Hi All!
I added the Rosenberg Reports and Schindler’s work, the important science on the South Saskatchewan River.
Many thanks for the Canadian Geographic article and World Wildlife Report – they are very valuable additions.
I will send this revised information to various Government officials, etc.
As always, this is the outcome of our combined efforts. I hope you will put it to good use!
Cheers,
Sandra
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
AS SENT TO THE NEW WATER SPECIALIST AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN:
South Sask River: the science. If current plans proceed, we will run the River dry.
Dear Howard,
Welcome to Saskatoon. With a name like ‘Wheater’ you may have been destined to come here!
You may not have been advised of the situation with the South Saskatchewan River.
There is an urgent need, not for more water research, but for action.
Myself and others get very frustrated: there are more than 300 water scientists at the National Water Research Institute (NWRI) on campus. They are doing their best, with very little in the way of money for support staff. (The top administrators are most likely well-paid. But absent.)
The NWRI and now the Hydrology Centre were established to provide sound science to inform Government decisions related to water.
What has happened? I don’t know what the outcome will be for the Hydrology Centre. What I do know about the NWRI is that their presence in this province has made little impact on the quality of water-related problem-solving by the Governments.
The South Saskatchewan River is the most threatened in all Canada (see the science included in appended items # 5 to # 10 below); the Government is stupidly relentless in creating more water-intensive demands on the River.
Citizens are and have been battling the Government for at least a decade to see that the River is preserved and conserved. The NWRI nor the University sound any alarm bells when the situation for the River is alarming. We draw on the work of scientists such as Dr. Dave Schindler at the University of Alberta. And on the work of institutions such as the Rosenberg at the University of California. Only indirectly are the works of very good scientists from Saskatchewan brought to bear (I am thinking of Al Pietroniro’s work (NWRI), Dave Sauchyn (Regina), Demuth, Elaine Wheaton on climate change (Sask Research Council). I doubt we need more water scientists in this province. We need to get the ones we have effectively deployed – – empowered so they can make their contribution.
Saskatchewan has 100 monitoring wells for ground water. We should have one thousand. It’s not the NWRI or the Hydrology Centre saying so; we are finding it out by bringing in people from other provinces. There is a sense of betrayal.
This is only a partial list of the problems. The following contains the science regarding the vulnerability of the South Saskatchewan River.
I hope this input, although harsh, will be helpful.
Cheers,
Sandra Finley
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
TO: U of S Global Water Security Institute
Dear Joanne and Karsten,
It would be very helpful to the citizens of Saskatchewan if you would become engaged in the security of water supply for all the communities who depend upon the South Saskatchewan River for their water.
The appended information includes the science that establishes that the River is threatened (see items #5 to # 10). If the Intensive Livestock Operations and other “development” plans proceed, it is guaranteed that we will run the River dry.
As you may know, current water flows in the River at Saskatoon are a little over 16% of what they were in 1912. There is a steady, relentless downward trend-line in the volume of water. The depletion rate is accelerating with population growth (Saskatoon, Warman, Martensville, not to mention Medicine Hat, Calgary, etc.). The situation is exacerbated by ill-informed notions about “economic growth”, that exist in people’s mind with no relationship to constraints such as finite resources.
The University has a pro-active role to play. The citizens of Saskatchewan built and own the University. Its purpose is to serve the needs of Saskatchewan citizens.
You might even want to attend City Council, 6:30pm this Monday. The issue is on the agenda. There are 20,000 people at the University. They are all dependent upon the River for their water.
Thank-you,
Sandra Finley
= = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = =
CONTENTS
(1) INTENSIVE LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS (BEEF, PORK) ARE HIGH-VOLUME WATER USERS. THE SCIENCE SAYS THE SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER CANNOT CARRY THE WEIGHT OF MORE HIGH-VOLUME WATER WITHDRAWALS.
(2) THE RURAL MUNICIPALITY OF RUDY WILL MAKE A DECISION WHETHER TO APPROVE THE PROJECT. UMMM . . . WHERE IS THE GOVERNMENT IN ALL THIS?
