Lower Churchill Dam: An Analysis of the Effects of Reservoir Flooding and Dam Operations on Fish Population in Relation to the Cultural Significance of County Foods for the Labrador Inuit
Authors: Elizabeth Dolan, and Jonathan Pabillore.
Unlock Insights Now: Download Your Essential PDF Guide!
Background
The Lower Churchill Dam, part of the Muskrat Falls Hydroelectric project, sits in the Lower Churchill River Valley in central Labrador, Canada at the site of the Muskrat Falls (Nalcor Energy, 2009). The Churchill River, referred to locally as the Grand River or Mishta-shipu in Innu-aimun, flows east from the Smallwood Reservoir, the site of another hydropower dam, and enters the Atlantic through the Lake Melville estuary. It is the predominant freshwater source for the lake (Durkalec and Bell, 2016). The 824 megawatt (MW) hydroelectric plant at Muskrat Falls generates electricity that then travels along a high-voltage direct current (HVdc) transmission line to Soldiers Pond in Newfoundland and a high-voltage alternating current (HVac) transmission line to Churchill Falls further upstream. A third transmission line connects Newfoundland with Nova Scotia. The project also involved an initial flooding of a 41 km2 area to create a 101km2 reservoir upstream of the dam (Atlin and Stoddart, 2021).
The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador (GNL) was responsible for approving the project and originally touted the dam as a major opportunity for regional development (LeBlanc, 2020). Poor management by the implementing provincial Crown corporation Nalcor Energy, however, caused large delays and cost extensions that dragged the project out for several years and ultimately changed the tone of the development (Atlin and Stoddart, 2021). Nalcor did not initiate reservoir flooding until August of 2019, (Calder et al., 2021), and the GNL did not fully commission the project until April of 2023 (The Canadian Press, 2023), six years after the original deadline.
Nalcor especially faced pushback from Inuit communities and other settlers who were concerned that the dam would cause methylmercury poisoning of fish and wildlife habitat in the downstream Lake Melville (Durkalec and Bell, 2016). Methylmercury is a toxin created when submerged vegetation decays during reservoir filling in certain environmental conditions. Because the toxin is not broken down by living organisms, it accumulates throughout the foodchain and can reach dangerous quanitities for human consumption. It takes ten-to-fifteen years to peak and does not return to baseline levels until around thirty-five years later (Nalcor Energy, 2009).
The Inuit communities in Nunatsiavut, the region around Lake Melville, view food harvesting of Lake Melville and the surrounding areas as integral to the maintenance of their physical, cultural, spiritual, and social well-being (Durkalec and Bell, 2016). Any methylmercury poisoning in the lake has the potential to cause serious health risks for the lakeside communities (Health Canada, 2019; Karagas et al., 2012), who consume substantial amounts of local fish. Nalcor’s initial environmental impact assessment dismissed the concern, but the Inuit-based Nunatsiavut Government, which enjoys autonomy to govern the region around Lake Melville (though not around the site of the dam itself), commissioned an independent report by the Memorial University of Newfoundland and Harvard University that disagreed and found cause for concern of methylmercury poisoning (Durkalec and Bell, 2016).
Map of the lower Churchill River and Lake Melville that includes demarcations of different Inuit community settlements and lands, taken from pp. 4 of Durkalec et al. 2016.
Ultimately, the project stalled due to a series of hunger strikes, protests, and land occupations in Ottawa and Newfoundland, all of which heightened media scrutiny and national concern regarding how the dam installation would affect Inuit way of life (Penney and Johnson-Castle, 2021; Calder et al., 2021). Methylmercury mitigation suggestions went unheeded, and the reservoir filled in 2019.
Current (June 2023) data on methylmercury levels demonstrate that, at the site of inflow into Lake Melville (N9), average yearly methylmercury levels have not substantially changed. During peak methylmercury production months (August-October), levels have increased from an average of .013 ng/L to .043 ng/L. This was calculated by averaging methylmercury levels for the months of August-October prior to 2019 and from 2019-2022 (the year 2019 was excluded in order to account for the disruption of impoundment, which spanned the months of August and part of September. Data accessed from https://www.gov.nl.ca/ecc/waterres/watermonitoring/methylmercury-mrf/ ).Such rates remain far below the level that poses risk to wildlife (.2 ng/L; CCME, 2013) and below Calder et al. 2016’s predicted increase of .16 ng/L before and after impoundment (calder et al. 2016 was a publication that followed the original Nunatsiavut Government commissioned report). However, it still remains to be seen how such levels may evolve in the coming years of methylmercury production and whether bioaccumulation of methylmercury in aquatic life over time will result in a consumption advisory for the region.
Water Security Analysis
- Reservoir filling: The reservoirs created by the dam temporarily affect downstream water availability during filling and, in the case of this particular dam, spark long-term methylmercury production through bacteria stimulation in the flooded terrestrial land.
- Dam operation: The dam operations regulate the timing and variability of downstream water availability. As mentioned above, the river already had homogenized flows prior to the construction of the dam.
- Lower Churchill River and Lake Melville communities.
