Senator Paul D. Wellstone
United States Senate
Washington, D.C.
U.S.A.

Dear Senator Wellstone:

Re:  Tataskweyak Cree Nation, Manitoba
       Xcel Energy's Corporate Practices and
       Manitoba Hydro

As Chief of Tataskweyak Cree Nation in Northern Manitoba, I read with interest a copy of your letter to Mr. Jonathan Ingram, Office of the Chief Counsel, Division of Corporation Finance, Securities and Exchange Commission, in Washington, offering your support with respect to the placing of a proxy resolution entitled "A Resolution concerning Xcel Energy's Corporate Practice" on Xcel Energy's proxy ballot. You advised that the resolution focuses on Manitoba Hydro, one of Xcel Energy's foreign suppliers.

We know that your support was well meaning and based on information provided to you at the time. However, as Chief of Tataskweyak Cree Nation, a Northern Manitoba Cree Nation, which is a party to the Northern Flood Agreement, I believe you did not have all of the facts before you, and that if you had, you would not have supported such a resolution.

Tataskweyak Cree Nation and Pimicikamak Cree Nation are two of five Cree Nations who experienced the impacts of the Churchill River Diversion and Lake Winnipeg Regulation Projects that began in the late 1960's and that were fully operational by the mid 1970's. Tataskweyak and Pimicikamak are signatories to the Northern Flood Agreement, an agreement among the five Cree Nations that were the subject of adverse impacts by this Hydro development, and Canada, Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro. The Northern Flood Agreement (the "NFA") was signed on December 16, 1977.

That NFA is a complex agreement that has numerous and lengthy articles dealing with the following matters:

1. Articles requiring appropriate ratification by the members of the Cree Nation communities who are signatories and who were impacted.

2. An article dealing with a land exchange whereby the First Nations would receive an area of land equal to but not less than four acres for every acre of affected lands, free and clear of encumbrances and dealing with easements required by Hydro and facilitated by the First Nations at each of their reservations.

3. An article dealing with land use requirements and the means of selection by each of the Cree Nations.

4. An article dealing with navigation and the obligations of Canada, Manitoba and Hydro relative to the free and normal use of navigable waters and as well the issue of clearing of land of standing trees and of removal of debris.

5. An article dealing with the quality of potable water and the respective rights and obligations of each of Canada and Manitoba Hydro.

6. An article dealing with cemeteries and objects of cultural significance and obligations to protect them.

7. An article dealing with maps and Hydro's obligations in respect of providing meaningful maps relative to the changes resulting from the Project.

8. An article dealing with notice to parties relative to future development, operating changes in levels or flows and other matters.

9. An article dealing with minimization of damage to wildlife.

10. An article dealing with insurance matters.

11. An article dealing with community infrastructure and the obligations of the parties and the measures to be undertaken relative to the Project.

12. An article dealing with additional clearing in the vicinities of the impacted communities.

13. An article dealing with policy matters and the power of the Arbitrator to order damages.

14. An article dealing with wildlife resources policy and detailed provisions related to hunting, fishing, etc.

15. An article dealing with planning policy matters and the formulation of comprehensive community development plans.

16. An article dealing with environmental impact policy and the undertaking of Hydro, Canada and Manitoba to implement recommendations by a Lake Winnipeg, Churchill and Nelson Rivers Study Board (which issued a report relative to the Projects comprising the Churchill River Diversion and Lake Winnipeg Regulation in the early 1970's, at a cost of over $2,000,000.00).

17. An article dealing with trapline and fishing programs.

18. An article dealing with the establishment of a community liaison committee.

19. An article dealing with an employment task force.

20. An article dealing with remedial works and measures.

21. An article establishing the office of a continuing Arbitrator with broad authority and power to make awards capable of implementation and to fashion an appropriate and just remedy in respect of any adverse affects of the Project. The preamble to the Agreement states that uncertainty exists as to the effects of the Project, not only as it exists at the date of the Agreement, but also as it may develop in the future, and that it is not possible to foresee all the adverse results of the Project, nor to determine all those persons who may be affected by it, and that it is therefore desirable to establish through the offices of a single arbitrator a continuing arbitration instrument, to which any person adversely affected may submit a claim and as well, to fully empower the arbitrator to fashion a just and appropriate remedy.

The NFA is, as stated before, a complex instrument dealing with these and other matters.

In the first ten to fifteen years of its existence, implementation of the NFA was slow. The parties to the NFA had different views as to what their respective rights and responsibilities might be. Some matters were agreed to and others went to arbitration. In the late 1980's, all five First Nations agreed to attempt to sit down with the other parties to the NFA, and to see if an Implementation Agreement could be structured. The initial attempt was not successful, but in June of 1992, Tataskweyak Cree Nation signed an Implementation Agreement with Canada, Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro. Members of Tataskweyak Cree Nation voted overwhelmingly in support of this Implementation Agreement. In fact, four of the five Cree Nations who are parties to the NFA have now signed Implementation Agreements. Pimicikamak Cree Nation has not.

