April 18 – The City of Anchorage and two electric utilities want to restore water flow to the Eklutna River.
It is a historic moment, everyone agrees.
For decades, an earthen dam at the base of Lake Eklutna drained most of the 12-mile-long river.
Returning water to the river, which is about 25 miles northeast of downtown Anchorage, could lead to new fishing opportunities as salmon and other fish flourish in the waters. It could support new outdoor activities and businesses such as guided wildlife viewing, kayaking or hiking.
Many also see it as a crucial step toward repairing the damage done to the nearby Dena’ina indigenous village of Eklutna when the river was dammed by hydroelectric projects that began in 1929.
But over the past six months, a major battle has erupted over how to proceed with efforts to restore the river.
In October, the utilities that own the project, the Chugach and Matanuska electric associations and the city’s Anchorage Hydropower Utility, proposed a $57 million plan to mitigate the dam’s impacts. Mayor Dave Bronson’s administration and two state agencies support their plan.
The Anchorage Assembly, the Eklutna Indigenous Village, conservation groups and two federal agencies have said they support another plan.
Other issues at stake include the impact on taxpayers, electricity prices and the city’s water supply and infrastructure.
With the utilities expected to submit their final plan to Alaska’s governor in the coming days or weeks, the disagreements are coming to a head.
However, as the debate over the restoration of the Eklutna River has intensified, the story has also become more complicated. Here’s what you need to know to track the problem:
Why are utilities proposing a plan now?
The Eklutna River Plan stems from an agreement signed in 1991 that allowed the city and electric utilities to purchase the Eklutna Hydroelectric Project from the federal government. Renewable energy currently provides a small percentage of power in the Anchorage and Wasilla areas.
The deal required the city and utilities to find ways to reduce the hydroelectric project’s impact on fish and wildlife within 25 years of the purchase.
That is the effort being made today.
What are the options?
The utilities have proposed a plan to restore water flow to 18 kilometers of the river, leaving 1 kilometer dry. To do this, they would use a portal valve to remove water from the Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility pipe. The pipe diverts Anchorage’s drinking water from Lake Eklutna.
This plan is commonly referred to as the “portal valve alternative.” The utilities say diverting some of the water in the pipe will not reduce the city’s legally protected drinking water supply. They say their plan provides the best balance between costs, energy needs, drinking water and habitat restoration.
The Bronson administration supports this approach. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has said they support the portal valve, with additional infrastructure improvements. The Alaska Department of Natural Resources has not expressed a position on the alternatives, although Chugach State Park supports the portal valve given its recreational benefits, an agency spokesperson said.
On the other hand, the village of Eklutna, the Anchorage Assembly and conservation groups want the river to be fully restored, with fish passage in the lake.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service said in December that they also want water to be restored along the entire length of the Eklutna.
The utilities have been working with the agencies to reach an agreement before submitting a final proposal to Gov. Mike Dunleavy. It is possible that positions may change.
Why is there disagreement about the plan?
The utilities say their portal valve plan will provide new habitat that will benefit four species of salmon: kings, silvers, chums and pink salmon.
A major sticking point, however, is that the plan would largely not benefit a fifth species of salmon, sockeye salmon, which typically rely on lakes for farming. That’s because fish wouldn’t be able to reach Eklutna Lake.
Village leaders say long-ago actions that dammed the glacier-fed river for its hydropower took place without village input. They say it has cost the community a valuable cultural and fishing resource.
An engineering consultant hired by the Assembly to analyze the utilities’ draft plan claimed the portal valve would not provide adequate water flow to the river year-round and could lead to fish kills.
The utilities said the consultant’s analysis is “fundamentally flawed and outdated” and that they designed the facility to avoid interruption of water flow and fish kills.
To resolve the disagreements, the General Assembly early this year requested a two-year delay, calling for a more in-depth review of mitigation and recovery options.
Assembly members raised a litany of concerns about the utilities’ draft plan, saying the analysis of the possible alternatives was incomplete; that the potential impacts on the city’s drinking water are not yet fully understood; and that the costs to utility and property taxpayers are also poorly understood, among other concerns.