Reservoir Filling - Methylmercury Poisoning
The installment of the Lower Churchill Dam required the creation of a reservoir that flooded the terrain by 43.9 km2 (Madden and Lead, 2018). In terms of impacts, the reservoir filling did not prompt population relocation, but Nalcor did plan on partial clearing of the surrounding forest in order to minimize floating debris that might threaten the integrity of the dam and the stability of the shoreline. Nalcor estimated that they would ultimately clear roughly 70% of the flooded vegetation (Nalcor Energy, 2009). The independent report commissioned by the Nunatsiavut government also indicated that initial flooding of the reservoir would likely increase the sediment load downstream (Durkalec and Bell, 2016). Finally, it is likely that the initial filling resulted in a temporary decrease in the water level further downstream, but the effect of this process was not well-documented in the ex-ante Nalcor environmental impact assessment or any ex-post media or research content. On Lower Churchill River and Lake Melville communities The key concern resulting from the reservoir filling was whether it would initiate an uptick in methylmercury exposure to the downstream community who heavily participated in local harvesting practices. Methylmercury is a neurotoxin that, at high levels of exposure, can cause kidney and liver failure (Clarkson et al., 2003). Regular consumption of seafood often results in sustained exposure due to the fact that methylmercury bioaccumulates in aquatic food chains (Silbernagel et al., 2011; Durkalec and Bell, 2016). Long-term but lower exposure can cause neurological impairment in children and heightened cardiovascular risk in adults (Boucher et al., 2012; Karagas et al., 2012). It is of particular concern to pregnant women and children. In the case of reservoir filling contexts, methylmercury levels can dramatically increase because the filling creates geochemical conditions that allow methylmercury-producing bacteria, mostly thought to be present in the flooded soil, to thrive (Hall et al., 2005; Durkalec and Bell, 2016). Lake Melville is an estuary especially prone to methylmercury production due to the fact that the upper 10m of the surface water is low in salinity and is driven by river input (of which the Lower Churchill River is the most predominant) while input from the ocean at the far side of the estuary sinks to the bottom (Calder et al., 2016). The stratification results in a concentration of biological activity at the surface level and therefore rapid spread of methylmercury contamination to common lake species as opposed to a dilution of the toxin (Durkalec and Bell, 2016). This is a long-term contamination process: Nalcor itself predicted that methylmercury levels would peak ten-to-fifteen years after initial flooding and would not return to baseline levels until thirty-five years later (Nalcor Energy, 2009). The most efficient way to mitigate methylmercury proliferation is to strip mercury from the soil at the site of the reservoir, remove carbon-rich materials like trees and vegetation, and cap bottom sediment (especially in wetlands) prior to reservoir flooding (Mailman et al., 2006). As mentioned above, Nalcor implemented none of these strategies except for partial clearing. Originally, several reports forecasted that the Lower Churchill River and Lake Melville communities could expect methylmercury exposure to double (Madden and Lead, 2018; Calder et al., 2016), with over half of young children and women in the area to exceed the U.S. EPA’s reference dose (Calder et al., 2016). These predictions were disputed by other reports, including an evaluation by Dillon Consulting on potential future human exposure (this source), which indicated that it was unlikely that methylmercury levels would rise to values in Lake Melville that would harm the Inuit communities living there. Currently, as stated in the introduction, pre-installation yearly averages and post-installation yearly averages reveal no meaningful change in methylmercy levels. Yearly averages mask seasonal fluctuations, however, and further analysis does reveal an uptick from .013 ng/L to .043 ng/L during peak methylmercury production months for the region (August-October). Interpreting the significance of the change is difficult without more advanced inquiry. On one hand, the levels remain far below the Calder et al. 2016 predicted increase by .16 ng/L and Canada’s conservative bound for risk to aquatic life (.2 ng/L). Still, it is unclear how these seasonal fluctuations may contribute to long-term bioaccumulation, which could in turn lead to an exceeding of consumption limits. Moreover, meethylmercury levels still may not peak for some time. Taken together, there is evidence of an increase in methylmercury production but no firm understanding the extent to which it may threaten the communities around Lake Melville. Given the uncertainty, the water security analysis cautiously proceeds with the spirit that, prior to dam installation, the uncertainty around the methylmercury impact would have compelled the most conservative and proactive of hydro-electric actors to investigate how the potential disruption may alter the water security of the Lake Melville communities. Proceeding to the security analysis, Nalcor’s initial suggested solution to methylmercury exposure was to put a consumption advisory into place (Nalcor Energy, 2009), which is the typical mitigation strategy when methylmercury levels spike. The existence of the coping strategy means that economic water insecurity is of less concern in this particular case. An advisory consumption would, however, produce an increase in virtual water insecurity due to the significant dependency of the estuary and riverine communities on river- and lake-based food. Without subsidies, many community members could not afford to secure the same diet in a region suffering from high market food costs and nearly five times the Canadian average of moderate to severe food insecurity (Egeland, 2010). Moreover, regardless of food replacement practices, the inability to harvest along the river and lake would result in significant cultural water insecurity given traditional harvesting’s role as the “cultural anchor” (Durkalec and Bell, 2016) of Inuit culture. Taken together, what otherwise could have been a negligible impact on a local river system in a different context became a salient threat from the viewpoint of a particular population who uses the Lower Churchill River and Lake Melville estuary for distinct cultural, social, and health practices. The case’s water insecurities for dam filling also are atypical given the fact that usually, reservoir filling produces short-term effects. Here, methylmercury production sparked by reservoir filling has the potential to cause a long-term impact that would take decades to subside.Dam Operation
Nalcor predicted that the initial flooding of the reservoir would result in a loss of fish habitat for some of the twenty-two fish in the Lower Churchill River. However, Nalcor argued that a combination of intentional preparation of new shallow water areas and riparian zones, plus a slowdown of the river velocity in between dams, would actually increase the amount of suitable fish habitat and result in a net-positive contribution to the environment over time (Nalcor Energy, 2009). The Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat pushed back against these assumptions. They noted that the report failed to distinguish between “loss of fish habitat” and “changed fish habitat,” the latter of which would produce a substantially larger percentage of affected river ecosystem than what Nalcor had reported. The Secretariat also found that Nalcor did not consider how changes in the river system may advantage certain fish species over others and requested that Nalcor monitor any environmental shift. Finally, the Secretariat reported that Nalcor had not considered the impact of the dam on fish passage and the potential rise in fish mortality due to turbines at the generating station (Clarke, 2009). The Nunatsiavut-commissioned assessment also reported uncertainty over whether the disruptions in the sediment flow into Lake Melville due to the dam might also impact the metabolic energy available for planktonic and benthic bacterial communities, which would further disturb the larger food web of the lake (Durkalec and Bell, 2016). On Lower Churchill River and Lake Melville communities The current impact of dam operation on the Lower Churchill River and Lake Melville communities is not well-documented. As mentioned above, Nalcor completed the dam installation and flooded the reservoir in 2019, and the government only authorized hydroelectric operations in April of 2023. To the best of our knowledge, there have been no studies observing changes in fish populations in the Lower Churchill River or Lake Melville since these activities began. Therefore, we can only assign a low probability to a potential impact of dam operation on food availability. This may result in an increase in virtual water insecurity and cultural water insecurity over the long term. These predictions are made with caution given the lack of available data on the matter.Table 1. Summary of CHIPs vs SICs for Water Security in the Lower Churchill River and Lake Melville Areas
| Riverine Communities | |
| Dam Filling | V- C- |
| Dam Operation | (~) V- C- |
Water Governance Analysis
This water governance portion shall take into account subsequent events after the project was greenlit by the concerned authorities (e.g. the failure of the government to remove the vegetation prior to flooding the reservoir, otherwise known as wetland cropping), but mainly will concern itself with what the stakeholders, in particular the government and Nalcor, could or should have done to avoid the resulting consequences and otherwise have been proactive in pushing through with the project.
