[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE NORTHWEST AT RISK: THE ENVIRONMENTALIST'S EFFORT TO DESTROY
NAVIGATION, TRANSPORTATION, AND ACCESS TO RELIABLE POWER
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Monday, June 26, 2023 in Richland, Washington
__________
Serial No. 118-43
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
52-863 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI
Tom McClintock, CA Jared Huffman, CA
Paul Gosar, AZ Ruben Gallego, AZ
Garret Graves, LA Joe Neguse, CO
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS Mike Levin, CA
Doug LaMalfa, CA Katie Porter, CA
Daniel Webster, FL Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
Pete Stauber, MN Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
John R. Curtis, UT Kevin Mullin, CA
Tom Tiffany, WI Val T. Hoyle, OR
Jerry Carl, AL Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Matt Rosendale, MT Seth Magaziner, RI
Lauren Boebert, CO Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Cliff Bentz, OR Ed Case, HI
Jen Kiggans, VA Debbie Dingell, MI
Jim Moylan, GU Susie Lee, NV
Wesley P. Hunt, TX
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY
Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
http://naturalresources.house.gov
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES
CLIFF BENTZ, OR, Chairman
JEN KIGGANS, VA, Vice Chair
JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Member
Robert J. Wittman, VA Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Mike Levin, CA
Garret Graves, LA Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS Kevin Mullin, CA
Doug LaMalfa, CA Val T. Hoyle, OR
Daniel Webster, FL Seth Magaziner, RI
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR Debbie Dingell, MI
Jerry Carl, AL Ruben Gallego, AZ
Lauren Boebert, CO Joe Neguse, CO
Jen Kiggans, VA Katie Porter, CA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL Ed Case, HI
John Duarte, CA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Harriet M. Hageman, WY
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Monday, June 26, 2023............................ 1
Statement of Members:
Bentz, Hon. Cliff, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon............................................ 1
Rodgers, Hon. Cathy McMorris, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Washington............................... 4
Newhouse, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 5
Collins, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Georgia........................................... 6
Fulcher, Hon. Russ, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Idaho, prepared statement of...................... 77
Statement of Witnesses:
Coffey, Beth, Director of Programs, Northwestern Division,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland, Oregon............. 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Quan, Jennifer, West Coast Regional Administrator, National
Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Seattle, Washington........................ 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
Hairston, John, Administrator and CEO, Bonneville Power
Administration, Portland, Oregon........................... 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Corbitt, Scott, General Manager, Port of Lewiston, Lewiston,
Idaho...................................................... 19
Prepared statement of.................................... 20
Dunn, Rick, General Manager, Benton Public Utility District,
Kennewick, Washington...................................... 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Hennings, Michelle, Executive Director, Washington
Association of Wheat Growers, Ritzville, Washington........ 35
Prepared statement of.................................... 37
McGregor, Alex, Chairman of the Board of Directors, The
McGregor Company, Colfax, Washington....................... 38
Prepared statement of.................................... 40
Myers, Todd, Environmental Director, Washington Policy
Center, Cle Elum, Washington............................... 41
Prepared statement of.................................... 43
Welch, David, Ph.D., President & Founder, Kintama Research
Services Ltd., Naniamo, BC, Canada......................... 49
Prepared statement of.................................... 50
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Submissions for the Record by Representative Bentz
National Grain and Feed Association, Statement for the
Record................................................. 78
OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING ON THE NORTHWEST AT RISK: THE
ENVIRONMENTALIST'S
EFFORT TO DESTROY NAVIGATION,
TRANSPORTATION, AND ACCESS TO RELIABLE POWER
----------
Monday, June 26, 2023
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries
Committee on Natural Resources
Richland, Washington
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1 p.m., at
Richland High School, 930 Long Avenue, Richland, Washington,
Hon. Cliff Bentz [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bentz and Collins.
Also present: Representatives Newhouse and McMorris
Rodgers.
Mr. Bentz. The Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and
Fisheries will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is
authorized to declare a recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
Good afternoon, everyone. I want to welcome our witnesses,
Members, and our guests in the audience to today's hearing.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on a
hearing entitled ``The Northwest at Risk: The
Environmentalist's Effort to Destroy Navigation,
Transportation, and Access to Reliable Power.'' By way of
introduction, I am Cliff Bentz, the Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries. I also represent
the 2nd District of Oregon.
I am grateful to be joined today by two Members who
represent this region. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that
the gentleman and gentlelady from Washington, Mr. Newhouse and
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, as well as the gentleman from Georgia,
Mr. Collins, be allowed to participate in today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
Since this is a congressional hearing, we are going to
begin with the Pledge of Allegiance, and I will lead it, unless
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, would you like to lead it?
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Sure.
[Group recites Pledge of Allegiance.]
Mr. Bentz. Thank you. I will now recognize myself for an
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CLIFF BENTZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Bentz. Good afternoon. Thank you all for joining us.
Let me begin by welcoming the Chair of the Energy and Commerce
Committee, Cathy McMorris Rogers, Congressman and Chair of the
Western Caucus, Dan Newhouse, and member of the Natural
Resources Committee, Mike Collins, to this hearing. Let me also
mention and welcome retired Chair Doc Hastings, who is in the
audience today. I thank all of you for being here.
Also I want to thank the House Recording Studio team,
Clinton Holt, Christopher Overby, Sean Root, and Ryan Dahl, who
worked all night, basically, to get this hearing put together.
There was a problem in the DCA airport which caused a delay.
They made it here and got us set up, and for that we are all
grateful, so thank you.
I also want to thank our witnesses for being here and for
taking the not inconsiderable time to travel down to Richland
to participate. I will be introducing each of you later, so I
will simply say now thank you for your participation.
Our purpose today is to hear and learn what our river
communities and our government agencies think and want when it
comes to the future of the four Lower Snake River dams.
Consistent with this purpose, last week in the congressional
Committee on Natural Resources, I had the opportunity to ask
the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality, Brenda
Mallory, if it was the position of the Biden administration
that these four dams should be removed or breached without
congressional authorization. She assured me that Congress would
have to authorize such action.
I was using the term ``remove or breach'' as shorthand for
upsetting or reversing or mooting hydro project purposes, which
would include extreme drawdown. I hope Chair Mallory has shared
my understanding of this term. It is an important definition. I
look forward to hearing the opinion of those agency witnesses
here today on this issue.
I also asked Chair Mallory if the CEQ was taking an active
role in guiding the future of the dams. I was assured that all
the CEQ was doing was coordinating the efforts of the agencies
involved. I look forward to hearing about that coordination
from the agency witnesses here today.
We understand the future of these four dams is in
significant part the future of Northwest communities, rate
payers, fish, businesses, taxpayers, tribes, and in important
ways, the processes used in making difficult decisions
involving conflicting and important interests.
Here are some of the questions I hope we will know more
about by the end of this hearing:
(1) Why is the Biden administration failing to aggressively
act to protect the billions upon billions of taxpayer,
ratepayer, and business dollars in building, improving, and
operating the four Lower Snake River dams? These structures are
capable of creating thousands of megawatts of clean, renewable,
and firm power. Yet, the Biden administration is actively
participating in efforts to turn these dams into little more
than ripples in the mighty Snake. Our witnesses will remind the
Administration, in their testimony today, of the incredible and
ever-increasing balancing value of the hydropower created by
the four Lower Snake River dams and the enormous investment the
United States and ratepayers in the Northwest have made in
these four clean energy projects.
(2) Is the Biden administration, through its Council on
Environmental Quality, NOAA, Army Corps of Engineers, the
Bureau of Reclamation, and BPA using ``mediation,'' in a
lawsuit National Wildlife Federation et al v. National Marine
Fisheries Service pending in the U.S. District Court of Oregon
as a means of avoiding congressional oversight? Is this lawsuit
a sue-and-settle device used to cloak the government's
involvement with NGOs in achieving a preordained outcome such
as the functional equivalent of dam breaching extreme
drawdowns, for example?
(3) Congressman Mike Simpson, who was invited to attend
today's hearing, has said that although he supports dam
removal, such removal should not happen until replacement power
in an amount equal to that being produced by these dams has
been built and is on-line. Replacement power is an
extraordinarily important part of any discussion involving the
1,000 megawatts of reliable and firm power generated by these
dams. We will be asking the agencies here today their thoughts
on Chair Simpson's thinking.
(4) Why is the Biden administration purposely ignoring the
fact that based on existing science, even if the Snake River
dams were gone, the benefits of salmon runs in the Snake River
would be barely measurable. There will be testimony regarding
the paltry benefit to the salmon of dam removal and the sad
fact that agencies are focusing on freshwater when they should
be looking at and studying the ocean.
(5) The Maine Lobstermen's Association v. National Marine
Fisheries Service case, decided just a few days ago,
specifically noted that the action agency in this case,
National Marine Fisheries, must ``use the best science and
commercial data available and avoid needless economic
dislocation produced by agency officials, zealously and
intelligently pursuing their environmental objectives.'' Given
this clear statement of how National Marine Fisheries must
collect and analyze scientific data, why is the government
failing to adequately study the oceans, predators, tribal take,
fishing impacts on smolts that do reach the sea? We will hear
testimony addressing the shortcomings of data being used to
make decisions that will affect thousands of ratepayers and
businesses in our Great Northwest.
(6) This hearing will establish that this panel and
Congressional Members have no enthusiasm for either dam
breaching or extreme drawdowns. Why? Because as this hearing
will establish, removing the dams by breaching or drawdown is
not a solution that will save or restore the salmon.
Ratepayers' money and efforts should be spent on the real
problem, the real reasons that fish are not returning, and we
believe it will be shown by testimony today that the answer is
going to be found in the ocean. Let's quit blaming the dams and
start looking in the right place for solutions.
I now recognize Chair McMorris Rodgers for her 5-minute
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Ms. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be here
on the ground, talking about the Lower Snake River dams and
with the people whose livelihoods depend on them. Each and
every person on this panel has a story to tell about the
benefits of the Lower Snake River dams. They, and the groups
that they represent, must be a part of any debate over the
future of the river system. Unfortunately, these conversations
are already happening at the highest levels of government,
including President Biden, and I am concerned the voices of
everyone here are not being heard.
