Hydropower Reform Coalition - West

EA Released for Ames Project in Colorado

Rupak Thapaliya — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 08:53:41 -0500

FERC has released the final environmental assessment for an application to continue operation of Ames Hydroelectric Project, just north of Telluride, Colorado.

Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo) had filed a license application in June 2008 to operate the 3.5 MW project on the Lake Fork and Howard Fork in San Miguel county. In its application, PSCo proposed to continue to operate the project as a base load and peaking facility depending on the time of the year, but would modify its operations to provide a continuing winter base flow in the powerhouse tailrace.

The EA prepared by FERC staff has recommended that the project be licensed as proposed by PSCo with additional measures. Among other measures, the staff alternative includes on-peak and off-peak flows that either equal or exceed those required by the Forest Service in its 4(e) Conditions.

The Ames and the Tacoma developments are currently seeking a new license for the project (P-400). The docket now heads to the Commission for a decision.

PG&E Study Looks at British Columbia Run-of-River Projects as Potential Green Energy for California

Rich Bowers — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 13:16:51 -0500

PG&E Study Looks at British Columbia Run-of-River Projects as Potential Green Energy for California

On June 20, 2008 Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) produced the attached BC Renewable Study Phase I report. In 2007, the California Public Utilities Commission approved D.07-03-013, which grants PG&E the authority to recover up to $14 million for external consultants to study the feasibility of obtaining renewable power from various regions in British Columbia (BC) and the potential to transmit this power to PG&E’s service area.

As reported earlier, independent power producers (IPP’s) have applied for permits for more than 500 dams on more than 300 rivers and streams in BC. Unlike the United States, Canada’s regulatory structure for hydropower dams does not allow meaningful public participation, and river activists and outdoor recreationists are just getting organized to fight these new dams, some of which are already under construction.

The PG&E report changes the equation regarding Canadian hydroelectric power being sold to US markets, as IPP’s have long argued that the power produced from local resources would remain in BC. It also affects US Consumers in two ways: 1. in our need to be involved and educated about BC river issues, and 2. Potential future changes to California’s existing Renewable Portfolio Standard, and to new National Portfolio Standards which may be established after the upcoming election.

For BC river interests, the study provides good educational ammunition against many of the claims by the IPP’s. The report demonstrates that:

BC has an existing surplus of energy
Run-of-river projects are not the green source IPP’s have claimed (and would not meet California’s definition of clean, green and renewable*).
Hydroelectric power produced by BC rivers will not be used exclusively in BC.
Dealing with IPP’s vs. a centralized BC Hydro is not a benefit for outside purchasers like PG&E.

* “Based upon PG&E’s initial research, BC Run-Of-River hydro facilities would not be qualified as RPS eligible resources.” Under California legislation, hydro generation facilities are RPS-eligible if they meet all of the following criteria:

Do not cause a change in volume or timing of stream flow;
Are less than or equal to 30 MW; and
Do not cause an adverse impact on instream beneficial uses.

The study also changes the equation for US river advocates and consumers as well. What is our responsibility to protect river resources beyond our borders, especially if our need for energy results in resource impacts elsewhere? And perhaps a moral obligation, not to get involved with BC regulations, but to take the lessons learned through our work on US rivers and uses these lessons to protect rivers regardless of location? More specifically, the report provides an alert for potential future changes in:

California’s definition of renewable hydropower

Modifications to existing RPS rules (CA and elsewhere) that would make importing energy from other areas more viable.

Legislative changes regarding new small hydro generation.

Attachment	Size
PGE BC Energy Study 6 08.pdf	51.22 KB

Editorial: Lake Powell Pipeline project needs better assessment

Rupak Thapaliya — Thu, 15 May 2008 09:47:48 -0500

Project: Lake Powell Pipeline: P-12966

There have been increasing concerns in Utah about the proposed Lake Powell pipeline project which will also include hydropower projects.

Although the project is primarily a water supply project, FERC has been charged to conduct the environmental analysis due to the proposal for power production. A recent editorial on Salt Lake Tribune questions the adequacy of the study to be performed by FERC claiming that FERC does not have the capacity to assess the geological, aquatic, aesthetic and economic aspects of the proposed project. With FERC being the lead agency for the project, other agencies including the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service will have to base their recommendations and decision based on FERC's study.

While this ambitious project claims to address water needs of growing southern Utah, a recent study by UC San Diego scientists warns that Lake Powell and Lake Mead, the two major sources of water for southwestern United States could go dry by 2021.

