report

Reclaiming the Sesan River

Restoring natural flows by modifying hydropower dam operations: International experience and hope for the Sesan River?
In order to catch fish before [Yali], we would just put water on the fire and go down to the river and by the time we came back with fish the water would be boiling, by Mr. Em Vuthy, Deputy District Governor of Ta Veng, Sesan River. Photo: Brett Eloff, Oxfam America

Ever since Electricity of Vietnam (EVN) began damming the Sesan River for hydropower, affected communities in downstream Cambodia have grappled with the question: what, if anything, can be done to reduce the worst effects of EVN dam operations? Below, Grainne Ryder suggests that much can be learned from other dammed river systems and that the transboundary Sesan is a prime candidate for dam re-operations to restore natural flows.

ive years ago I had the opportunity to visit a Brao community in northeast Cambodias Ratanakiri province, about an hour by boat upstream of Ta Veng not far from the border with Vietnam. It was harvest time and as we sat with the village elders drinking fermented rice wine, the talk turned to the big dam upstream and how it was affecting their lives. It was mid-1996 when the villagers were first caught off guard by an unusually large and sudden flood caused by Vietnams Yali Falls dam, a large

hydropower facility about 100 kilometres upstream on the Sesan River. The villagers lost livestock and crops to that first flood. Their boats and fishing gear were swept away. And to this day they live in fear of being drowned by a sudden surge in river flow. Daily fluctuations in water levels have eroded their riverbanks, making it difficult to grow crops. There are fewer fish. Some farmers have had to abandon their rice fields due to the rivers extreme and erratic flooding patterns.

Grainne Ryder is a water resources engineer by training and Policy Director of Probe International, a Canadian citizens group which investigates the economic and environmental effects of international aid. She worked with TERRA from 1990 to 1995 and is currently an advisor to Cambodias Sesan-Srepok-Sekong Rivers Protection Network (3SPN), advocating citizens rights and hydropower reform in the Mekong Region.

Page 74 Watershed Vol. 12 No. 3 November 2008

When asked how the village elders wanted to Yet appeals for natural flow restoration have resohandle these problems, there was no hesitation. They nated with government authorities in Cambodia and wanted to talk directly with the dam builder upstream Vietnam. True, EVN has ignored Cambodian appeals to find a solution. Once the dam builder knew the to stop building dams on the upper Sesan, yet Sesan trouble they were causing people downstream they villagers and Cambodian NGOs have managed to perhoped a solution could be found based on discus- suade the Cambodian government to officially resion and mutual respect. One quest a return of Sesans villager even asked if there natural flows on behalf of afwas a way to sue the Vietfected fishing and farming What we really want is the rainy season flow to namese dam owner for comcommunities in Ratanakiri be the rainy season pensation. Another said, and Stung Treng provinces.1 flow, and the dry season What we really want is the And Vietnam has responded, flow to be the dry searainy season flow to be the although not yet satisfactoson flow... We want the rainy season flow, and the dry rily. In 2004, the Vietnam Nanatural flow returned. season flow to be the dry seational Mekong Committee son flow. . . We want the natuannounced that EVN would ral flow returned. build a re-regulating dam, the Getting that profoundly reasonable message Sesan 4A, near the Cambodian border to reduce the across to the dam builder, Electricity of Vietnam damaging fluctuations in river flow caused by Yalis (EVN), hasnt been easy for Sesan villagers or their peaking operations. Then, in July 2007, EVN released advocates. The absence of rules forcing EVN and its first-ever transboundary assessment of the enviother Mekong dam builders to balance their power ronmental impacts of its dams on the upper Sesan production objectives with other river use priorities albeit seven years after the study was first proposed has left riparian communities without effective tools at a meeting facilitated by the Mekong River Comto assert their rights and interests in river manage- mission.2 ment. As Watershed readers know, Vietnam has made Notably, the EVN study, led by Nordic engineerhydropower development along the Mekong tribu- ing consultants, Statkraft Grner and the Norwegian taries it shares with Cambodia a top priority this past Institute for Water Research, explicitly linked ecodecade. EVN now has not one but three large hydro logical impacts along the Cambodian Sesan to the dams operating on the upper Sesan and two more rivers altered hydrological regime since construcunder construction. The state-backed utility enjoys tion of the Yali Falls dam. Relying heavily on village pre-eminent rights to rivers within Vietnamese terri- and NGO documentation and analysis of the probtory over the rights of other riparian users, and over lems, the consultants left no room for doubt about any other public policy objectives. EVN, like other the cause of the problem: Daily changes in the river state power companies in China, Lao PDR, and Thai- flow from [Yali] hydropower project have had the land, operates with almost total impunity for the dam- largest impacts [downstream] and these will not cease ages caused by its hydro operations within and be- unless appropriate mitigation is taken. They exyond its borders. Its also under pressure to expand plained, for example, that when upstream reservoirs power output to meet Vietnams growing demand and are being filled at the onset of the rainy season, alleviate power shortages shortages caused in large lower-than-normal flow releases to downstream mean part by the utilitys over-reliance on drought-prone that fish dont receive an adequate trigger to migrate hydro reservoirs. Under these circumstances, its or may have difficulty reaching their spawning hard to imagine how downstream Cambodians could grounds. And they explained that upstream dams negotiate a return to natural flow conditions in the release water in the wrong quantity and at the wrong Sesan River, particularly if that were to mean reduced time for the rice-growing season downstream, forcelectricity output from the Sesan dams. ing downstream farmers to give up cultivating wet

