Crowsnest Pass voters support mine in referendum
By Lethbridge Herald on November 26, 2024.
Grassy Mountain, peak to left, and the Grassy Mountain Coal Project are seen north of Blairmore, Alta., June 6, 2024. (The Canadian Press/Jeff McIntosh)Al Beeber – LETHBRIDGE HERALD – abeeber@lethbridgeherald.com
Eligible voters in the Crowsnest Pass on Monday went to the polls for a non-binding referendum about coal mining.
They were asked on a ballot “Do you support the development and operations of the metallurgical coal mine at Grassy Mountain.”
Voting began at 10 a.m. in Bellevue, Blairmore and Coleman and ended at 8 p.m.
The Herald was told early in the day by a source that voter turnout was strong, surpassing that of the last election. Turnout was nearly 54 per cent.
The final tally came in at 1,957 to 769 for a result of 72 per cent in favour of the mine.
The mine isn’t located in the MD of Crowsnest Pass but rather in nearby Ranchlands where opposition has been substantial.
Councillor Dean Ward put forward the motion at a council meeting stating “in the last 10 years Northback and its predecessors have been attempting to develop a coal mine to the north of our municipality. Many individuals, organizations and levels of government have expressed an opinion on whether this project should move forward or not. Unfortunately very few of these groups have asked the opinion of the residents of the Crowsnest Pass.”
If this project moves forward, “the Crowsnest Pass will be the location of housing, increased infrastructure needs, the supplier of emergency services and numerous other municipal facilities for the employees of this mine,” added his motion.
Ward and fellow councillor Lisa Sygutek told the Herald in previous interviewes that 84 per cent of the tax burden in the CNP is on the residential sector. And that is unsustainable if the community wants to bring in the infrastructure and facilities needed to maintain and grow the region.
Sygutek, who is also a businessperson, added that 52 per cent of the population earns less than $50,000 a year and thanks to people from outside the community buying properties sight unseen for much higher than market value, assessments have risen, putting a bigger tax burden on residents.
With municipal elections in Alberta coming next year and a federal vote on the horizon, the CNP wants to send a clear message to all levels of government where it stands “on what’s probably the biggest issue that’s faced this community in the last 30 or 40 years,” Ward told the Herald.
CNP mayor Blair Painter said an interview earlier this month that the community’s governance simply wants to hear what all residents think about a mine.
“It’s a non binding vote, it’s an information gathering process for the municipality, for council and that’s where it ends. It’s information gathering for us. The outcome of this question that we’re asking has no bearing on what the province does, or what the federal government does. It just gives us direction as where we need to be focused,” said Painter in the interview.
“If it boils down that the majority of our residents do not want us to proceed with supporting this endeavour then we won’t. If the majority, on the other hand, says ‘yes, we fully support this project moving forward’ we need to represent 51 per cent of our residents.”
After the referendum was announced, David Thomas of the Crowsnest Headwaters advocacy group called the vote “a pointless exercise” that will cost the municipality $27,000.
“The Crowsnest Pass council is being a very selfish neighbour, willing to sacrifice precious headwaters needed by downstream farmers, ranchers and citizens.
“This pointless referendum is just a vanity project for the far-right extremists who dominate council,” Thomas told The Herald.
In 2021, a joint panel issued a report denying approval of the Grassy Mountain coal project, finding that it was likely to cause adverse environmental impacts that weren’t outweighed by the economic impacts.
The report said the those impacts would include:
• Surface water quality, including from selenium effluent discharge;
• Westslope Cutthroat Trout, listed as threatened under the Species at Risk Act, and its habitat;
• Whitebark Pine, listed as endangered under the Species at Risk Act; and
• Physical and cultural heritage of the Kainai, Piikani and Siksika First Nations.
It also stated “the project is likely to contribute to existing significant adverse cumulative effects to:
• Westslope Cutthroat Trout and its habitat;
• Whitebark Pine;
• Little brown bat; and
• Current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes and physical and cultural heritage of the Kainai, Piikani and Siksika First Nations.”
The report also states the federal government “is particularly concerned with deleterious substances associated with coal mining. Effluent from coal mines in Canada can be a source of pollution that harms aquatic life and specifically fish and fish habitat.”
31-30
So , it boils down to “everyone downstream be dammed, everyone in Ranchlands be dammed, species at risk be dammed , indigenous culture be dammed as long as I get a pay check for however long the mine lasts ?” Talk about bad neighbours.
Is there anything be damned in your world that allows you to have a pay cheque. Can’t run an economy on coffee shops, haircuts, and real estate . Maybe if all these wanna be enviro speculators had stayed out the CNP the tax rate would be substantially lower.
I rest my case
Again, this:
“A Miner’s Play to Undermine Alberta Democracy. What’s wrong with a Crowsnest Pass referendum on reviving Grassy Mountain coal extraction? Plenty,”
http://www.thetyee.ca/Analysis/2024/11/15/Gina-Rinehart-Grassy-Mountain-Coal-Crowsnest-Pass/
This proposed mine is located in the MD of Ranchland No.66. Did the folks there get a vote? Millions of us depend on the Oldman River as a water source, which would be at risk for negatively impacted water quality? Did we get a vote? Rinehart/Northback Holdings, is playing this situation like a fiddle. We should not be fooled.
buck will speak for the mentality that anything goes so long as it can be justified by paycheques…money. it brings to mind, for some reason, the fine jonathan swift essay, “a modest proposal”. i suppose the question for our times, which looms louder each passing year, is the extent of sacrifice the fools among us are willing to make in the name of economy.
A lithium mine would be fine for the anti coal crowd.
i suppose those that oppose the fallout from coal mining in sensitive areas would oppose any mining where the fallout far outweighs the strictly economic aspect.
while i cannot speak to that, i an say i oppose any and all mining that is not done sustainably/responsibly. moreover, i am always dumbfounded by the still too many that are so content to give away the brunt of our collective wealth – as in resources – to a very self serving few, for a few paycheques that will have a limited life span, and, will leave them with a toxic mess to boot.
a reminder: norway grew its amazing trillion dollar “heritage” fund by maintaining at least a 51% ownership of resource wealth mined there. that allowed them to control their revenue stream like a majority partner, and, to control the health of their land. and, of course, it allowed them to be ever wealthy…unlike the canadian experience which is boom and bust, ghost towns and large tracts of massively degraded and toxic lands and waters.
What am I missing here?
This is like voters in the County of Lethbridge voting on something that may happen strictly in the City of Lethbridge?
I have to ask, we just shut down coal mines in Alberta that were for coal power generation, so is this not taking a step backward opening a new coal mine in the Pass.
I cannot support this coal mine and do agree there are very serious environmental concerns.
very good point. seems like the idea of progressive conservative (ok, never the name of alberta cons) is now de facto regressive conservative.