NDP to amend farm safety law, premier blames officials for misinformation

Farmers down by Nanton took their protest on Bill 6 to Highway 2.
Farmers down by Nanton took their protest on Bill 6 to Highway 2. Don Patterson / For the Calgary Herald

Premier Rachel Notley says misinformation from government officials has helped whip up concern and opposition to the new farm safety legislation, but she insisted the bill will be passed this fall.

Speaking in a conference call from the international climate conference in Paris, Notley said there will be an announcement soon on how the government will address those concerns and proceed with the legislation.

Labour Minister Lori Sigurdson later clarified on a Calgary radio show that amendments will help clear up confusion around Bill 6 and reassure Albertans that family farms will be protected.

However, Notley said Bill 6 will be passed during the current sitting of the legislature — expected to end next week — prompting the opposition Wildrose to call on the government to slow down.

Bill 6 would compel roughly 43,000 Alberta farms and ranches to abide by occupational health and safety standards, secure Workers’ Compensation Board coverage and comply with labour rules, such as vacation pay and minimum wage.

Farmer Scott Anderson at a protest against Bill 6 at the Legislature on Monday.
Monday’s protest against Bill 6 at the Legislature. Jodie Sinnema

But mass protest rallies were held in front of the legislature on Monday and last Friday, with thousands of farmers and ranchers saying the bill will drive up their costs and limit how much their children and friends will be able to help their operations.

“It has not ever been, nor will it ever be, our intention to introduce a bill that interferes with the ability of family members to do what they have always done on the family farm, or for neighbours to help neighbours or friends to help friends,” said Notley.

“That has never been our intention and frankly, that is not actually the outcome of the bill as it is currently constructed. That being said, I will acknowledge that as a result from some misinformation that has emanated from some government officials, there may be legitimate confusion about that.”

Notley said that miscommunication occurred at public consultation hearings where ministry officials were speaking.

“There was an unfortunate lack of knowledge by the people that were speaking about the bill,” she said.

Another information session is set for Tuesday afternoon in Red Deer.

Notley said she was consulting with members of her NDP government on how to reassure Albertans and an announcement will be forthcoming “in the next short while.” But she said the government would “absolutely not” pull the legislation.

“It is possible to regulate and protect paid farm workers while at the same time excluding family members and volunteer work and educational work and all the other kind of stuff that goes on day-in and day-out on farms,” she said, pointing to the judicial review following the death of Kevan Chandler, who suffocated in a grain silo in 2006.

Related

On Tuesday, Sigurdson said the NDP government will introduce amendments to Bill 6 to clear up misinformation from government officials that has confused the legislation.

“We want to make sure that neighbours can still help neighbours, family members can work on farms, and we were going to put that in the regulations, but we’re going to make that complete in the bill with the amendments coming forward,” Sigurdson told a Calgary radio station.

She lauded farmers for voicing their concerns across Alberta.

“We’re going to do some further diligence on this, create these amendments, certainly speaking with farmers and ranchers in that process. And our consultations are going on throughout the week, so we very much want to make this right and make sure we’re understanding.”

The issue is one of the first in which Notley’s government has been faced with large public protest, petitions and escalating social media outrage.

Wildrose Leader Brian Jean says the government needs to go back to the drawing board and not ram the controversial legislation through before Christmas.

More consultation is needed, he said.

“Families understand better than anyone how their farms work and how Bill 6 will impact their lives. They’ve heard bureaucrats and the minister talk down to them, but all they want is to have their voices heard,” Jean said in a statement Tuesday.

“Bulldozing ahead with Bill 6 and making adjustments on the fly is not how we should be legislating changes to the 45,000 farms across the province.”

With files from Jodie Sinnema, Edmonton Journal, and Chris Varcoe, Calgary Herald

[email protected]

white

Alberta’s Bill 6: Answers to common questions on controversial farm-safety legislation

Government ministers fanning out to personally clarify points about proposed new law

CBC News Posted: Dec 01, 2015 11:47 AM MTLast Updated: Dec 01, 2015 4:30 PM MT

Alberta farmers gather along Highway 2 near Nanton on Monday, Nov. 30, 2015 to protest Bill 6.

