If California’s farmers ever run out of the water needed to irrigate their crops, we’ll be in for a rude awakening.

With 70 per cent of British Columbia’s imported fruits and vegetables coming from the sunny U.S. state, any climatic disaster there would almost certainly result in dramatic run-ups in food prices here.

Our elected leaders know that such a scenario may be close at hand. But they’re not talking much about it — perhaps because to do so would be to admit that many of the government’s policy choices are at direct odds with the very idea of promoting domestic food security.

Thanks to a persistent drought that continues creeping northward, much of the U.S. southwest is plagued by water shortfalls. At Lake Mead, the giant reservoir created by the iconic Hoover Dam, the current lake level is about 37 metres below what it was 15 years ago. The drop, equivalent to an 11-storey building, has residents in the nearby city of Las Vegas more than a little worried.

With less and less water available from natural surface water sources like rivers and lakes, or from artificial water bodies such as canals and reservoirs, California’s farmers are relying on water pumped from wells drilled deeper and deeper into the earth to nurture their crops. The pumping, which now accounts for 60 per cent or more of all of California’s water use, has been so intense that some farmer’s fields have sunk or subsided 18 inches in a single year.

None of this bodes well if you live in a jurisdiction that doesn’t grow enough food to feed its own populace and that relies instead on others to do the job.

Yet when it comes to questions of food security, Premier Christy Clark, Agriculture Minister Norm Letnick and others in our provincial government put a much different spin on what climate change portends for our province.

B.C. Government Quietly Undercuts Province's Ability to Feed Itself https://t.co/d7fItoUrKV @christyclarkbc @portmetrovan #bcpoli #SiteC

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) June 2, 2016

While acknowledging in this year’s Speech from the Throne how “climate change and increasing demands on water are challenging global agricultural production,” the government makes B.C. out to be an agricultural powerhouse in the making.

“One of the products B.C. is known around the world for is agriculture,” the government says in a sentence for which it should be awarded an A for audacity and an F for grammar.  

The Throne Speech then goes on to say that 2015 was “the highest ever sales of B.C. food and beverage products” in provincial history with sales topping $3 billion, and that “abundant and sustainable” sources of seafood from our coast represent B.C.’s “most significant opportunity to address world hunger.”

Hmmm. So beverages, including craft beers and wines, and farmed salmon are among the products that our government proposes to help feed a hungry world.

Yes, our government admits, climate change threatens food production in the U.S. and Mexico, “where much of our fresh produce is grown,” thus putting upward pressure on food prices. And yes, the current low Canadian dollar is further “putting a strain on B.C. families."

But no worry. The government “has grown the size” of the province’s Agricultural Land Reserve — which was introduced more than 40 years ago to prevent B.C.’s farmlands from being bulldozed to make way for subdivisions, commercial and industrial developments. It has also “modernized” the operations of the Agricultural Land Commission to ensure that the ALR is protected. And soon such “successes” will be replicated elsewhere. There will be tax credits for farmers that donate food to non-profits and in November an “agrifoods conference” will be held in the premier’s riding of Kelowna “focusing on food security for B.C.”

"British Columbians recognize the value of our agricultural sector in ensuring our food supply security, and this is supported through the Buy Local program.

Your government will expand on these efforts by piloting work with industry, local governments and community organizations to encourage British Columbians to Buy Local, Grow Local. This work will get more British Columbians engaged in growing food at home and in their communities. It will provide another source of fresh fruits and vegetables and further strengthen the connections between British Columbians, our communities and our agricultural sector."

With that, the government drops the topic of food security about as quickly as a hot potato, and an imported potato at that. The speech then moves on to our government’s ongoing efforts to cut “red tape” and the “needless rules” that impede growth in this great province of ours.

Rules that might, for example, get in the way of, say, the proposed 10-lane, $3.5 billion bridge to replace the George Massey Tunnel or the Site C dam now under construction in B.C.’s Peace River valley, the latter of which represents the single-largest assault on our province’s Agricultural Land Reserve since its inception in 1973, and the former of which isn’t that far behind.

If you listen to Bill Bennett, B.C.’s Minister of Energy, building the $9 billion Site C dam will have virtually no impact on B.C.’s food security.

The valley to be flooded, he says, amounts to little more than marginal land for grazing cows and is infrequently used at that. “The current annual value of the crops from the portion of the valley that would be inundated is but $220,000,” Bennett said during a debate in the provincial legislature last fall.

But Bennett knows better than that. Not only is the quality of farmland that is at risk of being flooded among the most fertile in the province, but the amount of farmland that would be permanently destroyed by the Site C reservoir and related infrastructure is far greater than that commonly reported —a fact that neither the provincial government or BC Hydro does anything to correct.

Media reports have referred to the potential loss of roughly 3,000 hectares of farmland. But that is not what is spelled out in documents filed by BC Hydro with a joint federal-provincial panel that reviewed the environmental impacts of the dam. As revealed on DeSmog Canada by investigative reporter Sarah Cox, those documents show that up to 12,000 hectares of farmland could be at risk from the Site C hydroelectric project.

A true accounting of the farmlands that will be lost due to the dam includes not just those lands that will immediately be flooded by the reservoir, but lands that subsequently erode or destabilize and collapse into the manmade lake, lands that are paved over when portions of the existing highway that will be flooded by the reservoir are rerouted, and other lands used to complete dam construction.

Soil scientists say that just a fifth of the lands that could be wiped away by the dam are capable of growing enough fruits and vegetables to feed one million people.

If the remaining four-fifths of those lands (which are less fertile, but still productive) are factored in, the benefits to British Columbians and neighbouring Albertans are markedly greater.

All of this is to be sacrificed on the altar of more made-in-B.C. “clean energy.” Not mentioned by the province or BC Hydro, however, is the embedded energy costs of the foods we eat and how those costs could rise once Site C is built.

Every container of mixed organic greens, every bunch of asparagus, every flat of strawberries, every cantaloupe imported from California to Vancouver travels roughly 2,000 kilometres. All of these fruits and vegetables and much more can be grown in the Peace River valley, which at 1,200 kilometres distance from Vancouver is far closer to the province’s biggest market than anything grown in the Golden State.

“This land is our green grocer. This land is our Plan B for the province in terms of nutrition and health,” Wendy Holm, a professional agrologist, resource economist and former president of the BC Institute of Agrologists says of the Peace River valley. “To cover these soils with water for a dam . . . is criminal on a public policy level.”

