Thank for that clarification, Shuswap. Glad to hear it.
I agree it is "nice" to see groups working effectively together. However - let's not make any naive assumptions about the "good will" that caused all these "well-intentioned" people to get together. Almost always - there has been a long-standing history of damage/strife/corruption before any industry/government reps are forced into co-operating on environmental matters with First Nations. Almost always that is because a law was passed to make-it happen - and/or the government and industry were taken to court.
Once that consultation process begins - then good-will develops out of familiarity of the people involved with that process. I think it is great that there is a process with funding attached NOW to try to deal with the impacts ... but a really unfortunate legacy of impacts.
In the case of the Bonneville Power corp - The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) is an American federal agency operating in the Pacific Northwest. BPA was created by an act of Congress in 1937.
Then strife and unaddressed compounded cumulative impacts (http://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/wcra/docs/cbia/ColumbiaBasinImpactAssessment.pdf and http://fwee.org/environment/columbia-river-basin-watershed/) until they passed the Power Act in 1980 (https://www.nwcouncil.org/reports/poweract/). The Columbia River Treaty was signed by Canada and the United States in 1961 and was ratified in 1964. (http://blog.gov.bc.ca/columbiariver...mpact-Benefits-Report-Exec-Summary-FINAL1.pdf).
Kudos - yes - to those involved in the projects attempting to reclaim fish/habitat from impacts. More importantly as far as I am concerned - to those saying F-it - we're not doing that anymore - and subsequently involved in changing the status quo and getting the Power Act and the Treaty passed. Would be interesting in hearing how that all rolled-out...
Last edited:
