Reclaiming the Sesan River

Watershed Vol. 12 No. 3 November 2008

ive years ago I had the opportunity to visit

a Brao community in northeast Cambodia’s

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 Vietnam’s 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 river’s extreme and erratic

flooding patterns.

Reclaiming the Sesan RiverRestoring natural flows by modifying hydropower dam operations:

International experience and hope for the Sesan River?

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

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

F

“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 thewater would be boiling,” by Mr. Em Vuthy, Deputy District Governor of Ta Veng, Sesan River. Photo: Brett Eloff, Oxfam America

report

Watershed Vol. 12 No. 3 November 2008 Page 75

When asked how the village elders wanted to

handle these problems, there was no hesitation. They

wanted to talk directly with the dam builder upstream

to find a solution. Once the dam builder knew the

trouble they were causing people downstream they

hoped a solution could be found based on discus-

sion and mutual respect. One

villager even asked if there

was a way to sue the Viet-

namese dam owner for com-

pensation. Another said,

“What we really want is the

rainy season flow to be the

rainy season flow, and the dry

season flow to be the dry sea-

son flow. . . We want the natu-

ral flow returned.”

Getting that profoundly reasonable message

across to the dam builder, Electricity of Vietnam

(EVN), hasn’t been easy for Sesan villagers or their

advocates. The absence of rules forcing EVN and

other Mekong dam builders to balance their power

production objectives with other river use priorities

has left riparian communities without effective tools

to assert their rights and interests in river manage-

ment. As Watershed readers know, Vietnam has made

hydropower development along the Mekong tribu-

taries it shares with Cambodia a top priority this past

decade. EVN now has not one but three large hydro

dams operating on the upper Sesan and two more

under construction. The state-backed utility enjoys

pre-eminent rights to rivers within Vietnamese terri-

tory over the rights of other riparian users, and over

any other public policy objectives. EVN, like other

state power companies in China, Lao PDR, and Thai-

land, operates with almost total impunity for the dam-

ages caused by its hydro operations within and be-

yond its borders. It’s also under pressure to expand

power output to meet Vietnam’s growing demand and

alleviate power shortages – shortages caused in large

part by the utility’s over-reliance on drought-prone

hydro reservoirs. Under these circumstances, it’s

hard to imagine how downstream Cambodians could

negotiate a return to natural flow conditions in the

Sesan River, particularly if that were to mean reduced

electricity output from the Sesan dams.

Yet appeals for natural flow restoration have reso-

nated with government authorities in Cambodia and

Vietnam. True, EVN has ignored Cambodian appeals

to stop building dams on the upper Sesan, yet Sesan

villagers and Cambodian NGOs have managed to per-

suade the Cambodian government to officially re-

quest a return of Sesan’s

natural flows on behalf of af-

fected fishing and farming

communities in Ratanakiri

and Stung Treng provinces.1

And Vietnam has responded,

although not yet satisfacto-

rily. In 2004, the Vietnam Na-

tional Mekong Committee

announced that EVN would

build a re-regulating dam, the

Sesan 4A, near the Cambodian border to reduce the

damaging fluctuations in river flow caused by Yali’s

peaking operations. Then, in July 2007, EVN released

its first-ever transboundary assessment of the envi-

ronmental impacts of its dams on the upper Sesan –

albeit seven years after the study was first proposed

at a meeting facilitated by the Mekong River Com-

mission.2

Notably, the EVN study, led by Nordic engineer-

ing consultants, Statkraft Grøner and the Norwegian

Institute for Water Research, explicitly linked eco-

logical impacts along the Cambodian Sesan to the

river’s altered hydrological regime since construc-

tion of the Yali Falls dam. Relying heavily on village

and NGO documentation and analysis of the prob-

lems, the consultants left no room for doubt about

the cause of the problem: “Daily changes in the river

flow from [Yali] hydropower project have had the

largest impacts [downstream] and these will not cease

unless appropriate mitigation is taken.” They ex-

plained, for example, that when upstream reservoirs

are being filled at the onset of the rainy season,

lower-than-normal flow releases to downstream mean

that fish don’t receive an adequate trigger to migrate

or may have difficulty reaching their spawning

grounds. And they explained that upstream dams

release water in the wrong quantity and at the wrong

time for the rice-growing season downstream, forc-

ing downstream farmers to give up cultivating wet

What we really want isthe rainy season flow to

be the rainy seasonflow, and the dry seasonflow to be the dry sea-son flow... We want thenatural flow returned.

“

”


season rice altogether.