(3) INTENSIVE LIVESTOCK OPERATION, OUTLOOK. WHAT I LEARNED FROM INTENSIVE PORK PRODUCTION: A FEW HOGS LAUGH THEIR WAY TO THE BANK WITH OUR MONEY. WE GET TO PAY THE CLEAN-UP COSTS.
(4) WE’RE IN TROUBLE, HONEY. SASKWATER IS NOW A COMMERCIAL CROWN CORPORATION. THE MORE WATER THEY SELL, THE MORE MONEY THEY MAKE. WATER CONSERVATION? … FORGET IT.
(5) AN IMPENDING WATER CRISIS IN CANADA’S WESTERN PRAIRIE PROVINCES, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
D. W. Schindler and
W. F. Donahue, February 25, 2006. INCLUDES THE TREND-LINE FOR PERCENTAGE REDUCTION IN FLOW, SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER at Saskatoon (−83.6% from 1912–2003;
P < 0.0001).
(6) CANADIAN GEOGRAPHIC, October 2010, THE SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER RUNS DRY, BY ALLAN CASEY
(7) SOUTH SASK RIVER “THE MOST THREATENED” IN THE COUNTRY, STAR PHOENIX, OCTOBER 15, 2009
(8) THE WORLD WILDLIFE FUND REPORT, CANADA’S RIVERS AT RISK, THE SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN IS THE MOST THREATENED
(9) ROSENBERG REPORT, LESSONS FOR CANADA, SEPTEMBER 2006, BANFF
(10) ROSENBERG INTERNATIONAL FORUM ON WATER POLICY TO ALBERTA ENVIRONMENT, FEBRUARY 2007
(11) FEEDLOT DEVELOPMENT IN SASKATCHEWAN: A CASE STUDY, 2002
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = == =
(1) INTENSIVE LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS (BEEF, PORK) ARE HIGH-VOLUME WATER USERS. THE SCIENCE SAYS THE SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER CANNOT CARRY THE WEIGHT OF MORE HIGH-VOLUME WATER WITHDRAWALS.
Intensive livestock operations, whether they be for pork or beef, are high-volume water users.
All the science says that the South Saskatchewan River is under threat. The science is in items # 5 to #10 below.
If you have canoed the River in normal years you will know that it might be broad, but it is generally shallow. The sand bars in the River are shallow parts. If you have been on the River in a drought year, you will have had to drag your canoe through some sections.
The amount of water in the River at Saskatoon is less than 20% of what it was in 1912. The science is in item # 5 . There is an uninterrupted downward trend line that shows no sign of leveling off, let alone reversing. The end of the trend line is zero water in the River.
The glaciers are on their way out. That means the trend-line for water volume in the upper reaches of the River is ensured to continue to drop and at an increased rate. Water in the lower reaches of the River is related to precipitation and snow melt, subject to drought and climate change. The science is in the Rosenberg Reports, items #9 and #10 .
The plan is to develop intensive livestock operations in the South Sask River Valley, not just one but more. That helps ensure that the trend-line for flow reduction will hit bottom.
There is a need to conserve the water in the River, obviously. Now look at this ridiculous situation:
SaskWater used to be a Government Department, but now it is a commercial crown corporation. Item #4. The more water SaskWater sells, the more money it makes. And that is the measurement of its success. . . . . Goldarn! Some people will be making lotsa money. Our flawed indicators of “success” (“economic development”, “GDP”) do not measure resource depletion – – with drastic consequences for those who come behind us.
It is insane to deliberately create a situation where you know that, in the not-distant future, there will be fights over who has access to a dwindling water supply, and at what cost. (If you can pay the legal fees for the fight.) I highly recommend that you talk to everyone you can, especially people in local and provincial Government. When the trend line reaches, let’s say, 10% of the 1912 water volume (down from today’s approximately 16%), let yourself imagine how things will be.
All of today’s actions ensure that it will hit 10% of the volume of water in 1912, after which comes 5%. We do not have any measurements or goals that require the volume of water in the River to stabilize. All we have is mindless language around “economic development”.
