Topic
An $8 million consultation with the public danced around main issue say critics.
Artist's rendition of Site C dam planned to be built on the Peace River in northeastern British Columbia. Source: BC Hydro.
When the Site C dam is finally built, $7.9 billion of taxpayer money will have been spent, more than 5,000 hectares will have been flooded and First Nations say their rights will have been violated.
But, despite those impacts, BC Hydro Corp. never appears to have outright asked Peace River region residents whether that project should go ahead during a year-long, $8-million public consultation process, which some participants have accused of being biased.
Dam without a name
The dam, which would generate enough electricity to power more than 450,000 homes, has been started and stopped three times since it was first proposed in the 1950s -- each time because it was deemed unnecessary.
Nevertheless, Gordon Campbell's government deemed that project necessary in 2004, a position his successor Christy Clark reaffirmed in mid-August. After that decision was made by Campbell, BC Hydro launched a consultation process in 2007 to seek public input on everything from access roadways to air quality.
But the three rounds of feedback forms distributed by BC Hydro as part of that process never directly asked about the level of support for the Site C. Instead, one form asked about the level of support for a "major hydroelectric dam."
Almost half -- 45 per cent -- of respondents registered their lack of support for such a project, even though it wasn't identified as being Site C.
'Straight up question' lacking
Another form asked participants to indicate whether they'd support Site C "if" hypothetical conservation efforts, equipment upgrades and development of new power sources failed to meet the province's energy needs.
Yet again, 40 per cent of respondents opposed Site C anyway.
"Obviously, if they're still getting opposition even when they're nuancing the question so significantly then they would have gotten an even worse result if they asked it straight up," commented pollster Bob Penner.
As for why BC Hydro didn't ask a "straight up" question, a spokesperson for the Crown corporation said a "what if" question was used because the company "does not look at resources in isolation and instead looks at a portfolio of options and scenarios."
"This is because there are many combinations of resource options that could be used to fill the gap between future demand and current supply."
The spokesperson said members of the public also had an opportunity to voice their opinion on the dam during a separate consultation process for BC Hydro's 2011 integrated resource plan.
Nevertheless, Penner -- the president and chief executive officer of Vancouver-based Strategic Communications Inc. -- said, "If you're just doing research, if you just want to know, you would ask a straight up question" during the Site C consultation process.
'Capital crime on nature': local resident
In its absence, some Peace River residents tried to give a "straight up" no to BC Hydro's dam proposal. For example, when a feedback form asked them how they planned to use the Peace River Valley and reservoir for recreation if Site C were completed, 42 per cent of respondents ignored that open-ended question and simply indicated they didn't want the project built.
That sentiment also came out at BC Hydro's public meetings on the hydroelectric project. Some demonstrated outside those gatherings while others directly voiced their concerns to the Crown corporation's consultation team.
For example, minutes taken by the team show, during an Oct. 2008 meeting in Fort St. John, Peace River resident Axel Zalbock said it would be a "capital crime on nature" to build the dam, given that there were other ways of meeting the province's energy needs.
Indeed, it's likely Peace River residents would have preferred BC Hydro to pursue those alternatives rather than Site C. According to the feedback forms, upgrading the province's existing energy assets and investing in wind, solar and biomass power received more support than building a "major hydroelectric dam" -- with 98 per cent, 90 per cent and 89 per cent respectively backing those ideas.
Moreover, the perception that Site C is a foregone conclusion led to accusations of bias during the public consultation process.
'Are you trying to be neutral?': councilor
"Are you trying to be neutral or are you trying to sell Site C?" questioned Hudson's Hope councilor Terry Webster in minutes of a meeting in his community in Oct. 2008.
At one point, BC Hydro representatives tried to allay those concerns by stating that independent regulatory bodies would also have an opportunity to review the dam. But, when the Clean Energy Act received royal assent last year, one of those bodies -- the BC Utilities Commission -- was stripped of its oversight role over Site C.
That means the Canadian and British Columbia environmental assessment offices' stamps of approval are the only major regulatory hurdles left for the dam to clear before it is built.
Meanwhile, BC Hydro is continuing to consult with the public about that project -- having already launched a third round of consultations. But what's unclear is whether anything the public says about Site C will stop it from being built. ![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
15
Login or register to post comments
SportyMcSportison
1 year ago
Site C
What were sites A and B?
reallife
1 year ago
Sites A and B
are the existing WAC Bennett Dam and the Peace Canyon Dam.
I_Am_PEO
1 year ago
Just remember...
These are Sean Holman's padewans/students/proteges.
This is the kinda stuff that makes me wanna see Sean Holman win an Order of BC.
hg
1 year ago
Site C
This whole site c discussion would be irrelevant, if BC Hydro would heed the recent Geothermal Report. It clearly states that BC is a prime area for that technology. The cost would be about the same. The environmental impact would be much smaller. The electricity produced would be about the same.