Watershed Vol. 12 No. 3 November 2008 Page 75

season rice altogether. store natural flows as villagers have requested? The consultants further suggested changes in Dam affected Cambodians are entitled to know dam operations to improve downstream conditions, what is possible: how have dam owners elsewhere citing international practices such as more gradual changed their operations and reduced the worst eframping rates for the turbines, and a more gradual fects of their operations? Only with an understandfilling of Sesan hydro reservoirs at the onset of the ing of what works (potentially) and what has not rainy season to provide more worked can Sesan advocates flow for downstream fish mihope to persuade governgrations. They noted that ment authorities in Cambodia Upstream dams release dam operators in Norway and Vietnam to take mitigawater in the wrong and other European countion and flow restoration sequantity and at the tries are obliged (under their riously. Otherwise, the two wrong time for the rice-growing season concession or licensing governments will devise their downstream, forcing agreements) to release floods own mitigation scheme for downstream farmers to that will trigger the movement the Sesan namely, hydro give up cultivating wet of migratory fish to spawndevelopment along its lower season rice altogether. ing grounds. reach which may serve naThe problem with the tional objectives but will only study is its treatment of the make river conditions that re-regulating dam. The consultants admit they only much worse for more people living along the Sesan learned about EVNs plan for a re-regulating dam as (see Watershed Vol. 12 No. 2). they were finishing their draft report in May 2006 Heres where international experience with flow (construction began in 2004). Yet the consultants restoration in dammed rivers can provide some guidconclude without presenting any verification by ance and encouragement. In countries where large hydrological modelling that the re-regulating dam hydro dams have been in operation for the better part would be the main mitigation measure to relieve prob- of the 20th Century, the practice of restoring some lems caused by daily fluctuations, including riverbank approximation of natural (or environmental) flows erosion, turbidity, and livelihood losses.3 downstream has been proven technically and ecoClearly, further independent analysis is needed. nomically feasible (see Box: Changing hydro dam opNobody (except presumably EVN) knows how ex- erations). actly the re-regulating dam will be operated or to Based on their two decades of flow restoration what effect. In January 2008, Cambodians learned experience in the United States, river experts Brian through the official Vietnam News Agency that Sesan Richter and Greg Thomas write that if hydropower 4A will have three turbines for a total installed gen- dams can be operated to release water on a daily baerating capacity of 63 megawatts (MW) and that the sis at a rate that is closer to the rate of natural inflow project is not scheduled to be completed until July into the reservoir, impacts on downstream ecosys2010, more than ten years after the Yali Falls dam tems can be reduced.4 started operating. In other dam building countries, In Michigan, for example, the Consumers Energy its not uncommon for re-regulating dams to have Company was ordered to switch to run-of-river flows turbines installed to returbine the inflow from larger at two of its hydro dams on the Manistee River, after storage facilities upstream. But the question remains: 70 years of peak-flow operations. This modification will the Sesan 4A reservoir have enough storage ca- lowered water temperature and increased substrate pacity to effectively smooth out daily fluctuations in the riverbed downstream which, in turn, increased as claimed? And, what other operational changes the number of Chinook salmon migrating from the apart from Sesan 4A, and apart from dam removal river into Lake Michigan from below 100,000 to nearly could feasibly reduce downstream damages and re- 400,000 fish per year.5

