Reference: Your telegram WA-2119 of Dec. 17/54.¹⁹⁴

Your telegram under reference was referred to the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources with a request for comments on the two questions raised by Mr. Vest of the State Department as well as your own enquiry concerning the relationship between the possible Columbia-Fraser diversion and the proposed Mica Creek project. These comments have now been received and form the basis of the observations which follow.

2. The first point raised by Mr. Vest touches on the implications of the possible diversion of the Columbia River into the Fraser River as it would affect the existing generating facilities on the Columbia River in the United States. As mentioned in the Press Release of December 20, 1954,¹⁹⁵ flood waters of the Columbia River are wasted each summer due to lack of control and storage facilities. It will be necessary, as part of the diversion investigation, to determine as accurately as possible the actual volume of water which could be diverted in Canada without injury to United States interests. Data presently available indicates that in a low-water year such as 1943-44, approximately fifteen million acre-feet of water exists surplus to the power requirements at Grand Coulee. Allowing for irrigation projects now under development, it appears that the minimum annual diversion which could be made without injury to present users of Columbia River water in the United States amounts to approximately ten million acre-feet. There is the possibility, of course, that additional generating installations now under construction or under consideration in the United States may place a greater demand on the available flow of the Columbia and this is one of the main arguments in favour of proceeding with the investigations without delay.

3. Until additional information becomes available on this aspect of the problem it would be inadvisable to attempt to be specific about the actual requirements of any possible diversion or about the apparent surpluses of flood waters in the Columbia system. The enquiry should be answered in general terms to the effect that large volumes of flood waters are presently being wasted and the investigation now being undertaken is directed towards determining if these can be put to beneficial use.

4. The second point raised by Mr. Vest concerns the relationship between the independent studies undertaken by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and the studies arising out of the Columbia River Reference of 1944.¹⁹⁶ In point of fact the large scale studies carried out in the Columbia River Basin since 1944 arose directly from the 1944 Reference and are planned by and on behalf of the Engineering Board established under that Reference.

5. To answer this question, it is suggested you point out that while the studies on the Columbia River basin carried out by the Canadian Government have resulted from the Joint Reference of 1944 to the I.J.C., enquiries have also been under way concerning many other major water resource possibilities in Canada. Since the end of World War II, enquiries and investigations have been made into the use of the waters of the Yukon Watershed, the Hamilton River in Labrador, the St. John River in New Brunswick and other waters. Mention could also be made of the Dominion-Provincial Board, Fraser River Basin, established December 11, 1948 to investigate the resources of the Fraser River Basin. Thus, while the Columbia River investigation arose out of the Reference of 1944, it also fits into the general pattern of investigation that has been sponsored by the Canadian Government throughout the country.

6. Turning to your own enquiry concerning the relationship between the Columbia-Fraser project and the Mica Creek project, the latter appears to be the key to the ultimate development of the Columbia River water resources, either in the Columbia River Basin itself or by means of a diversion to the Fraser River system. The Mica Creek dam and reservoir will provide the storage capacity for flood waters which are now wasted and which under one scheme would be released during low stage on the river to enlarged power installations downstream, and in the other case would be released for diversion to the Fraser River Basin for use in the power installations which would be made on the Thompson and Fraser Rivers. The Mica Creek project and the possible Columbia-Fraser diversions are not alternative developments or mutually exclusive. Only through developing the Mica project or some alternative upstream storage of large capacity would the diversion to the Fraser from the Columbia be practicable.

S.A. FREIFELD
for Under-Secretary of State
for External Affairs