By Bill Martin & Susan Ford
Regular readers of the Yodeler know that water is perenially a hot topic in California. But even if you keep an eye on water issues you may not be aware of the implications of the relicensing of California dams — a process conducted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) every 50 years. Two dams on the Tuolumne River, the Don Pedro and the La Grange, are currently in the process of relicensing. The requirements placed on these dams as a condition of relicensing could have major impacts on the environment, public safety (think about the failure of the Oroville Dam spillway in 2017), and Bay Area water customers. Many Bay Area residents get their water from the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir located upstream of the Don Pedro and La Grange dams.
With relicensing underway we are in the midst of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to improve the management of the water that flows through these dams and win some important concessions for the environment. Some important environmental laws adopted since 1970 will now apply to the dams’ relicensing: the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Quality Act. All three laws should figure prominently in FERC’s decision-making process.
An additional wrinkle is the current State Water Board proposal to require about 40 percent of the water flowing down the Tuolumne to stay in the river rather than being diverted (by dams like the Don Pedro and La Grange, for example, which are managed by local irrigation districts for agricultural use). The proposed 40 percent unimpaired flows would be a major improvement on the approximately 20 percent of water that’s currently allowed to flow down the river to the SF-Bay Delta. More water is needed to feed important Delta ecosystems that are on the verge of collapse.
The State Water Board’s proposal for Tuolumne flows could impact management of Hetch Hetchy water. The flow of the entire river is used in the calculations of unimpaired flow, regardless of where the dams are. California has significant input over FERC’s decisions regarding these dams, and we should use that power to push for fewer diversions.
So where are we today? Earlier this year, FERC released the draft Environmental Impact Statement (over 700 pages). They held public meetings to present and receive feedback on the draft, and they took written comments. All of these comment periods are now closed, with a final draft underway.
My reading of the draft indicates that unfortunately, FERC fails to address California’s proposed rule requiring about 40 percent unimpaired flows. If the final draft takes that stand, we could be in for some very interesting times — possibly another battle between California and the Trump administration regarding water management. I also do not believe that FERC’s draft has fully addressed a significant problem on the Tuolumne: the huge drop-off in salmon and steelhead populations. That omission could leave it open to lawsuits filed under the Endangered Species Act.
California has over 1,400 named dams. Some of the largest, such as New Melones on the Stanislaus River and San Luis Reservoir near Los Banos, will be going through their relicensing process in the next few years. FERC’s process on the Tuolumne is an important harbinger in how these subsequent dams may fare.
What can we do at this point? The best approach for these projects is to keep an eye on the FERC website for the final draft. You can also find information there regarding upcoming relicensing events.