Page 76 Watershed Vol. 12 No. 3 November 2008

"At the beginning of December, the river dried up and we could walk across. Most of the river bed was dried; the river went down to only 10 meters across. It lasted for four or five days and then the water began to rise up slowly until it was at its normal level," recals Mrs. Chea Sokun, a 52 year-old from Ta Veng District, Sesan River.

In Canada, British Columbia Hydro, a provinciallyowned utility, was ordered by government regulators to make operational changes at 30 of its hydro facilities with the expectation that this will improve fish habitat and water quality downstream. More specifically, BC Hydro stops peaking operations at some of its hydro facilities every year during fish spawning season. In the United States, hundreds of dams have had their peaking operations curtailed since the 1990s as part of the federally-regulated hydro re-licensing process (see Box for a partial list of projects and power companies). Under this process, government agencies and members of the public have the opportunity to study the dam owners proposal and press for more natural flows, habitat enhancement, fish passage facilities, and even dam removal. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has the final authority to order environmental mitigation actions as a condition of granting a hydro license to the dam owner, while citizens retain the right to appeal FERC decisions and pursue compensation for damages through the courts. The effect of the FERC re-licensing process on dam operations has been remarkable. According to

the Swiss-based World Conservation Union or IUCN, theres been a wholesale change in the [US] power industry as private, municipal and investor owned hydropower dams have come up for re-licensing [by the federal government] and must meet higher standards for environmental releases.6 Elsewhere in the world, hundreds of flow restoration projects are underway. In their 2003 book, Rivers for Life: Managing Water for People and Nature, Sandra Postel and Brian Richter report that efforts are underway to recover endangered fish populations by providing high-flow pulses (from dams) to stimulate spawning along the Groot River in South Africa, and in New Mexico along the Peros River. Similarly, flood restoration is underway to sustain riverine farming and fishing livelihoods along the Hadejia River in Nigeria, and along the Phongolo River in South Africa.7 At a 2007 international river symposium in Australia, river scientists from more than 50 countries presented evidence that targeted restoration of natural flow can produce significant ecological benefits, even in heavily dammed rivers. By releasing water from dams at the right time and in the right quantity to mimic the rivers natural flow regime, downstream habitats can be recreated and other ecological functions restored.

Watershed Vol. 12 No. 3 November 2008 Page 77

Changing hydro dam operations

n the United States, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licenses about 1,800 hydro projects owned by municipalities, state agencies, and private companies for 30- to 50-year periods. Dams owned by federal agencies, such as the US Army Corps of Engineers or the US Bureau of Reclamation, dont require FERC licenses but are subject to federal laws. FERCs mandate for much of the 20th Century was to encourage the development of rivers for hydropower. By the 1980s, however, the public outcry over the damage dams cause to rivers prompted US Congress to amend the Federal Power Act to require that FERC give equal consideration to non-power issues, such as the environment and cultural heritage, when licensing hydro projects. Today if US dam owners want to renew their operating licenses they must reapply to FERC and as part of this process consult with federal, state and local government agencies, Native American tribes, members of the public, and any other interests affected by their dams operation. Because FERC can require a variety of environmental mitigation actions as a condition of granting a hydropower license, the re-licensing process provides an opportunity for river advocates to make dam operations less environmentally damaging by pressing for more natural river flows, habitat enhancement, and even dam removal. Usually, a settlement agreement is drawn up by all parties which FERC then incorporates into the licensing agreement. A typical settlement might include requirements for improving fisheries, including minimum flow requirements, changes to ramping rates, adjustments to flows during spawning periods, monitoring measures, and provisions to reduce daily and seasonal downstream flow fluctuations. One of the most challenging goals for river advocates has been getting dam operators to agree to release more water to restore a rivers natural flow as opposed to minimum flow releases. Fisheries advocates typically want outflows from dams matching inflows and, in some cases, dam removal. FERC can reject such recommendations in favour of the dam owners, saying either that the recommended measures are beyond the scope of its authority or that such measures will cause the project to be uneconomic (that is, the project will make less money from power generation than the cost of fish and other mitigation measures). Success stories are found where dam owners agree to curtail their peaking operations in exchange for specific ecological benefits that are measurable over time. Below are several examples of hydro projects that have been ordered by FERC to curtail peaking operations as part of their new license agreement. The companies have 30 days to comply with the new licensing conditions or face penalties and/or legal action. Copies of the detailed agreements for each project are available to the public in FERCs online library.