The utilities denied the request, saying they had explored more than 30 options in an extensive analysis over several months and saw no legal avenue to delay the process outlined in the 1991 agreement.
[Previous coverage: With no dam to stop it, the Eklutna River is temporarily reborn. Many people hope to keep it alive for good.]
Why are the Anchorage Assembly and Mayor Dave Bronson at odds over the plan?
The debate over restoring the Eklutna River has led to a power struggle between the Assembly and Bronson’s administration, with a flurry of city legislation, mayoral vetoes and veto overrides on the issue.
Underlying the debate is new information that has come to light in recent months, leaving the Assembly to question whether the Bronson administration properly monitored the city’s interest in the project.
The city, which currently owns 53% of the hydroelectric project, has not had voting rights within the project’s ownership group for years.
As a result, the Chugach and Matanuska electric utilities are ultimately responsible for the plan to restore water to the Eklutna River.
Since Mayor Ethan Berkowitz took office in 2020, the city has not hired a qualified director to oversee Anchorage Hydropower Utility — the city entity that is part of the project ownership group — which is necessary to regain the city’s voting rights to get.
The General Assembly this week formally asked the Alaska Regulatory Commission, which regulates utilities, to restore the city’s voting rights as the majority owner of the hydroelectric project.
According to the request, the city could vote on policy issues related to the 1991 agreement, including whether to approve the final plan before submitting it to the governor.
In addition, the General Assembly learned earlier this year that the Bronson administration signed an agreement with the utilities last October that will govern Anchorage’s drinking water rights for 25 years.
The agreement, a “binding term sheet,” was based on the utilities’ plan to tap the city’s water supply. It would go into effect if the governor approves the Fish and Wildlife program, city officials said.
Assembly leaders say the Bronson administration usurped the Assembly’s legislative power by binding the city to its terms without their knowledge. That bypasses the Assembly’s role to oversee fiscal decisions and policies related to municipal utilities and property, they say.
Assembly leaders have called on Bronson officials to make the term sheet public. But the government has refused, saying the document is confidential.
Assembly members reviewed the term sheet in a closed-door session. But the Bronson administration has refused to provide copies to the General Assembly without members first signing a confidentiality agreement.
The city attorney said last week she was concerned that the General Assembly would publicly release them and hold the city legally liable for violating a pre-existing confidentiality agreement with the electric utilities.
The General Assembly in March authorized subpoena powers to obtain copies.
The General Assembly also approved an ordinance dictating in the city code the General Assembly’s oversight of changes to the city’s property rights, including those related to water.
Bronson said the General Assembly is infringing on the mayor’s executive power and vetoed the measure, along with the speaker’s subpoena powers.
Last week, Assembly members voted to override both vetoes.
How is the project paid for?
This is another flashpoint.
The electric utilities have said electricity rate increases will pay for their share of the plan.
Anchorage would pay for its share of the project with a slight increase in the city’s property tax revenue.
Information from the utilities indicates that rate and property tax increases would be modest.
But Assembly members say they don’t know what the final cost to the municipality would be, or how the property tax would be implemented.
Also, Assembly leaders have said that because the city has no voice, the electric companies should run the show. They say it has effectively given the utilities the power to levy taxes on Anchorage residents and make decisions crucial to the city’s drinking water rights, in violation of the city’s charter and laws.
The utilities declined to comment this week on Assembly leaders’ claims.
“Now that the Assembly has referred several issues to the RCA, the project owners are unable to comment,” Julie Hasquet, spokesperson for Chugach Electric, said in an email.
What’s next?
The utilities plan to submit a final proposed fish and game program to Gov. Mike Dunleavy by the end of this month, but that may not happen until early May.
This initiates a 60-day comment period for the entities that originally signed the 1991 agreement.
The General Assembly’s March ordinance also added to the code that the proposal to mitigate the dam’s impacts “shall be subject to approval by the General Assembly” before being submitted to the governor.
It is currently unclear whether the Assembly will get that opportunity.
And it is not yet clear whether the General Assembly or another entity will take legal action to challenge the final plan to restore water to the Eklutna River.
Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly said the Department of Natural Resources supports the portal valve option. The story has been updated to reflect that the department has not taken a position on the options.
