A Critical Analysis of Agrivision's Report Water Wealth: A Fifty Year Water Development Plan for Saskatchewan
Organization: Saskatchewan Environmental Society
Type: Policy
Saskatchewan Agrivision Corporation's report Water Wealth: A Fifty Year Water Development Plan for Saskatchewan attempts to draft a blueprint for economic growth-one that encourages Saskatchewan policy-makers and citizens to invest billions into building dams and diverting rivers. The report's implicit hope is that these engineering works and increased water availability will, in turn, trigger increased irrigation and food production which will, in turn, lure corporations to build food-processing facilities which will, in turn, result in both the creation of jobs and doubling of the province's rural population. As this critique will detail, it is extremely unlikely that the Agrivision plan will succeed: investing massively in dams will not lead to the economic development or job creation the Agrivision report suggests. Further, this critique will demonstrate that many of the proposals central to the Agrivision plan would trigger unacceptable environmental and social costs.
Not only are Agrivision's proposed dams and diversions costly; they're unnecessary. Saskatchewan does not need new dams in order to increase irrigation and food production and, thus, to attempt to attract corporations to set up food-processing plants. Today, from the water in Lake Diefenbaker alone, we could supply hundreds of thousands of additional irrigated acres. While studies will have to be undertaken to assess how increased irrigation withdrawals will affect ecosystems and other users, it is probable that Lake Diefenbaker could irrigate at least two-and-a-half times more land than it currently supplies. The limiting factor on irrigated food production in Saskatchewan is not a lack of dams or water; it is the reluctance of farmers to invest in irrigation because of the poor returns.
There are numerous, superior alternatives to the water-driven, mega-project blueprint Agrivision sets forth. Alternatives include direct, co-operative investment in decentralized processing; significantly increased irrigation from existing water supplies; electricity production from wind and other renewable sources; and safeguarding urban water supplies by pursuing conservation and, where appropriate, small-scale dams or off-stream impoundments. By analyzing and critiquing the Agrivision report, SES hopes to help citizens and policymakers move forward to create and embrace a more complete framework for understanding water and its place in nature and in our economy. Economic considerations are necessary, but they are not sufficient. Such considerations must be evaluated in the context of our increasingly complex understanding of the interconnectedness and interdependence of human-created and natural systems. This critique of the Agrivision report will outline the shortcomings of that document and, more important, will provide guidance toward a more complete and appropriate framework within which Saskatchewan citizens and policymakers can make critical decisions about the future of our unique and precious rivers and watersheds, and about meeting water needs for cities and towns, agriculture, recreation, business, nature, and the future.
Not only are Agrivision's proposed dams and diversions costly; they're unnecessary. Saskatchewan does not need new dams in order to increase irrigation and food production and, thus, to attempt to attract corporations to set up food-processing plants. Today, from the water in Lake Diefenbaker alone, we could supply hundreds of thousands of additional irrigated acres. While studies will have to be undertaken to assess how increased irrigation withdrawals will affect ecosystems and other users, it is probable that Lake Diefenbaker could irrigate at least two-and-a-half times more land than it currently supplies. The limiting factor on irrigated food production in Saskatchewan is not a lack of dams or water; it is the reluctance of farmers to invest in irrigation because of the poor returns.
There are numerous, superior alternatives to the water-driven, mega-project blueprint Agrivision sets forth. Alternatives include direct, co-operative investment in decentralized processing; significantly increased irrigation from existing water supplies; electricity production from wind and other renewable sources; and safeguarding urban water supplies by pursuing conservation and, where appropriate, small-scale dams or off-stream impoundments. By analyzing and critiquing the Agrivision report, SES hopes to help citizens and policymakers move forward to create and embrace a more complete framework for understanding water and its place in nature and in our economy. Economic considerations are necessary, but they are not sufficient. Such considerations must be evaluated in the context of our increasingly complex understanding of the interconnectedness and interdependence of human-created and natural systems. This critique of the Agrivision report will outline the shortcomings of that document and, more important, will provide guidance toward a more complete and appropriate framework within which Saskatchewan citizens and policymakers can make critical decisions about the future of our unique and precious rivers and watersheds, and about meeting water needs for cities and towns, agriculture, recreation, business, nature, and the future.
Submitted by: WConnect Admin (June 09, 2009)
Last Reviewed by: WConnect Admin (June 09, 2009)
[Return]
Comments