i

INTER-BASIN WATER TRANSFER AND ITS ROLE IN MODERN

SOCIETY: A NON-TECHNICAL AND TECHNICAL REVIEW

by

Simon Dagher

Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics

McGill University, Montreal

June, 2012

A 15-CREDIT PROJECT SUBMITTED TO MCGILL UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULLFILMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ENGINEERING

i

ii

ABSTRACT

Inter-basin water transfer (IBWT) is the practice of moving or exporting bulk water volumes between adjacent or

distant water-basins. It is currently being applied to hydroelectric projects, irrigation schemes and for municipal

water supply. There is concern that IBWT projects may increase in magnitude in terms of scale and importance, to

the point where entire States or regions may depend on them. The issue from a philosophical perspective

addresses the commoditization of water in the context of IBWT. The historical, legal, economic, institutional and

political discussion addresses the difficulties that Canadian governments face to effectively protect their fresh

water resources from export. Three IBWT case studies are explored. A feasibility study of potential IBWT projects is

undertaken from an engineering perspective. Canadian water resources are scrutinized to identify potential water

extraction locations. Three proposals are described and studied: 1) exporting water using pressurized pipelines into

the water-stressed Ogallala aquifer of the Southern-States, 2) reversing river flows to supplement the Great Lakes

Basin, and 3) using trans-oceanic water tankers for fresh water export. Each proposal is rated depending on their

potential environmental impacts (hydrologic disruptions, greenhouse emissions), social impacts, and by their

potential costs and benefits. It was found that the pipeline proposal was the most beneficial of the three options,

yet all three would be neither economically nor environmentally feasible.

Key Words: Inter-basin water transfer, IBWT, water exportation, water supply, water law.

iii

iv

RÉSUMÉ

Les transferts massifs d’eau entre basin-versants est la pratique de déplacer ou exporter des gros

volumes d'eau entre des bassins adjacents ou éloignés. C’est habituellement utilisé dans des projets

d’hydroélectricité, d'irrigation et d'approvisionnement d’eau municipale. Il y a un potentiel que les

projets de transferts massifs pourraient augmenter, à un niveau en termes d'échelle et d'importance, où

des régions entières peuvent en dépendre. La question d'un point de vue philosophique traite la

marchandisation de l'eau dans le contexte de transfert massif. La discussion se poursuit en examinent

les développements historique, économique, institutionnel, politique et les difficultés que les

gouvernements canadiens sont confrontés à protéger efficacement leurs ressources en eau douce de

l'exportation. Suite à cette étude de faisabilité est un point de vue technique. Les ressources d’eaux du

Canada sont ciblées pour identifier les sites potentiels d'extraction. Trois propositions sont décrites: 1)

exporter de l'eau en utilisant des canalisations sous pression dans l'aquifère Ogallala des États du Sud,

ayant un stress hydrique, 2) inverser l’écoulement de rivières pour alimenter le bassin des Grands Lacs,

et 3) en utilisant des citernes d'eau transocéaniques pour l'exportation. Chaque proposition est évaluée

en fonction de leurs impacts potentiels sur l'environnement (perturbations hydrologiques, émissions à

effet de serre), les impacts sociaux, et par leurs coûts et avantages potentiels. Il a été constaté que le

projet de canalisation sous pression a été le plus bénéfique de ces trois options, cependant tous les trois

ne seraient pas économiquement ou écologiquement faisable.

Mots clés: transfert d'eau entre bassins, TDEB, l'exportation de l'eau, l'approvisionnement en eau, loi sur

l'eau.

v

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am extremely appreciative for the involvement of my supervisor, Professor Susan Gaskin. The

continued support and assistance made this project possible.

Thank you to the professionals that accepted to lend their thoughts and ideas in an interview: Professor

Murray Clamen, Chris Wood, Dr. K.J.A. Grant and Dr. Hugo Tremblay.

I would like to thank Deena Yanofsky of the geography library for help in accessing important data.

Thanks to my friends and family who have supported me throughout.

vii

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................................... ii

RÉSUMÉ ........................................................................................................................................................ iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................ vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................................. viii

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................................... xii

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................xiii

CHAPTER 1 .................................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1

Inter-basin water transfers in modern society ..................................................................................... 3

1.1 Project overview ................................................................................................................................. 3

CHAPTER 2 .................................................................................................................................................... 5

IBWT and Society ...................................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 What are the trends in the global water supply? ............................................................................... 5

2.1.1 Global Water Issues ..................................................................................................................... 5

2.1.2 Preparing and responding to global water scarcity ................................................................... 10

2.2 Philosophical nature of the issue ...................................................................................................... 11

2.2.1 Wasted water ............................................................................................................................. 11

2.2.2 Justified environmental impacts ................................................................................................ 11

2.2.3 Canadian water: abundance or surplus? ................................................................................... 14

2.2.4 Valuing versus commoditising water ......................................................................................... 15

2.3 Water transfers and exports in Canadian society ............................................................................. 16

2.3.1 Timeline: Inter-basin water transfer and Water Policy in Canada ............................................. 17

2.3.2 Early days of Canadian water policy & the boundary water commissions: 1900 to 1950s ....... 18

2.3.3 The ambitious era: late 1950s to 1970s. .................................................................................... 19

2.3.4 The free-trade era: 1980s to 1999 ............................................................................................. 22

2.3.5 The Federal Strategy: 1999 to early 2000s ................................................................................ 24

2.3.6 Current situation and difficulties ............................................................................................... 26

CHAPTER 3 .................................................................................................................................................. 31

ix

Case Studies ............................................................................................................................................ 31

3.1 Australian case study: Kimberley to Perth ............................................................................................ 31

3.1.1 Political perspective: a complete study by Australian water authorities ...................................... 34

Transport methods ............................................................................................................................. 35

3.1.2 Pipeline method ............................................................................................................................. 35

Source options .................................................................................................................................... 35

Routes variants ................................................................................................................................... 36

Other considerations .......................................................................................................................... 37

3.1.3 Oceanic transport method ............................................................................................................. 40

Source options .................................................................................................................................... 40

Conveyance method ........................................................................................................................... 41

Results from GWA (2006) study .......................................................................................................... 42

Conflicting Perspectives ...................................................................................................................... 42

3.2 Québec's northern water: Eastmain-1-A, Sarcelle powerhouses and Rupert River diversions............ 44

Project Description .............................................................................................................................. 44

3.2.1 The Required Environmental Impact Statement ........................................................................... 45

Controversies ...................................................................................................................................... 46

Cree Opposition .................................................................................................................................. 47

3.2.2 Engineering Aspects ....................................................................................................................... 48

Variants ............................................................................................................................................... 48

Hydraulic structures ............................................................................................................................ 50

3.3 Colorado Big-Thompson project ........................................................................................................... 53

3.3.1 A working water market ................................................................................................................ 54

CHAPTER 4 .................................................................................................................................................. 57

Water Transfer Proposals ........................................................................................................................... 57

4.1 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 57

Step 1 - Extraction zone .......................................................................................................................... 57

Step 2 - Consumption Zone ..................................................................................................................... 58

Step 3 - Conveyance Method .................................................................................................................. 60

Step 4 - Refining the options ............................................................................................................... 61

Step 5 - Evaluation of Impacts, Inhibitors and Benefits .......................................................................... 61

(Aspect 1) expected environmental impacts ...................................................................................... 62

x

(Aspect 2) socio/economic impacts .................................................................................................... 65

(Aspect 3) expected gains ................................................................................................................... 65

4.2 Results ................................................................................................................................................... 66

4.2.1 Pipeline Proposals .......................................................................................................................... 67

Source: Laird and Nelson Rivers .......................................................................................................... 67

Destination: Consumption Sites .......................................................................................................... 68

Conveyance: Pipelines ........................................................................................................................ 70

Hydrology ........................................................................................................................................... 74

Pipe thickness and other design specifications .................................................................................. 76

Summary of Proposal 1 ....................................................................................................................... 77

4.2.2 Proposal 2: Augmenting the Great Lakes by river reversal............................................................ 78

Destination: Supplementing the Great Lakes Reservoir ..................................................................... 78

Conveyance: Engineered River Works ................................................................................................ 80

Hydrology ........................................................................................................................................... 83

Summary of proposal 2 ....................................................................................................................... 83

4.2.3 Proposal 3: International Export via Tanker-ships ......................................................................... 84

Hydrology ............................................................................................................................................ 84

Source and Destination ....................................................................................................................... 84

Summary of Proposal 3 ....................................................................................................................... 86

4.3 Evaluation and discussion ..................................................................................................................... 88

4.3.1 Environmental Impacts .................................................................................................................. 88

4.3.2 Socio/Economic impacts ................................................................................................................ 91

4.3.3 Expected gains ............................................................................................................................... 92

4.3.4 Comparison .................................................................................................................................... 93

CHAPTER 5 .................................................................................................................................................. 94

5.2 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 94

5.1 Future Studies ................................................................................................................................... 97

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 99

APPENDIX A Results from GWA (2006) ..................................................................................................... 104

APPENDIX B Canada’s Large River Flow Visualization (NRCAN, 1978) ..................................................... 105

APPENDIX C STELLA Results ...................................................................................................................... 107

APPENDIX D Albany River hydraulic structure parameters ...................................................................... 116

xi

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Visual representation of increase in scale (adapted from NRCAN, 2003) ...................................... 2

Figure 2 Representative Canadian Shield landscape in Quebec (Coordinates 49.497162,-74.613274) ...... 9

Figure 3 North American watershed map. ................................................................................................. 15

Figure 4 Future water supply versus demand in the Perth Metropolitan Area ......................................... 33

Figure 5 Traditional supply versus new options for Perth region ............................................................... 34

Figure 6 Elevation profile of pipeline (from Water Corporation (2004)) .................................................... 37

Figure 7 Source point variants .................................................................................................................... 40

Figure 8 Mooring facility loads the cargo vessel with water (GWA, 2006) ................................................. 41

Figure 9 Floating water bags (GWA, 2006) ................................................................................................. 41

Figure 10 Plan view of C-1 dam (HQ, 2004) ................................................................................................ 51

Figure 11 Cross section of typical dyke showing fill constituents (HQ, 2004) ............................................ 52

Figure 12 Liard River source (source map : NRCAN, 2003) ......................................................................... 68

Figure 13 Nelson River source (source map: NRCAN, 2003)....................................................................... 68

Figure 14 Satellite image of conveyance path ............................................................................................ 71

Figure 15 Elevation profile of Liard River .................................................................................................... 74

Figure 16 Elevation profile of Nelson River ................................................................................................ 74

Figure 17 Plan view of Albany proposal (source map: NRCAN, 2003) ........................................................ 81

Figure 18 Albany river elevation diagram. .................................................................................................. 82

Figure 19 Section 3 of Albany proposal ...................................................................................................... 82

Figure 20 Section 10 of Albany proposal .................................................................................................... 82

Figure 21 Source site for tanker exportation (source map: NRCAN, 2003) ................................................ 85

Figure 22 Conveyance path of Koksoak and Churchill proposals ............................................................... 86

Figure 23 Conveyance path of Skeena proposal towards Japan and China ............................................... 86

Figure 24 Comparing the performance evaluation score results for each of the three aspects. ............... 93

xiii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Summary and purpose of Case studies .......................................................................................... 31

Table 2 Categories for expected environmental impacts (negative) .......................................................... 63

Table 3 Categories for socio/economic inhibitors (negative) ..................................................................... 65

Table 4 Categories for expected gains (positive) ........................................................................................ 66

Table 5 Tanker-ship details ......................................................................................................................... 87

Table 6 Aspect 1: Environmental Impacts .................................................................................................. 88

Table 7 Aspect 2: Socio/Economic impacts ................................................................................................ 91

Table 8 Aspect 3: Expected gains ................................................................................................................ 92

1

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Inter-basin water transfer (IBWT) is the practice of moving bulk water volumes between adjacent or

distant water-basins. This is typically done to augment the available water resources in an area of

scarcity by introducing water from an area of surplus. For centuries, if not millennia, man has been

transferring water by diverting and reworking natural watercourses. This has enabled water demanding

human settlements to develop in locations with little local water resources but other desirable

attributes. These transfers have been done typically using a small scale application of collection,

conveyance, and discharge technology.

IBWT started with ancient aqueducts using the force of gravity to transfer the water, it has now evolved

to incorporate new technologies powered by pumps and turbines. Today, water is moved with cargo

ships, dams and river diversions, or through pipelines and canals. This technology has a wide range of

applications: from irrigating dry plains, to augmenting water volumes in reservoirs for hydroelectricity

projects.

There is concern that IBWT projects may increase by an order of magnitude in terms of scale and

importance. As many governing bodies are starting to feel the pressure of water scarcity issues, many

experts (Ghassemi & White, 2007; Pierre Gingras, 2010; Lasserre, 2005; Barlow, 2007) are anticipating

that IBWT will, for the first time, be regarded as a possible method to ensure a steady water supply for

large regions. It is expected that the conventional and common practice of moving water between

adjacent small river-basins will potentially grow to a practice of moving much larger volumes, much

greater distances. These transfers could occur between the largest oceanic watersheds in order to

satisfy the demand of large regions and their municipalities, industries and agriculture. If the transfer

2

occurs between countries, it can be referred to as a water export. Thus, IBWT could soon be integrated

into the water supply strategy of entire provinces or states, if not countries. Figure 1 shows the

anticipated increase in scale.

Figure 1 Visual representation of increase in scale (adapted from NRCAN, 2003)

At present, large scale oceanic watershed transfers are not being used in either Canada’s or the United

States’ strategy for water supply; nor has water been exported in appreciable amounts between the two

countries. Four lines of reasoning provide the explanation. (1) There is a lack of practical feasibility:

water is very heavy thus transporting it over long distances would be very energy demanding (Wood,

2011; Grant, 2011). Once losses due to leaks and the cost of new infrastructure requirements are

factored in, it will not be economically viable. (2) Traditional alternatives are still considered to be the

better and cheaper option. 3) The anticipated and unpredictable environmental impacts, especially in

more remote areas, could not be justified in a modern water supply strategy. (4) Finally, considering the

various environmental protection legislation, trade laws, and general politics, governments simply will

not support it. (Richer, 2007; Wood, 2011; Tremblay, 2011).

3

Despite these four compelling reasons, the controversial idea of large-scale IBWT, and water export has

arisen numerous times in news stories (Jolicoeur, 2010; Morgan, 2010; Maich 2005). On one side, some

engineers are still advocating for it (Kierans, 2012; Olechnowicz, 2010; Pierre Gingras, 2010), on the

other side environmentalists are warning that it is a looming threat. However, due to the development

of new technologies and pressing global water scarcity issues, IBWT may become economically feasible

and acceptable as a solution to regional water scarcity.

Inter-basin water transfers in modern society

The question thus becomes: in our world of changing climate, shifting demographics, relentlessly

increasing economies, and damaged eco-systems, can and should long distance water transfer play a

role in water supply within society for the next generations?

Historically, politicians, the public, and those involved in environmental protection have been

emphatically against IBWT. This sentiment, held by Canadians for a few generations, is also found across

the globe, as long distance water transfer is increasingly being pushed as a possible alternative to ensure

a steady water supply (Ghassemi & White, 2007).

Will IBWT always be rejected? Unfortunately, protection of the environment, even when supported by

entities with power and credibility, is often over-ruled in favour of economic development. There are

numerous examples where vested interests, usually of an economic or political origin, have overridden

any sort of long-term preservation commitment.

1.1 Project overview

In the literature, inter-basin water transfer in North America has been discussed and argued against

mostly from a non-technical standpoint. Humanitarians, environmentalists, journalists, and geographers

have contributed to this cause; yet not much is heard from those who are ultimately responsible for

4

actually conceptualizing and building the physical structures needed, the engineers. Thus, this project

will extend the argument and begin the discussion as to why, from an engineering and technological

standpoint, it is not an appropriate long-term solution.

The second chapter of this project discusses the non-technical aspects. It is based on interviews and an

extensive literature review. The idea of potentially turning water into a profitable commodity brings up

wide philosophical questions of how we define natural water, and how we place a value on it. Very few

people would disagree that water is a human right. This implies that governments should be committed

to ensuring access to clean water and sanitation. Must economic imperatives be the driving factors to

fulfill these commitments? The issue from a philosophical, historical, legal, macro-economic,

institutional and political perspective will be discussed.

The third chapter explores a few relevant case studies of IBWT. Actual real-world water transfer

projects and proposals are discussed and a list of “lessons learnt” is developed, that are applied in the

subsequent chapter.

The fourth chapter attempts to address, from an unbiased approach, the question of whether IBWT

projects should be pursued, considering the engineering and technological feasibility of IBWT projects.

After assessing the quantity of water resources available throughout North America, and identifying

where water resources are abundant versus where they are or will be scarce, several hypothetical IBWT

proposals are developed. The proposals will describe water transfer paths and methods of conveyance,

and the types of hydraulic structures required. Following this, a systematic and qualitative evaluation,

of the potential environmental impacts, social implications, obstacles and benefits of each proposal, will

be undertaken. These evaluations will be compared and discussed with respect to their feasibility. The

report will conclude with a summary of the ideas presented and suggestions for future work.

5

CHAPTER 2

IBWT and Society

2.1 What are the trends in the global water supply?

Inter-basin water transfer (IBWT) is an extreme method to secure a water supply, having large impacts.

Current and future problems of freshwater supply must be understood, in order to consider IBWT as a

possible component of future global water supply. Statistics and trends of global water scarcity issues

from the literature are presented, and IBWT is discussed in light of these issues.

2.1.1 Global Water Issues

Maude Barlow's book, Blue Covenant: The Global Water Crisis and the Coming Battle Over the Right to

Water (Barlow, 2007) describes how the momentum of water issues has developed globally.

“At this stage the world is facing a water crisis due to pollution, climate change and a surging

population growth of such magnitude that close to 2 billion people are now living in water stressed

regions of the world. Further, unless we change our ways, by the year 2025, two thirds of the

world's population will face water scarcity. The global population tripled in the mid-20th century,

but water consumption went up a sevenfold. By 2050, after we add another 3 billion to the

population, humans will need an 80% increase in water supplies just to feed ourselves. No one

knows where this water is going to come from.”

Important global statistics, indicating the importance of good water resources management are given in

Blue Covenant. 40 % of the world population lacks access to proper sanitation, resulting in large

outbreaks of waterborne diseases. Contaminated water is implicated in 80% of all sickness and disease

worldwide. 50% of hospital beds are occupied by people with an easily preventable waterborne disease.

Every 80 seconds a child dies from drinking contaminated water. Water shortages exacerbate the poor

6

conditions leading to these statistics. Barlow stresses that water shortages are not limited to developing

nations. Australia, a highly developed country, is also one of the driest countries and is facing major

water shortages. Development and reduced rainfalls have, for example, led to increases in the salinity of

soils and desertification, while rivers have been unsustainably drained.

In Barlow's book (2007), the commoditization of water resources, and the struggle between the

traditional methods of sharing water (public sharing of the commons), versus the for-profit privatization

of water distribution are extensively discussed. She identifies the involvement of the largest

corporations, world banks, and international institutions like the UN and WTO in making water a

commodity to be sold on an open market.

The basic argument is that, with the privatization of water, the priority of supplying water universally as

a human right will shift to accommodate only those who can pay. Environmentalists, rights activists,

farmers, grassroots communities and other groups are encouraged to push for more global water

justice—water as a human right and fair sharing of water as part of the global commons.

