Laurentian Thesis as Environmental History: Donald Creighton and the Seaway

In a recent review of Don Wright’s new biography on Donald Creighton, the reviewer notes that the Laurentian thesis could be read through the lens of environmental history. Since I have done that as part of my book on the creation of the St. Lawrence Seaway and Power Project, I thought I would provide some excerpts from the book that address Creighton and the Laurentian thesis.

 

The following are excerpts from Daniel Macfarlane, Negotiating a River: Canada, the US, and the Creation of the St. Lawrence Seaway (2014):

Prominent academics of the time, such as Donald Creighton and Harold Innis, were equally enraptured by the St. Lawrence. They found inspiration in the idea that the river determined Canada’s historical development – enough so that this notion became one of the great metatheories or nar­ratives in the annals of Canadian history: the Laurentian thesis. Although this thesis is now dated, it cannot be denied that the St. Lawrence River has exerted a major influence on Canada, serving as the cradle and lifeblood of the country’s economy and development. From the First Nations groups sustained by its waters to the early European explorers and settlers – the habitants and Loyalists who populated its environs – to the location of many major communities and the majority of the country’s population, much of Canadian history has played out along the banks of the St. Lawrence.

The river – and, by extension, the seaway – offered the potential, as William Kilbourn phrased it, to “fulfill that age-old dream at the heart of Canadian history, the Empire of the St. Lawrence.”20 The Laurentian thesis, most prominently forwarded by Creighton in his 1937 The Commercial Empire of the St. Lawrence, 1760-1850 (and rereleased in 1956 as The Empire of the St. Lawrence), holds that “Canadian economic and national de­velopment derived fundamentally from the gradual exploitation of key staple products – fur, timber, and wheat – by colonial merchants in the major metropolitan centres along the St. Lawrence River system,” which “provided the means by which both a transatlantic and a transcontinental market economy could be created.”21 This east-west axis was further en­hanced by the St. Lawrence’s connection to the Great Lakes, and the “em­pire” extended west by railway after Confederation to the western interior and Pacific Ocean.22 Although the grander aims of this empire may have failed, the extended attempts to bring it to fruition did serve to geograph­ically and psychologically carve out the country of Canada, resist the pull of the United States, and forge the various colonies and English- and French-speaking peoples together. According to Creighton, “The impulse towards unity in the interests of strength and expansion is one of the oldest and most powerful tendencies in the history of the Empire of the St. Lawrence.”23

The St. Lawrence River holds an iconic place in the Canadian national imaginary. I am interested in how the manipulation of the St. Lawrence basin was shaped by culture, identity, region, and environment. This is in keeping with a global, even ancient, tradition of viewing rivers, and water control projects, as the bloodstream of nations on which nationalist obses­sions were projected as reflections or repositories of cultural or national character.24 The role of the St. Lawrence River (and of rivers in general) in the development of Canada is central, perhaps even unsurpassed, in the paradigm of national development. From the early explorers who travelled up the St. Lawrence and dreamed of bypassing its rapids to the settlers who populated the riverine basin in subsequent centuries, it served as the cru­cible of Canadian settlement and development. Canals were central to this evolution, and though they may have seemed in some ways an anachron­istic technology by the mid-twentieth century, the seaway as a deep canal system (joined with hydroelectric development) could simultaneously link romantic nationalist associations and modern transportation and indus­trialization goals.

I argue that the link between identity and riverine environments has unique manifestations in the Canadian context. Given the importance of rivers and water to Canadian identity, it is no surprise that the St. Lawrence, the greatest of all of Canada’s rivers, is the leading protagonist in historical writings that personify geographic factors in the nation’s historical de­velopment, often acting as a synecdoche for Canada in general, and central Canada (Ontario and Quebec) in particular. Indeed, geographically de­terminist explanations of Canadian history animated many prominent historical texts of the day. These metahistorical and nationalist interpreta­tions include the staples and metropolitan theses, which are part of – or contribute to, depending on one’s perspective – the Laurentian thesis.25 Creighton built on the work of Harold Innis, elevating Innis’s exalted view of the St. Lawrence into “new poetic realms”26 in which “the dream of the commercial empire of the St. Lawrence runs like an obsession through the whole of Canadian history … The river was not only a great actuality; it was the central truth of a religion.”27 A range of prominent historians, although taking issue with unabashed Laurentianism and its geographically determinist and inherently anti-American stance, nonethe­less accepted that the St. Lawrence had played a pivotal role in Canada’s historical development.28 Popular histories from the era forwarded similar narratives.29

