Opinion ID: 4553633
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Hydroelectric dams shape river flows

Text: Avista Corporation operates five hydroelectric projects located on the Spokane River in northern Idaho and eastern Washington. The uppermost project on the river, the Post Falls development, consists of three dams on three channels with natural islands connecting the structures. The development impounds nine miles of the Spokane River to the outlet of Coeur d’Alene Lake. 1 The “challengers” of Ecology’s rule include the Center for Environmental Law and Policy, the Sierra Club, and American Whitewater. 2 No. 97684-8 Avista uses its Post Falls facility to regulate flows in the Spokane River for six months a year starting in summer, after spring runoff flows have peaked and subsided. Avista regulates river flows in accordance with minimum flow requirements in its federal license, which incorporates other considerations of lake level; downstream flow considerations; energy demands; flood control; and upstream recreational, residential, and commercial interests. Throughout the summer recreation season, Coeur d’Alene Lake is maintained at a higher level, but after Labor Day, Avista begins to release stored water at Post Falls, resulting in a gradual drawdown in lake levels. The timing of the drawdown varies annually based on flow conditions, weather forecasts, and energy demands. Avista, as a condition of its federal license to operate its projects, is required to implement measures to protect and enhance fish, wildlife, water quality, recreation, cultural, and aesthetic resources at the project. The license requires Avista to operate the Monroe Street and Upper Falls dams to provide minimum flows of 850 cfs from June 16 to September 30 each year. The flows are intended to enhance aquatic habitat for rainbow trout and mountain whitefish in the Spokane River. Avista’s federal license also requires Avista to release flows from Post Falls dam ranging from 3,300 cfs to 5,500 cfs for whitewater boating. Flows that serve the recreational community occur every year on the Spokane River, but the timing and duration of those recreational flows varies. To change the actual flow in the river to better suit a particular recreational use would require seeking changes in Avista’s license because it has control over water storage and releases as provided in its federal license. Ecology’s rule WAC 173-557-050 3 No. 97684-8 does not require control or release of water from storage. An instream flow rule does establish regulatory flows with a priority date as to other water rights, meaning new uses are subject to the prior established instream flow rules. 2 WAC 173-557-050 does not put water in the river or affect existing water rights. Ecology personnel gave a presentation at the public hearing for the proposed instream minimum flow rule in Spokane in October 2014, explaining that Avista’s federal license controls minimum releases to the river and that Ecology’s instream flow rule addresses only new junior water uses and when they are interruptible to protect the instream flow. The presentation also noted that Ecology’s minimum instream flow rule does not change the hydrograph. 3 C. Ecology sets minimum river flows via rule making Ecology began working with watershed planning groups in 1998 to develop instream flow protection for the Spokane River. The planning unit failed to reach consensus on instream flow levels during its planning process. Because no consensus could be reached, Ecology chose to use science-based fish studies as a baseline to develop the instream flow rule. 4 2 See, e.g., RCW 90.03.247(1) (providing in part, “Whenever an application for a permit to make beneficial use of public waters is approved relating to a stream or other water body for which minimum flows or levels have been adopted and are in effect at the time of approval, the permit shall be conditioned to: (a) [p]rotect the levels or flows; or (b) require water resource mitigation of impacts to instream flows”). 3 See Admin. Record (AR) at 2809; see also AR at 3006, 3016 (Ecology’s CONCISE EXPLANATORY STATEMENT (2015) (noting that the instream flow rule does not control the hydrograph of the river and that river flow is controlled by dam discharges as regulated under Avista’s license issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission)). 4 If a watershed planning unit (local stakeholders) reaches consensus on instream flows during the watershed planning process, then Ecology must adopt those flows by rule. See RCW 90.82.080(1)(b). If a planning unit does not reach consensus on flows, as occurred here, then 4 No. 97684-8 Ecology formally commenced rule making in January 2014. Using a deliberative process, Ecology ultimately set summer minimum flows at 850 cfs by relying on sciencebased fish studies that protected fish as a baseline and that also served to protect other instream values, including recreation, navigation, and aesthetics. In 2012, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife instream flow biologist Dr. Hal Beecher wrote his flow recommendations for the Spokane River, which Ecology ultimately adopted. In his summary, Dr. Beecher wrote that the recommended minimum instream flow for the Spokane River is 850 cfs from June 16 to September 30. Dr. Beecher notes that “[i]nstream flows should address what the river needs to preserve its values and resources and ecological functions.” Admin. Record (AR) at 3831. He notes how flows were developed in cooperation with Ecology with an emphasis on fish and based on the results of four scientific studies: In developing instream flow recommendations for the lower Spokane River, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife . . ., in cooperation with Department of Ecology (Ecology), has emphasized rainbow trout and mountain whitefish. . . . Results of several studies (EES Consulting 2007, NHC and HD 2004, Parametrix 2003a,b, Addley and Peterson 2011) provide information on trout and whitefish habitat at different flows and different seasons in the lower Spokane River. AR at 3832. 