Site C: Horgan Made the BEST Choice …. for BC AND the NDP Politically

The no, no, no crowd to any resource development will rant and rave, the extreme left in both the NDP and the Greens will froth at the mouth … but Premier John Horgan really had no other REALISTIC choice but to CONTINUE with the Site C Hydro project.

Site C HAD to get the go ahead: the project is too far along to just walk away; there are thousands of workers/families already dependent on the jobs it is generating; many businesses in local communities are benefitting from money spent by those workers; and, as I wrote just weeks ago, the project will no doubt be appreciated more 50 years from now than it is today; and costs will never go down if construction was delayed.

The pundits have reported the NDP government considered FIVE major factors before giving the go ahead: fiscal concerns; impacts on taxpayers; flooding of agricultural land; impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions; and First Nations reactions/concerns.

They left out another MAJOR consideration …. the NEGATIVE political impact on the NDP with the silent majority of British Columbians had they cancelled.

Those opposing Site C have waged a VERY LOUD propaganda war for years …but the reality is more British Columbians have been shown repeatedly in polls to support going ahead rather than cancelling it … especially in those “heartland” areas of the province where the NDP has been doing poorly.

Canceling Site C …. at the same time as the NDP has been opposing/fighting the Kinder Morgan expansion; turning thumbs down on the Enbridge pipeline project … would have played right into the Liberals’ hands …. depicting the NDP as job-killers that will scare away investment and resource developments.

Horgan … even though he gave the Site C go-ahead grudgingly … has made that portrayal more difficult … although still not impossible.

As for the Greens, Horgan is no doubt counting on  (and I think he’s right)  Party Leader Andrew Weaver huffing and puffing over the decision …trying to score points and woo over far left NDPers … but NOT walking away from the power and perks they enjoy by keeping the NDP in power.

Site C is a high-cost investment …. but 50 years from now British Columbians will be happy Horgan and NDP government brought Site C to completion … providing power to the people and producing billions in revenues for the province.

Harv Oberfeld

(You can hear more on Site C in an interview I did on the Jim Goddard Report podcast on Howe Street Communications: https://www.howestreet.com/2017/12/14/bc-ndp-had-to-say-yes-to-site-c-dam/)

 

This entry was posted in British Columbia, National. Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Site C: Horgan Made the BEST Choice …. for BC AND the NDP Politically

  1. r says:

    BC decade plus flat demand-

    https://insightsdotca.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/domestic-sales.png?w=550&h=411

    Keeyask/Bipole 3 in Manitoba want 8% a year for 8 years increase.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/hyrdro-rate-hike-2024-1.4287034

    Muskrat ,in NFLD,way over budget-

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/muskrat-falls-inquiry-wont-save-newfoundlanders-from-a-127-billion-sinkhole/article37052291/

    Horgan says more oversight but no detail-should be blue ribbon forensic accounting.Without industry/ poli links.

  2. D. M. Johnston says:

    I disagree, I think in 50 years time, BC will be paying a premium price for Hydro produced power, when much cheaper alternative power, will provide much cheaper electricity.

    The problem, as I see it is that site “C” is an old man’s project and what was good in the past, is good today.

    Sorry know.

    It is much the same with SkyTrain and light metro; it is an old man’s transit system, with all the whistle’s and bangs and everyone ignores the huge costs and rather poor performance.

    “The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.”

    Demand for power is dropping, as we come more efficient in power consumption and of course the alternatives keep dropping in price. In fact the cost of alternative power is dropping as hydro power is increasing.

    From what I can see, this dam was all about LNG and LNG is dead.

    Like FastFerry’s Horgan is going to blunder on and on with a project that costs will rise and rise.

    Another blogger is quoted as saying “Horgan drank political Kool Aid”; I say differently, “Horgan drank political Hemlock”.

    As the NDP seem not to read history, those who do not read history are doomed to make the same mistakes”.