Institutions
Water governance in Canada is diverse in that the primary actors or regulators when it comes to water allocation and water rights are the Provinces, whereas the federal government’s jurisdiction is restricted to a few key areas: fisheries, navigation, transboundary flows, and rights of aboriginal peoples (de Loë et al., 2007). Many of the laws or governance structures cited below come from a report in 2007, which examines the water governance landscape of Canada and its various Provinces. However, unless otherwise indicated, the relevant laws for Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador remain valid and in effect. Any changes or revisions are adequately reflected or cited in succeeding portions, most notably revisions to the Fisheries Act, a federal law of Canada.
This means that the characterization of water largely depends on each Province’s legal landscape (de Loë et al., 2007). By and large, ownership over water is vested in the Crown, except for two provinces (Ontario and Prince Edward Island) (de Loë et al., 2007), where water is privately-owned. Each Province also has its own set of rules and priorities for water allocation, with some jurisdictions adopting a riparian right model, others the first-in-time first-in-right model, still others with a totally unique conception, such as that in Quebec where their Civil Code conceives of water as a resource “common to all” (de Loë et al., 2007).
The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) adopts the riparian rights doctrine and has a licensing system for using or utilizing surface, ground, and shore water, based on water availability and a host of other factors (de Loë et al., 2007). On top of that, it also has a multi-layered system of usage priority, with domestic use at the top rung (de Loë et al., 2007).
Canada as a whole is keenly aware that water is a resource that must be carefully managed and utilized. There are key pieces of legislation at the federal level that regulate water, particularly freshwater, across the board. For instance, the Canada Water Act facilitates cooperation and coordination between the federal government and provinces over the development, utilization, and conservation of water resources across Canada (Branch, 2014). The law mandates federal-provincial arrangements for water resource management and provides guidelines and programs for regulating pollution over federal waters or waters that are otherwise not federal but which are of national concern (Branch, 2014).
NL primarily regulates the use of water within its jurisdiction via the Water Resources Act (SNL2002 CHAPTER W-4.01 - WATER RESOURCES ACT, n.d.). The act consolidates and adopts environmental and ecological principles for the responsible use and management of water resources, meant to “minimize the adverse effects of human activities on water, wetlands, and floodways.” (Department of Environment, 2002). Part and parcel of this system involves the licensing, as mentioned earlier, system for water rights (Department of Environment, 2002). As is characteristic of many Canadian legislation, the Water Resources Act reconciles water regulation with aboriginal rights, in particular, it references the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act, and ensures that the Water Resources Act remains consistent with the guarantees of that legislation (SNL2002 CHAPTER W-4.01 - WATER RESOURCES ACT, n.d.).
The Fisheries Act of Canada directly regulates water quality as it is inextricably linked with fish and fish habitat (Unger, 2023). It applies to the Lower Churchill Dam project over and above individual regulations enacted by NL. That is why, in Nalcor’s website for this specific project, it indicates or references Section 35 of the Fisheries Act, regulating fish habitat, and, thus, created a Fish Habitat Compensation Plan for the hydropower dam project (Generation | Nalcor Energy – Lower Churchill Project, n.d.).
Overall, on its face, the legal safeguards for effective and responsible water use and management in Canada appear robust and healthy. Their implementation, of course, is an entirely different question. Nevertheless, all the necessary tools are present to address any issues that rise with respect to pollution and adverse consequences attributable to any particular industrial undertaking, in this case, the increased levels of methyl-mercury due to bio-accumulation (incidental to reservoir flooding for the Lower Churchill Dam project) and dam operations that introduce variability in flow of water through Churchill River and which carries the potential to irretrievably alter fish habitat.
Actors
As referenced above, two important actors are the federal government of Canada and the governing authority of NL. Another key stakeholder is Nalcor, a corporate subsidiary of the government of NL (Project Overview | Nalcor Energy – Lower Churchill Project, n.d.).
Within the province of NL, there also exists the Nunatsiavut Government, a governing body that represents the indigenous population native to Labrador. As the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement defines, the term “Inuit” covers “…all the members of the aboriginal people of Labrador, sometimes known as Eskimos, that has traditionally used and occupied and currently uses and occupies the lands, waters and sea ice of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Area and includes Kablunângajuit…” (Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement - Chapter 1, n.d.). The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement derives its power from Canada’s 1982 Constitution, which “recognizes and affirms the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada” (Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement - Parties and Preamble, n.d.). The map of NL shown earlier above also highlights the extent of the land settlement area covered by the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement (Durkalec et al., 2016).
The Innu Nation, a representative organization of the Innu of Labrador, also has a stake in the project. The Innu form a distinct group of indigenous people (Innu Culture, n.d.) and the Innu of Labrador specifically refer to Innu communities residing in Natuashish and Sheshatshiu (Innu Rights & Government, n.d.). In 2011, Canada, NL, and the Innu Nation signed three agreements, collectively referenced under the 2008 New Dawn Agreement, which aimed to resolve key issues and grievances between NL’s Innu population and the Province of NL (Innu Nation and Province Reach Historic Agreement, n.d.). One agreement, referred to as the land claims Agreement-in-Principle agreement (AIP) delineates certain areas within NL into various categories, to distinguish the scope of possible title, rights, and powers that the Innu Nation may have over these swathes of ancestral land (okt-editor, 2011). For instance, Category 1, covering 5,000 square miles, provides land title to the Innu Nation; Category 2 and 3, covering 22,000 square miles, provides, among others, hunting and fishing rights and revenue and resource sharing powers for the benefit of the Innu Nation (okt-editor, 2011). Unlike the Nunatsiavut Government, the Innu Nation has yet to conclude or ratify a treaty similar to the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement. Land claims negotiations are still ongoing and the final details of a possible land settlement have not yet been inked (A New Dawn for the Labrador Innu, n.d.). The other two agreements specifically refer to the previously completed and operational Upper Churchill hydropower project and the recently completed Lower Churchill dam now subject of this case study. The first of these two agreements is referred to as the Upper Churchill Redress Agreement, providing compensation to the Innu for the damages caused by the Upper Churchill project which resulted in the flooding of historical hunting grounds over Innu ancestral land (okt-editor, 2011). Meanwhile, the latter is referred to as the Impact and Benefits Assessment (IBA) Agreement, which gives a portion of the Lower Churchill Dam’s annual revenue (5% of cashflow) to the Innu Nation once the project becomes operational.
