Whitewater Ontario's Minden is being pressed to divert for power

Here is the ongoing discussion:

Whitewater Ontario wants a hydroelectric diversion put in!!!!! Email them how you feel about this. Let's Dam WO, AND NOT THE GULL RIVER.

Welcome to Whitewater Ontario
Whitewater Ontario
WHITEWATERONTARIO.CA
Share
Jeff McColl, Jon Ward and 2 others like this.

Wayne Donison Not a true statement.
12 hrs

Billy Harris What should it say?
10 hrs

Robert Koloshuk It's a true statement unless the advocacy committee presents a resounding 'NO' at the board meeting. So if it's not a true statement than prove it Wayne!
1 · 11 hrs

Billy Harris Hold on Wayne. Do you want this project to go through?
11 hrs

Billy Harris I don't care what carrot or sweetener a corporation slathered on this it's a corp wanting to put a hydro electric project in and kayakers say no to that. Leave the gull b!
11 hrs

Kevin Maggs Ok, So Wayne is on the Volunteer W/O Board. Wayne who was part of the fight to save the Kipawa, Ran the Rally at least one year. Was part of that big rally in Ottawa to fight against the dam that threatened the entire Kipawa watershed. You know the one that Esprit organized? Maybe you missed it. Has attended more HOHW events than you have Billy and he lives more than 45 minutes away. As part of W/O has the negotiated paddler access to various Marmora area rivers. Was the main one responsible for saving access to the lower Irvine with a Landowner agreement. Before being on W/O spent hours on a committee to remove a dam on the Grand, then hours fighting for access to the Grand when a developer wanted to close access. I don't know but I kind of think if he is on the case, things might not be so dire. It's not like he'd rather be paddling than spending hours in meetings about yet another dam or access issue. Personally I don't care about the Gull, It's kind of an artificial river so I'll leave it up to people to fight it out but Wayne's credentials are solid.
5 · 3 hrs

Billy Harris Wayne's credentials are solid, so who is on side for this project?
2 hrs

Gary George I don't have any concerns about Wayne Donison or his credibility. My trust in the WO process doesn't go much beyond that. I have been the well intended hard working unassailable tireless guy deflecting dissent and encouraging people and advocating on behalf of the two worlds. I know how that often turns out.
2 · 2 hrs

Wayne Donison Simple statement, as I have said to many people many times. The committee position on behalf of paddlers has always been that we prefer NO diversion...of course. The concern was the risk of losing paddler access below Whitehorse Falls...since we don't own that land. The survey did not present this position as clearly as I would have liked.
1 · 2 hrs

Robert Koloshuk I agree with Kevin that Wayne's track record is exceptional. But there's this conversation that Wayne is stuck in the middle of, and it's a conversation between people who are totally misguided and people who care about the river and realize that it's totally ridiculous to sign MOU1. The fight should be for access if there is a fight at all, based on what we know about OPGC and the project. I'm sorry, but lots of great paddlers do care about the Gull (a lot), and nobody has presented a case where signing OPGC's MOU1 can be worth it, even if there were a fight for access, which quite frankly, its fairly obvious there won't be...
2 hrs

Gary George So here we have the Countries most famous and celebrated Slalom course, the second most favoured reliable whitewater in the Province, the home of several World Cup competitions and the recent venue of the Pan Am`s and we`re concerned that a small hydro operator will withdraw access if we don`t play ball and give up water and functionality?
1 · 2 hrs · Edited

Robert Koloshuk That's right Gary... It's ludicrous... And several people within the WO advocacy committee have indicated that they would prefer if the river were diverted to keep the levels lower for them sometimes, and because OPGC will pay off WO to the tune of maybe $10,000 per annum.....
2 hrs