    They have forgotten the same sort of fiasco with the Millennium line, which in part, contributed to the 2 seat rump i the Gordon Campbell Liberal Government and let forth the selling of the province to political friends and welcoming the world to launder their money in BC Casinos.

    The NDP will be lucky to garner even two seats in the next election; as they now have handed the Greens the advantage.

  3. John's Aghast says:

    Welcome back Harvey. I think you got too much sun this time.
    I’m not part of the no, no crowd to any resource development, provided it’s done on a viable basis. If your product cannot be mined at a profit, then its not a mine. Its called leverite – leave ‘er right in the ground!
    I am vehemently against continuing with this huge money losing venture for all the reasons put forth by the no, no crowd. I, like most of us, am not privy to any of the factual information, but I wonder how much of the $1.75 + .37 billion (and growing) dirt moving contract has actually been spent. I wonder if the $465 million Site C Hilton is included in the ‘sunk costs’. I wonder how much of the infrastructure – bridges, quarries, gravel pits – is included in the ‘sunk costs’. And I don’t for a minute believe the ‘remedial costs’ approach $2 billion – without being privy to contract language of termination costs. But who am I to oppose the ‘experts’?
    “Thousands of workers/families already dependent on the jobs…” Get real! 500 of them were itinerant workers living in the now vacant hotel. And what were these workers contributing to the local economy? Very little is my guess. They were busy working and/or relaxing in their posh digs with little incentive to go to Fort St. John to cash their cheques.
    As for requiring the energy sometime in the future? Maybe, but not at the price Site C will produce it. Check out tonyseba.com.
    I could go on, but then I’d start to ramble, and I KNOW you’re opposed to that.

  4. Gene The Bean says:

    You are right.

    We all covered this at length previously so nothing more for me to add.

    Welcome back.

    What are your thoughts of “the Saga of Roy Moore” …. ??? Possible blog fodder … ?

    I watched some ‘down south’ local news online and was literally frozen by the outright racism and religious stupidity during some ‘man on the street’ interviews. It was appalling but it shows you how uneducated people that are ‘kept in their place’ can be brainwashed by the racists and religious fundamentalists of the far right. I was gobsmacked looking at grown men explaining that they all “knew” what Ray Moore did was “bad” but they support him anyway. Even worse – the women. Saying he was a “fine god fearing man” ….. wow. Proved the point about the 1/3 of Muricans that love trump. Scary.

    (Response: My next blog will be on Alabama and Roy Moore …and an angle most of the media have overlooked. h.o)

  5. I was very disappointed but not surprised by the announcement. Where others are crying foul and betrayal, I am satisfied that the caucus gave what was promised during the election: a careful review of the dam, which should have been done by the BC Liberals before it was started.

    The NDP’s platform was never “Shut ‘er down.” That, in itself, should have given voters a hint that a continuance was very possible.

    It must have been a difficult process, weighing the pros and cons, including the effect on the party’s supporters. I doubt they cared much about the Interior vote… no way are voters there going to make a hard left turn, now that Site C is a go.

    Now the question is how many votes they will lose elsewhere by building the dam.

    Horgan basically admitted they were snookered by Christy on this issue; that they couldn’t continue on plans in other areas if they had to eat $4 billion.

    Now is their chance to show their leadership, juggling the accounts to bring their plans to fruition.

    One thing to take off the plate would be the Point Grey subway. That’s another $4billion (?) hit that isn’t justified — and it isn’t underway, so no need to worry about sunk costs.

    Horgan apparently also announced they are reopening calls for independent power. Why? Norm Farrell has shown clearly that Hydro has enough capacity on its own to meet BC’s current demands — yet IPPs are providing about 30% of our power, at 3x the market rate. Hydro could be making it on their own, or buying the power off the surplus market; instead, they buy high and sell low.

    If new IPPs are invited to join, they need to be on much less lucrative terms — and shorter contracts. When the unneeded Site C dam is finished, there will be even less need for IPP power.