Today, your voices will be heard loud and clear. Today is
about facts. The Lower Snake River dams have the capacity to
generate 3,000 megawatts of reliable, clean electricity to
power our homes and businesses, enough electricity to power
one-third of the homes in Washington State. Without them, we
are in big trouble.
Last September, California experienced an energy crisis.
Governor Newsom begged residents to stop using their air
conditioning and don't charge your electric battery vehicles.
With coming blackouts, our dams generated 16,000 megawatt hours
of energy that we sold to California to prevent a catastrophe.
They also came to the rescue when Chief Joseph Dam failed
during the deep freeze of February 2021, when they generated
more than 1,600 megawatts of electricity to keep the lights on.
And during the summer heat dome event, dams held 15 percent of
BPA's total required reserves.
In all these examples, the Lower Snake River dams saved
lives, and that is just on the energy front. The role that
these dams play in feeding Americans and the world cannot be
overstated. Sixty percent of all the wheat exports from the
Pacific Northwest moved through the dams, making the river
system the third-largest export corridor in the world, sending
wheat from the United States to more than 20 countries across
the Pacific Rim. Washington's wheat farmers have a legacy of
feeding the world, a legacy that we cannot put at risk.
Barging on the Snake River allows farmers to move grain and
other products efficiently, saving millions of dollars per year
and reducing carbon emissions. Without barging through the
dams, we would need an additional 538 semi-trucks on the roads
to move the wheat carried by one four-barge tow. So, just
imagine what that would mean for all the wheat barged on the
river.
The economic benefits are also huge. Without barging,
farmers would see the value of their products--wheat, barley,
potatoes, beans, onions--go down, and the loss of jobs and
economic activity would be felt across the board.
Let me be clear. I share the goal of protecting and
restoring salmon runs on the river system. I want my kids and
grandkids to know what salmon represent in our region. The
Lower Snake River dams are an easy target, but they are not the
problem, and breaching them is not the solution.
Like we saw this morning at Ice Harbor, these dams have the
best-in-class fish passage technology and fish-friendly
turbines. They are almost invisible to migrating salmon. What
is not invisible is the overpopulation of sea lions that feast
on adult salmon returning to the Snake to spawn, the birds that
prey on juvenile salmon on their way to the ocean, the tons of
toxic sewage being dumped into Puget Sound that is literally
suffocating the most important salmon to our orcas. These and
other factors, like ocean conditions, habitat loss, and dams
with no fish passage at all, are the things that need to be
focused on in order to get results.
And speaking of results, salmon returns on the Lower Snake
River are making encouraging gains. Last year, spring Chinook
returns were 31 percent above the 10-year average. This year,
Chinook got off to a late start, so we are watching those
returns closely. But wild steelhead returns are double what we
saw last year. Our focus needs to be on results, which starts
with investing our resources to get a better understanding of
what is happening to salmon in the ocean, controlling
predators, addressing unchecked pollution, and restoring
habitats. We must focus on science and facts. Only then will we
accomplish our shared goals.
I yield back.
[Applause.]
Mr. Bentz. Thank you. I now recognize Congressman Dan
Newhouse for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAN NEWHOUSE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Chairman Bentz, members of the
House Committee on Natural Resources, I want to thank you for
joining us here in Central Washington to help shed some light
on a very important issue that is critical to Central
Washington, and I would say to the entire Pacific Northwest.
And while I am not a member of the House Natural Resources
Committee, many of the issues impacting our region fall under
the jurisdiction of this Committee, and I really appreciate the
chance to be able to speak on them here today.
I also want to thank the witnesses that are joining us
today who are each experts in their own field and will be able
to provide valuable insight to my congressional colleagues as
well as to the people that are here in person and those that
are listening.
We are here today to discuss the multi-purpose benefits of
the Columbia and Snake Rivers as well the Federal Columbia
River Power System, with particular attention given to the
Lower Snake River dams. Today's oversight hearing on the dam
system will touch upon critical issues to Washington's 4th
Congressional District. These include power, navigation,
transportation, irrigation, certainly food, trade, fish,
recreation, and so much more.
The Federal Columbia River Power System truly is the
lifeblood of the Pacific Northwest. It comprises approximately
31 hydroelectric projects within the Columbia River basin. From
these projects, approximately a third of the Pacific Northwest
electricity is generated, whereas the Lower Snake River dams
have the capacity to generate about 3,000 megawatts of carbon-
free energy. Anywhere between 50 to 60 million tons of cargo
are barged through the river annually. Meanwhile, fish passing
through the dams have a 96 to 98 percent survival rate.
So, for these and many other reasons I have not only long
opposed the breaching of the Lower Snake River dams, but I
strongly support the preservation that is integral to our flood
control, to navigation, irrigation, agriculture, and recreation
throughout the area. We simply cannot afford to lose them.
I believe the facts speak for themselves. Critical
infrastructure of the Snake River dams provides clean,
renewable, safe, affordable energy for our homes and for our
businesses. That is why I introduced the Northwest Energy
Security Act earlier this year, in March. If enacted, this
legislation would direct the Federal Columbia River Power
Systems to be operated in alignment with the 2020 Columbia
River System Operations Environmental Impact Statement Record
of Decision. Ultimately, this bill would support the system by
improving and maintaining existing hydropower assets, ensuring
operations throughout the system are conducted in accordance
with the latest Federal scientific review and continuing to
allow native salmon to recover at record rates.
And while I believe my legislation will help to support the
entire system, more must be done to address this issue, and
that is why I am so happy to see so many stakeholders here
today who will be able to speak to the many benefits of the
entire Federal Columbia River Power System, and in particular,
the Snake River dams and the impact they have on this region
and on the nation.
We have a unique opportunity to hear from those who know
these issues so well, from wheat growers, port officials, fish
scientists, and others, and I look forward to hearing their
testimony today and engaging with them on these vital issues.
With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Newhouse. We are going to take a
very brief recess. We are having an issue with our livestream
video. So, we will go into recess and come back, I hope, in
about 5 minutes.
[Recess.]
Mr. Bentz. With that, we will turn to the opening statement
from Mike Collins, who we welcome from the great state of
Georgia.
Congressman Collins.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MIKE COLLINS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am sure you
folks noticed that I probably don't sound like I am from around
here, and that is because y'all have an accent.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Collins. But I do want to thank you though, Mr.
Chairman. I know you tried to make me feel at home by leaving
me some sweet tea up here, and I appreciate that.
Folks, I am from Georgia. I represent the 10th District of
Georgia, and probably like 99 percent of y'all out there, for
the past 30-plus years I have not been up here. I have been out
there. I have never been elected to anything in my life until
this past November, when I was elected to Congress.
My background is in the trucking business. My wife and I,
we were fortunate enough--I am second generation in this
industry. We started our own trucking company 30 years ago, and
now our third generation runs that thing. I decided to run for
Congress on several different issues: inflation, border
security, and having oversight in every committee that we have
in Congress, which leads me to why I am here today.
While I am not on this Subcommittee, it is an honor to be
here representing part of the Full Committee. I have had the
opportunity to be in hearings on the East Coast, the Midwest,
and now out here in the West. And it is the same thing
everywhere we go. It is freaking over-reach from a Federal
Government, with an administration that is pushing a left-wing,
socialistic agenda down our throats.
[Applause.]
Mr. Collins. I look forward to the witnesses. I look
forward to listening to your testimony. I think that it is so
important that we have local community leaders and people that
are out there trying to make a living and provide for their
families.
And I will tell you something else. It is great to see such
a huge crowd out there. That shows your concern. It shows that
you are not just concerned about the community, you are
probably concerned about your family, about your jobs, and
about that third generation that may want to take over.
So, Mr. Chairman, I am glad to be here, I appreciate the
opportunity, and I yield back so we can get this thing cranked
up and going.
[Applause.]
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Collins.
I will now introduce our witnesses, and we will start on
this end. Ms. Beth Coffey, Director of Programs for the
Northwestern Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Ms.
Jennifer Quan, the West Coast Regional Administrator of
National Marine Fisheries Service; Mr. John Hairston,
Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration; Mr. Scott
Corbitt, General Manager of the Port of Lewiston, in Lewiston,
Idaho; Mr. Rick Dunn, General Manager of Benton PUD in
Kennewick, Washington; Ms. Michelle Hennings, Executive
Director of the Washington Wheat Growers Authority in
Ritzville, Washington; Mr. Alex McGregor, President of the
McGregor Company of Colfax, Washington; Mr. Todd Myers,
Environmental Director for the Washington Policy Center in Cle
Elum, Washington; and Dr. David Welch, President of the Kintama
Research Services in British Columbia, Canada.
Let me remind the witnesses that under Committee Rules, you
must limit your oral statements to 5 minutes, but your entire
statement will appear in the hearing record. We use timing
lights. When you begin, the light will turn green. When you
have 1 minute remaining, the light will turn yellow. And at the
end of 5 minutes, the light will turn red, and I will ask you
to please complete your statement. And as you can see, there is
a clock down in front.
I will also allow all witnesses to testify before Member
questioning. If you begin to run over, I shall begin to tap
like that, and that is your signal to stop talking.
We will begin by listening to Ms. Coffey for 5 minutes. You
are recognized.
STATEMENT OF BETH COFFEY, DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMS, NORTHWESTERN
DIVISION, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, PORTLAND, OREGON
Ms. Coffey. Good Afternoon. Thank you for the invitation to
testify today.
The Northwestern Division oversees five districts: Seattle,
Portland, Walla Walla, Kansas City, and Omaha. This is a large
geographic region that includes the Columbia and Missouri River
basins and their tributaries, as well as the coasts of Oregon,
Washington, and the Puget Sound. Its primary civil works
missions are flood, storm damage reduction, commercial
navigation, and aquatic ecosystem restoration.
The Northwestern Division maintains and operates multiple-
purpose dams that also provide benefits such as hydropower,
water supply storage, and recreation. The dams also have
modifications and operational changes to protect and mitigate
the impacts of the system's construction and continued
operation on fish and wildlife.
The Congress authorized the Corps and the Bureau of
Reclamation to construct, operate, and maintain 14 Columbia
River System projects for multiple specified purposes. The
Congress authorized the Bonneville Power Administration to
market and transmit the power generated by the coordinated
system operations of these projects.
