2006 ROSENBERG WATER POLICY FORUM:
PRELIMINARY PUBLIC E-CONSULTATION

A focused e-discussion held from July 31-August 28, 2006

E-Conference Main Page | Week 1 | Week 2 | Week 3 | Week 4

Week 3:

August 14 -20 , 2006 - Managing Across Multiple Jurisdictions

Agenda

The Saskatchewan River flows through three Canadian provinces. The management of the river is governed by treaties and codified policies between three Canadian Provinces. Each Province has it own unique patterns of water needs and those needs are expected to intensify in the coming decades. In the face of these intensifying needs do you believe that the Saskatchewan River could be better managed by a River Basin Commission or some other basin-wide institution? Are there other successful examples that would support this approach, or would provide a better approach?

Moderator

Mr. Robert Halliday, consulting engineer with R. Halliday and Associates represents Partners for the Saskatchewan River Basin http://www.saskriverbasin.ca/

Postings

Thread: Managing Across Multiple Jurisdictions

Thread index will be posted here when discussion begins.

[mf-ec]	Theme 2: Managing Across Multiple Jurisdictions	Krause & Taylor
[mf-ec]	Case Study: Saskatchewan River Basin	Halliday
[mf-ec]	IMAGE- sask_basin.jpg [299k jpeg]	Halliday
[mf-ec]	RE: Saskatchewan River basin	Borowski
[mf-ec]	RE: Saskatchewan River basin	Halliday
[mf-ec]	RE: Saskatchewan River basin	Borowski
[mf-ec]	RE: Saskatchewan River basin	Ludwig

Message List

Thread: [mf-ec] Managing Across Multiple Jurisdictions
(messages are listed in chronological order)

Subject:	Theme 2: Managing Across Multiple Jurisdictions
From:	Amy Krause & Leslie Taylor
Message:	-----Original Message----- From: Amy Krause & Leslie Taylor Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 To: Mountain Forum - E-conference Subject: [mf-ec] Theme 2: Managing Across Multiple Jurisdictions ************************************************ Rosenberg Water Policy E-Discussion -- Managing Upland Watersheds -- July 31 - August 28, 2006 ************************************************ Introduction to Theme 2 Managing Across Multiple Jurisdictions August 14-20, 2006 Guest Moderator: Robert Halliday, consulting engineer, Halliday and Associates, representing Partners FOR the Saskatchewan River Basin Conference Website: http://snipurl.com/tz4x (short URL) Introduction --- During the first week of the Rosenberg Water Policy E-Discussion, we asked you to tell us about planning for the specific, local impacts of climate change. This week, we ask you to tell us more about "the big picture" or managing across multiple jurisdictions. How is this accomplished where you come from? Our guest moderator, Bob Halliday, will start us off with an introduction to the Saskatchewan River basin. As before, we welcome postings on this topic throughout the e-discussion, but encourage you to share your thoughts THIS WEEK. The sooner you comment, the more opportunity others will have to reply. Background --- The Saskatchewan River flows through three Canadian provinces. The management of the river is governed by provincial water policies and codified policies among Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. (Some important headwaters tributaries in the basin are also subject to the Boundary Waters Treaty.) Each Province has it own unique patterns of water needs and those needs are expected to intensify in the coming decades. The basin can also anticipate changes in annual and seasonal flow patterns on account of climate change. Questions for Participants --- In the face of these intensifying needs do you believe that the Saskatchewan River basin could be more effectively served by a River Basin Commission or some other basin-wide institution? Are there other successful examples that would support this approach, or would provide a better approach? How to Participate --- Please send your comments BEFORE MONDAY, AUGUST 21 to: mf-ec@mtnforum.org Thank you to everyone who contributed ideas during the last week of discussion. There were some great insights shared! Please continue to contribute, even if it is just a few personal impressions. Try one of these if you are stuck: example; question; request; lesson learned; promising strategy; recommendation; comment; reference material; case study. Thank you! Your messages will not appear immediately on the e- discussion list, but will be formatted first, then posted by the e-discussion moderator within 24 hours, Mon-Fri. We are looking forward to more dynamic discussion! Amy Krause Mountain Forum Project Officer Mountain Culture, The Banff Centre Amy_krause@banffcentre.ca (403) 762-6477 Leslie Taylor Associate Director, Mountain Environment Mountain Culture, The Banff Centre Leslie_taylor@banffcentre.ca (403) 762-6675
Return to message index

