Mission and Values
The Hydropower Reform Coalition protects, enhances, and restores America’s rivers, watersheds, and communities affected by hydropower operations.
Founded in 1992, the Hydropower Reform Coalition is a diverse consortium of more than 160 national, regional, and local conservation and recreation organizations dedicated to protecting and restoring rivers affected by hydropower dams, ensuring public access to these lands and waters, and reforming the federal licensing process to ensure public participation and to improve the quality of the resulting decisions.
The Coalition’s combined membership represents more than 1.5 million people across the country. Working together, the Coalition has protected or restored thousands of river miles, thousands of acres of watershed land, and countless opportunities for boating, fishing, and other recreational experiences.
We believe that…
Rivers should have water
We work to protect and restore rivers to ensure self-sustaining populations of native species by restoring the components of a functioning ecosystem, including water quality, natural flows, and aquatic and riparian habitat.
Rivers are a public good
We work to ensure that rivers across the United States are managed in the public interest, and to maintain public access for the responsible, sustainable enjoyment of these public resources. We hope to improve people’s relationships with rivers, inclusive of the wide range of ways people interact with their waterways.
Science is necessary
Successful river management depends on sound science to help identify the necessary components of a healthy ecosystem and specific restoration actions to protect and restore ecological integrity. Relicensing and hydropower policy should achieve environmental benefits in a cost-effective manner.
We are stronger together
Our Coalition works with people across the diverse constituency of river advocates, including resource agencies, tribes, licensees, and rural communities. We recognize the cultural significance of rivers to indigenous traditions and the sovereignty of tribes; we endeavor to support our tribal partners in their goals related to natural resource management and hydropower. Environmental justice is at the core of our values, and we seek, through our work, to represent the interests of affected communities.
The Coalition platform lays out the guiding principles on which all members can agree.
The platform is broken into two parts:
Part One, “Restoring Environmental and Recreational Values at Hydropower Projects Presently Being Relicensed,” addresses the environmental and recreational principles toward which each FERC licensing process should strive.
Part Two, “Reforming Hydropower Regulations to Guarantee Sufficient Environmental Protection Measures,” discusses the corollary regulatory principles.
Since its founding in 1992, Coalition members have successfully restored thousands of river miles affected by hydropower dams. Our efforts together have resulted in many environmental and recreational improvements.
River Restoration through Hydropower Licensing
The Hydropower Reform Coalition has used the federal licensing process since the early 1990s to restore rivers impacted by hydropower projects. It is hard to determine or quantify the impact our engagement in the federal licensing process has had.
Our guesstimate is that our engagement has led to the improvement of environmental and recreational flows, improvement in water quality, fish passage, access, improved habitat for thousands of river miles, protection of thousands of acres of watershed land, and countless opportunities for boating, fishing, and other forms of recreation. In the American West (including California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Montana), we have engaged in more than a hundred federal licensing proceedings that have improved literally hundreds of river miles.
Our engagement in these proceedings through “settlements” has resulted in billions of dollars of capital investments and other economic benefits, including more than a billion dollars of capital investment in one project in California alone. Since 2010 when we started keeping track of “river miles improved” in the West, we have restored or improved almost 1900 river miles.
Since our existence, we have signed more than 200 settlement agreements representing almost 20,000 MW of hydropower capacity that form the basis for the federal license for hydropower projects. These settlements have led to better management of water resources and better cooperation among stakeholders. In some cases, such settlements led to the removal of dams.
We have successfully removed dozens of dams using or hinging on the FERC licensing process, more specifically through the FERC’s decommissioning process or through settlements as part of licensing. Some examples of such removals include Marmot and Little Sandy Dams in Oregon, Mill Town dam in Montana, Bear Cove dam in Idaho, Elwha, Glines Canyon and Condit dams in Washington.
We have also spent resources to remove the four dams on the Klamath River, which will likely happen in 2020 and would be the largest river restoration effort in the world. We played an instrumental role in negotiating the settlement leading up to the removal of dams as well as sustainable management of water resources in the Klamath Basin.
Using our FERC expertise, we have protected thousands of miles of river from new hydropower dams. We have fought off dozens of new dams in Alaska, Washington, Idaho, and California. Some examples of new dam proposals that are now dead include Shanker’s Bend in Washington, Oneida Narrows in Idaho, Watana dam on the Susitna River, and dozens of other dams on the Snake, Teton, Boise, and Weiser Rivers.
