"And your mission is more important than ever before. The Interior Department manages the land on which 30 percent of the nation's energy is produced. So you have a major role to play, all of you, in our clean energy future. The nation is depending on you to help us end the tyranny of foreign oil and become energy independent -- by harnessing the wind and the sun, our water, our soil, and American innovation.
...
That's why I'm proud to join you this afternoon. That's why I am pleased that this department is in the capable hands of my great friend Ken Salazar. And that is why the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act creates jobs by making historic investments in the Department of the Interior.
This plan will provide more than $3 billion to the department to create jobs doing the work that America needs you to do. It will create jobs increasing our capacity to generate renewable energy on public lands" (emphasis added) (Dept. of Interior)
This speech was discussed in detail, here.
And consider that statement, from the local Chapter, with the National Organization's Energy Resources Policy:
C. Resources Generally Acceptable to the Sierra Club
Resources in this category should play a role in a clean energy future, but they have larger potential environmental costs than resources in the preferred category. Sierra Club entities may support or remain neutral on projects employing these technologies. Sierra Club entities alwaysmay oppose an inappropriate site or project. Since the resources in this category are less desirable technologies, criteria may be more restrictive than for preferred resources. However, when the Sierra Club opposes a particular project, it should always be made clear that opposition is based on the location or other project specific inadequacies, and that the Sierra Club generally supports further reliance on these energy resources.
1. New Small Hydroelectric Plants
Small-scale hydroelectric projects can produce power from water stored behind a dam for regulated flow, use the natural streamflow without an impoundment ("run of river"), or divert the flow through a pipe or canal. Microhydro is generally considered to be up to 100 kilowatts of capacity, and small hydro is up to 10 megawatts. While significant numbers of sites could be developed for small-scale hydro, each site must be considered for its local and cumulative effects on water quantity and quality, minimum streamflow, habitat, and fish passage. All installations must provide full mitigation for any detrimental effects. Some stream segments should not be developed at all in order to preserve the benefits of free-flowing rivers. The Sierra Club opposes installations in stream segments proposed for listing as federal or state Wild and Scenic Rivers or in roadless areas. The Sierra Club generally does not support small-scale hydro development requiring new dams and impoundments. Retrofit of existing dams that are unlikely to be removed may be appropriate provided river impacts are minimized and both upstream and downstream fish passage addressed. Run-of-river and channel diversion projects must minimize river impacts and provide fish screening, and minimum streamflows must be maintained in the natural channel. (emphasis added) (SierraClub.org)
Now, it's important to note that:
a - nowhere does the National Organization state it opposes private entities leasing public lands; and
b - despite the local Chapter's claim that the lease is a "sale" - it is not. It is a lease. It's a lease recognized both by Minnesota Statute and a lease recognized by Federal Regulations.
c - the "parkland" in question, is in actual use a parking lot.
Yes, a parking lot. The local chapter of the Sierra Club is objecting to a project it's national organization - in theory - supports, to save a parking lot.
There will be more on this developing story, as more information is obtained.
Stay tuned!
(update - just received this comment from Josh Dorner, Deputy Press Secretary, Sierra Club:
I just want you to be crystal clear on what our national policy does or does not permit Sierra Club entities to do. As previously stated, small hydropower projects fall into the category of projects that Sierra Club entitities "always" retain the right to oppose if they are inappropriate or poorly sited. Thus, opposition based on poor siting would in no way conflict with national Sierra Club policy.
FOR THE RECORD: The title of this thread was written, by me, in error. I regret the mistake, and hereby apologize to the National Organization and Local Chapter for that error.
That said, the "poor siting" is, again, presently used as a parking lot. |
