[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 36 (Tuesday, March 6, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H1180-H1190]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION SMALL CONDUIT HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2011
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 2842.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 570 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2842.
{time} 1434
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2842) to authorize all Bureau of Reclamation conduit facilities
for hydropower development under Federal reclamation law, and for other
purposes, with Mr. Chaffetz in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Napolitano) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2842, the Bureau of
Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act of
2011. It authorizes hydropower at existing Bureau of Reclamation
facilities and, by doing so, it allows placement of hydropower
generators on existing man-made canals and pipes that have already gone
through extensive environmental review.
This is a bipartisan plan to create new American jobs, cut government
red tape, and expand production of clean, renewable and low-cost
hydropower.
This past weekend President Obama once again tried to claim support
for an all-of-the-above energy production, but unlike President Obama's
empty rhetoric, House Republicans are taking real action to prove our
commitment to expanding all forms of American energy.
Americans have now experienced 27 consecutive days of rising gas
prices, and now the national average is pushing closer to $4 a gallon.
In order to address the skyrocketing prices, Republicans will continue
to pursue an all-of-the-above approach that responsibly develops the
natural resources that we have right here at home.
The facts are, Mr. Chairman, we have followed through on this
commitment by passing through the House bipartisan reforms to break
down government barriers to American energy production. Just weeks ago,
the House passed a bipartisan jobs plan to vastly expand access to our
oil and natural gas resources offshore and in ANWR. Today we're putting
forth a plan to expand production of clean, renewable hydropower.
As families and small businesses across the country are worried about
rising gasoline prices, they are also worried about escalating
electricity costs. Rising energy prices are a drain on our economy,
pure and simple. It increases business costs and makes everything we do
more expensive.
Hydropower is one of the cleanest and cheapest forms of electricity.
In my view, coming from the Pacific Northwest, where nearly 70 percent
of our power comes from hydropower, hydropower is the poster child for
clean, renewable energy. Unfortunately, as is too often the case, the
Federal Government is one of the biggest obstacles to increasing the
development of hydropower projects, especially small projects.
This bill would remove government roadblocks and streamline the
duplicative regulatory process for developing small canal and pipeline
hydropower projects on existing Bureau of Reclamation facilities. This
commonsense plan would help generate thousands of megawatts of clean,
cheap, abundant and reliable hydroelectricity. Furthermore, it allows
for hydropower generation without a single new dam, and at no cost to
the Federal Government.
Now, let there be no mistake. I am a proponent of new dams. But this
bill rightly harnesses hydropower potential at existing facilities.
Water users throughout the West will be empowered to develop hydropower
at the Federal canals they operate and maintain.
It's once again important to note that this bill only allows for
small hydropower projects on existing canals and pipelines. Such
manmade facilities are already on what I would call disturbed ground
and have already gone through extensive environmental reviews.
Furthermore, this bill is a revenue generator for the Federal
Government. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, or CBO,
estimates that it will generate $5 million over the next 10 years
through increased hydropower production and rental fees associated with
it.
H.R. 2842 affirms Republicans' commitment to a true, all-of-the-above
energy plan. It will create jobs in rural areas, lower energy prices,
and expand production of clean, renewable American energy by simply
getting the Federal Government out of the way.
This bill received bipartisan support in the Natural Resources
Committee and is endorsed by the Family Farm Alliance, the National
Water Resources Association, the American Public Power Association, and
the Association of California Water Agencies.
{time} 1440
I want to commend the bill's sponsors, Mr. Tipton of Colorado and Mr.
[[Page H1181]]
Gosar of Arizona, for their work on this.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 5 minutes.
I do rise in support of the general premise--I repeat--the general
premise of this legislation, but oppose the legislation as amended. I
would like to mention that only 3 out of 15 Democrats support it. So
while it is bipartisan, it is minor bipartisanship on this particular
issue.
H.R. 2842 does seek to generate additional hydropower at the existing
Bureau of Reclamation facilities--that is, Federal properties--through
developing new process of conduit and in-canal hydropower, which we
should be developing at a greater speed and length.
We cannot support this bill as amended, even though the original bill
did also state it and an attempt was tried to be able to take this
waiver language out on page 4, lines 12 to 15. We were unsuccessful,
and we cannot support it because it does have a NEPA waiver, language
that we cannot support.
We are in support of the general intent. H.R. 2842, the Federal
conduits, continue to fall under Reclamation Lease of Power Privilege
process, LOPP. It requires offering a preference to irrigation
districts or water users associations with an existing contract, those
that already have a contract, which we support.
It safeguards current project users by recognizing the project's
primary authorized purposes and that no financial and/or operational
costs will be incurred by the existing water and power users.
The Federal Power Marketing Administrations are also--and I repeat--
are not obligated to purchase or market the power produced.
The legislation does go a step too far and includes an unnecessary
and unwise blanket exemption from a critical environmental law.
If my colleagues on the other side had simply followed the advice of
the National Hydropower Association and the conservation group American
Rivers, we would have a noncontroversial bill which would have passed
unanimously out of the House. We also received a letter from six
environmental groups in opposition that I would like to include in the
Record.
Proponents for exempting the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA,
will argue that government regulatory red tape is preventing the
development of more hydropower. Reclamation already has the authority
to comply with NEPA through categorical exemptions, and the system is
working. Categorical exclusions have been issued for hydropower sites
under the reclamation's LOPP process at three specific sites in
Colorado: the Lemon, which was in 1989; the Grand Valley Power Plant in
2011; and Jackson Gulch in 1995.
NEPA compliance for other sites, in fact, has not been the
bureaucratic chaos some would make it out to be. There are three
projects in the home State of Colorado for my colleague, the sponsor of
this bill. In Jordanelle, Utah, compliance took 15 months from start to
finish to receive final permit in 2004. At Lake Carter, Colorado, it
took 6 months to finish NEPA in 2010. At Ridgway, Colorado, an LOPP was
just issued last month after completing a 15-month NEPA process. On the
South Canal Drop 3 site in Colorado, a finding of ``no significant
impact'' was just issued last month after a 15-month NEPA process.
Developers and irrigators need clarity and certainty so their project
can be developed. Waiving NEPA will not provide clarity and certainty.
The stopgap for development is not NEPA; it's a lack of a Reclamation
process. There must be a clear process in place for the development of
hydropower at Reclamation facilities.
I urge Reclamation to finalize the directives and standards as soon
as possible, and it's my understanding the draft is already out to
developers and irrigators for their view, and the final directives and
standards will be completed by the end of this year.
It is unfortunate that this legislation contains this controversial
waiver. Without the NEPA exemption, this legislation would have been on
suspension, and I do oppose the legislation and ask my colleagues to
join me in opposition to this very sad portion of waiver of NEPA.
March 6, 2012.
Dear Representative: The undersigned organizations, on
behalf of our millions of members and supporters are writing
to express our opposition to the provision in Section 2 of
H.R. 2842 that waives the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) with respect to small conduit hydropower projects at
Bureau of Reclamation facilities.
While we support the legislation's intent to encourage the
responsible development of renewable energy projects, waiving
NEPA reviews for Bureau of Reclamation projects is
unnecessary and unacceptable. The National Environmental
Policy Act is not a roadblock to the successful approval of
conduit hydropower projects at Bureau facilities. We believe
that this backward step will not accelerate hydropower
development. Rather, our experience has shown us that
attempts to shortcut or sidestep environmental review
typically result in delayed projects.
Successfully advancing the development of new energy
resources, like conduit hydropower, requires us to do better
than we have done with other forms of energy and other Bureau
of Reclamation projects. While we do not oppose the
development of conduit hydropower, it must be done
responsibly and under all of the appropriate reviews
necessary to make sure that such development is consistent
with the public interest; a guarantee that NEPA provides.
Therefore we respectfully request that you oppose H.R. 2842
unless the language requiring a NEPA waiver is struck from
the bill.