Stéphane Castonguay and Darin Kinsey point out the tautological nature of the Laurentian thesis, for, in tandem with the linked staples and metropolitan-hinterland theses, “one is led to believe that cod, beaver, grain, and other staples are a part of the elements of the triumphant en­vironmentalism responsible for the ‘neo-Wagnerian myth-symbolism complex Canadian nationalists have woven around the St. Lawrence Valley.’”30 Yet, according to historian Janice Cavell, “No other interpreta­tion of history has ever been so widely and whole-heartedly accepted [in Canada] as Laurentianism” was at the height of its popularity from the 1940s to the 1960s.31 The linked but not identical metropolitan thesis, for its part, had achieved “near-doctrinal status” by the 1960s and, along with the staples thesis, found some resonance in the following decades, particu­larly among political economists.32 Though some of the concepts underlying these grand theories are implicit to varying extents in recent studies that foreground the importance of natural factors in order to explain Canada’s past, the growth of environmental history approaches in Canada since the 1990s has not resulted in direct attempts to rehabilitate these metatheories; nonetheless, contemporary Canadian historiography would benefit from a reappraisal of the metropolitan, staples, and Laurentian theses.33

…

It was no coincidence that the peak of the Laurentian thesis’s influence coincided with the conclusive stretch of negotiations for the St. Lawrence project, and then its construction. It is apparent that the Laurentian thesis helped sustain the conception of the St. Lawrence watershed as the defin­ing and fundamental aspect of Canadian history and identity and, in turn, infused the notion of an all-Canadian seaway with nationalist importance and symbolism. The hydroelectric development of the St. Lawrence was equally a repository of hydraulic and technological nationalist associations, for generating stations represented modern Canada’s ability to control the exploitation of its natural resources and reap the benefits.

…

For many, the St. Lawrence served as both a bridge and a barrier between English and French Canada, and between Canada and the United States. The river could unite, but it could also divide. Joseph Bouchette, writing in 1831, preferred the former interpretation: “The St. Lawrence, originally called the Great River of Canada, or the Great River, to mark its preeminence, is the indelible link formed by nature between the Canadas, and the source at once of the wealth, beauty, and prosperity of both coun­tries.”34 A good deal of French-language literature on the St. Lawrence sees the river and valley as fundamentally intertwined with Quebec’s identity, history, and nationalism.35 This study does not explicitly aim to differenti­ate between French- and English-Canadian nationalism concerning the St. Lawrence, but it is safe to say that in both central Canadian provinces, and maybe even more so in Quebec, the St. Lawrence was viewed as a Canadian – or canadien – river, rather than an American one.36 Although the St. Lawrence River is profitably viewed as a bioregion that eschews man-made boundaries, the history of the St. Lawrence Seaway and Power Project also underlines some of the ways that borders do matter in en­vironmental history.

…

The extent to which Canadians embraced the all-Canadian concept was repeatedly substantiated by the available means of gauging public opinion as well as by every available report, memorandum, poll, and diplomatic dispatch produced by the Canadian and American governments. The economic, trade, and national security benefits that would accrue to Canada from a solely Canadian St. Lawrence enterprise can partially account for its popular embrace. But these benefits were not the main reason; in fact, many suspected that the advantages might be even greater if the seaway was undertaken in con­junction with the United States. Underlying the drive for the all-Canadian seaway was instead a blend of Canadian nationalism shaped by the early Cold War context, informed by the historic role and conceptions of the St. Lawrence River, contoured by the cultural interplay of technology and nature, and infused by ambivalent ideas about Canada’s relationship with the United States. Although the drive for an all-Canadian seaway was in many ways a product of events that had transpired since the 1930s (the Depression, Second World War, and start of the Cold War), it also joined various strands of Canadian nationalism that stretched far back into the history of the country. The Laurentian thesis in particular sus­tained the conception of the St. Lawrence River as a fundamental and defining aspect of Canadian history and identity and, in turn, infused the notion of an all-Canadian seaway with the same nationalist importance and symbolism. As an American Department of State official recorded in the early 1950s, “Canada’s decision to build the St. Lawrence Seaway as an all-Canadian project has seized the imagination of Canadians. It is a symbol of their new-found strength.”4 When added to the post-1945 context and mood – economic and technological ability, national self-assurance, and a growing resistance to perceived American domination – Canadian nationalists could not help but be captured by the notion of their country’s own waterway.

As a transportation megaproject, the all-Canadian seaway offered a nation-building parallel to the transcontinental railways, promoting Canadian identity, national unity, progress, and prosperity while linking the country in an east-west orientation, in contrast to the north-south pull of the United States. The sense of identity with, and ownership of, the St. Lawrence led nationalists concerned about Canada’s subservient role as a raw material exporter to the United States to fear American en­croachment on the river. Conversely, the seaway represented Canada’s ability to independently exploit, use, and control its natural resources via technological progress. Put a different way, Canada, which had been shaped – and in many ways constrained – by its environment, could now thrive because of it.

 

From the footnotes:

– Donald F. Davis charts the history of metropolitanism and identifies five variants, of which Donald Creighton represents the “entrepreneurial” approach. See Donald F. Davis, “The ‘Metropolitan Thesis’ and the Writing of Canadian Urban History,” Urban History Review 14, 2 (October 1985): 95-114. W.H. New also analyzes the links in Canadian writing between identity and landscape in Land Sliding, and took up these themes concerning the St. Lawrence, and Laurentian thesis, in more detail in “The Great River Theory: Reading MacLennan and Mulgan.” W.H. New, “The Great River Theory: Reading MacLennan and Mulgan,” in Essays on Canadian Writing 56 (Fall 1995): 162-82; W.H. New, Land Sliding: Imagining Space, Presence, and Power in Canadian Writing (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997).

