It has been recognized for some time by independent experts, and now by NB Power, that Mactaquac dam is nearing the end of its life and will not be safe beyond 2030.
This means the time is at hand for serious research and informed public consultation on the future of the dam and the St. John River. NB Power has engaged the Canadian Rivers Institute at the University of New Brunswick to do research on the river environment. In addition, NB Power is launching an extensive two-year public consultation programme on the question of the dam’s future.
In an interview in the Business Journal for February 2014, which was distributed by the Bugle-Observer, Gaetan Thomas, President and CEO of NB Power, points out that three options are being considered:
- Rebuild the present dam with new power house and spillway;
- Maintain the present earthen dam but without power generation;
- Restore the river to its natural state.
However, the first option still leaves us with too big a dam for the region, and independent expert opinion has affirmed that it would now carry an astronomical price tag that would be totally unrealistic for a small province. The second option entails the loss of renewable energy and the continuing cost of maintenance with little benefit except water sports on the head pond. The third option means the loss of power generation as well, but with the restoration of natural fish habitat.
But is there not a fourth possible option: that of a smaller dam similar to the present one at Beechwood, whose head pond could be maintained at a lower level? And is there not something more to explore with regard to the third option? Returning the river to its natural course does not necessarily mean the end of power generation. New technology offers the opportunity to produce electricity with a series of in-stream, run-of-the-river generators.
If we look at the fate of Mactaquac dam and its 100 km head pond from a regional point of view, a smaller dam or the river restored to its natural state have much to recommend them. In answering the question of what to do with Mactaquac dam, a regional perspective may have a very different view than a provincial one. What might be good for the province is not necessarily good for the region, a position that was taken up by many a County Councillor in the past.
The dissolution of the County Councils, which occurred at about the same time that the Mactaquac dam was proposed, must not prevent us from continuing to “think regionally”. Fortunately we still have Service Districts and federal and provincial ridings, which continue to provide some degree of regional empowerment.
At the time the Mactaquac dam was proposed, the head pond area, including Woodstock, eventually yielded to the demands of large scale centralized power generation. This resulted in great losses and great suffering for which “compensation” could not really compensate. Is it fair, is it right for one region to be forced to sacrifice so much for the benefit of others? Did the provision of electric power really require this sacrifice or was it unwise planning brought on by a policy of centralization?
Some of the best agricultural land in the Valley was sacrificed when Mactaquac dam was built. The very fertile meadows bordering the river at Woodstock, such as “Succour Flat” and the Meduxnekeag “intervals” were flooded and thus lost for all human purposes, as was Island Park and Bull Island below it.
To realize what was lost, it helps to remember that the word “succour”, a word of early modern English that has now practically been dropped from the language, suggests that early settlers like Jacob Smith were delighted to find a natural meadow along the river that would not have required much clearing and therefore might have seemed to them to be “divine succour”. Woodstock was particularly hard hit by the loss of Island Park, which had been famous all over the East, in Maine and Quebec as well as throughout New Brunswick.
A particularly significant loss was the site of the ancient and historic Fort Meductic, which held great symbolic importance to the Malecite First Nation. This reflected the kind of blatant injustice that comes about as the result of the insensitivity of central planning schemes toward historic and sacred sites. How can government really compensate for a loss as great as this?
How do we avoid repeating this kind of mistake? Can thinking differently conserve natural and cultural values of the region while providing needed energy resources? One important solution to this problem can be found in the science of bioregionalism. Bioregionalism takes the natural boundaries of geographic zones as the starting point for economic and social planning, including the provision of energy. A good introduction to the idea of bioregions is Kirkpatrick Sale’s Dwellers in the Land: The Bioregional Vision (Sierra Club, 1985)
Certainly the St. John River crosses a number of very different bioregions. One would be the fertile oasis comprising the more inhabited parts of Victoria and Carleton Counties in New Brunswick, and including Aroostook County in Maine. Another would be the much less inhabited, glaciated, and boulder strewn region between Meductic and Long’s Creek whose soil is much less fertile but presents us with a vigorous forest. Still another distinct bioregion along the river is represented by the lowlands (les pays-bas) surrounding Maugerville and Sheffield. Their productive soil was so famous that they were even advertised in Boston in the 1760’s.
There are also cultural regions such as Madawaska whose bioregional boundaries coincide with those of a unique rural community with its own history. It had once pursued political independence at a time when the elders of the community could still remember the Republic of Vermont. Indeed the present movement in favour of a new Republic of Vermont is not without interest to the Canadian Maritimes.
In New Brunswick the old empowered counties often corresponded to bioregions, besides upholding a regional point of view, which, as we have seen, was sometimes very different from the provincial government. Thus Northumberland County’s borders coincided more or less with the Miramichi watershed, and Kings County’s with the Kennebecasis Valley.
Taking the bioregional view as our starting point, we can now avoid the “mega-mistakes” of past centralization. The time has come to look reality straight in the face and acknowledge that our region has been colonized for the benefit of vested interests in other places, not only within the province but beyond, in other jurisdictions.
But to quote one of Hemingway’s titles, “the sun also rises”, it could rise again upon a regenerated Woodstock region with a smaller dam. Our rich interval and island land and our historic sites would be restored, while a smaller head pond would still allow for the recreational use we enjoy. Or, alternatively, if the river were returned to its natural level and run-of-the-river generators were installed, an even greater regional restoration could be achieved. Such a policy would bring back all the flooded meadows, prime agricultural land, and important historic sites. It would also restore the natural fish habitat that once made the St. John a famous salmon river.
The question of what to do with Mactaquac dam provides an opportunity to think regionally once again and to plan for the generation of electricity in less damaging, and more appropriate ways. Important innovations in renewable energy technology now make this kind of planning eminently possible.
Allison Connell
Energy Futures column published in the Bugle-Observer, February 14, 2014