Sincerely,
American Rivers,
Center for Biological Diversity,
Defenders of Wildlife,
Grand Canyon Trust,
Natural Resources Defense Council,
The Wilderness Society.
____
National Hydropower
Association,
Washington, DC, March 5, 2012.
Hon. Scott Tipton:
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Tipton: The National Hydropower
Association writes to express our appreciation for your work
to support development of the nation's conduit power
potential with your bipartisan bill, H.R. 2842, the Bureau of
Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural
Jobs Act of 2011.
NHA believes there is tremendous untapped, renewable
hydropower potential in existing man-made structures such as
irrigation canals and other water conveyances, particularly
on the federal system. As such, the Association supports
policies encouraging these low-impact developments, while
also ensuring appropriate project reviews.
NHA supports H.R. 2842, while also recommending a minor
amendment to Section 2 of the bill to align the Bureau's
treatment of these projects to that which they currently
receive, and have received since the 1980s, at the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission. Specifically, NHA believes a
provision that would require the Bureau to institute a NEPA
categorical exclusion for small conduit projects provides
appropriate oversight of these facilities, as longstanding
practice and experience at FERC has shown.
As always, NHA stands ready to engage and work with
policymakers and all stakeholders on hydropower legislation
and policies. And again, we commend you for your work on this
issue.
Sincerely,
Linda Church Ciocci,
Executive Director.
____
American Rivers,
March 6, 2012.
Dear Representative: On behalf of American Rivers'
thousands of members nationwide, I am writing to express our
opposition to the provision in Section 2 of H.R. 2842 that
waives the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) with
respect to small conduit hydropower projects at Bureau of
Reclamation facilities.
American Rivers supports the responsible development of
conduit hydropower projects at Bureau facilities. We believe
that there is significant untapped potential at these
facilities for new hydropower generation. We believe that the
Bureau of Reclamation should improve its process for small
conduit hydropower permitting, modeling its process on that
used by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). We
believe that the Bureau should, like FERC, consider a
categorical exclusion for these types of projects in order to
facilitate their construction.
Unfortunately, H.R. 2842 creates a blanket waiver of NEPA
for small conduit hydropower projects at Bureau facilities.
We hope that in the course of House consideration of the
bill, the NEPA waiver language can be amended. Pending that,
American Rivers reluctantly opposes H.R. 2842 in its current
form.
Sincerely,
Jim Bradley,
Senior Director of Government Relations,
American Rivers.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield
4
[[Page H1182]]
minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), the sponsor of
this very important legislation.
Mr. TIPTON. I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the House on both sides of the aisle talk of
the need for an all-of-the-above energy solution for this country, a
solution that gives serious consideration to all resources, including
renewable and alternative energy.
It's easy to talk about this need, but today I offer a bill that
turns that talk into action. My bill, the Bureau of Reclamation Small
Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act of 2012, is a key
piece of the all-of-the-above strategy energy that our country needs in
order to strengthen reliable, domestic energy production; expand
development of responsible, renewable energy; generate economic growth;
and get Americans working once more.
Hydropower is the cheapest and cleanest source of electricity. This
is created through modern technology. It's the highest source of non-
carbon emitting energy in the world, accounting for approximately 69.9
percent of the United States' total renewable electricity generation,
making it the lead renewable energy resource power, according to the
Hydropower Association.
In Colorado, nearly 30.7 percent of our renewable energy is
hydropower, but only 3.1 percent of all Colorado is hydropower. We have
a significant opportunity in Colorado to expand on this clean,
renewable source of power while creating badly needed jobs for the
Third District of Colorado in the process. In Colorado alone, there's
enough existing capacity to generate as much power as the Glen Canyon
Dam. However, as it stands, no major hydroelectric facilities have been
built in many years. Existing facilities are being drained by endless
litigation and regulatory obstacles that stifle production and lead to
an increase in electricity prices and shortages in many regions of the
country.
By streamlining the regulatory process and reducing administrative
costs for small hydropower development at Reclamation's facilities,
this commonsense legislation will encourage the production of clean,
renewable hydropower and provide much needed opportunities for the
creation of new jobs in Colorado for some of our Nation's hardest hit
rural areas.
This commonsense bill garnered bipartisan support in the House
Natural Resources Committee and has been endorsed by the Family Farm
Alliance, the National Water Resources Association, the Association of
California Water Agencies, and the American Public Power Association.
Chris Treese of the Family Farm Alliance and a constituent of mine in
the Third Congressional District put it best when talking about the
need for the bill:
The margins on small hydro are very small. Districts need
to be able to make timely investment decisions without the
prospect of environmental reviews of undetermined length and
expense. Additionally, Western water districts share the
Nation's desire to make investments that can put people to
work immediately. Environmental reviews of small hydro on
existing conduits represent an unnecessary and often chilling
uncertainty for an economically marginal investment.
This legislation, which applies to all projects on Reclamation
conduits without exception, seeks to address this concern and fix an
unwieldy environmental review process that requires small developers to
jump through unnecessary and duplicative bureaucratic hoops in order to
complete a project on existing conduits that has already undergone the
proper environmental reviews. By doing this, the Bureau of Reclamation
Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act of 2012 will
jump-start small hydropower development through which power generated
will be sent directly to the grid and also create revenues that will
help pay for aging infrastructure in our communities.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 1
minute.
{time} 1450
Mr. TIPTON. From the beginning, this Congress has made responsible
energy development a legislative priority with the goal of putting
forward a comprehensive solution that expands the development of
alternative and renewable energy technologies while continuing the
development of traditional energy resources.
We have an opportunity to join together in this body and pass a
commonsense solution to advance the common goal of developing clean and
renewable alternative energy and to put into place a key component of
an all-of-the-above energy plan.
I ask my colleagues to take this into consideration and to remember
the words that are inscribed in this very Chamber from Daniel Webster,
saying:
Let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its
powers, build up its institutions, promote all its great
interests, and see whether we also in our day and generation
may not perform something worthy to be remembered.
Hydropower development follows in the legacy of the responsible
development of our precious natural resources with the steadfast
protection of our environment. So I ask my colleagues for their support
of the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and
Rural Jobs Act of 2011.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I couldn't agree with him more. My only objection is
the small portion of the NEPA waiver.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague,
the gentleman from Massachusetts, Ranking Member Markey.
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentlelady very much.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation.
After 427 days in the majority and having no energy or jobs strategy
to show for it, House Republicans are now offering H.R. 2842, the
Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural
Jobs Act.
We need legislation that gets hydro projects moving and that gets
hard hats down in the ditches again. Instead, Republicans are offering
more legislation that is certain to be ditched by the Senate. We should
encourage the development of small hydropower projects at existing
facilities. In fact, if the legislation simply gave the Bureau of
Reclamation exclusive jurisdiction to develop hydropower at Federal
reclamation facilities, I would support it. If it mandated that the
Bureau of Reclamation institute categorical exclusions for their small
hydro projects, I would support it.
But Republicans, they just couldn't help themselves. It doesn't
matter the nature of the problem. For Republicans, the problem is
always just nature, so they went and gutted environmental review
altogether in this bill. That's what happens when your entire economic
platform is deregulation and gutting safety and environmental
protections. You start waiving environmental review even when the
industry you're trying to help isn't asking for it. If the Republicans
had simply followed the advice of the hydro industry, we would have a
noncontroversial bill that I could support and recommend to all of the
Democratic Members that we pass 435 to nothing out here on the House
floor this afternoon. Instead, it's ideology over hydrology. That's
what the Republicans bring to the floor today.
If Republicans are serious about advancing the hydro industry, here
is what they can do: extend the production tax credit, support clean
renewable energy bonds, support domestic clean energy manufacturing tax
credits, and extend the section 1603 renewable energy grant program.
Here is what those successful Recovery Act programs have already
done:
Three companies have received $67 million in tax credits to build
hydro-related manufacturing facilities in the United States. Eight
companies have received $2 million in grants to support hydro
deployment under the 1603 renewable energy grant program. Clean
renewable energy bonds have supported $531 million in public power
hydro projects across the country.