Tataskweyak Cree Nation considers our Implementation Agreement to be a building block based upon the NFA. This Implementation Agreement gives definition and a practical application of the provisions set forth in the NFA. It also gives our First Nation additional rights relative to future development within our Resource Management Areas.

Arising out of this Implementation Agreement, Manitoba Hydro has entered into negotiations with Tataskweyak Cree Nation relative to prospective future development within our Resource Management Area. While our Cree Nation is not committed to a generation station being built within our Resource Management Area, we are prepared to consider the possibility of one being built. Unlike the past, when a large hydro corporation and governments appeared to do as they please, regardless of the interests of the local inhabitants, a new direction has taken place. Manitoba Hydro has recognized the right of Tataskweyak Cree Nation to apply aboriginal knowledge and to determine whether the degree of development proposed would meet our aboriginal environmental tests. Any development must consider the reverence and appreciation we have for our traditional homelands. Only if the project will do so, will Tataskweyak sign on to a development agreement that will see us as co-proponents in an environmental and regulatory climate that is appropriately and stringently regulated by both Provincial and Federal authorities in Canada. Moreover, our First Nation will have an opportunity, if we find the development to be acceptable, to participate on an equity basis, and to enjoy the prospect of training, employment and business opportunities for the members of our Cree Nation.

Tataskweyak wishes to have the opportunity to consider our involvement in such future development without interference by activists in Minnesota who would attempt to disrupt the flow of hydro power from Manitoba Hydro to the United States. Without that flow of power, the prospects of export sales and future development would be dimmer.

We enclose a map of Manitoba showing the location of the Cree First Nations, the works that comprise the Lake Winnipeg Regulation and Churchill River Diversion and possible future development sites.

The background to the Xcel Shareholder resolution to which you offered your support contains false and misleading statements. Tataskweyak and Nisichawaysihk authorized statements to be made on their behalf at the Xcel Shareholders meeting, and we offer these statements to you:

1. We wish Minnesotans, and specifically, Xcel Energy, to continue to purchase electricity from Manitoba Hydro.

2. Activists purporting to act on behalf of aboriginal peoples in northern Manitoba do not represent Tataskweyak Cree Nation, and to the best of our knowledge, only Pimicikamak Cree Nation supports such activists.

3. If no more exports were sold by Manitoba Hydro to Minnesotans, the works comprising the Churchill River Diversion and Lake Winnipeg Regulation, which became operational in the mid 1970's, would not be reversed. In fact, Manitoba Hydro has obligations to continue to operate its systems within certain level and flow parameters, and if Manitoba Hydro did not, that would cause greater devastation to our Cree Nation.

4. A boycott of Manitoba Hydro power could have negative consequences on possible future development that is being considered by Tataskweyak Cree Nation. That possible future development, while not being a certainty, and requiring the approval of our Cree Nation members, may provide our people with an opportunity to benefit in a meaningful way from resources within our traditional territories.

5. The future development being considered by Tataskweyak is more than 150 miles downstream of the Pimicikamak reservation (at Cross Lake), well outside the traditional Pimicikamak Territory, and there would be a 180 foot elevation drop below the level of Cross Lake. This development would not impact Pimicikamak Cree or its members.

6. We have appeared in the United States on a number of occasions over the past year or two, to correct false statements and innuendo that have been put forward by those who would boycott Manitoba Hydro power.

7. Although the Xcel Energy Shareholder resolution, to which you offered your support, spoke about concerns being raised before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, having heard all of the evidence (including evidence presented by Tataskweyak Cree Nation and Nisichawaysihk Cree Nation), determined that it was inappropriate for the Public Utilities Commission to substitute its judgment for that of the leaders of the Cree Nations and the governments of Manitoba and Canada and the corporate officers of Manitoba Hydro which was evidenced in 1977 when they entered into the Northern Flood Agreement. It was clear to the Chairman of the Public Utilities Commission that Pimicikamak had the opportunity to either negotiate an implementation agreement, as its four other sister Cree Nations have done, or to take advantage of the arbitration provisions contained within the Northern Flood Agreement. It was equally clear that the Commission did not accept that Pimicikamak Cree Nation was without remedies, but that it had rights and remedies available to it within the borders of Manitoba for wrongs that it may see as yet being unsatisfied, under the arbitration provisions of the NFA. However, the innuendo that nothing is being done for Pimicikamak or that they speak for other Northern Flood Cree Nations is simply untrue and a proper review of all facts would show the case to be otherwise.

We offer this letter in the hope that you will understand there are positions other than what have been presented to you. If we can further elaborate or be helpful in giving you understanding of these issues, we would be pleased to do so.

We respectfully request that you be mindful of the interests of Tataskweyak Cree Nation when considering these matters.

Yours truly,

Chief Duke Beardy,
Tataskweyak Cree Nation

close window