International Hydrological Program of UNESCO
"Transboundary Aquifers in the Americas" Meeting 7-9 March 2005, Paris, France
1
GROUNDWATER IN THE GREAT LAKES BASIN
INTRODUCTION
Most national and international meetings on groundwater are – like this one – filled with a broad range of groundwater experts, including soil scientists, hydrogeologists and lawyers. But when we are talking about developing international instruments for transboundary aquifers, and talking about protecting groundwater resources and effectively managing them in a sustainable manner, we need to consider not just science and law, but also the process of achieving change.
How do we improve our decision-making on groundwater? How do we bring people together across national boundaries to work together to a common end? How do we design processes that involve stakeholders – the public, industry, agriculture and governments – in decision-making on resource issues? These are important process questions, and I would argue every bit as important to address as the recharge rate of aquifers or the legal ownership of groundwater.
I would like to share with you some of the process lessons that we have learned at the Program on Water Issues, lessons that have helped to move forward the discussion on groundwater in the Great Lakes Basin.
First, a little background on the Program on Water Issues (POWI). POWI was created at the Munk Centre for International Studies at the University of Toronto in 2001. POWI creates opportunities for members of the private, public, academic and not-for-profit sectors to join in collaborative research, dialogue and education on water issues. Since the creation of the program we have tackled issues dealing with public-private partnerships, governance, water security, withdrawals from the Great Lakes Basin and groundwater.
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
Many people are aware of the significance of the surface water resources contained in the Great Lakes Basin. The Basin is one of the largest surface freshwater sources in the world containing about 22,673 km3 of water. Fewer, however, know about the extent and the importance of the groundwater in the Great Lakes Basin. Groundwater is a vital, but often under-appreciated resource in the Basin. It meets many human needs and contributes significantly to the hydrology of the Great Lakes Basin and the health of its ecosystems.
A few facts: the Great Lakes Basin contains about 4,168 km3 of groundwater. This is an amount equal to that found in Lake Michigan, which is why it has sometimes been referred to as a “sixth Great Lake”. Groundwater is used for domestic purposes by about 11.5 million residents in Canada and the US. It is used extensively for agriculture and industry. It contributes more than 50% of the flow from rivers and streams to the Great Lakes (and therefore plays a vital role in sustaining wetlands, freshwater fisheries and other biological resources).
Figure 1: Great Lakes Basin
2
OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT
The objectives of the Program on Water Issues (POWI) Groundwater Project are:
• to increase awareness of the value and importance of groundwater as a resource;
• to facilitate information exchange;
• to identify gaps in knowledge;
• to encourage discussion and debate on the groundwater-related issues; and
• to contribute to improved management of the resource.
METHODOLOGY, FINDINGS AND RESULTS
Phase 1: Groundwater in the North American Context
POWI’s work on groundwater began with a North American geographic focus. In 2001, we were contacted by Janine Ferretti, the Executive Director of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). The CEC is the tri-lateral organization created under the North American Free Trade Agreement to address regional environmental concerns, help prevent potential trade and environmental conflicts, and promote the effective enforcement of environmental law. The CEC asked POWI to develop a project on freshwater in the North American context, the first foray into freshwater issues for the Commission. Ultimately it was decided to focus on
groundwater because it was the least well-understood component of North America’s freshwater system.
Discussion Paper:
POWI retained a consultant to develop a discussion paper on groundwater using readily available sources of information. The result was a document entitled Groundwater: A North American Resource (January, 2002). This was the first paper of its kind in that it discussed groundwater in a tri-lateral context, i.e., with respect to Canada, US and Mexico. The paper identified the extent and value of groundwater in North America, including who uses it, what purposes it is used for and how much is withdrawn in Canada, the US and Mexico. There is a great diversity among the three countries in terms of reliance on groundwater and on what it is used for. (In surface-water rich Canada, for example, groundwater only makes up only 2% of all freshwater withdrawals; in Mexico it makes up 34%. In Mexico and the US, most groundwater is used for agriculture; in Canada, domestic use equals that of the agricultural sector).
Groundwater: A North American Resource also identified the vital role groundwater plays in sustaining biological systems including wetlands. The Paper argued that the resource was under threat because of overuse and contamination of aquifers and suggested that emerging factors (the possibility of international trade in water, rapid population growth in water-stressed areas such as the US southwest, and global climate change) would increase the pressure on groundwater resources. The paper also argued that the current management of groundwater resources in North America is poor because:
• recharge areas are not protected adequately in the land development process;
• managers do not use an ecosystem approach ;
• the current regulatory regime is patchwork;
• current mechanisms for managing transboundary aquifers are inadequate;
• pricing schemes work against sustainability; and
• there are huge knowledge gaps on fundamental aspects such as the level and extent of consumptive uses, mapping of boundary and transboundary aquifers, and other key factors
Expert Workshop:
With the Discussion Paper as a tool to focus debate and discussion, POWI then organized an Expert Workshop on Freshwater in North America on January 21, 2002. The workshop was held at the Munk Centre for International Studies, which is part of the University of Toronto. An independent facilitator, Rita Pearson Maguire -- a lawyer and former water administrator from Arizona -- was retained to chair the meeting. Invitations were sent to policy and technical experts in Canada, the US and Mexico.