    The coming hydro rate increases will have at least two perhaps unforeseen effects: consumers will be installing more solar panels, and/or finding ways to reduce their power usage. While good for the environment, both trends will end up putting fewer dollars in Hydro’s coffers… resulting in a need for even higher rates.

    On the Hydro file alone, the BC Liberals have left us a huge mess.

  6. Hugh says:

    “providing power to the people and producing billions in revenues for the province.”

    Wouldn’t future revenue from the new dam go towards paying for the dam? Cost is now estimated at $10.7 billion. Are you projecting benefits beyond that amount?

    (Response; Just as with previous Hydro projects, the lifespan of the dam, as BC continuers to grow (if the no, no, no group ever let it) will produce revenues and I’d bet profits for BC Hydro well beyond paying it off. h.o.)

  7. Hugh says:

    Mismanagement of BC Hydro by the previous government, with all the costly IPP contracts and the Site C dam, will cause hydro rates to continue to rise every year. This will discourage investment and business.

  8. Island Lookout says:

    “JUST SAY NO…”

    That is a now too-famous BC watchword for those who fear the past, present and future.

    This pap began back in the late 60s and has hampered our economic fortunes ever since.

    Site C will be a goliath of a project and it’ll cost a bundle.

    But in the end it will be “our damn dam!”

    And because it’ll be in BC the people will have control over the power produced and what to do with it.

    Remember that Germany still imports coal WHEN their stupid wind propellers and solar panels are failing to provide the juice the country needs to survive.

    Why?

    Because those idiots shut down their nuke power plants.

    And guess where most of that coal comes from?

    The USA!

    I’m convinced that having another nice. big hydro dam in our back pocket is a guarantee for an always bright and prosperous province. This will be clean, pure British Columbia juice. Lots of vitamins and sunshine!

    WAC Bennett set out the dam plans more than half a century ago and we’d be hugely delinquent if we did not continue that amazing politician’s legacy by adding substantially to it with Stie C.

    SO…

    Why do we pay so much attention to the whiners?

    What is the POINT?

    They offer nothing in return.

    A forgotten part of Premier Horgan’s brave decision is that all those American big environmental groups which lined up against Site C to control our energy destiny got financially whacked.

    GOOD.

    They need to STAY AWAY, financially fried.

    Foreign groups such as the Dogwood and Tides are American imperialist “running dogs and roaders (borrowing from Chairman Mao)” organizations which do not have Canada’s best or ANYONE’S interests except their bosses in DC.

    Just read their bleating, phoney BS. Any Canadian giving to those outfits needs their heads examined.

    The dam project may face some court actions but the construction continues. Injunctions being imposed at this stage seem remote possibilities.

    Any other protests will have to be met with very stern action by the government.

    As for the Greens?

    Who cares?

    They’re on the way into political oblivion for a whole host of reasons that no one should waste time even considering thinking about.

    As for the NDP caucus?

    Grow a set!

  9. John's Aghast says:

    Hugh. I’m no accountant, but it’s easy to see that future revenue won’t even pay the interest costs. Not when it costs 11 cents/kwh and you sell it for 3 cents! And I don’t believe the 11 cents includes First Nations settlements ($1 billion?) or remediating the as yet undetermined foundation costs, or maintenance of the unstable reservoir slopes. I don’t believe the future revenue will even pay for transmission costs!
    And don’t let the ‘experts’ fool you. The ‘sunk costs’ are much less than $4 Billion, and I’m no expert.

