.jpg)
TheGreat Recycling and Northern Development Canal orGRAND Canal is awater management proposal designed byNewfoundland engineerThomas Kierans to alleviate North Americanfreshwatershortage problems. It proposed dammingJames Bay, using the techniques of theZuiderzee/IJsselmeer, to prevent its waters mixing with the salt water ofHudson Bay to the north. This would produce an enormous freshwater lake, some of which would be pumped south intoGeorgian Bay where it would increase the freshwater levels of the lower Great Lakes. The flow would be roughly equivalent to "2.5Niagara Falls".
The plan was promoted by Kierans from 1959 until his death in 2013 and since by his son, Michael Kierans. This plan arose aswater quality issues threatened theGreat Lakes and other vital areas inCanada and theUnited States.[1] Kierans proposed that to avoid awater crisis from future droughts in Canada and the United States, in addition towater conservation, acceptable new fresh water sources had to be found.
During the 1960s and again in the 1980s when Great Lake water levels declined dramatically, there was interest in the GRAND Canal. However, the reluctance of the US and Canadian governments to enter into large scale co-operative international water sharing arrangements and claims of potential negative environmental impact of the proposal have prevented serious consideration of the idea.
In 1959, Canada officially claimed that U.S. expansion of aChicago diversion fromLake Michigan would harm downstream Canadian areas in the Great Lakes Basin.
The Canadian government further stated that exhaustive studies had indicated no additional sources of freshwater were available in Canada to replace the waters that would be removed from the Great Lakes by the proposed diversion. Kierans disputed the accuracy of the 1959 Canadian government's position and asserted that the GRAND Canal could provide additional fresh water to the Great Lakes.
Waters from theOgoki River andLonglac are now being diverted into the Great Lakes at a rate equivalent to that taken by the U.S. at the Chicago diversion.[2]
In his proposal, Kierans asserts that experience in the Netherlands demonstrates that a large new freshwater source can be created in Canada'sJames Bay by collecting runoff from many adjacent river basins in a sea level, outflow-only dyke-enclosure. The project would capture and make available for recycling the entire outflows of theLa Grande,Eastmain,Rupert,Broadback,Nottaway,Harricana,Moose,Albany,Kapiskau,Attawapiskat andEkwan rivers.[3]Moreover, Kierans claims that theCalifornia Aqueduct proves that runoff to James Bay can be beneficially recycled long distances and over high elevations via the GRAND Canal. The GRAND Canal would stabilize water levels in the Great Lakes andSt. Lawrence River and improve water quality. The GRAND Canal system would also deliver new fresh water from the James Bay dyke-enclosure, via the Great Lakes, to many water deficit areas in Canada and the United States. The project was estimated in 1994 to cost C$100 billion to build and a further C$1 billion annually to operate, involving a string of nuclear reactors and hydroelectric dams to pump water uphill and into other water basins.
Kierans argues recycling runoff from a dike-enclosure in Canada's James Bay is not harmful and can bring both nations many useful benefits including:
According to Kierans, project organization to recycle runoff from James Bay Basin could be like that for theSt. Lawrence Seaway. Capital costs for about 160 million users will exceed $100 billion. But, he claims, "before construction is completed, the total value of social, ecologic and economic benefits in Canada and the U.S. will surpass the project's costs."
The GRAND Canal proposal attracted the attention of former Québec premierRobert Bourassa and former prime minister of CanadaBrian Mulroney. By 1985, Bourassa and several major engineering companies endorsed detailed GRAND Canal concept studies;[7] however, these concept studies have not proceeded in part because of opposition based on the potential environmental impact of the plan.
Some potential environmental impacts of this proposal that would require study prior to its implementation include:
The reduced freshwater flow into Hudson Bay will alter the salinity and stratification of the bay, possibly impactingprimary production in Hudson Bay, along theLabrador coast, and as far away as the fishing grounds in theGrand Banks of Newfoundland, theScotian Shelf, andGeorges Bank.
If the James Bay dike is built, "Virtually all marine organisms would be destroyed [in the newly formed lake]".[9] Freshwater species would move in, but northern reservoirs tend to fail to produce viable fisheries. The inter-basin connections would be ideal vectors forinvasive species to invade new waters.
The construction of a dike across James Bay could negatively impact many mammal species, includingringed andbearded seals,walruses, andbowhead whales, as well as vulnerable populations ofpolar bears andbeluga whales. The impacts would also affect many species of migratory bird, includinglesser snow geese,Canada geese,black scoters,brants,American black ducks,northern pintails,mallards,American wigeons,green-winged teals,greater scaups,common eiders,red knots,dunlins,black-bellied,American goldens, andsemipalmated plovers,greater andlesser yellowlegs,sanderlings, many species ofsandpipers,whimbrels, andmarbled godwits, as well as the critically endangeredEskimo curlew.[8]
The project is expected to cost C$100 billion to implement, and a further C$1 billion a year to operate. Most of the water diverted would be exported to the U.S.[citation needed]
In addition, the shoreline communities ofAttawapiskat,Kashechewan,Fort Albany,Moosonee andMoose Factory in Ontario, andWaskaganish,Eastmain,Wemindji andChisasibi in Quebec would be forced to relocate.[citation needed]
In the 1990s, Canadianconspiracy theorists believed the "GRAND Canal" was part of a conspiracy to end Canadian sovereignty and force it into a union with the U.S. and Mexico.[10] Conspiracy theorists believed that forces interested in aNorth American Union would agitate forQuebec separation, which would then touch off a Canadian civil war and plunge the Canadian economy into a depression. Impoverished Canadians would then look to the canal project andNorth American Union to revitalize the Canadian economy.[11] Much of the scenario was lifted fromLansing Lamont's 1994 bookBreakup: The Coming End of Canada and the Stakes for America.[12]
Allegedly masterminding this conspiracy wasSimon Reisman,[13] ostensibly aFreemason.[14]