But Republicans aren't interested in doing something constructive for
hydro or for any other clean energy technology. With their oil-above-
all strategy, Republicans want to continue subsidizing the oil and gas
industry $4 billion annually--$40 billion over 10 years--but shut down
all of the clean energy programs that I just outlined. They're going
directly after any and all threats to Big Oil and Big Coal, and they're
targeting clean energy jobs for elimination.
[[Page H1183]]
Republicans on our committee have reported out a bill that would
repeal the borrowing authority that the Western Area Power
Administration currently has to help finance transmission serving
renewable energy projects. Between one project in Montana that is
already under construction and three others that are deep into
development, there are 11,500 jobs at stake, but the Republicans don't
care about those 11,500 jobs.
Then there is the wind industry. Ten thousand American workers have
already been cut in the wind industry because the production tax credit
is expiring at the end of the year and orders are drying up; 27,000
more wind workers will lose their jobs if Republicans get their way and
raise taxes on the wind industry beginning on December 31 of this year.
A clean energy wave is upon us. America needs a vibrant domestic
hydro industry, along with a healthy wind, solar, geothermal, and
biomass industry, if we are to capture its benefits. Otherwise this
wave will crash down upon us and, instead, carry the Chinese and the
Indian and German economies to prosperity.
Let us vote down this bad bill before us and move on to the real
policies that will help America's hydro sector.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5
minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee that dealt with this
legislation, the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would say to the gentleman from Massachusetts that nothing in this
measure has anything at all to do with oil production. Quite the
contrary, this bill reduces our reliance on fossil fuels by bringing
hundreds of thousands of megawatts of new, clean hydroelectricity to
the grid.
I don't understand the objection to this bill. This measure by Mr.
Tipton does everything the environmental left says that it likes: At
precisely no cost to taxpayers, it produces absolutely clean and
renewable electricity in vast quantities, on projects that have already
undergone environmental review, simply by installing small generators
in existing pipelines and canals where there are no fish or no flora or
no fowl of any kind.
This is the alpha and omega of Mr. Tipton's bill. Authorize these
simple projects on existing Bureau of Reclamation facilities. That's
it.
There are untold thousands of miles of pipelines and canals and
aqueducts attached to these facilities that convey water by simple
gravity. There is water in these existing facilities that is utterly
devoid of any life whatsoever, and there is no conceivable
environmental impact whatsoever. These existing pipelines, if equipped
with simple hydroelectric generators, could generate electricity that
would take several major multibillion-dollar hydroelectric dams across
the West to produce.
In fact, our committee took testimony that, in Colorado alone, the
hydroelectric facilities' small generators that would be encouraged by
this bill could produce as much power as is currently produced by the
entire Glen Canyon Dam. Now, multiply that throughout the United
States, and you begin to realize what a huge impact this could have on
new, clean, affordable energy for America.
Those hydroelectric generators are not going into these pipelines
right now for one simple and utterly absurd reason: government
regulations make it economically impossible to do so. Our subcommittee
took testimony from farmers in water districts who were trying to
install these generators; but instead of doing everything it can to
assist them, this administration smothers them with endless regulatory
delays, demands for wildly expensive environmental studies and
exorbitant permitting fees.
According to testimony before the committee that the gentleman from
Colorado cited, the net effect of these environmental regulations can
more than double the cost of these projects, simply pricing them out of
reach. In one case, a witness told us that a $20,000 small generator
project would have required $50,000 in permitting costs, and so it
doesn't move forward.
Congressman Tipton's bill, instead, welcomes these small
hydroelectric generators by authorizing their placement in existing
Bureau of Reclamation conduits. It invites existing operators and users
to invest in these generators at no public cost. It establishes an
office within the Bureau of Reclamation with the responsibility to
assist projects, and it exempts them from paying for another costly,
time-consuming, and pointless NEPA study when there is no conceivable
environmental impact involved. These facilities already underwent the
environmental process when they were built, when they were upgraded, or
when their repayment contracts were renewed. It is simply a waste of
time and money to put them through yet another review before these
small generators can be installed.
I mean, think about the implications just to farming alone. Some
irrigation districts are forced to use diesel generators to pump water
to the fields. Put hydroelectric generators in existing canals and
pipelines, and they become virtually self-sustaining while reducing
their reliance on other sources of electricity that produce air
emissions.
{time} 1500
In addition, sales of canal-based electricity could generate local
revenue for irrigators, which would help upgrade existing facilities
and infrastructure, create jobs and relieve exhausted Federal taxpayers
of these costs. The construction of these generators would mean new
high-paying jobs for Americans.
It is truly mystifying that a nation plagued by prolonged economic
stagnation, chronic unemployment, and increasingly scarce and expensive
electricity would adopt a willful and deliberate policy obstructing the
construction of these inexpensive and innocuous generators in already-
existing facilities.
Mr. Chairman, there are fewer Americans working today than on the day
that Barack Obama took office more than 3 long years ago. During that
period, he has taken well over a trillion dollars from the earnings of
hardworking American families to funnel to well-connected companies,
claiming to create jobs. In the case of Solyndra, it penciled out to
$450,000 per job, jobs that disappeared as soon as the government money
ran out.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 1
minute.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman.
Yet here, with this measure, at no cost to these hardworking
families, at no cost to the environment, simply by getting absurdly and
utterly duplicative government regulations out of the way, we could add
tens of thousands of megawatts of clean and cheap electricity to our
domestic energy supply, produce permanent jobs, reduce our reliance on
fossil fuels, and lower the utility bills of American families.
Our Nation desperately needs clean, affordable, and abundant
electricity; and it desperately needs permanent jobs. To get them, it
most of all needs common sense restored to its government. The progress
the American people have made in doing that, as well as the unfinished
business remaining before them, will be very precisely measured by the
roll call on this bill.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on both sides?
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 20\1/2\ minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Washington has 14 minutes remaining.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to a
cosponsor of this legislation and a very valuable member of the Natural
Resources Committee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill Congressman
Tipton and I have worked closely on, H.R. 2842, the Bureau of
Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act of
2011.
Arizona has been hit hard by the recent recession. The rural counties
that I represent are faced with unemployment rates that far exceed the
national average. This bill could provide a little of the much-needed
relief for these communities.
The Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and
[[Page H1184]]
Rural Jobs Act of 2011 is commonsense legislation that will create jobs
in rural Arizona, increase our country's renewable energy portfolio,
and generate revenues for the Federal Treasury by cutting duplicative,
bureaucratic redtape.
Specifically, it would allow Arizonans that operate existing
irrigation canals and ditch systems, man-made canals and pipes as you
can see from here, to install hydropower generators. To be clear, we
are not talking about free-flowing rivers or streams. These are man-
made structures that have already gone through environmental review.
These canals, as you can see, do not contain endangered fish or
wildlife.
I worked very closely with the Irrigation & Electrical Districts
Association of Arizona, the special districts, municipalities, Indian
utility authorities and project managers that are engaged in the
management and delivery of water and power in my State as Congressman
Tipton and I crafted this legislation.
I am proud to be from a State that is as innovative and as
resourceful as Arizona. Our State is a leader in developing safe ways
to tap into our natural resources, which provides much-needed energy
and jobs.
Unfortunately, due to Federal constraints, Arizona is unable to fully
tap its hydroelectric power generation potential because of the
duplicative regulations that make it too expensive and burdensome to
develop. It is simply the failure of the Federal policies to facilitate
an environment that is conducive to this type of development. Instead
of working with communities that share common goals and values, the
Federal Government is dictating to them.
The experts on the ground in Arizona say that we are literally
sitting on a hydropower gold mine waiting for the needed clarifications
and streamlining that will cut costs and make this program more
attractive.