People in communities
– along the South Saskatchewan River Valley
– in Regina that receives water through Buffalo Pound
– those who are on pipeline feed from the River (there are many, including Kindersley and Rosetown, Humboldt, etc.)
– everyone whose water supply is the South Saskatchewan River
should immediately contact their local Governments about the Intensive Livestock Operations near Outlook, about to be given approval by people who think this is “progress”. They must be stopped. This is indeed an S.O.S. – based on science.
/Sandra
= = = = = = = = = = == == == = = = = = = = = = = = =
(2) THE RURAL MUNICIPALITY OF RUDY WILL MAKE A DECISION WHETHER TO APPROVE THE PROJECT. UMMM . . . WHERE IS THE GOVERNMENT IN ALL THIS?
Intensive Livestock Operation (ILO), water withdrawals from the South Sask River.
Public Meeting, 7:00 pm, Oct 20, Outlook, SK
The River needs to be protected from over-withdrawal of water.
Item #4 is a 2009 newspaper report – the River is the most threatened in Canada. The scientific reports for the South Sask River say there should be no more water allocations for high-volume industrial users.
Earlier reports said that this ILO, if licensed, will put through two crops of animals a year. 36,000 animals per batch. The Oct 14 report (item #5) says 36,000 with no mention whether this is per year or per six-month period. Cheap meat for MacDonald’s hamburgers at the expense of our water supply, at the expense of healthy food, at the expense of local producers who grow healthy meat in a way that is respectful of the animals. The profits go out-of-province.
It is recognized today that projects that will have a major impact on a River require the input from citizens along the length of the River system. There are impacts, in particular for those who are downstream and on pipeline feed from the River. Terrible impacts for next generations.
It is unwise to establish greater dependency on a water supply that is not secure. It is unwise to invest in projects that put more pressure on the water supply.
I am told that the people who were on Committees that green-lighted the ILO’s had no science background, along with the what has become usual conflicts-of-interest.
Concern that the Department of Agriculture is going around showing off land to prospective ILO operators. It was this same Department that set up a $20 bounty on coyotes. 71,000 were killed. It will entirely upset eco-system balance. They don’t have a clue about science.
= = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = == = =
(3) INTENSIVE LIVESTOCK OPERATION, OUTLOOK. WHAT I LEARNED FROM INTENSIVE PORK PRODUCTION: A FEW HOGS LAUGH THEIR WAY TO THE BANK WITH OUR MONEY. WE GET TO PAY THE CLEAN-UP COSTS.
Good grief! Can the Government not learn? They subsidized the hog industry to the hilt with our money, a few guys got rich, they drove small producers out of operation, they polluted waterways, made people sick, we got cheap pork laced with antibiotics and hormones, tasteless to boot. And then the hog industry collapsed. As was predicted would happen.
The hogs at the public trough laughed their way to the bank.
Now here we go again. This time it’s industrial beef production. It will be pretty much the same story all over again. Government loan guarantees, probably money from Crown Investments Corporation. Work your way around regulatory functions. . . . How many times can they dupe us?
And don’t forget: there are no laws in Saskatchewan to prohibit donations to political parties from corporations.
The story, Chapter 1: the ILO’s in North Carolina were driven out because they polluted and depleted local water supplies. They were booted out after the damage was done. The ILO’s then moved to Alberta where they are in the process of being driven out because they polluted and depleted. They are now trying to set up in Saskatchewan, with the blessings and assistance of the Government. In the name of economic prosperity but mostly ignorance.
The story, Chapter 2: They subsidized the intensive cattle industry to the hilt with our money, a few guys got rich, they drove small producers out of operation, they depleted waterways. After the damage was done, people woke up and drove them out. This time they went to . . . the next suckers. The hogs at the public trough laughed their way to the bank.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = == =
(4) WE’RE IN TROUBLE, HONEY. SASKWATER IS NOW A COMMERCIAL CROWN CORPORATION. THE MORE WATER THEY SELL, THE MORE MONEY THEY MAKE. WATER CONSERVATION? … FORGET IT.
