Peace River Valley farmers Ken and Arlene Boon were at a lookout on a neighbour’s property on Sunday when they spotted a fresh landslide at the Site C dam construction site.

Arlene snapped some photos of the latest geotechnical issue to dog the troubled project and posted one on Facebook, with the caption: “just more of the north hill sliding down to the bottom.”

Given that the slide is on the same hill where recent attempts to stabilize the riverbank are encroaching on infrastructure for the $470 million Site C dam workers’ camp, including its water line and parking lot, the couple was not surprised to see the latest slump.

But they are astounded that the NDP government is keeping the public in the dark when it comes to details about geotechnical problems, rising contract costs and other major issues plaguing the largest publicly funded infrastructure project in B.C.’s history.

“It seems that under the NDP there’s a bigger cloak of silence,” Ken Boon, president of the Peace Valley Landowner Association, told DeSmog Canada.

“They’re just going to sit on all this bad news. It’s out of sight and out of mind.”

A landslide at the SIte C construction site, April 15, 2018. Photo: Arlene Boon

No public access to detailed Site C information

As soon as the B.C. Utilities Commission completed a fast-tracked review of the Site C project last November, the door slammed shut on public access to detailed information about the $10.7 billion project on the Peace River in northeast B.C.

Normally, the independent utilities commission — acting in the public interest — would provide ongoing oversight during project construction.

But the former BC Liberal government changed the law to remove the BCUC from scrutinizing the Site C dam, which the commission had previously rejected as an energy option.

Instead of fully restoring the commission’s watchdog role, the NDP government announced in December that it would create a new Site C “Project Assurance Board” as part of a turnaround plan to contain escalating project costs.

The new board has been meeting since January, even though its composition has not been finalized, according to an email from the B.C. energy ministry.

Yet the public has heard nothing about the board’s findings, even though a major Site C contract — to build the project’s generating station and spillways — was recently awarded for $350 million more than documents (accidentally released last fall) revealed that BC Hydro had budgeted.

Marc Eliesen, the former CEO of BC Hydro, Ontario Hydro and the Manitoba Energy Authority, pointed out it has been nearly half a year since the NDP government announced it would set up the new board, and that no information has been forthcoming about the apparent cost overrun on the major contract for the generating station and spillways.

“To me this further confirms that there is no independent overview and that BC Hydro continues to run the show,” Eliesen told DeSmog Canada.

BC Hydro directors will help oversee Site C project

According to the email from the energy ministry, BC Hydro directors and government representatives will sit on the project assurance board, meaning that it is not an independent body.

The composition of the board is being finalized by BC Hydro and the government, and members will be announced “in the coming weeks,” the ministry said.

“We are taking the time to conduct a broad search to find highly-qualified, independent external advisors with expertise in engineering, construction and management of large, complex infrastructure projects to join BC Hydro directors and representatives from government on the new Project Assurance Board,” the email said.

“Finding the kind of specialized skills, experience and independence from BC Hydro that we are looking for in the independent advisors is taking some time, especially considering the size and complexity of Site C and the long-term commitment required for a project that wont be completed until 2024.”

Both Eliesen and David Vardy, the former chair and CEO of Newfoundland’s public utilities board, said they have never heard of a provincial government creating a “whole new body” to oversee a major energy project like Site C.

“I think that the BCUC should be doing this oversight,” Vardy said in an interview.

“The logical thing to me seems to be to use an existing board that has a similar kind of mandate. The BCUC is concerned with rates and the reliability of power. Why wouldn’t they be the best people to exercise this oversight and particularly to ensure quality control?”

Eliesen said the BCUC showed through the Site C inquiry that it has both “the knowledge and expertise to undertake such a ongoing review.”

“The facts clearly reflect that both the government and BC Hydro do not want that monitoring by the independent commission.”

Meanwhile, in Labrador and Manitoba…

In Newfoundland and Labrador, a $37.5 million Commission of Inquiry is underway — including a forensic audit — to determine where things went sideways with the hugely over-budget Muskrat Falls dam, whose $12.7 billion price tag will add $1,800 a year to the annual hydro bills of every household in the province.

Vardy said while the commission can pinpoint what went wrong and make recommendations, it can’t address what he calls the “democratic deficit.”

“Which is what happened in our governance system that allowed us to go down this road without correction,” Vardy said in an interview.

In Manitoba, where the over-budget Keeyask dam is also causing hydro rates to soar, the former head of the province’s Public Utilities Board is among those calling for a forensic audit to examine why things went so wrong.

Graham Lane, who chaired the utilities board from 2004 to 2012, said the situation in Manitoba is so dire that he and others are calling for an immediate halt to construction of the Keeyask dam, even though up to $4.5 billion in sunk costs have been incurred.

That compares to about $2 billion in sunk costs for Site C.

“This story isn’t going to end very well,” Lane, a retired chartered accountant, said in an interview. “It’s never too late to stop.”

Manitoba hydro customers now face compounding eight per cent rate increases each year for six years in a row as a result of over-spending on the Keeyask dam and related transmission lines.

In a paper Lane wrote last month, for an inquiry into the Keeyask dam fiasco launched by an independent MLA, he pointed out that knowledgeable observers saw the “slow-motion disaster” coming more than a decade ago.

“Hard questions need to be asked about governance, political oversight, the influence of engineering contractors, the competence of executive managers, the advice provided by consultants, and the role of labour unions in this train wreck,” Lane wrote.

“Special attention also needs to be placed on the lack of action by the Premier, his cabinet and advisors to grasp the immensity of the problem and take appropriate actions.”

There are many similarities between the Muskrat Falls, Keeyask and Site C dams, Lane told DeSmog Canada.

He said politicians in Manitoba “put blinders on and just kept going.”

“No-one knew how to stop. You could see what was happening. You could see the losses building.”

Lack of independent scrutiny of Site C ‘mind-boggling’

Asked if the findings of the Site C Project Assurance Board will be made public, the energy ministry replied that “progress” on the Site C dam will continue to be documented in quarterly reports to the BCUC available on BC Hydro’s Site C website.

Yet the hamstrung BCUC lacks the muscle to question basic information contained in the reports, much less to dig into issues like why the approved design for Site C’s generating station and spillways recently underwent an overhaul so significant BC Hydro must request an amendment to the project’s environmental assessment certificate, a process that will take months.

The BCUC also has no authority to ask questions about why the latest Site C quarterly report states that in October BC Hydro engaged the consulting firm Ernst and Young to “provide independent oversight to the Project Assurance Board for the Site C Project going forward.”

The BCUC did not submit its final report on Site C until November 1 and the NDP government did not announce its final decision about the project until December.

The latest report, which covers the period to the end of December, also says the Site C dam will provide energy for “more than 100 years,” contradicting earlier government statements that the project will generate 70 years of power.

The report goes on to list major Site C project organizational changes, including an array of new director positions, noting that the “scale and complexity of operations” has increased” and also that project oversight has been centralized.

Eliesen called the lack of independent scrutiny of Site C dam construction, including of the quarterly reports filed with the BCUC, “mind-boggling.”

A spokesperson for the Peace River Hydro Partners, the international consortium that holds Site C’s largest civil works contract, referred questions about the landslide captured on camera by the Boons to BC Hydro.

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.

Days away from a final decision on Site C, Peace Valley landowners have launched a “Home for the Holidays” campaign featuring photographs of families who would lose their homes to the $9 billion dam and appealing to the NDP government to terminate the project.

Ken and Arlene Boon, who appear in one of the Christmas card-like photos standing on the steps of their third generation farmhouse overlooking the Peace River, said 70 valley residents are waiting “on pins and needles” to find out if the project will be cancelled, a decision Premier John Horgan said he will announce before the end of December.

“It’s tough,” Ken Boon told DeSmog Canada. “I know there are a lot of people right now who are expecting the worst but we are definitely not throwing in the towel considering what we’ve all been through.”

“We haven’t focused on Christmas,” said Arlene Boon, a grandmother of four. “It’s not important right now.”

Ken and Arlene Boon in a 'Home for the Holidays' postcard circulated on social media.

The Boon’s farmhouse, built by Arlene’s grandfather, was expropriated last December for a Site C highway relocation but the former Liberal government gave the couple permission to remain in their home until after last May’s provincial election.