  10. 13.. says:

    Welcome back.
    Horgan made the correct decision and your analysis is also correct. The dam will like the dams that came before it provide much needed power for many years to come. It allows the green enviro crowd to watch birds being massacred by wind farms. Wind farms are an eyesore and they are pollution that ruins views. That idiotic windmill atop Grouse mountain is disgusting. Think of the entire vista of all the mountains bordering the lower mainland . Now picture hundreds of those ghastly bird dicing machines atop all the mountains. It would be a scene from a horror movie.
    The best thing besides the site C dam (dare I say the C could stand for Clark) is the transparency shown by the coalition government. Yes sir Andy showed everyone that he is totally transparent when he :
    signed on with the NDP without a kill the dam clause
    He then lied on NW when he claimed Horgan told the mayor of a Northern town not to worry the dam would be built on June 30 2016
    He then recanted . You have to ask why if he believed his facts to be true he didnt bring that to the table the day he signed on to support the NDP
    Andy is as transparent as any politician Ive ever seen
    Andy wants his second term and pension.
    Andy want proportional representation
    I hope the forces that oppose the referendum point out to everyone just how transparent(disingenuous) Andy is.

    (Response: I think you’re being too harsh on Weaver: yes, he’s a politician; and, yes he won’t break the NDP/Greens deal over Site C …but let’s keep it real: politicians know they win some, lose some … and very few will QUIT over a lost battle. And even those who would … with the dam already under way and so many British Columbians in favour of it, THIS is not likely a big enough battle for Weaver to throw away power and influence he could have on many other issues. h.o.)

  11. Les H. says:

    Hydro power generation is the best type of mass power generation. IT’S GREEN, IT’S SUSTAINABLE and IT IS BEST VALUE!

    1: Hydro electricity is on a proper modern hydro dam 95% efficient. 95% of water spill force used creates energy on the grid.

    2: Nuclear generation of electricity is 91% efficient and if properly dealt with GREEN too. Reprocessing fuel rods reduces waste immensely.

    3: Fossil fuels are by average 70% efficient, the biggest inefficiency is their lost heat.

    4: Wind Power is only 5-50% efficient, not 100% dependable, has a large environmental footprint kills 10’s of millions of birds and bats each year, OH YEAH THEY OFTEN CATCH FIRE TOO!

    5: Solar power circa 2017 at BEST in latitudes of most sunshine are only about 33% efficient, require vast amounts of energy to manufacture. Large Solar arrays also KILL birds as they fly over and fry by the reflected sunlight.

    Any persons who are against properly engineered hydro dam is ignorant and/or a fool. B.C. Hydro still has among the lowest rates because of HYDRO DAMS.

    (Response: You point out the great irony: those who really care about the environment ….air pollution, water and pollution (through coal, oil, gas) USED to celebrate Hydro power as green, clean and naturally sustainable …and nowhere near as dangerous as nuclear. I really believe many just hate ANY resource development … especially by an entity that includes a “corporate board of directors”. Hopefully wind and solar etc will one day be much more prevalent, practical and economically affordable … but until they are, Hydro is a good way to go in many cases …and Site C is one of them. h.o)

  12. Harry lawson says:

    Harvey,

    Welcome back,

    What a smoke and mirror exercise, Horgan gets to play both sides at once and wins. He shows he is willing to support the construction industries and the northern economy., stands up to the environmental movement . And can make changes to site c agreements. Taking credit for fixing Clarks legacy, making it his own . Like I said smoke and mirrors .

    (Response: I do believe he made the right decision…but I can’t recall a leader ever announcing a decision to GO AHEAD with a project … after very prolonged consideration, studies and reports … but claiming he hated doing it. If it IS the BEST way to go … a leader should promote, defend and encourage others to support it … not suggest he is doing it with a heavy heart. Unless, as you say, he hopes to win/keep support from both sides … which would be a masterful feat of political manipulation. h.o.)

  13. Les H., hydro dams might be the most efficient at squeezing energy out of the power source — but I hope you’re not thinking BC Hydro has been getting 95% of the energy they’ve trapped in their dams.

    Our demand for hydro power has flattened over the past decade. Hydro was meeting our needs when Gordon Campbell started his Hydro moves… then along came a huge growth in IPPs, which now produce 37% of the power sold in BC.

    What does Hydro do when they HAVE to buy the IPP power, even though it isn’t needed? They have to spill their own water — and pay the IPPs 3x the market rate for their unneeded power.