Within the Columbia River System, the Corps constructed,
and operates and maintains, four dams on the Lower Snake River.
These are multiple-use facilities whose purposes include, but
are not limited to, navigation and hydropower production. Fish
ladders have been in place at these facilities since the dams
were built in the 1960s and early 1970s. Fish passage
improvements, both structural and operational changes, have
been made at all four dams over the last 25 years as the Corps
investigates and adopts new technologies to avoid jeopardy to
the continued existence of juvenile and adult fish pursuant to
our obligations under the Endangered Species Act.
Even with significant investment, operations, and
engineering to support improved fish passage, the construction
and continued operation of the Federal Columbia River
Hydropower System, coupled with other factors, negatively
affects native fish abundance, and the communities, including
Tribal Nations that rely on those fisheries for economic,
cultural, and ecosystem benefits.
With appropriate maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and
replacement of components as needed, the Corps could continue
to operate these four dams on the Lower Snake River for many
years. Deauthorization and removal of the dams would require
specific authorization and appropriations from Congress.
Management of the system has been the subject of litigation
for the past two decades, which resulted in the latest National
Environmental Policy Act evaluation of the system and the
latest biological opinions from the National Marine Fisheries
Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, completed in
September 2020.
The United States negotiated a stay of the district court
litigation so that the parties could work collaboratively on
addressing basin-wide solutions that could resolve the
litigation. The stay that these parties negotiated has allowed
the parties in the litigation and the regional sovereigns,
which includes the region's tribes and the four states, to
continue to work on developing comprehensive, basin-wide
solutions to recover native fish populations. Under the court-
ordered stay, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of
Reclamation, Bonneville Power Administration, National Marine
Fisheries Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are
participating in a confidential mediation conducted by the
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to achieve this
goal. The Corps is committed to the confidential mediation and
a whole-of-government approach to addressing these important
matters.
In summary, Congress has authorized the Corps to operate
the Lower Snake River facilities, and many others in the
Northwest, for multiple purposes. The Columbia Basin is a
complex system, and the Corps, working in partnership with the
other Federal agencies, the tribes, states, and stakeholders,
will continue to focus on improving innovative solutions to the
issues facing the Columbia River Basin, including actions to
protect and enhance both communities and ecosystems, consistent
with the congressionally authorized purposes.
Once again, thank you for the invitation to testify before
you today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Coffey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ms. Frances (Beth) Coffey, Programs Director,
Northwestern Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Thank you for the invitation to testify today. I am the Programs
Director for the Northwestern Division of the United States Army Corps
of Engineers (Corps). The Northwestern Division oversees five
districts: Seattle, Portland, Walla Walla, Kansas City, and Omaha. This
large geographic expanse includes the Columbia and Missouri River
basins and their tributaries as well as the Coast of Oregon and
Washington and Puget Sound.
The Northwestern Division manages its districts' Civil Works
activities based on river basins rather than state boundaries. Its
primary Civil Works missions are flood and storm damage reduction,
commercial navigation, and aquatic ecosystem restoration. The
Northwestern Division maintains and operates multiple purpose dams that
also provide benefits such as hydropower, water supply storage, and
recreation. The dams also have modifications and operational changes to
protect and mitigate the impacts of the system's construction and
continued operation on fish and wildlife. Within its jurisdiction are
77 dams and reservoirs, 29 hydropower plants, and 1,600 miles of
navigable channels.
The Congress authorized the Corps and the Bureau of Reclamation
(Reclamation) to construct, operate, and maintain 14 Columbia River
System projects for multiple specified purposes. The Congress
authorized the Bonneville Power Administration to market and transmit
the power generated by the coordinated system operations of these
projects.
Within the Columbia River System, the Corps constructed, and
operates and maintains, four dams on the lower Snake River. These are
multiple-use facilities, whose purposes include but are not limited to
navigation and hydropower production. Fish ladders have been in place
at these facilities since the dams were built in the 1960s and early
1970s. Fish passage improvements--both structural and operational
changes--have been made at all four dams over the last 25 years as the
Corps investigates and adopts new technologies to avoid jeopardy to the
continued existence of juvenile and adult fish pursuant to our
obligations under the Endangered Species Act. Even with significant
investment, operations, and engineering to support improved fish
passage, the construction and continued operation of the Federal
Columbia River Hydropower System, coupled with other factors,
negatively affects native fish abundance, and the communities,
including Tribal Nations, that rely on those fisheries for economic,
cultural, and ecosystem benefits.
With appropriate maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and
replacement of components as needed, the Corps could continue to
operate these four dams on the lower Snake River for many years.
Deauthorization and removal of the dams would require specific
authorization and appropriations from Congress.
Management of the system has been the subject of litigation for the
past two decades, which resulted in the latest National Environmental
Policy Act evaluation of the system and the latest biological opinions
from the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, completed in September 2020.
In late 2020 and early 2021, plaintiffs filed complaints in the
district court in Oregon and the Ninth Circuit challenging the
decisions of the Corps, Reclamation, Bonneville Power Administration,
the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. The United States negotiated a stay of the district court
litigation so that the parties could work collaboratively on addressing
basin-wide solutions that could resolve the litigation. The District
Court granted the stay in October 2021, and then extended the stay
through August of this year. The stay that these parties negotiated has
allowed the parties in the litigation and the regional sovereigns,
which includes the region's tribes and four states, to continue to work
on developing comprehensive, basin-wide solutions to recover native
fish populations. Under the court ordered stay, the USACE and other
affected Departments and agencies are participating in confidential
mediation conducted by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
to achieve this goal. The Corps is committed to the confidential
mediation and a whole-of-government approach to addressing these
important matters.
In summary, Congress has authorized the Corps to operate the lower
Snake River facilities, and many others in the Northwest, for multiple
purposes. The Columbia Basin is a complex system, and the Corps,
working in partnership with the other federal agencies, the tribes,
states, and stakeholders, will continue to focus on providing
innovative solutions to the issues facing the Columbia River Basin,
including actions to protect and enhance both communities and
ecosystems, consistent with the congressionally authorized purposes.
Once again, thank you for the invitation to testify before you
today.
______
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Director Coffey.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Jennifer Quan, the West Coast
Regional Administrator of the National Marine Fisheries
Service. Ms. Quan, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JENNIFER QUAN, WEST COAST REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR,
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
Ms. Quan. Thank you, Chairman Bentz, members of the
Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today
before you. My name is Jen Quan, and I am the Regional
Administrator for NOAA Fisheries West Coast Regional Office. I
want to also thank Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers and
Congressman Newhouse for hosting us in their districts. I am
also aware and would like to acknowledge Chair Brigham from the
Umatilla Tribe, who I think is in the audience, and thank them
and all of our tribal co-managers for their partnership.
We appreciate the Committee's interest in this important,
complex, and long-standing matter. NOAA is committed to working
with our state and tribal fishery co-managers, other Federal
agencies, and a broad range of stakeholders to develop a
durable solution that takes into account the important
interests across the Columbia River basin.
Since the early 1990s, NOAA Fisheries has listed 13 stocks
of salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River Basin under the
Endangered Species Act, or ESA. Despite considerable efforts to
mitigate the risk of extinction, salmon and steelhead are
currently at abundances far below those necessary for fully
supporting tribal, commercial, and recreational harvest.
Delisting endangered and threatened species is the ultimate
goal of the ESA, but these targets are not necessarily the only
endpoint. Broad-sense recovery goals seek salmon and steelhead
numbers that contribute fully to the culture, environment, and
economy of the region.
In July 2020, NOAA Fisheries issued its latest ESA
biological opinion that assessed and concluded that the
operations and maintenance of the Columbia River System's 14
dams was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
listed salmon and steelhead or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of their critical habitat. However, the
opinion, as well as our 2022 5-year status review, documents
that we remain concerned about the potential future prospects
of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead in the Basin due to both the
ongoing impacts occurring in freshwater and ocean environments.
NOAA Fisheries has remained deeply committed to working
collaboratively to improve the abundance and productivity in
the Columbia and Snake River basins. To that effect, in March
2022, NOAA Fisheries, the Departments of the Interior, Army,
and Energy, and the Council on Environmental Quality, held a
Nation-to-Nation consultation with representatives from the
Columbia Basin's tribes. In consideration of the messages we
heard from the tribes, and to inform discussions on salmon
recovery, NOAA Fisheries developed the Rebuilding Interior
Columbia Basin Salmon and Steelhead Report. We finalized the
rebuilding report in September 2022, with input and support
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, scientists, and
fishery co-managers throughout the Basin.
The foundation of the rebuilding report was guided by goals
established by the Columbia Basin Partnership Task Force, that
was originally convened back in 2017. NOAA's rebuilding report
provides a comprehensive set of actions with the highest
potential to achieve the partnership's mid-range abundance
goals. These goals exceed the abundances required to achieve
delisting on ESA-listed salmon and steelhead, and represent
progress toward healthy and harvestable fish stocks, toward
mandates set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and tribal
treaties.
The actions in the rebuilding report include, but are not
limited to, reductions in mortality from mainstem dams. They do
include breaching Lower Snake River dams. They include
management of predators, habitat restoration and protection,
fish passage and reintroduction into blocked areas, as well as
other efforts and management efforts in the ocean.
The rebuilding report does not assess the social and
economic impacts of implementing any rebuilding measures. It
does not suggest funding sources, congressional authorizations
needed, or regulatory compliance measures required for
implementation. NOAA Fisheries recognizes that the important
services the Lower Snake River dams provide would need to be
replaced or otherwise offset before breaching could occur, and
we defer to other experts and ongoing regional efforts to
address these pivotal issues.
We value the opportunity to continue working with the
Subcommittee on these important issues, and I appreciate the
opportunity to discuss NOAA Fisheries' work with you today.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Quan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jennifer Quan, Regional Administrator for West
Coast Region Office, National Marine Fisheries Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
U.S. Department Of Commerce
Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. The National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is responsible for the
stewardship of the nation's living marine resources and their habitat.
