Electric issues spark HEA candidacies — 11 board hopefuls have different views on what’s best for co-op

By Jenny Neyman
Redoubt Reporter

The Homer Electric Association Board of Directors elections this year have drawn extra attention due to skyrocketing electricity rates, dwindling natural gas reserves, questions over coal power, the pursuit of renewable energy sources and a proposal to merge elements of the Railbelt utilities.

Ballots were mailed out Friday and are due May 6, or HEA members may attend the annual meeting May 7 at Homer High School in Homer to cast their vote. Eleven candidates are seeking three seats in three districts. District 1 covers Kenai, Nikiski and parts of the Soldotna area. District 2 is Soldotna, Sterling and Kasilof. District 3 is Kasilof south to Kachemak Bay area. Members may only vote for one candidate in their district.

Following are questions asked of each candidate and their answers. Candidates’ resumes can be found online at www.homerelectric.com.

1. Gov. Sarah Palin has suggested merging the power generation and transportation functions of the Railbelt electric utilities, which is now being considered by the Legislature. Do you support this move? Why or why not?
2. What’s your take on renewables?
3. Do you support the proposed hydropower projects near Moose Pass? Why or why not?
4. Do you support HEA’s involvement with the Healy coal facility? Why or why not?
5. HEA’s contract to purchase wholesale power with Chugach Electric will be up in 2014. What should be done to secure a sustainable power supply for HEA?
6. What should be done to stabilize and/or lower rates for HEA members?
7. Are there any other issues facing HEA that are a priority for you?

District 1

Alan Bute
1. “The bottom line on anything is my pocketbook, so, financially, if it’s the right thing to do. We don’t want to get into a boondoggle. It sounds like a good idea because it would give us the strength to build whatever we got to to give us a stable power rate.”
2. “I guess you can’t beat it. I look at like the dams and stuff like that where you don’t have no pollution and stuff where you have a lifeline of power, and the same thing with wind power. The bottom line is cost, it always comes back to that. The people who have to put food on the table and stuff like that have to watch the bottom line.”
3. “I know they’re doing studies as far as what, economically, what’s the most feasible. If you can’t get anything pushed through, what can be done? You can’t hurt the fish. If we can build small dams that don’t mess up the community too much, and the bottom line is if the community don’t want it, it’s not a good deal either. You can’t push it down their throat.”
4. “Back to the dollar sign again, if we can do it economically. … You want to make sure the smokestacks are burning clean, but I guess you have to look at it because you have coal everywhere you look — it’s all over. I don’t know about a long-term contract, maybe just something to carry us over until we get something renewable that everybody can agree on.”
5. “Whatever we do, if we get together with other utilities in the state, and we gotta make sure we have some kind of control over the price, as far as how it affects our bills and stuff like that. You can’t in the middle of winter find 20, 30 percent increase in their bill. People on a real tight budget, it’s just too much for them.”
6. “Basically the direction they’re going with the study group out there is seeing what’s the most viable thing we can do, with the bottom line being the cost and affecting the rate payers. All those options, (wind, solar) sound good, we just gotta use some common sense and get a stable power source that’s affordable for everyone.”
7. “No. Over the years it seems like a really solid organization.”

Andrew Patrick
1. “I’m not necessarily a proponent of it. … From what my understanding of it is, it wouldn’t necessarily allow a local co-op like ours to meet the specific needs of our members, by taking control (away), which, I’m sure control would leave us here and go to a distant location. That is not usually a good direction.”
2. “I’m for them. I think it’s something that’s an ideal long-term goal, but I also know not every renewable source out there has true economic viability to use in a commercial application, such as a major utility. But, you know, it’s an avenue that needs to be actively pursued with the utility.”
3. “I think that they’re a good direction in the sense they are renewable. One of the biggest concerns we could have with them is they are small scale, so a lot of the overhead costs (environmental studies, engineering costs, etc.) will be almost the same as a large-scale project. … As far as their impact, there is no perfect project. They’re always going to impact somebody. Unfortunately, maybe here it may just seem like the lesser of the evils that are out there.”
4. “I support the diversification direction, for sure. Whether this is the best direction or best step I can’t tell you right now. It’s something they’re looking at to analyze what are the other alternatives out there, is this the first one that came to the door or the best one to pursue in light of the other alternatives that are out there?”
5. “We’ve been fortunate to have a low-cost power source with natural gas. That era I think is coming to a close. … Once we know the alternatives we can weigh which direction or generation source would give us the best benefit. Not necessarily cost, but also overall impact on people.”
6. “The more our production sources are diversified, the more stable our rates will be. It’s a principle that’s been applied to a variety of industries and types of businesses. … Tied with that is a certain amount of efficiency must be monitored. That’s the job of the board. … Cost controls and efficiency, combine the two and that will give us price stability.”
7. “I’m not critical of anybody. … They do represent the membership, so as such I think they do as good a job as any board can be expected to do.”

District 2

Jim Fassler
1. “I strongly support this. … Every time a kilowatt of power passes through someone else’s hands it costs us. … Right now, we HEA members own about 12 percent of the power that’s generated at Bradley Lake, that’s all we can use of that. The rest of that belongs to other co-op power companies and they sell it back to us. With a generation co-op, wherever it’s generated it will be used there first.”
2. “Those are all terrific. I think that we should be exploring those and moving to them as quickly as possible, but it’s going to be very expensive to do that.”
Fassler noted concerns about the noise wind turbines may generate, and about reliability of wind on calm days and of solar in the winter, and also said he’d like to see tidal power, possibly attached to drilling platforms in Cook Inlet.
3. “I haven’t seen the studies on those, I would support them if its not going to cause problems with spawning and etc.”
4. “Yes I do. One of the things that I understand is that the state wants Homer Electric to enter into a 25-year contract. I think we should go in increments of five, but we definitely need to be looking at power from that source again in order to get through to the point where wind or whatever will take it over. I would just as soon we do not burn coal, but the technology to get us to wind and solar — we need a bridge to get from here to whenever that would be.”
5. “We need to look to coal, we need to look to solar, we need to look to wind and water.”
6. “I think that we need to have the lowest possible rates. The economy the way it is today, hopefully the job loss from the Lower 48 isn’t going to hit us as hard as it has down there, but I’ve run into people who just can’t afford their Enstar and HEA bills and still eat. I really do believe we need to keep them down as low as possible. I’m not going to try to tell you I’m going to lower rates — that would be like the president saying I’m going to cut out all your taxes — that’s a lie. But I’m going to do everything I can to keep them as low as possible and still be sustainable.”
7. None.

Ed Oberts
1. “My first thought is that I would be very apprehensive to merge all the utilities, there’s different equity in each of them and the local control is important.”
2. “I’m supportive of renewables, but I think we have to realize our base load on the coldest day in the middle of winter, we’re not going to have any wind and there’s no sun. We’re going to have to rely on natural gas or coal.”
3. “I don’t know the details but I’m supportive of hydro power in general and suspect that I would be supportive of those projects.”
4. “Again, I don’t have the detailed knowledge on that issue, but I do support coal power generation. I think it’s an economically feasible resource that we need to take advantage of.”
5. “That’s the biggest question out there because it affects rates. Long-tem I think we need to work hard to find a good answer to that. If I get elected I’ll be working positively with all the other utilities around the state to address that issue and find a long-term, stable source of electric power for everybody.”
6. “I believe they need to be stabilized and lowered. My experience working at the borough for the borough mayor’s office, I have extensive knowledge of how to read and understand a budget. I think HEA’s a big organization and needs to have strong leadership at the board level to make sure that a good budget is adopted and adhered to so that we don’t incur expenses that are out of line and force our rates up.”
7. “I think the biggest issue out there is skyrocketing rates that they’re basically out of control, and the utility needs to address them and find a solution. This is my fourth time running for the HEA board. I really look forward to getting elected and representing the members of the association.”

Terry Johnson
1. “Yes, I support it. I think that’s one of things making our utilities so high, pretty much (Chugach) has us where they want us. They charge us obscene rates for our electricity. I think if it’s consolidated, I think it would help us.”
2. “Renewables up here are going to be tough. Those 60-foot blades on them wind generators. Everyone that you talk to says they’re an eyesore. I think there are places in Alaska where people could agree to put them, but right now the biggest problem is the storage. I think we have other ways to go right now.”
3. “It’s a good idea if it’s not cost prohibitive. I think a lot of it would have to do with the bids on what’s out there to build it. The other thing is the permitting, that’s going to be the hard one.”
4. “Yes, I think that that would be one of our best options if we could get a tie-in up there and burn our coal instead of sending it to, right now it’s going to Korea and other places. I think if we could burn our own coal here I think it would be better for the environment all around.”
5. “Everybody’s talking about the (natural gas) bullet line with the price of natural gas where it is and getting permits and being able to build the bullet line in a feasible amount of time. I think it’s going to be a real challenge. I think HEA has quite a few options open to them. I think HEA itself has a lot of costs they can reduce, but nobody seems to be in the cost-reducing mode.”
6. “The biggest thing is to get a low-cost power supply. … I believe coal is going to be one of our best options, being that the natural gas on the peninsula, the supplies are going down. … I think that’s a big one we’ll have to face is what can we do now to ensure power within the next five years?”
7. “(I don’t want to sound anti-growth, but) somewhere down the line it’s going to get where HEA has got to screen how much new growth can come into our community because there’s not enough electricity to go around. With Wal-Mart coming in, and if Pebble Mine gets built, our community now is at the point where, how do we let new businesses in when we can’t provide power for them?”

