A8 Terrave Review — Wednesday, August 28, 1991 - Kemano Comp To the Editor; The unimaginable has happened. We have witnessed the suspen- sion of construction on Alcan’s Kemano Completion Project as the direct result of a federal judge’s decision that the project should be subject to the Federal E.A.R.P, (Environmental Assess- ment Review Process). This, of course, has taken place four years after Alcan recieved permission to proceed with the project, and spent some $700 million on con- struction. How bad Canada must look in the eyes of the international investment community. As a result of this decision, major | investors will look upon Canada as an unpredictable and risky place in which to build or devel- op. They cannot rely on permits, approvals or agreements with any kind of certainty. We will be thought of in the same context as countries with politically unstable climates in which this kind of thing happens. And we will not quickly recover our reputation either. As one businessman recently observed, “You can do things right for a hundred years and no one notices, but do it wrong once and people will remember for a long time.” And how did we get to this point? In 1948 Alcan was granted cer- _ tain water licences for the pur- “pose of generating hydroelectric . power in return for making @ commitment to develop a massive hydroelectric and aluminum smelter project in British Letters to the Editor Columbia. When the original hydroelectric project was devel- oped, only a portion of the water Alcan was entitled to was used. Their licences gave them up fo the end of this decade to make use of the balance. . In the late 1970’s Alcan served notice that it intended to proceed with development of its remain- ing hydroelectric potential. After nearly 10 years of scientific research, environmental assess- ment, negotiation, compromises and millions of dollars spent, an agreement was reached between the federal government, the province of British Columbia and Alcan which effectively provided the company with the ability to proceed with construction. The company could proceed because they had received certainty (through the agreement) that they would be able to operafe their new hydro installation once it was built. The environmental impact of the project was studied by no less than four federal ministries and the provincial Ministry of Envi- ronment. Alcan spent millions of dollars doing their own environ- mental assessment and developed (in conjunction with the feds and the province) a project proposal to meet the stringent requirements of the various concerned govern- ment departments. This process, which began in the 1970's and -culminated in the 1987 agree- ment, was publicly endorsed by _the scientific experts representing the federal and provincial govern- ments. They, along with politi- cians of all stripes, lauded this agreement as a model for other projects to follow. And this agreement did not come cheaply to Alcan. It cost them nearly 10 years of dedicated effort, millions of dollars in study and research, and major conces- SIONS: . « The company give up its rights forever to the Nanika-Kidprice river systems. This represents approximately one half of the total remaining water to which Alcan was entitled under its 1948 agreement. (The 1948 agreement between Alcan and the govern- ment granted Alcan the rights to this water). * Alcan committed to build a coldwater release facility at the Kenney Dam for the benefit of fish stocks at a cost now estimat- ed to exceed $40 million. * Alcan agreed to a regimen of fish enhancement under the “Nechako River Fisheries Enhancement Agreement”. This could potentially require the com- pany to build a fish hatchery if the tripartite group determines that it is required. We restate the foregoing to draw attention to the fact that the pro- ject has been studied to death. Canada's foremost environmental experts have publicly endorsed the 1987 agreement. Another environmental review is not war- ranted. The recent federal court judge- ment stating that the federal gov- ernment erred in granting approval to Alcan without follow- ing the formality of the E.A.RP. letion has been studied process does not infer or suggest that the 1979 to 1987 environ- mental studies were incomplete or in error. Rather, the court only stated that the federal government could not sign a major project environmental agreement without following the E.A.R.P. process. Alcan and the federal government are appealing the judge’s decision, an appeal based, among other things, on the fact that the E.A.R.P. guidelines were not in effect when the 1987 agreement was made. Do not be misled. Those special interest groups who have peti- tioned the court for an E.A.R.P. process have only one goal. They want this project stopped forever. They will never be-satisfied with anything less. They could care less about jobs, economic growth or progress. They would have us all live off the land. They are joy- fully aware that by bringing this project to a halt they are one step closer to their goal. A dark cloud of uncertainty and doubt now hangs over the project. These same interest groups or their affiliates are lining up to fight other major projects pro- posed for our region. If a sense of balance on environmental issues cannot be found then we are sure- ly headed toward economic depression. It is no coincidence that Kitimat was recently identi- fied as having the highest per capita income in Canada. Alcan’s success has brought financial suc- cess for all of us. Imagine where we might be today if the Rivers Defence Coalition was around in to death... 