A third group comprises an apparently different strand of Inuit, which have primarily resided in south and central Labrador, identifying themselves as the NunatuKavut, represented by the NunatuKavut Community Council (NCC) (Who We Are NCC, n.d.). In 2019, under a Memorandum of Understanding, Canada agreed that this group of indigenous people is capable of holding and possessing indigenous rights under Section 35 of Canada’s Constitution Act, which affirms so-called aboriginal rights (Constitution Act, 1982 Section 35, n.d.). Be that as it may, their legal rights as an indigenous group remain unclear. The Innu Nation and the Nunatsiavut Government refuse to accord them recognition as an indigenous group (CBC News, 2021; Nunatsiaq News, 2020). Both groups, moreover, contest the land claims advanced by the NCC, which would overlap with lands either settled in favor of the Nunatsiavut Government or currently being negotiated by the Innu Nation (Who We Are NCC, n.d.). The Innu Nation has brought a case in court to challenge and enjoin the Memorandum of Understanding arguing that the NCC is not a distinct indigenous group capable of holding Section 35 aboriginal rights, which case the Nunatsiavut subsequently joined, siding with the Innu Nation (CBC News, 2020).
Based on Nalcor’s Environmental Impact Assessment Report in 2009, the project does not encroach or touch lands under the jurisdiction of the Nunatsiavut Government (Nalcor Energy, 2009). However, it does affect two principal indigenous groups within the area: the “Sheshatshiu in central Labrador and Natuashish on the Labrador North Coast,” which are Innu groups governed by the Innu Nation (Nalcor Energy, 2009). This, however, does not mean that the Nunatsiavut Government has no stake in the project. While the project does not affect lands covered by the Labrador Inuit Lands Claims Agreement, there is cause to believe that the project does affect Lake Melville, with which the Nunatsiavut Government is heavily concerned (Nalcor Energy, 2009). Indigenous people within NL share a history of subsistence hunting and harvesting, mainly of game animals, such as caribou, and marine mammals like seal and fish like Atlantic cod and salmon (Atkinson, 2020). And the group that stands to be most affected by rising levels of methyl-mercury are indigenous groups that surround Lake Melville, most of whom belong to Inuit members of the Nunatsiavut Government (Calder et al., 2016).
This paints a complex scenario concerning effective representation of aboriginal peoples within the province of NL, given the diversity of these native groups and the decentralized nature of governance.
Conflicts and Tensions
The most perceivable tensions within the context of this project and between the aforementioned actors mostly exist between the Inuit population within NL and Nalcor, alongside the provincial and federal government. Within the Inuit population, as mentioned, there are issues of representation, given that the Nunatsiavut Government’s power and jurisdiction does not directly extend to the project. Moreover the province of NL and the federal government both greenlit the project, which allowed Nalcor to finally proceed with reservoir flooding even amidst warnings of its effects on methyl-mercury levels in Lake Melville and the lower portion of the Churchill river (Atline & Stoddart, 2021).
When authorizing the Muskrat Falls project in 2006, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador (GNL) Premier Danny Williams cited it as the means by which the region would become “masters of our own destiny” (LeBlanc, 2020). His Progressive Conservative Party had taken office in 2003 with the vision of developing the Newfoundland-Labrador (NL) region via the hydroelectric potential, and they saw the Lower Churchill River as the centerpiece for advancing strategic power generation in the province (LeBlanc, 2020). Shortly after the approval of the project, the GNL created a provincial Crown corporation, Nalcor Energy, to run the project and all other energy projects in the region (Nalcor Energy, 2009). This creates a problem with respect to the supervision and oversight over the project. The province, as the principal of its crown corporation, has a duty to ensure that Nalcor toes the line with respect to aboriginal rights and environmental concerns around the project’s construction and operation.
This regulatory tension also appears evidently in the Nunatsiavut Government’s concerns for Lake Melville and methylmercury poisoning. Nalcor originally disputed this concern and excluded Lake Melville from its pre-project environmental impact assessment. The Nunatsiavut Government commissioned an independent report by the Memorial University of Newfoundland and Harvard University that scientifically called into question Nalcor’s claims (Durkalec and Bell, 2016). A Joint Review Panel by the regional and National governments found the same and ordered a new comprehensive downstream impact assessment in 2011, which Nalcor did not fulfill until 2019, after reservoir filling. This report confirmed impact of the Lower Churchill Dam on Lake Melville methylmercury levels and, strikingly, suggested that the estuary methylmercury levels would be even higher than previous analyses (Calder et al., 2021). Nalcor was able to proceed with flooding, with little to no repercussions (Roberts, 2020). NL does not appear inclined to hold Nalcor liable for this lapse, even though crown corporations are accountable to the government and are within arm’s length in terms of oversight and regulation (Stastna, 2012).
Another relevant tension is the competition for power and territory between and among indigenous groups, in that insofar as indigenous groups are guaranteed constitutional rights, most of these are expressed through and mediated by representative groups like the Innu Nation, the Nunatsiavut Government, and the NCC. The Inuit and Innu nations within Labrador, not just across Canada, are varied and diverse (Atline & Stoddart, 2021). This situation gives rise to a struggle for power as to who can represent which groups and individuals and what benefits and entitlements they can negotiate for themselves. These intra-community conflicts on matters of representation only serve to diminish their bargaining power, especially concerning a project like the Lower Churchill dam. The primary concern of Nalcor was and is to obtain approval from the province of NL and the federal government of Canada (Nalcor Energy, n.d.). With such diffuse representation, issues are apt to be both complex and complicated. Nalcor has a duty to negotiate with these different groups who may have conflicting concerns and coming up with a coherent plan to accommodate all these varied interests will be difficult, to say the least.
Transparency and Accountability
Multiple groups and critics raised concerns about the reports initially submitted by Nalcor, especially as regards reservoir filling and the concomitant rise in levels of methyl-mercury (attributable also to its failure to implement wetland capping, or the clearing of vegetation prior to flooding) (Atline & Stoddart, 2021). Subsequent studies showed that Nalcor had underestimated the levels of mercury within the affected water sources, which brings up questions of transparency and accountability. However, to the province’s credit, it has to establish an independent expert advisory committee to continually monitor mercury levels within the reservoir in order to alert the province and its constituents if and when mercury levels rise to unsafe levels (Roberts, 2020).
Historically, as well, the province of Labrador has shown willingness to redress affected communities for any damages or harm that can be attributed to such projects. For instance, in the past, the Innu Nation was able to secure compensation to redress the past harms caused to indigenous lands when the upper Churchill hydropower project was built (Atline & Stoddart, 2021). However, this seems to have become a pattern, which is concerning, as when Nalcor failed to conduct wetland capping, it opted instead to pay off the indigenous groups with the funds earmarked for such purpose, which money the Nunatsiavut rebuffed claiming it was “hush money” (CBC News, 2019).