The proposal seeks to build a 158-mile-long, 66-inch-diameter pipeline from Lake Powell to a reservoir in Washington County, and a separate 38-mile-long, 30-inch pipeline from Washington County to Iron County at an initial estimated cost of $842 million, which is expected to grow over time.

Huge Opposition to Bear Lake Pumped Storage Project

Rupak Thapaliya — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 10:32:06 -0500

Project: Hook Canyon: P-12707

Citing the project as expensive, inefficient and environmentally unsound, there has been a huge public opposition to the proposed Hook Canyon project which would require construction of a new 160 foot high dam on the Fish Hook Creek in Rich County, Utah. FERC granted a preliminary permit for the project in September 2006.

There have been concerns that the energy required to pump water would exceed the energy output of the project. EPA, on the other hand, is concerned that construction and operation of the proposed facility would have significant impacts on environmental resources such as the aquatic ecosystem of Fish Creek and Bear Lake, including potential adverse changes in water quality of Bear Lake. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources is concerned about the potential harmful effects on fish species.

An individual in her comment to FERC wrote "The proposed pump storage project will, with no doubt, affect the lake and its ecosystem, and thus its natural beauty and functionality... It would be a shame to take away from the natural ecosystem of the Lake. Please leave it so that my children's children will be able to enjoy the lake as it is, undisturbed."

To get more input from the general public on this project, FERC is holding two scoping meetings on Wednesday, April 9 2008. Details of the meeting are given below.

Daytime Meeting
Date: April 9, 2008
Time: 9:00 am to 2:00 pm
Venue: Bear Lake West Restaurant and Sports Bar
554 Lewis Loop
Fish Haven, Idaho

Evening Meeting
Date: April 9, 2008
Time: 7:00 pm - 10:00 pm
Venue: Oregon Trail Center
320 North 4th Street
Montpelier, Idaho

FERC issues preliminary permit for Phantom Canyon project

John Seebach — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 17:09:06 -0600

FERC issued a preliminary permit for a proposed 220MW pumped storage project on on Brush Hollow Creek of the Arkansas River in Colorado. From FERC's Order Issuing Preliminary Permit (for docket P-12714):

The proposed project would consist of the following new facilities: (1) an upper reservoir with a maximum storage capacity of 58,000 acre-feet and a surface area of 1,114 acres at normal water surface elevation of 5,600 feet above mean sea level (msl), impounded by an earthen dam, 70-feet-high and 1,400-feet-long; (2) a 38,000-foot-long, 4-foot-diameter river diversion concrete-reinforced pipeline; (3) a 21,750 or 17,825-footlong, 4-foot-diameter steel pipe and/or steel- or concrete-lined penstock; (4) a powerhouse with two 180-220-MW pump/turbines; (5) a lower reservoir with a maximum storage capacity of 10,000 acre-feet and a surface area of 200 acres at maximum water surface elevation of 5,175 feet msl, impounded by a 140-foot-high, 3,800-foot-long earthen dam; (8) a 9-mile-long, 115-kilovolt transmission line. The proposed project would have an annual generation of 280,800-457,600 MWh.

FERC issues preliminary permit for Hook Canyon Pumped Storage project

John Seebach — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 23:00:00 -0600

Project: Hook Canyon: P-12707

FERC issued a preliminary permit for a proposed 60MW pumped storage project on Fish Hook Creek in Utah. From FERC's order (for docket P-12707):

On July 3, 2006, Hook Canyon Energy, LLC (permittee) filed an application for a three-year preliminary permit under Section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) to study the proposed Hook Canyon Pump Storage Project No. 12707. The project would be located on Fish Hook Creek, in Rich County, Utah. The proposed project would consist of: (1) a proposed 160-foot-high dam; (2) a reservoir with a surface area of 65 acres and a storage capacity of 1,210 acre-feet at normal maximum water surface elevation of 6,726 feet; (3) a proposed 144-inch diameter, 4,600-foot-long steel penstock; (4) a proposed powerhouse containing two generating units having an installed capacity of 60 MW; (5) a switchyard; (6) a proposed 10.6-mile-long, 67-kV transmission line, and (7) appurtenant facilities. The project would have an estimated annual generation of approximately 175 GWh (gigawatthours). The permittee plans to sell the generated energy.

