INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION REPORT ON THE SOURIS R1VE.R INVESTIGATION OTTAWA - WASHINGTON 1940 OTTAWA EDMOND CLOUTIER PRINTER TO THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY 1941 INTERNATIONAT, JOINT COMMISSION OTTAWA - WASHINGTON CAKADA UNITEDSTATES Cllarles Stewrt, Chnirmun A. 0. Stanley, Chairman (korge 11'. Kytc Roger B. McWhorter .J. E. I'erradt R. Walton Moore Lawrence ,J. Burpee, Secretary Jesse B. Ellis, Secretary REFERENCE Under date of January 15, 1940, the following Reference was communicated by the Governments of the United States and Canada to the Commission: '' I have the honour to inform you that the Governments of Canada and the United States have agreed to refer to the International Joint Commission, underthe provisions of Article 9 of theBoundary Waters Treaty, 1909, for investigation, report, and recommendation, the following questions with respect to the waters of the Souris (Mouse) River and its tributaries whichcross the InternationalBoundary from the Province of Saskatchewanto the State of NorthDakota and from the Stat'e of NorthDakota to the Province of Manitoba:- " Question 1 In order to secure the interests of the inhabitants of Canada and the United States in the Souris (Mouse) River drainage basin, what apportion- ment shouldbe made of the waters of the Souris(Mouse) River and ita tributaries,the waters of whichcross theinternational boundary, to the Province of Saskatchewan,the State of North Dakota, and the Province of Manitoba? " Question ,$! What methods of control and operation would be feasible and desirable in order to regulate the use and flow of the waters of the Souris (Mouse) Riverand of thetributaries, the waters of whichcross theinternational boundary, in accordance with the apportionment recommended in the answer to Question l? " Question 3 Pending a final answer to Questions 1 and 2, what interimmeasures of regime should be adopted to secure the foregoing objects? " To assist the Commission in obtaining any information it may desire in the course of its investigation, the two Governments have nominated from their technicalservices the followinggroup of engineers,who are familiar with the problems on both sides of the border, and representative of the various interesb- Mr. S. H. MCCRORY, Assistant Chief, Bureau of AgriculturalChemistry and Engineering, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Mr. BRICE MCBRIDE,Hydraulic Engineer, Bureau of Biological Survey, United States Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Mr. E. J. THOMAS,State Engineer of North Dakota, State House, Bismarck, North Dakota. Chairman of the Group of Engineers representing the United States. 5 1994sa 6 Mr. C. J. MCGAVIN,Chief Engineer, Water Rights Branch, Department of Natural Resources, Regina, Saskatchewan. Mr. D. M. STEPHENS,Deputy Minister, Department of Mines and Natural Resources, Winnipeg, Manitoba. Mr. VICTORMEEK, Assistant Controller, Dominion Water and Power Bureau, Department of Mines and Resources, Ottawa, Canada. Chairman of the Group of Engineers representing Canada. “ In view of the conditions obtaining in the Souris River watershed, I have the honour to request that early consideration be given to Question 3, with a view to the consideration of the possibility of recommending interim measures to relieve the present situation.” In accordancewith the Commission’sRules of Procedure, the Reference was advertised in the local newspapers in the Souris river valley on both sides of the international boundary; all int’erested parties were notified by letter; and public hearings were held at the following places and on the dates mentioned: Melita, Manitoba, June 20; Minot, North Dakota, June22; Estevan, Saskatche- wan, June 24, 1940. Conferences In the meantime the Commission had held an executive session in Wash- ington on February 21 and 22, 1940. At this meeting it was noted that the two Governments had nominated from their technical services three American and three Canadian engineers to assist the Commission in obtaining any information it might desire in the course of its investigation. Without surrendering in any way its right under Article 12 of the Treaty of 1909 to employ such engineers as it may deem advisable, the Commission decided to appoint the six engineers nominatedby the two Governments, and the engineerswere notified to that effect. Arrangements were made at this meeting for a conference in Washington on April 2, with the engineers, in order that the latter might give the Commis- siont.he benefit of their advice and of suchengineering information as might then be available. Third Question of Reference The Commissionalso considered thethird question of the Reference- ‘‘ Pending a final answer to Questions 1 and 2, what int,erim measures of regime should be