Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act of 2012

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.

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. Chairman, how much time remains on both sides?

I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate that we fully

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.

I do not.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.

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.

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. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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.

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.

I want to commend the bill's sponsors, Mr. Tipton of Colorado and Mr.

Gosar of Arizona, for their work on this.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 4

minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), the sponsor of this very important legislation.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

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. 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. 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.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask my friend from California if she has anymore speakers on the debate portion of this.

If not, I am prepared to yield back and start the amendment process if the gentlelady yields back.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman yield?

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?

I move to strike the last word.

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. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

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. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

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.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 570 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

This resolution provides for a modified open rule for the consideration of H.R. 2842, succinctly titled the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act of 2011. It provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided between and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources and makes in order all amendments which were preprinted in the Congressional Record and which otherwise comply with the rules of the House.

So this modified open rule is a very fair and generous rule--a continuation of the work of Chairman Dreier and the Rules Committee-- and will provide for a balanced and open debate on the merits of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House today in support of this rule, as well as the underlying legislation, H.R. 2842. I appreciate the hard work of the bill's chief sponsor, Mr. Tipton of Colorado, as well as Mr. Gosar of Arizona, one of the cosponsors, Representative McClintock of California, who is the chairman of the subcommittee that held the hearings on this bill, and of course Chairman Hastings of the Resource Committee, who brought this bill forward as one of the companion pieces of the myriad of pieces of legislation which, if enacted, would greatly improve our Nation's energy policy and provide for a responsible and balanced approach to further energy development.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), who is the chair of the subcommittee that heard this particular bill.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), the sponsor of this particular bill, who will talk about how to create real power using water resources that we have.

(Mr. TIPTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I reserve the balance of my time.

I advise my colleague that I am prepared to close.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am grateful that we have found new sources of energy, specifically oil and natural gas, on private property because it has not allowed the Federal Government to stop the development of those, and that is the growth that we have seen in recent times.

However, it is interesting to note that the bill before us, which deals with hydropower and development of more hydropower, is a bipartisan bill and for just cause. We can both agree, on both sides of the aisle, that there is a great need for more energy, and that greater, cheaper energy is vital to the growth of the economy and the growth of jobs. That's what this bill tries to do.

Frequently in this House, we have brought bills that have tried to increase our offshore drilling on Federal property. We have talked about the Keystone pipeline and the ability of 20,000 high-paying jobs if it were just permitted. We have talked about trying to increase domestic energy production on public lands that have been put off- limits by this particular administration. Those efforts we have dealt with. We have passed through this House. They're over sitting in the Senate waiting for action. And today we add to that effort with a significant bill that will add to our hydropower and hydroenergy that once again comes along with this.

But the problem that we have and the reason why this bill is here before us, if I can summarize, is, simply, our efforts to add this kind of energy to our portfolio are being stopped by special interest groups and, unfortunately, layers of bureaucracy.

It was Nelson Rockefeller who came up with the great line of calling the deadening hand of bureaucracy on proposals and programs; and, indeed, we see that and we feel it today as we are having a harder time trying to be energy independent, and we are feeling the results of the Federal Government's program to stop energy production on Federal lands and Federal property every time we fill up our cars and, unfortunately, every time we pay our electrical bills.

Now, it is bureaucratic manipulation that is causing this problem and why this bill is here. Look, it was the energy debate and the energy bill of 2005 that told the Federal Government to move forward in this area with making sure that we had a master plan for hydrological development of energy. Seven years later, now the Federal Government and our Department of the Interior is starting to move forward in that direction, which is either the old cliche of paralysis by analysis or the fact that Rockefeller was right when he called the bureaucracy a deadening hand on programs and progress.

One particular program, the Klamath River, took 5 years for government to decide who actually had the authority to move forward on the project. That is the kind of bureaucratic analysis, that's the kind of red tape that is slowing back our efforts to develop this type of energy, and we need it desperately.

That's why H.R. 2842 is here, to develop small projects that will add to our total energy portfolio and add to our independence. It stops and simplifies a regulatory process which unfortunately costs these small efforts, these small entities trying to make these efforts tens of thousands of dollars just to do the paperwork. It's ridiculous.

It clarifies the role of the Bureau of Reclamation on this area. This only

deals with Bureau of Reclamation projects on manmade facilities, but the jurisdictions are not clear. Some jurisdictions have been mandated by Congress; some are administrative; some are questions on whether FERC has responsibility, the Bureau of Reclamation has responsibility. That is causing our slowing in developing these projects. This bill clarifies what that role is.

It also clarifies NEPA, that you don't have to do a second NEPA on these small jobs. Anything greater than 1.5 megawatts of production, you do the analysis again. But for small projects, on man-made property where the land has already been disturbed and already has had an analysis done and the mitigation has already taken place, we move on and do the job.

The Bureau of Reclamation does have a right of categorical exclusion, but they won't do it. All they're saying is, We may start thinking about it some time in the future.

Let me give you an example. There are three specific projects in the neighboring State of mine. One was mandated by Congress in 1990. They are still starting the process because of that administrative red tape. Two other projects took a full year for them to decide to actually start going through a process, and when they did it, they realized there was no change; it had already been done before. All you did is take a year to check off the box and do the expense with it. We had somebody from Arizona come in and testify that the administrator review cost more than the actual construction of the project. That's silly. That is ridiculous,

H.R. 795 deals with this same issue on non-Federal land. This bills deals with this same issue on existing Bureau of Reclamation projects. It's a commonsense development to get an untapped resource that we need to develop. It would not significantly enlarge the environmental footprint because these are already man-made entities who have already gone through the NEPA process once, and there is no rational reason to reinvent the wheel and do it a second time only to find out they were right the first time.

What would be the benefit from this bill?

First of all, new sources of clean energy to add to our portfolio.

Second, we can facilitate small projects to help offset carbon-based irrigation pumping in the West.

Third, it would help reduce the cost of energy. It would produce a cash flow to irrigation districts so they could actually increase and pay for and improve their aging infrastructure and modernize these water facilities.

Fourth, it does create jobs, and for once we have a bill that actually increases revenue coming into the government from this. CBO has estimated, the Congressional Budget Office, that this will generate $5 million in additional revenue coming into the government. So not only can we create more energy, we can do the right thing, we can fix our infrastructure, but we actually make money that comes into the government to help with other issues.

There is a reason this is a bipartisan bill: because it's the right thing to do.

There is a reason why we should move forward with this bill: because it taps a valuable resource that will go to waste if we do not do it.

There is a reason that this bill is here: to speed up the regulatory red tape, to cut through the cost, to make things happen and help us move forward as a Nation with better energy development and energy independence.

There's a whole bunch of good reasons for this bill, and that's why I support the bill, and I also support the rule that will make it possible to give a good and fair open balance to this debate.

With that, this is a good bill and an incredibly fair rule. I urge the adoption.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

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

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.

I'll certainly yield to my colleague.

That is correct.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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.