Lake Diefenbaker - The Ugly Duckling Story?

Figure 1. Water use trends in the United States, 1950-2000.

Source: USDS

Canada receives 3,300 cubic kilometers (KM3) of renewable water per year. In comparison, the United States receives 3,060 KM3 of renewable water per year (one cubic kilometer of water equals 1 trillion liters). The total renewable water per capita is 94 million liters in Canada, and 10 million liters in the United States; this means Canadians have nine times more water per capita to work with than their U.S. counterparts. But it is not as simple as that, since much of the renewable water in Canada is in relatively inaccessible regions of Northern Canada.

It is normal for water to be traded in many regions of the U.S. However, many Canadians view water trading with trepidation. One reason for this view may be that for most parts of Canada, water supply outweighs demand. As long as water supply is in excess supply, Canadians are oblivious to water allocation. If Canada follows the U.S. pattern, then the scarcer our water supply becomes, the more comfortable and willing we will be to look at water rights allocation and trading.

In Canada, each province is responsible for water in its jurisdiction. Alternatives to water trading may be adopted as constraints emerge in different jurisdictions. For instance, when demand equalled supply in Southern Alberta, water trading began under Alberta's Water for Life Policy. A key reason for this policy was to maintain economic activity, the environment, and quality of life. Environmentally, the approach is attractive if done correctly. South of the border, states such as Oregon use a similar approach to maintain aquatic systems and habitat.

The perception of water constraints in Canada are only in the beginning stages so it is understandable that little is known about the economic characteristics of Canadian agricultural water-use (Rinzetti, 2005). Estimates from the United States can be used to approximate the value of irrigated acres around Lake Diefenbaker. Irrigated land is diminishing in the United States. For example, by 2030 California is expected to reduce its irrigated acres by 690,000 acres (or 7 percent). If we estimate irrigated agriculture in California to grow in value from 20.446 B dollars to 32.305 B dollars by 2030, the value of production from each remaining irrigated acre will be $3,836.

This is an opportunity for Lake Diefenbaker, since it has approximately 400,000 acres that could be developed for irrigation. To illustrate the point, assume one third of the acreage losses in California were offset by irrigation expansion around Lake Diefenbaker. This would translate into 900 million U.S. (2001) dollars. Of course other factors have to be considered, but it provides some sense of the potential.

There is a growing awareness of this opportunity. However, there are reasons why this gosling may never become a graceful swan, such as:

• Competing demands for the water trump the move to increase irrigation.

• Supporting investments in transportation infrastructure to haul product from the region have not happened.

• The intensive labor, agronomic, and marketing management challenges associated with high value irrigated products are not mastered.

Lake Diefenbaker's physical and socio-economic advantages as an irrigation region should ultimately overwhelm the above constraints as the cost of production in other environments continue to rise. There are no guarantees, but it does appear to be a project with an increasing number of swanlike feathers.

This blog entry was authored by Harvey Hill as part of the Water Series. To read additional Illative Blog entries or to leave comments on this entry, please visit www.illativeblog.ca. The Illative Blog is an initiative by the Knowledge Impact in Society (KIS) Project based out of the University of Saskatchewan. Email correspondence can be sent to kis.project@usask.ca