Letters to the Editor, Winnipeg Free Press, 1 March 2000
We all pay Hydro' s social costs
Fred Cleverley's article about Manitoba Hydro, while compelling, misleads
readers about the economics of hydroelectric development (Keep hands off
Hydro profits, Free Press, Feb. 14). If Manitoba Hydro wants to enjoy
economic growth and practise sound environmental practices, it will figure
its cost share of ecological restoration (agreed to under the Northern Flood
Agreement) into its budgeting. Then, while looking to maintain profitability
of Hydro, it will be forced to integrate the ecological and social "cost of
doing business" into its planning.
Hydro was one of the partners to the NFA, and it is high time it began to
live up to its agreement. The recent announcement of a $9-million recreation
centre for Cross Lake was a start. The expansion of Hydro without looking at
ecological restoration and social costs is dubious accounting, at best. Why
don't they consider energy efficiency auditing services -- wind, solar, and
biogas? The Smithfield hog plant is a ripe opportunity to develop biogas
capacity. While it might appear that Hydro is cheaper than the alternatives,
there shouldn't be any costly legal, environmental or social costs to deal
with down the road. Manitobans might pay cheap Hydro bills now, but we can
all be sure that we will end up paying the full costs of social and
ecological reparations sooner or later.
CHANDA L. MEEK
Winnipeg