Many in the world are intrigued by the US Republican convention currently being staged. There is a temporary suspension of interest following the proclamation last night by House of Representative Speaker Paul D. Ryan that Mr. Donald J. Trump is the official nominee of the Party. Things won’t reignite until Thursday when Mr. Trump delivers his much awaited acceptance speech (followed naturally by a Benediction from Roger W. Gries, Auxiliary Bishop Emeritus).

At the local level here in Mississippi Mills and with far more personal appeal another heated debate is being played out, this one involving a hydro development by a hometown corporation called Enerdu. The events surrounding this controversy likely began about the same time that Mr. Trump first hinted that he would run for the Republican nomination in a presidential election, that is in about 2012. I didn’t view the unfolding Enerdu dissension with anything other than spectator status until the early part of 2014 when I contemplated running for election to Council and submitted my formal nomination papers. In anticipation of that campaign I met with Mr. Jeff Cavanagh, the son of renowned businessman Mr. Thomas Cavanagh of Cavanagh Construction. Essentially they own Enerdu which was bought from the family of Mr. Mike Dupuis who operated a small hydro-electric facility behind the Old Flour Mill in Almonte on the Mississippi River across from the Town Hall and the Thoburn Mill. By the spring of 2014 the Enerdu proposal to renovate and enlarge its plant had polarized the members of the community.

From the outset my opinion of the Enerdu renovation was favourable. Like most people I based my uncomplicated deduction upon basic tenets which instinctively bore sway with me and which weren’t based upon a whole lot of investigation or science.

First, the existing Enerdu site was an eye-sore. It has since been described by some as a bunker. It always appeared to me to be in a state of disrepair and neglect, a half-hearted commitment to industry, at best a less than serious business adventure. Mr. Mike Dupuis owns Canadian Hydro Components and he is best known for his manufacturing skills not his hydro-electric production. When I sat on the Board of Directors of Mississippi River Power Corporation we mostly viewed the Enerdu plant as an inconvenience since it initially diverted water from our own run-of-the-river operation lower down the Falls. Sometimes Enerdu deliberately backed up water to create a headpond for improved generation during peak hours which naturally affected our own production.

Second, everything I knew and had seen about Cavanagh Construction – whether it was its inventory of machinery and trucks, its solar panels, its warehouses, it pits, its fences, its residential apartments or its head office and boardroom – led me to conclude that it was a superlative operation of the highest standards. I had even briefly met Mr. Thomas Cavanagh at a social gathering and I recall being impressed by his candid and heartfelt approach.

Third, my introduction to the opinions of those who opposed the development was far less impressive. In connection with my nomination campaign I also attended a meeting of the Mississippi RiverWatchers.

Who are The Mississippi RiverWatchers?
The Mississippi RiverWatchers stand for the river as a community resource.
We are a group of concerned citizens who came together in the spring of 2012 to advocate for the river’s aesthetic importance, ecosystem value and recreational potential.
All members are volunteers.
We believe that there must be a balance between development and community values, and we will advocate for that balance.
Long term priorities include:
Stewardship
Elevating the value of the river as a community feature
Preserving the essential character of the river
Promoting recreation
Water quality
Shoreline clean up
Development watch

The ambitions of the Mississippi RiverWatchers were unquestionably well-intentioned. Never for example did I detect any subterfuge of private agenda for personal gain or purpose. However there was from my point of view as a lawyer a decided lack of insight into the mechanics of the dispute with Enerdu. While there may certainly have been those who felt qualified to comment upon ecological matters affecting the River generally, neither their credentials nor their theses provided any foundation for legal objection. The meeting was attended by a Justice of a superior court of law who afterwards gave me reason to believe that my observations at the meeting about the necessity to found a cause of action upon case law or legislation were pertinent. Subsequently the popular opposition to the Enerdu project gathered momentum from a proposal by several candidates for council to pass a by-law designating the downtown core (which pointedly included Enerdu) as a Heritage Conservation District. This strategem (which almost everyone acknowledged was solely targeted to subvert Enerdu) was doomed as an opposition tool for the same reason that no other mechanics had been discovered to stall the project; namely, there was no basis in law to do so. The theory that the squeaky wheel gets the grease and that politicians can ultimately be manipulated to conform to popular opinion did however continue to animate the dispute. The fact that well-trained mandarins (who had likely survived more than one change of provincial government) had analyzed the project and considered the public in-put was dismissed as pandering (a convenient but unpersuasive allegation).