Development and Implementation of Integrated Licensing Process
We played an instrumental role in the development of Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) in 2005 that allows for:
- Improved public involvement and collaboration,
- Increased Accountability of Licensees
- Establishment of formal dispute resolution process, and
- Encourages collaborative science
When we noticed some concerns with the implementation of ILP, we followed up with FERC in 2008 and in 2011 to report our problems with FERC. We then worked with FERC and other stakeholders to suggest ways to better implement the ILP. FERC adopted many of our recommendations and developed a best practices document.
Our engagement in licensing proceedings as well as our work with other stakeholders such as resource agencies and tribes has led to the FERC relicensing process from being an adversarial process to a more collaborative approach.
We fought numerous legislative attempts to weaken the environmental protections provided in the federal licensing process.[*] Examples include
- Defended the authorities of states and tribes to protect water quality and other resources in almost every Congress.
- Defended the authorities of federal resources agencies to protect the resources they have the mandate of protecting.
- Opposed hydro title of National Energy Bill in 2004.
- Defended FERC’s implementation of Tribal Consultation Policy that was under attack by the hydropower industry.
[*] A major setback happened in 2005 when, through the Energy Policy Act, Congress made it more difficult and expensive for resource agencies to put in license conditions to protect natural resources. However, we assumed a victory in 2006 in the Klamath relicensing where resource agency-recommended license conditions were upheld by an administrative court thereby discouraging other licensees from abusing the administrative hearing procedure.
Policies on New Hydropower Development
We have engaged with the Department of Energy and other stakeholders over the last couple of years in their effort to establish a national vision for hydropower development. We have vigorously opposed construction of new dams as a way to increase hydropower generation.
We have always supported adding hydropower at existing dams and improving efficiency as the preferred way to increase generation. To that end, we worked with the industry and members of Congress to pass a bipartisan legislation in 2013 that would make it easier to add hydropower capacity at existing dams and conduits. On numerous occasions, we have worked with the industry and relevant federal agencies to expedite the regulatory process for adding hydropower at Corps dams without compromising environmental values.
- In California and other states in the West, we have staved off efforts to include all types of hydropower in the states’ renewable energy standards. Doing so would give undue incentives to hydropower, a technology that is more than a century old, and take the focus and the investment away from new true renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. This included working with advocates in Canada and building relationships with legislators in those states.
- Also in California, we have beaten efforts to weaken the renewable energy standards in order to import hydropower from British Columbia.
- We played a pivotal role in the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in November 2013 between FERC and the California State Water Resources Control Board to better coordinate the interactions between the two agencies to fulfill their responsibilities under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for hydropower licensing.
- We helped negotiate the concepts in the Alternative Licensing Process in 1997, as well as FERC’s settlement policy in 2005, each of which reversed FERC’s historical preference for notice-and-comment proceedings and provided that settlements are a preferred basis for licensing.
- We have worked with the industry to encourage FERC to issue guidance on settlement, which they did in 2005.
- We secured a lead role in the Pacific Forest and Watershed Stewardship Council that aims to protect 140,000 acres of California’s pristine watershed lands and to invest in outdoor programs to serve the youth. We continue to play an active role in the Council to identify opportunities for restoration.
- Just as we have used hydropower licensing work to remove dams, in many instances, we have leveraged our hydropower work to seek permanent protections for rivers that are constantly threatened by new dam proposals.
- We have also worked collaboratively with the hydropower industry and Congress to pass sensible hydropower legislation. Examples include the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 that makes it easier to develop certain types of small hydropower.
SD Warren Company v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection (2005)
SD Warren, a company that was seeking a FERC license, argued that the water moving through hydroelectric dams was not a ‘discharge’ for the purposes of Clean Water Act and thus they did not require a water quality certification under CWA § 401. Coalition staff and members helped to organize 36 states, 8 tribes, and 48 NGO partners—among others—to weigh in to side with the state of Maine. The court disagreed with SD Warren’s contention and determined that such water does constitute “discharge” and that SD Warren must obtain a water quality certification from the state. This was another big win for us because if the court had sided with SD Warren, it could have meant that CWA protections could not be applied in hydropower licensing proceedings. We prevailed at a time when EPAct had just passed and agencies’ authorities had just been curtailed.