Alberta farmers gather along Highway 2 near Nanton on Monday, Nov. 30, 2015 to protest Bill 6. (Kyle Kohut)

Related Stories

Confusion has surrounded the debate over Alberta’s Bill 6, as the NDP government continues to push forward legislation aimed at making farm work safer and bringing the province’s labour laws more in line with the rest of Canada.

Farmers and ranchers see the proposed law as a threat to their businesses and ways of life, however, and they have not been shy about saying so.

The often emotional debate has been heightened by the recent deaths of a 10-year-old boy who was killed driving a forklift on a farm near Killam, Alta., and three sisters who suffocated in canola seed near Withrow, Alta.

In the face of a protest involving more than 1,000 people outside the Alberta Legislature, Labour Minster Lori Sigurdson admitted the government “could have done a better job in communicating.”

She and other ministers then pledged to personally attend town halls and public meetings around the province to offer more clarity about the bill.

Still, many questions remain.

Here, we do our best to answer five of the most common ones, and compare Alberta’s proposed regulations to those in our neighbouring provinces:

1. Will workers compensation be mandatory for all farm workers, including family members?

According to the current wording of the bill, yes, but that could change.

“If you are operating a for-profit farming operation … you must cover any unpaid workers, including family members and children, performing work on your farm,” the Workers Compensation Board (WCB) of Alberta states in its explanation of Bill 6.

Farm operators would be asked to provide a “value of service” for the work unpaid labourers perform, the board explains.

Sigurdson, however, later suggested that would be amended in a new version of the bill, which would include an “explicit” exemption for families working on farms.

The province later clarified in a press release that “WCB coverage would be required only for paid employees, with an option for farmers to extend coverage to unpaid workers like family members, neighbours and friends.”

In Manitoba, workers compensation coverage was made mandatory for farm labourers in 2009, but family members were exempted from that change.

2. How much will WCB coverage cost?

Workers compensation premiums, which must be paid by employers, range depending on the risk of injury associated with the type of work being performed.

Alberta is proposing rates ranging from $1.70 per $100 of insurable earnings for things like greenhouse work up to $2.25 for grain farming and $2.97 for workplaces involving large animals, including beef producers, feed lots, livestock auctions and horse stables.

In British Columbia, by comparison, the rates are more expensive.

At the low end, orchard and vineyard work in B.C. comes with WCB rates of $1.73 per $100 of insurable earnings, but at the high end, the rate for grain farming stands at $4.87 and ranching at $5.65.

3. How dangerous are farms?

Alberta averages about 17 farm fatalities each year, including three deaths of children, based on data collected by the provincial government since 1985.

Most of those deaths in recent years are due to machine runovers or rollovers, although not all were work-related.

By contrast, there are an average of 13 people killed on Saskatchewan farms each year, most involving machinery.

About 14 per cent of serious farm-related injuries in Saskatchewan involve youth.

4. What about occupational health and safety?

Unlike other provinces, farm workers in Alberta are currently exempt from occupational health and safety laws and have no right to refuse unsafe work.

That also means data on work-related injuries and deaths are considered incomplete in Alberta, because currently all accidents don’t need to be reported, and investigations aren’t routinely launched.

In Saskatchewan, by contrast, employers are required to provide safe working environments and must ensure their workers know they have the right to refuse what they perceive to be unsafe work.

Alberta’s occupational health and safety exemption for farms and ranches would change under Bill 6, with standards applying “when a farm employs one or more paid employees at any time of the year,” according to a government press release.

5. Will kids and neighbours still be able to help out on family farms?

That’s been a particularly unclear point, according to Stephen Vandervalk, vice-president of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers in Alberta, who has been watching the legislation closely.

If Bill 6 is passed and indeed takes effect on Jan. 1, Vandervalk says farmers and ranchers aren’t sure if neighbours could casually pitch in with cow branding or if children younger than 16 could help or even accompany their parents if they’re working long hours.