This bill does just that. For example, the Maricopa-Stanfield
Irrigation & Drainage District, located in Pinal County, Arizona,
estimates that it has the capacity to build 14 to 17 hydropower units
if this legislation is signed into law. Those units could generate a
total of approximately 2,200 kilowatts of renewable energy, which is
enough electricity to power 550 to 1,000 homes. This is just one of the
power managers in my State.
Another district, the Central Irrigation and Drainage District
centered in Eloy, Arizona, has indicated they could install eight to 10
hydropower units with a capacity of 1,200 to 1,500 kilowatts of
renewable energy, another 500 or so homes. These economic impacts are
not small for these rural communities. They would provide a real
economic boost and will reduce consumer energy costs.
There is not one solution to our Nation's energy crisis, but
hydropower is clearly part of an overall all-options-on-the-table
solution. Hydropower is the highest source of noncarbon-emitting energy
in the world. It accounts for approximately 70 percent of the United
States' total renewable electricity generation, and we are not even
tapping the potential. Investing in hydropower infrastructure will
strengthen our economy and help move us towards energy independence.
To top it off, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates
that our bill will generate $5 million in Federal revenue over the next
10 years. Increased revenues from the sale of this renewable energy can
result in a new source of funding for operating, maintaining, and
rehabilitating our aging water-delivery infrastructure at lower costs
to farmers.
This legislation is truly a win-win for the American people and is
exactly the type of legislation this House should be passing.
Vote ``yes'' on this bill, the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit
Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act of 2011. It will create jobs
in rural America, increase U.S. energy independence, and raise revenue
for the U.S. Treasury.
So I guess the opponents of this bill are right: if commonsense
solutions are your cup of tea, then I guess I can't help myself. And
this is at no--let me repeat myself and this fact--this renewable
energy is at no cost to the taxpayer or the public.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I couldn't agree with Mr. Gosar more
on some of his presentation that the bureau would be able to expedite
some of these projects, and they are working on that categorical
exemption determination to be able to understand how they can expedite
some of these projects.
NEPA is not some radical piece of legislation. It was overwhelmingly
approved by Congress more than four decades ago and signed into law by
President Nixon.
It is not an obstacle. It's a tool to be used to facilitate
coordination, cooperation, and public input. It is not a barrier. It is
a shield protecting our communities, yours and mine, from the
unintended consequences that can occur when a big, clumsy Federal
Government acts without thinking.
NEPA does not and cannot prevent projects from going forward. They
just require the government to analyze alternatives and, most
importantly, seek public comment. Evidence that NEPA does not stop
projects is plain. Our majority cannot provide a single example where
NEPA prevented one of these small projects, the hydroprojects from
moving forward. Most applications are granted expeditiously and easily.
It also provides the Bureau of Reclamation all the flexibility
necessary to apply NEPA quickly and efficiently to the projects. There
is no delay.
To oppose NEPA is to oppose public input. Again, it would then oppose
public input. To oppose NEPA is to oppose thinking before we act.
This unnecessary and unwise blanket waiver of NEPA should be struck
from this bill and then this bill could be passed unanimously and go on
to approval in our other body.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1510
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out what this bill does and the
simplicity of this bill.
In 1902 when this House, along with the other House, created the
Bureau of Reclamation, which was to reclaim the land--that's where
``reclamation'' comes from--it was designed to develop areas that
heretofore did not have the resources with which to develop. Mainly,
the resource they were lacking was water. And so the Bureau of
Reclamation was created so that those arid areas, certainly my area of
central Washington qualified as that because Grand Coulee Dam is a
facility that irrigates the 500,000-plus acres in central Washington,
but it was designed to develop areas that couldn't be developed before.
So now we have these facilities in place all over the West. They've
gone through extensive environmental reviews in order to be put into
place. Yet even with the technology that makes irrigation better and
better and more and more efficient, there still is water in these
canals that goes back to the river, in my case the Columbia River. It
starts in the Columbia River and ends up in the Columbia River some 120
to 130 miles downstream. And during that process where the water goes
to irrigate various parts of the project, we can better, more
efficiently use that water by producing power, and that's what this
legislation does.
Again, we have gone through the extensive environmental review to
build the ditch, the canal. We saw pictures of that earlier. All we're
suggesting now is we put something in there to capture the water power
to generate electricity. It's no more complicated than that. That's all
this bill is about. So with that, while there is an objection to the
NEPA process, there is an amendment that will address that, and we will
have more extensive debate on that.
But I would just repeat, Mr. Chairman, all of the building of the
ditches, which is what really disturbs the land, that went through
extensive environmental reviews to get to that point. We are now
building within what we disturbed. Boy, to say that you have to have
another process, environmental process, doesn't make sense, at least to
this Member.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 18\1/2\ minutes, and
the gentleman from Washington has 6 minutes.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate that we
fully
[[Page H1185]]
support the intent of the legislation without the exemption of NEPA
stated on page 4, lines 12 15. And I must say that I have working
relationships with some of my universities; and one of them, Cal Poly
Pomona, has been working with hydrokinetics for awhile. We have been
kind of tracking the issues of hydrokinetics and some of their results,
the projects that they've got in New Jersey and New York, to be able to
generate electricity. We have for at least 5 years been trying to make
Congress and the committee understand that this is something that is
very viable. Even the heat off the pumping motors is being recaptured
and converted into electricity in one of my areas.
So I fully understand and I'm glad that it's finally beginning to
take hold that there is the ability to create electricity from hydro.
We support increased generation at all facilities by developing conduit
and in-canal hydropower.
And, again, I support all of the provisions that I stated here, but
waiving NEPA does not provide the clarity and the certainty needed to
be a clear process for the development of hydro at reclamation
facilities. That's Federal facilities only. We must ensure that the
lease-of-power privilege, the law, is clear and does provide specific
certainty. It should be consistent with the FERC process, as stated in
the letter from the National Hydropower Association and American
Rivers, as introduced into the Record. We will be proposing an
amendment to fix the problem, and we want to make this in a truly
bipartisan manner and look forward to working with my colleagues on the
other side.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask my
friend from California if she has anymore speakers on the debate
portion of this.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I do not.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. If not, I am prepared to yield back and
start the amendment process if the gentlelady yields back.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of
my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise today in order to debate
H.R. 2842. ``Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development
and Rural Jobs Act'' would authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to
permit private entities to develop small hydropower units on all
irrigation canals and conduits under the agency's jurisdiction. Under
current law, the Bureau or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
FERC, has jurisdiction over hydropower development at such facilities.
Currently both the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the
Bureau of Reclamation have the authority to manage small conduit
hydropower projects in all Bureau of Reclamation irrigation canals and
conduits. This bill would give this authority only to the Bureau of
Reclamation thereby streamlining regulation. There will be jobs created
by this measure, however not enough to be considered a Rural Jobs bill.
The American people need a jobs bill.
I would have supported this legislation without hesitation if this
bill did not contain a poison pill. As written I am concerned about a
provision in the bill that would exempt small conduit hydropower
projects from having to comply with the National Environmental Policy
Act, NEPA. H.R. 2842 removes the requirement that all small hydropower
projects must complete an environmental impact statement unless granted
an exception from FERC. Although my colleagues who support this
legislation will argue that NEPA compliance for small conduit
hydropower is unnecessary and hinders developers from pursuing small
conduit hydropower projects. There is a valid and proven counter to
this argument.
Currently FERC has a successful licensing process for small conduit
hydropower showing that compliance with NEPA need not hinder
responsible development. FERC categorically exempts small conduit
projects from NEPA. This approach works: from 2006 2010, 13 conduit
exemptions were completed in less than a year. Of the 11 conduit
exemptions that were issued in 2011, orders regarding the nine conduit
exemptions that presented no substantive issues were issued on average
40 days after the comment deadline established in the public notice. We
can protect our environment while meeting the needs of rural
communities in need of an additional green energy resource.
I will continue to seek ways to improve the nation's hydropower
system by encouraging increased generation while improving
environmental performance.