Thirteen experts from Canada, the US and Mexico attended the meeting, in which simultaneous translation was provided for Spanish-speaking participants. (An additional six representatives from agencies involved in the issue also attended as observers). Although most of the
participants knew each other by reputation, this was the first time these experts had met face to face to talk about groundwater, and it was the first time that a tri-lateral meeting on groundwater had been held.
The participants appreciated the opportunity to exchange information and opinions in a neutral academic setting, and unanimously praised the Discussion Paper as an excellent and succinct description of major issues and a good platform from which to launch discussion. There was consensus on the need for action on groundwater and the need to manage groundwater and surface water in an integrated manner. The participants agreed that there was a crisis in groundwater in many parts of North America and confirmed that the major threats to the resource were overuse, contamination, land-use changes, deforestation, population growth and climate change. The participants were also able to identify where the greatest pressures on groundwater are currently found, and where they will likely be found in the future. The most significant barriers to integrated management of ground and surface water were identified, along with key management actions, approaches and tools that are needed to move towards integrated management of ground and surface waters.
The proceedings of the Expert Workshop were documented in the Meeting Report of the Expert Workshop on Freshwater in North America (March 2002), in which there was no attribution.
Both reports were made available on the CEC and POWI websites Post-Workshop:
In the wake of the Expert Workshop, a number of important events took place. The leading hydrogeologists from the United States Geological Survey and Natural Resources Canada began a dialogue and a working relationship that allowed them to develop joint programs including aquifer-mapping initiatives. The CEC began a process to develop a freshwater program that deals with sustainable watershed management, affordable water-related technologies and water
pricing. And finally, it became obvious to us at POWI that we needed to take the groundwater discussion to the next level.
4 Phase 2: Groundwater in the Great Lakes Basin
For the Program on Water Issues, the next phase involved an examination of groundwater at the Great Lakes Basin level. In April 2003, POWI assembled a team of advisors and convened a strategy session. The team of advisors agreed that the geographic scope for further addressing issues relating to transboundary groundwater would be the Great Lakes Basin (including the St.
Lawrence River). We opted to focus on the GLB rather than the entire Canada/US border because it represented a distinct ecological unit, as compared to the diversity found along the 6,400 km Canada/US border. It was also apparent that while groundwater was vital to the health of the Great Lakes, it wasn’t really a priority issue at the regional level and lagged behind surface water in terms of public profile and governance. The team decided that what we needed was a
“Catalyst Document” to spark discussion and debate on groundwater in the Basin Catalyst Document:
POWI engaged the services of two expert co-authors to write the Catalyst Document -- an American (Gerry Galloway) and a Canadian (Ralph Pentland) – and asked them to develop a document that “defined the desired future state for effective basin groundwater management, including the principles underlying the achievement of that state.” The authors had specific skills that made them perfect for the task including an extensive knowledge of both the technical and policy issues relating to groundwater and surface water management in the Great Lakes Basin.
They were also independent, having recently retired from government, were good writers and could work together. And although they respected each other, the co-authors didn’t necessarily agree with each other on every point, and that enriched the final product immensely.
After several drafts and peer review by 14 policy, legal and technical experts, Galloway and Pentland produced Managing Groundwater Resources in the Great Lakes Basin: Securing Our Future (Draft Vision and Principles), August 2003. The Paper provided an overview of
groundwater in the Basin and the legal and institutional setting that governs its use, protection, diversion and removal from the Basin. The authors argued that it was vital to improve the management of groundwater in the Basin or else “problems related to climate change, overuse, hidden pollution and unfettered diversions could potentially mount to the point that they could have disastrous implications for the social and economic fabric of the Region.” The authors also developed a Draft Vision for the Future and nine Principles to help achieve that future. This Catalyst Document was then used as background material for an Expert Workshop on Groundwater in the Great Lakes Basin.
Expert Workshop:
POWI hosted the Expert Workshop on Managing Groundwater Resources in the Great Lakes Basin at the Munk Centre for International Studies at the University of Toronto on September 16, 2003. Again, two kinds of invitations were sent out to potential participants and potential observers. The workshop was attended by a wide spectrum of experts (22) and observers (32) from the governmental, industry and the environmental communities. POWI provided a dinner for participants the evening before the workshop, which allowed people to meet, mingle and exchange information in a casual setting. A neutral facilitator, John Buccini, was retained to chair the workshop. (Mr. Buccini had just completed a term as Chair of the UNEP Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on POPs, so he had experience dealing with international environmental issues).