Premier Rachel Notley, however, later pledged that kids living on family farms “will continue to be able to work on the farm as they always have.”

“And they will continue to be educated on the farm through 4H programs as they always have,” the premier said, speaking to reporters via conference call from Paris, where she was attending the COP21 climate change summit.

In Saskatchewan, there are exceptions to occupational health and safety rules that allow kids to help out on family farms, but children are prohibited from tasks like operating motorized farm equipment and handling dangerous chemicals.

No such prohibitions on kids operating motorized farm equipment currently exist in Alberta.

There have been cases in Saskatchewan of confusion, however, where parents have run afoul of labour laws for having their kids take on particular tasks on the family farm.

white

Bill 6 will pass, but Alberta government says it will be amended

Michelle Bellefontaine, CBC News Posted: Dec 01, 2015 10:20 AM MTLast Updated: Dec 01, 2015 5:06 PM MT

A protester holds a sign at a rally protesting Bill 6, the Enhanced Protection for Farm and Ranch Workers Act.

A protester holds a sign at a rally protesting Bill 6, the Enhanced Protection for Farm and Ranch Workers Act. (CBC)

Labour Minister Lori Sigurdson says the government will introduce an amendment to Bill 6 stating that farm and ranch safety rules will apply only to paid workers.

The amendment specifies that mandatory Workers Compensation Board coverage will only apply to workers earning a wage. As well, occupational health and safety rules will only apply to operations that employ one or more workers at any time of the year.

The minister claims the government always intended for family members to be exempt from the contentious farm safety law, but the exemption was to be written into regulations coming in 2017.

However, when the legislation was first introduced, ministry officials said occupational health and safety rules would apply to everyone — paid or unpaid.

Now it will be made explicit that they will only apply to paid workers.

“Farmers and ranchers have told us loudly and clearly, and we’ve been listening, that it’s important for us to have this actually in the legislation,” Sigurdson said. “They said, ‘Hey, we want this up front, we want this in writing,’ so we said OK.”

Sigurdson’s comments came one day after more than 1,000 farmers and ranchers held a protest on the steps of the Alberta legislature.

Bill 6 proposes to introduce a range of new safety regulations on farms and ranches. It will also make Worker’s Compensation Board coverage mandatory.

Farmers and ranchers are concerned the new rules will prevent their children from helping out with family chores and make it impossible for neighbours to help with activities like harvesting and calving.

They have called for the government to exempt small family farms.

Premier Rachel Notley said the government intends to pass Bill 6 in the fall session and won’t delay implementation.

However, Wildrose Leader Brian Jean said the government needs to kill the bill, and properly consult with farmers and ranchers first. Jean said adding an amendment shows the government got it wrong in the first place.

“The number one amendment I would like to see is to stop right now, not pass this bill, not force it through the legislature,” he said. “And take a break, take a step back and listen to Alberta farmers and ranchers.”

The government has admitted communication on the bill has been mishandled. While Sigurdson said she takes responsibility for the botched message, both she and Notley are blaming government officials for giving out wrong information about the bill at a town hall meeting in Grande Prairie last week.

Progressive Conservative Leader Ric McIver said Notley is throwing bureaucrats under the bus.

“That is a far cry from the level of responsibility Albertans should get from their premier,” he said.

Notley said the bill does not prohibit children from working on family farms, as critics have suggested. Nor will it prevent children from taking part in 4H activities.

“Their kids will continue to be able to work on the farm as they always have,” Notley said in a conference call from Paris, where she is attending the COP21 conference. “And they will continue to be educated on the farm through 4H programs as they always have.”

Notley also discussed her activities while in Paris for COP21, where she said Alberta’s new message on climate change was heard.

The government announced Alberta has been accepted as a member of the Climate Group’s States and Regions Alliance.

The group is made up of 31 subnational regions across the world.

white

Alberta family wants talks on farm contaminated by oil and gas industry

  Bob Weber, The Canadian Press

An Alberta family whose farmland has been tainted by chemical contamination has asked the province’s energy regulator to force the responsible companies to negotiate compensation.

