S.D. Warren and the erosion of federal preeminence in hydropower regulation

Ecology Law Quarterly

Volumn 34, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 763-800

  Pollak, Daniel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 39749188197     PISSN: 00461121     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (230)

1. Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1376 (2006).
2. Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 792-892r (2006).
3. S.D. Warren Co. v. Me. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 126 S. Ct. 1843 (2006).
4. First Iowa Hydro-Electric Coop. v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 328 U.S. 152 (1946).
5. See Lisa M. Bogardus, State Certification of Hydroelectric Facilities Under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 12 VA. ENVTL. L.J. 43 (1992).
6. See discussion of PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Wa. Dep't of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700 (1994), infra Part III.A.2.
7. See infra Part I.A.
8. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Industries: Hydropower, http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower.asp (follow "Complete list of Issued Licenses" hyperlink) (last visited Sept. 26, 2007).
9. Brief of Trout Unlimited et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent at 15-16, S.D. Warren v. Me. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 126 S. Ct. 1842 (2006) (No. 04-1527), 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 39.
10. Andrew H. Sawyer, Rock Creek Revisited: State Water Quality Certification of Hydroelectric Projects in California, 25 PAC. L.J. 973, 975 (1994).
11. Id. at 976.
12. Id. at 919.
13. Brief of Trout Unlimited, supra note 9, at 11.
14. Id. at 7.
15. Id. at 7-8.
16. Id. at 12.
17. Id. at 13.
18. Id. at 14.
19. Brief for Edison Electric Institute et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner at 11, S.D. Warren v. Me. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 126 S. Ct. 1843 (2006) (No. 04-1527), 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 804.
20. FED. ENERGY REGULATORY COMM'N, REPORT ON HYDROELECTRIC LICENSING POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND REGULATIONS: COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 603 OF THE ENERGY ACT OF 2000, at 31 (May 2001), available at http://www.ferc.gov/legal/maj-ord-reg/land-docs/ortc_final.pdf.
21. Id. at 49.
22. Id. at 40, 49.
23. Id. at 47.
24. Id. at 48.
25. I derived this per-project cost by taking the average capacity of FERC-licensed projects, 51,574 kW, and multiplying it by FERCs per-kW figure. Data on project capacity is from Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Industries: Hydropower, http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower.asp (last visited Sept. 6, 2007).
26. FED. ENERGY REGULATORY COMM'N, supra note 20, at 49.
27. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, EIA - Electricity Data, Electric Power Capacity and Fuel Use, Electric Surveys and Analysis, http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelelectric.html (last visited Sept. 8, 2007).
28. Katherine P. Ransel, The Sleeping Giant Awakens: PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Department of Ecology, 25 ENVTL. L. 255, 272 (1995).
29. FED. ENERGY REGULATORY COMM'N, supra note 20, at 50.
30. The original statute, the Federal Water Power Act of 1920, put hydropower regulation in the hands of the Federal Power Commission. FERC was created in 1977.
31. First Iowa Hydro-Electric Coop. v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 328 U.S. 152, 180 (1946).
32. Sarah C. Richardson, The Changing Political Landscape of Hydropower Project Relicensing, 25 WM. & MARY ENVTL. L. & POL'Y REV. 499, 503-04 (2000).
33. Id. at 504.
34. See First Iowa Hydro-Electric Coop., 328 U.S. 152
35. (discussed infra notes 129-135 and in accompanying text);
36. see also California v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 495 U.S. 490 (1990)
37. (discussed infra notes 135-140 and accompanying text).
38. Federal Power Act § 4(e), 16 U.S.C. § 797(e) (2006).
39. For example, FERC could have authority over a hydroelectric facility on a nonnavigable waterway if it generated electricity for interstate commerce. Federal Power Act § 4(e), 16 U.S.C. § 797(e).
40. See, e.g., Fed. Power Comm'n v. Union Elec. Co., 381 U.S. 90 (1965) (holding that under the Federal Power Act, a license would be required for a pumped storage hydroelectric project which utilized the nonnavigable headwaters of a navigable river, because the project generated electricity for an interstate power system and thus fell under the purview of the Federal Power Act).