Let me be clear, I support hydropower in both large scale and small
projects that are developed and operated in a responsible manner that
avoids harm to America's precious river resources. Given the very real
environmental and social impacts of global climate change--especially
on vital freshwater systems--I believe that we should develop new
sources of energy that can supplement America's reliance on foreign
oil.
However, I also know that the energy that we receive from hydropower
if done improperly comes at an enormous cost to the health of our
nation's rivers and communities.
The harm caused by any hydropower project can be avoided if
hydropower is sited, constructed, and operated in a responsible manner.
A few simple changes can make an enormous difference, which is why
compliance with NEPA is important.
In the case of larger scale hydropower projects, hydropower operators
could change the timing of power generation to mimic a river's natural
hydrologic conditions, stabilize lake levels and dam releases to
protect riverside land from erosion, provide fish ladders and other
measures that protect fish and allow them to pass safely upstream and
downstream of dams, restore habitat for fish and wildlife, alter the
design and operation of plants to maintain appropriate temperature and
oxygen levels in rivers, and provide public access and release water
back into rivers so that people can fish, boat, and swim. These types
of changes have a miniscule impact on the overall generation of the
Nation's hydropower fleet. In fact, an analysis by FERC found that
since Congress passed laws in the 1986s to encourage these types of
improvements, overall generating capacity has actually increased by 4.1
percent. The benefits to human and natural communities have been
immense.
The Bureau of Reclamation was established to construct water works to
provide water for irrigation and power for utilities in arid western
states. The agency manages a number of facilities as part of larger,
multi-purpose reclamation projects serving irrigation, flood control,
power supply, and recreation purposes. Overall, these facilities serve
approximately 31 million people, delivering a total of approximately
28.5 million acre-feet of water (an acre-foot is enough to cover one
acre of land one foot deep, or 325,851 gallons) and making the agency
the second largest domestic hydropower producer. H.R. 2842 seeks to
utilize these existing irrigation channels/waterways by inserting small
conduits to create hydro power.
Hydropower is a clean, renewable, non-emitting source of energy that
provides low-cost electricity and helps reduce carbon emissions. It is
more efficient than any other form of electricity generation and
offsets more carbon emissions than all other renewable energy sources
combined.
It accounts for 67 percent of the Nation's total renewable
electricity generation. In addition to providing low-cost electricity,
multipurpose dams provide water for irrigation, wildlife, recreation
and barge transportation and offer flood control benefits.
As part of the New Deal, the Roosevelt Administration sought to
bridge the urban-rural divide in access to electricity. In the early
1930s, according to one estimate, 90 percent of Americans in urban
areas had access to electric power, while only 10 percent of rural
America had access.
The establishment of the Rural Electrification Administration, REA,
in 1935 sparked a series of Federal investments that brought power to
rural American homes over the coming years. By 1939, the REA had helped
to establish more than 400 rural electric cooperatives, which served
nearly 300,000 households.
Today, the RUS continues to provide credit and other assistance to
help improve electric, water, and telecommunications services in rural
areas. For example, between 2002 and 2009, the RUS invested $36 billion
in electric systems and $14 billion in water and waste management
systems throughout rural America. Small hydropower projects help to
address the electricity needs of rural areas in a green way.
The Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation also provides
hydropower, and drinking water and irrigation services to rural
America. Today, the Bureau is the Nation's largest wholesaler of water,
serving 31 million people, and provides irrigation to one out of five
western farmers. This is a very clever manner to use existing water
ways and existing technology to create electricity.
Three manufacturers in the Nation build these small conduits.
Apparently they are so prevalent that they are available at Home Depot.
Again hydropower represents approximately two-thirds of the renewable
electricity generation in the United States and is currently providing
almost seven percent of the
[[Page H1186]]
country's total energy generation. About forty-five percent of all
hydropower in the United States is generated at federally-owned
facilities. With only three percent of the Nation's approximately
eighty thousand federal and non-federal dams currently generating
hydropower there is great potential to increase hydropower production.
Additional hydropower can be sited, constructed, and operated in a
responsible manner to reduce or avoid environmental damages.
FAST FACTS
Each kilowatt-hour of hydroelectricity is produced at an efficiency
of more than twice that of any other energy source. Where hydropower
does have environmental impacts, particularly on fish species and their
habitats and extensive work is done within the Bureau to evaluate and
mitigate these impacts.
Further, hydropower is very flexible and reliable when compared to
other forms of generation. Reclamation has nearly 500 dams and dikes
and 10,000 miles of canals and owns 58 hydropower plants, 53 of which
are operated and maintained by Reclamation. On an annual basis, these
plants produce an average of 40 million megawatt, MW, hours of
electricity, enough to meet the entire electricity needs of over 9
million people on average.
Reclamation is the second largest producer of hydroelectric power in
the United States, and today we are actively engaged in looking for
opportunities to encourage development of additional hydropower
capacity at our facilities.
Conventional hydropower is one of the oldest and most well-
established among a growing number of technologies that provide low-
emissions alternatives to fossil-fuel energy. Nationally, hydropower
provides about 75,000 megawatts of capacity, and represents nearly 7
percent of total generation.
It is anticipated that hydropower will continue to be a part of our
Nation's energy mix for years to come, and accordingly we have signed
dozens of agreements supporting the continued, long-term operation of
hydroelectric dams that together provide our Nation with thousands of
megawatts of generating capacity. Reasonable modifications have
dramatically improved the performance of these dams, providing fish
passage, improving flows, enhancing water quality, protecting riparian
lands, and restoring recreational opportunities.
Hydropower represents approximately two-thirds of the renewable
electricity generation in the United States and is currently providing
almost seven percent of the country's total energy generation. About
forty-five percent of all hydropower in the United States is generated
at federally-owned facilities.
With only three percent of the nation's approximately eighty
thousand federal and non-federal dams currently generating hydropower
there is great potential to increase hydropower production.
JOBS/ECONOMY/H.R. 3710--Deficit Reduction and Energy Security Act
I am committed to producing tangible results in suffering communities
through legislation that creates jobs, fosters minority business
opportunities, and builds a foundation for the future. Every American
deserves the right to be gainfully employed or own a successful
business and I know we are all committed to that right and will not
rest until all Americans have access to economic opportunity.
It has been over 10 months since the Republicans took control of the
House, and Republican Leadership has not considered a single jobs
creation bill on the House floor.
With the national unemployment rate at 9.2 percent, and almost 1.9
million men and women who have exhausted the maximum of up to 99 weeks
of state and Federal unemployment benefits, we cannot afford to
continue with inaction.
Rather than wait for the economic tide to turn, Congress must take
advantage of its exceptional opportunity to create jobs by embracing
the development of natural and renewable resources in a responsible and
environmentally conscious partnership with the energy industry.
I have recently introduced H.R. 3710 ``The Deficit Reduction and
Energy Security Act of 2012.'' My bill would protect America's energy
security, reduce the deficit, and create jobs.
The energy industry has a long and storied history of facilitating
robust job creation and economic growth. This legislation will help pay
down the deficit and create jobs for workers with varying skill-levels
nationwide. H.R. 3710 would also establish the Coastal and Ocean
Sustainability Health Fund to provide grants for addressing coastal and
ocean disasters, restoration, protection, and maintenance of coastal
areas and oceans, as well as, research and programs in coordination
with state and local agencies.
Additionally, the Deficit Reduction and Energy Security Act
establishes the Office of Energy Employment and Training, and the
Office of Minority and Women Inclusion to help foster job creation for
groups who have traditionally been underrepresented in the energy
industry. H.R. 3710 will spur our Nation's economic growth.
Working in a bipartisan spirit, Congress can aggressively take on the
problem of job creation, by supporting measures like H.R. 3710.
The energy sector provides us with an exceptional starting place. In
fact, we need to only look to Houston and the state of Texas for a
strong example of how embracing the development of our own natural and
renewable resources can play a major role in spurring our economy.
