Cooperative Development Pembina River Basln

Home , Pembina Escarpment, Plum Coulee, Red River Floodway

Report of the International Joint Commission Canada and United States

on the

COOPERATIVEDEVELOPMENT

of the PEMBINA RIVER BASLN

OCTOBER 1967 I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1

5 5 6 7 7

10 IO 11 12 12 12 13 13

16 16 17 17 18 20 20 21 21 22

26 26 27 28 28 29 31 ... 111 Page VI11 THE PLAN OF COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT ...... 33 Joint Project Works ...... t...... 33 Supplemental Works...... 37 Operation of Joint Project Works ...... 38 Cost of Joint Project Works ...... 39 Benefits and Separable Economic Gains...... 40 EconomicJustification...... 45

CONCLUSIONS...... 47

RECOMMENDATIONS...... 50

APPENDIX ...... 53 Text of Reference ...... 54 Membership of Board ...... 55 Participating Agencies ...... 57 Persons Presenting Briefs or Testimony ...... 58

FIG U RES Figure I. Pembina River Basin...... Frontispiece Figure 2. PembinaDam ...... Y 34 Figure 3. Pembilier Dam ...... 36 Figure 4. Benefits of theDevelopment ...... 41

ILLUSTRATIONS Pembina River west of Walhalla...... 6 Low flow conditions on the Pembina River ...... 7 Cannery at Morden ...... 8 Sugar beet refinery at Drayton ...... 9 Flooded agricultural land ...... 10 Pembina, North Dakota during a spring flood ...... 11 Recreational facilities at Rock Lake...... 13 Water treatment plant at Neche...... 14 Water tower at Gretna...... 15

iv SECTION I

INTRODUCTION

The Canada-United States boundary from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean is almost 4,000 miles long. Many water problems inevitably arise along the common frontier. This report is concerned with one of the problems in the mid-westwhere precipitation is lowand irregular and where reservoirs on transboundary streams could store water or controlfloods. Projects 'could be undertaken unilaterally by each country or Ion a cooper- ativebasis by thetwo countries. In the latter case apportionment of water and sharing of costs would become important matters to be agreed upon by the two Governments. In 1948, the Governments of Canada and the United States requested the InternationalJoint Commission to investigate and report upon the existing and future uses of the waters of common interest to Canada and the United Statesin the Souris and Red Rivers Basins, and if consideredadvisable, to recommendan apportionment of suchwaters. The Pembina Riker, being a tributary of the Red River, was included in the area investigated. Studies of the Pembina River Basin were undertaken unilaterally in each country in thedecade prior to 1960. Such studies disclosed tlhat potential multi-purposedevelopments for flood control, water supply or irrigation in either country would not be justifiable economically on the basis of benefits in one country alone. The International Joint Commission in the course of its studies under the Souris-Red Rivers Reference of 1948 instructed its International Souris-Red RiversEngineering Board to prepare a preliminary report on the feasibility of cooperativea undertaking by both countries todevelop the water resources of thePembina River. The Commission, on the :basis of the resultingreport, recommended to the Governments of Canadaand the United States, in a letter dated April 12, 196 I, that they consider transmit- ting tothe Commission a reference specifically pertainingto tlhe waters of the Pembina River Basin. On April 3, 1962,the Governments of Canadaand the lJnited States requestedthe International Joint Commission toinvestigate and report on measuresto develop the water resources of thePembina River Basin in

1 Manitoba and North Dakota and determine what plan or plans of cooperative development would be practical, economically feasible and to the mutual advantage of bothcountries, having in mind domestic water supply and sanitation, control of floods, irrigation and other beneficial uses,. The Commission was asked specifically to recommend what plan or plans would best meet the above purposes and requirements, to cstimate the costs, benefitsand any adverse effects of carryingout such plan or plans, to recommendhow the available water should be apportioncdin order to achieve the above benefits, and to recommend how the cost of carrying out suchplan or plansmight be apportioned between Canada and the United States. The text of the Reference from the two Governments is quoted in full in the Appendix.

2 SECTION I1

CONDUCT OF THE INQUIRY

In accordance withits usual procedure in suchinvestigations, the Commis- sion appointed three senior officials from appropriate agencies in each of the twocountries to its International Pembina River Engineering Board. They were experienced engineers from the Canadian Departments of Agriculture, and of Energy, Mines and Resources and the United States Dcpartments of theInterior and of theArmy. A list of themembers of theBoard, its Committee and participating agencies is set out in the Appendix. The Board was directed to carry out, through appropriate agencies in the twocountries, the necessary technical investigations and stuldies, and,to avoid duplication of effort and unnecessary expense, make use of the informationand technical data acquired by theInternational Souris-Red Rivers Engineering Board and technicalagencies in both countries. Over the course of the next three ycars, as its work progressed the Board submitted five semi-annual progress reports.At the conclusion of itsstudy theBoard prescnted a report dated December 1964 support,:d by twelve comprehensivcappendices. In October 1965 theCommission, after review- ingthe report, asked the Board to re-examine two of thcproposed plans, which called for construction of a dam in each country, and to indicate the extent to which the construction schedule might be varied in order to meet theimmediate needs of eachcountry; and to ascertain the advantages and disadvantagesto each country of implementingconstruction in stages. The Boardindicated in March1966 that construction in stageswould not be advantageous as compared to constructionin three consecutive ycars. TheCommission inspected the Pembina River Basin, the proposed dam sites,the irrigable areas and communities that wouldbenefit on August 12, 1962. The Commission made the Board’s report available to the public and then held public hearings at Manitou, Manitoba and Walhalla, North Dakota on June 9 and 10, 1965. Afterdeliberating on the Board’s report and representatisons madeat publichearings, the Commission undertook additional studies to determine the modifications required in theproposed plans in orderto best meet the

3 purposes and requirements set forth in the Reference from the two Govern- ments. Throughout these studies theComnlission’s major objectives were to: Formulate a plan for cooperative development that would achieve a high degree of optimization of net benefits for the entire Pembina River Basin,considering all potentials for the managcment of itswater resources; Devisearrangements under which participationin 1.he cooperative developmentwould provide a net advantage to each country as compared with the advantages of any alternative courses of action available to itand under which thenet advantages to each country would be reasonably equivalent; and Determinewhat apportionment of waterwould be equitable in the light of all pertinent considerations and at the same time practicable for the accomplishment of the cooperative development.

4 SECTION 111

THE RIVER AND ITS BASIN

ThePembina River Basin is approximately 80 miles southwest of Win- nipeg,Manitoba and 160 miles north of Bismarck,North Dakota. It lies astridethe international boundary between the Red River (known in the United States as Red River of the North) and the eastern edge of thc Souris River Basin. See Figure 1.

Physical Features The Pembina River Basin is approximately 130 miles long and varies in width from 18 to 52 miles. The area of thewatershed west of Viralhalla is 3330square miles of which 1990are in Canadaand 1340 inthe United States. Betweenthe Red River and the Pembina Escarpment, a distance of 35 miles, is anunusually smooth plainwith regularslopes gently varying from nearlyflat to 10 feetper mile. Inthis reach the Pembina River has cut a meandering channel 10 to 30 feet below the featureless plain which was once the bed of an ancient glacial lake. Immediately west of Walhalla the Pembina Escarpment abruptly rises 500 feetto a driftprairie plateau interspersed with irregular hills, undulating plain, flat areas, poorly drained depressions, and the Pembina Valley. For about 130 milesbelow Pelican Lake the Pembina Valley is terraced, approximately200 feet deep and 2 mileswide. In thisreach alluvial and sedimentary deposits from deep coulees have formed natural dams creating a series of shallowlakes. For the next 40 miles to Walhalla, the “\I” shaped valley is characterized by slumpblocks and soil creepand is abouta mile wide and400 feet deep. East of Walhallathe valley rapidly decreases in size and within 15 miles disappears.Further downstream, the river banks areat the same or slightly abovethe elevation of theadjacent lbroad flat plain. The main stem of the Pembina River rises in Canada, flows in an easterly directionin a deeplyincised glacial valley for 200 miles throughsouthern Manitoba before crossing into North Dakota. It then winds gently to the east for a further 110 miles to its mouth on the Red River, two miles south of the

5 Pembina Rivet west of Walhalla with the Pembina Escarpment in the background internationalboundary. It drops from elevation 2000 feet. atits source to elevation 750 feet at its mouth. Above Walhalla, the principal tributaries of the Pembina River are Badger Creek,Long River and the Little Pembina River. Below Walhalla,the TongueRiver joins the Pembina a fewmiles above itsconfluence with the Red.

Climate The climate in the Basin is characterizedby wide variations in tempcra- ture and rainfall. Averagc monthly tcmpcraturcs vary from 67°F in July to 2°F in January.Extreme temperaturcs of 1 12°Fand "54°F have been recorded. The mean effective growing season is about IS5 days. The average frost free period is 124 days. The averageannual precipitation is about 18 inches.Average monthly prccipitationranges from 3.2 inchcs in Juneto 0.6 inches in February. Rainfallduring the growing season is rarely more than 13 inches. Severe drought conditions were experienced during the 1930's and more recently in

6 Low flow conditions on the Pembina River, August 15, 1967

1961. Snowfall, averaging 38 inches annually, is approximately :21 percent of thetotal precipitation. The estimated gross evaporation in thePcmbina Basin is 28.5 inches.

Runoff The maximum stream flow of the year usually occurs in the latter part of March or in April, following thespring snow melt. Occasionallythese high flows areincreased and prolonged by accompanying rains. Following the spring runoff the flow rapidly decreases and usually remains low during the summer and fall months. Winterflows are very low or negligible. Duringthe period from192 1 to1957 whcn hydrometricrecords were maintained,the average annual runoff of thePembina River near Manitou was 73,000 acrefeet. It hasvaried from approximately 1,000 to245,000 acre feet. Similarly, during the period from 1921 to 1962 the average annual runoff at Walhalla was approximately 1 12,000 acre feet. Rccorded extremes ranged from approximately 2,000 to 461,000 acre feet.

Economy In consideringthe economic factors related to the dcvclopmcnt of the Pembina it is necessary to take into account not only the Basin itself but also the adjacent areas which might be affected. For this reason thc area immcdi-

7 Cannery at Morden, Manitoba ately north of theBasin bounded by the escarpment, an east-westline through Morden, and the Red Riveris included in the economic appraisal. Thepopulation of this totalarea is approximately63,000 with 38,000 residing in Manitoba and 25,000 in North Dakota. Except for relatively high population densities in the urban communities, the population is less than 10 persons per square mile. The principal towns in North Dakota are Langdon, Walhalla,and Cavalier; and in Manitobaare Morden, Winkler, Altona, Killarney, and Boissevain. The most important resource of the Basin is fertile soil. The area between the escarpment and the Red River is regarded as one of the best agricultural areasin either country. Climatic conditions and intensive use of land, particularlyin the area south of Winkler,permit the growing of specialty crops. In addition to wheat, major crops include oats, barley, hay, flax, rye, sunflowerseed, potatoes, sugar beets and vegetables. Inrecent years there hasbecn a noticeable shift from cashgrains to livestock. The area is well supplied with rail transportation. A network of primary and secondary all-weather highways is adequate for comrnercial trucking in the area.

8 Sugar beet refinery at Drayton, North Dakota

Industry is limited largely to food processing such as vegetable oil, vegetable canning, poultry eviscerating, food packaging, bakeries, potato chips and catfood. Employment throughout the region is principally in agriculture, related industries and service enterprises.

