Eva Lipiec and Pervaze A. Sheikh authored this nice 2-page CRS InFocus report (30 August 2019) on the IJC: The International Joint Commission (IJC).
Download CRS_InFocus_IJC_30Augst2019
What follows is the text of the first page of the document.
Introduction
The International Joint Commission (IJC) was established under the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty between the United States and Canada. The treaty directs the IJC to aid in the resolution and prevention of disputes concerning the waters that cross (transboundary) or form (boundary) the international border between the two countries, known collectively as boundary waters. The watersheds of these boundary waters are illustrated in Figure 1. The IJC may be asked to consider issues related to drinking water, commercial shipping, hydroelectric power generation, agriculture, industry, recreational boating, and shoreline property, among others. Congressional interest in the IJC often has focused on the IJC’s scope of authority, its role inspecific disputes, and funding for the U.S. portion of IJC activities.
IJC Functions
The IJC functions as a nonpolitical research, advisory, and mediation body for the two national governments. The IJC has six commissioners: three appointed by the President of the United States with the approval of the Senate (these positions are reappointed by each incoming Administration) and three appointed by the Governor in Council of Canada with the advice of the Prime Minister. The commissioners of each country select a chair apiece. The two chosen chairs serve concurrently. Canadian commissioners have fixed terms that vary from two years to five years. The IJC needs a quorum of four commissioners to make decisions and generally reaches decisions through consensus. Commissioners do not formally represent their countries and must declare in writing that they will be impartial when carrying out the duties of the treaty. The IJC’s decisions and recommendations are the result of objective analysis and are not necessarily a reflection of U.S. or Canadian national policies.
The IJC has two primary duties under the treaty: 1) examine and report on questions or matters of difference between the U.S. and Canadian governments, known as a reference, and 2) approve any work in boundary waters affecting water levels on either side of the boundary, known as an Order of Approval (Order). The IJC currently supervises more than 20 expert boards and task forces that respond to references and monitor the implementation of Orders; these groups draw upon the expertise of around 300 representatives from various organizations.
What about groundwater? There is no mention of it anywhere in the CRS report.
According to Everts (Everts, T.M., 1991, Canadian/American Transboundary Groundwater Issues: The Forgotten Resource. Thesis/Dissertation, University of Oregon):
...the IJC has no legal mandate to investigate and make recommendations on groundwater issues which are isolated from possible impacts on surface waters, unless both countries stipulate that the IJC may do so. However, the legal loophole utilized by the IJC to bypass the legal mandate issue in conducting groundwater impact studies in the Flathead River Basin could be the possible adverse effects that polluted groundwater might have on surface waters. By linking polluted groundwater as a possible cause to surface water degradation across the border, the IJC would not overstep its legal mandate under the BWT [Boundary Waters Treaty], but would be legally pressed to investigate the source of the degradation [Emphasis in Original] (p. 73-74)].
The CRS report does not mention groundwater, primarily because the BWT does not mention it. Aquifers are not shown on the above figure from the report, but here is one from my Canadian colleague Alfonso Rivera:
Here is a 4-pager from Alfonso that appeared in Water Resources IMPACT in May 2018:
Download Rivera_us_canada_gw_impact
The IMPACT paper is a very short paper that contains elements of the journal article alluded to in the graphic: Transboundary Aquifers along the Canada–USA Border: Science, Policy and Social Issues.
In the IMPACT paper Alfonso does not mention the IJC but talks about cooperation that has occurred between the two countries, such as the Milk River aquifer (Alberta and Montana). There is also the case of the Abbotsford-Sumas aquifer that underlies Washington State and British Columbia. This issue was resolved because of the stakeholders, the state and the province with the blessing of the two national governments. There is also this paper that appeared in a special issue of groundwater that I edited:
Galloway G, Pentland R. (2005) Securing the Future of Ground Water Resources in the Great Lakes Basin. Ground Water 43(5):737-743.
Download Galloway_et_al-2005-Groundwater
Galloway and Pentland discuss the IJC and groundwater, Here is what they say (p. 741):
The Boundary Waters Treaty is silent on the subject of ground water. Asa matter of practice, the two governments have given the IJC a mandate to examine ground water issues in specificreferences (studies) and the 2000 IJC report contains anentire section on ground water issues in the Great Lakesbasin. Nevertheless, it remains unclear what internationallaw, if any, would be invoked if a very legalistic disputewere to ever occur. The two countries have tended to bevery pragmatic in their few dealings on cross-boundaryground water issues, and this will likely continue.
Here is a paper and the resulting PPT (as a PDF) that Alyssa Neir, Geoff Klise and I wrote in 2006. It contains
some material on the IJC and USA-Canada groundwater: Dynamics of Transboundary Ground Water Management: Lessons from North America:
Paper: Download Dyn_of_tb_gw_mgmt_2october2006
PPT: Download Campana_tngw_31may2018
Suffice it to say that the USA and Canada have cooperated on groundwater issues on an ad hoc basis. So far so good. As some have said, "If ain't broke, don't fix it." I sense that this will be tested in the future,.
Enjoy!
"If you don't know where you are going, you'll end up someplace else." - Yogi Berra (quoted in @MyPlainview via @TheWeek)
Comments