KRB USR SUPPORTING SPREADSHEETS

KRB is hosting the spreadsheets supporting its USR response at the following Microsoft website in both native (Numbers.app) and exported (MS Excel) formats for widespread compatibility.

The files were created and exported on MacOS and were only handled by one KRB director. We are accordingly confident they are virus/script/malware-free. Please allow a few days after December 10 for the Excel files to appear, as they take a good deal of time to export, and alert us to any mistakes we have made or any questions you have!

https://1drv.ms/f/s!AtNy_PaCOOfiie0MZf1Miy75b5scEQ?e=zWrdVm

KRB DLA Supporting Spreadsheets

KRB is hosting the spreadsheets supporting its DLA response at the following Microsoft website in both native (Numbers.app) and exported (MS Excel) formats for widespread compatibility.

The files were created and exported on MacOS and were only handled by one KRB director. We are accordingly confident they are virus/script/malware-free. Please alert us to any mistakes we have made or any questions you have!

https://1drv.ms/f/s!AtNy_PaCOOfiiewb-HWXQZNcUAALmw?e=AMTNTl

KR3 Survey Guide

Edison has published yet another boater survey pursuant to its attempt to relicense KR3 for the next 40 years. Here’s our TL/DR take on it: (1) Mark the lowest flow you would boat on the best low flow segment (and all higher flows you like) as “5/totally acceptable,” (2) leave flows you don’t know or have questions about blank, and (3) provide the same answers for each river segment.

Our more detailed explanation:

1. The rating scale for each river segment — 1/totally unacceptable, 2/somewhat unacceptable, 3/marginal, 4/somewhat acceptable, and 5/totally acceptable — is nonsensical. If the judgment is that a segment “somewhat unacceptable,” doesn’t that necessarily imply that the segment is also somewhat acceptable? And vice-versa.

2. The rating scale is vague and subject to misuse. The point of this effort is to resolve the question of what flows are minimally acceptable and optimal. At no point does the rating scale use those terms. Although one might infer that a somewhat acceptable or even marginal flow is minimally acceptable, each can imply there to be short-of-acceptable — i.e., unacceptable — elements in that flow, excluding it as a minimally acceptable flow.

3. Determining flow preferences by segment is nonsensical and can only lead to a reduction in boating days. Edison cannot supply different flow levels to different river segments. The question for each boater should instead be, “at what flow would you return to boat the dewatered reach?” Every such day lost to the project diversion should be accounted for. Answering the survey in the manner we suggest accomplishes that goal.

4. Edison has been vigorously trying to hold the line set during the last proceeding that the project has no effect on boating at flows below 700 cfs. That line allows Edison to argue — as it does in its draft license application — that “the limitation of whitewater boating opportunities . . . is due to the lack of snowpack in the watershed, not Project operations diverting water from the Fairview Dam Bypass Reach.” Holding Edison accountable for days lost in the 300-700 cfs range will knock its argument out of the water and set the stage for real mitigation like we seek in our recreational flows proposal (which is focused on the big-water months of April, May, and June).

5. Edison will argue that KR3 only effects boating when the highest-flow river segment is affected — i.e., unless the whole river would be runnable, the diversion has no effect; flows are only valuable if the whole river can be run. We believe that is false — boaters routinely spend their days lapping a segment or two or three of the Upper Kern; if the project diversion denies us that, it has denied us a boating day.

Note on the minimum acceptable flow box: Enter the very lowest figure you know you would paddle (for example, in a dry year); if you don’t personally know, we can affirm from experience, including the “enhanced flow study” conducted a few weeks ago, that 250 is fun and fine on Fairview and Chamise, affording Class 2 to Class 3+/4- boating.

Note on the optimal flow box: Optimal flows will end up above minimally acceptable flows, and we will use that evidence to further justify our proposal. In the last proceeding, they were deemed to start at 1,000 cfs for kayaks and 1,200 cfs for rafts. It is an oddity that Edison has not allowed us to provide a range of optimal flows like they did in the initial boater survey; optimal flows are usually expressed with a range, not a single figure. For that reason we would caution you to respond with your lowest “optimal flow” figure.

We also firmly believe that boaters are adaptable: if there’s water, we’ll find a way to boat it; just get us the water. For that reason, we think boaters should check all boxes relating to preferences for day of week and season. Edison will seize on any large preferences in one area to deny flows in others.

Draft DLA

On the "Fluctuation"

One of Edison’s central tactics in the current KR3 relicensing proceeding is to argue, “We can’t provide a bubble of rec flows in the 16-mile dewatered reach below Fairview Dam because it would decrease flows in the 2-mile Lickety section.” Edison ally Tom Moore volunteered as much during an early technical working group:

It is obviously true that because water travels faster in the KR3 tunnels than in the river, changes in the diversion will alter flows in the Lickety. Specifically, when the diversion decreases, flows in the Lickety temporarily decrease, and when the diversion increases, flows in the Lickety temporarily increase. That is the “fluctuation” that results from diversion changes.

Although no one recalls folks complaining about the fluctuation prior to the KR3 relicensing proceeding, or suggesting we shouldn’t have rec flows in the dewatered reach because of it, KRB’s recreational flows proposal takes strict account of that phenomenon and mitigates it. The data shows that within four hours of the peak diversion change, flow conditions are restored at Riverside Park — and by implication within less than four hours upstream at the KR3 powerhouse put in.

The following graphs reflect four recent recreational flow days under the current regime. The maximum change in diversion at Fairview after ramping is shown to occur each day at 10 a.m. That is when the license requires the additional flows to be in the river below Fairview Dam. (Minor increases after that are due to diurnal changes in natural inflow — not changes in diversion.) The data also shows that flows reach their nadir at Riverside Park about two hours later, and they are restored to pre-fluctuation levels two hours after that, for a total of four hours.

Unlike the current regime, KRB’s recreational flows proposal requires the maximum change in diversion to occur at 6 a.m. That means flows would begin being restored at Riverside Park by 8 a.m. and would be fully restored by 10 a.m. Flows at the KR3 put in would of course be restored a bit sooner. In sum, we do not believe this fluctuation to be a serious argument against recreational flows in the dewatered reach. KRB will continue to fight the idea that the fluctuation precludes the provision of recreational flows at times of solar glut when the water is far more valuable to society in the river below Fairview Dam instead of in Edison’s tunnels.

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, 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.