a series of six meetings to discuss a wide range of issues related to the Security and Prosperity Partnership, a controversial and tightly guarded set of negotiations to expand NAFTA. [See related story .]

"As ... globalization continues and the balance of power potentially shifts, and risks to global security evolve, it is only prudent for Canadian, Mexican, and U.S. policymakers to contemplate a North American security architecture that could effectively deal with security threats that can be foreseen in 2025," said a leaked copy of a CSIS backgrounder. On the agenda for one of two meetings in Calgary were, "water consumption, water transfers, and artificial diversions of bulk water" with the aim of achieving "joint optimum utilization of the available water."

The water and security connection deepens with the fact that Sandia National Laboratories, a vital partner with CSIS in its Global Water Futures Project, also plays a major role in military security in the United States. While Sandia is technically owned by the U.S. government, and reports to the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration, its management is contracted out to Lockheed Martin, the world's biggest weapons manufacturer. Ralph Pentland, water consultant and primary author of the Canadian government's Federal Water Policy in 1987, believes that the purpose of these cross-border discussions is to secure sufficient water for Alberta tar sands production in order to ensure uninterrupted oil supplies to the United States.

Energy extraction would be far more attractive if a new source of water -- potentially from northern Canada -- could be brought to the tar sands through pipelines or other diversions. As long as the water doesn't cross the international border, it is within Alberta's power to do this.These schemes to displace water from one ecosystem to another in the service of corporate profit are an environmental problem for the entire planet, which is another reason why water must form a crucial part of any progressive discussion around U.S. dependence on foreign energy resources.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: security, water, water privatization

Maude Barlow wrote this article as part of A Just Foreign Policy, the Summer 2008 issue of YES! Magazine. Maude is the national chairperson of the Council of Canadians and author of Blue Covenant: The Global Water Crisis and the Coming Battle for the Right to Water.


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Otto .
Posted by: otto on Jun 6, 2008 4:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As usual, Maude Barlow is right on top of the situation. Way to go, Maude, Gal!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Folks, relax. The oil needed to run these operations is getting tight in supply and more expensive.
Posted by: maxpayne on Jun 6, 2008 6:09 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unless sour heavy crude oil can be put to equally carry out the privatization of water (that is, the manufacturing of all that plastic not to mention transportation costs and yes water ain't light in weight), the remaining light sweet crude oil that is on its way out will be the TERMINATION button.

P.S.: Thankfully, it will be much harder to privatize hemp oil let alone use it for military domination. Let's see Big Government try because I know they won't get very far.

PEACE

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

compost toilets
Posted by: cyr3n on Jun 6, 2008 7:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No offense to John Crapper or the Romans.. but dropping a deuce in water was a terrible idea. We shouldnt be crapping in a resource as valuable as fresh water, its way too involved and costly to purify. Compost toilets make so much more sense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: compost toilets Posted by: fanny666
after a 4 inch rain...
Posted by: zooeyhall on Jun 6, 2008 8:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live in Northeast Nebraska. Recently, after a 4 inch rain the previous night, I had to go to the local retail city and couldn't believe that all the big box stores and other businesses had their automatic lawn sprinklers running! This after a huge rainstorm that had the streets flooded and all the low areas in the town underwater!

We seem to treat water like oil in this country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: after a 4 inch rain... Posted by: fanny666
» RE: after a 4 inch rain... Posted by: Outsidetheboxlookingin
It's always been that way
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Jun 6, 2008 9:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Back in the 'wild west' water rights were things people got killed over. It's getting that way again. Not because water is drying up but because the chemicals we dump into the air cause excessive evaporation. Most city dwellers won't notice it but if you live in farm country you can see it first hand.
We got this way because in the name of 'progress' we allowed industry to foul everything from the air to the water to the land. ALways we were told,as children growing up in post WW2, "Land and water use is the price of progress" Now we see we can't afford the toll. We need to assess a value to water that's greater than gold, for it is. You can have a ton of gold but if you have no water....you're as dead as fried chicken.
If the price of progress is poor growing soils,fouled air,and water that unsafe to drink
then 'progress' is the real enemy of the people and the yahoos they run the progress machine are the enemy of all the world's people. We can save this planet,it's air and it's water. Shut down most industry,greatly limit cattle farms and irrigation farming. These entities use more water than a water-park and we can't let their greed cause our grandchildren not to be.
Draft Jeffrey7 for Prez '08

