This article was downloaded by: [Boston University]On: 07 October 2014, At: 08:52Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Canadian Water Resources Journal /Revue canadienne des ressourceshydriquesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcwr20

WATER TRANSFERS — CANADIAN STYLEFrank QuinnPublished online: 23 Jan 2013.

To cite this article: Frank Quinn (1981) WATER TRANSFERS — CANADIAN STYLE , Canadian WaterResources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques, 6:1, 64-76, DOI: 10.4296/cwrj0601064

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.4296/cwrj0601064

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

I^]ATER TMNSFERS --- CANADIAN STYLE1

tr'rank Quinn2

ABSIMCI: A descz'iptiue ouez'uieu is pz'esented af uater tTans'fers eristing and under constr'uction in Canada. Ihe ease of'eonnecting

p,-z'orimate u)atercouz'ses is attv'ibuted to v'ecent glac,i-aL histan;.- Critev.'ia for estabLishing a nationaL inuentory ofuatev, transfez's az,e identified,

Tentqtiue findings foeus on the nwtbez', Location, size,use, operational dq.te and ounership of tz'ansfer pz',oiects acroasthe countz,y; the Laz'gest transfe:L'l are hi-ghLighted. ft is be-Lieued that Canadian uater tz'ansfer is of q. scaLe and eharacterunknouln in any othez' eountry.

Albertats imterest in soutVuard di'uev'sion to fauon eon'sunptiue uses in the prouince is portz'ayed a8 an enception tothe hydro-dominated national transfez' pattezm and as a sourceof concenn to downstv'ean iuz'isdictions,

RESIIME: Le pz'6sent document donne un apercu des ,instq.LLationsde dOv'iuatioh eristqntes et en uoie de construction au Canada.Lthistoiz'e z,6eente des gLaces erplique La faeLlitO auec LaqueLleon peut ioindre Les courts dreau irmnAdi.ats. 0n y destgne 6gale',*nit Lns- ctitDres qui set'uiront d pz'\parer L"dnuentatv'e nationaLdes d2v,iuqtions.

Les donn1es pz,ouisoiz'es font 6tat du nomb!'e, de LternpLqee'ment, de La dimeniion, de Ltutilisqtion, de La date dterploita-tion et des organismes d/tenant Le droit de pnopri6t6 des in-stq.Llations de d1riuation dans LtensembLe du pays; on A sou-I-igne )galement Les d1riuations Les plus trnportantes. IL estun fait que Les dlz'Luations de Lteau au Cqnada sont- supdrieweed pLusieurs points de tsue, d eeLLes que Lron conrwtt dnns toutaut?e pqAs.

Ltint7nAt que LtAlbet'ta porte d Lq dLriuatLon en aDaL,pour fauoz.isev' Lee utilisations uisant d. eonsortner Les eal&

Canadian Water Resources Journal

Vo1. 6, No. 1, 1981

tP*p"t presented to the Conference on Interbasin Transfers,Edmonton, Alberta, August 1980.

2lrrlarrd Waters Directorate, Environment Canadar ottawa.

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:52

07

Oct

ober

201

4

65

dqns Lq, prouince, fait toutefols eceeption d. La tendqnce nqtion-ale des d6ri.uq.tions qui est Laz,genent infLuene/e par Les pz,o-iets hydz,o-6Lectz,iques eE est souree d'inquL6tude pour. Leb juz-i&Letions en auq.L.

INTRODUCTION

There appear to be two basic means of redlstributi-ng na-turers surface water regime to satisfy growing human demands,one temporal and the other spatial. Storage reservolrs arebuilt to assure supply uhen demands exceed natural availabiJ-ity,diverslon or transfer vrorks to uhey'e demands exceed naturaLavai1abillty. Both means have been wJ-dely employed in watermanagement; neither can be judged good or bad as a generalLtywithout reference to the needs and cLrcumstances of each case.

Water transfer may be defined as the artlflciaL withdrawal-of water by dI-tch, canal-, pipeline or other means from it.s nat-ural channel for use/discharge normally in another channel ordrainage basin.

Transfers may be implemented for various reasons:

(l) to lncrease water supplies available for growingcommunities:

(it) to deflect watercourses awav from communiti.es orwork sltes;

(ili) to concentrate flows for more effl-cient energy devel-opment;

(iv) to improve the carrying capacity of a watercourse.

Only in (1) ls water earmarked for importation to support com-munity or regional economic growth through lrrigatlon, l"ndus-trial and/or municlpal uses; although this category may fltthe southern Pralries sltuation it ls not as representative ofCanadian experi-ence as might be expected. In marked contrastto importatj-on, the lntent of (ii) is usually to protect com-munitles or structures from flooding, occaslonally to dewatermine sites or to drain land for agriculture; usually, the trans-fer extends only a short dlstance and returns the water to thesame or parent stream below the protected area. In the remal_n-ing categories (iii) and (1v), the purpose is not to lead wateritself toward or away from populatj.on centres, but to take ad-vantage of certain of waterrs beneflclal properties, namely togenerate (hydro) electricity and to carry goods (navigation,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:52

07

Oct

ober

201

4

66

logging) or wastes. Hydro-related transfers ln Particular arewidely dispersed and located Lncreaslngly remote from southernpopulation concentrations.

The present paper ls not lntended to address controverslalissues whlch arlse from speclfic transfer proposals. Rather,it provides a descrlptive overview of existLng water transfersregionally and nationally, establlshing at the same time a basisfor concluding that the pattern of water transfer in Canada lsof a scale and character found nowhere el-se in the world.

PRECEDENTS IN NATIIRE

Nature has provided an environment favourable to uatertransfer in Canada. More impresslve even than the general abun-dance of fresh surface water is the denslty of interconnectedand aLmost-connected lakes and rlvers and streams which make up

our drainage network. These are a legacy of the several ad-vances and retreats of the Pleistocene ice fronts, before whichmeltwaters sought to escaPe by whatever route possJ-b1er creat-ing and abandoning drainage channels or simply spl1Iing haphaz-ardly from one sha119w depression to another. Some thousands ofyears later, the resultlng dral.nage pattern aPPears to be highlydisorganized, especlally on the Precambrian Shield, as thoughttcod had not sufficLentlv divided the land from the water there?l(Devoto, L962).

Except for the mountalnous part of the West, our basin dl-vides are generally not formidable. Examples abound of lakesthat drain in two direcLions and of ri-vers that change thelrcourse in flood. Hudson Bay company traders came to prefer theHayes over the more turbulent Nelson River ln proceeding inlandbecause j_ts trlbutary, the Echlmarnlsh ('rriver-that-f1ows-both-waystt) in fact links the l{ayes wlth the upper Nelson and thuswith Lake I^linnipeg (Morse , L969) .

The ease of portaging between different drainage systemswas determined readlly by the early exPlorers and fur traders 'Even today, it ls posslble to travel by canoe wlth only shortportages from almost any conmunity to any of our borderLngoceans.

Where nature has shown the way, englneerlng has not been

hesitant to follow, reopenlng former spillways like that of theSouth Saskatchewan through the QutAppelle Val-ley and that of theGreat Lakes southrdard from Chicago. Most of the diverslon pos-sibllttles investigated by the saskatchewan-Nelson Basln Board

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:52

07

Oct

ober

201

4

67

also focused on former meltwater channeLs (SNBB, L972).

Thus Canadian water transfers for the most part have nothad to resort elther to long canals or plpelines or to hlghpumping lifts as has been the case 1n major European, Americanand Australian projects; we have more advantages in short cutsbetween proximate water bodies and in gravity flows using nat-ural channels.

NATIONAL INVENTORY

What quallfles as a water transfer? What is the currentpicture on transfers (number, sca1e, trends) regionally andnationally? Who are the rnajor users? Is thls a relatively newor a long-establ-ished means of redlstributing water resources?How i-mportant 1s it in the larger scheme of CanadLan watermanagement? What is known of the soclal, economl-c and envlron-mental impacts of water transfer? What transfer projects arelikely to be implemented ln the future?

