"It was a bad idea in 1975, and we think it's a bad idea now," Peace River resident Gwen Johansson said in her opening salvo against the proposed Site C Peace River dam at a June 1 meeting in Roberts Creek.
Johansson, one of four people touring southern B.C. to drum up support against the controversial dam, was adamant in her assessment that the project is an environmental no-no. Joining Johansson in the crusade to educate the Lower Mainland on the proposed dam in northeastern B.C. were Tribal Chief Liz Logan, biologist Diane Culling and Joe Foy of the Western Wilderness Committee.
Logan represents four First Nations and just weeks ago made her case to the United Nations. In a rare exclusive meeting with special rapporteur James Anaya from the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Logan outlined her peoples' case against Site C. Logan, who hails from Fort Nelson, worries that the flooding of the Peace will result in the destruction of traditional hunting and fishing territories, the eradication of some of the best agricultural land in B.C and the disturbance of former burial grounds of her people.
"Canada has endorsed the United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous People, and this is why we must voice our dissatisfaction with both Canada and British Columbia as they ignore our concerns with this devastating project. The Site C dam will destroy our sacred lands in the Peace Valley, and we call on British Columbia to reject this project," Logan outlined in a prior press release.
The controversy centres on 100 km of the Peace River near Fort St. John. This would be the third section of the river to be dammed; the first was completed in 1969 and the second in the early '80s. At risk, according to the Peace River Environmental Association, is some of the most fertile land in B.C. Culling, a member of the association, told the 40 members of the audience that the valley has a microclimate and almost complete daylight in the summer that allows for a growing season a full two weeks longer than anywhere else in the North.
Countering the Northerners stance is BC Hydro's need for increased energy inventory.
Rich Coleman, minister of Energy and Mines, is a proponent of Hydro's position.
"Building for the future, Site C will provide enough energy to power more than 450,000 homes a year for more than 100 years," he said in a press release.
The government is also calling Site C a "cost-effective resource" and an economic benefit to the area.
"Up to 35,000 direct and indirect jobs will be created," the release said.
"I believe the Site C Clean Energy Project will be a legacy for all British Columbians and will help keep electricity rates affordable for generations to come. I am proud to support it," Coleman stated.
Culling argued that such is not the case.
"We need to be food self-sufficient more than energy self-sufficient," she said.
Adding to the concerns about arable land is the loss of area for ungulates such as moose and deer that give birth on islands in the valley where the animals are protected from their predators.
According to Culling, the dam would be a slow death sentence for wildlife in the area including many birds and fish on endangered lists such as migratory bull trout. There is also concern that the new dam would result in increased methyl mercury levels in fish, as happened following the construction of Site A (the WAC Bennett Dam).
The dam's projected cost is eight billion dollars; a cost Johansson said will come directly out of the pockets of B.C. taxpayers. She is urging concerned citizens to contact their MLAs and state their objections to the project.
"Democracy is not a spectator sport. You've got to use it or you lose it," Johansson emphasized.
