The flood danger seems to have passed, at least for this year. Okanagan Lake has peaked. Grand Forks is drying out. A half million people in the lower Fraser Valley, who had been bracing for the worst flooding since 1948, can relax.
But things could have been worse -- much worse -- if a couple of political ploys in history had been carried through.
The difficulty, you see, is that God -- or plate tectonics, if you prefer -- didn’t design the land west of the Rocky Mountains very efficiently. Highways, railways, and lines of communication run east/west. But the valleys and rivers mostly run north/south.
Only the Fraser and Skeena river systems lie entirely within B.C. Every other major river ignores national boundaries. Especially the Columbia.
The Columbia actually starts as two river systems, which pass within two kilometres of each other at Canal Flats, north of Cranbrook. The Columbia itself flows north out of Columbia Lake, before it turns south again at Mica Creek, at what used to be known as the Big Bend.
The Kootenay, already a mighty river when it roars out of the Rockies, heads south into the U.S. Around Libby it makes a big loop and comes back into Canada at Creston, at the foot of Kootenay Lake. Kootenay Lake then exits at Nelson and rejoins the Columbia at Castlegar, before finally leaving Canada again at Trail.
The first diversion
Back in the 1880s, an entrepreneur named William Adolf Baillie Grohman noted how close the Kootenay and Columbia Rivers were, and tried to divert the Kootenay into the Columbia at Canal Flats.
His idea was to reduce the Kootenay’s flow enough to eliminate flooding of the flats at Creston. Some 50,000 acres of swamp at the south end of Kootenay Lake would become arable farm land. Some of which, coincidentally, Baillie Grohman happened to own.
His diversion would have increased the flow of the Columbia enormously. But fear of greater floods upset the residents of Golden, farther down the Columbia. The CPR worried about the safety of its river crossings. Together, they squashed Baillie Grohman’s dream of diverting the Kootenay.
But the idea of diversion didn’t die.
Columbia River negotiations
In the 1960s, Canada was negotiating what became the Columbia River Treaty.
Since 1909 the two countries had had an international commission dealing with boundary waters. It had dealt mostly dealing with the Great Lakes and the rivers of western Ontario. It had never dealt with rivers that crossed the 49thparallel several times.
Canada and the U.S. each had three members on the commission. The head of the Canadian trio was General Andrew MacNaughton, a fierce nationalist. He got into trouble in World War II for demanding that Canadian Forces stay together. British and U.S. generals overruled him; they sent part of the Canadian forces to Italy, kept part for the European front.
MacNaughton resigned -- in disgust or disgrace, depending on the historian -- and never forgave the Americans.
A second diversion
In negotiating the Columbia River Treaty, MacNaughton brought diversion back as a bargaining chip. Unless the Americans agreed to a fair deal for Canada, MacNaughton threatened, Canada could divert the Columbia into the Fraser, leaving three U.S. states high and very dry.
Technically, it was feasible. The north end of Lake Kinbasket, the lake formed behind the first of the Columbia River dams at Mica Creek, is 150 metres higher than the Fraser, and just 25 km away over a relatively low ridge. You could almost dig a canal to divert the Columbia.
Alternatively, a 50-km tunnel under a mountain range could divert the Columbia into the North Thompson River, and thus down the Thompson into the Fraser.
Either diversion would have paid off in hydro-electric power as the waters of the Columbia plunged to a lower level.
And it would be fully legal. Canada had every right to control waters within its boundaries.
The bluff must have convinced the Americans. The U.S. folded. In the end, Canada got what it wanted -- a share of what are now called “downstream benefits.” And the U.S. got a commitment that Canada would not unilaterally divert waters from an international watershed.
But just imagine the flooding situation in the lower Fraser Valley today if MacNaughton’s threat had been carried out. The Columbia would have roughly doubled the Fraser’s current volume.
What started as a bargaining tactic would have totally changed the development of B.C.’s fastest-growing region, the lower Fraser Valley.
*******************************************************
Copyright © 2017 by Jim Taylor. Non-profit use in congregations and study groups encouraged; links from other blogs welcomed; all other rights reserved.
To send comments, to subscribe, or to unsubscribe, write jimt@quixotic.ca
********************************************************
YOUR TURN
Andrea Gardner took strong exception to the tone of my last column about sandbox trade squabbles: “In your sandbox article you seem to have reverted to the level of sandbox maturity. You didn't once refer to the president of the USA as President Donald Trump but as 'laughing-stock President,’ ‘President Tweet' and 'orange-haired godfather.’ But you always referred to the prime minister of Canada as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Maybe the U.S. border guards give Canadians a hard time because Canadians show such disrespect for the president that the people of the U.S. elected.”
When Trump was elected, while I didn’t agree with him, I referred to him with the customary terms of respect for the head of a country. Since then, his behaviour has led me into increasing contempt for him – and I see no good reason for disguising my contempt.
My explanation did not appease Andrea. She un-subscribed.
Steve Roney also disagreed. On the subject of border security, he wrote, “I find exactly the opposite. I had to cross the border pretty regularly back when I went to grad school in the States. I have never had a hassle on the U.S. side. I have not infrequently had a hassle on the Canadian side. Canadian customs agents just seemed more suspicious.
“Most recently, returning from Detroit to Windsor a few years back my young son and I came back in a taxi. The Canadian Customs officer asked where we lived. Saudi Arabia. Then she asked the taxi driver where he was born. Afghanistan. Big investigation by a group of threatening agents, while we had to stay well away from the car. It took them about ten minutes of questioning and searching everything before they actually looked at the side of the car and realized it was a taxi.”