A natj.onal inventory of water transfers existing or underconstruction in 1980 ls currently underway at Environment Canadawhich w111 provide answers to some of these questlons and areference for further research. It will take the form of alisting of indlvLdual projects and provlncial and national sum-maries, a companion work in some respects to the BqglglgE_4Dams iq_]Qenq{La (cNc-l-colD, 1976). Some first estimates fromthis exerclse are presented ln the tables and nap whlch follow;data have not yet been conflrrned for most provinces.

One of the more dlfficult tasks has been to establish cri-terla for quallfying transfers for purposes of the inventory.To requlre that transfers be ttlnterbasintt poses the questionsof what basln boundarj.es to select, there belng no set of basinsin Canada whlch cannot be subdlvided into sxnaller baslns orcombined into larger basins. Rather than struggle to dlstin-gui.sh between interbasln and intz,abasJ-n transfers, the follow-ing criterla were adopted:

(1) Transferred flow does not return to stream of orlgln(or parent stream) wlthln 15 miles of poj"nt of wlth-drawal.

(2) Mean annual flow transferred is not l-ess than 25 cublcfeet per second (cfs) or 10,000 acre-feet.

These have the effect of elimlnatLng J-ocal-lzed and smaller

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:52

07

Oct

ober

201

4

bd

withdrawals operated by numerous municlpalltiesr power plantsand individual irrigators.

Because many transfer projects become larger with the pas-sage of time (as new generatlng units or acreage are added, forexample), mean annual- flow has been estimated for the last dec-ade in those instances rather than for the longer llfe of theproject. Flow rate data (cfs) are recorded for large transfers-perating either throughout the year (e.g. hydropower) or dur-ing infrequent and brief periods of high flow (floodways); sea-sonal transfers for irrigation are recorded in volume data(acre-feet) and converted for purposes of comparison where ap-propriate.

PATTERNS

Approximately 50 water transfers have been identified;these are scattered across nine provinces but ln neither of thenorthern territories as yet (Table 1).

Among the varlous uses, hydropor,rer dominates overwhelming-ly tn number and scal-e of transfers, with irrigation, floodcontrol and municipal uses assuming some importance regionatr-Iy.Wlth almost 707. of our electrical energy generated by fallinghTater and 957. of our total water transfer attributable to hydro-electric projects, Canada ls sti1l very much hydro country'

The total flow involved in water transfer -- 1591000 cfs --is significant. If all- of this flow were concentrated j-nto amythical r?New Rlvertt, lt would be Canadars third largest, be-hind only the St. Lawrence and Mackenzle Rivers! ft will cone

as a surprise for many to Learn that Canadian wAter Lransferis consj.derably greater than that of the next leadlng countries'the United States and the Soviet Union, conblned (Vendrov, L979).

Turning our attention to the largest of these diverslonstor those involving 1-1000 cfs or more flow, there are 15 of thismagni-tude (Fig. 1 and Table 2). The most recent of these arealso the largest -- Churchil-l- River Dj-verslon at southern In-.dl-an Lake, Manitobal LaGrande Project, Quebec; and ChurchillFal1s Project, Labrador. These three projects (five transfers)in fact make up two-thirds of all lrater transferred within can-ada. Again hydro-electrle Por^ler dominates, a1-most to the ex-clusion of other conslderations; all major transfers were imple-mented with hydro as the dominant, lf not only, purpose. Pub-licly-ovmed power corporations are responslble for most of theseprojects.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:52

07

Oct

ober

201

4

Table I

DISTRIBUTION OF WATER TMNSFERS BY PROVINCEexisting or under construction 1980

P rov i nceNo. of Average Annual*

Transfers Flows in cfs

(Hajor Use as 2of total flow

Hajor Use transferred)