I got there because I was surprised to find a “google ad” banner for SaskWater.com on another website.
“SaskWater was re-mandated on October 1, 2002 with the proclamation of The Saskatchewan Water Corporation Act (2002). Through this Act, SaskWater became a self-supporting, commercial Crown corporation.”
We’ve got trouble, honey. The problem in trying to protect the water supply: the water is being sold for profit. And the more they sell, the more money they make. Water conservation? It’s not going to happen.
Damn! Back when they first peeled responsibility for water out into an entity named “SaskWater Corporation” I thought: there is no way for people to know that an entity with this name is actually the Government’s Water Department.
“SaskWater Media Releases
SaskWater Posts Profit In 2009
|
| April 27, 2010 |
|
SaskWater tabled its 2009 Annual Report today in the Saskatchewan Legislature, The theme, Refresh is appropriate, as the province’s water utility embraced a record delivery of potable water, environmental stewardship, and has returned to profiWe’ve got trouble, honey.�
SaskWater had a net income for 2009 of $454,000 which was $573,000 better than target. The corporation invested $17.8 million on capital for new construction and expansion projects, and infrastructure management on existing systems. These projects accommodate increased growth in Saskatchewan communities and existing customer demands.
“SaskWater has achieved profitability and continues to create a positive climate to keep Saskatchewan growing and moving forward,” Minister Responsible for SaskWater Nancy Heppner said. “I am pleased to see how its customers can realize a greatly improved quality of life when they receive high quality drinking water from SaskWater.”
“SaskWater builds upon a strong base of current operations including services to 55 communities, 59 rural pipeline groups and 44 industrial customers providing annual revenues in excess of $20 million for 2009,” Acting SaskWater President Mart Cram said.
In 2009, SaskWater’s total potable water sales volumes increased to a record 5.74 billion litres, which is up from 5.64 billion litres or 1.72% from 2008.
The future looks strong for SaskWater as they continue to expand their services to the municipal market, First Nations communities, and provide expertise to a growing potash industry. “
|
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = =
(5) AN IMPENDING WATER CRISIS IN CANADA’S WESTERN PRAIRIE PROVINCES, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
D. W. Schindler and
W. F. Donahue, February 25, 2006. INCLUDES THE TREND-LINE FOR PERCENTAGE REDUCTION IN FLOW, SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER at Saskatoon (−83.6% from 1912–2003;
P < 0.0001).
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = =
(6) CANADIAN GEOGRAPHIC, October 2010, THE SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER RUNS DRY, ALLAN CASEY
Climate Prosperity The South Saskatchewan River runs dry
The river is the lifeblood of the prairies, but its future flow will be determined by a supply-demand equation — and the math doesn’t look promising
Candace writes: “You might be interested in the article by Alan Casey of Saskatoon about the South Saskatchewan River in the current issue of Canadian Geographic. It clarifies the causes of the flow reductions in the river (turns out that it’s fed mainly by annual snowmelt rather than by the glaciers and that the drain on the system is irrigation in Alberta.) Doesn’t change the big picture, but it’s nice to get these things right.”
Thanks Candace.
From the Rosenberg Reports, as I understand: glacial melt is a factor in water volume in the headwaters of the River. The contribution of glacial melt to the River declines the further you get downstream from the glaciers.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ==
(7) SOUTH SASK RIVER “THE MOST THREATENED” IN THE COUNTRY, STAR PHOENIX, OCTOBER 15, 2009
(the link no longer works)
South Sask. River threatened
River ecosystems throughout Canada in trouble: study
By Mike De Souza, Canwest News ServiceOctober 15, 2009
Serious action is required to keep Canada’s rivers flowing and to prevent them from being drained by expanding cities, soaring energy demands and climate change, says a new report to be released Thursday.
“Flow regimes in some of Canada’s most important rivers, such as the South Saskatchewan and the St. Lawrence, have been modified to the extent that ecosystems are in serious trouble,” said the report, Canada’s Rivers at Risk, produced by WWF-Canada, an environmental organization.
