Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[chris gadsden]

Nice family pictures. Sometimes I feel like moving back to Duncan that I left 46 years ago. Visits back are too infrequent even though I now can travel free on the ferries from Tuesday to Thursday.

Good debate is great as we all learn from them. It is too bad so many governments are not as transparent and open we are on this forum.

[VAGAbond]

Take a look at the recently amended BC laws covering environmental review of projects.    River diversion schemes less than 50 MW are exempt from review.  50 MW is pretty big.    Nobody is minding the store!

[chris gadsden]

At least they are taking a second look at this as they received a lot of concerned from the caucus of continuing with this, for now!!!

Statement on Recognition and Reconciliation Act


VICTORIA - Premier Gordon Campbell, Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation Michael de Jong and the First Nations Leadership Council: Regional Chief Shawn Atleo of the BC Assembly of First Nations; Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, President of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs; and Grand Chief Ed John of the First Nations Summit made the following statement this weekend regarding the status of the Recognition and Reconciliation Act:

"Over the past several weeks many important issues, concerns and questions have been raised about the Discussion Paper for Implementing the New Relationship and the concept of a new Recognition and Reconciliation Act.

"This is the time for us to make this important and historic transition in our government to government relationship and we need to take the time to make sure we get this right.

"As the parties to the discussion paper, together we need to take the time for consultation and further discussions before tabling this bill."

The Premier and Minister de Jong will continue to engage with the business community on this important initiative.

[chris gadsden]

Published today.

Craig Orr: What is your government doing for wild salmon?
By Craig Orr

In early 2008, some 340,000 cubic metres of prime gravel was scalped from the top of a large bar in the lower Fraser River near Chilliwack. All this was sanctioned by the federal and provincial governments under the pretext of flood control. But qualified hydrologists who reviewed the largest single Fraser River gravel removal in history found no evidence of the sort. One of government’s own consultants concluded that “It does not appear that large scale gravel removals...are effective in lowering the flood profile.” Another even claimed government was deliberately misleading the public.


See also


David Suzuki: Run-of-river power projects may offer green energy solutions

Gwen Barlee: Private run-of-river power projects make no sense in B.C.

Steve Davis: Independent power producers generate green energy and jobs in B.C.

Anglers, conservationists, and others who cared about the Fraser were up in arms. “Flood control” measures were said to be nothing more than “gravel grabs” done at the expense of valuable fish habitat. Science and common sense suggested that some of the most productive chinook salmon habitat left on Earth had been destroyed, along with a vast stretch of prime pink salmon spawning gravel. Concerns were also raised over threatened sturgeon.

A moratorium in place since the late 1990s to protect Fraser River salmon and sturgeon habitat was lifted by the provincial government early this decade. Liberal environment minister Barry Penner and ex-solicitor general John Les both campaigned for the lifting of the moratorium, and shortly after, the province and Fisheries and Oceans Canada signed a five-year deal authorizing the removal of massive quantities of gravel, with more than 420,000 cubic metres up for grabs in 2009 alone.

None of this bodes well for the future of the lower Fraser River, one of the world’s last great salmon rivers. Perhaps one day when humans look back on how we mistreated our once-bountiful salmon resource, the name “Spring Bar” will resonate sombrely with those wondering how we could have allowed the squandering of so much with so little resistance.

But Spring Bar is sadly just one blotch in a much tarnished tapestry of neglect, abuse, and betrayal of wild salmon and public interest. When it comes to our rivers, we are currently engaged in the greatest fire sale in history. Private power corporations have staked claim to the water flowing in more than 700 rivers and creeks, and mere citizens are told to be quiet and be happy because this is all good for them. Government and industry PR teams tout the benefits of “green hydro” projects and actively downplay the impacts of such developments.

In truth, citizens have been all but shut out of decisions on the merits of privatizing and developing our rivers, including the massive project proposed for the Bute Inlet, where Plutonic Power hopes to divert water from 17 rivers and build a gigantic web of roads, pipes, and transmission lines. The resulting public outcry and show of concern has thus far prompted little deviation from business as usual. Projects are still reviewed individually, under narrow terms of reference, and with no consideration of cumulative impacts or of the other values that British Columbians associate with rivers and wild places.