“These are very solid facts upon which the regulator can demonstrate it does have the ability to be an enforcer when things go wrong,” said Keith Wilson, lawyer for Ron and Lonni Saken.

The Sakens were informed in 2014 that groundwater under their dairy farm — which has been in the family since 1929 — was contaminated by a solvent used in the treatment of sour gas.

That solvent comes from a gas plant owned by Bonavista Energy, which bought the plant from Suncor (TSX:SU) in 2010. Bonavista’s studies show the leaching began years before it bought the plant.

Experts say it will be at least a decade before the groundwater is safe and will more likely take 30 years or longer. Meanwhile, the contamination prevents the Sakens from selling their farm or borrowing against it.

Plans to expand the farm to allow their son and his fiancee to join it have been put on hold.

The Alberta Energy Regulator has ordered Bonavista to truck at least 9.5 million litres a year to the farm for the family, staff and cattle. Bonavista has complied.

But the water is only a stop-gap, said Wilson. He points to provisions in the 2013 law that created the agency, allowing it to direct companies to attend a dispute resolution meeting.

His letter to the regulator asks it to force both Bonavista and Suncor to do so.

“The meeting will provide an opportunity for the two energy companies known to be responsible for the contamination of the Saken farm to develop a long-term solution,” he wrote.

In a letter to the regulator, Bonavista says it is willing to attend such a meeting but is wary of the stakes. It argues the rules say those talks could only involve the order to supply water.

“Bonavista understands Mr. Wilson’s request to relate to more than the order,” says the company’s letter.

It said it would negotiate with the Sakens if the scope was agreed on in advance.

In earlier correspondence with The Canadian Press, Suncor has said it’s “not appropriate” to comment on a plant it no longer owns.

Nigel Bankes, a resource law professor at the University of Calgary, said Wilson might get the regulator to force Bonavista to the table, but is unlikely to get Suncor.

He said both companies could be included in a contaminated sites order using provincial legislation.

“Then there is a possibility of implicating other persons responsible, (which) would include a prior owner of the facility,” Bankes said.

“I’m not sure why that wouldn’t have been done yet. There doesn’t seem to be much doubt there is contamination.”

A spokesman for the Alberta Energy Regulator was not immediately available.

white

Donald Trump, Eminent Domain & Property Rights

“In the long run, one of the best ways to promote economic development is to respect property rights.”

In the rush to stop Trump’s presidential bid a lot of media and pundits have suddenly discovered property rights because Eminent Domain (government expropriation) is one of the GOP front runner’s vices.

This is good news for Canadian landowners as US political topics eventually trickle into the public debate in Canada too.

This article, while a bit too sympathetic to the “hold out” argument in favour of expropriation, does point out a couple of things CAEPLA supports: engineering innovation and secret assembly.

There is simply no need to violate property rights, ever. Respecting property rights in fact enhances economic development.

Arguably resorting to Eminent Domain/expropriation hurts industry.

The case could be made that had TransCanada not indulged in the practice in Nebraska and other states for the construction of its ill-fated Keystone XL pipeline, the project might have gone through. Local farmers and ranchers would not have been alienated, meaning celebrity and other environmental activists might not have found fertile ground to help create the political cover President Obama needed to block it.

We would note too that in Canada, where TransCanada effectively respected landowners and property rights, CAEPLA was able to negotiate a precedent setting, ‘win, win’ business agreement with the company.

We look forward to seeing how the latest property rights debate plays out over this US election cycle. If you want to take a closer look at the subject we hope you will check out the first issue of the quarterly print edition of the Pipeline Observer, where several writers discuss the topic and its importance to you as a landowner and citizen at length. If you are already a member of CAEPLA you will be receiving your copy in the mail soon. If you would like a free subscription, contact us here.

white

Will Trudeau promote pipelines and make the NEB respect your property rights?

Pipeline Politics

 Canada’s 42nd federal election is finally over.

Justin Trudeau is in with a majority and Stephen Harper, styled by some the “pipeline prime minister,” is out.