The Catalyst Document, including the Vision, was provided to participants in advance of the meeting and Galloway and Pentland presented an overview of it at the workshop. A great deal of time was set aside in the agenda for both participants and observers to ask questions and make comments. At the workshop, there was considerable support for the overall direction of the Vision that was articulated in the document:
“Citizens of the GLB – individuals, organizations, industries and their governments – understand the value of groundwater and its vital contribution to the economy and the health of the Great Lakes ecosystem, and empowered by governments, make responsible decisions about groundwater, sustaining the resource for the benefit of current and future generations.”
There was also considerable support from participants for the notion that decision-making on groundwater should be carried out at the local level within a framework in which upper levels of government provide support through policies, guidelines, funding and information.
Participants also supported the idea that the Program on Water Issues at the Munk Centre should continue to convene a dialogue to help build consensus on a management framework for
groundwater in the Great Lakes Basin. The proceedings of the workshop were documented in the Workshop on Managing Groundwater Resources in the Great Lakes Basin – Meeting Report (October, 2003), in which, once again, there was no attribution. Both reports were made
available on the POWI website.
Post-Workshop:
After the workshop, significant numbers of people began contacting POWI for information on Great Lakes Groundwater. Without intending to play that role, POWI started to serve as a clearinghouse for information and eventually received a request to post an Annotated Bibliography on Transboundary Groundwater Governance on the POWI website.
Phase 3: Groundwater and Annex 2001
Annex 2001:
The next phase of work on groundwater related to the Great Lakes Annex Charter (Annex 2001).
The eight Great Lakes States Governors and the Premiers of Ontario and Quebec had made a commitment in 1999 to create a common standard to protect the water resources of the Great Lakes Basin. (A formal signing followed in 2001, hence the term “Annex 2001”). The Annex initiative was triggered by a proposal in 1998 by NOVA Corporation to ship water in bulk by tanker from Lake Superior to Asia. The proposal sent shock waves through the Great Lakes Basin community, even though it was eventually turned down by the Ontario government. The importance of Annex 2001 grew as communities dealt with recurring low water levels in the Lakes in the late 1990s. Additional impetus for action came with the proposal in 2001 by the Perrier Corporation (now Nestle Waters) to withdraw groundwater and build a spring water bottling plant in Michigan. At the same time, State governments were facing increasing pressure from “straddling communities” – those just over the sub-continental divide that defines the Great Lakes Basin -- for access to Great Lakes water. And finally, there was a fear among some that if the Great Lakes governments could not come up with a consensus plan to govern withdrawals, they might be set by default, by way of legal challenges brought under trade agreements such as
6
To develop the details of the Annex agreement, the Council of Great Lakes Governors had set up a process to develop a common decision-making standard. Such a decision-making standard would be a vitally important mechanism to govern the withdrawal and diversion of ground and surface waters in the Great Lakes Basin for decades to come. However, by December 2003, when POWI convened an expanded bi-national team of Program Advisors, it was obvious that the Annex process was in some difficulty: deadlines had been missed and communication had lapsed. Because of the importance and timing of the Annex 2001 initiative, POWI decided to develop a paper to focus public discussion on the matter, and then forward it as a contribution to the Annex process.
Annex 2001 Paper #1 – “Political Diversions”:
To tackle the Annex issue, POWI retained an award-winning natural resource/investigative journalist, Andrew Nikiforuk, and asked him to produce a plain language discussion paper on the progress and purpose of the Annex 2001 proposals. To develop the paper, the writer reviewed more than 50 public documents and interviewed numerous academics, ecologists, civil servants, environmentalists, water experts and business representatives on both sides of the border. The resulting document, entitled Political Diversions: Annex 2001 and the Future of the Great Lakes, was a hard-hitting discussion paper that argued that the Draft Annex 2001 proposal was fundamentally flawed. Nikiforuk concluded that that while Annex 2001 appeared to be a regional compact dedicated to protecting the Great Lakes Basin, in fact, as written it was a “water taking system designed to minimize conflict among potential water takers.”
To launch both Nikiforuk’s paper and broad public discourse on the Annex issue, POWI hosted Political Diversions: A Panel Discussion on Annex 2001 at the Munk Centre for International Studies on June 21, 2004. A well-known Canadian columnist and political analyst was retained to moderate the discussion. A wide range of participants was invited and 46 participants from the governmental, academic, industry and environmental sectors attended. Nikiforuk presented an overview of his paper and eight Canadian and American panellists commented on it from legal, environmental, and industry viewpoints. A video link allowed two American industry panellists from the State of Michigan to take part. The Panel Discussion was lively, wide-ranging and thought provoking, providing many participants with new information on the Annex process and opening up public discussion on the issue in a timely way. The Nikiforuk paper was posted on the POWI website and was forwarded as POWI’s formal submission in the Annex 2001 public review process.
