12/29/2017

Some Dam – Hydro News TM

And Other Stuff i

Quote of Note: “Life is too short to waste time hating anyone.” - Unknown

Some Dam - Hydro News Newsletter Archive for Current and Back Issues and Search: (Hold down the Ctrl key when clicking on this link) http://npdp.stanford.edu/ Under Partners/Newsletters on left Click one of the Links (Current issue or View Back Issues)

“Good wine is a necessity of life.” - -Thomas Jefferson Ron’s wine pick of the week: 2013 Sbragia Cabernet Sauvignon "Andolsen Vineyard" “No nation was ever drunk when wine was cheap.” - - Thomas Jefferson

Happy New Year!

1 Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu Dams: (The Corps hit the target on this one. The Corps of Engineers Report says it all. It’s evident that portions of the spillway chute were founded on clay which it is surmised probably shrank during the 5 years of drought and created voids. When water was let down the chute it filled the voids with water and created uplift. It’s surmised that the water coming down the chute probably did the rest of the damage and ripped apart the spillway. Obviously, the thinness of the concrete, design deficiencies, and maintenance issues were factors. Question: Did DWR think the chute was founded on rock?) You can read the full Corps Report here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drought/article146789099.html

What went wrong at Oroville Dam? Analysis points to drainage, problematic soils BY DALE KASLER, sacbee.com, APRIL 26, 2017

The spillway failure at Oroville Dam likely was caused by problems with its underlying drainage system and the soils beneath the concrete chute, according to an internal analysis by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The April 7 report marks the first time the Army Corps, which sets rules governing reservoir operations, has attempted to pinpoint the causes behind the Oroville spillway crisis, which led to the two-day evacuation of 188,000 residents in February. The Army Corps’ report, conducted by its risk management center, generally dovetails with other analyses about what caused the spillway to split in two Feb. 7. The presence of compacted clay instead of solid rock beneath portions of the concrete chute helped undermine the structure. The underlying drainage system didn’t function properly and the steel bars anchoring the spillway to the rock were too short, the Army Corps group concluded.

“The underdrain system, poor geologic conditions with compacted clay leveling fill, and marginal design details likely led to the incident,” the Army Corps group wrote in a 14-page memo to Eric Halpin, the agency’s deputy safety officer. The Sacramento Bee obtained a copy of the report Tuesday. An Army Corps spokesman, Pete Pierce, said the agency wouldn’t discuss the report, calling it a preliminary analysis. “It would be inappropriate to comment until (the review) is complete nor to comment on a draft document,” he said in an email. The Army Corps took issue in particular with the presence of compacted clay under portions of the chute. “Using (erodible) compacted fine soil to fill foundation voids under the service spillway chute is not common practice,” the group wrote.

The report added that multiple repairs of smaller cracks performed over the years may have contributed to the problem. Caulking of the slab joints could have interfered with the flow of water through the underlying drains, further undermining the integrity of the concrete chute and leading to new cracking, the Army Corps group wrote. “When the spillway gates were opened, high velocity water probably entered the cracks and the stagnation pressures were enough to lift and break the thin slabs, given that the anchor bars were short and anchored into weak materials, and there was no steel mat on the bottom of the slab to resist bending,” the Army Corps group wrote. California Department of Water Resources, which operates Oroville Dam, has declined to say what it believes happened to the spillway in February. Erin Mellon, a spokeswoman for the

2 Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu Natural Resources Agency, which oversees DWR, said Tuesday the Army Corps study “lists a number of potential causes,” but the state is awaiting the results of a forensic study being conducted by a group of outside engineers. That report is due this fall and will be made public, she said.

The Army Corps study comes on the heels of other reports that arrive at the same general conclusions. Robert Bea, an engineer and risk management expert at UC Berkeley, produced an independent report last week that pointed to design flaws, the presence of faulty earthen materials beneath portions of the spillway and a structure that was poorly anchored to bedrock. Bea added that “repeated ineffective repairs” over the years undermined a drainage network that was inadequate to begin with. On Monday, meanwhile, two previously-sealed reports by a group of engineering consultants advising DWR cited similar concerns. In their March 17 report to DWR, the consultants said the fracture “likely occurred as a result of high velocity flow … penetrating under the slab … eventually causing all or part of the slab to break away. Subsequent erosion of foundation material caused progressive failure both upstream and downstream.”

DWR has awarded a $275 million contract to Kiewit Corp. of Omaha, Neb., to fix the battered spillway and the adjacent emergency spillway, on which the near failure in February triggered evacuations. The outside engineering consultants reporting to DWR have said complete repairs will likely take two years. DWR Acting Director Bill Croyle told a Senate committee Tuesday he still believes the project can be done this year, but in any event the two spillways will at least be operational in time for the start of the next rainy season, expected to start in November. The main spillway split in two while releasing about 60,000 cubic feet of water per second out of the reservoir – a fraction of the flow the structure was designed to handle. Dam operators temporarily shut off the spillway and kept flows at a moderate level once they reopened it. Drenching rains increased the lake levels to the point that water flowed for the first time in Oroville’s history over the emergency spillway, a concrete lip atop an unlined hillside. When it appeared the emergency spillway might fail, because of severe erosion on the hill, evacuations were ordered. DWR officials dramatically increased releases from the damaged main spillway to arrest the flows over the emergency structure.