What concerns Holm and others is that significant and permanent deletions of prime agricultural land appear close at hand in the Lower Mainland as well. Ironically, the deletions will set the stage for increased greenhouse gas emissions as more cars are encouraged to move into and out of Vancouver over the proposed $3.5 billion toll bridge that would replace the Massey Tunnel. Emissions would further increase as more diesel-burning ships move up and down the south arm of the Fraser River.

Long-time Richmond councillor Harold Steves says the provincial government’s surprise decision of a few years ago to scrap expanding the Massey Tunnel and opt to build a bridge instead is intimately tied to proposals by Port Metro Vancouver to expand operations on the river. The net effect of both projects will be a further and significant loss of prime farmland.

“Any environmental assessment of the George Massey Tunnel replacement bridge must consider the intended consequences of constructing the bridge,” Steves said in a written submission to B.C.’s Environmental Assessment Office, which is reviewing the proposed bridge. Steves, who as an NDP MLA in the early 1970s helped to draft the original recommendations to create the ALR, went on to say that the proposed bridge “will have a dramatic impact” on accelerating port developments on the Fraser River, which in turn will have devastating consequences for local farmlands.

“The loss of 3,000 acres of farmland the Port will use as backup lands is irreplaceable and will have a major effect on food prices and food security for Metro Vancouver residents. An environmental assessment is entirely inadequate if it is primarily confined to the transit corridor.”

Steves might have added that any environmental assessment that fails to address climate change, and in particular how climate change may exacerbate food security in the region, is flawed further still.

In December 2014 a document published by the BC Agriculture and Food Climate Action Initiative noted that farmlands in Fraser Delta are among the most important agricultural assets in the province. This is due both to the richness of the lands in question and their proximity to major markets.

So fertile are the delta’s lands that in Richmond, Delta and Surrey alone 14 per cent of all farm sales in the province are generated on just 2.2 per cent of B.C.’s farmland. It is lands like these and the people who farm them — lands that are a shining beacon of what we can do here at home to better prepare ourselves for a more food-secure world — that are directly at risk in the face of bridge developments and port expansions.

But the province’s transportation policy choices aren’t the only risk such lands face. There is mounting concern that climate change itself may pose the biggest mid-term to long-term risk to such lands. It comes as no surprise that this troubling fact is mentioned nowhere in the Speech from the Throne because to do so would once again raise questions about what, exactly, the province is doing when it comes to ensuring our food security.

The biggest climate change-related threat to the Fraser delta’s lands is, of course, floods and sea level rise. We have dikes along the seashore and the banks of the Fraser River for just such reasons.

The December 2014 Climate Action Initiative Report, which received funding from both the federal and provincial governments, noted that since 1899, global sea levels have risen roughly 20 cm. In the Fraser River delta projections are that by the end of this century a combination of rising sea levels and subsiding delta lands could result in a further overall increase of 1.2 metres.

“The rise in sea level means that there will be an increasing risk of coastal flooding during high tide and storm surge events, particularly if the diking systems are not upgraded to protect against higher water levels,” the report concludes.

The report goes on to warn that the sizeable costs of raising the dikes to protect against such an eventuality is to be borne by affected municipalities. That’s because in 2004 the provincial government offloaded such responsibilities onto local governments, a move that could cost Metro Vancouver alone $9.5 billion.

In an irony that will escape no one concerned about food security, if the funding is eventually found to raise the dikes it will actually result in increased farmland losses. You cannot more than double the height of the existing 3-metre high dikes, which is what the province has told the municipalities to do by the end of the century, without widening them considerably. And widening them means eating away at any farmlands adjacent to the existing dikes.

In the Throne Speech’s sunny prognostications about food security there is simply no room for such doom and gloom.  

The result is an embarrassment, a speech that makes light of one of the most pressing challenges all societies on earth face in light of climate change: Where do we safely and reliably get the food we need to feed present and future generations? Surely that question ought to inform where we put finite public dollars when it comes to infrastructure projects. Where do we make investments that both solve pressing problems such public transportation and low or zero carbon energy needs while simultaneously boosting food security?

Six years ago, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternative’s B.C. office, as part of its multi-year Climate Justice Project with the University of B.C., released Every Bite Counts: Climate Justice and BC’s Food System. The report offered an 11-point roadmap for creating a more robust, socially just food network in the province, the first recommendation of which was to:

"Develop a provincial climate and food planning framework. A top priority is a rethink of B.C.’s food system to be more just, resilient to climate impacts, and sustainable in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. The framework should build on food planning initiatives underway in Metro Vancouver and other parts of B.C., and should set targets and timelines for self-reliance, food system GHG emissions, hunger and nutrition."

The report also called for protecting and expanding the Agricultural Land Reserve and immediately ceasing any further “removals” from the ALR.

If anything, the report’s recommendations are even more germane today than they were six years ago.

Since its publication, our government has promoted policies that threaten to increase greenhouse gas emissions while simultaneously undercutting our ability to feed ourselves.

Judge for yourself whether such public policy choices border on criminality.

This article originally appeared on Policy Note.

Photo: Beth Steiner helps bag lettuce at her parents market garden stand in the Peace Valley in summer 2015. The Steiners grew everything from corn to watermelons in the valley on land that will be flooded if the Site C dam is built.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Over the past four decades, B.C. taxpayers have footed a multi-million dollar bill for BC Hydro to purchase prime Peace Valley farmland in anticipation of building the Site C dam.

In 2012, the latest year for which figures are available, BC Hydro owned almost 1,000 hectares of Peace Valley farmland that would be affected by Site C, an area the size of two and a half Stanley Parks.

BC Hydro declined to reveal how much money it has spent buying farmland in the Peace Valley, but one report says the crown corporation shelled out $6.3 million on agricultural land purchases in the valley in the 11-year period from 1970 to 1981.

BC Hydro’s 2012 holdings included 740 hectares of farmland in the Agricultural Land Reserve and 250 hectares of farmland outside the ALR. In 2012, the crown corporation owned more Class 1 to Class 3 farmland within Site C’s “Project Activity Zone” than all the individual farming families combined. BC Hydro has also purchased an unknown number of hectares of farmland outside Site C’s “Project Activity Zone.” 

Peace Valley farmers say BC Hydro’s ownership of some of the valley’s best farmland, coupled with a 1957 flood reserve, has discouraged local farmers from growing much more than hay, wheat, canola and forage crops, which require far fewer investments than fruit and vegetable production, even though the valley has among the province’s most fertile soils, capable of growing a wide array of produce.

