Hydro plant could divert water from fish

Plans to get the hydroelectric plant at the city reservoir up and running again should take into account impacts to Haskill Creek, a citizens environmental group says.

In a Nov. 10 letter to the Whitefish City Council, the Haskill Basin Watershed Council noted that water is already diverted away from Haskill Creek and expressed concerns "that the city will use even more water if the hydropower option is redeveloped."

"Once Whitefish gets into the power generation for profit business, the Haskill Creek option becomes even more attractive," the letter says. "What is to keep the city from taking even more water than they need in order to generate revenue?"

Watershed council members Steve Bryson, Marcia Van Wye and Chester Powell signed the letter, while John Phelps, who is also the Whitefish city attorney, abstained.

First, Second and Third creeks, tributaries of Haskill Creek that flow down from Big Mountain, were long ago diverted to the city reservoir. A hydroelectric plant installed 30 years ago at the bottom of a 700-foot long 24-inch pipe used that diverted water to generate power before the water entered the reservoir.

The watershed council claims Second and Third creeks "are severely depleted or completely dewatered for extended periods of time each year." That means less water in Haskill Creek, where native west slope cutthroat trout are known to reside.

In his May analysis and report for the city, Whitefish consultant Jeff Arcel, of Mother's Power Inc., estimated that a new turbine, generator and other improvements would enable the city's hydroelectric facility to produce enough power for 150-200 average homes.

The watershed council, however, claims Arcel's report is one-sided.

"The document is bothersome in that it outlines all of the positive aspects of getting the city into the power-generation business, yet makes no mention of the probable detrimental aspects for Haskill Creek," the watershed council's letter says.

The watershed council wants the city to limit the amount of water it diverts from Haskill Creek to no more than what is actually needs for municipal water consumption. In other words, no water should be going over the reservoir dam except during periods of high stream flow, they say.

City manager Chuck Stearns and public works director John Wilson, along with a water rights official from the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, met with the watershed council on Oct. 10.

While figures are lacking or not entirely clear, it's possible Haskill Basin water rights are currently over-appropriated, the group learned. Guaranteeing an in-stream flow in Haskill Creek for fish habitat might require water-rights holders to donate a portion of their water, the DNRC official said.

Several irrigation check dams and a culvert under Haskill Basin Road are also impediments to fish, said Patti Mason, the watershed coordinator for the Flathead Conservation District.

Unlike the Flathead Conservation District, the Haskill Basin Watershed Council is not a governmental agency, although the conservation district helped to create the watershed council in the early 1990s and helps it obtain grants for studies and restoration work. Some members of the group hold water rights in Haskill Creek.

The watershed council next meets Dec. 8 at 6 p.m. in the Whitefish Library's community room.