(You should go by generating capacity!) 11 Largest Hydroelectric Dams in USA December 6, 2017, by BOJANA PETKOVIĆ, insidermonkey.com

If we asked you to name some of the largest hydroelectric dams in USA, would you be able to recall more than one or two? Hopefully, you should have a few dams in mind. Why? Here are some of the reasons. How many hydroelectric dams are there in the US? Let’s just say there’s more than you can imagine. There are 2,198 active plants, which makes this country the world leader when it comes to the biggest number of hydroelectric dams in the world. If you’re wondering how the number of US dams stands globally, i.e., how many hydroelectric dams there are in the world, it would be the best to look at the map made by Washington Post. Size matters, and that’s a fact. Otherwise, why would you be spending your time here reading about some of the largest dams in the world? Unfortunately, the largest hydroelectric dam in the world isn’t a part of our list. It’s located in China. More or less everyone had heard of the Three Gorges Dam when it took over the #1 spot of the largest hydroelectric dam so far in Brazil and Paraguay. Nevertheless, that doesn’t make it the most powerful dam in the world. Due to the river’s capacity over the year (read: drought and precipitation), these distant dams surprisingly produce almost the same amount of power. By the way, we discussed the hydropower matter further in 8 Countries that Produce the Most Hydroelectric Power in the World. But let’s go back to the USA.

We’ve already covered top hydropower producing states and what state produces the most hydroelectric power in our article on Top 15 Hydropower Producing States in America. That could also be the answer to what states use the hydroelectric power the most. How much hydroelectric power is used in the US? The most precise answer would be: not enough since it’s constantly trying to increase it. The USA is in the fourth place in the world based on hydroelectric power

3 Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu generation, right after China, Brazil, and Canada. On average, America generates 300,000 terawatts per hour every year. One terawatt equals 1 billion kilowatts, so you get the maths. However, the country is always in its never-ending quest for new renewable resources.

Harnessing this nature’s element is one of the oldest ways to generate power, and we feel obliged to say a word or two about the positives and negatives of hydroelectric power. There is a whole list of reasons why there are so many attempts to make use of other resources. Firstly, building a dam is extremely pricey, and it doesn’t always pay off, even when we are talking about huge constructions because even the biggest dams are eventually dependent on water and weather conditions. Hence, they’re not absolutely reliable. In addition, the animal and fish habitats are changed or endangered. We all remember the stories about Australia and its rapidly growing rabbit population. Well, similar scenarios occur when it comes to dam building. The natural cycle is disrupted, and the changes are usually detrimental to the living environment. That includes people, too. As International Rivers informs us, usually the first to be evicted are indigenous people. Unfortunately, a high number of victims due to dams bursting is nothing new. For instance, China kept hidden for years the Henan disaster in 1975 in which 80,000 to 230,000 were killed.

But let’s mention a few benefits, too. Firstly, the trapped water can be used as an irrigation system. The pollution is minimal compared to power plants using coal, for instance. Also, the technology used is highly reliable. Now would be the right time to explain how we found out what the largest hydroelectric dams are in the US. Tata&Howard and WorldAtlas were our trustworthy sources on this quest (we also used USGS for some interesting facts above). The tricky part about establishing the biggest dam in the United States is actually defining the “biggest” part. What makes a hydroelectric dam the largest? Is it the one that is the longest (the Cochiti Dam is 29,040 feet (5.5 miles) long), or maybe the tallest (the Oroville Dam is 770 feet tall)? Since it is hydroelectric dams we are talking about, we decided to focus on the ones with the largest reservoirs. After all, a dam must have gigantic dimensions if it is to stand and support such amount of water. We have already told you which is the largest hydroelectric dam in the world, but these 11 largest hydroelectric dams in USA are just as amazing. Go ahead and read about their capacity, reservoirs, locations and some other interesting facts. The capacity is given in acre-feet. 11. Toledo Bend Dam Capacity: 4,477,000 ac. ft. Reservoir: Toledo Bend Lake State: Louisiana/Texas Toledo Bend Lake is the ninth largest human-created lake in the US, and as you can see, it spreads over two countries. The energy produced annually is around 205 million kilowatt-hours. In addition to the power and water, there are plenty of water activities here to be entertained. The Toledo Bend Dam was finally completed in 1969, and it cost $70 million. 10. Shasta Dam Capacity: 4,552,000 ac. ft. Reservoir: Lake Shasta State: California Construction of the dam began in 1935, and it was completed in 1945. People living in the nearby were extremely grateful for job opportunities after the Great Depression, but today the area is one of the most popular vacation spots. The Shasta Dam is spreading across the Sacramento River, and its height is impressive – 602 feet, which makes it the eighth tallest dam in the States. As for the power, it has been upgraded recently to be 98% efficient. 9. Amistad Dam Capacity: 5,658,600 ac. ft Reservoir: Lake Amistad State: Texas/ Mexico Everything is big in Texas. Another enormous construction lies partly in the US, and partly in Mexico. This dam ranks 9th on our list of largest hydroelectric dams in USA. It is actually a joint venture of the two countries which took only five years to build. Naturally, it is managed by

