How to Get More Flows on the Upper Kern

Signing our petition sends a powerful message, but your voice can make an even bigger impact with a few more steps. Here's how you can further support the revitalization of the Kern River:

1.     Contact FERC: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission plays a critical role in deciding the fate of the Kern River. Writing a letter or an email expressing your support for our proposal can influence the decision-making process. Visit FERC's Quick Comment Page for details on how to reach out. (Be sure to reference Project P-2290.)

2.     Engage with USFS: The United States Forest Service manages the Wild & Scenic stretches of the Kern River. Your input can help them understand public support for protecting and enhancing river flows. Contact the USFS Region 5 Public Affairs Office to share your thoughts.

3.     Reach Out to SCE: Southern California Edison needs to hear directly from the people who care about the Kern River. Let them know why you support the recreational flow proposal and how it benefits the community and the environment. Contact them at SCE Public Affairs or through their social media channels on Facebook and X.

4.     Write to Your Government Representatives: Your local and state representatives have the power to advocate on behalf of their constituents. Writing to them can elevate the issue on their agenda. Find your representatives at www.usa.gov/elected-officials and let them know why the North Fork Kern River matters to you.

5.     Spread the Word: Use your social media platforms to raise awareness about the issue. Share our proposal, our Change.org petition, our proposal flyer, and personal stories about the Kern River. Talk to your friends, family, and community about the Kern River and why it’s important to ensure its health and accessibility for recreation. Education and awareness are key to building a strong support base. The more people know about the cause, the stronger our collective voice becomes.

6.     Join Local Advocacy Groups: Consider joining or supporting organizations like Kern River Boaters or other conservation groups. These organizations often have a range of initiatives and activities aimed at protecting and enhancing the river.

7.     Participate in Public Meetings: FERC, SCE, and other regulatory bodies frequently hold public meetings or comment periods on issues affecting the Kern River. Attending these meetings or submitting comments can significantly impact the outcome.

Every action counts, and your involvement is crucial to securing a sustainable future for the Kern River. Together, we can advocate for a balanced approach that honors this natural treasure and ensures it can be enjoyed by all for generations to come.

KR3 "Single Flow" Survey

Edison is fighting to maintain business as usual on the Upper Kern. At present, the FERC record recognizes a KR3 “project effect” on boating only at flows of 700 cfs and above. When you add the 300 cfs “tunnel maintenance flow” to that figure, the result is that only flows over 1,000 cfs are addressable by a rec flow schedule — and as the right two columns above show, that’s only 18 additional days per year on average. No wonder Edison wants to keep things as they are.

KRB believes the project affects boating opportunities most of the year, not just a month or two. To that end, we are asking boaters to paddle the diverted reach (Fairview through Cables) at low flows over the next week or two and favorably fill out Edison’s “Single Flow” survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/KR3WWSingleflow.

We are mostly concerned with getting responses that the experience was of adequate or better quality on the various metrics (scroll right!) and that you would return to each segment at the current level. (We want it on record that we would return to each section down to 200-300 cfs (as reported at Fairview!) if it were the only thing running, because we would, given the project’s tendency to deny us boating for months on end in the shoulder seasons and for years on end when drought strikes.)

Here’s why this is important:

• The Upper Kern is Southern California’s only reliable river outside of the Lower, which typically runs only in Summer. If we want a place to boat on one or two weekends a month (or more, depending on the solar argument) from September through March, we have to show we would use it and that it is worth protecting.

• Almost half the time (years with low and moderate snowpack), the Upper Kern briefly peaks above 1,000 cfs for a few weeks — indeed, in the bottom 33% of years (see chart below) it reaches 1,000 cfs less than 10 days a year and never reaches that level in the bottom 20% of years. If you want something to boat in the lowest water years, and much more to boat in moderate years, including some shoulder season boating, we need to get FERC and the Forest to recognize that the project negatively impacts boating well below 700 cfs.

• The solar glut offers us a compelling argument to establish a bubble of flow almost year-round, but if we don’t establish that those flows are worthy of protection, that argument will be lost.

• The fact that Edison has pushed back so strongly against KRB’s initiative to unlock boating opportunities in the shoulder seasons and low snowpack years should tell you all you need to know.

• The only hope for decommissioning this project is through the imposition of license conditions that protect the social and natural environments. KRB’s membership is solidly behind the decommissioning of this project given its declining social utility and its devastating impact on our river.

Many of you have asked how you can contribute to KRB’s efforts in this relicensing process. This is how. Think of all the low water years and the beautiful offseason days that we have been denied the opportunity to paddle below Fairview Dam because of the KR3 diversion. The central question is simply would you come back to paddle at a given level. If you would come back on occassion during the offseason to reconnect with the river at lower flows and keep your skills up, or during the runoff season of low and moderate years when there is little else to boat, please answer, “Yes.” Otherwise it’s likely to be business as usual for the next 40 years.

John Gangemi, Past & Present

John Gangemi, of the consulting firm ERM, is the lead recreation consultant for Edison in its KR3 relicensing proceeding.

