This commentary is by Andrea Donlon and Kathy Urffer, who serve as river stewards for the Connecticut River Conservancy in Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire.
For hundreds of years, the Indigenous history of the Northeast has been systematically erased. It is time to speak up to make sure that the federal government and power companies do not continue that bitter legacy.
Five hydroelectric facilities on the Connecticut River are renewing their operating licenses under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Later this summer, the public will have an opportunity to weigh in on terms for these licenses that will impact more than 175 miles of the Connecticut River for the next 40 to 50 years.
The five hydro facilities are the Wilder, Bellows Falls and Vernon dams in Vermont and New Hampshire, and the Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Project and Turners Falls dam in Massachusetts.
The FERC relicensing process involves understanding and then rectifying impacts on various resources, such as fish passage, water quality and recreation.
One ongoing element that is consistently minimized is the impacts to traditional cultural practices of Indigenous peoples who have been here in their homelands for thousands of years. Both hydropower companies, Great River Hydro in Vermont and New Hampshire and FirstLight Power in Massachusetts, were required to do a traditional cultural properties study, in addition to archaeology and historic building studies, to identify and address hydropower facility impacts to Native People’s cultural considerations.
Regrettably, neither company has adequately engaged the Abenaki and other native communities in this work.
A traditional cultural properties study should look at the present, connections to the past, and consideration of the future. This includes how cultures value the exchange of life forces between fish, the water, humans, and other animals. It is not about who owns what and how much money is made, unlike some of the other studies done during relicensing.
The presence of these dams over the past 200 years has damaged the river, the fishery, and many of the living beings that relate to this waterway. As an advocate for the river — all of its communities, critters and itself as a being — the Connecticut River Conservancy desires the best possible outcome for the river and the people. While conservancy is not in the position to speak for the Indigenous people of this place, we are able to highlight when the people are not being fairly considered in this process.
In Massachusetts, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission told FirstLight that, to be consistent with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the company had to consult with tribal representatives before selecting an ethnographer to do the study. FirstLight did not do that. In its final application, FirstLight said it was unable to identify any traditional cultural properties because tribal representatives have “not yet agreed to meet with FirstLight’s ethnographer.”
It appears that FirstLight went ahead and selected an ethnographer without first obtaining approval from the tribal representatives.
Great River Hydro indicated in its application for the Wilder, Bellows Falls and Vernon facilities that “no project effects on traditional cultural properties have been identified at this time. …”
A complete traditional cultural properties study requires consultation with the tribes. Great River Hydro created a traditional cultural properties report that consisted of a collection of texts and a literature survey, but it has not followed through with additional outreach to the Abenaki people to complete the recommendations that were outlined in its own study — which includes actual consultation with Indigenous people.
Great River Hydro contends in its application that no traditional cultural properties have been identified, therefore there is no need to consider protection, mitigation, or enhancement measures for cultural concerns.
Both companies need to complete the job of reaching out to local native tribal representatives to address the traditional cultural values of the Connecticut River in and around the hydropower projects.
The Abenaki people’s current, past and future relationship to the river and the lands and creatures that inhabit it should not be overlooked or minimized in this once-in-a-lifetime federal process.
Comments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by local communities, the states and individuals are needed to ensure that these new licenses address the very real concerns of the original inhabitants of this land. You can learn how to speak up at www.ctriver.org/hydropower or https://powerofwater.fish/. The Connecticut River Conservancy will be summarizing other elements of the license application in upcoming months.