41. Federal Power Act § 4(e), 16 U.S.C. 797(e); FED. ENERGY REGULATORY COMM'N, supra note 20.
42. See Bogardus, supra note 5, at 43.
43. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, supra note 8.
44. The length of the license term is tied to the amount of capital investment FERC requires of the licensee. FERC generally issues a thirty-year term license for projects with little or no redevelopment, construction, capacity, or environmental mitigation or enhancement measures. If a moderate amount of such investment is required, the term is forty years, and if extensive measures are required, the term is generally 50 years. Order Issuing New License, 101 F.E.R.C. P 61,165, 61,672 (Nov. 4, 2002) (Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Project No. 2661-012).
45. Federal Power Act § 10(a)(1), 16 U.S.C. § 803 (2006).
46. The amendment added section 10(a) to the Federal Power Act.
47. Federal Power Act § 10(j), 16 U.S.C. § 803(j).
48. Id. § 811.
49. Id. § 797(e).
50. "[N]othing herein contained shall be construed as affecting or intending to affect or in any way to interfere with the laws of the respective States relating to the control, appropriation, use, or distribution of water used in irrigation or for municipal or other uses, or any vested right acquired therein." Federal Power Act § 28, 16 U.S.C. § 821 (2006).
51. Id. § 802(a)(2).
52. 33 U.S.C. § 1251 (2006).
53. Id.
54. Regarding cooperative federalism generally, see New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 167 (1992).
55. 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(1)(C); 40 C.F.R. § 131.4(a) (2007).
56. A "point source" is defined by the CWA as "any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged. This term does not include agricultural stormwater discharges and return flows from irrigated agriculture." 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14).
57. Id. § 1342.
58. See Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Gorsuch, 693 F.2d 156 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (upholding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's interpretation that the impacts ordinarily caused by dams - such as changes in water temperature and dissolved oxygen concentration-do not constitute "pollutants" as defined by the CWA and are not subject to NPDES permit requirements).
59. 33 U.S.C. § 1251 (2006).
60. Id. § 1362(19).
61. In contrast, "pollutant" is defined as "dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water." Id. § 1362(6).
62. Id. § 1341(a). The original provision creating certification rights for states was section 21(b) of the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970, Pub. L. 91-224 § 103, 84 Stat. 91, 108. In 1972, this was reenacted as section 401(a). Brief for Respondent Maine Board of Environmental Protection at 33-34, S.D. Warren Co. v. Me. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 126 S. Ct. 1842 (2006) (No. 04-1527), 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 38.
63. 33 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1).
64. Id. § 1341(d).
65. See PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Wash. Dep't of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700, 711-14 (1994).
66. See 33 U.S.C. § 1341(a) (2006).
67. See id. § 1341(d);
68. see also PUD No. 1, 511 U.S. at 711-12.
69. 33 U.S.C. § 1341(d).
70. 40 C.F.R. § 131.2 (2007).
71. 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c)(2)(A).
72. Id. § 1313(c)(2)(A), (c)(3).
73. PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Wash. Dep't of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700 (1994).
74. 40 C.F.R. §§ 131.2, 131.3(f).
75. 33 U.S.C. § 1313 (2006); 40 C.F.R. § 131.2.
76. 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c)(2)(A). For an overview of the role of ambient water quality standards in the CWA,
77. see JENNIFER RUFFOLO, TMDLS: THE REVOLUTION IN WATER QUALITY REGULATION (Apr. 1999), available at http://www.library.ca.gov/ crb/99/05/99005.pdf.
78. 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d)(4)(B);
79. see also 40 C.F.R. § 131.2. (2007).
80. See PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Wash. Dep't of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700 (1994) (discussed in more detail, infra note 145 and surrounding text).
81. "Anadromous" refers to fish that migrate from salt water to fresh water to spawn.
