LEARNING CURVES

By 2001, the Trust had regional offices in four locations: Castlegar, Nakusp, Golden and Cranbrook. Having offices across the Basin enabled the Trust to better communicate and work alongside residents.

The Columbia Basin Alliance for Literacy and the Trust began working together to improve literacy in the Basin in 2000.

Literacy support was one of the Trust’s earliest priorities. The Trust announced the Resources for Family Literacy Program in 2000, inspired by funding requests from Basin residents. The program was devised to support existing family-literacy programs while addressing barriers preventing families from participating in these programs, such as poverty, lack of transportation and access to child care.11 To achieve these goals, the Trust partnered with the Columbia Basin Alliance for Literacy (CBAL), which brought together literacy organizations and programs from across the region under one umbrella to provide communities with equal access to services. One of CBAL’s early managers, Leona Gadsby, remembers seeing clear partnership potential in the Trust. CBAL shared the Trust’s goal of ensuring the social and economic well-being of Basin residents. Literacy skills, Gadsby said, enable people to finish school, go to college and find employment. “People with good literacy skills are able to take part in the whole of society, socially and economically,” she explained.12 The Trust and CBAL understood the positive influence literacy programming could have on the region. In 2000, the Trust initially contributed $180,000; by 2017, this had increased to half a million dollars annually.13

Youth Links was a summer program for youth aged 17 to 19. For six weeks, participants travelled the Basin to learn more about the social, economic and environmental issues facing the region. They contributed to community projects and developed their own. “I was really impressed by the commitment from the youth to work on the projects and really get as much out of the experience as they could,” said program coordinator Kelly Comishin. “These young adults have a lot to offer our communities.”

Since 2001, CBAL has been helping to create strong and resilient communities by advancing the literacy skills of learners of all ages. Its diverse programs promote lifelong learning through meaningful, community-focused programming. One of these programs, Books for Babies, began in 2001 and encouraged new parents to develop literacy in their children from infancy.14 CBAL also offers adult tutoring, language services for immigrants and early language development initiatives. Since its inception, CBAL has worked with over 54,000 adults and seniors, 48,962 children and youth, and distributed over 94,000 books and other materials.15

They viewed the Basin’s economy and industry at the Trail headquarters of mining company Teck Cominco and during tours at Hugh Keenleyside Dam and the Arrow Lakes Generating Station construction site. Not as familiar with the impact of the Columbia River Treaty as their parents and grandparents, they also visited farms affected by the Treaty dams.17 “Not only did I learn more about specific issues, but also about the Basin as a whole and how different areas relate,” one participant said. “We were given awesome opportunities to learn in ways that wouldn’t normally be accessible to us.”18

Youth programming was an early priority for the Trust. Photographs from 1999 show a group of 12 youth hiking Rogers Pass through the Selkirk Mountains, pulling knapweed from a field and building a tipi alongside members of the Sinixt Nation. For six weeks, they travelled the Basin as part of the Trust’s Youth Links summer program. They visited communities across the region, exploring social, economic and environmental landscapes while building friendships and gaining valuable work experience.16 In this and subsequent summers, Basin youth toured museums and heritage sites, studied plant and animal species, and learned about issues facing First Nations in the area.

The Youth Links program was designed for youth to leave a lasting legacy in the places they visited and use what they learned to extend that legacy to their own communities. Participants volunteered at community events like Nelson’s Streetfest and the BC Seniors Games. They painted the community hall in Silverton; built trails near Fernie, Invermere and Revelstoke; and did stream restoration work at Kokanee Creek and Wolf Creek near Wasa.19 At the end of the summer, participants received grants to complete follow-up projects in their home communities using the skills and knowledge gained during their time with Youth Links. In 2004, program participant Brittney Hood organized a sexual health workshop for teenage girls in Elkford,  while Mikhel Proulx of Trail designed a website that gave a panoramic view of the city and its surrounding hiking paths.20

“If there was ever an organization that is about potential and striving for that potential, it is the Columbia Basin Trust.”

DON JOHNSTON, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 1999–2005. 
Left.

Scratch Magazine also emerged from the Youth Action Forum. Youth wanted a way to network, exchange ideas and access information relevant to them.23 Scratch encouraged youth to “scratch” their ideas down in the form of articles, poems and drawings. It was entirely written and produced by Basin youth. The theme of the first issue, published in spring 2002, was self-esteem and self-image and explored topics like body issues, commercialism, sex, skateboarding, feminism, abuse, employment and Basin life.24 Later issues covered a broad range of topics, including environmental conservation, educational opportunities and photography.

Another concern that Delivery of Benefits programming sought to address was the environment. In the early 2000s, 30 years after the Columbia River Treaty brought great environmental change to the Basin, the region’s concern over environmental issues sharpened. This reflected the larger, global environmental consciousness that gained momentum in the 1990s with the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change and the signing of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. In the Basin, water management was of primary concern. Kindy Gosal, one of the Trust’s first community liaisons, recalled a spike in conversations among Basin residents at the dawn of the 21st century about fluctuating water levels, the social and cultural importance of water and its role in the Basin economy. “All of those discussions were happening at a community level,” said Gosal.25

POWER STRUGGLES

The Trust experienced difficulties relating to its hydropower investments as well. All was going according to plan as Arrow Lakes Generating Station was completed on budget and ahead of schedule in 2002, with construction on Brilliant Expansion beginning the following year. However, the Trust and Columbia Power’s attention was diverted back to Arrow Lakes Generating Station in 2004 when cracks were discovered in an intake channel, forcing two long and expensive shutdown periods over the next two years. Although repair costs and the loss of revenue during the shutdowns meant low investment returns for the Trust, significant funds were recovered through insurance. Once all repairs were completed in May 2006, the project became profitable again.40

