The Federal-provincial Joint Review Panel’s report on Site C was about as soft a “yes” as possible on the topic.

The report, filed Thursday after months of hearings, discussions with BC Hydro and deliberations, did not reject the Site C dam by any means, but it also found significant weakness on some fronts, leading to 50 recommendations on a wide variety of issues, from workers to water wells.

Advocates on both sides of the issue viewed the report on the hydroelectric dam to be built a few kilometres downriver from Fort St. John as a vindication for their arguments.

“The Panel concludes that B.C. will need new energy and new capacity at some point,” the panel wrote. “Site C would be the least expensive of the alternatives, and its cost advantages would increase with the passing decades as inflation makes alternatives more costly.”

Just after that, however, it said that BC Hydro – which intends to build the dam if it now gets the go-ahead from the Federal and provincial governments – did not demonstrate that the project was needed on the timetable it set forth.

“The judgment hinges on time preferences, and on the degree to which present consumers should pre-pay the benefits to future generations,” the report stated. “The important debate about intergenerational equity ... is fundamental to a government decision about Site C.”

Although the panel agreed with a majority of BC Hydro’s claims, proposals and concessions on Site C, it also put forth a list of conclusions directly in disagreement about the project's potential impact.

According to them, Site C would cause a "significant adverse effect" on fishing, hunting and non-tenured trapping for the First Nations represented by the Treaty 8 Tribal Association, and other First Nations. These effects "cannot be mitigated," the report went on to say.

"The panel felt there are significant effects to our way of life, and I'm glad that they recognized that," Liz Logan, Treaty 8 Tribal Association's chief, told the Alaska Highway News.

B.C. Minister of Energy and Mines Bill Bennett responded that BC Hydro would continue to seek a solution with Treaty 8 on this issue: “Hopefully we can work through this before we make a final decision,” he said.

Logan also said she felt "hopeful" that Site C alternatives would be put on the province's radar with this report.

"I'm glad that they basically confirmed what we've already been saying – which is there's not a need for this project. It's not been proven,” she said.

Logan referred to the panel’s conclusion, on the very last page of the report, that Hydro “has not fully demonstrated the need for the Project on the timetable set forth.” Logan and other anti-Site C advocates stressed that this would be a key element of their future case against the dam.

The report also made a number of statements about agriculture. It said that the permanent loss of agricultural production in the Peace River valley – Site C would flood thousands of hectares of farmland – is not “significant” in the context of B.C. or Western Canadian agricultural production, but that it “would be highly significant to the farmers who would bear that loss.”

Ken Boon, a farmer who would be directly affected by the construction of Site C and has been a longtime opponent of the dam, said he disagreed with this aspect of the panel’s report.

"I think as time goes on climate change and everything, the importance of this (valley) is huge," he said. "We have a lot of farmland up North, but there are certain things you can only grow in that valley. For local food security, I don't think that's captured in the report."

Bennett said that he would work with these families closely to try to reduce any negative effects from the dam’s construction, but would not rule out expropriation of their land.

“There’s nothing I can say as the minister that can make them feel better about this,” he said.

The panel’s report also talked about the effects the project could have on Fort St. John, which would be within 10 kilometres of the dam. It concluded that "modest" effects on the city and its population would occur, but that these effects "would be limited to the construction phase."

If Site C does go ahead, the panel recommended that Hydro or the province make arrangements with the city of Fort St. John to cover expenses for project-related costs of child and family services.

Fort St. John Mayor Lori Ackerman said she was “pleased” to see that the panel heard that recommendation, which was made by the city at a prior hearing.

“We have always said that there needed to be projects and processes put into place that support the community,” she said. “There are issues related to the cost of child care and family welfare services.”

The panel also made some recommendations they said should happen whether or not the government votes for Site C or not.

For one, “there is a need for a government-led regional environmental assessment including a baseline study and the establishment of environmental thresholds” to evaluate the effects of multiple projects in northeastern B.C., the report stated.

It also recommended that whether or not Site C proceeds, the province give "sympathetic attention” to extending Fort St. John’s city boundaries.

Ackerman said that this has been noted previously, and that it will be up to the government whether or not they should act on it. The city has struggled to grow its borders for several years.

Fort St. John’s mayor also said she was pleased that the panel recognized that the dam would add to traffic on Highway 97, which she said was “already dangerous.” The report calls for monitoring at certain points of Highway 97 should the project get the go-ahead.

However, while the panel praised some aspects of BC Hydro’s financial planning, other parts were panned.

"The Panel cannot conclude on the likely accuracy of Project cost estimates because it does not have the information, time or resources,” the report stated, later adding: “The Panel concludes that, basing a $7.9 billion Project on a 20-year [power] demand forecast without an explicit 20-year scenario of prices is not good practice.”

The panel recommended that if the project proceeds, BC Hydro should "construct a reasonable long-term pricing scenario" and expose it to public comment through a B.C. Utilities Commission hearing process before construction begins.

However, Bennett said Thursday that he has already rejected this recommendation. When asked about whether or not there would be a hearing before the BCUC, he said: “We won’t be doing that.”

In a way, the report was a Rorschach test – those who didn't like Site C saw one thing, while others saw different things.

“What we see here is that there are a number of positive aspects related to the report and that overall we're pleased the panel agreed that there is a long-term need,” said Dave Conway, a BC Hydro spokesperson for Site C.

“The panel also recognizes it would be the least expensive, and it would lock in low rates for fewer greenhouse gas emissions.”

Conway did not view the project as either a recommendation or a disapproval of the project, but rather as "information" for the province to consider. He added that BC Hydro knew going in they weren't going to be able to mitigate all the problems associated with the project.

On the other hand, Joe Foy, the Wilderness Committee’s national campaign director, also said that he felt “vindicated” by the report.

“This report only gives the people a fighting chance,” he said.

Because the governments have six months to make the final decision, using the report as a suggestion, he said that people who are opposed to Site C should let their elected officials know their positions.

Ken Boon also acknowledged his bias when analyzing the panel's report, but said he "(didn't) think" the report was a recommendation for the project to proceed.

"To me, the recommendations are almost secondary," he said. "They're identifying a lot of problems, and ones that BC Hydro did not find. They're disagreeing with BC Hydro quite a bit. At the end of the day, it's not their job to say 'no' to Site C."

Ackerman gave her opinion that the report was far from a recommendation or a rejection, as Hydro and the government still have many questions to answer, not limited to those raised by the panel.

“I don't see it as being pro and I don't see it as being con,” said Ackerman. “I see it as being neutral and just asking questions about the timeline and the costing of it.”

Bennett said that "the Panel’s report contains some encouraging conclusions" in that it would produce less expensive power than any alternative, and that the province will need "new energy and new capacity."

"I think it's fair and important that all electricity generations have environmental impacts," he said. "What we have to do as provincial government and what the Federal government must do is if the impacts of the project are justified ... we'll take our time to carefully consider this report."

Bennett also said that he thought "on balance you are left with the impression that they actually have confidence in the work that BC Hydro has done."

Read the original story...

Photo: The Peace River Valley. Tuchodi via Flickr.