9 SECTION IV

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Flood Damage

Flooded agricultural land in the Gretna-Altona area, Manitoba in 1950

Flood damage occurs on the broad Rat plain cast of the E’embina Escarp- ment. Flood flows from the Pembina River have escaped overland, some to theTongue River Basin in the UnitedStates and some to the Plum River

10 Pembina, North Dakota during the spring flood of 1950

Watershed in Canada. Although the Pembina floods do not usually coincide with flood peaks on the Red River, they do contribute to the magnitude and duration of major floods on the Red. It has been estimated that a flood equal to the magnitude of that of 1950 would, on the basis of 1963 prices, cause $2,730,000 darnagealong the Pembina River in theUnited States and $1,558,000 in the Gretna-Altona area in Canada; and when combined with the Red River food peak of 1950 would cause $2,290,000 in thc area near themouth of thePembina River and $1 1,278,000 betweenEmerson and Winnipeg.

Water Supply Industriesdependent on agricultural products have been reluctant to locate in the area because water supplies from the Pembina are not reliable. Groundwater supplies are very limited and contain iron, sulphates and dissolvedsolids in quantities which cxceed accepted drinking water standards. Ithas been estimated that the municipal and industrial water needs from the Pembina River in the year 2010 will be 0.6 million US gallons per dayin the United States and 3.4 million US gallons per day in Canada. Supplies to meet these needs cannotbe assured under existing conditions.

11 Water Quality Waterquality in the Pembina River below Walhalla during low flow conditions is extremelypoor. At times,the dissolved oxygen content has beenzero and the biochemcial oxygen demand as high as 15 partsper million. A supplemental flow is needed to dilute waste emuents and compensate for channel losses in this reachof the river. Assumingthat the wastes from each of thecommunitics and industries concerned will receiveadequate treatment prior to beingdischarged to the River, it is estimated that the supplemental flow required @ll increase from 2 cfs at present to 3 cfs by the year 2010. This supplemental flow for quality control cannot be assured under existing conditions.

Moisture Deficiency Agriculturalrisks associated with marginaland variable rainfall have strongly influenced theselection of crops, farm practices, and the economy of the area. The success of agriculture and its related industries is primarily dependenton the adequacy and timely occurrence of rainfallduring the growing season. Moisture required for full crop production is approximately 20 inches a year, if ideallydistributed. Precipitation dulring the growing season seldomexceeds 13 inches.During the past 42 ycars the annual moisturerequirements to supplement rainfall have varied from 6 to 14 inches, and during six ycars of drought exceeded 12 inches a year. The soils near the base of the Escarpment between Walhalla and Winkler are gencrally deep and fertilc. They are free from harmful concentrations of salts and sodium and have adequate water holding capacity. The topography is excellent. The barrier to ground water movement is thc dense lake clays, found from 6 to more than 30 feet below the ground surface in the arable lands. The relatively shallow depth to theunderlying clay barrier in the southern portion imposes a drainage problem. The economy of the area, which is almost entirely maintained by agriculture,suffers from the inadequacy of moisturesupplies during the growing season.

Recreation Adequatewater related recreational facilities such as boating, water ski- ing, fishing, picnicand camping areas are lacking in much of thePembina River Basin. Recreational use has been confined to Rock and Pelican Lakes. Theyare shallow and subject to fluctuation of levels and in consequence boating activities are limited. Bone, Overend and Swan Lalkes are extremely shallow andhave a slough-likeappearance. Heavy algae growths have occurred in all Pembina Valley Lakes in Canada. Toxic algae were prevalent in Pelicanand Rock Lakes in thesummer of 1962.Residents of the northeasternpart of NorthDakota must travel considerable distances to recreationalareas because few naturallakes exist in that part of theState.

12 Recreational facilities at Rock Lake, Manitoba

Game Fish Game fish production is marginal in Pelican and Ro,ck Lakes despite good waterquality and an apparently adequate food supply. The othe:r lakes are incapable of supportinga year-round fish population.Lakes in this region with less than 10 feet of water regularly undergo severe winter kills in which nearly allfish arelost. Even lakes with depths ranging from 10 to 20 feet have heavy losses in 10% to 50% of the winters. Fishingin the lower portion of thePembina River isrestricted to the period of spring high water when fishmove upstream from the Red River. Presentconditions are not conducive to thesupport of game fish of good quality.

Present Use Thewater resources of thePembina River Basinhave been1 developed onlyto a modest extent. Current use is limited tosupplying water for the communities of Altona, Gretna, Neche and Pembina, of which the combined populationin 1960 was 3,800. Thetotal capacity of theirwater treatment plants is 900,000 US gallons per day.

13 95879-2 Water Treatment Plant at Neche, North Dakota

The River and its tributaries receive wastes from nine communities, all of which either treat or have plans for treatmentof waste water.

14 U r SECTION V

THE BOARD'S INVESTIGATION

TheBoard's comprehensive investigation included topographic, soil and geologicalsurveys; collection and analysis of hydrologicaland economic data; hydraulic studies, preliminary designs and cost 'estimates; evaluation of potential benefits; and project formulation studies. All segments of the field andofice studies proceeded simultaneously. During the conduct of the investigation the Board, its engineering committee and represlzntatives of the participatinggovernmcntal agencies in both countries held numerous meet- ingsto coordinate studies and procedures so theresults obtained would be comparable. Details are in the Board's report and its twelve aplpendices.

Field Surveys Foundation drilling andseismic refraction surveys were undertaken at threedam sites. Laboratory tests were run on the soil samplestaken to determine the stability of thc embankment, foundation conditions, the design of the earthfill dams, the location of the spillways, conduits and sources of construction materials. Topographicmaps with a scale of 1:4800and a contour interval of 10 feetwere prepared from aerial photographs covering the Pembina River Basin. In addition, detailed topographic maps with one foot contours and a scale of 1 :4800 in North Dakota and 1:2400 in Manitoba1 wereprepared for the potentia1 irrigable areas. A detailedland classificationwas made to determinethe extent, nature and class of landsuitable for irrigation.The potential irrigable area was classified awarding to soil, topographic and drainage characteristics. The soil survey and land classification covered 38,000 acres in Manitoba and 26,000 acres in North Dakota. Water samples taken from five stations were analysed to determine if the waters of thePembina River were suitable for sustained irrigation without specialpractices and if theywould meet the standards for drinking water. Measurements were also made to determine the suspended sediment and bed loadmaterial carried by thePembina River. These data were used to calculate the sediment storage requirements.

16 Hydrology and Hydraulics Climatic and hydrometric data were analysed to determine the magnitude and frequency of Roods, the duration of low flows, water yield from various portions of the Basin and evaporation losses. To assist in thedetermination of run-off,the drainage basin above Wal- halla was classified into contributing or non-contributing areas. The non-con- tributingarea wasdefined asthat portion of thebasin that would, on the average, contribute to stream flows not oftener than once in 10 years. Frequencycurves for annual peak flows andtotal annual volumes were computedstatistically. Low flow frequencycurves were prepared using his- torical references, observed flows and meteorological records. Probable maximum spring and summer floods were computed using either unit or synthetic hydrographs and the maximum probable run-off from snow melt and heavy summer storms. These reflected the most severe combination of meteorologic andhydrologic conditions that could be expected. In addition,the hydro- graph of a standard project flood was computed for Pembilier Dam. Hypo- theticalhydrographs were preparedfor flood frequencies ranging from 2 to SO0 years for usc in reservoir operation studies. Themaximum probable floods were routedthrough the reservoirs to dctcrmine spillway capacitiesand freeboard rcquircments. These data were used in the hydraulic design of spillways, conduits and control gates.

Flood Damage and Flood Control TheBoard reviewed stream flow re.cords of pastfloods, examined the drainage and run-off problems of the area between the Pembina Escarpment and the Red River and delineated the areas subject to flooding. The physical damages caused by the 1948 and 1950 floods to agricultural interests, and to residential, commercial and public properties were evaluated. The evaluation of crop losses took into account reduction in yields due to late planting, reseeding costs, weed infestation and increased operating costs. Estimates of urban flood damage took appropriate amount of rcductions in the market value of residences, commercial establishments and public buildings.Account was also taken of physicaldamage to land, equipment, merchandise,streets, walks, parks and public utilities; and costs incurred throughflood emergencies. Information was obtained by interviews and inspection.These data were supplemented by informationcontained in the Report of the (Manitoba) Royal Commission on Flood Cost Benefit, dated December 1958. Analysis of the e,conomy of the area indicated that future growth would proceedat a uniformrate. Projection beyond SO yearswas not warranted because of uncertaintiesin forecasting future economic conditions. The Board projected the economic growth of the flood plain for the first SO years and for the remaining 50 years of the project life used the highest level thus reached.

17 Discharge-area flooded and discharge-damage curves for the various areas and centres affected were prepared for floods of varying frequencies. Storage onthe Pembina River would only on veryrare occasions reduce the flood stage at Winnipeg since the construction of the Red River Floodway, Shell- mouth Reservoir and Portage Diversion is expected to provide almost complete protection. For this reason flood control benefits for Greater Winnipeg were not considered. The floodcontrol measures investigated included storage at Pernbina and Pernbilier Reservoir sites and channel improvement in the lower 70 miles of the Pembina River. The Pembilier sitewhich is nearest the area of damage was foundto be the most effcctivc. Downstreamchannel improvement was not feasible either as anindcpcndent project or when combined with Pem- bilier Reservoir. ‘Three reservoir sizes at the Pembilier site were used to detcrmine the flood control bcnefits along the Pembina River. Floods were routed through reser- voirswith capacities sufficient to control 12-, 40- and200-year volume frequency floods. The resulting flood frequencycurves, modified by storage inthe reservoir, formed the basis for determining the average annual flood control benefits. A similar but more complex method was employed to determine the flood control benefits along the Red River.