Gangemi used to work for American Whitewater. In fact, he signed the 2002 Settlement Agreement with Edison regarding whitewater flows on the Upper Kern on AW’s behalf — i.e., he is responsible for the awful whitewater release schedule we have now.

Gangemi misled our boating community about that settlement, saying the agreement “increase[d] the number of days for whitewater releases to 39.” In fact, as Edison conceded in 2014, the number of days when water would potentially be released from diversion was only 14. As an added impediment to flows on the Upper Kern, Gangemi agreed to a brand new “tunnel maintenance flow” that guarantees the first incoming 300 cfs to the project before any rec flows are released. Gangemi admitted he never saw the “study” that purported to justify that flow. (09DEC2020 TWG meeting. The study has since been “lost,” according to Edison.)

In the present KR3 proceeding, Edison has taken stances diametrically opposed to those Gangemi took while working at AW. As the lead recreation consultant who has defended Edison’s study proposals in public proceedings, one can reasonably surmise that Gangemi contributed to if not wrote Edison’s proposals in their entirety. Consider these instances:

• Edison’s REC-1 whitewater boating study plan contains the following objective: “Document potential conflicts of boating flows with other recreation users and identify strategies to mitigate those conflicts.” (Edison PSP REC-1 at 1.) But in 2002, Gangemi wrote, “Scheduled whitewater releases . . . are compatible with other recreational uses of the river as has been demonstrated in countless other relicense proceedings across the country. Angling use and whitewater recreation are compatible uses despite vociferous arguments to the contrary. No study in any relicense proceeding has demonstrated that flow fluctuations from whitewater releases decrease the catch rate on the same day of the release.” (FERC eLibrary No. 20021009-5038 at 10.) He also wrote that the “Flow needs of other recreational users should . . . not pollute the results of this [boating] study. Those different needs if they exist will need to be balanced in the license application. Adding them here would taint the results of this study . . . .” (FERC eLibrary No. 20021107-0115 at 54.)

• In opposition to KRB’s request for an on-water boating study, Edison wrote, “A controlled flow study below Fairview Dam would be limited to collecting data for a narrow range of flows, thus failing to meet the study objectives as described in Whittaker et al. (2005).” (Edison’s PSP at 23.) However, Gangemi co-authored the Whittaker guide, which flatly contradicts this “narrow range of flows” objection: Whittaker notes that only “[t]hree to four flows are commonly assessed in these [on-water] studies,” and then makes clear that these studies “work best when they are focused on discrete flow ranges where more precision is needed.” (Whittaker (2005) at 26-27), which is precisely what KRB has argued for: an on-water investigation into the most controversial levels of flow: 300 to 700 cfs.

• Edison also objected to an on-water study because of “the unpredictable snowpack and associated flows during the ILP study period. (Edison’s PSP at 24.) However, the Whittaker guide plainly states that “In some cases, the study may capitalize on natural flows instead of controlled flows.” (Whittaker at 26.) That guide also states that “Some rivers have extensive recreation use that is clearly flow-dependent and affected by project operations; here more intensive and detailed efforts are necessary.” (Whittaker at 8.)  

• In response to KRB’s contention that a vast number of boating days is lost due to project operations, Edison maintained: “the made statement above that, “..whitewater recreation is lost to project operations” is not factual, as the current Project flow regime represents the baseline condition considered for analysis in this relicensing not conditions that pre-date the Project before it was built.” But in 2003, Gangemi wrote: “Clearly, [Edison’s] network of diversions, canals and powerhouses has a cumulative effect on water quantity and flow dependent recreation.” (FERC eLibrary No. 20030829-5013 at 2.) Also: “The Borel Hydroelectric Project’s combination of diversion structure, canal and powerhouse significantly alters the instream flow in the eight-mile natural river channel below Isabella Reservoir.  Accordingly, this flow alteration limits downstream river recreational opportunities and in particular whitewater boating.” (FERC eLibrary No. 20040218-5036 at 4.)

• Edison has attempted to marginalize the 1994 on-water study for KR3 as “opportunistic” requiring “mobiliz[ation] on short notice” and lacking the “substantial improvement in whitewater study design and planning as evidenced in the Whittaker et al. (2005) publication.” (SCE RSP at 2.3.2.7.) But in the Borel proceeding, Gangemi specifically characterized the 1994 study as a “Controlled Flow Whitewater Stud[y like others that] have been undertaken in the relicensing of numerous FERC projects.” (FERC eLibrary No. 20030423-5019 at 11.) He further described it as “the preferred method for evaluating instream flows for whitewater recreation.” (FERC eLibrary No. 20030423-5019 at 10-11.)

