The American Public Power Association recently sent a letter to the leaders of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee outlining APPA’s priorities for the Water Resources Development Act conference process.
The House and Senate passed their versions of WRDA on July 22 and August 1, respectively.
“On behalf of the members of the American Public Power Association who rely on hydropower at multi-purpose projects operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), we are writing to highlight several priorities that our members support for inclusion in the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) bill currently in conference negotiations between your committees,” APPA said in its Sept. 9 letter.
APPA noted that the Corps operates one of the largest hydropower portfolios in the United States and provides power to the federal Power Marketing Administrations to market and deliver power resources to not-for-profit public power utilities and rural electric cooperatives.
“The power provided by these Corps projects and sold by the PMAs assist communities across the U.S. in keeping electricity reliable and affordable for millions of Americans,” the letter noted.
The policy provisions included in a WRDA bill “can affect the value of the power resource that the Corps makes available to the PMAs,” APPA said.
APPA therefore detailed its priorities for the final conferenced version of WRDA.
Section 121 Water Supply Mission (H.R. 8812)
Section 121(a) would designate water supply as a primary mission of Corps “in planning, prioritization, designing, constructing, modifying, operating and maintaining water resources development projects,” as well as direct the Corps to give “equal consideration to the water supply mission” vis-à-vis other authorized purposes.
However, this new designation and direction is directly contradicted in 121(b)(1) and (2), which states that “Nothing in subsection (a) authorizes the Secretary [of the Army] to initiate a water resources development project or modify an authorized water resources development project” or “affects any existing authority of the Secretary, including (i) authorities of the Secretary with respect to navigation, hydropower, flood control, and environmental protection and restoration,” APPA said.
The addition of water supply as an authorized purpose at any individual Corps project currently requires approval from Congress and that this provision does not change that. “It does, however, create needless confusion,” APPA said.
APPA and federal hydropower customers communicated with House Transportation and Infrastructure staff ahead of the June 26 markup their desire to see section 121 struck in its entirety.
However, that was not possible and instead, staff agreed to add hydropower to the list of limitations in Sec. 121(b)(2)(A)(i) in the manager’s amendment, APPA said.
APPA and federal hydropower customers “very much appreciate that change and, should section 121 stay in a conferenced bill, want to see the addition of hydropower to the list of limitations remain,” the letter said.
Sec. 152. (H.R. 8812) and Sec. 345 (S. 4367) Emergency Drought Operations Pilot Program
These provisions would create a pilot project for Corps projects in Arizona, California (and, in the House, bill, in Nevada) and at which water supply is an authorized purpose to allow the Secretary to “operate…with water supply as a primary project purpose” during drought emergencies.
However, similar to section 121, this provision is directly contradicted in the (g) LIMITATIONS, which stipulates that “nothing in this section (1) affects, modifies, or changes the authorized purposes of a covered project; (2) affects existing Corps of Engineers authorities with respect to navigation, hydropower, flood damage reduction, and environmental protection and restoration.”
APPA said this provision creates no substantive change but does create needless confusion.
For added clarity, hydropower was added to the list of limitations in the manager’s amendment ahead of the June 26 markup in the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee.
“APPA and federal hydropower customers very much appreciate that change and, should section 152 remain in the conferenced bill, want to see the addition of hydropower to the list of limitations remain.”
Corps-Operated Dams for Hydropower, Congressional Direction, Report of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to Accompany H.R. 8812
APPA and federal hydropower customers expressed appreciation for a paragraph in the report accompanying H.R. 8812 that reaffirms the authority of the administrators of the Power Marketing Administrators to set rates for the sale of electric power.
“This is extremely important to federal hydropower customers, as there have been increasing instances of the Corps trying to dictate how PMAs set rates for their customers,” APPA said, adding that it wants this report language to accompany the final conferenced bill.
Sec. 337 (S. 4367) Dam Safety Decision
APPA and federal hydropower customers “appreciate the inclusion of language directing the Secretary to apply section 1203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to the dam safety project at Garrison Dam in North Dakota,” APPA said.
APPA noted that Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.) advocated for similar language in the House, and it was included in report language. This direction is necessary to ensure the correct application of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 as it relates to dam safety. We urge that the Senate language be included in the final conferenced bill.