The new NDP government subsequently granted the Boons what Arlene called a “stay of execution,” allowing them to live in their home while the watchdog B.C. Utilities Commission (BCUC) conducted an independent review of the project and pending a final decision on Site C.

The review disclosed among many other issues that Site C is over budget, falling behind schedule, burdened by financial and legal issues with its major civil works contractor, and beset with geotechnical difficulties — only two years into a nine-year construction timeline.

“I just find it really hard to believe that the government could make any decision other than to terminate Site C,” said Ken Boon, president of the Peace Valley Landowner Association that represents 70 valley residents who would lose property to Site C’s reservoir.

“I find it frustrating that the lobbyists have come out in full force: paid lobbyists who get access to the key ministers and Horgan,” Boon said, referring to recent efforts by construction trade unions to discredit some of the findings of the BCUC report.

Caroline Beam, who appears on one of the “Home for the Holidays” social media posts with her husband and three sons, said waiting for a final decision has been extremely stressful for her family and is taking its toll on the emotions of her children, aged 7, 11 and 13. They would lose their riverside home near Hudson’s Hope to Site C.

#SiteC #bcpoli pic.twitter.com/epIeg1CJcL

— PVEA (@SavePeaceValley) December 5, 2017

“They have these little wish pyramids and I peeked in and sure enough out of all the things my kids could be wishing for at Christmas time they are wishing for Site C to be stopped,” Beam said in an interview.

“They love their home, they love the valley, they love the river…We have the most amazing home. We could not possibly ask for more. We live in paradise,” said Beam, a school teacher whose great-grandparents lost their home and ranch to the W.A.C. Bennett dam in the 1960s.

“It’s pretty fresh and raw right now. I’m pretty much just doing the best I can to hold it together…If [Site C] moves forward right now, what does that say about our system and our politicians? How do you make your child grow up not cynical?”

Farmers Colin Meek and Leslee Jardine, whose home was expropriated earlier this year for a Site C highway relocation, said the past several years have been very taxing for their family and they are “just patiently waiting” for the final decision. They were also allowed to stay in their house pending a final verdict on the project.

As with other affected landowners and First Nations, the couple expects to learn about the outcome through the media and not directly from a BC Hydro or government representative.

Meek and Jardine, like other families in the Cache Creek area, have had to contend not only with the loss of their farmland but also with disruptive clear-cut logging — in their case, of a spruce and poplar forest that fringed their property — that took place earlier this year for the new $530 million highway route.

“The worst part of it is that it’s changed how we live,” said Jardine. “We can see our house from the highway now and we can hear the traffic.”

“I’m hoping they do the right thing and cancel it. I’m trying to be positive.”

The Peace Valley Landowner Association and two Treaty 8 First Nations have repeatedly asked BC Hydro for the detailed documents about why the new highway route was chosen over a second shortlisted route. The centreline of the new route would cut through the Boon’s farmhouse, the Meek farmhouse, the Boon’s family run campground, and a First Nations cultural area.

BC Hydro has declined to release the detailed documents that outline the relative merits and costs of the two shortlisted routes, saying that the chosen route will affect less agricultural land and offer more passing opportunities for drivers.

Even if Site C is approved, the Cache Creek highway relocation will still be a matter of contention.

B.C.’s Environmental Assessment Office ruled in late August that BC Hydro’s design for the new highway bridge at Cache Creek is out of compliance with its Site C environmental assessment certificate. The BCUC review highlighted the Cache Creek bridge and highway route as a potential source of additional cost overruns.

The EAO also ruled that BC Hydro must consult with First Nations on mitigation for a cultural area, sweat lodge and grave sites impacted by the proposed highway route. The West Moberly and Prophet River First Nations have said that the desecration of gravesites is “not acceptable” in their culture and that the only feasible mitigation is to move the highway route.

The First Nations also stated that a rerouting of the highway would not alleviate their opposition to Site C, which they say is an unjustified infringement of their constitutionally protected rights under Treaty 8. If the project goes ahead, they say they provincial government will face a $1 billion lawsuit.

The landowners said they are circulating the Christmas-themed cards on social media because some of the debate about Site C has focused on the optics of construction workers receiving “pink slips” before Christmas.

“It’s not about having a job, it’s about having a home,” said Beam. “The valley is irreplacable.”

Yesterday BC Hydro released its Site C jobs figures for October, showing that 400 workers were dismissed after it published widely-circulated figures for September.

According to the Peace River Hydro Partnership, the main civil works contractor for the project, almost 100 workers were laid off in October and early November. The layoffs of 30 people in early November were “part of a series of planned scheduled lay-offs” over the winter, according to a statement the partnership emailed to DeSmog Canada.

BC Hydro has still not stated how many days or weeks a worker must be employed to be included in monthly jobs statistics, and whether or not dismissed workers are counted in Site C employment statistics in any given month.

The October jobs tally shows 1,974 people employed by Site C. About 475 are either “engineers” or on BC Hydro’s Site C project team. Contract engineers account for an additional 210 jobs.

Image: Ken Boon at his home in the Peace Valley. Photo: Garth Lenz | DeSmog Canada

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.

An independent review of the Site C hydro dam was pegged as the solution to a long and bitter battle over the fate of the $9 billion project championed by B.C.’s former Liberal government.

The bombshell review gave the new NDP government plenty of new ammunition to terminate Site C, which would flood the traditional homeland of Treaty 8 First Nations in the Peace River Valley and destroy dozens of designated heritage and archeological sites, including indigenous burial grounds.

But at the eleventh hour, with a final Site C decision expected as early as next week, the government seems poised to green light the project in the face of pressure from unlikely bedfellows that include construction trade unions, NDP party insiders, Liberal MLAs and BC Hydro.

Dozens of Peace valley families wait on tenterhooks to find out before Christmas if they will lose homes, property and up to 12,500 hectares of valley farmland to the dam’s reservoir, which would flood 83 kilometres of the heritage Peace River and 45 kilometres of its tributary rivers and creeks.

“It’s tense,” said Ken Boon, president of the Peace Valley Landowner Association, which has been fighting Site C since 2010, when the former Liberal government announced it would proceed with the dam, then billed as a $6.6 billion project.

“Everybody’s trying to read the tea leaves.”

The independent review by the watchdog B.C. Utilities Commission revealed in November that Site C is already behind schedule and over budget, troubled by financial and legal issues with its major civil works contractor, and beset with unresolved geotechnical problems — only two years into a nine- year construction timeline.

The review also disclosed that BC Hydro customers could receive a Site C bill for more than $10 billion to produce electricity that could be generated more cheaply by other clean energy sources such as wind and geothermal.

“To me, it’s a slam dunk,” former BC Hydro CEO and President Marc Eliesen told DeSmog Canada.

“What the commission has come forward with in terms of their recommendations are such that no sensible, rational person could take any other decision than to terminate Site C,” said Eliesen, who is also the former Chair and CEO of Ontario Hydro and the former Chair of Manitoba Hydro.

Eliesen said he watched recent efforts by the Allied Hydro Council and others to discredit some of the BCUC findings with considerable dismay.

“I’ll be totally frank with you, and I hope I’m 100 per cent wrong, but I don’t think so.

I believe the fix is in and the government will continue the construction of Site C.”

A Political Bargaining Chip for the Greens?

How much the B.C. Green Party — whose three MLAs could tip the balance of power in a minority government — is willing to risk its political future to bring down the government over Site C is now a multi- billion- dollar question.

Veteran political observer Martyn Brown, who was former Premier Gordon Campbell’s chief of staff, said the Greens won’t topple the government over Site C because they have their eye on the big prize of proportional representation to replace B.C.’s first-past-the-post political system.

Site C does not require legislative approval to proceed, but the Greens could threaten to bring down the government on a vote of non-confidence on the next provincial budget if the NDP supports the project.

“I don’t think there’s a snowball’s chance in hell that they’d vote against the NDP if the NDP goes forward with Site C,” Brown said in an interview.

“They’re banking on the fact that, if the NDP approves Site C, they will campaign in the next provincial election in 2021 saying we’re the only ones that will stand up for the environment and we’re the only ones that opposed Site C. It gives them a wedge issue in 2021.”

Site C Approval ‘Beginning of the End’ for NDP/Greens, Says First Nations Leader

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs (UBCIC), warned that allowing Site C to proceed would reap serious political consequences not just for the NDP but also for the Greens.

