Canada's NARA Project Will Solve USA Water Problems

In January 2008 I posted an item about NAWAPA - the North American Water And Power Alliance, a grandiose scheme to bring Canadian water to the USA and generate some power as well. The idea was hatched in the 1950s and finally petered out in the 1970s.

Imagine, in the not-too-distant future, lush Kentucky bluegrass lawns in Phoenix, Tucson, Albuquerque, Denver, and Las Vegas - all with no guilt feelings. Fountains and verdant gardens gracing the Las Vegas Strip. Pat Mulroy of the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) halving water rates with a broad grin on her face. Georgia cheerfully donating Lake Lanier water to Alabama and Florida, and building a pipeline to supply Tennessee with all the H2O it needs.

You'd say, "What have you been smoking?" Or worse.

Well, looks like something similar to NAWAPA is in the works, again exporting water from the Great White North. So how does it work? Dam the southern half of James Bay (the southern extension of Hudson Bay), run the water through helical turbines, then dump it in the Great Lakes for distribution to the USA and Canada's prairie provinces. The scheme will provide Canada with hydroelectricity and almost $8B in revenue.

Sounds like a lot of money, but as you'll see, it is not.

Colleague Paul Godfrey of the University of Massachusetts sent me some slides prepared by Canadian Romain Audet that describe how all this will work. It's pretty awesome, eh? The McKenzie Brothers (both hosers!) would be proud.

Will it fly? Do cats fetch? All you need is lots of money and likely suspension of a large number of environmental and other regulations. But the scheme to dam James Bay has been around for quite some time.

Audet proposes capturing 2, 653 cms of the 11,000 cms (cubic meters per second) that runs off into James Bay by diking the southern part of the Bay and creating a huge freshwater lake. That 2,653 cms  is about 68 MAF (million acre-feet) per year.

   

The water would be conveyed to Lake Superior by a tunnel.

 

Some of that water would go west to Canada's prairie provinces  via a 1000 km canal that Audet pegs at a cost of $780M (seems kind of low to me). The canal will take almost 50% of the James Bay water - 1,263 cms (32 MAF/year) - to the prairies; some of this water - 600 cms or 15.4 MAF/y - will head south to the western USA.

Finally, we have the North American Recycling Alliance (NARA), which distributes the captured James Bay runoff to the eastern and western USA. Audet says NARA is a word derived from the Sanskrit word for "water".

 

Hmmm...Looks like Atlanta and Charlotte have their own diversions!

Here is a summary of the NARA diversions, in cms and MAF/year. Recall that the initial diversion from James Bay is 2,653 cms or 68 MAF/y, which is allocated as follows:

• Canadian Prairie Transfer Canal - 663 cms or 17 MAF/y
• Great Plains Canal (from Lake Michigan), as far south as Mexico  - 500  cms or 12.8 MAF/y
• From Lake Superior to the Western USA - 600 cms or 15.4 MAF/y
• From Lakes Erie/Ontario to as far as the Southeast USA - 137 cms or 3.5 MAF/y
• Great Plains Canal (from Lake Michigan) to the Midwest USA - 410 cms or 10.5 MAF/year
• Lake Michigan to south of Chicago - 30  cms or 0.8 MAF/y
• Total  -  2,340 cms or 60 MAF/y
• Addition of water to Great Lakes - 313 cms or 8 MAF/y
• The numbers in the last two bullets sum to 2,653 cms (68 MAF/y), the amount diverted from James Bay

The amount of water added to the Great Lakes annually - which hold a total of about 23,000 cubic kilometers or 18.7 BAF of water - is about 0.04% of the total. Since the total surface area of the lakes is about 60.2 million acres, the annual water level increase would be about 1.6 inches. 

My numbers are a bit off from what Audet presented - the total amount is the same - but the allocations may be different. But you get the picture - we are talking about moving a lot of water. The amount diverted to the western USA is slightly more than the mean annual flow of the Colorado River.

One thing  to remember is that Canada is to get about $8B/year from the US for water - a lot of water,  43 MAF per year according to the above table That is cheap!  About $186 per acre-foot!
The price of water varies across the country, but $186 per acre feet is unreal (sounds like cheap, government-subsidized ag water). I know of some places in the western USA where water rights have gone for more than $40,000 per acre-foot.

Even Bob and Doug McKenzie recognize a rip-off when they see one! No amount of Molson's would get them to agree to that deal!

I'll talk more about this later. Think about it for a while.