    Anyone who thinks that is good business is ignorant and/or a fool.

    https://in-sights.ca/2017/12/05/freedom-of-disinformation/

  14. david hadaway says:

    Calling opponents of this project the “no, no, no crowd” really doesn’t advance the discussion, particularly when the case against it has been so clearly and carefully set out, most recently by the BCUC.

    Well, the yes, yes, yes crowd won. I hope they will be as happy when the price hits 20 million, when our AAA rating is lost and borrowing costs rise, when our taxes rise to cover that, when jobs are lost due to increased energy costs hitting small and medium business, when their personal hydro bills double thanks to this and the IPPs.

    All quite possible, some even probable, consequences of a decision based on an economically illiterate belief in the sunken cost fallacy combined with political cowardice.

    (Response: People who opposed Site C are the “no” group: the “no,no,no” crowd are those who opposed Site C, also Kinder Morgan, also Enbridge, also oil and natural gas developments, also mining, also … well, they now know who they are. h.o.)

  15. Ed Seedhouse says:

    I think the nub of the question is the financial angles, and that’s what persuaded the government to go ahead. If they are right (and no one I know has called them on this) the cost of financing what has already been done will have to be paid over a short period at higher interest rates because the money spend has no tangible asset to back it. And if the damn dam is built then accounting rules will let them mortgage the completed damn as a revenue producing asset and pay over a much longer period at lower interest rates.

    Sort of like the difference between charging it on the credit card or taking a mortgage on your house.

    Given that they are right about this, and I don’t doubt that they are, then I’m with Horgan and will support going ahead with a heavy heart and a good measure of bitterness.

    It’s a bad project, using 1950’s technologies to solve a 21st century problem but Christy did put it beyond the point of no return, and should bear the blame.

    Of course, she *won’t* bear the blame, Horgan will and that explains *his* heavy heart to my mind at least.

    And please spare me the blacks and whites (not from you Harv, but from some of the comments). Hydro is not the tool of the devil and it is not the second coming either. It has pluses and minuses, like everything else.

  16. Hugh says:

    I hope it’s not about providing power for bitcoin:

    “According to Digiconomist the estimated power use of the bitcoin network, which is responsible for verifying transactions made with the cryptocurrency, is 30.14TWh a year, which exceeds that of 19 other European countries.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/27/bitcoin-mining-consumes-electricity-ireland

  17. Diverdarren says:

    Harvey, I wonder how many BC’ers put their vote behind the NDP or even the Green Party with the Site C Dam as a factor in their decision.

    I’d guess that the average NDP voter could probably swallow this pill and put it behind them. The project is bathed in ideas that an average NDPer would love. Big tax dollars being spent on labour, more support for a Crown Corp like BC Hydro.

    But, the Green voters must be feeling a bit betrayed. Site C along with pipelines is right at the top of their to do-not list. To the Greens, Weaver and their MLAs were going to hold a green knife to the throat of government. Instead Weaver meekly shrinks away saying this isn’t the issue to collapse the government over.

    Ha, more likely Weaver was saying this isn’t the issue to loose my new comfy MLA job over. No sense letting the green agenda be the motivator.

    Well Green members… where is your parties’ compass now?

    (Response: The NDP know that the many loud voices opposed to the Site C project are still a minority of the province, and even if they lose SOME supporters to the Greens, they will likely gain a lot more up north and in the interior (where they really could use some help) for going ahead with this project… and other resource developments too. h.o)

  18. e.a.f. says:

    WELCOME BACK! You sure go on enough vacations for a retired guy.

    Harvey that may be real easy for you to say, 50 years, but really, you won’t be here. Most of us writing here won’t be. so here is the deal, you have to go the 50 years! Yes, and maintaining the blog. Will I do the 50 years, hell I’m surprised I lived this long. you know the old line, of: if I knew I was going to live this long, I would have looked after myself better. Of course with modern medicine, we could all be here in 50 years along with the dam and you tap dancing across the floor singing: I told you so.