Newfound I and

Nova Scotia

New Brunswick

Quebec

0ntario

l''lan i toba

Saska tchewan

Al berta

British Columbia

6

q

z

7

9

6

9

tz

25,6A0

65a

70

55 ,500*r'

23,300

27 ,300*t *

r,r50

2,360

t2,970

Hyd ro

Hyd ro

Hunicipal

Hyd ro

Hyd ro

Hyd ro

Hyd ro

I rrigation

Hyd ro

(loo)

(too)

( 72,

(t00)

( 87)

( e7)

( 85)

( 78)

( 8e)

Canada 50 I 58 ,9oo Hyd ro ( e5)

* Estimates subject to revision't't Excludes Beauharnois Canal flows*** Excludes floodway flows (Portage

Diversion) of short duration

from St. Lawrence RiverDiversion, Winnipeg Floodway, Seine

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:52

07

Oct

ober

201

4

c)

.9l!

(n9=Eo6oU@zLOl!O!64c(tEzzEqoSg: a9 *-e E-: 3FO oh zo -!oF < ,^9 lo -E,z<

F1EE =?

5E= F

5=ilE jr s-qFs>- - c?+ *69 :x fr E2 i=EY Z zr Fi?o=x

\Ftz-,

E

---1

Ya4sca4

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:52

07

Oct

ober

201

4

E

ooooooooooooooooo6€@tsoo6000€N600@od6@lho@9--o-ts@

oo ooo

oooo!- oooooou€rcf>.oooz-E!->>JooJ>>>E!OOOOood

o.-oo >EE-co<6U=OOOOZz

;N6tsN@€N6660

@NtsA999999999=99999+N6O

ooooooooooooooo

oo

!o

<!oooq6J3

CgENoo(!E!oova

60

ooool 6o- r!!eouo.-oLocooo

!oetdoSt'0600EOOOOddZZ

LO

;!oo99

- !^- oLo L o o.-O O E LO.-o

oooo

= .- : c c c o!60] o u !>P O O O O L eO

olj!cao E 6 E O O Ov<o

!vo --6.-o

o63 > O C C C .-Os E e 'a " 6 I f5ooc6O-ool--<

= d ._ot-E 6 C 6 0>o o Po

oc O 6 - O .-OJO12

:i; ;;.CL60o> O6-E.u!

-ooL-EEa5>=a

o-oo O^

vlLoo 6Etfoo-OE:oo!

o.-E!O: oqor!o FO

c ooE r.-;

=9Rz=2.9

; z*

_'tex

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:52

07

Oct

ober

201

4

72

Very little assessment of either the broad socioeconomicor the environmental irnpllcations of thelr projects was de-manded of these corporate developers until the past decade. De-tal1ed post-audits (?eet and Day, 1980) and reviews (Kellerha1s,Church and Davies, L979) have now been undertaken of some es-tablished transfer projeets, and the massive Churchill--Nelsonand La Grande projects have been subject to extensive assess-ment during, although not as a prerequisite tor construction(Lwc&NR Study Board, 19751 Soucy, L978). In the latter twoexperiences, the respective provtr-ncial goverrunents were pressedinto negotiating settlements with natlve peoples most affectedby the proJects.

Two provinces, Quebec and Albertar appear to have a morefavorable combinati-on of resources and motivation than theirneighbors to exploit further rnajor water transfer possibilitiesover the next two decades. Quebec can be counted upon to con-tinue along the path of hydroelectric power development in itsJames Bay region, combinlng through interbasin transfer groupsof rivers both north and south of its current LaGrande program;other diversions may be real-ized among headwaLers of riversdraining the North Shore of the St. Lawrence. The Alberta sit-uation is altogether different and meri-ts separate consideration.

A.LBERTA AS EXCEPT]ON

Albertats geography ls such that the great ProPortlon ofits streanrflow passes through central and northern Portions ofthe province, avray from the bulk of its population which lsconcentrated ln and along the fringes of the semi-arid southernPrairi.e.

