Special Areas requests for water

[cakadu]

For any of you that are living near the Red Deer River or it's tributaries, I would encourage you to get out to the Special Areas meetings being held across the area. Special Areas has applied for permitting to take 76.5 billion litres of water out of the Red Deer River annually. People really do need to be informed about this so that feedback can be given.

They want to use some of the water for irrigation and I am going to the meeting in Red Deer tonight at 7:00 at the Black Knight Inn to find out what crops they want to grow with this irrigation. Why would they want to grow more crops that they cannot get the costs of production on now? That would make for some very expensive crop indeed.

This proposal has been in the works for a number of years and people need to be aware of it.

[farmers_son]

When you see the tremendous flows in the Red Deer river these past weeks I struggle to see why anyone would be concerned about diverting a very small fraction of that water to Special Areas to aid in the economic survival of that area of the province.

Had the proper water works been in place to capture those excessive river flows, not only would we have been providing a valuable renewable resource for dryer areas of the province but we could have reduced flooding downstream.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't four people die as a result of the recent floods? All that water just wasted when it could have serving as an economic driver of the rural areas of the province off of the QE2 corridor. We have to find ways that all parts of the province can share in the Alberta advantage, not just those who are fortunate enough to live between Calgary and Edmonton. Irrigation certainly is one those ways. If I had a concern it was the project should be expanded to double the amount of irrigation as there then could be even more benefit.

[blackjack]

...well said farmers_son...

[silverback]

With the big cash coming in from the gas industry and the debt supposedly gone in alberta, I agree that now would be the time to start a few mega-projects to start controlling the water that does fall at times in this province. What vision there was many years ago to set up dams and canals. Look at the lucky individuals who have benefited from having irrigation rights. A few more could be so lucky!

I suppose it would be tough to convince people west of the #2 to allow some dams to be set up on $5000/acre land (or more)

[silverback]

The diversion of water from the Red Deer if it takes place will have require an environmental impact assessment, and likely a hearing in front of the NRCB.
My one comment is that the eastern portion of Alberta is falling by the wayside as far as development goes due to a lack of water, the population is declining etc. Water can work wonders and if sharing some of it at no real negative effect to other Albertans can help to sustain a large area of the province, I say what is the problem ?

[cakadu]

I'm not saying it is wrong nor that we shouldn't do it. In order to make a decision, people need to be informed. Yes, this year we have tremendous water volume, but that has not been the case for the past several years. Also, had we not had all of this record rainfall, we would have been as low or lower in volume than in the previous years.

I would ask you to consider these questions, which were brought up in discussions at the meeting last night.

From a social perspective, is it the lack of water that is taking people away from these areas? Is it the reason that kids are leaving the farm, or is it because there is relatively little money to be made in farming. Look at WoolyBear's post regarding the OECD evaluations in the next 10 years. Does it make economic sense to pay to irrigate some 20,000 acres (which land amounts could be owned by several people individually out there) for crops that producers are not able to make money on already? Now, if they were going to grow specialty crops with the irrigation, then that would be another kettle of fish entirely.

It is going to reap an economic benefit of 70 cents for every dollar spent. That means that the shortfall in return is going to have to come from somewhere and likely the taxpayers pocket. Smart growth principles tell you that if it is going to cost more to maintain the infrastructure than what will be generated, then perhaps you shouldn't undertake it. Yes, the province is awash in money now, but will that always be the case?

The system is going to cost $3.1 million per year to operate with no clear indication of where the operating money is going to come from - at least not that I have seen yet.

What will this do for future demands on the river and the water it carries? We also have proposed pipelines in the works for areas to the north and to the south of us. How much can we allocate on top of having to live up to the allocation agreements that 50% of the flow must go to the South Saskatchewan to go to other provinces?

Transporation is another issue. People want to be near transportation corridors to keep costs down. That is one significant factor in the Peace not being developed any more than it has been.

What about stocking rates for livestock? It seems to me that the figure is 12 cows per section out there - that isn't likely going to change. If you develop confined feeding operations, dairies, hog barns etc., then the demands for water really increase. Given the opposition in recent years to CFO's, particularly hog operations, is that even feasible for these areas?