    Weaver isn’t going to stop supporting the NDP because if he does, he is out of business. His supporters will see him as some one who may put the B.C. Lieberals back in office with roll backs on welfare, disability, implement tolls again, and put the money laundering/corruption story on the back burner. The changes to the tenancy act would be abandoned, we all get the drift, so Weaver has no choice but to continue to support the NDP. Of course he may look at it for the long game: hope Horgan makes mistakes and Weaver gets a higher/positive profile and becomes the next premier. Hey we can all dream.

    Those who are pissed with Horgan, and I am, ought not to get too out there about things., they need to remember things were not better for many in this province with the B.C. Lieberals or can they casino money laundering………

    The dams are providing jobs and if B.C. Hydro is run like a corporation and some one is put in charge who can do that, and not run as a cash machine for whomever is in government, pays down the debt at B.C. Hydro, things maybe O.K. Its not like it can’t be done, paying down the debt and running it like a good corporations. It once as B.C. Electric and yes it made money and it was a good corporation which paid good salaries and had good working conditions for the time. Oh, and they had wonderful Christmas parties each year for all the employees’ children with presents. Del Grauer would come out and welcome everyone. WAC did not take over a failing corporation………..

    The dam goes ahead and we’ll all see. who knows perhaps the not speaking publicly NDP Premiers may have already figured something out which will benefit both provinces.

    (Response: Can’t hang around another 50 years…my BCTV pension has no “c.o.l.a.” clause … and it would be hard to blog when homeless … esp at the prices they charge for Internet on cruise ships! But hopefully some university student will research what was said “way back then” and find my superb … and highly accurate …analysis. 🙂 h.o)

  19. Cora says:

    We are going to need site C to keep all those electric cars moving. The batteries in those cars are going to pollute more that the oil and gas we use now.

    (Response: Interesting that today….. Eureka!! Environment Minister George Heyman said the power generated by the dam WILL indeed be used and needed in time as more and more BC industries grow and use more electricity rather than fossil fuels. I feel vindicated already … didn’t need to wait 50 years! h.o)

  20. Hugh says:

    # 15

    I think you meant $20 billion.

    Moody’s is concerned about BC Hydro’s high debt and says its finances are weak:

    “But projects like Site C are pushing up B.C. Hydro’s debt levels, and adding to concerns about the province’s overall “high debt burden” compared to its peers, Moody’s also wrote in its credit opinion. B.C. Hydro’s debt has increased from $8.1 billion in 2008 to a projected $18.1 billion last year, and there is a further $20 billion expected in the future for infrastructure projects, a $2-billion annual upgrade program and the Site C dam.

    “The anticipated increase in debt continues to pressure the province’s rating since it raises the contingent liability of British Columbia,” wrote Moody’s, which has expressed similar concerns the past three years. Hydro’s debt is ultimately backstopped by taxpayers if the situation worsens, noted Moody’s.

    Hydro does have the flexibility to raise electricity rates to pay its debts, but its finances are nonetheless “among the weakest of Canadian provincial utilities,” said Moody’s.”

    http://www.timescolonist.com/business/b-c-hydro-debt-puts-credit-rating-at-risk-1.8588424

  21. R says:

    wheres proof of- credit rating risk by cancelling
    – 2.1 B costs til now
    – 1.8 Billion costo return dam area when you could jus twalk away basically and let ature take its course FOR FREE.?

  22. Gene The Bean says:

    #21 – “Hydro does have the flexibility to raise electricity rates to pay its debts, but its finances are nonetheless “among the weakest of Canadian provincial utilities,” said Moody’s.”

    Prior to Gordon Campbell and the BC Liberals, BC Hydro was rated in the top ten IN THE WORLD for its asset to debt ratio and reputationally was the GO TO utility for large dam expertise by everyone, including the Chinese and Russians who were building dozens of large dams in the 80’s and 90’s.