Irrigation Investigation of thearea between Walhalla, North Dakota and Winkler, Manitobafor irrigation took intoaccount water requirements for irrigated crops,the reservoir storage necessary to supportthe irrigable area,the preliminarydesign and cost of thedistribution systems, and the potential irrigation benefits. Theirrigable area was definedas the arca which met all theland clas- sificationstandards for irrigation and could be economical1,y served by the projectworks. The productive area was defined as the land that would actually be irrigated after deducting the arca needed for farm roads, ditches, drains,buildings and other such non-productive purposes. In Cmada,the deductionfor non-productive areas was 10%. In theUnited States where farm units were larger than in Canada, it was 6%. The productive area was usedto derive the water requirements and benefits so thatproject formulation in each country would he directly comparable. The water requirement per productive acre was determined by first com- puting the consumptive use by the Lowry-Johnson method. This amount was distributedmonthly in accordancewith accepted methods. The crop irriga- tionrequirements for each month were then calculated by deductingthe effectiveprecipitation from the consumptive use for the pcriod 1921-1962. The farm irrigation efficiency was assumed to be 57%. It 1.ook into account percolation, run-off, cvaporationand losses in farm ditches.Monthly irriga- tiondiversion requirements were than calculated for irrigable areas varying 1s from 7,000 to 32,000 productive acres. Seepage losses in canals and laterals wereestimated by theMoritz formula. Operational losseswere assumedto be 10%. Curves based on peak demand and other operational lrequirements were developed to determine the design capacitiesof canals and laterals. The reservoir operation studies took into consideration the monthly irrigation diversionrequirements, a limit on irrigationdiversions when necessary duringa critical drought period, an upstreamreservation of 12% of the water yield fornon-project purposes, an annual allowance of 10,000 acre feet for municipal and industrial water supply, and the multi-purpose use of a portion of Pembilier Reservoir capacity. Themaximum storage requirement was computed by assumingthat the reservoir would be empty at the end of the critical period as a result of the withdrawals for irrigation and municipal demands and reservoir evaporation losses. Estimatedinflows throughout the ,critical droughtperiod were taken into account. As a check, reservoir operation studies for 10,000 and 20,000 productive acres were made for the full 42 year study period using recorded inflows,releases for various uses, evaporation losses, spillage and reservoir content by months.The results of allthese calculations were plotted on storagerequirement-productive acreage curves which were subsequently employed for project formulation purposes. Comparable studies of irrigationdistribution layouts were investigated by Canadian and United States agencies. Five separate irrigation schemes varying in size from 7,500 to 16,670 productive acres were examined in Canada. In the United States, a representative or median basic unit of 9,1914produc- tive acres was studied in detail. The irrigation studies took into consideration land classification; the location and size of laterals; appurtenant works such as drops,checks, farm turnouts, bridges and culverts; surface and tile drainage; and land preparation on the irrigated farms. The United States agencies prepared a detailed cost estimate for the basic unit of 9,914 productiveacres. They assumed that the cost of distribution anddrainage works and of landpreparation, operation, maintenance and replacement costs for larger or smaller productive acreages would be proportionalto the costs for the basic unit. On theother hand, the Canadian agenciesprepared detailed cost estimates for the five alternativeschemes. Costestimates for intermediate productive acrcages were obtained by interpolation. The e'conomicanalysis to determine the irrigation benefits required a translation of physicaleffects into dollar values. Thecomparable appraisal of theagricultural economy in bothcountries took into account the type, size, tenure and value of the existing farms. It also considered the organiza- tion of thefarms in respectto land use,livestock, crop yields, cultural practices, capital investment and farm in,come. Detailedfarm budget analyses were used tocalculate the cconomic agriculturalpotential of theirrigable areas in bothcountries with and without irrigation. Thc increase in the net farm income due to irrigation was construed to be the irrigationbenefit. 19 In Canada, the farm budget analysis was based on a composite 240 acre farm with 135 irrigable acres. For the purpose of the analysis the composite farm was assumed to be a small scale replica of the total irrigable area as far as soilclassification, land usc, cropsand livestock were concerned. The Canadian analysis also assumed a 10 year farm development period and the 1959-61 price level for farm products and prices paid for imports. Jn the United States, the farm budget analysis was based on all the 44.3 dry land or 58.5 irrigated farms in the basic unit containing 10,547 irrigable acres. All irrigated farms were assumed to be operated in conjunction with dry farmland. The United States analysis also assumed a devclopment period of five years and a price index of 250 for prices received and 265 for prices paid by farmers.The farm budget mcthod was also used todetermine the paymentcapacity of irrigatedfarms in thcUnited States. 'The results of these computations provided estimates of direct benefits per productivc acre which were used in the project formulation. In addition, the indirectand public benefits of irrigationwere estimated for cach country. Benefit-cost analyses were made, 'both with and without the indirect benefits.

Mmiciprrl Wuter Supply and Water Quality TheBoard investigated the quality and quantity of availableground and surface water; examined the waste trcatment facilities of communities within the drainagc basin of the Pembina River; estimated the futurc needs of water for municipaland industrial purposes and water for quality control in the lowerreach of thePembina River; calculated the storage requirements to provide10,000 acre feet annually for municipal, industrial and quality controlpurposes for the critical droughtperiod; analysed six independent developments whi'ch could supply the Canadian needs, the only independent altcrnativcto meet the United States needs, and two joint Canada-United States single purpose schemes to meet the needs of both countries. A planutilizing themulti-purpose reservoirs, the main s'upply canaland trunkpipelines to convey water to the various towns was formulated. The planprovided for two large dugout type reservoirs to be used for storage duringthe winter months and periods of highirrigation demand. The plan didnot include water treatment plants nor distribution facilitieswithin the local communities. It wasassumed that the benefits attributableto water supply and water quality control would be equal to the cost of providing equivalent water to meetthe expected needs by themost economical alternative means that wouldlikely be utilized in theabsence of possible a cooperative development.

Recreation The Board examined thc utilization of existingfacilities within the Basin andevaluated the potential rccrcational benefits anddamage to existing facilities that might result from the reservoirs under consideration.

20 The selection of the recreational sites on the banks of the reservoirs took intoconsideration the fluctuation of water lcvels duringthe recreational season, the expanse of water fronts, scenery, accessibility and the suitability for swimmingbeaches, boat launching sites, camping facilities and picni,c areas. Cost estimates were prepared for the development of each recreational site. The recreational benefits were assumed to be $1 .OO per visitor day. The estimate of the visitor days took into consideration the distance from major populationcentres, the competition for the recreational market and the growth of population within the zone of influence.

Fish and Wildlife The investigation of fish and wildlife resources was based upon the results of separatestudies and the views of representatives of fish and wildlife agencies in each country. Assessments wcre made of the wildlife losscs which wouldbe caused by eachreservoir to thc habitat of white-taildeer, game birds and fur-bearinganimals. Evaluations were made of .the benefits attributablc to each reservoir in terms of increases in quantity and improvement of quality of game fish that would resultfrom better flow conditions and the creation of deep pools.

Project Formulation After selecting three principal reservoir sites, 15 plans wcre formulated to rcducethe recurring flood damages caused by thcPembina River, irrigate arable lands bctween Walhalla and Winkler, provide adequate water supplies for communities east of the Pembina Escarpment, control the water quality inthe lowcr reaches of thePcmbina River, create water-based recreational facilities and improve the habitat forfish. The Board assumed, for design purposes only,that the available water would be equally divided bctwcen the two countries; that the lower portion of the flood control space in the reservoirs would also be used for recreation andother water needs; that the project life wouldbe 100 years;that the anticipated growth and development of the economy would be projected for the first 50 years and held at a constant level thereafter; that the pricc levels used in all cost estimates would be based on July 1, 1963 price Icwels in each country; that the value of the currency of each country would be equal; that an interest rate of 4 percent, the average of applicable interest rates in both countries, would apply;and that all analyses would be based on primary benefits. The 15 plans considered included combinations of one or two reservoirs; pumpingagainst a 58 feethead from the River near Walhalla to a'canal flowing north to Winkler; diversion works permitting gravity flow to Winkler; and channel enlargement in the lower portion of the Pembina River. After a broad appraisal, five plans were selected for detailed examination. Costestimates were prepared for six sizes of Swan LakeReservoir with capacities varying from 172,000 to 632,000 acre feet, five sizes of Pembina

21 Reservoir with capacitiesvarying from 70,000 to 375,000 acrefeet, and three sizes of PembilierReservoir with capacitiesvarying from 75,000 to 450,000acre feet.These estimates included the cost of landdamages, relocation of services,reservoir clearing, phcing of embankment,and construction of spillway andoutlet works. Unit prices were based largely on experience with theSouth Saskatchewan River Project; dams on the Mis- souriRiver and irrigation projects in theMidwest of both countries.The construction period was assumed to be three years for major works and for the water supply systems and one year for recreation facilities. The annual costs, including interest, amortization, operation, maintenance andreplacement charges, for various reservoir capacities at eachsite were then plotted on a series of curves. These curves, in conjunction with curves devclopedfor irrigation and flood control benefits, wereused to determine thereservoir capacities and the combinations of reservoi:rs at which net benefits would bc maximized. The project formulation studies used variations in the extent of each bcne- tit as well as the inclusion or exclusion of benefits for each reservoir in the five plans. For example, the optimum size of Pembilier Reservoir was determincd by selecting a value of flood controlstorage, holding it constantand then adding increments of irrigation and water supply storage until the optimum value of the total storage was determined. This procedure was repeated for several valt~esof flood storage. The point of nxlximum net benefits was then obtained by plotting thc flood control storagc vcrsus thc net benefits for each computation.The results were checked by using thesame procedure but holdingthc irrigation and water supply storagc constant and varying the flood control storage. A similar procedure was used in determining the optimum size of Pembina and Swan Lake Reservoirs when used in conjunction withPembilier Reser- voir. The formulation studies were the basis of selccting thc use and size of each reservoir in the plans examined.

Plans Presented by the Board TheBoard presented three plans of developmentfor the Commission's consideration.The principal components of each plan werepressurea conduit, a main supply canal, and either one or two darns. The flood control, municipaland industrial water supply, and fishery benefits wereessentially thesame for all three plans. The irrigation and recreatio'n benefits varied with eachplan. The differences in thebenefit-cost ratios of thethree plans were relatively small. PLAN1 provided for one multi-purpose reservoir, Pembilier, located in the UnitedStates. The reservoir would have an effective capacity of 279,000 acrefeet with 115,000 acrefeet reserved for control of springfloods and 164,000acre feet for irrigation andwater supply. After the passage of spring flood thc reservoir would be drawn down so that 80,000 acre feet of its capacitywould be reserved for summer floods and 35,000 acre feet of

22 water retained for irrigation and water supply purposes during the following 9 months.The rescrvoir capacity used bothfor the purpose of storingthe spring flood and for the purpose of retaining 35,000 acre feet for irrigation and water supply is termed dual-purpose storage. The plan envisaged irrigat- ing18,300 productive acres. PLAN2 provided for a reservoir in eachcountry; namely, the Pembilier Reservoir in theUnited States and Pembina Reservoir in Canada.In this plan thetotal effective capacity of Pembilier Reservoir,110,000 acre feet, would bereserved for the control of spring floods. About65,000 acre feet would be reservedfor summcr floods and 45,000 acre feet retained as dual-purpose storage. Pcmbina Reservoir would have an cfl'ective capacity of 246,000 acre feet. It would be used for storage of water for irrigating 21,300 productive acres and for water supply.

PLAN4 also providedfor ;I rcscrvoir in eachcountry; namely Pembilier Reservoir in theUnited States and Swan LakeReservoir in Canada.Pem- bilierReservoir in thisplan would have an effective storagecapacity of 130,000 acre feet, with 1 10,000 acre feet reserved for the control of spring floods and 20,000 acre feet of storage for irrigation and water supply. About 60,000 acre feet would be rcscrvccl for summer floods and 50,000 acre feet of dual-purposestorage would be retainedfor irrigation and water supply. The total effective storage capacity of Swan Lake, 540,000 acre feet, would be reserved for irrigating 25,300 productive acres and for water supply. The costs of thecomponent parts of each plan wereassigned directly to specific purposesor, in thecase of reservoirs were designatedas joint-use costs.The ,joint-use costs allocable to flood controland rccrl:ation wcre divided bctwecn thetwo countries in proportion to theannual benefits realizcd in each country. The joint-use costs allocable to irrigation and water supply wcre divided equally between thc two countries to reflcct the Board's bask assumptionof equal use of water in each country for these purposes. Costs assigned to specificpurposes wcre divided between countries in pro- portionto the usc by eachcountry. For example, Canada was assigned all costs of the main supply canal in Manitoba and 2/3 of the costs of the main supplycanal in NorthDakota while thecosts of thepressure conduit were divided equally. The ratio of the benefits realized by each plan to the costs associated with that planwas computed.The benefit-cost ratios for each country, when basedon primary benefits, theabove distribution of costs, 4% interestrate anda conmon dollar value, wcre slightly aboveunity for eac.h plan.But when thethen prescribcdintcrcst rate of 34 %I in the LJnited Statesand thethen prevailing interest rate of 5% in Canada were appliedthe benefit- cost ratios were substantially increased for the Unitctl States portion of each plan whilc the bencfit-cost ratiosfor the Canadian portion of each plan decreasedto less thanunity. In otherwords, the costs to Canada exceeded the primary benefits realizcd. When secondary irrigation benefits were added, the benefit-cost ratio for ea'ch plan was above unity for each country.

