Diefenbaker project not worth the cost

There are more beneficial ways to spend $3 billion, writes R.A. Halliday.

No one can dispute the many contributions that Ralph Goodale has made to public life in Saskatchewan. As an MP and federal cabinet minister he has served Canadian governance well for many, many years. His support for a project aimed at re-plumbing southern Saskatchewan at a cost of $3 billion or more, however, is a dubious proposition at best. The South Saskatchewan River Project was conceived at a time when water running freely downstream was considered “waste water” and dams were known as water conservation structures.

Let’s be clear. The South Saskatchewan River is the only reliable source of fresh water in southern Saskatchewan. Lake Diefenbaker and its associated infrastructure currently provide sufficient precious water to meet all foreseeable water demands except those that might be associated with a considerable expansion of irrigated agriculture. Such an expansion as described by Mr. Goodale fails on economic and environmental grounds, and is poor public policy.

In the 1960s when the South Saskatchewan River Project was constructed, the premise was development of irrigated agriculture. Hydropower was installed as almost an afterthought. Today Saskpower receives about $500 million in annual revenues from hydropower, some of that generated at Lake Diefenbaker and much of the rest based on the river regulation provided for downstream reservoirs. Some fraction of Manitoba Hydro’s $1.5 billion in annual revenues originates with the South Saskatchewan River. Today hydropower is the single most significant economic benefit of the

South Saskatchewan project. Water diverted from the river is water that does not flow through turbines.

Mr. Goodale’s proposal would triple the irrigated agriculture acreage in the province. While proponents speak of vast multiplier effects, the fact remains that most of the irrigated land currently in place in the province is used to grow grains, oilseeds and forage — dryland crops. For the past 50 years, the anticipated value-added benefits have not met expectations. The existing irrigation headworks at Lake Diefenbaker even now are not being used to their full extent. It appears unseemly to build additional irrigation infrastructure rather than concentrate on developing the existing facilities.

From an environmental perspective, the proposal would be a very significant water diversion. The effects on the donor waters and the receiving waters would have to be considered. Effects downstream of Lake Diefenbaker include the reduction in water quantity, water quality impacts and changes to the river ice regime. Most important, would be the impacts of reduced flow on the Saskatchewan River Delta (Cumberland Marshes) — the largest inland freshwater delta in North America. The water receiving areas would have to consider matters such as wetland loss, riparian habitat, erosion, invasive species, nutrient /contaminant mobilization, loss of agricultural land to canals, and the effects on Qu’appelle Valley communities, including First Nations.

From a public policy perspective, the benefits of the project for drought-proofing are moot. Such a project would receive junior water licences that would guarantee water about seven years in 10. Irrigators would not be able to draw a supply in times of drought. Economists speak of the opportunity cost of money. If debt-ridden federal and provincial governments were to borrow $3 billion to spend on climate change mitigation in Saskatchewan, what other opportunities for spending that money exist? Would, for example, spending to sustain the 43,000 farmers in the province who depend on rain-fed agriculture be a better option? One billion dollars would be sufficient to protect Saskatchewan farms and rural communities against the recurrence of a wet period like 2010-2015; it could also protect Saskatchewan’s major urban centres. How about spending a billion dollars on a 1,000 megawatt transmission line connection to Manitoba Hydro so as to increase, not decrease, Saskatchewan’s use of renewable power.

How could $3 billion help Saskatchewan’s coal and oil industry workers transition to a sustainable future?

There is no doubt that governments need to invest for the future, including significant investments in meeting the climate change crisis. They would be wise to disregard Mr. Goodale’s proposal in doing so.

R.A. Halliday is a Saskatoon-based consulting engineer and is a former director of Canada’s National Hydrology Research Centre. He chairs the Partners FOR the Saskatchewan River Basin.