Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 17/6/2010 (2624 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.
At a public information meeting this spring in Haywood, there was near unanimous opposition to the west side route for Manitoba Hydro's Bipole III. The Selinger government and Manitoba Hydro were likely happy that Winnipeg media did not cover the meeting in Haywood and meetings held in other affected regions.
The proposed west side location for Bipole III is not in the best interest of Manitoba. Hydro prefers to construct Bipole III along the shortest and more cost-effective route east of Lake Winnipeg but the Selinger government has mandated a route west of Lake Manitoba.
That line will be considerably longer (1,290-1,485 km vs. 885 km); more expensive ($1.1 billion vs. $650 million) and with an estimated power loss of $50 million. In addition, 2,700 towers will be needed, rather than 1,600. This may result in higher possibility of weather-related damages.
Agricultural land will be devalued due to the restriction of large equipment, aerial spraying and irrigation, as well as disruptions of satellite and internet service. Dairy operations will be impacted sufficiently to affect milk supplies. Health concerns for those living near or in the western route, a highly populated area, are increased.
The placement of structures/towers in the Red River flood plain will limit flood prevention works, making these structures inaccessible during flooding/high water events, a common occurrence in the Red River Valley. Several hundred kilometers of wilderness country, including provincial parks, First Nations and wildlife will be further disturbed by running Bipole III on the west side.
It doesn't make economic sense to place Bipole III along the west and it sure doesn't make the Manitoba government look very "Power Smart"!
REEVE TED TKACHYK
RM of Grey