• Regarding its preference for surveys over an on-water controlled flow boating study, Edison wrote: “The online flow comparison survey is not limited to the unpredictable snowpack and associated flows during the ILP study period. . . . The goal of the survey is to improve the precision for developing flow preference curves for a variety of watercraft types for the respective whitewater segments in the 16-mile Fairview Dam Bypass Reach.” (Edison’s PSP REC-1 at 6.) But during the Borel relicensing proceeding, Gangemi scoffed at the notion that surveys were sufficient: “the Licensee failed to conduct the appropriate [on-water] instream flow studies capable of identifying the minimum acceptable and optimum flows for flow dependent recreation including wading, swimming, tubing and whitewater boating. The Licensee elected instead to devote energy to surveying existing users in the Kern River on their preferred flows.  Surveys were conducted over the 2001 and 2002 summer seasons. The Licensees’ consultants provided summaries to the stakeholder group of survey results in 2001 and again in 2002. On both occasions, the stakeholder group pointed out significant errors in the data. In recognition of these errors, and the inability to correct them, the stakeholder group recommended at an October 2, 2002 meeting in Kernville that SCE undertake a controlled flow study as originally requested in comments on the FSCD by American Whitewater to identify minimum acceptable and optimum flows for flow dependent recreation.” (FERC eLibrary No. 20030829-5013 at 3.) He also wrote, “recreation surveys and SNF manifest data were not sufficient for analysis and developing whitewater PM&E’s for the Borel project. The conclusions contained in the Final License Application are based almost entirely on the flawed survey data and SNF manifest data.  Furthermore, it became apparent that stakeholders were unable to evaluate the adequacy of SCE’s proposed augmentation plan until a Whitewater Controlled Flow Study identifying the minimum acceptable and optimum flows was conducted.” (FERC eLibrary No. 20040218-5036 at 6.) And again: “The license application is deficient as a result of SCE’s insistence to apply survey methods rather than conduct the appropriate Whitewater Controlled Flow Study. SCE’s license application fails to present a defensible range of boatable flows supported by scientific study.” (FERC eLibrary No. 20040218-5036 at 7.) Gangemi said he “repeatedly directed SCE to conduct a Controlled Flow Whitewater Study as the recommended method for identifying minimum acceptable and optimum flows for whitewater recreation in the bypass.” (FERC eLibrary No. 20030423-5019 at 5.) Finally, Gangemi stated: “The controlled flow method enables the researcher to identify with significant accuracy the minimum acceptable and optimum flows for whitewater recreation. Although alternate methodologies have been used in other FERC proceedings none have proved as reliable and accurate as the controlled flow methodology.” (FERC eLibrary No. 20030423-5019 at 8.) An on-water study is “the most definitive method” for identifying minimal and optimal flows. (FERC eLibrary No. 20021107-0115 at 48.)

• Finally, Gangemi wrote during the Borel proceeding, “In the context of a relicense proceeding the stakeholders utilize [study] results for the respective forms of recreation to advocate their interest in flows. SCE’s proposal would fold this negotiation phase into the actual study thus compromising the integrity of the study. . . . I’d rather know that the study results represent objective data as opposed to negotiated results.” (FERC eLibrary No. 20021107-0115 at 47.) In the KR3 proceeding, Gangemi tried to turn the Level 2 focus group into a negotiation.

We could go on, but you get the picture: Gangemi is not some type of independent analyst or pro-boater social scientist, no matter how he tries to represent himself locally. Rather, he has been hired by Edison, is being paid with money earned from the KR3 diversion, and his carreer will fourish if he holds the line against substantially increased whitewater flows.

Edison and Its Local Allies' Fight Against Enjoyable Low Flow Boating

From the outset of the KR3 relicensing process, KRB has contended that project operations deny boaters a vast inventory of enjoyable boating days.

Consider the project’s impact on the river it dewaters. Edison will only concede that its project effects the three columns on the right below, and can only provide mitigation for the two furthest to the right. But what if boaters enjoy paddling at lower flows? The project’s effects (and Edison’s obligations) grow sharply as one looks to the left of those columns:

Edison and its local allies have fought the contention that its project effects boating below 700 cfs tooth and nail, for a simple reason: that contention unlocks double the potential rec release days if the tunnel maintenance flow (300 cfs) holds, and more than double that agin if it doesn’t. Such a vast inventory of days with an obvious “project effect” will not only allow us to limit the diversion and boat at times during the shoulder seasons and in dry-to-moderate years; it will also strengthen our ability to gain more rec releases at higher flows during the runoff season. We will always advocate for mitigation in the heart of the runoff over mere low-flow boating. But we need the record to reflect low flow effects in order to maximize moderate flow days. Edison is obviously defending business-as-usual (no effects under 700) because there’s an addressable project effect just 18 days a year. But boaters know the project’s effect on the dewatered river is much, much greater. Ten times greater.

On November 30, 2020, KRB President Liz Duxbury filed the following study request to Edison’s KR3 Recreation Technical Working Group (TWG) to investigate boating at flows below 700 cfs:

The present license only considers project effects on boating at flows over 700 cfs from April through July. The KRB request contended that the assumptions underlying that condition were outdated and failed to capture the project’s full effect on whitewater boating. Boating the NF Kern is enjoyable below 700 cfs and there are vastly more days when flows are below 700 cfs than above. The project’s effects on recreation, and its obligation to provide mitigation, is much, much greater than Edison proposes.