– Carl Berger provides an excellent historiograph­ical examination of the works of Innis and Creighton, and also notes that Scottish geog­rapher Marion Newbigin’s stress on the St. Lawrence predated and influenced both of them, and suggests that Innis’s concern with the centrality of the St. Lawrence to Canada’s historical development may have stemmed from contemporary debates about creating the deep waterway. George Brown’s doctoral dissertation also adumbrated some of the Laurentian themes. Historian Donald Wright is working on a biography of Creighton that promises to examine the evolution of the ideas that led to Creighton’s conception of the St. Lawrence. See Carl Berger, The Writing of Canadian History: Aspects of English-Canadian Historical Writing since 1900. 2nd ed. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986), 22-23; 91-93; 213-23; George Brown, “The St. Lawrence as a Factor in International Trade and Politics, 1783-1854” (PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1924); Marion Newbigin, Canada, the Great River, the Lands and the Men (Toronto: Harcourt, Brace, 1926); Harold A. Innis, The Fur Trade in Canada: An Introduction to Canadian Economic History (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1956).

– Janice Cavell, “The Second Frontier: The North in English-Canadian Historical Writing,” Canadian Historical Review 83, 3 (September 2002): 4. A.B. McKillop also affirms the dominance of the Laurentian thesis in “Historiography in English,” The Canadian Encyclopedia (Historica Foundation), http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/.

-A well-attended roundtable at a recent Canadian Historical Association annual meeting organized by the author suggests there is a hunger for a re-engagement with these metatheor­ies: “A Roundtable on the Macro-theories of Canadian History (staples, metropolitan-hinterland, Laurentian theses)” (participants: Doug Owram, Shirley Tillotson, Christopher Dummit, Sean Kheraj, Daniel Macfarlane), annual conference of the Canadian Historical Association, Waterloo, Ontario, May 28, 2012.

 

Syllabus for ENVS 4500: Great Lakes Water Policy

Below is the seminar for my capstone course (i.e., seminar) on Great Lakes Water Policy. Sorry for the formatting, which doesn’t seem to translate well from a Word document.

 

ENVS 4500 CAPSTONE SEMINAR: GREAT LAKES WATER POLICY Fall 2015 Dr. Daniel Macfarlane

Class location: 2708 Wood Hall

Class hours: Wednesday 2:00-4:30

Office location: 3930 Wood Hall

Office hours: Wednesday before and after class, and by appointment

 

Course website: Elearning site

 

REQUIRED MATERIALS

–Peter Annin, Great Lakes Water Wars (Washington: Island Press, 2006)

-various other readings to distributed by the instructor or obtained by students

-for reference purposes you may wish to consult “The Great Lakes: An Environmental Atlas and Resource Book”: http://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/atlas/glat-ch1.html

 

COURSE DESCRIPTION AND OBJECTIVES

This course focuses primarily on water policy and governance in the Great Lakes basin, particularly water quantity and water quality, as well as connected issues such as invasive species and acid rain. We will cover the historical development of Great Lakes water policies and engage a range of recent policies, contemporary issues, and future challenges. As the Great Lakes are a bioregion and resource shared between two countries, we will consider the transborder implications, looking at both the American and Canadian federal governments, as well as the provinces of Ontario and Quebec and the eight Great Lakes states. The role of the International Joint Commission will also be a central concern.

 

COURSE POLICIES

Courteous behavior

Strive for professionalism and courtesy during our time together. Please do not do outside homework or read the paper or electronic devices during class. Do not chat while someone has the floor. You will have many opportunities to speak or listen to your classmates present an idea. If you take issue with what someone is saying, then speak up after they have spoken. Adding your ideas to the mix is both respectful and challenging, just as a classroom setting should be.

 

Plagiarism & Cheating

The academic policies addressing Student Rights and Responsibilities can be found in the Undergraduate Catalog at http://catalog.wmich.edu/content.php?catoid=24&navoid=974.

If there is reason to believe you have been involved in academic dishonesty, you will be referred to the Office of Student Conduct. You will be given the opportunity to review the charge(s) and if you believe you are not responsible, you will have the opportunity for a hearing. You should consult with your instructor if you are uncertain about an issue of academic honesty prior to the submission of an assignment or test. In addition, students are encouraged to access the Code of Honor, as well as resources and general academic policies on such issues as diversity, religious observance, and student disabilities:

• Office of Student Conduct www.wmich.edu/conduct
• Division of Student Affairs www.wmich.edu/students/diversity
• Registrar’s Office www.wmich.edu/registrar
• Disability Services for Students www.wmich.edu/disabilityservices.