Ross Peck, a Peace Valley farmer who raises horses and grows wheat and canola on land that will be flooded by Site C, says farmers have been discouraged from spending money on irrigation or equipment that would allow them to diversify agricultural production.

“We’ve been in a holding pattern with our properties, not wanting to put much in the way of investment into them,” says Peck.

As a result, the Joint Review Panel that examined Site C’s impacts concluded that the valley’s contribution to B.C. agriculture was negligible and that only $22 million worth of crops would be lost during the predicted 100-year lifespan of Site C.

When B.C. agrologist Wendy Holm examined agricultural values that would be lost if Site C goes ahead, she calculated that 1,800 hectares of the best farmland on the Site C chopping block could produce enough fruit and vegetables to meet the nutritional needs of one million people a year.

“That’s a conservative estimate,” says Holm, whose work in agricultural economics received a Queen’s Golden Jubilee medal. “We have this breadbasket sitting right there, and it’s closer to Vancouver than [California’s] Central Valley.”

As climate change brings drought to California and other parts of the world, including to the Canadian Prairies, Holm says B.C. will need the 6,500 hectares of Peace Valley farmland that will be destroyed by Site C. An additional 5,900 hectares of valley farmland — more than all the farmland in Richmond — is at risk of being lost to the $8.8 billion dam and its 107-kilometre long reservoir.

“That land, even though it’s not being used now, will be needed in the future,” says Holm. “We could have co-ops of young people up there growing organic fruits and vegetables for British Columbia and the north in a heart beat.”

More than one-third of B.C.’s vegetable imports are from California, including 95 per cent of broccoli imports and 34 percent of lettuce imports. The drought means that British Columbians can soon expect to pay 34 per cent more for fruit and vegetables, according to a VanCity study that says broccoli alone could fetch seven dollars a pound by 2019.

The jump in food prices has already begun; in November Statistics Canada reported that over the past year our fresh fruit prices jumped by thirteen per cent, vegetables by fourteen per cent and meat by five per cent.

Despite the northerly location of the Peace Valley, its farming potential rivals that of the lower Fraser Valley, according to Vancouver soil scientist Eveline Wolterson. The valley contains some of the richest soils in the province and its unusual east-west orientation means that it receives more hours of summer sun than the Fraser Valley, compensating for a shorter growing season. Milder winters than in the Okanagan broaden the range of crops that can overwinter in the Peace.

“It’s counter intuitive,” says Wolterson, describing the Peace Valley’s growing climate as “equal, if not slightly better, than in the lower Fraser.”

Unlike California and other farming regions that are expected to continue to suffer from drought, agricultural production in the Peace Valley will benefit from global warming.

Modeling by University of Victoria scientists shows that climate change will reap a noteworthy increase in the number of frost-free periods and growing days in the Peace. In BC Hydro’s words, “a significant improvement in climatic capability for agriculture is predicted” for the Peace River Valley.

The climate change-induced changes will be so pronounced in the Peace Valley that a BC Hydro technical memo says that Class 2 and Class 3 farmland in the Site C flood and erosion zones would become Class 1 farmland, further enhancing the valley’s agricultural capability.

The valley’s rich soil and ideal growing climate have long given it an international reputation for high crop yields.

Third generation Peace Valley farmer Colin Meek recently won a 2015 yield challenge put on by seed company Dekalb. Meek topped the competition elsewhere in the B.C. Peace region and in Alberta’s Peace region when he grew 58 bushels of canola per acre on a field next to the Peace River. The highest yielding area of that field will be eradicated by Site C floodwaters, along with access to the field. The same field also falls within BC Hydro’s “Stability Impact Zone” and faces potential destruction when the banks of the Peace River crumble as the reservoir fills.

“I came back to work on the family farm from the oil patch because I realized that I’ll never be able to eat oil, drink liquefied natural gas, or breath electricity, but that I can help feed the world and clean the air with the food I grow,” Meek wrote in a December 2015 letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau which discussed the agricultural potential of the Peace Valley and asked Trudeau to stop Site C.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The provincial and federal governments have issued an environmental approval certificate for the Site C dam despite acknowledging it will cause significant adverse environmental effects.

“Those effects are justified in the circumstances,” says the decision statement signed by Leona Aglukkaq, Canada’s minister of environment.

The province must still decide whether to proceed with the 1,100-megawatt project based on an investment decision, expected by the end of this year.

“The final decision still has to go through the cabinet, so we’ll still be working to convince them it’s not the best decision,” said Andrea Morison of the Peace Valley Environment Association, a group that has fought the dam for decades.

The $8 billion project would be the third dam on the Peace River and would be located seven kilometres from Fort St. John, B.C.

The dam has been opposed by local farmers, ranchers and the Treaty 8 First Nations because it will flood 87 kilometres of the Peace River, impacting wildlife and flooding 30,000 acres of farmland, including an area the size of the city of Victoria within the Agricultural Land Reserve.

West Moberly Chief Roland Willson has already vowed to challenge the decision in court and has said the province can’t have both the Site C dam and liquefied natural gas (LNG) development, which requires gas from Treaty 8 territory.

The environmental assessment certificate is subject to 77 conditions, including establishing a fund of $20 million to compensate for lost agricultural lands and activities.

In May, a federal-provincial Joint Review Panel issued its report on Site C. The panel was ambivalent in its findings, saying both that the dam could provide cheap power but also that the costs needed to be examined further and that it’s not clear that the power will be needed on the timeline provided.

“The Joint Review Panel considering the dam’s impacts determined that they are so significant that only an ‘unambiguous need’ for the power would justify them. And BC Hydro did not demonstrate such a need,” said Karsten Heuer, president of the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative (Y2Y). “We don’t understand the basis on which the B.C. and federal governments could issue their approvals.”

Y2Y has argued that the Site C reservoir would seriously impede wildlife movement in the region.

“The Peace River Valley is located at the narrowest width of the Yellowstone to Yukon region and the existing Williston Reservoir already is a major blockage to wildlife movement,” Heuer said.

The joint review panel’s report included a recommendation to refer the project for review by the independent B.C. Utilities Commission, saying the panel didn’t have the time or resources to comment on the cost of the project.

“All British Columbia Hydro ratepayers should be concerned about that,” said Gwen Johansson, mayor of the District of Hudson’s Hope.

