GOP-led House panel decries rules blocking 'absolutely critical' infrastructure

By Scott Streater, E&E News
October 30, 2013

A House panel yesterday took aim at federal regulations that critics say stifle construction of dams and reservoirs and threaten the viability of growing communities in the West.

The Republican-led House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power concluded -- at an oversight hearing called "A Roadmap for Increasing our Water and Hydropower Supplies: The Need for New or Expanded Multi-Purpose Surface Storage Facilities" -- that the failure to improve water storage and meet growing demand is pressuring water managers and hampering hydropower development by stopping multipurpose dam projects that can also produce clean renewable energy.

Rep. Scott Tipton (R-Colo.) also raised the issue of public safety, implying that the lack of water storage in his state exacerbated damage caused by last month's devastating floods because there wasn't enough storage capacity to capture floodwaters that destroyed thousands of homes and washed out miles of roads and bridges.

"Preventing all the damage from a storm of this magnitude is impossible; however, our nation's failure to develop new surface storage projects only continues to amplify the devastating results of storms like this one," Tipton said, adding that the Bureau of Reclamation "has not built any large, multipurpose dams or reservoirs over the last generation."

But new dams and reservoirs are difficult to get permitted, critics say, because of the federal rules and regulations that have been adopted since many of the existing large dams and reservoirs were built decades ago.

Dams, in particular, have long been a source of environmental concern because dramatically altering the natural flow of waterways can prevent fish and other species from moving downstream, changing entire ecosystems.

The layer of federal permitting involved in getting water storage projects approved, not the finances involved, "is scaring away a lot of investors," said Robert Shibatani, CEO and principal hydrologist for the Shibatani Group Inc., a Sacramento-based water development firm.

"I know private-sector investors that are chomping at the bit to underwrite these [water storage] facility projects," Shibatani testified at the hearing. "The first question they ask me is 'Have you secured your permits?' And my answer is always 'No, not yet.' They're going to wait until all those permits are in place before they are ready to sign that check."

Yet building new surface water storage "is absolutely critical" for Western states struggling to meet growing water demand, said House Natural Resources Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.).

"It's this generation's turn to recognize our nation's growing water needs and to take steps to meet it," Hastings said. "For us to have another water supply renaissance, we must embrace new or expanded storage so we can truly have an all-of-the-above water supply strategy well into the future. We have the power to make that happen. We will push legislative reforms to bring regulations back to reality."

The latest hearing continues the panel's recent focus on federal regulations and whether they hamstring hydroelectric and water storage development.

Yesterday's hearing followed a February 2012 hearing on the same issue in which subcommittee Chairman Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) urged members of Congress to identify and remove regulatory barriers to such projects.

McClintock's view hasn't changed. He argued yesterday that there "is no shortage of water and no shortage of economical storage sites" that could be tapped across the West.

"What we suffer is a superabundance of bureaucracy and a catastrophic shortage of vision and political will," he said. "That is what has to change."

Dems defend regulations

Oregon Rep. Peter DeFazio, the ranking Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee, agreed that the general issue of increased surface water storage "is another area where there's substantial opportunity for agreement."

And DeFazio said he agrees that the federal government is "not investing in America's infrastructure the way our competitor nations are around the world."

But he and other Democrats sought to soften the rhetoric attacking federal rules and regulations such as the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act.

"I am not aware of a dam or storage project being held up by environmental laws," Rep. Tony Cardenas (D-Calif.) said.

Rather, Cardenas said, projects under development are sometimes abandoned after feasibility studies and cost analysis are done, and it's decided the projects are too expensive.

Indeed, Laura Ziemer, senior counsel and water policy adviser for Trout Unlimited in Bozeman, Mont., testified that the "cheaper, faster, smarter" option to building new dams is often expanding existing reservoirs, among other things.

But other members of the committee appeared to view those options in much the same way as they view those who advocate for greater water conservation as the means to provide adequate water supplies for growing municipalities and agricultural irrigation.

"I am aware of those who say that conservation is the only way to produce more water," Hastings said. "Conservation can and should play a role; however, it alone is not the answer. After all, we cannot conserve water that has already been lost to the ocean, and we cannot conserve water that doesn't exist."