FirstLight Power Resources, Connecticut

Housatonic River, 5 dams, 115 MW, Re-licensed 2004 FirstLight Power Resources bought the Housatonic River dams from Northeast Utilities in 2006. Northeast Utilities had proposed minor operational adjustments to improve minimum flows whereas Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection recommended year-round run-of-river operation to improve water quality in compliance with the federal Clean Water Act. The new license conditions called for year-round run-of-river operations to improve water quality and reduce fishery impacts. A three per cent reduction in power output is expected.
Source: FERC Order Issuing New License, Project Nos. 2576-022 and 2597-019, 23 June 2004. http://www.elibrary.ferc.gov FirstLight Power Resources http://www.firstlightpower.com

Puget Sound Energy, Washington

Snoqualmie Falls, 54.4 MW, diversion dam with two power plants, Re-licensed 2004 FERC ordered the change from peaking to run-of-river operations to protect aquatic resources from twice daily changes in flows; to provide flows for downstream waterfalls and tourism. The Snoqualmie tribe opposed renewal of the companys license on spiritual grounds. Washington Ecology Department recommended the changes to protect water quality and benefit fisheries, riparian habitats, and aesthetic resources. Washington Ecology is responsible for enforcing license conditions. Under the old license issued in the 1950s, total annual net benefit (value of power minus operating costs) was US$11,885,000. Under the new license, the company increased its generating capacity by 10 MW and its annual power output by about ten per cent while annual net benefit with operational changes is calculated as $10,953,000.
Source: FERC Order Issuing New License, Project No. 2493-006, 29 June 2004; Water Quality Certification, Snoqualmie Falls License, Appendix A (flow conditions). Puget Sound Energy http://www.pse.com

Page 78 Watershed Vol. 12 No. 3 November 2008 Page 78 Watershed Vol. 12 No. 3 November 2008

Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), California

Rock Creek-Cresta, 180 MW, 2 dams, Re-licensed 2001 The new license allows for an additional 11 MW capacity. Original peaking operations replaced with new schedule of releases to mimic seasonal flow of river. Minimum and pulse flows in the agreement are meant to mimic the natural flow regime and protect adult trout habitat. The slow ramp-up and ramp-down rates allow fish to adjust to changing river conditions, limit excessive scouring of spawning gravels, and prevent the stranding of trout fry. The agreement was reached between PG&E, California State Water Resources Board, and California Forest Service. Endorsing the agreement were local government, US Department of Interior, California Department of Fish and Game, environmental group Friends of the River, as well as outdoor recreation groups. New license conditions expected to result in a 3.7 per cent loss of power output.
Source: FERC Order Approving Settlement and Issuing New License, Project Nos. 1962-000 and 028, 24 October 2001.

Mokelumne River, 210.7 MW, 4 natural lakes enlarged by 4 dams, Re-licensed 2001 First licensed in 1925. New license prohibits normal peaking operation. Net annual benefit under old license: $23.8 million. Net annual benefit expected under new license: $20.3 million. Agreement includes removal of three dams, higher minimum flows, spring pulse, and other flow modifications to mimic natural conditions. An Ecological Resources Committee was established with the California Forest Service to monitor and implement a detailed adaptive management plan. Citizens groups, Friends of the River and California Hydropower Reform were involved.
Source: FERC Order Approving Settlement Agreement and Issuing New License, Project No 137-002 and 027, 11 October 2001; See also California Hydropower Reform Coalition http://www.hydroreform.org

Upper Peninsula Power Company, Michigan

Prickett Dam, 2.2 MW, Re-licensed 1995 Originally operated as a peaking facility, the company switched to near run-of-river flows in the lead up to the relicensing. Michigan Department of Natural Resources proposed strict run-of-river operation but the final license was for modified run-of-river operation. Outflows are to approximate inflows even when inflows are less than minimum hydraulic capacity. Reservoir cannot be used for peaking operations. Change proposed in collaboration with US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community aimed at restoring lake sturgeon population. Environmental Benefit: 74 per cent increase in fish populations at spawning sites in the river with increased reproductive readiness.
Source: Auer, N.A. 1996. Response of Spawning Lake Sturgeons to Change in Hydroelectric Facility Operation. American Fisheries Society 125(1): 66-77.)

