WESTMINSTER — Keefer Irwin has made some unsubstantiated claims in her column about Hydro-Quebec in the June 9 issue of The Commons 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 which 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 almost daily, 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 this group is 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.