Subject:	Theme 1: Planning for Climate Change, Locally
From:	Robert Halliday
Message:	-----Original Message----- From: Robert Halliday, Guest Moderator Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 To: Mountain Forum - E-conference Subject: [mf-ec] Case Study: Saskatchewan River Basin Welcome to this e-discussion concerning the Saskatchewan River basin. An overview of the basin, including a basic map, follows this brief introduction. Some key considerations pertaining to governance of the basin include: * The basin lies in three Canadian provinces and one American state. * In a typical year, most of the annual runoff originates as snowmelt in the Rocky Mountains. As well, 44 percent of the drainage basin typically does not contribute to the flow of the rivers. The two main branches, the North and South Saskatchewan rivers, serve merely as conveyance channels across the prairie. * Natural resources management, including water management, is the constitutional purview of Canadian provincial governments. The federal government has specific responsibilities related to fisheries, federal lands such as national parks, and for interjurisdictional matters. * The Saskatchewan basin has been significantly altered by human activity, particularly agricultural development. Demands for irrigation water in the South Saskatchewan basin are high and, in that basin, cattle consume more water than people. Seasonal streamflow patterns have also been modified by construction of dams for power generation and water supply. * Although there are interjurisdictional institutions such as the International Joint Commission and the Prairie Provinces Water Board with specific responsibilities in the basin, there is no multi- interest basin-wide governance mechanism is in play. Your insights concerning water governance in the Saskatchewan River basin and specific examples of the application of integrated water resources management to basins such as this are particularly welcome. All good wishes Bob Halliday [Moderator’s Note: We will be posting a map of the Saskatchewan River basin on the e-discussion website kindly provided by Bob Halliday. In the meantime, please refer to this URL: http://collections.ic.gc.ca/soilandwater/pr3.htm] Overview of the Saskatchewan River Basin The waters of the 340,000 km2 Saskatchewan River basin rise in the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains of Alberta and Montana and flow eastward across the Prairie Provinces joining Lake Winnipeg and thence to Hudson Bay via the Nelson River. About 90 percent of the flow in the River originates in the mountains with the remaining flow being contributed by prairie runoff. The watershed includes four significant terrestrial ecozones: montane cordillera, prairie, boreal plain, and boreal shield. Approximately three million people live in the basin, 95 percent of them in urban centres in Alberta and Saskatchewan. The Saskatchewan River basin has been profoundly altered by human activity. This is particularly evident in loss of wetlands and native grasslands, and in conversion of forestlands to agricultural use. Much of the present land surface is devoted to agricultural production, streams have also been dammed for power production, and the basin contains some of the fastest growing and most prosperous urban centres in Canada. At the same time, cultural and environmental values are preserved though five national parks, dozens of provincial parks, several designated historic sites, and many recreational sites. Water demands, both consumptive such as irrigated agriculture and non-consumptive such as hydroelectric generation, and the trends in water demands are important considerations throughout the basin. As demands grow, allocating scarce supplies fairly among water users becomes increasingly important. Improvements to policies, laws and procedures for water allocation, for encouraging increased beneficial use, and for water conservation will be needed. As well, societal demands for specific allocations to meet in-stream flow needs will increase. This increased demand must also be considered in the context of climate change. A recent study indicates that annual flows in the South Saskatchewan River will decrease by 8.5 percent over the next 50 years. In addition to natural variability, water availability in downstream provinces is governed by the Master Agreement on Apportionment, which is administered by the Prairie Provinces Water Board. The Board, with representatives of each of the three prairie provinces plus the federal government, monitors water flows at 14 sites and monitors water quality at 12 sites. The monitoring sites are all near the Alberta-Saskatchewan or Saskatchewan-Manitoba boundaries. The Master Agreement, in general, specifies that each year Alberta is entitled to retain half the natural flow of eastward flowing streams that arise in the province, passing the other half on to Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan is entitled to retain half the water it receives from Alberta plus half the water that arises in Saskatchewan, passing the remainder on to Manitoba. Water use trends in Alberta are therefore of interest to Saskatchewan and Manitoba and water use trends in both Alberta and Saskatchewan are of interest to Manitoba. Currently the recorded flows in the North Saskatchewan River are similar to natural flows but flows in the South Saskatchewan River have been reduced by irrigation water use in Alberta and significantly modified by operation of Gardiner Dam in Saskatchewan. In a dry year such as 2001, Alberta delivered less that 60 percent of the natural flow of the river to Saskatchewan, still greater than the required 50 percent. (In an average year Saskatchewan receives about 78 percent of the natural flow of the river.) The waters of the St. Mary River, a headwaters tributary originating in Montana, are also apportioned between the United States and Canada in accordance with the provisions of the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty. Under the Treaty, the flows are divided equally between the two countries, but from April 1 to October 31 Canada is entitled to a prior apportionment of 14.2 m3/s (500 ft3/s). Lake Winnipeg, the world's 10th largest lake, receives all the waters of the Saskatchewan River system. The lake is threatened by pollutant loadings, particularly by increases in nutrient runoff. In 2005, thick mats of blue-green algae covered about half of the 24,500-km2 surface of the lake. Nutrients - the critical nutrients being phosphorous and nitrogen – may originate from urban, industrial or agricultural sources. The effect of nutrients is aggravated by the lake being regulated for hydroelectric power generation. (In terms of its surface area, Lake Winnipeg represents the third largest hydroelectric reservoir in the world.) On average, the lake receives 22.1 percent of its inflow and 10.65 percent of its phosphorous loading from the Saskatchewan River. The waters of the Saskatchewan River basin are of interest to the International Joint Commission from an international perspective and to the Prairie Provinces Water Board from an interprovincial perspective. In addition there are many regional-scale water planning activities and dozens of water stewardship groups in the basin, including the Partners FOR the Saskatchewan River Basin, which considers the entire basin. Is this sufficient? What would be an appropriate governance mechanism for an interjurisdictional basin of this size and complexity?
Return to message index