“In the event that the NDP caves into pressure from the trade union movement it will do irreparable damage to their political credibility and will pretty much represent the beginning of the end of future support for the NDP in the province of British Columbia,” Phillip said in an interview.

The UBCIC launched an “Anyone But Christy” campaign during the provincial election last spring, urging people to vote for the NDP or the Green Party and pointing to what it called former Premier Christy Clark’s “obsessive pursuit” of large scale resource development projects that are environmentally damaging and harmful to First Nations.

The Assembly of First Nations and B.C.’s First Nations Summit also oppose Site C on the grounds that it is unconstitutional and violates Canada’s commitment to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Calling the impending Site C decision a “watershed moment” for the province, Phillip emphasized that Site C is a “much broader issue than indigenous peoples’ rights and interests and the application of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”

The majority of British Columbians supported the NDP and the Greens in the last provincial election hoping to stop “both the Site C dam and the Kinder Morgan TransMountain pipeline project,” Phillip said.

“Clearly the BCUC report revealed that this BC Liberal sponsored Site C dam project is indeed a colossal boondoggle in terms of its viability.”

Phillip also cautioned that the question of whether Site C violates treaty rights has not yet been tested in the courts.

Two Treaty 8 First Nations, the West Moberly First Nations and the Prophet River First Nations, warned the NDP government recently that it will face a billion dollar lawsuit over treaty violations if Site C proceeds.

The Blueberry River First Nations has already launched a lawsuit in B.C. Supreme Court suing the Province for breaching Treaty 8 due to rampant industrial development, including Site C, that means members can no longer practice their traditional way of life.

Asked about Phillip’s comments, BC Green Party leader Andrew Weaver said in a written statement that his party continues “to do everything we can to push the NDP government to cancel Site C,” noting that the BCUC review “presents ample evidence that shows that cancelling Site C is the right decision for British Columbians.”

A former BC Hydro chair says “the fix is in” on #SiteC https://t.co/NpW4az7OPx

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) December 1, 2017

Nature of the Attacks on the BCUC Report

Questions about the credibility of the BCUC report centre largely on two issues — the need for Site C’s electricity and how $2 billion in sunk costs and an estimated $1.8 billion in remediation costs would affect hydro rates.

Most of the sunk costs were amassed as former Premier Christy Clark attempted to push Site C “past the point of return,” a move questioned by Crown corporation experts who suggested the relationship between BC Hydro and the former Premier’s office was too cosy for good governance.

Eliesen and other energy experts, including U.S. energy economist Robert McCullough, said Site C’s sunk costs could be amortized over many decades to avoid the ten per cent rate hike brandished by project supporters as a primary reason to continue with Site C, which Eliesen called “utter nonsense.”

Rate hikes will be considerably higher if Site C proceeds because most of its rising cost is not yet on hydro’s books, the experts warn, pointing to the Muskrat Falls dam as an example.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, huge cost overruns at the $12.7 billion Muskrat Falls dam will add an average $1,800 to the annual hydro bill of every household even though the dam’s electricity is not needed in the province.

The Allied Hydro Council, representing construction trade unions that have donated generously to the NDP, claimed that Site C’s electricity will be needed to fuel electric vehicles, among other uses.

The same assertion was also made by Clark in her post-election flip-flop about the need for Site C’s power, which the BC Liberals first said would go to California, then to LNG plants, and then possibly to Alberta to offset coal-fired power.

But Eliesen dismissed the electric vehicle claim outright, pointing out that the BCUC considered future energy needs in its deliberations, including from electric vehicles, after receiving testimony from dozens of energy experts.

Eliesen also observed that an energy expert who came out swinging for Site C last week on behalf of construction trade unions did not present testimony to the BCUC for scrutiny, choosing instead to present his views directly to the media at a well-attended press conference.

At the press conference, energy expert and lawyer Jim Quail said that Site C would be needed to “keep the lights on” in B.C., a claim also made by Clark during the spring election campaign and debunked by Eliesen and others, who said it has no factual basis whatsoever.

“It is beyond me,” said Eliesen. “I’m totally shocked and surprised by what is taking place giving this very incredible, brilliant report presented by an independent regulatory commission who worked exceptionally hard in a limited timeframe to provide the kind of evidence that no-one was aware of.”

Harry Swain, chair of the Joint Review Panel that examined Site C for the provincial and federal governments, also said he is floored by continuing attacks on the credibility of the BCUC report, including a letter that deputy finance and energy ministers sent to the commission questioning its findings.

“When the entrenched bureaucracy tried in a snarky letter to poke holes in their work, BCUC replied with an absolutely solid demonstration that the officials hadn’t even read the report,” said Swain.

“The language is careful, measured, non-inflammatory, and it just demonstrates that either the officials hadn’t read anything at all or they were trying their best to discredit the solid work of the utilities commission. It’s quite disgraceful.”

Swain broke convention and began to speak out against Site C in 2015 after he said the former BC Liberal government “cherry picked” key conclusions from the panel he chaired, taking them out of context and using them to justify the project.

The panel concluded that B.C. did not need Site C’s energy in the timeframe presented by BC Hydro.

The BCUC report also disclosed that BC Hydro has been systematically over estimating energy demand, an issue previously highlighted by the Commercial Energy Consumers Association of B.C.  

B.C. has such a glut of electricity that BC Hydro pays independent power producers not to produce electricity.

Swain said new generation capacity can be built if and when demand emerges.

“We have other sources available to us and a $10 to $12 billion dollar investment in new capacity that won’t be needed for at least 20 years is the height of fiscal foolishness. In love, in life and in finance, timing is everything.”

Site C economics have always been “crazy” said Swain, “and with each succeeding bit of news over the last several years they have just become worse and worse.”

Brown also said all indications are that the NDP will approve Site C. “I think there’s very little chance that they’ll stop it given the $4 billion it would cost in sunk costs and the remediation costs to cancel it.”

He said the NDP is banking that Site C will be a “distant issue” in four years when voters return to the polls. “Those people that want to see Site C terminated will still rather have an NDP government than a Liberal government.”

“There will be a very, very angry contingent, I don’t want to diminish that,” said Brown. “It will put new pressure on the NDP to be environmentally conscious in other areas and it will especially ramp up the debate on Kinder Morgan.”

Eliesen said the BCUC report, coupled with the lessons learned from the unfolding Muskrat Falls fiasco, show that continuing with Site C “is such a calamity that you will have a white elephant.”

“If we continue, you’re going to have the same kind of thing taking place x number of years from now which is taking place in Newfoundland where a judicial inquiry is taking place,” said Eliesen. “What went wrong and why did it go wrong?”

“My point is if you don’t fix it you own it. And if the NDP continue with it they will own it.”

Image: B.C. Premier John Horgan. Photo 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.

A much-anticipated preliminary report from B.C. Utilities Commission (BCUC) has raised numerous questions about the Site C dam, underlined the extent of missing and out-dated information and pointed out unknowns surrounding the largest and most expensive infrastructure project in B.C.

The 205-page report on the economic viability of the $8.8 billion dam was released only hours before the midnight Wednesday deadline, reflecting the tight timeframe given the panel of commissioners when the NDP government referred the controversial project to the utilities commission in early August.

The utilities commission is the independent body responsible for overseeing BC Hydro and ICBC, both crown corporations that use public funds. However, former premier Christy Clark decided to go ahead with the $8.8-billion plan to build a third dam on the Peace River without a review by the utilities commission.

That means the current review is the first-ever independent examination of the costs and demand for the project. Ohhhh, the anticipation!

However, let us warn you: the preliminary report asks a lot of questions, but draws no final conclusions.

The commission will issue its final report Nov. 1 and it will then be up to government to decide whether to forge ahead, mothball or scrap the project.

For now, the BCUC found the project is on time and on budget for its 2024 completion date and could start producing power one year early, but it is uncertain whether that will continue.

So far, $2.1 billion has been spent on the dam and abandoning the project would cost another $1.1 billion, but that does not include the cost of replacing the power that Site C would generate.

In the case you don't want to plough through 205 pages, we’ve answered five burning questions about the preliminary report.

What is the bottom line?

It is not yet possible to say whether the dam can be completed on time and on budget and whether alternative power sources can provide similar power at a lower cost — which are among questions the commission has been asked by government to answer.

