This commentary is by Sharon Francis, the former executive director of the Connecticut River Joint Commissions, and James U. McClammer, a commissioner, both of Charlestown, New Hampshire. Francis was a conservation assistant to President Lyndon Johnson, assistant administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and worked for then-Sen. Henry Jackson in writing sections of the National Environmental Protection Act. McClammer is an environmental scientist, who was the senior environmental scientist at the engineering firm Dufresne-Henry, Inc., and has held positions at the Smithsonian Institution and U.S. Department of Agriculture.
We write to our Vermont neighbors with a sense of urgency about forthcoming federal decisions that will affect our great Connecticut River for decades in the future.
Now is the moment for all who care about the Connecticut River to raise our voices and ensure that future licenses for power production by Great River Hydro from the dams at Wilder, Bellows Falls and Vernon address the effects on river habitats, species, communities, landowners and recreational users.
We testified on July 17 in Bellows Falls at the public comment session held by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on their draft environmental impact statement for licenses that will define operating conditions for the three hydroelectric facilities for the next 30 to 50 years.
In reflection on the licensing process, we recognize the importance for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to hear, loudly and emphatically, from as many voices as possible before the agency crafts its final license requirements. Today, all of us who care about the Connecticut River and who want our children and grandchildren to share the benefits of living near it need to make our voices count.
Is boating on the river important to you? Is fishing? How about knowing that Connecticut River fish are not contaminated by toxic substances and that birds and wildlife along the river’s shores are protected? Do you care that riverfront farmers and other landowners lose land due to erosion caused by dams, which also undermines the integrity of roads along the river?
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on its draft before issuing a final environmental impact statement. While the draft identifies some of the adverse effects of hydroelectric production and offers measures to compensate for these effects, we believe that adverse effects are vastly underestimated and many rightful uses of the Connecticut River are ignored.
It is imperative that additional compensation measures be identified in the final statement and required in the licenses.
Not all problems and not all future uses of the Connecticut River can be identified 30 to 50 years in the future. Licenses issued now, however, must provide a mechanism to address issues and opportunities during the lifetime of the licenses.
That’s why we are advocating that the licenses require the establishment of a Mitigation and Enhancement Fund that would be paid for from the profits Great River Hydro generates. It would provide funding to prevent and correct damages to riverfront properties and habitats, conduct relevant studies, and provide opportunities such as trails, picnic sites and boat launches, so the public can directly benefit from our public river.
Regional planning commissions, local town officials and others have all developed well-considered plans regarding our shared resource, the Connecticut River. This work should not be sitting on shelves. It deserves to be implemented.
A company that will control flow in the river for profit should understand its shared partnership with other river users whose interests deserve support, not indifference. For these reasons, we urge that a necessary condition of the future licenses to operate these three dams also include a mitigation and enhancement fund.
Precedence for such a fund was initiated in 2002 by the owners of the Connecticut River dams upstream at Fifteen Mile Falls, New England Power Company. The fund had an $18 million-limit and accomplished many worthwhile projects carried out by local communities and organizations.
In the case of the current licenses now sought by Great River Hydro, we recommend a required commitment of at least $1 million per year for the lifetime of the permits. Unmet needs are already well known and documented. Over the next generations, new urgencies and opportunities will inevitably arise.
Our many years of responsible actions on behalf of the Connecticut River and the people of its valley have prompted our engagement now. We reach out to you because we know that a chorus of concern and hope will be heard better than the voices of a few.
The comment period is currently open and comments must be submitted before 5 p.m. Thursday. Please join us in advocating a commitment for additional protection and enjoyment of the Connecticut River.
Correction: An earlier version of this commentary incorrectly described Sharon Francis’ term as the Connecticut River Joint Commissions executive director.
Clarification: The headline of this commentary has been updated to clarify the individuals who wrote it.
