Harps Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 Really? Irrigation water for the few... :$*%&: http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/Wa...2548/story.html Water fight looms in Alberta; Stelmach ready for opposition of green groups Source: CAL - Calgary Herald Nov 08 02:17 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page: A1 Section: News Edition: Final Byline: Renata D'Aliesio Premier Ed Stelmach says the province will have to store more water in parched southern Alberta to promote job and industrial growth, even if the controversial practice -- which could include more dams -- doesn't sit well with some environmental groups. The Alberta government has been studying the water-storage issue for some time, but pressure to act has been mounting from some municipalities and agricultural players since strained southern rivers and lakes were closed to new water users four years ago. "If we're going to promote jobs, if we're going to promote more value-added, we're going to have to store some of the water, and it may rub some of the environmental groups the wrong way," Stelmach told Tory supporters at the party's recent convention in Calgary. The premier noted the last major water-storage project in southern Alberta -- the Oldman Dam, built in the early 1990s -- faced staunch opposition and a legal battle. Indeed, the project led to an armed standoff with an aboriginal group, while environmental advocates took court action to ensure the federal government did an environmental review of the dam's effect on the river, fish and land. Stelmach, though, said water captured as a result of the Oldman Dam has proven to be a lifeblood of Lethbridge, other communities, and many farmers in the drought-prone region. "We're moving in that direction," the premier said of additional water storage. "But I tell you, there's a lot of groups working against it, so we're going to have to bring those groups in and have serious discussions." The premier's tone concerns Joe Obad of Water Matters, an Alberta watershed protection advocacy group. Obad contends no government decisions on major water storage projects should be made until a regional land plan for southern Alberta is complete. The regional plan, part of the provincial government's sweeping land-use framework, is meant to guide residential and industrial growth within environmental limits, such as water. Southern Alberta, which includes communities such as Calgary, Lethbridge and Medicine Hat, contains the province's largest population, but the least amount of water. "Given that the land-use framework is the flagship process for guiding development that the province has sold to us, it's incumbent upon the premier to reference development in that context, particularly if he's pushing large-scale water (storage)," Obad said. Obad isn't outright opposed to developing more water storage, including dams, but said proposed projects would require vigorous review. "We want to plan development such that it's within our water budget," he added. Alberta Environment Minister Rob Renner says building additional southern Alberta dams is not in the province's immediate future, saying the possibility is 10 to 20 years on the horizon. Renner said the government is currently focused on encouraging water conservation and improving management of the natural resource at existing storage sites, such as hydroelectric dams on the Bow River. "There may be some opportunity for us to have some significant water storage capacity without actually increasing the footprint," Renner said. Yet, Alberta's environment minister acknowledges the province believes new water storage investments will be necessary in the face of climate change, which could leave southern Alberta vulnerable to more droughts. The government has evaluated about 90 potential water storage sites across the province. The 2008 study, completed for the province by MPE Engineering, deemed 54 locations highly viable for on-or off-stream storage, including several sites affecting the Bow, Oldman and South Saskatchewan rivers. Further study was recommended for some of the locations. No price tag was attached to the potential projects. Keith Francis, chairman of the Taber Irrigation District, hopes the Stelmach government presses ahead with additional water storage. He noted Alberta sends more water to Saskatchewan than legally obligated for the South Saskatchewan River. By law, Alberta must give Saskatchewan half of the water that flows east across their boundary. Francis said in most years, Alberta only uses about a quarter of the river's natural flow. In the severe drought years of 1988 and 2001, however, Alberta withdrew 42 per cent of the river's flow to provide moisture to water-strapped municipalities, farms and other industries. "It's a swear word for some people," Francis said of dams. "If climate change provides less water in our rivers, all the more reason to store what comes down." rdaliesio@calgaryherald.com Does anybody want a dam on the Oldman at the Gap... maybe not from this site, but apparently it would make a good location. The study here, completed in 2008, is an assessment tool of available sites to build dams in southern Alberta. http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/7947.pdf Download it now, cause things disappear and become hard to find on gov't websites. I guess we gotta build the dams fast... Upper St. Mary has a Species at Risk (Eastslope sculpin), the whole Milk is home to SARA species (sculpin and western silvery minnow), and there are some (lake sturgeon) soon to be listed in the South Sask, Lower Oldman, and Lower Bow. Add westslope cutthroat and bull trout (which the province has already written off once) and there aren't any more rivers in southern Alberta to build dams on... except the Willow system and some other small tributary creeks. Do you want your taxpayer dollars to go to a billion dollar project that will provide you with potatoes? The anglers on this site need to make a bigger push to get organized! There seems to be enough passion here, at least when it comes to secret spots, but what happens when those spots are flooded under water? We need to speak up. A formal guide association would be a strong voice on rivers used for recreation... it's an income/economic benefit that isn't being captured by gov't assessments when they evaluate these things. Plus a formal guide association (and license) would be a way to teach ethics, and regulate guide days on some of the big and popular rivers (Montana has an excellent system for this). Our water is worth more when it is not in sprinklers! It's time we told the government that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayhad Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 Well that's not cool........... I really wish there were some viable alternatives to the governing body. but are you sure you want to push for guides being licensed/regulated again, you do understand the power you want to put in the hands of the guides then right? Skeena Water Management sound familar? Anyone have a contact at ONE LESS DAM? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBBrownie Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 wow. In the mean time, the US is busy decommsioning dam sites... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harps Posted November 9, 2010 Author Share Posted November 9, 2010 Well that's not cool........... I really wish there were some viable alternatives to the governing body. but are you sure you want to push for guides being licensed/regulated again, you do understand the power you want to put in the hands of the guides then right? Skeena Water Management sound familar? Anyone have a contact at ONE LESS DAM? Yes I am sure we need a guide association or better yet, a registration and licensing system. It better protects the casual angler spending $300+ on a day out; It better protects the resource, spreading guide pressure if required and educating about things like invasives (we have Dydimo to give and snails and crayfish to take); and It can provide education to new and tourist anglers fishing in the province. BC's fishery management structure will not be reproduced here, nor should it, but they are taking a step to protect fisheries and local anglers (like it or not). Montana has a good system that qualifies and regulates guides and days on some smaller waters. They also put some of that money back into fishing and hunting improvements... we give our money to ACA for... On the dam note... I've can't seem to find a site for One Less Dam. We could always use another tailwater fishery, right?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.