The commercial market forces, which Barlow has discussed, play a crucial role in creating the pressure

needed for large, continental scale engineering projects, such as IBWT, to be adopted. Those with an

active role in environmental protection and preservation, both individuals and collective organizations,

will also attempt to influence IBWT development. However, a historical analysis suggests that long term

solutions are often over-ridden by short term economic analysis driven by market pressure, potential

profits or political expediency.

Barlow's grim vision of a corporate controlled water supply would suggest that if water is controlled by

those whose only aim is profit, if IBWT is the cheapest supply, it would be difficult to stop IBWT

development regardless of social resistance or the environmental impacts.

7

***

Dry spring: the coming water crisis of North America, a book written by Chris Wood (Wood, 2008), is

another popular book on the water crisis, with a special focus on North America.

“It's a problem of distribution, both geographic and temporal. Water is available in the wrong

place, or the wrong occasion, with the wrong form for economic convenience. There is either too

much water or too little, but seldom water in amounts Goldilocks would call "just right."

Abundance flows where few of us choose to live; supplies are tight where we flock.” (Wood, 2008)

If there was to be a compelling reason for inter-basin water transfer, it would to address the issue of

temporal and spatial variation in the distribution of water resources. IBWT is used to hold and then

distribute the water across the land. It serves to compensate for the differences between dry and wet

places, and dry and wet seasons.

Wood (2008) makes it clear that the problem of distributing water to where settlements have been

established has been a problem since civilisations have developed. However it will become more acute

due to the anthropogenic damage to the environment, and particularly due to climate change. However,

Wood (2008) does seem to be optimistic, urging us to build resiliency into our systems:

“[We must] equip ourselves for the widest conceivable range of future conditions with strategies

and investments that perform well in high water and low, as well as during wild swings between

the two.”

Wood acknowledges that the United States and Canada have taken certain measures to moderate the

increases in their use of all resources, particularly water. In the last 20 years, despite population

increases, water consumption has remained constant or at least level with economic development.

8

However, water consumption is still too great, and water use intensity can be increased to delay a need

for an increase in water supply. For example, domestic water supply infrastructure can be maintained

or replaced to reduce unaccounted for water (water leaked from the system).

A discussion of water conservation measures is beyond the scope of this report. The worst case scenario

is considered here, where there are no new conservation measures and hence additional water supply is

required. This is a realistic scenario given trends in urban migration and agricultural practices, and due

to the threat of reduced precipitation due to climate change. This provides the motivation for this study.

The goal is to determine if IBWT can be designed so that developments are sustainable and ecosystems

can be preserved.

***

Agnew and Woodhouse (2011) in Water Resources and Development analyses the unequal global

distribution of water and studies the North American case in detail. He describes the implications of

withdrawing water from a fossil source as compared to a renewable source.

Figure 2 shows a satellite image of Quebec, 200 km north of Montreal. This is representative of the

regions of Canada, including most of Quebec, that lie on the Canadian Shield, where the landscape is

dotted with wetlands, lakes, ponds and rivers. However most of this freshwater was deposited during

the recession of the last glacial period, about 10,000 years ago. The Great Lakes were formed by

continental glaciers during the whole of the last glacial period. Today, they contain 99% fossil water

with only 1% of their volume renewed with inflows from streams and rivers and outflow through the St.

Lawrence River towards the Atlantic Ocean. The United-States’ greatest aquifer, that spans across eight

states, was also created during the last glacial period.

9

Figure 2 Representative Canadian Shield landscape in Quebec (Coordinates 49.497162,-74.613274)

Water scarcity arises because water sources are being exploited at rates greater than they are being

replenished. This is particularly acute for fossil sources which are not replenished by the present

hydrological cycle. This is clearly not sustainable as has been demonstrated by the many dried up lakes,

and rivers and the aquifers with dropping water tables (with pumps running dry).

The availability of water across the globe is not only governed by geographic distributions of water and

precipitation rates, but also by factors which depend on the level of development in the country (Agnew

& Woodhouse, 2011). Consider the energy rich and water poor countries of the Middle East: vast sums

of money (at least currently) are spent on desalinating water to create artificial water reserves.

Developed countries can implement long-term planning and can invest in preserving and maintaining

natural flows of water contributing to their water security strategy. The lack of clean water in poorer

countries is often due to political corruption and inefficiencies, rather than with the geographic

availability of freshwater resources.

***

The implications of not addressing these water issues are explored in Plan B: rescuing a planet under

stress and a civilization in trouble by Lester R. Brown (2003). Two factors are identified that will most

affect food production (which has the greatest direct impact on human well-being): rising temperatures

and falling water tables. This is best exemplified by China, a region with unprecedented agricultural

activity where water tables are falling at alarming rates.

10

Brown (2003) identifies food production as the most vulnerable economic sector to water issues. If food

output cannot keep up with demand, prices will rise and food will become a national security issue.

There is a close link from water to food production and energy security and on to the stability of

civilisations.

***

The common theme in these references is that water scarcity is increasing. Water scarcity was

described by the World Water Council in 2010:

“While the world’s population tripled in the twentieth century, the use of renewable water

resources has grown sixfold. Within the next 50 years, the world population will increase by

another 40 to 50 percent. This population growth—coupled with industrialization and

urbanization-- will result in an increasing demand for water with serious consequences on the

environment”

How will individual nations and their water supply agencies respond to these challenges?

2.1.2 Preparing and responding to global water scarcity

In response to this reality, Ghassemi and White (2007) identify that, although water professionals have

been advocating for a change in water resources management for four decades, they have not

implemented any changes in approach or management. Policy makers, scientists, and engineers are for

the most part still using historical data and traditional methods to ensure an adequate water supply.

There is no need to abandon traditional ways of supplying and conserving water, however water

resources management strategy must be re-evaluated in order to prepare for new challenges imposed

by increasing population, increasing industrialisation and the effects of climate change.

11

This project responds to this need, it opens up the dialogue on an unconventional water supply strategy.

There is little doubt that massive scale water transfer projects are unrealistic at present. However, those

most affected by water scarcity issues will eventually face desperate times. If Canada, a place rightly

considered as having an abundant supply, is to defend and protect its water resources, all possible

proposals and options need to be considered and debated.

2.2 Philosophical nature of the issue

2.2.1 Wasted water

The idea behind inter-basin water transfer is to stop, store and divert freshwater that is on its way into

the ocean. If left to its natural course, the freshwater would be lost as it mixes with saltwater in the

many deltas, bays, gulfs and estuaries of the coastal regions. Inter-basin transfer holds or diverts

freshwater so that it is not ‘wasted’ as it flows into the ocean (seawater).

The questions that present themselves are as follows: Is it really wasted? Does water on its way to the

ocean belong to us as a commodity to be used in our ever increasing urban centers and agricultural

fields? Or does free running freshwater belong to the ecosystems, even as it drains into the sea?

Therein lies the controversy of and the sensitivity to considering water as a commodity or a tradable

resource. Water has a vital role in the ecosystem, whereas all other resources either have a lesser (e.g.

timber) or a non-existent role (e.g. minerals, petrol). If we exhaust our nickel reserves, our only concern

will be to think of another way to strengthen steel. If we run low on clean water, the consequences are

far more disastrous.

2.2.2 Justified environmental impacts

IBWT involves removing water from its natural course. Thus, the environmental question must address

the importance of maintaining natural discharge rates along rivers and at the mouths of rivers. Assessing

12

the environment’s sensitivity to change should be done on a case-by-case basis. Given the typical

biodiversity and activity of major rivers, especially at estuaries, the importance of preservation should

not be underestimated (Linton, 2002).

IBWT will have the following environmental impacts: changes to the hydrologic regime, and impacts on

the local climate, ecosystem and the biological activity (Linton, 2002; Sasseville & Abdessalem, 2005).

Therefore, in light of this and due to the uncertainties as to the severity of the environmental impacts,

some professionals advocate taking a precautionary approach unless it can be proven that the volume of

water is not needed by the ecosystem (Clamen, 2011). That is, the prudent thing is to not do IBWT

projects.

Conversely, some experts warn against having an automatic and dogmatic condemnation of engineering

projects simply because they remove water and because the impacts are uncertain and unavoidable.

“[The prevalent problem, especially in the developed world] is the knee-jerk reactions of certain activist

groups, that large-scale water development is no longer necessary, and that water requirements of the

future can be taken care of by small scale projects like rain-water harvesting and local wells. It is difficult

to have sympathy for such dogmatic views.” (Ghassemi & White, 2007). Ghassemi & White (2007) stress

that solutions cannot be generalized and that it is important to judge each case by its site-specific

conditions. The two alternatives, small and large projects, may co-exist—they are not necessarily

mutually exclusive. They conclude that it is important to redirect the question away from whether large

projects involving dams, diversions and pumps should be built, to how these can be done economically,

safely, and within social and environmental acceptability.

Pierre Gingras and M.K. Gagnon (2010) in L’eau du Nord condemn this knee-jerk reaction towards

engineering projects such as IBWT. They claim that as the water is not removed from the hydrological

cycle, nor polluted, it should be available to be used for economic benefit. A similar sentiment was

13

expressed by Kazimir Olechnowicz, the president of the Canadian civil engineering giant CIMA+ during a

Radio-Canada news interview (Olechnowicz, 2010).

This issue can be explored using a utilitarian perspective. If water is to be recognized as a universal

human right, measures must be taken to supply it. Supplying water inevitably has environmental

impacts. For example, tapping fossil groundwater can cause ground subsidence. Similarly, lakes often

have only a small percentage of their total volume as renewable inflows and hence are not appropriate

to supply increasing demands. There are impacts associated with damming and impounding rivers, such

as interrupting the sediment and nutrient cycle and causing river regime changes. Desalination plants

emit greenhouse gases and a dense saline waste (Wood, 2008). Given these inevitable impacts, and the

growing freshwater demand from increasing populations, the available options for various scenarios

should be measured to establish which option has the least cumulative environmental impacts relative

to the reliability of the water supply.

Compared to conventional methods, IBWT has several advantages. First, there would be a reduction in

the number of local impacts on society, as the impacts would be concentrated where there are only

sparse populations as that is where there is excess water availability. The impacts of IBWT can be better

managed and controlled given their consolidated nature. These are general guidelines and the best

course of action can only be found using site specific data and environmental conditions. The impacts

are a question of scale, both spatial and temporal (Lasserre, 2005). How large an impact is too large?

How can we measure impacts and give a proper value to water in the ecosystem? With respect to IBWT,

what is the maximum flow that can sustainably be removed from a river?

There are scientific and objective methods to answer these questions. Within an environmental impact

assessment, the minimum flows to protect certain fish species or to enable a minimum floodplain can be

measured. There are also hydraulic structures that can be used to mitigate other impacts such as weirs

14

or engineered river bedding that serve to maintain desired water levels, velocities, turbulence and other

hydraulic characteristics (as described later in the Rupert River case study).

2.2.3 Canadian water: abundance or surplus?

Activists (Barlow 2007; Quinn, 2007; Linton, 2002) like to bring up the question “does Canada really have

a surplus of water?” in their arguments. Quinn states (2007):

“There is a widespread misconception in both countries that Canada is much wealthier in

freshwater resources than its closest neighbour... The myth of Canada’s abundance of water also

reflects a tendency of our human-centric society to reduce water needs to per capita availability,

as though no other forms of life or ecological needs mattered. In truth, the Canadian and

American shares of global renewable freshwater are not much different, at roughly 7% and 6.5%,

respectively. This is not out of line, considering that Canada is slightly larger than the United

States.”

Although these facts are true, one cannot deny the implications that the total availability of freshwater

per person in Canada is much higher relative to the United-States (discounting Alaska) and most other

countries. Canada has 0.5% of the world’s population, with 7-9% of renewable water resources

depending on estimates (Sasseville & Abdessalem, 2005), whereas the United States has 5% of the

population for a similar percentage of global water resources. The appropriate way to assess the relative

abundance is to consider the availability of free-running renewable water resources. This is the water in

rivers discharging away from populations. In North America, it flows naturally into northern seas and

oceans. The stock of water that is available for export can be considered as the quantity that can be

spared from these rivers. Consider figure 3: the area north of the thicker black line is roughly where

water mostly runs freely northward (barring some industrial and hydropower activity). South of this line

15

human settlements are dense and thus the water resources are inappropriate for export. The majority

of the Canadian population lives south of the black line.

Environmentalists and engineers may vastly disagree on what quantity, if any, can be considered a

surplus. However, with the vast unpopulated areas of the

north, Canada can be considered to have a huge

abundance of pristine water flowing into the oceans

relative to the United-States or most other countries.

Whether it can be labelled as “surplus” or “to spare” is

difficult to answer, just as difficult as whether water is ever

“wasted”. Again, the best way to circumvent these

subjective definitions is to have objective studies that

propose reasonable compromises for all stakeholders.

These will be discussed specific to the proposals in chapter

4.

2.2.4 Valuing versus commoditising water

Water is a notoriously complex resource relative to others because of its free-flowing nature. Its

quantity and quality varies over time and space (Johns, 2008). The question of the nature and value of

water resources is discussed by many authors (Johns, 2008; Wood, 2008; Wood, 2011; Barlow, 2007).

This discussion is in response to the emergence of water as a resource in an international economy,

where it can be controlled and traded and is valuable as a commodity in a free-market. Activists such as

Barlow and Wood deplore focusing on liquid water itself as a commodity, while ignoring its other

indirect and elusive roles in economic production. This idea is captured during the interview with Chris

Wood (Wood, 2011):

Figure 3 North American watershed map. The thick black line roughly separates where water resources are mostly free-running

16

“What thoughtful people need to do is recognize that water has economic value. Some of that is in

its nature as water. Some is in the products we can make that others with less water cannot

(embedded/virtual water). Some is in the ecoservices that water enables (this value may be very

large indeed, just poorly assessed). We need to be able to recognize all of these and have adult

conversations about them all, and about the potential they each have to improve Canadians’

quality of life, without going into brain-lock around the idea of ‘commodifying’ water.”

In other words, it is meaningless to get lost in semantics. The pursuit of long-term quality of life and

environmental sustainability is what is important. Water is not valuable to Canadians only because of

some arbitrary ‘heritage’ that we want to protect or some association of water with ‘life’ (Agnew &

Woodhouse, 2011). It is valuable because of the ecoservices, or the ecological productivity provided by

water in the natural landscape. It is in our best interests, especially for future generations, to protect

and correctly manage the natural water systems that provide ecoservices. The difficulty lies in assessing

if an engineered intervention that generates income by removing water, such as restricting flow for an

IBWT project, is worth more than the associated losses in ecoservices produced. To environmentalists

the automatic intuition is that, in the long-run, IBWT rarely ever is worth more. The problem is

convincing those driving development, namely politicians and business people. They require clear and

tangible proof, which is difficult to achieve given the uncertainties associated with predicting the

sensitivity of ecoservices.

2.3 Water transfers and exports in Canadian society

Propositions for inter-basin water transfer, when done within national boundaries, have resulted in

public opposition and controversy. This has been seen numerous times with the river flow disturbances

and inundations required to build and operate the giant hydro-facilities in Northern Quebec.

17

Moving water across an international boundary raises many other controversies. There are many

implications with IBWT that are additional to concerns about environmental impacts. Canadians have

always regarded water as their heritage (Barlow, 2007); relegating water to being just another

commodity would result in a public outcry, despite proclaimed economic benefits on the international

stage. As a result of this, the government's reaction in the form of the legal, political and economic

institutions to either protect or take advantage of Canadian water, warrants considerable attention.

Water law and politics become complicated. To the experts, many issues are open for interpretation and

for debate (Johns, 2005; Tremblay, 2011; Grant, 2008). For bulk water transfers, environmentalists are

continuously demanding the certainty that, within the layered and complicated web of laws and

agreements, there exist concrete provisions for environmental protection. In other words, have those

bodies designated to regulate the use of Canadian water resources, be it the individual province or the

Federal government, set up the required legal foundation to counter bulk water transfers, if they ever

become economically feasible?

As the literature consistently shows, and as corroborated by the interviews conducted, the answer is:

first, it is complicated, as water is implicated in many laws, and there are difficulties and obstacles to

legally outlawing bulk water transfer. This ultimately leaves in the vulnerability of Canadian water

resources to IBWT projects. The best way to explain and present this situation is to look at the

historical context. Following this is a discussion of the current situation and the difficulties Canadians will

face in protecting their water.

2.3.1 Timeline: Inter-basin water transfer and Water Policy in Canada

The story of Canadian water politics is a long and drawn out one. Many issues and conflicts have

progressively mandated, shaped and matured Canada’s water laws, policies, public institutions, and

international agreements. They include conflicts between the multiple users of a watershed, the

18

establishment of property rights, protection of northern aboriginal communities, public health, hygiene,

sanitation and the right to clean water. Increasingly, provisions have been made for the protection of

water resources, navigation routes, fisheries, and the natural environment. Finally, in modern times,

there has been much discourse relating to the potential for water to be treated as a commodity and

therefore as an economic good, both as virtual water through the export of goods, or through bulk

water exports. The story of Canada’s water policy is ongoing, more-so now with the advent of

technologies, increased environmental awareness, climate change, and unprecedented new economic

opportunities.

The next section deals with the emergence and evolution of laws, agreements, and institutions that can

be applied specifically to inter-basin bulk water transfer in Canada. These are presented chronologically

into four observable and distinct time periods. The first era deals with the origins of water policy in

Canada. The second era comprises the technological boom of the ambitious early 1960s, complete with

dramatic speeches by President Kennedy and magnificent plans for humanity to tame the natural world

on a continental scale. Then we have the free-trade development era of the late 1970s to late 1990s.

Finally we have the most recent era, extending until the present day. This is a time of both increasing

environmental awareness and protection, and an emergence of global water scarcity issues.

2.3.2 Early days of Canadian water policy & the boundary water commissions: 1900 to 1950s

The International Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 was the first institution between Canada and the

United States to deal with water conflicts arising from shared watersheds and water bodies. It dealt with

conflicts in both quantity and quality of water (International Joint Commission, 2011). This treaty

"delineated the rights and obligations of the United States and Canada with respect to the protection of

natural levels and flows of their shared boundary waters.” (Grant, 2008).

19

This treaty established the International Joint Commission (IJC), which is still active today, and has the

role of enforcing the treaty. “[The IJC] must follow the Treaty as they try to prevent or resolve disputes.

They must act impartially, in reviewing problems and deciding on issues, rather than representing the

views of their respective governments.” (International Joint Commission, 2012).

Grant (2008) identifies that the treaty, as well as the influence of the IJC, was to be used as an

instrument for environmental protection. “It gave vetoes to each Federal government and to the panel

of IJC commissioners collectively over any proposed diversion in boundary waters that would

substantially affect water levels on the other side of the international border.”(Grant, 2008). However,

initially the main intention of preserving water levels was to ensure navigation routes through the Great

Lakes and the St. Lawrence River. Grant (2008) identifies that the treaty is not fully applicable to bulk

transfers of a grander scale, such as those discussed in this report.

2.3.3 The ambitious era: late 1950s to 1970s.

The 1950s to the early 1970s saw unprecedented economic and demographic expansions, along with

the introduction of the “American dream” and a higher standard of living. Existing infrastructure was not

capable of supporting this activity as it was outdated and insufficient. Therefore, these decades saw the

accelerated development of industrial technologies. Large-scale transportation networks, large power

plants, industrial agriculture, urban dwellings, and modernized water distribution and wastewater

collection networks were quickly constructed. Ambitious ways to tame, control and master nature’s

most important, yet evasive resource would quickly surface and gain political momentum.