I would encourage you to read "Water" by Marq de Villiers as it is a real eye opener to global water. Sandra Postel also has some very thought provoking books out - Rivers for Life, Last Oasis (water scarcity) and Pillars of Sand (which is about the inability to sustain irrigation).

Now, if we stopped the practice of injecting water into oil and gas wells, then that would free up a great deal of water that would remain in the hydrological cycle.

[cakadu]

One or two other points to ponder. How long will it take to reap the economic benefit? We will see that benefit if all goes according to plan and to the models, which always work in theory. There are two scenarios that could evolve. The first being the best scenario and that would be that it would become attractive for people to move there. That in and of itself could create long-term challenges in that they would once again find themselves looking for water - what happens then? The other scenario would be at the other end of the spectrum and that would be that even with water the area does not develop significantly in the foreseeable future. How then does it pay for itself or reap any real benefit?

Is the situation being faced out there really significantly different that the situation being faced by most rural areas? Agriculture development is not positively correlated with rural development. As fewer farmers own more of the available land in an area, rural development often declines. How many producers in the so-called have areas of the highway II corridor are encouraging their kids to stay on the land? How many young people are staying in rural areas?

I would ask how many of you would move to that area if there were water aplenty?

[cakadu]

All the questions you have referred to would have to be answered as part of the water diversion process.

As far as who would relocate to the areas in question, it would depend on what industry could benefit from locating there. Given the cost, availablilty and pressure on land uses in the corridor, I would suspect that some value added industry could locate in the east central portion of the province if water was available.

[cakadu]

Linda, I am sure that many of us asked the same questions with regard to the cost of irrigating a huge portion of the province. After touring several municipalities in the south, I became informed and realized that without irrigation many areas of our province would be a virtual wasteland, likely the same can be said for east cenral AB if they can't access more water.

[cakadu]

I would suggest that anyone interested in learning more about this proposal can log onto:

www.specialareas.ab.ca and check out the entire project. It is very informative and detailed.

[cakadu]

The irrigation districts are continually asking for more water - when does enough become enough? From what I can see from having driven around in the southern part of the province, we do not use the most efficient forms of irrigation that are available. Drip irrigation systems are far more efficient and make better use of the water than the current systems we use now where some of the water is lost to evaporation before it ever hits the ground. Granted, it isn't taken out of the hydrological cycle, but it doesn't meet it's intended use either.

It is an inescapable fact that money attracts money which is the reason why the cities just keep getting bigger and more people move to them.

What would make me happier about the situation is if the area had some value-added industries lined up so that when the water is available it can be put to use straight away. Right now, it is all pretty much speculation and best estimates.

From a societal perspective, it isn't the lack of water that is the problem for the more rural areas of the province. I will use the Peace again as an example. There is generally more than enough water in the peace region. What is stopping people from moving up there?

[farmers_son]

“Money attracts money which is why the cities just keep getting bigger…”

I might offer the thought that one reason cities keep getting bigger is that the cities receive an unfair transfer of taxation dollars generated from the primary resource industries such as agriculture which are always located in the hinterlands but do not have the population base to demand that government reinvest in the countryside.
See: http://www.rural.gov.ab.ca/ralo_report.pdf

Your example of the Peace... Sporadic, unpredictable and uneven amounts of rainfall does not equal irrigation. Irrigation is a guaranteed source of water that allows the producer to maximize his/her production instead of managing for drought as is the case in the Special Areas at present. I would expect to see value adding occur in the Special Areas as a result of this initiative, feedlots and hog barns would spring up as soon as the water was available. Most of the benefit from the water diversion would be as a direct result of access to livestock water, the actual acres that would benefit from irrigation would be less.

[cakadu]

I keep asking myself why we want the land to do something it was never intended to do? We try to raise annual crops on marginal land and wonder why the bounty isn't there. We try to grow crops on land that is better suited to grass growth, yet we still persist in trying to grow crops. And the biggest wonderment o all is why we want to grow more of what we can't already sell at a price that will put some decent money in a producer's pockets.

The situation that is happening in the Special Areas - aside from the water - is not unique. People moving away, leaving farming etc. is happening in just about every rural area that there is, regardless of whether there is water or not. Does that mean that all rural areas will be given the cash injection to get them whatever they need in order to survive and/or grow? Don't get me wrong, I am all for rural revitalization.