As KRB argued in its comments to FERC,

Three elements have conspired to increase public interest in boating at lower flows.

First is the influence of “creeking.” Creek boating began on creeks — low water, sufficiently steep and channelized tributaries — and its popularity has expanded to low water, sufficiently steep and channelized rivers. The PAD concedes that the makeup of “Segment 1” — the first 7-mile stretch below Fairview Dam, including the popular Fairview, Chamise, and upper Ant Canyon runs — is more channelized and sports a higher gradient than Segment 2, making it more suitable for low water runs.

Second, boat designs have changed dramatically since 1994. Boat ergonomics have increased boater comfort while increased rocker, progressive rocker, and neo-displacement hull designs have made boats and boaters more comfortable with tight maneuvers and wet boulder engagements — to the point such experiences are pleasant and challenging features of whitewater recreation.

Third, boater skills have changed. In 1994, the “boof” stroke had yet to be born of its parent the “ski jump.” The boof stroke enables boaters to keep the nose of the boat from submerging on steep drops. There are classes dedicated solely to teaching the boof stroke, and it is used to boater advantage on downspouts of water, wet boulder faces, or combinations of the two. (KRB PAD Comments at p. 58.)

KRB contended that boaters able to negotiate the dewatered reach of the NFKR generally enjoy flows starting around 200 cfs, and the more water from there, the better. Indeed, boater advocates in the last relicensing all argued for the provision of flows below 700 cfs. American Whitewater (pre-John Gangemi), Kern River Outfitters (Chuck Richards), Kern River Valley Council (Garry Valle & Katherine Edmondson), and even Sierra South (Tom Moore), all fought for flows down to 200 to 300 cfs.

It comes as no surprise that Edison would vigorously oppose KRB’s suggested line of inquiry. At the following Recreational TWG meeting, which took place on February 10, 2021, Edison pulled out the 1994 boating study, which underpins the present license, and asked the participants whether its conclusions were still valid. Curiously, this meeting included not only Tom and Evan Moore, who since the last relicensing had become close Edison allies (more on that in a later post), but also a bunch of their friends and present and former employees who had not attended a meeting before and did not attend another one, including: Bryan Batdorf, Jonathan Cizmar, Katherine Edmundson, James Sparks, Steve Merrow, and Tom Gelder. (See Edison PAD Appendix at .pdf pp. 27-29.)

All of these Sierra Southers agreed with Edison’s contention that the 1994 study remained accurate, even though as noted above creeking, the boof, and significant boat rocker had not yet been born. KRB’s Peter Wiechers eloquently maintained against this stacked house that flows down to 200 cfs were enjoyable and worthy of protection — something important is lost when the project denies the public these flows, especially when they are the only flows available in the shoulder seasons or in the runoff season of dry-to-moderate years to all of Southern California. Underlining Peter’s point, not six weeks later KRB saw a Sierra South guide and student enthusiastically preparing for their third lap on Chamise — they were having a great time on a sunny, late-winter day. The flow that day? 220 cfs. Much less than the 550 cfs Tom & Evan Moore and their friends had told the TWG group was needed to enjoy that run.

Many of you were at the December 01, 2021 American Whitewater “talk about the Kern” meeting. There, Tom and Evan pleaded against us requesting on-water studies that could establish that boating days are lost at flows below 700 cfs, even as Evan conceded we’d see him up river whenever flows were over 200 cfs. According to Tom and Evan, Edison had offered to secure permitting for a whitewater park if boaters did not request on-water flow studies to accurately capture project effects. Essentially, the Moores were asking the group to trade flows on the Upper Kern for permits. It wasn’t the first time: the Moores had approached KRB through Katherine Edmundson months earlier with the same proposed deal. And what a great deal for Edison! Business-as-usual in exchange for the price of the only studies that could upset the status quo.

No one at that meeting or in comments to FERC took the Moores up on Edison’s offer. Money can be raised to hire expert consultants and secure permits at any time. Indeed, the Moores stand to reap a financial windfall through increased playboat sales and playboating lessons should such a park get built; they are more than capable of spearheading a fundraising campaign and providing a sizable chunk of the necessary funds given what they stand to personally benefit.. By contrast, this relicensing proceeding is our community’s only chance to secure boatable flows from Fairview through Cables for the next 40 years. As Dennis Rushing wrote, “We have 20 miles of what is basically a whitewater park for river running.” (FERC No. 20220120-5104.) We need to put water in it for us and future generations.

Having failed to convince the Kern boating community to abandon an on-water flow study, Edison retreated to the defense of its consultant John Gangemi, formerly of American Whitewater, who is trying to hold the line at cheap flow surveys that are easily manipulable by Edison’s consultants and allies. KRB continues to believe the North Fork Kern is important enough to deserve the most accurate methodology for determining boatability: a Level 3 on-water study: “Some rivers have extensive recreation use that is clearly flow-dependent and affected by project operations; here more intensive and detailed efforts are necessary.” (At p. 9.) This is Southern California’s river, not just Kernville’s, and it is the key to expanding the boating community into the 25 million residents of the region. We will continue advocating for such a study — a mission made much more difficult with the opposition of Edison’s local allies.

