Hydroelectric Power Opponents Face Federal Funding Cutoff

Environmentalorganizations opposing new hydroelectric dams or pursuing litigation seeking totear down existing dams would lose all their federal funding under a billintroduced by Washington Congressman Doc Hastings. HR 6247, entitled “Saving OurDame and New Hydropower Development and Jobs Act,” was introduced August 1 andreferred to Hasting’s own House Natural Resources Committee and to Michigan CongressmanFred Upton’s Energy and Commerce Committee. Though any floor action on this billwill not likely take place until after the November elections, it already has theenvironmental groups it targets up in arms.
Thissimple 17 page legislative measure would strip all federal funding from regulardam construction opponents National Wildlife Federation, American Rivers andTrout Unlimited, which have received millions of taxpayer dollars in pastyears, and used that money to pay lawyers to bring lawsuits seeking to preventnew dam construction and also to tear down existing hydroelectric generatingfacilities. Natural Resources Committee spokesman Spencer Pederson describesthe bill as “a policy statement about the importance of hydropower and howtaxpayer dollars shouldn’t be used to destroy that resource.”
About8% of American electricity is generated by hydroelectric facilities, withCalifornia having the largest number of power generating dams, and Washingtonhaving the largest overall hydroelectric generating capacity. California’sHouse Water and Power Subcommittee Chairman Tom McClintock has denouncedAmerican Rivers as an “extremist organization” in the past, and this new billraises the ante on that remark, with American Rivers Senior Director ofGovernment Relations Jim Bradley now calling HR 6247 “incredibly extreme.”Bradley says “it’s a little bit shocking for a member of Congress to createthis kind of blacklist.”
Ofcourse, dams are used for flood control and water conservation as well as powergeneration, especially in the western states. And the three groups targeted bythis bill do have a history of going to court weighing in on the side of fishand other aquatic species whose habitats are affected by dam construction andoperation. Nevertheless, the rhetoric already generated by introduction of thisbill sounds more like election campaign talking points than serious policydebate. Only time will tell whether the measure ever gets out of the committeesto which it has been referred.