Starting with Kennedy’s presidential term and extending to the late 1960’s, at least 10 high profile IBWT

schemes had been proposed. Two are perhaps the most notorious and prolifically discussed for similar

reasons: the NAWAPA and GRAND schemes.

20

NAWAPA

Gargantuan engineering projects defined this era as countries competed and showed off their

developments. At the time, the US Army Corps of Engineers envisioned the first, now infamous, large-

scale water transfer project of North America. It was called the North American Water and Power

Alliance (NAWAPA). In terms of scale, it was comparable to the undertakings of NASA, and of nuclear

power developments of that era. The main design firm responsible for the conception and promotion of

the project was Parson Co., which at the time was famously responsible for “miraculously” developing

the arid parts of California into a bustling green agricultural paradise (LaRouche, 1988).

On a map, NAWAPA can be easily identified and described. Surface water from scarcely populated

northern areas, namely Alaska, the Yukon Territory and British Columbia would be dammed and

collected. Subsequently water would be conveyed down towards the more populated western and

central parts of the United States. Upon completion, (which was estimated to take 30 years) 4 700 MCS

(meters cubed per second) of freshwater would be delivered (Watkins, n.d.). This flow would stretch

across the continent with a discharge reaching as far as east as Lake Superior; it would provide a

supplement to the heavily withdrawn Great Lakes basin.

In terms of engineering elements, it would require 369 separate constructed sections spanning the

continent, making it an undertaking of unforeseen complexity. The project would require large

hydroelectric plants to generate the energy needed to divert the water up into the Rocky Mountain

Trench. Water would move down from there in a network of lined canals and tunnels taking advantage

of naturally occurring rifts and valleys of the mountain range.

The promotional film (Parsons Co., 1964) describes the points where the flow would need to cross the

saw-tooth Mountain range of Western United States. It would require a tunnel 24 meters in diameter

(which is about the width of a six standard highway lanes) and 800 kilometres in length. Clearly this was

21

no small undertaking, if one was to imagine the kind of power required to pressurize such a massive

pipe in just this one section.

The proposed benefits across North America were demonstrated to be nothing short of astonishing. The

promotional video from the 1960s (Parsons Co., 1964) describes how the sectors of water supply,

power, flood control, agriculture, seaway transportation, and recreation would directly benefit. The

lower States would enjoy a doubling of their water supply, and a large amount of economically valuable

hydroelectricity would be generated on down sloping sections. Politically, this project would contribute

to the United States’ clout as a nation fully harnessing and taming nature, something which could be

shown proudly on the world stage.

In terms of impacts, not much was identified or considered. This was during an era before consideration

of environmental impacts became crucial to new projects. Yet, some importance of maintaining

environmental stability was expressed: only 20% of the surplus water in the collection area was said to

be needed for this project to provide the promised supply and benefits (Parsons Co., 1964). In fact,

much of the environmental effects were actually described as positive and beneficial. For example,

states such as Utah would be able cease consuming discharge from the Colorado River. Even in the

1960’s, this river was showing signs of stress such as an increase in mineral content. The promotional

film showed scenes of lush green agricultural plains, claiming that these images would be possible only

with a new supply of fresh clean water.

Just as fast as this proposal appeared on the political platform, it fell out from the United-States’

development priorities. There was a lot of opposition, and perhaps more than anything else, it collapsed

under its own weight: the astronomical costs and multiple decade timescale needed, made it an

intimidating and risky undertaking to fund and start (Grant, 2008).

22

GRAND

Compared to NAWAPA, the GRAND (Great Recycling And Northern Development) scheme of the 1960’s

proposed by Newfoundland engineer Tom Kierans was at a more realistic scale, albeit still at a scale

large enough to be seen from space. Kierans proposed to block off James Bay from the Hudson Bay,

using a dike spanning the junction. This would allow freshwater from the many rivers that flow into the

James-Bay perimeter to accumulate, while saltwater would slowly drain out. Eventually, this enclosure

would turn into a large freshwater lake.

Now, armed with a massive freshwater reservoir, more populated areas of the South could benefit from

a new inflow. It would require a large network of pumps, canals and reversed rivers, these naturally

requiring large energy demands, as well as resulting in environmental impacts.

To this day, this project remains in incubation with its designer still optimistic of its inception (Wood,

2008; Clamen, 2011). Yet, the author of Dry Spring, Chris Wood, does not believe it will ever be

implemented. “Even enthusiastic engineers deride both blueprints for re-plumbing the continents as

extreme examples of hubristic overreach.” (Wood, 2008). With a $100 billion price tag, this is of no

surprise.

2.3.4 The free-trade era: 1980s to 1999

During the 1980s, increasing environmental awareness was to compete with talks of international

commercial trade agreements for the attention of politicians. Therefore, the issue of bulk water exports

was intermittently a hot issue for Canadian politicians. For the first time, water was being characterised

as a potential commodity, while international organisations established it as a human right (United

Nations, 2010).

23

Under the new free-trade conditions, a few examples can be found in North America of tensions caused

by water export. They differed from the projects of the previous era, in that they were of a much lesser

scale, less sophisticated and more realistic (Grant, 2008). The promoters were enterprises, while

governments played the role of moderator. Therefore, rather than being shut down for being technically

and economically infeasible, they were shut down for political reasons.

One example (Grant, 2008; Wood, 2008) occurred in 1991. Sun Belt Water Inc. of Santa Monica,

California was the winner of a bid to supply a small American town with British-Columbian freshwater

through container ships. The deal was promptly halted by a Provincial moratorium on water exports.

Both Sun Belt Water Inc. and the Canadian company responsible for the supply end, Snowcap Waters of

Fanny Bay, attempted to sue the Federal government. Citing the investments section (specifically article

1105) of the NAFTA agreement, Sun Belt claimed they were being treated unfairly, yet since no other

Canadian company had been granted permission or an advantage for such an endeavour, the Federal

government dismissed the claim (Grant, 2008).

In light of this, Canadian Federal reports began calling out for legislation that would clearly and

permanently establish water resources as being protected from exportation. Grant (2008) has identified

and discussed a few of these policies, bills and reports. Ultimately, they would be scrapped or not fully

implemented, despite the Canadian government explicitly stating that they were against large-scale

diversions. Grant states ( 2008): “Any law banning the commercial export of this water ‘good’ to United

States, would run afoul of the trade deals”. The worry was that under the newly enacted FTA, and

eventually NAFTA, water could become a commodity, which would make Canadians lose sovereignty

over their water resources (Grant, 2008).

Another example widely cited occurred in 1998 (Grant, 2008; Wood, 2008). This time, a consortium

known as Nova Group was granted access to draw up to 10 000 cubic meters of water per day (0.12

24

MCS) from Lake Superior for export by ship to Asia. Permits were issued by the Ontario Ministry of the

Environment. This project was halted due to a large public outcry from both the Canadian and American

side of Lake Superior.

Legally, the project went against policy as there were constraints on water exports from the Great Lakes

Basin, not to mention that "the granting of such a permit by the province of Ontario ran counter to

principles of conservation and cooperation management set out in joint Province-State declarations

such as the Great Lakes Charter, a non-binding agreement drawn up in 1985 between the provinces and

states of the Great Lakes basin aimed at protecting their shared water resources.” (Grant, 2008).

2.3.5 The Federal Strategy: 1999 to early 2000s

The 90’s saw a handful of tanker-ship proposals. Even considering their aggregate effect, in continuous

operation year round, they could not significantly have an effect on water levels of the Great Lakes or of

coastal rivers. Yet, the Canadian government was adamant in its position to restrict these exports.

Allowing those few would set a precedent, perhaps a disastrous one. Once a few companies would be

allowed to ship water, any others could not be denied (Barlow, 2007; Heinmiller, 2003). The problem

could be amplified even more if international companies decided to get their share, while legally being

protected by international trade rules.

Meanwhile, an obstacle to enforcing this position was a shift in the Federal government’s position on

water trade. “Prior to the introduction of free trade, the Federal government attempted to deal with

water exports through the imposition of uniform national standards. After free trade, however,

harmonization efforts became more decentralized as Federal power over export controls diminished,

but Provincial powers over water-taking remained untouched.” (Heinmiller, 2003). This phenomenon of

shared jurisdiction is described in detail in Heinmiller (2003) and it is presented in the next section as

one of the difficulties resulting in a political embargo.

25

Nevertheless, with their goals and the obstacles in sight, Heinmiller (2003), as well as Grant (2008)

recognized the Canadian government’s strategy of prohibiting bulk water removals. By “framing [it] as

an environmental management issue [in the Federal Strategy], the Department of Foreign Affairs and

International Trade hoped to avoid trade challenges since an outright ban on water exports was

contrary to trade rules of the GATT and, subsequently, the NAFTA.” (Grant, 2008).

In 1999, the Canadian Federal government decided to push towards making water unlike other natural

resources, such as lumber or minerals, and hence not subject to trade laws. As long as the water was

underground, or in surface water, it was considered safe from trade obligations. “The logic underlying

this approach is that water in its natural state – in rivers or lakes, for example – is not considered a good

or a product and is not subject to international trade rules” (Grant, 2008). Thus, the act specifically tried

to regulate water withdrawals, rather than water trade. (Heinmiller, 2003).

Grant (2008) continues this discussion by detailing the three elements of the 1999 Federal strategy:

1) Proposed amendments to the International Boundaries Waters Treaty Act:

Signed in 2001, this stipulated that bulk water removals would conflict with the initial intentions of the

1909 treaty. Both the Canadian and the American governments should be committed to maintaining

natural levels of shared water bodies. The Council of Canadians however warns that “this amendment

applies only to boundary waters and not groundwater or surface waters, and provides no protection for

the rivers of Canada’s north” (Council of Canadians, 2007).

2) A proposed Canada-wide accord on bulk water removals by each individual Province:

Heinmiller (2003) describes the many difficulties incurred when harmonizing the Canadian government's

plan to ban bulk water transfer within the laws of each individual province.

3) Referring the issue to the IJC

26

The involvement of the IJC led to a document produced in 2000 (International Joint Commission, 2000).

In it, the IJC provided important recommendations to protect water. They also addressed the worries of

the free-trade agreements, but only specific to the Great Lakes Basin (Grant, 2008).

2.3.6 Current situation and difficulties

Large-scale water diversions have the potential to threaten Canada's sovereignty from the large and

relentless economic empire of the United States. Canadians do not want to be in the position where

they must perpetually submit their natural resources, water being the most precious of them, to trade

or else face huge penalties and the souring of other important trade relationships.

Thus the question becomes: today, does the Canadian government protect its water? It is clear that the

Great Lakes area is well protected, but what about the rivers that flow away from populations? The

Canadian government has plainly stated that they do not intend to open up trade negotiations (Richer,

2007), yet Maude Barlow (Barlow, 2007) clearly does not believe this to be entirely true. She expresses

her concern by calling it a myth that Canadians believe their government will protect natural water.

The following section describes some of the current difficulties that explain the ongoing struggle

towards conclusively preventing large-scale water transfers.

Difficulty 1: Jurisdiction

The article “Harmonization through emulation: Canadian federalism and water export policy” by

Timothy Heinmiller (Heinmiller, 2003) has an in-depth analysis of the difficulties incurred by the

decentralized Federal government to harmonize and standardize water policy throughout the Canadian

provinces and territories. Other sources also address jurisdictional conflict for policy enactments and

enforcement (Tremblay, 2011; Grant, 2008, Johns, 2008b).

27

The jurisdictional ambiguity stems from the fact that the original Canadian Constitution did not clearly

delineate and divide powers to decide on water issues. This is especially unclear considering the water

exports (Heinmiller, 2003; Grant, 2008). The provinces are responsible for their water resources, while

the Federal government is responsible for international trade. Johns (2008b) adds that “jurisdictional

complexity is also related to the physical nature of water resources... the multi-jurisdictional scale and

fugitive or transitory nature of water and its many interrelated uses make it hard to fit neatly within

well-defined categories of property rights.”

The fragmented nature of policies and their ambiguities have become a rather notorious problem in

Canadian water politics. Heinmiller (2003) highlights one example, section 109 in the Constitution act of

1867, in which provinces can cite proprietary rights over all publicly owned lands, and resources. This

has given the provinces the needed authority to sell their water. However, according to the much more

recent international trade agreements, it is the Federal government that should oversee and deal with

large-scale trading between countries. Also, as Heinmiller (2003) highlights, the Federal government has

jurisdiction over issues relating to navigation and inland fisheries. This has resulted in delays and

deferring of concrete measures to deal with the complexities of water export.

Although each province currently has laws that counter bulk water removals and export, Quinn (2007) is

of the opinion that there is little indication that these institutions are permanent or unassailable.

Difficulty 2: Northern versus shared water

It is well documented that there have been suitable initiatives and institutions created to protect and

manage cooperatively the boundary water between Canada and the United States (Quinn, 2007;

Clamen, 2011). It is also well known that these shared waters are not particularly abundant. They supply

water to a majority of the Canadian population, as well as a major portion on the American side, while

water levels have been anything but perfectly stable (Quinn, 2007; Wood, 2008; Grant, 2011).

28

As expressed before, there is abundant water that flows northwards into the Arctic Ocean, therefore

northern watercourses are considered the most vulnerable to water transfers. The Rupert River and

Eastmain Powerhouse case study discussed in the next chapter is a prime example where northern

flowing water had its direction reversed, despite being an expensive undertaking. It still happened, even

with vocal concern from aboriginal communities. Therefore we can conclude that the largest barrier to

exploiting northern water, and thus its protection, ultimately is basic economics and practical feasibility,

and not public opposition, political power or institutions.

Difficulty 3: trade agreements

As described above, the late 1980’s saw the emergence and development of free-trade agreements.

Perhaps more than anything else, with the introduction of the FTA and then NAFTA which superseded it,

came the reduction in influence of the Federal government (Heinmiller, 2003). With respect to IBWT,

under NAFTA, the Canadian governments (both Federal and Provincial) are restricted from imposing

export controls on water goods. The only exception to this is if there is a serious environmental

emergency that can justify such a restriction (Heinmiller, 2003). Also, any type of profit-making venture

for water export must be open to investors in all three countries. In other words, profit from our water

cannot be forced to remain here (Barlow, 2007). This could be seen as unfair, given that it is the

Canadian environment that is being degraded. Authors have expressed concern regarding

proportionality requirements, and the difficulties it could generate when environmental concerns would

call for reductions in exports (Grant, 2008; Barlow, 2007; Heinmiller, 2003).

Difficulty 4: pressure from economic development sectors

Even with the active approach of the Canadian Federal government and its resistance to water transfers,

the literature warns of the pressure from economic development sectors (Barlow, 2007). For example,

“water export may soon become one of the issues, joining energy, on the agenda of the Security and

29

Prosperity Partnership (SPP), a trilateral initiative to increase the economic integration of Canada, the

United States and Mexico” (Quinn, 2007). If all three North American countries were to aggressively

adopt this type of planned economic development, it would be of no surprise that water sharing could

be a top priority for all three countries. Canada might be anxious to put something of value on the table,

such as its large freshwater supply.

Difficulty 5: Consequences of banning, and compromised alternatives

Many researchers criticize the Canadian Federal government for not being very clear, when given the

chance, about water exports. Heimiller (2003) and Grant (2008) both discuss how the Canada Water Act

of 1970 could have, but failed to directly address water exports through a permanent ban. Since the

ambitious projects of the 1960s, there has been a call from both the Canadian public and

environmentalists urging for a national ban on water exports once and for all (Heinmiller, 2003).

Sasseville & Abdessalem (2005) argue that it is the sheer grandeur of the issue that is inhibiting political

decisiveness. Moving water across a geopolitical landscape is a very complex question that brings up

many economic, social and environmental difficulties and unknowns for politicians. They therefore do

not want to touch it as the implications and the uncertainties are too large. Envisioning bulk water

exports requires planning on a timescale of decades. Many politicians are empowered for no more than

a few years.

Given that our laws can change, and that amendments and exceptions can be added, an outright ban

might not be the most effective way of preventing water exports. Maintaining a constant study of the

practical and environmental nature of the issue, while consistently showing the infeasibility, destructive

potential, and unpopularity of this option, is the best course of action.

30

The bottom line

Although the various difficulties are presented as distinct, they are very much interconnected. For

example, the establishment of trade agreements caused much of the jurisdictional conflicts;

jurisdictional conflicts have provided an excuse for the government to delay and defer bans, or

otherwise avoid dealing with the water export issue.

With all this, it is obviously important to finally answer the simple question: with respect to the various

constitutions, institutions, trade agreements, policies, and other forms of control, are international bulk

water transfers possible? This bottom line is perfectly described in Grant (2008):

“While some Canadian businesspeople see trade in bulk water as a source of untapped wealth and

a potential growth industry for the 21st century, many others view it as a looming environmental

catastrophe and a major threat to Canadian sovereignty. Current Federal and Provincial policies in

Canada have stymied the bulk water export business thus far, but it remains a prospective new

economic user of Canadian water, clearly challenging the institutionalized status quo.”

In other words, despite every obstacle in the way of bulk water transfer, such as current public

opposition, political sentiments, and even the obvious practical infeasibility of such projects, we cannot

fully remove from the table, the idea of international water transfers.

31

CHAPTER 3

Case Studies

This section describes a few key case studies of both proposed and operational IBWT projects. Table 1

summarizes the key features of each case, and the main purpose of studying it.

Table 1 Summary and purpose of Case studies

Case study nature Transfer method Purpose

Australian case study: Kimberley to Perth

Proposed schemes to supply expected increases in municipal demands

pipeline, canal, tanker

- Discusses the process a government should take to thoroughly assess the feasibility of a IBWT proposal.

- There are also lessons learned from design specification of water resource sourcing, pipeline design, hydraulic structures, environmental impacts and cost analysis

Québec's northern water: Eastmain-1-A & Sarcelle powerhouses and Rupert River diversions

Newly operational for hydroelectricity

Diversions, flooding

- Design and arrangement of hydraulic structures, and river works specific to Northern Quebec landscapes.

-Requirements for Environmental Impact Statements in Quebec.

- Example of the socio-political climate and consequences of a large water project in Canada.

Colorado – Big Thompson

Operational for municipal and irrigation supply

Canal, tunnels, pumps

- Example of a functional cap-and-trade system of water resource allocation.

3.1 Australian case study: Kimberley to Perth

Water resource allocation in Australia is strictly managed to protect fragile ecosystems that rely on what

little water exists in the deserts and grasslands. Australia is a dry continent that will only get dryer. It has

32

unevenly distributed precipitation and runoff. Most of the freshwater is contained in 5 coastal drainage

areas (Ghassemi & White, 2007).

The amount of renewable water that is available has been diligently measured (5.2x109 m3/year for

surface water and 6.3x109 m3/year for groundwater) and water authorities are set on not surpassing

these amounts for supply (Ghassemi & White, 2007). From an environmental standpoint, this will

prevent impacts from water resource depletion, but it necessitates some kind of urgent response from

water authorities to find other ways to maintain water security. The obvious first action is to take active

measures to reduce consumption. Yet, there might very well come a point where demand will exceed

the potential of the traditional supply, despite all measures that could be taken to curb demand.

The case study focuses on the metropolitan area of Perth on the South-Western coast. It has an

estimated current population of 1.7 million which is rising (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2010). The

urban area is located in a dry-temperate climate zone. Supplying this growing population with water has

been problematic, and it is becoming especially worrisome with perceived and anticipated impacts of

climate change combined with increases in consumption (Ghassemi & White, 2007). This prediction is

shown graphically (Figure 4, prepared by Water Corporation (2009)), where the yearly breakdown of the

various supply methods is superimposed on the trend for expected demand. Note the gradual

divergence between supply and demand starting in 2017, where water supply authorities will either be

forced to tap into non-sustainable supplies, or to try non-traditional means, such as IBWT or

desalination. Neither are desirable. Both are high energy consumers and are expensive to set up and

operate. Both will generate environmental impacts. Both will cause controversy and opposition.