You avoid plagiarism by attributing other people’s ideas, words, and data to the place where you found them. This simply means citing the author(s) by name, title, and date at the moment you use their work in your own writing, and by putting their actual words within quotation marks, or paraphrasing suitably and attributing with a reference.

 

Academic Accommodation

You may need special arrangements to meet your academic obligations during the term because of disability, pregnancy, religious obligations, or varsity sports. Please review the course outline promptly and write to me with any requests for academic accommodation during the first two weeks of class, or as soon as possible after the need for accommodation is known to exist.

 

COURSE GRADES

Class Attendance and Participation                 35%

Book Reviews and Presentations                    20%

Presentation of Research Paper                       10%

Research Paper                                                35%

 

NOTE: without a verifiable, documented emergency – i.e., a catastrophic event, illness, or injury – or prearranged circumstances I will not accept late assignments. Late work will be penalized at a rate of 5% per day. You must submit all assignments to get a grade for the course – failure to complete all components can result in an incomplete mark. The format for all formal written assignments will be 12 point Times New Roman font, double-spaced, 1 inch margins. You may use Chicago, MLA, or APA referencing style (though if using Chicago I prefer footnotes over endnotes).

 

A         =          93%-100%

B/A     =          88%-92.9%

B         =          83%-87.9%

C/B      =          78-82.9%

C         =          70-77.9%

D/C     =          68-69.9%

D         =          60-67.9%

E          =          below 60%

 

 

 

 

 

 

COURSE COMPONENTS

Class Attendance and Participation: Your frequency in attending this course, completion of assigned readings, and quality of your participation will determine your mark for this component. The total mark is weighted more heavily (60/40) towards participation; this means that a student would not receive a passing mark for this component if they attend every class but never participate. If it appears that students are not completing the readings and are not sufficiently engaging in discussion, the instructor reserves the right to institute ‘reading reflections’ as part of the attendance and participation mark. If you need to miss a class for a verifiable, documented emergency – i.e., a catastrophic event, illness, or injury – or other circumstances please bring this to the instructor’s attention.

 

Book Reviews and Presentations: Each student will review and present to the class two books from the list of books on the course calendar. Each presentation should be a critical review of 15 minutes in length that summarizes and critiques the book’s main points, approach, evidence, findings, quality, etc. Students should also identify connections with other readings and themes from the class, and provide discussion questions for the class. The presentation must be given on the scheduled day. Each student will also submit a formal written review of the same book, due two weeks after the book is presented in class. Each written review should be approximately 1,500 words in length. This component is worth a total of 20%, and your mark will be based on the averaging of the written review and the presentation.

 

Presentation of Research Paper: During the two final classes of the semester, students will present their in-progress research paper. This presentation will have the characteristics of a research workshop in which each student discusses their research project in a 15-20 minute presentation, and the audience has the opportunity to provide feedback. Other faculty and guests from outside our class will be invited to attend.

 

Research paper: Students will write a research paper (7,000-10,000 words) on a topic of their choice (subject to approval by the instructor) within the general theme of Great Lakes water policy. The paper will be due on the scheduled final exam date for this class, which is TBA. Students must submit a research paper proposal, which is due November 4 (10% will be deducted from research papers if a proposal is not submitted). The instructor will be available to meet with students to discuss their research papers, and will read and comment on paper drafts that are submitted by the cut-off date. As noted above, each student will give a presentation to the class based on their in-progress research.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COURSE CALENDAR

 

September 9 – Introductions

           

September 16 – Diving into Great Lakes Policy

-Noah Hall and Benjamin C. Houston, “Law and Governance of the Great Lakes,” DePaul Law Review 63 (3) 723 (2014): http://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=law-review

-Thomas R. Crane, “Great Lakes – Great Responsibilities: History of and Lessons in Participatory Governance,” in Velma I. Grover and Gail Krantzberg, eds., Great Lakes: Lessons in Participatory Governance (New York: CRC Press, 2012), 13-43.

 

September 23 – Creation of the BWT and IJC

-text of Boundary Waters Treaty: http://www.ijc.org/en_/BWT

-Stephen Brooks, “The International Joint Commission: Convergence, Divergence or Submergence?” in Environmental Governance on the 49^th Parallel: New Century, New Approaches: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/IJCFinal.pdf

-Stanley Changon and Joyce Changon, “History of the Chicago Diversion and Future Implications,” Journal of Great Lakes Research 22 (1996): 100-118

-Book Presentations: Robert Spencer, John Kirton and Kim Richard Nossal, eds., International Joint Commission: Seventy Years On (Toronto: Centre for International Studies, University of Toronto, 1981)

 

September 30 – Water Quantity I

-Daniel Macfarlane, “‘A Completely Man-Made and Artificial Cataract’: The Transnational Manipulation of Niagara Falls,” Environmental History 18 (4) (October 2013): 759-784:

https://www.academia.edu/4314570/_A_Completely_Artificial_and_Man-Made_Cataract_The_Transnational_Manipulation_of_Niagara_Falls

