Limiting Calgary's expansion

[Doug]

Originally Posted by fusili

Not eventually. Now. IIRC, Airdrie, Strathmore, Cochrane already buy water from Calgary. Calgary won't sell to Rocky View because they really don't like each other.

I think Cochrane has its own water license, but relies on Calgary for sewage treatment. I'm unsure how much additional growth Cochrane could sustain before having to look elsewhere for water.

The City of Calgary holds the only remaining unused water licenses south of the Red Deer river. No other individual, municipality or irrigation district can draw more water than current. This gives Calgary incredible leverage. Existing water users could choose to reallocate their current allotments. For example, the Eastern Irrigation District agreed to sell water to Cross Iron Mills. Other irrigation water could also be redirected towards urban growth outside Calgary. The City of Calgary could try to outbid Rockyview etc. on this water or it could be really slimy and lobby the Province to restrict this practice.

[MalcolmTucker]

As long as Calgary controls the water, and the Land Stewardship Act plans doesn't remove that, there is little need. Look at all the hoops Cross Iron Mills had to jump through to get built.

Inevitable compromises that would come in a boundary implemented by the province would seriously weaken Calgary's hand.

As long as developments are dense enough and in logical places for transit (along rail lines or near highways with extra capacity) then let the market do its work. That doesn't mean the Calgary region shouldn't have a supplemental gas tax to move the needle towards better outcomes however.

[Ferreth]

I don't think an arbitrary limit would work either, although it is something that perhaps could be set as a goal, without making it a rule. For example, I'd set the N-S size at 20km each direction from downtown. Likely Airdrie would grow out the the Calgary limit, but not Okotoks. I'd set E-W at 15km, owing partly to Calgary's poor E-W road network. These limits would correspond to reasonable commutes to downtown from end of line LRT lines. Commuter rail would eventually service Cochrane, Airdrie, Chestermere, and Okotoks.

How to encourage this? First, the province would have to force the MDs on side. No more development <2 ac parcel, outside of towns, no new towns. Towns/cities outside of Calgary would get geographic limits as well. Next, within the limits, prices to service land need to be set accordingly. 'Burb pricing needs to get more expensive further out, as in the city should first charge the FULL cost of any development, then start tacking on as needed to encourage more inner city build. This will eventually force standard income families into townhouses/apartments rather than detached residential on a 30' lot. Also, more people will choose to live in redevelopment closer in as there is no longer a price advantage to being further out.

I think you guys over-estimate the limitations of water licenses. The CrossIron deal is the first of a trend that will result in less water going to farming and more going to towns/cities over time, similar to southern California. It will not be as easy as just taking more from an available supply, but eventually whomever is willing to pay the highest price wins - that will not be the farmers.

I don't think this is going to happen anytime soon - this province is in the stone ages in terms of progressive environmental thinking. Current developers would resist too, even though they could make just as much money at the end of the day building townhouses and small apartments. Of course, people would resist as well; lots of people want what their parents had - a 50' lot with a big backyard in a bungalow - they will buy whatever is closest to that.

[MalcolmTucker]

whomever is willing to pay the highest price wins - that will not be the farmers.

Since the farmers own the irrigation districts, and they have a fundamental mandate to supply irrigation, can't happen without the province onside. Cross Iron Mills did not buy rights that displaced farmers, they bought the water that evaporated from a certain number of kilometers of canals, then funded the conversion of the canal to a pipeline (or possibly other efficiency measures, but at the time I remember the pipeline was the main source of efficiency cited in the media).

It costs a hell of a lot to move water. The Balzac deal was 1,800 acre-feet (2,220,265,800 liters) of water annually in return for $15 million in capital funding, plus the infrastructure to actually extract and move the water, along with storing it for when the canals are dry. The average Calgarian according to the city uses 84,000 liters of water a year. So if the Balzac deal is considered a fair rate (it is incredibly likely to be low since it was first out of the gate, only accounted for the cost to secure the water not any market value since the deal was of benefit to another nominal farmer's group, the United Horsemen), $15 milllion could support a city of 26,4000 people.

[fusili]

Water is only half of it. Sewer is the other. Without large industrial customers to pay for it, sanitation systems are too expensive to build that far out.

[Boris2k7]

I'm not sure if this is a particular problem in Alberta, but back in Nova Scotia smaller municipalities and rural districts have had issues with paying for new water treatment facilities to meet raised provincial standards.

[Ferreth]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Since the farmers own the irrigation districts, and they have a fundamental mandate to supply irrigation, can't happen without the province onside. Cross Iron Mills did not buy rights that displaced farmers, they bought the water that evaporated from a certain number of kilometers of canals, then funded the conversion of the canal to a pipeline (or possibly other efficiency measures, but at the time I remember the pipeline was the main source of efficiency cited in the media).

It costs a hell of a lot to move water. The Balzac deal was 1,800 acre-feet (2,220,265,800 liters) of water annually in return for $15 million in capital funding, plus the infrastructure to actually extract and move the water, along with storing it for when the canals are dry. The average Calgarian according to the city uses 84,000 liters of water a year. So if the Balzac deal is considered a fair rate (it is incredibly likely to be low since it was first out of the gate, only accounted for the cost to secure the water not any market value since the deal was of benefit to another nominal farmer's group, the United Horsemen), $15 milllion could support a city of 26,4000 people.