82. Brief for Respondent, supra note 57, at 8.
83. Id. at 7.
84. Brief of Trout Unlimited, supra note 9, at 15.
85. Brief for Respondent, supra note 57, at 8;
86. Petition for Writ of Certiorari at 2-3, S.D. Warren Co. v. Me. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 126 S. Ct. 1843 (2006) (No. 04-1527), 2005 WL 1170408.
87. S.D. Warren v. Board of Environmental Protection, 868 A.2d 210, 212 (Me. 2005), aff'd, 126 S. Ct. 1843 (2006).
88. Brief for Respondent, supra note 57, at 8.
89. Id. at 9.
90. Order Issuing Subsequent License, 105 F.E.R.C. P 61,013, 61,134. (Oct. 2, 2003) (S.D. Warren Co., Project Nos. 2897-003, 2932-003, 2941-002, 2931-002, 2942-005).
91. Id.
92. Brief for Respondent, supra note 57, at 9.
93. See id.;
94. see also 105 F.E.R.C. at 61,134.
95. S.D. Warren Co. v. Me. Bd. Of Envtl. Prot., 126 S. Ct. 1843, 1847 (2007).
96. Id. at 1849.
97. Id. at 1847.
98. Brief for Respondent, supra note 57, at 11;
99. see also Order Issuing Subsequent License, 105 F.E.R.C. P 61,013, 61,136. (Oct. 2, 2003) (S.D. Warren Co., Project Nos. 2897-003, 2932-003, 2941-002, 2931-002, 2942-005).
100. 105 F.E.R.C. at 61,156-57.
101. Id. at 61,156.
102. S.D. Warren Co. v. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 868 A.2d 210 (Me. 2005), aff'd, 126 S. Ct. 1843 (2006).
103. Id. at 213.
104. Id. at 216-18.
105. Id. at 215.
106. Id. at 217.
107. Petition for Writ of Certiorari, supra note 77.
108. Justice Scalia declined to join one section of the opinion, dealing with legislative history. S.D. Warren Co. v. Me. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 126 S. Ct. 1843, 1851 (2006).
109. Id. at 1846.
110. The U.S. Supreme Court in effect decided that the Maine court reached the right outcome for the wrong reasons. The Maine court had accepted the premise that a "discharge" under the CWA required an "addition" to the water, but had propounded a novel theory that water impounded by and then released from a dam became a discharge as it passed into and out of private control. See 126 S. Ct. at 1849. The Supreme Court rejected this line of reasoning.
111. See id. ("We disagree that an addition is fundamental to any discharge, nor can we agree that one can denationalize national waters by exerting private control over them.").
112. Id. at 1847.
113. 33 U.S.C. § 1362(12) (2006).
114. S.D. Warren Co. v. Me. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 126 S. Ct. 1843, 1849 (2006).
115. Id.
116. Id.
117. Id. at 1849-50.
118. Id. at 1849.
119. Petition for Writ of Certiorari, supra note 77, at i.
120. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, 541 U.S. 95 (2004).
121. Id. at 105-06.
122. Id. at 110-12.
123. Id. at 109-10 (quoting Catskill Mountains Chapter of Trout Unlimited, Inc. v. New York, 273 F.3d 481, 492 (2d Cir. 2001)).
124. Petition for Writ of Certiorari, supra note 77, at 12.
125. S.D. Warren Co. v. Me. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 126 S. Ct. 1843, 1850 n.6 (2006).
126. Id. at 1850.
127. Id.
128. 33 U.S.C. § 1362(16) (2006).
129. S.D. Warren Co., 126 S. Ct. at 1851.
130. Id. at 1852. The Court also noted that the legislative record actually undermined Warren's reading of the language: "[T]he only thing the legislative history cited by Warren demonstrates is the congressional rejection of language that would have created a short series of terms with a common implication of an addition" (i.e. the addition of pollutants, of heat, etc.).