Fourth, I then canvassed the opinions of people on the street. One person (who had political experience in local politics, who was a long-time resident and who was involved) told me she objected to the Enerdu project. When I asked her to specify why, she said, “Because it sounds bad”. Another person (who actively promoted objection to the project in public fora) stated in so many words that he objected because so many others had done so. It was becoming clear to me that the objection to Enerdu was founded upon deep instinctive reactions as elemental as water itself not fact. The waters were muddied by the compelling observations of local citizens regarding the degeneration of up-river shoreline growth. But significantly none of these complaints was definitive; some were only tenuously connected to the root project; and the official government surveyors echoed no concerns. One objector was even muted by apparently heavy-handed action by Enerdu lawyers though I wasn’t so quick to characterize the exercise of legal privilege as unprincipled power-politics. I also sought to balance the views I was hearing by consulting with those whom I knew were actively involved with the management of the Mississippi River and whose long-time experience provided insight. There were also others with whom I met who supported the project, people who importantly had lived in the community for decades.  Unhappily the controversy was at times in threat of reducing to a confrontation between the so-called “tree hugger newbies” and the regressive old guard of Town.

Like the Republicans, we of Almonte are now poised to await the outcome of what has been a hotly contested though undeniable result. I imagine that in both the Republican camp and on the Mississippi River there will only now be heard the trailing cries of objectors. The Republicans have attached a good deal of significance to their democratic entitlement and I believe that many in Almonte likewise adopt the Rule of Law.

 

And now a word from our sponsor (The Millstone News):

Michel Desormeaux • 7 hours ago
A drunken lawyer shooting his mouth off just to hear himself…go figure
•Share ›
Avatar
Mary Michel Desormeaux • 4 hours ago
Have you ever heard “if you don’t have something good to say, don’t say anything” Your statement sure is uncalled for.
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Rona • 22 days ago
Hi Bill. Believe it or not, this is the short version of my response. I am always willing to discuss this more when we next bump into each other.

You are right about one thing: “the objection to Enerdu was founded upon deep instinctive reactions as elemental as water itself”. But how is that different from you basing your “uncomplicated deduction upon basic tenets which instinctively bore sway with me and which weren’t based upon a whole lot of investigation or science”? If I see someone putting their wants above someone else’s, to the detriment of others, I know in my heart that it is wrong. Why are you impressed with Mr. Cavanagh’s “candid and heartfelt approach” and yet discount the RiverWatchers’ candid and heartfelt approach?

You say “the existing Enerdu site was an eye-sore.” Surely fixing up the current site would be an easier fix than placing a new building in front of it? And if the owner was content with it being an eye-sore before, why should we believe that any new structure would take aesthetics into account?

I also take issue with your valuing the opinions of “people who importantly had lived in the community for decades” over others. This is the kind of statement that we hear and just accept as valid, perhaps as it is said with such authority, but in fact I do not believe it holds weight. I’ve worked in a law office for 13 years — if you needed legal counsel, you would take the advice of a lawyer with 1 year’s experience over mine (I hope!). More time spent in a place does not guarantee more knowledge, and certainly is not reason to assign more value.

The brief version of why I personally oppose the new Enerdu power generating station? I believe the good of the many outweighs the good of the few. This project brings risk for many: riparian homeowners (effect of blasting on foundations, effect of construction time on house values), Menzies B&B and the Riverside Inn (foundations, construction noise/appearance), downtown Almonte tourism (construction time, foundations, narrowed river increasing risk of flooding), the environment (I doubt anyone disagrees with this, it is just that some folks to not value the environment as much as money and status), the tradition of kids jumping off the train bridge (which “people who importantly had lived in the community for decades” would have good memories of, I thought). It brings benefits to few: Enerdu (energy revenue, possible condo revenue once current turbine out of building), 2 or 3 people employed to manage the plant after construction, Cavanagh Construction (revenue), and possible the Mississippi River Power Corp. (possibly helped by Enerdu’s flow control, or not… time will tell). I don’t even count Cavanagh Construction employment along with the benefits, as I am sure these good folks would be working anyways, as Cavanagh would simply take on another construction job. Now, what I have mentioned are risks; they may not come to pass. I hope they don’t. But I do not see how we can simply discount them. Believing that everything will turn out well, does not make it so. Look at the Titanic.
see more
3 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Roger Brown Rona • 22 days ago
Hey Rona, I read your comment and have a lot of counter arguments, however I will touch only on some as I have limited time (as of now).

People that live in an area for such a time does actually hold weight. Their the ones that have molded and made a community flourish – not outsiders. It’s their legacy, it’s their every right to ensure what should and what shouldn’t be done – hence this whole thread.