Elght of the provlncers nine identified hTater transfers(tab1e 3) are located within the Bow and 0ldrnan Basins ofsouthern Alberta; six are oPerated for irrigaLlon dlstricts.Irrlgation historically has been the drivlng force behind waterredistrj-bution withln the regi.on. Most irrigatlon \nTater isconsumed, that is, does not return to any stream for subsequentuse (Water Survey of Canada, 1979). The contlnued expansion ofirrigation and of associated economic activities is threatenedby the lirnits of wat.er avaiLability; lndeed' rationing of de-livery has been enforced during recent drought.

Storage dams to conserve water supply are under construc-tion or p1-anned j.n varlous locations of southern Alberta. Theprovinclal Cabinet also established, In L979, a committee toexpJ-ore the feasibillty of interregional- water transfer (Laycock,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:52

07

Oct

ober

201

4

1979). Thus a long-established pattern of Local diversionswithin southern Alberta may gradually be supplemented, pos-sibly 1n stages, by displacement of flood flows into the regionfrom progressively more northern rlvers (e.g. Red Deer to Bow

River, North Saskatchewan to Red Deer, Macleod to North Saskat-chewan, Athabasca to Macl-eod, Peace to Athabasca). A gradualevolution to multi-river transfer over many years is conjecturalat this time, however, and ralses serious issues of protectionfor contributing basins both r^/lthin and beyond the province'sboundaries.

For a number of reasons -- the non-colncident dl-stributionof water resources and demands, the continulng importance oflrrigation and general doninance of consumptive uses (includingsecondary o11 recovery), and the Potentlal hardship which south-ward transfer of Mackenzie drainage poses for the NorthwestTerritories --- Albertars sltuatlon resembles more closely thatof parts of the western Unlted States than that of Canada as awho1e. It is an exception to the Canadian water transfer pat-tern.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Several findlngs are apparent from an ongoing inventory ofr,rater transfers existing or under construction in Canada. First,most transfers utilize short cuts and natural channels to ad-vantage in reordering the dense and dlsorganized drai.nage of aheavily glaclated landscape. Second, transfers are numerous'some are long-established and those most recent are massive lnscale, ralsing transfer totals to a magnitude unknown i.n anyother country. Third, they are scattered wldely across thecountry, most of them remote from more populated regions.Fourth, hydro is the dominant use; most projects have been de-veloped by provincial corporatlons whose principal objectlvehas been to maximize low-cost power generatlon and thus to moveelectric power, not water, to southern Canadlan markets. Fl-ftht11ttle attention was gl-ven to social or environmental condltl-onsby project developers before the 1970s, when natlve peoplesdirectly affected and environmental organJ-zations began to l-n-slst on a better dea1. (More recently, fears of blota transferhave attended proposaLs to connect waters across continentaldlvldes, e.g. Garrison, McGregor.) Sixth, exlsting transfershave been contalned effectively wlthin provl"ncj-al- boundariesso that no serlous interjurtsdlctlonal conflicts have yet devel-oped.

A11 of the above characteristlcs paint a plcture of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:52

07

Oct

ober

201

4

.;

.:

-;

Ed

oo

!oo-!]o<

o+!ocoooo>oe

a>o>>ooooooo so

I @O r O 5N{€

6 06 6 0 6 6 6

oooooo

ooo6oo00000

L>z---

*i it : i i : : i{ tr tr Eo oo o o o 66 0 0 !O OO o O O O o OO - O No oo o o o o o oo h o N

o oo o o o - o oo6-N-9

uoo^

!eo.-o >dooLOOs

ooEooorcoooo06060co E3 I J o dL !O O 6 - 3oo>oodtsoLOOCo O- O O-o :! ] ! i = € .= = : Io o._ o o ._ o _ ! o . o oo 46

oooor6Oo>eaa.-Eadc oo .-e I >o< >o + > o uL ->

F!O -- O O C O

r > L od 6 4oL6O

o c > o > €ts o 6o O! O O d - c 6 c C

> O > > e O! O O c d -L -9 - EO

o d 3 e d 6 > L , L L ! > eJE - Or O O 6 0 0 0

o I o t 7 o L LJO O.- O O - O O C O f

o 6 ] ==

o 6 @

4

. o - E 06! o oo6 . C >o >>O ! - > s- O Xzo-o>

< o =O O -.-o t o 6> 6L !O A Eo co !c o o> c c .- ! oE 6 0 0 0 JL '-o ! oo d- o o L . >L O > J> P r > Oe - o O Oo 'eO O- 6 O O O o O 6 6 o 5r