And if the assault on freshwater habitat weren’t enough, consider the plight of our salmon in marine waters, where both the federal and provincial governments continue to champion the growth of industrial aquaculture. The public controversy over the impacts of aquaculture has intensified since 2002 when the provincial Liberals lifted a seven-year moratorium on fish-farm expansion—also the same year in which Broughton pink salmon collapsed by 97 percent. Stories of sea-lice impacts on juvenile wild salmon and collapsing pink salmon stocks are common media fodder. These now-familiar yet always-painful stories serve to reinforce concerns of myopic and destructive government policies, but calls for funds to transition the industry go unheeded.

Back on land, a Forest Practices Board study of 1,110 road crossings over fish streams in 19 B.C. watersheds finds that less than half of the crossings offer salmon safe passage. Still, industry pressures government to “modernize” laws to make it easier to develop in and near salmon habitat. Management of our forests is dealt a serious blow with the cutting of 800 jobs from the Ministry of Forests—nearly half in enforcement and compliance—during the first Liberal mandate, and the relentless gutting of environmental enforcement in favour of industry-led “results based” self-regulation.

This all begs the questions: Why is our wild salmon heritage treated with seeming contempt by government? And can we do anything to elevate the level of care and concern, before it is too late? Programs like the federal Wild Salmon Policy and the provincial Living Water Smart program may offer hope, but only if adequately resourced and mandated. Nongovernmental organizations, weary of years of inaction and damage, are also trying to work with industry to reduce sea-lice impacts on baby salmon now making their way past salmon farms. Such offerings may not be enough, though, given the human record, including a well-documented history of what one scientist sadly terms “resource management pathology”.

Our wild salmon resource, while much abused, remains a remarkable world treasure. If we don’t wish to see it squandered, we will all need to become more engaged in saving it. After all, it is people, not salmon, that give governments a mandate.

Craig Orr is the executive director of Watershed Watch Salmon Society.

[Eagleye]

Today's Vancouver Sun


California rejects B.C.'s green power claims
 
State senate says run-of-river hydro projects here are too big to qualify under its renewable energy bill
 
By Scott Simpson, Vancouver SunApril 2, 2009
 
British Columbia's effort to promote its hydroelectric energy exports to California as green power is failing.

The California senate last week rejected calls by electrical utilities in the state to amend a renewable energy bill to incorporate power from sources such as run-of-river hydro from B.C. as part of their obligation to generate 33 per cent of retail electricity sales from renewable sources by 2020.

Pacific Gas & Electric, in particular, sees B.C. power as central to a $4-billion B.C.-to-California transmission system upgrade carrying an enormous quantity of supposedly green power -- equivalent to half of B.C.'s present generating capacity -- to the state by 2016.

PG&E's promotion of supposedly green B.C. power is a central aspect of the provincial government's plan to develop the province as a major exporter of renewable energy.

However, the presence of a willing buyer who can pay premium prices for green power is critical to B.C.'s initiative, particularly in the massive California electricity market.

Western Canada Wilderness Committee national campaign director Joe Foy said the California senators' decision confirms his group's misgivings about run-of-river power.

The wilderness committee is a vocal opponent of the large-scale drive to develop run-of-river power resources under the umbrella of BC Hydro's power acquisition mandate on the premise that it's causing unnecessary damage to streams and forested areas.

"Once again this so-called run of river, this river diversion power, has been been judged and been found not to be green," Foy said. "The environmental footprint is too big.

"They tried to wiggle it past the Californians and were unsuccessful. Californians had a closer look."

The senate opted for a regulation that disqualifies hydro projects producing more than 30 megawatts -- new B.C. projects are typically 50 megawatts or larger. The senate bill is now being reviewed by the California state assembly and a final decision could be months away.

The wilderness committee obtained a letter to the assembly from B.C. Environment Minister Barry Penner who is attempting to assure legislators that power from this province is subject to a thorough environmental review.