33

Figure 4 Future water supply versus demand in the Perth Metropolitan Area. (Water Corporation, 2005)

The Australian government is aware of this, thus they have conceded to study and compare the non-

traditional and controversial options against the traditional ones (GWA, 2006; Water Corporation,

2005). Therefore, when the time comes to make decisions and to take active steps, all options would be

weighed in terms of the least possible environmental impact and economic costs. Figure 5 shows

conceptually what is being considered and compared.

34

Figure 5 Traditional supply versus new options for Perth region

3.1.1 Political perspective: a complete study by Australian water authorities

The idea of transporting water down to Perth from Kimberley began to garner public attention in the

late 1980’s (Keating, 2006). The concept was straightforward: transfer water to Perth from North-

Western Australia, specifically from the Kimberley water catchment, which is a water rich area with a

tropical-savannah climate and minimal population. Beginning in 2004, the state government of Western

Australia assembled an expert and professional panel to assess the financial and technical feasibility of

transporting water from Kimberley. According to water authorities (GWA, 2006):

“The composition of the panel brought together a wealth of expertise in the areas of: economics,

engineering, environment and water expertise. The panel was well balanced and while protecting

its independence was focused on the task at hand as per the terms of reference... While the

technical and financial viability of each option was a central focus of the Panel’s terms of

35

reference, equally important was the Panel’s evaluation of social and environmental impacts. The

Panel therefore sought consultancy reports on these impacts, and also consulted with the

community in Kimberley.”

Indeed, this is a good example of a government taking their water resource situation seriously. The

argument here is that the Canadian government, as well as the Provincial governments, should follow

suit. It is not enough to just implement an outright ban on water exports; there should be accompanying

technical, engineering, and ecological based studies, that include socio-economic considerations, to back

up and justify these institutional restrictions.

Transport methods

Three proposed methods to transfer water over the long distance from Kimberley to Perth were

proposed: an underground pipeline, a lined canal, and oceanic transport (via tanker-ships or towed

water bags). The pipeline and tanker will be discussed as they were the most realistic and applicable to

the proposals of chapter 4 of this project.

3.1.2 Pipeline method

Source options

Over the years, many sites have been considered as potential source points (locations where water

would be extracted for transfers). The 2004-2006 study (GWA, 2006) considers both the Fitzroy and Ord

river basins. Due to its relatively high flow rates and southern location, the Fitzroy River was found to be

preferable.

Preliminary studies revealed both high seasonal and yearly variations of the Fitzroy River’s discharge.

Therefore a significant amount of engineered intervention would be required to stabilize flows, given

the importance of having a reliable and consistent flow from the source. Large volumes of water would

36

have to be stored by using either a dammed reservoir, or an off-stream contained reservoir. This has led

to numerous options, in terms of the location of hydraulic structures, extraction methods and storage

facility types.

Routes variants

In addition to the source point, the conveyance path options have also been discussed thoroughly. This

paper will focus on the most recent: the two options presented in the 2004-2006 study (GWA, 2006;

Water Corporation, 2004). The first route is an in-land direct path, which starts at the William barrage

and follows the Great Northern highway for 1 900 kilometers. The second follows the Kalgoorlie and the

G&AWS natural gas pipeline. It was found that the advantages of building along a pre-existing pipeline,

which would leverage a certain amount of pre-existing infrastructure and vegetation clearage, did not

outweigh the cost of a substantially longer (500 km) conveyance path. Therefore, the first option was

chosen.

The design criteria were as follows:

Required yearly discharge would start at 100 billion liters per year (3.2 MCS), and increase to

300 billion liters (9.5 MCS). This matches the forecasted deficit of water supply.

The study was to be done over a 50 year life cycle.

The pipe diameters were to be between 400 mm to 1 800 mm in diameter.

The pipe material options were traditional high-pressure steel, high-pressure rubber ring jointed

ductile iron piping, plastic piping, or concrete piping (Water Corporation, 2004). The maximum

allowable pressure in the pipeline was not specified, nor was the available pumping capability,

but it is assumed that these constraints were considered when designing the proposal.

37

The results of the study found that the optimal diameter of the pipeline to be 1 400 mm, and the

material would be traditional high-pressure steel with the concrete lining. The other options for material

were not chosen due to concerns of the high pressures involved, and the lack of large-scale examples

that show reliability or price competitiveness.

To overcome the change in elevation, four hydraulic pumping stations would be required along the

route. This is illustrated by the hydraulic grade line in the elevation profile graph (figure 6). In terms of

energy use, this scheme would require 100 MW at the Fitzroy source, and 30 MW for each pumping

station along the route.

Figure 6 Elevation profile of pipeline (from Water Corporation (2004))

The pipeline would terminate at the Canning Dam in Westdale, 80 kilometers south east of Perth. This is

the current reservoir that services the Perth region.

Other considerations

Water quality: Ensuring a clean water supply at the end is a crucial design element. Prior to being

injected into the pipelines, the flow would be subjected to screening, sedimentation and granular media

filtration (GWA, 2006). This would remove solid particles and colloids. To prevent contamination from

38

pathogens, the water would be disinfected. Given the length of the pipeline and concerns for the

potential for pathogenic growth, some kind of booster chlorination treatment could be required at a

midpoint of the pipeline.

Power supply: Various options for supplying power to the pumping stations and treatment plants are

described (Ghassemi & White, 2007). The options would be to (1) use the power generated from the

already built infrastructure servicing the Perth metropolitan area, (2) use individual diesel fuel stations,

(3) use tidal power from the Kimberley region, or (4) use solar power stations. In terms of minimized

costs, it was found that the best alternative would be to use pre-existing power plants.

Aboriginal heritage: In their analysis of the proposal, Water Corporation (2004) express that a major

stumbling block and politically sensitive issue would be that of aboriginal heritage. Although it would be

temporary in most cases, the construction process has the potential of going through a number of

aboriginal sites of significant importance. These include settlements, native land title claims,

watercourses used by aboriginals, and protected undisturbed areas.

Economic activity along pipeline: A possible benefit of using a traversing pipeline would be to build

several intermediate extraction points for various domestic, industrial, or agricultural uses. It was found

that due to the exorbitant increases in infrastructure costs, it would not be economically feasible.

(Water Corporation, 2004)

Social impacts: Land access issues for transportation, increases in traffic on smaller roads, and

community severance are significant negative impacts of the construction process (thus only short-term

problems). According to Water Corporation (2004), “the majority of these issues are able to be

mitigated through planning and good management and are unlikely to be of significant impact.”

39

Environmental impacts: Listed by Water Corporation (2004) are the most foreseeable and significant

environmental impacts:

1. Energy expenditure and greenhouse gas emissions.

Emissions and energy expenditure would come mainly from operating the energy intensive pumps. Also

significant is the energy required for fabricating the steel pipes, and for transporting all the material.

Pumping would require an estimated 14 Wh per liter. Comparatively, desalination uses 5 Wh per liter. If

powered by natural gas power plants, CO2 emissions would approach 2.5 mT per year. Options to curb

carbon emissions include carbon sequestration and solar energy, both of which under present and

projected technology are not economical or feasible.

2. Impacts on the discharge of the Fitzroy River source.

Water Corporation (2004) insists that a thorough assessment of the hydrological system of the river is

required. It is currently unregulated and as such a minimum environmental flow, to sustain the region’s

ecology, river regime, floodplain, and water quality has not been established.

3. Environmental impacts of constructing storage dams and containers.

A storage dam requires the flooding of a large area. Land use for a walled storage facility (as an alternate

option) is similar. Impacts include threats to local species, habitat loss, and conflicts with aboriginal

heritage sites.

4. Environmental impacts of pipeline length.

The construction phase would require a 30 m wide cleared surface. Soil disturbances, loss of vegetation

and habitat destruction would be expected. Also, the movement of vehicles and machinery for

construction could risk spreading undesirable plants and species along the pipeline route. These impacts

40

could be considered as temporary, and measures such as minimizing erosion, sedimentation, and

contaminations should be taken.

The study concludes that “The majority of biodiversity impacts, apart from those affected by the

environmental flow of the Fitzroy, are likely to be mitigated through environmental management plans,

construction management and rehabilitation work.” (Water Corporation, 2004).

3.1.3 Oceanic transport method

Source options

Both the Ord and the Fitzroy Rivers were considered variants for the water source (see figure 7). In the

end, the Ord River was chosen, despite the Fitzroy’s advantage of a shorter transport path down to

Perth. By utilizing the already established infrastructure, which is chiefly a storage dam (GWA, 2006),

significant savings in initial capital could be had.

Figure 7 Source point variants

From the barrage near the town of Kununurra, a 162 km pressurized pipeline would be built to feed a

basic water treatment plant (similar treatment as the pipeline scheme). An additional underwater

41

pipeline, (47 km in length, optimally designed with epoxy coated welded steel given the expensive

nature of underwater piping), would connect to a single-point mooring loading facility (figure 8).

Conveyance method

Two options were considered to transport water

around the coast. The first would use oceanic

supertankers commonly employed in the largest oil

shipments. New vessels were considered for the

analysis, with a price tag of 215 million CAD$ each.

Similarly to the pipeline scheme, the volume of

shipped water would gradually increase over time.

As described by GWA (2006): “At a practical maximum average speed of 15 knots (about 30 km/hour), it

would require at least four ships of 500,000 dead-weight tonnes operating on a continual 14-day

delivery cycle to deliver 50 GL/year (1.6 MCS). Fourteen of the same tankers would be needed to deliver

200 GL/year (6.3 MCS).”

The second transport option would be to pull floating

water bags. Large tug boats would be used for towing (see

figure 9). This option was considered difficult to analyze

given the lack of case experience of using them, especially

at the required scale of several hundred GL per year over a 5 decade timeline. A rudimentary

assessment found this option to be substantially less cost effective, yet a scenario using 0.5GL bags was

Figure 8 Mooring facility loads the cargo vessel with water (GWA, 2006)

Figure 9 Floating water bags (GWA, 2006)

42

included in the final economic analysis. GWA (2006) expressed that more research and development of

this technology is required.

Results from GWA (2006) study

It the end, given the expected rise in water demand, it was found that the lowest cost option would be

to supply water using oceanic supertankers. The cost would come to $6.70 /m3, which is about five

times the cost of desalination. The result of the comparison between the options of the GWA (2006)

report is summarized in Appendix A. The conclusions of this report was that inter-basin water was

infeasible on many fronts, with cost and energy consumption (both initial and operational) being the

most deterring. Other deterring factors included the risks and unknowns associated with the options,

environmental impacts (especially green-house gas emissions due to the high energy requirements), and

social impacts.

Conflicting Perspectives

Many researchers beyond those who actually conducted this particular study, argued against long-

distance water transfers given the potential environmental devastation and due to a lack of economic

feasibility. However, upon conducting extensive research of the various ideas and proposals to divert

water in Western Australia, it became apparent that the options, estimates, and the final numbers and

conclusions are biased. Indeed, the results depend largely on who is conducting the study, what their

interests are, where they have sourced their data, and what their predictions and assumptions are.

Some members of the public are advocating for water transfers. A pertinent example would be the

pressure from Michael Derry, a business consultant who has many years of experience in dealing with

the oil industry and specifically in shipping large volumes of liquid (Derry, n.d.). Recognizing that this

person has a business bias and much to gain from such an undertaking (as is a common situation with

professionals who push for IBWT projects), his voice should nevertheless be heard.

43

Derry’s website encourages the Australian government to take the issue of water transfers seriously.

Indeed, the proper steps were taken: the government assembled a competent committee which carried

out a thorough investigation through data acquisition and analysis. Yet, Derry does not agree with the

conclusions drawn from the comparison of technologies and water supply methods.

“…We are concerned that the Committee was given no role by the Government to challenge or

investigate the key information and assumptions given to it by the Water Corporation. These facts

were taken as fixed and had a crucial bearing on the Committee's final report. Consequently a

reader of the report gets the mistaken impression that comparing a dollar assessment of one

option in the report against the dollar assessment of another one gives a correct and accurate

assessment of the costs.” (Derry, n.d.)

This is indeed a strong argument and it reflects the complexity of the issue. The standard method of

comparing dollar costs, when these include difficult to assess environmental impacts, is not absolute.

Indeed costs are not "an exact science" as Derry states. Derry argues that, based on his professional

experience and interest in keeping costs minimized, in his assessment the costs are vastly reduced. He

lists many factors which could substantially reduce the cost: using used ships, considering a better

extraction point, being less strict with regulations compared to oil shipments, and slowing the boat

speed to maximize energy efficiency. However the merits of these cost savings must be evaluated.

Derry (n.d.) also questions the assessments of cost, energy consumption, and of the environmental

impacts for the implementation of desalination plants.

This indicates the complexity of comparing large-scale technologies. It provides further motivation to

study the issue from many viewpoints. It also suggests the value of contracting many different

organizations to conduct studies, to ensure that the issue may be comprehensively and conclusively be

evaluated.

44

3.2 Québec's northern water: Eastmain-1-A, Sarcelle powerhouses and Rupert

River diversions

For the past 50 years, Hydro-Québec has been very active in harvesting the energy from rivers that flow

westward into James Bay. Its focus on the James Bay region is due to the large total discharge of the

many rivers draining therein.

The challenge, however, is that the infrastructure and capital costs needed to build a Hydro facility is

extremely large, especially since a remote setting results in high materials and labour costs. Furthermore,

the water which drains westward into James Bay is not carried by a single large river, but rather a

collection of small and medium rivers.

The task has therefore been to dam a few of the larger rivers, divert and collect the flow through a

system of diversions, canals, and controlled floodplains, store the aggregate flow in a larger reservoir,

and finally discharge this water via a series of hydropower stations at a rate that matches the demand

for energy. This therefore qualifies as an inter-basin water transfer, as the water from one or a few river

basins is prevented from flowing towards its natural outlet, but is diverted into another basin. A typical

Hydro-Québec project entails 3 zones: (1) a damned and diverted upstream zone, (2) a downstream

zone of reduced flow, and (3) rivers and lakes having increased flows and volumes.

Project Description

The Eastmain powerhouse and Rupert diversion project is typical in this schematic sense, but atypical in

its magnitude, use of technology and measures needed for environmental preservation. The plan was to

divert the flow of the Rupert River north into the Eastmain reservoir. The flow would be directed

through two new powerhouses (the Eastmain-1-A, and Sarcelle), then towards the pre-existing

reservoirs and powerhouses further north (LaGrande complex). The potential net energy production was

estimated at 8.5 TWh (HQ, 2004).

45

3.2.1 The Required Environmental Impact Statement

In 2002, agreements were signed between Hydro-Québec and the Cree of Quebec (the First Nation

group of the James Bay region). The Cree consented to the construction and operation of the project,

given a commitment from Hydro-Québec to ensure that the project was fully subject to applicable

environmental legislation (the Paix-des-Braves treaty). This was to protect the environment and

aboriginal communities by ensuring that mitigation and remedial efforts would be undertaken. In

addition, the Cree communities were promised economic and community benefits (HQ, 2004).

In early 2004, Hydro-Québec published a voluminous environmental impact statement (EIS) (HQ, 2004).

This was presented to both the Québec Minister of the Environment, as required by the Québec

Environment Quality Act, and a Federal review panel (Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada,

Transport Canada , Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency), as required by the Canadian

Environmental Assessment Act.

The EIS document as well as the whole project review and assessment process was set up to prove that

the project was “profitable under market conditions, environmentally acceptable, and well received by

local communities” (HQ, 2004). The project also made efforts to include native community involvement.

“Systematic inclusion of the Cree in conducting surveys of the various environmental components thus

ensured that Cree traditional knowledge was taken into account in establishing procedures for sampling

and field data collection and analysis” (HQ, 2004).

The evaluation and assessment process of the EIS included a review and submission of

recommendations by the Environmental and Social Impact Review Committee (COMEX), public

participation through consultations and hearings, and the permits issued by the described governing

bodies. The details of this process and the conclusions are found in the COMEX (2006) report.

46

Controversies

Most of the above information was provided directly by the Hydro-Québec side of the project, which

naturally presents the project with their bias. Several sources have presented the other side of the issue.

In 2006, news outlets (Bonspiel, 2006; CBC, 2006 ) and Northern community blogs (Northern Waterways,

2006) were reporting dissatisfaction from Cree Nations about delayed completion of the environmental

impact statement, as required in the COMEX procedure, as well as disapproval that the construction

phase has started prematurely. There was also a news report concerning the Nunavut communities

living across the Hudson’s bay (CBC, 2006). They were concerned with water quality issues that would

arise from increases in fresh water being released at unnatural levels into the Hudson’s Bay. In addition,

in 2004 the National Public Radio published an article describing the detrimental consequences of dams

and reservoirs in a river of high biological activity. (Mann, 2004).

Cree communities were subjected to community uprooting and losses of forest land (hunting areas). The

Quebec government had clearly stated that there would be problems of water quality:

“Bioaccumulation of mercury is part of the negative impacts of the Eastmain-1-A Powerhouse and

Rupert Diversion project. The project will cause mercury increases in the fish in six areas.” This would

lead to fish consumption limitations in the Cree Nation (MMDEP, n.d.).

The project also raised the controversial questions of whether hydro-electricity can be considered a

renewable energy source. Some studies have shown that GHG emissions of hydro reservoirs can

surprisingly exceed that of similar power output coal burning plants (Montreal Environment, 2011).

Hydro-Québec is aware of this and is in-turn concerned about the resulting negative image of hydro-

power. It has therefore undertaken public-relations efforts in order to de-bunk some of the so-called

‘myths’ (for example, see www.hydroforthefuture.com).

47

Cree Opposition

In 2006, three Cree tribes claimed that they never gave their consent to Hydro-Québec, and were set to

oppose the development after tallying community votes (Bonspiel, 2006; Northern Waterways, 2006).

They were not claiming to go against the Paix-des-Braves treaty, but felt that their voices were not being

heard and that there was a lack of open communication with the project’s stakeholders (Bonspiel, 2006).

After explaining how his tribe was mislead into thinking Hydro-Québec still had not obtained the

approvals for the diversions, Waskaganish Chief Robert Weistche expressed his distress: “This is cultural

genocide on First Nations people and the governments are aware of that. Why do we have such high

rates of social problems like drugs and drinking? The suicide rate went up after the project went through

in Chisasibi [referring to a Cree community that was affected by the diversions of the La Grande project],

and we’re going to be subject to the same thing later on down the road”. (Bonspiel, 2006)

When discussing the frustrations felt by native community leaders, one example shows that a firm

stance with aggressive public outreach can influence decisions. In the early 1990’s, the Great-Whale

project came to a halt after a series of effective public relations efforts led by Cree communities

(Mercier & Ritchot, 1997). Weistche felt that his tribe was not given the opportunity to react in such a

way this time around (although some smaller protests were organized) (Bonspiel, 2006).

“When you uproot people from their birthplace, from where they used to gather, from where they

raised their family and tell them they have to move because the land is going to wash away and erode;

you’re bound to have something happen inside that person [referring to suicide rates, depression and

alcoholism of the Cree Nation].” (Bonspiel, 2006).