23 SECTION VI

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Following receipt of the Board’s report on thedevelopment of the PernbinaRiver Basin, the Commission scnt copies to appropriate offcials and interested individuals and made copies available for inspection at the 13 public officcs indicated in the publishednotices. In addition, a summary of thc Board’s report and ;I noticc of the public hearings were rnailcd to a large number of individuals and to all municipalities and clectcd r8cprcscntativcs in the area. In accordance with the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, noticc of public hearings was also published in the Canada Gazette, the United States Federal Register and local newspapers in each country. The publichearings held atManitou, Manitoba and ’Walhalla, North Dakota on June 9 and 10, 1965 were wcll attended. All thoseinterested were given an opportunity to convey relevant information to the Commission and express their views orally or in writing. Statements were made by elected representativesfrom all levels of government in eachcountry, officials of govcrnnlcntalagencies, local organizationsand privatc individuals. In all, sixty-two witnesses wereheard. Alist of personswho gave testimonyis in the Appendix of this report. The preponderance of testimony prescntcd at the hearings favoured Plan 2 asbest meeting the requirements of bothcountries. No oneexpressed opposition to the proposed development of thc Pembina River Basin. Testimonystressed the urgent need in thearea for ilood protection, irrigation, reliable water supply and water rclatcd recreation. Some witnesses wereconcerned about the doubtful economic feasibility of theCanadian portion of the project and urged that consideration be given to improving the feasibility of theCanadian portion so thatthe cooperative development couldbe justified in bothcountries. Onc witness statedthat benefit-cost ratioswere not nearly assignificant as obtaining the maximum use from available resources. Some statements urged that control dams be constructed in bothcountries. Others were concerned with compensationfor lands that would bc flooded by thereservoirs, the allocation of water,scverance of

24 established north-south communications in the Swan Lake area if Plan 4 were implemented,and construction of smalldams on Swan, Rock andPelican Lakes if Plan 2 were adopted. Vcrbatimtranscripts of bothhearings are on file atthe ofliccs of the Commission.

25 SECTION VI1

BASIC CONSIDERATIONS

In itsinquiry and deliberations, the Commission found the basic considerations outlined hereunder of major significance and dominant importance in accomplishingthe objectives of thestudy. As previously outlined,these objectives involvc primarilythe formulation of a coope:rativeplan for optimum use of the water resources of the Pembina River Basin that would bemutually advantageous to each country as compared. with available alternative courses of action.

Optimization A plan of cooperative development should provide for optimum use of the waterresources of theBasin. The size andlocation of thecontrol and conveyance works should be both practi.cable and economically justified and should pcrmit the mostbencficial use of the available watcr. TheBoard’s comprehensive invcstigations, particularly the hydrological, water rcquircmcnts and irrigation aspects, were in sufIicient detail to permit theformulation of anoptimum plan of devclopmcnt. Simil.arly, theBoard’s thorough evaluation of the flood control, water supply, irrigation, recreation, and fishery benefits was adequate to permit a valid economic: appraisal of the multi-purposedevelopment. The cost estimates, though preliminary in nature, were adequate for determining the relative feasibi1it.y of comparative plans. Full utilization and complete control of thewater resources of thePem- binaRivcr Basin would require uneconomic storage facilities of great size capable of longcarry-over periods. The Board’s formulationstudies were designed to establishthe practicability of accommodating ,various functions andto determine the optimum sizc of eachrcscrvoir. The dual-purpose storage of PcmbilierReservoir makes maximum space available for spring floods and retains as much of the spring runoff as possible to meet a portion of thedemand for the current year whilestill providingample storage capacityfor periodic summer floods. Dual-purpose storage avoids unncces- sary waste of water and increases the irrigablc area. Irrigationbenefits are of particularimportance in anyplan for the optimum use of the waters of the Pembina Basin. In this regard the Board

26 calculatedthat 21,300 productive acres could be irrigated uncler Plan 2. There are 26,000 irrigable acres available in Manitoba and 16,000 in North Dakota, each with the same productive capacity per acre. Since the total of 42,000 irrigable acres is beyond the carrying capacity of the availlable water, theCommission gave consideration to the best location of the isreas to be irrigated. Using identical unit prices, comparabledesign and standards for irrigation works, the same ratio of productive to irrigable areas artd the same rate of development,the Commission found that 21,300 productive acres couldbe irrigated at minimum cost if theywere located so thatapproxi- mately 17,000 would be in Canadaand 4,300 in theUnited States. Costs associatedwith the extension of themain supply canal, length and size of laterals,and extent of surface'and sub-surface drains were taken into account. This would reduce or exclude the acreage with which the highcr costs are associated and add a corresponding number of acres in the north, at a much lowercost. Such a,ctionwould be consistentwith accepted methods of planningprojecta located wholly in onejurisdiction. The Commission consideredthese factors in theformulation of its optimumplan of mutual advantage to the two countries.

Mutual Advantage A cooperative development between countries woul'd be of muf.ual advantage if each country could thereby realize greater nct benefits than it could by acting unilaterally. A cooperativedevelopment should, in its totality, be pra'cticableand justifiable economically.The total dircctbenefits realized by eachcountry should exceed the total cost borne by that country. A cooperative development should recognize all the multi-purpose aspects and if possible should be operated to mutual advantage for all purposes. It is advantageous in acooperative development to have a fairshare of necessary works and operational responsibilities in each country. This would enable each country to benefit from the expenditure of construction funds in its territory and to have physical control over an integral part of the pro.ject, thus adding strength and continuity to the cooperative approach. Flexibilityis important in anyplan of cooperativedevelopment of water resources. As long as the works affecting both countries are constructed and operated in accordance with an agreed plan, each country should be free to use its share of the waters as it sees fit, provided that in so doing there is no interference with theother country's use of its share.For example, neither countryshould be inhibitedfrom using, for additional irrigation, water allocatedto it foranticipated municipal needs; nor from using some of its water for purposes not forescen at the time the agreed plan was formulated. Suchunilateral changes in the use of watershould not be considered justification for changing the basic terms of theagreed plan of cooperative development.

27 Independent Alternatives EitherCanada or the United States could make use of all theavailable waters of thePembina River to improve thc existing conditions inits own territory. Unilateral 'developmcnts are physically possible in each 'country to put to use the waters in its territory. For example, Canada comuld build a high dam at the Pembina site, pump water over the height of land to Dead Horse Creek and thence by gravity convey all waters stored in the reservoir to the areasouth and east of Morden.Established downstream need not be harmed. Similarly, the United States could build a low dam at the Pembilier site anduse all thewater it couldthus control. Such independent developments, however, would limit the capabilities of each country to control and utilize the waters of the Pembina Basin as compared to cooperative action. Furthermore,there have bcen unilatcral studies indicating that such major independent developments considered would not be economic,allyfeasible.

Equivalence of Benefits and Costs Interest rates, and hence interest costs, as well as other costs of a project suchas labour and materials, vary from timc to time and from country to country. In calculating for each country the annual costs of works constructed and operated in its territory, such items as wage rates, value of currency, prices of materials,and interest rates prevailing in that co'untry should be used in determining its costs. Account should also be taken of the extent to which expenditures,to realizespecific bencfits such as irrig,ation, recreation andwater supply, and for settlers assistance and pre-authorization charges differ from one country to the other. It is recognized that secondary, public and intangible benefits would result fromthe development of thePcmbina River. However, the Commission considersthat the primary or direct benefits shouldbe controlling in the determination of the economic advantage to each country. Theestimates of benefitsshould take cognizance of differencesbe- tween the countries in such factors as the value of propert:y protected from floods, the value of water-related recreational facilities, the size of irrigated farms, the rate of their development and the agricultural price structure. The benefitsderived fromagricultural products vary not only .with thedemand forsuch goods ineach country but alsowith the nationad policy of each country in such matters as price support. All such differences in both costs and benefits in each country should be recognizedand taken into account in determiningthe equ.itable apportion- mcnt of net benefits in a cooperative development. As ameans of identifyingsignificant factorsto achieve equivalence of benefits and costs, theCommission has adopted aconcept of separuble cx-onomic gains andhas employed the terms jointproject works and supplemental works. Accordingly: Themulti-purpose components of theplan of cooperativedevelopment which contribute to more than one benefit are referred to in this report as the joint project works;

28 Theadditional components of the plan of developmentthat are necessary for the realization of only one specific benefit are referred to herein as .vcrpplrmental ~~~rks;and The .vepcrrahle economic gain as used in this report is thevalue of ;L specificbenefit less the cost of any .sLr/)I~IC/)ICt2tLil work:; necessary for the realization of that bcnefit. In a Cooperative developmentthe net benefits realized should be appor- tionedequitably between the countries. This objective can bz achieved insofaras economic factors arc concerned if theratio of thesum of the separable economic gains to the cost of the joint project works is the same for each participating country. The cost of construction of all works required in the developn-lent should be initially paid for by the country in which the works are located. Equaliza- tion of benefits and costs to each country can then bc achieved by a transfer of money from one country to defray a part of the cost of joint project works in the latter country. The procedure to accomplish this is explained in Sec- tion VIII.

Apportionment of Water Although the Commission did not ask the Board to suggest an apportionment of thewatcrs of thePembina River Basinit was nccessary forthe Boardto make certain assumptions in orderto proceed with its studies. Accordingly,as mentioned previously, and for design purposesonly, the Board assumcd an equal division of available water between the countries. All the waters that could be controlled by a cooperative development need notbe assigncd to projectpurposes. A portion of thewaters originating in eachcountry should be reserved for use asthat country sees fit, provided that such use docs not cause injury in the other country. Officials from the Province of Manitoba and the State of North Dakota who participated in the Board’s studywere of theopinion that 12% of thetotal yield of the Basin abovcPembilier Dam should be reservedfor non-project purposes and the studyprocceded on thatbasis. The Commission considers this reservation appropriateto the circumstances and benefits from the use of mon-project watcrsare not included in the determination of theeconomic advantage of the cooperativc development. Underthe terms of referenceand sub.jcct tothe conditions stated, the Commission was requested to recommend a plan of cooperative development of thewater resources of the Basin andto recommend how the available watershould be apportioned between the countries in order to achicvethe benefits of thatplan. In formulatingthe planwhich is described in Sec- tion VIII, theCommission has nccessarily taken account of the several factorswhich need to be considered in determiningthe apportionment of

