|
Distraught residents
and landowners made emotional statements and fired critical questions
during two intense scoping meetings held at the Likely fire hall last
week, voicing their opposition to the proposed hydroelectric power project
in West Valley, east of Likely on the South Fork of the Pit River
Federal Energy Resource
Commission (FERC) staff members conducted the meetings to gather public
opinion regarding the future project.
As proposed, the project
would consist of two small hydroelectric turbine generators, one located
near the West Valley Reservoir dam and the other near the Jess Valley
highway at the bottom of the canyon where Short Creek spills into the
South Fork. Both plants, with a combined output of about 2600 kilowatts-enough
to power about 2,000 average homes-would use water diverted from the South
Fork River by an existing canal owned and operated by the South Fork Irrigation
District (SFID)
Nick Josten, the engineer
who filed an application for the power plant with FERC in 2003, was on
hand for both meetings to present a slide presentation about the project
and to field questions. "I think hydropower is a wonderful source
of energy. It's not without impacts, but it's a perfectly clean source
of energy," he declares. The outspoken opponents are approximately
six families who live along the river or own land in the canyon and the
Hammawi Tribe of Native Americans, which has joined them in their opposition.
These critics decry the lack of information they have been given about
the project and the proposed water diversion.
"There's clearly
some information that has to be supplied," Josten acknowledges. "It's
a lot of things gone over many times in many different words, but the
number of actual issues isn't that big. The answer to those issues is
information.
"And so the first
step after this meeting is to try and collect that information-that's
going to be my responsibility-and to give that information to the people
that are asking for it and to make sure they understand it and believe
it."
The opponents' primary
concern is the diversion of 100 cubic feet of water per second from the
river, leaving about three miles of South Fork with dramatically reduced
stream flows. That water would then be returned to the river at its confluence
with Short Creek. Gail Griffith, one of the affected residents, is adamant
in her opposition to diverting water from the river. "I don't like
it. I know from being on that river that there isn't enough water to sustain
(a power plant)."
After speaking with
Josten, she was not dissuaded. "He assured me that he did a feasibility
study," Griffith reports. "I asked him to please re-look at
it again, to come out in July and August and examine the river with me.
He said those were the months they would not produce electricity."
Clearly frustrated,
Griffith reiterates, "I see the river every day, I live on the river
(and) I walk the river. They believe it's feasible. I'm trying to tell
them it's not."
Objections also focused
on the project's potential impact on property values, stream flows, fish
and wildlife habitat, water turbidity and noise. "If it happens,
the river will dry up pretty well. I don't like it because the habitat
would be destroyed," emphasizes Griffith, citing a litany of dire
environmental impacts if the project is realized. Linda Bruzzone, another
landowner along the impacted portion of the river, is equally distraught
at the prospect of losing water in the river. She spells out a detailed
analysis of water flows to demonstrate that the river will virtually cease
to exist if the proposed project goes through. "We are totally opposed
to the project because we believe that that preserved area is deeply in
jeopardy."
Emotionally distraught,
Bruzzone tearfully relates that she and her husband feel that their dream
will be shattered if the power plant becomes a reality. "We love
our property. It was our dream. It was our future. We feel awful; we feel
terrible. Everything we've ever worked for is at risk. We put our entire
retirement investment into Modoc County."
An engineer and owner
of GeoSense, an Idaho-based consulting firm for small power projects,
Josten is not surprised by the reaction. "This is normal for any
project that proposes to divert additional water."
In spite of the objections,
Josten is upbeat. "I think that it can be done in a responsible way.
I'm a fisherman, a backpacker and a member of Trout Unlimited. I know
what these folks are thinking about. And I think that I'm inclined to
do it in a more responsible way than some people who might develop this
resource
"The real question
is: What will change? How can any negative impacts associated with (this
project) be minimized so that this is acceptable-and it can be-as a compromise
between groups of people that want to use the resource?"
Patricia Cantrall,
county supervisor for the district, candidly says, "I'm for the project."
She hopes that the "few who live on the river that are against it
will come around to the right way of thinking." Cantrall believes
that opponents' charges of hidden agendas and backroom deals to benefit
the owners of Alturas Ranches, the county's largest agricultural enterprise,
and the owners of South Fork Irrigation District, which controls all the
water rights in this project, are misplaced, misleading and shortsighted
"Yes, you may
have six families along the river," she explains. "But (consider)
also, Alturas Ranches-no matter who it's owned by or where they live-and
all the people that work for them from here to Alturas, which are all
in my district. The county of Modoc benefits from Alturas Ranches and
anything it does like this to enhance the river
"You need to
look beyond," Cantrall continues, "and you need to look down
the road for the next 20 years. Who's going to feed America?" Only
after a number of required reviews, analysis and an environmental assessment
are completed will FERC be ready to decide whether or not to allow the
project to move forward. The earliest the decision can be expected is
June of 2006.
|
Letters to
the Editor
Modoc Record
June 30, 2005
Dear Editor,
I would like
to correct some erroneous information given in the article about the West
Valley Hydro plant hearing (Issue date, June 23, 2005).
In the article
it was quoted, "you may have six families along the river,"
Actually there are more than 20 homes with families living along the river.
In the Juniper Acres development there are 12 homes with families that
reside in them year-round, two other homes that have part-time residents
and several more families own vacant properties they intend to develop.