William Tappan
1. “I think that some kind of coming together and getting rates down for everyone is a good idea. The part I’m not sure about is whether or not it’s necessary — and it may be in the future, but not today — to eliminate or do away with the six Railbelt utilities and make them into one.”
2. “They don’t really add to the base load capacity to keep the lights on. What it does is it helps with peaking. … We must go to renewables. Here on the peninsula there are tons of options. … We have to evaluate the tradeoffs of the cost versus what we get for it.”
3. “The one at Grant Lake seems to be the most proactive and I do support it and I’m a big fly fisherman, by the way. I’m very pro-environment and pro-fishing.”
4. “I do, and the reason is that HEA is not going to own a coal-fired plant. We are only going to buy power. We need to diversify off of natural gas, and that is where that 200 years of coal supply is. Right now they’ve been running unit one cleanly, and I’m impressed with it. If and when they get unit two going, that’s when we will be buying power, which should theoretically be less cost to our ratepayers because coal should be cheaper than natural gas.”
5. “We may get into another deal with them and we may not. We won’t do it if it isn’t right for our members since it’s pre-negotiated. … If that greater Railbelt thing in some form goes forward, that issue may go away anyway.”
6. “I would like to see how (merging Railbelt utilities and creating one, “postage stamp” price for all members) that’s going to work. I would be for it if it’s going lower our rates. If it’s going to raise rates for our members, I’m not for it. We’re just not there yet. It’s a new notion.”
7. “Unity of the board. There is, and I’m not implying that there’s friction, but I think that we all need to have a plan and support the plan. There are a few who certainly are entitled to their views and opinions that don’t share the view of the majority right now. I think everybody wants what’s right for all the members but how we get there is an issue.”

District 3

Steve Franklin
1. “That’s a hard question to answer. I’m not really familiar with it. … I wouldn’t know why that wouldn’t be a good thing if it’s managed properly and handled correctly, I think everybody could gain from that.”
2. “I really think Homer Electric needs to take a real close look at the options and get into renewable sources just as fast and as quick as we can, and what we can afford. Certainly for renewable wind energy, solar, tidal, whatever it may be, I think we need to take a close look at it.”
3. “I do support it for the simple fact it is a renewable type of energy. It is something that we can count on, I think, for the only reason it’s not using fossil fuels. It is something that we can pull off of nature and utilize.”
4. “I think it would be a great partnership. If we can satisfy the environmental needs, keep it a clean coal-burning plant, I think that would be great. But I’m not sure we can afford it in today’s industry in Alaska, to meet all the necessary emissions. … I’m leaving my options open on that one.”
5. “We get back to renewable resources — wind, solar, whatever. … We need to have the energy that we control. We need to be in the saddle. We need to be in control of the energy that we receive and distribute, versus relying on someone else to make it work for us.”
6. “I’m not quite sure but I do think that the renewable energy is what the key is. It’s going to be a major investment, but I think in the long term that’s the best way to go. As long as we’re relying on another entity to supply us with the energy like it is today, it’s very difficult to stabilize it because of the demands and of the increases and decreases of fossil fuels.”
7. “The only priority I have is to speak for the membership. My personal views are the bottom of the priority list. My number one priority is to listen to the members and do what the members want. I may not always agree with it, but if the body as a whole wishes it to go a certain direction, that’s the direction I will vote on.”

Jim Levine
1. “I guess in concept I support it. It seems like a pretty good idea as long as we get what I consider to be the right kind of energy mix, which would be a lot more renewables than what we’re doing right now. I guess I wouldn’t support it if it’s going to be more of the same, more coal and what not. I think it would be economical to have all the utilities joined together, there’s obviously some kind of economy of scale.”
2. “I’m highly in favor of them. I think it’s really the wave of the future. … Solar, wind and the ocean, we have so much potential down here for those types of energy power generation. … A lot of different systems are up and running and ready to be used around the world.”
3. “In general I think that hydropower’s a good thing. It needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Obviously whenever you dam a waterway there’s always going be some conflict, so you need to be really careful in that respect.”
4. “I don’t think that they know all the costs involved, so I don’t think that it’s a wise move. I don’t think they should get involved for 50 years. … The Healy plant in particular has never been operated successfully yet. I don’t have any idea what it will cost to operate successfully, if they even can. I think renewable is a much better way to go and trying to go to a coal facility is just sort of looking backwards instead of forward.”
5. “I think a temporary solution would be just to continue with the natural gas system. I think natural gas is a more, I don’t know, earth-friendly means of supplying power in the meantime, until we can get renewable systems online and operating.”
6. “I think moving toward renewables will start to stabilize the rates because there’s no fuel costs once you get these systems up and running. On a more short-term basis, we just need to kind of watch our pennies and see what we can do to keep the costs in line while we’re developing these other systems.”
7. “I would like to see a much more open and transparent type of board meetings where you invite the co-op members to participate, rather than, from what I can see, consider them to be kind of a problem to get around.”

Pete Roberts
1. “Well, I don’t support Enron and that’s how I see it. The economies of scale idea is completely blown out of shape. … There’s no way you could combine these co-ops without taking them into the state or private industry, and I believe HEA is trying to privatize itself.”
2. “If they’re economical I think it’s a great idea. HEA historically does not like renweables, contrary to SNAP, which is bulls---. I like renewables, I think it’s a great idea. I want to know why don’t we have more than 12 percent of the power from Bradley Lake for the peninsula. Actually, I know why — it was purely legislative and politics.”
3. “I’m generally favorable but want to see more details. I start to hear the issue about salmon, but salmon are brought up to knock down everything in this state and we have got to have a balance. If they’re not going to make a significant, say 10 percent, cut in the salmon, I think we need to set that aside because we have other things that are important on this peninsula.”
4. “Whether or not coal power is good or bad is besides the point. You never buy into something where the title is clouded and the management of it is also clouded. That’s been the situation with MEA and the state and we shouldn’t touch it with a 10-foot pole.”
5. “We need to drill gas wells. HEA needs to contract for gas wells and can put a generator on the top of each one of them. It’s cheaper than sending it through a pipe. We’re in trouble because we haven’t acted as a G and T (generation and transmission), just a transmission utility. We do have a little generation ability but we need to hire the expertise.”
6. “They have to plan ahead. They have all sorts of capital credit money that can be used to balance out the fluctuations between the cost of energy and what it is. What happened with the December, January, February deals was uncalled for for a member-owned co-op. I think the members need to take co-op back from the industrial people who would privatize it and don’t give a damn about their customers.”
7. “The policies that affect the owner member, the customers. The policies need to be reviewed and checked and modified for the benefit of the owner member. I want the co-op back for the cooperative.”

Don Seelinger
1. It’s difficult to take a position on the governor’s proposal when it is still a moving target. I have reviewed the draft proposal dated Feb 11, 2009. I’ve reviewed SB143 and HB182 and have been monitoring the continuing discussions. That said, I could support a unified transmission grid by which there would be a postage stamp rate for wheeling, thereby standardizing the rate for wheeling for all utilities. In some cases this could lead to a significant savings.
2. Renewables must be an important part of HEA’s generation portfolio. I propose that we take renewables to the maximum the system will allow as long as it does not negatively impact rates.
3. Until the studies have been completed, thereby providing us all the data we would need, I have not taken a position on the low impact hydro projects. However, I cannot support any hydro projects that would significantly impact water quality or fish habitat.
4. With regard to HEA’s involvement with the Healy Coal facility, I need to clarify involvement. If by involvement are you asking, do I support HEA being an owner of the facility in part or in whole?, or have an obligation for the start-up of the plant? This I am not in support of. However, I do support HEA’s position of first right of refusal to purchase up to 27 megawatts of power from (Golden Valley Electric Association). If there is an acceptable contract for such a purchase, that is in the best interests of HEA’s members, then I could support it. As of this date, no proposed contract has come before the board for consideration.
5. The stage has been set, the wheels are in motion, the potential sites have been selected to assure HEA has the required generation available by 2014. This will be accomplished by a portfolio that reflects present generation technology and renewables. It may also require, but has yet to be determined, a contract/purchase spinning reserves. The power sales agreement between HEA/(Chugach) is a take or pay contract.
6. I refer you to my answer in #1, and also by HEA becoming a diversified, independent power provider with its own dispatch. These are big ticket items, but I will continue to look for opportunities for cost savings thereby stabilizing rates. Bringing generation and dispatch to the peninsula will mean jobs.
7. None.
Editor’s note: Seelinger composed and e-mailed his comments, rather than participating in an interview as all other candidates did. All grammar and punctuation is printed verbatim, except for parenthetical references added for clarity.

Doug Stark
1. “It would increase efficiency. The estimate is it would be $40 million a year, because most of the utilities at this time are getting ready to build additional generation. Those would be small projects compared to what the giant co-op for transmission and energy production could do.”
2. “I’m very much in favor of them. They’re not going to solve the problem within the next 10 years. They’re certainly the way to go in the interim.”
3. “I’m not that familiar with them. In general I’m in favor with most hydro projects. I would have to have more information before I could say definitely. In a hydro project, there’s always pluses and minuses, mostly dealing with fish on the minus side, and with what the hydro does, is it controls the stream flow, and that makes people nervous.”
4. “The federal government and the state put more than $100 million into it. I think it’s just really sort of obscene the thing has sat there for close to 20 years. I think it’s got to be brought online so it isn’t just a wasted resource. You’ve got to remember that that’s a clean coal facility. That isn’t just a coal-fired power plant. That was designed and a lot of money was put into that to make it a facility that would burn coal cleanly.”
5. “I think what we should do is go into the proposal that the governor is pushing, which will resolve that question.”
6. “I don’t have the information to answer that right now. There’s a lot of stuff going on internally and I understand some of it’s pretty volatile. One thing I would believe in is a little more sunshine and transparency. Springing these rate increases on people, this is a co-op, remember, it’s supposed to be owned by members. I think springing 40 percent increases on members with no notice is absolutely beyond the pale.”
7. “I’ve got some ideas that HEA can do that would help members. I don’t think they’re big deals, but one or both have been done by other electric utilities, is set up a program for reduced cost for buying florescent lightbulbs. The other is to set up a program for funding through local improvement districts the provision of lines for supplying gas to homes when the gas line comes down to the south peninsula.”

Editorial: Shedding light on HEA elections

These are electric times. The Homer Electric Association Board of Directors has always served an important function on the central and southern Kenai Peninsula, but one that hasn’t always garnered much attention from HEA members. Come annual election time, picking names and returning ballots for some voters is fueled more by a desire to qualify for energy credits than it is a concern over the politics and policies of the co-op.

It’s not that who gets elected doesn’t matter, it’s just that voters haven’t had much incentive to take time out of their busy lives to familiarize themselves with the issues facing the HEA board and the views of those seeking seats on it.

Until now. This past year’s dramatic increase in electricity rates has had one positive side effect: It gets people’s attention.

And just in time. The board will soon face decisions of monumental and fundamental importance to how HEA operates in the future. Such basic questions as:

Where will HEA get power? Should it continue contracting for the majority of its electricity from natural gas? Is that even an option with reserves dwindling and prices climbing?

Should HEA invest in developing renewable energy sources? If so, which ones, where and to what scale?

What about coal? Do affordability and abundance factors outweigh environmental concerns? How long and to what level should HEA commit to the Healy coal plant?

What if Pebble Mine gets the go-ahead? Will HEA be involved in providing the massive amount of power the operation will require? If so, how?

Should HEA support joining forces with other Railbelt electric utilities for generation and transportation purposes? Should a single, “postage-stamp” rate be established for the entire Railbelt?

The answers to all these questions will have an impact on pocketbooks. So now’s the time to think about answers. Read up on the issues and candidates’ stances on them. Talk to current and hopeful board members. Visit with neighbors and friends about their priorities. And most importantly, don’t think casting a vote is the end of it. Several candidates stated they want to carry out the will of their constituents. So stay informed, involved and vocal. If board members don’t know what residents want, they can’t advocate it.

Pay attention now, or pay for it later.

Luck of the drill — Kenai, Soldotna differ in water supplies

By Jenny Neyman
Redoubt Reporter

Along with the weather, fishing and speculating how much the Alaska Permanent Fund dividend will be each year, swapping tales of distasteful water is an easy way to strike up a conversation on the central Kenai Peninsula.

Live here long enough or move around the area enough times and residents develop a lexis for describing what comes out of their taps much like wine connoisseurs contrast different vintages and varietals — except the wannabe sommeliers are more likely to use favorable terms.

Cloudy with a bouquet of rotten eggs, leaving an indelible green circle around the bathtub and rendering every load of white laundry somewhat gray.

Drinking water is something Alaskans can love to hate, or at least debate. Which is better, Kenai’s or Soldotna’s? Chances are, the arguments miss the point, involving factors that are distasteful — like color, smell and taste — but not mentioning the invisible contaminants that may be harmful, like arsenic.

In that regard, the argument’s clear, even if the water isn’t — Soldotna is in compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency’s maximum limit of arsenic allowed in public water sources, and Kenai is not.

Well, then

It’s not for a lack of trying, though, according to Kenai City Manager Rick Koch. Kenai’s water woes just happened to be the luck of the draw, or drill, as it were.
“Soldotna had better luck finding wells with low arsenic,” Koch said.

Soldotna has plenty of wells that provide water with arsenic levels below the EPA’s limit — Well B on Aspen Drive, Well C behind Soldotna High School, Well E at the airport and the newly drilled Well C-2, near Well C, will start providing water soon, said Steve Bonebreak, public works director for Soldotna. Well R-1 is barely above the 10 ppb limit, but would only be used in the case of emergency, like a forest fire, Bonebreak said. Of the city’s production wells, arsenic levels range from 4 ppb to 9 ppb, he said.

“We’re fortunate to have wells that meet the new arsenic regulations. They serve good water to our customers that meets the new regulations without the added costs of any kind of arsenic treatment,” he said.

Kenai is in a different boat. It has only three production wells, all drawing off the Beaver Creek aquifer in the vicinity of the Kenai Spur Highway and Beaver Loop Road. Well 2 tests fine for arsenic, but wells 1 and 3 fail the new EPA limit. In the city’s 2007 water quality report, 27 ppb was the highest arsenic level listed.

When the EPA’s 10 ppb limit went into effect in 2006, Kenai was granted an exemption to allow more time to find a solution to its water problems.

“EPA developed an exemption procedure and said water systems needed more time to research options and pilot study treatments out there and could request an extension of time to complete the process,” said Susan Bulkow, the local Alaska Drinking Water Program coordinator with the state Department of Environmental Conservation. “In the meantime they’re required to issue public notice so the public is aware of the fact they have high arsenic levels in the water.

“The city of Kenai started trying to solve their problems earlier than most water systems by piloting studies of some different treatment options, and study of the water. These efforts have been ongoing. I feel confident that the city of Kenai is trying to solve the arsenic problem.”

Water treatment is an option, but not one the city wants to pursue, Koch said. There are two types of arsenic found in water. Arsenite is relatively inexpensive to remove through filtration. The other — arsenate — costs about the same to treat as removing color from water — the tannins and other elements that make water look dirty, a common complaint in Kenai, Koch said.

“One of the types of arsenic is easy to remove. And of course that’s not the kind we have,” he said.

Removing arsenate from the city’s water would involve building large holding tanks where chemicals can be mixed with the water that bind with arsenate and turn it into arsenite, the kind of arsenic that can be filtered out. Not only is that costly, it would produce large amounts of wastewater, which would eventually be flushed into Cook Inlet. That may be a problem in the future, if beluga whales’ endangered listing results in tighter restrictions on wastewater discharge, Koch said.

If existing water isn’t treated, then new water must be found. But unlike Soldotna, which replaced its offending well with a new one, Kenai has had a harder time finding a spot for a new well that meets requirements.

The city has been drilling test wells looking for another suitable water source, even before arsenic became a hot-button issue, to increase the city’s production potential and avoid water shortages in high-demand summer months.

“Some places you don’t have the challenges that we have here in the city of Kenai,” Koch said.

It was already difficult for the city to find a new well site with decent water volume, high enough water pressure, low enough color and a lack of other contaminants. Finding one with those attributes that also tested low enough for arsenic only added to the difficulty.

“What we have under our feet is very jumbled up, there’s just not any consistency in what we find in wells,” Koch said.

In lieu of finding a new water source, Kenai has decided to make the most of what it has — Well 2. Koch said the city plans to increase production of Well 2 and bring a new, 16-inch diameter well online in the same vicinity to tap into the same water source.

That will allow the city to take wells 1 and 3 offline and bring its arsenic level in line with EPA requirements. In order for that to happen, Well 2 needs to be upgraded to allow higher production and Well 4 needs to be constructed and connected to the water grid. The city also plans to upgrade about 3,200 feet of aging, 10-inch water main along the Kenai Spur Highway that’s currently the city’s only connection from the wells to the rest of the water grid.

Those projects have a budgeted price tag of a little over $3.5 million. Koch said the city has the money for those projects and expects them to be completed by the end of the year, which is when Kenai’s exemption from the EPA 10 ppb arsenic limit expires.

Koch said the 10-inch pipe connecting the wells to the rest of the city has too small a volume to serve the city’s expanding water needs. The longer-term plan is to run a new, 16-inch main from wells 2 and 4 under the Kenai Spur Highway, along Beaver Loop Road, down Togiak Street, over to Lawton Drive and up Swires Road.

Even farther down the road is a plan to run city water all along Beaver Loop Road and up Bridge Access Road back to the city, in order to boost development in those areas and get residents with high-arsenic private wells access to cleaner water.

In the meantime, Koch is hoping science catches up with the EPA’s lower arsenic limit.

“I think the day’s going to come when somebody’s going to figure out arsenic. It’s better to live with some amount of color in the water and hope technology improves in the area of arsenic removal, and I think that it will,” he said. “We’ll keep looking. We’ll respond to what we have to respond to now and work hard to clean that water up.”

Guest editorial: Transparency, good faith, public participation needed to solve energy dilemma

Recent grass-roots action by Homer Electric Association cooperative members which resulted in the HEA Board’s decision to contract a third-party, fact-based Power Supply Study is a shining example of why public participation is essential in influencing responsible regional energy policy, including study and development of renewable energy projects.

Unfortunately, HEA, doing business as Kenai Hydro LLC, is aggressively pursuing hydroelectric projects proposed for Kenai River headwaters near Moose Pass and Cooper Landing, which do not represent good renewable energy policy or good public policy.

HEA widely and deliberately misrepresented the projects as “low-impact” to obtain public money and to defuse legitimate public criticism.

HEA funding requests mischaracterizing the projects as low-impact resulted in over $1 million in public funding from the Denali Commission, Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority/Alaska Energy Authority, and the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee.

Project information distributed to the public, HEA cooperative members, and state and federal agencies prominently displayed the Low Impact Hydropower Institute logo. At meetings in Cooper Landing and Moose Pass, HEA stated its commitment to develop the projects, as much as possible, in compliance with LIHI criteria.

The truth is LIHI does not support construction of any new hydropower facilities. LIHI criteria only apply to existing hydro facilities built before 1998, only evaluate the compliance of those existing facilities with conditions of their Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licenses, and are not applicable to conceptual projects. HEA’s association of LIHI’s logo and low-impact criteria with these projects was not only irrelevant, but a disingenuous attempt to hoodwink agencies and the public into believing these projects would substantially meet independently established, low-impact environmental criteria.

Preliminary permits issued by FERC describe construction of dams of up to 10 feet high and 200 feet wide. HEA has publicly rationalized the need for over eight miles of new road construction, destruction of existing hiking trails and dewatering of Kenai River tributary streams providing important fish spawning and rearing habitat.

HEA continues promoting these projects despite having been informed that the projects, as proposed, do not conform to important public policy and resource management provisions of the:

• Chugach Forest Plan;
• Inventoried Roadless Area Rule;
• Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan;
• Kenai Area Plan;
• Kenai Peninsula Borough Comprehensive Plan; and
• Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s management intent for the Kenai River watershed.

The timing and amounts of funding, limited state oversight and overly elaborate designs based on insufficient data that do not comply with existing resource management plans and policy, especially for the Crescent and Ptarmigan lakes projects, has raised concern that HEA engaged in a classic “bait and switch” scheme. Local residents fear that public money ostensibly allocated to the Crescent and Ptarmigan lakes projects was spent improperly to promote the Grant Lake/Falls Creek project, and that overall, HEA wasted public money to pursue, at best, marginally feasible projects where the potential impacts far outweigh the possible benefits.

Despite its use of public funding and the fact that these projects rely totally on development and use of public lands and waters, HEA is attempting to limit process transparency and public participation in the FERC licensing, National Environmental Policy Act, mandatory conditioning and permitting processes for these projects.

HEA has stated it plans to seek FERC permission to use the Traditional Licensing Process to authorize the projects. According to officials in FERC’s Washington, D.C., offices, the TLP provides the least process transparency and opportunities for public participation. The TLP is driven and controlled by the project proponent, requires few public meetings, and involves the public late in the process after many decisions have already been made.

The Integrated Licensing Process provides greater process transparency and opportunities for public participation. FERC implemented the ILP in 2005 as its default process, in part, to correct well-documented public participation and process transparency deficiencies associated with the TLP. The ILP involves the public and discloses existing project information early in the process. In addition to soliciting written public response and comments, the ILP provides for a comprehensive series of public meetings. Under the ILP, environmental study plans are developed in coordination with the NEPA process to help ensure public and agency concerns identified during NEPA scoping are addressed through collection and analysis of pertinent data.

To address the high costs and uncertain future of electrical power generated from declining reserves of Cook Inlet natural gas, industry, government and the public need to work together in a good-faith effort to carefully study and prudently develop renewable energy projects. Full public participation in a transparent process is necessary to ensure that public funding and development of public lands, waters and resources results in an appropriate balance between public and private interests, and that renewable energy projects are in line with reasonable social and environmental impacts that are fully disclosed.

Mike Cooney is a forestry consultant and hunting guide who has worked in natural resource management for more than 30 years. He is a resident of Moose Pass.

Wading into debate over arsenic risks — Many factors to consider in finding safe level of contaminant in area water supply

Editor’s note: This is a continuation of an examination of arsenic levels in drinking water. For last week’s story, on March 4.

By Jenny Neyman
Redoubt Reporter

When Susan Bulkow, the local Alaska Drinking Water Program coordinator with the state Department of Environmental Conservation, gets a phone call from a central Kenai Peninsula resident asking about arsenic in the water supply, the question is usually straightforward:

Should I be concerned?

Her answer isn’t straightforward. In most cases, there is no simple “Yes” or “No” to that question, because there are no simple answers to many questions regarding arsenic.

The best Bulkow can do is offer information, wade carefully into the debates that swirl around arsenic contamination, and let residents decide the answer for themselves.

Epidemic or not?

A few things are widely agreed upon when it comes to arsenic — it’s here, and it’s bad for you. It’s been linked to cancer, and can contribute to a slew of other health problems, including fatigue, skin damage and problems with the circulatory system. Some level of arsenic routinely shows up in water samples across the central peninsula, in city and private wells.

What does that mean for peninsula residents? Is arsenic an epidemic that warrants a run on bottled water and filtration systems, where every glass of tap water is a tumor waiting to happen?

Or is it less dramatic than that — more a cause for routine concern, like replacing smoke detector batteries and making sure the garage door is open when warming up the car?

It’s a difficult question to answer, because some of the information necessary to make the leap from “if this” to “then that” is missing.

The biggest hole is in records, as a result of regulation. The Environmental Protection Agency regulates and monitors arsenic levels in public water supplies — from cities and other municipalities — but there is no oversight of private wells. Banks require water quality tests on nitrates and coliform bacteria levels in private wells when homes are bought and sold, but no entity requires arsenic testing.

As a result, and since arsenic is undetectable by taste, sight and smell, many homeowners on private wells simply don’t know how much arsenic is in their water. And there are no comprehensive records of arsenic levels in private wells on the central Kenai Peninsula to accurately gauge how widespread contamination is.

There is anecdotal information available, but some points to arsenic being an epidemic problem, and some points the other direction.

Dr. Robert Thompson, with a practice in Soldotna, said he has recommended over 1,000 patients get hair mineral analysis done in the past five years, which in part measures the level of arsenic in their systems. He believes arsenic is a significant concern.

“It’s a huge problem on the peninsula. About 80 percent of the wells, based on the testing I’ve seen, have high arsenic levels,” Thompson said. “I’m more surprised when they’re not elevated than when I see them when they are elevated.”

Mike Polocz, who offers arsenic testing with Culligan Water, said he’s routinely found high levels of arsenic in private wells he’s tested —up to 70 parts per billion or more. He agrees with Thompson that high levels occur particularly in certain areas, including Sterling, along Kalifornsky Beach Road and near Sports, Longmere and Mackey lakes.

Mike Tauriainen, owner of Tauriainen Engineering and Testing, in Soldotna, which is certified to conduct water analysis and forwards water samples to Anchorage for arsenic testing, said arsenic isn’t a huge concern.

“It varies from nondetectible — below the detection limit, probably down under 1 part per billion, which is an incredibly small amount — to over 100 parts per billion. But that’s uncommon. We have seen a few samples come in at over a hundred,” he said.

Tauriainen estimated that 1 percent to 5 percent of the water samples he sees test high for arsenic.

“We are blessed with pretty good water on the peninsula, as far as health concerns go,” Tauriainen said. “My personal opinion is that it’s generally not a very significant factor, but some people are more sensitive to different minerals, including arsenic. At the allowable level of 10 parts per billion, I don’t think that there’s any significant cause for concern.”

He also said he hasn’t seen evidence of arsenic showing up in higher concentrations in some areas than others. Arsenic levels, and water quality in general, can vary by area, but well depth probably has more to do with arsenic than location, he said.

“We really haven’t done a study of it, but I haven’t really noticed that one particular area has more than others,” Tauriainen said.

“Typically, the deeper the well, the more likely it is to have arsenic, because water has been in residence longer with arsenic. But it’s not a hard and fast rule.”

A rising tide?

A misperception Bulkow has heard is the level of arsenic in the water supply is rising.

“I’m not aware of there being an increase associated with arsenic,” she said.
There has been a concern that earthquakes and seismic activity lead to an increase of arsenic in water, but that’s probably not the case, she said. Probably.

“It is possible that some earthquakes could loosen deposits, and you could temporarily see an increase. We don’t know. We haven’t actually done that kind of testing to substantiate those claims. We have had other people tell us that they believe there is a correlation,” Bulkow said.

Tauriainen said he doesn’t think the typical magnitude of earthquakes felt on the central peninsula cause long-term changes in water quality.

“We don’t have evidence of that. We have not done a study, but normally the levels will stay roughly the same,” he said.

Maybe if the central peninsula contained more bedrock, earthquakes might fracture the rock and introduce more arsenic-bearing sediments into underground aquifers. But central peninsula communities sit on 1,000 feet of unconsolidated sediments, Tauriainen said, which may shift around during earthquakes, but don’t crack or undergo a large amount of upheaval.

However, aquifers can and do change, and wells can go dry or produce more water, or bring up new sediments if pumped hard. All of which could potentially affect water quality.

“If you’ve never tested private wells for (water) quality, you should, and if you have tested it in the past, it doesn’t hurt to get tested again to make sure you’re comfortable with those test results,” Bulkow said.