-Daniel Macfarlane and Murray Clamen, “The International Joint Commission, Water Levels, and Transboundary Governance in the Great Lakes,” Review of Policy Research vol. 32, Issue I (January 2015): 40-59:

https://www.academia.edu/10126625/The_International_Joint_Commission_Water_Levels_and_Transboundary_Governance_in_the_Great_Lakes

-Book Presentations: Daniel Macfarlane, Negotiating a River: Canada, the US, and the Creation of the St. Lawrence Seaway (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2014); John Riley, The Once and Future Great Lakes: An Ecological History (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2013)

 

October 7 – Invasive Species

-International Association for Great Lakes Research, “Research and Management Priorities for Aquatic Invasive Species in the Great Lake” (2002): http://iaglr.org/scipolicy/ais/ais_iaglr02.pdf

-Anthony Ricciardi et al, “The Future of Species Invasions in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin,” Journal of Great Lakes Research (2014): https://www.academia.edu/9714239/The_future_of_species_invasions_in_the_Great_Lakes-St._Lawrence_River_basin

-Daniel Macfarlane, “Carpe Aqua: Asian Carp, Invasive Species, and the Great Lakes,” http://activehistory.ca/2014/05/carpe-aqua-asian-carp-invasive-species-and-the-great-lakes/

• -Book Presentations: Margaret Beattie Bogue, Fishing the Great Lakes: An

Environmental History, 1783-1933 (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 2000); Jeff Alexander, Pandora’s Locks:  The Opening of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 2009)

 

October 14 – Water Quality I

-Paul Muldoon, “Governance in the Great Lakes – A Regime in Transition,” in Velma I. Grover and Gail Krantzberg, eds., Great Lakes: Lessons in Participatory Governance (New York: CRC Press, 2012), 44-66.

-Carolyn Johns, “Transboundary Water Pollution Efforts in the Great Lakes: The Significance of National and Sub-national Policy Capacity” in Environmental Governance on the 49^th Parallel: New Century, New Approaches: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/IJCFinal.pdf

-Book Presentations: Lee Botts and Paul Muldoon, Evolution of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 2005)

 

October 21– Water Quality II

-Gail Krantzberg, “The Remedial Action Plan Program, Historical and Contemporary Overview,” in Velma I. Grover and Gail Krantzberg, eds., Great Lakes: Lessons in Participatory Governance (New York: CRC Press, 2012), 245-256: http://www.eng.mcmaster.ca/civil/facultypages/GL-ch-10.pdf

-2003 IJC Report on AOCs: http://www.ijc.org/php/publications/html/aoc_rep/english/report/pdfs/aoc_report-e.pdf

-Don Munton, “Acid Rain and Transboundary Air Quality in Canadian-American Relations,” American Review of Canadian Studies, Vol. 27, No. 3 (Fall 1997): 327-358

-Book Presentations: William McGucken, Lake Erie Rehabilitated: Controlling Cultural Eutrophication, 1960s-1990s (Akron, OH: The University of Akron Press, 2000); Terence Kehoe, Cleaning up the Great Lakes: From Cooperation to Confrontation (Dekalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 1997)

 

October 28 – Water Quantity II

-Resource Kit – The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact (skim and familiarize yourself with the key aspects of these agreements and the FAQs)

-Annin, Great Lakes Water Wars

 

November 4 – Water Quantity III

-Alice Cohen, “The Sixth Great Lake: Groundwater in the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence Basin”: http://www.watergovernance.ca/PDF2/Groundwater_in_the_Great_Lakes.pdf

-The Nature Conservancy, “What Could Changing Great Lakes Water Levels Mean for our Coastal Communities?: A Case for Climate-Adapted Planning Approaches”: www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/areas/greatlakes/explore/great-lakes-lake-levels-case-study.pdf

-Alejandro Camacho, “Climate change and regulatory fragmentation in the Great Lakes

Basin,” Michigan State University Journal of International Law 17 (1) (2008): 139-154

-Book Presentations: Phil Weller, Fresh Water Seas: Saving the Great Lakes (Toronto: Between the Lines, 1990)

*Research Paper Proposal due

 

November 11 – Water Quality III

-Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy: http://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/p2/bns.html

-D.C. Evers, et al., “Mercury in the great lakes region: Bioaccumulation, spatiotemporal patterns, ecological risks, and policy,” Ecotoxicology, 20(7) (2011): 1487-99

-2012 GLWQA Agreement (skim): http://binational.net/2012/09/05/2012-glwqa-aqegl

-Gail Krantzberg, “Renegotiation of the 1987 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement: From Confusion to Promise,” Sustainability 2012 (4): 1239-1255: http://www.eng.mcmaster.ca/civil/facultypages/krantz15.pdf

-Book Presentations: John Hartig, Burning Rivers: Revival of Four Urban Industrial Rivers That Caught Fire (New York: Multi-Science Publishing Company, 2010); Mark Sproule-Jones, Restoration of the Great Lakes: Promises, Practices, Performances (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 2002)

 

