Cross-Currents: Hydroelectricity and the Engineering of Northern Ontario

CHAPTER SIX: Co-operation

Chapter Six Co-operation For decades now, Western society has held the view that nature is the seminal example of the ‘‘survival of the fittest’’ paradigm in which hierarchy, dominance, competition and control are the chief characteristics determining relationships between and within species. Today, various scholars, from feminists to chaoticians to ecologists, are challenging that view with increasing frequency. For them, the competitive view of nature is merely a mirror image of Western culture itself and has very little to do with the actual workings of the natural order. For them, nature is not limited to conflict; nor does it seek dominance and control. Instead, nature is a paradigm of interconnectedness in its broadest sense. As the naturalist, John Livingston, argues, The most fundamental premise of ecology is that all things natural are interrelated. In theory at least, nothing occurs that does not affect everything else. The concept of competition is easily maintained within this broad framework, but so, of course, are concepts of mutualistic co-operative reciprocity and interdependence.1 When conquest does enter into the natural equation, it is often under the aegis of human activity. The human ‘‘conquest’’ of nature occurs when humans, through the use of science and technology, attempt to control or to ‘‘civilize’’ nature. For instance, hydroelectric developers try to conquer a river by building dams and generating stations . They do not entirely succeed however. Natural constraints such as drought and topography limit the effectiveness of their technology and thus prevent complete conquest, as do the river’s other users, such as loggers who need it for other purposes than producing energy. 145 Because of these differing needs, the homogeneity of use that the hydroelectric developers try to impose upon the river must give way to diversity. In doing so, the process of development turns from conflict to co-operation, and from dominance and control to intermingling and interconnectedness. The river itself acts as the agent of interconnectedness . It is the source of conflict and the catalyst for co-operation. The cross-currents of interests between the hydroelectric developers and the loggers collide at the power dams and power stations yet dissolve downstream into channels of co-operation. When examining the relationship between the hydroelectric developers and the loggers on the Mattagami River, it becomes apparent that co-operation arises out of the principle of mutuality of rights and the practice of mutual accommodation. As we shall see, co-operation that arose out of legal responsibilities often came grudgingly, whereas cooperation that arose out of business or technical exigencies, such as expenses or power shortages, was far more acceptable to the power companies and the other river users. Regardless of the motivations, cooperation has been a key characteristic of hydroelectric development in northeastern Ontario. The power dams on the Mattagami were a continuous source of worry to logging companies because these dams hindered the driving of their logs. Loggers did not, however, go unarmed into their disputes with the power companies for existing legislation such as the Rivers and Streams Improvement Act, called for the free passage of logs and the building of sluices and so forth around dams, to ensure that result. Yet because the legislation focused solely on dams, it did not address all of the lumber companies’ concerns because hydroelectric development did more than obstruct logs at power dams. It could also hinder the passage of logs in the downstream channels of dams by lowering the water levels . Conflicts therefore arose between the power and logging companies over whether the power companies’ responsibilities extended to the waters below the dams. The provincial government was unsure of how to interpret its own legislation and gave conflicting advice, sometimes out of the mouth of a single individual. In November 1943, Mr. Fullerton, of the Department of Lands and Forests, advised the HEPCO that log slides around dams were the responsibility of the power companies, while improvements in the stream below the dams were the responsibility of the lumber companies . However, less than a year later, Fullerton reversed his earlier deci146 Cross-Currents sion and ruled that the power company, in this case, Northern Ontario Power, was ‘‘responsible not only for improvements at the dams, but also for improvements in the channel of the river, particularly below the Wawaitin dam, on account of the diversion of water from it to the flume.’’2 The Department of Lands and Forests arranged a meeting...