Subject:	RE: Saskatchewan River basin
From:	Ilke Borowski
Message:	-----Original Message----- From: Ilke Borowski Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 9:39 AM To: Mountain Forum - E-conference Subject: [mf-ec] RE: Saskatchewan River basin [Moderator’s Note: The map of the Saskatchewan River basin is now online on the conference website http://snipurl.com/uz3i] Good Morning! I think it is a really interesting question to think about the form of governance for the Saskatchewan River Basin. Four comments from my side: 1. From the information on the basin you provided, it looks as if the river basin is embedded in a larger hydrological system including Lake Winnipeg as the main receiving water which makes it to me not immediately reasonable to cut out the river basin for a separate governance body. What are the arguments in advantage for that? 2. Beyond the agreement open water quantity how do the different jurisdictions act upon the problems in the receiving Lake Winnipeg? E.g. does Alberta Environment regard the pressures on the lake in their immissions' approach or do they restrict to the river flow? 3. I am not sure what kind of competences where intended to assign to the commission. Would they be an advisory body, encompassing the different interest groups? Would they have legal competences such as giving permits for extraction/ withdrawal and discharge? 4. From the pressure structure it looks as if industry and agriculture (here in Europe rather strong stakeholders) have not been directly addressed but as if the cooperation included mainly governmental stakeholders. Maybe it would help to expand the scope a bit according to the questions: Who is interested in changing the regime of the river basin? How are the stakeholder groups (agriculture, industry) organized? How is the broad public looking at the situation? So maybe it would be an alternative option to just another governance body to first start a multi- stakeholder-platform? What do you think? With best regards, Ilke PS: I am not sure about the habits of introduction in this forum. I am working as a project management assistant and PhD student at the University of Osnabrueck (Germany)/ Institute for Environmental Systems Research for Prof. Claudia Pahl-Wostl. My main research is on cooperative river basin management where currently I focus on the role of social learning. If you are interested, you can also check http://www.harmonicop.info a project which I was involved in and which focuses on social learning in participatory processes in RBM. A handbook was developed for water managers- it's downloadable from the webpage. My assumption is that social learning plays a crucial Role especially at the beginning of dealing with new issues and might have a positive impact later on negotiations and implementation of agreements. -- Ilke Borowski University of Osnabrueck Institute of Environmental Systems Research Barbarastrasse 12 D-49076 Osnabrueck Germany phone: +49/(0)541-969-3328 fax: +49/(0)541-969-2368 email: borowski@usf.uni-osnabrueck.de http://www.usf.uni-osnabrueck.de/~borowski/
Return to message index

