The North American Free Trade Agreement

Living Canada, it is hard to believe what it would be like to not have a virtually unlimited supply of freshwater. In places and areas where freshwater is not that easy to get, such as the drought in California that is so highly talked about, as well as places in Africa who wonder if they will have enough fresh water to last the rest of the week. Being a country of high strength in this resource we have to think if we are going to help some to these countries or not. This piece writing will explain what freshwater really is and whether Canada should export our water to the United States of America and why we should not.

Since more than 70% of the Earth is covered with water, one would assume that there is enough water for everyone. However, this statement would be incorrect. Only 3% of that water is considered usable and 2% of the usable water is locked in the polar ice caps. This leaves 1% of that water for the use of humans. Canada possesses a substantial amount of this water, while other countries are less fortunate. One of these countries is the United States of America, the biggest users of water in the world. They are looking for a new source of water and have been hoping Canada can be this new source. The Canadian government should accept the proposal to sell water in bulk to the United States due to the availability, the safety and the economic

The goal of this paper is intended to provide the legal, political, social, economic, ecological dimensions of water resource policy

On a bright and clear summer day, the birds were chirping, the sun was boring down onto your back. You skipped through the dry fields of grass, the plants withered at your feet. Then you saw it. Was that… water? You set your eyes upon the goal: the stunning oasis of freshwater and leafy green trees only a few steps before you. It was true! You drank the water hurriedly, taking huge gulps as the cold liquid ran down your throat. You paused for a moment, thinking about the border, and the people across it starving for water like you once had. Should you send some over to them? Oh, but the cost! Setting up pipes would be so expensive! The water levels were already lowering rapidly across your side of the border, so maybe you should just salvage

The United States and Mexico share a boundary line that has many complex issues that are in constant flux. Both countries are dependent on each other for safety and economics. In addition, both countries have had conflicts in the past that include the Mexican American War and revolutions that have bled into each other’s territory. This essay’s goal is to demonstrate the boundary issues between the United States and Mexico. These issues include an ambiguous border line, water rights, and environmental issues. These matters are a pressing concern because they create hostilities between the governments and citizens of each country.

Whether water is a human commodity or basic human right has become a large problem around the world while dealing with the availability of clean drinking water in developing societies. If water is either recognized to be a right or a commodity, many complications come to these developing countries in several social and political aspects. A human right is a freedom and a right that belongs to everyone in the world. Water as a human right gives everyone the right to water as

For years, there has been debate over who has access to the water in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes provide about 20 percent of the world’s freshwater resources and many areas would like to use that water for various purposes. Water is also becoming a valuable resource, with many areas lacking the access to it necessary for their area’s needs. Because of this, lawmakers passed a compact in 2008 that was designed to protect the Great Lakes against pressure from other States to withdraw water (Kalsness, 2011). A compact is an agreement between states or nations that bind them to whatever they agreed upon. This compact makes sure that areas outside of the Great Lakes region do not have access to the water. Despite this compact, some want to use the Great Lakes to pipe water to other states that do not have the same natural resources. Proponents of this piping say that is gives water to areas that need it and that it will provide additional income to the area (Cauchon, 2006). Opponents say that piping would go against water conservation and environmental protection as well as water management. They also say that it is a natural resource that belongs to the area and should not be taken away to other areas of the country (Dempsey, 2008). Currently, the debate continues about the correct use of the resource of the Great Lakes.

The world revolves around water. Without it, organisms would cease to exist. With that being said, humans depend on it on a daily basis. In the documentary “Thirst”, it covers the controversy of water privatization in Bolivia, India, and Stockton. All of these regions are opposed to water privatization by the powerful corporations that operate in the area. The people living in these places believe that water privatization negatively affects their control of their water, because it a human right. On the other hand, the multinational corporations believe that water is an economic resource that should be bought and sold, for profit. I believe that water should not have the ability to be privatized.

