• Director admits Green Green Water never meant to be objective.
  

  Review what the filmmaker said. 

• Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation’s former Chief urges filmmaker to reconsider film’s approach.
  

  “We believe this film in its present form is hurtful to our people and offensive to our First Nation….I urge you to reconsider your approach and tell a story that is not a superficial, paternalistic caricature of what, for us, is a serious struggle to improve the lot of our people.” -- December 15, 2005 letter from Chief Jerry Primrose of the Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation to Green Green Water filmmaker Dawn Mikkelson.

  View correspondence between Chief Jerry Primrose and Green Green Water filmmaker Dawn Mikkelson.

• Major Winnipeg daily newspaper reports “U.S. anti-Hydro documentary called unfair”.
  View Winnipeg Free Press report.

• FreshEnergy’s website says:
  

  “Documentary Support – “We supported development and research for the documentary Green Green Water, a film about hydroelectric power and its impact on the indigenous people of Manitoba.”  ”

  Producer Dawn Mikkelson traveled to northern Manitoba with JustEnergy’s campaign staff and the film was promoted on their website.

  As well, JustEnergy has coordinated a number of viewings of the film and their staffs have spoken at these events.

  JustEnergy has also been closely aligned with the Cross Lake First Nation, who also call themselves Pimicikamak, have undertaken a public relations campaign in the United States to gain support in their position in negotiations with Manitoba Hydro in regard to the implementation of the Northern Flood Agreement.

  “We fully acknowledge that these materials currently have a slant toward the Pimicikamak and JustEnergy, as these are the groups we have spent the most time with.”  -- August 4, 2004 Green Green Water Producer Dawn Mikkelson, letter to Manitoba Hydro.

• JustEnergy’s self-described objective was to ‘educate consumers about Minnesota’s role in devastation and racist impacts of Manitoba Hydro’s large scale dams on families and the environment in northern Manitoba.’ Source: Form 990.

The positions advanced by JustEnergy and Cross Lake First Nation were carefully examined and rejected by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission and the Minnesota Courts during a two year review of Manitoba Hydro’s successful bid to continue supplying power to Xcel Energy. 

The Commission noted:

• Manitoba Hydro has worked successfully with the vast majority of the Cree First Nation communities that have been impacted by the hydropower projects
• That an agreement between the company, the province of Manitoba, the Canadian federal government and the impacted First Nations to be “a unique and valuable harm-minimization feature of the Manitoba Hydro Project”
• “No similar ‘remedy all harms’ agreement with affected communities attends any of the other resource options considered.”
• “Under the unique facts of this case, the Commission deems the socioeconomic impacts of this generation to be adequately internalized by Manitoba Hydro pursuant to the December 16, 1997 Northern Flood Agreement….In signing the NFA, …, Manitoba Hydro has effectively given a promissory note to pay for the socioeconomic effects that its projects cause and has obligated itself to a process by which those amounts can be confirmed and collected..” -- Feb 7, 2001 MPUC order Docket E-002/M-99-888.

The Minnesota Court of Appeal noted:

• “The project is approximately forty years old, contains a lengthy agreement detailing rights and obligations of all parties, and, as stated above, contains arbitration provisions carefully setting out the settlement of grievances…..The environmental and socioeconomic impacts caused by the Manitoba Project are capable of being addressed under the NFA.  …..Manitoba Hydro has a legal obligation under the NFA.  The legal obligation under NFA is designed to fully address grievances and to internalize all impacts and costs causally related to the Manitoba Project.”- March 30, 2004 Minnesota Court of Appeal decision upholding the MPUC denial of Pimicikamak’s request for a contested case hearing.

“Xcel’s 2015 need can likely be met by continued purchase of power from Manitoba Hydro, a renewable energy source with few greenhouse emissions.” - August 9, 2006 Statement of Case by Fresh Energy and Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy pursuant to the Pre-hearing Order to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission- MPUC Docket E-6472.

• Did not adequately address complex roots of socio-economic challenges in First Nation communities.

  View comments on the historical background of challenges faced by First Nations in Northern Manitoba.

• Failed to acknowledge mitigation/compensation for past projects.

  View information on Manitoba Hydro’s initiatives to address impacts of past projects on Manitoba Water Power website.

• Failed to show how development today works to reduce environmental impacts & ensure local people benefit.

  View information on today’s approach to hydropower development in Manitoba on Manitoba Water Power website.

  View information on Wuskwatim Generating Station being developed in partnership with the Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation on Manitoba Hydro website.

• Failed to acknowledge First Nations aspirations for economic prosperity.

  View comments of First Nations leaders on Manitoba Water Power website.