4 Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu International Boundary and Water Commission, which is an international body formed by the Mexican and American governments. 8. Bull Shoals Dam Capacity: 5,760,000 ac. ft Reservoir: Bull Shoals Lake State: Arkansas The Bull Shoals Dam was finished in 1951, and at the time it was the 5th largest dam in the world. Its basic purpose was flood control, and now the lake is a tourist attraction. 7. Libby Dam Capacity: 5,809,000 ac. ft Reservoir: Lake Koocanusa State: Montana The Libby dam stands in the way of Lake Koocanusa, which actually stretches a little bit into British Columbia, Canada. Therefore, some of its power goes to the American next-door neighbor. The dam was completed in 1972, and it is 422 feet tall, which makes an impressive view. 6. Grand Coulee Dam Capacity: 9,562,000 ac. ft Reservoir: Lake Franklin State: Washington We are continuing our list of largest hydroelectric dams in USA with Grand Coulee Dam is 550 feet tall, which is almost one mile long and has a drum gate spillway. It’s got three power stations, and it is the largest power generator in the US. 5. Fort Peck Dam Capacity: 15,400,000 ac. ft Reservoir: Fort Peck Lake State: Montana The Fort Peck Dam ranks 5th on our list of largest hydroelectric dams in USA. It is managed by the Army Corps of Engineers. This is a hydraulic earth-fill dam, and its height is 250 feet. Interestingly, the dam is enlisted in the National Register of Historic Places, and it’s the largest hydraulically filled dam in the whole country. What is more, its structure volume makes it the second largest dam (the first is the Tarbela Dam in Pakistan). 4. Garrison Dam Capacity: 18,500,000 ac. ft Reservoir: Lake Sakakawea State: North Dakota The Garrison Dam cost some $300 million to make back in 1953. Apart from being one of the largest hydroelectric dams in USA, its position in the world isn’t so bad either. The Garrison Dam is the fifth largest earthen dam in the whole world. 3. Oahe Dam Capacity: 19,300,000 ac. ft Reservoir: Lake Oahe State: South Dakota What makes this dam important, apart from its grandeur? Firstly, this construction was officially dedicated to President John F. Kennedy. The second reason is the world’s first rock tunnel boring machine (TBM). This invention was first used on this dam. Actually, the dam was the reason for its creation, which later on had a huge impact on machines replacing humans in digging tunnels. 2. Glen Canyon Dam Capacity: 27,000,000 ac. ft Reservoir: Lake Powell State: Arizona The Glen Canyon Dam ranks second on the list of largest hydroelectric dams in USA. It is made out of over five million cubic yards of concrete. This arch-gravity dam is 710 feet tall. It’s not dedicated to a president, but to the First Lady – Lady Bird Johnson in 1966. 1. Hoover Dam Capacity: 28,255,000 ac. ft

5 Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu Reservoir: Lake Mead State: Nevada Admit it, when we asked you about the 11 largest hydroelectric dams in USA, this is the first one that popped into your mind. As you can see, it was for a good reason. Perhaps it’s not the largest one in the world, but it is definitely one of the most famous. Apparently, it was named after the President Herbert Hoover. The Hoover Dam was being built between 1931 and 1936 by 21,000 workers, which cost the Bureau of Reclamation some $49 million. The dam impounds the Colorado River, thus creating Lake Mead. Also, it weighs 6,600,000 tons.

(Different ways to fix it.) DNR Presents Options for Willow River Dam Fix By Baihly Warfield, December 06, 2017, wdio.com

The Willow River dam, Minn. is a source of pride for folks in that community. "It's been here my entire life, since the '40s," Willow River Mayor Brent Switzer said. "So when people think of Willow River, they think of the dam." It was built in 1940, in fact, and withstood the floods of 2012. "That dam was built by the (Works Progress Administration), and it did exactly what it was designed for," Willow River Emergency Management Director Vickie Whitehouse said. But when the region received more than 7 inches of rain in June 2016, the dam washed out. "I just want to get this last flood behind us," Whitehouse said. The Minnesota DNR has come up with three options for what to do with the dam.

The first is to rebuild the structure and bring it up to current safety standards. Mike Peloquin, NE regional manager in ecological and water resources with the DNR, said that could cost between $1.5 and $2 million. The second option is to remove the dam and put in rock rapids instead. Peloquin estimates that would cost about $500,000 to $1 million. "It provides connectivity, so fish that are moving downstream can reach good habitat areas upstream," Peloquin said. Third, they could remove it entirely and restore the river to its natural habitat. According to Peloquin, that would be around $500,000 to $800,000. Funding is in place from bonding money and Homeland Security dollars.

