Why hydropower is not a feasible option for Estabrook Dam

Milwaukee Riverkeeper has been advocating for the removal of the Estabrook Dam, to protect water quality and save taxpayer money.  Last week the Parks, Energy and Environment Committee of the County Board voted to pursue a study of hydropower at the Estabrok Dam.  Riverkeeper responds:

To: Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors

• All dams disrupt stream flows, degrade water quality, impede migration of fish, damage fish and wildlife habitat, and diminish or eliminate recreational opportunities. Dams cause physical and chemical changes to our waterways, including altering flow regimes and sediment transport for miles beyond the actual dam site. Maintaining the existing Estabrook Dam impairs water quality and aquatic wildlife habitat. Creating a new hydropower dam will exacerbate negative environmental effects by most likely further increasing water temperatures and causing fish mortality in addition to restricting fish passage.
• Most of the viable hydropower sites in the US have already been constructed; sites that are left provide marginal power while putting tremendous strain on aquatic resources. 
• There have been very few hydropower dams created in the last decade—most of which have been on very large rivers in Canada that have appropriate geology that have significant “drops” in elevation and huge capacities for electricity generation. These dams are also located adjacent to major metropolitan areas.
• Most hydropower dams licensed by FERC produce very little energy; 80% of dams produce less than 50 MW of power, which is enough electricity to power 50,000 homes. New hydropower facilities are functionally obsolete due to increasing strides in energy efficiency, creation of more promising renewable energy technologies including solar and wind power, and negative environmental impacts of hydropower. 
• Even “small” hydropower units cause serious environmental damage while generating very little income (see attached fact sheet “Low Power, Big Problems” from the Hydropower Reform Coalition).
• The Milwaukee River is a small river for hydropower relatively speaking. Flows are highest in spring and winter, when energy demands are the lowest. Flows on the Milwaukee River needed to justify a hydropower plant are only seen rarely after storms and during spring snow melt, and do not justify the tremendous environmental damage that would be created by a hydropower dam.
• The costs of building new hydropower dams far outweigh the benefits. Building new dams in the name of “renewable energy” is not justifiable where there are significant impacts to water quality, wildlife habitat, recreation, and public health as is the case on the Milwaukee River.
• Hydroelectric licensing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or FERC imposes a wide range of compliance obligations to ensure that power generation does not negatively impact the environment or recreational resources. In recent years, the licensing process has become increasingly complex, and failure to comply with regulations is increasingly costly (see attachment on “Challenges of Hydroelectric Compliance” by Dewey and LeBoeuf, LLP).  
• The licensing process for hydroelectric dams requires compliance with a wide range of operational, environmental, and recreational concerns. The process is responsive to concerns of public interest groups and other individuals over environmental, recreational, and other impacts. Licensing a hydropower dam on the Milwaukee River would be highly difficult. 
• Licenses require ongoing environmental monitoring and inspections, dam safety programs, and generally require compliance with state water quality standards, fish and wildlife protection, creation of shoreline management plans, and standards for minimum flows and erosion control. 
• In addition to environmental monitoring, FERC conducts recreational monitoring to ensure compliance with requirements for reasonable public access and recreational use of lands and waters associated with hydroelectric dams. This often requires construction of canoe/kayak/boat navigation passage structures. 
• Failure to comply with licensing requirements can result in assessment of civil penalties by FERC of up to $11,000 per day that each separate violation continues.
• Recent legal decisions state that States can impose conditions on FERC permits to protect water quality and “uses” of streams, including recreational and aquatic life uses, making licensing new hydropower dams a very onerous process. Of particular relevance is Supreme Court Decision-- PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Dep't of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700 (1994). This decision found that States are required by §401 of the Clean Water Act to provide a water quality certification before a federal license or permit can be issued for any activity that may result in a discharge into intrastate navigable waters, and that states are allowed to impose water quality standards and conditions to protect “uses”. The case involved a FERC permit for hydroelectric generation in Washington State, and as relevant here, the Court affirmed that State imposed water quality standards could include characteristic “uses” of waters including water used for fish migration, rearing, and spawning. See:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1911.ZS.html
• Seeking Federal Stimulus money for hydropower generation on the Milwaukee River is short-sighted.  It is time to diversify to new renewable technology, and ensure that Federal investments of taxpayer dollars do not jeopardize substantial past investments in watershed protection through careless short-term incentives for hydropower from new dams, diversions or impoundments.