CAEPLA of course is non-partisan but that won’t stop us asking what you and pipeline landowners across the country are wondering right now: what will the Trudeau Liberal government mean for pipelines and property rights in Canada.

No new major pipeline projects were completed on Mr. Harper’s nearly ten year watch, despite the moniker.

We already know PM-elect Trudeau is supportive of TransCanada’s controversial and long delayed Keystone XL, the Canadian leg of which was completed with CAEPLA’s assistance and without incident nearly a decade ago.

Mr. Trudeau has also said he would “send Enbridge back to the drawing board” on Northern Gateway (Source: ResourceWorks Newsletter), adding “I am, however, very interested in the Kinder Morgan pipeline, the Trans Mountain pipeline that is making its way through — I certainly hope that we’re going to be able to get that pipeline approved.”

It appears the incoming prime minister is generally supportive of pipeline development and is on record as saying we need more resource development to create jobs for the middle class he put at the centre of his platform.

Interestingly, a minor controversy during the election over revelations a top Liberal operative was offering advice to TransCanada on how to lobby government to get Energy East built failed to derail the party’s electoral fortunes.

This could indicate popular opposition to the project is not particularly strong and that Trudeau himself will be given a lot of latitude by the public when it comes to high profile pipeline projects.

Indeed left of centre parties like the Liberals are often politically more able to “get away” with implementing “right wing” policies than Conservatives are – case in point the Paul Martin Liberals being more hawkish on the fiscal front than Mulroney ever was.

So if we can be reasonably confident a Trudeau administration will approve major pipelines – albeit with tougher environmental rules, or the appearance of same, along with better salesmanship — sometime soon, what might this mean for the property rights of pipeline landowners looking to participate in a new energy transport boom?

This is a significant question given Mr. Trudeau’s pledge to reform the National Energy Board (NEB).

Could respect for property rights become criteria for the Board along with yet more environmental consideration?

This is not as farfetched as it might sound.

Justin Trudeau has made it clear he is a proud champion of the Charter – his father Pierre was its architect, after all.

What is not commonly known especially among conservative minded Canadians is that the elder Turdeau had originally wanted to include property rights in the document.

That they were left out has been a bone of contention for conservatives and property rights advocates ever since.

The second Prime Minister Trudeau has an opportunity to complete his father’s Constitutional vision in a way that benefits landowners, industry and the economy as a whole.

And the first best opportunity Mr. Trudeau has to do so would be repealing the NEB’s powers of expropriation and allow landowners and industry to partner in the ‘win-win’ business agreements CAEPLA advocates.

white

NEB Promises to “Do Things Differently”

Government needs to talk property rights with landowners – or get out of the way.

 At this summer’s National Energy Board (NEB) Safety Forum, newly minted Board chair Peter Watson informed those of us in attendance that he planned to do things differently. 

As a long-time advocate of the NEB doing things differently – or better yet, not at all – I was curious. His predecessor had claimed the Board could only operate within the limitations of government legislation. So I asked Mr. Watson, publicly, what in fact he meant by “doing things differently.”

His response was that he intended to consult and “talk more” with “stakeholders.”

The new chair did not elaborate on who all he would recognize as “stakeholders.”

But unless Mr. Watson starts talking to landowners – the only real “stakeholders” – about property rights, he won’t really be saying anything new at all.

Property rights are the pre-requisite for any serious discussion about safety.

When most people talk about pipeline safety what they are really talking about is protecting people and the environment – i.e., public and private property – from the risk of leaks and spills.

Property rights empower landowners to demand the safest pipelines possible in the deals we negotiate – something even company shareholders want, too.

That’s because property rights are the foundations of a free market system that includes contract and the rule of law which has always been the real way to guarantee the greater good.

Expropriation of private property for the benefit of governemnt and its cronies throws the whole system out of whack.

It is just a subsidy, a kind of rent control, and license for indifferent or reckless behaviour by the recipient.

In other words, if you get to use something for next to nothing, and you don’t even own it, you tend not to look after it very well. This is what’s known in economics as Tragedy of the Commons. It’s the same reason why rent controlled, subsidized, and public housing usually deteriorates so badly – people are getting it for free or cheap, so they don’t look after it.