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

2000 CIA "Global Patterns" report predicts water as a major source of armed conflict
Posted by: fanny666 on Jun 6, 2008 9:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I haven't been able to track down the original report again, but here at least is an article ABOUT that report... by the year 2015, "nearly half the world's population -- more than 3 billion people -- will live in countries which are 'water stressed."

You could easily make the argument that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is primarily about water rights. Palestinian people have to wait in huge lines for small amounts or rationed water, while, within view, Israeli settlements are watering their lawns.

I imagine that cheap and easy desalination technology is going to be nearly as important as cheap and easy solar energy technology, if we as a species are going to make it.

free Maude Barlow MP3 talks

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

thank gawd i am 1/2 way through my life
Posted by: ptown on Jun 6, 2008 12:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
thank gawd i am 1/2 way through my life...why anyone would breed on this planet is beyond me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Population Control
Posted by: dockboy on Jun 6, 2008 12:08 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fix to this problem is population control.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

saving water
Posted by: HillbillyBob on Jun 7, 2008 1:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I lived in South Florida for years, we started doing xeriscape about 15-20 years ago. I now live in NC where we had the worst drought in history last year and this year looks to be the same.
Our household is doing many things to lessen our impact, planting a garden, we water the veggies till they get big enough to fend for themselves. We don't water the lawn. We are working toward a rain harvest system and a gray water system. We mulch around the plants to retain moisture and keep down weeds. We have a well and we try to use sparingly, we are going to put in a solar powered back up pump from a spring on our land to suppliment the rain/ grey water as needed.
The creek that runs through our property actually dried up last Summer, but the out flow from the spring kept a trickle. We won't be taking much from the spring and we have unusual hydrology here any thing that lands on the yard goes to the very near bedrock and flows back to the well and spring. We don't use chemicals on the yard or the garden. We use organic fertilizer in the garden at need.
There was even talk of metering our wells in NC awhile back, seems it was a repug talking point to scare locals by saying the dems wanted to meter our wells. We contacted our rep who is a dem and he told us that there was not a move to do so, but that reichwing radio nutcase kept on pushin that meme even claiming some NC assemblymen told him that and even used a mashup of the names of the reps from our district.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mountain Woman
Posted by: Mountain Woman on Jun 10, 2008 3:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well I live in a state that has an average rain fall of 40 to 50 inches and most people can't get a clean drink of water.
The coal industry is blowing up our Appalachian Mountains and burying our head water streams about 800 miles in Kentucky alone. The destruction of our homeland and our water resources is devastating. So the next time you hear someone say something about clean coal tell them the destruction of our waterways is never and can never be clean.
I wish our state could realize coal is not KING that water is what we should be protecting

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

waiting for the American 'sell or we'll just take it' ultimatum.
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Jun 11, 2008 8:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
you think I'm kidding.

Like Canadians & every OTHER resource-rich nations weren't supposed to NOTICE the Cautionary Tale that is Iraq?

Coast Guard being 'modified' into a WhiteHouse quasi-military trade force that circumvents Congress & US Senate controls... making it a de facto private corporate arm of publicly-funded military might...

U.S. Coast Guard breaks Treaty of Ghent...