The consultants further suggested changes in

dam operations to improve downstream conditions,

citing international practices such as more gradual

ramping rates for the turbines, and a more gradual

filling of Sesan hydro reservoirs at the onset of the

rainy season to provide more

flow for downstream fish mi-

grations. They noted that

dam operators in Norway

and other European coun-

tries are obliged (under their

concession or licensing

agreements) to release floods

that will trigger the movement

of migratory fish to spawn-

ing grounds.

The problem with the

study is its treatment of the

re-regulating dam. The consultants admit they only

learned about EVN’s plan for a re-regulating dam as

they were finishing their draft report in May 2006

(construction began in 2004). Yet the consultants

conclude without presenting any verification by

hydrological modelling that the re-regulating dam

would be the main mitigation measure to relieve prob-

lems caused by daily fluctuations, including riverbank

erosion, turbidity, and livelihood losses.3

Clearly, further independent analysis is needed.

Nobody (except presumably EVN) knows how ex-

actly the re-regulating dam will be operated or to

what effect. In January 2008, Cambodians learned

through the official Vietnam News Agency that Sesan

4A will have three turbines for a total installed gen-

erating capacity of 63 megawatts (MW) and that the

project is not scheduled to be completed until July

2010, more than ten years after the Yali Falls dam

started operating. In other dam building countries,

it’s not uncommon for re-regulating dams to have

turbines installed to “returbine” the inflow from larger

storage facilities upstream. But the question remains:

will the Sesan 4A reservoir have enough storage ca-

pacity to effectively smooth out daily fluctuations

as claimed? And, what other operational changes –

apart from Sesan 4A, and apart from dam removal –

could feasibly reduce downstream damages and re-

store natural flows as villagers have requested?

Dam affected Cambodians are entitled to know

what is possible: how have dam owners elsewhere

changed their operations and reduced the worst ef-

fects of their operations? Only with an understand-

ing of what works (potentially) and what has not

worked can Sesan advocates

hope to persuade govern-

ment authorities in Cambodia

and Vietnam to take mitiga-

tion and flow restoration se-

riously. Otherwise, the two

governments will devise their

own “mitigation” scheme for

the Sesan – namely, hydro

development along its lower

reach – which may serve na-

tional objectives but will only

make river conditions that

much worse for more people living along the Sesan

(see Watershed Vol. 12 No. 2).

Here’s where international experience with flow

restoration in dammed rivers can provide some guid-

ance and encouragement. In countries where large

hydro dams have been in operation for the better part

of the 20th Century, the practice of restoring some

approximation of natural (or environmental) flows

downstream has been proven technically and eco-

nomically feasible (see Box: Changing hydro dam op-

erations).

Based on their two decades of flow restoration

experience in the United States, river experts Brian

Richter and Greg Thomas write that “if hydropower

dams can be operated to release water on a daily ba-

sis at a rate that is closer to the rate of natural inflow

into the reservoir, impacts on downstream ecosys-

tems can be reduced.”4

In Michigan, for example, the Consumers Energy

Company was ordered to switch to run-of-river flows

at two of its hydro dams on the Manistee River, after

70 years of peak-flow operations. This modification

lowered water temperature and increased substrate

in the riverbed downstream which, in turn, increased

the number of Chinook salmon migrating from the

river into Lake Michigan – from below 100,000 to nearly

400,000 fish per year.5

Upstream dams releasewater in the wrongquantity and at thewrong time for the

rice-growing seasondownstream, forcing

downstream farmers togive up cultivating wetseason rice altogether.


In Canada, British Columbia Hydro, a provincially-

owned utility, was ordered by government regula-

tors to make operational changes at 30 of its hydro

facilities with the expectation that this will improve

fish habitat and water quality downstream. More spe-

cifically, BC Hydro stops peaking operations at some

of its hydro facilities every year during fish spawn-

ing 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 proc-

ess (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 Regula-

tory Commission (FERC) has the final authority to

order environmental mitigation actions as a condi-

tion of granting a hydro license to the dam owner,

while citizens retain the right to appeal FERC deci-

sions 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, there’s been “a wholesale change in the [US]

power industry as private, municipal and investor

owned hydropower dams have come up for re-licens-

ing [by the federal government] and must meet higher

standards for environmental releases.”6

Elsewhere in the world, hundreds of flow resto-

ration projects are underway. In their 2003 book, Riv-

ers for Life: Managing Water for People and Na-

ture, Sandra Postel and Brian Richter report that ef-

forts 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 sus-

tain 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 Aus-

tralia, river scientists from more than 50 countries pre-

sented 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

river’s natural flow regime, downstream habitats can

be recreated and other ecological functions restored.

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


Changing hydro dam operations

In the United States, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licenses about 1,800 hydro projectsowned 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, don’t require FERClicenses but are subject to federal laws.