adopted to secure the foregoing objects?””and letters’ were written to the two Governments t’o the effect that the Commission recommended, as such aninterim measure, that stepsbe takenby the Governments of theUnited Stat8es and Canada toensure that no works be undertaken, and that the existing temporary arrangements for the passage of water be continued, until after the Commission had submitted its report. Subsequent’ly the Commissionwas advised by thetwo Governments that its recommendationshad been approved. The UnitedStates Department of State,having communicated with the Secretary of t,he Interior,wrote the Commission, on March 28:- I am now advised by the Secretary of the Interior that he is agreeabIe to instructinghis field personnel to undertake no new workwhich might affect the flow of the Mouse River and to continue the present arrangement 7 for the passage of water until after the Commission has submitted, its final report. It is further stated that instructions will be issued to continue the work now under way in order to properly maint,ain the existing structures and to keep the roads in the valley passable. Under date of April 12, theDepartment of External Affairs of Canada informed the Commission as follows:- Thismatter has been takenup with the Governments of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and also with the interested agencies of the Canadian Government. I am now ina position to giveyou an assurance that steps have been takenby the Canadian Government to insure that noworks shall be undertaken and that the existing temporary arrangements for the passage of watershall becontinued until after the Commission hassub- mitted its final report,. At the executive meeting in Washington, on April 2, the engineers, who had already held ameeting in Saint Paul, Minn., to exchangeviews and consider plans for the collection of data needed by the Commission in carrying out its enquiry, discussed with the Commissioners the nature and scope of the investi- gation and how it might most successfully be carried out. Underinstructions from the Commission the sixengineers attendedthe public hearings at Melita, Minot and Estevan, where they filed briefs and other documents and gave expert testimony. They also accompanied the Commission on an examination of the dams, reservoirs and other works associated with the present regulation and use of the waters of the Souris river and its tributaries in Manitoba, North Dakota and Saskatchewan. The Commissionalso held' conferences with the engineers inWinnipeg on June 18 and 19, at Reginaon June 26, an executivesession 'at Calgary on June 27 and another at New York on August 1 and 2. I1 HISTORY OF LEGISLATION AND PROJECTS SASKATCHEWAN In a Brief filed on behalf of the Province of Saskatchewan it is stated that f,or 1,947 domesticprojects less than five-acre feet,and for 19 overfive-.acre werefor industrialpurposes in the operations of railwaysin the area, and municipalpurposes toprovide a watersupply for towns and vlllages.” Previous to the year 1931 water rights in Saskatchewan were governed by the IrrigationAct of Canada,under whichlicences were grantedfor the utiliza- tion of water. In 1931 the LegislativeAssembly of Saskatchewanenacted the Water Rights Act, which was amended in 1935, 1936, 1937, 1938 and 1939. Underthis Act ‘I rightsare granted. fordifferent purposes byappropria- tion according to their priority as established by date of filing of applications inthe Water Rights Office.” The Act, asstated elsewhere,establishes an order of precedence: domestic, municipal, industrial, irrigation, other purposes, mineralwater purposes, mineral recovery. All appropriationsare subject to the rights of riparians. Projects Authorized and Pending It is stated in the Saskatchewan Brief that water rights have been granted for 1,947 domesticprojects less than five-acrefeet, andfor 19 overfive-acre feetrequiring a total of 2,576 acrefeet. They have been grantedfor three municipalprojects needing a total of 1,047 acrefeet; for twenty-three indus- trial projects, fifteen of which are located on the Souris river and eight on its tributaries,requiring atotal of 2,716 acrefeet; for twenty-oneirrigation projectsrequiring 180 acre feet. Inaddition to waterrights already granted, theProvincial authorities have under consideration applications fordomestic and .irrigation purposes needing an estimatedquantity of 6,201 acrefeet of water. Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act In 1935 the DominionGovernment passed thePrairie Farm Rehabilita- tionAct to provide for the rehabilitation of the drought areas in the Prairie Provinces. The utilization of allavailable surface water was recognized as a vital f’actor in ,carrying out the provisions of the Act and an active,programme of water development was initiated. In the