Power Assymetries
One may observe that insofar as actual negotiating power goes, the indigenous population have very little. They neither have oversight nor supervisory powers. Representation is also scattered across the various groups, as is evident from Nalcor’s own report, wherein they had to consult a number chiefs, the Nunatsiavut Government, the Metis Nation, and even Quebec Innu (Nalcor Energy, 2009).
If anything, the duty to represent these groups, with any real effectiveness, would fall onto the federal government or to NL, given that Nalcor is an NL Crown corporation and this project was branded as an important project for the province and its constituents–that it would boost the economy and generate much needed jobs (Atline & Stoddart, 2021).
Representatives for the indigenous groups held no significant stock against political interests to complete the project so it could start operating. Often, acknowledging indigenous rights have been mere afterthoughts, reflected in agreements providing for compensation and damages for violations.
The laws and legal underpinnings for adequate representation are present in Canada, but, in practice, the real and practical power asymmetries are undeniable.
Water-Use Decision-Making
On paper, Nalcor complied with all the requirements prior to undertaking the project, most especially as regards its duty to consult the indigenous population. The realities on the ground, however, are much more complex and they may not necessarily be reflected throughout the approval process. This will be made apparent more specifically in the legal matrix below when certain issues surrounding these groups’ right to water are flagged and brought to the surface.
For instance, Nalcor, during its infancy was plagued by growing pains, staffed with only a single core member with experience in hydroelectric generation or transmission projects. It was, thus, ill-equipped to handle the project (LeBlanc, 2020). Failures included cost overruns by over double the initial estimated amount, missed deadlines, inconsistent community consultation strategies, and poor internal management (Atlin and Stoddart, 2021). NL did not step in to correct this. An inquiry commissioned by the Minister of Natural Resources characterized GNL oversight of Nalcor as “weak, at best,” where “GNL officials and politicians who worked on the Project were considerably over their heads and unqualified to evaluate cost, schedule and risk.” The inquiry described how Nalcor benefitted this weakness (LeBlanc, 2020).
This has problems relating to decision-making, given that all these factors contributed to the delay of the project. It may also put into question whether Nalcor truly understood its responsibilities with respect to water rights for indigenous communities and the ecological impact of its operations. By law, they may have complied with all the rules and regulations, or obtained the necessary permits, but the right to water, even, or especially, in such cases, calls for more introspection and a wider consideration for the effects of one’s industrial operations.
Cultural, Livelihood, or Social Uses of Water
Country foods remain a part of the Inuit diet and many claim this to be integral to their identity as a people (Pufall et al., 2011). It certainly has cultural and historical significance and this lies at the heart of much of the pushback against the project. Many community members want to be able to sustain this type of livelihood and way of living (Pufall et al., 2011).
The 2016 Harvard study, however, does show that much of those who continue to heavily rely on country foods are part of the older generation, whereas younger Inuit are showing less interest in these types of food (Calder et al., 2016). Hair mercury testing reflects and supports this conclusion (Calder et al., 2016).
The project, in many ways, can threaten this form of livelihood and identity if mercury levels were allowed to breach unsafe levels. All of this ties back, however, to effective representation for these communities and meaningful participation in these types of industrial processes. So far, these issues have been overshadowed by the importance the province has attached to this huge energy project, coupled with uncertain leadership on behalf of the indigenous communities in NL.
Legal Matrix and Narrative
WATER INADEQUACY ANALYTICAL AND LEGAL MATRIX
Lower Churchill Dam’s Reservoir Filling and Sustained Dam Operations Both CHIPs will be discussed in conjunction in this portion as both processes relate to the same consequence or impact, that is, the supply of fish available to the indigenous communities who rely on the river and Lake Melville. The primary actor for this portion of the case study shall pertain to Nalcor, as the Crown corporation designated to complete the construction of the dam and conduct its operations. However, as regards the timeline of the case study, it includes the fact that the dam has already been completed, but does not include the fact that operations have started. It also takes for granted the fact that Nalcor and the GNL failed to ensure wetland capping prior to flooding the reservoir.Table 2: Right to Water Elements and Cross-Cutting Obligations
| Two-tiered TEST | ADEQUACY | MULTIDIMENSIONALITY | SUSTAINABILITY |
| A. Is the Lower Churchill Dam reservoir filling and subsequent dam operations consistent with the Canada’s cross-cutting human rights obligations? | Availability of water: Constant monitoring may be required to assess the downstream effects on the availability of water for fisheries and Lake Melville.Water Quality: There has been concern that reservoir filling, absent wetland capping, will increase, or has increased, methyl-mercury levels.Accessibility of water: The effect on accessibility of water is not so much a question of the levels of water, although this may be a growing concern with climate change, but what accessing the water means for the affected communities, that is, as a source of food. Thus, any effects on water that affects the quality and safety of consumed fish, ultimately affects accessibility of water. | Water as a Social Good: Lake Melville and the river downstream of the dam have social significance to the larger Inuit community in Newfoundland and Labrador.Water as a Cultural Good: Being able to fish and hunt along the river and in Lake Melville has cultural significance for the Inuit community who have historically relied on the lake and tributaries. | Protection and Preservation of Intergenerational Rights and Interests: While the rise in methyl-mercury levels poses immediate risk if they rise to unsafe levels, the science does show that these will level off after a couple of years. Of more concern would be the long-term effects of the dam and the cumulative restrictions on the flow of the river from multiple dam projects along the Churchill River.Non-Retrogression Obligation: A failure to address the concerns regarding rising methyl-mercury levels may affect the obligation of non-retrogression, especially as regards the right to health and a healthy environment. |
| 1. Right to self-determination | Investigate how much the mercury levels would affect the Inuit’s right to self-determination, in relation to their culture of consuming country foods, which include fish caught from affected water sources. | Lake Melville and Churchill river hold cultural and historical significance for the Inuit, particularly because Lake Melville is located within a settlement area reserved for the Inuit’s representative government. | While the projected methyl-mercury levels, even without wetland capping, are expected to level off eventually, investigate whether regular monitoring is, in the meantime, robust enough to ensure that sufficient warnings are issued when they reach unsafe levels. Consumption of fish with elevated levels of methyl-mercury will have long-term implications for the health of the Inuit community who consume them. Sustained dam operations, on the other hand, present potential harms to the right to self-determination if they negatively impact the ecosystem in the long-term. Investigate whether Nalcor has sustainability policies that account for these potential changes. |