Meanwhile, even though the majority of landowners are pro-oil pro-development, they are increasingly also pro-property rights and pro-choice — meaning they want the right to say no to a bad development deal.

As we at the Canadian Association of Energy and Pipeline Landowner Associations (CAEPLA) like to say, “Landowners want in!”

In other words CAEPLA encourages agribusiness and other landowners to see themselves not only as voluntary partners in the energy transport industry, but as part of that industry.

Which of course would make the NEB redundant.

Regulators’ original purpose was never really safety or the environment. Those agenda items were only added to their mandate in order to placate the public and justify the Board’s existence.

The NEB has never been an effective guarantor of safety and has lost whatever public confidence it might have enjoyed in any case.

The real route to pipeline safety are property rights that recognize landowners’ right and responsibility to steward the land, to ensure the safety the public demands by way of ‘win-win’ business agreements bound by contract law.

Why would anybody – industry, landowners, or the public – want government to meddle and insert itself in energy transport?

While it may once have protected pipeline companies and politicians, the NEB has never benefited landowners and the public. In fact, the bureaucratization and politicization of pipelines has now paralyzed the industry, with few or no new project in any danger of proceeding any time soon.

This obviously hurts the companies, but it also hurts farmers and the public who rely on safe, abundant cheap energy.

CAEPLA has proven of late that landowners can work with, in, and as part of the energy transport industry.

So if a safe prosperous energy economy is the goal – why not get government regulators out of the way? Why not let the real stakeholders – landowners and pipeline companies get on with it, just like EVERY…OTHER…INDUSTRY…does?

white

AltaLink line could face fight in Supreme Court

30 Sep 2015

Lethbridge Herald

THE CANADIAN PRESS — EDMONTON

Some Alberta landowners are hoping to use the Supreme Court to fight a power transmission line that they say could be left idle as the province cuts its greenhouse gas emissions.

The landowners are completing an application to appeal a provincial regulatory decision that gave power transmission company AltaLink approval to use their property for the line.

Lawyer Donald Bur said Alberta’s Surface Rights Board unfairly ruled that AltaLink’s 350 kilometre line from west of Edmonton to the Calgary area should be considered entirely in Alberta, even though it connects to power lines that leave the province.

That would mean the board didn’t have the right to grant permits to the company to access the appellant’s land, he said.

“All we can do is say to the Surface Rights Board, ‘You don’t have jurisdiction, so you cannot grant a right of entry order on this land,’” said Bur.

If the Supreme Court decides to hear the case, Bur said his clients will ask the court to tell AltaLink to remove the line from their property.

The line has long been controversial.

Alberta’s previous Tory government called the line crucial infrastructure. But critics argued its capacity was far in excess of what Albertans required.

white

Lundbreck area resident talks transmission lines to MD council

Pincher Creek Voice

Wednesday, September 2, 2015

Photo from Russ Thompson letter
to council – possible location of
power line crossing, north
of Lundbreck
Chris Davis
Lundbreck area citizen Russ Thompson appeared as a delegation before council for the Municipal District of Pincher Creek No. 9 at their August 25 meeting. He expressed his concerns about potential power line construction in his area. Using maps and diagrams he illustrated those concerns and his proposed alternative solutions. Among other things, Thompson would prefer to see a crossing at the man-made Oldman River Dam Provincial Recreation Area instead of across natural areas of the Crowsnest River and Connelly Creek. According to Thompson, “AltaLink’s proposed routing along Highway 3 will devastate existing viewscapes”.
Map of Lundbreck area, from
Russ Thompson document
submitted to council

Regulatory power for transmission lines is reserved for the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC), Council for the Municipal District of Pincher Creek No. 9 has no regulatory power but is regularly asked by its citizens to present their concerns to the provincial government.