Basin residents started to question the Trust’s priorities when, in spring 2001, the Trust and Columbia Power announced their intention to acquire four generating stations owned by West Kootenay Power.41 The purchase of the stations, located between Nelson and Castlegar and not connected to the partners’ existing hydropower assets, was subject to approval by the BC Utilities Commission. In October 2001, the commission denied the application, citing the possibility that ratepayers would lose money.42 Some Basin residents were relieved the deal fell through: they did not want the Trust so heavily concentrated on hydropower projects, and they worried the acquisition of new power projects was outside the Trust’s mandate. Trail City Councillor Norm Gabana was a harsh critic of what he perceived as the Trust’s over-involvement in hydropower projects, going so far as to urge the Province to “dump the whole organization and put it in with BC Hydro.”43

Gabana’s comments were not entirely out of the blue. While the Trust was investigating new power projects, a provincial review process threatened to upend the organization completely. In May 2001, the provincial NDP government that helped create the Trust was replaced by a Liberal majority. The new government took swift action against the hefty provincial debt, which had doubled over the past decade and was projected to reach $34.7 billion by 2002.44 Under Premier Gordon Campbell, the Liberals introduced a deregulation and core services review process to examine all provincial programs and activities, determine the government’s core roles and responsibilities and identify ways to make government services more efficient and cost-effective for taxpayers.45

As a provincial organization, the Trust was subject to this process, as was Columbia Power. “Everybody was getting looked at,” Trust director Greg Deck said. He and other Board members were concerned the Province might see the Trust and Columbia Power as redundant, since BC Hydro also operated projects in the region.46

“Regardless of what the Liberals’ intentions are,” Brierley warned, “we will lose control of this thing that is ours.”51 Residents accused the Trust of being complicit in these changes. One Nakusp resident complained that promised consultation with Basin residents about the proposed changes had not occurred. He accused the Trust and the Province of making “backroom deals without public input.”52 In Nelson, a town hall meeting drew 150 unhappy citizens who accused the Trust of lacking transparency. “The Trust has been a huge success, and it feels like it’s being hijacked,” said one protester.53

Even after the core services review concluded in 2002, the Trust’s anxieties remained. It began to investigate options to preserve its independence and avoid being absorbed by the provincial government in the future.

The option that came to the forefront was to sell its shares of power projects and abandon its hydropower investments entirely. The stress placed upon the Trust by the core services review and the tremendous effort required to run hydropower projects caused the Trust to grow increasingly wary of its involvement in hydropower operations. Greg Deck remembered the Board’s frustration as members began to ask, “Why don’t we just sell our hydroelectric assets and put our money into the market somewhere and quit bashing our heads?”61

Residents’ opposition could not be ignored. In December 2004, the Trust announced it would not proceed with the proposed sale.69 In retrospect, Board member Greg Deck acknowledged, “the group intelligence was much wiser than ours. They weren’t living our frustration.”70 Chair Josh Smienk reflected on the Trust’s change of heart:

Columbia Basin Trust, since its inception, has always been a grassroots organization that’s taken its direction from the public. It’s part of our Columbia Basin Management Plan that before we make decisions on items of our large investments such as this, we consult with the public and the public has come back and overwhelmingly said that they do not want to be out of the power business.71

Although the sale of power assets was off the table, the Trust still sought independence. Part of this desire was an increasingly strained relationship with its partner, Columbia Power. Although Columbia Power was meant to operate and provide expertise on their shared power projects, the Trust started to challenge many of its decisions. The Trust wanted Columbia Power to pay grants in lieu of taxes on Arrow Lakes Generating Station as early as 2004, a request Columbia Power refused on the grounds that BC Hydro already paid grants for Hugh Keenleyside Dam upstream. Nor was the generating station fully operational.72 Columbia Power also temporarily resisted pressure from the Trust to relocate its head office from Victoria to its regional office in Castlegar. As criticism and demands from the Trust piled up, Columbia Power executives were upset they were excluded from Trust meetings, where they might have had the opportunity to explain their decisions.73 In what was meant to be equal ownership and a collaborative partnership, Columbia Power felt it had been treated unfairly.

A solution emerged that the Trust hoped would solve its relationship with Columbia Power and secure the independence it was looking for. This solution, known as the Option Agreement, proposed that the Trust purchase Columbia Power’s shares of their joint hydropower projects, becoming sole owner and giving the Trust full control over its hydropower assets.74

While the Trust was absorbed with its investigations and negotiations about its hydropower assets and relationships with Columbia Power and the Province, Basin residents grew frustrated at the lack of communication from the Trust. In its scramble to address the many stresses of its first 10 years of operation — underperforming non-power investments like St. Eugene and HeatWave, revenue losses on Arrow Lakes Generating Station and increased external tension with its corporate and government partnerships — had the Trust inadvertently lost its way?

However, in the midst of disappointments, there were many positives on which the Trust could build: residents were pleased with the social and environmental programs introduced from 1999 to 2005 and wanted to see continued spending in Basin communities. But Basin residents wanted the Trust to return to its mandate and not succumb to further distractions. The Trust wanted the same. As its 10th anniversary approached, the Trust, and indeed the entire Basin, was once again ready for change.

Continue following the story with Restoring the Trust