Ormat, MCWD spar at Long Valley workshop

There are two sides to every story, something both Mammoth Community Water District (MCWD) and Ormat, NV have proven in the controversy surrounding Ormat’s proposed Casa Diablo IV geothermal plant near Mammoth Lakes.

Those two sides were on display in Suite Z Thursday during a Long Valley Caldera workshop hosted by Ormat.

The Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Project has been in the works since 2010. Ormat proposed a net 33-megawatt geothermal project, located near the existing geothermal facility off Highway 395, which would include a new geothermal power plant, pipeline, and up to 16 new production and injection wells, many near Shady Rest Park.

MCWD repeatedly expressed concern that geothermal production, which the District says will grow from the current 19,000 acre-feet to about 29,000 acre-feet per year, could overheat or degrade the cold water above, potentially destroying the local groundwater supply.

As MCWD General Manager Pat Hayes has noted, cold water supplies about 75 percent of daily water use in Mammoth. In drought years like this one, that number is closer to 90 percent.

Although Ormat argues that local agencies have observed no impacts from the current geothermal pumping, Hayes countered that the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has noted an impact at Shady Rest.

Since two new geothermal wells went online in 2006, the USGS observed an increase in tree kills in the area. The tree kills are likely caused by the vaporization process common to geothermal pumping, which releases heat, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen sulfide to the surface.

At Thursday’s packed workshop, Hayes said MCWD had suggested four monitoring wells in the area between the plant and the town to monitor any changes to groundwater. At the very least, he said MCWD wanted what the USGS already recommended: monitoring wells for cold, warm, and hot (geothermal) water regions.

At present, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which certified the project’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) last year, is requiring a monitoring plan. That monitoring plan includes one or two shallow monitoring wells.

MCWD Public Relations/Environmental Specialist Irene Yamashita said that BLM wasn’t requiring deeper analysis because the EIS, like the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified by Great Basin last month (more on that shortly), “didn’t find any impacts to the coldwater system, so [the BLM] only made a general statement about a shallow groundwater monitoring system.” Yamashita said the District believes this monitoring plan is insufficient.

Regardless of the Water District’s concerns, Great Basin Air Pollution Control Officer Ted Schade certified and approved the project’s EIR earlier this month. This was in spite of Schade’s assurance that he would not approve the documents until Ormat and MCWD agreed on a monitoring and mitigation plan.

Schade told The Sheet that he had seen no end in sight; “After a year of effort, the parties agreed on four sentences of an objective monitoring plan. It was obvious to me that they weren’t getting anywhere.

“I believe Ormat was willing to take reasonable action, [but] nothing was ever good enough for the Water District,” he added.

MCWD answered Schade’s decision with a unanimous Board vote to sue Great Basin.

A MCWD press release on August 20 confirmed that MCWD had formally filed the lawsuit (actually a “petition for writ of mandate” required to protest Great Basin’s decision), claiming the EIR is “inadequate,” and that Great Basin “withheld critical information from [the] public and stakeholders.”

The lawsuit lists Ormat as “a real party of interest.”

Hayes argued that both Great Basin’s and the BLM’s decision to certify their respective environmental documents without a more in-depth monitoring and mitigation plan in place rested on the belief that there is no connectivity between the groundwater and coldwater regions in the aquifer.

However, Hayes said that Ormat Consultant Richard Holt of Geothermal Science, Inc. “looked at several types of connectivity between the systems. In both cases, impacts to the groundwater were shown.”

Hayes said that a day after MCWD’s own consultants had a look at the numerical model showing connectivity, “Ormat and Great Basin entered into an agreement to keep that information proprietary.”

The model was not in the environmental documents, Hayes said.

Moreover, “Rumor has it that Ormat has indemnified Great Basin on any actions filed due to the [environmental] documents,” Hayes said, and will cover any of Great Basin’s legal expenses in the lawsuit. MCWD finds this, well, shady.

Hayes said that MCWD and Great Basin may yet reach a settlement, which must be scheduled 20 days after the lawsuit was filed.

At the Aug. 21 workshop, Ormat Director of Business Development Charlene Wardlow reiterated Ormat’s assertion that there have been no documented effects from geothermal groundwater pumping in the 30 years of the current plant’s operation. Wardlow also argued that using binary technology, which pumps geothermal water out to extract its heat before reinjecting it back into the ground, “There is no consumption of fluid.”

This statement is somewhat disingenuous, Hayes argued, as Ormat currently extracts water from Shady Rest, pipes it down to the geothermal plant, and injects it at the plant rather than transporting it back to Shady Rest. Meaning Shady Rest does lose water. This could mean a drop in water pressure that would draw Mammoth’s groundwater down.

Wardlow also maintained the plant has brought benefits to the area; among them, property tax, employment for 25 locals, and royalties paid to the BLM, of which 40 percent comes back to Mono County (however, this might also raise questions about the priorities of the BLM).

MCWD Board member Gordon Alpertwas not appeased. At an earlier MCWD press conference, he said, “Some [people] think we’re nuts, and wonder why we’re spending this money [on a lawsuit] when Ormat says it’s the best thing to happen to this town … [But] isn’t the community entitled to an insurance policy?” he wondered. “Why do we have to go to court to get what ought to be offered as part of the project?”