FERC’s mandate for much of the 20th Century was to encourage the development of rivers for hydropower. Bythe 1980s, however, the public outcry over the damage dams cause to rivers prompted US Congress to amend theFederal Power Act to require that FERC give “equal consideration” to non-power issues, such as the environmentand 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 thisprocess consult with federal, state and local government agencies, Native American tribes, members of the public,and any other interests affected by their dam’s operation. Because FERC can require a variety of environmentalmitigation actions as a condition of granting a hydropower license, the re-licensing process provides an opportunityfor river advocates to make dam operations less environmentally damaging by pressing for more natural riverflows, habitat enhancement, and even dam removal.

Usually, a settlement agreement is drawn up by all parties which FERC then incorporates into the licensingagreement. A typical settlement might include requirements for improving fisheries, including minimum flowrequirements, 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 morewater to restore a river’s natural flow as opposed to minimum flow releases. Fisheries advocates typically wantoutflows from dams matching inflows and, in some cases, dam removal. FERC can reject such recommendations infavour of the dam owners, saying either that the recommended measures are beyond the scope of its authority or thatsuch measures will cause the project to be uneconomic (that is, the project will make less money from powergeneration than the cost of fish and other mitigation measures). Success stories are found where dam owners agreeto 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 aspart of their new license agreement. The companies have 30 days to comply with the new licensing conditions orface penalties and/or legal action. Copies of the detailed agreements for each project are available to the public inFERC’s online library.

FirstLight Power Resources, ConnecticutHousatonic River, 5 dams, 115 MW, Re-licensed 2004FirstLight Power Resources bought the Housatonic River dams from Northeast Utilities in 2006. NortheastUtilities had proposed minor operational adjustments to improve minimum flows whereas Connecticut Departmentof Environmental Protection recommended year-round run-of-river operation to improve water quality in compliancewith the federal Clean Water Act. The new license conditions called for year-round run-of-river operations toimprove 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, WashingtonSnoqualmie Falls, 54.4 MW, diversion dam with two power plants, Re-licensed 2004FERC ordered the change from peaking to run-of-river operations to protect aquatic resources from twice dailychanges in flows; to provide flows for downstream waterfalls and tourism. The Snoqualmie tribe opposed renewalof the company’s license on spiritual grounds. Washington Ecology Department recommended the changes toprotect water quality and benefit fisheries, riparian habitats, and aesthetic resources. Washington Ecology isresponsible 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 outputby 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


Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), CaliforniaRock Creek-Cresta, 180 MW, 2 dams, Re-licensed 2001The new license allows for an additional 11 MW capacity. Original peaking operations replaced with new scheduleof releases to mimic seasonal flow of river. Minimum and pulse flows in the agreement are meant to mimic thenatural flow regime and protect adult trout habitat. The slow ramp-up and ramp-down rates allow fish to adjust tochanging river conditions, limit excessive scouring of spawning gravels, and prevent the stranding of trout fry. Theagreement 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 andGame, environmental group Friends of the River, as well as outdoor recreation groups. New license conditionsexpected 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 2001First 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 threedams, higher minimum flows, spring pulse, and other flow modifications to mimic natural conditions. An EcologicalResources Committee was established with the California Forest Service to monitor and implement a detailedadaptive 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, MichiganPrickett Dam, 2.2 MW, Re-licensed 1995Originally operated as a peaking facility, the company switched to near run-of-river flows in the lead up to the re-licensing. Michigan Department of Natural Resources proposed strict run-of-river operation but the final license wasfor modified run-of-river operation. Outflows are to approximate inflows even when inflows are less than minimumhydraulic capacity. Reservoir cannot be used for peaking operations. Change proposed in collaboration with USFish 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 “increasedreproductive 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, WashingtonSkagit River, 689.4 MW, 3 dams (Ross 360MW, Diablo 122.4 MW, Gorge 207 MW), Re-licensed 1995Peaking operation curtailed but not prohibited. Limits placed on rate of change in flow and volume of flow releasedto 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, flowreleases and limits to protect salmon and steelhead spawning and development, requirements for dry wateryears, advanced scheduling of hourly generation, field monitoring, chinook salmon research, chum salmon habitatrestoration, sediment reduction, and trout protection and production. The cost of the fisheries mitigation measurestotal US$6,320,000 over the term of the city’s license.

Under new license, annual net benefit is $90 million with a ten per cent reduction in power output. The costof 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 “highlysuccessful” resulting in “substantially increased abundance of pink and chum salmon and sustained healthypopulation 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 inthe Upper Skagit River in Response to Flow Management Measures. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 24(3): 835-852.



