Many remember the community outcry that stopped the Run of River Inc. power project from drastically altering the Upper Pitt River. A similar situation appeared to be happening along the Klinaklini River and today Michael discussed the issue with Environment Minister Barry Penner.
Below you will find the draft transcript of their exchange and as always the official transcript will be posted when available.
2010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th Parliament
COMMITTEE A BLUES
This is a DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections, and will be replaced by the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(HANSARD)
COMMITTEE A BLUES
WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 2010
Afternoon Sitting
CSA – 20100505 PM 006/PLP/1440
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT
(continued)
M. Sather: It’s very interesting to listen to the comments of the minister regarding this proposal for a huge, private hydroelectric project in the Klinaklini River, which for the information of listeners is in the Knight Inlet area, up the coast.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It reminds me from what the minister said so far, and he made reference already to the Upper Pitt power project that was proposed by Run of River Inc. As the minister alluded to, they needed to put a power line through a provincial park in order to make the project a success. They would have required an amendment — to, I think, it was the Park Act — in any event, an amendment of legislation, to allow them to do that. The minister indicated, as he has said, a few years ago that he wasn’t prepared to do that amendment.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, because it’s in my area, I do see the proponent from time to time, and I believe it was last summer that I saw him. We spoke briefly about that project, and he certainly didn’t consider it done. He doesn’t consider that he’s finished there. He’s talking about a tunnel through Burke Mountain to reach his desired goal and to complete what he had begun.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So I’m trying to understand, comparing that situation to what the minister has said now about the Klinaklini. I’m very clear, I think, that the minister has said that without him changing the legislation to allow an amendment to the conservancy, it wouldn’t be possible to proceed.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I just want to clarify a little bit more, though, with the minister. Where does that leave the proponent? Is this project dead? Or is it open to further discussion with the government? Just where is the proponent at — now that the minister has made public…? I’m sure he’s probably already told the proponent — I don’t know — about that decision. Anyway, here today he’s told us that he’s not going to amend the conservancy. Where does that leave the proponent? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1520]
Hon. B. Penner: As indicated, I’ve made my decision based upon the proposal that we received or the request that we obtained from the proponent along with the input from the First Nations. I’m not aware of any other proposal, so I can’t prejudge what the proponent may or may not do at this point.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I can confirm to the member that the proponent has been notified of my decision. So if the member would like to inquire of the proponent as to what their plans are, you’re free to do so. I’m not in a position to speak to them, and I have not heard what their plans are.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Sather: Well, it sounds good, as far as I’m concerned, because I have great concerns about that project and have had since I’ve heard about it. I want to put a few of those concerns briefly on the record because, as I understand it, you know, the minister has made a decision, but it is conceivable — although I would hope not, but I think that it is conceivable unless the minister tells me otherwise — that he could reverse his decision at some point.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I want to talk for just a minute about this project. This project, if it would have proceeded or if it is to proceed — and I haven’t had any conversations with the proponent about it — would be a mammoth project, producing upward at the high end of 800 megawatts of power. Now, that’s compared to Site C, which is 900 megawatts of power production. So it was a very, very large proposal — as far as I’m aware of, the largest proposal in the province.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The dam, which they refer to as a weir in the business, would be 30 metres tall — a 90-foot high dam. The tunnel would be 27 feet in diameter, a mammoth tunnel. Here’s the part, though, that concerned me the very most about this project.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
And for listeners, they have to understand a little bit about the structure of a power project like this. You have a dam, the water is behind the dam, and then where the water is gathered at the dam, you have a pipe, a tunnel, that runs down to a power station. There’s a lot of water that’s diverted in the process, so where that water is diverted the river is affected, and that’s the important part.
DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, this diversion would have been huge — an 18-kilometre diversion. I’ve never heard of one so long; there may be in other locations. Now, the concerning part for me, however, is that there was an impassable fish barrier. And I must say that the minister commented yesterday that most of these projects are above impassable barriers to fish, but that’s not what I’ve seen so far.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I certainly haven’t looked at as many of them, I’m sure, as the minister has. But in the Upper Pitt it wasn’t the case, and that was a series of smaller streams there. In this one, the impassable barrier would have been about three kilometres below the dam. So that means that of the total 18 kilometres, you’re left with 15 kilometres where the fish would be in the water and the water would be being diverted around the fish.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Not all the water, of course, but a good portion of the water gets diverted around the fish habitat. As we discussed a little bit in this committee yesterday, that can be very problematic, because the shallow areas on the edges, the side channels and so on, are where the salmon and the other species of fish spawn. That can very much affect their spawning and the rearing of young.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
One needs to know that all five species of B.C. salmon are in that portion of that river. That’s how significant that project would have been, and that’s the kind of effect that it could have had on a resource in British Columbia which is severely impacted and stressed now, as we already know. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1525]
In addition to all five species of salmon, there were steelhead, or there are steelhead, cutthroat and Dolly Varden, so I don’t understand why the project even got consideration at all. I just don’t get it.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But I am pleased, I am very pleased, with the minister’s announcement today. I hope that it won’t be reversed and that the proponent will have gotten a clear message from the government not to proceed with this — what I believe would clearly have been an environmentally devastating project — and that they will pull up stakes and find greener pastures. That’s my hope. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: Just to respond to the member. He’s right. I have made an effort to try to get out to see these projects in preconstruction, construction and post-construction operation, to get a good idea of how they work.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I can tell the member — and I think we’ve had this discussion before — that proponents typically look to site these projects on rivers above a naturally occurring fish barrier. So the idea is that within the diversion reach you won’t have fish occurring, or certainly not salmon species such as the five that you referred to. If that approach is followed, then there shouldn’t be the issue that the member identified around the side channel habitat if the fish aren’t there to begin with. That is the objective.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But back to this particular application. Again, for the reasons that I noted and the fact that the law is in place and it was a result of 10 years of land-use planning process and negotiations to establish those boundaries and that those boundaries now represent the status quo, I was not prepared to recommend to the member or other members of the Legislature that those boundaries be changed to facilitate this project.
[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I understand that we’re not supposed to debate legislation that’s before the House when we’re in other committees, but I do just want to reference that the members will have a chance to vote on a piece of legislation in the next few weeks, because the Clean Energy Act…. I’m referring to the Clean Energy Act, which has a provision in it giving direction to B.C. Hydro and to proponents not to consider proposals for power purchase agreements for projects that would be located within protected areas such as parks and conservancies. So that’s to address the issue that the member just mentioned here about why it was being considered by B.C. Hydro. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