Gary George WO has always operated in a money vaccum, proposals have been made in the past to re-finance or sell the Preserve in order to fulfill budget needs. The budget needs of WO are primarily slalom based. As always it appears the Preserve will be a target to fund the rest of the organization. Recreational paddlers are the primary users of the Gull and the Preserve these days as has been the case for a couple decades now. The occasional usage by the slalom world is so rare and relatively inconsequential by comparison yet the river and the Preserve itself will be sacrificed to support that faction of WO. This is a glaring example of the diametrically opposing needs of the organization and the fatal flaw that keeps WO forever floundering. There is no logical reason what so ever that Advocacy should have to be negotiating among paddlers to find consensus on river protection, especially this river. Yet here is poor Wayne having to defend an asinine intent to paddlers when his energy would be better spent fending off what can only be regarded as an assault an insult and a renege of agreements of long ago. In my opinion WO is to concerned about political correctness and warm fuzzy bullshit.
2 hrs

Billy Harris Who are the people saying yes to this diversion program?
2 hrs

Gary George I always preferred the Gull in the lower levels rather than at higher water however I cannot imagine advocating for something so precedent setting and obviously negative just so my time on the river would be more pleasant for me. If this goes thru it will embolden the hydro proponents, expect more of the same on other favourites. It amazes me that anyone could take a hands off viewpoint on this just because they don't paddle at the Gull.
1 · 1 hr

Kevin Maggs Perhaps someone could explain the down side to me. After reading the proposal it seems that right now the gull is a dam controlled river. If W/O wants reliable water for an event, they pay for it. Quite a bit of money from the looks of things to Parks for moving logs. Is it possible that W/O in exchange for their support could have negotiated releases that wouldn't cost? What are paddlers losing here? How many times per year does it run big? Is it fun at those levels? If the argument ends up being a dam controlled river that costs vs a dam controlled river that doesn't cost for releases and we still get regular releases but miss some high flow is that an issue? If you look at the W/O page they are begging for volunteers to run the Preserve. If paddlers love this preserve so much then why isn't it a paid position with high enough camping fees to cover costs?
1 hr

Robert Koloshuk The Parks Canada dam will still be there, and if the diversion is built they will have to negotiate more water from two counterparties instead of just one. The only thing they will 'get for free' is less water, a giant construction site for 2 years, a giant concrete tailrace and powerhouse, an underground diversion channel right under the campground, and a dry river outside of the 'normal paddling season'. WO has a unique power to stop the project because of land ownership, but the other stakeholders (fishermen, photographers, etc.) will also be getting shafted. A lot of paddlers are local or have cottages in the area, and they don't use the preserve lands, they just show up on river-right to paddle for the day, which might be why the campground doesn't generate much in camping fees per person on the river boating.....
1 hr

Robert Koloshuk Here is a copy of the unbiased survey that got killed by the committee:The case for signing:

1. There is a potential to create access issues if MOU 1 is not signed, but these are as yet unverifiable issues.
2. If MOU 1 is signed there is a limited opportunity to have some control over river flows in cases where it is deemed preferential for the flows to be lower.
3. During spring flows the diversion would make the river level lower, and this may be preferential to some paddlers.
4. There is a potential to enhance the paddling experience for some intermediate paddlers by ensuring that levels more frequently suit the needs of those people who are not comfortable with the seasonal flows when they are higher than 8.3.
5. Lower flows could be ordered at no cost for special events, and higher flows could be ordered dependent on both Parks Canada’s and OPGC’s cooperation. Additional costs will likely still apply to ordering higher flows from Parks Canada.

The case for not signing:

1. There is no indication that OPGC would enact any form of retribution for failing to sign MOU 1. To date, all communications with OPGC indicate that they are perfectly willing to accept a no to signing MOU 1, and they will simply allow the status quo on the river to be maintained. Legally OPGC may be in a position to act vindictively, but it is not standard practice for corporations to expose themselves to unnecessary lawsuits, and therefore there is likely no disadvantage to not signing MOU 1, other than the potential lost opportunity with regards to having lower flows when desirable.
2. The diversion of flow to generate power will remove flow from the kayaking section, and thereby undermine the paddling experience throughout the entire year.
3. If MOU 1 is signed then WO will lose its special bargaining position with respect to its land ownership and its unique ability to protect the interests of other user groups (in much the same way that the DND was able to influence the Xeneca project to the benefit of Petawawa paddlers). WO will be signing away the ability to assist other stakeholders if it agrees to cooperate with OP as per the terms of MOU1.