Dam removal possible on Utah's Bear River

John Seebach — Sun, 03 Jul 2005 07:00:00 -0500

Project: Bear River : P-20

The Bear River project, a series of four dams, was consolidated under a single license in 2003 after a comprehensive settlement involving a broad group of stakeholders, including members American Whitewater, Trout Unlimited, and Idaho Rivers United. Now in license and settlement implementation, a stakeholder consensus was reached to remove one of the older developments, Cove Dam.

A description of the project and potential removal from Utah Power's (PacifiCorp) March 7th press release:

Proposal will outline Cove Project decommissioning

PORTLAND— An agreement has been reached on a proposal to retire the Cove Project, one of four PacifiCorp hydroelectric developments in Idaho on the Bear River. The proposal must be accepted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which granted a new federal license to the plants in December 2003. The process to evaluate the proposal could take about a year.

PacifiCorp reached agreement on the proposal among the same parties that reached settlement for the new Bear River Project license. The utility and these parties organized the Environmental Coordinating Committee (ECC), which is charged with helping implement the terms of the license.

A requirement to evaluate decommissioning the Cove Project was included in the new 30-year license issued by the FERC to PacifiCorp' s four Bear Lake hydroelectric projects in Idaho. If the plan is approved by the FERC, PacifiCorp would remove most of the Cove facilities from the site, including the 1-mile concrete and timber flowline. The Cove powerhouse would remain and PacifiCorp would conduct certain restoration work of the river in the vicinity of the Cove forebay and flowline.

Retirement of the Cove Project increases connectivity for fish and other aquatic resources in Bear River. This action will also enhance the generation potential of the Grace Plant, directly upstream, by reducing the bypass flow requirement.

Removal of the Cove Project will in no way affect or impair PacifiCorp obligations to deliver irrigation water through the Bear River system.

“This proposal will enhance aquatic resources in the Bear River and dovetail with PacifiCorp's FERC license commitment to participate in conservation of the Bonneville Cutthroat Trout,” said Therese Lamb, PacifiCorp' s Director of Relicensing and Compliance. “It will also protect irrigation water deliveries through the Bear River system.”

Bear River Project details:

The Soda Project, 14 megawatts, located 44 miles downstream of Bear Lake, completed in 1925. The Soda dam is 103 feet high and 433 feet long. The Soda reservoir has a surface area of 1,100 acres, and active storage capacity of 16,300 acre-feet, and a maximum water surface elevation of 5,720 feet.
The Grace Project, 33 megawatts, located six miles downstream of the Soda Project, completed in 1912 and enlarged several times through 1927.
The Cove Project, 7.5 megawatts, built in 1917 just downstream of Grace, to take advantage of the tailrace waters of the Grace powerhouse.
The Grace/Cove project features an upstream diversion dam 51 feet high and 180-foot-long; a 26,000-foot-long flow-line to carry water to the power house, and a 6,125-foot-long concrete and wood flume that carries water from the Grace power house to Cove.
The Oneida Project, 30 megawatts, 22 miles downstream of the Grace/Cove Project, built in stages between 1912 and 1920. The project dam is 111 feet high and 456 feet long; the reservoir has an active storage of 10,880 acre-feet and a surface area of 480 acres.
The Cutler Project, 29 megawatts, Cache County, Utah, first began producing power in 1927. The 109 foot-high Cutler Dam forms a 5,500 acre reservoir which is also a major recreation area. The reservoir includes a large wetland complex that is important habitat for dozens of bird species. The area surrounding the reservoir is mostly agricultural land. Cutler was granted a new license by the FERC in April 1994.

For information, contact:

Kevin Lewis, Idaho Rivers United, 208-343-7481

David Eskelsen, Utah Power, 801-220-2447

Utah Power Media Hotline, 800-775-7950

Arizona's Fossil Creek Flows Free

John Seebach — Sat, 18 Jun 2005 07:00:00 -0500

Project: Childs And Irving : P-2069

Coalition chair American Rivers today celebrated the return of natural flows to Fossil Creek, a stream in central Arizona. Through relicensing, Arizona Public Service chose to decommission its Childs and Irving hydroelectric plants in favor of restoring the desert river to its natural flow and rhythms.

Welcome back, Fossil Creek.