The story Thirst reflects on how global corporations like Nestle, Suez, and Veolia are rapidly purchasing local water sources such as lakes, streams, and springs. Those companies are also taking control of public water services. While trying to privatize and turn a larger profit off of water, they have manipulated and bought politicians, have gone “under the table” to make deals and undermined the democratic process by trying to deny citizens a voice in fundamental decisions about their most essential public resource. The authors ' Thirst explain the emergence of a controversial new water wars in the United States and showing how communities here are fighting this battle, often against companies headquartered overseas. The three followed water privatization battles across the United States from California to Massachusetts and from Georgia to Wisconsin, documenting the rise of public opposition to corporate control of water resources. These towns find it hard to balance a budget, so when large companies come in and offer to control the water the town looks at it as a major way to cut costs, but what it ends up costing is much more.

Thousands have lived without love, not one without water. - W.H. Auden. I am writing this letter behalf of all Canadians who wish to keep Canada’s precious water protected, healthy and be kept in it’s home country. Selling Canada’s water is a controversial topic and there have been several arguments and debates regarding this matter. “If you load a tanker full of oil or wheat and ship it away to a foreign country, it’s a sign of open trade and natural resource wealth. But if you load a tanker full of fresh water and ship it off to a foreign country, it can be perceived as environmentally irresponsible and culturally insensitive.”(Larson, 2015). Now it has come to a point where exporting Canada’s water has affected our economy negatively by

This paper will attempt to explain where U.S. Sugar gets its water and how much it pays for it. There does not seem to be any readily available information on the source of its water or how much it pays for it. Knowing more about U.S. Sugar’s water usage could help explain U.S. Sugar’s stake in issues like the Everglades Restoration. But more importantly, these answers could have significant public policy implications. Is it the case that U.S Sugar is accessing a critical resource free of charge or at a lower cost that other users? If so, what conditions in public policy, have and continue to allow for U.S Sugar to avoid paying for its water? This paper will fill a critical research gap in answer these questions and making the information available.

In many water poor countries such as India and countries in the Middle East, influential water companies such as Nestle go in and take water from these areas to sell. This is also an issue that is taking place right in our backyard. The city of Sacramento, California is in its fourth year of a record drought- yet Nestle is still selfishly draining underground aquifers from the area without paying for it, only to sell it back to the same people to gain profit.

Around the world, many people believe that there is a great deal of water that can be shared. However, the reality is that if we keep living our lives by this mentality, we will experience water shortages. In the future, wars will be fought over water, and since Canada is blessed with such a large amount of fresh water, we will have a major impact in these battles. In the Great Water Debate, Canada is in the opposition side of it. The Canadian government believes that our water is a Canadian resource and is not shared with all of North America’s. Canada does not want to transfer their water as it is a great resource for our Country and gives us more sustainability.

In May 2015, Obama issued this order attempting to limit pollution in 60% of the US’s bodies of water. By rolling this back, Trump is attempting to prevent government entities from hindering pollution in smaller bodies of water including wetlands that flow into larger rivers and lakes like the Mississippi river. Contrarily, farmers tend to regard these regulations as burdens in their work, putting a gun to their head to pay the costs of permits to cultivate soil in the protected areas and pay for environmental assessments. The two evident sides of the water pollution crisis are money and business coming first, and the preservation of freshwater. This debate is pressing in politics, and is a true oust in priorities in American life. Living in a country without thirst facing its citizens makes the decision easy for many people, but we may not always be safe, and there can be a time when the tables turn against

Life springs up around water sources. It is no coincidence that some of the greatest civilizations have been build need fertile bodies of water. Known life relies on water to sustain that life. So it is no surprise when a debate arose in 2013 around comments made by Nestlé Chairman Peter Brabeck regarding privatization of water and the fundamental human right to survive from dehydration and illness from non-portal water consumption. Although the context of Brabeck’s comment was taken out of context, issues surrounding the access companies like Nestlé have been given to bottle their water when people do not have access to clean water and droughts are threatening crop production. Adding a price tag is not the answer. The market, both these companies and their consumers have a major role to play in the management of water; a role that requires a change in mindset of privilege many citizen of the United States, and other countries that do not see the direct effects that serious clean water issue have on people that do not have it.