131. Id.
132. Id. (quoting 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a)).
133. Id. at 1853 (quoting 33 U.S.C. § 1362(19)).
134. Id.
135. Id.
136. Petition for Writ of Certiorari, supra note 77, at i.
137. Id. at 3.
138. Id. at 18.
139. Id.
140. Brief for Edison Electric Institute, supra note 19, at 10.
141. Nor was this the first time it passed up an opportunity to set explicit boundaries on the state power to wield section 401 certification conditions in the hydropower context. See PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Wash. Dep't of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700 (1994) (discussed infra Part III.A.2.).
142. 328 U.S. 152, 176, 182 (1946).
143. Id. at 164. At issue in First Iowa was the denial of a hydropower license by the Federal Power Commission (the predecessor of FERC) because the applicant had failed to acquire a state permit granting permission for the project.
144. Id. at 180.
145. See JOSEPH P. TOMAIN & RICHARD D. CUDAHY, ENERGY LAW IN A NUTSHELL 334 (2004).
146. First Iowa Hydro-Electric Coop., 328 U.S. at 164.
147. Section 27 of the FPA reads: "Nothing herein contained shall be construed as affecting or intending to affect or in any way to interfere with the laws of the respective States relating to the control, appropriation, use, or distribution of water used in irrigation or for municipal or other uses, or any vested right acquired therein." 16 U.S.C. § 821 (2006).
148. First Iowa Hydro-Electric Coop. v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 328 U.S. 152, 175-76 (1946).
149. 495 U.S. 490 (1990).
150. Id.
151. Id. at 506 (quoting California ex rel. State Water Resources Bd. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 877 F.2d 743, 749 (1989)).
152. Id. at 499.
153. 985 F.2d 451, 453 (9th Cir. 1993).
154. The State Water Resources Control Board had denied a water rights permit for the project due to concerns about impacts on aesthetics, archaeology, sport fishing, and cultural resources, as well as concerns about the project's economic efficiency. The main legal issue was whether the licensee had to establish "ripeness" for an appeal by showing an actual conflict between the state and federal requirements. Id.
155. See Bogardus, supra note 5.
156. This point of view is forcefully argued in Bogardus, id.
157. See id.
158. PUD. No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Wash. Dep't of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700, 703 (1994).
159. Id. at 708-09.
160. Id. at 709.
161. California v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 495 U.S. 490 (1990).
162. PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County, 511 U.S. at 711.
163. Id. at 711-12.
164. Id. at 714-16.
165. Id. at 715-16.
166. Id. at 716.
167. Id. at 713.
168. Id. at 724 (Thomas, J., dissenting).
169. Id. at 727, 731.
170. Id. at 722.
171. Gabriel C. Roth & Clair Windsor, S.D. Warren Co. v. Maine Bd. of Environmental Protection, MEDILL NEWS SERVICE, Oct. 11, 2005, http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/ archives/003127.php (last visited Sept. 26, 2007).
172. Order Issuing Subsequent License, 105 F.E.R.C. P 61,013, 61,156-57 (Oct. 2, 2003) (S.D. Warren Co., Project Nos. 2897-003, 2932-003, 2941-002, 2931-002, 2942-005).
173. See id. at 61, 156.
174. See id. at 61, 133.
175. Transcript of Oral Arguments at 21-22, S.D. Warren Co. v. Me. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 126 S. Ct. 1843 (2006) (No. 04-1527), 2006 U.S. TRANS LEXIS 10.
176. Id. at 42.
177. Id. at 41.
178. Id. at 40.
179. Id. at 53.
180. Id. at 53-54.
181. Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondent, S.D. Warren Co. v. Me. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 126 S. Ct. 1843 (2006) (No. 04-1527), 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 9; Transcript of Oral Arguments, supra note 162, at 53.
182. According to the International Rivers Network, an organization that tracks dam removals, about 500 dams have been removed in the United States. The trend is "accelerating," with 177 dams removed in the last decade. See International Rivers Network, Reviving the World's Rivers: Dam Removal, http://www.irn.org/revival/decom/index.php?id=brochure/rrpt2.html (last visited Sept. 27, 2007).
