People & Culture
Excerpt from Manomin: Caring for Ecosystems and Each Other
Grounded in Indigenous methodologies, Manomin examines our interconnectedness with the natural world
- 2324 words
- 10 minutes
People & Culture
Eileen Delehanty Pearkes on the Columbia River Treaty
The author, speaker and researcher discusses the controversial history surrounding the famed Treaty and her hopes for the future of the Columbia River
- Sep 19, 2024
- 1,019 words
- 5 minutes
Advertisement
Advertisement
In 1961, the Columbia River Treaty was signed between Canada and the United States, dictating the management of each country’s section of the Columbia River. As a cross-border body of water, the Columbia River has played an essential part in human activity for thousands of years, linking cultural groups, hosting hundreds of species and providing sustenance for Indigenous Peoples, among other vital roles.
However, the agreement led to some particularly significant changes to the Canadian portion of the River. Entire ecosystems were damaged or destroyed due to hydroelectricity-producing dams being placed at several locations, while the allowance of Canadian reservoirs to be used to prevent flooding on the Southern side of the border further contributed to this destruction.
Through the lens of the Columbia River Treaty, A River Captured: The Columbia River Treaty and Catastrophic Change, written by Eileen Delehanty Pearkes, closely examines the state of the Columbia River on the Canadian and U.S. sides of the border.
As a researcher and activist interested in the Columbia River and the Treaty that governed it in the ’90s, Pearkes found herself deeply invested in the politics, policies, and history involved in creating the Treaty. She turned her research and personal involvement in the subject into her book to help others gain a deeper understanding of the Treaty and some of the injustices it was based on. Now, Canada and the U.S. are renegotiating the Treaty to keep up with their shifting needs as modern countries. In response, Pearkes is once again spreading the information she gathered in her research to help analyze and assert what the new aspects of the treaty should look like. Ultimately, to preserve wildlife, remedy past injustices, and repair some of the damage done to various ecosystems.
To learn more about Pearkes’ thoughts on the Treaty and to discuss her book, Canadian Geographic sat down with the author and talked about the River’s importance, the draft agreement and more.
On her connection to the Columbia River
My curiosity about the Indigenous People of the region dates back to the mid-90s. That was my opening into the actual manipulation of the natural geography. I began at the root, which is the Indigenous People, and how they related to the landscape. It wasn’t matching up with what I saw around me. I love landscape. I’ve always loved landscape, and I have deep and abiding respect, I always have, for Indigenous cultures. I’ve had that long before the current fashion of being willing to engage on the subject, and people’s wake up to it. My natural social justice self was always aware of an unfairness there. And yet, when I reached the Columbia River Treaty story, I realized that there was a massive social justice issue that hadn’t been properly aired. In the region to a degree, but not really in British Columbia. And across Canada? Virtually no awareness of the massive ecological losses and a very dark social justice story.
On the importance of the Columbia River Treaty
[The Columbia River Treaty] ratified in 61 but didn’t complete until 64. The U.S. ratified it immediately, 99 to one US Senate, Canada took a lot longer, three years, and it almost didn’t go through. So why is that? Well, because so much of it benefited the U.S., Canada got something in return. Canada got money, but lost an ecosystem, lost an agricultural Valley, so when the bad business deal came up for renewal, Canada decided, let’s see what we can get back. And that’s where we are right now. There’s a draft agreement that has been issued. So it’s become topical, and depending on how the conversation around the draft agreement goes, it could be even more topical if some kind of controversy erupts around it. I hear this all the time. Water is like the new oil, and so we’re at a moment of reconsideration, and the historical injustices are definitely part of the conversation in Canada.
On what she hopes readers will learn from her book
Don’t let it happen again. Recognize that disconnection breeds disaster, and dams themselves function as disconnections. They divide rivers. Boundaries between countries divide rivers, too. So what I would love to see happen is that both sides of the border understand the river as a whole better. One of the ways you do that is by knowing its history. The U.S. didn’t end up with an extincted people, and they didn’t end up with 15 mega projects, generating stations and dams crammed into one area. So knowing the history of the treaty is to better understand the impact of the Treaty on the Canadian portion of the landscape.
On the draft agreement
I think the draft agreement takes an important step towards addressing the injustices to the Canadian portion of the river. I would say that the Canadian negotiating team did something remarkable in that they held the U.S. system to account. They refused to leave things at the status quo. They could have left things at the status quo because it was a profitable river for hydroelectricity, and the U.S. could have shot them some cash for flood control, and it would have been all over quite quickly, status quo. But Canada decided it wanted to do things differently, So, more resilience, a small slice of justice, restoration of justice, and more liberation of flow.
On her hopes for the future of the Columbia River
Number one: to restore the rights of the Sinixt people. Top of my list: the fact that Canada has not put them at the treaty table, the fact that they put their neighbours at the treaty table and did not put them at the treaty table. They’re out of excuses. That’s top of my list. Restore the indigenous integrity of the basin, and create some kind of acknowledgement and sharing of input with the first people of that landscape. It doesn’t cut it when the people who are verified as having been in the main stem of the Columbia are not involved. No more excuses. Get that fixed.
Advertisement
Related Content
People & Culture
Treaty 3: A community copy’s 150-year journey through ancestral hands
It’s been a century and a half since Treaty 3 was signed. Anishinaabe Elder Sherry Copenace, whose great-grandfather was a keeper of an original community copy of the treaty, discusses its history and continued importance.
- 1024 words
- 5 minutes
People & Culture
Chief Perry Bellegarde on the treaty relationship
For Indigenous Peoples in Canada, the treaties are still very much alive
- 901 words
- 4 minutes
Mapping
When geography and the law collide
A case decided this week by the Supreme Court of British Columbia was, in essence, all about geography
- 787 words
- 4 minutes
Advertisement
Advertisement