Colliery Dams Saga Begins

Nanaimo Daily News Story - May 15, 2010

This article published by the Nanaimo Daily News was one of the forerunners, to what has become known as the Colliery Dams Debacle.

You will note the sentence which proclaims "a recent seismic hazard assessment found that the Middle and Lower Chase River Dams wouldn't withstant a major earthquake". (Clearly we paid for some really bad advice.)

Follows are a few 'interesting' views being expressed by Mr. Sims, manager of water resources in this article.

The article contains the following:

"These are 100-year-old dams and they won't last forever," said Sims. It was a "no-brainer" to save Westwood Lake dam, said Sims, but the answer may not be so clear for Colliery Dam Park.

The city spent $450,000 to upgrade the Westwood Lake dam in 2008 so it could withstand a quake of up to 7.0 magnitude. The structure is far from earthquake-proof. It would still spring a leak in a shaker, but crews would be able to deal with it, said Sims.

The city could reinforce the Middle and Lower Chase River dams just like in the Westwood scenario, but that means crews would be stretched even thinner during an emergency by having to deal with two leaking dams simultaneously. It could put further strain on emergency crews at the worst possible time, said Sims.

Another option is to replace the old dams with new ones, a project that would cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. (Where did that number come from?)

The third option is removing the structures entirely, thereby draining the two reservoirs that are popular spots for people to swim and fish.

Changing the park would obviously have opponents, said Sims.

"Then there's the social impact. That's a pretty well-liked park."

---

Comment:

Based on a flawed seismic hazard assessment, and what seems a clear bias on the part of Mr. Sims (Westwood was a no-brainer, but Colliery may not be so clear), the taxpayers of Nanaimo began what has been a very costly, and arguably unnecessary waste of tax dollars.

Knowing removal would have it's opponents, the city, behind closed doors decided to tear out the dams without any public consultation and to this day, it is not known what misinformation (if any) city councillors were acting upon when they gave the green light to this dam debacle. We do know the first $30 million replacement cost was a number plucked from the air, and the potential hazard was  pure speculation as well, perhaps to convince a snoozing public that removal would be a no-brainer.

Why, you may ask? That is a very good question.