'The Worst Dam Bill'

In a largely unreported move, Congressman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) introduced H.R. 6247, "The Protecting our Dams and New Hydropower and Jobs Act of 2012" in July of 2012.  This bill, quickly renamed "the worst dam bill" and the "Dangerous Dams Protection Act" by fisherman groups and environmental non-profits, seeks to halt dam removals and, thereby, increase protection for new hydropower and jobs.  Essentially, this bill, if passed, would strip locals of the ability to collaborate to come up with the local solutions to the various problems faced by aging and increasingly expensive dams.

River restoration on the Elwha River after dam removal.
Courtesy of Joel Rogers Photography.

The many dams in Central Washington produce
70% of Washington's hydroelectricity.
Courtesy of Columbia River History

Representative Hastings emphasizes that he introduced the bill in order to stop dam removal "under the guise of salmon recovery" because dams (aka cheap, clean energy) and salmon can co-exist peacefully. He also suggests that recent state and federal regulations have made hydroelectricity more expensive and less desirable.  Hence, Representative Hastings introduced this bill to define hydropower as a renewable source of energy, prevent tax dollars from being used to remove hydroelectric dams, and would ban the use of federal funds by organizations that sue the federal government to force dam removal.  Representative Hastings views this bill as necessary to save all dams from an onslaught of litigation and "extremism" from environmental groups seeking to eliminate dams that are essential to the livelihood of his constituents in Central Washington, which produces 70% of Washington's hydroelectricity.

Relevant to dam removal and salmon, the bill would prohibit federal funding from being used remove, breach or study the removal of dams unless authorized by Congress and also prevent federal funds from being used in river restoration where dams have been removed.  Further, it would prevent organizations that have participated in dam-removal related litigation against the federal government in the last ten years from receiving federal funds.  Finally, it would not allow power producers to let water bypass the turbines under some conditions, which essentially eliminates the ability to let water flow to through spillways to facilitate safe fish passage around dams.

Big hydroelectric project on the Columbia River.
Courtesy of the U.S. Department of Energy

Supporters of the bill claim that it would protect an inexpensive source of energy for millions of Americans, water for irrigation, provide non-federal funding for new hydroelectricity projects, and improve transparency.  Hydroelectricity is part of an all-of-the-above energy plan for America and would provide jobs, help grow the economy, protect the environment, and help curb global warming.  Supporters emphasize the carbon-free nature of hydroelectricity and emphasize that elimination or minimization of this energy source would increase carbon dioxide emissions and the price of electricity.  

Rafting on the now free-flowing White Salmon River
in Washington.
Courtesy of National Geographic.

Opponents argue that the bill would actually destroy jobs, harm the environment, and weaken the economy, especially in communities close to dams and dam removal projects.  In communities where dam removal is occurring, many jobs have been created, especially in the recreation sector.  Preventing dam removal and the opening of these recreational opportunities will kill those living-wage, good jobs that have been pivotal in communities where dams have been removed.  Furthermore, the bill would "harm rivers and wildlife and threaten public safety" because it categorically excludes any dam removal from consideration of federal funds, even when the dam is unsafe and the dam operator and the local community both want to remove it.

The Elwha River Dam is being removed after collaboration
between many stakeholders.
Courtesy of National Geographic.

While dams are often necessary and promote more good than harm, this bill assumes that all dams are good for local communities, the environment, and the country without question.  However, there are some dams that are old, dangerous, in need of renovation, and kill many migratory fish each year.  The bottom line is that this bill would set back collaborative, creative efforts across the nation to balance the water needs of humans and hydroelectricity with the needs of fish, wildlife, and industries (like recreation) that depend on healthy rivers.  This bill unifies the country in preventing community-supported river recreation projects (like the Elwha River dam removals) and locks us into a 20th century model of energy at a time when communities are looking to modernize and manage our natural and energy resources in a "holistic and integrated fashion."

While it works for some aspects of resource management, it seems that this sort of one-size-fits-all management scheme will not work for dam removal.  Every community is different; every dam is different.  Each has its own priorities, situation, and needs, and imposing a blanket moratorium on dam removal is not the way to promote an economically-, environmentally-, and ecologically-sound future in hydroelectricity.