“Soon, many others — including some of the planet’s increasingly scarce, large, free-flowing rivers like the Skeena, the Athabasca and the Mackenzie — could be in trouble, as well, as demands on the waters grow and climate change intensifies.”
The South Saskatchewan River was considered to be the “most threatened river” of the country because of dams and withdrawals of 70 per cent of its flow for agricultural and urban use, not to mention potential climate change impacts.
Overall, the study assessed the flow of 10 Canadian rivers that drain into the Pacific, the Arctic, Hudson Bay and the Atlantic, and the impact of economic development, infrastructure and hydroelectric dams in the water basins. The report compared the process of evaluating the flow of a river to measuring blood pressure in a human in order to assess the country’s water supply and potential threats to both the environment and local industries.
“Nature’s boundaries, not political boundaries, define when and where water flows, and how much is available, both for nature and for people,” said the report. “The water we use — when we turn on the tap for a drink, generate electricity or grow food — is water that we share with all life on earth.”
The report, which did not examine pollution levels, urges federal and provincial governments to work together to establish new measures to prevent major water diversions and promote responsible and sustainable development for new infrastructure projects.
“The challenge for Canada, as one of the world’s water-wealthy nations, is to protect and restore the nations rivers, while playing a leading role in feeding and fuelling an incredibly thirsty and warming world.”
Of the 10 rivers evaluated, the Athabasca and Fraser rivers were considered to be in the best shape, but faced threats from future economic development. The Skeena and Mackenzie rivers were assessed at still having “natural” flows. In Central Canada, the Nipigon, Grand and Ottawa rivers were assessed as “fair,” while to the east, the St. Lawrence and St. John rivers were assessed as “poor.”
Tony Maas, the director of WWF-Canada’s freshwater program, said the study demonstrates that the security of Canada’s natural water supply depends on improving management of the resource in the future.
“We are in a situation in some of these rivers, where we’re coming dangerously close to seriously undermining the health of these rivers by having them dry up,” said Maas in an interview.
© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix
= = = = = = = = = = = = == = ==
(8) THE WORLD WILDLIFE FUND REPORT, CANADA’S RIVERS AT RISK, THE SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN IS THE MOST THREATENED
Canada’s Rivers at Risk, Environmental Flows and Canada’s Freshwater Future
The analysis for the South Saskatchewan River is item #22.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = =
(9) ROSENBERG REPORT, LESSONS FOR CANADA, SEPTEMBER 2006, BANFF
(The two Rosenberg items are based on emails:
SUBJECT: Water, valuable document, Rosenberg Report.
SENT: March 14, 2007 and
SUBJECT: Water, Lessons For Canada, Report 2, Rosenberg International Forum on Water Policy
SENT: March 25, 2007)
Managing Upland Watersheds In An Era Of Global Climate Change
– Banff, Canada September 6-11, 2006
In the centre column of the webpage, click on the first link: “Download the PDF version of the limited edition volume of proceedings …”
The Rosenberg Forum is an excellent discussion of water resources and case studies that are international in scope.
Starting at page 100 there is good information specifically related to the South Saskatchewan River. It is Alberta-based but of course, the River doesn’t know the political boundary between Alberta and Saskatchewan. This part of the proceedings was done by scientists who live in Saskatchewan.
EXCERPT:
However, fluctuating and unpredictable water supply in recent years has stressed the need to make some major shifts in our approach to managing this renewable, but finite, resource.
A “clear set of principles” emerged from consultations to develop the provincial water strategy.
They include (p.6):
• All Albertans must recognize that there are limits to the available water supply.
• Alberta’s water resources must be managed within the capacity of individual
watersheds.
• Knowledge of Alberta’s water supply and quality is the foundation for effective decision making.
Applying these principles to science-based decision making will require estimates of the limits to available water supply and of capacities of individual watersheds. Knowledge of Alberta’s water supply is incomplete without data on trends, variability and extremes — and thereby limits and capacities — derived from observation and modelling of hydroclimate over time frames that extend before and beyond our short experience with hydrologic systems.
