1. The Ontario Siphon HUG Project
Bad News/ Good News
 The Great Lakes are a glacial phenomena - not a water basin. Despite all the threats of drought,
there will not be one drop available from the Great Lakes to areas of water scarcity.
 If you put one drop into the Great Lakes, you can take a drop out, while helping to increase its
own water level. The standard proposed by the IJC is that there should be "no net loss "to the
area from which the water is taken.
An Unprecedented Water Crisis Today
 Water shortages and global warming pose a “serious threat” to America’s national security.
 Analysis * of 19 computer models of the future: sometime before 2050, the Southwest will be
gripped in a dry spell akin to the Great Dust Bowl drought that lasted through most of the 1930s.
 The Canadian prairies and the US Midwest are facing an unprecedented water crisis today.
Water Export Revenue
 A $780 million 1000km long siphon system is sustainable & innovative.
 The Northern Waters project would capture 800 m3s - 2000 m3s of seasonal runoff before it flows
North. The Ottawa River can handle an average additional flow of 4000 m3s.
 This surplus could be delivered to the Midwest and South via a detour through the Chicago Canal
and Mississippi River.
 A total of 135 m3 could be transferred to the Prairies using a Canadian Prairie Transfer Canal. It
will be difficult to say NO to Water Export Revenue of $433 Million/year at the auction price of
$0.13/ m3s.
 Each of the 150 million people whose needs could be served by the project would pay the
reasonable rate of $50 per year. In this case, the willingness to pay from the exports could be as
high as $7.5 billion. The capacity of 35 HUG Siphon Systems of 2000 m3s could yield an
annual rate of $6.4 Billion.
 The water level on the Ottawa River behind the Otto Holden Hydro Dam can be maintained at
179.5 m. This water can then siphoned to Lake Huron over a length of 170 km , which has a
water level of 176.5 m.
 Nine Siphon Systems to Lake Superior from water flowing to James Bay creates a sustainable
potential of 265 m3s fresh water for the mid west.
Dual Purpose Siphons using HUGS (Helical Unique Generation)
 HUG, creates a vortex. The velocity in the flume of the HUG is four times faster than placing
the turbine directly in the path of a straight flow.

2.  Oval Helical turbines have power of .64 MW/turbine. Helical Turbines have been successfully
developed over the last 15 years.
 Total Costs of 6.7 MW $1075/kW (.153/kWh): $7,202,000.
 At a 80% utilization: 47,000 MWh [x $79 (Quebec)] $3,700,000. The Annual Return on
Investment = 51% (Ontario FIT) (using $131/MWh) $6,150,000 ROI= 85%
 Companies that exceed the emission limits must soon buy credits of $284,000 worth of carbon
credits, from the 1 MW of new clean energy, which will add to our revenue. Power generation of
228 MW is worth $65 Million.
Environmental Studies Required
 The condition of the Great Lakes need to be improved. Its waters are evaporating more quickly
because of global warming. The Great Lakes are glacial phenomena - not a self-sustaining
water basin. Only 50% of original wetlands remain in the Great Lakes region.
 There is a need for a new supply to the Great Lakes if levels are to be maintained.
 There is a flip side to an environmental impact: the dangers of inter-basin water transfers must
be balanced by a greater risk, the Great Lakes environment.
 The ecological risk is non-existent for inter-body water transfer, which is siphoned to Lake
Superior from waters travelling to James Bay separated 12 km.
 The U.S.A. Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy requested $26 billion a plan preserve
the Great Lakes over five years. The Ontario Siphon HUG project would significantly affect these
cost estimates.
NAFTA and U.S.A. Guarantees Required
 The federal government could overrule the rights of provinces to exploit their water resources as
they see fit, as a national concern, for “peace, order and good government”.
 Neither NAFTA, nor the World Trade Organization, would tolerate a country restricting water
explicitly for use within national boundaries. This would be trade discrimination, so a water accord
is largely ineffective, such as Bill 198, Safeguarding and Sustaining Ontario's Water Act, 2007
 United States need to offer the Canadians a proposal, which allows bulk water exports to be
safeguarded from NAFTA’s Chapter 11 investment rules.
 The U.S. proposal should also offer an ‘escape-clause’, i.e. allow for interruption in the trade in
bulk water after satisfactory advance notice.
* Findings of Richard Seager, a senior researcher at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of
Columbia University: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought