Image provided by: Portland General Electric; Portland, OR.
About Clackamas County news. (Estacada, Or.) 1928-1957 | View Entire Issue (March 16, 1956)
The People of Oregon have a stake in the Pelton Project you have a right to k the ivhole story M en and machines are commencing construction of an important new hydro electric power source for ( )regon: Pelton dam on the Deschutes riser. Pelton is important to the people of Oregon. Its 120,000 kilowatts of capa bility w ill make it one of the largest hydroelectric projects within the bound aries of the state. It is important because it w ill provide power for new jobs as our population increases and w ill be a Jong step in meeting the growing elec trical needs of you and your neighbors at home, on the farm, in business and in industry. In common with just about every hydroelectric project which has been proposed to meet the power needs of the Pacific Northwest, Pelton has a controversy attached to it. You have a right to know what the controversy is about. O pposition to Pelton a M ix ture o f P o litica l Id eo lo gy a n d Fish We believe that behind the opposi tion to Pelton dam- which dates back to 1949 when Portland General Electric Company took its first steps to have the project ap proved by the state of Oregon and the federal govern ment— is a small, well-organized minority. Their motives are mixed. One segment of this minority consists of those who are politically slanted against the development of any power project by private capital, just as they are opposed to the Eisenhower administration “ partner ship" policy of water resource development. In its con sistent opposition to any project proposed by local agencies, this group had evidenced its preference for dependence on the federal government for hydroelectric development. There has also been opposition arising from a con flicting economic interest represented by commercial and sports fishermen. They have—mistakenly we think —viewed the Pelton project as a threat to salmon and steelhead runs in the Deschutes river. Actually, the run of salmon in the stretch of the Deschutes where Pelton dam w ill be built is negligible. Moderate steelhead runs exist but neither the salmon nor steelhead runs were considered sufficiently important by the Oregon legis lature in 1949 to approve legislation which would have made fish sanctuaries of the Deschutes and Metolius rivers. Nevertheless, the opposition of sport and com mercial fishermen has continued to be aggressive. This well-organized coalition of forces has made its opposition felt every step of the way in the company’s long effort to obtain approvals for the project from state and federal agencies. We Can H are B oth P ow er P oles a n d F ishing Poles Portland General Electric Company is firmly of the opinion that from the standpoint of the great majority of Oregon people the fishing and recreational value of this stretch of the Deschutes w ill be greatly enhanced by Pelton dam. This belief is based on past experience with projects of similar size built on similar streams elsewhere in Oregon the Willamette Basin projects being notable examples. These have provided enjoyment for thousands. A re-regulating dam w ill be built about three river miles downstream from Pelton, in order to maintain an even, natural flow of the lower river. Thus, one hundred miles of swift fishing water w ill be left undisturbed below the Pelton project which is located that distance from the mouth of the Deschutes. The company also plans to provide public access to the eight-mile-long lake to be created, behind the dam. To enhance the enjoyment of boat fishermen and recreationists PGE w ill provide an access road into the reservoir area, boat dock and trailer ramp, and picnic grounds It is significant that the people in the vicinity of the project, who know the actual conditions best, view Pelton as a potentials great tourist attraction and recreational asset. The Oregon State Game Commission, the Fish Com mission of Oregon and the l T. S. Fish and Wildlife Service jointly have expressed the view that passage facilities which would lead both upstream and down stream salmon and steelhead migrants past the Pelton project appear to offer the most likely solution to the fishery problem. These three agencies recently have asked that PGE assume responsibility for designing such facilities, with technical assistance to be supplied by the agencies themselves. The facilities w ill essentially consist of a fish ladder approximately three miles long, having gradients comparable to or iess steep than the successful ladders at Bonneville dam and other large projects. Appropriate attraction facilities w ill be in stalled at both the upstream and downstream ends of the ladder. We are hopeful that these designs w ill be perfected in sufficient detail within the near future so that they can be completely and publicly described. Altogether, these fish facilities, including the re regulating dam, w ill represent $5,000,000 of the total $25,000,000 cost of the project. O regon N eeds a Firm Supply o f P ow er f o r Job s, f o r C on tin u ed G row th As an electric utility serving forty per cent of the people of Oregon, PGE has a serious responsibility to provide electric service in sufficient quantities, and at the lowest possible cost. At the present we are inter ested, by ourselves or jointly with other organizations, in the development of such projects as the North Fork