29 95879-3 water whichwould beappropriate and equitable under the circumstances. Some of these Factors are discussed below. About 60% of the total clrainagc area of the Basin ;hove Pembilier Dam, the last point wherc flows would be controlled under the proposed plan, is in Canada and 40% is in theUnited States. Allowing for non-contributing ;~rcasin cach country, SX.S%, ol the arca contributing run-off tothe Pcm- bina Riverabove the proposed clam is in Canada and 4 1.2% in the United States. Correlationstudies indicated the run-off to be proportionalto the contributing areas. Thusapproximately 59% of thewater yield originates in Canada and 41 96 in the United States. The water yield from cach country is available for use in that country and ;I cooperativedcvclopmcnt should not precludesuch use, particularly if the other country is not adversely affcctcd thereby. Canada could use beneficially all of the wateroriginating in theCanadian portion of the Basin abovc Pembilicr Dam and similarly the United States could use water equivalent to the amount originating in the United States portion of the Basin. Underthe cooperative dcvcloprncnt hereinafter proposcd, each country would utilize and benefit from the topography and facilities providedin the other country. The contributions of cach country in this regard are so close lo bcing equal thatneither country should bc expected to burrender part of its water yield to compensate the other. The cooperative dcvclopment dcs,cribcd in Section VI11 would not curtail any of theexisting uses of thewaters of theBasin, which includewater supply, waste disposal and recreation. Indeed it makes provision for expand- ed uses for thesepurposes :IS well as foradditional uses not possibleunder existingconditions or independentdcvclopmcnt. The economy of the Basin and nearby arcas in both countries is not mature and available natural resources remain undeveloped. Forecasts of population growthand consequent economic and social needs, howcvcr meticulously developed, may appear quite unrealistic in a few decades and were not relied upon to any extent in the consideration of apportionment. Whenformal agreement has been reached regarding apportionment, and in ordcr to provide for the flexibility asnlentioned cnrlicr, each country should be free to determine the uses to he made of the water apportioned to it, provided thecooperative development is notimpaired and there is no interfcrcnce with the other country’suse of the water apportioned to it. The Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 provides no guidance in the matter of apportionment of water in riverswhich cross the international boundary. Article I1 stntcsthe principle that each country, along with itsrespective Provincialand State Governments, normally retains “exclusivejurisdiction and control ovcr the usc and diversion” of all the upsteam waters on its own side of the boundary. In the case of the Pembina River waters, which cross

30 and re-crossthe international boundary, each country is, in turn,an upstream country within the meaning of Article 11; so that cach would have to agree to limit the exercise of its .jurisdiction in thc interest of cooperative development.The basis forthe apportionrncnt required to bring about this cooperativedevelopment must bc dcrivcdfrom sources outside thc Treaty. Customaryinternational law hasnot as yetevolved a precise orbinding formula. On the other hand, the general principles embodied in the “Helsinki Rules on the llscs of Waters of InternationalRivers”, approved in 1966 by thelntcrnational Law Association after anintcnsivc study of some twclvc yeam, furnisha hclpful guide to contemporaryinternational practice in this area.Thc Helsinki Rules aftirm thatcach basin stateshould be entitled within its tcrritory to a rcasonablc and cquitable sharc in the beneficial uses 01 thc watcrs of an intcrnational drainage basin, such share to be determined in the light of all therclcvant factors in eachparticular case. Thc rclcvant factors set out in the Rules include geography, hydrology, past utilization of thewatcrs, economic and social needs and the avoidance of unnecessary waste of water. The Commission has given due consideration to ;dl of these factors.

Formulation of an Optirnwn Plm of M~rtrralAdvantage After review of theforegoing basic considerations, the report of the Board, thc rccord of the public hearings and other pertinent information, the Commissionproceeded with theformulation of its concept of a17 optimum plan as outlined hereunder. Thethree most favourable plans presented in the Board’s report offered generallycomparable possibilities for reasonably full and optimum use of resources,for fulfilling variousneeds and purposes and for economic justification. Withrespect tooptimization, the Commission found that greater net rcturnscould be obtained under all plans if morc of theirrigable acreage weredeveloped in Canada. Development costs would be lower in Canada and drainage problcms and costs would be greater in theUnited States. Of the 2 1,300 productive acres that could be irrigated with the watcx available underthe Board’s Plan 2, 17,000 shouldbe located in Canadaand only 4,300 in the United Statcs if net irrigation rcturns on a basin-wide basis were tobe maximized. Any sacrifice of thisdegree of optimizationshould be justified by other considerations. Withrespect to the requirement for mutual advantage, the Commission foundthat a plan providinga major reservoir in eachcountry would be desirable. This was also favoured by the residents of the area. Since there arc no independent alternatives that are economically justifiable in themselves it was not possible to measure directly the net advantages of acooperative devclopment. The Commission therefore used the concept of srparuble economic gcrins toprovide a basisfor a determination of the commensurate net advantage to each country.

31 95879-3: Finally,the Commission, after considering all factorssuch as origin of water,opportunity for use, nccd forusc, and possibilities forbasin-wide optimization for use, concludcd that ;~napportionment of the water available forproject purposes, 60%) to Canada and 40%) to theUnited States, would bc equitableand pcrmit rcasonablc optimization of a coopcrativc plan of mutual advantage to the two countrics. TheCommission found that a modification of theBoard’s Plan 2, as outlinedSectionin VIII, could bc formulated to meet all these considerations.

32 SECTION VI11

THEPLAN OF COOPERATIVEDEVELOPMENT

The plan of cooperative development formulated by the Commission is the Board'sPlan 2 modified in accordancc with the considerations diiscussed in the preceding section. The Pembina and Pembilier Reservoirs and the Supply Conduit are identical to those prescnted in thc Board's Plan 2. However, the MainSupply Canal has been extended and the areas to be irrigated have been relocated. See Figure 1. The plan formulated by the Commission would reserve 12% of the total annualwater yield above Pembilier Dam for non-project purposes, 5% for use in North Dakota and 7% for use in Manitoba. Under this plan 40% of the remainder of the water yield of the Pembina River Basin above Pembilier Dam, the lowest point of control, would be apportioned for use in the United States and 60% for use in Canada. The plan would make 10,000 acre feet of water available annually for municipal and industrial purposes, of which 4,000 acre feet would be for use in the United States and 6,000 acre feet for use in Canada.On the basis of this apportionment of waterit .would also provide for the irrigation of 21,300 productive acres, of which 8,500 would be in the United States and 12,800 in Canada.

Joint Project Works Thejoint project works of theCommission's plan are the multi-purpose components of thetotal plan which contribute to 'more than one benefit. They are Pembina Dam, Pembilier Dam, the Supply Conduit and the Main Supply Canal. The Supply Conduit and the Main Supply Canal convey water for irrigation in both countries and for municipal and industrial purposesin Manitoba. PEMBINADAM in Manitobawould create a reservoir 30 miles long with a usable storage capacity of 246,000 acre feet, of which 2 15,000 acre feet would be €or irrigation and 31,000 acre feet for water supply. The conserva- tionpool would provide a capacityof 4,000 acre feet for a'ceumulated sediment.The flooded area at maximum water level,elevation 1256, would be 6,300 acres.The dam would be located 14 miles southeast of Manitou and 134 miles above the mouth of the Pembina River.

33 SECTION OF SPILLWAY

..".

34 PembinaReservoir would control 84% of' thecontributing .area above Walhalla. The annual dependable yield would be about 49,000 acre feet. Its effect on flood peaks would be limited because it is 42 miles above Walhalla, where the area subject to flood damage commences. Thedam, shown in Figure 2, would be of compactedearth fill havinga total length of 4,000 feet and a maximum height of 1 IO feet. The top of the damwould bc atelevation 1264. The spillway would be of reinforced concretewith a controlled crest length of 182 feet atelevation 1244 and haveamaximum capacity of 30,500 cfs (cubic feetper second).The reinforcedconcrcte stilling basinwould have a width of 206 feet andan over-all length of 100 fect. The reinforced concrcte outlet works would have two7-foot diameter horseshoe type conduits with a maximum (capacity of 2,900 cfs. At the gatewell both conduits would be divided into two chambcrs equipped with slide gatcs, two of the four gates being available for emergency use. PEMBILLER DAM in North Dakota would create a rcscrvoir 22 miles long with a usablestorage capacity of 1 10,000acre feet which would be used primarilyfor lloocl control.Approximately 45,000 acre fcetwould be used alsofor water storage during the period between the recession of the spring flood andthe Iatc wintermonths. The conservation pool wouldprovide a capacity of 20,000 acre feet for accumulatcd sediment. The flooded area at maximumwatcr Icvel, elcvation1096.5, would be 4,000acres. The upper limit for flood controlstorage is at elevation1075 and the upper limit for dual-usestorage is atelcvation 1046.5. The dam would be localed2 miles southwcst of Walhalla, 94 miles above the mouth of the Pembina River and 21 miles below the international bountlary. At the international boundary the maximum water level would bc approximately 35 feet above the river bed and 20 fcet above the channel bank. This wouldrepresent an increasc in the water levelsprevailing atthc boundary undernatural conditions and in theabsence of anagreement between the countrieswould require the approval of thisCommission pursuant to the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. Thedam, shown in Figure 3, wouldbe of compactedearth fill having total length of 2,060 feet and a maximum height of 145 feet. The: top of the damwould be at elevation 1 101 .S. The spillwaywould be of reinforced concrete with an uncontrolled crest length of 13 I feet at elevation 1075. The reinforcedconcrete stillingbasin would have awidth of 13 1 feet andan over-all length of 85 fcet. The discharge with a reservoir elevation of 1096.5 wouldbe 80,000cfs. The maximum discharge during the standard project flood would be 25,000 cfs. The reinforcedconcrete outlet works wodd includea control towcr with twoservice and two emergency slide gates, a 9.75-footdiameter horseshoe type conduit through the dam, and a bifurca- tionunit with wye gatesfor diversion of reservoirreleases to the Supply Conduit and the River. The capacity when thc water level is at the top of the conservation pool would be 870 cfs.

35 I

CROSS-SECTION OF DAM

I- 8, SECTION OF SPILLWAY -1

FIGURE 3

36 The SUPPLYCONDUIT would be aprecast concrete pressure pipe 8 feet in diameter with blowoffs andair vcnts. It would extendfrom the Pcnlbilicr outletworks to the Main Supply Canal, a distance of 2.6 milcs. The design capacity would be 420 cfs. The MAIN SUPPLY CANALwould be located :It the basc of thePembina Escarpment,extending 11 miles fromWalhalla to the northern cnd of the Winklerirrigation arca; 5 miles of thecanal would bc in NorthDakota, 6 miles inManitoba. Its capacity of 420 cfs at theConduit would gradually reduceto 230 cfs atthe boundary and finally to a nlinimum of 100 cfs. Some canal lining would be necessary. The elevation of the wutcr surface at the intcrnntional boundary would be approximately 970. Appropriatemeasuring deviceswould be provicled near the outlet of thc Supply Conduit and the international boundary. Appurtenantworks would includechccks, latcral turnouts and bridges. Invertedsiphons and an interceptor drain would cope with runoff fromthe escarpment.

