3. Marine Resources Committee Meeting – Commissioner Miller attended the MRC meeting held on Wednesday, November 3, 1999. The Committee hosted representatives from Williams, the company whose responsibility it will be to install the proposed natural gas pipeline. Commissioner Miller reported that Williams only has experience in warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico, not in this area, that they have hired an engineering firm from Norway. They also compared laying the pipeline to laying electric cable. The company has experienced at least one blow up of a pipeline in the last three years. Representatives were asked about the depreciation of the pipeline three times before stating that it should last 30 years, but don’t even know if there will be natural gas available in three years. They were asked what safety precautions they were going to put in place being that a natural gas pipeline would be installed next to an oil refinery. They stated that they hadn’t thought about that. The company was also not aware that the area is subject to earthquake activity, not aware that the area was nominated for Marine Sanctuary status, and they were not aware of the currents off Turn Point. They noted their environmental awareness was of sponges and stated that putting in the pipeline would add habitat. Dr. Dennis Willows, of the University Labs and a member of the SJC MRC, asked how much methane would leak and what would happen molecularly with a break in the methane pipe. They were unable to respond. A student in attendance politely said to the representatives of Williams that they should send people to these meetings who know what they are talking about.

...letter to BC Hydro requesting a re-evaluation of the proposed site of the natural gas pipeline between Cherry Point, WA, and Vancouver Island, B. C., Canada, due to the already stressed ecosystem.

4. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (BC Hydro) Letter Regarding the Proposed Natural Gas Pipeline - In a letter dated December 23, 1999, BC Hydro’s Project Manager, Gordon Keir responded to the letter of the BOCC dated December 14, 1999. The Board’s letter detailed the concerns of SJC about the proposal for a pipeline that will run through SJC. BY Hydro informed the BOCC that they had requested proposals, evaluated submissions, and chose the firm of Williams to be the partner in the development of the project which is being called the Georgia Strait Crossing Project. Mr. Keir also informed the Board that he had forwarded a copy of the SJC letter to Chris Bias, the project leader for Williams. He advised the Board that technical questions regarding routing, environmental protection and construction were best answered by Williams. The Board discussed the issue and noted that no permits have been applied for locally. Commissioner Nielsen suggested amending the existing regulations that prohibit oil pipelines in SJC to include prohibiting natural gas pipelines. Commissioner Evans suggested the Board prepare a letter for distribution to appropriate agencies in WA State as well as the Oil Spill Task Force and Puget Sound Action Team. It was also suggested that the SJC Marine Resource Committee prepare a separate letter addressing their concerns. Commissioner Miller will prepare a draft for further consideration.

3. Letter from Westcoast Energy Regarding a Proposed Natural Gas Pipeline – The Board reviewed the letter announcing that Westcoast Energy Inc., Cascade Natural Gas Corporation, and Puget Sound Energy are commencing a study to determine the feasibility of developing a new natural gas pipeline to serve Northwest Washington consumers. The BOCC noted they still have concerns regarding impacts on the marine environment if the pipe is laid in the waters of SJC. It was agreed to prepare a response to include copies of previous correspondence to other firms regarding this issue.

• a motion that the FVRD not support the Sumas Energy 2 Project
• skepticism regarding the accuracy and validity of some of the information provided [by the proponents]
• no support from the provincial Minister of Environment, though it was formally requested
• Whatcom County councillor visiting FVRD offers statement of support for the FVRD opposition to the project and application for intervenor status

• CVRD supports Kyoto Protocol
• CVRD supports use of hydro-electric power, and supply to Vancouver Island so long as power is exported from BC
• CVRD does not support fossil-fuel plants on Vancouver Island
• CVRD discourages generation of greenhouse gases
• CVRD supports use of environmentally benign power sources

1.The the proposed GSX pipeline is slated for an identified earthquake zone. Construction and management must be such that there's zero increase in risk after the GSX is in place.

2. That the proposed pipeline be considered through a "Cumulative Effects Study" that would include an examination of the impacts that could be realized from the three proposed cogeneration plants and to consider cumulative effects within or outside of Canada that are likely to occur from the Georgia Strait Crossing Project.

3. That need for the project is demonstrated, in terms of increased electricity demand.

4. Economic viability. The cost of natural gas has and will continue to increase in price challenging assumptions used when the plan was made.

5. Greenhouse Gas. The pollution, both globally and on a local valley basis.

6. Negative Economic Impacts: The Vancouver Island economies will be threatened through increased costs for electricity generated by Natural Gas.

7. Free Trade Ramifications. The uncertainty of supply when we are being informed of coming natural gas shortages and that BC Natural Gas is being routed through the United States.

8. Proper and reasonable study of "Green Sources" of energy as an alternative considering that the present supplies are adequate for the considerable future.

9. Retaining and upgrading the HVDC Cable that supplies Vancouver Island with 80 percent of our energy requirements without the negative impacts of increased pollution and greenhouse gases.

10. Safety Issues: gas pipelines are demonstrably dangerous, gas is compressed so they never "leak", they explode (witness the "minor" incident on the Coquihalla Highway August 6, 2000.)

11. Dangerous location of pipeline. The location is in close proximity to the Chevron Oil (Gas Tank Farm) and the densely populated, Arbutus Ridge, seniors retirement community.

12. Landowner opposition. All landowners of farmland, except one, are opposed to the pipeline being located on their property.

13. Alienation of Farmland. The highest and best use of farmland is for the growing of food. It is time that we rejected the notion that farmland is a convenient site for utility corridors. The proposed route cuts through some of the best farmland in the South Cowichan Region.