Power Benefits/Losses: Under new operations, cost of production exceeds value of power produced by $81,800. Under old operations, cost of production exceeded value of power produced by $21,500.
Source: FERC Order Issuing New License, Project No. 2402-003, 29 August 1995.

Seattle City Light, Washington

Skagit River, 689.4 MW, 3 dams (Ross 360MW, Diablo 122.4 MW, Gorge 207 MW), Re-licensed 1995 Peaking operation curtailed but not prohibited. Limits placed on rate of change in flow and volume of flow released to support fish spawning. No change in flow allowed during the daytime. Fisheries mitigation measures include, but are not limited to, a filling schedule for Ross Lake reservoir, flows downstream of Gorge powerhouse, flow releases and limits to protect salmon and steelhead spawning and development, requirements for dry water years, advanced scheduling of hourly generation, field monitoring, chinook salmon research, chum salmon habitat restoration, sediment reduction, and trout protection and production. The cost of the fisheries mitigation measures total US$6,320,000 over the term of the citys license. Under new license, annual net benefit is $90 million with a ten per cent reduction in power output. The cost of fisheries mitigation is estimated at $30 million over the 30-year license. Source: FERC Order Accepting Settlement Agreement and Issuing New License, Project No. 553-005, 16 May 1995. Environmental Benefit: Following a decade of study, biologists report that changes in flow releases were highly successful resulting in substantially increased abundance of pink and chum salmon and sustained healthy population of Chinook salmon.
Source: Connor, E.J., and D. E. Pflug. 2004. Changes in the Distribution and Density of Pink, Chum, and Chinook Salmon Spawning in the Upper Skagit River in Response to Flow Management Measures. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 24(3): 835-852.

Watershed Vol. 12 No. 3 November 2008 Page 79 Watershed Vol. 12 No. 3 November 2008 Page 79

One of the main constraints to modifying dam operations is the potential loss of power output and revenue due to shifting from peaking operations to run-of-river operations. Power companies tend to resist making changes to their operations especially if those changes mean having to seek replacement power during peak period. Yet in many cases, the losses need not be prohibitive. Take the Glen Canyon dam, for example. It was built on the Colorado River by the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) in 1963 with an installed capacity of 1,282 MW. Initially, Glen Canyon was operated to store water and produce power during on-peak periods, which caused large fluctuations that damaged downstream aquatic resources and the interests of Native Americans living along the river. In 1996, the US Secretary of Interior, Bruce Babbitt, ordered a new operating regime to improve downstream conditions while still allowing some flexibility for power generation. The recommended regime includes restrictions on maximum releases from the dam, minimum flows, turbine ramp-up rates, and daily changes in flow.8 A 1999 study by USBR natural resource economist, David Harpman, estimated that the economic cost of these operational changes, which amounted to a shift from on-peak to off-peak power generation, was about US$36 million per year (in 1996 dollars), or less than ten per cent of the dams annual revenue.9 According to the California Energy Commission, re-licensed hydro projects in California typically lose an average of between eight and ten per cent of their annual power output as a result of operational changes ordered by FERC (see Box: Changing hydro dam operations).10 A ten per cent reduction in electricity output or revenue is not unreasonable to government regulators when weighed against other factors such as the cost of future litigation (against the dam operator), anticipated ecological benefits, the nature and extent of past uncompensated costs that have been imposed on riparian communities and ecosystems, the cost and availability of replacement power, and so on. What matters is the regulatory agency, not the power company, imposes the operating limits and only after an open review of all arguments and pro-

