Strong Arguments Against the Crown Hydro Project

From: THOMAS R DIMOND <tdimond@q.com> Date: May 18, 2011 11:43:32 AM CDT To: ednab <ednab@mac.com> Subject: Comments to the Minneapolis Parks Board   Tom Dimond 2119 Skyway Drive Saint Paul, MN 55119 May 16, 2011 RE: Crown Hydro Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the proposed letter of intent. It is difficult to comment with specificity, detail or accuracy because the proposal has changed in design and nature so many times it is not entirely clear what the current proposal includes. This limits the ability of the public to provide informed input. It limits the ability of Commissioners to analyze and discuss this project with your colleagues and constituents before embarking on a course of action that could negatively impact the river and tie the hands of future Commissioners for 99 years. Within the context of these limits I would like to offer these comments about the latest proposal. The water supply for Saint Anthony Falls should not be sold. The Mississippi River is known as the Father of Waters or as Annie refers to it as Grandfather Mississippi. It is the most important river and flyway in North America. This area would not be a National Park if it were not for the river. After all, it is the Mississippi National River and Recreational Area. It is also the State designated Mississippi River Critical Area. Along the full length of this majestic river there is only one waterfall. Minnesota and Minneapolis are fortunate to be home to this valuable asset. Protecting the source of water for the falls is of paramount importance. The public water supply for the falls should not be sold for private gain. Protecting the public water supply for the water fall is a public trust. It is hard to imagine any public official would even consider selling the water supply of the falls. The Parks Board is entrusted with protecting Grandfather Mississippi. There is no alternative to the waterfall. There is no alternative source of water for Saint Anthony Falls. There is no alternative waterfall on the Mississippi River. There are many alternatives to generate 3.2 MW of energy. If Crown Hydro is not constructed the grant money will be awarded to an alternative renewable energy project. Why would the Parks Board reduce or eliminate the flow of water over Saint Anthony Falls to generate 3.2 MW of electricity? Crown Hydro proposes to generate 3.2 MW. The Nobles wind farm generates 201 MW and Grand Meadow 100 MW. Excel has 1,491 MW of wind power. Biomass generates 193 MW. Conversion from coal to natural gas provides cleaner energy. Riverside generates 511 MW and High Bridge 570 MW. At Black Dog the 253 MW coal facility, is being replaced with a 688 MW natural gas facility. The increase in capacity is 453 MW. Conservation is the best alternative to increased production. If there is going to be an increase in production, it would take 62 Crown Hydro projects to produce what one wind farm generates. It would take 178 Crown Hydro projects to generate what the High Bridge plant can generate. There are many alternatives to produce this small amount of energy but there is no alternative to water for the waterfall. It is the only waterfall in the National Park and the only waterfall on the Mississippi River. The waterfall is not an amusement park attraction that you turn on and off. The Parks Board should be commended for requiring a minimum of 2,000 cubic feet per second of water for the falls. Many would rightly make the case that no water should be diverted from the falls. Reducing the flow of water diminishes the majesty of the falls. The sound, turbulence and spray from the falls directly relates to the flow of water over the falls. Any dewatering or diminishing of the falls is ill advised. Past decision have had a cumulative effect of dewatering the falls. The Parks Board should not abandon the minimum requirement of water over the falls. The letter of intent only requires the minimum flow during prime viewing periods. The stated reason for this change is the project is not economically viable if 2,000 cfs of water goes over the falls. The Parks Board is responsible for protecting the river. The Parks Board should not bailout troubled investments. The public spoke loud and clear that they did not appreciate the government bailout of bad investments on Wall Street. The public is unlikely to appreciate the Parks Board creating a troubled asset relief program. The falls should not be allowed to dry up because a proposed project is not financially viable. If the project is not financially viable then it should not be built. Conflict of interest The Parks Board creates a real potential for conflict of interest if it takes a financial stake in an investment that is financially unviable due to Board policy. The report from the Superintendent states that Crown has indicated that with a Park Board minimum requirement of 2,000 cfs over the falls at all times the project loses viability. The minimum requirement