BC Hydro could operate this, since this would be a number of smaller projects, not a huge one like Site C.
Jim DeLaHunt
1 year ago
What were sites A and B?
SportyMcSportison asks, "What were sites A and B?"
According to Wikipedia's article on "Site C dam" (and Wikipedia is never wrong), Sites A, B, and C were dam sites along the Peace River identified in the mid-20th century. Site A is 19 kilometres west of Hudson's Hope, and the W. A. C. Bennett Dam is there. Site B is 23km downstream of Site A, and Peace Canyon Dam is there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_C_dam
This was also discussed in comments to an April 19, 2010 Tyee article on the Site C dam:
http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Environment/2010/04/19/SiteCOutrage/ (Read "all comments".) Interestingly, in that thread someone else asked what were sites A and B. Tyee editors, maybe it's worth adding a sentence to Site C articles about the name "Site C" and which were Sites A and B.
reallife
1 year ago
Geothermal
Unfortunately, there are also lots of people opposed to geothermal development as the best sites are in the Mt. Meager area (think Whistler type terrain but more unstable). Usual concerns about roads, power lines, clearing areas for wellsites, industrial development in the backcountry, etc. All forms of energy generation have vocal opponents.
snert
1 year ago
hg
Go back and read the geothermal report and see what it says about costs. Very little, because it's very expensive.
the real ODB
1 year ago
what a crock!
Many studies have shown we can meet our energy needs for the next 50 years by upgrading our existing hydro dams (many of which are overdue) with newer, better technology and by taking back our power via the expired Columbia River Treaty, which is currently being sold to the US. Site C is the designated "final nail in the coffin" for BC Hydro. To finally sell Hydro off to private (or should that be "pirate") investors, the BC LIEberals need to drive it into total bankruptcy. An absolute disgrace!
Skywalker
1 year ago
Question
Could we have a map showing the current dam and then the extension of the flooded area for Site "C".
Skywalker
1 year ago
Sorry, I found the answer.
There is a good video on youtube at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rem7y28UJM
dave49
1 year ago
Corporate and personnel memory
It is often said that corporations don't have a good memory. But, I'll tell you personnel at BC Hydro do. I hope these young women realize that because they have written an article critical of BC Hydro, they will never get a job or even contract work with that corporation. You may hear encouraging talk, but NOTHING will ever happen.
BC Hydro has a strange culture, and the important thing is that they like you. But, if they don't, they will never have the decency to tell you you're wasting your time.
Site C
1 year ago
Site C
Here is what will happen if Site C is approved. The children and grandchildren of farmers and ranchers who moved to the Peace Valley in the 1920' (before roads or electricity) will stand on the hills of the valley, watching as bulldozers flatten their homes in advance of flooding. They will watch an 80 km valley being stripped of forest and over 5000 ha of class one and two soil, capable of growing apples, cantaloup, corn, tomatoes and all other market garden produce. The valley could supply all of northern BC at a time of rising oil, gas and transport costs; and climate change. BC imports more than 56% of its food now. The dam is not for home or BC residential use. It will be used to sell electricity to the USA and to extract and process northern BC natural gas to enable the Tar sands to increase production by a third, for transport down the Enbridge pipeline to Kitimat or down the Keystone pipeline to Texas. It will pave the way for trillions of tons of carbon to be added to the atmosphere. It will destroy wildlife habitat and First Nations traditional areas. It will last 70 to 100 years, then silt in and become a dead valley. It is for money. It is at the expense of any future for the north. Who gets the wealth? Who gets the mess? Who is saying: I want what I want when I want it, and I want my entitlements now. Please don't flood the Peace. Please don't do this. There are 16 identified Geothermal sites in BC. Each is closer to source of use and would require less transmission line-loss. Each is firm power (24/7). Use north east BC oil and gas drilling technology to access it. Pay the same as a dam for the same electricity. Put a geothermal site on a quarter section of land only. Use current fossil fuel subsidies to start drilling. Don't kill another valley. If you are a strong advocate of money for river valleys, come and drive the D-8 cat, in front of world press and your children.
VivianLea Doubt
1 year ago
Site C...
Please come here more often. Your writing is beautiful and eloquent.
lynn
1 year ago
Site C -
What Vivianlea said....
Your heartfelt plea is moving and powerful.
uucluelet
1 year ago
Site C yes or no
Site C
So well said. I couldn't agree more. Please,don't flood the Peace. I recognize as a 5th generation British Columbian, our great rivers have suffered enough. In Washington, The Columbia River Dam was heralded as a wonder of technological advancement. Despite the well-intentioned fish ladders, etc., after 20 years the damming of the Columbia had pretty much destroyed the southern British Columbia and Western Washington coho and chinook salmon runs. The social and environmental impacts have been devastating and cost millions, probably billions. Washington State is removing dams. Not nearly as big as site C, but recognized as detrimental to pretty much everything.