The Cow Paddy

70 visited Kilarc meetings was the Record Searchlight headline (http://www.redding.com/news/2007/sep/14/70-visit-kilarc-meetings/)

And between now and October 12, PG&E will be accepting comments on its preliminary proposed decommission plan.  But that’s not all.

PG&E clearly stated at the meetings that the FERC is the final judge and jury, when PG&E’s decommission plan, and alternatives such as the KC Alternative available from this website (follow link from “news” announcing the 9/10 release to the public), will be evaluated for environmental effects and a final plan is approved for implementation.

Members of the community can make their voices heard by submitting comments directly to the FERC to affect the studies and analysis of the proposed and alternative plans, and ultimately the decision regarding what plan elements are approved.  If you aren’t sure how or what you would like to communicate to the FERC and would like to share your ideas on this blog, please do so, and we will try to help make everyone’s input be heard.

We know that the only way that PG&E’s proposal to dismantle project facilities can be replaced with a plan to continue operations, and retain the Kilarc reservoir, is to convince the fish protection agencies that steelhead and salmon habitat in Cow Creek Watershed will be more improved by actions taken to save the project facilities, than by simply removing the project facilities.

Davis Hydro is looking for sites where steelhead and salmon habitat can be improved.  We’ve talked about using portions of irrigation ditches, and would like to speak with irrigators anywhere in Cow Creek Watershed (even those who are not directly affected by PG&E’s project) who would be willing to consider having Davis Hydro help to improve your irrigation system so that your irrigation needs can be met while any adverse impact on fish would be minimized, without the irrigator needing to expend additional money or effort for measures that Davis Hydro would become responsible for implementing and maintaining.

Please contact us by confidential e-mail to kelly@kilarc.info or phone to 530/753-8864 if you have any ideas.

The recent FERC Operation Inspection (see Current Events for 7-31 on this website) identifies that PG&E knows how to maintain license compliance, by taking care of facilities subject to regular FERC inspection.  Nonetheless, as reflected in photographs taken in May 2007 and posted on this website (click Photos tab then links for North Canyon and South Canyon), the North and South Canyon diversions look like they have been out of service for years, and there are washouts and flumes that will no longer hold water.

We recall hearing from a reliable source that PG&E paid $17 million to El Dorado Irrigation District to take their P-184 license responsibilities out of PG&E’s hands, when the revenues from electric generation were inadequate for PG&E to justify continued operations, but El Dorado Irrigation District needed the water delivery facilities to be restored (following storm damage) and maintained for its own purposes.

Maybe there is no reason to maintain the North and South Canyon diversion facilities for the 7.5 cfs that may be delivered to the project.  Regardless, we believe that it is only reasonable to expect that PG&E will not walk away before this area of the project is restored to a condition suitable for whatever future is determined best.  A discussion of what is appropriate needs to be included in PG&E’s License Surrender Application - with input from concerned stakeholders.

 Please click the “Comments >>” below and tell us what you think!  Or, send an e-mail to kelly@kilarc.info

I, Dick Ely, visited with the FERC licensing. Legal, and Compliance staff on June 1 in Washington DC.  It was a productive meeting.  The key understanding that I came away with is that PG&E has to go through it’s surrender process at this point.  A summary of the meting will be prepared in the next few weeks an put in the Documents part of this website.

There is no requirement that any of the facilities have to be changed or modified in any way.  It is possible that at the end of the study process, it may be that all facilities have to be removed, or it may be that some can remain in place waiting for a new hydropower licensee or other entity to take them over. 

The option leave some of the facilites in place this option will have to be studied and a hand-off provision to the next owner/operator must be identified to convince the agencies that this is a viable option. 

“left in place” will require a path for upkeep and maintenance.   This could be done in a variety of ways for example a lease to a new entity.  This may involve a stewardship or trustee role with provision for eventual removal.  This would save PG&E money in the short run by lowering their exiting costs and meet the community’s needs to have a path to save Kilarc.   Other models may emerge, especially if the county is interested in the recreation use of the facility.

Does anyone have any other ideas on how this might be done?

Can we convince the county to get involved? 

Dick Ely  - Davis Hydro

Kilarc has been around for so long that springs seem like permanant fixtures. I have property near (1 mile below) Kilarc and rely on a spring for drinking and irrigation water.  If Kilarc ceases to exist I’m worried that it will effect the ground water that feeds my small spring.  I’m not a geologist but does this seem like a legitimate concern?

Check out the PG&E  5-26-07 meeting notice in the CURRENT EVENTS section of this website    >>>   http://kilarc.info/Ongoing/Ongoing.htm   <<<

While many people know much of the area, this is an excellent opportunity to talk informally with us, PG&E, and other local people about their concerns and ideas going forward. 

We look forward to talking with everyone on these trips.   Kelly will not be able to make it, but Dick Ely from  Davis Hydro will be there possibly with some other Davis Hydro staff.

Dick

Water rights are important. However, there are other important topics, ie: has anyone seen geese with their young at Kilarc? This would mean that they are nesting there. There is a lot of wild life that now use Kilarc, as a lake. We should look at Kilarc as multiuse, for wild life. It would be hard for them to put one endangered species above another. So the only way to save them all is a fish ladder and sound environmental improvements that will enhance all the environments, not just human water rights. I think we are fighting apples with oranges if we just argue water rights and ignore the environmental issues.

We are reading and studying this issue.  We have put the complete 1969 Adjudication Decree in the Documents section of this WEB site.  We will produce some detailed maps.  We ask a couple of questions.  What should happen to the PG&E water Rights?    How could that be regulated?

Can the flows continue as they are now  - with protection for the ?  In the case of the south Cow requires some water to flow through the S. Cow powerhouse.   What is wanted by the community?   Please comment       Dick Ely

This a welcome from Dick Ely.  This  is an open blog, we ask you to register just to keep spammers out.   I will start some topics I need help from the community on.