The panel also found that the province has failed to look at alternatives to the Site C dam for the past three decades. New maps released this month indicate B.C. has enough low-impact geothermal energy to power the entire province. 

Read DeSmog Canada's 12-part series on the Site C dam.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

At a time when B.C.’s politicians are considering flooding the Peace Valley for the Site C hydroelectric dam, a new project by the Canadian Geothermal Energy Association says the province could be sitting on a figurative gold mine of power with low environmental impact.

“The low level of effort is surprising, especially if it results in a plan that involves large and possibly avoidable environmental and social costs,” the panel wrote.

The Site C joint review panel recommended that, regardless of the decision taken on Site C, that BC Hydro establish a research and development budget for the engineering characterization of geographically diverse renewable resources, such as geothermal.

“If the senior governments were doing their job, there would be no need for this recommendation,” the panel added.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

More than four out of five respondents to a public opinion poll released Wednesday believe that B.C. farmland — like forests and water — is a vital public asset.

In addition, 82 per cent of those responding also indicated that “selling out the [Agricultural Land Reserve] ALR is a failure of leadership and a betrayal of the public trust.”

As many as 76 per cent of those taking part in the poll said the ALR protects farms, valleys and greenspace for wildlife habitat and recreational enjoyment.

Laws protecting the ALR should be strengthened or maintained, according to 71 per cent of respondents.

The poll — BC Public Attitudes Toward Agriculture and Food 2014 — also showed 58 per cent of respondents believed “there are no acceptable reasons for removing any more farmland from the Agricultural Land Reserve anywhere in B.C.”

The province-wide online poll was sponsored by the Real Estate Foundation of British Columbia and the Vancouver Foundation. Carried out by McAllister Opinion Research, the survey canvassed 1,704 B.C. residents aged 18 and over between July 17-29. The sample is considered accurate to within ±2.36 per cent, 19 times out of 20.

The two foundations said they commissioned the study to inform discussion and decisions on the future of the ALR, a provincial land-use zone that protects farmland and land with potential to be farmed. The ALR currently makes up 5 per cent of B.C’s land base.

Pollster and president of McAllister Opinion Research, Angus McAllister, told DeSmog Canada that British Columbians have always been supportive of the ALR.

"Support for maintaining or even expanding the Agricultural Land Reserve is very high, especially among older voters,” McAllister said. “However, this support is really nothing new.”

“B.C. voters have always expressed strong support for the ALR, regardless of political stripe.”

He added, “what is striking this time however, is the strong linkage between public discomfort with changes in the ALR and rising concerns about food security.”

McAllister said concern over contaminated food imports plays a role in local support for B.C. farmland and food production. “Concerns about…food products imported from countries like Mexico and China are higher than I've seen in 15 years,” he said. “Concerns around the food supply are hard-wired to some very basic survival instincts, and that is never something to ignore."

The survey was conducted after Bill 24 — The Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act — was passed in the B.C. Legislature in May. Essentially, Bill 24 split the 40-year-old ALR into two zones.

Zone 1 consists of the Fraser and Okanagan Valleys and southern Vancouver Island, an area representing about 10 per cent of the original ALR. According to the Liberal government, decisions in Zone 1 will continue to be made on the basis of the original principle of preserving agricultural land.

Zone 2 covers the rest of B.C., the government says, where growing seasons are shorter and there are lower value crops. In Zone 2 “decisions will now, in addition to the original principle, include additional considerations to provide farmers with more flexibility to support their farming operations.”

Critics have pointed out that Bill 24 threatens critical farmland by opening up previously protected areas to non-agricultural uses, including oil and gas development.

In August farmers from the Kootenay region demonstrated outside the B.C. legislature, saying they hadn’t been consulted on the changes.

Wendy Holm, a professional agrologist with 40 years experience in public policy and agricultural politics told DeSmog Canada Bill 24 “opens the door for Site C,” a controversial megadam project that will impact 13,000 hectares of farmland in the ALR if approved.

With the changes made under Bill 24, “the land reserve will be considered toothless,” Holm said.

“There’s tremendous potential in the north,” she added. “There’s enough land to produce fresh fruits and vegetables for a million people.”

Among those organizations criticizing the passage of Bill 24 was the BC Food Systems Network.

“We are, of course, deeply disappointed in the passage of Bill 24 and this closure to the huge outcry from the B.C. public to protect farmland in our province,” Abra Brynne, BC Food Systems co-chair, said in a statement.

Farmland advocates fear changes from Bill 24 will increase the price of farmland for young farmers and will also increase the removal of viable farmland for commercial, industrial and real estate development, the statement said.

“This would result in reduced capacity for provincial food security in the face of climate change, as well as increased reliance of imported food, concerns over safe and sustainable agricultural practices in other jurisdictions, and increased food prices due to rising transportation costs.”

The poll released Wednesday also showed that respondents identified, when asked about the priority uses for land in British Columbia, “natural freshwater systems” (83 per cent), closely followed by “farming and growing food” (81 per cent).

It also showed that 80 per cent of respondents were concerned about dependence on other countries for our food security. In addition, 73 per cent said the ALR is a cornerstone of food security and the B.C. economy.

In a media release accompanying the poll findings, Jack Wong, CEO of the Real Estate Foundation of BC, said local, sustainable food systems are a priority issue for the foundation because of the link between food security and community well-being.

“With challenges such as development pressure on agricultural land and changing weather patterns, it is of vital importance to have forward-thinking policies that protect land for growing food, now and for future generations.” Wong was quoted as saying.

Kevin McCort, CEO of Vancouver Foundation, said the survey demonstrates that British Columbians believe strongly in safeguarding our farms and green spaces to ensure long-term health, well-being and resilience in our communities.

“The Agricultural Land Reserve is a vital public asset contributing to our ability to reliably produce fresh food, preserve local farmland and freshwater supplies, and to support local B.C. farmers and ranchers,” McCort said.

Image Credit: B.C. farmland by Kris Krug via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

In 1920, Renee Ardill’s grandparents arrived in the Peace Valley with nothing more than a milk cow, saddle horse and team and wagon. They chose a piece of land on the banks of the Peace River, built a cabin, hunted moose and grew what they could.

“They built everything from the ground up,” Ardill told DeSmog Canada. “Imagine being able to pick your piece of land and make what you wanted out of it.”

The Ardill family has been here ever since, running a cattle ranch on the banks of the Peace. But their days could be numbered if BC Hydro’s Site C hydroelectric dam gets the go-ahead this fall from the provincial and federal governments.