Mayor Switzer said people have been anxious for answers about what will happen with the dam. "We get a lot of questions here about what we're going to do about this. I try to tell people that mostly, it's the DNR that's going to make the decisions," he said. But the DNR wants community feedback, especially because a city park runs alongside the Willow River, next to the dam. "Where the breach occurred, where material eroded, is affecting their park," Peloquin said. Whitehouse said the county is also considering reconstructing the culverts under Co. Hwy 61, which runs near the dam. City leaders say they are relieved a solution is in the works. "I myself would like to see it repaired," Whitehouse said. "Our dam is basically our icon, you know, it's part of the city of Willow River." After the DNR collects public feedback at a Wednesday meeting, they will put together a recommendation for Willow River to approve. Peloquin said they will spend the

6 Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu next 5-6 months doing environmental reviews, getting permits and working out a design before construction would begin hopefully by the end of the fall 2018. Peloquin said if anyone would like to comment that couldn't make the meeting, they can call the Grand Rapids DNR office.

(From an expert. A plea for the Klamath River dams that will probably fall on deaf ears.) Guest opinion: Should the hydropower dams be removed? By Don Mackintosh / Dec 15, 2017, siskiyoudaily.com

I am a PG&E retiree. I spent 28 years in Power Grid Operations and my job was controlling power generation, transmission and distribution. It is a fact that hydroelectric generation is the cleanest and cheapest of all generation. The fuel for hydro generation is water. The water goes in and turns a turbine and comes out as water unchanged and usable. In all other generation the fuel is costly and it chemically changes state after it is used. Wind and solar are not dependable sources of power because it is necessary to have rolling generation online for back up. When a power grid collapses and is dead, it takes power to start generation again. Hydro generation is used for this purpose because it can be started instantly and is always available.

California dams have been inspected recently by the Division of Dam Safety. It has been reported that the four hydroelectric facilities on the Klamath are in good condition. They are in place and in operation with an annual revenue of $40 million. The cost is plus or minus 8 percent of the gross revenue. The National Hydropower Association is forecasting a growth in hydropower. The growth is due to new hydro installations and the upgrading of existing hydro for increased power output. This is done with new turbines and design innovations. The existing hydro units on the Klamath are already efficient and cheap. The turbines and generators are simple and long lasting, typically 50 years. The hydro generation from the four dams produces 169 megawatts of power that supplies Siskiyou County and the southern portion of Oregon, with 70 Mw left over that goes south and is sold to PG&E. The 169 Mw of generation that will be destroyed has to be replaced to maintain the electrical grid by building a new generation plant. That alone could cost $4.5 billion. The replacement generation must be designed to fit into the grid and has to be in service before the hydroelectric is removed. There has been no mention of a replacement power source. We don’t know what it will be or where it is coming from but for sure there will be a fuel cost that hydro does not have.

Once the dams are breached, the release of toxic material downstream begins and a perfectly good $40 million business has been destroyed. It has been said that the complete removal and cleanup of this project could be as high as $7 billion. So with the $7 billion for dam removal and the $4.5 billion for replacement generation the total would be $11.5 billion. We the people will have to pay all of this! The rate payers’ monthly power bill will probably be double or even triple what it is now. And who is going to pay for the liability insurance after the dams have been breached?

I believe that we should take possession of the Klamath hydro facilities and continue pursuing the relicensing in the public interest through an organization such as a public utility district. It seems like the money that Pacific Corp (over $200 million) has taken from the rate payers could be credited back to the people (Public Utility) for purchase of the Klamath hydro facilities. Also a public utility would create revenue and jobs for our county and reduce our existing power bills. If there is a way it could be done, the people could invest in our local utility company. I know that there is concern about the liability but it is my understanding that there is a certain amount of government liability protection for this type of entity.

Our power supply here is unique in that it can function independent from the power grid. The Klamath hydro dams are positioned so that in a situation of a long term grid outage, Siskiyou county can be electrically isolated and generate its own power. That is an important asset to our

7 Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu county and it would be foolish to allow it to be taken from us. The destruction of the four dams on the Klamath River would be the largest dam removal in the history of the United States. Just like the spotted owl scam, it is a massive experiment that would have repercussions for years to come and it would be just as devastating to our economy!

(This is one way to get ‘er done.) Utility hires private contractor to inspect its dams December 16, 2017, By The Associated Press, seattletimes.com

NORTON, Vt. (AP) — A Vermont dam owner has hired a contractor to perform long-overdue inspections of two properties. The inspections are underway thanks to renewed pressure from state utility regulators on the Public Utilities Commission Coaticook River Water Power Company. The Caledonian-Record reports the commission believes the Norton Pond dam failing would have a “significant” impact in Norton. The reviews are required regularly, and are not because of any identified problems. The dams are small and not licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The commission is in the process of periodic review of all hydro-electric dams in Vermont, including the status of safety inspection reports. Attorneys for the Coaticook utility said that the company had hired a Vermont engineering firm to complete the inspections by early December.

