The conclusions of the Enerdu Heritage Impact Assessment not supported by stated facts

“The importance of the Mississippi River as a scenic cultural resource was also highlighted in the 2012 Cultural Mapping Study undertaken by the Town of Mississippi Mills. It identified many places to be of cultural or natural heritage value in Almonte, including:

• Mississippi River
• Waterfalls of the Mississippi River
• Almonte’s Old town Hall
• Views and vistas

In responding to questions about the places that they preferred to show visitors, residents put the Mississippi River, the waterfalls, Almonte’s downtown and heritage buildings located near the river at the top of the list. “ pg 14

“In the absence of a landscape description or statement of significance, the following set of features is proposed for the purposes of the HIA ……

Seasonal variations in the appearance of the river resulting from changes in water flow combined with the rock shelves that characterize most of the river from the upper pond to the bay.”  pg 1

As shown above, the study clearly states the current importance of the river to the ongoing prosperity of Almonte. The industry at the centre of the town is clearly not power generation.

If the analysis defines the industrial heritage in the context of the town then the justification for the ENERDU project falls away as it will clearly affect, in a negative manner, the draw of the river for visitors. A River Walk running past barren Bridge Falls is hardly a draw and it is exactly that stretch of the river that abuts a significant portion of the core of the town from the Old Town Hall to the Mississippi Iron Works (Barley Mow). The ENERDU proposal is for exclusive control of a stretch of the river, including changing the appearance of the Bridge Falls for the first time (hardly a heritage development), and not a proposal that recognizes the need to share the river for the overall industry of the town. This is not in keeping with the true heritage of the town that is that the river is the industry of the town to be shared by all in the town.

The maintenance of the history of the town such as the guarding of heritage buildings and vistas does not imply that the “industry” of that generation should continue to the detriment of the current “industry” of the town. Would the consultants seriously support a new coal fired power plant if the history was one of generation of power by coal? The fact that historically power generation from the river was the industry of the town need not dictate that it can be continued today without limit to the damage it may inflict on the town and its current industry.

For reasons that I cannot understand the study after taking a broader view of the Mississippi River Cultural Landscape then narrows its focus to the issue of 19th century industry and power generation – as if that were the sole heritage value of the river. I argue that the true heritage value is the rivers ongoing role as the industry of the town. And, in that light, the proposed changes to the Bridge Falls fail the heritage test and the should lead to a rejection of the ENERDU project as proposed.