American Rivers applauds Senator McCain for effort to protect Fossil Creek

Saturday, June 18, 2005
Contact: Andrew Fahlund, Cell:(202) 487-6659, Eric Eckl, Cell: (202) 486-7877

(Phoenix, Washington DC) American Rivers applauded Senator John McCain (R-AZ) today for committing to introduce a bill to protect Fossil Creek in the National Wild & Scenic Rivers System when Congress reconvenes later this month.

On June 18th, Arizona Public Service Corporation decommissioned its Child-Irving Hydropower project along Fossil Creek, restoring normal water levels to the stream for the first time in over 100 years. The water in this spring-fed stream contains unusually high levels of calcium, which creates uniquely fascinating formations. Now that the water has been restored along the entire length of the stream, Fossil Creek will provide habitat for several very rare desert fish species, as well as a tremendous recreational resource for local residents and visitors.

“Arizona Public Service has done its part by restoring Fossil Creek, now Senator McCain is doing his part by seeking permanent protection as a Wild and Scenic River,” said Andrew Fahlund, Vice President for Protection and Restoration at American Rivers. “We call on the Congress to recognize this leadership and act swiftly on Senator McCain's bill.”

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was signed into law in 1968 in order to preserve forever the free-flowing condition and outstanding values of some of our country's most precious rivers. To qualify, a river must be free-flowing and must be deemed to have one or more "outstandingly remarkable" scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or other similar values.

Once the president signs Senator McCains bill, the U.S. Forest Service will have additional authority and resources to protect Fossil Creek' s unique features.

“The Child-Irving Hydropower project was the first dam on Fossil Creek, Senator McCain' s bill will ensure that it will be the last and that the Forest Service will give this creek the care it deserves,” Fahlund said. “This is place where families can come to experience a sense of wonder for America' s natural blessings.”

American Rivers was founded in 1973 to increase the number of rivers protected by the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and to prevent the construction of large new dams on our last wild rivers. Today, the organization works on a variety of river conservation campaigns, and leads the nation's river movement.

Specter of Hydropower Project on Colorado's Gunnison River Finally Ended

John Seebach — Fri, 01 Apr 2005 06:00:00 -0600

A proposed hydropower project on the Gunnison River in Colorado languished for 25 years before finally being laid to rest in December. The Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association had proposed to construct a facility that could have diverted over 1,000 cfs from flowing through the famous Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park year-round.

Trout Unlimited challenged the Association's expiring water rights, leading the Association to back down from their proposal on December 27, 2004. The Association also failed to receive a FERC license after unsuccessful bids in the mid-1980s.

From Trout Unlimited's press release:

Contact: Drew Peternell, 303-440-2937

CONTROVERSIAL PROPOSED GUNNISON RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT LOSES ITS WATER RIGHTS

AB Lateral Project would have damaged two watersheds in western Colorado

Boulder, CO – A proposed hydroelectric power project which could have taken more than 1,000 cfs of water from the Gunnison River has relinquished its water rights, eliminating a substantial threat to the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park.

Trout Unlimited opposed the water rights in water court because the AB Lateral Hydropower Project would have diminished the amount of water available to the trout fishery in the Gunnison and would have caused flooding, erosion and other adverse environmental impacts in the Uncompahgre basin as well.

"Had this project been allowed to go forward, it would have had devastating impacts on both the Uncompahgre and Gunnison Rivers, including the reach of the Gunnison flowing through the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park," said Drew Peternell, an attorney for Trout Unlimited's Colorado Water Project.

The Uncompahgre Valley Water Users' Association held two conditional water rights for the proposed AB Lateral Hydropower Project. Currently, the Association receives Gunnison River water for irrigation use in the Uncompahgre Valley through the Bureau of Reclamation' s Gunnison Tunnel facility, which diverts Gunnison water immediately upstream of the Black Canyon. Under the conditional water rights, instead of taking water only during the irrigation season, the Water Users would have diverted 1135 cfs of Gunnison water to the Uncompahgre basin year-round for hydropower production.

The Water Users' Association filed applications with the Division Four Water Court in Montrose in November 2002 asking the court to allow its conditional, or unused, water rights to remain in effect. Trout Unlimited opposed the applications, and a trial was scheduled on the applications for June of 2005.

In preliminary pleadings to the water court, TU argued that there is not enough water available in the Gunnison River to support the project, that the project was economically infeasible, and that there were substantial regulatory hurdles, including the need for congressional legislation, before the project could be completed. Last week, the Water Users' Association asked the water court to dismiss the applications and cancel the conditional water rights.

