Englishman
Well-Known Member
From Sooke fishing thread......
I got a letter from DFO confirming they were going to demolish this dam soon about 10 days ago. I got the letter probably because I wrote to them and cced a lot of local politiciians.
Here is my response, which also went to the same politicians I cced last time.
Dear Mr. Lapcevic,
Thank you very much for taking the trouble to reply to my e-mail of concern about the proposed de-commissioning of the Bill James Dam.
Unfortunately your attached letter raises more questions than it purports to answer. I am particularly puzzled by the somewhat vague and imprecise statement “DFO have confirmed that the Bill James Dam Reservoir is not adequate to fulfill its intended purpose of storing sufficient Water to augment the water flows in De Mamiel Creek”.
What does “not adequate” mean? Presumably the dam does augment the flow by some non-zero amount. If so, how much flow will be lost by decommissioning? In low flows, every small incremental amount WILL make a difference. So how many juvenile fish will be lost which would have otherwise survived in spite of the “inadequacy”?
If the dam was/is “not adequate” when it was built, why was it originally approved and why did DFO apply for and hold water licenses C0064007 and C114928? Were the official parties approving the dam not competent at the time? Was the dam “adequate” then but “not adequate” now? What can possibly have changed?
In truth, your last sentence reveals the real reason this dam is being removed. “ Please note that under Section 4(1) of the Water Act of BC Dam Safety regulations, DFO has received approval to decommission Bill James Dam”. The dam has fallen victim to a paranoid and misguided bureaucratic decision that there is somehow a safety concern with this dam.
It is a tragedy for our fish resources, and for all the people who worked had to create approve and build this dam, that ironically probably included DFO staff, that this work should now be undone by administrative bureaucracy and the liability obsessed lawyers.
If the dam is “not adequate” to augment the stream flows in Demamiel Creek it must certainly be “not adequate” to present any measurable risk to life or property, situated as it is in a heavily wooded area 11 kilometres from it’s confluence with the Sooke river. In addition, there is a gentle incline from the exit at the dam to Young Lake which also moderates the flows, before it reaches any developed area of Sooke.
As many people have noted, including the daughter of the person after whom this dam is named,
http://www2.canada.com/victoriatime....html?id=8d1f99e4-e3a2-4894-9a87-aa1b1a6092d6
this is a short sighted and stupid move that can only have emanated from an organisation that has lost sight of its mandate and works perversely against it. Instead of working to save and rejuvenate the legacy and investment, and hard work of many who have gone before, DFO can only destroy it.
It is utterly stupefying and very, very sad.
Englishman (actual name supplied).
I got a letter from DFO confirming they were going to demolish this dam soon about 10 days ago. I got the letter probably because I wrote to them and cced a lot of local politiciians.
Here is my response, which also went to the same politicians I cced last time.
Dear Mr. Lapcevic,
Thank you very much for taking the trouble to reply to my e-mail of concern about the proposed de-commissioning of the Bill James Dam.
Unfortunately your attached letter raises more questions than it purports to answer. I am particularly puzzled by the somewhat vague and imprecise statement “DFO have confirmed that the Bill James Dam Reservoir is not adequate to fulfill its intended purpose of storing sufficient Water to augment the water flows in De Mamiel Creek”.
What does “not adequate” mean? Presumably the dam does augment the flow by some non-zero amount. If so, how much flow will be lost by decommissioning? In low flows, every small incremental amount WILL make a difference. So how many juvenile fish will be lost which would have otherwise survived in spite of the “inadequacy”?
If the dam was/is “not adequate” when it was built, why was it originally approved and why did DFO apply for and hold water licenses C0064007 and C114928? Were the official parties approving the dam not competent at the time? Was the dam “adequate” then but “not adequate” now? What can possibly have changed?
In truth, your last sentence reveals the real reason this dam is being removed. “ Please note that under Section 4(1) of the Water Act of BC Dam Safety regulations, DFO has received approval to decommission Bill James Dam”. The dam has fallen victim to a paranoid and misguided bureaucratic decision that there is somehow a safety concern with this dam.
It is a tragedy for our fish resources, and for all the people who worked had to create approve and build this dam, that ironically probably included DFO staff, that this work should now be undone by administrative bureaucracy and the liability obsessed lawyers.
If the dam is “not adequate” to augment the stream flows in Demamiel Creek it must certainly be “not adequate” to present any measurable risk to life or property, situated as it is in a heavily wooded area 11 kilometres from it’s confluence with the Sooke river. In addition, there is a gentle incline from the exit at the dam to Young Lake which also moderates the flows, before it reaches any developed area of Sooke.
As many people have noted, including the daughter of the person after whom this dam is named,
http://www2.canada.com/victoriatime....html?id=8d1f99e4-e3a2-4894-9a87-aa1b1a6092d6
this is a short sighted and stupid move that can only have emanated from an organisation that has lost sight of its mandate and works perversely against it. Instead of working to save and rejuvenate the legacy and investment, and hard work of many who have gone before, DFO can only destroy it.
It is utterly stupefying and very, very sad.
Englishman (actual name supplied).