| 2. Non-discrimination | This does not seem to be a prominent issue, however, it may be useful to keep in mind that there are various individual Inuit communities, who may have their own unique history and sub-culture, even within the broader group of Inuits across Canada. Reservoir filling and the way it affects the population must not have discriminatory effects, even if they are not readily seen now. | From a macro-political perspective, investigate whether Newfoundland and Labrador Inuit are receiving the same degree of protection and respect for their historical and cultural practices as other Inuits in other provinces. | Investigate whether projects like these, over the long term, especially affect indigenous groups, which could, intentionally or not, result in undue discrimination. |
| 3. Free disposition of natural resources | Indigenous peoples have the right to freely dispose of their natural resources under the principle of mutual benefit and international law. Lake Melville, in particular, falls inside the land settlement area granted to the Nunatsiavut government representing the Inuit people. Investigate to what extent the Nunatsiavut has power to assert its rights when parts of their territory are affected by upstream activities. | Part and parcel of the right to free disposition of natural resources is respecting whatever cultural significance a community attaches to certain resources like forests and bodies of water. Investigate to what extent the rise in methyl-mercury levels threatens the culture of Inuit, particularly in relation to country foods. | As noted earlier, the methyl-mercury levels may level off and dilute after several years, rendering the fish safe for human consumption (if they are not already), so any effect on the community’s right to free disposition of their natural resources would be temporary and does not pose critical threats to the sustainability of this right. Nevertheless, investigate how this temporary disruption can further be mitigated. The dam operations would hinder the free disposition of natural resources, most notably being able to harvest fish (especially those traditionally hunted or harvested by the Labrador Inuit), if permanent changes to the ecosystem would throw everything into imbalance, eliminating certain populations of fish or other unforeseen effects to the river and lake. |
| 4. Non-deprivation of subsistence means | The research would show that the Inuit communities would not be deprived of means of subsistence. Rather, the most important issue relates mostly to their historical practices and culture of fishing. However, investigate whether the levels of methyl-mercury would adversely affect those whose primary diet consists in country foods. | Investigate how much the levels of mercury would affect those which heavily rely on country foods and feel strongly about its connection to their heritage and culture. | Investigate whether there are ways to further mitigate the rise in methyl-mercury levels, or if after levels rise, whether they can be brought down sooner with technology or other means, instead of waiting for it to naturally dissipate. It could be a possibility, although at the moment it may seem remote, that the ecosystem may sustain permanent damage and eliminate certain fish population as a result of dam operations. Investigate what measures are in place or if there are plans in place to account for these possibilities. |
| 5. Right to equal enjoyment of human rights | Investigate whether affected communities, particularly around Lake Melville, are experiencing or will experience diminished equal enjoyment of their other human rights, relative to the general population or similarly situated indigenous groups, as a result of elevated mercury levels or restricted supply of country foods. This could, perhaps, be done by looking at studies examining the effect on the food supply of indigenous peoples; whether they have increased health care costs, as a result of elevated mercury levels; or whether elevated methy-mercury levels disables certain cultural practices, if any. | Investigate what effects elevated methyl-mercury levels would have on the cultural significance of the lakes and rivers have for the Inuit of Newfoundland and Labrador, whether their identity can remain largely intact and whether it hampers concomitant social and cultural rights if they are unable to fish as much or as they are used to. | Investigate whether the sustainability of equal enjoyment of human rights for the Inuit are not unduly burdened or threatened by the projected elevation of mercury levels in the water. The affected Labrador Inuit may not enjoy the same level of human rights, as other Inuit in other parts of the country where their rights might receive more protection or where their inputs have greater respect when projects are implemented. Investigate whether this is the case and to what degree Labrador Inuit may or may not be enjoying their human rights to the same degree as other similarly situated indigenous communities. |
| B. Is the Lower Churchill Dam’s reservoir filling and sustained dam operations consistent with Canada’s specifically interrelated human rights? | 1. Rights to highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.
-The evidence shows that methyl-mercury levels may rise to a point that renders fish stock unsafe for human consumption. This will have consequences for the right of the affected indigenous communities to their right to the highest attainable physical and mental health, given the effects of mercury on brain development. Investigate whether the monitoring and warning system in place is robust and provides information quickly, clearly, and reliably? 2. Specific human rights protections for vulnerable groups (women, children, indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities). -Investigate whether the rights guaranteed to indigenous groups under Canada’s constitution and within Newfoundland and Labrador’s laws and regulations may potentially be violated as a result of restricted access or restricted use of Lake Melville and the Lower Churchill river. 3. Baseline civil and political freedoms -While the projections regarding methyl-mercury levels do not pose immediate risks to baseline civil and political freedoms for the Inuit, there must be continual assessments to ensure that potential threats do not arise. | Rights to work and just and favorable conditions of work. -Investigate whether there is a viable market or economy within the indigenous Inuit population around country foods, most notably fish stock from Lake Melville and Churchill River. If methyl-mercury concentration increases, this may risk and spillover onto affected individuals’ right to work. Treaty-based social and cultural rights for indigenous communities. -Independent of water being an economic resource, the affected Inuit population, or at least certain segments of the population, may hold Lake Melville and Churchill River in special regard, particularly as a social and cultural good. Investigate what treaty obligations may be affected by the methyl-mercury, in relation to the cultural aspect of the use of water. Right to benefits of scientific progress and applications. -If new processes have been discovered that can help mitigate or hasten the dissipation of concentrated methyl-mercury, then these new processes may have to be employed to give substance to this right. | Human right to a healthy environment and State duties to prohibit causing transboundary harm. -While, perhaps not strictly falling within the concept of transboundary harm, however, methyl-mercury concentrations do fall into territories circumscribed by the land settlement area agreement with the Inuit, and so the general principles may find some application. Investigate whether and how these principles would apply to the unique configuration in Newfoundland and Labrador and the Inuit self-governing population. -Dam operations would also not strictly present transboundary harm but will have lasting effects on the river’s and Lake Melville’s existing marine ecosystem. The proper infrastructure must exist to continuously monitor ecosystem health, and so further investigation is needed to assess whether this is the case or if there is none, how these can be incorporated. Human rights-related legal principles on accountable governance, transparency in governmental decision-making, community participation in public affairs. -Investigate how community participation can be made more effective and how indigenous or aboriginal knowledge can be more effectively incorporated in the corporation’s decision-making processes. -An independent body, as with monitoring mercury levels, may also be required to monitor changes to the ecosystem because of dam operations. Investigate whether this can be a possibility. ICESCR