BUREAU OF RECLAMATION SMALL CONDUIT HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2011
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the amendment from the gen tle lady 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source