= J J =

6= o 6 Z. ."; ";; ,;hgts@

3

:

t

s.9;9<;

oE

' zEF6

s;;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:52

07

Oct

ober

201

4

75

Canadian-style water transfer whlch is qulte dlfferent from thatfound in other countries or anticipated by promoters of contLn-ental- water schemes (Qulnn, 1971) To be more speclfic, exis-ting Canadlan transfers do not have a north-south orlentatlon,d.o nat divert from better-watered to drier regJ.ons, nor fromLess- to more- populated regions, nar have they been attendedby interjurlsdlctlonal conflLct. The pattern to date is unique-ly Canadian, not the flrst stages of a plpeline leadlng south ofthe border.

In a promlnent exceptlon to thls national pattern, however,the Government of Alberta has begun to reconslder a whole rangeof lnterregional transfer posslblJ-itles and lssues more remln-lscent of experience ln the dry American West.

REFERENCES CITED

Canadlan National Committee, International Commisslon on LargeDams. L976. Reglster of Dams in Canada, L976.

Devoto, Bernard. L962. The Course o!_E*pit.. Houghton MtffltnCo., Boston, p. 300.-

Kel-Lerhals, RoLf, Michael Church, and L.B. Davies. 1979. ttMor-phologleal Effects of. Interbasln Rlver Dlversions." Can-adi.an'Journal- of CivLl Engi.neering. V.6, N.1, pp. 18Tl

Lake Winnlpeg, Churchll-l and Nelson Rivers Study Board (Canadaand ManLtoba). L975. Technical Report.and Apgendlces 1-8.

Laycock, A.H. L979. trlnterbasln Transfer ln Water ResourceManagement." Paper presented at Fall MeetLng of AmerlcanGeophyslcal Unlon, San Francisco. Dec. 7, L979.

Morse, Eric W.and Now.

L969. Fur Trade Canoe Routes of Canada. ThenQueen

t s

Peet, S.E. and J.C. Day. l-980.EnvlronmentaL Evai-uatlon. rr

nal. V.5, N.3, pp 34-48

"The Long Lake Diverslon: AnCanadlan Water Resources Jour-

Qulnn, Frank. L97L. r?Contlnental Water Images: Past and Pres-entrr, ln Perceptlons and Attitudes ln Resources Management,(Pollcy Research and Coordinatlon Branch, EMR, ResourcePaper No. 2), edLted by W.R.D. Sewell- and Ian Burton.Ottawa. Infornatlon Canada, pp. 8J--87.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:52

07

Oct

ober

201

4

76

Saskatchevan-Nelson Basin Board (Canada, Alberta' Saskatchewan,Manitoba) . L972. Water Supply for the Saskatchewan-Nel:son Basin. Appendii 3 @. Regina, P. 1.

Soucy, A. L978. "James Bay Hydroelectrlction of Environmental Conslderations.rr

Development: Evolu-Canadlan Water

Resources Journal. V.3' N.4, Pp. 54-88.

Vendrov, S.L. L979. Problemy preobrazovaniva rechnykh sistemSSSR (Problems of transforming the river system of theUSSR). LenLngrad: Gldrometeoizdau, 1.8.

Water Survey of Canada, Inland Waters Directorate, EnvironmentCanada. 1979. 1978 Return Flow Report (for lrrigatJ-onDlstricts ln Alberta). CalgarY.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:52

07

Oct

ober

201

4