Article 2 progressive realization and non-retrogression obligations. -Investigate whether the temporary, but elevated, concentrations of methyl-mercury could constitute a violation or deviation from the principle of non-retrogression. -The same concern extends to dam operations, whether long-term ecosystem changes would constitute a violation of the principle of non-retrogression. Are SDG 6 targets adversely affected by reservoir filling and its effects on methyl-mercury concentrations and dam operations as it changes fish habitat? Right to healthy environment. -Reservoir filling does implicate the right to a healthy environment, insofar as it potentially affects and makes fish stock unsafe for human consumption and could also have further unintended consequences to fragile ecosystems along the river and in Lake Melville. Investigate what the long-term effects are of reservoir filling, with respect to methyl-mercury, not just with the fish, but also to affected ecosystems. -The dam operations, perhaps, threatens this right the most, especially considering its long-term effects. Investigate the potential effects on the environment and whether these concerns can be mitigated throughout the course of the dam’s operations, particularly in the way it affects seasonal flows. Right to Work and Adequate Standard of Living. -If a temporary slump occurs to certain segments of the Inuit population in terms of trading or selling country foods, specifically fish country foods, are there mechanisms to absorb or mitigate the economic impact to their right to work, especially in the long term? -Dam operations may also affect existing livelihood depending on how it affects fish habitat. More research should be done on these concerns. |
Table 3: Analytical and Legal Matrix for Identifying and Mapping Water Governance Failures
| Indicator 1: Influential Actors in Water Governance | Indicator 2: Evidence of Participatory, Inclusive, or Decentralized Water Management | Indicator 3: Transparency and accountability arrangements and enforcement | Indicator 4: Threats to Hydro social (Livelihood, Cultural, Religious) Relations | |
| Element 1 of the Human Right to Water: ADEQUACY Availability of water Water Quality Accessibility of Water a. Cross-Cutting obligations b. Interrelated Specific Human Rights Obligations | The Nunatsiavut government has certain powers and rights under the Labrador and Inuit Claims Agreement, which particularly recognizes their right to manage and control fishing and the use of other resources like water within the designated area covered by the agreement. Investigate how this plays into the downstream effects of reservoir filling if methyl-mercury levels made fish unsafe for human consumption. | Nalcor’s environmental impact assessment consulted affected indigenous communities, consistent with Canada’s jurisprudence on the duty to consult aboriginal peoples when certain activities affect their protected rights. Investigate whether the concerns raised during these consultations were properly incorporated into assessing the impact of reservoir flooding and if there are ongoing efforts or measures to further mitigate potential impact in the food supply chain that can bring up issues of adequate water supply in relation to the capacity of indigenous communities to have ready access to country foods. | Investigate whether ongoing regular measurements of methyl-mercury levels are transparent insofar as they affect the consumption of fish and which communities they affect most. There may be inconsistencies or gaps in how methyl-mercury is measured along Churchill River and within Lake Melville itself. | The methyl-mercury levels may affect the supply of fish for country foods, and this will may have an impact on indigenous livelihood and cultural practices. Investigate whether there remains adequate water for the larger community to be able to sustain these practices, even if Lake Melville were to be cordoned off from fishing for consumption. Dam operations also present the same concern, if changed fish habitats primarily affect fish meant for country foods. |
| Element 2 of the Human Right to Water: MULTIDIMENSIONALITYWater as a Social GoodWater as a Cultural Good a. Cross-Cutting Obligations b. Interrelated Specific Human Rights Obligations | When it comes to assessing whether the multidimensionality of water is adequately protected and addressed throughout the decision making process, is the Nunatsiavut government given an effective platform to be able to contribute to these discussions or business decisions, especially since none of the board members of Nalcor, and its succeeding corporation, are Inuit? | As with the previous cell, how inclusive and participatory are the decision-making processes within the corporation in charge of the Lower Churchill dam, especially as regards the cultural significance of the Churchill River and Lake Melville? | The monitoring mechanisms after reservoir flooding must be transparent enough to enable the indigenous communities and the Nunatsiavut government to act and institute protective measures if the methyl-mercury levels were to reach unsafe levels. | There must be continual balance between the need for harmonizing hydro-social relations (such as the indigenous culture vis-à-vis country foods) and the touted economic benefits from operating the Lower Churchill Dam. |
| Element 3 of the Human Right to Water: SUSTAINABILITYProtection and preservation of intergenerational rights and interestsNon-retrogression obligation a. Cross-Cutting Obligations b. Interrelated Specific Human Rights Obligations | This has most relevance to the impact of dam operations on fish habitat and the long-term effects. Apart from monitoring mechanisms that track the current levels of methyl-mercury in the water, investigate whether studies and other findings relating to changing fish habitat have detrimental long-term effects, and who should be the primary responsible entity for monitoring, implementing, and ensuring compliance. | Any long-term planning regarding dam operations and the effects of reservoir planning should incorporate or institute an inclusive and participatory sustainability policy, in order that the processes can adapt to ongoing concerns from various perspectives, most notably cultural concerns from the indigenous communities. | Some studies posit that while fish habitat may not diminish or would retain current levels or volumes, or even yield a net positive increase, still a change in fish habitat, because of reservoir filling or dam operations could have tremendous consequences for the entire ecosystem. Investigate whether post-operations monitoring systems are transparent and keep affected communities abreast of any important changes or developments in the overall ecosystem. | As with the previous observation, changes in fish habitat and the levels of mercury in the water could affect the ecosystem, which would also cascade into hydro-social relations. Investigate whether the dam operations, in combination with projected rising mercury levels, are consistent with the sustainability element of right to water, especially insofar as it sparks fundamental changes in the fish ecosystem. |
Discussions and Conclusions
Authors: Elizabeth Dolan, and Jonathan Pabillore.
References
Atlin, C., & Stoddart, M. C. (2021). Governance in times of crisis: The Muskrat Falls case [white paper]. Harris Centre of Regional Policy and Development, Memorial University.
Benidickson, J. (2017). The Evolution of Canadian Water Law and Policy: Securing Safe and Sustainable Abundance. McGill Journal of Sustainable Development Law, 13(1), 59-105–180.
Boucher, O., Jacobson, S. W., Plusquellec, P., Dewailly, É., Ayotte, P., Forget-Dubois, N., ... & Muckle, G. (2012). Prenatal methylmercury, postnatal lead exposure, and evidence of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder among Inuit children in Arctic Quebec. Environmental health perspectives, 120(10), 1456-1461.
Branch, L. S. (2014, April 1). Consolidated federal laws of Canada, Canada Water Act. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-11/page-1.html#h-61059
Busbyt, K. (2016). Troubling Waters: Recent Developments in Canada on International Law and the Right to Water and Sanitation.
Calder, R. S., Schartup, A. T., Li, M., Valberg, A. P., Balcom, P. H., & Sunderland, E. M. (2016). Future impacts of hydroelectric power development on methylmercury exposures of Canadian indigenous communities. Environmental Science & Technology, 50(23), 13115-13122.