1948. We all have to realize that there are no “perfect solutions” to envi- ronmental changes brought on by mankind utilizing the earth’s resources, We cannot expect to sustain a provincial population of nearly three million people (and growing) while maintaining a pristine wilderness throughout the land. . The Rivers Defence Coalition and many other environmental groups take the position that man should not intrude on the earth’s natural environment under any circumstances and any such incursions should not only be stopped but also be reversed. They view the environment as a sacred thing and man as an evil intruder who perverts nature to his own use and benefit. The price to the rest of us in society for the acceptance of this position is a continued downward spiral in economic well being — loss of- jobs, income and quality of life. There is no question that we must observe sound development guidelines to minimize impact on the environment. The 1987 Kemano Completion Agreement — does this. There is as well, no ‘doubt that we need development. Industry brings the kind of high- paying, long-term jobs that fami- lies need to build futures on. We cannot afford to allow the small yet vocal minorities to deprive our country of these opportuni- ties, Mike Scott, Kitimat Chamber of Commerce. _..but then again, has it really? To the Editor; One of the risks of relying on megaproject construction to sus- tain regional economies is that if the project suddenly closes down, the impact on dependent commu- ~ nities is sudden and pervasive. This happened in Kitimat earlier this year when Alcan suspended work on much of its Kemano II hydroelectric project. The company said it ordered the construction slowdown after a federal judge decided that its river diversion project was sub- ject to a full public review. Mr. Justice Walsh also ruled invalid a 1987 agreement between Alcan and the federal and provincial governments that attempted to bypass the federal review pro- cess. The resulting disruption experi- enced by construction workers atid area contractors and busi- nesses has been described to sym- pathetic local media in bitter terms. In these circumstances “those most effected tend to seek scapegoats for their difficulties. Kitimat businesses, through their Chamber of Commerce, identi- fied-the Rivers Defense Coalition, 4 group of environmental, labour, aid fishing organizations. The éoalition initiated the legal actions leading to a court-ordered review of the Kemano project. ‘The arguments against the review set out by the Kitimat Channber in a widely circulated article were not surprisingly, very similar to those used by Alcan when it argued its case before Mr. Justice Walsh. Why was the judge not persuaded by those arguments in court, and why is the public not persuaded by them now? The answer lies in the 1987 Kemano Settlement Agreement signed by Alcan, the federal Min- ister Fisheries and Oceans, and the provincial Minister of the Environment. Alcan said the - agreement allowed it to go ahead with project construction, The coalition said the Minister of Fisheries could not sign away his legislated fish protection powers © and responsibilities to a private company or sign away the pub- lic’s legislated right to a full envi- ronmental review. Shortly after the agreement was signed the coalition initiated its legal challenge to the agreement but Alcan decided to proceed anyway and began construction the following summer. Alcan management calculated that the 1987 agreement would be found legally binding. It gambled with $1 billion of Alcan shareholders’ money as well as with the invest- ments of workers and small busi- nesses. [t lost that gamble when the federal court struck down the Kemano Settlement Agreement and ordered an environmental assessment of the project. -The Rivers Defense Coalition has never opposed the Kemano project but rather called for a public environmental assessment before‘any decision authorizing approval. Since 1979 member groups have called for full public hearings and indeed were promised public hearings by four successive federal fisheries min- isters and several provincial cabi- net ministers. However, in 1987 the federal and provincial govern- ments negotiated an agreement behind closed doors which allowed Alcan to proceed with its project without any kind of public review. . The 1987 agreement dealt only with fish and did not consider impacts on agriculture, wildlife, water quality, or water supply for municipalities and other residents along the river. To our knowledge government departments have never conducted studies on these impacts and if they have, they certainly have not made them public, It is not true that the pro- ject has been studied to death. Even the scientific report on fisheries mitigation measures appended to the agreement has not been unanimously accepted by experts as the Chamber of Commerce suggests. Recently two retired federal fisheries scien- tists have expressed their con- cerns about the settlement agree- ment and have discussed the pres- sure put on department scientists to accept the project. In fact, the . fishery protection measures pro- posed in the agreement have never been tested and experts are divided as to the results of such measures. Where you find such ‘differing expert opinions, the: public must have the opportunity to review both sides. Alcan has done extensive stud- ies to support its position in court but they have never been scruti- nized in a public forum. In the federal court judgement Mr. Jus- tice Walsh said, “It is not suffi- cient to be satisfied with a review, however extensive, per- formed by the proponent of a pro- . posal, even in co-operation with the ministers involved, without a public assessment by an indepen- dent panel at which all interested parties may be heard.” The Kitimat Chamber suggests a call for an environmental review means there is no interest in jobs, Members of the United Fisher- men and Allied Workers Union, the Gulf Trollers Association, the Pacific Trollers Association, and the Canadian Pulp and Paper- ‘workers Union disagree. As Rivers Defense Coalition mem- bers, they are concerned that the Kemano project may affect their jobs as weil as the integrity of the Nechako River system. While several hundred jobs were created in the construction phase, it is estimated there will only be six to 10 permanent jobs at Kemano' when the project is completed and that, for a long time, Kemano power will be sold to B.C, Hydro for export. Public reviews of megaprojects take time and cost money. You can increase employment and fund more environmentally sound ways to do things. But when. companies and government try to avoid this useful process, it is the local economy and environment that suffers. Chairperson, Rivers Defense Coalition. FAST FOREST FACTS sponsored by Canadian Women in Timber Terrace Branch FACT: In 1987, siash-burning released about 10 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in- to our atmosphere. That same year, the burning of fossil fuels released 32 million tonnes. “If prescrib- ed burning were not carried out following logging, similar amounts of carbon dioxide would probably be released from the decom: — position of the slash and lit- ter over a longer period of time.” (Source: Forestry Canada} Pat Moss, if ‘