Contrary to her claim that no one was paying attention to the Cree
Nation's concerns about the HQ development, I went on my own and found
and read a copy of the central agreement between HQ and the Grand
Council of the Cree (Eeyou Istchee), a document that set out in
exquisite detail the terms of an agreement between HQ and the Cree
Nation. It is the first major treaty between the Cree Nation and HQ.
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 HQ? 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 HQ hydro
developments. The Cree Nation and HQ have dealt with land and cultural
issues in the Bouhounan Agreement. I mention this again here because in
our FERC 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 HQ responsible for fish habitat restoration and mitigation for
lost habitat flooded by the reservoirs at the dams. It holds HQ
responsible for water releases that are timed to migration patterns of
wildlife and in certain migration corridors HQ has hired Crees to watch
for the migrating animals and alert the dam operators of the their
presence.
MERCURY LEVELS
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 methylmercury 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
HQ. The Crees know of the problem, know they should not eat the fish and
yet have signed an agreement with HQ.
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 seems to say that the elevated
mercury levels are not forever when caused by flooding. We have the
exact mercury problem here in VT 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 FERC (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 HQ permits are enforceable,
contain provisions for minimizing or mitigating the impacts of the dams
and there are stakeholders watching to see that HQ lives up to the
permit conditions. One of the NGO 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 HQ 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 HQ relative to the language
in the energy bill via internet, face to face and at meetings of our
caucus. So contrary to Ms. 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.
State Representative David L. Deen is a Vermont state representative
from Putney, Vermont.
