Dried Up
by Alex Brun
On a gray, rainy morning, Western Washington University students James Hall, Ryan Bradley and his brother Brent, carried their kayaks to the edge of Clearwater Creek and pushed off into the powerful current. Sandstone boulders, set in the narrow, tree-lined canyon, form a series of drops and pools, transforming the creek into the 1.25 miles of turbulent whitewater that makes Clearwater Creek a favorite among local kayakers.
As the trio approached "Orange Slice," a waterfall named for the vibrant orange colored rocks that force the creek to drop 5 feet, Hall stroked hard, using his paddle to push off the lip of the waterfall and free fall into the pillow of recirculating water foaming below. As his kayak landed flat against the downstream water, it made a dull slapping sound kayakers call boofing.
"Your adrenaline is pumping for the entire mile and a quarter," Hall said. "Runs like the Clearwater demand every thought; you’re completely lost in the moment and if you’re not, you better be."
Clearwater Creek is a small tributary stream in Whatcom County known for its many small waterfalls, holes and steep gradient that challenge even experienced kayakers and provide a powerful flow of water that, in theory, could generate electricity. A proposed dam on Clearwater Creek would produce 23 gigawatt-hours of electricity annually and could power 2,700 single-family homes.
The project would involve constructing a 75-foot dam that diverts the creek water into an 8,785-foot-long pipeline. The pipeline would carry the water downhill to a powerhouse, bypassing the creek bed between the intake and the powerhouse.
"The problem with this project is that there won’t be a lot of water left for anything," said Rich Bowers, American Whitewater boardmember. "They are proposing to put the bypass at the kayaking put in and the power plant at the take out. The whitewater aspect would be totally gone."
Although a variety of hydropower companies have spent nine years pursuing the proposed project, in January the current company said it didn’t have the financing to build the dam. But the process of licensing the proposed Clearwater Creek Hydroelectric project illustrates the Bush administration’s efforts to streamline the process at the expense of environmental reviews.
Washington, D.C.’s, Hydropower Reform Coalition Chairperson Andrew Fahlund said that both hydropower developers and conservation groups want the process of hydropower licensing to be less time consuming, but for different reasons.
Conservation groups said they want more public involvement in the process and want hydropower companies to consider the environmental impacts of small hydropower projects. Hydropower companies, however, want the process to become cheaper, Fahlund said.
"The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has the job of issuing the final license, but there are a number of others who are involved in making the ultimate decision," Fahlund said. "The hydropower industry over the last five years has been pushing very hard to limit the authority of those other agencies."
In 2001, Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, a member of the Senate subcommittee on Water and Power, introduced the Hydroelectric Licensing Process Improvement Act. The act, which passed the Senate in 2002, could change the process of licensing and re-licensing hydroelectric projects. The bill still needs to be reconciled with the House’s version.
"In previous years, the Clinton administration consistently promised to veto bills like Sen. Craig’s," Fahlund said. "We got no such promise from the Bush administration. In fact, they offered up support for those bills with some amendments."
The law would amend the Federal Power Act by requiring only a single environmental review of a dam’s impact. It would also weaken the power of current laws by requiring agencies to consider economic factors that they don’t currently consider, said Bret Swift, associate director of Northwest Hydropower Programs for American Rivers.
"This is not about efficiency," Fahlund said. "This is about profiteering. If they can avoid having to install expensive fish passage, if they can avoid spilling water into dry reaches of river — they make more money."
Nooksack Hydropower, Inc., now owned by Ballaton Power, Inc., of Boise, Idaho, first applied for a hydropower license for Clearwater Creek in August 1994. The Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Washington state Department of Natural Resources and the Nooksack Indian Tribe have performed environmental reviews of the project during the past nine years.
Under current law, outside agencies such as these can insert specific clauses in the hydroelectric project’s license — like a requirement for a minimum water level to protect fish habitat. The new legislation would weaken this ability. It would also take away requirements that other agencies review the project.
In the Clearwater project, agencies other than FERC raised major concerns about bull trout. Bull trout, an endangered species, make their home in Clearwater Creek and under the current law FERC must examine the environmental impacts of proposed projects on fish habitat.
In June 2002, FERC issued the final EIS — an in-depth scientific survey of the environmental impacts associated with the project — for the Clearwater Creek Hydroelectric Project. The EIS recommended construction of the project.
FERC’s EIS created controversy, in part, because agencies and conservationists said they believed that it didn’t sufficiently acknowledge impacts to fish habitat.
"The first three-quarters of each section in the EIS are really good," said Seth Cool, conservation associate with Northwest Ecosystem Alliance. "FERC describes how the project is going to affect the environment and how the project will damage the environment."
Cool said, though, that the mitigation plans wouldn’t have overcome the negative environmental effects of the project.
Despite the environmental impacts associated with constructing a hydroelectric project on Clearwater Creek, FERC recommended the project because it offered a source of "dependable and renewable energy."
The publication of the controversial EIS resulted in conservation organizations like American Whitewater, American Rivers and NWEA to file petitions in order to become official partners and have a voice in the proceedings.
"It’s not that we want to deny people the ability to generate electricity and have that as an income," said John Gangemi, conservation director for American Whitewater. "It’s that we want to reduce the impacts on the environment — both the flora and fauna — and then the recreational opportunities."
On Feb. 12, 2003, FERC dismissed the permit application on Clearwater Creek, citing the applicant’s failure to acquire a Whatcom County shoreline permit — a requirement that the HLPIA could throw out. In the end, laws that might not exist in the future — not conservationists’ efforts — halted the project.
The consequences of small-scale dams or micro-hydro projects, like the proposed dam on the Clearwater, can impact the entire river ecosystem, Gangemi said.
"Small creeks are some of the most pristine areas left in many of these watersheds, particularly in areas where there has been extensive logging, mining and road building," Gangemi said. "Cumulatively, small creek habitat may be the only thing that’s making these species survive anymore."
Bowers said the hydropower companies do a good job of promoting these projects as a source of clean energy while shielding projects from the public view.
"What you see is a fence and the river flowing out from under a fence and everything looks fine," he said. "What you don’t see is dried up river bed."
Regardless of whether micro-hydropower is a renewable resource, it is an expensive source of energy. The Clearwater Creek project would cost more than $15 million to build, and, according to FERC, it would lose $615,000 a year.
Ballaton spokesperson Maureen O’Brien said that other companies are interested in taking over the Clearwater Hydroelectric Project, but nothing is confirmed.
Randall Rinders said he has kayaked Clearwater Creek more than 100 times and that if the Clearwater Creek Hydroelectric Project is built he would leave Bellingham.
"There are probably only ten people out of the entire population (of Whatcom County) that use Clearwater Creek on a regular basis," Rinders said. "So you might think it’s pretty selfish for us to think it should be free-flowing, when they supposedly can generate power from it. Small-scale hydro is pretty sustainable energy, but does it have to be on the best mile of whitewater in the county?"