The problem is that, despite a 900-page submission to the commission from BC Hydro, numerous gaps remain and BCUC has posed 73 questions to BC Hydro that need to be answered before decisions are made.

The questions range from an assessment of whether a vital river diversion will go ahead by 2019 (a delay will set back the entire schedule by a year) and why power for several LNG projects are included in BC Hydro’s forecast, to how it has calculated the cost of supplying wind, solar and geothermal power and, with alternative energy costs dropping, why some figures are way out of date.

Those questions mean BC Hydro will have to come up with an entirely new document, according to West Coast energy consultant Robert McCullough, who made a submission to the BCUC on behalf of the Peace Valley Landowner Association and Peace Valley Environment Association.

“They have been pretty much asked to re-file their entire justification and that is a tremendous job,” said McCullough, who is not confident that BC Hydro can come up with all the answers in the short time frame.

“Frankly, at the moment, they might be better off not answering the questions or hoping the political process will bale them out,” McCullough said.

BC Hydro did not respond to DeSmog Canada’s questions.

Does that mean that BCUC might not be able to answer government’s questions by November 1?

Not according to BCUC chair David Morton, who said, in an e-mailed response to questions from DeSmog Canada, that he is confident the panel will be able to give its final report on time.

“Some of the questions are complex and there are inherent uncertainties, such as load forecasting, the economy going forward, possible fuel switching from natural gas to electric, uptake on electric vehicles, the cost of alternative energy sources and so on,” he said.

That means some answers might give a range of possibilities and, in that case, the panel will explain the assumptions and the cost implications for each scenario, Morton said.

Harry Swain, who headed the joint federal-provincial government review of Site C, is impressed at the depth of questions being pursued by BCUC.

“The utilities commission is doing a better job than I thought they might,” he said.

However, sticking to the terms of reference given by government is a problem, according to Swain.

“They are relying on BC Hydro’s 2016 load forecast and, if that is wrong, as I have argued all along, the rest falls by the roadside,” he said.

What That 205-Page BCUC Report on the Site C Dam Actually Said https://t.co/oisSthmJdM #bcpoli #SiteC #hydro @LavoieJudith @BCUtilitiesCom pic.twitter.com/2mBJgeXfoN

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) September 22, 2017

Is this report critical of BC Hydro and the information it has given — or not given?

That depends on the viewpoint.

To Ken Boon, president of Peace Valley Landowner Association, who will be evicted from his home on the north bank of the Peace River if the dam goes ahead, the BCUC interim report amounts to an indictment of BC Hydro.

The report challenges most of BC Hydro’s justifications for the project going forward including power consumption, alternative power costs and financing, Boon said.

“This has truly got to be the beginning of the end for Site C. There is no doubt about it,” he said.

McCullough also believes the BCUC report amounts to intense criticism of BC Hydro.

“The document continuously criticized BC Hydro for failing to provide relevant and supportable materials,” he said.

“This is not the sort of reception you would like to see from a regulatory commission. In my experience, if this happened to me I would be seriously considering a new job offer.”

Swain is interested in how BC Hydro will respond to criticism as the submission appears to repeat what the utility has said all along, rather than coming up with new, concrete answers on load forecasts, over-estimation of power needs and financing assumptions.

“This game is far from over,” he said.

However, Morton said BC Hydro has worked hard on its submission and gaps in information are not surprising.

“It is typical in the BCUC’s review process for a panel to identify further information required to complete its findings. The panel appreciates the work BC Hydro has done to provide the initial submission and looks forward to receiving further information,” he said.

Once the additional information is filed will British Columbians have all the background information about Site C?

Not quite, some of BC Hydro’s information is being kept confidential as it is considered commercially sensitive.

“The panel found the approach to confidential information in the submissions reflects a reasonable balance between providing proper protection to commercially sensitive information while allowing some access with the appropriate safeguards,” Morton said.

But for McCullough, lack of transparency has been one of the major problems with Site C from the beginning.

Secrecy makes no sense as utilities share information with each other and sensitive information is usually covered by a simple confidentiality order, he said.

“No it’s not justified. It’s preposterous,” he said.

What happens next?

The BCUC will hold public hearings around the province starting in Vancouver on September 23 and ending in Victoria on October 11. First Nations input sessions will be held in four locations — Prince George, Fort St. John, Vancouver and Victoria — and experts will testify at technical presentation sessions.

“Now it is time for the public and First Nations to have their say,” said Energy and Mines Minister Michelle Mungall in an e-mailed response to questions

“Once we have the final report, government will consider the advice from the BCUC, along with environmental and First Nations considerations, and make a final decision on the future of Site C in a timely manner.”

Photo: Garth Lenz, Site C dam construction fall 2016.

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.

Sandbags, bales of weed-free straw, crushed gravel and silt fencing are among the extra supplies BC Hydro has stockpiled at the Site C dam construction site to avoid federal fines.

In early January the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency issued BC Hydro with a Notice of Intent to Issue an Order after inspectors found that “no erosion and sediment contingency supplies” were to be found at three sites.

The agency also noted BC Hydro could face fines of up to $400,000 for not meeting the conditions set out in its environmental certificate.

It’s not the first time BC Hydro has been found in contravention of the law. In May, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency found BC Hydro had failed to measure air pollution and threatened BC Hydro with a $400,000 fine.

BC Hydro, in a Jan. 5 letter to the Environmental Assessment Agency, said all measures had been taken to restore the Site C project to a “state of conformity,” and, after studying photographs supplied by BC Hydro, the agency agreed that there was no need to issue the order, which could have resulted in hefty fines.

“The contingency supplies, including hay bales and sandbags, must be on hand to mitigate potential environmental effects, such as those to fish and fish habitat, as a result of construction activities,” said CEAA communications spokeswoman Lucille Jamault in an e-mailed answer to questions from DeSmog Canada.

B.C.’s Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) previously issued three warnings to BC Hydro over pollution, erosion and sediment concerns during construction of the controversial $9 billion dam.

The EAO, after an August inspection, found that “excessive sedimentation is still occurring and the risk of erosion has not been effectively mitigated over much of the project.”

Problems included a landslide that occurred as a result of an overloaded sediment fence, which deposited sediment directly into the Moberly River, a temporary road constructed through a sediment fence that was supposed to protect a wetland even though “less environmentally detrimental options exist,” and plugged culverts.

.@BCHydro Let Off Hook for $400,000 #SiteC Dam Fine… Again https://t.co/E2ANbCGauq @LavoieJudith #bcpoli #cdnpoli #bcelxn17

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) February 16, 2017

On Oct. 18 BC Hydro responded with a two-month plan to address sediment and erosion control and, although no further enforcement action was taken, the problem areas are being monitored.

The B.C. agency also issued two orders on Dec. 22, both of which require action from BC Hydro and its’ contractors.

The first found that BC Hydro was not complying with conditions to conduct amphibian surveys and to protect amphibians on roads adjacent to wetlands and requires a detailed plan to be in place by Feb. 15.

The second order found BC Hydro was not complying with well monitoring requirements and, by January 16, the agency wants a list of all wells within one kilometre of the reservoir and details of the monitoring program.

BC Hydro did not return phone calls from DeSmog Canada, but a story posted on the BC Hydro site on Jan. 7 said that the construction, rather than being “rife with environmental violations,” stands as “a study in environmental best practice for major utility projects.”

Approval of the project, which will flood 83 kilometres of the main Peace River Valley and 35 kilometres of the tributary valleys, came with 150 legally binding federal and provincial conditions and that means the work by contractors is continually being inspected, says the article.

“We took immediate steps to respond in the face of some severe rain events that caused flash flooding and made erosion and sediment control even more challenging. In fact, the precipitation over the May to August 2016 period would be likely to occur only once or twice per century,” it says.

A new erosion and silt control program is in place, with 30 kilometres of silt fencing, nine sediment ponds and 240,000 square metres of the area hydroseeded. Fifteen employees on site are responsible for the erosion and sediment control program.

However, Ken Boon, Peace Valley Landowner Association president, said questions remain about the effects of the construction on the water quality in the Peace River and its tributaries.

“There are ongoing concerns with silt from the project. There are many concerns that have not been addressed with machines working directly in the river and creating silt,” he said.

The in-stream silt monitor appears to be 10 kilometres downstream from where the work is being done, Boon said.