NOAA Fisheries provides vital services for the nation: sustainable and
productive fisheries, the recovery and conservation of protected
species, and healthy ecosystems--backed by sound science and an
ecosystem-based approach to management--all in support of a thriving,
sustainable ocean economy. The resilience of our marine ecosystems and
coastal communities, including inland communities connected by large
river systems like the Columbia, depends on healthy marine species,
including protected species such as whales, sea turtles, salmon, and
corals. Commercial fisheries in the Pacific Northwest landed more than
$500 million worth of sustainable seafood, including salmon, in 2021.
We appreciate the Committee's interest in this important, complex,
and long-standing matter. NOAA Fisheries recognizes the numerous and
diverse interests at stake, and we are committed to working with our
state and tribal fishery co-managers, other federal agencies, and a
broad range of industry and environmental stakeholders to develop a
long-term durable solution that takes into account the important
interests across the Columbia River Basin.
NOAA's collaborative fishery conservation and management work in
the Columbia Basin is guided by multiple Congressional authorizations,
including the Mitchell Act. The Mitchell Act not only authorizes the
establishment, operation, and maintenance of hatchery facilities and
scientific investigations to facilitate the conservation of the fishery
resource, it also authorizes ``all other activities necessary for the
conservation of fish in the Columbia River Basin in accordance with
law.'' More broadly, but explicitly applicable to Pacific salmon and
steelhead fisheries, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (MSA), enacted in 1976 and amended in 1996 and 2007,
authorizes NOAA Fisheries to further the conservation and enhancement
of essential fish habitat in support of realizing the full potential of
the Nation's fishery resources.
NOAA Fisheries, along with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, also
administers the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Since the early 1990s,
NOAA Fisheries has listed 13 stocks of salmon and steelhead in the
Columbia River Basin as either threatened or endangered under the ESA.
Despite substantial investments over the last 30 years, none of these
listed stocks have been recovered to the point that they can be
delisted. However, these efforts have prevented these listed stocks
from going extinct, and yielded improvements for some stocks. It is
important to note that prior to ESA listing decisions, many stocks of
salmon and steelhead had already been extirpated throughout the
Columbia Basin,\1\ and impassable dams have blocked anadromous fish
access to more than 40 percent of the historically available
habitat.\2\ The current returns of naturally produced salmon and
steelhead in the Columbia Basin are less than 10 percent of the
historical run sizes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Allen, Cain. 2003. Columbia River Indian fishing rights and the
geography of fisheries mitigation. Oregon Historical Quarterly. Vol.
104, Issue 2.
\2\ Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Fish passage at dams
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to NOAA's duties under federal statutes, the US
Government has long-standing commitments to Tribal Nations. NOAA takes
these treaty and trust responsibilities to Columbia River tribes
seriously. The tribes not only have reserved rights to fish, but an
expectation that there would always be fish to harvest and a right to a
fair share of the harvest. In the face of a changing climate, the
urgency to act is greater than ever. The science tells us that it is
possible to recover these iconic animals that so many in the region
rely upon, and the region tells us that action must address the
relevant social, cultural, economic, and ecological considerations.
In July 2020, NOAA Fisheries issued its latest biological opinion
under the ESA addressing the ongoing operation and maintenance of the
Columbia River System. NOAA Fisheries concluded that the proposed
action--the operation, maintenance, and associated non-operational
conservation measures for the 14 federal Columbia River System dams for
a timeframe of fifteen years--was not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of listed salmon and steelhead or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of their designated critical
habitat.
As most recently documented in our 2022 ESA 5-year status
reviews,\3\ we remain concerned about the potential future prospects of
ESA-listed salmon and steelhead in the Basin due to continued low
abundances and impacts from habitat degradation, hydropower, predation,
and other threats. While we may have been able to conclude that the
continued operations of the Columbia River System dams are likely to
avoid jeopardizing the species under the ESA when paired with non-
operational conservation measures like habitat restoration and predator
control over the next fifteen years, listed salmon and steelhead
generally remain at a high risk of extinction, particularly considering
the potential effects of a changing climate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ NOAA Fisheries West Coast ESA 5-year Status Reviews
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite considerable efforts region-wide to mitigate the risk of
extinction, salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River Basin are
currently at abundance levels far below those necessary for fully
supporting tribal, commercial, and recreational harvest, and are at
about 12 percent, in the aggregate, of the Columbia Basin Partnership
goals for healthy and harvestable stocks (see below for more on the
Partnership and development of these goals). Delisting endangered and
threatened species is the ultimate goal under the ESA, but these
delisting targets are not necessarily the only endpoint. Broad-sense
recovery goals seek salmon and steelhead numbers that contribute fully
to the culture, environment, and economy of the region.
NOAA Fisheries' 2020 biological opinion was challenged in court.
During preliminary injunction proceedings, the opportunity arose to
engage in a dialogue with the parties that could potentially resolve
all claims in the litigation. In coordination with the Council on
Environmental Quality, all defendant federal agencies agreed to seek a
stay of litigation to explore the possibility of developing a long-term
durable solution rather than repeating the constant, costly litigation
cycle. Pursuant to the court ordered stay in litigation, NOAA and other
affected departments and agencies are participating in confidential
mediation conducted by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.
Despite the often-contentious issues surrounding Columbia and Snake
River salmon and steelhead, NOAA Fisheries has remained deeply
committed to working collaboratively with state and tribal fishery co-
managers, other federal agencies, and a broad range of stakeholders in
conservation and recovery efforts. These collaborations are needed not
only to improve the abundance and productivity of salmon and steelhead,
but also to deliver the cultural, economic, and ecological benefits
that salmon and steelhead provide.
Our past engagements with regional sovereigns and stakeholders
provide important context for understanding the genesis and content of
NOAA Fisheries' report, Rebuilding Interior Columbia Basin Salmon and
Steelhead (Report). In 2017, NOAA Fisheries' Marine Fisheries Advisory
Committee convened the Columbia Basin Partnership Task Force
(Partnership), bringing together diverse representatives from across
the Columbia Basin to establish a common vision and goals for the Basin
and its salmon and steelhead. The diverse group of parties in the
Partnership included Columbia Basin tribes, fishing, agriculture,
conservation, river transportation, port, and hydropower interests, as
well as the states of Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Oregon. These
parties share overlapping and sometimes conflicting values and views
about the Columbia River and its salmon and steelhead. In the past,
many of the parties have faced each other across a courtroom. The
Partnership brought these representatives together at one table to find
common ground and foster a collaborative approach to ensure the long-
term persistence of our salmon and steelhead.
The Phase 2 October 2020 Report, released at the conclusion of the
Partnership's work, documents that all of these parties want to ensure
that healthy runs of salmon and steelhead thrive into the future, and
to do so, it sets forth goals beyond ESA delisting that aspire to
rebuild healthy and harvestable stocks of salmon and steelhead
throughout the Basin. Given that current salmon and steelhead abundance
levels are so low (on aggregate about 12 percent of healthy and
harvestable goals),the Partnership emphasized the urgency of taking
action across the salmon life cycle to restore salmon populations to
the point they again support the region's economy, environment, and
culture. Achieving the Partnership's goals would go beyond delisting of
salmon and steelhead in the Basin to rebuild abundances to a level that
could accommodate increased tribal and non-tribal harvest opportunities
throughout the Columbia and lower Snake Rivers and in the ocean.
In March 2022, NOAA Fisheries, along with the Department of the
Interior, Department of the Army, Department of Energy, and the Council
on Environmental Quality, held a Nation-to-Nation consultation with
representatives from the Columbia Basin's tribes. In consideration of
the messages we heard from the tribes, and in order to inform the
discussions regarding what it would take to move beyond simply avoiding
species extinction and instead focusing on restoring salmon and
steelhead abundances to healthy and harvestable levels in the Basin,
NOAA Fisheries, with input and support of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service, and input from scientists and fish managers from the Nez Perce
Tribe and the State of Oregon, developed the draft Report.
In the draft Report, NOAA Fisheries looked towards the sovereign-
and stakeholder-endorsed goals adopted by the Partnership and provided
an assessment of the actions with the highest potential to achieve the
Partnership's midrange abundance goals. These goals exceed the
abundances required to achieve de-listing of ESA-listed salmon and
steelhead and represent substantial progress toward healthy and
harvestable fish stocks, toward mandates set forth in the MSA and
Tribal treaties. NOAA Fisheries identified a comprehensive suite of
management actions to achieve these goals. The actions we identified
include significant reductions in direct and indirect mortality from
mainstem dams, including breaching lower Snake River dams; management
of native and non-native predators; systematic and strategic tributary
and estuarine habitat restoration and protection; fish passage and
reintroduction into priority blocked areas; and focused hatchery and
harvest reform.
As the Report focuses on the restoration of salmon and steelhead,
NOAA Fisheries sought comments from fishery co-managers throughout the
Basin. NOAA Fisheries received comments from the Confederated Tribes
and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Upper Snake River Tribes Foundation,
Spokane Tribe of Indians, Coeur d'Alene Tribe, Nez Perce Tribe,
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Confederated
Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Burns Paiute Tribe, Columbia River
Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Idaho Department
of Fish and Game.
After considering the comments that we received from state and
tribal fishery co-managers, and consistent with commitments the U.S.
made to extend the litigation stay, we released the final Report in
September 2022. The final Report identifies a comprehensive suite of
actions that, based on existing science and our experience and
expertise, would have the greatest likelihood of making considerable
progress towards restoring stocks of salmon and steelhead to healthy
and harvestable levels. The final Report acknowledges scientific
uncertainties, and did not include new studies or modeling to precisely
quantify the expected benefits of the actions. It did conclude that the
existing body of science ``robustly supports riverscape-scale process-
based stream habitat restoration, dam removal (breaching), and
ecosystem-based management, and overwhelmingly supports acting, and
acting now'' if we are to achieve the higher abundance goals.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service), Rebuilding Interior
Columbia Basin Salmon and Steelhead (Sep. 30, 2022)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Report does not assess the social and economic impacts of
implementing any rebuilding measures nor suggest funding sources,
needed authorizations, or regulatory compliance measures required for
implementation. NOAA Fisheries recognizes that the critically important
social and economic services the lower Snake River dams provide would
need to be replaced or otherwise offset before breaching could occur,
and we defer to other experts and ongoing regional efforts on how to
address these pivotal issues. The US Army Corps of Engineers, which
owns and operates the lower Snake River dams, has indicated that
breaching the dams would require Congressional authorization.
