Environmental
organizations opposing new hydroelectric dams or pursuing litigation seeking to
tear down existing dams would lose all their federal funding under a bill
introduced by Washington Congressman Doc Hastings. HR 6247, entitled “Saving Our
Dame and New Hydropower Development and Jobs Act,” was introduced August 1 and
referred to Hasting’s own House Natural Resources Committee and to Michigan Congressman
Fred Upton’s Energy and Commerce Committee. Though any floor action on this bill
will not likely take place until after the November elections, it already has the
environmental groups it targets up in arms.
This
simple 17 page legislative measure would strip all federal funding from regular
dam construction opponents National Wildlife Federation, American Rivers and
Trout Unlimited, which have received millions of taxpayer dollars in past
years, and used that money to pay lawyers to bring lawsuits seeking to prevent
new dam construction and also to tear down existing hydroelectric generating
facilities. Natural Resources Committee spokesman Spencer Pederson describes
the bill as “a policy statement about the importance of hydropower and how
taxpayer dollars shouldn’t be used to destroy that resource.”
About
8% of American electricity is generated by hydroelectric facilities, with
California having the largest number of power generating dams, and Washington
having the largest overall hydroelectric generating capacity. California’s
House Water and Power Subcommittee Chairman Tom McClintock has denounced
American Rivers as an “extremist organization” in the past, and this new bill
raises the ante on that remark, with American Rivers Senior Director of
Government Relations Jim Bradley now calling HR 6247 “incredibly extreme.”
Bradley says “it’s a little bit shocking for a member of Congress to create
this kind of blacklist.”
Of
course, dams are used for flood control and water conservation as well as power
generation, especially in the western states. And the three groups targeted by
this bill do have a history of going to court weighing in on the side of fish
and other aquatic species whose habitats are affected by dam construction and
operation. Nevertheless, the rhetoric already generated by introduction of this
bill sounds more like election campaign talking points than serious policy
debate. Only time will tell whether the measure ever gets out of the committees
to which it has been referred.