November 18 – “Current” Issues

-Ralph Pentland, “Key Challenges in Canada-US Water Governance,” in Emma Norman, Alice Cohen, and Karen Bakker, eds., Water Without Borders? Canada, the United States, and Shared Waters (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2013)

-Savitri Jetoo, et al., “Governance and geopolitics as drivers of change in the Great Lakes–St. Lawrence basin,” Journal of Great Lakes Research (2014-preprint)

-“Driven by Climate Change, Algae Bloom Behind Ohio Water Scare are New Normal,” National Geographic (August 4, 2014):

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/08/140804-harmful-algal-bloom-lake-erie-climate-change-science/

-Great Lakes Restoration Initiative – Action Plan II:

http://greatlakesrestoration.us/actionplan/pdfs/glri-action-plan-2.pdf

-Book Presentations: Emma Norman, Alice Cohen, and Karen Bakker, eds., Water Without Borders? Canada, the United States, and Shared Waters (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2013)

 

November 25 – Thanksgiving Break

 

December 2 – Research Paper presentations

 

December 9 – Research Paper presentations

 

Research Paper due during final exam week – date TBA

 

 

 

 

Syllabus for ENVS 5400: Freshwater Policy

Below is the syllabus for my Freshwater Policy seminar, which is cross listed as both a senior/graduate reading- and writing-intensive course. It is a hybrid course, which means that the course met three times in person, and the rest of the interaction was online. Sorry for the formatting, which doesn’t seem to translate from a Word doc to this post.

 

ENVS 5400 Freshwater Policy Spring 2016 Dr. Daniel Macfarlane

 

 

REQUIRED MATERIALS

David Sedlak, Water 4.0: The Past, Present, and Future of the World’s Most Vital Resource

(New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 2014)

Juliet Christian-Smith and Peter Gleick et al., A Twenty-First Century U.S. Water Policy (New

York: Oxford University Press, 2012)

Daniel McCool, River Republic: The Fall and Rise of America’s Rivers (New York Columbia

University Press, 2012)

Peter Annin, The Great Lakes Water Wars (Washington: Island Press, 2006)

Mike Gonzalez and Marianella Yanes, The Last Drop: The Politics of Water (London: Pluto

Press, 2015)

Various other materials (e.g., articles and chapter) that will be posted to Elearning or will be

available by following a link

 

COURSE DESCRIPTION AND OBJECTIVES

This course will focus primarily on federal and state freshwater policies in the United States, but we will also engage regional, local, and global water resources issues. We will examine themes such as water quantity and quality, groundwater and surface water, water law, federalism, policy formulation processes, foreign policy and environmental diplomacy, municipal water supplies, bottled water, water privatization, water and energy, etc. Engaging the fields of political science and political ecology, as well as history, law, and international relations, we will study the historical evolution of water policy and consider contemporary and future questions. Students completing ENVS 5400 will have knowledge of major freshwater policy issues and the ability to critically read, think, and write about these issues. This course is reading and writing intensive – students will read a variety of publications (e.g., books, articles, laws) and are required to complete a range of writing assignments, including a major water policy paper.

 

COURSE POLICIES

This is a hybrid course, which means that most of our interactions will be online, though we will meet in person three times (i.e., 3 seminars). You are responsible for regularly checking both this course’s Elearning site (e.g., the “News” tab on the course home page) and your WMU email for course announcements, assignment feedback and evaluation, and other direct correspondence from the instructor. There are various options that may be utilized under the “Communications” tab and you are encourage to communicate with your classmates via these forums. Please compose email and online correspondence in a respectful and appropriate manner. It is important to stay on top of things and be proactive. I am quick to respond to email, and that should be your first communication choice, but I am also happy to use other communication methods (e.g., phone, skype, Elearning Chat & Discussions).

 

When we meet in person, the class will take the form of a seminar (e.g., discussion, presentations, meetings, etc.). Come to the seminars prepared to talk and discuss the module readings. Strive for professionalism and courtesy during our time together. Please do not do outside homework or use electronic devices during class. Do not chat while someone has the floor. If you take issue with what someone is saying, then speak up after they have spoken. Adding your ideas to the mix is both respectful and challenging, just as a classroom setting should be. The same principles of respect and decorum apply for online interactions.

 

The academic policies addressing Student Rights and Responsibilities can be found in the Undergraduate Catalog at http://catalog.wmich.edu/content.php?catoid=24&navoid=974.

If there is reason to believe you have been involved in academic dishonesty, you will be referred to the Office of Student Conduct. You will be given the opportunity to review the charge(s) and if you believe you are not responsible, you will have the opportunity for a hearing. You should consult with your instructor if you are uncertain about an issue of academic honesty prior to the submission of an assignment or test. In addition, students are encouraged to access the Code of Honor, as well as resources and general academic policies on such issues as diversity, religious observance, and student disabilities:

• Office of Student Conduct www.wmich.edu/conduct
• Division of Student Affairs www.wmich.edu/students/diversity
• Registrar’s Office www.wmich.edu/registrar
• Disability Services for Students www.wmich.edu/disabilityservices.