The regional and national conversations on this subject continue.
NOAA Fisheries and other participants are considering a durable long-
term strategy to restore salmon and other native fish populations to
healthy and abundant levels, while also honoring Federal commitments to
Tribal Nations, delivering affordable and reliable clean power, and
meeting the resilience needs of stakeholders across the region. The
Council on Environmental Quality recently published a request for
information that builds upon public listening sessions to ensure all
who desire to be heard have a voice in the process. Similarly, elected
officials have weighed in with their own concepts and initiatives
related to a long-term solution.
We hope to work with the subcommittee, and all the stakeholders
here, to shape a future that gets us closer to the vision of ``[a]
healthy Columbia Basin ecosystem with thriving salmon and steelhead
that are indicators of clean and abundant water, reliable and clean
energy, a robust regional economy, and vibrant cultural and spiritual
traditions, all interdependent and existing in harmony.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Columbia Basin Partnership Task Force, A Vision for Salmon and
Steelhead, Goals to Restore Thriving Salmon and Steelhead to the
Columbia River Basin, Phase 2 Report of the Columbia Basin Partnership
Task Force of the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee (October 2020)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
NOAA Fisheries is proud to continue to lead the world in conducting
ocean and fisheries science, serving the nation's coastal communities
and industries, and ensuring responsible stewardship of our ocean and
coastal resources. We value the opportunity to continue working with
this Subcommittee on these important issues. Thank you, Members of the
Subcommittee and your staff, for your work to support NOAA Fisheries'
mission. I am happy to take your questions.
______
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Ms. Quan.
I will now recognize Mr. John Hairston, Administrator of
the Bonneville Power Administration, for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOHN HAIRSTON, ADMINISTRATOR AND CEO, BONNEVILLE
POWER ADMINISTRATION, PORTLAND, OREGON
Mr. Hairston. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and members of
the Subcommittee. I am John Hairston. I am CEO and
Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration, and I am
pleased to be here today with you to describe the contributions
of the Federal Columbia River System to the economic strength
of Pacific Northwest communities.
As a steward of the Columbia River Power System, a vital
source of clean and reliable electricity, Bonneville also
shares in the protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife
populations affected by the Columbia River system. Though I
know it is well understood by you, Mr. Chairman, and other
members of the Northwest Congressional Delegation, I always
begin with reminding the audience that Bonneville is a public,
not-for-profit entity charged with marketing Federal electric
power at cost, and with preference to publicly-owned utilities
in the Northwest.
Bonneville was created in 1937 by President Franklin
Roosevelt with this public mission service in mind. The
reliable delivery of affordable power was a significant factor
in the contribution of the Columbia River Power System during
World War II. It helped develop local economies, particularly
in rural communities, by providing power for irrigation and
manufacturing. Today, it powers the information technologies
that are so important to the Pacific Northwest and our nation.
Bonneville's mission also includes addressing the
environmental impacts of the Columbia and Snake River dams,
especially to the Columbia River tribal communities. The
Federal Columbia River Power System is unique in the extensive
modification and operational changes made for the protection
and enhancement of fish and wildlife. Bonneville works in
partnership with Columbia River tribes, Northwest states, and
local communities in these efforts.
Since passage of the 1980 Northwest Power Act, Bonneville
has invested billions of dollars to improve fish passage and
dam operations as well as off-site mitigation investments in
habitat restoration, tributary dam passage, and fish production
programs. In current Federal District Court litigation
regarding Columbia and Snake River operations, the United
States negotiated a stay of the district court litigation so
that parties could work collaboratively on addressing basin-
wide solutions that could resolve this litigation.
The stay that these parties negotiated has allowed the
parties in the litigation, and regional sovereigns, which
includes the region's tribes and four states, to continue to
work on developing comprehensive, basin-wide solutions to
recover native fish populations. Under the court-ordered stay,
Bonneville and other affected departments and agencies are
participating in confidential mediation conducted by the
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to achieve this
goal. Bonneville is committed to the confidential mediation and
a whole-of-government approach to addressing these important
matters.
Today, the Columbia River Power System is called upon to
play a central role in the clean energy transformation of the
larger regional electric system. It directly supports clean
state energy goals, responds to Federal tax incentives for new
clean energy resources, and enables electrification of
buildings and transportation. Columbia and Snake River
hydropower offers the adaptable operation capability needed to
integrate variable resources like wind and solar reliably and
at low cost. Hydro generation is uniquely capable of ramping up
and down, on demand, and within very short periods of time to
balance the variable output of other renewable resources.
Additionally, the capabilities of the hydropower system are
critical to maintaining the reliability of the regional
electric power system during periods of extreme weather and
peak demands. Extreme weather events in our region, both winter
cold snaps and summer heat waves, are usually the product of
high pressure systems parked over the interior West. These
weather systems produce little to no wind and are generally
multiple days in duration. The hydro system, Snake River dams
included, is able to carry operating reserves and provide
sustained peaking generation to meet regional electricity
demand when it is needed most.
Last year, Bonneville commissioned an independent economic
study of the costs to the region for replacing the energy and
reliability services of the four Lower Snake River dams. The
study found that replacing these dams, while meeting clean
energy goals and maintaining system reliability, is possible,
but doing so comes at a substantial cost to the region, and
notes that emerging replacement technologies must first become
commercially viable. I have listed those estimated costs in my
written testimony.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide this testimony to
you today, Mr. Chairman, and will be happy to respond to any
questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hairston follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Hairston, Administrator and Chief Executive
Officer, Bonneville Power Administration
Good afternoon, Chairman Bentz and members of the Subcommittee. I
am John Hairston, Administrator and Chief Executive Officer of the
Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville). Bonneville is a Federal
Power Marketing Administration within the United States Department of
Energy and is headquartered in Portland, Oregon. I am pleased to be
with you today to describe the role that Bonneville plays in marketing
affordable electricity to its customers in the Pacific Northwest and
for operating a reliable transmission system.
Bonneville serves a 300,000 square mile area that includes Oregon,
Washington, Idaho, western Montana, and parts of northern California,
Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming. Bonneville markets the electric power
produced from 31 Federal hydroelectric projects operated by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Bureau of Reclamation
(Reclamation). Bonneville also acquires non-Federal power to meet the
needs of its customer utilities, including the power from one nuclear
power plant, the Columbia Generating Station, located just north of
Richland, Washington.
Bonneville maintains and operates over 15,000 circuit miles of
transmission lines and associated facilities over which this electric
power is delivered. Its system is a substantial majority of the
Northwest's high-voltage electric grid.
It is important to emphasize that Bonneville is not for profit.
Bonneville recovers its costs from sales to its power and transmission
customers, and finances capital expenditures, that also are recovered
through rates, through the U.S. Treasury. Bonneville finances its
operations with a business-type budget based on the self-financing
authority, including U.S. Treasury borrowing authority, provided by the
Federal Columbia River Transmission System Act of 1974 (Transmission
Act, Public Law 93-454) and other various organic legislation, for
energy conservation, renewable energy resources, capital fish
facilities, and other purposes. Bonneville does not receive annual
appropriations.
OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL HYDRO OPERATIONS AND FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION
Congress authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of
Reclamation to construct, operate, and maintain the 31 Federal dams of
the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS). These dams are
operated to meet multiple specified purposes, including flood risk
management, navigation, hydropower generation, irrigation, fish and
wildlife, recreation, and municipal and industrial water supply. BPA is
authorized to market and transmit the power generated by coordinated
system operations and mitigation of the effect of their construction
and operation on fish and wildlife.
Built and put into service between 1938 and 1976, the FCRPS
provides valuable social and economic benefits to the region: flood
risk management, navigation, and water supply. Each of these services
support both the regional and national economy. And of importance to
Bonneville, the system is the source of affordable, reliable and
renewable carbon-free power generation and provides the region with
some of the least carbon intensive electricity in the country. On
average, the FCRPS produces 8,500 average megawatts of power
(equivalent to the power needs of eight cities the size of Seattle).
At the same time that the system has brought benefits to the
region, the FCRPS has also had adverse impacts on salmon, steelhead,
and other native fish populations in the Basin. These fish have
tremendous value to the region and to the Tribal Nations in the Basin.
As a result, the FCRPS has made extensive modifications and operational
changes to protect and mitigate the impacts of the system's
construction and continued operation on fish and wildlife. Since the
1980 Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act, BPA has
invested billions of dollars in improved configuration and operation of
the dams, as well as in offsite restoration efforts for the benefit of
fish and wildlife sponsored by tribes, states, and rural communities.
BPA recognizes that salmon, steelhead, and other native fish and
wildlife species are particularly significant to Northwest tribal
communities and are an integral part of Northwest ecosystems. BPA is
committed to working with tribes in the region and alongside its
federal interagency counterparts on a comprehensive and collaborative
approach to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife
populations that are affected by the construction and operation of
regional Federal hydropower system.
In late 2020 and early 2021, plaintiffs filed complaints in the
district court in Oregon and the Ninth Circuit challenging the
decisions of the Corps, Reclamation, Bonneville Power Administration,
the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. The United States negotiated a stay of the district court
litigation so that the parties could work collaboratively on addressing
basin-wide solutions that could resolve the litigation. The District
Court granted the stay in October 2021, and then extended the stay
through August of this year. The stay that these parties negotiated has
allowed the parties in the litigation and the regional sovereigns,
which includes the region's tribes and four states, to continue to work
on developing comprehensive, basin-wide solutions to recover native
fish populations. Under the court ordered stay, Bonneville and other
affected Departments and agencies are participating in confidential
mediation conducted by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
to achieve this goal. Bonneville is committed to the confidential
mediation and a whole-of-government approach to addressing these
important matters.
THE ROLE OF FEDERAL HYDROPOWER FOR REGIONAL ECONOMY AND CLEAN ENERGY
GOALS
Low-cost hydroelectric power has been an asset for this region's
economy since the Great Depression and the days of World War II. Today,
Federal power continues to serve remote rural communities across the
Northwest that have few other economic advantages to offer industry and
businesses. The Northwest's manufacturing and technology economies are
more technologically advanced than ever, and these manufacturers depend
on reliable electricity with stable voltage and near-zero
interruptions.