    As usual, the conservative mindset screws over the majority for the benefit of the minority.

    Remember who YOU voted for when your grandkids are asking for money to pay for their rent and utility bills ….

    This province was “set for life” in regards to its electricity situation until the BC Liberals decided, and it was a purposeful decision, to install government toadies into leadership roles at BC Hydro so they could implement the IPP SCAM.

    So, twenty years from now when you are paying three times what you pay now for electricity, just remember the smiling face of Gordo and Christy – the people you voted for – that made all that happen for you, and your kids, and your grandkids……

  23. Hugh says:

    NDP is saying that cancelling Site C will have a greater negative impact on BC finances, debt and hydro rates than continuing with the project.

    This feels like a hard sell pressure tactic. Scam alert.

  24. Chuckstraight says:

    Hopefully the new donation laws will prevent the IPP`s from returning some of their profits to the BC Liberal party. ( The money that came from folks hydro bills).

  25. ellbee says:

    Re #5. Spot on. Some at least remember the comments made by Horgan during the election. It was the Greens that promised an immediate halt. I am absolutely gob smacked by comments on other sites from people that are in favour of the project but are angry with the way Horgan “handled” it. Talk about a cop out position. This project, with all of the cost over runs, potential delays, environmental damage and ALL of the unknowns are at the feet of the Liberals. This is and remains their project. There’s enough fodder on this one for a Century or more. It will take us that long to pay it off. Another reminder: the seque to Fast Ferries as a talking point is over!

  26. Sid Evans says:

    Harvey you definitely Aren’t keeping it real when it comes to this topic not even close. By continuing on with Site C the NDP Government along with the previous liberal government has just added massive debt. BC Hydro is already committed to $50 plus billion in IPP contracts, how exactly are BC taxpayers going to pay for all of this Harvey. I mean seriously what do you care you’re going to be long gone before this project starts turning any kind of a profit. Rather careless don’t you think.

    (Response: Sadly, your response smacks of that selfish “me, me, me” … “now, now, now” attitude. Doesn’t matter that MANY of us won’t be around in 20, 30 years or so …when that project is paid for, up and running and producing power the a growing, prosperous BC will need and use. Even the NDP Environment Minister George Heyman has said so. Sure glad WAC Bennett didn’t have the attitude or cave in to the pressures you and other anti Hydro power opponents pushed at the time! h.o)

  27. Harvey says, “Sure glad WAC Bennett didn’t have the attitude or cave in to the pressures you and other anti Hydro power opponents pushed at the time!”

    I’m not going to spend much time digging but I don’t recall a big WAC Dam controversy from my pre-teen years. (Mind you, I wonder how many current pre-teens know about Site C…)

    This well-referenced Wiki article doesn’t spend much time on controversies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._A._C._Bennett_Dam

    First Nations were certainly affected by the dam, still to this day — but back then, they didn’t have much of a voice. Few other residents were displaced.

    It was a time of short, or no, red tape. The bulldozer was king… but the Age of Aquarius and “group consciousness” was on the cusp.

    The first eco-org, Greenpeace wasn’t started till 1971, three years after the WAC was finished — and social media was, at most, letters to the editor, call-in talk shows, or writing your MLA..

    I’m doubting there was much push-back to the WAC dam but would be open to seeing original sources saying different.

  28. 13.. says:

    DMJ says that the NDP will be reduced to 2 seats and they have handed the advantage to the Greens.Poses an interesting question. Who needs the other the most? Currently Horgan needs Weaver to hold onto power and had Weaver sparked another election he would likely have been erased from the picture entirely. As time marches on and the NDP get deeper into their mandate the relationship will weaken. By the time we start to see signs of the next campaign I wonder just how much acrimony the coalition will have built up? The dam, the tolls, the 10 baby sitting and other sore points will fester. The only place that they might be able to look like buds will be when they lay blame for the pipeline at Trudeaus feet. Looks like a rough road ahead.

Comments are closed.