Water Use and Demand

[cakadu]

Recently, there has been much talk about diverting water from the Red Deer River for several municipalities and areas who are short of water. What I wonder is how much can be diverted before we cannot meet the various obligations that we have? I also wonder about what sort of damage to wildlife and biodiversity we will do when it comes to establishing pipelines, irrigation canals etc.?

We have not seen much water in Central Alberta in the past several years and we still need to recharge existing water systems before we can look at diverting water away.

The water is not ours and belongs to everyone and at least the water will not be taken out of the hydrological cycle as it is when it comes to the energy industry.

There are some studies out there that show that by 2020, there will be no new development south of Ponoka because we simply won't have the water to sustain it. How then do we balance the current uses and development with future demands?

How do we put a value on something as priceless as clean water and protection of wildlife habitat and ecosystems? We are witnessing the disappearance of wetlands in favor of economic development - where is the balance going to come in?

We are only borrowing all of this so we need to make our land use and water use decisions wisely.

[grassfarmer]

by 2020 if the growth continues at the rate it is now, there will be one large urban centre from Ponoka to Calgary !
I don't know what the answer is for water diversion but there is a real need for water in the eastern areas of the Province. Towns like Coronation and Caster would love to have more people but the drought and shortage of water certainly has an impact on any growth in that area.
Water diversion isn't a small issue and it will take a considerable amount of time and a lot of dollars to bring it about if it is approved.

[cowman]

Personally I kind of like this idea of diverting water to eastern Alberta. Not for irrigation though...I think that is asking too much?
The Red Deer river, on the east side of Red Deer county, could be dammed? Creating a large lake just like Glennifer Lake, behind the Dixon dam? You would be storing and regulating the flow as well as creating a profitable recreation area? I would suspect through a series of pipelines and "wetland holding areas" a good deal of water could be supplied to places like Cornation, Consort etc. Perhaps we could create an area where intensive livestock could flourish, as they are moved out of the "corrider"?

[cowman]

I would hope that the main focus of any water diversion is for the use of people vs recreation.
Water diversion projects take a lot of time, eg: Highwood/Little Bow.
It will involve an environmental impact assessment and likely a huge hearing with the NRCB involved, if the project even gets that far.

[cowman]

Having been old enough to remember what happened when the Dixon dam was built, I will note, what the government wants...the government gets! The opposition to that dam ran out all the arguments you hear when someone proposes anything like this? I don't think anyone could argue today that it wasn't a wise choice? The recreation possibilities are not something to be looked at lightly. You would not believe the development that has taken place there since the dam was built! A whole lot of landowners in that area have seen their landvalues rise a lot more than they ever could hope for!
The water flow is regulated for communities lower down and has gone a long way to improve the quality. If you can remember what the water was like in Red Deer before the dam was built...it was not very good in the spring!

[nerves]

Cowman it is fine for people who come visit and play they all love the lake. But for people that live around it is not all that it is cracked up to be. A lot of our neighbors have had midnight visitors, stuff stolen. People Knocking on doors at 3 in the morning looking for directions.( casing the place out in reality). The local business in Spruce View get broke into alot. Tourist places like Banff, Sylvan and Gleniffer lake attrack these low lifes and life changes alot from what if used to be. Being able to be buy farm land has ended in the area it has turned into one big acreage were everyone owns a quarter and these people will tell you how to farm. We don"t even go near the lake anymore we prefer the solitude of the rockies to the west if we want to take a break.(have 7 houses right next to me in an acreage very interesting at times)

[cakadu]

Cowman, I have to agree with nerves on this one. It has brought a lot more grief than I believe it has been a blessing. It has caused some dissention amongst people who have lived here for several, if not more generations and the newcomers as well. The local Co-op board decided that they would try and capture the lake business, which there is nothing wrong in trying to do. What caused a lot of hard feelings though was the fact that they did it at the expense of the locals and long-time patrons of the Co-op. It wasn't the lake users that have supported the Co-op since 1947 and the lake users by and large do not support the Co-op throughout the winter months - it is the locals who do that.

Other than to practice our dogs for retrieving, we do not go anywhere near the lake for the very reasons that nerves has stated.

The other thing is that they do not live here permanently, so they do not feel the same way about the land, environmental sustainability and conservation. It is a weekend getaway for most of them, hence they do not look at it the same way the residents do.

One of the things that I have learned is that growth and economic development cannot come at the expense of community values. Some values can be changed and perhaps even should be changed, but there are some values that the community does not ever want to see changed, nor should they.

[cowman]

I do realize that development and recreation cause problems for an agriculture community. I would suggest we are in a transission period where we are moving from an agricultural area to a "playground" for the affluent?
And whether we like it or not...Thats just how it is?
Now we can fight it or we can go with the flow but one thing is for certain...you aren't going to be able to stop it!
Step away for a minute from your opinion that farming is the end all of life and consider how much more valuable your assets are now than before Glennifer came into being? You actually have quite a higher net worth? And also remember you might come to the point someday when you want to quit farming? However we cut it we all quit someday...either voluntarily or when they drag us off to bury us!