(Some people don’t want the higher dam!) Gary Wockner: Colorado Water Plan has become 'Colorado Dam Plan' By Gary Wockner, 12/16/2017, dailycamera.com

You'd have thought the earth moved exactly two years ago with all the ballyhoo at the state Capitol when Gov. Hickenlooper unveiled the final Colorado Water Plan. I stood in the west foyer of the Capitol as every TV camera in the city pointed at Hickenlooper and his then Colorado Water Conservation Board director, James Eklund. Bold promises were made that the plan was going to save our rivers, farms, cities and the whole state from the coming catastrophe of population growth. I was very involved in the Colorado Water Plan process, and at the time I issued a big caution in the form of a newspaper column printed in seven outlets As many as 650,000 trees could be removed on 430 across the state. I warned that the plan was acres surrounding Gross Reservoir in southwestern too heavily focused on draining and Boulder County if Denver Water's plans for a 77,000-acre- damming rivers rather than protecting and foot expansion of the reservoir are approved. (Cliff Grassmick / Staff Photographer) restoring them.

Now, two years out from that unveiling, I take no solace in being right. The Colorado Water Plan has become the "Colorado Dam Plan." If you look at the sheer amount of money spent so far or spending supported, the state's endorsements and loans for dams have out-sized water conservation and river restoration by a margin of at least 50 to 1. Before the ink was dry, Hickenlooper used to plan to endorse the $350 million "Moffat Collection System Project," a massive enlargement of Denver Water's "Gross Dam" in Boulder County. In fact, it would build the tallest dam in the history of Colorado and fill it by draining another 4.5 billion gallons of water every year out of the already severely degraded Upper Colorado River in Grand County.

Next, Hickenlooper used the plan to endorse the $380 million "Windy Gap Firming Project" which would take another 9 billion gallons of water every year out of the same Upper Colorado River,

8 Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu reducing its flow to a tiny fraction of its natural beauty. To add insult to injury, the CWCB (all appointed by Hickenlooper) then ran a bill through the Legislature to loan that project $90 million to give it financial legs, because it couldn't stand on its own two feet. And there's more. The so- called "Basin Roundtables," which are made up of self-appointed "stakeholders" from around the state, have used the plan to get funding from the CWCB for more planning and scheming about dams in northern Colorado on the Cache la Poudre River, in the southwest corner of the state on the San Juan River and in the northwest corner of the state on the White River. At the same time most of that money and planning has flowed toward dams, the alternatives to dams and river protection have gotten extreme short shrift, just as I predicted two years ago. Despite all the rhetoric, a pittance of money has been allocated to water conservation, water recycling and reuse, and the highly touted "alternative transfer mechanisms" to share water with farmers. On that last note, the CWCB has promoted a few small "pilot" ATMs, including one larger one in Weld County which wasn't to increase water supply for growing cities — it was created to share water between farmers and frackers. Implementation of the plan also has allocated a tiny amount of money for "Stream Management Plans," but such little money has yielded a similar result. In Fort Collins along the Cache la Poudre River, we just found out that Hickenlooper endorsed a "Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan" for a massive proposed $850 million dam project called the "Northern Integrated Supply Project." Despite complete scientific opposition from actual wildlife scientists, the mitigation plan unanimously sailed through the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission and the CWCB, both appointed by Hickenlooper. When the Colorado Water Plan was proposed four years ago, it was perceived by many educated onlookers as an effort by the Front Range growth machine to push through policy and funding to further dam and drain rivers to fuel and subsidize growth. Two years down the road, that perception has become reality. The original estimate of the cost of building all of the projects proposed in the plan was $20 billion; that figure now has ballooned to $40 billion. I'm no longer skeptical about the Colorado Water Plan; I'm now working to stop it. Wherever you are in the state, if you hear someone touting the Colorado Water Plan, don't take the bait, again. Gary Wockner directs two river-protection groups, "Save The Poudre" and "Save The Colorado," and authored the 2016 book, "River Warrior: Fighting to protect the world's rivers." He is based in Fort Collins. Email: [email protected].

(More opposition.) Nevada County Green Party Opposes NID Centennial Dam Leaders call on California Water Commission (CWC) to deny faulty NID grant application By Nevada County Green Party - December 19, 2017, yubanet.com

December 19, 2017 – The Nevada County Green Party’s elected County Council has declared unanimous opposition to the troubled Centennial Dam project being pushed through by the Nevada Irrigation District (NID). NID has already spent over $11 million on plans for a 275 foot-tall dam on the Bear River. The dam would inundate the last six miles of publicly accessible, free- flowing river on the Bear. NID plans to seize and destroy more than 25 homes and 120 parcels of private property, 140 Native American cultural sites, the Bear Campground, and the Dog Bar Bridge – the only crossing of the Bear River between Highway 49 and Highway 174. Despite many requests from NID customers and homeowners whose private property is subject to destruction under forced eminent domain, NID has not provided evidence of impact studies, clear cost analysis, and other essential information.

