Editor’s note: This oped is by Rep. David L. Deen, D-Westminster.
Keefer Irwin has made some unsubstantiated claims in her editorial about Hydro-Quebec that should be addressed.
Contrary to her claim that no one was paying attention to the Cree Nation’s concerns about the Hydro-Quebec development, I went on my own and found and read a copy of the central agreement between Hydro-Quebec and the Grand Council of the Cree (Eeyou Istchee), a document that set out in exquisite detail the terms of an agreement between Hydro-Quebec and the Cree Nation. It is the first major treaty between the Cree Nation and Hydro-Quebec. There have been at least two subsequent agreements based on the terms in the Bouhounan Agreement. The agreement provisions, to name a few, deal with relocation of people, homes, relics, burial sites, employment for the first peoples and cultural respect for fish and wildlife as both food and cultural icons.
As an outsider, what role do I have if the Cree Nation chooses to come to terms with Hydro-Quebec? To me, it does not seem that it is my place to say that either party is wrong and disagree with them. And as an elected official, I know for certain that no act of the legislature ever, ever, ever makes everyone happy, so, yes, there are likely to be some who oppose these agreements, but if you cannot believe a document signed by The Grand Council of the Crees; The Cree Regional Authority; The Eastman Band; The Nemaska Band; The Waskaganish Band and The Cree Nation of Mistissini then all public documents should be mistrusted, including some of our iconic documents.
As to the environmental impacts, I read the permits for the Eastmain 1A and Rupert projects, the two largest and newest of the Hydro-Quebec hydro developments. The Cree Nation and Hydro-Quebec have dealt with land and cultural issues in the Bouhounan Agreement. I mention this again here because in our Federal Energy Regulatory Commission permitting scheme these types of issues are taken into account. Then it becomes a matter of impacts on the public trust resources of wildlife, fish, air and water. The permit is volumes long and holds Hydro-Quebec responsible for fish habitat restoration and mitigation for lost habitat flooded by the reservoirs at the dams. It holds Hydro-Quebec responsible for water releases that are timed to migration patterns of wildlife, and in certain migration corridors Hydro-Quebec has hired Crees to watch for the migrating animals and alert the dam operators of their presence.
There is one remaining problem and that is mercury levels in the fish. In a flooded situation rotting trees and leaching soils elevate the level of mercury in the water column. In the presence of a fluctuating water level, as behind dams, the conversion to methyl mercury speeds up and that organic form of mercury moves up the food chain into fish tissue. Fish with high levels of mercury should not be eaten. Mercury is a neurotoxin especially harmful to the young. If people are aware of the risk they avoid eating fish, but again I go back to the agreements with Hydro-Quebec. The Crees know of the problem, know they should not eat the fish and yet have signed an agreement with Hydro-Quebec.
I discovered that elevated mercury levels in fish tissue were an issue at the first dam project built. Under license requirements, there has been continuous testing for over 30 years of mercury levels in fish tissue and those tests are showing that the mercury level in fish tissue is returning to normal. The data here seem to say that the elevated mercury levels are not forever when caused by flooding. We have the exact mercury problem here in Vermont. Where we have toxic fish, we know there are limits on our consumption but we keep right on producing the electric power at coal plants that brings us an ever-renewed source of elevated mercury. So what is the better deal, not forever or seemingly forever?
As someone who is involved with hydro facilities on the Connecticut River through our Federal Energy Regulatory Commission process on almost a daily basis, I think I understand permits and what the conditions in those permits mean in terms of holding the project owner accountable for responsible operations. The Hydro-Quebec permits are enforceable, contain provisions for minimizing or mitigating the impacts of the dams and there are stakeholders watching to see that Hydro-Quebec lives up to the permit conditions. One of the non-governmental organization stakeholders is the Sierra Club and I know they are not bashful about blowing the whistle on polluters, so at least one someone is watching to see that Hydro-Quebec is doing things right.
Lastly, my legislative colleagues in the Democratic Caucus were aware of most of what I have written here before they voted on this bill. We had frank exchanges about what I found out about Hydro-Quebec relative to the language in the energy bill via Internet, face to face and at meetings of our caucus. So, contrary to Irwin’s claims that no one was paying attention, I can state that someone was paying attention to the best of his ability and was sharing the information garnered with my fellow legislators. This was not some deal done in ignorance. Yes, power companies are influential in the legislative process but many of us don’t give a hoot what they want. If I and others had not been satisfied to some level with what I found in the public record, this bill would not have gotten my vote.