5 Based on these studies, Dr. Beecher ultimately concluded that “a flow of 850 cfs should be protected.” AR at 3834; see also AR at 7753 (Beecher Ecology may initiate rule making under the Administrative Procedure Act, ch. 34.05 RCW, to adopt flows. See RCW 90.82.080(1)(c). 5 The noted studies are found in the AR at 3842, 3883, 4157, and 3981, respectively. 5 No. 97684-8 recommendation of 850 cfs flow rate at Spokane gage for June 16 to September 30 period); see also AR at 3831 (Beecher summary stating the same recommendation). During the rule adoption period, Ecology received many comments regarding its decision to set summer flows at 850 cfs. Ecology responded: Ecology does not agree that the instream flow levels adopted in this rule are too low to protect instream resources in the Spokane River. Ecology believes the instream flows in this rule, based as they are on four independent fish studies, are science-based. The flows have been vetted by top scientists, staff, and management of all concerned state agencies. The instream flows have been reviewed and analyzed by all local Water Resource Inventory Area Watershed planning groups. Since these flows were first proposed to the planning unit, no entity has emerged with scientific information to indicate these flows are not appropriate. It is our opinion these flows are the best flows available to protect the instream resources of the Spokane River. They are flows necessary for stream health, ecological function, and preservation of other instream resources including scenic, aesthetic, and navigational values. AR at 3031 (emphasis added). Ecology also responded to concerns about recreation, aesthetics, and navigational values, noting that it considered these issues at multiple stages throughout the rule making process and that the subjects were addressed in detail during Avista’s Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing process for their hydroelectric facilities. The subject of recreational, aesthetic, and navigational flows was also addressed during the watershed planning process and during the comment period on preliminary drafts of the minimum instream flow rate rule. Ecology noted that it had reviewed the whitewater paddling study conducted during Avista’s relicensing process; listened to many river users; and reviewed anecdotal observations, opinions, and photos submitted 6 No. 97684-8 by whitewater enthusiasts and others. Ecology then explained in detail why it chose not to set flows based on recreational needs and why not setting flows based on those needs is not the same as not considering them: They [(recreational flows)] were considered by the department and rejected as the primary basis for establishing instream flows. Ecology chose to use science-based fish studies to develop the instream flow values for the rule when the Watershed Planning unit failed to reach consensus about instream flow values . . . . While [the flows] are based on fish habitat studies, the instream flow levels established in [the] rule will preserve wildlife, scenic, aesthetic, and other environmental values in the Spokane River, in accordance with RCW 90.54.020. AR at 2985. Ecology specifically responded to comments and concerns regarding recreation noting that “[f]lows that serve the recreational community occur every year in the Spokane River.” AR at 3009. 6 The agency also addressed and responded to comments on aesthetics and climate change. Following the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), ch. 34.05 RCW, rule making process, Ecology adopted WAC 173-557-050 on January 27, 2015, and the rule became effective on February 27, 2015. On February 29, 2016, challengers petitioned Ecology to amend the rule pursuant to RCW 34.05.330, 7 asserting that the summer flows were set too low. On April 27, 2016, Ecology denied challengers’ petition. 6 Ecology considered in detail the Berger 2004 whitewater boating study, how the whitewater community utilizes the Spokane River, and that such community’s members express a significant range of needs and desires. See AR at 3031-33. 7 RCW 34.05.330(1) provides that “[a]ny person may petition an agency requesting the adoption, amendment, or repeal of any rule.” 7 No. 97684-8 D. The present lawsuit In May 2016, challengers brought suit against Ecology in Thurston County Superior Court under the APA, challenging the validity of the summer minimum instream flow rate and arguing that setting minimum flows at 850 cfs exceeded Ecology’s authority and was arbitrary and capricious. Challengers also argued that in adopting the rule, Ecology had failed to fulfill its responsibilities under the public trust doctrine, and they moved to supplement the record. Ctr. for Envtl. Law & Policy v. Dep’t of Ecology, 9 Wn. App. 2d 746, 757, 444 P.3d 622 (2019). The superior court denied challengers’ motion to supplement and ultimately denied the petition challenging the validity of Ecology’s rule. Id. Challengers sought direct review at this court, but the matter was transferred to Division Two of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s rejection of the motion to supplement the record and also rejected challenger’s public trust doctrine argument. Id. at 769-74. But the Court of Appeals held the rule was invalid, agreeing with challengers that Ecology’s action exceeded its authority and was arbitrary and capricious. Id. at 751. Ecology petitioned for review concerning the exceeded authority and arbitrary and capricious issues. In the challengers’ answer, they asked this court to consider the record supplementation issue. This court granted Ecology’s petition and denied review of the issue raised in the challengers’ answer. 194 Wn.2d 1016 (2020). 8 No. 97684-8