Texas serves as proof that the energy industry offers tremendous
potential to provide jobs and foster economic growth. As a matter of
fact, in 2008, Texas was one of the few states that saw its economy
grow, grossing the second highest revenue of all states at $1.2
trillion.
As the Representative of the 18th Congressional District of Houston,
Texas, I can attest to the importance of a healthy energy industry. My
district is the energy hub of Texas and is recognized worldwide for its
energy industry, particularly for oil and natural gas, as well as
biomedical research and aeronautics. Renewable energy sources--wind and
solar--are also growing economic bases in Houston.
The energy industry and its supporting businesses provide my fellow
Texans with tens of thousands of jobs, and have helped keep the state
of Texas significantly below the national unemployment rate.
This prosperity can expand well beyond Texas, if the federal and
state governments will act decisively and responsibly to expand
domestic energy productions in an environmentally conscious manner, and
keep billions of dollars and countless jobs here at home.
In fact, a study recently conducted by Wood Mackenzie indicates that
the oil and natural gas industry has the potential to create 1 million
new jobs over the next 7 years through responsible development of
America's oil and natural gas resources, while generating an estimated
$800 billion in revenue.
Additionally, Wood Mackenzie concluded that responsible domestic oil
and natural gas development, along with increasing imports from Canada,
and cultivating a domestic biofuels energy program, the United States
could achieve energy independence within 15 years.
Expansion of our domestic energy industry presents us with the
opportunity to divert the staggering amounts of money we spend on
importing massive amounts of foreign oil. Instead, we can use these
funds to make a considerable investment into our own American oil
industry, which already pumps about $1 trillion into our economy and
helps create jobs for many Americans across many other industries.
Furthermore, we must also bolster our investments in natural gas, wind,
solar, and other forms of renewable alternative energy.
We must of course, act responsibly, and apply the safety lessons
learned in the wake of the BP oil spill. Throughout my tenure in
Congress, I have worked tirelessly to foster better relationship
between the energy industry and regulating agencies. With an open
dialogue and productive communication, we can forge compromise that
will protect the environment without harming economic growth.
The benefits of a seamless domestic energy policy go beyond just
creating jobs in the energy sector. A seamless domestic energy policy
also promotes the ongoing need to develop the best technology to reduce
risks and improve efficiency.
Demand for this technology creates an increased demand for Americans
educated in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math, STEM. The energy
sector can partner with educational institutions to meet that demand,
foster American innovation and increase American competitiveness in an
increasingly globalized economy.
The energy industry is putting my constituents back to work, and the
Wood Mackenzie study indicates that increasing domestic development
will create new jobs and generate government revenue.
It is time for my colleagues to join me in a truly bipartisan effort
to create jobs, improve our education system, and strengthen the
economy. It is time to return to an age of American ingenuity and
prosperity. It is time for a seamless domestic energy policy. It's time
to support job creation it is time to support legislation like the bill
I recently introduced H.R. 3710 ``The Deficit Reduction and Energy
Security Act of 2012.''
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute, printed in the bill,
shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
under the 5-minute rule. Each section of the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be in order except: (1) those received for printing in the
portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose dated
at least
[[Page H1187]]
1 day before the date of consideration of the amendment; and (2) pro
forma amendments for the purpose of debate. Each amendment so received
may be offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed or a
designee and shall be considered as read if printed.
The Clerk will designate section 1.
The text of section 1 is as follows:
H.R. 2842
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Bureau of Reclamation Small
Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act of 2011''.
The CHAIR. Are there any amendments to section 1?
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Tipton
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
In section 1, strike ``2011'' and insert ``2012''.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, this is a technical amendment that changes
the year of the bill from 2011 to 2012, and I ask my colleagues to
support this noncontroversial amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. Does any Member seek recognition?
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Tipton).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate section 2.
The text of section 2 is as follows:
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION.
Section 9(c) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (43
U.S.C. 485h(c)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``The Secretary is authorized to enter into
contracts to furnish water'' and inserting ``(1) The
Secretary is authorized to enter into contracts to furnish
water'';
(2) by striking ``(1) shall'' and inserting ``(A) shall'';
(3) by striking ``(2) shall'' and inserting ``(B) shall'';
(4) by striking ``respecting the terms of sales of electric
power and leases of power privileges shall be in addition and
alternative to any authority in existing laws relating to
particular projects'' and inserting ``respecting the sales of
electric power and leases of power privileges shall be an
authorization in addition to and alternative to any authority
in existing laws related to particular projects, including
small conduit hydropower development''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) When carrying out this subsection, the Secretary
shall first offer the lease of power privilege to an
irrigation district or water users association operating the
applicable transferred work, or to the irrigation district or
water users association receiving water from the applicable
reserved work. The Secretary shall determine a reasonable
time frame for the irrigation district or water users
association to accept or reject a lease of power privilege
offer.
``(3) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) shall not apply to small conduit
hydropower development, excluding siting of associated
transmission on Federal lands, under this subsection.
``(4) The Power Resources Office of the Bureau of
Reclamation shall be the lead office of small conduit
hydropower policy and procedure-setting activities conducted
under this subsection.
``(5) Nothing in this subsection shall obligate the Western
Area Power Administration, the Bonneville Power
Administration, or the Southwestern Power Administration to
purchase or market any of the power produced by the
facilities covered under this subsection and none of the
costs associated with production or delivery of such power
shall be assigned to project purposes for inclusion in
project rates.
``(6) Nothing in this subsection shall alter or impede the
delivery and management of water by Bureau of Reclamation
facilities, as water used for conduit hydropower generation
shall be deemed incidental to use of water for the original
project purposes. Lease of power privilege shall be made only
when, in the judgment of the Secretary, the exercise of the
lease will not be incompatible with the purposes of the
project or division involved, nor shall it create any
unmitigated financial or physical impacts to the project or
division involved. The Secretary shall notify and consult
with the irrigation district or legally organized water users
association operating the transferred work in advance of
offering the lease of power privilege and shall prescribe
such terms and conditions that will adequately protect the
planning, design, construction, operation, maintenance, and
other interests of the United States and the project or
division involved.
``(7) Nothing in this subsection shall alter or affect any
existing agreements for the development of conduit hydropower
projects or disposition of revenues.
``(8) In this subsection:
``(A) Conduit.--The term `conduit' means any Bureau of
Reclamation tunnel, canal, pipeline, aqueduct, flume, ditch,
or similar manmade water conveyance that is operated for the
distribution of water for agricultural, municipal, or
industrial consumption and not primarily for the generation
of electricity.
``(B) Irrigation district.--The term `irrigation district'
means any irrigation, water conservation or conservancy
district, multicounty water conservation or conservancy
district, or any separate public entity composed of two or
more such districts and jointly exercising powers of its
member districts.
``(C) Reserved work.--The term `reserved work' means any
conduit that is included in project works the care,
operation, and maintenance of which has been reserved by the
Secretary, through the Commissioner of the Bureau of
Reclamation.
``(D) Transferred work.--The term `transferred work' means
any conduit that is included in project works the care,
operation, and maintenance of which has been transferred to a
legally organized water users association or irrigation
district.
``(E) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
``(F) Small conduit hydropower.--The term `small conduit
hydropower' means a facility capable of producing 1.5
megawatts or less of electric capacity.''.
The CHAIR. Are there any amendments to section 2?
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mrs. Napolitano
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 4, strike lines 12 through 15.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment striking
out language in section 2, page 4, lines 12 15. It removes the
exemption of the NEPA waiver for small conduits on Federal land.
The proponents of this measure again will argue that FERC regulations
allow for categorical exemption for certain conduit hydropower projects
that meet statutory and regulatory criteria and do not have the
potential for significant environmental impacts. This is true.
First, treatment of conduits is not the same. It is not the same as
what the legislation attempts where all environmental regards are
completely waived. This bill, H.R. 2842, as amended, proposes to
totally exempt all small hydro from the FERC exemption process.