“You have to wonder if that’s why everything seems to stay in allowable limits.”

However, it is difficult for opponents to monitor the work as a public viewing site that was scheduled to be in use last fall will now not be completed until later this year, Boon said.

“I think there were stability problems,” he said.

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.

BC Hydro plans to expropriate the home of Peace Valley farmers Ken and Arlene Boon before Christmas, following the couple’s refusal to sign over their top class farmland for the Site C dam, DeSmog Canada has learned.

The Boons said that the $8.8 billion dam could still be stopped and they are not budging from their third-generation family home, farmland, garden, greenhouse and workshop to make way for a Site C highway relocation until they are forced to leave.

“We’re at peace with the idea of going to expropriation,” Ken Boon said in an interview.

“Arlene and I agreed we didn’t want to sign anything over. It just goes against every bone in our bodies. They’ll have to take it from us.”

BC Hydro will seize the Boon’s farmhouse and 130 hectares of their land on or around December 16, according to the couple. They say they will be permitted to stay in their farmhouse as BC Hydro’s tenants until May 31, three weeks after the B.C. provincial election, and to farm their riverside fields for three more years even though BC Hydro will own the land.

“I don’t think they wanted to kick us out during the election campaign,” said Boon.

In return, the Boons reluctantly agreed to sign a legal document stating that they will not interfere with construction of the highway, which will go right through the farmhouse built by Arlene’s grandfather and also through the farmhouse of a neighbouring property.

Both homes are high enough that they would not be affected by flooding from the Site C reservoir, which will inundate 107 kilometres of the Peace River and its tributaries, a distance almost the equivalent of driving from Victoria to Nanaimo.

“It just sticks in your craw to sign any sort of agreement with BC Hydro…[but] their schedule is to expropriate this land. That will happen no matter what we do,” said Boon, who is the president of the Peace Valley Landowners Association, representing 70 landowners who will be affected by Site C.

Ken and Arlene Boon’s farm. The Peace River can be seen in the distance. Photo: Garth Lenz/DeSmog Canada

BC Hydro says it must acquire the Boon’s property, along with seven other properties in the Bear Flat/Cache Creek area, for the first segment of a six-phase, 30-kilometre Site C highway relocation that it previously reported will cost $530 million.

An alternate route, shortlisted by BC Hydro and requested by First Nations and Peace Valley landowners, was not selected because it would cost more and affect more agricultural land, according to an information sheet that BC Hydro spokesperson Dave Conway provided to DeSmog Canada.

No detailed information about the relative merits and costs of the two routes has been released by BC Hydro or the B.C. Transportation Ministry, despite requests by the Peace Valley Landowners Association and NDP Transportation Critic Claire Trevena.

The Boons made the difficult decision to face expropriation after they heard October 11 from the lawyer they share with the seven other Cache Creek landowners that BC Hydro required their properties to be signed over by October 31, two months earlier than the previous deadline BC Hydro had named.

Until March, the Cache Creek landowners believed they would be able to stay in their homes for at least several more years because the Peace River Valley, known for its rich farmland, wildlife, old-growth forests and numerous archeological and historic sites, is not slated to be flooded until 2024.

The new acquisition deadline was subsequently moved to November 4, then to noon on November 10, and finally set at 1 p.m. November 21, according to the Boons, leaving landowners scrambling under intense pressure to settle the terms for handing over their properties.

Boon said the couple did not want to give BC Hydro the opportunity to announce and post on social media that “all the landowners have signed agreements” when they are selling their houses and farmlands “under duress.” He said he understands why other Cache Creek landowners decided to sign over their properties to BC Hydro rather than risk the financial and personal consequences of going to expropriation.

“All landowners know that no matter which route they choose, they will lose their property.”

A second Cache Creek landowner, contacted by DeSmog, said they were unable to comment publicly on what they called a stressful decision “under duress” to sign over their farmland and could not be named publicly because they are still negotiating with BC Hydro on other matters.

Ken Boon on his Peace Valley farmland. Photo: Garth Lenz/DeSmog Canada

Clara London, who is Arlene Boon’s sister and owns farmland adjacent to the Boons, said she and her husband declined to sign over seven hectares of land to BC Hydro and are also facing expropriation. “Our loss is actually pretty small compared to Ken and Arlene,” London said in an interview, adding that the process has been “very frustrating” and has placed a great deal of stress on her family.

“We don’t agree with the project in general.”

Earlier this year, BC Hydro spokesperson Dave Conway told DeSmog Canada that BC Hydro has the legal authority to expropriate land but prefers to “come to a negotiated settlement with people.” Conway also said that BC Hydro cannot discuss negotiations with individual landowners.

Notice of BC Hydro’s new timeline for property purchases arrived the same month that the Boon’s farm became the focus of the Yellow Stakes campaign, led by the West Moberly and Prophet River First Nations to raise money for their on-going court cases against Site C. Almost 400 stakes have been pounded into the ground beside the Boon’s farmhouse, along the centerline for the planned highway re-alignment.

For the Boons, expropriation comes with greater financial and personal risks than signing over their land, says Ken Boon. “We do worry about getting hung out to dry. But at the end of the day there was no way we were going to sign it over to them.”

The Boons, along with four other Peace Valley residents, have the added stress of being named in a civil law suit filed last January by BC Hydro when they were among dozens of people involved in a winter camp at the Rocky Mountain Fort site, in an effort to prevent clearcutting of the protected old-growth forest surrounding the Class 1 B.C. heritage site.

The on-going suit, which accuses the Boons and others of conspiracy, intimidation, trespass and “intentional interference with economic relations by unlawful means” and which seeks damages for BC Hydro, has been called a matter of grave concern by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association.

The Boons said the agreement they signed with BC Hydro to allow them to stay in their home until the end of May means they can continue to voice their strong dissent to Site C, but it prohibits them from “interfering” with the project by blocking work on the highway or engaging in civil disobedience elsewhere.

BC Hydro Plans to Expropriate Farmers’ Home for #SiteC Before Christmas https://t.co/NrU6EB8vNa #bcpoli @StopSiteC @sarahcox_bc

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) December 7, 2016

The expropriation will strip the Boons of 130 hectares of land, leaving them with full ownership of 33 devalued hectares of land flanking the new highway and 25 hectares of land over which BC Hydro will place a statutory right of way, according to the couple. They say they will be left with only four hectares of farmland since most of their remaining land will consist of hillside native grassland and wildlife habitat. After May, the Boons plan to move to a cabin they own, only metres from the new highway route.

“We feel better right now that we’ve made the decision,” said Arlene Boon. “It’s going to be a roller-coaster, I know.”

In response to questions from DeSmog Canada about the Cache Creek property acquisitions and potential expropriations, Conway emailed a link to a BC Hydro information sheet. Conway said in another email that BC Hydro is unable to release a current cost estimate for the highway work because it has “not yet entered the procurement stage.”

BC Hydro informed the Boons and other landowners that it needed to acquire their properties by October 31 to avoid destroying songbird nests when trees are logged and vegetation removed for highway construction, a rationale that leaves the Boons incredulous.

“It’s not a valid excuse,” said Ken Boon, pointing out that the couple’s farmhouse is not in the way of trees nor in the Cache Creek valley bottom slated for clear-cutting.

Logging of active songbird nests is prohibited under the B.C. Wildlife Act and the international Convention on Migratory Birds that Canada has signed to protect songbird species, which are in sharp decline around the world.

Arlene Boon said she was taken aback to read news stories this past week saying that the B.C. government is trying to drive demand for electricity because of a surplus.

B.C. Premier Christy Clark is again talking about shipping power from the Site C dam to Alberta, underscoring once more that Site C’s power is not needed in British Columbia.

“It just makes your blood boil. It reinforces what we’ve been saying all along,” said Arlene Boon. “They don’t have a need for this project and are still looking for someone to buy the power.”

“To lose low elevation bottomland farmland to electrify the oilsands does not seem very ethical. To think that we’re going to lose our home and land to that is very disturbing to us.”

Image: Arlene Boon picks from her fall harvest of swiss chard. Photo: Garth Lenz/DeSmog Canada

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.

As the cost of producing energy from wind and sun continues to drop, power produced by the Site C dam will be an increasingly bad bargain, according to leading U.S. energy economist Robert McCullough.