The fact of the real matter is, we’re running into power issues globally. This comes from the top – Meeting in Paris December of 2015 between UN and other governments to agree to put an end to the fossil fuel industry. Thus the dire need for such renewable energy plants, in this case the one in which we’re discussing now. You think this one is bringing up debates? Just wait!

The positive of people such as yourselves is that we can talk about this sanely without what’s being seen in the world. Need to go.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Rona Roger Brown • 22 days ago
I agree that people who live in a town/area have more knowledge, experience, and feel for the area than people who do not. I do not necessarily believe that people who have lived here 60 years have more relevant knowledge/experience than those who have lived here 15 years — their experience depends on what they’ve been doing in that time. Example: My neighbour Allan gained more knowledge of our street in 1 year of living on it than I had in 10, because he has the time to talk to people there, while I spend most of my time downtown.

How long has Jeff Cavanagh lived in Almonte?

PS. I am with you on preferring renewable energy — I am just thinking the cost here outweighs the benefit.
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Roger Brown Rona • 22 days ago
The cost factor depends on what angle you’re looking at. Did you want to compare this renewable plant to say Chernobyl’s outcome? Yes, I know Chernobyl is nuclear (fossil fuel) however if something “big” were to happen with this Enerdu energy plant with respect to a disaster… not much would happen in my opinion with respect to unlivable conditions for decades or generations. You cannot argue the cost vs. inhabitable zones or areas and the amount of species that would be affected. This plant’s cost versus facing disaster should be the highest level of argument.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Rona Roger Brown • 22 days ago
Well Roger, I would never think of comparing this 2-turbine hydro dam to Chernobyl… that’s like comparing 2 apples to a huge orchard… ya know, if that orchard killed a ton of people. This plant will allegedly produce enough hydro to power 150 homes (at least, that is what I have heard — their website, http:enerdu.ca, says only “For more information please contact us:info@enerdu.ca”, so it is hard for me to get facts). And from what I understand, we already have plenty of energy to go around, so much that we are selling it off at a loss. Perhaps if I knew for a fact that some nuclear plant would be shut down as a direct result of this Enerdu plant, I would be more understanding, but as it is, I still see the negative effects (both existing and possible in the future) as outweighing the benefit of it being green energy.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Tracy Stimpson Rona • 22 days ago
Jeff Cavanagh does not live in Almonte but a great deal of this employees do. The only downside to this project is that it does not look pretty and will make some noise during construction. Just wait until a few years from now when they have to dig up Mill Street 10 feet deep to replace the water and sewer.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Rona Tracy Stimpson • 22 days ago
Hi Tracy. I don’t know what having Almonte employees has to do with anything — I think you are stretching — JC has either lived in Almonte for years and therefore has a valid opinion, or he is an “outsider”, according to the rules many have put forward. And yes, the digging up Mill Street etc will be quite something, but it is to replace old sewers and water mains. This will benefit the entire downtown in the long run, whereas the Enerdu construction does not.
3 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Pauline Byrne Donaldson • 22 days ago
Bill Chapman, what are you really saying here? What is the undeniable result and what will your trailing cry be? If there had been less talk and politics with this project and more serious and honest analysis of physical and biological dynamics of the river, I believe this project would not have gone forward in the form it has. Same goes for generations ago when the river was first dammed. This is just basic high school biology and geography. Like all others who have, as spectators, tried to look at this project, you have just words of conjecture, and meanwhile your “official government surveyors” do not have much more. But to you it is enough to say “Because so and so “is a REALLY NICE GUY” and it “Because it SOUNDS GOOD”.
4 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Wendy Moenig • 23 days ago
Mr. Chapman, I see by your article, that you are not native to Almonte either.
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Nathan Rudyk • 23 days ago
The rule of law applied without conscience is something else entirely, and as we’ve seen time and again can merely become a convenient tool of narrow interests able to afford lawyers and make political contributions Bill. Your opinion piece brings to mind this quote from John Paul II: “When freedom does not have a purpose, when it does not wish to know anything about the rule of law engraved in the hearts of men and women, when it does not listen to the voice of conscience, it turns against humanity and society.”
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
MoeD • 24 days ago