"The only reason we're buying it [in B.C.] is that we are being forced to buy it. I think the only one who sees it as green power is our own government," Foy said.

In an interview, Penner said he wrote the letter to counter allegations raised by environmental groups which are urging California legislators to hold firm to their existing standards.

Penner said California's decision to increase its use of renewable energy was "laudable."

He said he wrote the letter to detail, in four single-spaced pages, the extent of environmental scrutiny to which run-of-river projects are subject in B.C.

"There was what I believed to be a misinformation campaign, spilling over from the ideological debate here in B.C. about having the private sector involved in renewable energy," Penner said.

"I wanted to set the record straight. I had seen some e-mails about what people were saying about British Columbia and it was not true. I felt we needed to stand up for British Columbia."

ssimpson@vancouversun.com

Read Scott simpson's BLOG at ww.vancouversun.com/energy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

 

I phoned and emailed numerous people including the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources to express my concerns for R.O.R. projects as part of the 10, 000 voices campaign http://www.10000voices.org/.  I requested to speak with the minister and was put through to one of his staff whom tried to make it blatantly clear to me that there was no way power would be transported to California for various reasons.  He acted as though what I was suggesting could not possibly materialize.  This was last week and now I read in this article that not only was the government aware that this was most certainly a possibility but they were lobbying for it.  So I was intentionally mislead by a representative of our current government.  That's the problem with zero accountability.

[marmot]

BB I usually agree with just about everything you say but as a business owner myself I'm looking at the big picture.  It's not going to matter if I have money in my pocket if I have no way to get out and enjoy it when our land is being raped and turned into a business in itself.  That is what our "pro business" govt has proven it's mandate is so far.  I'm proud to be able to contribute taxes from my earnings as long as those tax dollars are spent with some visibility and accountability.  This is NOT something I think you can say we have with the liberals.  Where my tax dollars go and what is happening to the province in general is FAR more important to me than how much I pay in taxes at the end of the day.

[UFV_Poor_Fisher]

I sincerely hope Obama makes the mistake of reopening NAFTA when Prime minister Harper is no longer Prime minister....or re-opening it at all for that matter... maybe then we could have some real regulations on water usage...right now we are left entirely open to exploitation...

[Eagleye]

Thanks to the Liberals for lifting the moratorium

[chris gadsden]

River Privatization Just Produces Power That We Don't Need       
Written by Rafe Mair     
Saturday, 11 April 2009 19:29 
As I make my way around  the province I find the following the greatest area of misunderstanding (a misunderstanding fostered and encouraged by the government and the private river people) to be that private power will help take care of BC’s energy needs..

When lawyers see a statement like “fish live in water therefore I must visit the North Pole” they call it a non sequitur; literally “it does not follow”.

The Campbell government and the power producers have a pronounced a classic non sequitur in the private power debate. They say “British Columbia needs or will need power therefore we must have private 'run of river' projects.”

Remember that electricity in bulk cannot be stored and must be used as it is created. BC Hydro "stores" electricity by creating a reservoir behind its dams which can be used to turn their generators. For all intents and purposes, private river plants do not have the ability to store significant amounts of water. In fact they boast of the fact that they don’t create reservoirs. They must, then, rely upon the quantity of the river flow. The amount of energy produced by private power must come from the Spring run-off; when the height of the river drops, as it does after run-off, little if any electricity can be created.

It does not, then, follow that if we need power we can use private river projects because the vast majority of power created by private projects comes at the same time BC Hydro’s reservoirs are full thus have no use for private river power.


In short, the only use for private power is export which is what Donald McInnis, CEO of the Plutonic/General Electric partnership freely admits.

The new minister of Energy, Blair Lekstrom, has said this in a letter to several newspapers: NAFTA (North America Free Trade Agreement)  “is not part of our energy mix”. This abysmal ignorance should alarm us all. Whether or not we get involved with NAFTA is not a matter for Mr. Lekstrom to decide but happens automatically when you ship power over the border. It must be realized that NAFTA is calculated to help the corporate world. TIt's not a matter of whether or not NAFTA applies but HOW it applies. For the minister to have made such a statement shows either abysmal ignorance or egregious arrogance or both and it indicates one more time that the Campbell government has no time for honestly putting its schemes before the public.