"Human beings were invented by water to transport it uphill." -- Unknown

Comments

[Michael Campana]

Hi, Del.

Thanks for your comment. You are right - but in my 2012 post I credited Thomas Kierans (1959) - see 'Canada - USA Water Mega-Transfers: Thomas Kierans' GRAND Canal of North America' - see https://tinyurl.com/2p8udnc5. I got the original info on NARA from Romain Audet.

A few months ago I got an email/phone call from a Montreal firm that is producing a video about NARA/GRAND canal/ They asked me if I would speak about the work/ I agreed but have not heard from them. We'll see!

[Del Trobak]

It would have been nice if somewhere, you gave credit to Canadian Tom Kierans, (deceased) who first described the Grand Canal concept DECADES ago. His company was incorporated in 1984, but the inception dates to well before that date.

https://web.archive.org/web/20091027035958/http://ca.geocities.com/grandcanal2005/proposal.htm

[Aquadoc]

Dear ish,

Thanks for commenting.

You've already found my blog. Look under the "world water" category for a lot of information.

Also go to UNESCO's International Hydrological Programme at:
http://typo38.unesco.org/index.php?id=240

And visit 'Water For The Ages' blog, listed on my blogroll. It's a great resource.

Good luck!

[ish]

hey im doing this project on canada dealing with world water problems
i really dont have much to defend myself as im playing canada
so could u help me

[Michael]

Dear Leif and Johnnyb,

Thanks for commenting. Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you.

Perhaps the Canadians could insist that the USA get its "water house" in order (especially in the Western USA) before they'll sell us any water.

But do the Canadians have their own "water house" in order? I have some Canadian friends who are none too happy with what's going on in northern Alberta with the tar sands mining.

Interesting times ahead, that's for sure.

[Leif]

I highly doubt many Canadians would have an issue with providing Americans drinking water, it's water being used to water golf courses, grow cotton in the desert or evaporate from swimming pools that is the concern. Why should the environment be impaired because people want to lead wasteful lifestyles?

As for "feeding the world", isn't it more like growing fuel for SUVs? If the goal were to feed the world that would be much better accomplished by supporting foreign farmers, getting rid of tariffs and not dumping subsidized food in developing countries.

[Johnnyb]

What is the cost to Canada? What are the environmental costs?

Kind of greedy of Canadians to give their neighbor a drink of water while Canada is drowning in it, don't ya think? Worse than that, knowing that the water transfer will will be used for agriculture which will feed the World, it seems down right unethical for Canada to refuse such a proposal to me, so long as it does not have a serious reason for opposing such a plan.

[Bob]

Thanks for the welcome Michael.

Yes, that variety of Canadian project supporter is frequently referred to here as a "Mole"

Often strikes Canadians funny how many of the most ardent supporters for such projects (NAFTA included), end up quietly sending their kids to expensive U.S. universities ;-) ;-)

[Michael]

Thanks for your comments, Bob. They are much appreciated.

As for the "colonial attitude", don't forget that this proposal came from a citizen of the Great White North.

[Bob]

For the record, Molson, Canada's oldest Brewery, like most things once valuable and Canadian, is now owned by foreign interests.

But to support your point, Leif, I am aghast at the colonial attitude portrayed in such a navel gazing proposal as James Bay Tunnel. I severly doubt you'll find many supporters north of the 49th parallel at this time (of course who's to say they can't be scared into it by those with vast sums of money and influence).

Thousands of miles of trench digging for foreign Golf Courses and Desert irrigation? I think not, oh wasteful ones !

[Leif Nelson]

Well if we exoprt all of our water, we'd end up drinking Bud Light, and that would be a national tragedy. In Canada beer and patriotism go hand in hand, or so Molson tells us.

I agree, how's to say what the future will bring, and just because it isn't popular doesn't mean it won't happen.

[Michael]

Hi, Leif.
Don't you think a lifetime supply of Molson's would take care of Bob and Doug?

Seriously, I'd be surprised if this thing found legs, but in 20 years, who knows?

[Leif Nelson]

Most Canadians, especially Bob and Doug, would never support this, for philosophical if not environmental reasons. I doubt most Americans in Great Lakes states would either, it would set a dangerous precedent for inter-basin water transfers.

There was a huge backlash against the Ontario government when they granted a corporation a permit (which was quickly revoked) to export Lake Superior water to Asia by tanker so I can't imagine this scheme being any more popular.

On a side note, I'd hate to be in charge of building a tunnel through hundreds of kilometers of northern Ontario muskeg.