183. See TOMAIN & CUDAHY, supra note 132, at 344 ("In the 1940s and 1950s, hydropower provided 40% of the nation's electric energy. By the 1990s, that amount has dropped to 6% of the country's electricity and approximately 4% of all energy.")
184. Richardson, supra note 32, at 507-08.
185. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Pub. L. 90-542, 82 Stat. 906 (1968), codified at 16 U.S.C. §§ 1271-1287 (2006).
186. 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347.
187. Escondido Mut. Water Co. v. La Jolla Band of Mission Indians, 466 U.S. 765 (1984). Section 4(e) of the FPA allows federal land management agencies to recommend conditions on FERC licenses to protect the designated purposes of federal reserved lands (such as national forest, Indian reservations, and military reservations). The Supreme Court ruled in Escondido that such conditions were mandatory.
188. See FED. ENERGY REGULATORY COMM'N, supra note 20.
189. Bogardus, supra note 5, at 43.
190. American Rivers, Inc. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 129 F. 3d 99 (2d Cir. 1997).
191. Id. at 112.
192. It appears that courts view state court as the proper forum because the conditions imposed by a state in a section 401 certification are based in state law, and a challenger would have to show that state law was applied inappropriately. See, e.g., Roosevelt Campobello Int'l Park Comm'n v. EPA, 684 F.2d 1041, 1056 (1st Cir. 1982) ("The courts have consistently agreed with this interpretation, ruling that the proper forum to review the appropriateness of a state's certification is the state court, and that federal courts and agencies are without authority to review the validity of requirements imposed under state law or in a state's certification.");
193. Mobil Oil Corp. v. Kelley, 426 F. Supp. 230, 235 (S.D. Ala. 1976) ("The abstention doctrine stands for the principle that parties seeking initial relief in a federal district court and by-passing available avenues of state relief should be directed to state avenues when the questions involved concern the workings of a state regulatory scheme, state political question, or the interpretation of state agency orders under state law.");
194. see also Lake Erie Alliance for Protection of Coastal Corridor v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 526 F. Supp. 1063, 1074 (W.D. Pa. 1981), aff'd, 707 F.2d 1392 (3d Cir. 1983); U. S. Steel Corp. v. Train, 556 F.2d 822, 837-39 & n.22 (7th Cir. 1977).
195. See, e.g., Order Issuing License, 60 F.E.R.C. P 61,291, 61,990 (1992) (Town of Summersville, W. Va. and City of Manassas, Va.), Project Nos. 10813-000, 10634-000) ("[R]eview of the appropriateness of the [section 401] conditions is within the purview of state courts and not the Commission. The only alternatives available to the Commission are either to issue a license with the conditions included or to deny [the] application . . . .").
196. PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Wash. Dep't of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700, 713 (1994).
197. Arnold Irrigation Dist. v. Dep't of Envtl. Quality, 717 P.2d 1274, 1278-79 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
198. Borgardus, supra note 5, at 75 (citing Georgia Pacific Co. v. Vt. Dep't of Envtl. Conservation, 35 E.R.C. 2046, 2050-51 (Vt. Super. Ct. 1991), aff'd, 628 A.2d 944 (Vt. 1992)).
199. Order Issuing Subsequent License, 105 F.E.R.C. P 61,013, 61,156-57 (Oct. 2, 2003) (S.D. Warren Co., Project Nos. 2897-003, 2932-003, 2941-002, 2931-002, 2942-005).
200. Summit Hydropower v. Comm'r of Envtl. Protection, No. CV91 050 26 43, 1992 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2177, at *28-29 (Conn. Super. Ct. July 20, 1992).
201. Arnold Irrigation Dist., 717 P.2d at 1276.
202. Fourth Branch Assocs, v. Dep't of Envtl. Conservation, 550 N.Y.S.2d 769 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1989).
203. Commonwealth Power Co. v. Dep't of Natural Res., Nos. 204399 & 210844, 2000 Mich. App. LEXIS 2465 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2000).