“My background is in pipeline routing, so 30 years of routing experience on linear projects, albeit on pipelines, not power lines,” said Thompson. “I have looked at all the AltaLink routes, and I would like to present some alternates to you today.””In October, 2014 AltaLink had a different map, that showed 500Kv routes, but they really didn’t tell us they intend to build two lines on the site with Kv sections.”

“There is not just one, but but two sets of towers along those roads.””It’s definitely going to impact the viewscapes around here, having 2 500 Kv lines, versus a single line.”

“AltaLink’s shortest route is 38.27 kilometres. The next shortest is 38.4.”

“The one to Chapel Rock is 13.5 kilometres of 500 Kv, so that’s those two lines, whereas our option has 4.7 kilometers of 500 Kv which will equate to 9.4 kilometres of 500 Kv with the two lines there.

Thompson was also concerned about greenfield ratios.  “How much of the new alignment is what’s called greenfield. That’s not parallel to existing infrastructure, such as pipeline right away, or utility corridor. Anytime you are not directly abutted to that, it’s called greenfield.”

“Greenfield is fairly important.” Thompson said the level of greenfield can escalate a project to another level of regulatory control.

“I was really alarmed when I saw these green fieldpercentages.” He said one route along the Pincher Creek Airport had 78% greenfield.

Water crossings were also a concern for Thompson. “It (Crowsnest River north of Lundbreck) is the most picturesque part of the river, and that’s exactly where AltaLink is proposing to cross.”

According to Thompson there are some issues around power lines crossing at the Oldman River Dam Provincial Recreation area. “AltaLink is trying to stay out of that, because there are some issues crossing that. In exchange for crossing a man-made feature for ease, they are proposing to cross a pristine river valley.”

Thompson explained the area was enhanced to replace destroyed habitat when the dam was established, and said it was home to wildlife and migratory birds, and frequented by kayakers and fly-fishers.

He demonstrated one proposed route with 4 crossings across Highway 3 between Pincher Station and Lundbreck. “This is going to look like an industrial park, if that route is adopted.”

“These towers are 60 to 70 metres tall. That’s 6 to 10 times taller than any structures, any aluminum power line structures that are out there, so these things are going to be very intrusive. They are going to impact all of our views.”

A view near Lundbreck –
Photo from Russ Thompson
letter to council
He said of a proposed route that goes close to Cowley “You’re pushing 150, 146 residences that would be within 800 meters, which is pretty significant.” He said Lundbreck also was also affected by this route.
“I looked at all these roads on the ground, this wasn’t just a desktop exercise,” said Thompson, at one point explaining he had driven over 300 km of back roads.

“You can lessen the impact everywhere you are, but that requires crossing the reservoir.”He offered alternate routs that he said ranged from 4.8 to 13 kilometres shorter than what Alta Link has proposed. “That being the case, it should be significantly less cost to the rate payers, and should have significantly less footprint in the MD.”

He said the routes he is proposing would have less visual impact as they do not run along the highways as much, two of his alternatives have no crossing of Highway 3, and they cross waterways. “Let’s cross it at the reservoir. It’s a man-made feature versus natural.”

Thompson said AltaLink’s proposed routes have anywhere from 37-146 residents within 800 metres, while his route proposals include some guidelines. “The green option has zero residences within 114 metres, and only 14 within 800 metres.””Another thing I want to point out to you is AltaLink just a few years ago built this line to Goose Lake which is just northeast of town, here. They’ve already developed a corridor to there, now they want to develop another corridor west of the Highway 6 junction that runs north-south. When is enough enough?”

Thompson said he presented his suggestions to AltaLink. “Their current position is they are not going to entertain any of the routes that I’ve suggested. I fully expected that they would say that. I think it is very apparent that AltaLink is not going to do anything, unless they’re forced to do it. The only people that are going to be able to force them to do it are the people who live in this area, and maybe the other people in this province that say enough’s enough.”

white

Windmill in Cowley Falling Down on the Job

The wind caused a Windmill in the Cowley area to fall down.  Pictures shown below provided by alf2000:

Windmill5

Windmill7

Windmill6

Windmill8

Windmill9

Windmill1

Windmill2

Windmill3

Windmill4