Tom Moore expressing concern for Edison’s relicensing costs at the February 2021 TWG

Tom Moore protecting his interests in the Lickety over the 16-mile dewatered river at the February 2021 TWG. The “negative effect” is marginal and has not been a matter of community concern.

Our Concerns With American Whitewater and KR3

Visiting boaters to the Kern often wonder why American Whitewater has no organic connection with the local scene or boating community. There are extremely few continuing members down here. AW seemingly decamped from the Kern immediately after obtaining an awful settlement during the last KR3 relicensing proceeding — indeed, it took action by local boaters to enforce the terms of the settlement it had obtained; AW was asleep at the wheel.

KRB was somewhat surprised when AW expressed interest in the current KR3 proceeding, and asked its regional coordinator Jeff Venturino about it. Venturino explained that AW had not been involved until Tom Moore approached regional steward Theresa Simsiman about using the KR3 relicensing proceeding to get permitting for a whitewater park outside the reach of river affected by the KR3 diversion. Simsiman explained she had “limited bandwidth,” so she put Venturino on the case. Consider that agin: even though the Kern is second only to the American in terms of whitewater boating user days in the state Simsiman directs, and is the inarguably most important river to all of Southern California — a region more than twice as populated as her NorCal base — Simsiman did not have time.

KRB has additional concerns about AW’s representation of the local boating community beyond its failure to prioritize its resources on the North Fork Kern River, that river’s SoCal users, and its potential to sustain a vastly greater boating community if not for severe dewatering by the KR3 hydroproject. Consider:

• The current rec schedule on the Upper Kern is based on the calendar plus two tight windows for the “previous day’s average” flow. The previous day’s average flow is obtainable from USGS. Hence, anyone can calculate how many days of additional water should have been triggered by the schedule. In 2014, Edison calculated that number at 14 for the flow data set (1988-2000) used during relicensing. That number has fallen below 8 days per year under the inflows during the term of the amended license (2005-2023). Nevertheless, Simsiman maintained that these figures could not be calculated with USGS data, revealing her fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of this run-of-river hydroproject and the license governing it. That is concerning.

• American Whitewater sold its settlement to this community as providing an “increase [in] the number for whitewater releases to 39 days annually.” Of course, with storage based hydro, water is physically “released” from a reservoir. With run-of-river hydro, water is “released” from the diversion point. All boaters would expect a negotiated whitewater release to entail water in addition to that which would have been otherwise available. But as Edison conceded in 2014 (see email below), to get to “39” release days, one must count the days with more than 2,000 cfs incoming at Fairview Dam — even though there is no change in project operations, no additional water, no water being released from diversion. AW’s John Gangemi cynically included days where his negotiation made no difference to boaters in its sale of the KR3 settlement to the Kern boating community, thereby padding the days he “obtained” from 14 to 39. It is concerning to think that AW will once again, as Simsiman indicated above, take credit for natural events that would have occurred with no negotiation at all. Indeed, KRB has brought the “39” misrepresentation to the attention of Dave Steindorf, Simsiman, and Venturino on mutiple occassions since 2014 yet AW continues to tout that false figure to this day.

• American Whitewater conducted two meetings for the local boating community. The overwhelming majority of participants asked for three things: (1) an on-water flow study to replace the flawed and outdated 1994 study; (2) an independent engineering evaluation of the “tunnel maintenance flow,” which limits rec releases to a maximum of 300 cfs; and (3) a study on decommissioning. American Whitewater has failed to seriously pursue any of these three goals to date. It conceded early on to Edison’s opposition to an on-water study; it provided nothing more than a one-sentence assertion that an independent engineer examine the tunnel maintenance issue; and it failed to mount any argument for decommissioning, opting instead to simply report community interest in such. KRB has vigorously argued for each of these three community goals, and kept the potential of an on-water study alive. However, AW (and Sierra South) are making it extremely difficult to obtain; it is easy for FERC to ignore issues on which boating representatives appear unequally enthusiastic. We will be asking for the community’s support for an on-water study once again this fall. It can fairly be said that notwithstanding its limited engagement with the Kern boating community, AW has instead acted consistently with the Tom and Evan Moore strategy of trading new flows on the Upper for potential park permitting. That lack of true representation is concerning.

KRB is trying to prevent a repeat of the last KR3 proceeding where American Whitewater secretly entered into an awful settlement agreement with Edison to the exclusion of the local community, including an unprecedented “tunnel maintenance flow.” We will continue to speak plainly towards this goal and ask that others who care about the NF Kern do the same.

Brett's Comments at the August 02, 2023 KR3 Scoping Meeting

I’m Brett Duxbury. You all know me, but not everyone might. I’ve been a resident of Kernville for 16 years. I’m on the Board of Kern River Boaters and the Kern River Fly Fishing Council — both are California public benefit corporations with federal 501c3 status.