She said the increased buzz about arsenic is more likely due to increased attention on arsenic than increasing arsenic levels. The increased attention has come because the Environmental Protection Agency lowered the limit of arsenic contamination allowed in public water sources.

The maximum contaminant level was lowered from 50 parts per billion to 10 parts per billion in 2006. The lower limit meant an increased number of water sources exceeded the allowed level of arsenic, but it doesn’t mean the amount of arsenic changed, Bulkow said. It’s just that 40 ppb was considered fine prior to 2006, and over the limit post 2006.

Reaching the limit

How much is too much is a basic question in determining a resident’s risk from arsenic, but debate swirls over what that level should be.

Prior to 2006, the EPA’s maximum contaminant level of 50 ppb was thought to be the difference between safe and not. And some people still think it is, even after the maximum contaminant level was lowered to 10 ppb.

“There’s a lot of conflicting data on arsenic. People believe the mcl is too high, and there are some that say the mcl is low,” Bulkow said.

“EPA is constantly looking at new research data that’s available to determine whether their current standards are consistent with what is being discovered in the lab and through reporting of discoveries and through the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and other agencies. If they look at the data and decided the mcls were set too high, they revisit them and lower them. That’s what they did with arsenic,” she said.

Opponents of the lower mcl level point out that many of the studies done on arsenic took place in Third World countries, where poverty, poor sanitation and other factors already contributed to compromised health, Bulkow said.

She also said the arsenic limit assumes a sole water source, which typically isn’t the case.

“The mcl is set on the idea people drink the same water source every day all your life — 2 liters a day out of the same source. Most people don’t drink all their water all their whole life from one source,” she said.

Arsenic exposure of 200 ppb is toxic to a human. But arsenic is bioaccumulative, meaning even low-level exposure over time can build up to the point where it impacts health. Having over 10 ppb arsenic in a person’s system can increase their cancer risk by 30 percent, Thompson said.

But people, just like their wells, are different. Some people are more susceptible to effects from arsenic than others, just as some may drink more water than others. Even among the heavy water drinkers, some get more from their home water source, while others drink it from work, bottled from the store or from other sources.

All those variables make it difficult to determine one standard limit that is theoretically safe for all, whether it’s 10 ppb, 50 ppb or somewhere in between.
“We have to set the level someplace, so EPA is saying 10 is the level you should be concerned about. We have to draw the line somewhere, and the lines move,” Bulkow said. “It’s always based on more evidence and study and EPA is trying to do the best we can to protect public health with data we have at the time.”

Rather than being concerned over where the limit is set, Bulkow recommends residents use the 10 ppb limit as a guideline for considering their own individual arsenic exposure risk and deciding what they should do about it.

“I think what they should be concerned about is whether they have arsenic in the water and whether it should be treated,” Bulkow said.

She said people should have their water tested by a certified lab, discuss those results with their physician and a water treatment professional and decide from there whether, and how extensively, they should filter their water.

“They can look at the overall exposure risks that they have and look at their treatment options. I don’t want people to overreact because they all of a sudden find out they have arsenic in their water. But nobody ever feels like they’re overreacting to public health risks. I just want people to take it into perspective,” Bulkow said.

In the absence of regulations extending to private water sources, individual choice comes to the fore.

“Between 10 and 50 parts per billion, according to the EPA, is a concern,” Tauriainen said. “I’m not sure that it is, but for some people it is a concern. If somebody isn’t sleeping well at night because they’re worried about their water, it’s worth putting some kind of treatment on it.”

Arsenic on tap — Contaminant levels in area wells create murky issues

Editor’s note: Next week’s Redoubt Reporter will continue an examination of arsenic levels in drinking water, focusing on the perspective that arsenic contamination is not a serious concern.

By Jenny Neyman
Redoubt Reporter

Think before you drink.

That phrase usually refers to booze, as in campaigns to prevent drinking and driving or admonishing mothers against fetal alcohol syndrome.

On the central Kenai Peninsula, there’s a much more common beverage that requires attention — plain, old, unassuming water.

Filling up a glass at the tap from houses on private wells and even municipal sources may get residents more than they bargained for, including an increased risk of cancer and a whole slew of side effects, from fatigue and skin discolorization to respiratory tract irritation and possibly even seizures.

That’s because most drinking water in the area contains arsenic, a toxin that comes from minerals dissolving into underground aquifers. There isn’t much argument over whether arsenic is in the water, even through it isn’t detectable by sight, smell or taste, or that some wells have arsenic levels high enough to pose health risks and warrant the instillation of costly water filtration systems.

Other issues regarding arsenic stir up debate.

How much is too much?

How widespread are high arsenic levels?

For that matter, what level of arsenic is considered high?

Answers vary. Some describe a situation that is near epidemic, posing serious health risks to the majority of the population.

“The level of the significance of it on the peninsula is so ridiculously high that I think every single person should have their well tested specifically for arsenic,” said Dr. Robert Thompson, who has tested and treated patients for high arsenic levels in his Soldotna practice for the past five years.

Not only are dangerously high arsenic levels common in water sources on the central Kenai Peninsula, but most people have no idea their water is contaminated because there are no regulations requiring arsenic testing or setting acceptable contaminant limits for private wells, Thompson said.

Others say it isn’t that big of an issue and that concern over arsenic may be a misperception stemming from the Environmental Protection Agency a few years ago changing the maximum amount of arsenic allowed in municipal water sources, which are governed under the Clean Water Act. The allowed limit was lowered, but that doesn’t mean the amount of arsenic has increased.

“Generally on the Kenai Peninsula we have good water. As far as health concerns, it’s generally good,” said Mike Tauriainen, owner of Tauriainen Engineering and Northern Test Lab in Soldotna, which does water analysis.

When arsenic is concerned, one thing is clear — it’s a murky subject.

Water woes

Janette MacDonald chocked up her weight gain and diminishing energy to getting older.

She’d always been fit and active, doing rodeo when she was younger. She still works out an hour a day, on top of the physical demands of taking care of her and her husband’s livestock and running the Sterling Moose River Dog Kennel they operate out of their home. The MacDonalds eat well, avoiding most processed food and even raising their own beef. And she drinks water “like a cow,” she said, downing several liters a day from her kitchen faucet.

Despite all that, she gained 60 to 70 pounds over about five years, and no amount of diet or exercise would take it off. Her energy level was shot to the point where she’d have to take naps during the day just to recharge enough keep the kennel up. Her hair was brittle and falling out, she developed skin spots and nail discoloration, and was having trouble with her memory. She was 50 at the time, in 2006, and figured it was all an inevitable part of age catching up with her.

“I was fighting the weight but I thought, ‘Well, I’m just not eating very good.’ We push all this off as we’re aging, we’re getting older, our bodies aren’t responding as well. We need to eat better and exercise more, but that just makes you tireder,” MacDonald said.

In March 2006 she went with her daughter to an appointment with Dr. Robert Thompson in Soldotna. Being acquaintances through kenneling Dr. Thompson’s dog on occasion, he asked how MacDonald was doing. She didn’t hesitate in telling him she felt like hell.

Thompson is a proponent of measuring and addressing mineral deficiencies in patients to improve their health, rather than prescribing medication for a host of ills. It’s a philosophy he developed in writing his book, “The Calcium Lie,” and in developing a treatment strategy for hyperthyroidism (an underactive thyroid), which he said is a common problem for people who are overweight.

“I’m just trying to take better care of patients,” Thompson said. “The way we practice medicine today is not right, it’s messed up. We can’t presume to get people better with pills. Somewhere along the way in medical school we forgot about the biology of disease and figure if you have a medical problem you must have a drug deficiency.”

Thompson recommended MacDonald have a hair mineral analysis done. A hair sample was sent to a lab in Texas and analyzed to determine the levels of minerals and toxins in MacDonald’s system. The results came back showing McDonald’s arsenic level was off the charts at 204 parts per billion. The recommended limit is 10 ppb. The chart from the lab only went up to 70 ppb.
“I was like, ‘Oh, crap,” she said.

Her arsenic level was so high it was robbing her body of other, needed minerals, she said. Sodium, potassium, magnesium, zinc — “everything else was below the level it should be at,” she said. “Arsenic pulls all the good stuff out of you. Your body is so busy fighting it you don’t absorb any of the nutrients.”

Arsenic is bioaccumulative, meaning it builds up over time. At elevated levels it can contribute to a host of problems, including weight gain, fatigue, hair loss, skin rashes, pigmentation of nails, confusion, numbness in hands and feet, respiratory tract irritation, muscle aches, stomach problems and even seizures, and it can lead to an increase in free radical formation, which ages connective tissue in the body, Thompson said. It’s also linked to increased cancer risks, especially skin, lung and liver cancer.

“When is exceeds 10 parts per billion, it increases the cancer risk 30 times, and so it’s a real, significant problem from the long-term standpoint, as well as potentially a shorter-term standpoint,” he said.

Arsenic can come from a variety of sources, including eating some forms of seafood and some brands of store-bought chicken, and breathing smoke from burning treated lumber, Thompson said. But none of that would explain MacDonald’s high level. The most likely culprit was also the most mundane — her home drinking water.

The MacDonalds had their well water tested for arsenic, and sure enough, it came back at 70 ppb. The maximum level recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency is 10 ppb.

“It’s a huge problem on the peninsula, about 80 percent of the wells, based on the testing I’ve seen, have high arsenic levels,” Thompson said. “I’m more surprised when they’re not elevated than when I see them when they are elevated.”

MacDonald has lived in her house off Otter Drive in Sterling for about 20 years now and had no idea there was a problem with her water. After the diagnosis she and her husband, Charlie, had a water filtration system installed that removed arsenic from all the water used in the house, for drinking, cooking, bathing and cleaning.

“I never even heard of it. Nobody ever talked about it. I had no idea,” MacDonald said. “You look at the water and it looks good and it tastes good and that’s it. We had the best-tasting water in Sterling. It was clear and beautiful and it was sweet. People would come fill up water jugs at our house. Now it’s on a filter and it’s flat-tasting.”

MacDonald’s husband and daughter had their arsenic levels tested and they were found to be slightly elevated, but nowhere near the degree hers was. But she’s lived in the home longer and works there running the kennel, so tap water was what she drank all day, every day, for 20 years. Charlie works as a Homer Electric Association lineman and isn’t around the house as much. Plus, he isn’t a big water drinker. Neither is MacDonald’s daughter.

Thompson has been recommending tissue analyses in his practice since 2000 among his patients in Anchorage and on the Kenai Peninsula. Anchorage patients show elevated arsenic levels occasionally, but it’s much more common on the peninsula, he said. He estimates having about 1,000 hair analyses done for patients in the last nine years of practice — the last five in Soldotna — and from those results said that arsenic “is a huge problem.”

“The Sports Lake area — everybody’s got high arsenic. Mackey Lake, same thing. And Longmere Lake, same thing — high arsenic levels. Every single well in that area has it. And when you eat the fish out of those lakes, guess what you’re getting — arsenic. Kenai, Nikiski, Kasilof — same problem,” Thompson said.

He speaks from personal experience, as well, after finding the drinking water at the house he brought on Sports Lake Road had an elevated arsenic level, he said.

“I think I lost about half the hair on my head within the first year I moved to the Sports Lake area until I realized what was going on,” he said.

Once a high arsenic level is diagnosed, the first step of treatment is preventing any more accumulation of the toxin. That means getting water from an uncontaminated source or, more feasibly for most people on private wells, installing a filtration system. Treatment options have changed over the years, and Thompson said he now prescribes a product called Metal-Free, a chelation agent that removes heavy metals by binding to the metal ions and flushing them out of the body. MacDonald said she also had treatment for an underactive thyroid, underwent feet detoxification treatments at a spa in Soldotna, and credits the support of her Taking Off Pounds Sensibly group, AK No. 164 in Soldotna, for helping her lose the weight she put on.

A year later, in April 2007, MacDonald had another hair analysis done. This one showed her mineral counts to be back to normal and her arsenic level down to 13 ppb. She lost about 60 pounds, her skin and nail discolorization was fading and she felt better than she had in years, she said.

“I’ve got energy all over the place now and I’m two years older,” she said.

Since the experience she’s made it her mission to inform people about the dangers of arsenic in drinking water. She’s told all her neighbors and friends to get their water tested, and her TOPS group had an information program about the subject.

“I would say a high percentage of the wells all have arsenic in them and a lot of them haven’t even tested their wells, and I’m on the bandwagon going, ‘Wait a second, guys, at least get your water tested. At least rule that out,’” MacDonald said. “Some say, ‘Oh, it’s not going to bother me.’ Well, it hasn’t yet, but arsenic builds up in your system. It doesn’t go away.”

Thirst for knowledge

If MacDonald and Thompson are on the bandwagon to warn people with private wells about arsenic, Mike Polocz from Culligan is taking the reins to raise public awareness. He said he’s alarmed not only about the level of arsenic he’s seen in private well water since he moved to the central Kenai Peninsula, but also the lack of knowledge about the situation.

“If this was happening down in Illinois when I was there, this would be all over the news. I mean all over. And I just don’t get it,” he said.

Culligan sells water filtration systems and for the last eight years has done arsenic testing, Polocz says. The test is a kit where Polocz adds a chemical to an unfiltered water sample, which turns a strip of paper a shade of orange or yellow, depending on the amount of arsenic in the water. The color is matched to a key to show the arsenic level. He said the test has an error rating of plus or minus 5, and shows arsenic levels in parts per billion.

He said his concern over the issue isn’t due to his company selling water filtration systems. He’s concerned about the health implications, he said. As such, he said Culligan is offering free arsenic water testing on all new wells, and for existing wells through the beginning of March. Otherwise the test costs $25.

“I didn’t think (arsenic) was that bad until I realized how high it’s gotten and how many are oblivious to its existence or effects,” Polocz said.

He said the frequency of finding high arsenic levels is increasing. He used to find a well with 70 ppb perhaps once a month, he said, but in February he tested two on Kalifornsky Beach Road that tested at 70 ppb at the same time. Well depths and differences in aquifers affect arsenic levels, and arsenic levels can differ at homes even right across the street. But by and large if a neighbor has a problem, the rest of the area probably does, too, he said. He also theorized that earthquake activity might increase arsenic levels in water, so that a previous test result years before may no longer be valid.

His own water, off Betty Lou in Sterling, had tested previously at 50 ppb. He tested it again recently and got a result of 80 ppb, he said.

“It’s a good thing I’m moving,” he said. “I’m probably a little paranoid. Now that I know about it, I get out of the shower and I’m looking at my arms and stuff.”

Polocz recommends a filtration system for drinking water that has 10 ppb of arsenic or higher. At 50 ppb, he recommends a whole-house filtration system, because arsenic can be absorbed through the skin at high levels.

“Treat all the water in your house so when you fill up the tub and put your kids in it you’re not putting them in 70 parts-per-billion arsenic,” he said.

Polocz has started putting colored dots on a map of the central peninsula hanging on a wall in the Culligan office to represent well sites that have tested high for arsenic, with large orange dots for 70 ppb and smaller ones for lesser levels. It creates a striking visual, with ominous clusters of color particularly in Sterling, the Sports Lake area and along Kalifornsky Beach Road.

Polocz said most people aren’t even aware there might be a problem, since arsenic testing isn’t required on private wells.

“I’m learning more and more about it every day,” he said. “Well drillers are happy when they’re under three parts-per-billion iron and it’s not coming out like tomato sauce. Hear no evil, see no evil. Once they hit good water under three parts-per-billion of iron, it is what it is.”

Editorial — Speak truth to power?

Hikes in energy costs over the past year have been a rude awakening on the central Kenai Peninsula to the fact that abundant, cheap energy is a luxury, not a right, and certainly not a guarantee. The peninsula, like most of the country, had it good for a long time, and so was able to put off the difficult discussions and decisions about power generation that other countries have been struggling with.

Not any longer.

The Homer Electric Association Board of Directors made a good decision Feb. 10 to initiate a power supply study before committing to buying electricity from the Healy coal project.

The goal of the independent study is to provide the board with a cost-benefit analysis of possible power generation sources, including natural gas, coal and various renewable energies. “The study will consider all factors involved in power production, including possible future fuel costs, regulatory issues, reliability, and most importantly, the impact it will have on the rates paid by our members,” said board president Debbie Debnam.

Now is the time to wean our dependence off fossil fuels for power generation. Regardless of where one stands on the environmental issues of burning oil, natural gas and coal for fuel, the financial ramifications of doing so can’t be ignored. On the peninsula, it stares us in the face with each electric bill and heating bill.

Fossil fuels come with a cost —and it’s a rising one. Not only are supplies of natural gas and oil dwindling, the price of relying on them for our main power source is rising. Switching to coal would put us on the same path down the road.

There’s no time like the present to change that path. Our hope is this study prompts the HEA board to commit to developing renewable sources of energy. It will mean more money up front, but that investment will pay off when electric rates aren’t so shackled to fossil fuels. That’s the kind of “green” movement everyone can get behind.

Dammed to repeat the past? Cooper Landing residents concerned about hydro with Cooper Creek fish runs depleted

Editor’s note: This is the final story in a series examining possible Homer Electric Association hydroelectric projects near Moose Pass.

By Jenny Neyman
Redoubt Reporter

Residents of Cooper Landing 50 years ago knew Cooper Creek as a favored fishing hole, where anglers could land rainbow trout, Dolly Varden, king salmon and the occasional sockeye and chum salmon without having to venture far from home.

Today, Cooper Creek is known for the hydroelectric dam it supports and the fish it doesn’t.

The dam on Cooper Creek and power plant at Cooper Lake were built by Chugach Electric Association in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Shortly thereafter, fish stocks began to decrease. Over the years there’s been argument over what caused the demise of the fish, and how substantial the fishery was in the first place.

Longtime Cooper Landing residents aren’t conflicted about it — there were large runs until the dam destroyed them, they say. It’s against this backdrop that Kenai Hydro — a partnership between Homer Electric Association and Wind Energy Alaska — is investigating building four hydro sites in the Trail Lakes drainage near Moose Pass, on Crescent Lake, Grant Lake, Falls Creek and Ptarmigan Lake.

Cooper Landing residents were outspoken with concerns about the projects at an informational meeting Jan. 21 in Cooper Landing, and the Friends of Cooper Landing group filed opposition with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission against Kenai Hydro being awarded preliminary permits to study the sites for hydro.

For its part, Kenai Hydro says the environmental impact of the Cooper Creek dam that led to the decimation of fish runs won’t happen with the new projects. Their own studies and designs will seek to avoid damaging fish habitat, and the permitting process the projects will have to go through is meant to ensure due diligence will be taken to mitigate harms.

Residents living near the once productive Cooper Creek aren’t so sure.

Rich waters

Cooper Landing historian Mona Painter bristles at the suggestion that the existence and demise of fish in Cooper Creek is anything but fact.

“I did interviews with people, they talked about the fish that were in there,” she said.

Painter was hired by the Forest Service to do an extensive study of Cooper Creek, finished in January 1998, including the area’s history stretching back beyond construction of the dam to the mining bonanza sparked by Joseph Cooper’s discovery of gold in the creek in 1884.

Mining use of the creek was extensive in the early years, including three hydraulic plants built from 1907-09, and a dredge mining operation started in 1912. By 1941, World War II slowed mining activity in the area, and Painter found evidence that fish stocks rebounded in the creek.

She compiled studies, stories and written mentions of fish and fishing in the creek and lake for the project. Among the references she compiled were the results of a sport fishery survey from 1955 that found 342 fishermen fished 2,281 days in the creek. In 1956 a memorandum report stated that, “lower Cooper Creek supported an important sport fishery and provided spawning areas for small runs of commercially significant salmon species.” Only minimal fish surveys were done before the dam was built and counts varied widely, but they did document sockeye salmon, kings and the occasional chum salmon in the creek prior to 1959, according to Painter’s research.

She also added her own, firsthand knowledge of the area.

“There is no doubt that rainbow trout fishing was good in Cooper Creek before the dam was built,” Painter wrote. “Newspaper articles attest to that as does Nick Lean, David Rhode, Floyd McElveen, and Bob Williams. Thirty-inch rainbows were not uncommon. King salmon were seen swimming up Cooper Creek. In 1959, my 3-year-old son and I were exploring in the area beyond the campground on the west side of Cooper Creek and saw king salmon in a tiny stream that flowed into Cooper Creek. The creek was so shallow that the upper half of the salmon was out of the water. This was my first sight of a live king salmon and quite memorable.”

McElveen, a missionary, and his family moved into a cabin on the west side of Cooper Creek Campground in 1958. In his book, “The Call of Alaska,” he wrote about the sparkling creek filled with rainbow trout, and one time catching a 29-inch trout with a small hook and salmon egg.

Rhode and Lean told stories of fishing in the creek when they were younger, and Painter has a picture of Lean and his friend Laurel “Swede” Gresham taken in front of the Lean home on the Kenai River with rainbows the two caught in Cooper Creek.

In a videotaped interview with Gary and Chris Titus in 1993, Lean talked about the creek.

“Big chars, big Dollies, Cooper Creek was a good fish stream in those days,” Lean said. “Big rainbows would go up to spawn in the spring. I’ve seen 30-inch rainbows up there like you won’t believe. … It was a good king salmon stream, too. I’d stand there on the bridge as a kid and watch those great big kings swimming up. They were all up and down the creek.”

Poor returns

In 1957 Chugach was permitted to put in a hydroelectric facility at Cooper Lake. In 1959 a road to the dam site was completed and construction began, according to Painter’s research. A tunnel was dug between the south end of Cooper Lake and Kenai Lake to the east. An earthen dam was built on Cooper Creek, which drains out of the north end of Cooper Lake and winds five miles through forest and gorges to drain into the Kenai River under the Sterling Highway. The dam allowed water to collect in Cooper Lake and be sluiced through the tunnel to a powerhouse sitting on the shore of Kenai Lake, where the water was released. Water to Cooper Creek was cut off in October 1962 and the power plant began operating, to the delight of area residents — at the time.

“Certainly in those days when the dam was built people were really hungry for electricity instead of having their own generator,” Painter said. “I don’t remember anybody even talking about maybe there wouldn’t be fish anymore, and maybe we should do this differently. We wanted electricity.”

Painter said it didn’t take long to realize the dam was bad for fish.

“As soon as they built the dam there weren’t fish. That’s easy. I’ve been to the dam at different occasions and there’s no water that comes from Cooper Creek anymore,” she said.

Water below the dam in Cooper Creek comes from Stetson Creek, which drains into it from the west. But the water in Stetson is colder than the water in Cooper Lake; meaning Cooper Creek became 8.5 degrees Fahrenheit colder, according to Painter’s research. Decreased water flow was also documented at 25 percent of normal.

She also notes several surveys done in 1997 on Cooper Creek, one where minnow traps caught 146 Dollies and one rainbow, another where one adult male king salmon was found three-quarters of a mile upstream from the creek mouth on a day in August, and 26 adult Dollies were tagged on a day in September.

But without having substantiated fish counts from before the dam was built, it’s difficult to estimate the impact the dam and resultant change in creek hydrology had on anadromous fish in Cooper Creek. That was Chugach Electric’s position when the hydro facility was up for relicensing recently.

“There was discussion of the issues surrounding Cooper Creek and old anadromous fish in that creek back then pre the Cooper Lake power plant. There wasn’t any conclusion that I recall as far as how to determine whether there was a fish flow through there or not and how heavy the fish used that area or not,” said Steve Gilbert, with enXco, a renewable energy firm that partnered with Cook Inlet Region Corp. to form Wind Energy Alaska, which is HEA’s partner in Kenai Hydro.

Gilbert is manager of Alaska projects for enXco, and previously worked for Chugach, where he was the manager of the Cooper Lake power plant for several years, he said.

Chugach’s application to relicense the Cooper Lake power plant was approved by FERC in 2008. The relicensing was met with concerns from Cooper Landing residents and fisheries managers over what had happened to Cooper Creek.

Those concerns surfaced again in the meeting with Kenai Hydro and HEA representatives Jan. 21 in Cooper Landing.

Paul McLarnon, a biologist with HDR Alaska, a consultant doing engineering design work and ecological studies for Kenai Hydro, told the audience Kenai Hydro plans to do things differently than the Cooper Lake facility.

“In Cooper Creek, we determined the biggest limiting factor of that creek is temperature,” he said, due to water coming from colder Stetson Creek, rather than Cooper Lake.

In the projects Kenai Hydro is considering, the same water diverted out of lakes and creeks for power would be returned to the creeks above anadromous fish habitat, McLarnon said. And they would study what effect power generation may have on water temperature before the projects are built, he said.

That isn’t enough assurance for everyone.

“I have serious doubts that you’re going to be able to do that, and I don’t know. You’re going to have to convince me and everyone here that you can do that,” said John Thorne, of Cooper Landing, during the meeting

Painter said she isn’t against hydro per se, but is concerned about the effects it can have, especially due to the lessons of Cooper Creek.

“It’s not that I’m biased, or because I don’t know the electric business. I guess if there was a low-impact way that wouldn’t hurt the recreation or the fishery and so forth I guess I wouldn’t have anything against it. I mean, we all need electric power. It’s just that, it’s interesting,” she said.

“I know there were fish in Cooper Creek, and I hope there will be fish in Crescent Creek.”

Passable reception — Most Moose Pass residents take wait-and-see approach to Kenai Hydro’s plans

By Jenny Neyman
Redoubt Reporter

The players:

Homer Electric Association has partnered with Wind Energy Alaska to form Kenai Hydro. Wind Energy Alaska is a partnership between Cook Inlet Region Inc. and enXco, a renewable energy firm. Kenai Hydro has brought in consultants HDR Alaska to help with engineering and environmental research, and Long View Associates to assist with the permitting process.

The projects:

• Crescent Lake would involve restricted water flow to the west into Crescent Creek, and a 13,000-foot pipe would take water east out of the lake past Carter Lake to a power station down the mountain.
• Grant Lake would be dammed, with the lake level rising up to nine feet and draining as much as 25 feet. A pipe would carry water to a powerhouse, then return it to the creek above anadromous fish habitat.
• Falls Creek water would be diverted through a pipe to Grant Lake to increase water storage and power output there, or else it would go down to a separate powerhouse and be returned to the creek.
• Ptarmigan Lake water would be diverted through a 1.5-mile-long tunnel to a powerhouse before being returned to the creek above anadromous fish habitat.

As Kenai Hydro develops plans to build hydro projects on Crescent Lake, Grant Lake, Falls Creek and Ptarmigan Lake, residents of Moose Pass are left to wrestle with the concept of NIMBY — not in my backyard.

The projects would capitalize on the watershed in the Moose Pass area, generating around 5 megawatts each of renewable energy that would help somewhat lessen Homer Electric Association’s current dependence on natural gas. The concept of whether or not hydro is a good idea hasn’t been the issue, it’s whether or not hydro should happen the way Kenai Hydro is proposing, where it’s proposing — in a vast tract of mountainous wilderness that is literally out Moose Pass’ back door.

At a meeting Jan. 28 in Moose Pass, representatives of Kenai Hydro and its consultants shared their plans so far, answered questions and listened to concerns about the projects from 40 to 50 residents.

At a similar meeting the week before in Cooper Landing, the presentation was met with a negative response, with several people voicing strong opposition to the projects. Moose Pass residents were more accepting, said Joe Gallagher, HEA spokesperson.

“The tone was more receptive to the idea of the hydro projects,” he said. “I would say that the majority of the people there would support moving forward with the studies.

“They asked similar questions that residents in Cooper Landing did. They wanted to know about fish habitat, they wanted to know about visual impacts. People were interested about what types of roads might be necessary. They were very similar, but it seemed as though the responses we were able to provide seemed to resonate a little bit better with the people in Moose Pass.”

People at the meeting seemed to be willing to listen to what HEA had to say, and vice versa, said Jeff Hetrick, a Moose Pass resident who’s worked in fisheries for 20 years, including running the Trail Lakes hatchery at one time.

“I think they started the process the very right way — go to public and explain it to them, answer questions and keep on answering them. I think they did a professional job and ran a great meeting, and I’ve been to a lot of them, and they should be commended,” Hetrick said. “It was a good first step. I think they covered everything they needed to cover, the basics of everything, and gave enough information for people to chew on.”

Hetrick said people had a knee-jerk reaction to the projects when they first saw Kenai Hydro’s proposal, but he’s willing to wait and watch the study process continue to see if his concerns are addressed, he said.

“When you dewater a system, even with the best of intentions, you have some things that would be extremely hard to replace,” Hetrick said. “The best you could hope for it is to do no damage, which would be pretty tough. That would be jumping to conclusions. But they seemed very attuned or acute to fishery issues, a lot more so than I think you’d expect.”

But he does think the lack of direct benefit to Moose Pass residents — since they are Chugach Electric customers and wouldn’t see the rate decreases HEA members might get from the hydro projects — may impact local support for hydro.

“The human element arises with what’s in it for me? It’s probably going to be the toughest sell because local people aren’t going to benefit, other than contributing to a green world,” Hetrick said.

For him, that alone is reason enough to consider the projects.

“I don’t have any reaction yet. We all support alternative energy, so it’s time to put up or shut up,” he said.

Bruce Jaffa, who’s lived in Moose Pass and Cooper Landing for the past 35 years and has done construction work on other hydro projects in the state, including the Bradley Lake dam in Kachemak Bay, discredits the argument that the proposed area is “pristine” wilderness and should be left that way. Back before even he came to the area there were mining developments on the creeks, he said.

“We all rail about altering some of this stuff, and in fact it’s already been altered before,” he said.

Jaffa said he values the environment around him, but doesn’t think he, or anyone else, has the right to block what could be beneficial development simply because it’s near where they live.

“In America there’s this selfish — I’m going to call it selfish — NIMBY attitude that’s a result of the ’80s and ’90s, the ‘me first’ generation. The projects that would benefit us, that would benefit us as a civilization, we’re going to endorse those as long as they’re not done around me — that’s a cop-out,” Jaffa said. “Frankly, to move forward with a project like this one, you need to have an altruistic attitude because the benefits are not ones that you’re going to see immediately.”

But he does see the possibility of Kenai Hydro projects indirectly benefiting Moose Pass residents. He said having power generation in the area would lessen line loss, the amount of electricity that’s dissipated due to friction as electrons travel over long distances through transmission lines.

“Most clients pay for the power that is shipped, not the power that is received. … Having a power source here, they fill the line and reduce line loss. That’s a fairly philosophic issue, and I don’t know what the dollar number is, but it’s a real number,” Jaffa said.

Having HEA crews in the area could also benefit residents, for instance if an avalanche knocks out power, or they may help with water utility work. HEA may also contribute to the school or community, he said.

“I think that we will get a significant benefit from them, and I think that’s something that Homer Electric needs to present. They need to develop how this will benefit not just their ratepayers, but other residents of Kenai Peninsula, residents of Moose Pass and users of Railbelt energy grid,” he said.

Then there’s the benefit in a larger sense, of renewable energy, he said.

“For us to have a need in our society for green power or alternative energy instead of carbon-based fuel, I think we all agree on that,” he said. “So where are we going to do it? You have to do it in the available location.”

That being said, Jaffa doesn’t want fish habitat to be harmed, unnecessary roads to be punched through the wilderness or the visual beauty of the area to be compromised, he said. He thinks the projects can be done without those harms, and that the regulatory process will protect against them, he said.

“I think there are ways to do that. Construction would be short-lived and the design is such that it’s not tremendously harmful. If it doesn’t leave a lasting scar of some sort, the pluses outweigh the negatives,” Jaffa said.

Marion Glaser disagrees. She and her sister, Jolie, grew up in Moose Pass, and came back after college to live there. She said the area has value in its untouched state, for fish habitat and recreational uses, and doesn’t think the small hydro projects are beneficial enough to be worth the risks to the environment.

“I’m definitely not supportive. I do have concerns. I feel like people not only from the Seward and Moose Pass area, but the Kenai Peninsula, Anchorage, Lower 48 and the world come to this beautiful place. A lot of people come here to fish and hike, and the proposed hydroelectric dams would affect pristine wilderness areas that are just adjacent to hiking and fishing streams,” she said.

Glaser supports hydro, she said, just not ones that would affect streams that support fish and in areas that support wildlife and recreation.

“I’m very for green energy. I think it’s an important thing to strive for in this day and age, but I think that we need to preserve this place for our children, and I think that its highest value is its value as a beautiful, pristine place for recreation and for people to have access to rivers and lakes in the outdoors. I think that it would be wiser to do a hydro project in a place that there would be less impact to,” she said.

She’s particularly concerned about the effects changing hydrology would have on fish streams.

“I think that these streams have a certain carrying capacity of fish and insects and birds and rare and sensitive species of plants that have adapted to fit the natural hydrology of the area. Even if you take a third of the water out of these steams, the population of salmon, trout, wildflowers and insects will be affected,” Glaser said. “I know the costs would be a little higher to do it a little farther away from a well-populated area (with existing transmission lines). But I think that’s what should be done.”

Gallagher, with HEA, said those are all the types of comments Kenai Hydro wants to hear — support as well as people’s concerns.

“That was the point of this first round of meetings: What did we miss? What are the concerns? And we hear them and those are all definitely the key reasons why those meetings are held,” he said.

He said people’s responses to the projects could influence how they’re developed, but couldn’t say yet if opposition like the kind received in Cooper Landing would impact the projects, as HDR is still in its planning phase. He said he expects HDR to release its recommendations on which projects to pursue, and how to pursue them, within a month.

Editorial: Image is everything in lead-up to hydro

For Kenai Hydro, the Homer Electric Association partnership that’s pursuing hydroelectric projects in the Moose Pass area, image is just about everything when it comes to gaining public support.

That’s why invoking the Low-Impact Hydropower Institute is a powerful sign. It’s an independent, well-respected organization that certifies certain hydropower projects as “low-impact,” meaning they meet stringent criteria meant to ensure protection of fish and wildlife habitat, recreation and historic interests.

Kenai Hydro has included the LIHI logo in its presentations and started off saying it intended to apply for certification for its projects. At recent meetings in Cooper Landing and Moose Pass, however, they’ve said they’re not eligible because the LIHI doesn’t certify new projects built after 1998. But they still use the logo and say they’ll follow the LIHI’s guidelines to create low-impact projects.

The change caused some raised eyebrows. In Cooper Landing, a resident requested that Kenai Hydro stop using LIHI’s logo because it creates the false impression that the organization has some involvement or association with the group, with is not true. In Moose Pass, Bruce Jaffa said he’s concerned that Kenai Hydro didn’t get all this straightened out before they started telling the public about it.

“I think it was a little wishful thinking that they could include that,” he said. “When you see a drastic change like that early on it gives you some reason to wonder why it wasn’t caught earlier.”

Fred Ayer, executive director of the LIHI, said he hasn’t been contacted by HEA or Kenai Hydro and that, “If they are using our logo, they are using it without our permission and in a way that certainly could confuse stakeholders.”

Ayer said the group’s focus is dams, and it does not support the construction of new dams, which is why it doesn’t certify new hydro dams built after 1998 — the year before LIHI was formed. But it is considering new, nondam technology for hydro and plans to create criteria for certifying new facilities. Kenai Hydro is planning dam structures.

If Kenai Hydro’s mistake in being ineligible for LIHI certification was a simple oversight, that’s one thing. But to know they don’t qualify and still use the LIHI image gives the impression of an association that doesn’t exist. It’s laudable and responsible for Kenai Hydro to want to follow the low-impact criteria, but without the LIHI having a say in whether they’re actually following it or not negates the whole purpose of the certification. Who is Kenai Hydro to say its creating low-impact projects along the lines of LIHI, without an impartial viewer checking to verify the claim?

Facts, figures, schematics and all the technical data that will come from environmental and design research will matter most to regulators in deciding whether to grant approval to build the projects — whether it’s one or all four, the way they’re envisioned now or in some revised state.

That information will matter to folks keeping close tabs on the development of the projects, too, but in this early stage of the process, when first impressions can lead to knee-jerk reactions of support or opposition, appearance reigns supreme.

Kenai Hydro needs to show it’s concerned about the environment it’s looking to alter and that it cares about protecting fish and wildlife habitat, recreational uses and scenic beauty. Maybe not as much as area residents do, because playing the “I hike up there once a year” card won’t win any credibility with locals, but at least enough to make people believe they’ll do what they can to minimize impacts from the projects.

Kenai Hydro’s desire to be low-impact is important and following the guidelines of the LIHI of its own accord is admirable, but to use the group’s name and logo to lend credibility to its projects, when in fact there is no association, just plain looks bad.

And that’s the wrong image to create.