48

Finally, Weistche expresses how it is inappropriate to assume that Native peoples would be satisfied by

monetary remuneration in exchange for their homeland. “The rivers, the land; the reality is that it is part

of who we are. They cannot separate the land from the Cree, that is who we are.” (Bonspiel, 2006).

3.2.2 Engineering Aspects

The design criteria and design of the engineering interventions required to divert the Rupert River and

to contain it in the Rupert Diversion Bays are important in determining the technical and economic

feasibility of an inter-basin water transfer project. The design and selection methods used to determine

the optimum hydraulic structures, the required environmental protection and mitigation efforts are

described. The end result is a detailed plan to best train or control a river and to retain a floodplain,

specific to northern regions of Quebec. This knowledge can be extended and applied, with reasonable

assumptions to other parts of Canada; especially in the other regions of the Canadian Shield, within

which lies Hudson Bay.

Variants

By the late 1990’s, Hydro-Québec engineers saw the hydro-power potential of the Rupert River basin

and began preliminary studies and the evaluation of the options (HQ, 2004). As for other hydro projects,

this involved obtaining and considering the following information:

Topography & bathymetry: where is the natural terrain, and existence of hills and valleys, favourable

for water level increases? Where are land gradients favourable for flow conveyance? What will be the

extent of the requirements for dikes, spurs and levees to contain rising waters? How wide and high must

dams be constructed?

49

Geology: How much excavation is required, and how and what is the hardness of the soil and bedrock?

What are other geological features of importance, such as the direction and steepness of fractures? Is

seismic activity an issue? Is fill material, required for dams, dikes and other structures, available nearby?

Hydrology: How does seasonal variability of precipitation and stream flow effect the reliability of the

options?

Environment: How much flow can be harnessed, and how much has to be allocated to the environment?

What are the sensitive species? How will altered environments affect the surrounding region?

Climate: In northern environments, hydraulic structures have requirements for proper ice cover

formation to minimize frazil ice that may interfere with inlet structures. Therefore, temperature

fluctuations have to be accounted for, and the design of hydraulic elements must account for minimum

flow velocities.

As described in the EIS (HQ, 2004), this analysis resulted in various options at the different steps. There

were options regarding the location of dams on the Rupert River, the arrangement of the floodplains,

the placement of the diversion corridors , the location of the powerhouses, and a choice between a

system of canals or an underground tunnel to bypass a section of especially mountainous terrain.

The process of comparing each option at each step is thoroughly described in the EIS (HQ, 2004).

Pertinent to this report are not these details, rather it is important to note the general advantages and

drawbacks that were considered and their relative importance.

Advantages: This project serves to produce hydro-electricity. Therefore, the options are weighted on

their potential to provide reliable flow into hydro-power reservoirs, while minimizing the need for costly

hydraulic structures and environmental protection efforts.

50

Drawbacks: The most obvious drawbacks are the direct environmental impacts, which is mainly the total

flooded area. Flooded areas have impacts on land and aquatic wildlife, as well as on the hunting by the

Cree. Specifically, much attention is paid on the potential for flooding of category II lands, which are

designated native hunting and fishing areas. Also, while one area is flooded, another has reduced flow.

This also has impacts on habitats, especially on fish breeding grounds. There are also notable impacts on

navigation, fishing and recreation.

Hydraulic structures

Retaining structures (dams and dykes): Rivers that discharge into the East coast of the James-Bay flow

westwards due to down sloping terrain. To overcome the natural slope, dams are used to raise water

levels, which permits water to pool and eventually spill northwards (hence a northward diversion),

without the use of head-inducing pumping stations. These are strategically placed so that the diverted

flow takes the shortest route to the Eastmain reservoir and its powerhouses; they are also placed far

enough downstream that they collect enough discharge from the watershed’s tributary area.

The main dam, Rupert C-1, (figure 10 shows a plan view) retains an average of 637 MCS which

represents 73% of the total flow of the Rupert watershed. It is a rock filled dam, lying on a solid bedrock

foundation.

51

Figure 10 Plan view of C-1 dam (HQ, 2004)

The three additional dams do not block the Rupert River but are barriers to the other westward

drainage paths and used to contain the artificially rising water levels.

Other retaining structures, such as the large dikes, but also smaller spurs and levees, play a similar role.

Rather than blocking off flowing streams, they serve to create an artificial valley to contain the rising

water level. Using a topographic map, the engineers can predict how wide a floodplain can be expected

for given water stages (heights). In some locations, especially where flatter terrain exists, a dyke is

needed to limit the flooded area, otherwise water levels would not sufficiently increase.

The availability of construction materials, especially concrete and steel, is a limiting factor in dam and

dike design for northern Quebec. Dames are very large structures; the largest one for this project is 50

m high and close to 400 m wide. Dikes are not as high, but they are very numerous (74 in total) and can

be several hundred meters long. Together, dams and dykes will need 5.3 million m3 of fill material. A

geologic survey of the area has provided Hydro-Québec with many sites in the vicinity that could provide

material for the structures. The material is mostly granular: till, sand, and gravel, and coarser material

needed for a riprap covering. Figure 11 shows the cross-section for a typical dike.

52

Figure 11 Cross section of typical dyke showing fill constituents (HQ, 2004)

Release Structures: The release structure (also called outlet work) for the main dam works to both allow

for spring flood water to be quickly and safely discharged downstream, and to systematically regulate

the normal discharge of the dam. For dam C-1, a gate was designed on the left side. Using the hydraulic

gate opening, the flow is controlled and released depending on how much is allotted for feeding the

Eastmain reservoir at a given time (the maximum is 800 MCS). The EIS (HQ, 2004) describes the gate as a

conventional concrete structure with steel armoring and reinforced slots. An electrical line supplies

power for the hoist and the heating system.

The other dams have a tunnel-type release system. The gate is placed on the upstream side to prevent

high-pressure situations in the tunnel when water levels are high.

Powerhouses: several powerhouses and related structures are described thoroughly in the

environmental impact statement. Much attention is paid to flow rates and surface velocities,

considering the high latitude and potential for problems due to ice formation.

Weirs: flow rates downstream of the dams on the Rupert River will be heavily reduced. Measures to

ensure adequate water levels along the river reach are necessary to protect what is remaining of the

river’s aquatic habitat, especially for fish migration. A system of 8 weirs in series was positioned, in

addition to several dikes to maintain a narrow and deep river cross-section.

53

Canals: Canals were typically designed for sections of flatter terrain, to limit the flooded area. In many

cases canals are less costly than a parallel system of dykes. Canals were also used to traverse obstacles

in the terrain such as hills. They have the advantage of improving hydraulic conditions, especially

controlling head losses incurred when conveying water.

Transfer Tunnels: When building canals becomes uneconomical (due to depth of excavation), a transfer

tunnel can be used. At one point, excavating a canal through particularly rough terrain was found to be

too expensive, therefore a tunnel was designed to go under this terrain. Using a specially designed weir,

the flow into the tunnel is managed. The tunnel is designed to convey between 100 and 800 MCS, all

while being completely submerged to prevent instabilities caused by cavitations when air at varying

pressures gets entrained into the tunnel. The optimal design of the tunnel’s cross-section dimension and

longitudinal profile and geometry were calculated with sophisticated hydraulic modeling software.

Other structures: Many other engineering structures and other considerations significant to the Rupert

River and Eastmain 1-A project, described in the EIS, or by Hydro-Québec elsewhere, are worth

mentioning, but are beyond the measures used to divert and transfer bulk water. These include new

transmission lines; access roads and bridges; temporary work camps; measures for a safe, clean, and

efficient construction phase; native community resettlements; forest clearing and management;

excavation of borrow pits and quarries for materials; stabilization of riverbanks near vulnerable areas;

fish ladder requirements; and in-depth details of powerhouse components like turbines, substations and

control structures.

3.3 Colorado Big-Thompson project

Completed in the late 1940s, the Colorado Big-Thompson project is a trans-mountainous inter-basin

water diversion project implemented to supply water to the North-Eastern side of the Rocky Mountains

54

in Colorado. The original application was mainly for irrigation, yet since then it has also supplied water

needs for emerging municipalities and industrial activity. The system was built and is operated by the

The Bureau of Reclamation, a Federal department (Bureau of Reclamation, n.d.).

From an engineering standpoint, the project is impressive and remarkable for its time, in its grand scale,

use of technology, and ease of regulation. The source is the eastern, upstream region of the Colorado

River, which was dammed to form a reservoir. A 13 mile long underground canal led from the reservoir

and through the Continental divide, into a system of smaller reservoirs, diversion canals, and pipelines,

which eventually supplement the flow to natural streams of the larger South Platte River. In terms of

hydraulic structures, there are hydropower stations, as well as various substations and pumping plants

(Bureau of Reclamation, n.d.).

3.3.1 A working water market

The Colorado Big-Thompson project can be studied as a relevant, North American example of a

gradually established and equilibrated water market. The system can be seen as similar in structure to a

cap-and-trade system of carbon emissions (Wood, 2011): the amount of discharge out of a source is

"capped"; users within the system are allotted a fixed and fair share; users can subsequently trade away

whatever reserve they do not expect to need. The end result is that the total allowable emissions, or in

the case of the Big-Thompson project, the total yearly environmentally allowed flow consumption, is

never surpassed. The trade and exchange of shares is accomplished through either short-term or

permanent agreements. There is trade between farmers and municipalities (Wood, 2008).

This case study, brought up in Dry Spring (Wood, 2008) and again mentioned in an interview with Wood

(2011), is pertinent because it serves to ease some of the commonly held anxieties associated with

market-driven water trading. This project exists in stark contrast to most other areas in the United-

55

States, where local trading of water rights halted for political and legal reasons, but could have some

economic potential. According to Wood (2008):

“Permitted transfers of water out of farming to urban use have been rare [in other parts of the

United-States]. Several factors stand in the way. The ambiguity of farmer’s legal rights to sell the

water they’ve been using leaves many afraid that if they try to sell it, governments will revoke

their title. A complex state water law, with elements of both prior appropriation and riparian

systems, further complicates sales between properties, as do multiple states and Federal oversight

agencies that must sign off on large transactions.”

Wood (2008) continues by introducing the Colorado big Thompson project as a more “seamless market

in bulk water that has operated in northern Colorado for 5 decades”.

In Dry Spring (Wood, 2008) and in an interview, Wood emphasizes the lessons learned from this

“working experiment in harnessing the power of market choice” (Wood, 2008). Some of the key lessons

include:

That water markets do not arise spontaneously, due to the constraints of the regulatory

environment, and therefore it is unlikely that all water will be traded on a water market.

Water right does not necessarily translate to ownership of water, rather it is more of a right

to use it, such as a rental agreement.

Transaction costs must remain low and the process easily executable

In successfully operated water markets, the sharing of water can be considered fair, i.e.

wealthy corporations do not have considerable advantages over others, and hence

uninhibited environmental devastation is contained.

56

Permission to trade privately in water rights can coexist in perfect harmony with the public

protection of water in the environments. Indeed, it a requirement.

Wood (2008) emphasizes the advantage of the adaptability of free markets: “Where these

conditions exist, markets have advantages that will become increasingly desirable as the weather

changes. In growing food, which is the human activity that uses by far the largest amounts of

water, markets direct water to the most efficient, productive users. They do this automatically,

flexibly and free of government’s slow-moving, politicized hand.”

57

CHAPTER 4

Water Transfer Proposals

Using the information gained in the previous two chapters, possible water transfer projects in Canada

can be identified and investigated. A few potential projects will be proposed, with some development

details provided for each. Following this, a qualitative assessment and comparison of each proposal will

be made which will lead to general conclusions about the potential of IBWT in Canada.

4.1 Methodology

The development and assessment of potential IBWT projects requires the identification of the source

and the destination of the water, which are the extraction and consumption zones respectively, and the

method of conveyance. Assessing the options requires an analysis and weighing of the benefits, the

impacts and the inhibitors.

Step 1 - Extraction zone

The first task is to identify potential water extraction sites. Canada has thousands of lakes including

some of the largest in the world. It also has a considerable amount of water stored in aquifers and

glaciers. However, rivers are chosen as the preferred extraction source, as a constant, reliable and

renewable flow is required for sustained export.

Therefore, the first step is to identify Canada’s largest rivers by discharge rate. Forty-four major rivers

(classified as those that reach a saltwater outlet) and their larger tributaries have been identified. These

are presented in Appendix B, which shows a map, prepared by Atlas Canada (NRCAN, 1978), illustrating

the magnitude of average flow rates (as represented by the thickness of the red arrow).

58

Not all of these major rivers are suitable for extraction. Some are already heavily withdrawn by the

surrounding populations, while some are not ideally located or directed. To narrow down the selection

to the most appropriate rivers, the following extraction criteria were considered:

How significant is the mean discharge? How large is the drainage basin? An average flow rate of

approximately 500 MCS was set as a minimum threshold discharge.

What are the competing uses? Is the river protected? Rivers that are heavily used for irrigation,

industry, municipal water supply, fisheries or hydropower may be seen as inappropriate. This is

especially true if an upstream diversion/extraction would compromise available flow for other

downstream users.

Where does the river flow? Rivers that flow into the United States are inappropriate due to

transboundary water issues.

Where can the discharge be extracted? Is there available land with a suitable topography for a

reservoir? Is the land a protected area?

From the above considerations, the most significant trade-offs are between the available flow

(the area of the drainage basin) and the conveyance distance (remoteness). For a northward

flowing river, available flow is greater further north, but the conveyance distance is also

increased.

Step 2 - Consumption Zone

The next step is to identify the potential importers. These are places with water scarcity or impending

water scarcity, where the local supply of freshwater may not be sufficient to satisfy demands.

Although there are areas in Canada experiencing a degree of water scarcity, for example the irrigation

intensive areas of the Prairie Provinces and in some of the more densely populated regions of the east,

only international destinations were considered here.

59

Southern United-States

For the purposes of this report, it is important to properly evaluate where in the United-States there is

the greatest likelihood for water importation. These are locations of stressed or depleted water

reserves, and arid or semi-arid areas with low precipitation and surface water. The areas must also have

high water demands, from highly irrigated agricultural areas, or near large population centers. Future

predictions are also important. They include changes in population, demand, and the effects of climate

change.

It is important to note that, at this time, no official declaration or intention to buy Canadian water has

been expressed by any State government. For example, a 2012 report by the Texas Water Development

board presents the sobering realities of the potential water crisis in Texas (Texas, 2012). It urges

conservation and water management strategies, and suggests the use of technologies such as

desalination, water reuse, and improved storage. It does not mention importing water as a viable or

beneficial option.

However, as described in the introduction, there are numerous similar States set to face a potentially

severe water crisis. Thus, when the impacts of major droughts become more severe, pressure to import

Canadian water may begin to increase. Currently, water stressed states are aware of their predicament,

and the obvious best course of action has been to promote water efficiency and conservation, and to

implement some small/local technologies. Yet, if that does not prove to be sufficient in the coming

decades, then some regions may consider implementing much more drastic technologies in times of

desperation, of which IBWT is one.

60

Great-Lakes Supplementation

A possible application of IBWT is to supplement the Great Lakes reservoir. This would involve properly

metering additional discharge in order to sell withdrawal credits to users. The users will benefit from the

supplemented lakes by satisfying both their current water supply and their anticipated increases in

consumption. Of course this would have numerous social, legal and practical ramifications.

World

A similar, but less elaborate study could be conducted for the major countries that may receive

Canadian water through oceanic tanker-shipments. Across the Pacific Ocean to the west there are water

stressed nations of Asia, and to the east across the Atlantic, there is Europe and the Middle East.

Step 3 - Conveyance Method

The conveyance method describes how the extraction and consumption zones can be linked. Three

different transfer methods are considered: export by pressurised pipeline, engineered river works, and

oceanic tanker-ship containers.

Pipeline transfers

The main consideration for pipeline transfers is the energy requirement to transport the water, both to

provide the head (potential energy) to raise it in elevation and to overcome the friction losses in the

pipes. The optimal path is determined by minimizing total pipe length (to minimize friction losses) and

minimizing the elevation differences, due to the topography of the land, between the extraction zone

and the consumption zone. As emphasized earlier, water is very heavy and moving it up gradients is very

intense in terms of energy requirements and infrastructure needed.

Engineered river works

61

Engineered river works (in this context) can be defined as interventions that change the flow direction of

a river. A river, whose flow direction is reversed, would take advantage of the naturally present channel

(Pierre Gingras, 2010). Other river works can divert water from one river-basin to another, as in the

Rupert River case study. Typical engineering works include damming, controlled flooding and

channelization. They can employ head inducing pumping stations (these are essentially hydroelectricity

turbines operating in reverse), tunnels, short canals, excavations, landscape changes, or river bed

alterations. Topography is also a key factor; overcoming an upward gradient is an engineering challenge,

as is containing a floodplain in unfavourable natural terrain. In sections where the elevation change is

downhill, there may be hydro-electricity harnessing potential. Electricity generated could offset the

energy requirements of the uphill segments.

Oceanic tanker-ship transfer

For tanker-ship transfer the main criterion is total travel distance, thus the main deterrent will be energy

requirements and the potential for enormous greenhouse gas emissions.

Step 4 - Refining the options

The next step is to refine the chosen proposals. A location and layout for extraction is suggested, in

addition to the arrangement of the required hydraulic structures. A time-dependent withdrawal rate is

suggested; it is given considering the balance between the fraction that must be allocated to the

environment and the profitability of the project. For river data (monthly discharge and stage),

Environment Canada’s HYDAT data base was used.

Step 5 - Evaluation of Impacts, Inhibitors and Benefits

The final step is to conduct a systematic evaluation and comparison of the proposals. To do this, both

the negative (or inhibiting) aspects of each proposal and the positive (or supportive aspects) are

62

qualitatively scored. The negative aspects include (aspect 1) the expected environmental impacts and

(aspect 2) the socio/economic impacts. The positive aspects include (aspect 3) the expected gains.

Each of these three aspects is sub-divided into several categories. Each of these categories will be

allocated an initial weighting factor in terms of absolute importance. The numerical weighting factor

assigns the importance and significance of each category relative to the others. For example, it is

assumed that the importance for the overall evaluation of the category ‘Change of river regime and

disruption of river function’ is much higher than that of ‘Water quality issues’. Therefore to account for

this difference, a higher weight, judged at a value of 4, is allocated to the former, and a lower weight of

0.6 is allocated to the latter.

Next, each proposal will be evaluated and given ratings for each category. This will be done on a scale of

0 to 10 for the two negative aspects. As a general rule, a value of 0 is negligible or insignificant, a 4 is a

serious but manageable consideration, a 7 is very significant and unjustifiable, and a 10 has potentially

disastrous or long lasting effects. For the positive aspects, the same 0 to 10 scale is used, with a 0 given

where no perceived benefit is expected, while a 10 is given where substantial benefits are expected. The

rating for each proposal is then multiplied by the weighting factor to get a point score for the given

category. Points of each category are subsequently summed up to get an overall score for each of the

three aspects. These numerical scores are then used to compare the proposals and to provide a

rudimentary evaluation of the feasibility of each proposal.

(Aspect 1) expected environmental impacts

The environmental impacts of these projects will be described and rated in eight categories (table 2,

categories 1 to 8). This analysis is done in a qualitative manner, using the information provided by the

hydraulic analysis, land cover maps, comparisons to the applicable case studies described, and by the

63

typical observed and documented effects of each modification element or hydraulic structure of the

proposal.

