Rescaling water governance - Governing Transboundary Waters: Canada, the United States, and Indigenous Communities - page 98

It may be too late. There was a window of opportunity where there was a
lot of momentum and interest in the program. But, this energy has largely
diminished.
I also found this sense of diminishing enthusiasm at the local scale. One regional
water manager with more than two decades of professional experience in
transboundary issues expressed doubts about the IJC's future role in multi-
jurisdictional governance. During an interview, he reflected on his involvement
with the IJC's Watersheds Initiative:
They started out with a lot of energy. Brought us all in to launch the program,
had a lot of promises of excellence. It all sounded good, but in the end we
asked, how is this different from what we are already doing?
Ultimately, this may prove to be a central question for the IJC to address as they
attempt to reinvent themselves in the twenty-first century.
When asking the IJC staff about their changing roles, the responses were
generally optimistic, despite their uncertain future:
I think we have to realize that and accept that we don't know what the future's
going to hold, but we think it's moving in this direction. We think we can
contribute, and we think we can help the governments achieve their purpose
in the Boundary Waters Treaty, which was to resolve and avoid disputes. That's
sort of the principal goal here, how do we contribute, how do we help the
governments do that. I think that's basically where we are. But then we're
people too, so then we want to be - want to get some recognition.
(IJC staff member)
Transboundary watershed - transcending borders?
The previous sections have largely focused on the role of the Watersheds Initiative
as a tool to increase local/regional involvement in the governance process.
However, a central question remains. Does the Watersheds Initiative's emphasis
on hydrological borders transcend or “soften” political borders? Or, does the initial
federal-federal framing of the IJC (through the Boundary Waters Treaty) continue
to reify nation-state boundaries, despite its new watershed approach? I turn to this
question below.
As noted in the previous chapter, the development of the IJC occurred under
the political climate of strong national sovereignty. During the time of treaty
negotiation, the Harmon Doctrine - which maintains that a country is sovereign
over the portion of an international watercourse within its borders (McCaffrey,
1996) - was at the forefront of American thinking. Mexican protests against
diversions from the Rio Grande led to the development of the Doctrine, which,
arguably, colored the governance structure of the IJC. Under this climate, the U.S.