dam and Faraday addition on the Clackamas river, John Day dam on the Columbia, Mountain Sheep and Pleasant Valley dams on the middle Snake, Priest Rapids dam on the Columbia and others. But none of these projects are alternatives to Pelton simply because a readv demand w ill exist for every single kilowatt that can be produced by these projects and by Pelton as well. Further, Peltcn is the only one of these projects which has a clear “ go-ahead” for construction. Oregon is growing. Even more rapidly the uses of electricity are growing. As a public servant PGE has no alternative but to provide you with an adequate supply of this vital necessity. T he P eople Not R epresen ted by Fish A gencies It was in January, 1949, that an application for pre- liminarv permit was first made w ith the Oregon Hvuro- electric Commission, and in May of the same vear the application for license was filed with the Federal Power Commission, assuming that the two licensing authori ties had a concurrent jurisdiction over such a stream as the Deschutes. At the time it was generally assumed that tne Oregon Hydroelectric Commission was a bodv with full author in' to weigh the relative importance of the various uses to which a water resource such as the Deschutes river may be put, and to act in behalf of a ll the people of the state in achieving maximum multiple use of the resource. But the com pans. and Oregon citizens as well, were surprised and dismayed to discover that two single interest agencies of the state of Oregon, representing only the commercial and sport fisheries, had an absolute veto over any proposed power development placed for consid eration before the Hydroelectric Com mission. These agencies were the Oregon State Game Commission and the Pish Commission of Oregon. In July, 1949, the Hydroelectric Commission issued an order requiring that an application for permit be made to the Fish Commission of Oregon. Such application was made and summarily denied by the Fish Com mission without a hearing. The Attor ney General of Oregon had ruled that the Fish Commission would have to be satisfied with facilities designed for the protection of fish before the Hydro electric Commission could grant a per mit. Later a decision of the circuit court confirmed this ruling and further found that under the act there was no right of appeal from the Hydroelectric Commission’s ruling. In the 1955 legislative session, too late to be of benefit in the Pelton con troversy, legislation was passed which establishes more equitable jurisdiction which w ill take into consideration all the uses of a water resource. The 1955 legislation establishes a water resources commission, which in effect w ill be a board of appeal. PGE a B ysta n d er as Fish a n d G am e Com missions B rin g S uit A gainst FPC The Federal Power Commission did grant the com pany a license, and in doing so asserted its jurisdiction over the federally-owned lands on which it was proposed that the dam be constructed. On the east bank of the river these lands had been specifically reserved from private entry by President Theodore Roosevelt, and subsequently by Congress, as sites suitable for electric power development. On the west bank the lands were held by the Warm Springs Confederated Tribes as part of a federal reservation. The state of Oregon, through the fish and game agencies mentioned, and strongly backed bv commercial and sport fishing organizations, attacked the Pelton license in the U. S. Court of Appeals, a proceeding which was eventually taken to the highest legal author ity in the land—the U. S. Supreme Court. The latter, in a seven-to-one decision on June 6, 1955, reversed the twro-to-one decision of the Court of Appeals and upheld the superior jurisdiction of the FPC confirming the validity of the Pelton license. It should be emphasized that PGE did not initiate the court proceeding which ended in this nearly unani mous decision of the Supreme Court Justices—a decision which established the paramount authority of the fed eral government to license power projects on federally- owned and reserved lands. C onservation Is th e Wise Use o f Resources There are those who believe that “ conservation” means leaving natural resources in their natural state. Following this definition to its logical conclusion, there would have been little progress in this state or this region, so blessed with natural resources, of which falling water is the greatest. Constriction of the Pelton project w ill create a reservoir which w ill change the character of only a few miles of the Deschutes river. We believe sincerely that this reservoir w ill add to the state’s fishing and recrea tional facilities and w ill provide enjoyment for thou sands more people than are now able to fish in the rugged, alm ost inaccessible canyon. We are joined in this belief by folks who have lived their lives along this stretch of the river and who know it best. We believe that the facilities designed for the up stream and downstream passing of anadromous fish w ill prove to be a unique and exciting contribution to the solution of the fish vs. power controversy that has plagued and badgered the economic progress of the Pacific Northwest for so long. Above all, we believe that the people of Oregon deserve to have the word “ conservation” mean the wist use of resources for the benefit of all the people. \ PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY Oregon’s Pioneer Electric Utility