posals. Emphasis is placed on collaboration to arrive at a settlement between the power company and the fisheries scientists, water managers, dam operators, and local resource users, all of whom know the river but from different perspectives. Wherever natural flow restoration is underway, local input is becoming recognised as equal to (if not more important than) that of the project engineers, fisheries experts, and river ecologists. At last years international river symposium, more than 750 scientists, engineers, economists, policy-makers, and community advocates from 50 countries called on river and energy authorities to not only commit to immediate action on restoring environmental flows in the worlds rivers but to empower local communities and resource users so they can direct the process.11 Even the International Hydropower Association has issued guidelines for dam builders recommending that environmental (natural) flow regimes be developed for hydro facilities based on community-driven objectives.12 The newfound emphasis on community-driven objectives is encouraging for advocates in the Mekong Region where dam builders still bulldoze past other government agencies and resource users in the name of national power supply expansion. As Thai environmentalist Montree Chantawong described in a recent edition of Watershed, [T]hose who possess the most intimate understanding of the Mekongs ecosystems . . . are continuously ignored, their knowledge treated by many resource managers and developers as unscientific, hence of little interest or value (Vol. 11 No. 2). Fortunately, Cambodian NGOs are changing those attitudes, bridging the gap between local resource users and the developers, by bringing local knowledge to the fore, engaging government allies, and facilitating discussion rather than stand-offs. In Honduras, the US-based Nature Conservancy (TNC) has taken this approach several steps further, demonstrating that practical agreement on river flows can be reached without years of costly consultantdriven studies and negotiations.13 There, the national power utility plans to build a hydro dam on the Patuca River that, if operated as planned, would disrupt the natural flows that support migratory fish and tradi-

Page 80 Watershed Vol. 12 No. 3 November 2008

We request to have the natural flow of the river and to restore water quality and fish in the river, to do whatever is necessary, so we can have fish again, asserts Mr. Houn Salip, 51 years, Prao Ethnicity, Sean Sai Village, Ta Veng district, Sesan River.

tional agriculture. The Patuca is Central Americas second longest river, flowing through the largest undisturbed rainforest north of the Amazon. Similar to many large Mekong tributaries, the Patuca supports a diversity of indigenous communities along its banks. So TNC entered into an agreement with the utility to develop a set of environmental flow recommendations for its proposed hydro project based on recommendations from indigenous people. The process went as follows: After consultations with local people and some preliminary hydrological analysis, the Honduran utility held an environmental flow workshop in December 2006. Presentations began with a review of the findings from riverside villages, the ecology of the river, the natural flow regime and hydrological alterations expected with the dam. Participants, including government scientists, then developed a preliminary set of environmental flow recommendations, using a specialised computer software programme developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers and TNC (available free of charge on TNCs website http:// www.nature.org). The recommendations that emerged from the two-day workshop are now being refined by additional research and indigenous community feedback. If the ecological flow recommendations are successfully incorporated into the dams design and management, TNC reports, the Patuca River will serve as a model for the future of sustainable hydropower operations throughout the world. There are risks associated with this initiative, however. First, negotiating flow modifications for a dam that has not yet been built could undermine the

pre-eminent right of local people to say no to the project if they believe it will harm their interests. Second, the utility may or may not decide to implement the recommendations coming from indigenous people and TNC, in which case the exercise may prove futile. Third, the agreement struck by the utility and TNC could pre-empt or derail negotiations for financial compensation, to which local people are entitled if their property, resources, and livelihoods are at risk of being damaged by the dam. Where there is no effective legal and regulatory framework to hold dam builders accountable, to insist upon scientifically and technically credible analysis, to enforce environmental (or natural) flow recommendations, and to monitor the results, local people participating in flow restoration workshops do so without any guarantees. At best, an unregulated utility whether in Honduras or the Mekong Region may enter into a voluntary agreement and river conditions may or may not improve. At worst, local people (and NGOs) have wasted their time participating in a process that does nothing to alleviate historical or future dam impacts but instead serves to legitimise operating conditions-as-usual or more dam construction. As native communities in British Columbia can attest, hydro licensing processes are no substitute for a legal regime that upholds citizens property rights and protects public resources. Citizens should not have to plead with dam builders to stop causing harm or with regulators to uphold the law. Rather, the onus should be on dam builders to do no harm or face legal action. Citizens should have their right to