Table 2 Categories for expected environmental impacts (negative)

# Category name Weighting factor

Description

1

Change of river regime and disruption of river function

3

This is a general evaluation of the impacts that can be expected on the function of the supply river. This is done considering the various hydraulic structures and river engineered works. For example, dams and diversions will result in changes to geomorphologic activity (sediment transport, erosion/deposition, floodplain morphology changes). Also, induced floodplain and reservoirs may cause issues with bed degradation and erosion (Hey, 1996).

2

Considerations of minimum environmental flow allocation and downstream flow reduction

2

Exactly how much of a river’s flow should be allocated to the natural environment, and how much could be extracted out of the basin for human use? As previously described, this can only be effectively answered with site specific data of the river’s characteristics, habitats/sensitive species, and interacting natural systems. Of special interest would be the river’s estuarine environment and wetlands (Linton, 2002). For this consideration, a project that uses a lesser proportion of the discharge can be considered more favourable to one that uses more, especially if they exist within similar natural environments.

3

Reduction and changes to riparian flooding events

0.75

An important distinction should be made between flow allocation in terms of the average discharge, and of the peak flood flow. Average discharge is important for the sustained maintenance of ecosystems of the habitat, while flooding events and disturbances are important for cyclic freshening of the riparian zone, for colonization of species, and for carbon and nutrient cycling (Petts & Calow, 1996). Therefore, an important consideration is to evaluate how the project may affect peak flows, flooding events, and peak stage levels.

4

Land disturbances and reduction in landscape quality

1

We can assess the decrease in landscape quality, both permanent and temporary, with the addition of hydraulic structures, inundated area, infrastructure and the laying pipelines. This can reduce the available land for wildlife, farming and forests (Linton, 2002). Materials needed for the fill material in dams, dikes and weirs will cause impacts

64

# Category name Weighting factor

Description

5

Impacts on habitat and individual species disruption

1.5

Given the above four categories we can begin to assess the severity of the impacts on habitats. Petts & Calow (1996) has described this saying that the “Interactions between flow and biota are complex and highly sensitive to river regulation and abstraction.” Therefore, the major phenomena that are influenced by flow and flooding events include impacts on sensitive environmental domains for the habitat and spawning of aquatic species communities. It has been observed that organisms are sensitive to velocities, depths, substrate, water temperatures, and quality/constitution of flowing water (Petts & Calow, 1996).

6 Introduction of non-native and invasive species

1.5

Many sources have identified the inherent risk of moving water over long distances: introducing invasive species (fish, invertebrates, plants, parasites, algae, bacteria, and viruses) into environments without natural predators (Linton, 2002; Wood, 2008). Although this risk can be reduced or eliminated with treatment at the source, it still should be considered.

7 water quality issues

0.6

Changing the boundaries of a water body, such as with flooding or flow reductions can affect water quality. One especially problematic example is the release of soil deposited mercury due to engineered inundations. Also, reservoirs affect water temperatures in rivers (Linton, 2002). In general, the potential impacts of temporary activity during the construction phase, and the permanent operation of turbines, pumps and other machinery that can leak contaminants such as hydrocarbons are considered.

8 greenhouse gas emissions

2

The potential extent of greenhouse gas emissions by the operation of machinery to supply power for pumps, turbines, tankers is evaluated. This includes the emissions (CO2 and methane) from decaying vegetation due to creation of reservoirs. In addition, clearing of forests for reservoirs or pipeline paths are associated with an important loss of carbon sinks.

65

(Aspect 2) socio/economic impacts

Next are the social and economic elements. This includes the social impacts, political obstacles, public

acceptance and qualitative rating of costs, both capital and operational (see table 3, categories 9 to 12).

Table 3 Categories for socio/economic inhibitors (negative)

# Name Weight Description and source of information

9 Capital costs 1.5

This evaluates the cost to set up the project: construction of hydraulic structures, pipelines, machinery, power supply infrastructure, shipping fleet, other infrastructure, and dredging work. Also important are the costs associated with environmental impact management and mitigation.

10

Energy expenditures and operational costs

1.5

Given the effort required to convey the water (both in terms of distance travelled and elevation increases) the energy and operating costs are evaluated. Other operating costs are extraction and water treatment.

11

Social impacts (especially on aboriginal communities)

1

This evaluates the impacts felt by those directly affected by the projects. This will be mostly aboriginal communities living in Northern regions. This is evaluated given the reach and severity of the described environmental impacts (mostly landscape changes, river impacts, habitat loss, and water quality).

12

Political obstacles and public resistance

1

This can describe the amount of effort that would be required to manage political and legal resistance and obstacles. It also incorporates the effort needed to form the various treaties, agreements, and contracts. Politicians will also have to deal with the public’s (those not directly affected by the project) expected resistance to the large scale water exportation.

(Aspect 3) expected gains

Concluding the analysis is a rating of the beneficial elements, such as the economic gains, reliability of

the supply, and the mitigated impacts of the alternative supply methods.

66

Table 4 Categories for expected gains (positive)

# Name Weight Description and source of information

13 Economic gains 4

This is an evaluation of the main revenue stream: volume of water sold. Also considered is hydroelectric energy generation potential.

14 Reliability of supply and water security gained

1

This evaluates how reliable, stable, and predictable the supply would be, and therefore, how secure the region’s water security would become relative to its current and anticipated situation.

15 Mitigated and reduced environmental impacts of the alternative supply strategy

1

Based on the options of the given destination site, implementing IBWT will prevent and mitigate the current and alternative measures and technologies that would have been used to supply the increasing demands. This thus evaluates some of the environmental impacts that would be prevented due to IBWT.

4.2 Results

Considering the extraction criteria, eleven possible extraction points were found, of which five possible

extraction scenarios were most suitable and were thus further analysed:

Two large pipeline projects: The Liard River (a headwater of the Mackenzie River), and the Nelson River

were found to have the most potential for extraction. These rivers flow northwards, away from

population centers that may consume the water, into the Arctic Ocean and Hudson’s Bay. Thus it may be

advantageous to capture this water and convey it southwards by means of a pipeline towards water

stressed parts of the United-States.

One project for a river reversal southward to supplement the Great Lakes. Supplementing the Great

Lakes with extra flow would be advantageous given the water demands already exerted on the lakes, as

well as the potential for new consumers. Extracting water from the Lakes is heavily regulated and

67

capped; supplementation thus represents an opportunity to increase caps and allowed for additional

extractions for irrigation, industries and municipal supply. The Albany River flows northward into James

Bay, away from population centers. Diverting and reversing this river southward could be a

supplementation opportunity.

Three projects for exportation by cargo boat shipments: The source water for these projects are at the

mouth of rivers that discharge into the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, located away from population

centers. Possible destinations would be water stressed Asiatic countries to the west, and Middle-Eastern

countries to the east.

4.2.1 Pipeline Proposals

Source: Laird and Nelson Rivers

The Mackenzie River, Canada’s largest river, and a few of its larger tributaries, as well as the Nelson

River, were found to have the greatest potential for extraction and conveyance by means of a pipeline

towards water-stressed parts of the United-States. Of the many tributaries, the Liard River was chosen

with an extraction point near to its junction with the Mackenzie River. For the Nelson River of north-

eastern Manitoba, a point just upstream of its Hudson’s Bay estuary was chosen as the extraction site.

These locations were selected in terms of practical feasibility considering their locations, surrounding

land cover, and that the available discharge rates were appropriate. Figure 12 (Liard River) and figure 13

(Nelson River) show the geographic location and plan view layout of the extraction sites.

68

Figure 12 Liard River source (source map : NRCAN, 2003)

Figure 13 Nelson River source (source map: NRCAN, 2003)

Similar in design to the Rupert River C-1 dam, a till and gravel filled dam is the most feasible given the

materials available in the area. The Nelson dam would be 95 m wide and 3150 m long. Considering the

higher storage requirements of the Liard River (due to higher seasonal variability of the discharge) the

Liard dam would be 105 m wide and 1400 m long.

Destination: Consumption Sites

Recently, a comprehensive study was released by a consortium of American universities and

organizations with environmental interests (Roy et. al., 2012). It provides "means to identify areas

where, under climate change scenarios, water resources are at greater risk than under historical climate

69

conditions.” The researchers have combined a wealth of data, and model predictions to form a year

2050 “water supply sustainability risk index”, which describes for each American county the predicted

severity of water issues, such as the droughts, they are predicted to face. This risk is based on the ratio

between future water withdrawals, both renewable and non-renewable, and the available precipitation.

“The larger the fraction of available precipitation that is used to meet human needs, the greater is the

risk when available precipitation decreases [due to climate change]”.

Data used for the report included the 2005 water use survey conducted by the USGS, which classifies

water use throughout the various sectors. This was combined with water demand and supply

projections based on population growth and changes in demographic and economic development.

Finally, a collection of the most recent and reliable global climate models were used to provide

"plausible, physically-based estimates of the climate response to changes in composition of boundary

conditions and increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.” These models account for

variations and expected changes in temperature and precipitation throughout the United States.

Given the predictions, two areas are indicated as the most likely destinations for pipeline projects. One

pipeline project could be used to replenish the Ogallala aquifer, and another would provide extra

discharge for the Colorado River watershed. Given geographic and topographic considerations, the

Ogallala Aquifer was chosen as the preferable destination.

Ogallala Aquifer

The Ogallala, also known as the High Plains Aquifer, is the most extensive and important groundwater

resource in the United-States. Stretching across 8 States, it accounts for 30% of all ground water

extracted in the US (Dennehy, 2000). The land above, known as America’s breadbasket, is used to

produce high yields of mono-crops such as corn, wheat and cotton.

70

Much of the water in the Ogallala aquifer can be considered fossil, as this large aquifer receives minimal

infiltration due to the aridity of the area. Thus, water levels have been declining (USGS, 2000).

The area above Northern Texas, known as the Panhandle of Texas is of particular interest as it has both a

very severe risk of water scarcity (Roy et.al., 2012) and much to lose due to the economic importance of

the area (Texas, 2012). The population is expected to increase by 80% by 2060, while the demand for

water is expected to increase at the lesser rate of 20% (Texas, 2012), mostly due to municipal usage.

Water extractions for agriculture are expected to decrease, as the State will increase the efficiency of

irrigation practice by necessity as groundwater becomes more scarce and expensive.

Conveyance: Pipelines

Considering the reliability and durability assessment undertaken for the Perth case study, both pipeline

options would use high strength steel pipes to convey the water. The pipe’s diameter would have to be

large to accommodate substantially higher flow rates that vary between 400 to 1200 MCS. The selected

diameter is 8.3 m, with 6 pipes running in parallel. Burying of these pipes would require a trench 25 m

wide.

The pipeline path was chosen minimizing the distance while avoiding unfavourable terrain and obstacles

(such as metropolitan areas, protected areas, native reserves, water bodies and larger mountain

ranges). Figure 14 shows the plan view of possible paths for both pipelines.

71

Figure 14 Satellite image of conveyance path

Similar to the Perth case study, a head increase of 375 m was designed for the first pumping station at

the extraction sites. This is a realistic value given the pressure head increasing capabilities of large

pumping stations, and pipe thickness material requirements to contain the internal pressures (the pipe

thickness assumption will be verified in the next section). This pressure head will decrease due to

friction losses. Also, as the net elevation between the source and destination is positive, there is a

72

necessity for intermediate boosting stations along the path to surmount elevation increases and friction

losses.

The frictional head loss, measured in meters of head per kilometer of pipe length, can be estimated

using an integral of Bernoulli’s equation for incompressible fluid flow (Patra, 2011).

This is known as the Darcy Wesibach equation applied to circular pipes, where is the total change in

head and is change in elevation. The second term on the right side of the equation represents the

frictional head loss, where is an empirical friction factor called the Darcy Weisbach coefficiant, L is the

length of pipe, D is the pipe diameter and V is the flow velocity (kept constant by continuity). Therefore,

the frictional head loss per length of pipe is:

Assuming a critical value of 1200 MCS as a flow rate, and thus 200 MCS in each of the 6 pipes, and a

diameter of 8.3 m, the average velocity is calculated as 3.7 m/s in each pipe. The friction factor is

solved using a Moody Diagram. The Moody Diagram requires the Reynolds number Re, a dimensionless

parameter that represents the ratio of inertial forces to viscous forces; and the relative roughness RR,

which is the ratio between the roughness of the pipe interior surface, in this case the material is

commercial steel, and the pipe diameter.

73

ρ and μ are the density and the dynamic viscosity of water respectively. ε is the average height of the

boundary layer of the pipe material. For commercial steel, an average value of ε = 45 μm is used

(Efunda, 2012).

A Moody Diagram is given in (Patra, 2011), with which a friction factor was estimated as 0.00792.

Therefore, it is now possible to solve for the frictional head loss per kilometer of pipe:

As each pumping station provides 375 m of head, and with a head loss rate of 0.67 m per km, the Nelson

proposal would require 7 pumping stations to travel the 2 550 km with a net elevation increase of 925

m. The Liard proposal would require 8 stations over 3 300 km, producing a head increase also of 925 m.

See figures 15 and 16 for elevation profile (chainage) diagrams. The red line slopes downwards at a rate

of 0.67 m per km. Note that the pressure head peaks (difference between the gradeline and elevation)

ranges from 375 m to over 500 m. For the pipe diameter thickness calculations, a pressure head of 500

74

m is used.

Figure 15 Elevation profile of Liard River

Figure 16 Elevation profile of Nelson River

Hydrology

STELLA (version 9.1.3), a “stocks and flow” environmental modelling program, was used to transiently

assess the hydrology of both pipelines. Appendix C-10 shows the model interface. It consists of a

reservoir, with an inflow of the natural river discharge (monthly discharge data for the years 2000 to

2009, using HYDAT). Outflow was defined as the allotted discharge out of the reservoir released by the

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

Ele

vati

on

(m

)

Chainage (km)

Ground elevation

Pressurized pipe hydraulic gradeline

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Ele

vati

on

(m

)

Chainage Km

Ground elevation

75

spillway. The exported flow was set to 400 MCS during the fall and winter, with a gradual increase to

1200 MCS which would correspond to both increased demand for spring irrigation, and to increased

available flow from the spring floods. The allotted discharge rate out of the reservoir was set as a

function of the stored volume in the reservoir. This allows for stored volumes to correspond well with

supply and demands.

To estimate the expected reservoir stage variations, stage discharge functions were calculated by

matching discharge to river level data from HYDAT.

Liard

Appendix C-1 shows the yearly fluctuations of the natural discharge, the flow exported and the flow

allowed out of the reservoir. With the export rate of 400 to 1200 MCS, the expected average discharge

peak in June is reduced by 450 MCS. The minimum flow in the winter decreases by about 20%. There is

also an expected spring stage peak decrease of 0.8 m (appendix C-2). Water stored in the reservoir will

fluctuate yearly between 9800 m3 and 14300 m3 (appendix C-3). After 15 years, appendix C-4 and C-5

shows the cumulative volumes of inflows and outflows.

Nelson

The Nelson River does not experience such high seasonal variations in flow. Nevertheless, the same

export rate schedule was modeled. There is approximately 10% decrease in the flow, with the peak

discharge rates dropping to between 500 to 1200 MCS (appendix C-6). The decrease in stage peaks is

observed in appendix C-7. Reservoir volumes fluctuate between 3200 m3 and 6400 m3 (appendix C-8).

Appendix C-9 shows the fraction of the total flow exported.

76

Pipe thickness and other design specifications

The American Water Works Association provides a detailed method for designing a steel pipe water

transmission network. According to their publication (AWWA, 2004), the pipe thickness along a buried

pipeline route should be designed for both the internal forces (caused by pressurisation in the axial,

longitudinal and circumferential directions) and for external forces (caused by the dead weight of

overlying soil, pore water, and surface live loads such as crossing roads). Also, the joints, the lining, and

the various appurtenances and fittings should be designed according to strict specifications. Pipeline

failure by buckling or bursting, as well as problematic leaks, deformations, corroded sections and

avoidable head losses can occur by an improperly designed pipeline.

Designing the pipe thickness according to the external forces goes beyond the scope of this paper, as

the soil cover and other characteristics are highly variable along the route spanning over two thousand

kilometers. However, in general for highly pressurised pipelines, the minimum thickness can be

designed first by considering the maximum internal pressure causing tensile stress in the circumferential

direction. The minimum wall thickness t is thus calculated with Barlow’s formula (AWWA, 2004):

Where d is the outside diameter of the pipe, p is the maximum internal pressure and s is the design

stress. AWWA (2004) provides a table with minimum yield points and maximum ultimate tensile stress

of fabricated steel over a range of standard grades. For buried pipelines, the specification for design

stress is 50 percent of the minimum yield point. If the highest grade steel is selected (ASTM A139, Grade

E), the allowable design stress is 179.3 MPa. As required to minimize the number of intermediate

pumping stations, the boosted internal pressure of 500 m or (4.90 MPa) is used.

77

A thickness of 113mm is reasonable for a pipe of 8.3 m diameter. To save on material, the thickness of

the pipe could be gradually reduced as the internal pressure drops due to friction. At a certain point of

reduced pressure, external pressures may begin to govern.

The above design for 6 parallel pipes of 8.3 m, with a thickness of 113 m is but one plausible scenario.

Many variables can be adjusted and balanced to arrive at an optimal solution provided more

information was made available, especially of costs. The pipe thickness could be reduced by lowering

the pressure heads induced at the pumping stations, which would however necessitate more costly

intermediate pumping stations. Reductions in pipe diameters could be had if more pipes running in

parallel were designed for, yet this may complicate the installation and maintenance.

Summary of Proposal 1

Flow, varying over the year between 400 to 1200 MCS, would be extracted from either the Liard or

Nelson rivers. The flow would be conveyed and exported down to the United-States using a pipeline,

into the Ogallala aquifer. This aquifer is economically crucial in terms of irrigated agriculture, while

currently being heavily stressed from the competing users. The conveyance would be accomplished

using a series of 6 high strength steel pipes of 8.3 m diameter, with a wall thickness of 113 mm. The

conveyance distance would be 2550 km, and 3300 km for the Nelson and Liard Rivers respectively. The

Nelson would require 7 booster pumping stations (adding 375 m of head at each station) to account for

elevation increases and friction losses, and the Liard would require 8 similar stations.

78

4.2.2 Proposal 2: Augmenting the Great Lakes by river reversal

The object of this proposal is to introduce extra discharge into the one of the Great Lakes. This can be

accomplished by diverting the discharge of a large river into one of the lakes, thus widening the

tributary area of the Great Lakes catchment. In Ontario, many rivers start in proximity to the Great

Lakes, particularly Lake Superior, yet flow northward and away into James Bay. Of these many rivers, the

Albany River was chosen due to its high flow rates (especially spring floods), and its relative lack of other

uses, such as for the generation of hydro-electricity.

Destination: Supplementing the Great Lakes Reservoir

Managing the supplementation of the Great Lakes requires a release structure to control additional

discharge into the lake, allowing the Ontario government to sell water rights accordingly. For example if

a farm, industry, company or municipality that draws its water out of Lake Superior wanted to draw

more water than they are currently allowed (according to set provisions of Great Lakes water usage

legislation), they could sponsor the release of more water from the Albany reservoir by buying water

rights from the Ontario government. If a user pays, more water is released. There may even be potential

for new canals or pipelines to convey water out to new and more remote users. In theory, water levels

should be maintained as a balance is kept between quantities extracted and quantities introduced.