I won’t be making an argument for decommissioning like I did with KR3. I am not anti-all-hydro, just anti-pure-Run-of-River hydro, because the latter makes its power in spring, when demand is low and there’s a solar glut, and by late summer when our state needs all the energy it can get, its fuel — snowpack — has been spent.

Storage hydro on the other hand has positives for flood control, agriculture, time shifting energy to when its needed, and actually provides recreation rather than just taking it away all the time.

KR1 is a hybrid: it is Run-of-River, but it runs off storage — the Isabella reservoir — and so unlike KR3, KR1 helps with the steep net ramp and blackout potential in late summer. It also does not dewater a Wild & Scenic River.

The key with KR1 is to regulate it like you’re supposed to: in line with modern social values — not the values of Edison’s old-school hydro managers that tend to make their way through the agencies. If you make sure there remains plenty of water in the river for the public good, I will support this relicensing. Shocking, No?

GEOLOGICS:
I would like to comment on the project’s potential and continuing impacts on Highway 178 between here and Isabella, commonly called “The Canyon.”
The project conveys 1.5 million of pounds of water per minute hundreds of feet above 178.
In August 2013 the conveyance‚ including the emergency spillway, failed during a storm.
An Adit and the Forebay overflowed while Edison continued to pump water, adding fuel to the fire, so to speak. This caused two massive landslides across 178 and closed both lanes of the canyon for about two weeks.
The result of all this was that CalTrans sent Edison a bill for a half million dollars (and Edison wiggled out of it thanks to its political connections) and FERC increased the project’s hazard rating from “low” to “significant.”

I have two points to make about this.
First, a hazard rating of “significant” does not envision the potential for loss of a single life from a failure like this.
That is as out of touch with reality as FERC’s original judgement that the project posed a “low” hazard.
Cars drive fast on 178, and there’s lots of them. It is only by luck that those landslides didn’t kill anyone.
Edison admits it didn’t anticipate this failure, and there is no reason to think this or similar modes of failure can’t happen again.

Conveying millions of pounds of water above the unsuspecting public on a major highway is inherently dangerous to human life.
This project’s hazard rating should be increased to High in the public interest.

My second point concerns the continued closures of 178 from time to time. As we all know from this year’s long closure, that highway is key to linking the Kern River Valley with the outside world.
But it is all-too-frequently closed for shorter periods from smaller rockslides. Myself and others think most of those closures are near the sites of the two landslides Edison caused in 2013 — below Adit 17/18 and the Forebay.

We suspect the hillside stabilization Edison was ordered to undertake was not fully successful.
I ask that an independent engineer perform an analysis of CalTrans 178 closure and repair data.

If that shows a disproportionate number of closures below the Adit and Forebay, the engineer should re-evaluate the hillside for further stabilization measures, which you should then direct Edison to perform prior to issuing a new license.

AQUATICS: FISHERY
According to the rank and file of the Kern River Fly Fishers Club, there used to be bass in this section of river. Folks could pop up after work and enjoy a few hours of fishing.
That incredible resource is not gone. It seems the sediment management plan dreamed up by Edison’s consultants destroyed that fishery.
I understand the plan was approved by all the agencies, but just like FERC’s safety rating, agencies don’t always get things right, and sometimes make huge mistakes. We can’t afford another one here.
Make Edison haul their sediment away, provide radically increased minimum flows, and order Edison to reestablish a viable fishery.
And be skeptical of Edison objections purportedly based on the environment; Edison is adept at using those as a fig leaf to protect their take of water from the river, like they do with the Hatchery up at KR3.

RECREATION
It is 2023, right?
Flow information for every other river segment is available online — even at the Kern Canyon Project.
Why as a boater do I have to sit through a three-minute phone message that is barely intelligible to find the flow below Democrat dam? (Really, try it out when you have a chance: 760-537-6356.)
I have to do that because Edison never gives an inch more than its license demands. And it often finds a way to give less — look back into the portage and fish ladder issues at Fairview Dam.
We need instantaneous online flow information below Democrat dam to safely use the river. Please provide it.

LAND USE & AESTHETICS
The lower Kern has been incredible to look at this year.
That has not been the case the last three years or any time the project reduces the river to fish flow, which is usually a paltry 15 cfs while the project takes 400+.
At those times you see stagnant pools, lots of algae, and where there is moving water, it is narrow, slotted, slow, and hard to see through the road blast.
There was Facebook video last year of a low flying helicopter over fish flow and you could barely make out any patches of water — it looked more like a rock quarry than a river.
According to CalTrans, 2-3 million people drive the canyon one-way each year. Those people — and the day users — deserve something better to look at than a dead river.
I ask that you carefully study aesthetics — not with easily manipulated survey data but with a science-based controlled flow study — and then radically raise minimum flows to keep this looking like a healthy river all year long.
That would also improve water quality, the fishery, and day use recreation, but I know those are separate resource issues — See how they divide and conquer project effects to isolate them and make them look small?