Watershed Vol. 12 No. 3 November 2008 Page 81

sue for damages upheld by governments and courts. As well, governments and courts should impose fines and constraints on dam builders that harm fish, pollute water, and wreck peoples property and livelihoods. Until that day comes in the Mekong Region, Sesan villagers and their advocates have few opportunities for pressing their case. Electricity of Vietnam is not subject to effective regulatory oversight and therefore lags behind many of its global counterparts. The internationally-funded Mekong River Commission and its National Mekong Committees have capitulated to the dam builders interests although that could change quickly given the right mix of donor and public pressure. On a more practical level, TNCs work in Honduras demonstrates that it is possible to develop a set of flow recommendations with respect for local people and without requiring years of costly expertdriven studies. With some preliminary hydrological analysis, flow recommendations for the Sesan could be worked out quickly with local resource users, aided by NGO facilitators and translators, a few government scientists, EVN staff, and international consultants experienced in dam re-operations. International experience also suggests that the

Sesan hydro cascade is a prime candidate for reoperation. All the dams are on the upper half of the Sesan, leaving several hundred kilometres of river downstream where migratory fisheries, for example, could be restored. Local communities already have a clear idea of what flow conditions must be restored, and for what purpose. Technically, it may be possible to re-operate Yali, the largest storage facility, and then re-operate the other dams downstream to compensate for any loss of peak power production at Yali. In this way, power generation could be maximised, with the lower dams releasing water to more closely mimic natural conditions in downstream Cambodia. This type of analysis, or power optimization study, could be done by any reputable hydro engineering firm within a matter of days, assuming that EVN agrees to disclose the necessary data about its operations. Once the analysis is done, EVN could resist any proposed changes to its operations. Or it could be persuaded to modernise by negotiating an agreement on Sesan operations that all parties, including Sesan villagers in Cambodia, could live with. The latter course of action would make EVN the regions leader in best practice dam operations, offering hope for a new era of ecological recovery and productive riparian economies.

Endnotes: 1 See for example, Cambodia National Mekong Committee, Fax to Vietnam National Mekong Committee Re: the Yali Falls hydropower project, 11 August 2003. For a more detailed history of the negotiations between the Cambodian and Vietnamese National Mekong Committees concerning Sesan management, see: Wyatt, A. and I. G. Baird. 2007. Transboundary Impact Assessment in the Sesan River Basin: The Case of the Yali Falls Dam International Journal of Water Resources Development 23(3): 427- 442; and Hirsch, P. and A. Wyatt. 2004. Negotiating local livelihoods: scales of conflict in the Se San River Basin Asia Pacific Viewpoint 45(1): 51- 68. 2 SWECO Grner in association with NIVA, ENVIRO-DEV and ENS Consult. 2007. Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment on the Cambodian part of the Se San River due to Hydropower Development in Vietnam, Final Report, Prepared for Electricity of Vietnam, July 2007. 3 Ryder, G. 2008. Alleviating Dam Impacts Along the Transboundary Se San River in Northeast Cambodia: A Review of the Rapid EIA on the Cambodian Part of the Se San River due to Hydropower Development in Vietnam (July 2007). Prepared for NGO Forum on Cambodia. Available at: http://www.ngoforum.org.kh/Environment/Docs/Sesan/SeSanFinalEIAReview_Feb2008_English.pdf 4 Richter, B. and G. Thomas. 2007. Restoring Environmental Flows by Modifying Dam Operations Ecology and Society 12(1): 12. Available at: www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art12 5 Kotchen, M., M. Moore, F. Lupi, and E. Rutherford. 2006. Environmental Constraints on Hydropower: An Ex Post Benefit-Cost Analysis of Dam Relicensing in Michigan Land Economics 82(3): 384-403. 6 Dyson, M., G. Bergkamp, and J. Scanlon (eds). 2003. Flow: The Essentials of Environmental Flows. IUCN: Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Also available in Chinese, Laotian, Thai, and Vietnamese. 7 See: Postel, S. and B. Richter. 2003. Rivers for Life: Managing Water for People and Nature. Island Press: Washington, DC. 8 The Bureau has persistently blocked implementation of these recommendations despite public pressure and legal action. See http:/ /www.livingrivers.org for more details. 9 Harpman, D. August 1999. Assessing the Short-Run Economic Cost of Environmental Constraints on Hydropower Operations at Glen Canyon Dam. Land Economics Vol. 75, No. 3. 10 California Energy Commission. 2003. California Hydropower System: Energy and Environment, Appendix D, Enviromental Performance Report. 11 The Brisbane Declaration. Riversymposium 2007. Brisbane, Australia. 12 International Hydropower Association. February 2004. IHA Sustainability Guidelines. http://www.hydropower.org/downloads/ IHA_Guidelines_NOV%2003Int.pdf 13 The Nature Conservancy. Case Study: Patuca River Honduras. Retrieved April 2008. http://www.nature.org/initiatives/freshwater/ strategies/energy.html

