A proposed dam on the British Columbia side of Peace River could affect water levels, fish, and plant life along the already strained Peace-Athabasca delta, but water advocates here in Alberta are struggling to get the information they need to mount a response to the plans.

Bob Cameron, a member of Keepers of the Water, a multi-province advocacy group, has been trying for over a year to get information about trans-boundary water-sharing discussions between the two provinces. He says Alberta Environment has told him he must wait until the agreement is completed.

“Popping the agreement out when it’s all cooked up is the same thing that’s happening with the TILMA trade agreement,” he says, referring to the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement between Alberta and B.C., which was signed before it was ever discussed in the Alberta legislature. “It might seem okay to Eddie Stelmach, but I give my head a shake.”

Cameron is concerned that the dam, called Site C, will reduce the amount of water flowing over the border and through the Peace-Athabasca delta, which stretches across the whole of northern Alberta and into Saskatchewan. The waterway is one of the largest freshwater deltas in the world, and the largest boreal delta. The area is one of the most important nesting and resting areas for ducks, geese, and swans in North America. It is also prime stomping grounds for buffalo, according to Environment Canada.

Cameron recalls how in the 1970s, another dam on the Peace River, the W.A.C. Bennett Dam, dried up ponds along the delta, reducing the flow of the river at times, and causing flooding in Fort Chipewyan when water was released. And so he’s not buying reassurances from B.C. Hydro that the dam will not be as damaging as the Bennett Dam; he wants to know exactly what Alberta is discussing with B.C. 

Rachel Notley, MLA for Edmonton-Strathcona and the NDP environment critic, says he’s right to be concerned, as Alberta Environment has a reputation of secrecy and poor communication with the public.

“We don’t have a culture of openness in Alberta—quite the contrary,” she says. “I share the concerns that people in the North have about not getting information and not being consulted.”

Notley herself hasn’t heard much about the project. Alberta Environment didn’t mention consultations with B.C. in their strategic plan or their recent budget. Frank Oberle, the Conservative MLA for Peace River, declined SEE’s request for an interview.

The negotiations on water flow across the border are separate from consultations on Site C, according to Alberta Environment. Because Site C is still in the very early stages, they say, there simply isn’t much information on environmental consequences. “Nothing has been submitted,” says spokesperson Cara Van Marck, “so it would be very hard for us to comment.”

If B.C. approves the dam, then the province must consult with Alberta and the federal government, but until the approval occurs, there’s nothing to talk about.

David Conway, B.C. Hydro spokesperson for the Site C dam, emphasizes that B.C. is still in the consultation phase, and the dam is not a done deal. (Indeed, the project has been shelved several times previously.) Consultations in B.C. will continue into 2009, after which the B.C. government will make its final decision.

But obviously water activists have to make their case against the dam before the B.C. government makes a decision, says Norine Wark, a B.C. member of Keepers of the Water, who has fought Site C since she was a teenager. The dam has been on the B.C government’s back burner for decades, she explains, but this time around the manufactured perception that Canadians are facing an energy crisis is putting more political push behind the dam than ever before. 

“Site C is considered a cash cow,” Wark says. “They are building it to sell the energy [to the United States] and make gravy over the next 10 years.”

According to Wark, the B.C. government has successfully sold the dam as a “green project” and part of their efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, when in fact the dam will actually ruin fruitful agricultural lands in a warm microclimate, and could have an adverse effect on an ecologically important delta, one that serves as a buffer to climate change. 

“Because it’s up north and out of mind,” Wark says, “it’s like the people down south are sleeping. They have no idea what a huge ecological disaster this dam is.”

Current plans for the dam include a long, skinny reservoir of water behind an earth-filled dam about 60 metres high, 1,100 metres across, and about 800 metres at the base. 

B.C Hydro is selling the dam as similar to a “run-of-river” project, which has far less adverse consequences than a regular dam. The idea is that the same amount of water comes out of the dam that goes into it, making the Site C dam much less destructive than the Bennett dam, according to B.C. Hydro. But given the size of Site C and her experience with previous dams, Wark is highly skeptical, and so are the Mikisew Cree First Nations at the other end of the delta in Fort Chipewyan. 

The Mikisew Cree First Nation is currently suing the B.C. government over the flooding caused by the Bennett Dam. No one consulted with First Nations before building that dam, says George Poitras, a Mikisew member and activist. Periodic flooding from the dam killed many animals in the area, animals that the Mikisew depended on for both food and trapping income. The Athabasca Chipewyan settled with B.C. Hydro a couple of years ago, but the Fort Chipewyan Mikisew Cree’s lawsuit is still pending.

The band sent letters to both provincial governments demanding they be consulted, a right the band has previously gone all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada to protect. Both Alberta and B.C. have promised to speak with the band.

“There are a lot of outstanding concerns and issues, not to mention ligitation,” says Poitras, “and here they are proposing another dam. Naturally, Fort Chipewyan is very concerned about Site C.”

With the oilsands drawing large amounts of water from the Athabasca River, as well as the proposed nuclear plant possibly drawing water from the Peace River, both Poitras and Cameron worry about the cumulative effect on the health of the delta. At the very least, Cameron wants full discussion here in Alberta before B.C.’s plans become unstoppable.

And that’s a justifiable concern, says Notley, especially given Alberta Environment’s poor reputation. The government should offer general information and a peer-reviewed environmental assessment to the public before any agreement is signed with B.C, she says. “People need to be given the time and the resources to participate meaningfully in the process.”