H.R. 6247: Saving Our Dams and New Hydropower Development and Jobs Act of 2012

112th Congress · introduced 2012-08-01 · Energy · Latest: Committee Hearings Held.

federal

Follow this bill, step by step

Where it came from: introduced 2012-08-01 · official record
Who proposed it: Rep. Hastings, Doc [R-WA-4] · what a sponsor is
What happened next: no floor votes in our records yet. Why?
Where it stands now: Committee Hearings Held. Not final yet: this can still change. We check for updates every day.
If it becomes law and spends money: follow the money to money laws, then agencies and contracts and grants.

What does this mean?

Official title

Saving Our Dams and New Hydropower Development and Jobs Act of 2012

Plain summary

Saving Our Dams and New Hydropower Development and Jobs Act of 2012 - Amends the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 to authorize small conduit hydropower development. Designates the Power Resources Office of the Bureau of Reclamation as the lead office of small conduit hydropower policy and procedure-setting activities. Requires the Administrators of the Bonneville Power Administration, the Western Area Power Administration, the Southwestern Power Administration, and the Southeastern Power Administration to include in monthly billings sent to customers estimates and reports of costs related to compliance with federal environmental laws impacting fish and wildlife. Authorizes the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation to partner or enter into an agreement with local joint power authorities to complete planning and feasibility studies authorized by Congress for water storage projects. Prohibits the Bureau of Reclamation and other federal agencies from bypassing hydroelectric turbines if a state in which the affected facilities are located has declared a drought emergency or if such bypass could result in harming endangered fish, unless such bypasses are necessary for flood control purposes. Exempts from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or impact statement an electricity right-of-way holder, including a Power Marketing Administration, that applies to remove insect-infected trees or other hazardous fuels within 500 feet of the right-of-way. Prohibits: (1) federal funds from being used to implement a new program, project, activity, or action required by or proposed in a March 16, 2012, memorandum from Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy, to the Power Marketing Administrators, until a report justifying the implementation of such program, project, activity, or action is submitted to Congress; (2) federal funds from being used to remove, breach, or study the removal or breaching of any hydroelectric-producing dam unless explicitly authorized by Congress; (3) federal funds or funding from congressionally chartered organizations that provide grants impacting federal land and fish and wildlife from being used for mitigation activities related to hydroelectric-producing dam removal unless explicitly authorized by Congress; and (4) federal agencies or congressionally chartered organizations that provide grants impacting federal land and fish and wildlife from funding any nongovernmental organization that is or was involved in litigation that would negatively impact hydropower generation during the preceding 10 years.

Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in House), quoted unchanged (nonpartisan). Read the source.

What a vote does

A “Yea” vote

If it passes both chambers and is signed, it becomes law.

A “Nay” vote

If it is not passed, current law stays as it is.

PSI Sci description of the legislative step (not an opinion).

What does this mean? (plain words)

Official text

Saving Our Dams and New Hydropower Development and Jobs Act of 2012

Source: Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in House)

AI explanation – may be wrong, check the official text

No AI explanation yet. It takes up to a minute to write and is then saved for everyone.

Limited to a few requests an hour per person.

The strongest published arguments

Arguments for (supporters)

Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.

Arguments against (opponents)

Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.

Alternatives

Needs sources: no published alternatives yet (for example a different bill, a law instead of an amendment, or keeping current law). We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.

How did my representative vote? · This bill's floor votes

Officials and money

Sponsor: Rep. Hastings, Doc [R-WA-4] · 2 cosponsors

Cost estimate: No cost estimate published yet.

Cosponsors on this site

Tom McClintock (R-CA)

No linked floor roll calls in our collected records yet. This does not mean the bill has never had a vote. Check the official bill history.

Words on this page, explained (1)

Authorization: A law that creates or continues a government program and says what it may do, often with a suggested spending ceiling. An authorization alone does not provide money; a separate appropriation does.

Plain meanings written from linked sources. All words.

Sources

Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in House)
Congress.gov
Data: GovInfo BILLSTATUS bulk data (Library of Congress), BILLSTATUS-112hr6247.xml <https://www.govinfo.gov/bulkdata/BILLSTATUS/112/hr>

Record fed-us-cong112-hr6247 · catalog fed-us-congress-bills-cong112 · updated 2026-11-15 by psicol fed-bills-cong112