Plus, there are another seven families who live along the river with homes
and three or four more families who own vacant properties and intend to
develop most of these properties.
All, who
I have spoken to, are against drying up three miles of the river for a
hydro plant or any other reason.
But this
hydro plant is not just about the property owners along the river. The
river area we are talking about is located in the Modoc National Forest,
this river belongs to the people of the United States, all of them not
just a small segment of the population. We are the caretakers of this
natural river for future generations. How can we tell our grandchildren
that we sacrificed their heritage for enough electric to run 200 homes
[without heat]. This hydro plant would not eve generate enough electricity
for the town of Alturas!
Electric
from this plant will wholesale at five cents more a KWH (kilowatt). At
the tie of the meeting Surprise Valley Electric sold electricity to me
at their retail price, for a residential user, it was 4.9 cents a KWH.
The Pit River
already has a water level problem, three to four months a year there is
minimal water levels (about 4 inches deep) and for two months a year the
river is frozen. I have seen fish with their backs out of the water struggling
due to low water levels. This means four to six months a year there will
be a lot less than the predicted 2,600 kilowatts of electric produced
at the plant.
Do I want
the ranchers to make more money? Yes! Lord knows they could use more money,
ranching is a tough business. But a small amount of money is not worth
killing a beautiful natural river that belongs to all the people and to
the future generations to come. As they say in TV advertising the Pit
River "is priceless."
Modoc Record
July 7, 2005
Dear Mr.
Holloway,
I just received
my June 23rd Modoc Record and I must correct some errors and omissions
in your coverage of the South Fork Pit River Hydro Project.
Your reporter
attended only the evening meeting, missing more than half of the testimony
given. Fortunately it all was recorded and will soon be available publicly,
along with written comments submitted. (www.ferc.gov, (202)502-8449)
There are
not “six”, but closer to 20 tax-paying families along the
South Fork affected by the proposed year-round river diversion and the
two twenty-by-fifty-foot, 1000 square foot metal buildings, pipes 14 feet
around, and new power lines. The project would also affect ANYONE who
uses Jess Valley Road on his way home, to work, to one of the two bed
and breakfasts, four or more campgrounds, public lands, hiking trails,
streams, lakes, and waterfalls.
More than
“a few” folks commented against the project. They come from
all walks of life and more than two political parties. Long-time locals,
newer arrivals, former residents, visitors, and Pit River Tribal members
testified.
One thing
stood out -- nobody who supports the project said anything reassuring
about the drastically lowered river. The only argument in support is that
it will be profitable for a few, who MIGHT spend that money locally. One
rancher said he “felt sorry” for the landowners along the
river.
I always
thought the “right way of thinking” in Modoc was to defend
your home and your land. And owning a home or land does “benefit
the county.”
I urge you
to visit Blue Lake or Mill Creek Falls and on the way take a look at what
would be lost along the South Fork Pit River. Please find out the facts
and express your opinion on Project P-12053 to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, 888 First St. NE, Washington,
DC 20426.
Modoc Record
July 7, 2005
Dear Editor,
I'd like
to respond to some of the issues brought up in the June 23 article on
the South Fork Hydro Project, in particular comments made by county supervisor
Patricia Cantrall.
Mrs. Cantrall
continues to misrepresent this project with her "what's good for
Alturas Ranches and the SFID is good for America" rhetoric, all the
while decrying as "shortsighted" the obvious relationship and
stake these associations have in helping to see Nick Josten's and GeoSense's
hydro project through to completion. I've been dealing with these people
now for close to four years, and I can't believe how many times the stories
have changed. Just forget the back room wheeling and dealing for a moment
and read the GeoSense application. After 20 years, ownership of the entire
project, powerhouses and all, reverts from GeoSense to the South Fork
Irrigation District. Wow! Imagine that! Their very own powerhouses!
I attended
both Scoping Meetings on this project and was disheartened, to say the
least, by Mrs. Cantrall's biased and inflammatory statements. It was small-town
politics at its very worst. After listening to her shore up the arguments
of the SFID, Josten, and Alturas Ranches for a few hours, all the while
lambasting arguments against the project, I was actually compelled to
remind her that as I and some others opposed to the project lived, owned
property and paid taxes in Modoc County, it might be nice if she at least
tried to give the appearance of unbiased representation for all her constituents.
Mrs. Cantrall
also continues to paint a broad-stroke picture of opposition to this project
as "the few who live along the river." I would like to re-direct
her and others to the "comments" section at the FERC web site.
Statements are posted and will be posted representing hundreds of people
concerned at what might happen to what we all call "The Gateway to
the Warners." River advocates, Native Americans, several fly fishing
clubs, recreational users, and yes, property owners along the river and
points beyond to Mill Creek and Blue Lake, all with strong and entirely
justified opposition to a project with so little to give and so much to
take.
Yes, I'm
one of those "few property owners." I've camped and fished the
South Fork for over 40 years, and with my family bought some property
on it 17 years ago. I'd like to ask anyone how they might feel if some
out-of-state entrepreneur came along and tried to divert 80% of the water
from their property. I can't imagine anyone, particularly folks from Modoc
County, taking too kindly to something like that. It's the only thing
I have of value. I'd like to keep it. I'd like the fish and the animals
to keep it, and for it to stay the fly fishing mecca it has been all these
years.
|
