In this story from today’s LA Times, we read about the ruling that, while favoring salmon and recreation, may also spur the construction of new dams to supply the water lost.
Here is an excerpt.
Ruling Favors Rivers Over Power Dams
The Supreme Court says states may protect the waterways by requiring a steady flow at hydroelectric plants, which tend to harness it.
By David G. SavageTimes Staff WriterMay 16, 2006
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court sided with the environment over electric power Monday, ruling that state regulators may require a steady flow of water over power dams to benefit fish and kayakers. The unanimous decision holds that states may protect the health of their rivers, even though hydroelectric dams are regulated exclusively by the federal government.
The dispute arose over five small dams on the Presumpscot River in Maine, but the court's decision affects an estimated 1,500 power dams in 45 states. They include scores of dams on the Sacramento, Klamath and San Joaquin rivers in California.
Separately, the court agreed to take up an appeal from environmentalists who are seeking to enforce stricter clean-air rules against aging coal power plants. The justices said they would hear the clean-air case in the fall.
The ruling on rivers and dams resolved a clear conflict in the law. The Federal Power Act says hydro-power dams are to be regulated by federal authorities with the aim of producing electricity. But the Clean Water Act says those who "discharge" anything into a state's navigable waters must obtain a permit from the state.
Until recently, state officials believed they were entitled to protect their rivers by regulating the flow of water over and through dams.
But last year, the privately owned SD Warren Co., which produces hydroelectric power in Maine, won the Supreme Court's review of its argument that water flowing in and out of a dam is not a discharge. Had the company prevailed, states would have lost their legal authority to protect their rivers and ensure a steady flow of water. Not surprisingly, officials of the power plants said that during dry seasons, they were more interested in holding back water so they could be assured of a steady flow over their generators to maintain power production.
In its opinion, the Supreme Court looked to the dictionary to decide the meaning of the word "discharge."
"When it applies to water, 'discharge' commonly means a 'flowing or issuing out,' " said Justice David H. Souter, citing Webster's New International Dictionary. Other judges and regulators have agreed with "our understanding of the everyday sense of term," he added.
Therefore, since water flowing over a dam is discharged back into the river, a state may regulate the operation of the dam, the court concluded in SD Warren Co. vs. Maine.