Yes, I'd say the Balzac deal was of the "low hanging fruit" variety - invest money to make the irrigation transport loose less, and we'll transfer X amount of water to you in return is the essence of the deal. At this point, no one has less water. In the future it might not be so easy, and there will be a net loss. That being said, I can't see it being a large issue in the next 20 years or so, unless the Calgary area doubles in population in that time, which might happen depending on how things shake out energy wise.

[Jay in Cowtown]

Originally Posted by Doug

I'm unsure how much additional growth Cochrane could sustain before having to look elsewhere for water.

Forget water... they out grew their highways and major streets 10 years ago!

[mersar]

Originally Posted by Doug

I think Cochrane has its own water license, but relies on Calgary for sewage treatment. I'm unsure how much additional growth Cochrane could sustain before having to look elsewhere for water.

Last numbers I'd heard was Cochrane's license will limit them to around 30-35k population (currently about 18k), which was forecast around 2021. They did look at the pipeline option from Calgary already and decided against it for various reasons. They were told by the province that there might be the appetite to allow transferring licenses but no guarantees (some of the farmers around Cochrane have huge licenses that are mostly unused. One I believe holds a license bigger then the town's current license)

[fusili]

Originally Posted by mersar

Last numbers I'd heard was Cochrane's license will limit them to around 30-35k population (currently about 18k), which was forecast around 2021. They did look at the pipeline option from Calgary already and decided against it for various reasons. They were told by the province that there might be the appetite to allow transferring licenses but no guarantees (some of the farmers around Cochrane have huge licenses that are mostly unused. One I believe holds a license bigger then the town's current license)

I for one, would be against transferring an agricultural license to a residential license. I believe the need to grow food outweigh the need for development in a particular area.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by fusili

I for one, would be against transferring an agricultural license to a residential license. I believe the need to grow food outweigh the need for development in a particular area.

It's not that simple. If agricultural licenses can't be sold, there is no incentive to pursue more efficient use of water for agricultural purpose. Few people realize that agriculture accounts for something like 65-70% of the water use in Alberta. The oilsands receive lots of press for their water use, but they are sub 10%.

I think there is a statistic somewhere that Calgary's total water consumption has remained largely static over the past 20 years, despite massive population growth.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Doug

It's not that simple. If agricultural licenses can't be sold, there is no incentive to pursue more efficient use of water for agricultural purpose. Few people realize that agriculture accounts for something like 65-70% of the water use in Alberta. The oilsands receive lots of press for their water use, but they are sub 10%.

I think there is a statistic somewhere that Calgary's total water consumption has remained largely static over the past 20 years, despite massive population growth.

Good point. Water use is dominated by agricultural and industrial uses. Reducing their consumption goes a long way to conserving our water. The largest single user of water is one of the oilsands projects, the second is Canada Malting in Calgary.

[Doug]

On the topic of water usage:

Alberta water project hopes to quench parched farms’ thirst
RENATA D’ALIESIO

Last updated Monday, Jul. 25, 2011 6:12AM EDT
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/na...service=mobile

Now the Alberta government is resurrecting a divisive proposal to take large volumes of water from the Red Deer River near Nevis, a hamlet about 170 kilometres southeast of Edmonton, and divert the resource 120 kilometres through a canal and pipeline to the parched prairie. The government will spend $1-million to start an environmental assessment of the plan. The project’s price tag isn’t being revealed, but the most recent estimate pegged the cost at $250-million.

The province contends the ambitious water-diversion scheme would drought-proof the Dry Belt and deliver economic stability to a vast southern region nearly four times the size of Prince Edward Island. Additional water would be used in homes and for livestock, to support municipalities and new agri-businesses, to irrigate crops and stabilize 415 kilometres of creeks that run dry many summers.

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by Doug

Go to Portland. A disproportionate amount of new development occurs on the Vancouver site, where the urban growth boundary does not apply.

Did you live there or something or have stats on that? I would like to read up on that. Toronto has a green belt as well.

[You Need A Thneed]

Will Calgary eventually have to build another water reservoir?

The province, as well as organizations like the Eastern Irrigation District have been putting millions of dollars a year into upgrading irrigation canals the last several years.

[You Need A Thneed]

Will Calgary eventually have to build another water reservoir?

The province, as well as organizations like the Eastern Irrigation District have been putting millions of dollars a year into upgrading irrigation canals the last several years.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by fusili

Water is only half of it. Sewer is the other. Without large industrial customers to pay for it, sanitation systems are too expensive to build that far out.

As thoroughly disgusting as it is, high-density use of septic tanks isn't unusual in a lot of places.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

As thoroughly disgusting as it is, high-density use of septic tanks isn't unusual in a lot of places.

I know. But Rocky View is very hesitant about communal septic systems. Don't know why, but they are.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by kw5150

Did you live there or something or have stats on that? I would like to read up on that. Toronto has a green belt as well.

I live in Bellevue, Washington but go down to Portland lots. Vancouver, Wa is one of the fastest growing cities in the NW. It used to have a reputation as a semi-rural, backwater aka "Vantucky", but since the late 80s has exploded with new housing and commercial development as developers increasingly avoid the restrictions on the Oregon side of the river.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by fusili

I know. But Rocky View is very hesitant about communal septic systems. Don't know why, but they are.

Probably to avoid contamination of well water along the lines of what has happened in Bragg Creek.