Responding to state mandates, Federal incentives and the declining
cost of technology, the Nation and much of the West is attempting to
meet clean electricity goals through other renewable resources,
particularly wind and solar. Because these resources are dependent on
the wind blowing and sun shining, hydropower is one way--but not the
only way--to offer adaptable operational capability to integrate these
variable resources, thereby enabling the Western Interconnection's
growing reliance on them.
SIGNIFICANCE OF LOWER SNAKE DAMS FOR BONNEVILLE'S ELECTRIC SYSTEM
RELIABILITY AND INTEGRATING NEW GENERATING RESOURCES
The four lower Snake River dams play a role in keeping the region's
Loss of Load Probability low--currently around 6.6%, or one year in
every 15 years. Our analysis finds that breaching the four lower Snake
River dams would require Bonneville (or regional utilities) to contract
for or build substantial amounts of new resources to meet projected
increases in demand and to achieve decarbonization goals. Extreme
weather events, including heat waves last August and September and cold
snaps last December, provide examples of the capabilities of the lower
Snake dams to respond to days of peak electricity demands. During last
August and September's heat events, for example, the lower Snake dams
produced sustained output adding between 500 and 700 megawatts
continuously over multiple days. At each dam, additional water is held
in reserve to be called upon if additional generating capacity is
needed or if energy use demands it. Similar operations occur in the
winter when extreme cold weather drives energy demand up for days at a
time.
In 2022, Bonneville contracted for an independent economic study of
the value of the Lower Snake River dams to the Northwest power system
According to this study, replacing the four lower Snake River dams
while meeting clean energy goals and system reliability is possible but
comes at a substantial cost even assuming emerging technologies are
available. In this study, E3, the firm Bonneville contracted, concluded
that replacing these resources would require:
2,300-4,300 MW of replacement resources
An annual cost of $415 million-$860 million by 2045
A total net present value cost of $11.2-$19.6 billion
based on 3 percent discounting over a 50-year time horizon
following the date of breaching
An increase in costs for public power customers of $100-
$230 per household per year (an 8%-18% increase) by 2045.
Other energy studies in the region have concluded that the energy
replacement needs would be less.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would again like to express my
appreciation for the opportunity to participate in this hearing. The
Federal Columbia River hydropower system continues to benefit the
people of the Pacific Northwest, while also powering our modern economy
and contributing to the quality of life that people so greatly value in
our region today.
______
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Hairston.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Scott Corbitt, General Manager
of the Port of Lewiston, in Lewiston, Idaho, for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT CORBITT, GENERAL MANAGER, PORT OF LEWISTON,
LEWISTON, IDAHO
Mr. Corbitt. Good afternoon, Chairman Bentz and
Representatives McMorris Rodgers, Newhouse, and Collins. My
name is Scott Corbitt, and I am the General Manager of the Port
of Lewiston in Lewiston, Idaho. I appreciate the opportunity to
testify regarding the significance of the Lower Snake River
dams to our community.
The Port of Lewiston is Idaho's only seaport and is the
furthest inland port on the West Coast, at the inland end of
Marine Highway M-84, the transportation corridor that runs from
Lewiston down the Snake and Columbia Rivers all the way to the
Pacific Ocean. The Lewis Clark Valley is at the confluence of
the Clearwater and Snake Rivers, and the culture, economy, and
lifestyle of our communities are supported by these rivers, the
dams, and the pool that is created by Lower Granite Dam.
At the Port of Lewiston, we transport tens of millions of
bushels of the finest wheat down the river to feed the world.
Barges, which rely on the Lower Snake River dams for their
ability to navigate, support the third-largest grain corridor
in the world. Our manufacturing leaders rely on the rivers to
bring raw materials from the forests of the West to Lewiston
and are barged right alongside our wind blades and our
turbines.
The valley is the furthest inland destination for a growing
cruise industry that brings tens of thousands of tourists into
the region annually, injecting millions into our local economy.
Lewiston has also been labeled the No. 1 place to live in
America for outdoorspeople. Our folks spend free time on the
water, whether it is kayaking around Chief Timothy Island or
bass fishing at Hells Gate State Park.
Absent the dams, we get the river we saw during the
drawdown experiment of 1992. For those not familiar, in 1992,
an experimental drawdown dried out the levees, which began to
collapse as the water dropped. The drawdown exposed stinking
mud bogs and sediment that had accumulated over decades. If we
lose our dams, who will deal with this sediment? Who will pay
for the cleanup? Who will support our lost economy and the
65,000 people left high and dry by dam removal?
To accurately gauge the impact of dam removal on a place
like Lewiston, one needs to look at both business and local
government infrastructure. If the dams are breached, critical
local infrastructure like water treatment, stormwater, and
sewer will require major modification or replacement. These
plans were designed to work with the rivers of today. Again,
who will pay the tens of millions for these modifications?
Businesses, like Clearwater Paper, Idaho's only paper mill
and one of the largest employers in the region, rely on the
current level of the river for water intake and discharge. Boat
builders and sellers rely on the slack water to maximize
business, not to mention the recreational boaters who rely on
marinas and boat launches and the docks that support our
valley's expanding cruise boat and tourism industries.
The Lewis-Clark Grain Terminal supports 3,000 farm families
who have come to rely on barge transport for their livelihood
in the region. Even our electricity provider, Clearwater Power,
relies on the hydropower generated by the Lower Snake River
dams to provide low-cost energy to 11 counties in Washington,
Oregon, and Idaho, in an area with 15 percent poverty rate and
per capita income of only $33,000.
Interestingly enough, we heard at a river commerce seminar
recently, coordinated by the Biden administration's Department
of Transportation, that the Maritime Administration is in full
support of growing commerce along the Columbia and Snake River
system. The economic development possibilities along the Marine
Highway M-84 represent growth potential that exists for
hundreds of thousands of people, many from disadvantaged and
underserved populations.
In fact, the Port of Lewiston recently received a $10
million appropriation from Governor Little of Idaho to continue
growing these opportunities on Marine Highway M-84. This
funding will increase the access for high, wide, and heavy
loads, to support the return of container traffic to Lewiston,
and invest in Idaho's first and only cruise boat dock.
Investments like these are made precisely because the Lower
Snake River dams are in place, but without them our economy and
our communities will dry up, along with the river.
The loss of these assets I presented to you today only
scratch the surface when it comes to the impact of the Lower
Snake River dams and our communities. To us, they are truly
irreplaceable. Unfortunately, dam removal proponents and people
who live hundreds of miles from Lewiston, make it sound as if
their loss is really no big deal, and that is because to them
we are expendable.
My request is simple, that Congress and the Federal
Government do not consider us expendable. Unlike those who
believe this issue is about picking winners and losers and who
have louder voices, endless financial resources, and no
attachment to the Lewis Clark Valley, we believe communities,
salmon, and dams can co-exist because we are living proof that
they do.
Thank you again for the opportunity today, and I am happy
to take any of your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Corbitt follows:]
Prepared Statement of Scott Corbitt, General Manager, Port of Lewiston
Good afternoon, Chairman Bentz and distinguished Members of the
House of Representatives. My name is Scott Corbitt and I am the General
Manager of the Port of Lewiston in Lewiston, Idaho. I appreciate the
invitation to testify today before the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife
and Fisheries about the importance of the Snake River dams to our
community. I welcome the opportunity to provide comments on this
critical issue.
For those of you not familiar, Lewiston is at the inland end of
Marine Highway M-84, the transportation corridor that runs from
Lewiston down the Snake and Columbia Rivers to the Pacific Ocean. Our
home is at the confluence of the Clearwater and Snake Rivers, and we
are blessed by the benefits that both these rivers provide the Lewis
Clark Valley.
For situational awareness, the Port of Lewiston is in Nez Perce
County, Idaho and is the furthest inland port on the West Coast. We are
also Idaho's only seaport which helps support the largest community
closest to the Lower Granite Dam and pool, the City of Lewiston.
The culture, business and lifestyle of Lewiston revolve around the
Clearwater and Snake rivers and the slack water, or pool created by the
Lower Snake River Dams (LSRD). That pool has developed opportunities
for the Lewis Clark Valley that now serve as the lifeblood and supports
an economy for around 65,000 people.
At the Port of Lewiston, we transport tens of millions of bushels
of the finest wheat down the river to help feed the world. As you know,
the LSRD include significant lock systems that allow for the navigation
of barge transport. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
the volumes of grain transported along the Snake and Columbia River
system make it the third largest grain export corridor in the world.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ United States Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Marketing
Service, ``Barge Dashboard''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the Port of Lewiston's most river-dependent tenants, the
Lewis Clark Terminal (LCT), loads approximately two hundred barges per
year or around 24,000,000 bushels of wheat annually in our valley. As a
cooperative, LCT represents 3,000 farms and farm families in the
region. Not only do these families depend on barge transport for their
livelihoods, if river transport did not exist, it would take at least
25,000 trucks a year to move just LCT's grain to the Tri-Cities, all on
largely two-lane, curved, and unsafe highways.\2\ Truck transport would
drive up costs for farmers and likely result in significant health and
environmental impacts to small communities along key roadways. No
attention has been given to this potential environmental justice issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Letter to Senator Patty Murray & Governor Jay lnslee from Lewis
Clark Terminal, June 23, 2022
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The LSRD have also provided other economic development
opportunities for the Port of Lewiston including bringing raw materials
from the forests in the West for river transport to Lewiston. Our
manufacturing leaders have come to rely on the rivers and dams for
passage of these and other goods, such as high, wide, and heavy loads
like wind turbines and their blades. The return of container on barge
shipping appears promising for the near future. The growth of river-
based commerce at the Port of Lewiston is imminent and is reliant on
the preservation of the LSRD.
The U.S. Department of Transportation and the Maritime
Administration (MARAD) recognizes the value of Marine Highway M-84 and
its future potential and recently helped coordinate a conference in our
region regarding the expansion of services along the river. We heard at
the river conference that MARAD is in full support for growing commerce
on the Columbia and Snake River system and that the economic
development possibilities existing along Marine Highway M-84 represent
growth potential for hundreds of thousands of people, many from
disadvantaged and underserved populations.