In interviews conducted, this idea was proposed to see what the procedure would be for

implementation, and if they found it to be realistic and feasible on the legal, economic, managerial and

practical levels. Needless to say, the responses were extremely doubtful and sceptical about its

potential. Here are a few of the issues mentioned:

Legal hurdles: “Any proposal to transfer water into the Great Lakes would be subject to a number of

legal hurdles... the jurisdictional issues are daunting” describes Grant (2011). There would have to be

79

the involvement and agreements of Federal and Provincial governments on the supply side, as well as

the First Nation communities. Once water reaches Lake Superior, it would be subject to the Boundary

Waters Treaty, which establishes a mutual obligation between Canada and the U.S. to protect the

natural levels and flows of shared waters. The International Joint Commission would also be involved. All

in all, the number of legal hurdles to set up the system would be large and extremely complicated, and

once running, maintaining such a system without conflicts would be equally problematic.

Difficulties in predicting and measuring stocks, levels, flows, impacts etc. There would be scaling issues

as it is already difficult to predict and manage local water supply, let alone trying to predict the effects of

bulk incoming flows from one new source. Indeed this would contribute to the legal complications.

Oversimplification of the water-balance: the idea that one can simply model the complicated and giant

system of the Great Lakes by a simple equation (change of water volume equals inflow minus outflow) is

flawed. A new inflow can affect evapotranspiration rates, discharge rates out of the St-Lawrence River,

recharge rates, and even the area’s climate. As Hugo (2011) expresses, “If you pour water into such a

huge inland sea, and you ask for the guy on the other side to pay for it… I don't know, it seems a bit

difficult.”

Economically infeasible: The overall sentiment is that it may be technologically feasible, but most

probably uneconomical and it would cause significant social and environmental impacts. It may as well

cause more problems than it would solve. This was essentially a unanimous sentiment across all

interviewees. Of course, this is based on their previous experiences. The argument still stands that

conditions may change and future (or perhaps distant future) prices or opportunities may open

possibilities and remove obstacles for IBTW projects that may seem unrealistic/unfeasible today.

80

Conveyance: Engineered River Works

Figure 17 shows a plan view of the proposal. Originally, the Albany River flowed northwards beginning at

the South end of section 15, where, in 1947 the flow was dammed and diverted southwards at the

North end into Lake Superior (Ghassemi & White, 2007).

Water cannot flow uphill without somehow inducing head increases. The river must therefore be

converted into a series of flooded pools, with hydraulic turbines supplying the necessary increase in

head at the junction points between each pool. Given jumps in elevation of 21 meters, a high but

realistic value for hydraulic turbines, 11 pools would be required. These pools are illustrated as

segments 2 to 14.

81

Figure 17 Plan view of Albany proposal (source map: NRCAN, 2003)

Figure 18, the profile diagram, shows the gradual and stepwise increase in elevation of the river over the

11 pools. Figures 19 and 20 show a sample plan view of a few pools. Where the natural topography is

sloped to contain the flow, the area is allowed to flood. Where the terrain is too flat, dykes are used to

contain the pools. A balance was found between having to use expensive dyke walls, and minimizing the

flooded area. Appendix D summarizes each of 15 segment’s key features as well as some pertinent

notes. In summary, this proposal would require 9.1 km of dams, 87.7 km of dyke walls, and a cumulative

flooded area of 321 km2.

82

Figure 18 Albany river elevation diagram.

Figure 19 Section 3 of Albany proposal

Figure 20 Section 10 of Albany proposal

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 200 400 600 800

Original elevation of river surface

Flooded elevation of river surface

83

Hydrology

A similar hydrology assessment to the pipeline schemes was conducted using STELLA (version 9.1.3).

Appendix C-11 shows the model interface. It also consists of a reservoir (at segment 2), with an inflow of

the natural river discharge (monthly discharge data for the years 2000 to 2009, using HYDAT). Outflow

was defined as the allotted discharge out of the reservoir released by the spillway. The exported flow

was set to 400 MCS during the fall and winter, with a gradual increase to 1200 MCS. Similarly, to

estimate the expected reservoir stage variations, stage discharge functions were calculated by matching

discharge to river levels data from HYDAT.

Appendix C-12 and C-13 shows the yearly fluctuations of the natural discharge, the flow exported South

towards Lake Superior and the flow allowed out of the reservoir North towards James Bay. The most

notable change is the reduction in peak events, most of which are cut in half, and at the most severe,

the flow is reduced by 2000 MCS. There is also an expected spring stage peak decrease of 1 m at the

maximum (appendix C-2). Water stored in the control reservoir (section 2) will fluctuate yearly between

5200 m3 and 11000 m3 (appendix C-3). After 15 years, appendix C-15 shows the cumulative volumes of

inflows and outflows. Almost 50% of the discharge is diverted, cutting the natural flow of the Albany in

segment 1 severely.

Summary of proposal 2

The objective of this proposal is to increase the discharge into the Great Lakes basin to allow for

increases in consumption. This can be accomplished by reversing a northward flowing river and diverting

it into one of the lakes. The Albany River in Ontario was chosen, and the destination was Lake Superior.

To overcome the change in elevation, this proposal required a series of 11 pooled sections of increasing

elevation. Eachwas connected by a turbine to supply the increase in head. Significant land area would be

84

flooded (a total of 321 km2), and the total length of hydraulic structures to contain the flow (either dams

or dykes) could reach over 90 km.

4.2.3 Proposal 3: International Export via Tanker-ships

Many large rivers discharge into the Atlantic or the Pacific Ocean. Of these, three were identified as

having sufficient flow, a favourable location and a lack of competing users for an IBWT operation. On the

western side, there is the Skeena River of Northern British-Columbia. To the east, there is the Koksoak

River of the Ungava Bay, and Labrador’s Churchill River. These coastal rivers were chosen as probable

sites to fill super-tankers with water destined for international export.

Hydrology

An extensive hydrologic analysis using a STELLA simulation was omitted. This was considered

appropriate as the most significant consideration involving costs and impacts would be limited to the

conveyance distance. This was found to be feasible given that, even at an exaggerated export rate of 10

times that of the Australian case study (63 MCS, with 40 ships running continuously), the percentage of

the average discharge removed would never surpass 4% of the total flow, and a reservoir would not be

needed.

Source and Destination

Similar to the Australian study, this proposal would require underground pipelines to an offshore

mooring facility. Figure 21 shows an image of the arrangement for the Skeena, Koksoak and Churchill

extraction sites, complete with locations for extraction inlets, a treatment plant and mooring station.

Researching the details of the destinations is beyond the scope of this report. This includes exactly

which country would most likely demand imported water, which port would receive it, and how it could

be transported, and used inland. Given the commonly identified water issues of these regions, the areas

85

of North Africa, the Middle-East, Japan and China were chosen, with their closest coastal points as the

destinations. Figure 22 and 23 shows a satellite image of the shortest conveyance path.

Figure 21 Source site for tanker exportation (source map: NRCAN, 2003)

86

Figure 22 Conveyance path of Koksoak (yellow) and Churchill (red) proposals

Figure 23 Conveyance path of Skeena proposal towards Japan (red) and China (blue)

Summary of Proposal 3

To accomplish the export of Canadian coastal water to markets in Europe, the Middle East or Asia, ocean

tanker-ships can be employed. Table 5 summarizes the pertinent information: tanker conveyance

distance, time of 1-way travel (if the boats were to travel at 15 knots), length of underground and

underwater piping requirements.

87

Table 5 Tanker-ship details

Distance to (km): Distance to (km): Pipeline length (km)

discharge (MCS)

Strait of Gibraltar

1 way transit (days)

West-Asia/North Africa

1 way transit (days)

underground underwater

Churchhill 1620 4800 6.5 8000 to 8500

11 209 2

Koksoak 2420 5000 7 8750 to 9250

12.5 8 6

Distance to (km): Distance to (km): Pipeline length (km)

Japan China

Skeena 1760 6700 9.5 9100 12.5 27 34.7

88

4.3 Evaluation and discussion

As described in step 5 of the methodology, the 3 proposals were evaluated and compared. It is

important to reiterate at this point that the following numerical results are drawn from comparisons of a

multitude of sources (which include the case studies mentioned, additional case studies, studies on the

impacts of river engineering, information from land-use maps, as well as educated judgment). Therefore

the results are qualitative in nature, even though the results are numerical. Some notes for each

category of ratings are given. As will be expressed in the future studies section, there is the possibility

for a more quantitative or objective analysis. Nevertheless, tables 6 through 9 shows the results of the

evaluation with explanatory notes.

4.3.1 Environmental Impacts

Table 6 Aspect 1: Environmental Impacts

Category weighting factor pipeline river reversal tanker-ship

rating points rating points rating points

1.Change of river regime and disruption of river function

3 6 18 9 27 3 9

The pipeline and river reversal proposals involve damming, and downstream discharge reductions. The pipeline schemes have long spanning dams at the mouths of the river which will affect only a small portion of the total river length. Special consideration should be taken to correct for changes in sediment transport, and river bed properties, which will have impacts on fish migration and spawning grounds. The river reversal was given a 9 rating for disruption of river function as the hydraulic structures along the 9 km of reversed river would completely change the natural order and process of the river. Water would no longer freely flow downhill; rather it would pool and stagnate until it is forced through a turbine. Any species that relies on natural flow of this river will be forced out of this inhabitable habitat. Given the relative low volume of water that the tanker-ships could feasibly remove (less than 4%), we expect the impacts on the actually river function to be low, but significant enough to warrant attention and proper ecosystem protection measures.

89

2. Considerations of minimum environmental flow allocation and downstream flow reduction

weighting factor pipeline river reversal tanker-ship

rating points rating points rating points

2 4 8 7 14 2 4

As concluded with the hydrological analysis, much of the flow is diverted out with the pipeline schemes, yet the proportion is moderately severe (10 to 20%). Due to the need to maintain pooled sections, almost half of the Albany’s flow is diverted back, representing a much higher reduction in flow allocation. A long stretch of the Albany (about 275 km) would have to make due with severely reduced discharges and stage. Downstream of the dams, only the estuary area is affected as the dams are located near the rivers’ mouth. A small, but not insignificant proportion of the flow would be removed with the tanker-ships option, hence a rating of 2.

3.Reduction and changes to riparian flooding events

weighting factor pipeline river reversal tanker-ship

rating points rating points rating points

0.75 4 3 7 5.25 3 2.25

For the pipeline scheme, we can expect some reduction of floods which would impact important riparian zone processes. The river reversal scheme would essentially control and dampen out any natural flooding event. The seasonal peak flood flows would go into maintaining water levels in the pooled sections, rather than spilling over into the riparian zone. The tanker-ship installments would hold low significance in terms of impacts on flooding events.

4.Land disturbances and reduction in landscape quality

weighting factor pipeline river reversal tanker-ship

rating points rating points rating points

1 8 8 8 8 3 3

Very high values were given for both the pipeline and reversed river schemes. For the former the pipeline path would require a wide trench to be dug, disrupting the natural vegetation. The landscape would also be essentially cut, as the long reaches of high-walled dykes and pools would act as a barrier for migrating species. Although most of it would be temporary, with some instalments such as pumping stations being permanent, the high traffic of trucks and machinery would incur large impacts to the land. This is especially devastating where the pipe path must pass through a preserved forest or Native Land. For the latter, the flooded area of 321 km2 required to reverse a river represents a major loss of important forest and wetland. For the tanker-ships schemes, some land disturbances would be required to build the small lengths of pipelines, and infrastructure needed to load the vessels.

5.Impacts on habitat and individual species disruption

weighting factor pipeline river reversal tanker-ship

rating points Rating points rating points

1.5 5 7.5 7 10.5 4 6

Both the pipeline and tanker-ship have mid-level ratings for impacts on habitat, while the river reversal is considered more severe. This due to the fact that the impact is limited to a smaller section for these proposals: its estuary. Estuaries are especially sensitive and have very important and active habitats. For the pipeline, habitats will be impacted by reduced floods, reduced stage and effects of the dam. The unceasing traffic of super-tankers will be the largest impacter of aquatic species for the tanker-ship option. A rating of 7 was given to the river reversal considering that the entire length of the Albany would be affected, as previously described, including the estruary.

90

6.Introduction of non-native and invasive species

weighting factor pipeline river reversal tanker-ship

rating points Rating points rating points

1.5 5 7.5 3 4.5 8 12

For the pipeline proposal, there is great risk for the introduction of non-native species, given the drastic ecological differences between Northern Canada and South-Western United-States. This can be mitigated with proper treatment at the source, yet the risk remains especially with invertebreates and microorganisms. The risk for the river reversal scheme is assumed low because the source and destination locations are adjacent water catchment, and the share similar environments and ecology. The tanker-ship proposal poses the greatest threat as ship hulls can carry non-native species that travel between numerous international ports. Considering that the environment of Canada’s coastal rivers is extremely different than that of Asian and European ports (who may also have less stringent processes to clean off vessel hulls).

7.water quality issues

weighting factor Pipeline river reversal tanker-ship

rating Points Rating points rating points

0.6 3 1.8 7 4.2 5 3

Although not insignificant, the effects of the pipelines on water quality would be low due if proper water treatment facilities are implemented, and if the pipeline is kept well contained. Water quality issues would be most severe with the Albany proposal. Given that the amount of land flooded is over 300 km2, it is expected that heavy metals and excessive organic materials, naturally locked in soils and vegetation, would be released with the flood water, finding their way into the Great Lakes. Millions of people rely on the lakes and on the St. Lawrence River for their supply. Also, many Northern communities rely on the Albany River for their domestic supply. There is also a high threat to water quality for the tanker-ship proposal. This is due to heavy vessel traffic that are prone to oil spills and leaks.

8.greenhouse gas emissions

weighting factor Pipeline river reversal tanker-ship

rating Points Rating points rating points

2 7 14 8 16 8 16

Evaluations for greenhouse gas emissions were done by considering the Australian case study, and were found to be important for all three proposals. Powering pumps, turbines, vessel engines and treatment plants all use up significant volumes of fossil fuels. Also considered was the vegetation loss that occurs with land flooding. This represents a loss of CO2 sequestering potential, with net emissions from the decomposition of natural forests.

Sum (performance evaluation score) 67.8

89.45

55.25

91

4.3.2 Socio/Economic impacts

Table 7 Aspect 2: Socio/Economic impacts

Category weighting factor

Pipeline river reversals tanker-ship

rating Points rating points rating points

9. Capital costs

1.5 7 10.5 10 15 3 4.5

The pipeline proposals would be costly to set up, given the requirements for thousands of kilometres of dredged pipelines with very large diameters. With 11 giant turbines and almost 100 km of hydraulic structures, setting up the Albany proposal would cost incredible amounts in initial capital. The undertaking could be comparable to Quebec’s larger, multi-turbine and reservoir hydroelectricity projects, with costs in the tens of billions of dollars. The oceanic tanker proposals would require infrastructure and the production of a fleet of super-tankers, as well as underwater pipelines, which are more expensive to set up (GWA, 2004).

10.Energy expenditures and operational costs

weighting factor

Pipeline river reversals tanker-ship

rating Points rating points rating points

1.5 6 9 7 10.5 6 9

As discussed previously, moving water over long distances is very energy demanding considering the heavy nature of water. For the pipeline scheme, although pressurized pumps are more efficient, there is a considerably longer conveyance path, necessitating many power generating stations along the route. The river reversal was considered as the most demanding due to the requirements of 11 giant turbines. Finally, the fleet of super-tankers would require exorbitant volumes of fossil fuels, relative to the volume of water shipped, to traverse the vast oceans separating the source from the destinations.

11. Social

impacts

(especially on

aboriginal

communities)

,

weighting factor

Pipeline river reversals tanker-ship

rating Points rating points rating Points

1 8 8 7 7 6 6

Due to reductions in river function, water quality, and from habitat loss and landscape alterations, there is expected to be many impacts on Aboriginal communities that rely on the natural environment surrounding the affected rivers. Although the pipeline path could avoid some Native reservations, there will be some land that will be affected by deforestation and construction activity. The Albany River area has populations that would have to be relocated due to floods and habitat loss. For the tanker proposal, heavy vessel traffic would impact fishing communities.

weighting factor

Pipeline river reversals tanker-ship

rating Points rating points rating Points

12. political obstacles and public acceptance

1 6 6 8 8 10 10

All three proposals would incur severe obstacles in terms of politics and public acceptance, which represents a major drawback. The tanker-ship option was considered to be the most improbable, given past resistance to tanker exports and the idea of exporting precious Canadian northern water to the water corporations of Asia or the Middle-East. For the pipeline and river reversal, raising the funds and proving its profitability would be difficult for proponents. Finally, the harsh impacts would be

92

hard to sell to an increasingly environmentally conscious population, especially for the river reversal.

Pipeline

river reversals

tanker-ship

Sum (performance evaluation score) 33.5

40.5

29.5

4.3.3 Expected gains

Table 8 Aspect 3: Expected gains

Category weighting factor

pipeline river reversals tanker-ship

rating points rating points rating Points

6.Economic gains

2 7 14 6.5 13 2.5 5

With proper international agreements, well-formulated contracts, and management efforts, a sustained revenue stream from all three proposals is possible. Given the substantially lower conveyance potential of a fleet of super-tankers (in the range of 10 to 60 MCS, versus over 200 MCS for pipelines or diversions), the potential net gains of these proposals are lowest. Both the pipeline and river reversal can export water in excess of 400 MCS, yet the river reversal is slightly lower because the water is not being conveyed directly to the consumer.

7.Reliability of supply and water

security gained

weighting factor

pipeline river reversals tanker-ship

rating points rating points rating Points

1 6 6 4 4 7 7

Reliability evaluation was based on considerations from the Australian case study and other observations. Due to the unprecedented technique, the river reversal was seen as the least reliable.

8.Mitigated and reduced

environmental impacts of the

alternative supply strategy

weighting factor

pipeline river reversals tanker-ship

rating points rating points rating Points

1 7 7 6 6 6 6

All three IBWT proposals have the potential to contribute to offsetting the impacts that would be had from traditional supply methods, especially as water scarcity issues makes obtaining free water more problematic, energy intensive and impactful. IBWT also has the advantage of environmental impact consolidation away from population centers.

Sum (performance evaluation score) 27

23

18

93

4.3.4 Comparison

Multiplying the rating by the weighting factor for each category and summing these points together has

yielded a performance evaluation score for each of the three aspects. Figure 24 illustrates the results.

Figure 24 Comparing the performance evaluation score results for each of the three aspects.

As expected, the Albany proposal would have the greatest negative impact and would be subject to the

most obstacles. Also, the tanker exportation performance would both have the least impacts, but also

the weakest gains. It was then determined that the pipeline option had the most favourable balance of

impacts to gains.

Overall, it was found that all three proposals would incur extremely significant environmental and social

impacts. Although practically and technologically possible, economically, none was thought to be

feasible. It is important to repeat once more that the evaluation was qualitative and that these results

must be interpreted as such. A more thorough quantitative assessment and discussion would be

expected to further solidify these results and eliminate the subjective and judgemental elements of this

preliminary study. Ideas to proceed with this are discussed in chapter 5.

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

Environmental Costs & Obsticles Gains

pipeline (Liard or Nelson)

River Reversal (Albany)

Tanker Exportation (Skeena, Churchill, or Ungava)

94

CHAPTER 5

5.2 Conclusion

The findings of this report were many. The first was that transferring water out as a good to be sold

challenges how water is viewed and valued within society. The commoditisation of water poses risks to

the environment and to the valuable ecosystem that provide ecoservices. It can be seen as another way

man can carelessly and unsustainably deny the value of life sustaining, yet fragile natural cycles. In the

end though, new supplies of water for emerging populations and increasing standards of living must

come from somewhere. If the economics evolve to a point where the cheapest, most acceptable and

reliable option becomes inter-basin water transfer, it is likely that this type of development will be

favoured and the environmental impacts will be justified. This is especially true in Canada where political

ambiguities, trade agreements, and pressure for international trade activity have left Canada’s Northern

water vulnerable to bulk exports.

