KR3 THREATENS THE HEALTH OF RIVER USERS

KR3’s diversion of water from the river increases concentrations of fecal coliform and arsenic below Fairview Dam

ISSUE: After allowing for fish flows, KR3 takes the next 600 cfs out of the river at Fairview Dam, dewatering 16 miles of river below. Water quality testing shows unhealthy levels of fecal coliform and arsenic in the dewatered stretch.

OUR TAKE: More water should be left in the river to dilute the fecal coliform and arsenic below the dam, thereby lowering the concentrations of these harmful substances and increasing water quality for the riverine ecosystem and its human users.

DETAILS:

  • Edison concedes that harmful concentrations of coliform bacteria and arsenic exist in the 16 mile dewatered stretch of the North Fork Kern.

  • The US Forest Service, the National Parks Service, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife all concur that the levels of fecal coliform measured are “an environmental concern.”

  • The California State Water Resources Control Board has concluded that “increased fecal coliform levels and potential solutions to the problem were flow-related.”

  • FERC and USFS have concluded that “Flows in the bypassed reach can influence bacteria counts through dilution.”

OUR PROPOSAL: Conduct a study to determine the degree to which increased flows can reduce concentrations of coliform bacteria and arsenic.

EDISON’S RESPONSE: Edison has refused to study arsenic, and proposes an incomplete study on fecal coliform that only tests at existing flow levels.

HOW TO HELP: Tell FERC, USFS, and SWRCB (click the links for instructions),

  1. Who you are;

  2. How much you care about the North Fork Kern;

  3. That you are concerned about unhealthy levels of arsenic and fecal coliform in the river that result from KR3 removing water from the river;

  4. That you want these issues studied in the KR3 relicensing proceeding; and

  5. You support KRB’s Water Quality Study Proposal.

GO DEEPER: Read (1) KRB’s “Water Quality” Study Proposal and (2) KRB’s comments on Edison’s proposal.