admin
Edited Text
Sheila Sanderson
_— — o Ttm
which is said to be at least partially due to the new premier Ed
Schreyer’s promise to reconsider the Churchill diversion (Bocking
1972:64). The new government shut down the project, reconsidered its
value and determined that the Province could not afford to cancel it
altogether. However, instead of the original “high-level” diversion
which would cause 10 meters of flooding, a “low level” diversion was
suggested which would only allow between three and five meters of
flooding. Bocking has referred to thisasa meaningless gesture since it
wasknown that the greatestdamage would bedone by thefirstfew feet
of higher water (1972:64). The new scheme was therefore not worthy
of praise and the people of South Indian Lake became suspicious that
the lower level flooding would only be the first step in the destruction
of their lake and livelihoods (ibid: 64).
In spite of all the controversy and opposition created by the
Churchill-Nelson Hydro Project, the New Democratic Party was
reelected in 1973. Construction of the diversion continued and the
people of South Indian Lake found themselves with little recourse.
Money for legal fees was largely unavailable and impact studies
opposing the project were either still underway orhad been completed
andrejected. One reporthad been accepted anditargued that“...north-
ern Native people were in transition from some kind of primitive past
to a technological present...”; they were nothing more than “...anach-
ronisms in the present age of technology...” (Waldram 1988:121). The
hydro project was therefore seen as a catalyst which would move the
people foreward in time by breaking up their traditional ways of life.
Results of the Diversion
The Churchill-Nelson river Systems promised a generating capac-
ity of 6.14 Megawatts of hydroelectric power (Manitoba Hydro, 1985).
This large scale Project, now inoperation for twelveyears, wasdeemed
necessary by both industry and government for many reasons, a few
of which have been examined. above. Itisironic thatineconomic terms,
the province of Manitoba has actually lost rather than gained from the
Project. This is especially true when the long term degradation of the
land and resulting consequences (such as the economic and social
losses suffered by the northern people) are considered. From the
perspective of the people of South Indian Lake, the project has clearly
been a disaster. Interviews with many South Indian Lake residents
53
_— — o Ttm
which is said to be at least partially due to the new premier Ed
Schreyer’s promise to reconsider the Churchill diversion (Bocking
1972:64). The new government shut down the project, reconsidered its
value and determined that the Province could not afford to cancel it
altogether. However, instead of the original “high-level” diversion
which would cause 10 meters of flooding, a “low level” diversion was
suggested which would only allow between three and five meters of
flooding. Bocking has referred to thisasa meaningless gesture since it
wasknown that the greatestdamage would bedone by thefirstfew feet
of higher water (1972:64). The new scheme was therefore not worthy
of praise and the people of South Indian Lake became suspicious that
the lower level flooding would only be the first step in the destruction
of their lake and livelihoods (ibid: 64).
In spite of all the controversy and opposition created by the
Churchill-Nelson Hydro Project, the New Democratic Party was
reelected in 1973. Construction of the diversion continued and the
people of South Indian Lake found themselves with little recourse.
Money for legal fees was largely unavailable and impact studies
opposing the project were either still underway orhad been completed
andrejected. One reporthad been accepted anditargued that“...north-
ern Native people were in transition from some kind of primitive past
to a technological present...”; they were nothing more than “...anach-
ronisms in the present age of technology...” (Waldram 1988:121). The
hydro project was therefore seen as a catalyst which would move the
people foreward in time by breaking up their traditional ways of life.
Results of the Diversion
The Churchill-Nelson river Systems promised a generating capac-
ity of 6.14 Megawatts of hydroelectric power (Manitoba Hydro, 1985).
This large scale Project, now inoperation for twelveyears, wasdeemed
necessary by both industry and government for many reasons, a few
of which have been examined. above. Itisironic thatineconomic terms,
the province of Manitoba has actually lost rather than gained from the
Project. This is especially true when the long term degradation of the
land and resulting consequences (such as the economic and social
losses suffered by the northern people) are considered. From the
perspective of the people of South Indian Lake, the project has clearly
been a disaster. Interviews with many South Indian Lake residents
53
Media of