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
I thought you were supposed to analyze for economic justice as well as environmental? This comment applies to both.
You will probably find the day users of this river disproportionately come from communities suffering economically and environmentally.
There are limited opportunities for quality outdoor recreation around here at the price of this river — about $10 for a family — and the river offers improved air quality and an opportunity to get away from a desert littered with industry and surrounded by big Ag to a better setting (when there’s water), if only for an afternoon.
It follows that the project’s effects on river aesthetics, water quality, and the fishery disproportionately affect these communities.
You should strive for a radically more equitable balance on flows between the public and the powerplant — Heck: make a mistake on the public’s side for a change instead of Edison’s.

Another Year, Another Failure of AW's Settlement to Provide Rec Releases for NF KERN Boaters

Above you see the sad truth. Boaters of the NF Kern will once again receive zero recreational flows from the settlement American Whitewater entered into with Edison, incorporated into the KR3 license mid-May 2004. (We know this because there are no eligible days left this year, and inflows at Fairview Dam never made it through the tight windows required for additional water.)

Even though 2023 is a big water year, Edison’s operations — pulling the first 600 cfs out of the river after fish flow — profoundly affect NF Kern boating opportunities. Several months of boatable days on each shoulder of this year’s massive runoff bubble will be lost, yet Edison pays no price — provides no mitigation — for its privilege to use these public waters for its private benefit. That makes six years of the last 11 with zero rec release days, and an average of just 7.4 days per year since the settlement went into effect — far less than the “39” promised by American Whitewater’s signatory to the settlement, John Gangemi. (See below.) More on that discrepancy in a future post.

Adding to boater frustration (apart from the fact the rec schedule has an unreasonably limited calendar of eligible days and requires extremely tight flow windows to trigger a potential release) is that the few unpredictable times we do get a rec release, we get very little additional water: just 1 to 300 cfs over the amount we would have had with no settlement at all. We think it obvious that AW got taken to the cleaners in the last relicensing proceeding. Gangemi’s willingness to enter into such an awful deal on the NF Kern and misrepresent its benefit to the local community — along with his close ties to his previous employer, American Whitewater — is likely why Edison hired him to represent the company in this proceeding.

KRB remains committed to represent this community according to the principles stated in its relicensing mission statement — and to make sure AW doesn’t secretly enter into such a deal with Edison once again.

Wind+Solar Curtailment and the KR3 Hydroproject

Summary: Due to the increased and increasing use of solar and wind power, which typically has to be consumed by the end user as soon as it is generated, California's grid already creates too much power during some times of the day. This is particularly true in the winter, spring, and fall months, when demand for power to cool homes is lower. During these times, California's solar and wind power generating resources are deliberately turned off to prevent overloading the grid. Yet inexplicably, KR3 remains online generating unnecessary and unneeded power. This post explains why KR3 should be taken offline during the hours of 10am and 5pm from February to June and September to November. During these periods of vast excess power generation from other sources, the highest and best use of the Wild and Scenic North Fork Kern is not power generation — there is too much of that already — but natural flows for recreational use and environmental protection.

The deployment of renewables in California has been incredibly successful to this point on our state’s path to a green grid. However, it has brought along an unanticipated consequence: the threat of over-generation — that is, generating more power than the grid can handle. All power must serve a load, and system operator CAISO works tirelessly to equalize supply with demand. Balance has become more difficult with the deployment of renewables like wind and solar, which increasingly threaten to swamp the grid with too much energy production during daylight hours, leaving supply well above the levels of demand. That’s the risk of over-generation.

CAISO’s main strategy to prevent over-generation and balance supply with demand is called “curtailment,” which does what it says: curtail (lessen) the amount of generation by modern solar and wind generators whenever the grid is threatened. We’ll let CAISO speak for itself on the matter:

“Curtailment is the reduction of output of a renewable resource below what it could have otherwise produced. . . . Curtailing renewables results in lost opportunities for clean resources to generate all of the carbon-free power that otherwise could be produced. . . . Curtailing renewables is counterintuitive to California’s environmental and economic goals. It reduces the output from the renewable plants in which the state has invested, and could result in overbuilding renewable plants to ensure that the state meets its 50-percent renewable mandate

So curtailment as a strategy, while effective in keeping the grid safe, is not a desirable public policy. One of CAISO’s strategies to reduce the need for curtailment is to “reduce minimum operating levels for existing generators, thus making room for more renewable production.” In other words, reduce production to make room for wind and solar, keeping those more modern and rational generators online and profitable, so more will be built. That’s where the KR3 hydroproject should come in.

KR3 is a contributing cause to curtailment. Whenever over-generation is threatened, KR3’s production of electricity only adds to that threat, and causes modern generators like wind and solar to be sidelined to ensure that supply and demand balance out. The times when over-generation are threatened are ripe for reducing the output of KR3, “thus making room for more renewable production,” in the words of CAISO.