204. Petition for Writ of Certiorari, supra note 77, at 18.
205. Barry L. Johnson, Adaptive Management-Scientifically Sound, Socially Challenged?, 3 CONSERVATION ECOLOGY 1:10 (1999), available at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol3/iss1/art10/.
206. Carl Walters, Challenges in Adaptive Management of Riparian and Coastal Ecosystems, 1 CONSERVATION ECOLOGY 2:1 (1997), available at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol1/iss2/art1/.
207. Kai N. Lee, Appraising Adaptive Management, 3 C ONSERVATION ECOLOGY 2:3 (1999), available at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol3/iss2/art3/.
208. See Notice of Availability of a Draft Addendum to the Final Handbook for Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permitting Process, 64 Fed. Reg. 11,485 (Mar. 9, 1999). For a critique of the Service's approach to adaptive management,
209. see, for example, Holly Doremus, Adaptive Management, the Endangered Species Act, and the Institutional Challenges of "New Age " Environmental Protection, 41 WASHBURN L.J. 50 (2001).
210. See U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, GLEN CANYON DAM LONG-TERM EXPERIMENTAL PLAN (2007), http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/gcdltep/index.html. It should be noted that the Glen Canyon Dam is a federal reclamation project, not a FERC-licensed dam.
211. Id.
212. See Sawyer, supra note 10, at 975-80.
213. The effects of climate change in a particular locale are impossible to predict at present, but are likely to include major changes in patterns of precipitation, snow melt, and river hydrology. See CALIFORNIA ENVTL. PROT. AGENCY, CLIMATE ACTION TEAM REPORT TO GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER AND THE LEGISLATURE 28-29 (2006), available at http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/2006-04- 03_FINAL_CAT_ REPORT.PDF.
214. FERC has the authority to impose monitoring requirements and reopener clauses that are consistent with an adaptive approach. See Use of Reserved Authority in Hydropower Licenses to Ameliorate Cumulative Impacts, 59 Fed. Reg. 66,714 (Dec. 28, 1994) (codified at 18 C.F.R. pt. 2).
215. Commonwealth Power Co. v. Dep't of Natural Res., Nos. 204399 & 210844, 2000 Mich. App. LEXIS 2465 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2000).
216. "Entrainment" refers to fish being caught up in the pumps or other works of a dam or other water project.
217. Commonwealth Power Co., 2000 Mich. App. LEXIS 2465, at *7.
218. Id.
219. Order Issuing Subsequent License, 105 F.E.R.C. P 61,013, 61,156 (Oct. 2, 2003) (S.D. Warren Co., Project Nos. 2897-003, 2932-003, 2941-002, 2931-002, 2942-005).
220. American Rivers, Inc. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 129 F. 3d 99, 111 (2d Cir. 1997).
221. Id. (citation omitted).
222. Brief of Trout Unlimited, supra note 9, at 25.
223. Order Issuing New License, 101 F.E.R.C. P 61,165, 61,664-65, 61,684-85 (Nov. 4, 2002) (Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Project No. 2661-012).
224. Id. at 61,684.
225. Id. at 61,685.
226. There might, however, be other federal claims that could be raised. For example, it seems conceivable that a licensee could challenge a license on the grounds that stringent section 401 restrictions give rise to a Fifth Amendment takings claim.
227. See INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE TO IMPROVE HYDROELECTRIC LICENSING PROCESSES, JOINT STATEMENT OF COMMITMENT FOR AN IMPROVED HYDROPOWER LICENSING PROCESS (2000), available at http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/indusact/ itf/agree.pdf;
228. see also FED. ENERGY REGULATORY COMM'N, supra note 20, at 59;
229. Avinash Kar, Note, Ensuring Durable Environmental Benefits Through a Collaborative Approach to Hydropower Re-licensing: Case Studies, 11 HASTINGS W.-N.W. J. ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 27 (2004);
230. American Whitewater.org, The Relicensing Process (2006), http://www.americanwhitewater.org/ content/Wiki/stewardship:relicensing_overview (last visited Oct. 4, 2007).