In a report comparing the cost of nuclear, hydro and natural gas energy with power produced by solar and land-based wind farms, McCullough concludes that renewables cost less than half the cost of hydro.

“While there would be costs associated with suspending or halting construction of Site C, I remain of the view that BC Hydro could save $112.74-million on an annual basis by instead building wind and solar. This amount could be higher if tax credits for renewable energy were considered,” McCullough wrote in a cover letter to Ken Boon, Peace Valley Landowner Association president.

The initial report by McCullough looked at the economics of closing the aging Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in Southern California. A major factor in the decision to close the plant was that nuclear, like coal and hydropower, no longer compared favourably with increasingly low natural gas prices and renewable energy.

“While natural gas prices plummeted over the past decade, the cost of renewables also fell — sharply — as economies of scale in wind and solar dominated the market,” McCullough wrote.

McCullough, an expert on power utilities in the Pacific Northwest and principal of an energy policy research company based in Portland, then looked at conclusions drawn in the Diablo Canyon report in relation to Site C.

If BC Hydro put a halt to Site C construction it would free up more than $112 million annually to spend on other pressing infrastructure projects or BC Hydro could write a cheque for $57.84 to every B.C. household every year, McCullough suggested.

The provincial government has said that wind and solar are not viable options because they are intermittent, rather than firm sources of power.

But McCullough noted that hydroelectric energy is also subject to monthly and annual variability.

“As penetration of renewables increases, the portfolio effect of many different projects has reduced the overall variability of output very significantly in recent years,” he said.

McCullough concluded that the 2016 cost of producing solar energy would be $59 per megawatt hour, while wind would be $72 and Site C almost $84.

Yeowza! Halting Construction of #SiteC Could Save $112-million Annually, Says Energy Expert #bcpoli @LavoieJudith https://t.co/cEuaO6BX0t

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) October 11, 2016

Last year, shortly before construction began on the $9-billion project that will create an 83-kilometre reservoir on the Peace River, McCullough was commissioned by the Peace Valley Landowners Association to take a look at the business case for the project and concluded that BC Hydro had taken liberties with its figures to make Site C look better than alternatives, such as small, independent hydro projects.

That report found that Site C was more than three times as costly as renewables and natural gas and McCullough publicly called Site C an expensive luxury.

The government has stuck to its figures, saying they have been rigorously scrutinized, and has steadfastly refused to send the project to the B.C. Utilities Commission for review.

Ken Boon said in an interview that it should not come as a shock to government that there are cheaper options, but they have insisted on using “trumped up and very optimistic numbers.”

“But even using those figures they don’t compare to using renewables and then what happens when it inevitably goes over budget as always seems to happen with large projects such as hydroelectric dams?” he asked.

“Then there’s the whole problem of building a big white elephant instead of small green projects as and when you need them…Building 1950’s technology in 2016 is not making much sense.”

McCullough’s report looks only at the financial aspects, but the cost also has to be counted in other areas, such as environmental harm and socio-economic problems, Boon said.

A recent analysis from a group of academics at the University of British Columbia found the Site C dam is the most environmentally destructive project ever considered under the federal Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

“This just reaffirms once more that this project needs to go to a robust B.C. Utilities Commission hearing with cross-examination and witnesses under oath. What this report says is that it’s not too late,” he said.

Image: Site C dam construction along the banks of the Peace River. Photo: Garth Lenz/DeSmog Canada 

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.

Peace Valley farmers and outspoken critics of the Site C dam Ken and Arlene Boon say BC Hydro intends to force them from their third-generation family farm by the end of this year even though the dam would not flood their land until 2024.

The Boons received the unexpected news from their lawyer, following a conversation the lawyer had with officials from BC Hydro’s Properties division.

“It was a shocker,” Ken Boon, says. “We didn’t know they wanted us out by Christmas.”

Boon says if they refuse to sell their farm to BC Hydro it will be expropriated for the “re-alignment” of Highway 29 away from the Site C flood zone, a two-year construction project that BC Hydro says must begin in 2017.  

For reasons that have never been explained to the Boons’ satisfaction, BC Hydro intends to route the new highway right through the couples’ farm buildings and home. The highway would also destroy a renovated log house where Arlene’s 81-year-old mother lives.

“Why are we discussing the highway relocation in year one of a nine year project?” asks Arlene Boon. “As a property owner you don’t have any rights. If BC Hydro or Highways want to expropriate you, they will.”

Arlene Boon stands on her property near a BC Hydro highway marker. The highway's centre line is expected to run directly between the Boon's house and the wood shed to its left. Photo: Sarah Cox

Arthur Hadland, a former Peace River Regional District director, says he believes BC Hydro wants the Boons off their land by the end of the year because Ken is the outspoken president of the Peace Valley Landowners Association. The association, which represents 70 landowners in the Peace River Valley, has a court case against Site C, one of four on-going legal challenges against the $8.8 billion dam.

“It’s divide and conquer. The landowners have been a pretty solid group. But just like any organization if you cut the head off you will lose the power. They just want to diminish the power of the landowners,” Hadland says.  

BC Hydro spokesperson Dave Conway says the Crown corporation cannot discuss its negotiations with individual landowners in the Peace River Valley. Conway confirms, however, that BC Hydro is having “conversations” with landowners along a stretch of the valley called Bear Flat/Cache Creek, where the Boons live.

BC Hydro is “moving up the valley” and Cache Creek is “one of the first areas affected by the highway re-alignment,” Conway says.

Asked if BC Hydro will expropriate the Boon’s farm and other nearby farms if owners refuse to sell, Conway says BC Hydro has the legal authority to expropriate land.

“But that’s not the way we like to work. We like to come to a negotiated settlement with people,” Conway said.  

Arlene Boon says there can never be agreement when landowners consider their property to be priceless for reasons other than monetary value.

“We are being forced off. When you are not a willing seller you’re being forced to put a price on something [that] is not for sale and in your mind would never be for sale.”

The Boons say it is curious that BC Hydro said nothing about an end-of-the-year deadline for acquiring land during a March 10 meeting the Crown corporation held with them and about a dozen other Bear Flat/Cache Creek landowners. The couple heard the news from their lawyer less than two weeks after that meeting. 

The meeting aimed to provide landowners with information about the Site C highway re-alignment, which will entail re-construction of 8.5 kilometres of the highway in six different sections and four new bridges across rivers that would be flooded by the dam’s reservoir. The reservoir would stretch for 107 kilometres along the Peace River and its tributaries, almost the same distance as driving from Victoria to Nanaimo.

Last year, 70 Peace Valley landowners affected by Site C asked BC Hydro for a common framework agreement for discussing land acquisition issues, a framework Ken Boon describes as  “a general guideline so that everybody would be treated more or less the same.”

“Hydro said no,” says Boon.

Following the surprise news from their lawyer that they may have to relinquish their farm by the end of this year, the Boons asked BC Hydro to send them written information about the timeline for highway relocation, a construction project that BC Hydro documents say will cost $530 million.

In response, BC Hydro sent the Boons and other landowners a two-page information bulletin in May. The bulletin, dated May 2016, says BC Hydro “is acquiring land in the Bear Flat/Cache Creek area in 2016 in preparation for the start of highway realignment work.” It says BC Hydro evaluated two highway alignment options: a corridor along the reservoir and an inland corridor.

Hydro says it chose the corridor along the reservoir because it would increase the length of passing opportunities for drivers, has fewer technical challenges, better geological conditions, affects a smaller area of private land, and has “less impact” on agricultural land.

But Colin Meek, one of the farmers who would lose a third-generation family farm to the highway re-alignment, points out that losing less agricultural land is of little value “when you get rid of the farmer.” Meek and his partner Leslee Jardine live in a house that would become the centre line of the new highway, according to surveying stakes recently put in the ground by BC Hydro contractors.

“They just keep the pressure on,” Meek says.

Colin Meek and Leslee Jardine stand in their hemp heart field. Photo: Sarah Cox

Meek and Jardine are awaiting organic certification of their Class 1 farmland, which is among the 6,500 hectares of farmland that will be destroyed by Site C, and an additional 6,000 hectares that may be lost. They grow commercial hemp for food (hemp hearts) and have a large market garden where they cultivate dozens of types of vegetables and herbs, including eggplant, peppers and tomatoes.

