Assessing the impact of run-of-the-river hydro projects Craig Orr, Watershed Watch, joins an argumentative Michael Smyth CKNW - Nightline B.C.

8:33 PM August 14, 2007

Michael Smyth: Well, let's talk about some of the hydroelectric projects that are under way around British Columbia, and there are a lot more of them going on than you might know about, because a lot of the projects are being billed by the government as smaller. "Micro-hydro projects" is one of the buzzwords that's thrown around. "Run-of-the-river" is another one that these projects go by. In other words, run-of-the-river hydro.. The selling point on this one is they don't build a giant dam like the big dams on the Peace River that they built back in the 60s. Instead, they divert part of a water's flow, run it downhill through a pipe to turn some turbines and to create electricity.

The government says it's clean, green, environmentally friendly electricity, zero greenhouse gas emissions, but environmentalists are increasingly concerned about these projects.

I want to welcome back to the show right now Craig Orr, executive director of Watershed Watch.

Hi.

Craig Orr: Hi, Michael:

Smyth: Thanks for coming on. So how many of these projects are under way in B.C.?

Orr: It's hard to keep up, because there is a bit of a gold rush, but there were.. We've just done two reports looking at all the aspects, and we did a little bit of history here. There were 25 projects constructed before 2006.

By 2006 there were 41 new purchase agreements with B.C. Hydro for projects, and in May 2007 we found that there were at least 348 applications on the record for run-of- river hydro power projects in British Columbia.

Smyth: Okay, what are your concerns about them?

Orr: Well, we have quite a few concerns. Now, I will say this. You know, we're not opposed to run-of-river hydro power. The minister was quoted on Global tonight as, you know, saying that the groups are opposed and they want to stop them, and I really, you know, take issue with that, because we've done some very careful reports here on how the sustainability of run-of-river can be improved.

Smyth: So you're saying, okay, you're not against them as a concept.

Orr: No, no.

Smyth: So you support.?

Orr: [Inaudible], you know, that the concept is sound in many cases, but there are certain individual projects that should not be allowed to go ahead. But it's a process in general that our report was looking at here, and..

Well, where do we start? First off, there's two different agencies approving run-of-river power, B.C. Hydro and the Ministry of Environment, and the federal Fisheries is also involved in this as well. But there is uncoordinated levels of approvals for run-of-river, and the weakest one certainly is B.C. Hydro's, the EcoLogo criteria, and we have a lot of concerns with that, because it really doesn't consider environmental issues around run-of-river until the projects are constructed. And the problem, too, is that Hydro has its own approval process and doesn't talk to the Ministry of Environment generally, you know, until much later, and..

Smyth: Well, hang on a second, though. Don't these projects have to go through an environmental assessment?

Orr: No, they don't - only if they're greater than 50 megawatts. That's the key for triggering a full-blown environmental assessment.

Smyth: Well, what is the environmental impact review in a project below that?

Orr: There are the separate reviews by B.C. Hydro EcoLogo criteria and by the Ministry of Environment with help from Fisheries and Oceans, so..

Smyth: So they do measure.. So the smaller ones.. I mean, come on; they still get measured for their environmental impact.

Orr: Oh, sure, they do.

Smyth: Yeah.

Orr: .but what we're saying is that it's not nearly as rigorous of a project as with the environmental assessment process, Environmental Assessment Act.

But even that process does not deal with one of the major issues around run-of-river hydro power, and that's the cumulative impacts of projects.

Right now we have a very, very poor understanding of what those cumulative impacts might be, and in this gold rush that we have, that's a major concern. I mean, like I said, 350 applications. They tend to be concentrated in areas with, you know, good river systems, obviously, but also existing transmission corridors, so the cumulative impacts are [inaudible].

Smyth: Well, what are the potential impacts? Because when we listen to the government, they'll say, look, these things are great, because, look, we're not building an enormous dam on these rivers. Essentially, we're diverting part of the water flow. We can control the water flow up and down so when there's a freshet in the spring and there's lots of water, they can have more water going through. When there's a lower period of water levels, we can let the water rise levels. So in other words, the fish can get up the river and all the rest of it.

