Border dam not viable, government study finds

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Published: March 14, 2002

The idea of building a dam on the South Saskatchewan River to solve

water shortages in Saskatchewan and Alberta has been shelved because it

would cost “substantially” more than any benefits it would provide,

said a preliminary study released March 11.

The study outlined three scenarios for construction of a dam and

irrigation development that ranged from $3.6-$5.5 billion.

The preliminary feasibility study commissioned by Alberta Environment

and Sask Water showed that every dollar spent on development would

Read Also

Robert Andjelic, who owns 248,000 acres of cropland in Canada, stands in a massive field of canola south of Whitewood, Sask. Andjelic doesn't believe that technical analysis is a useful tool for predicting farmland values | Robert Arnason photo

Land crash warning rejected

A technical analyst believes that Saskatchewan land values could be due for a correction, but land owners and FCC say supply/demand fundamentals drive land prices – not mathematical models

return 33 to 35 cents.

“The project is not economically viable, before even considering the

possible environmental impact,” said Ron Osika, minister responsible

for Sask Water.

Most of the money for the project would be spent on a pumped irrigation

system to blocks of land that are at a significantly higher elevation

than the water reservoir.

The study also took into consideration the loss of oil and gas revenue

from wells that would have to be abandoned if the dam were built.

The concept of a meridian dam on the border of the two provinces has

been discussed since the 1920s. Last year the two governments

commissioned a study to help determine if a dam is a viable option to

resolve water shortages in the southern parts of the two provinces.

Alberta environment minister Lorne Taylor said the information from the

study would be used to look at alternative solutions for managing the

area’s water supplies.

The study cost $100,000 and the cost was shared by both governments.

explore

Stories from our other publications