Reclamation already has the same authority as FERC to develop a process
of complying with NEPA. Reclamation has already been in the process of
investigating whether small hydropower developed in conduits or canals
may be appropriately placed under categorical exemption.
As I stated before, the draft is already out. They are consulting
with developers and irrigators to ensure that this bill is what they
need. They have also granted specific categorical exemptions to three
LOP projects, as mentioned in my opening statement. Low impact
hydropower can be efficiently developed by utilizing existing
environmental review provisions.
We have seen examples of projects that have not unduly delayed
project development, and I again point to the three projects as stated
before utilizing the yellow pea process. I have placed the letters from
the National Hydropower Association and American Rivers and others to
highlight the views of the hydropower industry and the leading
conservation group on hydropower. Both are supportive of H.R. 2842 as
long as it is modeled after the process used by FERC.
{time} 1520
It would provide for proper oversight, a longstanding practice FERC
has shown.
I urge my colleagues to vote positively ``yes'' on this amendment,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I think our opponents on this piece of
legislation are confused as to actually what the debate is truly about.
If it is about jobs, if it is about the American people, if it is about
providing energy certainty, and if it is about reducing the carbon
footprint in this country, then 2842 is a good piece of legislation.
They say conceptually they embrace it, but they want to put on the
backs of hardworking Americans more cost and more uncertainty at a time
when we need to create certainty and when we
[[Page H1188]]
need to be able to have that opportunity to be able to reduce costs.
Our opponent commented that we see no evidence that projects are
being delayed. Well, the fact of the matter is, when we had testimony,
Chris Trees of the Colorado Water District noted that it took well over
a year for a project to be approved. Many projects were not being
considered simply because of the regulatory costs.
When we look at this chart on a projected cost to build a small
hydropower installation, the actual cost to build the unit is $20,000.
By the time that we concur with our Democrat colleagues' insistence
that we expand bureaucracy and have more government, we are going to
add an additional $50,000 in cost.
What's the challenge for rural America? It is dollars. We have
struggling communities of people that need jobs. People need to be able
to be put back to work. It may, in big cities, not be big money when
you start to talk about $50,000, but for our small water districts, it
truly is.
This is a chance to stand up for the American people. This is a
chance to be able to create clean energy for this Nation.
When we looked at examples in terms of what does overregulation by
the government do, when we went through the NEPA process, no one argued
as we had photos that my colleague, Mr. Gosar, had shown of constructed
ditches made by men, were put into place to have the NEPA process, but
then to duplicate that process, we could look at Bureau of
Reclamation's process in which it took 5 years for it to find out that
it even had jurisdiction over the Klamath project C-Drop Canal in order
to pave the way for conduit hydropower--5 years.
Join with us in caring about the environment, to make sure that we're
going to be delivering clean hydropower--not delaying it for 5 years,
not delaying it for a year, not putting more costs on the backs of the
American people when they simply can't afford it--and putting people
back to work. That's the choice we have on this legislation.
As Chairman Hastings has noted, it's a commonsense piece of
legislation. It makes sense, and it makes good common sense to vote for
it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. TIPTON. I'll certainly yield to my colleague.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Please put that poster back up again. That, I think, real-life
example demonstrates why America is so fed up with what happens in
Washington, DC. Here is a project that is affordable at $20,000, and so
somebody wants to take that opportunity to perhaps make some money--
there's nothing wrong with that in our country--and you find out that
the cost of regulation is 2\1/2\ times what the project is. Now, what
certainty does that send to the marketplace that we want to do
business? That is absolutely incredible.
And its environmental permitting costs here, in this particular
example, which, of course, are exemplified by what? NEPA. And this
amendment would take the waiver of NEPA out of the equation. In other
words, under the bill that you have authored--correct me if I am
wrong--that red dot, that red slice there would be dramatically,
dramatically reduced; is that correct?
Mr. TIPTON. That is correct.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, as the gentlelady has
pointed out, strikes the NEPA exemption for small hydroelectric
projects. Perhaps she hasn't been listening to the debate for the last
hour. The NEPA exemption is the entire point of the bill.
As our subcommittee heard earlier this year, it's precisely this
duplicative, costly, time-consuming, and entirely unnecessary process
that has more than doubled the cost to small hydro projects which
simply makes them cost-prohibitive. They don't apply for permits
because they know they don't pencil out once all of the studies are
factored into their costs. The Bureau of Reclamation doesn't deny
permits; it simply demands such costly environmental studies as to make
these projects cost-prohibitive. The bill authorizes these projects so
they don't have to go through the costly, time-consuming, and pointless
environmental studies.
The gentlelady, several times, mentioned the fact that the Bureau of
Reclamation was moving ahead with three permits in Colorado. So what's
the problem? Well, let's look at those three permits. One of these
wasn't conduit hydropower, one was specifically approved by Congress in
the 1980s, and the third took a full year to get the permitting done on
an existing canal outlet. Now, if that's what the gentlelady describes
as success, I think she has just proven our point.
Let me ask her this: What is the point of requiring expensive and
time-consuming environmental reviews when all you're doing is putting a
small generator in an existing Bureau of Reclamation pipe that has
already undergone extensive environmental reviews?
FERC already provides for the categorical exemption on non-Federal
projects. The Bureau's own NEPA manual, updated a decade ago, clearly
allows categorical exemptions for--and this is from their manual--
``minor construction activities associated with authorized projects
which merely augment or supplement or are enclosed within existing
facilities.'' These small hydro generators precisely meet this
requirement. The problem is the agency ignores its own guidelines. That
is precisely why this bill is necessary.
Mr. Chairman, either placing generators in pipelines is
environmentally damaging or it's not, and anybody with a lick of sense
already knows the answer to that question, and I would expect them to
be supporting the bill of the gentleman from Colorado.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSAR. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the amendment from the
gentlelady from California.
In fact, I want to highlight two of the Arizona witnesses who have
some of the most applicable understanding of this hydropower bill.
The first person I would like to quote is Mr. Bob Lynch, in which he
testified:
We need Congress to streamline the processes both for
reclamation facilities and for non-Federal facilities. This
companion enterprise will open up the West to a whole new
product line of small hydropower facilities that can tap the
energy in flowing water that is currently being wasted. If
the red tape can be cut down, the cost of installing these
units can be amortized. These are existing facilities and
will have no impact other than to provide additional clean,
renewable hydropower in small quantities all over the Western
United States.
The second person I would like to highlight is Mr. Grant Ward, who
represents one of these districts in which he testified how the
permitting costs of $50,000 for every small conduit hydropower unit in
his area are more expensive than the actual installation of $20,000.
So here we hear from Mr. Bob Lynch representing the Irrigation and
Electrical Districts Association in Arizona, someone who has countless
decades of experience and expertise in these issues, as well as Mr.
Grant Ward, who experienced this on the ground level, dictating exactly
their testimony.
So I rise in opposition to this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California will be
postponed.
{time} 1530
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Ellison
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
[[Page H1189]]
SEC. 3. NO NET LOSS OF JOBS.
Section 2 and the amendments made by section 2 shall not
take effect unless the Secretary finds that such section and
amendments, if in effect, shall not result in a net loss of
jobs.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, our transportation program expires at the
end of March, and we are still facing high unemployment. Why aren't we
working on a real jobs bill that will create good infrastructure jobs?
The GOP has wasted about 427 days since they've been in charge by not
producing a real jobs agenda, but it's around transportation and
infrastructure where we have real opportunity. Unfortunately, certain
people have used creative titles--deceiving titles in some cases--to
try to distract the public. Their transportation bill is called the
American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act, but it wouldn't promote
jobs in energy or infrastructure. It would actually cut highway
investment by $16 billion in 5 years. This would mean a loss of half a
million jobs nationwide. That's right, the American Energy and
Infrastructure Jobs Act would cut 500,000 jobs. The bill would cost
about 11,000 jobs in my home State of Minnesota.