In addition to the expanded manufacturing and barging potential for
our region, the LSRD support the expansion of the growing cruise
industry that brings tens of thousands of tourists into the region
annually, inserting millions of new dollars into our local economy.
This is an expanding and exciting industry for our valley that
represents enormous potential.
In fact, the Port of Lewiston and the State of Idaho have welcomed
the cruise boat industry with the investment of a new dock where
sailings are set to begin in the 2025 cruise season. Similarly, the
Lewiston-Nez Perce County Airport is preparing for an influx of new
visitors to enjoy these cruising opportunities, the Snake River canyon,
and our region.
Lewiston has also been affectionately labeled as the #1 place to
live in America for outdoors people. Our folks spend free time on the
water, whether it's kayaking around Chief Timothy Island, bass fishing
at Hells Gate State Park, or paddle boarding in the Lower Granite pool.
The dams give us a multitude of recreational opportunities on the
rivers.
Our communities have invested in recreational infrastructure such
as docks, boat launches, and parks, not only for our own use but to
welcome visitors to our region.
Our community--which has a 15% poverty rate and per capita income
of just over $33,000--is also serviced by member-owned Clearwater
Power. Clearwater Power provides electricity for 11 counties in
Washington, Idaho and Oregon and is a Bonneville Power Administration
full requirements customer. This means our community is powered by the
hydro generated at the Snake River dams, providing our residents with
clean, reliable, and inexpensive energy.
Not often discussed during the debate over the future of the LSRD
is the importance of the water table to communities that line the Snake
River. In Lewiston, the water table created by the LSRD pool is
critical as it allows for the continued safe operation of one of our
largest employers, Clearwater Paper.
The water table also supports municipal water use, provides for
wastewater treatment, and is a draw for new economic investment. In
many cases, our communities have been able to deliver water without
wells and treat wastewater without septic because of the established
water table. These are all projects that incur significant local
investment and approval from local, state, and federal jurisdictions.
For the Port of Lewiston, the business generated by barge transport
and our other river-user tenants has afforded us other community
opportunities. Because of these lines of business, the Port of Lewiston
has been able to make additional investments in our community. One of
our biggest successes is providing the expansion of broadband so that
some of the poorest members of our region can attend school and work.
The Port has also been able to expand our industrial land for
tenants that rely on the rivers system, helping create new jobs and
economic opportunities in our region. These have all been brought to us
by the LSRD.
I participated and spoke during one of the Council on Environmental
Quality's listening sessions regarding the litigation over the Federal
Columbia River System Operations. Most of the presenters at these
sessions lived hundreds of miles away from my community and largely
disregarded the extreme and severe ramifications dam removal would have
on a place like Lewiston and surrounding communities. They assure that
the positive effects of the dams will be easily replaced and make no
comments about potential negatives.
The comments made reminded me of what was promised to impacted
timber communities when harvest was massively reduced and mills were
shuttered in the 1990s. Again, folks from hundreds of miles away
promised new tourism and recreation, educational opportunities, and
economic development, many of which never, ever materialized.
In our case, we know what will happen if dams are breached. In
1992, a drawdown experiment was conducted in the Lower Granite pool.
The result included stinking mud bogs, dead fish, and unusable marinas.
What it also highlighted was the loss of barge traffic and the economic
impact on our community. It laid bare that pool reduction leaves docks,
boat launches, and parks deserted and abandoned. We learned quite
quickly that the drawdown of the river would not support the
communities and economy we had worked so hard to build.
What nobody disagrees with is that salmon are iconic and deserve
our support. Where we disagree is what some call the ``silver bullet,''
the destruction of four dams and the communities and economies they
have supported based on merely hope that salmon would return in record
numbers. This hope, which the federal government admits is all it has,
is not close to being enough.
Our community cannot survive on this kind of hope. We must survive
on reality. We know all the things that would be lost with dam removal,
but we do not truly know what we would gain. It's a gamble on our
future when there are so many other things we can do to support
salmon--funding hatcheries, addressing predation, finding blocked areas
that do not support fish and removing the obstruction, advancing ocean
research and addressing climate change, habitat restoration, upgrading
fish passage facilities, and finding levels of funding adequate to
sustain our precious salmon.
You will recall that when built, these dams represented tremendous
progress for our region--we gained clean power, expanded farming and
agriculture opportunities, advanced one of the largest, big volume
barging operations in the United States, and created recreation and
economic development opportunities along a stretch of river that did
not have much. While we continue working hard to mitigate for salmon,
we cannot lose sight of all the progress we have made on the Snake
River. It would be a shame to turn back the clock on all that progress.
My request is simple--that Congress and the federal government not
ignore the people of the Lewis Clark Valley and all along Marine
Highway M-84. Avoid ignoring the ramifications of breaching the LSRD on
the people and communities that louder voices with financial resources
and no connection seem happy to shutter.
To those of you who advocate for our communities, I cannot thank
you enough. I appreciate the opportunity to participate today and am
happy to answer any of your questions.
______
[Applause.]
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Corbitt.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Rick Dunn, General Manager of
Benton PUD in Kennewick, Washington, for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF RICK DUNN, GENERAL MANAGER, BENTON PUBLIC UTILITY
DISTRICT, KENNEWICK, WASHINGTON
Mr. Dunn. Good afternoon. My name is Rick Dunn. I am the
General Manager of Benton PUD, located right here in the Tri-
Cities, in Kennewick. Welcome to my home and what I call the
center of the universe when it comes to the Northwest power
grid.
I want to start by pushing back hard against any claims
that the Lower Snake River dams are outdated, surplus, or high
cost. These dams are world-class operations and are part of the
foundation of the firm-energy wholesale portfolios of 134
utilities located in every Northwest state, many of which
already have significant demand for electricity above their
firm contract amount available from the Bonneville Power
Administration. Benton PUD is one of the 134 current customers
of the BPA, with Federal statutory rights to the electricity
generated by 31 hydroelectric dams included in BPA's portfolio.
And like many utilities across the Northwest, Benton PUD will
soon rely on BPA to provide 100 percent of our wholesale
electricity.
The annual generation from the Lower Snake River dams
represents about 11 percent of BPA-marketed hydro in a typical
year, and the cost of generated electricity is 1.4 cents per
kilowatt hour, which is far below the cost of developing new
renewable resources or what is available through calendar year
forward market purchases, which have dramatically increased in
price over the past few years to levels currently between 8 and
10 cents a kilowatt hour. Additionally, the LSRD are 4 of 10
Federal dams equipped with automatic generation control, which
makes them an important part of the minute-by-minute demand and
supply balancing required for stable and reliable Northwest
power grid operations throughout the year.
And as more intermittent and variable wind and solar are
added to the grid, flexible and controllable technologies like
hydro dams will be even more critical for maintaining grid
reliability across a wide range of weather and temperature
conditions. Keep in mind the next best technology available
today for balancing the grid is natural gas, which is being
phased out by aggressive clean energy policies in Washington
and Oregon. And when you add the recent and planned future
closures of thousands of megawatts of coal-fired power plants
to the mix, the dependence on hydropower for maintaining
Northwest grid reliability and low electricity rates will only
grow with each passing year.
This is why it is so concerning and frustrating to
Northwest utilities that hydropower continues to be undermined
by special interest groups and some political leaders, both in
terms of public support and actual amounts of generated
electricity. The good news is the majority of BPA's clean and
reliable electricity continues to be offered at low cost, with
prices holding steady and bucking the current inflationary
trend. The bad news is BPA's portfolio of hydroelectric dams
and the Columbia Generating Station Nuclear Plant is tapped
out, and they currently have no more firm energy available to
meet growing electricity demands being experienced by many of
their customers.
While it is not widely understood by the general public and
some policymakers, the 2025 forecast of total BPA customer
demand is already 466 average megawatts above the firm energy
contract rights utilities have to the BPA power.
In addition, the combined New Large Single Load customers,
which includes electricity-intensive facilities like data
centers and other businesses with individual demands of more
than 10 average megawatts annually, will reach 1,110 average
megawatts in 2025.
It is important for citizens of the Northwest to understand
large data centers and electricity-intensive industry and
manufacturing are not eligible to be served at BPA's lowest
rate. This means utilities must contract with a non-BPA
generating source or they can ask BPA to serve them at what is
referred to as the ``New Resource Firm Power'' rate, which is
priced based on forward market price curves, and over the next
2 years has been set at an average of 9 cents per kilowatt hour
for peak load periods and 8 cents per kilowatt hour for off-
peak loads. This is as much as 250 percent above BPA's coveted
and low-cost Tier-1 rate, which is currently 3.6 cents a
kilowatt hour.
And I can tell you from experience, large commercial and
industrial customers currently expect retail prices equivalent
to being 5 and 6 cents, which makes BPA's wholesale NR rate a
non-starter for new electricity-intensive industry and the jobs
and tax revenues that they bring with them.
While the near-term prospects for adding large amounts of
incremental electricity demand at reasonable rates are bleak
for many utilities in the Northwest, thanks to affordable BPA
hydro, which represents 50 percent of Benton PUD's average
retail rate of 7.2 cents, our current customers are paying 33
percent less than the national average of 10.7, and compared to
states like California with average retail rates reaching 20
cents per kilowatt hour, we are getting a heck of a bargain.
One frustrating irony is that some of the same entities who
helped convince policymakers to back utilities into a corner
and force a deeper dependence on wind and solar are continuing
to call for the erosion and outright removal of carbon-free
hydro capacity.
I have lived in the Northwest almost my entire life and
love all that our rivers provide. Salmon and steelhead recovery
is an unbelievably complex issue, but from my chair the science
is far from settled, and we need every drop of affordable and
carbon-free hydropower we can get.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dunn follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rick Dunn, General Manager, Public Utility
District No. 1 of Benton County (Benton PUD)
Hydroelectric Dams are the Foundation of Northwest Public Power
Benton PUD (BPUD) is an electric distribution utility located in
Kennewick, Washington with over 56,000 service connections and is one
of 134 current customers of the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)
with statutory preference and priority rights to the electricity
generated by the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS). The 31
hydroelectric dams included in the FCRPS typically generate about 8,500
average megawatts (aMW) of annual energy which is more than 50% of the
Northwest hydropower total and a big reason why our region's electric
grid is powered by more than 60% renewable generating sources; see
Attachment Slide 1.
