But since 2013, Canada and the United States have been preparing to modernize the agreement. Both parties will be able to leave from 2024 with a period of 10 years. But neither side wants to do that; Instead, they want conditions that reflect values that were ignored when the agreement was ratified in September 1964 by Prime Minister Lester Pearson and President Lyndon Johnson. This agreement provides for a cooperation and coordination mechanism for the management of common waterways and the consideration of environmental issues of mutual interest along the border. (1) Despite section 11, mass removal of border waters is prohibited. The dynamics of a border water contract arose against a backdrop of difficulties in sharing the waters of the St Mary and Milk Rivers to the west, the Rainy River, the Chicago Diversion of Lake Michigan (which then lowered the lake level by 6 inches), the St. Mary`s River, near Sault Ste. Marie and the Niagara River. For example, at the International Irrigation Congresses in Denver, Colorado, 1894 and Albuquerque, New Mexico, resolutions were introduced by the Canadian delegate in 1895 and passed unanimously by the delegations of the United States, Mexico and Canada. The resolution recommended that the United States “appoint an international commission that would decide, in cooperation with the authorities of Mexico and Canada, on competing rights arising or likely to emerge from flows of an international character.” In 1896, the Canadian government asked the British ambassador in Washington to inform the U.S. government that it was prepared to cooperate “through the establishment of an international commission or otherwise” to regulate international streams for irrigation purposes.

[3] But waiting for Obama is not good enough on the water file. Instead, we should proactively adopt a policy of the truly highest common denominator. Water policy is complex and multifaceted, which is why I will only briefly touch on three possibilities, all of which, I admit, are difficult. The efforts mentioned above by the CSIS/Conference Board are just one of many that have played with the notion of mass water export over the past half century. A recent effort was a report by the Montreal Economic Institute last year entitled Freshwater Exports for the development of Québec`s Blue Gold (2008). Most reports of this type tend to be enthused by the prospect of exporting water in large quantities, and many have spoken of its inevitable and even its imminence. They have always proven to be false for the same fundamental reasons. Everyone tends to be too easy, and all of them are based on a few or all of the following misunderstandings.