Clarifying rangeland expansion

Speaking from the perspective of a member of the Alberta–Montana Joint International Team investigating administrative and infrastructure changes that could provide more effective utilization of the shared waters of the St. Mary and Milk Rivers and as past chair of the Milk River Watershed Council of Canada and also as a reviewer of the 2002 Klohn Crippen Report, I am obligated to offer some constructive concerns regarding the recent Cheryl Bradley letter to the editor (“Rangeland expansion justified”).

The referenced 2002 Klohn Crippen report initially contained economic information on the Milk River dam predicated on basic assumptions of time frame, discount rate and residual values that were substantially different than that of the Oldman and Little Bow investigations. When the same methodology was subsequently applied to the Milk project in the revised Klohn Crippen report, a positive benefit-cost ratio resulted. The social and environmental parts of the report did not indicate insurmountable issues.

Thoughtful development of the Milk’s natural water resource can be a very effective means to secure a better future for the basin’s 3,000 residents. Currently, due to a lack of a storage facility, Alberta, on average, “donates” a large part of Alberta’s apportioned share of Milk water to Montana, enough to irrigate approximately 30,000 acres. With storage, the whole province can reap the economic benefit of using Alberta’s entire share during the 600year lifespan of the reservoir capacity.

To my knowledge, several townships of very well-managed mixed grass/fescue deeded rangeland are located immediately to the west of the proposed Twin River Heritage Rangeland expansion. “Treasured” sites are in plentiful supply and have enjoyed decades of excellent Deseret and McIntyre conservation management. Why do we need more Heritage Rangeland other than to thwart environmentally sustainable economic development?

Over the past 10 years, Granite Oil has brought over 50 oil wells into production immediately to the east of the proposed rangeland expansion and has substantial investment in mineral rights in the proposed expansion area. Granite has established a reputation of being a very well-managed, meticulously tidy, safe and environmentally diligent company. Its employees are highly valued members of our community.

I note Cheryl Bradley’s efforts to lobby for a grassland park that will provide aesthetic enjoyment for a limited audience of mostly nonresident conservationists. But I do not appreciate her distortions of the facts regarding the economics of storage on the Milk and the environmental hazards associated with the project.

Tom Gilchrist

Lethbridge