BC Hydro employees seem to outnumber members of the public at Site C dam public consultation in Vancouver this week.
They were eager to answer any questions, and explain any of charts, maps, pictures or descriptions of the project, which were printed on large placards placed around the room. Piles of documents sat on tables, waiting to be picked up.
In fact about 40 people filed through, a "good turnout", said BC Hydro community relations manager David Conway.
He said over the past year, BC Hydro has send 23,000 postcards to people in the region and held 40 stakeholder meetings and 17 open houses like this one.
BC Hydro has budgeted $40.1 million on this project definition and consultation phase, the second of a potential five-phase process over the next decade or so.
"It is a different era," said Dag Sharman, BC Hydro's senior media relations adviser, when asked how the planning process now compares to what it was in the late-1980s when the dam was last proposed. "We have a real focus on getting the public involved and finding out what people want to know."
Finola Finlay and Frank Koop lived in Fort. St. John for 30 years and remember when the dam was first proposed. Both said they were impressed by the amount of consultation this time around.
"You can bully your way through, but you'll have a lifelong enemy in the process," said Koop. "It's a unique environmental, a tough environment," said Koop. "People go there and think there is no place in heaven or hell as nice as that place."
And they're willing to fight for it. Hundreds have attended the public consultations in the Peace River region, and last month a group of people crashed a stakeholder meeting in Fort St. John bearing a banner that read 'Save the Peace.'
Finlay said most of her friends who live in Fort. St. John are worried about the loss of wildlife habitat and agricultural land – the dam will flood 5,340 hectares of the Peace River valley southeast of Fort St. John.
"All the right messages are here," said Finlay. "In the end it will really come down to, has BC Hydro listened?"
1
Login or register to post comments
David Lewis
3 years ago
I support Site C
I think its a good project. This project can almost be said to be run of the river, although it is very large, as the reservoir for it is already built. I would have said build it a long time ago. So does the union I belong to, Local 1611. Its low carbon emission power and the construction jobs are good jobs.
People who argue that BC doesn't need any new power sources therefore none should be built should think more deeply.
The long run outlook for any fossil fuel, i.e. tar sand and coal is to leave it in the ground or remove the carbon from the exhaust of centrally located power stations. Emissions have to go so low it is likely transport will have to be electric, as soon as better technology than batteries can be found. Electricity that can be generated without emitting carbon is going to be increasingly valuable. Carbon capture is said to be possibly economical at 90% capture. As civilization expands, ten times as many carbon emitting plants taking 90% of their carbon emissions out leaves us right where we are now. Emissions have to go down drastically from where we are now. Hence, any low or zero carbon electricity generation possibilities should be looked at in this light, rather than just from the perspective of does BC need the power right now.
Those who deny climate change is a problem who nevertheless say they are environmentalists because they are going to "save" some piece of the planet aren't going to achieve what they think they are. Take a look at the 50,000 square miles of dead pines already in BC.
I guess we could go nuclear. Some say it would be possible to build nuclear to a new design that would consume the waste from the last generation of reactors. 99% of the potential energy is still in the waste. Instead of having the problem of where to put the waste you burn it in the next generation design.
BANANA. Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone.