<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18999">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>
<P><FONT size=5><SPAN class=Story_Headline>TPUD may possibly help county with
resources position </SPAN><SPAN class="text nextedition"></SPAN></FONT></P>
<DIV class="field field-type-text field-field-oht-author">
<DIV class=field-items>
<DIV class="field-item odd">BY AMY GITTELSOHN THE TRINITY JOURNAL
</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<P><A
href="http://www.trinityjournal.com/news/2010-12-15/Front_Page/TPUD_may_possibly_help_county_with_resources_posit.html">http://www.trinityjournal.com/news/2010-12-15/Front_Page/TPUD_may_possibly_help_county_with_resources_posit.html</A></P>
<P>The Trinity Public Utilities District Board is suggesting a joint approach to
Trinity County’s efforts to get up to speed on natural resources issues.</P>
<P>The TPUD has a stake in some of the decisions the county may consider —
particularly pertaining to positions on water. So when county supervisors heard
a proposal for a part-time natural resources position to help the board keep
abreast of natural resources issues, it drew the attention of TPUD
officials.</P>
<P>County supervisors had found themselves out of the loop on certain forestry
and water matters after what had been a fully staffed natural resources division
was reduced to zero staff. In October, County Administrative Officer Dero
Forslund proposed to supervisors that a half-time position be funded to do
research and policy development on current natural resources issues.</P>
<P>Forslund was to come back with a more detailed plan and funding
possibilities, but the idea is on a backburner at the moment due to the county
grants department financial problems.</P>
<P>Still, the proposal was of high interest at Thursday’s TPUD meeting.</P>
<P>Of immediate concern to the TPUD board is the county’s position — as yet
undetermined — on the release sought by Humboldt County of an additional 50,000
acre-feet of water to the Trinity River.</P>
<P>Release of the water from Trinity Lake was promised as part of the 1955
Trinity River Act. However, the federal Bureau of Reclamation has long contended
that the 50,000 acre-feet is included within the amount already sent downstream
for fisher- ies. With a new federal administration in place, the Hoopa and Yurok
tribes have joined Humboldt in pressing the claim that the water to be released
for “Humboldt County and downstream users,” as the act states, is separate.</P>
<P>Reclamation is now re-evaluating that position and has no deadline for when
the decision will be announced.</P>
<P>The TPUD is not supportive of this effort to release more water to the river.
Water down the river does not generate as much hydroelectricity as water
diverted via the Clear Creek Tunnel and sent south. While the water to the river
does go through the Trinity Powerplant and the very small Lewiston plant, water
diverted through the tunnel goes through not only the Trinity plant but also two
plants with a higher capacity than Trinity’s — Judge Francis Carr plant at the
outlet of the tunnel and Spring Creek plant entering Keswick Reservoir.</P>
<P>All four plants are included in the Central Valley Project’s Trinity River
Division, and under the Trinity River Act, Trinity County residents are entitled
to 25 percent of energy produced at the plants, at cost.</P>
<P>“The allocation will raise and lower depending on the generation that takes
place,” TPUD Director Dick Morris noted.</P>
<P>Currently, Trinity County residents use less than 30 percent of their
allocation as customers of the TPUD — but TPUD officials want to preserve the
availability of power for the county’s future needs.</P>
<P>The energy allocation is the only economic gain to Trinity County from
construction of the Trinity River Division, Morris said.</P>
<P>“I hate to see it undermined and diminished,” he added.</P>
<P>A more immediate concern is that lower power production increases the cost of
electricity to the federal Western Area Power Administration — a cost which is
passed on to the TPUD.</P>
<P>Still other Western customers who don’t get Trinity’s “first preference”
energy pricing could opt out of buying Trinity hydro power if it gets more
expensive than market, Morris said, meaning less buyers to support the agency’s
costs.</P>
<P>“Those costs may end up being borne by the people of Trinity County,” Morris
noted.</P>
<P>The TPUD generally has thought of water issues as the prerogative the county
and electricity that of the TPUD, Morris said.</P>
<P>But he noted that the district’s two main goals are to have the lowest
electricity rates in the state and preserve Trinity’s energy allocation.</P>
<P>“To achieve our goals I think we have to get involved,” he said.</P>
<P>Director Richard Stiliha agreed, saying there is a need to let the public
know, “it’s not just water down the river.”</P>
<P>TPUD General Manager Rick Coleman said he believes the 50,000 acrefeet
decision is “fait accompli” — “and it’s going to probably go to court.”</P>
<P>But he noted that the natural resources position is not just about water.</P>
<P>“It’s also timber,” Coleman said, adding that a co-generation plant is needed
here to help reduce forest fuels.</P>
<P>The board wound up voting unanimously to send a letter to county supervisors
offering help and participation on these issues because of potential impacts to
TPUD customers. Further, a meeting of representatives from the TPUD and Board of
Supervisors is proposed in the letter if the supervisors are open to discussions
and exploring joint action agency options for the
position.</P></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>