Today, we're debating the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit
Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act. Why are we talking about
small conduit hydropower when we need investment in highways, bridges,
transit and airports? Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not here to run down
small conduit hydropower. I just think it's too small.
Also on the floor this week is the so-called Jumpstart Our Business
Startups Act, JOBS. This is a rehash of access-to-capital bills that
may be useful--in fact, I may support them--but will barely make a dent
in our unemployment numbers. The GOP may have creative titles, may have
some titles that catch attention and sound good; but if you scratch the
surface just a little bit, there's no jobs agenda even on bills that
say ``jobs.''
The American Society of Civil Engineers is a group that knows a
little bit about infrastructure. This is a group, a collection of
professionals, who know the issue; and they give our infrastructure
grade a D--and D don't stand for ``dandy.'' It stands for ``downright
bad and unfortunate.''
We have nearly 70,000 bridges across this country--or 11.5 percent of
all highway bridges--classified as ``structurally deficient,'' meaning
they require significant maintenance or replacement. There are about
1,400 structurally deficient bridges in my State of Minnesota, several
within walking distance of my home. In 2007, my district tragically
felt the impact of deficient bridges with the collapse of I 35W. We
lost 13 lives, and 100 people ended up with serious injury in the
hospital.
We need a real transportation bill and a real jobs agenda to rebuild
our infrastructure and to put Americans back to work.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie
Bernice Johnson).
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Let me thank the gentleman from
Minnesota for leading this position.
I rise today to speak about the current extension of the
transportation bill, which is set to expire at the end of this month.
I'm frustrated by the lack of action in this Chamber and the lack of
attention being paid by the majority to the American people who
desperately need these jobs.
The current transportation authorization expires at the end of March,
but we are still facing high unemployment and a weak economy. We need
the kind of long-term transportation policy that will repair our
crumbling infrastructure and bring back good-paying construction jobs.
I have been on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
for 20 years this year; and up until now, the committee has worked in a
bipartisan fashion and we have produced sound, commonsense legislation.
But the progress that could have been made has been stymied by partisan
bickering and bad policy.
The current transportation bill offered by the majority would cut
investment in our Nation's highways by almost $16 billion over the next
5 years. This would mean a loss of over 500,000 jobs nationwide.
Mr. Chairman, we talk about this being a jobs bill. What is before us
is a job-killing bill. But the American people are waiting.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to
the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would give to the
Secretary of the Interior the ability literally to unilaterally veto
this measure if he finds it would result in a loss of jobs.
Now, let's be clear of what we're talking about here. This is the
same Secretary of the Interior who came to the Natural Resources
Committee in 2009 when Federal water diversions in California's Central
Valley were throwing thousands and thousands of farm workers into
unemployment. Before the committee, he admitted that he had the
authority to stop the diversions and stop throwing these thousands of
hardworking families into poverty, but he chose not to do so because he
said it would be like admitting failure.
This is the same administration that blissfully threw thousands of
gulf war workers into unemployment by declaring a de facto moratorium
on oil production in the gulf. This is the same administration that's
blocking energy development in the Arctic tundra. This is the same
administration that's torpedoed the Keystone pipeline and the thousands
of jobs it would have created. And now the gentleman from Minnesota
would give this same official and this same administration the power to
shut down small hydroelectric facilities that could add thousands of
megawatts of additional electricity to our energy supplies.
I would assure the gentleman that the reason for this bill is because
we fully expect it to produce a quantum leap in demand for small
generators; and somebody's going to have to build them, and somebody's
going to have to install them. That means more jobs.
Now, if the gentleman is worried about jobs being lost in the
regulatory bureaucracy because they won't have as many businesses to
harass, I can assure him they have demonstrated over the years a
tremendous creativity in finding new businesses to harass and new
reasons to increase their budgets.
But I say again, I don't believe it would be a good idea to put in
the hands of this Secretary and this administration yet another tool to
obstruct energy and job development. Now, high electricity prices might
not be a problem in Minnesota, but I can assure the gentleman they are
a serious problem in California; and that's why his amendment is so
dangerous.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike
the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the bill that I'm
speaking of is called the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
bill.
The Secretary of Transportation, who has served on this committee,
has clearly explained what this bill in its present form will do for
this country. Now, I know that probably no one wants to quote this
particular Secretary, who has had inside experience as well as outside
experience. He is very aware because he served on this committee during
the time we worked in a bipartisan fashion.
We're talking about highways. And because someone put a lot more
extracurricular, extraneous kind of stuff in this bill that does not
relate to these highways, then they're against it. But the progress
that could have been made was really stymied by this very kind of
propaganda and bad policy.
The current transportation bill offered by the majority would cut
investment in our Nation's highways and kill jobs. We want to create
jobs and do something about the crumbling infrastructure in this
country.
Mr. Chairman, the American people are waiting for us to do something.
We were sent here by our constituents to solve problems, not to create
them and not to find excuses to face the real reality. So let's get
back to work and
[[Page H1190]]
produce a transportation bill that will repair our Nation's
infrastructure and get thousands of Americans back to work--not to try
to challenge this administration because you don't like the
administration. We want to see something that's real and something that
addresses the real problem, and not skirt around with a lot of ideas
and a lot of propaganda that simply does not relate to this bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1540
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I find this debate rather
interesting because the gentlelady from Texas who spoke, of course, did
not speak on this bill. She spoke on another piece of pending
legislation that dealt with jobs. That's good.
That pending piece of legislation, I might add, had two components to
it. It had the energy component, and it had the transportation
component which, of course, is pending. We know that expires at the end
of this month.
But we did pass the energy component of that bill which creates tens
of thousands of jobs. And I just want to point out, Mr. Chairman, the
gentlelady voted against that piece of legislation. Sometimes we hear
mixed messages here, but I just wanted to set the record straight.
This bill is another extension of energy production and, of course,
creating American energy jobs. And with that, I find the gentleman from
Minnesota's amendment really very interesting, because what he is
saying by his amendment is, unless the bureaucracy decides, by giving
all this authority to the Secretary--and by the way, I'm not sure which
Secretary it is because it's not delineated in the amendment. But
leaving that aside, he is saying there will be no jobs unless--what?
The bureaucracy decides there will be jobs. Now, how ludicrous is that?
But that is precisely where we seem to be today. And I think this is,
as I mentioned earlier, this is one of the reasons why I think
Americans are so fed up with what's happening here in D.C. with this
sort of back and forth.
Let me repeat, this is infrastructure that is in place. There is
water running through this infrastructure. All we're trying to do is
capture that energy, at no cost to the Federal Government, and create
jobs and lower the cost of energy. There's nothing more simplistic than
that, Mr. Chairman.
So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I urge
my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, it's interesting, our colleagues do talk
about jobs. We want to be able to create jobs, to be able to facilitate
that opportunity for Americans to be able to go back to work, to be
able to create clean energy right here in the United States. As my
colleague was pointing out, a commonsense piece of legislation.
We're going through existing conduits, what we call in our part of
the world ditches, to be able to capture that energy, to be able to
deliver it to allow local decisions to be able to be made.
But our colleagues seem to want to make sure that we're standing up,
or they are standing up, for the status quo, and that just means say
no--say no to clean energy. No, join with us and support clean energy
and hydroelectric power.
You're saying no to jobs. Join with us to be able to create jobs
right here in this country and be able to put our people back to work.
We have enough red tape. This amendment will simply grow more
government. And as we saw from testimony in our committee and charts
that have been shown during this debate, there's no need to put more
expense on the backs of the American people, who simply cannot afford
your stand to build more government.
This is an amendment that deserves to be rejected. I ask for that,
and ask for a favorable vote on H.R. 2842.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee
do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
McClintock) having assumed the chair, Mr. Chaffetz, Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2842) to
authorize all Bureau of Reclamation conduit facilities for hydropower
development under Federal reclamation law, and for other purposes, had
come to no resolution thereon.
____________________