Initially reported to cost $160 million, the project is now estimated at over $1 billion dollars. With skyrocketing costs for unclear plans, the NID Board is seeking CA taxpayer grant money to fund the Centennial Dam. If successful, receipt of California Water Commission (CWC) funds would impose multiple requirements on NID, such as supplying water outside the County of Origin. This would directly contradict the project’s statement of purpose, which is to benefit NID customers. NID voted to submit the application without giving any advance notice or information to NID customers – who would be forced to pay for this dam – or to the public who is also affected. The application deadline was known to NID for six months. Yet, NID’s grant application was publicly presented just two days before the application period ended, at a last minute special meeting.

9 Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu Despite significant public opposition at that meeting, the NID board voted to submit the application requesting taxpayers pay for its unpopular dam.

Rather than inviting input from community stakeholders and customers in an open, transparent process, the NID board is increasingly closing off its actions from public view. The controversial dam has not broken ground, but is already 10X over budget, shows no clear benefit, and faces strong public opposition from many sides. With one of the highest paid public official in Nevada County heading the NID, the elected NID board and staff should be inviting input from paying NID customers and the public, not blocking it. The Nevada County Green Party encourages the community to join SYRCL’s letter campaign: http://yubariver.org/nid/

Hydro: Hydropower website of the Energy Information Administration https://www.eia.gov/kids/energy.cfm?page=hydropower_home-basics

(Not much hydro news this week.) Auburn's hydroelectric facilities, technology security critiqued by state comptroller By Natalie Brophy, Dec 21, 2017, auburnpub.com

A state audit released Wednesday concluded the Auburn, NY City Council did not provide adequate oversight of its hydroelectric facilities. The audit by the Office of the New York State Comptroller, which assessed the city’s hydroelectric power operations and software management practices from July 1, 2015 through March 9, 2017, found that council did not adopt adequate policies and procedures regarding procurement practices for hydroelectric projects, nor did it adopt formal, long-term financial plans or develop adequate capital plans related to the facilities.

The audit found that when awarding a $3.9 million energy performance contract to Siemens Industry Inc. for the reconstruction and operation of the Mill Street Dam hydroelectric facility in 2012, the council based the decision on "inaccurate financial projections." Those projections showed the project would generate profit for the city by the end of its second operating year. That, however, has not happened. The comptroller's office projects the Mill Street Dam won't be profitable until 2047. The city does not agree with the comptroller's estimate, asserting the comptroller did not take into consideration revenue inflation. City Comptroller Laura Wills suggested during an October city council meeting that the project will be profitable as soon as 2034.

"Management is making every effort, regardless of this audit, to ensure the hydroelectric operations are self-sufficient," City Manager Jeff Dygert wrote as part of the city's corrective action plan. As a response to issues incurred during the Mill Street project, the city decided to pursue a more traditional, design-bid-build approach for the remodel of the North Division Street Hydroelectric facility in 2015. Auditors found that city officials "better documented the rationale for their procurement decisions" and based their decisions on "better financial information." In regard to software management, the audit concluded that city IT staff did not enforce compliance with council-adopted acceptable use policies. The audit found that staff computers

10 Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu were not regularly monitored or reviewed. Five of the 25 computers reviewed had non-business software installed, including games. This could expose city computers to viruses or hacking, according to the audit. Dygert wrote that the city "is in general agreement" with the comptroller's findings. A corrective action plan was developed in response to the recommendations from the comptroller. The action plan was unanimously approved by council on Nov. 16.

Water: (The big deal! Will we come out on the short end?) US, Canada to begin talks in 2018 on Columbia River deal By NICHOLAS K. GERANIOS, Associated Press, Dec 16, 2017, mtstandard.com

SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) — Members of Congress from The Dalles Dam Washington state are praising the decision to start negotiations early next year over the future of a half-century-old agreement between the United States and Canada that governs hydropower and flood control operations along the Columbia River. Lawmakers from across the Pacific Northwest have been pressing the U.S. government to reopen Columbia River Treaty talks for several years. The 1964 agreement doesn't have an expiration date, but either country can cancel most of its provisions after September 2024, with a 10-year minimum notice. The U.S. Department of State on Dec. 7 announced its intention to enter talks with Canada over the treaty. The mighty Columbia starts in British Columbia and flows more than 1,200 miles (1,930 kilometers), mostly in the U.S., to the Pacific Ocean.

"The Columbia River Treaty is of immense importance to the economy, environment and culture of Washington state and the Pacific Northwest," said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. But it needs to be updated to deal with modern-day issues facing the region, such as environmental protections, she said. Modernizing the treaty to balance flood control, hydropower generation and environmental protections could benefit both countries, said Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., whose district includes portions of the river, has pushed for years to reopen treaty talks. "We must move forward with renegotiations to ensure this agreement remains mutually beneficial," McMorris Rodgers said. The treaty over time developed a "Canadian entitlement" that makes U.S. electricity consumers pay Canada more than they should for power benefits, she said. "It is estimated that our constituents overpay this entitlement by 10 times the reciprocal benefit," said McMorris Rodgers, who ranks fourth in House leadership. Northwest utilities make an annual payment of $250 million to $350 million to Canada. The payments were intended to reimburse Canada for building storage dams to benefit downstream power generation. But an outdated formula overpays Canadians, a coalition of more than 80 Northwest utilities has contended. The payments affect the monthly bills of 6.4 million U.S. electric customers in the Pacific Northwest.