The other thing that we haven't even given much consideration to is what cumulative effect will all this drilling activity have on the underground formations? We have some idea, but we certainly have no concrete evidence or body of knowledge with respect to the flurry of drilling activity and how it will cumulatively affect our groundwater supplies. I look at all the proposed activity within my own county and shudder to think of where it will all end up, especially now that oil has hit $60/bbl.

All of the things that we are doing cannot be looked at in isolation. If you talk to any of the irrigation managers down south, they never have enough water and are always looking for more and god forbid you talk about not being able to meet their allocations.

The solutions also cannot be looked at in isolation. One needs to look at the greater good in all of this. Speculating that the value-added industries will move out there because there is water is just that - speculation. You have people that want activities for their kids. Even in my own little community the parents often go outside of the community for the activities their kids participate in because they just aren't here or in the alternative, aren't up to the parents expectations of where their kids are at or their potential.

How many people have moved to the south because of irrigation? How many industries went there? 60% of the industries in the Lethbridge area are owned by American companies and are the goliaths that many are fighting against.

Should we share our resources with others who don't have them - yes. How we do that and how much we do that is something else. I'm curious, how many of you would be as willing to share if the water were coming out of your basin? It's always easier to spend someone else's "money".

I forget who said it but the quote goes something like, "...in the past, wars were fought for many reasons, in the future, wars will be fought over water."

[grassfarmer]

I share many of your concerns on this topic Cakadu. You are right that we should ponder the value of the crops that will be grown under these new irrigation projects. I hope it's not barley silage for yet more feedlots given the predicament of the beef sector. It's notable that most in favour are quoting all the amounts of water that are currently flooding southern Alberta - what about the dry years in the Oldman watershed? the irrigation places that had their allocations cut and saw their crops wither in the recent drought years even with their expensive irrigation. We need to look at water use on a broader basis before deciding we have enough for this project.
To maintain agriculture in the drier areas we need more than water, we need a viable return for their produce.

Maybe if they were to grow the best quality grassfed, longhorn beef in North America and sell it direct to US consumers at $5lb hanging weight they could make more money than growing barley, feedlot silage or confinement hogs once all the fertiliser, fuel, spray, machinery,transport, manure hauling and irrigation costs are paid?
Bear in mind that we have only a finite supply of oil and severe limitations on water availability which make the high tech farming route environmentally unsustainable.

[cowman]

I will admit I haven't got out to any meetings on this proposed water diversion, so might not be up on all the facts and figures, however I do believe the main idea was not so much irrigation but water for livestock operations, homes and industry?
In my opinion this is about the best idea I've heard in a long time for many reasons. The establishment of a viable intensive livestock industry away from the populated areas is a good thing. Special areas has lots of open spaces and they are eager to have these operations, the corrider doesn't want anymore CFOs...looks like the perfect solution to me!
The mayor of Red Deer put it very well I thought? He said he really doesn't care where the water goes after Red Deer has taken what it needs!
The concept of at least one large dam and a series of created wet lands into Stettler county is a very good idea. A pipeline to serve the needs of special areas is then very feasable?
Consider the spin off benifits of a large reservoir on the eastern boundary of Red Deer County? Consider the economic activity that will be generated? As much as people bemoan the loss of their rural livestyle around Glennifer Lake the reality is the infrastructure has been vastly improved to service the Lake developement and their own net worth has risen sharply!
Quite simply their property is worth more today than it would have been if the dam wasn't there?
The quality of the water below the dam is much better than it was before the dam was built. That is just a fact.
I'm old enough to remember how it was before the dam was built. Practically every year Red Deer got a big flood in the spring and the river got very low in the fall. Now, with the dam, the water is fairly consistant? Without a doubt the dam helped a lot in the recent flood.
Personally I would much rather see my various governments spend my tax money on something like this than blowing it on such wonderful things as adscam, gun registry, Canadian Wheat Board, free give aways to brutal dictators, making us all speak French! And I would much rather see the water go to some needy farmers out east than poured down an old oil well so they can water it out before its time! Of course I doubt those "needy farmers" are slipping a few bucks to the Klein Tories!