[view:in_this_series=block_1]

The panel tasked with reviewing the project found BC Hydro failed to prove that the energy from Site C would be needed within the timeframe set out in the proposal. The panel’s report, released in May, also found that there are cost-effective alternatives to building a new dam, but the province has failed to adequately investigate options such as geothermal.

If built, the dam will flood 107 kilometres of the Peace River and its tributaries — impacting 13,000 hectares of agricultural land, including flooding 3,800 hectares of farmland in the Agricultural Land Reserve, an area nearly twice the size of the city of Victoria.

That flooding would put the Ardill’s ranch underwater. Thirty-three other farm operations would also be affected by the project, according to the panel’s report.

“This is the best piece of land in the world. My grandpa picked a good spot. And I’m damned if I’m gonna give it up,” Ardill says. “Everybody now lives in the artificial world. People go to the grocery store and get their vegetables and they come wrapped in plastic. That’s not how it is. It comes from somewhere.”

Loss of Farmland in Peace Valley ‘Almost Tragic’: Agriculture Expert

Agriculture experts say the Peace Valley is home to some of the best land in the province, with the ability to produce fresh fruits and vegetables for a million people, according to agriculture expert Wendy Holm.

“It’s not about what’s economic today,” Holm told DeSmog Canada. “This is land that forms part of the commons. This is part of the natural capital of our country.”

Yet, the joint review panel’s report (PDF) found that loss of agricultural land would not be significant in the context of B.C. or western Canadian agricultural production, while acknowledging “this loss would be highly significant to the farmers who would bear the loss, and that financial compensation would not make up for the loss of a highly valued place and way of life.”

Eveline Wolterson, a soil scientist who gave expert testimony during the review process, says the panel missed the point in its analysis by looking at the current use of land (largely forage production) instead of the potential of the land.

“The reality is that the reason that land is in forage production is because most of it is owned by BC Hydro or it’s in the flood reserve, which means that at any time BC Hydro could expropriate those lands,” Wolterson told DeSmog Canada. “That has discounted the value of that land, as well as discounted the amount of money landowners are willing to invest in a piece of property.”

Wolterson points to the Okanagan Valley’s now booming wine industry as an example of how the panel has failed to think of the future.

“In mid 1970s, the likelihood of agricultural use of those [Okanagan] lands would likely have been low. But because we saved those lands and left them, the use of those lands is extremely high right now,” she says.

The productivity of the agricultural land in the Peace River Valley is unique not only in the region, but in British Columbia and Western Canada, Wolterson said.

Take potatoes, a main production commodity in the Lower Mainland, for example. In the Lower Mainland, yields are about 10 tonnes per hectare. In the Peace Valley, yields are 30 per cent more at 13 tonnes per hectare due to more daylight and ideal conditions in the east-west valley, Wolterson says.

“The area that they are proposing to flood is approximately equivalent to the agricultural land base in Delta, so it’d be like flooding all that land, taking it right out of production,” she says. “It’s almost tragic.”

The David Suzuki Foundation recently released a report looking at the economic benefits of keeping the Peace River region’s remaining farmland and nature intact beyond the market value of agriculture in the region.

The Peace Dividend found that the ecosystem services (such as providing clean air, clean water, carbon storage and habitat for wildlife) provided by farmland and nature in the Peace River Watershed are conservatively worth an estimated $7.9 billion to $8.6 billion a year.

Cantaloupes, Corn Grow in Peace Valley’s Unique Microclimate

Ken and Arlene Boon, owners of Bear Flats Farm and log home builders, know the value of the valley all too well. They regularly see mule deer, moose, elk, wolves and black and grizzly bears on their land.

The Boons host the annual Paddle for the Peace on their farm, where they can grow everything from corn to cantaloupes due to the unique microclimate in the valley. If the dam is built, they will lose their best farmland and their home.

In their submission to the panel, the Boons wrote: “As we write this submission, we feel like a prisoner trying to save his life by writing a statement that will hopefully save him from the death penalty.”

Ken Boon is fighting to save his farm from being flooded by the Site C dam. Photo: Emma Gilchrist.

Standing in their garden eating fresh peas, they talk about the five generations of their family who’ve lived on this land.

The 1,100-megawatt Site C dam has been on the books for 30 years and was turned down by the B.C. Utilities Commission in the 1980s. This time around, the B.C. government has exempted the project from a utilities’ commission review, despite calls from local politicians and the joint review panel itself to have the project reviewed by the independent regulator.

“Life has to go on for us, because grandpa was told in the ’70s that he was going to have to move because they were going to build it,” Arlene says. “He passed away without seeing the project happen. I’m sure that our grandkids will be having the same discussion.”

Five generations of Arlene Boon’s family have enjoyed Bear Flats Farm. Photo: Emma Gilchrist.

But she hopes her grandchildren won’t have to fight this fight again.

“Our push this time is to try kill it once and for all,” Arlene says.

Solar panels on the Boons property feed energy back to the electricity grid.

“You can generate electricity many ways, but you can only grow food one way,” Ken says. “What we can’t afford to do is to be flooding farmland any more.”

Ken Boon showcases his solar panels, which feed electricity back to the B.C. grid. Photo: Emma Gilchrist.

The original Bear Flats Schoolhouse is on the Boons’ land, along with the Bear Flats Museum, which houses 5,000-year-old arrowheads and family heirlooms.

“It’s impossible to replace when you have this kind of history,” Arlene says. “I don’t want to be a millionaire. I just want to be happy on this land.”

For Esther and Poul Pedersen, it’s a similar story. Their 65 hectare (160-acre) property is right above where the Site C dam would be built and is within the zone that could slough into the reservoir.

Located just five minutes outside of Fort St. John, it’s the perfect place to raise horses and give riding lessons.

“It’s really hard to replace,” Esther says. “We feel that the valley is precious.”

To mitigate the lost value of agricultural economic activity, BC Hydro proposed a $20 million agricultural compensation program to support projects in the region, in addition to farm mitigation plans for directly affected agricultural operations.

But as Esther looks out over the Peace River Valley, she — like so many others — says what her family has is irreplaceable.

Esther Pedersen walks to a lookout on her land above the proposed site of the Site C dam. Photo: Emma Gilchrist.

