Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T15:05:10.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Controversies over hydroelectric developments in sub-Arctic Canada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

Don Gill and
Alan D. Cooke
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Several engineering schemes are now planned or are in various stages of completion to dam, divert, regulate, or otherwise control the flow of several major waterways in the Canadian sub-Arctic. This region, which contains many large river systems (Map 1), is viewed by a number of federal and provincial government departments as a source of reliable and relatively inexpensive electricity to satisfy the energy-deficient markets of southern Canada and northern United States. However, opposition to these hydroelectric schemes is being voiced across Canada by critics who view them as having or likely to have negative effects on the environment and on the native peoples who inhabit the region. This review examines some of the alleged benefits and costs of four of the most controversial and best publicized of these projects. The information has come from a variety of sources: published literature and press reports, unpublished government documents and consultants' reports, notes taken at public hearings in 1972 and 1973, discussions with government officials, consultants, and other investigators between 1969 and 1974, and research by the senior author between 1968 and 1973 on the effects of hydroelectric developments on the northern environment (Gill, 1971; 1972a, 1972b; 1973a, 1973b, 1973c, 1973d; 1974; Kellerhals and Gill, 1973).

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Polar Record , Volume 17 , Issue 107 , May 1974, pp. 109 - 127
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bank of Montreal Business Review. The James Bay Project, 26 September, 1972. 6 p.Google Scholar
Bourassa, R. 1973. James Bay. Montreal, Harvest House. 124 p.Google Scholar
Brandon, L. 1973. [Letter from the Chairman, Yukon Territory Water Board, to J. Nelson, Past President, Canadian Society of Environmental Biologists, 24 April.]Google Scholar
British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority. Annual Reports. 1961–1972.Google Scholar
Canada. Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. 1973. [Press release], 24 April.Google Scholar
Canada. Fisheries Service. 1971. Report on problems associated with the Aishihik Power Project. Ottawa, Fisheries Service. 4 p.Google Scholar
Churchill River Basin Group. 1973. Will the Churchill be destroyed? The Sheaf, 20 March.Google Scholar
Cross-Mission Project Group Report. 1972. Identification of studies for evaluation of the environmental impact of the James Bay hydroelectric development (James Bay—Phase II). Ottawa, Environment Canada. 67 p.Google Scholar
Edmonton Journal. 1972. [Untitled news account]. 26 May.Google Scholar
Franson, R.and others. 1972. Hearings for northern pipelines:, northern waters legislation. Supplement to dossier on legal problems in the Canadian North, prepared for the National Workshop on People, Resources and the Environment North of 60. By Franson, R., Lucas, A. R. and Thompson, A. R.. Ottawa, Canadian Arctic Resources Committee. 16 p.Google Scholar
Gill, D. 1971. Damming the Mackenzie: a theoretical assessment of the long-term influences of river impoundment on the environment of the Mackenzie River Delta, N.W.T. In: Reinelt, E. R.and others, eds. Proceedings of the Peace-Athabasca Delta Symposium. Edmonton, The University of Alberta, Water Resources Centre (Publication No 1), p 204–22.Google Scholar
Gill, D. 1972a. Influence of fluvial and aeolian processes on the distribution of point bar ecosystems in the Mackenzie River delta. In: Kerfoot, D. E., ed. Mackenzie delta monograph, 22nd International Geographical Congress. St Catherines, Ontario, Brock University, p 69–95.Google Scholar
Gill, D. 1972b. Modification of levee morphology by erosion in the Mackenzie River Delta. In: Price, R. J. and Sugden, D. E.eds. Polar geomorphology (Institute of British Geographers Special Publication No 4), p 123–38.Google Scholar
Gill, D. 1973a. Modification of northern alluvial habitats by river development. Canadian Geographer, Vol 17, No 2, p 138–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, D. 1973b. The James Bay Development Project: potential negative alterations of wildlife habitat. In: Berkes, F., ed. James Bay Forum. Montreal, McGill University Printing Service, p 75–77.Google Scholar