Barb Taft also remembered the U.S. ban on oranges: “My friend and I tried to take a dozen oranges into the States. The 'gatekeeper' suggested that we could peel them all -- something about a wee insect in the peeling. We each took one and did so -- and , yes, I'm sure the folks at the crossing enjoyed the others.”
Tom Watson wondered “whether there eve r was a time when common sense mattered more than party tribalism when it comes to politics. It wasn't that long ago that Doug Ford's own party was wary of his even running for a seat in the legislature here in Ontario, but then he became leader of the Ontario PCs, and now suddenly will be the next Premier of the province...and all of that without his presenting anything much of a platform beyond vague splashes and dabs of insubstantial promises.”
Cliff Boldt agreed: “Common sense isn’t very common these days.”
Bob Rollwagen had thoughts along the same theme:” It’s my opinion that Canadians use common sense in trade negotiations, while Americans use political scents. They shift directions based on what their nose tells them, and 30% just follow the Twit. [JT: Sorry, Andrea, but those are Bob’s words.]
“It appears B.C. is moving in the same direction as the U.S.A. The political leaders are doing whatever they can do to stay in power for the short term. While B.C. is split up the middle on a particular new pipeline, they like the ones they already have. And while Alberta has several views as to the best approach, they are fairly unified on the need for a new one. Even many of the indigenous groups think it is the way to go. They don’t want a major rail issue that would likely do much more harm than a leaking pipe. Common sense, not political scents.”
In last week’s letters, Richard Begin urged me to refer to “same-gender marriages,” rather than “same-sex.”
Gloria Jorgenson noted, “It's a long time since I filled out a form requesting gender identification but, when I did, it simply said ‘Sex’. What's with all the, I think misplaced, sensitivity?”
Steve Roney had a further comment on Richard’s letter: “Mr. Begin is wrong. Please do not follow his advice. The proper term is and has always been ‘sex,’ not ‘gender.’ ‘Gender’ is more properly a grammatical term. In French, a streetlamp has a gender; it does not have a sex.
“As to your number of subscribers dropping, Jim, I suspect it is the medium, nothing else. Email is old-fashioned now. First it was replaced by blogs, then blogs were replaced by Facebook, then Facebook was replaced by Twitter. Email is four generations back.”
If Steve is right, does anyone have suggestions for an appropriate medium for me to use in sending out these missives?
David Milne-Ives teaches at the Strathcona-Tweedsmuir School, near Okotoks, in Alberta. He had a general comment about these columns: “I’ve been receiving your Sharp Edges column for the better part of a decade, after my now-91 year-old father introduced it to me as a thoughtful perspective on world doings. I use it frequently in class, to encourage my Theory of Knowledge students to reflect more critically on how they know what they claim to know about their world. They are generally capable at analyzing complex systems in their course work, in sciences, maths, or humanities. They aren’t so adept at the next level of (meta)analysis. Thinking about thinking quickly takes on a ‘house of mirrors’ quality, and adolescents have a certain tendency toward solipsism already. Generally, the excitement of the adventure outweighs the associated frustration, and they leave happier (and better, I hope) than they arrived.”
******************************************
TECHNICAL STUFF
If you want to comment on something, write me at jimt@quixotic.ca. Or just hit the ‘Reply’ button.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send me an e-mail message at the address above. Or subscribe electronically by sending a blank e-mail (no message) to sharpedges-subscribe@lists.quixotic.ca. Similarly, you can un-subscribe at sharpedges-unsubscribe@lists.quixotic.ca.
My webpage is running again -- thanks to Wayne Irwin and ChurchWeb Canada. You can now access current columns and five years of archives at http://quixotic.ca
I write a second column each Wednesday, called Soft Edges, which deals somewhat more gently with issues of life and faith. To sign up for Soft Edges, write to me directly at the address above, or send a blank e-mail to softedges-subscribe@lists.quixotic.ca
********************************************
PROMOTION STUFF…
To use the links in this section, you’ll have to insert the necessary symbols.
Ralph Milton ’s latest project is called “Sing Hallelujah” -- the world’s first video hymnal. It consists of 100 popular hymns, both new and old, on five DVDs that can be played using a standard DVD player and TV screen, for use in congregations who lack skilled musicians to play piano or organ. More details at wwwDOTsinghallelujahDOTca
Ralph’s HymnSight webpage is still up, http://wwwDOThymnsightDOTca, with a vast gallery of photos you can use to enhance the appearance of the visual images you project for liturgical use (prayers, responses, hymn verses, etc.)
Wayne Irwin's “Churchweb Canada,” an inexpensive service for any congregation wanting to develop a web presence, with free consultation. <http://wwwDOTchurchwebcanadaDOTca>
I recommend Isabel Gibson’s thoughtful and well-written blog, wwwDOTtraditionaliconoclastDOTcom
Alva Wood’s satiric stories about incompetent bureaucrats and prejudiced attitudes in a small town -- not particularly religious, but fun; alvawoodATgmailDOTcom to get onto her mailing list.
Tom Watson writes a weekly blog called “The View from Grandpa Tom’s Balcony” -- ruminations on various subjects, and feedback from Tom’s readers. Write him at tomwatsoATgmailDOTcom or twatsonATsentexDOTnet