City of Tacoma v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (2006)
In a 2006 case involving the Cushman hydroelectric project on the Skokomish River in Washington, the DC Court of Appeals ruled that FERC has no authority to reject conditions submitted by federal agencies under §4(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) and that FERC is not required to issue licenses that guarantee the project will be profitable. The first ruling is crucial because FPA §4(e) provides a tool to resource agencies to protect and restore natural resources during hydropower licensing. The ruling favored the agencies and determined that FERC needs to either accept the conditions as they are issued by the agencies or not issue a license at all.
- One of our objectives has always been to train advocates to use the licensing process to protect rivers and natural resources. To that end, we have held numerous training on FERC’s licensing process and educated the public about effective citizen engagement. We have organized workshops on topics such as license implementation, dam removal and improving flows through the federal licensing process.
- In 2006, we trained more than 20 activists on FERC and river sciences through the Yuba River FERC Academy.
- In 2008, we organized a workshop attended by academics, scientists, FERC staff, industry and NGO representatives on the inclusion of climate modeling in FERC decision-making.
- Membership has increased from a few dozen in the early 1990s to more than 160 now.
Communications and Media
- Dameffects.org website is probably one of our best products. The interactive website educates the public about the harmful effects of hydropower dams and how the effects can be mitigated. The website has been used to educate decision-makers and students around the world.
- We have produced dozens of videos on YouTube, countless op-eds, and LTEs focusing on the importance of healthy rivers and the importance of restoring rivers damaged by hydropower dams.
Advancing the State-of-the-Art Science
- We published a “Science Guide” in 2006 that solely focuses on using scientific approaches to evaluate hydroelectric project’s effects.
- We have published eight “hydro guides” including HRC’s Relicensing Toolkit (Hydropower Licensing Guide) – a resource that has been widely used by NGOs and other stakeholders. All of our guides are heavily used by all stakeholders in the hydropower licensing process.
- We always rely on science and have regularly relied on scientists and technical experts in FERC proceedings.
- We hosted a conference in 2003 to discuss different approaches for quantifying and evaluating ecologically sustainable flow regimes in hydropower licensing.
- We hosted the first conference on climate change and hydropower licensing in 2010 where we brought together more than 75 climate scientists and representatives from FERC, resource agencies, industry representatives, and conservation groups to discuss the usefulness of current climate science in hydropower decision-making.
The Coalition is made up of member organizations of all shapes and sizes that hail from all corners of the nation, and governed by a Steering Committee composed of the following member organizations:
Alabama Rivers Alliance
Birmingham , Alabama
Washington , District of Columbia
Cullowhee , North Carolina
Appalachian Mountain Club
Boston , Massachusetts
Lotus , California
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
Berkeley , California
San Francisco , California
Jackson , California
Friends of the River
Sacramento , California
Idaho Rivers United
Boise , Idaho
Michigan Hydro Relicensing Coalition
Pentwater , Michigan
New England FLOW
Lancaster , Massachusetts
South Yuba River Citizens League
Nevada City , California
Arlington , Virginia
Water and Power Law Group, PC
Berkeley , California
Associate Western States Director
As Hydropower Reform Coalition staff, Kelly coordinates the activities of the coalition’s western members and serves as a liaison between them and Coalition staff in Washington, D.C. Kelly also spearheads the HRC’s government relations work in California. Kelly joined American Rivers in 2016. Prior to working for the HRC, Kelly was the Government Relations Consultant to the California Hydropower Reform Coalition and she spent nearly a decade as the Hydropower Reform Policy Advocate for Friends of the River. Kelly has a B.A. in Political Science from the University of California, Davis and a J.D. from California Western School of Law.
Associate National Director
Colleen coordinates coalition members around national issues, and works with eastern members on regional issues. She serves as the liaison with other NGO partners and federal resource agencies, and facilitates education on hydro issues for Congress. Colleen joined the HRC in 2019 after an early career in international development. She has a B.A. in Sociology and Anthropology from Lewis and Clark College and a M.A. in Sustainable International Development from Brandeis University’s Heller School for Social Policy and Management.