SupplementalWorks In order to put the waters of the Pembina River to use and realize all the benefits contemplated in the plan it would be ncccssary to construct works in each country in addition to those joint project works described above. Each of theseadditional works would bcassociatcd with onlyone purpose, i.e. watersupply, irrigation or recreation. Such works are referrcd .to hereinas supplemental works. Theywould consist of facilities toconvey water for municipalpurposes to seven Manitobacommunities, the distribution laterals anddrains associated with thedevelopment of theirrigable area in each country,and the recreational facilities on the shores of bothPcmbilier and Pembina Reservoirs. The WATER SUPPLYFACILITIES in Manitoba would entail the construction of acanal from theend of the Main SupplyCanal to theHcspeler Waste- way, improvingthc Hespcler Wasteway, and construction of acanal from theWasteway to WinklerRescrvoir; placing 8 miles of 12-inc:h pipe from Winklerto Morden, 8 miles of 6-inchpipe fromWinklcr to PlumCoulee and 15 miles of 6-inch pipe fromNeche to Horndean; and construction of dugout type reservoirs with pumping facilities at Winkler and Gretna. These contemplated works would nut includc water treatment plants or distribution works within the local communities. Comparable water convcyance facilities are not rcquircd in North Dakota becausethe communities concerned would pumpthe water required for municipalpurposes directly from the Pembina River to their distribution systems. The IRRIGATIONWORKS IN NORTHDAKOTA would irrigate 8,500 productive acres in two rectangular blocks, each about 1: miles wide and 7 miles long separated by a strip of non-irrigable land approximately 13 miles wide. Thc

37 irrigablcarea extends from Walhalla to theinternational boundary and lies east of the Main Supply Canal. The irrigation distribution system would consist of approximately IO miles of lateralscarrying more than SO cfs, 25 miles of lateralscarrying less than SO cfs, and ancillary structures such as drops, checks, turnouts, bridges and culverts. The surfacedrainage systemwould consist of approximately25 miles of shallow surfacedrains, 30 nliles of deepopen collector drains to carry surface runoff to the Kivcr, bridges and culverts. Since the depth to the dense clay barrier is relatively shallow in over half of the irrigable area, the conventionalsurface drainage would be augmcntcd by approximately 70 miles of subsurface drainagc pipe and 6 miles of collector pipe. The IKKIGATION WORKSIN MANLTOHAwoulcl irrigate 12,800 productivc ;ICI-CS in a compactrcctangular block approximately 6 miles by 5 miles,im- Incdiatelynorth of’ theintcrnation;d boundary and cast of theMain Supply Canal. The irrigation distribution systemwould consist of approximately 13 miles of laterals carrying more than 50 cfs, 42 miles of laterals carrying less than SO cfs and ancillarystructures. Since thcdepth to theclay barrier in Manitoba is muchgreater, the drainage system woulcl consist of 33 miles of shallow opensurface drains and 37 miles of opencollector drains to a network of existing drains, bridges and culverts, RI:CRI:ATIONFACILITIW AT PIIMHILIERRI:SERVOIR would consist of 3 well clcvclopcd sites with scenic drives, picnic and camp arcas, swinlming beaches andboat launching ramps. Facilities at the picnic areas would include parkingareas, picnic tables, fireplaces,refuse containers, wells, comfort stationsand shelters. The two campingareas would have in additionclear- ings for tents and trailers. RECIIEATION FACILITIWAT PEMHINA RESERVOIRwould consist of one site of minimal development near the proposed dam. The facilities would include one boat launching ramp, a picnic site anda modest camping s8ite.

Oprrution of Joillt Pvojrct Works Operation of the two rcscrvoirs would be coordinated so asto maximize the flood controlwater supply, irrigation, recreation and fishery benefits contemplated in the Commission’s plan. PcmbinaReservoir would storewater for irrigation anci municipaland industrial supplies. In order to ensure sufficient supply during IO consecutive years of low runoff releases would be rcstrictcd to these designated purposes cxccpt during high water periods. At the end of an averagc irrigation season thereservoir would be 20 feetbelow the maximum water elevation. The water then in storage would be carried over to a subsequent year. The gated spillway would only be operated when the reservoir is expected to exceed the maximumwater level, elevation 1256. On theaverage, the volume of the spring Ilood reaching Pembilier Reservoir would be reduced by approximately 100,000 acre feet.

38 Waterrelcascd from thePembina Reservoir during the irrigationseason woulcl be conveyedfor 25 miles in theRiver to thedual-purpose pool of I’embilier Rescrvoir.During the summer months Pembilier Reservoir would beoperated ;IS a balancingpool. This wo~~lddecrease the timcbetween the tlcmancl for waterand its dclivery to thepoint of need.Rcleases from F’cnlbina Reservoir would limit thcfluctuation of thewater surface in Penlbilier to ISor 20 Feet duringthe rccreation season. At thc end of thc irrigation se;Ison, only sufficient water would bc retained in Pembilier Reser- voir to satisfy the requirements during thc fall and winter months. The Pcmbilier outlet works would constantly release water to the Pembina Kivcr for LIS~by theNorth Dakota communities of Walhalla,Neche and Pembina and for quality control in the River. Water wouldalso be releascd throughthe Supply Conduit to thcMain Supply Canal on the basis of demand to meetthe immediate requirements of theirrigable arcas in North Dakota and Manitoba. The Main Supply Canal would not be operated in the wintermonths. During periods of low irrigationdemand, water would be relcascd to theSupply Canal for convcyancc to Winkler R.cscrvoir for subsequentdistribution to thetowns of Morden,Winkler and Plum Coulee in thesunlnlcr and wintermonths. Similarly, additional water woluld be discharged to the Pembina River for pumping from Neche to Gretna Reser- voirand subsequent useby theManitoba communities of Gretna,Altona, Roscnfeld and Horndcan. Releases Iron1 Pembilier Reservoir would not exceed 2,000 cf‘s, the down- streamehanncl capacity, as long asthe Reservoir is below theuncontrolled spillwaycrest. TG theextent practicable, outflows from Pembilier Reservoir would be reduced or discontinuedduring damaging tlood conditions on the Red River. During the late fall and winter Pembilier Reservoir would be drawn down to elevation 1014, the top of the conservation pool, to nlakc all flood control space available for the storage of the spring flood. Spillage would only occur when thevolume of the inflow into Pembilier Reservoirexceeds 1 10,000 acrefeet, the storage capacity of the reservoir.Following the spring flood Pcmbilier Reservoir would be rapidly drawn down to the top of the dual-use pool,elevation 1046.5. This would provide sufficient storagecapacity to controlany recorded summer Rood andreduce large fluctuations in level during the rccreation season. Continuous records would be maintained of water levels and .releases from bothreservoirs. Additional gauging stations would beestablished to enable water to be apportioned in accordance with the plan. To ensure optimum use of thedual-purpose storage in Pembilier Reservoir,forecasting procedures would be developcdto prevent unnecessary spilling duringperiods of sub- normal runoff.

Cost ojJoirlt Project Works The estimatcd investment whichincludes interest during construction and the estimatedannual costs arebased on theJuly 1963 prices in each

39 country,the currency of thecountry in which the worksare located, the prcscribcdUnited States intcrcst rate in July I963 of 3d%, theCanadian interest rate prevailing in July 1963 of S%,, a projcct life of 100 years, and a constructionperiod of 3 ycars. No attempt has been nladeto allocate any part of thc costs of joint projcct works to specific bcncfits in either country. The first costsand the annualoperation, maintenance and replacement charges for Pcmbina Ilam, Pembilier Dam and the Supply Conduit are those used by theBoard. The first costand annual charges for the Supply Canal havebeen derived by adjustingthe figures used bythe Board, to take account of the modifications nladc by the Commission in the Board's plans. The first costs required for the two dams include cost of Imd acquisition, reservoirclearing, river diversion, embankment, spillway, outlet works, relocation of powerand tclcphone lines, and rclocating a secondary highway bridgeacross Pembilicr Rescrvoir; t'or thcSupply Conduit the cost of right-of-way, pressure pipe, excavation and backfill; and for the Main Supply Canalthe cost of right-of-way,excavation, lining, embankment and appurtenant works. Theinvestment rcquircd consists of the foregoing first coSts plus interest during construction. The annual costs consist of interest on and amortization of the investment as well as operation,maintenance and replacement charges. The estimated annualoperation, maintenance and replacement charges are t'or Pemhina Dam $12,000,Pembilicr Dam $1 1,200,Supply Conduit $1,200, Supply Canal in North Dakota $6,600 and Supply Canal in Manitoba 66,700. Thc investment and annual costs for the joint project works, expressed in thccurrency of the country where thcy are located, are summarized bclow.

Thousands of Dollars

Pembina Dam...... 9,592 - 49 5 ~" Pembilier Dam ...... - 10,570 " 357 Supply Conduit ...... - 2,732 - 91 Supply Canal...... 490 443 5 1 21 Totals ...... 10,082 13,745 I 526 1 469

Bmefits and Separable Economic Gains Althoughthe Commission recognizes thatthere will besecondary and intangiblebenefits, only primary benefits were considered in theeconomic

40 evaluation of the Cooperative plan.Primary bencfits, as used in thisreport, arcthe value of goodsor servicesdirectly resulting from aproject, less induced costs incurred in the realizationof those benefits. The separable economic gains to cach country arc the express.ion in dollar values of theeffects of aproject. They can be dividedinto two categories: thosedependent on joint project works and those resulting from both joint project works and specific supplemental works. Flood control, fi!;h and wildlifebenefits are in the former category while watersupply, irrigation and recreation are in the latter. Separable economic gains dependent solely on joint project works are the same as the primary benefits of those works. A separableeconomic gain dependent on bothjoint project works and specific supplemental works, as used in this report, is thedifference betwcen a specific primarybenefit in eithercountry and the cost of :,upplemental works in that country necessary to realize the benefit. It is a measure of the economic advantage of supplemental works built for one specific purpose. The total of all separable economic gains when compared with the cost of joint project works is a measure of the economic advantage to each country of a cooperative development.

MANITOBA

0 Winkler

PernbinaReservoir

"INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY

I RECREATION EL FISHING]

PembilierReservoir

NORTH DAKOTA

FIGURE 4 BENEFITSOF THE COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT

41 The values of theprimary benefitsassociatcd with flood control,water supply, recrcation, fish and wildlife are identical to those used by the Board. So arethe first costsand annual operation, maintenance and replacement charges of supplemental works required for water supply and recreation. The bencfits, first costsand annual operation, maintenance andreplacement chargesrelated to irrigation in eachcountry have been derived by adjusting the figures used by the Board, to take account of the modifications made by thc Commission in the Board’s plans. As in thecase of calculatingthe cost of projectworks, the primary benefits andcosts of supplemental works werealso basedon July 1963 priccs in each country,the currency of thecountry in which theworks arc located,the prescribed United States intcrcst rate in July 1963 of 3A %, theCanadian interest rate prevailing in July I963 of 5%, a project life of 100 yearsand a constructionperiod of 3 yearsfor irrigation worksand water supply facilities and 1 year for recrcation facilities.

FLOODCONTROL benefits arethe difference between thc damage that is cxpcctcd to accruethroughout the life of the project with thedcgrcc of protection proviclcd andthc damage to be expectedwithout this protection. Thereare no alternative means of providingsimilar protiection that are economically justifiable. In the United States flood control bcnefits would occur along the Pembina Riverat and downstream from Walhalla and dong theRcd River between themouth of thePembina and the international boundary. Benefits in Canada wouldbe in theGretna-Altona area and along the Red River between the international boundary and Winnipeg. Thestorage allocation to flood control issufficient tocompletely store a floodon the Pembina River with a 26-year frequency. It wouldeliminate a major portion of the damages cxpected from overflows on the Pembina Rivcr witha recurrence of the1950 Hood whichhad a volume frequency of 40 yearsand a peak frequency of 100 years.This degree of plrotection should be adequate for a predominantly agricultural area. The estimated flood control benefits converted into an annual value would be $221,000 in theUnited States and $128,000 in Canada.The separable economic gain would be the same figure in each case.

