A public engagement meeting just outside Calgary last Wednesday designed to clear the air on details surrounding a controversial billion dollar Bow River dam proposal has accomplished the opposite by muddying the waters and creating confusion over what exactly the provincial government is considering as viable options.
One of the main decision points for the proposed Bow River Reservoir is around whether Alberta Environment and Protected Areas (AEPA) is seriously considering three potential dam site options or two, or, as some at the meeting suggested – none at all.
Glenbow Ranch Park Foundation’s CEO Jeromy Farkas, who organized the Bearspaw meeting, is leading the charge against the Glenbow East option.
“It would be nothing short of catastrophic for the park,” he said in his presentation.
From a flood mitigation perspective, Farkas said it just doesn’t make sense to him to lessen the flood waters headed towards Calgary in favour of sending them rushing back into Cochrane.
He said the GRPF wants to be “solution finders” rather than complainers, but also recognized that many people are frustrated by what’s perceived as a lack of clear communication on the reservoir proposals.
Up until the meeting on May 29, the official AEPA position, (as expressed by the project website and departmental officials who attended a townhall in Cochrane May 4) was that three options were under investigation: the Glenbow East option, (estimated cost $992 million), the Ghost Dam option ($917 million) and the Morley option ($922 million).
A conservative estimate of an infrastructure project of this scale that would not be completed until 2034 would see inflation and escalating construction costs push it well over a billion dollars.
The feedback process is now entering Stage Two, which includes a detailed hydrological study and potential selection of an option to proceed to Phase 3. A decision from the feasibility study is expected by the end of 2024.
At the meeting, presenters from AEPA said they were currently in Phase Two of the feasibility study and that that “no decisions have been made.”
The project website, as of this weekend, still says that Phase Two has:
“a focus on determining the technical feasibility of the 3 options as well as identifying the potential impacts and associated benefits, implementation requirements and costs of each reservoir option. Completion of the study is scheduled for December 2024.
“The Bow River Reservoir Options initiative looks at 3 reservoir options in the Bow River basin, upstream of Calgary:
- Morley: A new reservoir between Seebe and Morley, on Stoney Nakoda Nations Reserve land
- Relocated Ghost Dam: An expansion of the existing Ghost Reservoir
- Glenbow East: A new reservoir between Cochrane and the Bearspaw Dam at the western edge of Calgary”
But a project director confirmed after the meeting that the Morley option is no longer on the table. He said the government had some trouble getting access to the Morley site to do necessary testing.
Which would explain why neither the AEPA presentation nor Farkas’s included the Morley option on Wednesday.
So, it seems at least one major decision has been made – it’s down to two options, not three.
A government sponsored study done in 2020 predicts the Glenbow East option would destroy the Haskayne Legacy Park before it’s even a year old and do significant damage to Glenbow Ranch Provincial Park as well.
A project designed to mitigate flood and drought damage would likely cause considerable flood damage.
Philanthropists Dick and Lois Haskayne donated the land for the Haskayne Legacy Park, valued at $5 million, and added $2 million towards the construction of the pavilion. The park, a neighbour to the Glenbow Ranch Provincial Park, was only opened to the public last October.
Farkas outlined a number of perspectives on why the GRPF opposes the Glenbow East option, (ecological damage, costs of relocating the railway, etc.) before offering a summary.
He said it boils down to considering how important a promise is.
The Haskaynes and the Harvies (who donated millions of dollars to make Glenbow Ranch Provincial Park a reality) were promised the new parks would be protected in perpetuity.
“What is the value of a broken promise?” Farkas asked.
He said if the Glenbow East option is pursued, a negative precedent would be set. Merely considering such an option has already had an effect.
“I can tell you, in conversations with some prospective donors, the chilling effect is already significant. The damage has already been done as a result of the government’s consideration of this.”
Flawed public engagement process
At the May 4 meeting Farkas said the GRPF was holding public information meetings because the government’s public engagement process was flawed.
Six AEPA officials assigned to the Bow River Reservoir Options project (including project managers, the engagement specialist, and two consultants) were at the Bearspaw meeting – two made presentations but none took questions from the crowd.
A couple of the audience members said they were confused and didn’t understand what options were being considered. Others said they wanted AEPA to consider another option: don’t build any dams. Anywhere.
Jenny Yeremiy of Calgary Climate Hub said the entire approach is wrong and that the underlying assumptions should be reconsidered.
She said a natural capital approach, as espoused recently at a meeting in Bragg Creek by landscape ecologist Brad Stelfox, was a more responsible way to manage land use.
“We had two scenarios presented. Both are development options. They both are not being weighed against a third option, which is to invest in natural capital,” Yeremiy said.
“We need to understand the value of the land these two projects would damage.”
The natural capital approach advocates attaching economic values to a wide spectrum of land uses, including things like parks and recreation, and ecological reserves.
If the East Glenbow option is built, Farkas said much of the Glenbow Ranch Park’s conservation lands outside of the park (valued at more than $8 million) will be lost, while about a third of Glenbow Ranch would be flooded, including historic grasslands that contribute to overall watershed health.
And Farkas added that by flooding the tight narrows between the two parks, “the dream of a Calgary-to-Cochrane Bow River trail connection will be permanently impossible.”
AEPA has been engaging with the public and local stakeholders on the Bow River Reservoir options for nearly three years.
Engagement conducted from 2021-23 included virtual live sessions, in-person meetings with property owners, online webinars and dozens of meetings with stakeholder groups, including the Glenbow Ranch Park Foundation.
To visit the project website go to alberta.ca/bow-river-reservoir-options-engagement.
A call from The Eagle to Stoney Nakoda Nations in Morley has not been returned.