And, as I said earlier, I don’t care what the legislative action is, including an endorsement of motherhood and apple pie, someone will be unhappy with the outcome.
Permalink |
It is true for the newer projects. What you miss is the
anti-environmental way that the La Grande River basin is managed. If HQ managed its water in the whole system as is done in Eastmain 1A, the project would be less flexible and there would be less ability to wheel and deal on the exchange. Moreover, the area would have more usable lakes and rivers and the fish population would balance out with more trout and fewer pike and suckers. Moreover, the small and large animals and birds that exploit the natural ecotone but not the artificial one to any great extent, would likely increase in numbers. This was what was promised to the Crees in 1975 and taken back in 1986 when it was decided to operate the project to produce peak power. At the time the Crees had just learned about the high content of mercury in the fish from the reservoirs; as a result an entire generation of Crees was scared off fish. This likely contributed to the shift in diet in the communities towards fast food which in turn contributed to changing
lifestyles, decreases in physical/outdoors activity, and the problems that are now familiar in the north – diabetes and heart disease. It was of course subsequently found that the fish in untouched lakes and rivers in the area also have higher mercury content in their flesh than many ocean fish for example, but still the dangers of the reservoir fish are greater due to the super-high levels in their flesh for about 20 years.
Some Crees have started to eat fish from the La Grande reservoirs, but they have to watch how much and which species they eat. It has also been found that pregnant women and those of child-bearing age should not eat any fish
containing mercury, because at even low levels, it has been shown to cause severe problems for the health of the unborn child.
Yes, the Crees signed and received many benefits over the years from this development but if they had not raised their voices against such megaprojects, far more habitat would be under water, and the Crees would not have received the benefits promised in 1975 (housing, communities with sewer and water systems, a school board, health board and other
facilities – things that most of society has access to
without having to fight for them).
Permalink |
I have always liked Rep. Deen, if he is the fly fisherman that I remember from my college and law school days, but I am furious with Vermont’s Legislature and those who voted for this lousy deal. It is hubris to install power facilities that do not last forever but which permanently disrupt and re-arrange areas of land that are bigger than the oil spill in geographic size. Just the LG3 reservoir is bigger than the state of Delaware. Hydro-Quebec is preparing to build lots more. It is especially arrogant when no science has been done on the GHG emissions of temperate forest reservoirs, except by Hydro-Quebec’s own industry-funded scientists.
The bigger problem is that in your rush to replace a nuclear power plant that should have been closed a decade ago, your legislature and my fellow Middlebury College grad, Gov. Jim Douglas, screwed the rest of New England. Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie may want that fat new power-line to come through Vermont, but some think that the land preservationists might acquiesce to the 735kV coming through the Granite State if they can acquire millions of acres somewhere else. You can pride yourself on all the good science you did, but this is a raw deal for renewable generators in New England. VT Senator Dick McCormack knew that and it is why he voted against it.
Today, Charlie Baker, a Republican candidate for governor in MA has released his platform. Part of it reads, “Adopt a reasonable and effective statewide energy policy: Support Hydro Quebec as a renewable energy source. Hydro Quebec has significant potential to provide Massachusetts with clean, renewable power that will expand the state’s energy portfolio while reducing the cost of electricity for ratepayers. The state should support the efforts to bring this power to Massachusetts and qualify it as a renewable energy source.”
Thanks for opening the floodgates, Rep. Deen.
Permalink |
On public radio last week it was revealed that Canada builds new homes relying about 75 % on electric heat , and huge aluminum plants in Canada uses 20+% ? of the electric power generated there, the Cree indian had more representation on the boards of planning than the Canadan government or the energy company . Where’s the problems there? How was the Cree indian discriminated against? And when will Canada begin to concern itself with energy consevation. Perhaps we should wake up to the facts on nuclear energies reliability and stop being politically correct about the anti- movements . we as a society have to wake up and grow up when itcomes to our future supplies and uses of energy.
Permalink |
“we as a society have to wake up and grow up when itcomes to our future supplies and uses of energy.”
Yes, and the Gulf is, perhaps, what is making us finally grow up. We have to ween ourselves off of oil and the oil barons or we will go down with them. It is time to ween ourselves off of Vermont Yankee. Perhaps this is one way to go in a saner direction.