Special Areas requests for water

[cowman]

I look at it a different way Linda. People all along the pipeline would benifit, Stettler being a prime example?
The dam to fuel this pipeline would probably be built on the eastern boundry of Red Deer county where it joins Stettler county? I would think it would contain a generator that could provide the pumping equipment with power?
Consider the economical benifit of having a major resort on the eastern boundary, where the people are crying for some sort of developement?
I realize you are close to the Dixon dam and have not seen that as a positive thing, and to a certain extent I agree with you that it was not managed properly. Too many restrictions on growth have not produced all the economic activity that could have been possible there? It is sort of funny how people view things? The western portion of the county want to keep developement out...the eastern portion would welcome it with open arms!
Also consider this: Eastern Alberta will in all probability see an unreal amount of coalbed wells in the next few years. There will be a need for a fairly large labor force, both temporary and permanent! The nature of coalbed methane is it requires lots of compressor stations...and therefore lots of workers! The coalbed gas is not a short term thing, these wells tend to produce forever!
And interesting little sidenote...I recently talked to a field supervisor for a major coalbed company. He told me that while their main focus for the next few years will be the "horse shoe canyon" coal bed, the future will be focussing on the "Manville" coalbed! The horse Shoe is dry gas...the Manville is very wet salt water! He claims the Mannville has twice the capacity to produce gas than the Horse shoe canyon!
So I asked " Why not produce the Mannville instead of the horse shoe?" His answer "The people of Alberta aren't ready to buy into that idea yet. Once we have the system in place they will be more receptive!"
He went on to assure me the technolgy was there to do this safely and in an environmentally friendly way, by deep injecting the saline water! And it definitely wouldn't be anything like the Powder River basin in Wyoming! Still I found the idea a wee bit scary? Do they really know what they are doing?

[farmers_son]

Cowman: Just a point of interest, an successful experimental well was drilled in our area, completed today. Its target was Mannville methane coal bed gas. Apparently horizontally drilled with the end 2 kms north of the surface site.

This water project would not benefit Stettler very much as it is about 25 miles south. I do not recall a dam at the river, just pumping stations with the first resevoir east of the river at Shooting Lake and other resevoirs further east yet in existing lakes.

[cropduster]

Did you find any lint while you were navel gazing Cakadu??Watched a Discovery piece on the Hoover dam and there sure wasn`t anyone there when that dam was built but look at the development now.(Vegas, etc.)Are you saying it should be removed??Someone took an intiative and it has borne fruit.This project is not a dam but a controlled transfer.What`s the BIG deal??Nothing ventured nothing gained.

[cropduster]

Linda, with all due respect I have to say that it concerns me when anyone says ' who would move out there?'

"Out there" is where a lot of people live, they are fellow Albertans. It is not some godforsaken desert in the middle of Africa for godsakes.
In the MD of Big Lakes which is near High Prairie, water co-ops have formed to pipe water through the a lot of the region. Farms now use piped in water vs having to use dugout water.

[cakadu]

Emrald, you've maybe given a little too much emphasis to that portion of my statement. To many people, it would be a location that wouldn't suit their ideas of a place to live, it's not necessarily how I feel.

I have not ever said the project should not go ahead - indeed I have voiced my ambivalence about the project. Believe me, I understand what you are saying about giving the area a chance to explore it's potential, see what will come of it and so forth.

I still am no better informed as to why we want to force land to do what it cannot do on its own? What about planting native species so that they can tolerate and thrive in the prevalent conditions? Maybe the EIA will give some idea as to the challenges that will be faced if the water is there etc., etc. We have no way of knowing what all of the consequences are - good or bad - of taking the action.

This whole project is being envisioned as saving an area of the province - are similar measures going to be taken for still other areas of the province that are facing or already going through a slow death?

Land and water are two things that we cannot make any more of. Despite all of the rains and the flooding, there is a finite amount of water that we can use.

The water will be taken out of the river in August - when it is at it's lowest in terms of flow and availability. Is that the best time to divert it? Would there be a better time? If it is going to be diverted in August, how will that help irrigation? Even if it is put in the reservoirs, how much evaporation will that allow for? The long term sustainability of water is going to be important for us all someday.

We need to be taking some much needed lessons from other parts of the globe where similar things have been tried and see what things have been learned - good and bad.

[cakadu]

Valid questions Linda, and hopefully if the project does get far enough ahead to require an EIA they will be answered.

I have seen how water works wonders in the south where irrigation has turned vast wastelands into productive lands able to sustain many communities. The good farm land in Alberta is being covered in concrete or chopped into country residential parcels for those who want to be ' country gentlmen' so putting water on land that is now unproductive, and turning it into producing land sounds like an idea that has some merit, however,it should not come at the expense of other areas of the province.

[farmers_son]

I would not expect water to be diverted out of the river in August. The plan was to fill resevoirs (lakes) with river water in the spring when flows are high, like now. The lakes would be drawn down in summer.

I understood the water levels in the lakes would only need to be raised and lowered about a foot to meet the needs of this project.

[grassfarmer]

I'm still waiting for someone to answer Cakadu's original question about what would be grown on this land. Look at eastern Saskatchewan and much of Manitoba where lack of water is rarely a concern - the whole area is for sale. If they are going bust growing crops to sell into the same commodity markets how can you hope to do better in eastern Alberta with the added cost of irrigation on higher priced land?

[cakadu]

Well, farmers_son, the proposed diversion period is from April 15th to October 31st in each year and it was an AB Environment person that told me that water would be diverted in August.

According to the full report, some native habitat would be destroyed in order to make this canal system even though it is going to primarily use natural channels to a large extent. How much native habitat will be destroyed? "Some" is a pretty nebulous term, don't you think?

The proposed 70 cent economic benefit for every dollar spent is over a 50 year time span, so it could be a good number of years before any economic benefit is realized. Power costs to run the system are estimated to be about $1.6 million per year, but that is based on current rates and we all know which direction power rates are going.

I agree emrald, that we are loosing productive agricultural land at alarming rates and once it's paved, we've lost it forever. I'm still not entirely convinced that forcing marginal lands to try and produce more will offset anything, particularly when we just grow more of what we already cannot sell at a decent price for the producer. If they were talking about growing specialty crops that would have value, then that is another story.

During the consultations for the Rural Development Initiative I fully supported getting the activity off of the highway #2 corridor and into the more outlying areas and I still do.

Transportation costs are skyrocketing and there doesn't appear to be any end in sight. That will play a significant role in any area's ability to develop. I look at the difference in price on a 4L jug of milk from Innisfail, to Spruce View to Caroline and there is about $1.50 difference and it is due to transporation costs. The milk doesn't cost any more to produce.

I agree that parts of Southern Alberta have prospered because of the irrigation.

This is a huge gamble that they are making and for a good number of years it will be at government's (aka our) expense. We do need to take risks in life and oftentimes those risks need to be managed and mitigated, as well as the long term examined and evaluated.

Oil and gas exploration hits the skids every few years and it wasn't that many years ago that oil was at $11/bbl. It is somewhat disconcerting that much of our development is based on something as volatile as a world oil price, particularly when we do not control the tap.

[cakadu]

I do think that varied crops will be grown if the land is able to produce. Cowman indicated that confined feeding operations may be able to locate in the Special Areas, and should any of them decide to do so cereal crops are the mainstay of both hog and beef production.
Niche markets may also be something that producers would want to look into but its pretty difficult for anyone to second guess what could be grown until water is available.

Who knows, maybe it would be Albertas version of Vegas ???? Anything is possible if people have a dream and can make it work !!!