You avoid plagiarism by attributing other people’s ideas, words, and data to the place where you found them. This simply means citing the author(s) by name, title, and date at the moment you use their work in your own writing, and by putting their actual words within quotation marks, or paraphrasing suitably and attributing with a reference.

 

You may need special arrangements to meet your academic obligations during the term because of disability, pregnancy, religious obligations, or varsity sports. Please review the course outline promptly and write to me with any requests for academic accommodation during the first two weeks of class, or as soon as possible after the need for accommodation is known to exist. Given that we have only 3 seminars during the semester, it is imperative that you attend; however, if unforeseeable serious illness and emergencies prevent your attendance, please contact me. For justifiable absences, alternative arrangements can usually be made. Late work will be penalized at a rate of 5% per day. Failure to complete all components can result in an incomplete mark. The format for all formal written assignments will be 12 pt Times New Roman font, 1.5 spacing, 1 inch margins. You may use Chicago, MLA, or APA referencing style (though if using Chicago I prefer footnotes over endnotes). Assignments will be submitted via Dropbox on Elearning.

 

 

COURSE GRADES

Class Participation                   15%

Written Summaries                  35%

Book Review                         10%

Policy Paper                            40%

 

A         =          93%-100%

B/A     =          88%-92.9%

B         =          83%-87.9%

C/B      =          78-82.9%

C         =          70-77.9%

D/C     =          68-69.9%

D         =          60-67.9%

E          =          below 60%

 

COURSE COMPONENTS

Class Participation: We will be meeting 3 times during the term, once during each of the first 3 modules. During these required seminars we will discuss and debate the readings from the module, (so be sure to have the readings done and bring your written summaries since they serve as ideal discussion notes), and also undertake other activities such as meetings with the instructor and presentations. The quality and quantity of your participation will determine your mark for this component, with each seminar worth 5% out of the 15% that this component is worth.

 

Friday, January 22, 2016        9:00 am – 12:30 pm

Friday, February 19, 2016       12:30 pm – 4:30 pm

Friday, March 18, 2016           12:30 pm – 4:30 pm

 

Written Summaries: A written summary for each individual reading within a module is required – i.e., a summary for each article or each set of chapters assigned together in a module (e.g., Chapters 1-5 of Sedlak in Module 1 counts as an individual reading). Summaries of articles and single chapters should ideally be 1-2 pages (using the format described in Course Policies: 1.5 spacing, 12 pt font, etc.) and summaries for multiple chapters and books should be proportionally longer (generally speaking, more is better than less unless it is fluff). These summaries will be handed in 4 times, once for each module (see due dates in Calendar below). These summaries should be done in the style of a review essay or book review (i.e., formal prose, not bullet points or subheadings) in which the following are addressed: central argument, evidence & sources, theory & logic, key points & relevance. The instructor may also provide specific questions for a reading, which will be posted on Elearning. The summaries will be marked primarily for effort, critical thinking, and evidence of having done and understood the readings, but quality of prose will also factor in and you should therefore endeavor to write formally (furthermore, these reflections are an opportunity to practice your writing skills and receive feedback on your writing before undertaking the book review and policy paper assignments). Each summary will receive a mark out of 10, and the average of all your summaries will constitute your overall mark for this grade component (summaries of longer readings, such as books, will be worth proportionally more than shorter readings). Written summaries will be submitted via Dropbox via Elearning, and returned to you through Dropbox.

 

Book Review: Each student will review and present to the class a book from a list that the instructor will provide (students may suggest a book, but it must be approved by the instructor). A hint: you would be wise to review a book that you will also use for your Policy Paper. The presentations will take place at our February 19 seminar, and the written review will be due by February 26 via Dropbox. The presentations should include powerpoint slides and be approximately 10 minutes in length. The formal written review should be approximately 1,500 words in length. Both the presentation and written review should summarize and critique the book’s main points, approach, evidence, findings, quality, etc. Your presentation will be worth 25% of your Book Review mark, with the written review worth 75%. Presentation and written review rubrics will be posted on Elearning in order to give you a better idea of what considerations your evaluation are based upon.

 

Policy Paper: Students will write a research paper (7,000-10,000 words) on a policy topic of their choice (subject to approval by the instructor) within the general theme of freshwater policy. Student must submit a paper proposal, due March 14. The instructor will meet in person with each student as part of our March 18 class to discuss their proposal and paper topic. Failure to submit a proposal results in a deduction of 10% from your final Policy Paper mark. Students are also required to submit a Policy Paper draft, which is due April 18, and there will be a 10% deduction for failing to submit this (or if the draft is too incomplete). The point of submitting this draft is so that the instructor will have the opportunity to provide feedback on your work-in-progress, so the closer you are to finished the more advantageous submitting the draft will be for you. The final Policy Paper will be due on April 27. Further details and instruction about this paper will be forthcoming.