Most sectors, agencies and communities are aware of and concerned about the potential impacts of climate change on water resources, but few are making decisions based on scenarios of trends and variability generated from climate models or from records that extend beyond the length of instrumental records. Operational decisions about reservoir storage, irrigation, flood and drought mitigation, and hydro-power production are based on water-supply forecasts from statistical and simulation models that are derived and calibrated using instrumental data from monitoring networks (Pagano et al. 2005; Chiew et al. 2003). This standard forecasting methodology has limited application to long-term water planning and policy-making because most instrumental records generally are too short to capture the decadal and longer-term variation in regional climate and hydrology.
Whereas water policy tends to reflect mean hydroclimatic conditions (thus the different philosophies and mechanisms between wet and dry climates), water management overcomes differences in water supply between years and places. The management of water in the Western interior is essentially a process of redistributing the runoff from source areas with excess water (i.e. the Rocky Mountains and Prairie uplands, e.g. the Cypress Hills) to the adjacent water-deficient plains that constitute most of Canada’s farmland. In most years, the supply of water from the mountains and uplands is high relative to the water deficit on the plains. However, this gap becomes precariously small during years of drought — such as 2001, when there were serious -103-
economic consequences resulting in adjustments to water policy and management (Alberta Environment n.d.; Wheaton et al. 2005).
If headwaters are managed for water consumption on the plains, key information for long-rangeplanning purposes includes the anticipated water supply in the mountains, and demand on the plains. This paper describes research on the stream hydrology and paleoclimatology of this region.
This work suggests that current perceptions of water scarcity and variability may be skewed by observation and experience of the 20th century, which may be unrepresentative of both natural and future hydroclimate. The extensive wastage of glacier ice from the Rocky Mountains will have increased local streamflow above the net income of annual precipitation, but it is almost certain that this effect is in decline as the glaciers retreat rapidly towards their Holocene minima (Demuth and Pietroniro 2001). Furthermore, climate-change scenarios suggest that a significantly larger proportion of winter precipitation will fall as rain as opposed to snow (Lapp et al. 2005). This hydrologic regime, with less natural storage, should increase the drought sensitivity of water supplies. According to records and models of pre- and post-20th-century climate as described below, the 21st century will almost certainly include droughts of greater severity and duration than those previously observed and experienced by Euro-Canadians in western Canada.
Recent Trends and Future Projections
A recent study by Alberta Environment (Pietroniro et al. 2006a) comprises three major investigations of recent and potential future trends in water resources within the headwater catchments of the Nelson River basin. The first focuses on cataloguing glacial extents within the North and South Saskatchewan river basins (NSRB and SSRB), using legacy Earth Observation data (Demuth and Pietroniro 2001). A second component examines streamflow records for evidence of trends and variability related to changes in glacial extent. The third component involves hydrological modelling of change in flow regime under future climate/glacier-cover configurations. Combined, these analyses provide an assessment of the impacts that climate change may impose on the “water towers” of the Canadian Prairies . . . etc.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
(10) ROSENBERG INTERNATIONAL FORUM ON WATER POLICY TO ALBERTA ENVIRONMENT, FEBRUARY 2007
Click on the second PDF link.
REPORT OF THE ROSENBERG INTERNATIONAL
FORUM ON WATER POLICY TO THE MINISTRY
OF ENVIRONMENT, PROVINCE OF ALBERTA
February 2007
Rosenberg International Forum on Water Policy
University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources
324 Giannini Hall
University of California, Berkeley 2
EXCERPT:
FOREWARD
The Rosenberg International Forum on Water Policy is an activity of the University of California created through an endowment gift from the Bank of America in honor of Richard Rosenberg on the occasion of his retirement as Chairman of the Bank. The overarching theme of the Forum is: To reduce conflict in the management of water resources. The Forum pursues two objectives in an effort to address this theme. The first is to emphasize the role of science in water management and in the making of water policy. The second is to promote interaction between scientists and policy makers for the purpose of facilitating the use of science in the making and executing of water policy. These objectives are accomplished through the biennial meetings of the Rosenberg Forum where approximately 50 water scholars and senior water managers from around the globe have an opportunity for discourse on a variety of topics which are pertinent to contemporary global water problems.
