Under the bridge

While some voices on both sides of the border seem to see water exports to the U.S. as a necessary step, the CP points out that Canada has gone backwards in determining just what water is actually contained on Canadian territory:

Due to budget cuts in recent years, the federal government has cut back on water research, closing monitoring stations and reducing data collection on water supplies. The underground aquifers that store the nation's groundwater haven't been mapped, so there is no way to know if they are being depleted or contaminated.

"As a society we are largely forging ahead blindly when it comes to our management of water," the Senate environment committee said in a report tabled just before the government fell on Nov. 28. "We are in essence gambling with our most precious but often under-appreciated natural resource."

The committee recommended that Ottawa create a National Water Council to develop strategies on key water issues. But its report went virtually unnoticed amid the excitement of the election call.

I'm not sold either way as to whether or not water exports could be desirable under the right circumstances. But it should be absolutely clear that whatever decision Canada makes on that issue needs to be based on complete information - and for now, necessary information on our fresh water supply (including the potential for contamination and/or depletion) is sorely lacking.

The issue hasn't made it into the election campaign just yet. But there's no reason to exclude it from consideration, as a party's take on one of Canada's most important resources should surely help to determine whether that party genuinely values sustainable resource management. And especially for the opposition parties, the Libs' willingness to reduce our knowledge of the issue should provide one more useful example of Lib shortsightedness.