 

COURSE CALENDAR

 

MODULE 1 – DEVELOPMENT OF US WATER POLICY (January 11 to January 25)

 

Seminar: January 22

-discussion of Module 1 readings

-selection of books for Book Review assignment

 

Assignments:

-Module 1 written summaries due on January 25

 

Readings:

–Donald Worster, Chapter 2, in Rivers of Empire (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985)

-David Sedlak, Chapters 1-5, in Water 4.0: The Past, Present, and Future of the World’s Most Vital Resource (New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 2014)

-Juliet Christian-Smith and Lucy Allen, Chapter 2, in Juliet Christian-Smith and Peter Gleick et al., A Twenty-First Century U.S. Water Policy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012)

-Peter Rogers, Chapter 3, Appendices 1-4, in America’s Water: Federal Roles and Responsibilities (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1996)

-Joseph W. Dellapenna, “The Evolution of Riparianism in the United States,” 95 Marquette Law Review 53 (2011): 53-90

 

 

MODULE 2 – US WATER POLICY (January 26 to February 26)

 

Seminar: February 19

-discussion of Module 2 readings

-Book Review presentations

 

Assignments:

-Module 2 written summaries due on February 19

-Book Reviews due on February 26

 

Readings:

-Jonathan P. Deason, Theodore M. Schad, and George William Sherk, “Water Policy in the United States: A Perspective,” Water Policy 3 (3) (2001): 175-92

-Various Authors, Introduction, Chapters 1, 4, 5, Appendix, in Juliet Christian-Smith and Peter Gleick et al., A Twenty-First Century U.S. Water Policy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012)

-Andrea Gerlak, “Federalism and U.S. water policy: Lessons for the 21st Century,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 36(2) (2006): 231-257

-David Sedlak, Chapters 6-10, in Water 4.0: The Past, Present, and Future of the World’s Most Vital Resource (New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 2014)

–Daniel McCool, River Republic: The Fall and Rise of America’s Rivers (New York Columbia University Press, 2012)

-Claudia Copeland, “Clean Water Act: A Summary of the Law” (2010)

-Stephen Mumme, “From Equitable Utilization to Sustainable Development: Advancing Equity in U.S.-Mexico Border Water Management,” in John M. Whiteley, Helen Ingram, and Richard Perry, Water Place and Equity (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2008)

 

 

MODULE 3 – GREAT LAKES BASIN WATER POLICY (February 27 to March 18)

 

Seminar:  March 18

-discussion of Module 3 readings

-meetings to discuss Policy Paper Proposal

 

Assignments:

-Policy Paper Proposal due on March 14

-Module 3 written summaries due on March 18

 

Readings:

-Murray Clamen and Daniel Macfarlane, “The International Joint Commission, Water Levels, and Transboundary Governance in the Great Lakes,” Journal of Policy Research Vol. 32, Issue 1 (January 2015): 40-59

-Noah Hall and Benjamin C. Houston, “Law and Governance of the Great Lakes,” DePaul Law Review 63 (3) 723 (2014): 722-769

-Peter Annin, The Great Lakes Water Wars (Washington: Island Press, 2006)

-Sara Gosman, “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Implementation of the Great Lakes Compact” (July 2011)

-Carolyn Johns, “Transboundary Water Pollution Efforts in the Great Lakes: The Significance of National and Sub-national Policy Capacity,” in Environmental Governance on the 49^th Parallel: New Century, New Approaches (Washington: Woodrow Wilson Center, 2010)

-Anjali Patel et. al. “Halting the Invasion: Maintaining the health of the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Basins by preventing further exchange of aquatic invasive species,” Environmental Practice 12(4) (2010): 342-35

-Law Enforcement Division – Public Rights on Michigan Waters

-David P. Lusch, “An Overview of Existing Water Law in Michigan Related to Irrigation Water Use and Riparian Considerations” (February 2011)

 

 

MODULE 4 – THE FUTURE OF WATER POLICY (March 19 to April 30)

 

Assignments:

-Module 4 written summaries due on April 8

-Policy Paper draft due on April 18

-Policy Paper due on April 27

 

Readings:

-David Sedlak, Chapters 11-13, in Water 4.0: The Past, Present, and Future of the World’s Most Vital Resource (New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 2014)

-Various authors, Chapters 3, 6-12, in Juliet Christian-Smith and Peter Gleick et al., A Twenty-First Century U.S. Water Policy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012)

-Martin Melosi, Chapter 8, in Precious Commodity: Providing Water for America’s Cities (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2011)

-Mike Gonzalez and Marianella Yanes, The Last Drop: The Politics of Water (London: Pluto

Press, 2015)

 

ACSUS 2015: What Happens in Vegas … Gets Put on the Otter

Originally posted on The Otter (NiCHE): http://niche-canada.org/2015/10/21/acsus-2015-what-happens-in-vegas-gets-put-on-the-otter/

Turning off Niagara Falls … Again: 1969 Redux

Originally posted on The Otter (NiCHE): http://niche-canada.org/2016/01/29/turning-off-niagara-falls-again-1969-revisited/