Meek says someone should assess the psychological impacts of Site C on Peace Valley residents, whom he says are suffering from trauma and stress as a result of the threat of losing their homes and farms and putting up with Hydro contractors drilling deep holes beside their houses and in their fields. “Try waking up in the middle of the night because you’re having a dream that a CAT is going through your bedroom.”

Based on advice from their lawyer, the Boons and other landowners affected by the highway re-routing recently signed access agreements with BC Hydro, allowing the Crown corporation to enter their land for geotechnical, wildlife and heritage studies in exchange for modest financial compensation. Ken Boon says they didn’t have a choice because Hydro has the legal right to access their land with or without their agreement.

In a letter to affected landowners, BC Hydro says different teams on their land will consist of up to eight people per team, and that equipment on their property could “include a drill rig or excavator, pump, compressor, and water tank. In addition to the drill, there may be one or two support vehicles.”

The letter also points to the haste with which work is being conducted. “To complete the work on your property as quickly as possible, it is anticipated that investigations would occur up to 10 to 12 hours a day, and up to 5 to 7 days a week, with flexibility to accommodate residents and businesses.”

.@bchydro says: Merry Christmas! Now you're homeless. https://t.co/w01DAqYo1R @Sarah_K_Cox @maryforbc @christyclarkbc #bcpoli #SiteC

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) June 16, 2016

The Boons were shocked to see a map of their land that has 73 drilling sites marked on it, including one right beside their farmhouse and others in their riverside fields that are so fertile that the overlying layers of topsoil — among the richest in B.C. — are 15 feet deep. The topsoil sits on gravel, which the Boons fear will be excavated to assist in highway construction.

In recent weeks, the Boons have had to deal with drilling rigs, water trucks, a spill in one of their planted fields, contractors whom Ken Boon says “should be required to take a course in Sensitivity 101,” and two security investigators parked in a truck at their end of their driveway without the Boon’s permission or knowledge.

The Boons say the investigators parked on their driveway were the same two men who compiled evidence against them and four other Peace Valley residents for BC Hydro’s on-going civil law suit against some of the people involved in a two-month winter camp at the historic Rocky Mountain Fort site.

As a result of the civil law suit initiated by BC Hydro, the Boons and others named in the suit live with the constant threat of having their assets seized — including their farmland and houses — should they interfere with Hydro’s efforts for highway relocation and other developments associated with the Site C project. The suit, which has some of the hallmarks of a Strategic Law Suit Against Public Participation, or SLAPP suit, is the first time B.C. legal experts are aware of a publicly-owned corporation taking such action. 

Image: Farmer Ken Boon on his land. Photo: Jayce Hawkins.

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.

BC Hydro has come out swinging against the Royal Society of Canada and 250 of Canada’s top scientists and academics that recently called for a stop to construction of the Site C dam, saying the group is being one-sided.

Royal Society representatives and academics did not take part in the environmental assessment process and did not seek a balanced assessment of the hydroelectric mega-project, says an unusually critical statement released by BC Hydro.

The dam, which will cost taxpayers almost $9-billion, will flood farmland and First Nations traditional territory in the Peace Valley to create an 83-kilometre reservoir.

A Statement of Concern, released by the academics earlier this week, asks the federal government to live up to election promises to respect legal obligations to First Nations and to make decisions based on scientific integrity.

Repeated requests by DeSmog Canada for comments from Energy and Mines Minister Bill Bennett have been ignored but, speaking to other media, Bennett criticized the Royal Society for being political and suggested members should have taken part in the environmental assessment process.

Ken Boon, president of the Peace Valley Landowner Association, whose historic farmhouse overlooking the Peace River will be flooded by the dam, dismissed that idea.

“That’s silly,” he said pointing to the many recommendations made by the Joint Review Panel that were then ignored by the provincial government in its rush to get construction of the dam underway.

“There were steps that should have shut it down and it didn’t make any difference,” said Boon, who is happy to see the academic support. Boon, along with several other Site C opponents, is currently being sued by BC Hydro for his participation in a protest camp. Legal experts have criticized the lawsuit as a threat to freedom of expression.

“This has had incredible media coverage and rightly so when you have such a large and distinguished group speaking out on the project,” he said.

Boon does not believe the provincial government is showing any sign of listening to the criticism, but his hopes are pinned on the federal government.

“In a lot of ways the ball is in the federal government’s court right now. It’s the government’s obligation to review those permits properly and then refuse to issue them if that’s what they deem is the right thing to do,” he said.

The Royal Society and fellow academics say the federal government should not issue any more permits for the project until there have been additional reviews and the courts have ruled on four legal challenges that have not yet been heard.

In its statement BC Hydro argued it cannot stop construction to wait for court rulings as its mandate is to meet the long-term electricity needs of customers and to build Site C on time and on budget.

“Court challenges of major infrastructure projects are not uncommon in Canada and they do not stop construction from proceeding,” says the statement, which points out that, so far, four judicial reviews of the environmental appeals have been dismissed.

Chief Roland Willson of West Moberly First Nation is hoping the appeal by scientists and academics will influence the federal government.

“It is frustrating when you have the premier of B.C. saying they are just going to ride roughshod over the rights of First Nations…But we have some ability to get the federal government to pay attention because the treaty lies with them, so they are on the hook,” Willson said. The West Moberly and Prophet River First Nations are currently fighting against the Site C dam in the courts, saying the project violates treaty rights.

“If they issue permits, then we may have to file another court case for treaty infringement.”

The Wilderness Committee is among groups calling on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to consider the human rights and environmental impacts of the dam detailed by the academics.

“The federal government’s position is that projects like the Site C dam that were approved by the previous Conservative government will not be revisited,” said Joe Foy, Wilderness Committee national campaign director.

“This is an outrageous position and a slap in the face to those who have been demanding justice. B.C. taxpayers are being fleeced and First Nations’ and farmers’ lands are being flooded for this dam project — the government must do the right thing."

Image: Premier Christy Clark and Minister Bill Bennett/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.

Nothing remains at the Rocky Mountain Fort site where Peace Valley farmers and First Nations camped for 60 days in the hopes of stopping clear-cut logging for the Site C dam. The camp was dismantled in March and the old-growth spruce and cottonwood forest was logged, as BC Hydro prepares to convert the Class 1 heritage site into a Site C waste rock dump.

But one notable thing still stands: the civil lawsuit BC Hydro filed in January against five campers and a supporter, a suit the B.C. Civil Liberties Association describes as a matter “of grave concern.”

The 13-page lawsuit accuses six Peace Valley residents of conspiracy, intimidation, trespass, creating a public and a private nuisance, and “intentional interference with economic relations by unlawful means.”

Most worrisome for the people named is that the suit seeks financial damages for BC Hydro that could result in the loss of their homes, life savings or other assets. Five of the six already stand to lose their houses, farms, land or traditional territory to the nearly $9 billion Peace River dam.

Josh Paterson, executive director of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA), says the association is extremely concerned about the civil suit because it could put a chill on freedom of expression. It might cause others “to think twice before they talk about their political opinion.”

SLAPP style #SiteC suit by @BCHydro might stop others from expressing political opinion https://t.co/bO9dZGmsPc @SavePeaceValley #bcpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) May 25, 2016

BCCLA’s unease is heightened because BC Hydro is a Crown corporation, says Paterson. “For a government agency to come down in that way is of grave concern. What it does is send a message, perhaps deliberately, that ‘you’d better be careful if you plan to oppose these kinds of developments’…BC Hydro as a public institution should be very cautious about making these kinds of claims for damages it would impose.”

The civil suit, according to University of Victoria law professor Chris Tollefson, bears some of the hallmarks of a SLAPP suit, a strategic lawsuit against public participation.

SLAPP suits can stifle freedom of speech and quash opposition to controversial projects like the Site C dam, which Premier Christy Clark has vowed to push “past the point of no return,” despite four on-going court cases against the dam by Treaty 8 First Nations and Peace Valley landowners.

A fifth on-going legal action, launched by the Blueberry River First Nations, claims treaty rights have been violated by the cumulative impacts of Site C and other industrial development in the Peace.

“If the end result is that they face financial or personal ruin, a key implication is that others won’t want to follow in their footsteps and take that risk,” says Tollefson. “Then free speech becomes a luxury that only those who have nothing, or those who are incredibly rich, can afford.”

