William D. Marriott is a retired economist who specialized in public policy analysis of the oil and gas industry.

If water conservation is growing why do we need mandatory restrictions?

Access to water is a basic human right and for very good reasons. Without drinking it we soon die. However, water usage mythology, politics and ideology have gone way beyond simple questions of survival.

This article focuses on water policy in Alberta. It is the second of two articles. If you are interested in some context please refer to an earlier analysis of whether Calgary is out of water.

There we found that:

Calgary is not running out of water
There is currently no drought in southern Alberta
Theoretical climate science does not predict more and longer droughts
Empirical studies indicate long term rainfall is increasing in the Bow River headwaters
The ongoing overriding water issue remains efficient management of ample rainfall

Under Canada’s constitution, water is the sole responsibility of the provincial and territorial governments. They in turn have delegated some of water’s administrative and logistical tasks to municipal governments. So while the province looks after bigger ticket items such as river flow management, water usage permits (licences) and irrigation, the cities are responsible for the practical matters of providing safe drinking water to people and disposing of waste water.

So, what are the big issues facing the two governments and what are the policy options available to them?

In a world claiming that water is the new oil, Alberta is well situated to benefit from its extensive water resources. Like oil, the big challenges relate to moving the water from where it is found in the north to where it is needed in the south. Inter-basin transfers from the north to the south are technically feasible but major diversions are hardly justified by today’s demand for water. However, one option to move water from the Bow River south of Calgary into the Oldman sub-Basin would make good sense and open up the possibility of a new irrigation district south of the massive Western Irrigation District. However, Calgary’s water supply and flood-proofing must be ensured first.

Irrigation is big in Alberta. Very Big. Alberta accounted for almost 75% of all irrigation in Canada in 2022. Nearly 85% of this takes place in the thirteen Irrigation Districts in the South Saskatchewan River Basin. Further, irrigation has a long history including legendary cowboy and cattleman John Ware who hand-dug canals near Millarville to water the grass for his herd. Mormon settlers built the first large scale project near Lethbridge in 1900 and the CPR developed the diversion weir in Calgary in 1903 and also built the Bassano Dam from 1910-14.

Irrigation is also makes substantial contributions to the economy: $5.4B to GDP, $3.2 in labour income, and 46,000 jobs. It has been growing every year and that growth is likely to continue. The total irrigated area in 2022 was 1.82 million acres up from 1.6 million in 2002. The Alberta government will likely continue to support rural irrigation by investing in water infrastructure.

There was much discussion this spring about re-negotiating the major water licence agreements primarily for the South Saskatchewan Basin. A new agreement was reached with the largest licence holders covering 90% of the water from the Bow and Oldman basins. What was missing from all the news coverage of these negotiations were a list of issues being addressed. One major concern was that Calgary has a virtual monopoly on water from the Bow and is under no legal requirement to share that water with others. No doubt Calgary’s licence volume was lowered and an agreement was reached to not block any withdrawals by other down-stream licence holders. Ensuring that rural irrigation districts can access water was and will be a priority of the Alberta government.

This brings us to flood mitigation and additional storage capabilities. If 2013 seems like a long time ago, try to remember 2022. Two years ago, almost to the day, Calgary declared a state of emergency in the face of a big June rainfall.

How quickly we forget yesteryear’s real flood crisis to embrace today’s false drought crisis. Work on flood mitigation has proceeded since 2013 with a major barrier along the Bow River being completed to protect downtown Calgary.

“All of the flood mitigation, which is designed to protect Calgary from a one-in-200-year flood, is hidden from view, the city said.”

The nearly $1.0 billion Springbank dry dam is currently under construction and due to be completed in 2025. The implications of these two projects go beyond floods to impact water storage capabilities. The additional flood measures mean that the annual draw-down on upstream reservoirs in late May and early June, to protect Calgary, can be reduced. This means there will be more water available for the lower rain months of July through September.

Alberta is not stopping there. An additional reservoir is proposed for the Bow river upstream from Calgary. Today, two options remain open as the logistical challenges of negotiating with the federal government caused the Morley option to be abandoned.

Jeromy Farkas has coordinated a very effective lobbying effort against the Glenbow East option so look for the Ghost expansion to be selected shortly. However, if the Springbank dry dam is any indication, we can look forward to another five years before the province gets federal environmental approval and another two for construction compared to less than a year for the original construction in 1929.

So 2032 is likely the completion date for this project unless the NDP is returned to power and cancels it. All of these flood mitigation measures also have the benefits of storing more water for Calgary’s needs and for more extensive irrigation beyond Calgary in southern Alberta.

So what about the City of Calgary’s water policies?