If you read its report closely, it appears the joint review panel did — at least on some level — grasp that sentiment. In coming to its conclusion that the earning potential of the Peace River Valley would appear to be highest as a reservoir, the panel notes it was unable to take into account “heartbreak (for residents who would be displaced from the land of their dreams).”

Question is: how do you put a price on heartbreak?

Back on the Ardill ranch, Renee just put $30,000 into fixing up an old barn.

“I think you have to go forward or give up. You can’t just sit there,” she says. “You have to act like you’re going to keep going or you give up. And I’m not very good at giving up.”

Renee and Dick Ardill at their ranch on the banks of the Peace River. Photo: Don Hoffmann

Ardill’s story is showcased on the StopSiteC website, which aims to gather petition signatures from citizens across the province. She wishes more British Columbians could see her part of the province.

“When you look at it on a map, it doesn’t look like all that big deal. But when you actually stand on the ground and look at it, it is a big deal,” she says.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Fourteen hours. That’s roughly how long it takes to drive the 1,220 kilometres between Vancouver and Fort St. John, B.C. If you drove the same distance straight east, you’d be approaching the Saskatchewan border.

So it's not exactly surprising that the Peace River Country, which spans the Alberta-B.C. border and includes the cities of Fort St. John, Dawson Creek and Grande Prairie, feels a world away to the 3.4 million people — 73 per cent of B.C.’s population — who live in the Lower Mainland or on Vancouver Island.

A September 2013 poll commissioned by BC Hydro found only four in 10 British Columbians had even heard of the Crown utility’s $7.9 billion proposal to build a third hydroelectric dam on the Peace River.

But the decision about whether or not to build the Site C dam stands to directly affect all British Columbians — from the implications for our electricity bills to the flooding of some of our province's most valuable agricultural land.

With that in mind, today DeSmog Canada is launching an in-depth series looking at the issues at play in the pending decision on the Site C dam — from electricity demand and economics to First Nations concerns and alternative sources of energy.

“This project doesn’t just affect us on the ground, it’s going to affect the pocketbook of every British Columbian,” said Liz Logan, Treaty 8 First Nations Tribal Chief.

That’s because the dam, the largest infrastructure project in Canada, would be built with public money — about $1,700 of public money for every man, woman and child in British Columbia, to be specific.

Largest public expenditure in B.C. history?

"Site C is not an ordinary project,” said the report of the joint review panel, released two weeks ago. “At $7.9 billion, it might be the largest provincial public expenditure of the next 20 years.” [view:in_this_series=block_1]

While concluding that the Site C dam is the best alternative for providing B.C. with reliable cheap power, the panel said BC Hydro has not proven the power is needed in the immediate future — and the dam would cause significant adverse effects on the environment and wildlife, First Nations and farmers.

“Justification must rest on an unambiguous need for the power,” the report stated.

The panel stopped short of recommending for or against the project — a decision that now rests in the hands of the federal and provincial governments, which have until Nov. 8 to make up their minds on the project.

For residents of the Peace Valley, the report release was a bit like déjà vu. This is the third time Site C has been on the table.

The dam was first turned down in the ’80s by the independent B.C. Utilities Commission, which said BC Hydro hadn't demonstrated that the power was needed or that the dam was preferable to all other sources of power. In the ’90s, BC Hydro suspended the project again because the need for power was still considered insufficient.

This time around the provincial government has exempted the project from the oversight of the B.C. Utilities Commission.

What are the alternatives?

We're living in an era where major hydrodams are being decommissioned all over the world, including just across the border in Washington State where the Elwha Dam was recently removed.

So it's fitting that the joint review panel’s report noted that BC Hydro has not looked closely enough at alternatives, such as geothermal energy.

“The panel concludes that a failure to pursue research over the last 30 years into B.C.’s geothermal resources has left B.C Hydro without information about a resource that BC Hydro thinks may offer up to 700 megawatts of firm, economic power with low environmental costs,” it says.

If approved, the dam would flood 107 kilometres of river, impacting 13,000 hectares of agricultural land — including flooding 3,800 hectares of farmland in the Agricultural Land Reserve, an area nearly twice the size of the city of Victoria.

“There’s enough land to produce fresh fruits and vegetables for a million people,” says Wendy Holm, a professional agrologist.

The project would also add more strain to the Peace, a region that already has two mega hydro dams, 16,267 oil and gas well sites and 8,517 petroleum and natural gas facilities.

Peace Break important gateway for wildlife, early explorers

The area is more than just a haven for industrial activity though. Because the Peace River is the only river to break the barrier of the Rocky Mountains between the Yukon south almost to Mexico, it has provided a gateway for wildlife and people for thousands of years.

At Charlie Lake Cave in the Peace Country, there’s evidence of human occupations spanning 11,000 years, making it one of just a handful of archaeological sites in North American that date back more than 10,500 years.

Thousands of years later, First Nations signed a treaty with the government of Canada, known as Treaty 8, which promises they can continue their way of life, including rights to hunting, fishing and trapping. As such, the Treaty 8 First Nations have raised serious concerns about the Site C dam.

When Sir Alexander Mackenzie became the first European known to reach the Peace River area in 1792, he wrote in his journal that the valley was so rich in wildlife that in some places it looked almost like a barnyard.

Fast-forward another 200 years and the Peace Break has been recognized as an international conservation priority for the movement of endangered populations of woodland caribou and grizzlies. 

All of these factors raise serious questions about whether Site C is the best option to meet the electricity needs of British Columbia.

With so much hanging in the balance, DeSmog Canada will be taking a closer look at the issues surrounding the Site C dam proposal in the coming weeks.

We hope you’ll follow along, chime in below in the comments section and share with your friends and family — because while this project may be out of sight for many British Columbians, it’s far too consequential to be put out of mind.

Photo: A section of the Peace River Valley that would be flooded if the Site C dam were built, by Graham Osborne.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The proposed Site C dam on the Peace River is the best alternative for providing B.C. with reliable cheap power, but BC Hydro has not proved that the power is needed in the immediate future, says a much-anticipated report by the federal Joint Review Panel.

The report does not give a definitive yes or no answer to the planned 1,100 megawatt dam, which will flood about 5,500 hectares of land, but includes 50 recommendations on issues such as threats to endangered wildlife, health effects for those living in the area and destruction of First Nations heritage sites.

If approved, project construction would begin in 2015 with completion projected for 2023.

The ambivalent report says B.C. will need new energy and new capacity at some point and “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.”

However, “the panel cannot conclude that the power of Site C is needed on the schedule presented.”

