Dernier jour pour commentaire au developments hydro a Columbia Britanique, info inclus!

[Dan]

Je m’excuse pour le message qui suive en anglais, mais aujourdhui c’est le dernier jour pour les commentaires sur quelques projects hydro proposer pour Columbia Britanique – prends un vite minute pour protoger ces rivieres manufique.

Merci.

Today is the last day open for comments on multiple proposed hydro projects in BC – if you haven’t added your comment to the list please do so before it’s too late.

If you’re feeling disgruntled at the lack of transparency and powerless by the apparent lack of democracy, I understand, I sat in on the hearings on the NWPA changes at Parliament Hill and know first-hand how frustrating the issue is. BUT, here is a chance to really have an impact. I have friends who work with the Federal Agency responsible for Environmental Assessments (CEAA) and they are unanimous that public input IS considered when making decisions on projects.

This your opportunity to provide that input!

Go to http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/ and scroll down the left hand side of the web page to add your comments.

If you are in doubt of the effectiveness of public activism, consider the recent decision to reject a mine proposal (Prosperity) in central BC:

“The province approved the proposed mine in January, despite negative consequences for fish and fish habitat, saying the effects were justified in the circumstances.

But environmentalists and a local native band had strong objections to the mine project, with some members of the Tsilhqot’in Nation saying they would protect the land with firearms if necessary.

After a lengthy review, federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice rejected the proposal last week, citing the environmental impact it would have on Fish Lake and dozens of connecting streams.”

I talked to a friend in BC working for Fisheries and Oceans a number of years ago regarding this project, and he was disheartened at the pressure the BC government was putting on agencies to make it go through, and at the time even thought it was a sure thing it was going to happen – IT WOULD HAVE IF PEOPLE HADN’T VOICED THEIR OPPOSITION!

Unfortunately we don’t have a lobby group like AWA to fight these battles on our behalf, which places more responsibility on you, the individual, to make your voice heard. It will only take a few minutes to write a comment, the process is simple, and there are numerous comments to scroll through if you’re looking for ideas on what to say.

A few of the points I touched on in my letter:

Environmental:

– Rivers are natural systems that work best unimpeded by human intervention. Artificially changing flow regimes not only directly affect species relying on the aquatic system (invertebrates, fish, birds, mammals, surrounding flora) but changes the very nature of the riverbed itself. Reducing peak flows due to diversions changes siltation patterns, contributes to log jams and woody debris accumulation, and seriously alters the riverine habitat for at least as long as the diversion is in place, and often permanently.
– Not only is more study required on the impacts of existing projects (has anybody tasked with approving these projects made a trip up the diverted nearby Rutherford to see what has happened there over the last half-decade since damming?), there MUST be attention given to the cumulative impacts of the hundreds of potential projects in the approval stages. The piece-meal approach currently in place does nothing to address the affects on these ‘micro’ projects when applied on a macro scale over a large area.
– Proponents and the government must provide funding for independent, true third party reviews of projects. Gov. agencies make decisions on potential impacts from these projects based on data provided by environmental consulting firms, which are hired by the developer to study the issue at hand. No matter how impartial many firms claim to be, they know which side their bread is buttered on and work hard to keep clients happy. I know, I’ve been in the industry for over 10 years and see it every day. At the end of the day, it’s a public resource being sold to a private entity to generate profit – the onus should be on the proponent to provide funding to citizen groups to fund independent studies on how their resource will be affected by the proponents’ actions.

Political/Social:

– The government claims that micro-hydro is needed to augment sustainable energy sources and offset climate change. The reality is that the majority of ‘micro’ hydro being proposed for BC is meant for the export market to the US, and if the government was really serious about sustainability it would put much more emphasis on alternative energy research and conservation. The total output of the proposed micro projects is a drop in the bucket of overall energy requirements compared to other, viable, sustainable alternatives. The problem is, conservation doesn’t produce jobs, and governments like to be seen as producing employment. And herein lies one of the biggest myths of micro hydro, that micro hydro creates meaningful employment – micro hydro produces practically no long-term employment. Construction jobs are created during the brief design/build component of the project cycle, but after that much of the operation of a micro-hydro facility is largely automated, with very few people directly or indirectly employed in the day-to-day operation and maintenance of the facility. The actual jobs created are fractional compared to the jobs in the tourism industry that will be lost forever. These are the types of meaningful, long-term, sustainable jobs the government should be promoting if it really cares about the rural population.
– I contribute a significant amount of money to the BC economy every year when I go there to paddle free-flowing rivers. Gear purchases, groceries, beer and wine, restaurant meals, float plane charters, fuel and repairs for my vehicle, accommodation – how many people are involved in providing me with those services? In how many communities? How much tax revenue for the province? Multiplied by all the paddlers that I travel with? Compared to a few individuals hired to flick switches or occasionally repair wiring once the construction is complete? If the government was really serious about sustainable employment in underdeveloped areas it should continue to invest in developing the eco-tourism industry rather than grant permission for projects that line the coffers of a few well-connected businesses.
– Many run-of-river hydro projects have no concessions for recreational releases, and others that do are so limited or timed so poorly as to render them almost unusable due to the high likelihood of unusable flows typical to the release periods. If a project is chosen to proceed, greater attention must be given to requirements of river users who are losing their right to utilise a public resource. Consideration should also be given to occasional ‘high-flow’ releases to mimic naturally occurring high water flows that clean debris from river systems to ensure that safe navigation can continue for river users.

First Nations:

– Many of the proposed projects are slated for land that is undergoing First Nations landclaims – it is amoral and illegal to allow for irrevocable changes to a landscape whose ownership is before the courts.
– Developers often try and sway First Nations with promises of employment and community enhancements if permission is granted for a project. Often these promises ring hollow once the shovels go in the ground with promised training for trades and management evaporating and replaced with some token security or labouring jobs. Payoffs for chiefs or band councils which are never seen by the greater band membership are commonplace. The government needs to ensure that the common interests of First Nations are protected and that the injusticies of the past are not perpetuated.

There are so many reasons why the current rush on ‘micro’ hydro-development in BC is not in the best interests of those who will be affected by it – pick a few and write about it!

Dan

[François L. Tremblay]

I made a comment to preserve Big Silver Creek. I really wish to run that creek and I did not even know it was up to be dammed! :angry:

[Auteur]

Messages