Gill, D. 1973c. Canadian subarctic river systems: ecological consequences of hydroelectric developments. [Unpublished paper presented at the Ninth International Polar Meeting, German Society of Polar Research, Munich, 27 April.]Google Scholar
Gill, D. 1973d. Influence of flooding and sedimentation on plant succession. [Unpublished paper presented at the National Research Council, Ninth Canadian Hydrology Symposium. Edmonton, The University of Alberta, 26 May.]Google Scholar
Gill, D. 1974. The significance of spring breakup to the environment of the Mackenzie River delta. [Unpublished paper presented at the Arctic Institute of North America Symposium on Beaufort Sea Coastal and Shelf Research, San Francisco, 8 January.]Google Scholar
Glooschenko, V. 1972. The James Bay Power Proposal. Nature Canada, Vol 1, No 1, p 5–10.Google Scholar
Indians of Quebec Association. 1972. Second report on the James Bay Project [unpublished report]. 12 p.Google Scholar
Jack, J. 1973. A review of the Churchill diversion question in Manitoba. Nature Canada, Vol 2, No 1, p 39–40.Google Scholar
James Bay Task Force of the Indians of Quebec Association and the Northern Quebec Inuit Association. 1972a. Not by bread alone [unpublished report]. 14 p.Google Scholar
James Bay Task Force of the Indians of Quebec Association and the Northern Quebec Inuit Association. 1972b. Reports on vegetation and related fauna of the Fort George and Upper Kaniapiskau Rivers [unpublished report]. 124 p.Google Scholar
James Bay Task Force of the Indians of Quebec Association and the Northern Quebec Inuit Association. 1972c. Effects of the James Bay development scheme on flow and channel characteristics of rivers in the area [unpublished report]. 53 p.Google Scholar
James Bay Task Force of the Indians of Quebec Association and the Northern Quebec Inuit Association. 1972d. The fish of the Fort George and upper Kaniupiskau River drainages in relation to the proposed hydroelectric development scheme [unpublished report]. 102 p.Google Scholar
Joint Federal-Provincial Task Force. 1971. A preliminary study of the environmental impacts of the James Bay development project, Quebec [unpublished report]. 62 p.Google Scholar
Kellerhals, R. and Gill, D. 1973. Observed and potential downstream effects of large storage projects in northern Canada. Commission Internationale des Grands Barrages, Madrid. Question 40-Response 46, p 731–54.Google Scholar
Morley, C. G. 1973. It's not too late: yet. Alternatives: Perspectives on Society and Environment, Vol 2, No 4, Summer, p 4–10.Google Scholar
Newbury, R. 1972. The Churchill River diversion controversy—an illustrated examination of the rationale, plan and environmental implication [unpublished report]. 20 pGoogle Scholar
Newbury, R. and Malaher, G. 1972. The destruction of Manitoba's last great river. Canadian Nature Federation. Special Publication No 2, p 1–23.Google Scholar
Northern Canada Power Commission. 1972. 24th Annual Review: — Year Ended March 31.Google Scholar
Peace-Athabasca Delta Project Group. 1971. Peace-Athabasca delta: the problems, proposals and action taken. Ottawa, Environment Canada. 26 p.Google Scholar
Peace-Athabasca Delta Project Group. 1972. The Peace-Athabasca delta: a Canadian resource. A report on low water levels in Lake Athabasca and their effects on the Peace-Athabasca Delta. Summary report. Prepared jointly by the Environmental Ministers of Canada, Alberta and Saskatchewan. Ottawa, Environment Canada. 144 p.Google Scholar
Pearse-Bowden Economic Consultants Ltd. 1972. Aishihik River power development, Yukon Territory. A preliminary environmental impact statement. Vancouver. 54 p, appendices.Google Scholar
Quebec Superior Court. 1973. Judgement No 05-04341-72. Chief Robert Kanatewat and others vs the James Bay Development Corporation and others. Montreal. 171 p.Google Scholar
Reinelt, E. R.and others, eds. 1971. Proceedings of the Peace-Athabasca Delta Symposium. Edmonton, The University of Alberta, Water Resources Centre. (Publication No 1.) 359 p.Google Scholar
Richardson, B. 1972. James Bay: The plot to drown the north woods. San Francisco, Sierra Club. 190 p.Google Scholar
Whitehorse Star. 1972a. NCPC moving too fast. 26 May.Google Scholar
Whitehorse Star. 1972b. [Untitled news account.] 13 December.Google Scholar
Whitehorse Star. 1973a. Aishihik hydro-proposal meets mixed reaction. 19 January.Google Scholar
Whitehorse Star. 1973b. Aishihik gets the green light. 25 April.Google Scholar
Winnipeg Free Press. 1972a. Nelson River report denied. 18 December.Google Scholar
Winnipeg Free Press. 1972b. Decision made, so no hydro-bid. 18 December.Google Scholar
Wolford, J. 1973. Aishihik River: an unfortunate precedent. Northern Perspectives, Vol 1, No 5, May, p 2–3.Google Scholar