Yakima County wants dam benefit, too

Commissioner writes letter to FERC asking for piece of Priest Rapids relicensing

GRANT COUNTY — Yakima County Commissioners say that during the last 50 years that the Grant County Public Utility District has operated Priest Rapids Dam they received zero benefit. Now, they want what they believe to be their fair share.

Yakima County Commissioner Jesse S. Palacios wrote a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on May 26 this year, asking that its members consider the needs of people in Yakima County before issuing a new license to the PUD for the Priest Rapids Hydroelectric Project.

The PUD filed with FERC in October 2003 requesting a second 50-year license for the largest non-federal hydro project of its kind in the United States.

"Having one half of the dam and reservoir in our county has not generated any benefits for us and to allow this inequity to continue for another 50 years is wrong and unjustified," Jesse S. Palacios wrote to FERC. "Although we are currently meeting with very courteous and excellent PUD staff, I am asking that you not approve the re-license of Priest Rapids Dam until Grant County PUD and Yakima County meet and arrive at a reasonable agreement.

"With all due respect, the present re-license proposal is not even close to meeting the 'fairness' test. When you read the proposal you will find that all the public purposes benefits go to Grant County, therefore there is simply no public 'Regional' benefit," Palacios continued in the letter.

Yesterday, Palacios echoed those same concerns.

"We've had good relations with Grant County and we want to continue to be a good partner," Palacios said Tuesday. "But we feel that because Priest Rapids is located in our county we deserve some of the benefits."

So far, Palacios said he hadn't heard from the PUD since writing the letter to FERC and he didn't plan on going before the PUD Board of Commissioners any time soon.

According to the PUD, one of the project benefits that everyone can enjoy is the recreation, said Linda Jones, the director of communications and external affairs. She believes that in the process of enhancing recreation at the project area, the PUD will also be providing outdoor benefits for everyone. Yakima County residents would have the same access as others along the 60-mile reach of the river project.

However, Palacios contends that the area surrounding Priest Rapids Dam within Yakima County is federal land. That land offers no public access and is used by the military as the Yakima Firing Center. He would like to see the PUD make some off-site recreational considerations for Yakima County, because county residents have no access.

Jones also made the argument that with 12 different power purchasers having access to the hydroelectric power created by the project, Yakima County is one of several to benefit from lower power costs.

"We believe that the benefits of low cost power serve Yakima County through a power purchaser," who is supplied with power from the PUD, Jones said.

Portland-based PacifiCorp is one of the 12 utilities which have power sales contracts with the PUD. PacifiCorp provides low-cost power to Yakima County, according to Jones.

However, Palacios says that Yakima County is paying prices comparable to what King County pays for energy, but contends it should face costs that are similar to its neighbor and partner, Grant County.

"We are open to continued dialogue. We have been talking with their commissioners and if there is an agreement that can be reached, we would be open to that," Jones said.

"I think they are willing to work with Yakima County," Palacios said.

The PUD and others now have until July 11 to respond to letters sent to FERC. The PUD has a complete record of letters sent to FERC expressing various terms and conditions of the PUD relicensing application on its Web site at www.gcpud.org.

At the end of this current comment period, FERC will write an environmental impact statement and follow that with another comment period.

FERC plans on making a final decision on the new license to operate the Priest Rapids Project in July 2006.