"It is likely that the arguments we made in our preliminary filings caused the Water Users' Association to reassess the prudence of continuing to pursue this project," said Peternell. " The case represents a major victory in Trout Unlimited's continuing effort to protect and restore the trout fishery in the Black Canyon and demonstrates that conservation groups can use the water courts to block ecologically harmful water projects."

FERC Clears Milltown Dam for Removal

John Seebach — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 06:00:00 -0600

Project: Milltown : P-2543

Following a plan designed by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) today issued an order relinquishing its control over Milltown Dam, P-2543.

The order dismisses the pending license application and gives notice that FERC intends to accept project surrender. FERC also ordered actions in accordance with EPA's plan to remove Milltown Dam, such as permanent reservoir drawdown, and clarified that EPA is now in charge of regulating and ultimately removing the dam.

From FERC's press release:

"The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission today cleared the way for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to oversee the dismantling of a dam in Montana as part of a Superfund hazardous waste site cleanup. [...]

"In an order involving the Milltown Hydroelectric Project, located on the Clark Fork River in Montana, the Commission said that because the project is located on a Superfund site, EPA now has effective regulatory control over all aspects of the project. EPA will move forward with removal of the dam as part of its approved plan to remediate the project site.

"The Commission, in anticipation of project dismantling, will issue a notice of intent to accept surrender of the license. A 30-day comment period will be established for parties to comment on the surrender.

"Chairman Pat Wood, III commented: 'I will always be a strong supporter of building and maintaining infrastructure to support our energy needs, especially clean hydropower. In this instance, however, the environmental requirements trump power production.'

"EPA designated the entire Milltown project a Superfund site in 1983 under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as the law is formally known. The project reservoir is contaminated by approximately 6.6 million cubic yards of silt laden with arsenic, copper, zinc, and other heavy metals, which have leached from closed mines upstream in the area of Butte, Montana."

Montana's Milltown Dam Removal Plan Finalized

John Seebach — Tue, 21 Dec 2004 06:00:00 -0600

Project: Milltown : P-2543

On December 20, 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency released its final plan to remove Milltown Dam, a FERC project and also a Superfund site.

The details of the plan and a site map are available on EPA's Milltown Superfund website. Coalition member Clark Fork Coalition was instrumental in building enormous public support for dam removal, visible on bumpers across Montana.

Excerpted from a Dec. 21, 2004 article in the Missoulian (Missoula, MT):

"Twenty-three years after a Missoula County sanitarian found arsenic in Milltown's tap water, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Monday issued a final plan for excavating the sediments that brought the poison to town and taking Milltown Dam out of the river so it doesn't happen again. [...]

"When we started talking about this idea, people thought it was nuts," said Tracy Stone-Manning, executive director of the Clark Fork Coalition, a river watchdog group. "It just goes to show that when citizens speak with one voice, really great things can happen."

Hydro developer gives up on Jackson Dam power project

John Seebach — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 06:00:00 -0600

Two weeks after conservation groups filed a motion to dismiss a permit to construct hydropower facilities on the upper Snake River, the prospecting company withdrew their permit. Those of us who treasure the Snake River and its spectacular wild trout fishery can breathe a little easier.

From the original February 4, 2004 press release:

Scott Bosse, Greater Yellowstone Coalition, (406) 556-2823, Cell: 406/581-7962
Brett Swift, American Rivers, (503) 827-8648
Rebecca Sherman, Hydropower Reform Coalition, (971) 244-0836

River advocates file motion to kill Jackson Dam hydro project

JACKSON, WY— Two conservation groups petitioned the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) today to put an end to a proposed hydroelectric project on the Snake River in Grand Teton National Park. The Greater Yellowstone Coalition and American Rivers say the hydro project proposed at Jackson Lake Dam should be rejected because it is illegal, sets poor precedent, and would negatively impact the Snake River' s multi-million dollar wild trout fishery.

The Jackson Lake Dam hydro project was first proposed by Symbiotics, LLC of Rigby, Idaho in April 2001. But FERC, the federal agency charged with licensing private hydropower projects, rejected that proposal, citing a federal law that prohibits the construction of hydro projects on National Park lands. That position was strongly supported by the National Park Service and by the Department of the Interior' s legal advisors.

In June 2002, Symbiotics – under the name Jackson Lake Hydro LLC – resubmitted a slightly revised Jackson Dam hydro proposal. Despite stated opposition by the Bureau of Reclamation, FERC has yet to act on the second permit application, prompting some river advocates to be concerned that the permit might get approved this time around.