"COULTER: There is also something called, when you're allowed to exist on the same continent of the United States of America, protecting you with a nuclear shield around you, you're polite and you support us when we've been attacked on our own soil. They [Canada] violated that protocol.
[...]
COULTER: They better hope the United States doesn't roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent."

does it *seem* ridiculous to notice what Ann Coulter says? don't think FOR A MOMENT, that what she SAYS isn't said more seriously by ReichWing insiders. She simply *popularizes* those opinions.

What starts as a disgusting joke, is the same 'sense of entitlement' that accompanies the 'if you want it, simply TAKE IT by force' mentality that characterizes every other reason the US aerial bombs foreign nations...

think about what happened at Bikini Atoll... generations destroyed because of a simple desire to know what would happen if they dropped bombs & let radiation flow... & that wasn't oil or water... just a 'gee, I wonder' activity... can you say 'jellyfish babies'?

MK-ULTRA: Canadian Patients allege CIA abuse
The RingWorm Children” documentary - how the US bribed Israelis to irradiate North African immigrant Jewish children...

┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄
BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian
┄┄
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
┄┄
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"
┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SPP-motivated "Civil Assistance Plan" puts American tanks into Canada...
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Jun 11, 2008 1:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
perhaps Americans should worry for a change that their DOMINANT DEMANDS for international harmonization to American foreign & domestic policies...

... might eradicate where you might run when Konservatives have hammered shut all the windows & doors & torched the building.

Activist Alert: NORTHCOM, Canada Command release fraction of new Canada-U.S. military pact

May 30, 2008 - Council of Canadians

"US Northern Command (NORTHCOM) has posted portions of a Civil Assistance Plan, signed with Canada Command on February 14, to its website, although it appears to be missing as many as 23 annexes – there is reference to an Annex W – that are still classified.

'Integrate This' broke the original story about the Civil Assistance Plan when we noticed it reported in a tiny Colorado newspaper this February but not reported anywhere on the Canadian Forces webpage.
...
While there is very little new information in the released portions of the plan, a few things jump out as worrying:
...
The report says that support for law enforcement operations will be included in the Canada-U.S. Combined Defense Plan (CDP), another recommendation of the secretive Bi-National Planning Group, whose 2006 final report called for Canada-U.S. military integration, or a NORAD-like arrangement for all forms of continental defence.
On page 3, “operations will typically occur in a permissive environment.” Does that mean an environment without an enemy force present, or an environment where Canadians feel generally good about having U.S. troops in the country?

Cross-border missions (pg. 5) can include, vaguely, “to mitigate damage to property.” It’s never a good sign when there’s no limit on what that means, no definition. What are the parameters of “damage to property?”

Also on page 5, in “Concept of Operations,” it says that “the establishment, maintenance, and regular exercise of bilateral coordination mechanisms are the principal requirement of this plan.” In other words, we have to use it or lose it. How many joint exercises with Canadian forces down there, or U.S. forces up here, are we talking about? Yearly? Monthly? On page 8, under “Training,” it says “cross-border movement of military resources is authorized for training and exercises in preparation for bilateral military-to-military civil support.” It’s one thing for us to be training U.S. soldiers for Afghanistan in Calgary, another to have military civil support teams coming and going across the border for regular exercises that, under most circumstances, will only require civilian response to handle (i.e., police, firefighters, medical services, etc).

There is mention of intensified information sharing on page 8: “Both nations will share information to the maximum extent allowed by national laws, agreements, and policy.” (Emphasis added.) This sounds close to the Bi-national Planning Group’s recommendation that information should be shared between security agencies on a “need to share” not a “need to know” basis. The Maher Arar Commission recommended the opposite because of where unfiltered information sharing will get us.

The “end state” clause on page 6 says that the “end state” of any cooperative engagement is either “a cooperative and well-coordinated timely response to national requests for military assistance in relation to natural disasters or other major emergencies in Canada or the United States,” or “Forcers have completed all assigned missions and redeployment is complete.”
...
Hmmm, can you say “Iraq?”

Will we really be expected to endure a U.S. military presence until one or the other armies declares Mission Accomplished? ..."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]