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 in-

stalled capacity of 1,282 MW. Initially, Glen Canyon

was operated to store water and produce power dur-

ing 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 down-

stream conditions while still allowing some flexibil-

ity 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 re-

source 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

dam’s 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 hy-

dro 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 year’s

international river symposium, more than 750 scien-

tists, engineers, economists, policy-makers, and com-

munity advocates from 50 countries called on river

and energy authorities to not only commit to immedi-

ate action on restoring environmental flows in the

world’s 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 envi-

ronmental (natural) flow regimes be developed for

hydro facilities based on “community-driven objec-

tives.”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 Mekong’s

ecosystems . . . are continuously ignored, their knowl-

edge treated by many resource managers and devel-

opers 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 knowl-

edge 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 consultant-

driven 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-

Watershed Vol. 12 No. 3 November 2008 1

tional agriculture. The Patuca is Central America’s

second longest river, flowing through the largest

undisturbed rainforest north of the Amazon. Similar

to many large Mekong tributaries, the Patuca sup-

ports 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 peo-

ple. The process went as follows:

After consultations with local people and some

preliminary hydrological analysis, the Honduran util-

ity held an environmental flow workshop in Decem-

ber 2006. Presentations began with a review of the

findings from riverside villages, the ecology of the

river, the natural flow regime and hydrological altera-

tions 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 (avail-

able free of charge on TNC’s website http://

www.nature.org). The recommendations that

emerged from the two-day workshop are now being

refined by additional research and indigenous com-

munity feedback. “If the ecological flow recommen-

dations are successfully incorporated into the dam’s

design and management,” TNC reports, “the Patuca

River will serve as a model for the future of sustain-

able 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. Sec-

ond, the utility may or may not decide to implement

the recommendations coming from indigenous peo-

ple 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 finan-

cial 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 in-

sist upon scientifically and technically credible analy-

sis, to enforce environmental (or natural) flow rec-

ommendations, and to monitor the results, local peo-

ple 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 partici-

pating 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

“We request to have the natural flow of the river and to restore water quality and fish in the river, to dowhatever is necessary, so we can have fish again,” asserts Mr. Houn Salip, 51 years, Prao Ethnicity,

Sean Sai Village, Ta Veng district, Sesan River.


Endnotes:1 See for example, Cambodia National Mekong Committee, Fax to Vietnam National Mekong Committee Re: the Yali Falls hydropowerproject, 11 August 2003. For a more detailed history of the negotiations between the Cambodian and Vietnamese National MekongCommittees concerning Sesan management, see: Wyatt, A. and I. G. Baird. 2007. Transboundary Impact Assessment in the SesanRiver 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 Grøner in association with NIVA, ENVIRO-DEV and ENS Consult. 2007. Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment on theCambodian 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 EIAon the Cambodian Part of the Se San River due to Hydropower Development in Vietnam (July 2007). Prepared for NGO Forum onCambodia. Available at: http://www.ngoforum.org.kh/Environment/Docs/Sesan/SeSanFinalEIAReview_Feb2008_English.pdf4 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/art125 Kotchen, M., M. Moore, F. Lupi, and E. Rutherford. 2006. Environmental Constraints on Hydropower: An Ex Post Benefit-CostAnalysis 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 andCambridge, 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 atGlen Canyon Dam. Land Economics Vol. 75, No. 3.10 California Energy Commission. 2003. California Hydropower System: Energy and Environment, Appendix D, Enviromental PerformanceReport.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%20’03Int.pdf13 The Nature Conservancy. Case Study: Patuca River Honduras. Retrieved April 2008. http://www.nature.org/initiatives/freshwater/strategies/energy.html

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 people’s property and livelihoods.

Until that day comes in the Mekong Region,

Sesan villagers and their advocates have few oppor-

tunities for pressing their case. Electricity of Viet-

nam is not subject to effective regulatory oversight

and therefore lags behind many of its global coun-

terparts. The internationally-funded Mekong River

Commission and its National Mekong Committees

have capitulated to the dam builders’ interests – al-

though that could change quickly given the right

mix of donor and public pressure.

On a more practical level, TNC’s work in Hondu-

ras demonstrates that it is possible to develop a set

of flow recommendations with respect for local peo-

ple and without requiring years of costly expert-

driven 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 gov-

ernment scientists, EVN staff, and international con-

sultants 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 compen-

sate 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 per-

suaded to modernise by negotiating an agreement on

Sesan operations that all parties, including Sesan vil-

lagers in Cambodia, could live with. The latter course of

action would make EVN the region’s leader in ‘best

practice’ dam operations, offering hope for a new era of

ecological recovery and productive riparian economies.

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

Hydro Dams 101 – Some Definitions

Although 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 century’s

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 river’s 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 river’s 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

Reclaiming the Sesan River

Documents

Transcript of Reclaiming the Sesan River