Unlike what most people believe, the operation of the city is dominated by something call ‘the administration’. Most of us think that the politicians dictate what the city staff does, when in fact most of the time it is the other way around.

Unlike the provincial and federal government where the ruling political party has a priorities and planning committee that determines the legislative agenda, the city has no such equivalent. The administration has substantive powers and can enact decisions without approval or even notice to the politicians.

A prime example of this was the decision last year to cancel the Canada Day fireworks display because it was perceived to be culturally insensitive. City council members had to threaten to bring a notice of motion to formally force the administration to reverse their decision.

And it turned out the cultural entities that were to be "protected" weren’t quite as fragile as was first thought. Who knew? The administration could be even more woke than this council.

My 70’s management science taught that the primary purpose of any bureaucracy is to expand itself. It does this in two ways.

The first is by becoming less effective and more inefficient over time — “doing less with more." The federal bureaucracy has turned this into an art form even objecting to actually showing up for work. If you doubt this trend just ask anyone who has had to deal with “Service” Canada in the last year.

The second way is to appropriate new powers by expanding the scope of their jurisdiction. This is where environmentalism and “climate change” are a dream come true for the bureaucracy. (See here for more background on the ideological and political state of play of climate.)

However, the bottom line is that climate alarmism is a diminishing political force. Pierre Poilievre will “Axe the Tax” after taking power from the Liberals. This will happen not because Canadians are suddenly adverse to environmental protection but because they want some return for their “investment” and sacrifice.

Also, environmental policies are now bumping into a time honoured economic principle called diminishing returns. Simply stated — low lying beneficial fruits are easy to pick without too much cost.

But at some point additional benefits only come with increasing costs and eventually there are negative returns. This is currently true for many environmental programs e.g. electric vehicles, wind farms, mass composting. It may shock people to find that when the full cycle environmental and social costs of these programs are taken into account the environmental benefit is negative.

At the City, the bureaucrats are instead doubling down, trying to expand their domain by advancing climate related policies. Remember the $87 billion program for Calgary to reach net zero by 2050.

This hasn’t gone away and work is continuing apace to achieve this objective. The current move towards mandatory outdoor water restrictions, proposed for approval at the Monday council meeting, is justified by appealing to “Calgary’s Climate Strategy: Pathways to 2050 (CD2022-0465)."

The buzz phrase “Calgary is a big city on a small river” is contained in the council briefing document along with the case for implementing mandatory restrictions. But is there a compelling case to compel water usage? Let’s look at the arguments.

First, we have to do this because of climate change and drought. Completely debunked by my article last week. Also the city needs to look at their own website which as of today (updated May 24) said water supply conditions are normal. The current two week rain forecast (hardly a surprise for June) is 85 mm. That is not a typo and this is nearly a quarter of Calgary’s annual rainfall.

Second, we have obligations to communities downstream from Calgary. So true, however remember we merely borrow the water from the Bow for the time it takes us to have a shower. 100% of residential water consumption is returned to the river after the sewage is treated. Even in the summer not all your garden watering stays with your vegetables. It returns to the aquifer which eventually finds its way back into the river.

Third, we need to protect river health. Of course, but the only area that is at risk is between the water treatment plants and the sewage plant outlet. We have more than ample water in our upstream storage reservoirs to provide for aquatic well being within city limits.

Fourth, there are future risks because of population growth. The broader challenges we face from high levels of immigration are monumental compared with water. Even our current water main crisis is a “first world problem” compared to our own First Nations who cannot get safe drinking water. We have plenty of capacity for future population growth because the province is building more upstream storage.

Fifth, we need to do more conservation. Of course, but does that need to be mandated by law and enforced by neighbours snitching on neighbours? In 2005, Calgary set a 30-year target to reduce water usage by 30%. We have already reached that target ten years early without mandatory restrictions. Our current water-main crisis will automatically result in more conservation as people try out different ways of using less water and their habits change.

Finally, our current water-main crisis underscores the necessity of mandatory restrictions. Well, not really. It has actually brought attention to how robust our water infrastructure really is and we should be thankful for that. However, a component that is missing from the current debate is the level of leakage (over 20%) in the system. Again not a typo. Perhaps the city should fix its own leaks first before criticizing us for watering our grass.

The current policy move by the administration is motivated by their own expansion ambitions and an environmental ideology that is not aging well. The real objective is to eliminate green lawns which unfortunately need both water and nasty chemical fertilizers.

Winston Churchill has been credited with the adage “Never let a good crisis go to waste." But council should be ashamed if they use the current water main “catastrophe," to force through a rather heavy handed approach to water conservation.

William D. Marriott is a retired economist who specialized in public policy analysis of the oil and gas industry.

John Archer