First Nation vote should be followed by cleanup

To the Editor:
The residents of Pictou County and particularly those within the plume of putrid odours from Boat Harbour should commend the First Nation’s band in Pictou Landing for their historic vote on January 25, 2012. The vote rejected acceptance of another payoff from the NS government and preserves their right to continue legal proceedings against the province for the grave injustice inflicted on their community by the Boat Harbour saga for the last 50 years.
People impacted and numerous lobby groups that have attempted to correct this long standing environmental travesty should commend Chief Andrea Paul and the First Nation’s band. It is fitting that the band council’s mailbox be filled with emails or letters of support for their decision. The previous cash payoffs have done nothing to address the travesty and have caused friction in the communities that have been gravely impacted.
In 1962, the NS government proposed concessions to entice the paper mill to locate at Abercrombie Point and agreed to take responsibility for the mill effluent for 25 years. The government proposal was guided by environmental consultants and Scott Paper on the water chemistry and probable environmental impact. This information was provided to the communities and land owners with the impact on Boat Harbour described as insignificant although the government was purchasing private lands and cottages near the estuary, an action quite inconsistent with the information presented at community meetings with First Nations and other Pictou Landing stakeholders. Boat Harbour was supposed to remain a place for recreation and swimming not the stinking wasteland that resulted.
In 1997 the government had the opportunity to get clear of the Boat Harbour liability on expiry of the 25-year deal. However, at the time the wobbly economics of the mill forced politicians to extend Boat Harbour operations or face a mill shutdown. The deep pockets of Scott Paper and Kimberly Clark had long left the scene of the crime leaving the politicians with a political landmine. Current mill owners have recently received government help for loans and grants to sustain operations. Politicians’ short term re-election agendas prevented freeing the taxpayers from the Boat Harbour liability.
The NS government recognizes their exposure to legal challenges on Boat Harbour having already paid tens of millions of dollars in damages, mitigation measures, and modifications to the treatment facility in attempts to quiet the outcry. Cleanup of Boat Harbour has a high price tag that will escalate until the job is done. This cost is insignificant to the value of restoring Boat Harbour, the air quality that people are breathing and the coastline and beaches that continue to be impacted.
The tax payers remain sitting ducks in the liability that has accrued as indicated by the government conditions in their latest payoff offer to the First Nations ($3 million to give up the legal action). The government (tax payers) will lose a legal challenge as the war chest of environmental issues that are against them is extensive.
The tax payers must demand that government initiate an action plan and schedule that ends this saga. The mill operations should no longer be sustained by Boat Harbour’s vast area of fuming lagoons. A state of the art treatment facility can be located at Abercrombie Point allowing the mill to operate in harmony with the community. Although this is technically possible, the taxpayer liability needs to be taken into account in the economic viability. The government must make decisions as statesmen considering terms longer than their tenure in elected office.
In the government’s search for funds for the Boat Harbour restoration, they should consider approaching the corporations that played a role in misleading the government in 1961-62. Both Scott Paper and Kimberly Clark have benefitted from 20 years of reportedly quite profitable production. Although the 50 years of costs and embarrassment to the government and the living hell for the nearby residents may not support a legal challenge to these corporations, there are certainly strong moral grounds that may persuade the corporations to make a donation to a Boat Harbour Restoration fund to clean-up their legacy.
Ross MacFarlane
Pictou Landing