Page 82 Watershed Vol. 12 No. 3 November 2008

Hydro Dams 101 Some Definitions

lthough the political, historical, economic, and cultural context of dam building may differ radically from one country to the next, there are only three basic types of hydropower facilities impoundment, diversion, and

pumped storage. Impoundment or storage facilities store water in a reservoir and release it as needed to generate electricity. Diversion facilities channel river water through a canal or pipe to the powerhouse and may or may not involve a dam. Pumped storage projects pump water from a lower reservoir to an upper reservoir during periods of low electricity demand, when electricity is cheaper, and send it flowing back down again during high demand periods. All hydro facilities have two things in common: they produce electricity by running water through turbines, and they change the flow regime, and therefore the habitat, of rivers. Electricity demand (or load) Electricity demand or load is the power requirement of any power system which varies widely with hourly, weekly, monthly, or annual changes in consumption in the area served. The minimum system load for a given period is termed the base load. Maximum loads, usually temporary, are called peak loads, and the operation of the generating plants must be closely coordinated with fluctuations in the load. Demand is typically higher during the day, when business, factories and offices are open, and lower at night and on weekends. Environmental flows Environmental flow is commonly defined as the quantity, timing, and quality of flows required to sustain freshwater and estuarine ecosystems. Hydro license A license typically includes terms and conditions for operating, including a detailed schedule of releases for protecting, restoring or enhancing affected resources. In dam building countries such as Canada, Norway, Sweden, and the United States, dam licenses are granted by a state regulatory authority. No such licensing system exists yet in the Mekong Region. Operating rules Every dam has a set of operating rules that determine how much water gets released from their reservoirs and when those releases occur. Operating rules for most large dams today reflect last centurys policies of providing inexpensive water, power, and flood control to encourage economic growth and/or settlement. These rules can be changed to balance the dam owners objectives with downstream flow priorities. Adding the protection of river health to the list of beneficial services provided by a dam requires a change in the schedule of flows released from the reservoirs to recreate important components of the rivers natural (pre-dam) flow regime. This process is referred to as re-operation. Peaking operation Dams can be operated for peaking or peak flow operation whereby water flow through

the turbines is maximised during periods of peak electrical demand. Hydro dams are well suited for peaking because they can be turned on and off almost instantaneously, although this is what causes the rapid daily fluctuations that are so environmentally destructive. When the dam is generating power, water releases through the turbine may be much higher than natural, followed by very low water releases that may drop well below natural levels. In many rivers used for hydropower generation, water flows are completely cut-off during periods when reservoir levels are being restored. Re-operations Operational changes can be made to reduce harmful flow fluctuations caused by peaking operations and mimic the rivers natural flow as much as possible. Operational changes can have the effect of shifting power output from periods when it is more valuable (peak demand periods) to periods when it is less valuable. When dams generate less output during peak periods, additional supply is required from other sources. Run-of-river operations Dams can be operated on a run-of-river basis, which means that water releases from the dam approximately equal flows into the reservoir above the dam on a continuous basis. Output varies in direct proportion to annual hydrology; output is available when water is available to drive the turbines. However, the term run-of-river has been misused by the hydro industry to evoke an image of free-flowing rivers. In reality, dams labelled run-of-river (e.g., Pak Mun, the proposed lower Mekong mainstream dams) can have devastating effects on migratory fish, river bank stability, riparian agriculture, and water quality.
For a more complete list of definitions see Mekong Utility Watch Glossary, available at: http://www.probeinternational.org/ catalog/Mekong_news.php?show=3

Watershed Vol. 12 No. 3 November 2008 Page 83 Watershed Vol. 12 No. 3 November 2008 Page 83