[view:in_this_series=block_1]

There are also important environmental, social, economic, health and heritage costs, panel members concluded.

Risks to fish and wildlife include harmful and irreversible effects on migratory birds and species such as the western toad and short-eared owl.

“Justification must rest on an unambiguous need for the power and analyses showing its financial costs being sufficiently attractive as to make tolerable the bearing of substantial environmental, social and other costs,” it says.

High costs yet alternatives not considered

The report notes that BC Hydro has not looked closely enough at alternatives such as geothermal energy.

“The panel concludes that a failure to pursue research over the last 30 years into B.C.’s geothermal resources has left B.C Hydro without information about a resource that BC Hydro thinks may offer up to 700 megawatts of form, economic power with low environmental costs,” it says

The estimated $7.9 billion cost raised questions, but panel members said they do not have the information, time or resources to look at the accuracy of cost estimates and recommended that, if the project proceeds, costs should be examined in detail by the province’s independent regulator, the B.C. Utilities Commission (BCUC).

The Liberal government previously exempted Site C from BCUC scrutiny and, although the recommendation was applauded by groups such as the Peace Valley Environment Association, Energy Minister Bill Bennett immediately threw cold water on the idea.

“This project has been poked, prodded and analyzed for the last 35 years,” he said

“I think subjecting it to another review after all the years it has been studied, is not a good use of public money.”

Bennett believes BC Hydro will keep to its budget, despite reports showing mega-dams around the world often run 50 per cent over budget.

BC Hydro has included $1.52 billion for inflation and contingencies, he said.

“Of course with large projects like these, there’s no guarantees, but with such a large contingency fund and such a large fund for inflation and all the work that BC Hydro has done, I think we can have confidence in that final number,” he said.

The proposal must gain the approval of the federal and provincial governments and Bennett said he will take a recommendation to cabinet this fall after further environmental and First Nations consultations.

Indecisiveness not all around

Bennett, who said he views the Joint Panel review as “mostly positive,” emphasized that he has not yet made up his mind about the dam, which, if approved, would be the most expensive project built in the province.

“I am right square in the middle of this,” he said.

NDP leader John Horgan said the report shows the Liberal approach to Site C has been reckless and does not have a foundation in the realities of the North American energy market.

“The challenge ratepayers have is they are facing 28 per cent rate increases over the next five years and we have a government proposing to spend $8 billion on power that we may not need, at a time we don’t have the money to spend,” he said.

Former BCUC chair Mark Jaccard, professor in the school of resource and environmental management at Simon Fraser University, said he is impressed the panel tried to address big questions such as climate impact.

“But I was a bit frustrated that the panel waffled so much. I think I wanted them to say yeah or nay,” he said.

It is a difficult decision, because there are compelling arguments on both sides, and politicians will ultimately have to take a stand, but it would have been good to have a definitive opinion from experts who listened to presentations at the hearings, Jaccard said.

“They are trying to say all the things for all the people,” he said.

Signs of optimism

In the Peace Valley, the report is generating some optimism and Andrea Morison, Peace Valley Environment Association coordinator, applauded recommendations that show the panel has significant concerns about impacts.

“It shows the proponent has not fully demonstrated the need for the project and that there are other sources they should be looking at. Another key point is they can’t conclude the accuracy of the cost estimate,” she said.

Morison believes that once Bennett has studied the report he will decide to follow the key recommendation of referring it to BCUC for a cost review.

“One thing we can count on with politicians is that they do change their minds and it’s not solely his decision,” she said.

Hudson’s Hope Mayor Gwen Johansson also wants Bennett to pass the project to BCUC for scrutiny.

“It would be disappointing if he did not follow that recommendation,” she said.

Treaty 8 First Nations Tribal Chief Liz Logan said the core message to government is why build a project that is not needed. Alternative solutions such as wind power or smaller hydro projects must be considered instead, Logan said.

“We are still going to be vocal about it,” said Logan, who hopes British Columbians throughout the province will put pressure on the province.

“This project doesn’t just affect us on the ground, it’s going to affect the pocketbook of every British Columbian,” she said, adding she wants the project’s cumulative effects studied.

Those living in the area that will be affected by the dam see the report as validation of their belief that the adverse effects outweigh any benefits.

Spring is finally coming to the valley, said Ross Peck, a retired guide outfitter whose family has lived in the area since 1924.The grass is greening up, the leaves are about to pop and the valley is full of animals. I saw the first osprey today he said.

If the dam goes ahead, part of his property will be flooded, roads will cut close to his home and Peck believes he would have to leave.

“I don’t think we could sit on our deck and watch them clearcutting for the reservoir,” he said.

Esther Pederson, who would lose part of her farmland and her home to the dam, has little faith in any consultation process.

“The consultation so far has been ‘do you want to sell your farm now or later,’ ” she said.

Armed with the concerns raised in the report, it should be possible to stall approval at least until the next election, Pederson said.

“It could be dragged out forever and the First Nations people are lined up to take the government to court,” she said.

Photo: Peace Valley courtesy of Andrea Morison and Don Hoffmann.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Opponents of the proposed Site C dam are hoping a report from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency panel, to be released Thursday, will emphasize potential environmental damage from the massive dam and persuade the federal and provincial governments that the project should be scrapped.

The report from the Joint Review Panel into BC Hydro’s $8-billion plan to build a dam that would flood 83 kilometres of the Peace River, putting 14,000 hectares of farmland under water, was submitted May 1 to federal Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq and the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office, but there was no obligation to release it to the public for 45 days.

“The fact that they decided to share it just after they got it themselves is a little bit surprising, but we are feeling optimistic and hoping for the best,” said Andrea Morison of the Peace Valley Environment Association.

The panel’s recommendations, put together after 26 days of hearings, are not binding on government, but are likely to outline issues and possible solutions as well as indicating whether some environmental problems are insurmountable.

“There’s nothing binding, but I think it holds a considerable amount of weight,” Morison said.

The report will be posted on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s website Thursday. The provincial and federal governments must make their own decisions within 174 days, or six months, of the report being issued.

“The province has been very clear from the get-go that they support Site C,” said Joe Foy, Wilderness Committee’s national campaign director.

However, if the federal government decides it can’t support the project, Site C would probably die, Foy speculated.

“It’s clearly a matter that would require the federal OK. There are massive impacts that are clearly in the federal arena,” he said.