British Columbia officials have said they need a better accounting of the benefits Americans get from the vast amounts of water stored north of the border. Indian tribes in both countries would like the heavily-dammed Columbia to flow more like a natural river, with additional releases of water in dry years to aid struggling salmon and steelhead runs. Tribes have also said new

11 Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu negotiations might produce agreement on reintroducing extinct salmon runs above Grand Coulee Dam in Washington state. In British Columbia, residents living along the river want more stability in reservoir levels. The treaty was originally intended to reduce the risk of floods in downstream cities like Portland, Oregon, and to develop additional hydropower capacity. It led to the construction of three large storage reservoirs in British Columbia (Duncan, Mica and Keenleyside). The treaty also spurred the construction of the giant Libby Dam in Montana. All told, these projects doubled the storage capacity of the basin — and dramatically reduced the river's natural spring flows. But the treaty did not cover the impacts on fish and wildlife populations.

A group of conservation, fishing and religious organizations say that should change. "Modernizing the treaty ... is not just an opportunity but also a critical need given the challenges salmon face in the 21st century," said Samantha Mace, of the Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition. The new talks are an opportunity to include "ecosystem-based function" — or health of the river — as a formal component, on equal footing with flood risk management and hydropower production. "We aim to prod both countries to achieve that goal," said Greg Haller of the environmental advocacy group Pacific Rivers. That could include improved river flows to aid salmon's migration to the ocean and improve water quality. It would also mean improved fish passage and reintroduction of salmon and steelhead into areas made inaccessible to salmon by dams in the U.S. and Canada.

Environment: (Will we ever get there?) Recovery plans for Snake River salmon, steelhead released By KEITH RIDLER, Associated Press, Dec 12, 2017, heraldcourier.com

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — Authorities have released recovery plans for federally protected Snake River chinook salmon and steelhead intended to make sure each species is self-sustaining in the wild. The final plans released Tuesday by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries include spring and summer chinook, fall chinook and steelhead. Authorities listed the three runs as threatened in the 1990s. On a larger scale, the documents will be used by NOAA Fisheries to develop a biological opinion in late 2018 that will direct how federal agencies operate 14 federal dams in the Columbia River Basin to protect salmon and steelhead. The documents will also be used in creating an environmental impact statement, or EIS, by other federal agencies and ordered by a federal judge in 2016 concerning the 14 dams. The court ruled that the U.S. government hasn't done enough to improve Northwest salmon runs and ordered the environmental review that's due out in 2021, urging officials to consider removing four big dams on the Snake River.

NOAA Fisheries in the documents released Tuesday evaluates dam breaching but doesn't take an official position. In general, the documents say removing the dams could improve runs but by how much varies based on complex factors. The salmon and steelhead that are the focus of the documents are part of a commercial and sport fishery, and are also important to tribes in the region that hold treaty rights. In general, federal officials said during a conference call Tuesday, fall chinook are doing better than spring and summer chinook and steelhead. "We are really on

12 Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu track to recover (fall chinook)," said Ken Troyer, Northern Snake River Branch chief for NOAA. "The challenges are greatest for spring and summer chinook and steelhead." The 366-page fall chinook plan identifies three main strategies, and chooses to implement the third one that's intended to boost the number of naturally reproducing spawning fish in the Snake River below Idaho Power's Hells Canyon Complex of hydroelectric dams. The plan says that young fish released in specific areas will return to those same areas to spawn as adults. That, officials say, will help boost the numbers of naturally reproducing fish and eventually lead to a self-sustaining population needed to achieve recovery. That plan "is the most likely and timely path to recovery," said Rosemary Furfey, Snake River Recovery Coordinator for NOAA. The Hells Canyon Complex cut off upstream spawning habitat and in the document is listed as a reason for the decline of the fish. Problems confronting fisheries managers in returning salmon above the dams is that the area is heavily used for agriculture and is too environmentally degraded to support salmon. "At this time, we recognize that the habitat is not conducive to fish populations and having fish survive," said Ritchie Graves, Columbia Basin Hydropower Branch chief for NOAA. Also, Idaho lawmakers previously approved a law preventing the return of listed species to Idaho without the state's approval. Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter has said he doesn't want listed fish above the dams, which could force expensive habitat restoration.

The 284-page recovery plan for spring and summer chinook and steelhead mainly looks at protecting existing tributary habitat and restoring degraded habitat. Those species travel into the Clearwater River and its tributaries in northern Idaho and the Salmon River and its tributaries in central Idaho. Fish also go into the Grande Ronde River in Oregon. Troyer said that Idaho has habitat that's in great shape, but "we see a lot of potential for habitat improvement and fish survival. We don't know exactly what that is. But I do feel there is a lot left to be done in Idaho." The plans released Tuesday are the final two recovery plans from NOAA Fisheries for the Columbia River Basin's 13 endangered and threatened salmon and steelhead runs. David Wilson, spokesman for Bonneville Power Administration, said the agency will include the most recent plans in the environmental impact statement and will continue to coordinate with NOAA to recover listed species.