FISHAND WILDLIFEbenefits are the economic gains resulting from improving the quality and quantity of game fish, less the value of my adverse effects on wildlife. Thecreation of twodeep pools wouldreplace apoor quality stream fisherywith alake-type fishery. Theimproved habitats in bothreservoirs shouldincrease the natural production of fish afterthe initial stocking. If 21 cold water environment develops, the reservoirs may be managed for trout or bass. Sevcralthousand acres of primewildlife habitatwould be destroyed by flooding. White-tail deer, game birds and some fur-bearing animals wodd be

42 affected. Thevalue of thereservoirs to waterfowl would be limited to transient use. The estimated annual value of wildlife losses in Canada would be $12,000. Inthe United States there would be nonet losses to wildlife because the plan includes compensating measures to ofl’sct them. The resulting fish and wildlife benefitsconverted into anannual value would be $8,000 in theUnited States. The scparablc economic gainwould be thesame figure. Canada would haveneither benefits norscparablc economic gain since the wildlife losses would be about equal to thc benefits to anglers. WATERSUPPLY benefits would be realized only by the construction of spccilicsupplemental works in addition to the jointproject ,works. The scparablc economic gain to each country is the difference in cost between thc most economic independent alternative available and the cost of the supplementalworks required to deliverthe same quantity of water to the same points ol’ nccd. The mosteconomic alternative scheme to supply water to’ the seven Manitobacommunities cnvisagccl pumping a portion of thcwater from a small reservoir to be built on the Pembina River in Canada over thc divide to an open channel to Mordcn Reservoir and thence by pipe to the towns of Morden,Winkler, and Plum Coulee. The towns of Gretna,Altona, Roscn- feldand Horndean would be supp:ied with waterreleased from this small reservoirand pumped from thc river at Nechc. Storage at Cretna would eliminate the ncccssity of winter releases. It should be noted that a substan- tial portion of the supplemental works rcquircd under the Commission’s plan is identical with the works required for the most cconomical alternative. Thc estimatedannual cost, includingdeprcciation and pumping, for the most economical alternative would be $193,000. These costs do notinclude trcatment and distribution within the scveralcommunities. Under the Com- mission’s plan,the investment for supplenlcntal works associated only with municipaland industrial water supply in Manitoba would be $2,387,000. The estimated annual cost is $129,000. Accordingly, the annual value of this separableeconomic gain to Canada is thedifference bctwccn the most economic alternative and the Commission’s plan, $64,000. The situationin North Dakota is not comparablc. The most economic independentalternative availablc would requirea dam just upstream from the mouth of the Little Pembina River. Both the most economic alternative andthe Commission’s planwould releasc water from a reservoirto the Pembina River. The three North Dakota communities would then pump the water directly from the River to their distribution pipe lines. The annual value of this separable economic gain to the United States is $147,000, the annual cost of the most economic alternative. IRRIGATIONbenefits would be realized only afterspecific supplemental works have been constructed in each country. The value of this separable economic gain is the increase in net farm income with irrigation as compared to the net farm income without irrigation, less the cost of related supplemental works.

43 The Board used a comparablcand detailed farm budget analysis to determinethe primary irrigation benefit perirrigated acre in eachcountry. Thesebasic figures were adjusted to convert irrigable acres into productive acres :mcl to lakc into account a five year development period in the United Statesand a 10 yeardevelopment pcriod in Canada.The results of these computations multiplied by the productive acreage represent the average annual increase in the net farm income in each country for the life of the project. The estimatecl increase or primaryirrigation benefit in Canada is $429,000 and in the Unitcd Statcs $474,000. Tllc Board’s costestimates for theMain Supply Canal ;md distribution systcn1 in Manitobawere not separated. Therefore, it was necessary to examinethe original calculations, separate the severalcosts associated with theMain Can~~land distributionsystem, and using thesame allowance for contingcncicsand engineering and the same operation,maintenance and rcplaccmentcharges, recalculate the investment and annnal costs. A straight line proportion between Schemes 111 and 1V ( 1 1,975 and 15,370 productive acres),and the same pcriod of constructionwere used to Icalculate invest- mentrcquircd for 12,XOO productiveacres. The investment required in Manitoba would be $ 1,675,000. Theannual replacement charges were calculated using thesame method employed by theBoard. ‘The annualoperation and mainten;lncc chargesfor laterals anddrains are 90% of theoperation and maintenance charges for theSupply Canal, laterals and drains. The annual cost includinginterest on theamortization of theinvestment plus operation,maintenance and replacement charges for the supplemental works required for irrigation in Manitoba is $133,000. The cost of distribution works in North Dakota, unlike those in Manitoba, wcre shown scparatcly from the Main Supply Canal cost:< in theBoard’s report. A straightline proportion between the Board’s Schemes I and I1 (7,550 and 9,250 productiveacres) and the same construction period were used tocalculate investment for 8,500 productiveacres. The investment required in NorthDakota would be $4,796,000. Thecost of surfaceand pipe drainsaccounts for nearly 60% of theinvestment as compared with 20% inManitoba. The cost in NorthDakota, unlike Manitoba costs, incluclcs settlers assistance and pre-authorization investigation charges. Theannual operation, maintenance and replacement charges are $3.52 perproductive acre, proportionately higher than in the Board’s Plan 1 (9,l 50 productive acres). The annual cost, including interest on the amortization of theinvestment plus operation, maintenance and replacement charges for the supplemental works required for irrigation in North Dakota is $187,000. Theannual value of thisseparable economic gain to Canada would be $296,000, ($429,000 - $133,000), andto the United States $287,000, ($474,000 - $187,000).

44 RECREATIONBENEFITS can only be realized when the picnic and camping sites are developed along the shores of both reservoirs. The economic gain is theassigned value of visitor days lessthe cost of therecreational facilities provided. The tworeservoirs would create water related recreational facilities now lackinginthe Pembina Basin. During the recreation season the water surface area on the Pembina Reservoir may vary from 6,000 to 4,000 acres andon the Pembilier Reservoir from 2,000 to 900 acres.Water surface elevationsmay fluctuate as muchas 20 feet. The annual value of the recrcation benefits, based on the estimated number of visitor days, would be $1 1,000 in Canada and $33,000 in the United States. Theinvestment required for the development of modestfacilities atone sitein Canada WOLIICI be $25,000and for three well developedsites in the United States $458,000. The annual cost of recreational facilities including interest on ;md amortization of theinvestment plus operation,maintenance and ~rcplacement charges in Canada would be $3,000 and in the United States $27,000. Theannual value of this separablecconornic gain to Canada would be $8,000, ($11,000 - $3,000), and to theUnited States $6,000, ($33,000 - $27,000). IN SUMMARY, the annual values of the several separable economic gains, exprcssed in the currency of the country where they occur, are as follows:

~ ~ "" ~ -~ ~~~~~ ~ .. ~~~ ~ ~ -~ .. ~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ . __ ~- 1 Canada I U.S.A. Thousands of Dollars

Flood Control ...... 128 22 I Fish and Wildlife...... Nil 8 ...... 64 147 Water.. Supply Irrlgatlon...... 296 287 Recreation,,...... 8 6

Totals.,...... 496 669

Economic Justification Under theCommission's plan the cost of constructingboth the joint projectworks and the supplemental works would initially be borne by the country in which they arc located. The total of all separable economic gains in eachcountry when comparcd with the jointproject costs borne by that country is a measure of the economic advantage of the Commission's plan to each country. Such economic advantages may be expressedas a ratio.

45 958794 Theratio of theannual value of all separableeconomic gains to the annual cost of the joint project works in Canada is 0.9. In the United Statcs thc corrcsponding ratio is I .4. To achievean equivalent cconornic advantage to eachcountry under the plan, it would be neccssary for the Unitcd States to transicr a sum of money to Canada to defraypart of the cost of jointproject works in thelatter country. Based onthe July 1963 value of currency in cach country, i.c. 1 .OO U.S. Dollars cq~~alling1.08 CanadianDollars, the prescribed United Statesinterest rate of 3 I /8% and an amortization period of 100 ycars,a transfer of $2,988,000 U.S. to Canada would rcsult in a ratio of 1.2 for each country. On this basisthe cooperative plan formulated by theCornn~ission for the devclopment of thePcmbina River Basin would be economically justifiable in each country.

46 SECTION IX

CONCLUSIONS

1. In response to thcrequest in paragraph2 of theReference that the Comnlission determine what plan or plans of cooperative development of thewater resources of thePembina River I3asin would be practic;lble, cconomic;~lly feasible, and to the nlutual advantage of the two countries, having in mind: (a) domesticwater supply andsanitation; (b) control of Iloocls; (c) irrigation;and (d) anyother beneficial uses, theCommis- sionconcludcs that the plan of cooperativedevelopment which is describedin Section VIll of thisreport would bepracticable, econorni- callyfeasible and to the mutualadvantage of bothcountries, and would bestmeet the purposes and requirements stated in paragraph 2 ofthe Reference. 2. Inresponse to the request in sub-paragraph(ii) of paragraph3 of the Reference that the Commission make an estimate of the costs of carrying out such plan, the Commission estimates that the investment required to constructthe joint project works, i.e. the n~~~lti-purp~scconlponents of the totalplan which contributeto more than one benefit, would be $ I0,082,000 in Canadaand $13,745,000 in the United States;and to constructthe supplemental works, Le. worksrequired in additionto the jointproject works for the realization of specific benefits, wo~~ldbe $4,087,000 in Canada and $5,254,000 in the United States. Theestimated annual costs, including interest and amortization pay- mentsand operation, maintenance and replacement charges for joint project works would be $526,000 in Canada and $469,000 in the United States;and for supplemental works would be $265,000 in Canadaand $2 14,000 in the United States. All of these estimates are based on-July 1963 prices in each country, thecurrency of thecountry in which the works are located, the pre- scribedUnited States interest rate in July1963 of 3$%, th'e Canadian interestrate prevailing in July 1963 of S%, aproject life of' 100 years andaconstruction period of 3years for joint project and irrigation works, 3 years for watersupply facilities and one year for recreation facilities.

47 958794: 3. In response to therequest in sub-paragraph(iii) of paragraph 3 of the Reference that the Commission make an estimate of the benefits to each country of carrying out such plan, the C'onlnlission concludes that carryingout the plan of cooperativedevelopmcnt described in Section VI11 WOLlld: (a) eliminate 21 majorportion of thedamages that would occur from overflows of the Pembina River durmg floods of the magnitude of the one which occurred in 1950; (b) provide an assurctl s~~pplyof watcr of suitablequality for municipaland industrial purposes at seven communities in Manitoba and three in North Dakota; (c) provide for irrigation of 12,800productive acres in Manitoba and 8,500 in North Dakota; (d) providedilution water for the wastes discharged to the PembinaRiver from North Dakota communities,thereby inlproving the quality of water in the lowcr reach of the river; (e) provideone water-related recreational site in Manitobaand three in North Dakota; and (f) improvethe quality and quantity of game fish in the two rescrvoirs and in the Pembina River below Walhalla. Theestimated annual value of all separableeconomic gains resulting fromthese bcnefits would be $496,000 to Canada and $669,000 tothe United States. 4. In response to therequest in sub-paragraph(iii) of paragraph 3 of the Refcrencethat the Commission make an estimatc of theadvcrsc effects oneach country of carryingout such plan, the Commission concludes that carrying out the said plan would have the following adverse effects as a result of the creation of the Pcmbina and Pembilier rcservoirs: (a) a reduction in the extent of the natural habitat for wildlife such as game birdsand fur-bearing animals at the Pe:mbina Reservoir site; (b) some severance of farm holdings; and (c) flooding of sections of a few minor roads. 5. In response to thequestion raised in sub-paragraph(iii) of paragraph 3 of theReference as to howavailable water should be apportioned in order to achievethe benefits estimated to resultfrom carrying out the said plan, the Commission concludes that: (a)the run-off or water yield of theBasin which, under natural conditions,would contribute to the flows of thcPembina River abovethe site of thePembilicr Dam is thewater available for apportionment; (b) seven per cent of thetotal annual water yield of the Pembina River Basin above Pembilier Damshould be reserved for non-project

48 purposes inthe Province of Manitobaand five perccnt for non- projectpurposes in theState of NorthDakota; the use of water reservedfor non-project purposes to be as determined by the respective Provincial and State Governments; and (c) theremainder of theannual watcr yield of the Pembina River Basin abovethe Pembilicr Dam shouldbe apportioned for project purposes, sixty percent for use in Canada and forty per cent for use in the United States. 6. In response to thequestion raised in sub-paragraph(iv) of paragraph 3 of thc Reference as to how the costs of carrying out such a pllan might be apportionedbetween Canada andthe United States, the Commission concludes that: (a) initially, eachcountry should pay for all workslocated in its territory; and (b) subsequently,there should be a transfer of moneyfrom one countryto the other to partiallydefray the cost of jointproject works in thelatter country so that, in theresult, the ratio of the annualvalue of the total separableeconomic gains to thetotal annualcosts of thejoint project works will be thesame for each country.

