So, what I say here will probably be controversial, but here goes...

Several of us went up to the Ashlu this weekend.  There were stories of limited access and of Ledcor preventing boaters from getting up.  What we found was that the access has vastly improved, thanks to Ledcor's road into the intake along with some folks who evidently cleared out the slide a bit further up the road.  The dam is well under construction with the powerhouse complex probably at 50% completion and the intake at 20%.  The intake will divert water from the lower 1/4 of the mini-mine and all of commitment canyon (I am not familiar with these runs - this is what Dave told me when we scoped things out).  Given that commitment canyon requires extremely low flows, this could actually increase its season, but that remains to be seen (the folks who actually run this can let us know if this is actually the case).

Ultimately, it was quite clear in the end that Ledcor had the ear of the provincial government.  While it was unexpected that the provincial government would override the local jurisdiction, it wasn't that surprising given the pinch BC is feeling to remain self-sufficient from a power perspective, while continuing to sell us (Washington) power under its treaty obligations.  The sad thing, of course, is that 49MW isn’t a whole lot, given the overall impact.  I am honestly a bit surprised Ledcor can make the numbers pencil given the scope of the construction project.

What is disappointing to me is that the opponents were so shrill, so ineffective, that no concessions were gained.  Concessions are a common tactic AW employs, and very beneficial to the boating community.  If the folks in Squamish had been a bit more tactical towards the end of the debate, perhaps we could have gotten an improved, maintained road all the way up to the play run put-in, and perhaps there could have also been guaranteed flows during the late-summer ashlu boating season for commitment canyon and the mini-mine.

It would help if  you guys actually read what I wrote.  While the project is unfortunate, I wanted to make the point that access is not an issue.  There were quite a few locals that said that it wasn't possible to get up there, and is seems that there is quite a bit of incorrect access information floating around.  We do owe a great deal to whomever went up and cleared out the slide on the way to the play run put in.

I think a few posts made my point.  Time to move on, guys.  The project is being built - you might as well appreciate the improved access and move on to try to fight the next project.  Some of the comments here remind me of the local guy we spoke to who said he was so angry about the project he wasn't planning to boat the Ashlu again.  Attitudes like this do nothing to help raise public awareness of these issues, and are rather similar to how 3 year olds try to get their way.  While I have no basis for knowing, I'd guess this is why the festival has been canceled this year.  I think some folks think I like the fact a dam is being built - this is, of course, not the case.  I guess I open myself up to insults and name calling by being a bit to pragmatic about things - silly me.

I think that, in moving on, there are a few lessons to be learned.  One significant lesson should be to argue against a project on solid facts.  Doing a Google search demonstrates that the opponents to the project frequently repeated several inaccuracies.  One is that the project would destroy fish runs.  This is, of course, not true.  There are no salmon runs due to the violence of the canyon (there are trout in the upper river areas, I am told).  Second, there have been numerous claims that the project would destroy old growth forests.  Of course, the valley has been logged, and there is certainly no old growth anywhere near the existing roads.  Finally, people have referred to the project as a dam, when in fact; it is a run-of-river diversion with no water storage.  None of these issues justify the dam, but using inaccurate facts as a means to stop the project hinders those efforts.  You don’t get credibility with the public unless you have your facts straight.

There are something like 400-500 proposed micro-hydro projects in BC.  There are this many because the permitting for these small projects is vastly easier than a larger project.  While conservation is important, there will be the requirement for new projects.  Ultimately, when it comes to hydro, I believe that the e

-------------

i responded *directly* to your knocks on the opposition not securing what you would consider to be adequate concessions. i quoted you & then responded. don't get all defensive.. stay on topic.

this is arrogant.  and presumptuous. way before you got busy planning your first weekend trip to the ashlu, those who were involved in the ashlu battle were in fact "moving on" & "fighting the next project" & organizing.   & again, those of us who love the ashlu could give a shit about the "improved access". but thanks for the recommendation anyway.

[QUOTE=leifkirchoff] Some of the comments here remind me of the local guy we spoke to who said he was so angry about the project he wasn't planning to boat the Ashlu again.  Attitudes lik

Hey guys, try to remember we are all on the same side.   It might be hard to tell by reading this thread, but I suspect Lief and Todd agree on more than than they disagree on.  (i.e. both of them were against the project and think something needs to be done in order to change the current system)

I'd like to make sure you understand how much I and many other boaters appreciate the work that has been done for access, such as cutting trails and clearing slides from the road. 

It is nice to know, however, that I am not making friends by criticizing the failed effort to stop the Ledcor project.  Next time, I'll try to be a bit more congratulatory, even though the efforts to stop the project failed, and the lack of concessions cannot be viewed as a positive outcome.

Next time there is a project that comes up, I am happy to provide insight on political strategy, like the fact that art films don't typically sway public opinion.  As far as AW goes, perhaps Canada should form its own river sports advocacy group.  A political action group is necessary to pay for lawyers, and it simply doesn't look good for money to flow from the US to Canada, as it turns off the rank and file voters in Canada to the cause.

WHAT?!?!  

Saying you won’t boat with someone is probably the worst thing you can say about someone on a kayaking forum!

What exactly constitutes a personal attack in your mind? 

Dan

Leif and I are just different....he'd agree to that.  I'd venture to say one of the only things we have in common is kayaking....which is why I've boated with him in the past, and yes, I'm sure I'll boat with him again in the future. 

But, we all have our preferences on who to boat with and I'm sure there are some who don't like boating with me...that really doesn't matter to me.  Life is too short to care about shit like that.

 

The thing is, when you say rude things on a public forum, you can expect some shit back in my book.  And overall, this place is very respectful and kind (highly unusual in the world of internet forums) which is great (hence my original apology for the negative vibes).

 

Ok, nuff the negative, here's some stoke

I don't have much to say about the Ashlu situation, but this is a good opportunity to review the pitfalls of online communication. I've learned most of this the hard way, repeatedly.

·         Sarcasm does not translate online.

·         Readers of your posts will interpret any negative comment to be an order of magnitude more offensive than you intended.

·         The relatively anonymous environment of a chat room means some people get very rude very quickly. Now we’re in a negative feedback loop with the first two points.

Some other random observations on the Professor Paddle community:

·         I have yet to meet an honest-to-god asshole here. I’m sure they’re out there, but by and large we’re a friendly group.

·         We’re all on the same side, tactical differences on specific issues aside. Why don’t we give each other the benefit of the doubt? At least be sure that someone said what you think they said before you flame them.

Does the Ashlu Green Power Project avoid a more rigorous environmental review by coming in at 49 MW, as opposed to over 50MW?

Projects over 50 megawatts (MW) are reviewed under the BC Environmental Assessment Office, rather than by the Land and Water BC office, but for all intents and purposes, the regulatory agencies and their people who do the reviews are the same people and departments, no matter what the size of the power project. The same regulatory review agencies are required to assess the project whether the project size is greater or less than 50MW (i.e. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Canadian Coast Guard, Ministry of Environment, etc. still review the project no matter what the size of the project or which lead office is sending them the project information).