of water flowing over the falls should not be based on whether the Board gets a financial ownership interest in the business. In particular, the size of the ownership interest the Parks Board receives should not be based on the Parks Board decision of minimum water flow over the falls. Webster’s Dictionary defines bribe as something that serves to induce or influence. The Parks Board should not take an ownership stake in an investment it regulates. The Parks Board should continue to support a minimum 2,000 CFS of water over the falls. If Crown Hydro is allowed to take 1,000 cfs the falls will run dry 135 days of the year. The current water demand is 3,700 cfs. Allowing Crown Hydro to remove an additional 1,000 cfs will leave the falls dry 37% of the days or 135 days a year. The Wenk report shows that existing demand already drops flow over the falls to 1,000 cfs or less on 37% of the days (1931-2003). If you remove another 1,000 cfs there is no water left for the falls. Cumulative potential effects The environmental review must take into account cumulative potential effects or cumulative impacts. The reduction of flow over the falls must also consider the cumulative impacts of other diversions of water. The impacts of other Hydro projects at Saint Anthony Falls must be considered. In 2006, the Minnesota Supreme Court elevated the obligation of RGU’s to address in the environmental review cumulative potential effects. Cumulative potential effects also must be considered in the decision on the need for an EIS. The Parks Board should require an EIS. An EIS is a likely outcome and agreeing to an EIS can expedite the process and better inform the Board and public. The EIS is a thorough study of the project’s environmental impacts and a comprehensive analysis of its economic and sociological effects. It considers reasonable alternatives, including the “no build alternative”. When completed, the review gives the government and general public information to determine whether the project is environmentally acceptable and what mitigation measures are needed. The EAW is a procedure that uses a worksheet with a standardized list of questions to screen projects that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. We should all be able to agree that dewatering the only falls on the Mississippi River and excavation and construction in a National Registered Historic District located in a National Park may have the potential for significant environmental effects. Limit any proposed lease or agreement to 2049. The FERC license is set to expire in 2049. Any proposed agreements should expire in 38 years not 99 years. This allows future Commissioners to evaluate if a new lease or agreement is still appropriate in 2049. The Parks Board should remove itself from any negotiations until the sale is complete and there is a new owner. The Parks Board risks making statements that a potential buyer of Crown Hydro might rely on. It is also difficult for the Board and public to evaluate the viability of the owner to implement an agreement when you do not know who the buyer is. The Parks Board should not be intimidated by bad legislation. This session the DNR was told if they want money for State Parks and Forests they should cut down and sell the Walnut trees. To the DNR’s credit they pointed out that cutting the trees in the parks was less profitable than many think, and that loss of the trees diminishes the values of the parks they are entrusted to protect. The Parks Board was told by some in the Legislature that you should sell the water that flows over the falls. The response should be the same as the DNR. The Parks Board is entrusted to protect the flow over the falls and any potential financial gains are short sighted when you consider the loss to our National Park. Any agreements must be conditioned on a new programmatic agreement. The previous agreement is 13 years old and based on a different site. All parties, including the public, should have an opportunity to evaluate and provide input on any new impacts and what should be included in the programmatic agreement. The 1998 agreement raised questions if the project can be done without loss of the historic resource. SHPO states that if the historic races can be reused by repairing the in-place historic materials and following the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, Crown Hydro’s proposal may be acceptable. It goes on to say that if in order to use the races, all the historic material needs to be removed and new races built with new material in the approximate same locations, the historic resource would be lost. There has been discussion of building a new concrete and steel race to replace one of the races, and reconstructing another race with new material in order to widen and deepen it. The current packet of information does not provide information on what actual construction impacts are proposed in 2011. The 1998 agreement must be replaced with a new 2011 agreement signed by all the parties.