Subject:	RE: Saskatchewan River basin
From:	Robert Halliday
Message:	-----Original Message----- From: Robert Halliday [mailto:rhalliday@sasktel.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 9:33 AM To: Mountain Forum - E-conference Subject: [mf-ec] RE: Saskatchewan River basin Ilke Borowski raises a number of questions that are fundamental to our discussion. I would like to comment on one point now. The Nelson River basin, of which the Saskatchewan River basin is a part, is some one million square kilometres in area, about three times the size of the Saskatchewan basin. Even considering the Lake Winnipeg basin would mean adding three more American states and one more Canadian province to the jurisdictional mix. What spatial and jurisdictional scale of basin entity should be considered achievable at this time? Bob Halliday R. Halliday & Associates 717 Sixth Ave. North Saskatoon, SK Canada S7K 2S8 Tel. 306-665-0805 Fax. 306-665-0860
Return to message index

Subject:	RE: Saskatchewan River basin
From:	Ilke Borowski
Message:	-----Original Message----- From: Ilke Borowski [mailto:borowski@usf.uni-osnabrueck.de] Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 9:37 AM To: Mountain Forum - E-conference Subject: [mf-ec] RE: Saskatchewan River basin With regard to Bob's response: Is this a reason to address problems at a smaller scale if they are relevant on a bigger one? The Winnipeg jurisdictions would be useful to discuss objectives for the water quality (and quantity?) and to monitor the impact of measures on the water quality. But maybe this is not necessary because there are already institutions which take care of both. If international relevant water quality standards have been agreed on and if the upstream jurisdictions are responsible for the impact of the river's water quality on the receiving waters then it might not be necessary to include the Winnipeg lake jurisdictions. If those standards and competences have to be negotiated first then they should probably be included. If ecosystem aspects are not the concern, it might be also more appropriate to focus on the river basin partners. For the spatial size, I could imagine that the size of the basin is less a factor than the number of jurisdictions because here lies the power. The Danube river basin deals with more than 15 nation states, the Elbe river basin with 4 of which only two are covering big areas. But here one is Germany with ten Bundeslaender involved which are probably as independent as your states? Ilke Ilke Borowski University of Osnabrueck Institute of Environmental Systems Research Barbarastrasse 12 D-49076 Osnabrueck Germany phone: +49/(0)541-969-3328 fax: +49/(0)541-969-2368 email: borowski@usf.uni-osnabrueck.de
Return to message index

