Site C dam

Articles reports related site C dam

The Obscured Story of the Site C Dam – Part 2

By: Liz Galenzoski

January 14, 2018
Series 2 of 3

May 9, 2017, Election day produced some surprises. The results between the Liberals and the NDP were close – only two two seats separating the two main parties. The final count was Liberals 43, NDP 41, and the Green Party 3. Christy Clark had been denied a majority; John Horgan had not won the election. One can only imagine the delight of Andrew Weaver holding the balance of power with THREE seats!

The voters who were opposed to the Site C going ahead were on the edge of their seats as they awaited the long drawn-out back-and-forth between the two main parties.

On June 8th, all members were sworn in as MLAs, and the voters waited again. Finally, on June 22, the Liberals delivered the Speech from the Throne. After all, they had won the most seats, and but for the three Greens, the Liberals would have form government again. Because of three seats in an eighty-seven seat legislature, the only real winner was the Green Party with more power than either of the two mainline parties. On June 29, the Liberals lost a non-confidence vote in the house, and on June 30, fifty-two days after the election, Lieutenant-Governor Judith Guichon, invited John Horgan to form government.

John Horgan went to work.

August 2, Michelle Mungall announced the NDP was keeping its promise to send the Site C project to the BCUC (BC Utilities Commission) for review. The review would begin on August 9, and the object of the review was, “… to ensure we can keep hydro rates affordable … ” And Mungall is quoted as saying, “We’re sending this project to the BCUC to ensure we make the right decision for B.C. families.”

Was that Christy Clark speaking??? Continue reading

The Obscured Story of the Site C Dam – Part 1

Note: I thought this was a story I could write in a day, but the more I made notes, the more I realized it needs to be a series.

By: Liz Galenzoski

December 15, 2017
Series 1 of 3

For me, it began about fifty years ago when I heard a radio news item about bridge footings sinking in northeastern British Columbia; at least that’s how I have always remembered. Twenty-five or so years later, I heard Rafe Mair on CKNW fighting against a dam called Site C. There was no connection between the two events until I read a blog written by Laila Yuile a few years ago in which she wrote about the cracks that were appearing on the North Slope of the Peace River at the location of the Site C dam. The Case to Stop Site C Construction – Links & News. Take your time and read through each link on this post to understand the entire story.

Meanwhile, I told a colleague the story about the radio news item, and we both searched for it but found nothing.

Opposition against building Site C grew. There were groups concerned about the farmers being driven from their land; there was opposition to flooding land that could be used to grow food; there was opposition to flooding sacred indigenous grounds; there was opposition to the cost of the project. BC Refed wrote several articles opposing Site C because we believed then, as we do now, that it is old technology, and that the cost of building another dam on the Peace River would take money away from moving to more modern, cleaner, and efficient technology. Continue reading

There are so many reasons to stop Site-C

Terry Hand
December 03, 2017

It isn’t like the Liberals, NDP, or Greens didn’t know about the reasons for not proceeding with Site -C, those reasons have been apparent since the mid 1970’s and beyond. The BC public should be appalled, no they should be enraged that this project and the wasted billions of tax dollars has been allowed to proceed to the point it is at today!

Is this what we accept as democracy today? We elect successive governments which proceed to completely disregard it’s obligation to those who elected them and immediately pander to those corporate and union entities who enrich them with money, votes and crony favours outside of political life. Voters are fully aware of this as this practice is repeated generation after generation.

What follows is a 2013 report by Arthur A. Hadland., former director of area C  PRRD: Continue reading

Bridge Collapse at Site-C location

Terry Hand
November 18, 2017

“Site C handling verges on scandalous: “Mike de Jong (Alberni Valley News Nov. 14, 2017)

Based on that statement by Mike De Jong (image below), I have to wonder if he would make the same claim if it was HIS money being invested into site-C without his permission.

I have said since 2014 that the site-C project is nothing more than a colossal gamble.

An investment is a calculated decision to put up money after all the details have been laid on the table and all the stakeholders and investors have had an opportunity to review, consider the risks verses benefits, discuss it and reach a conclusion on whether to proceed or not.

The largest stakeholders in this project are the people of BC as they are the ones who fund it in its entirety, regardless of the outcome.  Compare that with how this project has been handled so far!
A gambler, a habitual gambler will continue to gamble until his/her last dime is on the table, throwing good money after bad, this is how the liberal government have handled this project thus far; the only difference between them and the habitual gambler, is they are gambling with “OUR” money not theirs. Maybe we should invest the MLAs pension fund into site-C if it’s such a good deal, just think how much their pensions will grow, well according to their logic. I don’t believe we will see any MLAs jumping on that opportunity anytime soon!

Who in their right mental state decides to build a mega project like site-c after all the warnings of continually reducing electricity demand, of location subsidence? And other associated risks?

For the record and nothing has been said about this in the mainstream media, there used to be a rather large suspension bridge across the peace-river where the site-c dam is to be built, the bridge collapsed on 16 October 1957 due to landslide which moved one of the anchor abutments on the north side, resulting in the collapse of the approach and north side span. From the report by Emeritus Professors at the department of civil engineering university of Edmonton: “Since
Construction of the bridge was the major cause of the landslide”.

The recent actions of the Liberal party in regards proposing and commencement of construction of site-C reminds me of the Monty Python skit about the castle sinking into the swamp, so he built another one and it sank, so he built another one.

In my experience (almost 70 years) there are two things which have remained constant in regards politics on both sides of the Atlantic:

1) Pretty well every government/party speaks of “change” and or of “real change”

2) at the end of the day nothing changes!


The following report and images are available on the web by searching Canadian Geo-technical society. I would place the link but for some unknown reason when I include in articles it brings up a “page not found” error, so too when I try to copy/paste the link into the browser. Click HERE to see video of Peace river bridge collapse then read report and view images below:

Continue reading


By: Terry Hand
Written: June 01, 2014

To build, or not to build the site C dam, that is the question!

For most of us embarking on a major and expensive project usually means we have a good reason for doing so, which brings me to the question, WHY build a dam at all? According to BC Hydro Site C dam will: “provide key benefits for B.C., including energy, dependable capacity and flexibility, regional economic development, job creation, and benefits for communities and Aboriginal groups”. This in itself sounds like a good project and has all the right ‘buzz’ words to keep the average voter happy, but it doesn’t really answer the question of why are we building this dam in the first place?

According to BC Hydro: “our forecasts show demand for electricity will increase by approximately 40 percent during the next 20 years”. Forecast (fore-cast) verb to predict, or estimate (a future event or trend). This sounds to me very similar to gambling, 1) Gamble (gam-ble) verb take risky action in the hope of a desired result. 2) noun an act of gambling; an enterprise undertaken or attempted with a risk of loss and a chance of profit or success.

For about fifteen years retired economist Erik Andersen has been monitoring Hydro’s accounting practices, their financial health and more importantly the cost of electricity to British Columbians. Recently Erik wrote an  article which rebukes Hydro’s claim of a 40 percent increased demand for electricity over the next 20 years. Continue reading