Option 1: 17-40L. Get improved sharpness on your wide/standard zoom range (from the 17-40L) but miss out on IS, miss out on that extra quality for the short tele range (from the 24-105L), and end up with a superwide angle lens if you go fullframe.
Option 2: 24-105L. Get improved sharpness with IS on a wide short tele range (from the 24-105L) but miss out on wide angles (you'll have to revert to your kit lens for those, or buy a 17-40L *as well* which is not really economically friendly nor particularly efficient for what you intend to do), and end up with a great allround lens if you go fullframe.
Option 3: EF-S 17-55 f/2.8. Get better sharpness on the whole zoom range than the L lenses in these range offer, with a faster lens. Sell it when you go fullframe (or keep it on the old body). Miss out on weather sealing or look for alternative methods of achieving it.
Personally I'd look into finding alternatives for weather proofing if that's a breaking point for you. There are raincovers for DSLR's that will provide more waterproofing than 'weathersealing' on lenses. With the benefits of a 17-55 versus the L ones, this should be given a thought. If option 3 is out of the question for you, and you're going to have to pick between those two lenses, above is the list of pros and cons. Pick what would most suit your wants. If it's any help, out of option 1 and 2 it'd be a definate 2 for me personally, because my style doesn't tend to wide shots and more to closeups/portraits. I'd kick myself a couple of times for not being able to get the wide shots with that lens, but it'll be great for the range I prefer most (I use the far end of my standard 17-50 tamron zoom much more than the wide end) and it'd do great on a future fullframe body.