When are these times? According to the data, significant curtailment generally prevails any time between 9am and 7pm. But it massively prevails between 10am and 5pm. This chart depicts the average daily curtailment for each hour in 2022:

Note we have included for reference the theoretical maximum rate of production at KR3: 36.8 kW. KR3 almost never achieves that rate as the availability of sufficient “fuel” — 600 cfs of diverted river water — is contingent and unpredictable. Indeed, as the following chart shows, KR3 routinely generates at a small fraction of that rate. KR3 generates at its highest rates in spring, when demand is low and curtailments are high. And in all but the wettest of years, KR3 is nowhere to be found during late summer and early fall, when demand is high and the potential for “loss of load” (blackouts) is acute:

Back to the issue of curtailment, it is important to note the phenomenon’s seasonal component in addition to its hourly nature. In winter and especially in spring, demand is relatively low, forcing widespread curtailment of wind and solar assets. The following graph depicts average daily curtailments, by hour and by quarter, for the year 2022. Note how the figures begin to dwarf the KR3 reference line. Indeed, each horizontal axis line represents a ten-fold increase above the theoretical maximum power that KR3 is capable of producing:

Combining those two aspects of curtailment — hour of the day and time of year — is revelatory. The following chart depicts CAISO curtailments in 2022 between the hours of 10am and 5pm for each month of the year:

That chart shows the energy produced by KR3 is simply not needed during the hours of 10am and 5pm in February, March, April and May. Those curtailments occur at a scales of twenty to sixty times the maximum amount of power KR3 is theoretically able to produce.

But KR3 rarely gets close to producing that maximum. The contingencies of a fluctuating annual snowpack, unpredictable weather patterns, and the need for maintenance outages all conspire to limit KR3’s production to an average rate over the last 22 years of available data of just 12.0 MW:

Let’s compare the average monthly rates of production for KR3 against the massive quantities of curtailment imposed between the hours of 10am and 5pm in 2022. We’ll start with January. You can see that curtailments between 10am and 4pm (one hour short of 5pm) are more than 20 times greater than KR3’s average (9.4 MW) for that month. Again, the horizontal scale lines represent ten-fold multiples of KR3’s monthly average rate of production:

In February, renewable curtailments skyrocket, while KR3 eeks out a little more power (12.7 MW rate). Curtailments during the relevant hours that month were more than sixty to one hundred times larger than KR3’s production:

Even as KR3 increased its rate to 15.4 MW in March, curtailments again went higher, sidelining wind and solar in amounts seventy to one hundred forty times larger than KR3’s rate of output:

We’ll play out the string from here to round out the rest of 2022:

The following chart summarizes preceding charts with both the minimum and maximum multiples of renewable curtailments between 10am and 5pm by month against the KR3 average rate:

We believe these figures show that the energy KR3 produces during the hours of 10am and 5pm is not useful to society from February to June and September to November. It makes no sense to dewater the Wild and Scenic North Fork Kern during those hours when at least 25 times (and most often much, much more) the generating power of KR3 is sitting on the sidelines. And don’t forget, according to CAISO the scale of curtailments is expected to increase over the years as more and more wind and solar come online.

NF Kern River Conditions, June 15, 2023

Thanks to relatively cool June temperatures, recent flow conditions on the North Fork Kern have been entirely consistent with those we experienced in the last three large snowpack years: 2011, 2017 & 2019. There was nothing extraordinary about river flows on June 15, 2023. The chart above was created with USGS flow data.

Noncommercial whitewater boaters are extremely sensitive to river conditions when choosing what sections of river to run, if any, given river conditions and their personal skill levels. We’ve had a fantastic safety record over the decades, but accidents can always happen — in high water years or low. 

KR3 SURVEYS, PART TWO

At present, the FERC record as settled by AW in 2002 shows 700 cfs to be the minimum acceptable flow for kayaks and 1,400 cfs for rafts on the NF Kern. We believe these numbers are wildly inflated in Edison’s advantage, as it uses them to argue that its project does not negatively affect whitewater boating when inflows drop below those figures — i.e., most of the time. We know that’s false: flows of 350 to 500 are glorious, and remain enjoyable much, much lower; even the young hotshots come out and boat at 200 when the project goes offline. Now, no one is arguing that paddling at these acceptably low to low-moderate levels is preferable to higher flows, and KRB has gone on record repeatedly in this proceeding to make that point. However, to capture the full cost of the project to our community — and to offer the hope that Southern Californians have a place to boat in the shoulder seasons and in low water years — these lower flows need to be deemed minimally acceptable to FERC. Otherwise, Edison will be let off the hook again and days like those in this film will be lost for the next 40 years:

The bottom line is there’s a lot at stake when it comes to setting the minimum acceptable flow for our river. Please be sure about “how low you can go” when answering survey questions — or simply note that you are unsure and/or would like the chance to boat at lower flows before answering. Note finally, Edison will argue that Rec flows should only occur when the entire river is usable. So as a practical matter, only the river segment for which you give your highest “minimum acceptable flow” answer would count. We do not want to see these valuable flows — which are critical for shoulder seasons and lower water years in particular — left off the table before we get started.