Subject:	RE: Saskatchewan River basin
From:	Ralf Ludwig
Message:	-----Original Message----- From: Ralf Ludwig [mailto:ralfludwig@gmx.net] Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 12:56 PM To: Mountain Forum - E-conference Subject: [mf-ec] RE: Saskatchewan River basin Dear All, Just a few thoughts on Ilke Borowskis' questions. I hope we can get answers to these soon, as they address several substantial points in this discussion. I fully agree that the consideration of scale is crucial to this discussion. In my view, considering the SRB as a water resources management unit is a very ambitious task already. It is clear to me, that this won't be easy to handle at all. With regard to the numbers Robert Halliday provided, I would certainly not recommend to seek for a management plan for the Nelson River basin (or Lake Winnipeg) at this point. I suppose, that the strong legislative position of the Canadian Provinces in dealing and exploring its territorial natural resources doesn't make things any easier. A key question will be, if the upstream Provinces have any concern about downstream environmental problems (see Ilke's question no. 2). What is your experience on this? In Europe, we are currently struggling to put the European Water Framework Directive (EU-WFD) into Effect (for details please visit: http://snipurl.com/v3eg OR http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/index_en.html), a directive that is intended to account for 'good ecological conditions' in all water bodies of the European Community member states by the year 2015 (which is very ambitious, not to say utopical). The directive sets the framework for future water resources management in Europe, and each member state has the obligation to incorporate the standards defined in the WFD into national law (however, it is not prescribed how!). One key point of this directive, which was issued in Dec. 2000, is that water resources shall be managed at the basin scale (not political boundaries (down to the county scale) as before). This is definitely a pre-requisite for success, yet we can also see that it is very difficult to establish (e.g. the Bavarian Water Authority still provides reports and maps of all their actions and work in the course of the WFD within its borders...). This indicates, that we are having similar problems to establish (or even approximate) a decisive system of governance for larger river systems in Europe with all the different parties (in this case countries) involved. So, this discussion is just as prominent and important for Europe as it is in Canada (or elsewhere in the world). Reducing the amount of nutrients from the SRB delivered to Lake Winnipeg alone (especially under consideration of an expected reduction of upstream runoff volume, which will non-linearly increase the nutrient concentrations downstream) requires an effort that incorporates many different stakeholders and their awareness of consequence of their actions (again, that refers to Ilke's question no. 2 and to what I said earlier about the internalization of external effects). As there is (at least to my impression) no thoroughly organized stakeholder dialog yet installed on the SRB scale, I am convinced that the scope and results of the HARMONI project, addressed by Ilke, must be of great interest for the future managers of the SRB and would certainly be beneficial to a concise regional water policy. It would also be very important for the 'non- residents' to see the answers to Ilke's question no. 3. Without this knowledge, it is difficult to judge or to give recommendations. To my impression, the regulations that are currently in effect appear to be rather arbitrary (half of the water may be passed on downstream...as in the Master Agreement) or out-dated (as the apportioning of the St. Mary River waters dating from 1909). Of course, I have no precise means to judge the validity of these regulations, but at first glance, they don't seem to be adjusted to the specific needs (or stakeholder interests) and requires major revision. Do you share this view? Robert Halliday asked for examples for (successful) integrated water resources management at the basin scale. Actually I would like to point out a Canadian example: The Grand River Conservation Authority in Southern Ontario (www.grandriver.ca). Even though the watershed is MUCH smaller (approx. 7000 km2) and the area is everything but mountainous, it is nonetheless managed in a superb way (the GRCA also won the Thiessen Prize in 2000 for excellence in watershed management). The striking issues with regard to global change are to a lesser extent driven climatically (even though this is an important aspect as well), but more from the expectance of intense urban and population growth, I still think that the management framework is certainly worthwhile to look at in more detail. I am sure that the Canadian participants in this discussion know much more about the GRCA then I do, but I always liked this management system for its three building blocks: local initiative, shared funding (municipal, provincial, federal), and the watershed being the management unit, even though it covers (at least partly) over two dozen counties. I am aware that there is a great difference and larger complexity in bringing together provinces as compared to counties, but still: The GRCA is an inter- jurisdictional institution (on the small scale), has executive power in water resources management (such as permits, see Ilke's question no. 4), follows an integrated approach and performs an intense and on- going stakeholder dialog (referring to the Grand Strategy, see web-site for details). Could you imagine something similar (in structure and competence) for the SRB? What do you think about the GRCA and their ways of watershed management? What would be the considerations of scale that need to be taken into account Kind regards, Ralf
Return to message index