Annex 2001 Paper #2 – “Decision Time”:
To build on the momentum launched by the release of the Nikiforuk paper and to continue the binational dialogue, POWI then joined with the Canada Institute at the Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC to develop a further paper on the issue. The two organizations retained the Canadian expert, Ralph Pentland and an American environmental lawyer, Jim Olson, who had successfully argued the case on behalf of citizens in Michigan against the Perrier/Nestle bottling proposal. These two authors produced a paper entitled Decision Time: Water Diversion Policy in the Great Lakes Basin. In this paper, Pentland suggested that the then-current Annex 2001 proposals for managing Great Lakes water uses and removals represented “a very high risk strategy” for the ecosystem, and put forward a number of alternate approaches for managing Great Lakes water withdrawals and diversions. Olson argued that the then-current Annex 2001 proposals would undermine existing US law (specifically the
Water Resources Development Act) and would potentially undermine the public trust doctrine in which waters are owned by the states and held for the benefit of citizens.
POWI and the Canada Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars then convened a meeting based on Decision Time: Water Diversion Policy in the Great Lakes Basin in Washington, DC at the Woodrow Center on September 14, 2004. Video linkup allowed participants in Ann Arbour, Michigan (at the University of Michigan) and at the Munk Centre for International Studies (at the University of Toronto) to take part. The authors, Pentland and Olsen, presented their papers and then took questions from participants. Because the paper was made available to the public well in advance of the meeting, debate and discussion was informed and lively. Importantly, the papers and the debate were scheduled in such as way as to take place during the 90-day public comment period on the Draft Annex 2001 proposals. After the meeting, the Pentland/Olsen papers were posted on the POWI website
“Legal Diversions or Legal Solutions” Workshop:
In this most recent initiative, POWI joined together with Chicago-Kent College of Law to host the Legal Diversions or Legal Solutions Workshop on the Draft Annex 2001 Agreements and the Future of the Great Lakes Basin. The workshop, which examined the legal
underpinnings of the Annex Agreements, was held February 17, 2005 in Chicago. Video linkups were provided for participants in Toronto (at the Munk Centre for International Studies at the University of Toronto) and Ann Arbour, Michigan (at the University of Michigan). In total, about 90 people took part in the workshop.
Presentations were made by nine Canadian and American panellists from the legal, academic, environmental and consulting sectors, representing a broad range of views. The format of the workshop allowed extensive interaction among the participants in the three centres and among the panellists. The discussion revealed the complexity of the issue – while there was great deal of agreement on the objectives of the Annex process (to protect the water resources of the Great Lakes Basin), there were differing views on how to reach those objectives, including on
fundamental questions such as “Can we (or should we) treat out-of-basin diversions differently than in-basin uses?”
Postscript:
The public discussions on Great Lakes Basin Annex 2001 Agreements continue. After receiving 10,000 written comments during the public review period in the fall of 2004, the Annex 2001 Water Management Working Group with membership from the eight American Basin States and two Canadian provinces is currently revising the Annex Proposal. The Working Group will be sending out a Revised Annex Proposal for further public review in the spring of 2005.
The indications are that the Revised Annex Proposal will be very different from that which was released in the fall of 2004. We believe that the POWI process – including the papers developed, the meetings held, and the discussions and debates engendered -- have played a role in bringing about positive changes in the Annex 2001 Agreements. We hope that our actions will contribute to the improvement of the management of both ground and surface waters in the Great Lakes Basin.
8
LESSONS LEARNED—Transboundary Water Meetings.
• Neutral, third-party educational settings such as that provided by the Program on Water Issues at the Munk Centre for International Studies at the University of Toronto can play a vital role in bringing people together, generating debate and discussion on key issues, and in moving issues forward.
• A well-written “catalyst” document, by a credible author, that is circulated well in advance of a meeting will engender more thoughtful and relevant discussion.
• Peer review of such a document by participants from all countries is not optional. It is essential.
• A face to face meeting at which participants know that their comments will not be attributed, and preferably preceded by a meal the evening before, sets the stage for a more productive meeting.
• The posting of documents shortly (within a month after the meeting has occurred) is generally appreciated by participants and others.
• It is sometimes preferable to have two categories of attendees. Participants and Observers.
• On a subject as important as managing groundwater, it is crucial to canvas all viewpoints and to get participation from all sectors.