To gain a sense of the status and applicability of IBWT to real world projects, a few case studies were

explored. An Australian proposal to increase the supply water to the water stressed areas of Perth using

IBWT was explored. Many lessons were learnt regarding the evaluation process of comparing tradition

supply methods versus newer technologies such as desalination, water reuse and IBWT. Next a relevant

operational large-scale IBWT project was discussed. This was of the hydro-power developments of the

Rupert River in Quebec. Of importance were the technological specifications of the various hydraulic

structures used. The unavoidable impacts of hundreds of kilometers squared of inundated area, as well

as the ecosystem impacts that result from leaving a large river with only a fraction of its original flow,

has led to controversies. The social conflicts, especially with respect to Native communities, were

described.

95

Following the case studies, three types of IBWT projects were proposed to hypothetically harness and

sell water resources of Canada to international consumers. The options were to transfer water using

pipelines, oceanic tanker-ships, or by engineering a river in order to reverse its flow.

Given the amount of land flooded, and the expected impacts of completely disregarding the natural flow

direction, the river reversal proposal was allocated the most severe impacts. The impacts would be

numerous and unjustifiable: halting sediment discharge, decreasing by half the up-stream flow, large

flooded areas, large hydraulic structures with exorbitant fill material needs—all this in one of the most

active and important wetlands in Canada. Operating this enormous water transfer project would require

large energy expenditures as discharge would have to lifted up against the natural gradient.

Although not as severe, the other two proposals would incur significant impacts as well. The pipeline

would require thousands of kilometers of disturbed land to bury the pipeline. A dam also cuts off a

significant fraction of flow, affecting flooding events and downstream discharge, along with the aquatic

species that rely on these. Operating the numerous pumps along the conveyance path would also

consume much energy and release greenhouse gases. The oceanic transport option had similar impacts,

although less severe due to the fact that significantly less flow could be realistically extracted from

coastal rivers using vessels. However, with a non-stop fleet of 40 vessels, there would be great concern

over water quality issues from fuel spills, and from the introduction of non-native species by

contaminated vessel hulls, as the boats would travel hurriedly to international ports.

As a result of a qualitative and comparative assessment, it was found that the best option would be to

use the pipeline method. It was however found that all three options would be infeasible as they are not

economically viable, while having large social and environmental costs. Given the enormity of flow rates

required to satisfy demands combined with the fact that water is extremely heavy, it was found that the

benefits of IBWT of these projects could not outweigh the many impacts and obstacles.

96

Despite this result, it was made clear that research on water supply should be ongoing, and should

continuously incorporate new developments in technologies like large scale IBWT, and to factor in

changes in prices of energy and water, societal water issues, and changes in climate and the

environment. The aspiration is that this report and others like it will continue this type of discussion and

study.

A recurring theme of this report was the idea of ‘value’. Frequently the importance of measuring and

properly allocating this notion of value to fresh water was stressed in interviews and in the literature

review. If there is one aspect that was deeply gained in appreciation as a result of researching this

project, it would be that of the vastness, richness, splendour and preciousness of Northern Canada’s

water resources. Indeed it holds great value. By contemplating various maps, by discovering its highest

flowing rivers, wetlands and ponds that infinitely dot the landscape, by scouring images of un-touched

nature, by learning about the inner-workings of the ecology, and its resilient aquatic and land biota that

wonderfully defy and strive in the harsh colds of high latitudes, one can truly see all that we have to lose

and protect as much as we have to gain.

As Canadians are endowed with a richness of freshwater, it is imperative that they become masters of

this massive resource. The core value of water must be the focus: its value in ecoservices, exactly where

it is and how it flows. Yet, at the same time Canadians should not become complacent and ignorant of

what is happening internationally with all the problems of intensifying water scarcity and changes in

climate. Canada should thus be a nation both defined by its large and precious water resources, while at

the same time being known as a nation well versed in water conservation and water justice.

97

5.1 Future Studies

One of the general objectives of this study was to motivate and open dialogue about IBWT and to

provide a simple and broad picture in terms of a few possible scenarios. Therefore, the scope was kept

as wide as possible, which consequently did not permit a thorough and robust detailing of each proposal

or of other possible options. The following are a few suggestions to take the research further:

More exhaustive analysis of both potential extraction and consumption sites. Given the thousands

of fresh water sources of Canada, the possibilities for IBWT are enormous. Also extremely numerous

are the potential importing locations that will only increase with scarcity issues. This project was

centered on the most probable larger, continental scale projects, yet there could be considerations

for smaller and more local scaled export schemes.

More robust refinement of hydraulic structure design, conveyance details, construction phase

details, hydrologic analysis, supply-demand predictions, risk analysis, etc. The amount of detail

given for each proposal was considered sufficient for preliminary discussion, yet it was minimal

given the size and breadth of the proposals, the numerous elements and structures and the

different stakeholders. There could be large amounts of details added that goes into formulating

and describing a proposal or plan at such scales.

Specific analysis of environmental impacts. The most significant constraint to fully investigating the

environmental impacts was the availability of data. A more in-depth analysis would have taken

careful considerations of fish habitat and impacts on reproduction, impacts on riparian zone,

impacts on estuaries, and a more quantitative evaluation of GHG emissions. Extensive temporal and

spatial field measurements, which include a thorough assessment of the site’s ecology, sensitive

species and their reproduction habits, should be accounted for.

98

Measured cost analysis: for each proposal, estimate the initial capital, cost per m3 exported,

energy analysis (kWhr need per m3) and GHG analysis (tonnes CO2 emitted per m3). In terms of a

quantitative comparison, generating numerical estimations of cost and energy requirements within

acceptable certainty would have obviously added much tangible value to the comparison of the

proposal.

In-depth analysis of value of water: Much is still needed in the study of properly allocating the

value of water in ecoservices. This allows for better comparison of options.

Incorporating alternative traditional options, the business as usual option, and/or other new

technologies into the comparison. In the Australian case study, the proposals were compared to the

option of desalination. Therefore, better conclusions could be drawn about the feasibility of IBWT

given the other alternatives.

99

REFERENCES

Agnew, C., & Woodhouse, P. (2011). Water resources and development. New York, NY: Routledge.

AWWA. (2004). Steel pipe : a guide for design and installation. Denver, CO: American Water Works

Association.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2010). Regional population growth, Australia, 2009-10. Retrieved from

Australian Bureau of Statistics website:

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/3218.0~2009-10~Main

Barlow, M. (2007). Blue covenant: The global water crisis and the coming battle for the right to water.

Totonto, ON: McClelland & Steward Ltd.

Bonspiel, S. (2006, October 20). Three communities to vote on EM 1-a: Nemaska, Waskaganish, Chisasibi

look to halt Rupert diversion. Nation and Beesum Communications. Retrieved from

http://www.beesum-communications.com/nation/archive/13-24/3com.html

Brown, L. R. (2003). Plan B: Rescuing a plant under stress and a civilization in trouble. New York, NY:

W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior. (n.d.). Colorado-Big Thompson project.

Reclamation.

CBC. (2006, October 24). Nunavut raises concerns about Rupert River hydro project. CBS News North.

Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/story/2006/10/24/rupert-electric.html

Clamen, M. (2011, November 22). Interview by S. Dagher [Web Based Recording]. (Dr. Murray Clamen is

the secretary of the Canadian Section of the International Joint Commission, and has 25 years of

Federal Public Service. He is currently a professor in the department of Bioresource Engineering at

McGill University.)

Council of Canadians. (2007). Bulk water exports: A timeline. Retrieved from website:

http://www.canadians.org/water/issues/policy/timeline.html

Dennehy, K. F. USGS, (2000). High-Plains regional ground-water study: U.S. geological survey fact sheet. USGS (FS-091-00)

Derry, M. (n.d.). Derry tankering plan overview. Retrieved from

http://www.australianwaterresources.com/derrytankeringplan.htm

Ghassemi, F., & White, I. (2007). Inter-basin water transfer: Case studies from Australia , US, Canada,

China and India. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Government of Western Australia (GWA) (2006). Options for bringing water to Perth from the Kimberley:

An independent review. Perth, Australia: Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

100

Grant, J. K. (2008). Against the flow: Institutions and canada's water-export debate. In M. Sproule-Jones,

C. Johns & T. Heinmiller (Eds.), Canadian Water Politics: Conflicts and Institutions. Montreal, QC:

McGill-Queens University Press.

Grant, J.K. (2011, October 3). Interview by S. Dagher [E-mail Interview]. (Grant is a contributing author of

the book Against the Flow. He is a doctorate student at McMasters University.)

Heinmiller, B. T. (2003). Harmonization through emulation: Canadian federalism and water export policy.

Canadian Public Administration, 46(4), 495–513.

Hey, R. D. (1996). Environmentally sensitive river engineering. In G. Petts & P. Calow (Eds.), River

Restoration (pp. 80-105). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science Ltd.

Hydro-Québec (HQ). Presented to the Québec Minister of the Environment. (2004). Eastmain-1-a

powerhouse and Rupert diversion: Environmental impact statement, chapter 1. Montreal, QC:

Hydro-Québec Productions.

International Joint Commission. (2000). Protection of waters of the Great Lakes: Final report to the

government of Canada and the United-States. Washington D.C. and Ottawa ON: International

Joint Commission.

International Joint Commission. (2011). Treaties and agreements. Retrieved from

http://www.ijc.org/rel/agree/water.html

International Joint Commission. (2012). Who we are. Retrieved from

http://www.ijc.org/en/background/ijc_cmi_nature.htm

Johns, C. (2008a). Introduction. In M. Sproule-Jones, C. Johns & T. Heinmiller (Eds.), Canadian Water

Politics: Conflicts and Institutions Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen's University Press.

Johns, C. (2008b). Institutions for water resource management in Canada. In M. Sproule-Jones, C. Johns

& T. Heinmiller (Eds.), Canadian Water Politics: Conflicts and Institutions Montreal, QC: McGill-

Queen's University Press.

Jolicoeur, M. (2010, October 10). Exploitation de l’eau: les spécialistes réclament une vision. Les Affaires.

Retrieved from http://www.lesaffaires.com/secteurs-d-activite/environnement/exploitation-de-l-

eau-les-specialistes-de-l-eau-reclament-une-vision/519819/1

Keating, R. (2006, February 24). Kimberley water plans 'all viable'. Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/water/stories/s1577478.htm

Kierans, M. (2012, February 12). Tom Kierans: Visionary/engineer and man with a plan to save the

Ogallala aquifer about to enter 100th year. CNN ireport. Retrieved from

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-743991

101

LaRouche, L. H. (1988, January). The outline of NAWAPA. Retrieved from

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/economy/phys_econ/phys_econ_nawapa_1983.html

Lasserre, F. (2005). Les projets de transferts massifs continentaux en amérique du nord: La fin de l'ère

des dinosaurs?. In F. Lasserre (Ed.), Transferts massifs d'eau Sainte-Foy, QC: Presse de l'université

du Québec.

Linton, J. (2002). Canada on tap: The environmental implications of water exports. Commissioned by The

Council of Canadians’ Blue Planet Project.

Maich, S. (2005, November 24). America is thirsty. Maclean's. Retrieved from

http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20051128_116618_116618

Mann, B. (2008, July 14). Hydro-electric project to reshape wilderness. NPR. Retrieved from

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92514989

Mercier, G., & Ritchot, G. (1997). La Baie-James: Les dessous d'une rencontre que la bureaucratie n'avait

pas prévue. Cahiers de Géographie du Québec, 41(113), 137-169.

Minister of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks (MDDEP), Government of Quebec.

(n.d.). Eastmain 1-a and Rupert River diversion hydropower project: Mercury and health. Retrieved

from website: http://www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/evaluations/eastmain-rupert/rapport-

comexen/mercury.htm

Montreal Environment. (2011). La Romaine mega-dam sparks controversy. Montreal Environment.

Retrieved from http://www.montrealenvironment.ca/la-romaine-mega-dam-sparks-controversy/

Morgan, G. (2010, June 13). Throw cold water on bulk-water export opposition. The Globe and Mail.

Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/throw-cold-water-on-bulk-

water-export-opposition/article1602692/

NRCAN. (1978). Annual Large River Flow. Natural Resources Canada. Retrieved from

http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/archives/hydrological_atlas_1978/water_quantity_gen

eral/22_Annual_Large_River_Flow_1978

NRCAN. (2003). Topographic Maps of Canada. Natural Resources Canada. Retrieved from

http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/freshwater/distribution/drainage

Northern Waterways. (2006, December 17). Cree Opposition to Rupert River Diversion Project in

Northern Quebec [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://northernwaterways.com/blog/?p=25

Olechnowicz, K. (2010, October 25). Interview by G. Fillion [Web Based News Recording]. Tirer profit de

notre eau?. Radio-Canada: carnets d'économie, Montreal, QC. , Retrieved

from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_rmGDdKEJ0

102

Parsons Co. (1964). Ralph M. Parsons Company promotional video for NAWAPA . [Promotional Video].

Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTissXa48yg

Patra, K. C. (2011). Engineering fluid mechanics and hydraulic machines. Oxford, U.K.: Alpha Science

International Ltd.

Petts, G. E., & Calow, P. (1996). The nature of rivers. In G. Petts & P. Calow (Eds.), River Restoration (pp.

1-6). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science Ltd.

Pierre Gingras, F. (2010). L'eau du nord: Un projet réaliste, durable et rentable pour exploiter l'or bleu du

québec. Saint-Sauveur, QC: Marcel Broquet Éditeur.

Provincial Review Commitee (COMEX). Québec Minister of the Environment. (2006). Eastmain-1-a

powerhouse and Rupert diversion hydropower project. Québec, QC: Provincial Review Committee

to the Administrator of Chapter 22 of the James Bay and Northern Québec Agreement.

Quinn, F. (2007). Water diversion, exports, and Canada/U.S. relations: A brief history. Canadian Water

Issues Council, Retrieved from

Richer, E. Environment Canada, (2007). News release: Canada has no intention of negotiating bulk water

exports . Retrieved from Environment Canada Media Relations website:

http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=714D9AAE-1&news=B362E955-305B-49FB-BA8B-

AD6292238387

Roy, S.B., Chen, L., Girvetz, E.H., Maurer, E.P., Mills, W.B., and Grieb, T.M. (2012). Projecting water withdrawal and supply for future decades in the U.S. under climate change scenarios. Environmental Science & Technology, 46 (5), 2545-2556

Sasseville, J., & Abdessalem, Y. (2005). La rationalité des transfers massifs d'eaux douces. In Transferts

massifs d'eau. Sainte-Foy, QC: Presse de l'université du Québec.

Texas. (2012). Water for Texas 2012: State water plan. Austin, TX: Texas Water Development Board.

Tremblay, H. (2011, September 2). Interview by S. Dagher [Web Based Phone Recording]. (Hugo is a PhD student at the UNESCO Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science. His research is on the legal frameworks for freshwater ecosystem protection. He is also a practicing litigation lawyer.)

United Nations. (2010, July 28). General assembly declares access to clean water and sanitation is a

human right. UN News Center. Retrieved from

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=35456&Cr=SANITATION

Water Corporation. (2004). Kimberley pipeline project: sustainability review. Leederville, Autralia: Water

Corporation

Water Corporation. (2005). Integrated water supply scheme source development plan: Planning horizon

2005-2050. Leederville, Autralia: Water Corporation.

103

Watkins, T. (n.d.). The North-American water and power alliance (NAWAPA). San José State University

Department of Economics, Retrieved from http://www.applet-magic.com/NAWAPA.htm

Wood, C. (2008). Dry spring: The coming water crisis of North America. Vancouver, BC: Raincoast Books.

Wood, C. (2011, September 7). Interview by S. Dagher [E-mail Interview]. (Chris Wood is a Canadian

journalist and author. He is the writer of Dry Spring which was nominated for the Shaughnessy-

Cohen Prize for Political Writing)

World Water Council. (2010). Water crisis. Retrieved from

http://www.worldwatercouncil.org/index.php?id=25

104

APPENDIX A Results from GWA (2006)

Appendix A results from GWA (2006)

105

APPENDIX B Canada’s Large River Flow Visualization (NRCAN, 1978)

106

107

APPENDIX C STELLA Results

Appendix C- 1 – Liard hydrology

Appendix C- 2 – Liard stage

108

Appendix C- 3 – Liard reservoir

Appendix C- 4 – Liard 15 year results

109

Appendix C- 5 – Laird final results

Appendix C- 6 Nelson Hydrology

110

Appendix C- 7 – Nelson stage

Appendix C- 8 – Nelson reservoir

5:17 PM Tue, Mar 13, 2012

Untitled

Page 1

0.00 45.00 90.00 135.00 180.00

Months

1:

1:

1:

2500

4000

5500

1: reservoir

1

1

1

1

111

Appendix C- 9 – Nelson final result

Appendix C- 10 – Liard and Nelson STELLA interface

5:21 PM Tue, Mar 13, 2012

Untitled

Page 1

1:

1:

1:

2:

2:

2:

3:

3:

3:

0

325000

650000

1: total water exported 2: total water discharged 3: total discharge

112

Appendix C- 11 – Albany interface

113

Appendix C- 12 – Albany hydrology

114

Appendix C- 13 – Albany reservoir

Appendix C- 14 – Albany stage

5:44 PM Tue, Mar 13, 2012

Untitled

Page 1

0.00 45.00 90.00 135.00 180.00

Months

1:

1:

1:

5000

8000

11000

1: reservoir

1

1

1

1

5:45 PM Tue, Mar 13, 2012

Untitled

Page 1

0.00 45.00 90.00 135.00 180.00

Months

1:

1:

1:

2:

2:

2:

2

4

7

2

3

5

1: normal stage upstream 2: altered stage upstream

1

1

1

12

2

22

115

Appendix C- 15 – Albany final results

116

APPENDIX D Albany River hydraulic structure parameters hydraulic structures

dams (elevated channel) dyke canals notes

Section elev start

elev end

change in elev

Chainage from James bay

flooded area

length max height

max width (disregarding cofferdams)

length max height

max width

length

1 0 74 74 274 0 - - - - - - - Reduced flow section. Possibility of weirs and rock blankets to maintain water level and hydraulic conditions

2 74 96 22 380 182 4200 29 107.6 - - - - Well controlled spillway gate needed. Significant flooded surface area.

3 96 117 21 399 8 876 27 100.8 - - - -

4 117 139 21 419 18 200 27 100.8 9700 23 104.1 4100

5 139 160 21 438 22 213 27 100.8 6300 23 104.1

6 160 181 21 462 24 100 27 100.8 35400 23 104.1 Flat terrain in these reaches necessitates long built up dikes embankments to contain flow

7 181 203 21 477 15 1480 27 100.8 28200 23 104.1 72

8 203 224 21 488 7 673 27 100.8 7900 23 104.1

9 224 245 21 498 9 26 27 100.8 8.5 23 104.1

10 245 267 21 515 24 1300 27 100.8 7 23 104.1

11 267 279 12 543 8 59 19 73.6 - - -

12 279 290 11 547 0 - - - - - - Chipmen Lake (flat surface water)

13 290 300 11 553 1 29 18 70.2 - - -

14 300 309 9 570 5 27 15 60 200 12 57.9 Use of pre-existing dam. Retro-fitting to accommodate extra flow may be necessary. Well controlled spillway gate needed

15 309 183 -126 716 0 - - - - - - Measures to accommodate increased flow

SUMS 321 9183 87715.9 4172