I keep thinking that whoever is behind these losing propositions will get a conscience, intelligence, and a broader perspective. 

I think it is time for the citizens of BC to begin the call for an independent and public investigation of all things Site C.   It may be that this is something we can do in a legal framework, a commission style inquiry, a people's round table system, or another investigative method.    In some way we need to find out about the decision to build the proposed generation site, and the decisions being made to continue and eventually maybe finish it.

But whether it gets finished or not, information about the magnitude of the errors, the shortage of public information, the engineering mistakes, the accounting errors, and the social implications need to be public and comprehensive.  We have a need to know why First Nations rights have been cavalierly trampled, again, in the Peace region Treaty 8 territory.

We have the need and the right to know how a project rejected at $1.6 Billion, at $3.2 billion, at $7.9 billion, and then went to $10 billion, $16 Billion, the sky is the limit, and what the pressures were that caused Hydro and our politicians to sidestep the rejections.  Not to mention, or also to mention, where did the all the money go, and to who.

There needs to be an understanding of the justifications for building the project, and the processes used to convince decision makers that the justification was valid against all the evidence available to the contrary. We need to know whether the justification, if it turns out to have been valid, is still valid.

We need to know how, in a Province that values farmland, 10,000 acres of class one climate capability agricultural soils can be simply discounted to no value, and removed from the Agricultural Land Reserve, without even a consultation with local governments and people.  

 We have time to stop the destruction of the land and all it represents, but not much time, and a lot of need.  With climate change, these lower reaches of the valley, the river flats, which are capable of growing fruits and vegetables, needs a comprehensive cost benefit comparison with the dam.   The comparison of economic value to society will have changed significantly with the understanding of food security issues.

The same applies to species at risk and endangered species that the valley is home to, and the species that have contributed to human survival for thousands of years.  Aside from that value, the simple existence value to the ecosystem coherence, may need to be re-examined.

The safety risk factor associated with the geology of the damsite and the 240 kms of valley wall that the reservoir, fracking, and the dam itself will cause is reason also for an independent examination of the proposal.   This issue ties in with the threat of methane emissions from a never ending stream of biological matter that will slip slide and slump into a reservoir if it is filled. This 'clean' energy may be as bad for climate change as coal fired generation.

We need answers.  The Auditor General may or may not be trying, the BCUC may or may not, BC Hydro appears to be withholding and the new NDP government will need some convincing.

There have been quite a few motives ascribed to Site C and interbasin transfer, (export) of water is one that has been mentioned often.  It is still worth mentioning.  It makes less sense as each year passes because of the dropping cost of solar energy which could be used to desalinize water and pump the fresh water inland.  But that would require our politicians to be aware of events around us.

You hear the argument occasionally that the Peace has already been destroyed by dams so it is better to put a third one there rather than go to a river that is flowing free.   Which is a strange thing, because it doesn't recognize the cumulative impacts of taking more of an ecosystem or watershed.  More stress on species and biodiversity, more stress on social interactions. more stress on food production, etc.

It also ignores the point that we don't need the power and that we should keep our resource use options open.   Now that so much money has been spent, it doesn't matter where the Province acquires the money to pay it back.   

WE are going to be losing, throwing away, a lot of money for any kwhs that get sold from this facility.  How much that is, is difficult to know.   Our Utility regulators, oversight committees, the Energy Ministry, and the Board of Directors of BC Hydro don't seem to have the ability to make an announcement concerning that.

But paying it off using other assets works fine.   If we have to pay it off, we might as well know whether selling a money losing product is better than food for example.   The price of food is increasing, and the price of electricity is dropping, that needs to be a part of the equation.

My hydro bill is about $50 a month and is less than $600 a year.  I designed and built this house with the intention of minimizing my negative impacts on the environment.    Aside from the valuable savings to me that this represents, using less power also costs less, environmentally and socially. For example, BC Hydro could put $40,000 worth of conservation measures on your house, and 450,000 other houses for the financial cost of Site C.   Which, by coincidence, is the number of houses Hydro says could be served by Site C.

 We need a public and comprehensive analysis and investigation into BC Hydro, Site C, and the work done to date.  We need this because Hydro and governments have pushed ahead with the dam despite not having a full and clear picture of costs.  

 This material from Newfoundland and Labrador was available when the Liberals were still in power in BC, and should have been a confirmation for the NDP of the situation's possible failures.  It is not too late to stop the dam.

" Nalcor appears now and again to fess up to a new, higher level of cost overruns — only to go back into hiding because the government has given it unfettered access to the public purse.    There is dysfunction, dishonesty, and incompetence at Nalcor. The 46% of the public who still support the project would have a different view if they had a better understanding of the degree to which their money is being wasted."

The people of BC and Manitoba, and Newfoundland and Labrador, and any other place where these massive and bad investments are being made deserve to have the truth.