Orr: Well, let's [consider] that. You know, the negotiating.. Where we start negotiating on these is to be able to withdraw 80 percent of the flows in a certain section of river, and this could be for four or five kilometres, because the water is diverted, you know, in a diversion reach that may be four or five kilometres in length. So 80 percent of the flow is taken out as a starting point. There may be a negotiation so there's less. But there is a lot of uncertainty..

Smyth: But if I could just.. Let me just interrupt you there on the 80 percent, because that's key, because that sounds like a lot. Like, someone might be listening and going: "What? You're going to take 80 percent of the flow of a river out of it?" Don't these things fluctuate? I mean, they might take..

Orr: Well, sure, they fluctuate, but also.

Smyth: Yeah, they might take 80 percent of the water out when there's, like, a huge spring melt or a spring runoff. Then they take the water out - right?

Orr: Well, it's 80 percent of the annual flow, so, you know, you can figure out what that is. Obviously, it does fluctuate, but also, they actually reduce the variability in flow and the fluctuations in flow when they extract, you know, a certain amount of..

Smyth: What's the impact of that - when they reduce the flow of the river?

Orr: We don't know entirely, and that's the problem. There's a degree of uncertainty. It affects the temperature. It affects the dissolved oxygen. It affects the gas pressure. It has.. You know, surface water is linked to groundwater too, there's no question about that, and we have absolutely no legislation to protect groundwater in British Columbia - surface water, yes.

But we don't understand, if we draw 80 percent of a river, what it does to the surrounding groundwater if they're connected, and they generally are.

Smyth: Here's the problem I have with it sometimes - is because we hear people out there talking about global warming and greenhouse gases. This is the number one environmental issue of our lifetime, the gravest threat to the planet and all the rest of it, and these type of projects, these small hydro projects, these run-of-the-river projects, are clean energy. They produce zero greenhouse gas emissions. This is the type of power we want - right?

Orr: It's wonderful, and I don't disagree with you.

Smyth: We need power. We need power.

Orr: .but what Watershed Watch and others are saying is they can be made much more sustainable than they currently are if we consider what the potential and the real impacts are and we have a process in place in the province that plans how these things go in so we maximize the benefit and minimize the costs. We are currently not doing that. There is no strategic plan. And, you know, using "strategic" is a bit of a stretch too. There's no plan in British Columbia to..

Smyth: What do you mean, there's no plan? The government has announced this is one..

Orr: It's proponent-driven right now, and we're entirely reactionary.

Smyth: This is one of the.. Hang on. The government has said, look, we want to be power self-sufficient by.2016? I forget the target date.

Orr: Oh, that's a plan? That's not a plan.

Smyth: What kind of plan do you want?

Orr: There are certain areas where these, you know, can be situated with fewer impacts, and there are certain areas that have higher wilderness values, recreational values, wildlife values that they should not be situated in, and that's the kind of planning process that is not going on in British Columbia right now and that needs to go on.

Smyth: But doesn't the review.? All those good things that you just mentioned, the impact on wildlife and the rest of it.. Aren't those all studied in the environmental impact process?

Orr: Well, you know, it's funny you should ask, because British Columbia currently does not have effective laws regarding wildlife and plant conservation, and agency staff, or the Ministry of Environment in particular, have very little clout in asking for studies and mitigation around wildlife impacts - with the following exceptions: only when the terrestrial species is already known to be present and is listed as endangered or threatened; when the species is regionally significant; or when there are provisions under the Wildlife Act for certain species, such as ungulate winter range habitat.

Really, these are.. The assessments that go on and the mitigation that goes on around wildlife is very, very weak because of the weak Wildlife Act, and as a result, concerns regarding effects on terrestrial species are poorly addressed in run-of-river IPPs. We found this very clearly in the report.

And we didn't just pull this out of the air. We talked to the agencies people who are looking at these projects and scrambling, I might say, trying to keep up to all these applications.

And the issue of roads and transmission lines is a huge problem with these projects that needs to be in the planning process. We're not saying that you don't build roads or transmission lines, but you have to take these impacts into account. You know, we've had a 2001 restoration assessment which says very clearly that most ecosystem degradation comes from access roads and power lines.

So, you know, these things need to be in the mix, and citizens don't really understand these things in large part, and they need to be brought into the mix as well.

Smyth: Craig, it sure is an important issue - I certainly agree with you on that - and we do need to talk about it more, so I think we've got to have you back on the show. But I want to thank you for coming on tonight.

Orr: Thank you very much.