A leaked report shows the Alberta government is not being entirely forthcoming about the options on the table for flood mitigation in the Bow River. Both of the purported two remaining dam options (Ghost River Reservoir and Glenbow East) would involve the construction of a new dam. But the leaked report shows another option under discussion would not involve building any new dams.
As the embattled Bow River Reservoir Options (BRRO) project bumps and stumbles its way through a provincial government bureaucratic maze, yet another self-inflicted communications snafu has surfaced, prompting even more calls for the environment department to throw in the towel and give up on discussions of a billion-dollar dam proposal that no one seems to want.
The Glenbow East Option is one of two possible billion-dollar flood/drought mitigation projects being considered by Alberta Environment and Protected Areas (AEPA) for the Bow River.
If built, the controversial dam proposal still on the books is the Glenbow East Dam option, which would result in damage to Glenbow Ranch Provincial Park, and the destruction of the newly opened Haskayne Legacy Park next door. The proposed berm would go right through the middle of the pavilion at the new park, which had a ribbon-cutting just eight months ago.
So a project designed to mitigate flood damage would itself 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.
Opposition to the plan has been led by Glenbow Ranch Park Foundation CEO Jeromy Farkas, who has organized townhalls, letter-writing campaigns and a media blitz to convince AEPA Minister Rebecca Schulz to take the Glenbow East option off the table and deposit it in the trash.
So far, no luck.
Both of the purported two remaining options would involve the construction of a new dam. But the leaked report shows another option would not involve building any new dams.
When Cochrane Mayor Jeff Genung addressed the issue at a recent town council meeting, he said he was “baffled” that the province was even considering the Glenbow East option.
A decision from the feasibility study was originally expected at the end of 2024. That timeline has now been moved up to this fall.
The other change in plans happened when one of three original ideas – the Morley dam option – was dropped, although no official reason was given by AEPA for that decision.
On the night of a Bearspaw townhall meeting a couple of months ago a project manager confirmed it was not being considered anymore, even as AEPA communications maintained that the Morley option was still on the table – as their website confirmed at the time.
At that meeting more than one questioner from the audience asked AEPA officials if they were considering another option – the “no dam” option. (ie., don’t build any dams).
None of the AEPA officials answered those (or any other) questions that night.
Now, another major discrepancy – another disconnect between what the planning team is actually studying and the AEPA Communications version of what the project research entails.
The official stance is no – they have not considered “no-dam” options.
Leaked Report
But the summary of a May 24, 2024 Bow River Working Group (BRWG) meeting says otherwise.
Each page of the more than 100-page document obtained by The Eagle is marked FOR DISCUSSION WITH BRWG ONLY. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION. The report describes the presentations at the meeting where AEPA representatives participated in breakout sessions.
Other participants in the working group meeting were WaterSmart (a consultant for watershed management projects) and WSP (a consultant for engineering and design services for a variety of infrastructure projects including the water, and mining sectors).
The other dam option besides the one near Cochrane is to relocate the existing Ghost dam, known as the RGD option. One presentation section is entitled BRRO Phase Two: Feasibility Study Increasing Live Reservoir Storage at the Existing Ghost Dam Project.
The presenters on the BRRO Alternatives update session were AEPA and WSP.
This report section starts out:
“This draft report explores the concept of creating and accessing additional live storage in existing Ghost Reservoir, as an alternative for the RGD option, by: installing a low level outlet (LLO) structure through existing Ghost Dam; and removing accumulated sediment and overburden material from existing reservoir footprint.”
The objective of the low level outlet would be to increase discharge capacity, increase flood storage capacity, provide additional drought storage and drain the reservoir in emergency situations.
So according to the summary document, a fair amount of time was set aside for the group to participate in this discussion. Yet the department denies it ever happened, so the results might not ever come to light.
Farkas cites it as another example of the environment department dropping the ball in the way they’ve withheld information.
“The left hand doesn’t know what the right hand’s doing, on something so important. It’s frustrating,” Farkas said.
“It’s such a game changing piece of information. We’ve been told all along for 15 years or so that dams are needed then a confidential document comes out that asks was all this controversy and drama even necessary.” he said.
“The public needs to know that.”
University of Calgary political science professor Lisa Young said that the prospect of a government considering the destruction of a park they just opened suggests a problem.
“It seems a remarkable lack coordination that one department makes an agreement and another branch considers (a project) that would flood that very area,” she said.
“Further, the optics of making an agreement like this with the donors and then reneging is very surprising, particularly when the donors are such a prominent and distinguished family.”
Young added that she was surprised that the province didn’t do their die diligence in consulting with the Stoney Nakota on the so-called Morley Option that was subsequently abandoned late in the process.
“It’s bizarre, really,” she said.
Young speculated that perhaps UCP MLAs and cabinet ministers may be hearing a lot about this issue on the BBQ circuit this summer.
The Eagle reached out to Alberta Environment and Protected Areas for comment on July 16. No response had been received at press time.
The longer this project drags on, the more confusion grows.
To visit the project website go to alberta.ca/bow-river-reservoir-options-engagement.