“National parks are the last place where power companies should be allowed to prospect for energy,” said Scott Bosse of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition.

Over the past four years, Symbiotics has applied for permits to hydro projects at 250 sites across the West, earning a reputation as one of the nation' s most aggressive hydro speculators.

The company says that, unlike the project proposed in the first application, this second project could be constructed using only an island of Bureau of Reclamation land around Jackson Lake Dam. The $14.3 million project would require the construction of a powerhouse, installation of a 200-foot-long steel penstock, and 300 feet of electrical transmission line.

“Grand Teton National Park is a national treasure that deserves more protection – not harmful, unnecessary development,” Bosse said.

In their petition to FERC, the conservation groups argued that laying the foundation for a new hydro project in a national park would set a dangerous precedent, compromise the ecological and economic value of the Park, and potentially harm a wild trout fishery worth millions of dollars to the Jackson area economy.

Brett Swift of American Rivers said, “The proposed Jackson Lake hydro project has generated a tide of both public and federal agency opposition. It is time for FERC to do the right thing – reject this proposal and protect the valuable natural resources of Grand Teton National Park.”

Although the application has been sitting at FERC for a year and a half, under procedural rules, FERC does not have to respond to the conservation groups' petition or take action.

For more about the conservation groups, visit our websites:

Dam Removal on the American Fork River in Utah

John Seebach — Mon, 02 Jun 2003 07:00:00 -0500

Project: American Fork : P-696

On February 6th, several stakeholders signed a settlement agreement to decommission and remove a small diversion dam and a two-mile pipeline that make up the American Fork project in Utah. Owner PacifiCorp, Trout Unlimited, American Whitewater, the Forest Service, National Park Service, US Fish and Wildlife, and several state agencies agreed to take out project works in Lone Peak Wilderness, Uinta National Forest, and the Timpanogos Cave National Monument in American Fork Canyon.

Originally constructed in 1907 before public lands and water protections, this dam adversely affects the American Fork River, has structural problems, and generates very little energy. Under the agreement, PacifiCorp plans to close the power plant in September 2006 and remove the diversion structure and pipeline by the end of 2007.

EPA Calls for Dam Removal on Montana' s FERC Project Milltown Dam

John Seebach — Tue, 15 Apr 2003 07:00:00 -0500

Project: Milltown : P-2543

On April 15th, the Environmental Protection Agency and the state of Montana jointly issued a proposed Superfund cleanup plan that calls for the removal of FERC project Milltown Dam. The action follows a local groundswell that ultimately turned the president and governor from opponents of dam removal into supporters.

Intense mining upstream has allowed heavy metals to tumble into the Milltown Reservoir, over time rendering the waters toxic. The Environmental Protection Agency considers the dam' s impoundment a Superfund site and has spent years evaluating clean up options. Area citizens have been clamoring to remove the old, failing dam before toxics leach into the groundwater system or worse, the dam breaks. Unfortunately, EPA already is responsible for delivering clean water to many nearby households whose water supply has been poisoned by arsenic. Removal of the dam will eventually provide badly needed fish passage for a variety of trout species including the endangered bull trout.

Removal of Milltown Dam Earns Support of Montana Governor and EPA

John Seebach — Tue, 21 Jan 2003 06:00:00 -0600

Project: Milltown : P-2543

At her State of the State speech on January 21st, Montana Governor Judy Martz announced her support for and approval of the removal of Milltown Dam located on the Clark Fork River in Montana. The next day, the Environmental Protection Agency released a proposed clean-up plan that endorsed the removal of both toxic sediment and the dam.

“ [T]onight, I am announcing that I am placing the full support of my office behind removal of the Milltown Dam,” Martz told a surprised audience and a thrilled citizenry.

The tangle of regulatory bodies and corporate interests has made the decision regarding the fate of the dam controversial and politically charged. The EPA proposal to remove the dam should ride a much smoother road with the Governor' s endorsement.

Upstream mining has rendered the dam' s impoundment a toxic wasteland. The Environmental Protection Agency considers these waters a Superfund site and has spent years in the process of evaluating options for clean-up. Meanwhile, area citizens have been clamoring to remove the rickety old dam before toxics leech into the groundwater system or worse, the dam breaks.

Visit the Clark Fork Coalition website for more details.