49 SECTION X

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. In response to therequest in sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph 3 of the Reference that the Commission makc recommendations concerning such plan or plans as would best meet the purposes and requirements stated in paragraph 2 of theReference, the Cornmission recommends that the Governments of Canadaand the United States enter into an agreement, as soon as may be practicable,to implement all features of theplan of cooperativedevelopment of thewater resources of thePembina River Basin that is described in Section VI11 of this report. 2. Inresponse to therequest in sub-paragraph(iii) of paragraph 3 of the Reference that the Commission make recommendations as to how avail- ablewater should be apportioned in order to achievethe benefits estimated toresult fromcarrying out the recommended plan, the Com- missionrecommends that the said agreement between the Governments providefor the apportionment of wateras outlined in paragraph 5 of Section IX of this report. 3. In responseto the request in sub-paragraph(iv) of paragraph 3 of the Referencethat the Commission make recommendations concerning how thecosts of carryingout the recommended plan might be apportioned between Canadaand the United States, the Commission recommends thatthe apportionment of costsbetween the countries be basedon the method outlined in paragraph 6 of Section IX of this report. In applying the method, prices (including interest rates) that reflect conditions existing at the time of the said agreement and more refined quantity estimates should be used. 4. The Commissionrecommends that, during the negotiation of thesaid agreementand prior to thecommencement of operation of the joint projectworks contemplated therein, the Governments utilize the Com- mission and its procedures to the maximum extent consistent with their requirements,to facilitate agreement and coordination with respect to matters of mutual interest to the two Governments.

50 5. The Commission furtherrecommends that it be authorized by the two Governmentsto establish and maintain continuing supervision on their behalf over the operation of the joint project works constructed and the nleasurenv.mt andapportionment between the countries of thewaters of the Pembina River Basin.

SIGNEDthis 6th day of October, 1967.

A. D. P. HEENEY

MATTHEWE. WELSH

EUGENEW. WEBER

RENB DUPUIS

CHARLESR. Ross

APPENDIX

53 TEXT OF IJC REFERENCE

On April 3, 1962, theMinister for External Affairs, for Ithe Government of Canada,and the Secretary of State,for the Government of the United States,sent the following Referenceto the International Joint Commission throughidentical letters addressed rcspcctively to thcCanadian and Unitcd States Sections of the Commission: TheGovernments of theUnited States of Americaand of Canada,pursuant to Article 1X of the Boundary Waters Treaty of January 11, 1909, have agreed to request theInternational Joint Commission to invcstigate andreport on what measures could he taken to develop the waterresources of thePembina River inthe Province of Manitobaand the State of NorthDakota. This rcfcrence is made by theGovcrnmcnts in thelight of the conclusion of theCommission that detailed feaslbility studies con- cerningdevelopmcnt of thePembina River Basin should be un'dertaken as com- municated to Governments in lettersfrom thc Commission dated April 12, 1961. TheInternationnl Joint Commission is requested to determine whatplan or plans of co-operativedevelopment of the waterresources of thePembina River Basin would he practicable, economically fcasihle, and to the mutual advantage of the two countries. havingin mind; (a) domesticwater supply and sanitation; (b) control of floods; IC) irrigation;and (d) anyother beneficialuses. In the evcnt that the Commission should find that a plan or plans of co-opefative developmentwould he practicable,economically feasible and tothe mutual advantage of bothcountries, the Commission is requestedto make: (i) recommenrlationsconcerning such plan or plans as would best meet the purposcs andrequirements stated in paragraph 2; (ii) an estimate of thecosts of carrying out any such plan or plans; (iii)an estimate of the benefits toand adverse effects oneach country of carrying outany such plan or plans; and recommendations, as necessary,how available water should be apportioned in order to achieve those benefits; and (iv) rccommendationsconcerning how the costs of anysuch plan or plansmight be apportioned between Canadaand the United States. In the conduct of its investigations, and otherwise in the performance of its duties underthis reference, the International Joint Commission may use the services of engineersand other speciallyqualified personnel of technicalagencies of theUnited Statesand Canada. To avoidduplication of effort andunnecessary expense, the Com- mission will, so faras possible, make use of informationand technical data which have been acquired by such technical agencies and by the Commission itself under the Souris-RedRivers Reference of 1948.

54 MEMBERSHIP OF THE BOARD AND ITS ENGINEERING COMMITTEE

Thc InternationalJoint Commission appointed the Intcrnational Pembina Kiver EngineeringBoard on April 3, 1962. As presentlyconstituted the Board consists of:

Canuciian Section J. G. Watson, Chief Enginccr, Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administra- tion, Canada Department of Agriculture,Chairman. K. H. Clark, Chief EngineeringDivision, Inland WatersBranch, C'anada Department of Energy,Mines & Resources. W. V. Morris,Hydraulic Enginecr, Engineering Division, Inland Wa- tcrs Branch, Canada Departmcnt of Energy, Mines & Resourccs. lirlitctl Stutt1.Y Section N. 13. Bennett, Jr.,Assistant C'ommissioncr, Bureau of Fkclamation, Department of the Interior, Chairman. E. L. Hcndricks, Chief Hydrologist, Geological Survey,Department of the Interior. J. W. Roche, Engineer, Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army. Previous Chuirmun of the Canadian Section was G. L. MacKenzie (deceased), SpecialAssistant, Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration, Canada Department of Agriculture. As authorized by the Commission, the Board establichcd the International Pembina River Engineering Committee. When the Board submitted its report the Committee consisted of the following members:

Cunutlian Section J. A. Griffiths,Director, Water Control and Conservation Branch, Manitoba Department of Highways, Chairman, (sincc deceased). P. W. Strilacff, DistrictEngineer, lnland Waters Branch, Canada De- partment of Energy, Mines & Resources. H. G. Riesen, Regional Engineer, Prairic Farm Rehabilitation Adminis- tration, Canada Department of Agriculture.

United Stutes Section Lt.Col. Leslie B. Harding, District Engineer, U.S. ArmyEngineer District St. Paul, Corps of Engineers, Chairman. G. A. Freeman,Chief, Project Development Division, Mis#souri-Souris Projects Office, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior.

55 Milo W. Hoisvcen,Secretary and Chief Engineer,North Dakota State Water Commission.

Prcvious Mrrnhrrs were: Col. William B. Strandberg, District Engincer, Corps of Engineers. Clarence L. Sundahl,Chief, Project Development Division, IViissouri- Souris Projects Office, Bureau of Reclamation.

56 PARTICIPATINGAGENCIES

Valuableand cooperative assistance was provided bythe following agencies:

It1 CanutlLl C'anacla Dcpartment of Agriculture PrairicFarm Rehabilitation Administration EconomicsDivision Canada Dcpartmcnt of Energy, Mines & Resources InlandWaters Branch Manitoba Soil Survey Manitoba Department of Highways Water Control and Conservation Branch Manitoba Department of Agriculture Agricultureand Economics Division Manitoba Department of Health Manitoba Department of Mines & Natural Resources Fisheries Branch Games Branch Parks Division

In the United States UnitedStates Department of theArmy Corps of Engineers United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Fish and Wildlife Service Geological Survey National Park Service Federal Water Pollution Control Administration North Dakota State Water Commission North Dakota Departmentof Health

57 PERSONSPRESENTING BRIEFS OR TESTIMONY AT THE INTERNATIONALJOINT COMMlSSlON PUBLIC HEARINGS

Wherewitnesses testified at more than one hearing only one appearance is recorded hereunder.

Junc 9. 1965 ut Munitou, Man. George Muir, Member of Parliament, Lisgar Hon.George Hutton, Minister of Agricultureand Conservation, Prov- ince of Manitoba Hon. Thelma Forbes, Speaker of the Manitoba Legislature H. P. Shewman, Member of Manitoba 1,egislaturc Mrs. Carolyne Morrison, Member of Manitoba Legislature J. M. Froese, Member of Manitoba Legislature W. H. Hamilton,Member of ManitobaLegislature A. W. Harrison,Mcmber of ManitobaLegislature H.A. Cochlan, Mayor of Morden Alex Graham, Reeve of Municipality of Argyle A. R. Godkin,Mayor of Morris H. D. Dick, Deputy Mayor of Winkler L.R. Skelton, Mayor of Carman Allen Potter for Rural Municipality of Louise and Village of Crystal City Representative of the Town of Emerson D. K. Friescn for Lower Red River Valley Water Commission A.C. Rekken for Community Development Committee George Peach for Pembina Valley Development Corporation Albert Durham for Village of Manitou and Manitou Community Cham- ber of Commerce Leonard F. Dubourt for Pembina Flood Control Association of North Dakota James H. Treble for Crystal City Chamberof Commerce John Moore forPilot Mound Chamber of Commerce John Andries for Swan Lake Chamberof Commerce Representativefor Carman, Roland, Miami and Lorne Branches of Manitoba Game and Fish Association Waltcr Kroeker, Winkler E. T. Nicholl, Pembina Valley L. E. Penncr, Winnipeg R. W. MacIntosh, Winnipeg Leonard Krucger, Thornhill J. F. Ycllowlees, Pelican Lake

Junc IO, 1965 ut Wulhulla, N.D. Senator Quentin N. Burdick, United States Senate Senator Milton R. Young, United States Senate Representative Mark Andrews, United States Congress Representative Rolland Redlin, United States Congress Governor William L. Guy Senator Grant Trenbeath, North Dakota State Senate Senator Richard Forkner, North Dakota State Senate Albert Christopher, State Representative and Mayorof Pembina Herb Paulson, Mayor of Neche Hugo R. Magnuson, Mayor of Grand Forks Jim Shepard, Mayor of Walhalla Robert Olson, Mayor of Cavalier Milo Hoisveen, North Dakota State Engineer Representative of theEconomic Development Commission, Bismarck, N.D. 0. S. Johnson for Cavalier County Water Management Board W. J. Sturlagson for Board of County Commissioners, Pembina County E. A. Thomsonfor Pembina County Water Management Board and Drainage Commission Cliff Jochim for Red River Basin Planning Committee Vern Fahy for North Dakota Water Users Association Larry Brown for Grand Forks Chamber of Commerce R. C. Crockett for Greater North Dakota Association Aldrich C. Bloomquist for River Vallcy Sugar Beet Growers Association

59 Edward M. Urlnubfor Walhalla RecreationCommittee Martin Bjornstad for Red River Vallcy Potato Growers Association and Walhalla Potato Growers Association Jack Wood, Pcmbina AllanThompson, Walhalla E. W. Anderson,Neche Gregory Cook, Neche Arlon G. Hazen,North Dakota StateUniversity of Agriculture and Applied Science at Grand Forks Jack Huffman, Walhalla Howard Hughes, Nechc GeorgeBrown, Cavalier J. C. Tanner, East Grand Forks Dixon Best, WaIhalla

0 ROGER DUHAMEL, F.R.S.C. Queen’s Printer and Controller of Stationery Ottawa, Canada 1967 Cat. No.: E95-1767