Agriculture

The Peace River Valley is unique for its rich, fertile land for agriculture and ideal for farming. From West to East, the valley is 100 kilometre (62 miles) in length and has the potential feed up to 1 million people.

So, why build a dam that threatens farmland, agricultural potential and food security of British Columbia in the Peace River Valley? The answer is simple: we shouldn’t. Instead, the valley should farmed to “Make food, not dams.”  Dams disrupt flows, degrade water quality and block the movement of a river’s vital nutrients and sediment all which affect agricultural potential in nearby areas.

The Peace River Valley is unique for its rich, fertile land for agriculture and ideal for farming. From West to East, the valley is 100 kilometre (62 miles) in length and has the potential feed up to 1 million people.

So, why build a dam that threatens farmland, agricultural potential and food security of British Columbia in the Peace River Valley? The answer is simple: we shouldn’t. Instead, the valley should farmed to “Make food, not dams.”  Dams disrupt flows, degrade water quality and block the movement of a river’s vital nutrients and sediment all which affect agricultural potential in nearby areas.

British Columbia needs

Greater Food Security

not less

If built, the proposed $8 billion Site C dam would flood and damage 30,000 acres of fertile land and ruin the agricultural potential of the Peace River Valley. Such devastation would be the largest single loss of land in the 40 year history of the province’s Agricultural Land Reserve and could be irreversible.

The proposed Site C dam would hold water in an inefficient reservoir that is 9,500 ha, roughly the size of Laurier-Sainte Marie, Montreal, the smallest electoral district in Canada, impacting water supply to the surrounding farmland threatening long term food security. Nearly half of the proposed reservoir is Class 1 and 2 agricultural lands, which in British Columbia are only be found in the Peace River Valley and the Fraser Delta. And one-fifth of the area is suitable as forestry land base.

Decisionmakers must consider these cumulative impacts when deciding whether or not to proceed with Site C.