If Gordon Campbell is re-elected the enormous Bute Inlet project of Plutonic/General Electric will be approved – 17 rivers involved – and with that precedent there’ll be no way to turn down future private power applications. BC  will be in the business of being the biggest supplier of energy in the western United States and river after river will become suppliers of that power. The profits of that power will not go to the people of BC but to shareholders, like Warren Buffet at General Electric.

[Morty]

Export?   Wouldn't that concept include getting paid?

According to comments in a Sept 2008 Hydro Peace River Site C report, California still owes BC Hydro $400,000,000.00 for power used since 2001.  Worse yet, California is appealing the bill because BC didn't create the market.

??

In case you want to read the 316 pages, they can be found at:

http://bchydro.com/etc/medialib/internet/documents/policies/pdf/site_c_-_round_1_stakeholder.Par.0001.File.Site_C_Appendix_1_Stakeholder_Meeting_Notes.pdf

[chris gadsden]

Thanks for this, it gets more interesting the deeper one looks into these matters.

I just spent a couple of hours more reading and watching the videos at the Saving Our Rivers web page, gets more disturbing each time you watch more. I just sent Mr. Penner and Mr. Les our area MLA's the link and asked them if they had watched and read the web page info and to reply to me the concerns that have been brought up.

I hope for a response but after I wrote the letter to the editor of the Chillwack Progress re the gravel issue and reading their response to me in the following paper I donot expect one but at least I tried to get an explanation.  Hopefully to distill my fears of the environmental damage and sell out to the USA these projects seem on the surface to be doing.

I will keep you posted if I get a response.

[Novabonker]

Thanks for this, it gets more interesting the deeper one looks into these matters.

I just spent a couple of hours more reading and watching the videos at the Saving Our Rivers web page, gets more disturbing each time you watch more. I just sent Mr. Penner and Mr. Les our area MLA's the link and asked them if they had watched and read the web page info and to reply to me the concerns that have been brought up.

I hope for a response but after I wrote the letter to the editor of the Chillwack Progress re the gravel issue and reading their response to me in the following paper I donot expect one but at least I tried to get an explanation.  Hopefully to distill my fears of the environmental damage and sell out to the USA these projects seem on the surface to be doing. Although, with the election looming you might hear what you want, take it with a grain of salt.

I will keep you posted if I get a response.

Good luck with that reply Chris and I mean that in all sincerity. Sadly, with the present autocracy I find a lot of concerns and cares are brushed aside unless one chooses to polish the ruling party's apple. It seems you either get a form letter response or some rambling pile of male bovine excrement from a flunky if you choose to contact the MLA's or Ministers. And with the huge increase in the Public Affairs branch, they have lots of writers on staff.

[UFV_Poor_Fisher]

Go to their office and ask for a Mr. Onderwater. He will relay your concerns to both Mr. Penner and Mr. Les...

Even better, if you believe that wont work, visit them at their church's in town...im sure they cant weasle their way out of the issue at that point...

or at an all candidate's meeting, assuming they attend one, bring up the question and concerns their, the election is about to "Officially" begin...soon they wont be able to hide from the issues...

just some ideas how to get their attention or answers....take them or leave them...

[chris gadsden]

.

I will keep you posted if I get a response.

This is a response I received today. Any Comments?


THE REAL STORY...ON CLEAN ENERGY
April 12, 2009

The NDP and their friends in big labour are mounting a dishonest campaign about the BC Liberal Government’s Energy Policy in an attempt to vilify the private clean-energy sector and their contribution to our economy.

Meanwhile, one look at the NDP scheme to put an end to clean power development shows that Carole James has no energy plan for BC - other than sacrifice thousands of jobs and billions in investment to pursue their dishonest ideological agenda.

Here are the real facts.

