I'm just thinking that this bill, which is welcome as I say, is not a step forward in the sense that it's breaking new ground. It's just codifying the International Boundary Waters Treaty with respect to transboundary rivers, saying you can't affect the flow of a transboundary river because you'd be affecting the flow of it in the United States. I would think that even if you didn't have this bill, wouldn't environmental assessment de facto prohibit the diversion of water on that scale for export, quite frankly, or for any other reason? An environmental assessment panel would look at the environmental impacts of such a diversion and say right away, that they can't allow this. Do you think that environmental assessment would de facto put a prohibition on these kinds of exports?
On October 25th, 2012. See this statement in context.