In February, the federal government rejected the New Prosperity Mine near Williams Lake, despite it having provincial support, after concluding the mine would have environmental effects that could not be mitigated.

There is speculation that even within the B.C. Liberal party there are doubts about whether Site C is necessary, although Premier Christy Clark has made it clear she is a supporter and much of the last election campaign was built on proceeding with Site C as a key building block of developing a liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry.

However, Energy and Mines Minister Bill Bennett has consistently been more cautious and said shortly after the election, when revelations were made about BC Hydro’s new capital costs and construction cost overruns, that he wanted to make sure that government would not be facing cost overruns with Site C. Because BC Hydro is a Crown corporation, cost overruns would be borne by taxpayers.

“Bill Bennett frequently seems to be keeping the door open on Site C,” Foy said.

“He told us in January that he had a team of researchers looking at alternatives to Site C.”

Bennett also recently told the Globe and Mail that there could be another level of screening on Site C costs. Government previously decided to circumvent the Crown corporation’s regulator, the B.C. Utilities Commission, which would have looked at financial issues. The environmental review is not expected to look closely at cost, necessity or practicality.

Questions have also been raised about whether LNG plants would find hydro power too expensive and would be more likely to use gas to feed their massive electricity needs.

Paul Kariya, executive director of Clean Energy BC — an industry trade association that represents independent power producers, including gas generators — recently told DeSmog Canada that the major LNG companies are looking at powering their plants via natural gas.

“Times have changed. We’ve been through an era of building big dams,” Kariya said. “When you build a dam, you get this one massive lump of power and that’s not the way that energy is planned for anymore.”

Kariya says independent power producers offer a more incremental approach to meeting demand.

However, even with a report from the World Convention on Dams — which says that projects routinely come in at 50 per cent more than estimated — and mounting evidence that the power produced by Site C is not needed and is likely to be sold at a loss, it is doubtful that the province will back down, said retired federal economist Erik Andersen.

“They are addicted to big photo-op projects,” he said.

“Over the course of the past four decades, the need for a Site C generation facility has been part of the larger and exaggerated demand narrative that BC Hydro has been telling.”

Site C — which gets its moniker from being the third dam proposed for the Peace River — has been on the books since the ’70s. It was first turned down by the independent B.C. Utilities Commission in the early '80s, which said BC Hydro hadn't demonstrated that the power was needed or that the dam was preferable to all other sources of power. In the ’90s, BC Hydro suspended the project again because the need for power was still considered insufficient.

Morison is hoping that, with release of the panel’s report, Site C will start catching the attention of people throughout the province, especially if they learn their Hydro bills are likely to rise beyond the 28 per cent increase already expected over the next five years.

“They need to realize that this is going to cost them,” she said.

— With files from Emma Gilchrist

Photo: The Peace River Valley Near the Halfway River by Tuchodi via Flickr.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Proposed changes to B.C.’s Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) open the door to flooding the Peace Valley, which could feed a million people fruits and vegetables, according to an agricultural expert.

The Site C dam, if approved, would impact 13,000 hectares of agricultural land — including flooding 3,800 hectares of farmland in the ALR, an area nearly twice the size of the city of Victoria.

Bill 24 would split B.C.'s ALR into two zones. Zone 1 land would continue to be protected for food production, while Zone 2 land could be opened to non-agricultural uses, including oil and gas development.

On Monday, farmers from the Kootenays converged on the B.C. legislature, protesting the changes and saying they hadn’t been consulted. And on Tuesday, 13 soil experts wrote to Premier Christy Clark warning the bill will put at risk some of the province's best farmland.

With the changes, “the land reserve will be considered toothless,” says professional agrologist Wendy Holm, who has 40 years of experience in agriculture economics and public policy. “It opens the door for Site C.”

The Peace Valley falls into Zone 2, which includes the Interior, Kootenay and North regions — despite being capable of growing the same crops as the Fraser and Okanagan valleys (including melons, tomatoes and corn).

“There’s enough land to produce fresh fruits and vegetables for a million people,” Holm says of the Peace Valley. “There’s tremendous potential in the north.”

In a news release, the province said the changes would "provide farmers with more flexibility to support their farming operations" and "help farmers generate increased incomes and better support food production."

The ALR was created 40 years ago to preserve the province’s shrinking farmland in the face of rapid development pressures. Typically, to remove land from the reserve, approval is required from the province’s Agricultural Land Commission (ALC), which aims to conserve lands for food production.

But in December 2013, Energy and Mines Minister Bill Bennett wrote a letter to BC Hydro and the ALC seeking to block the commission’s involvement in the Site C review:

“The province is aware that one of the issues at the [JRP] hearing will be the effect of the project on agricultural land, some of which is within the Agricultural Land Reserve. I am writing to inform you that the government’s current view is that this process should not be duplicated … under the Agricultural Land Commission Act.”

However, the joint review panel assessing the proposal decided to request an opinion from the Agricultural Land Commission anyway — just days before its hearings finished.

“It’s the only large tract of vegetable land that’s not in production we have in the province,” says Holm, who was contracted by the Peace Valley Environmental Association to assess the Site C dam’s impact on agriculture. “We have to bring more land into production to meet our own food security needs.”

B.C. imports 57 per cent of fruits and vegetables consumed in the province that could be grown in the province, according to Holm’s presentation to the review panel.

“It’s not about what’s economic today,” she says. “This is land that forms part of the commons. This is part of the natural capital of our country.”

Holm says food prices are only going up, further increasing the importance of protecting agricultural land. “I think we’re going to see dramatically increasing food prices due to the droughts happening,” she says.

Some of the arable land in the Peace Valley is not currently farmed because the area has been under threat of flooding since the late 1950s, Holm says.

“Without the shadow of the dam, what is happening today would be different,” she says.

The Peace River already hosts two hydro dams — the WAC Bennett Dam, which began operating in 1968 and created the Williston Reservoir, the largest body of freshwater in B.C., and the Peace Canyon dam, completed in 1980.

In the 1980s, the Site C dam was considered by the independent BC Utilities Commission and turned down because the electricity it would produce was too expensive and not needed. In the ’90s, BC Hydro decided to suspend the project again because the need for power was still insufficient. The project may have been turned down by the utilities commission again, but in 2010 the provincial government removed Site C from the commission’s oversight.

The joint review panel is expected to issue its recommendation on the Site C dam in late April.

Photo: Downstream of the proposed Site C dam. Credit: Tuchodi via Flickr.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.