NDP CLAIM: The government is privatizing B.C. Hydro

THE FACTS:

This is simply a not true.
In fact, the only government that ever considered selling BC Hydro was the NDP in the 1990s.
The BC Liberal Government was the first government to pass legislation to ensure BC Hydro remains publicly owned.
Significant public investment in expanding BC Hydro continues to occur. Between 2001 and 2010 we will see nearly $9 billion in investment in public BC Hydro assets – more than double what was invested between 1991 and 2000.
It is the BC Liberals that committed to seriously examining the construction of the Site C dam in northern B.C. – the largest hydro project to be considered in a generation.
All this has taken place while BC Hydro rates remain among the lowest in North America.
NDP CLAIM: The Government is privatizing rivers

THE FACTS:

This is completely false.
All rivers in BC continue to be publicly owned and the province retains ownership of water at all times.
In fact, it was the BC Liberal government that passed legislation to ban bulk water exports and put 40 years limits on water licences.
The NDP promoted private, run-of-river hydro projects when they were in government citing the job-creation and environment benefits they produce.
When the NDP left office there were 17 private independent run of river projects operating in BC, today there are only 15 more.
With over 290,000 rivers in the province, run-of-river proposals are on about 0.03 per cent of our rivers. When leases expire, the water rights and any private development revert back to government ownership.
This industry has already fostered $2.4 billion in private investment in our communities and created 1,100 jobs, with billions more in potential investment to come.
NDP CLAIM:  BC doesn’t need more electricity.

THE FACTS:

Because of the NDP’s failure to invest in new electricity generation in the 1990’s BC is currently a net importer of electricity.  As a result we currently rely on “dirty” electricity generated in the United States and Alberta to keep our lights on.
BC Hydro’s electricity demand is forecasted to grow between 20-35 per cent over the next 20 years.
We expect the industrial load to increase significantly as BC’s economy continues to grow.
Putting a moratorium on clean power projects as the NDP have said they will, will force BC to continue to rely on dirty U.S. power – eliminating thousands of jobs and billions of investment.
NDP CLAIM:  BC Hydro isn’t allowed to build new power.

THE FACTS:

Completely untrue.
It was the NDP in the 1990s that prevented BC Hydro from investing in needed infrastructure resulting in BC becoming a net importer of dirty electricity from the U.S.
Between 2001 and 2010 we will see nearly $9 billion in investment in public BC Hydro assets – more than double what was invested between 1991 and 2000.
Furthermore, it was the BC Liberals that instructed BC Hydro to seriously examine the construction of the Site C dam in northern B.C. – the largest BC Hydro project to be considered in a generation.
All this has taken place while BC Hydro rates remain among the lowest in North America.
NDP CLAIM:  IPP’s are making electricity more expensive.

THE FACTS:

Not true.
BC Hydro contracts with IPP’s through a competitive procurement process to ensure only the best and lowest cost projects move forward.
IPPs are responsible for all project development costs, reducing financial risk for BC Hydro ratepayers.
All IPP power is contracted at a set price further reducing risk for Hydro ratepayers.
All contracts require review and approval by the Independent BC Utilities Commission to ensure they are in the ratepayers' interest.
As a result BC continues to have some of the lowest electricity rates in North America.
This industry has already fostered $2.4 billion in private investment in our communities and created 1,100 jobs, with billions more in potential investment to come.
NDP CLAIM:  IPP’s do receive proper environmental review.

THE FACTS:

Wrong.
All IPP projects require extensive environmental scrutiny. Any project over 50MW must go through a detailed environmental assessment process, and even smaller projects have to go through no fewer than 11 provincial approval processes and up to six federal approvals.
If impacts to fish can’t be adequately avoided then projects will not be issued a licence.  This is in part why over 150 water licences applications have been rejected or abandoned since 2001.
All IPP projects contracting with BC Hydro are required to have net zero greenhouse gas emissions.
IPP’s are developing innovative clean energy projects in every coroner of our province including wind, tidal, geothermal, run-of-river, and biomass.

[spey]

insightful post Chris i hope this opens some peoples eyes.