EPHRATA — In public comments to federal regulators, Yakima County officials said a draft environmental impact statement is flawed and fails to address a 50-year "inequitable distribution" of economic benefits from Grant County Public Utility District's Priest Rapids and Wanapum dams.

The utility district has operated the two Columbia River dams for 50 years under the original license, benefiting only the residents of Grant County, special deputy prosecuting attorney for Yakima County P. Stephen DiJulio wrote in a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on May 2.

Through FERC, the utility district seeks another long-term license to operate the two dams, called the Priest Rapids Hydroelectric Project. The FERC-issued impact statement was a milestone for the district in the relicensing process.

DiJulio said the impact statement, published in February and opened to public comment, is inadequate because it does not address the economic impacts of a second long-term license for the utility district and ignores mandates of the Federal Power Act and National Environmental Policy Act.

"All comments are being reviewed by staff and they will be addressed in the final environmental impact statement," said FERC spokeswoman Tamara Young-Allen. "So we would withhold comment on the merits of the various issues raised until staff has had time to review them."

FERC staff members, she said, are projecting the final impact statement will be released in late summer or early fall of this year.

DiJulio argues that more than 50 percent of Priest Rapids Dam and its reservoir are located in Yakima County, but Grant County PUD's license proposal does not include an allocation of benefits to its neighbor.

"In the past 50 years, the project has generated millions of dollars of revenue for Grant (County) PUD and millions of dollars worth of public benefits for the citizens of Grant County," DiJulio wrote. "By contrast, the people of Yakima County have received no meaningful economic, environmental, recreational or other benefits since the (Priest Rapids) Project was authorized over 50 years ago."

Yakima County is among the state's poorest, DiJulio said, with high unemployment and a high percentage of families below poverty level.

Meanwhile, residential and commercial customers in Yakima County pay more for electricity than their neighbors in Grant County, DiJulio said.

"This disparity in commercial and residential rates puts Yakima County, a host county for the (Priest Rapids) Project, at a competitive disadvantage for attracting economic opportunity to the county," DiJulio wrote.

Stephen Brown, the utility district's director of natural resources, said Yakima County receives benefits indirectly.

"PacifiCorp serves power in the majority of (Yakima County) and the power out of the (Priest Rapids) Project does go to PacifiCorp at cost," Brown said. "So there are some indirect benefits that do go to (Yakima) County."

In fact, Brown said, the low-cost power benefits of the Priest Rapids Project go throughout the region.

"It doesn't just go one place," he said. "And there is no place that we actually just give money to for economic development. The economic development is the price of the power that comes out of the project."

Additionally, Yakima County argues the impact statement "fails to adequately address the impact and implementation" of the salmon and steelhead settlement agreement that was signed by the utility district's board of commissioners in December and was to become effective in February.

The settlement agreement, which requires FERC approval, was to become a comprehensive and long-term management program for the protection, mitigation and enhancement of fish species covered by the agreement.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service, state Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation signed onto the settlement agreement.

Yakima County officials argue that because they were not included in the settlement agreement, FERC should reject it.

In separate public comments, the Yakama Nation and Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation expressed concern that FERC failed to provide an analysis of the settlement agreement in the impact statement. The two tribes have called on FERC to issue a supplemental impact statement to address their concerns.

Brown said a supplemental impact statement would delay the relicensing process.

Young-Allen, FERC's spokeswoman, said it's too early to tell if a supplemental impact statement would be issued.