The Advisory Committee of the Rosenberg International Forum has recently launched a second activity subsumed under the general title of “Regional Rosenberg Workshops.” The concept of the Workshop entails the convening of a small, international expert panel to consider a regional water problem or problems and offer scientific advice about the nature of the problem and the ways in which it might be addressed. This document is the report of the first of these Regional Rosenberg Workshops. This Workshop was convened at the request of the Minister of the Environment, Province of Alberta, Canada. The Minister and the Ministry sought advice on two questions. The panel was asked first to review the Alberta water strategy, Water for Life, and make recommendations as to how it could be strengthened both as a strategic document and in the implementation of various measures that make up that strategy. Second, in recognition of the increasing importance of groundwater in Alberta’s water budget, the panel was asked to review the existing arrangements for governing and managing groundwater in the Province and make recommendations about how those arrangements could be further strengthened and improved.
The Rosenberg International Forum on Water Policy convened a distinguished international panel of experts with appropriate disciplinary backgrounds and experience. . . .”
FROM 2007:
The Rosenberg Report stresses the need for a “holistic” approach. It documents the lack of data. There is no data on cumulative human withdrawals from underground aquifers. In Saskatchewan we have 100 monitoring wells for underground water when we should have at least a thousand.
“Water Supply Expansion” and various other programmes are a recipe for THE CREATION of future water shortages, if they are done in ignorance of current and un-coordinated cumulative withdrawals. The funding should be stopped. Instead the money should be used for the data that the Rosenberg Report identifies is missing – so we actually have a clue about what we are doing.
Nor is it acceptable that Agriculture Canada (and the Saskatchewan Dept of Agriculture) are merrily handing out money to groups outside Government to make decisions about the water supply. (INSERT: like the Rural Municipality of Rudy.) Programmes about water DO NOT belong inside the Department of Agriculture.
There may be a historical precedent, but the Rosenberg Report also identifies that we urgently require a new ethic.
From the experience with what is happening around the North Saskatchewan River, another unacceptable feature of the “due process” that happens when responsibility for water is handed outside Government through funding programmes such as this National Water Supply Expansion Program (Ag Canada):
– the “public consultation” meetings did not include a presentation of what “the plan” is,
– nor would it have disclosed WHO is behind the study, except that the audience became unco-operative
– the public consultation meetings have been carried out by “Partner Investors”. The Partner Investor conducting the meetings is the accounting firm Myers Norris Penny.
– this is all done with tax-payers’ money.
It is impossible to have due process with the conflicts-of-interest. We must insist that the Government takes back its responsibility, accountability for, and regulatory function vis-à-vis water in Canada.
This Rosenberg Report, again, gives us what we need to insist that the Governments get it right on water. As a society and for the future, we cannot afford to get it wrong.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ==
(11) FEEDLOT DEVELOPMENT IN SASKATCHEWAN: A CASE STUDY, 2002
Julie Simpson (306-867-8892) from Outlook designed a blog, (Link no longer valid)
www.rudyratepayers.ca . You are invited to view the information.
Julie writes: (In relation to: (Link no longer valid) http://www.csale.usask.ca/PDFDocuments/feedlotDevelopSK.pdf )
Feedlot Development In Saskatchewan:
A Case Study of the Outlook and Riverhurst Irrigation Districts
“This ‘case study’ was written April 1, 2002 and it had a number of reasons why ILO’s were not coming into Saskatchewan, specifically the irrigated areas of Saskatchewan. It is a 71 page study so there is a lot of reading . . .
While I don’t agree with parts of the study, they do give some potentially helpful information. Hopefully, people will find it useful.”
Note: I skimmed the report. As far as I could see, it has a fairly narrow base of input, certainly not representative of the people who depend on the River for their water supply.
Sue Peterson from the Safe Drinking Water Foundation did investigation into some of the “science”, I don’t know if it included the preceding – – it was pretty bad. Conclusions based on interviews with a handful of farmers who thought that ILO’s were the way to go. If there is more information I’ll get it to you.