Thank you very much, Bill, for this much-needed letter. I spent a great deal of time and effort in understanding the Enerdu issue two summers ago, and did my share of letter-writing to appropriate ministers. I also spent a couple of hours with Brian Gallagher, a man well known for his expertise in all things hydro. I became convinced of our need for a new weir in Almonte. Ministers responded to my letters and left me fairly certain that they would do their due diligence. I was still not entirely happy with the idea of this project and its possible consequences, but decided to let the chips fall where they may. We DO need a new weir. People don’t seem to realize that the only reason that there is such great paddling between Almonte and Appleton is that we have a weir (much crumbling) that enables us to have a river to paddle in! I am now just very hopeful that construction happens with no detrimental consequences, and that Mr Cavanagh does indeed create an aesthetically pleasing site.
I want to also say that the way that this project was initiated was the reason for the uproar (though I don’t see that this was intentional).
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Pauline Byrne Donaldson MoeD • 22 days ago
I know your efforts were well meaning Moe, but you should have written not to ministers but to the people gathering so-called data on the river. Everyone has an opinion but it is useful to hear from the people with boots on the ground, so to speak, who issue permits and approvals.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Tracy Stimpson Pauline Byrne Donaldson • 22 days ago
I think this comment is totally unfair. Maureen has done more research on the Enerdu project than anyone I know. I was very active as a pro Enerdu supporter and she took the time to call me at home to discuss the matter. She met Brian Gallager at his house, went to the falls in Appleton and wrote many letters. We have not always seen eye to eye on some things but I have always respected her for her research and kindness
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Pat Muldoon • 24 days ago
Excellent letter Bill, but for some this will be to much factual information which means they will ignore it. And by the way River Folks, who is the idiot posting the derogatory notes about Cavanagh around town, AND TO SPINELESS TO SIGN IT….I hope he takes you to court for defamation…..and to be clear, we know WHO YOU YOUR ARE.
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Thunder52 Pat Muldoon • 23 days ago
The author of the posts seen around town is the Ontario Government. These are word for word from the court website. Completely true. See the link in Rosé Mary’s post.
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Pat Muldoon Thunder52 • 23 days ago
Read my post,did not question the author, if you are not willing to identify yourself here,then do not comment on any post of mine.
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Rose Mary Sarsfield • 24 days ago
“High standards”???? Maybe Mr. Chapman you haven’t seen this: https://news.ontario.ca/ene/en…
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Theresa Rose Mary Sarsfield • 24 days ago
Rose Mary,
There is also the question of Cavanagh’s request to use the pond in Roy Brown Park in Carleton Place as a stormwater pond, which was voted down last month because it would put Carleton Place’s water intake at risk: http://www.insideottawavalley….. Apparently, people were not pleased with Cavanagh’s proposed alternative, but I have only anecdotal evidence for that.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Tracy Stimpson Theresa • 23 days ago
“Earlier, there was a general agreement between the town and Cavanagh for the development’s required storm water management pond to be located in Roy Brown Park in exchange for compensation, more than $283,000 ($80,000 for every acre the pond occupied). Roy Brown Park would also drain into the pond.” From that article you mentioned. What did Cavanagh do that was not up to high standards?
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Theresa Tracy Stimpson • 23 days ago
Tracy,
My concern is as follows:
The pond would be used as stormwater for run-off from the subdivision Cavanagh is building adjacent to Roy Brown Park. See http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/w… “Pollutants from commercial, industrial and residential activities that may appear insignificant at their source are transported by rain and snowmelt into storm drains that flush the wastes into rivers, lakes, or marine waters. These pollutants commonly include nutrients, sediments, pathogens and toxins…. Contaminants accumulated during dry periods are picked up by the next rainfall and quickly moved to the drainage system. This is when discharges can be most dangerous, because “first flush” concentrations of toxins are high.”

Cavanagh, with their construction experience, should not have proposed in the first place that the stormwater empty so near to Carleton Place’s water intake. The people against this proposal were justifiably worried that their drinking water would be affected. In fairness, the Town should not have considered this proposal in the first place.

There’s more to the story, but, as I said, I have only anecdotal evidence.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Rose Mary Sarsfield Theresa • 23 days ago
I believe that Brian Costello is turning in his grave
1 • Reply•Share ›
−
Avatar
Tracy Stimpson • 24 days ago
Mr. Chapman, I need to start off by saying that I am a simple man that has had trouble understanding some of your writings in the past. Not saying your writing is poor, saying my level of understanding of large words is. That said, I spent quite some time reading this letter of yours as I am very interested in the subject. Thank you for this letter, you said things in a manner that I wanted to but am not capable of. I can’t wait until this project is finally completed and hopefully everyone is pleased with the results. Then we can all get back to Almonte being the friendly town. Thanks again.
1 • Reply•Share ›