(The U.S. symbol is majestic.) Eagle viewing starts at Shepaug Dam By Katrina Koerting, December 14, 2017, newstimes.com . Residents in Connecticut will once again be able to come observe the bald eagles at the Shepaug Dam. FirstLight Power Resources, which owns and operates the dam, is hosting an opening day celebration at the Shepaug Dam Bald Eagle Observation Area to celebrate the 2018 season. Nearly 150,000 people have visited the observation area since it first opened 31 years ago. The Shepaug Hydroelectric Station, the largest hydroelectric station in Connecticut, serves as an important winter feeding site for bald eagles. The movement of water below the dam prevents ice from forming providing the majestic birds easy access to an abundance of fish. The opening event will be held from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Dec. 16 in the Observation Building, at 2225 River Road in Southbury. Attendance is free, however advance registration is required online at www.bookeo.com/shepaug-eagle-viewing. Individuals and groups can register for future viewings at that site as well.

There will be educational displays, access to the Shepaug interpretive walking trail, and guided viewings of bald eagles. The Connecticut Audubon Society and Horizon Wings, a non-profit

13 Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu wildlife rehabilitation center, will present programs on birds of prey, habitat protection and restoration efforts. A short ceremony will also be held and light refreshments will be served. The Shepaug Dam Bald Eagle Observation Area, owned and maintained by FirstLight, is open to the public on Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays from 9 a.m. until 1 p.m. from December through March of each year. In 2016, FirstLight improve the observation area and purchased new spotting scopes and binoculars for the public.

Othe9

Stuff:

Other Stuff: (Where some of the Presidents lived.) Presidential residences: Famous homes of the commanders-in-chief https://usat.ly/1XrTM8v

(Charity starts at home.) 5 Most, Least Charitable States Utah is first, Hawaii dead last in WalletHub ranking of most giving states By Jenn Gidman, Newser Staff, Nov 29, 2017, newser.com

(NEWSER) – Americans celebrated #GivingTuesday the day after Cyber Monday (and several days of other discounted holiday shopping), reminding us to keep in mind those in need. That effort can come in the form of both money and time spent volunteering, both of which WalletHub tracked to see which US states have the most charitable residents. The site looked at more than a dozen key indicators of giving behavior, including everything from one's share of income offered to those less fortunate, to the share of a state's population that spent time fundraising or gathering up clothing or food. Here, the results: Read on for the states with residents who don't open their wallets or schedules as much: Most Charitable States Least Charitable States 1. Utah (No. 1 in charitable giving) 1. Hawaii 2. Maryland 2. Rhode Island (last in volunteering and service) 3. Minnesota 3. Nevada 4. Wyoming 4. Louisiana 5. Wisconsin 5. Arizona (last in charitable giving) Check out the entire list here: https://wallethub.com/edu/most-and-least-charitable-states/8555/ or see which states have residents with more money to offer in the first place: http://www.newser.com/story/248685/theres-a-big-gap-between-richest-poorest-states.html

(Passwords are important!) 20 Passwords Other Than '123456' You Should Avoid 'Tigger' is not iron-clad By Kate Seamons, Newser Staff, Dec 19, 2017, newser.com

(NEWSER) – As Time points out, it's been a banner year for hacks, from Equifax's totally avoidable breach to Yahoo's eventual admission that all 3 billion accounts were compromised. SplashData ran an analysis of some 5 million leaked passwords to come up with its list of the 100 most used, and, therefore, "Worst Passwords

14 Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu of the Year.": https://13639-presscdn-0-80-pagely.netdna-ssl.com/wp- content/uploads/2017/12/Top-100-Worst-Passwords-of-2017a.pdf Lifehacker reports: https://lifehacker.com/starwars-and-the-24-other-worst-passwords-of-2017- 1821338872 that SplashData projects that 1 in 10 computer users have used at least of the passwords on the list. Many are frequent offenders, and will come as no surprise. The top 5 is, as you might expect: 123456, Password, 12345678, qwerty, and 12345. But some that make the list are seemingly more random or quirky. We've flagged 20 such entries, and note their rank on the list. 1. letmein (7) 11. sunshine (55) 2. monkey (13) 12. tigger (56) 3. starwars (16) 13. merlin (58) 4. dragon (18) 14. banana (61) 5. freedom (22) 15. cookie (68) 6. trustno1 (25) 16. jessica (74) 7. harley (28) 17. dallas (79) 8. buster (39) 18. passwor (80) 9. ferrari (43) 19. ginger (97) 10. cheese (44) 20. thunder (100)

iThis compilation of articles and other information is provided at no cost for those interested in hydropower, dams, and water resources issues and development, and should not be used for any commercial or other purpose. Any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment from those who have an interest in receiving this information for non-profit and educational purposes only.

15 Copy obtained from the National Performance of Dams Program: http://npdp.stanford.edu