Tollefson, an expert on SLAPP suits, says it is the first time he has ever heard of a Crown corporation seeking damages from an individual in B.C. “or anywhere else for that matter,” for lawfully and peacefully exercising their right to protest on a matter of public interest.

Those named in the suit include farmers Ken and Arlene Boon, Helen Knott, a social worker from the Prophet River First Nation, and Yvonne Tupper, a community health worker from the Saulteau First Nations.

Esther Pedersen, a Peace Valley farmer whose land was used to helicopter two survival shacks across the river for the campers and to collect food donated by community members, was also named. The suit includes “Jane Doe” and “John Doe,” leaving open the possibility for other Site C opponents to be singled out as well.

After BC Hydro filed the civil suit, it launched an injunction application to remove campers from the fur trade fort site on the Peace River’s south bank, near the confluence of the Moberly River. That area was deemed to be so ecologically and historically important that the B.C. government had made four designations to protect its heritage resources, wildlife and old-growth forests. The government even went so far as to set aside the land to become part of a future B.C. protected area.

But BC Hydro had obtained the necessary government permits to log the forest and convert the fort site area into a 216-hectare rock dump for potentially acid-generating waste rock from Site C construction. After the camp was ruled illegal by the courts, the people named in the suit said they were law-abiding citizens and promptly dismantled their encampment.

Ken Boon says he and his wife Arlene made a personal request to BC Hydro CEO Jessica McDonald to drop the civil suit when McDonald recently visited their farm.

Peace River Valley farmer Ken Boon at the Rocky Mountain site encampment. Photo: Sarah Cox.

Accompanied by a driver and an aide, McDonald spent two hours with the Boons. “We basically agreed to disagree,” says Boon of the visit, which he characterizes as cordial and personable. “We showed her around the farm.”

The Boons will lose productive fields to flooding and when riverbanks slough into the dam reservoir, a deep body of water that will stretch for 107 kilometres along the Peace River and its tributaries. The Boon’s home and farm buildings are slated to be destroyed, to make way for the $530 million re-location of Highway 97 away from the flood zone.

Boon says McDonald was willing to drop the suit, but only if the Boons were prepared “to sign a document basically stating we would not impede further work or stand in the way of the project.”

The Boons declined to sign. They believe it is their constitutional right to oppose Site C, which will flood at least 6,500 hectares of prime farmland and, in the words of a government-appointed panel that reviewed the project, have “significant adverse effects” on the environment and on lands and resources used by First Nations.

In late April, BC Hydro launched a second civil suit, this time against hunger striker Kristen Henry and three others camped outside the Crown corporation’s head office in Vancouver to protest the Site C dam project.

The Vancouver campers packed up 10 days later, saying they did not have the money or the inclination to fight BC Hydro in court. BC Hydro claimed “hundreds of thousands” of dollars from them in damages, the four campers stated in a press release.

BC Hydro said the camp had forced it to take expensive measures to step up security, including spending $30,000 for new door handles to which people cannot chain themselves, up to $60,000 a month to hire the company Xpera Risk Mitigation and Investigation to monitor the campers, and up to $35,000 a month to boost general security measures.

Even though that camp, too, is gone, the civil law suit stands, Dave Conway, BC Hydro’s Site C community relations manager, confirmed in an email. Conway said in a separate email that the crown corporation cannot comment on the civil suit against the six Rocky Mountain fort campers due to the fact that it is an “on-going court action.”

The majority of U.S. states, along with Ontario and Quebec, have anti-SLAPP suit legislation. In 2001, the NDP government in B.C. passed similar legislation, called the Protection of Public Participation Act. Six months later, that legislation was repealed by the newly-elected B.C. Liberal government.

Such legislation, says Tollefson, aims to expedite justice and provide the courts with tools to dismiss SLAPP suits early on “so a very deep-pocketed corporation doesn’t get to drag it out and benefit from simply being better endowed.”

Image: Ken Boon on his farmland in the Peace Valley. Photo: Emma Gilchrist.

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.

Premier Christy Clark has ambitious plans for the copious amounts of electricity — far more than British Columbia is expected to need for more than a decade — generated by the Site C dam on the Peace River: sell it to Alberta.   In a recent interview with Alaska Highway News, Clark said the power from the Site C dam, scheduled to come online in 2024, could potentially provide electricity to Alberta — where the government has recently committed to closing all of its coal-powered energy plants.   “We could potentially electrify the oilsands, which would make the oilsands the cleanest oil produced anywhere on the globe,” Clark said.   “If Canada wants to make an argument for our resources to find their way to market, let’s make them the cleanest in the world and let’s make that our brand.”

Need for Site C Unproven 

Clark’s suggestion that the Site C dam may power the oilsands shines a spotlight on the B.C. government’s ever-changing rationale for building the project.   Ken Boon, a Peace Valley farmer who lives on family land that will be flooded if the dam is built, said he finds the prospect of prime agricultural land being destroyed to supply the oilsands with electricity “very disturbing.”   “It highlights that they don’t have a market for the Site C power,” Boon told DeSmog Canada.   “So here we have a government floundering for a market while they go ahead building the project.”   In its final report, the federal-provincial panel tasked with reviewing the Site C dam said that, due to the severe environmental impacts of the project, the project should not proceed unless there is an unambiguous need for the power.   “Electrifying the oilsands doesn’t seem like a demonstrated unambiguous need,” he said.   Harry Swain, chair of the Joint Review Panel that reviewed Site C, said BC Hydro never mentioned Alberta as a potential market for the dam’s power in its application.   “One recognizes that things change over time, but this has an air of desperation,” Swain told DeSmog Canada.   "In the rationale for building the dam, BC Hydro put forward load forecasts that included a fair amount of electricity for the LNG industry and continued growth in other industrial, commercial and residential demand. Well, the truth is that since 2008 demand has been falling, not rising."   As DeSmog Canada recently reported, BC Hydro’s records show that without an expanded natural gas export sector, there is no demonstrable need for the Site C dam.   BC Hydro anticipates domestic energy consumption won’t surpass domestic energy supply until 2028, at the earliest.   According to BC Hydro’s estimates, major industrial users of electricity, such as the pulp and paper industry, will use less energy than previously thought — partially because the cost of electricity will increase 28 per cent over the next five years, in part to pay for the Site C dam.   A DeSmog Canada investigation revealed BC Hydro is in fact paying independent power producers not to produce electricity due to an oversupply problem.   “The case that we need this power by 2024 was not made then and is in even worse shape now," Swain said.   He added that electrifying the oilsands would require new transmission lines and likely a new regulatory process with Alberta.   "It does not appear to be a practical alternative.”

Destination for Site C Power a Moving Target 

B.C. LNG projects have been delayed, labeled unprofitable, caught up in land disputes and lack committed investors — hence Clark’s wandering eye.   “I think…we want to have as many customers for BC Hydro product as we can,” Clark told the Alaska Highway News.   Clark added that exporting power “allows us to lower rates for people who live here,” but did not make mention of BC Hydro’s plan to raise hydro rates until at least 2019.   Clark also didn’t mention that Site C’s power is going to cost $80 to $90 per megawatt hour to produce, but the pool price for electricity in Alberta right now is hovering at around $30 per megawatt hour.

Site C is ‘Cultural Genocide’: Chief 

West Moberly First Nation Chief Roland Willson said Clark’s suggestion Site C might be used to electrify the oilsands is absurd.

The purpose of Site C “is a never-ending moving target,” Willson said. “First it was for LNG, then it was to sell power to California, now it’s Alberta.”   He said recent revelations that BC Hydro is paying power producers not to produce highlights that there is no need for Site C.   “So it’s absolutely ridiculous that we’re destroying a valley to potentially sell the power to the Alberta tar sands now.”   The West Moberly and Prophet River First Nations are currently fighting against Site C in court, arguing the project infringes on rights guaranteed by Treaty 8.   Willson said Site C will not pass the Sparrow test, a legal litmus test for determining if a government decision justifiably violates First Nation’s rights, because there is no demonstrable need for the power it will produce.   “They’re taking away from us what we value,” Willson said, saying the effects of this project amount to “cultural genocide” for his community.   “It’s residential schools. It’s smallpox in blankets. Now it’s energy development,” he said.   “It’s criminal. They should be held accountable for the damages.”

With files from Emma Gilchrist.

Image: Christy Clark/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.