The Irony of Infrastructure: Lessons from the John Horgan Dam
In the quiet corners of northeastern British Columbia, a small log cabin serves as an unlikely archive. Inside, Ken and Arlene Boon have curated the “Site C Sucks Museum,” a collection of protest memorabilia spanning five decades. Today, that collection stands as a poignant reminder of the tension between industrial progress and the personal cost of development.
The recent decision to rename the Site C hydroelectric project the John Horgan Dam and Generating Station has reignited conversations about the legacy of political decision-making. For a project that once saw the late premier posing with critics while holding “Site C Sucks” signs, the new moniker is a masterclass in political irony.
The Weight of a Legacy: When Projects Outlive Opposition
The Site C dam is a $16-billion megaproject that has long been a lightning rod for controversy. While former premiers Gordon Campbell and Christy Clark laid the groundwork for its resurrection and expansion, it was John Horgan—a man who campaigned on scrapping the project—who ultimately made the “difficult decision” to see it through to completion.
This reality highlights a recurring trend in modern infrastructure: The Point of No Return. Once a project reaches a certain threshold of financial investment and construction progress, it often becomes politically and economically impossible to reverse, regardless of original campaign promises.
First Nations and the “Dreamer Lake” Dilemma
While the dam bears a political name, the reservoir it created—now known as Nááchę mege, or “dreamer lake”—carries a deeper, more somber significance. The naming of the reservoir by local First Nations acknowledges a cultural landscape that was fundamentally altered by the flooding of traditional territories and ancestral burial sites.
Chief Roland Willson of the West Moberly First Nation has been vocal about the disconnect between government naming conventions and the lived reality of Indigenous communities. For many, the reservoir serves as a physical manifestation of the ongoing struggle for treaty rights and the preservation of cultural heritage in the face of industrial expansion.
Future Trends in Infrastructure Governance
As we look toward the future of large-scale energy projects, several trends are emerging that will likely define how we build—and how we remember—these sites:
- Enhanced Stakeholder Consultation: Future projects will increasingly require more than just “invitations” to participate; they will require genuine, collaborative co-management models to avoid the legal and social friction seen at Site C.
- Legacy Management: Governments are learning that infrastructure naming is no longer just a ceremonial act. It’s a branding exercise that can either bridge divides or reopen historical wounds.
- Transparency in Cost Overruns: The B.C. Utilities Commission reports on projects like Site C have set a precedent for public accountability, making it harder for future administrations to hide geotechnical or financial risks.
Frequently Asked Questions
- Why was the Site C dam renamed after John Horgan?
- The provincial government named the facility in honor of the late premier’s contributions to British Columbia and his decision to complete the project, which he determined was in the public interest despite his earlier opposition.
- What does “Nááchę mege” mean?
- It translates to “dreamer lake” in the Dane-zaa Záágéʔ language, recognizing the cultural importance of “dreamers” to the Dane-Zaa people.
- Is the Site C dam fully operational?
- Yes, the dam began generating power in 2024, marking the completion of the major construction phase of the Peace River megaproject.
What are your thoughts on the naming of public infrastructure? Should politicians be honored with projects they once opposed, or does it diminish the legacy of the project? Share your perspective in the comments below or subscribe to our newsletter for more deep dives into B.C.’s evolving landscape.
