February 2008 Archives

The issue of irrigation development around Lake Diefenbaker has many varied perspectives. To generate discussion on this multi-faceted issue, the Illative Blog is hosting a four-part series on irrigation development in the South Saskatchewan River Basin (SSRB).We have invited four authors to share their perspectives.

Over the next four days the Water Series entries will be posted. We encourage you to follow this series during the course of the week, and to take the opportunity to post a comment on the perspectives and inferences raised by any or all of the authors.

The schedule for postings is as follows:
Monday, Feb. 25th - The Saskatchewan Watershed Authority provides an overview on the primary uses and operational management of Lake Diefenbaker, including a commentary on the factors that are considered when managing water levels.

Tuesday, Feb 26th - Kevin Hursh provides a policy perspective on irrigation for agriculture.

Wednesday, Feb 27th - Harvey Hill (PFRA) takes into consideration the water situation in the United States to broaden our awareness of the growing irrigation potential of Lake Diefenbaker.

Thursday, Feb 28th - Joel Bruneau (Economics, University of Saskatchewan), who recently co-authored "Climate Change and Water: SSRB Final Technical Report," reminds us that expanding irrigation requires careful management to sustain all sectors reliant on water flow from the SSRB.

Join the discussion - please provide us with your perspectives on this important issue!

In this posting I would like to talk about how events upstream of Lake Diefenbaker may limit irrigation development in Saskatchewan in the future. Irrigation development, like many other investments, has a long payoff period and it is important to understand how changing circumstances can alter these payoffs over time. We need to ensure that plans to expand irrigation around Lake Diefenbaker account for future developments.

Lake Diefenbaker has been the ugly duckling of irrigation projects since its birth for a variety of geographic and socio-economic reasons. Is it now turning into a swan? And if so, why would that be? Look no further than the United States and Alberta. In the United States, agriculture accounts for 80% of the country's water consumption and over 90% in many Western States. Irrigated cropland area has expanded 30 percent since 1969, making irrigation agriculture the dominant user of fresh water in the United States.

Are the stars finally aligning to see significant new irrigation development in Saskatchewan?

The Saskatchewan Irrigation Projects Association has been advocating more public investment in irrigation development for years, but little has happened. At the annual SIPA meeting in December, there was renewed optimism that the time is now right.

Gardiner Dam, located 25 kilometers downstream from Elbow on the South Saskatchewan River, opened on June 21,1967, in conjunction with the Qu'Appelle River Dam. Both projects helped to create Lake Diefenbaker, a 225-kilometer long reservoir with a full supply level of 556.86 meters. The Saskatchewan Watershed Authority directs the operation of Lake Diefenbaker and consults with SaskPower to ensure discharges can be effectively handled at SaskPower's downstream Nipawin and E.B. Campbell hydroelectric plants.

This week's blog entry is different from that of previous weeks. Typically, we post a new entry each Thursday on a policy related issue that affects the future of agriculture and rural communities. The inferences and perspectives offered in each posting serve as a starting point for discussion and comments.

Although our blog subscribers receive e-mail notification about the original postings, they do not receive subsequent notifications about the comments that are posted (the exception is if they have made a comment on the same entry and have asked to receive an e-mail each time a new comment is made). So this week we wanted to have an entry solely dedicated to some of the comments that have been made to the blog posts.

In our earlier blog entry we suggested that there are two directions for the burgeoning biofuel industry to take (see Whither Biofuels, December 13, 2007). These two directions are not mutually exclusive - given the right circumstances, either or both of these directions could be taken. One direction involves the creation of liquid fuels from various forms of plant material - specifically, products such as ethanol or biodiesel that can be used to power vehicles. The other direction involves the production of solid fuels that can be used as an energy source to compete with the likes of coal. In this entry, we focus on the Canadian Prairies and consider what these two paths mean for land use and biofuels policy in this region.

Whenever crop prices rise analysts are often asked to predict how long the rise will last. Making price forecasts involves looking at past trends, current drivers and commodity price cycles. Commodity price cycles typically follow the pattern of long periods of low prices with short price peaks in between the price troughs. Strong prices are short-lived because high prices encourage investment, which increases production, resulting in an oversupply and subsequent price decline. Is this current price peak just another blip in the commodity cycle or has something changed? I would argue these high prices might last longer because of three factors in particular: (1) growing economies in China and India; (2) Hubbert's Peak, and; (3) U.S. biofuel policy.