The FERC Relicensing Argument
One of MID’s arguments is that HR 869 really does
nothing other than to allow FERC to consider the spillway modification project,
which it is currently not allowed to do because of existing law, the WSRA. From Brian Kelley’s testimony before the
House Subcommittee:
"H.R. 869 does not
mandate, authorize or in any way pre-judge the merits of the proposed spillway
modification project. It simply allows the project to undergo a rigorous
examination by FERC and other Federal and State agencies in a public process
that will identify and address all potential impacts in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the Federal Endangered Species Act (
ESA) and the California Endangered Species Act
(CESA).
"
The problem with this argument is that MID will
spend two years doing a CEQA and NEPA, etc. and will submit a single proposal
to FERC, the one in their PAD and the one that includes raising the level of
the reservoir by 10 ft. They will want
to make very sure before spending the time and money on the various studies and
relicensing, that the process will have a positive outcome.
At this same hearing, Representative
Garamendi asked Denham if he would consider modifying his proposed bill to
simply allow FERC to consider the proposal without actually amending (in
effect) the WSRA.
Then, he suggested, when all of the other relevant issues were known,
Congress could decide whether the situation warranted changing the WSRA,
something he suggested should only be considered under the most extreme
circumstances.
Denham deferred to Kelley who said basically that
MID would not spend the time and money on a relicensing process unless they had
reasonable assurance that there would be no legal impediment to its
completion. He dismissed the proposal as
unworkable.
That is the problem for us with MID’s
argument. If the WSRA was removed as an
obstacle and HR 869 would have the force of law, it would be a powerful
bargaining chip in the negotiations, and there would likely be no legal reason
for FERC to refuse raising the reservoir.
Who knows whether engineers would have a public safety problem with the
issues described below or someone would find a Native American sacred site in
the way? Will Salamanders rule the
day? Don’t think so.
The likely effect of allowing the WSRA to be
breached is that the Merced Wild and
Scenic
River
would be ravaged
in fact as well as by law.
Introduction Page – HR869 & HR2578
MERG Current Thoughts on HR 869
& HR 2578
New Exchequer Dam and
Lake McClure
FERC Project Boundary Question
The FERC Relicensing
Argument
Spillways
at Lake McClure
Dam Safety
Embankment Dam Studies
Is Raising
the Dam Crest Elevation Unlawful?
Known Geologic Issues
The
Effect on the Limestone Salamander
Other Options for Additional
Water Storage
MERG Early Thoughts on HR 869