[cakadu]

Cowman, I think it is reasonably safe to say that while having Glennifer Lake developed did do something for the land values around the lake it likely hasn't done that much for the rest of the land in this area.

What likely had a considerably greater impact on the land was the influx of money and people coming primarily from the EU countries. There were a significant number of dairies started out this way and that helped to push the land values up immensely. Several years back I can remember when the jump in values took place and it certainly wasn't because the lake was here. We bought here almost 12 years ago and the land values have pretty much doubled if not tripled since then.

I will maintain that most "weekenders" will not regard the land and the environment the same way permanent residents do because they don't have as much of a vested interest. They have an investment in their property, but not necessarily a vested interest because they go back to their "real lives" during the week.

I agree with you that when the land that is producing apples, for example, cannot support you producing apples then it is time to switch to something else. That doesn't necessarily mean, however, that you sell it off and develop it because that is not the only alternative.

There is nothing to preclude the retention of agricultural land at the expense of economic development. In fact, that is what land use and taking natural capital into consideration is all about.

[cowman]

I sort of understand the concept of natural capital, but I still have a problem? If this land is such a "treasure" for all of us, then why is it that the landowner is the only one paying for it? For example: If farmer A has a piece of rocky all hill country that really is fairly worthless for growing anything other than pasturing a couple of cows, and city slicker B comes along and thinks it is just the ticket to build a mansion on and offers farmer A about ten times what it is really worth, then how is this wrong? In the meantime the municipality decides that this shouldn't happen because they have some sort of bucolic fantasy about smiling peasants toiling away happily in the sun! Who is paying for this sweet dream? Is it the municipality? Or is it farmer A and city slicker B? Farmer A gets the priveledge of owning an expensive piece of useless land and city slicker B has to keep living in the concrete jungle!
There are no winners here?

[Ron]

good points cowman, i think i agree with you but. dont you ever sleep? I mean 4 am come on man, even your cows arent up at that hour and your kids are too old to be dragging their butts home and waking you up. just kidding, your posts are always interesting and i enjoy rading them.

[Ron]

whoops. I meant reading.

[cakadu]

My understanding of the natural capital concept is similar to what you are stating, cowman. There needs to be a price paid for the value of the natural capital and perhaps keeping it in its natural state, so the city person who comes out and pays the farmer for this rolling, hilly marginal land is doing just that.

I am still unsure of how various municipalities, including our own, are going to find this balance between economic development and maintaining agricultural land. What I hope does not happen is that the areas adjacent to the highway #2 corridor and around major centres like Red Deer get all the approvals for development while those of us who do not have those benefits end up providing the balance.

Development, particularly in this county, is going to be a very tough one to handle.

I couldn't agree more with you cowman that the preservation of farm land, the right to farm, providing environmental sustainability - or whatever else you want to call it - is a social problem and not just within the jurisdiction and control of the landowner. If it is important for the urban dweller to have all of these rural landscapes, then there has to be some sort of mechanism put into place that somehow compensates the landowner. There have to be incentives for the landowners to want to do this, otherwise there is relatively little desire to do it.

Many of us on the land want to preserve and sustain it and I feel that it is high time we get some sort of compensation and recognition for what we do.

[cowman]

Well Linda, I suspect we really aren't all that far apart on how we view things...hey if I could get someone to pay me to keep doing things just the way it is now I would be happy as a lark! But I would sure like some compensation...if possible!
Ron: My darned stomach gives me a lot of problems! Have a hard time sleeping very long so sometimes I have to get up! Other times I need to be somewhere fairly early...have an oil service business! Now before you shoot me let me say this...Although that is my bread and butter so to speak, that is not my favorite vocation! Have 1120 acres(well the boy does) and love all aspects of farming! Just cow/calf, rent around 250 grain land, but just love all types of farming...hogs, dairy, vegetables, fruit etc.! Just really interested in all types of farming! Am definitely a son of the soil!

[cakadu]

It has always been a concern of mine as to what will happen when the incentive dollars for environmental sustainability subside and the landowners are without any compensation for what they are trying to do.

I wouldn't want to see things remain just as they are, but compensation for ecological goods and services that are provided should in some way or fashion be recognized and paid for. If landowners are conserving, maintaining, restoring or rejuvenating the land, air, water and biodiversity, then they should be rewarded.

Substance follows form and it seems to me that there should be some way to ensure that concern for the environment goes beyond any round of incentive funding. Don't get me wrong, the incentives have their place, but we need long-term measures to ensure that there is continuity well into the future.