Calder, R. S., Schartup, A. T., Bell, T., & Sunderland, E. M. (2021). Muskrat Falls: Methylmercury, food security, and Canadian hydroelectric development. In Muskrat Falls: How a mega dam became a predatory formation. Memorial University Press.
Canada, E. and C. C. (2007, January 9). Water governance: Federal policy and legislation [Policies;guidance]. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/water-overview/governance-legislation/federal-policy.html
Canada;, G. of C. C.-I. R. and N. A. (2009, January 12). Indigenous peoples and communities [Administrative page; fact sheet; resource list]. https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100013785/1529102490303
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). (2003). Canadian water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life—Mercury—Inorganic mercury and methylmercury.
The Canadian Press. (2023, April 13). Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project in N.L. considered commissioned: CEO. JWN Energy.
Clarke, K. (2009). Science evaluation of the environmental impact statement for the lower Churchill hydroelectric generation project to identify deficiencies with respect to fish and fish habitat. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Retrieved from https://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/library-bibliotheque/336997.pdf
Clarkson, T. W., Magos, L., & Myers, G. J. (2003). The toxicology of mercury—current exposures and clinical manifestations. New England Journal of Medicine, 349(18), 1731-1737.
Collins, L. (2010). Environmental Rights on the Wrong Side of History: Revisiting Canada’s Position on the Human Right to Water. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 19(3), 351–365.
de Loë, R., Varghese, J., Ferreyra, C., & Kreutzwiser, R. (2007). Water Allocation and Water Security in Canada: Initiating a Policy Dialogue for the 21st Century.
Durkalec, A., Sheldon, T., & Bell, T. (2016). Lake Melville: Avativut, Kanuittailinnivut (Our Environment, Our Health) Scientific Report. Nain, NL: Nunatsiavut Government and Nain Research Centre. Retrieved from https://bgc.seas.harvard.edu/assets/sciencereport-low1.pdf
Egeland, G.M. 2010. Inuit Health Survey 2007–2008: Nunatsiavut. Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, QC.
Government of Canada, F. and O. C. (2019, June 21). Introducing Canada’s modernized Fisheries Act. https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/campaign-campagne/fisheries-act-loi-sur-les-peches/introduction-eng.html
Hall, B. D., Louis, V. S., Rolfhus, K. R., Bodaly, R. A., Beaty, K. G., Paterson, M. J., & Cherewyk, K. P. (2005). Impacts of reservoir creation on the biogeochemical cycling of methyl mercury and total mercury in boreal upland forests. Ecosystems, 8, 248-266.
Health Canada. (2019). Mercury in fish – Questions and answers. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/food-safety/chemical-contaminants/environmental-contaminants/mercury/mercury-fish-questions-answers.html
Innu Nation and Province Reach Historic Agreement. (n.d.). Retrieved August 17, 2023, from http://www.innu.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19%3Ainnu-nation-and-provi
Karagas, M. R., Choi, A. L., Oken, E., Horvat, M., Schoeny, R., Kamai, E., ... & Korrick, S. (2012). Evidence on the human health effects of low-level methylmercury exposure. Environmental health perspectives, 120(6), 799-806.
LeBlanc, R.D. (2020). Muskrat Falls: A Misguided Project. St. John’s, NL: Commission of Inquiry Respecting the Muskrat Falls Project. Retrieved from https://www.muskratfallsinquiry.ca/final-report/
Madden, P., & Lead, R. C. (2018). re: Updated analysis of predicted increases in methylmercury concentrations and downstream export from Muskrat Falls Reservoir. Reed Harris Environmental Ltd. https://muskratfalls.nalcorenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Harris_MF-Reservoir-Modeling-memo-Aug-3-2018_Final.pdf
Mailman, M., Stepnuk, L., Cicek, N., & Bodaly, R. D. (2006). Strategies to lower methyl mercury concentrations in hydroelectric reservoirs and lakes: A review. Science of the Total Environment, 368(1), 224-235.
Nalcor Energy. (2009). Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation Project Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary. Nalcor Energy. Retrieved from https://muskratfalls.nalcorenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/EIS-Executive-Summary-Generation.pdf
Newfoundland and Labrador (Attorney General) v. Uashaunnuat (Innu of Uashat and of Mani-Utenam). (2020). Canada Supreme Court Reports, 2020 v. 1, 15–165.
News ·, C. B. C. (2021, June 23). Nalcor Energy to be no more: Crown corporation being folded into N.L. Hydro | CBC News. CBC. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/nalcor-press-conference-june-23-1.6076644
Penney, J. & P. Johnson-Castle. (2021). Not So Grand Plans: The Continued Erasure of Indigenous Rights in Newfoundland and Labrador’s Hydroelectric ‘Development’ [white paper]. Yellowhead Institute. Retrieved from https://yellowheadinstitute.org/2021/06/10/not-so-grand-plans-hydro/
Pufall, E. L., Jones, A. Q., McEWEN, S. A., Lyall, C., Peregrine, A. S., & Edge, V. L. (2011). Perception of the Importance of Traditional Country Foods to the Physical, Mental, and Spiritual Health of Labrador Inuit. Arctic, 64(2), 242–250.
Roberts, T. (2020, November 24). Researcher raises Muskrat methylmercury alarm, but Nalcor contractor says levels safe | CBC News. CBC. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/muskrat-methylmercury-increase-1.5809439
Silbernagel, S. M., Carpenter, D. O., Gilbert, S. G., Gochfeld, M., Groth, E., Hightower, J. M., & Schiavone, F. M. (2011). Recognizing and preventing overexposure to methylmercury from fish and seafood consumption: information for physicians. Journal of toxicology, 2011.
Unger, J. (2023). A Fish Out of Water: Inland Fisheries, Water Management and the Constitution. https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/doc/2023CanLIIDocs472#!fragment/zoupio-_Tocpdf_bk_5/BQCwhgziBcwMYgK4DsDWszIQewE4BUBTADwBdoAvbRABwEtsBaAfX2zhoBMAzZgI1TMArAEoANMmylCEAIqJCuAJ7QA5KrERCYXAnmKV6zdt0gAynlIAhFQCUAogBl7ANQCCAOQDC9saTB80KTsIiJAA
Lower Churchill Dam: An Analysis of the Effects of Reservoir Flooding and Dam Operations on Fish Population in Relation to the Cultural Significance of County Foods for the Labrador Inuit
Authors: Leonardo Bertassello, Sean O’Neill, Shambhavi Shekokar, and Jonathan Pabillore.