Rescaling water governance - Governing Transboundary Waters: Canada, the United States, and Indigenous Communities - page 95

When we talk about Watershed Boards, it's really more of a recognition that
these kinds of relationships are evolving, and we think we have something to
add to this whole thing, so, when we talk about watershed boards, it sounds
like they're going to be our things - that, it's going to be different. In some
basins, we're going to be the big deal. In other basins, we may be an observer
- it's going to run the gamut. Although we've been at this for a long time,
we could probably sit down across the border and predict each one wrong -
that is just how it's going to turn out.
The quote above helps to explain how those involved with the IJC understand
how the engagement will be different, depending on the specific watersheds and
communities involved.
This resistance to a strong IJC presence in the Pacific region was particularly
noteworthy for those involved in the British Columbia-Washington Environmental
Cooperation Council (ECC). In the ECC, where provincial and state actors have
created several regionally based binational committees centered around trans-
boundary water issues (such as the Abbotsford-Sumas Aquifer; Flooding of the
Nooksack River; Georgia Basin-Puget Sound) and Indigenous groups have created
strong coordinated transboundary governance mechanisms (such as the Coast
Salish Gathering), some consider the IJC's involvement as co-opting their efforts.
The difficulty for the IJC, then, is to find a way for the Watershed Boards that
adds to (not undermines) the already established binational organizations, or, as
noted by a member of the IJC, the trick is “to add value without stepping on
toes”.
Conversely, for those geographic regions that do not have an established
(or strong) subnational transboundary environmental organization, reasons for the
absence were usually quite apparent. For example, a sparse population-base at
the border may temper the local interest in transborder water issues, as seen in the
prairie regions of Alberta-Montana. A long-standing distrust of the neighboring
province or state may also deter the creation of a transboundary organization at a
watershed scale, as seen in British Columbia-Montana. These issues require
attention (and buy-in) from governments on both sides of the border for the
Watershed Boards to expand beyond the four current boards. For some regions,
this is no small task. For example, the Flathead Basin in British Columbia and
Montana and the Devils Lake diversion controversy in Manitoba and North
Dakota are examples of deep-rooted transboundary issues in which different
national, state, and provincial priorities have made it consistently difficult for the
parties “across the line” to see eye-to-eye (Brandson and Hearne, 2013; Locke and
McKinney, 2013).
Institutional support and funding
One potential role of the IJC is the contribution of institutional support and financial
assistance for existing transboundary watershed groups. This suggestion captures
support from a wide range of people involved in water management, including