SLIDE 1
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Like many utilities across the Northwest, BPUD will soon rely
on BPA to provide 100% of our wholesale electricity. And as a
Washington based utility, our 94% carbon-free hydro and nuclear
portfolio puts us in a great position to meet our state's 100% clean
electricity mandate.
The other good news is the majority of BPA's low cost, clean and
reliable electricity continues to provide the foundation of consumer-
owned public power in our region with prices holding steady and bucking
the current inflationary trend. The bad news is BPA's portfolio is
tapped out and they currently have no more `firm energy' available to
meet growing electricity demand being experienced by many of their
customers.
In utility vernacular, firm energy is the electricity that can be
essentially guaranteed to be delivered. And at this point BPA's FCRPS
resources can produce about 7,000 aMW of firm energy on an annual basis
with limits set by generating capability expected during low water
(drought) years. And while it is not widely understood by the general
public and some policy makers, the 2025 forecast of total utility
customer annual demand eligible to be served by BPA is already 466 aMW
above the firm energy contract rights utilities have to the FCRPS;
referred to as a Contract High Water Mark (CHWM). In addition, the
combined New Large Single Load (NLSL) electricity intensive businesses
served by BPA customers will reach 1,110 aMW in 2025 with data centers
representing most of this demand.
It is important to understand NLSL is a designation given to BPA
utility customer loads not eligible to be served at BPA's lowest rates.
Utilities can either serve an NLSL with non-federal generating
resources or can ask BPA to serve the NLSL at what is referred to as
the ``New Resource Firm Power (NR)'' rate. The NR rate is based on the
forecast and actual price to acquire the additional power requested and
for FY 2024/2025 is set at an average across the year of $90 per
megawatt-hour (MWh) for Heavy Load Hours (HLH) and $80 for Light Load
Hours (LLH). This is much higher than BPA's coveted `Tier-1' rate which
is currently averaging about $36 per MWh.
Disallowing BPA to serve NLSL customers with 10 aMW or more of
electricity demand annually at the cost of firm FCRPS capability (Tier-
1) is a policy based in a statutory restriction put in place decades
ago to keep low-cost hydropower from attracting too much of the
nation's heavy industry to Northwest states. To put this in context,
Benton PUD acquires about 210 aMW of wholesale electricity annually.
So, while 10 aMW is a large number for any one customer, it is not
uncommon for heavy industry, manufacturing facilities, and data centers
to require many multiples of that.
While hydropower is a very flexible, low cost and clean generating
technology, it is also variable from year-to-year and month-to-month.
So, BPA can only contractually commit to providing firm energy to their
preference customers based on the worst water years and then sells
surplus hydropower generated during better than bad water years in
wholesale electricity markets. To put things in perspective, compared
to firm water years, average and high-water years can deliver between
2,200 and 4,500 aMW of additional annual energy which is as much as 4.5
times the Columbia Generating Station nuclear plant's 1,000 aMW annual
production; see Attachment Slide 2.
SLIDE 2
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Revenues derived from BPA's surplus sales are used to buy down
the rates they charge for their Tier-1 product which equivalent to 3.6
cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) and translates to BPUD effective retail
rates for large commercial and industrial customers of between 5 and 6
cents and 8.5 cents for residential customers.
Thanks to affordable BPA hydropower which represents 50% of BPUD's
costs to our customers, our 7.2 cents per kWh average for all rate
classes is 33% lower than the national average of 10.7 cents. Compared
to states like California with average retail rates reaching 20 cents
per kWh and residential rates expected to increase to as high as 40
cents per kWh in some cases, Washington state's 8.5 cents average
represents a significant economic benefit to residential customers and
an economic development advantage when trying to attract business and
industry.
As for the Lower Snake River Dams (LSRD), their combined annual
generation in an average water year is 940 aMW which represents about
11% of the FCRPS; see Attachment Slide 3. BPA data indicates the LSRD
generate electricity at a cost of $14 per MWh (1.4 cents per kWh) which
is far below the cost of developing new renewable resources or what is
available through market purchases which have dramatically increased in
price over the past few years and are reflected in the BPA NR rate
previously described.
SLIDE 3
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Additionally, the LSRD are four of ten federal dams equipped
with automatic generation control which makes them an important part of
the minute-by-minute demand and supply balancing required for stable
and reliable Northwest power grid operations throughout the year; see
Attachment Slide 4. The LSRD flexible capabilities also allows them to
be used to meet a significant portion of BPA's operating reserve
requirements as a Balancing Area Authority (BAA) which can be thought
of as backup capabilities needed for power grid emergencies.
SLIDE 4
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
And as more intermittent and variable wind and solar are added
to the grid, flexible and controllable technologies like hydroelectric
dams will be even more critical for maintaining grid reliability across
a wide range of weather and temperature conditions. Keep in mind, the
next best technology available today for balancing the grid is natural
gas which is being phased out by aggressive clean energy policies in
Washington and Oregon aimed at financially crippling existing natural
gas plants and eliminating the possibility of constructing new ones.
And when you add the recent closure of coal-fired power plants (and
plans for more retirements) to the mix, the dependence on hydropower
for maintaining Northwest grid reliability has already begun and will
deepen significantly in the future. This is why it is so concerning to
utilities that hydropower continues to be undermined by anti-dam
special interest groups and some political leaders both in terms of
public support and actual amounts of generated electricity.
Under relentless threats of legal action, BPA and its federal dam
operating partners have agreed to divert more and more water through
spillways at the LSRD and four lower Columbia River dams rather than
through turbine generators. It is fair to say `spill' has been
increased to levels beyond sound scientific reason in what is being
characterized as a `last ditch' attempt to improve young salmon (smolt)
survival on their migration to the Pacific Ocean.
We must not forget; it was not long ago when fish biologists
expressed deep concerns over raising spill-caused total-dissolved-gas
(TDG) levels to more than 115% as it would be detrimental to salmon and
other aquatic species. And while it is not widely reported, early
indications are increased spill to 125% TDG is not delivering the
increased survival theorized by some. In fact, these unprecedented
levels of spill are making it more difficult to accurately determine
smolt survival and there are questions as to whether existing in-river
instrumentation and field assessments of smolt are adequate to the task
of determining whether high levels of spill are helping or hurting
salmon.
In a November 2022 report from NOAA Fisheries, their data indicates
despite spilling 65% of the daily flow at the LSRD, there has not been
an appreciable increase in survival for spring Chinook and Steelhead.
While more time and resources are needed to make an adequate assessment
of the impacts of spill, there is no doubt increased spill and
reduction of hydro generation is working against utilities trying to
balance affordability and reliability with demands for eliminating
greenhouse gas emissions.
Additionally, the 2020 Columbia River System Operations
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) studied the impacts of LSRD
breaching concluding ``If Bonneville had to replace the four lower
Snake River projects' full capability with zero-carbon resources, the
rate pressure could be up to 50% on wholesale power rates.'' And has
been demonstrated, a 50% increase in BPUD's wholesale power costs would
translate to a 25% increase in our retail rates.
So, any claims the LSRD are ``outdated, surplus or high cost'' are
not based on facts. The LSRD are part of the foundation of the firm-
energy wholesale portfolios of 134 utilities located in every Northwest
state, many of which have significant demand for electricity above what
they can get from BPA. And as has been mentioned, surplus sales derived
from the LSRD are not a reflection of generating capability that is not
needed, they are a result of the timing of river flows and having more
water available to generate electricity than is represented by a firm
water year. And for Washington and Oregon utilities, no amount of
affordable, firm, and carbon-free hydropower is ``surplus'' when you
are required to meet 100% carbon-free electricity mandates.
Increasing Electricity Demands and Costs
So, what are BPA customer utilities including BPUD doing when their
need for electricity exceeds their CHWM which is adjusted each two-year
rate period and referred to as a Rate Period High Water Mark (RHWM)?
Many are still counting on BPA's statutory obligation to meet their
eligible electricity demand (not including NLSL) by serving loads above
their RHWM at BPA's Tier-2 rate. While BPA's Tier-2 rates started
higher than Tier-1, they dropped to $33 per MWh in FY 2023 ($3 less
than the average Tier-1 rate of $36 per MWh). But the decreasing Tier-2
cost trend driven by what were low regional power market prices is
over, with BPA Tier-2 rates set to rise to an average of $62 per MWh in
FY 2024/2025.
The 93% year-over-year BPA Tier-2 rate increase between fiscal year
2023 and 2024 is part of a disturbing trend reflecting the
destabilization of the Northwest power grid precipitated primarily by
rapid retirement of coal plants without specific plans for replacing
their dependable capacity.
With some of the most aggressive clean energy laws and regulations
in the nation, Washington, and Oregon's restrictions on the use of
fossil-fueled technologies in electric utility portfolios are already
beginning to put a significant premium on the cost of incremental
electricity needed to meet `organic' utility customer growth in
residential and commercial sectors and on the critical electricity
supply needed to maintain power grid reliability, particularly on the
days and during the hours when customer demand is the highest.
To put it simply, in the next two-year period (and beyond), BPA
utility customers with demand for wholesale electricity above their
RHWM, who do not have other generating resources, will pay 72% more to
add new customers ($62 per MWh for Tier-2 versus $36 per MWh for Tier-
1). Including new customers that may come from economic development
opportunities. And with the NLSL restrictions previously discussed, any
economic development opportunities involving electricity intensive
loads above 10 aMW, the only near-term option is the NR wholesale rate
which was previously identified as $90 per MWh for HLH which would
likely be unworkable compared to BPUD's current large commercial and
industrial retail rate which is equivalent to $50 to $60 per MWh; i.e.
the NR rate does not include charges for transmission, capacity and
delivery. So, it's not out of line to say, current pricing on the
Northwest power grid has effectively de-industrialized our region. And
for many utility managers, it is apparent the increase in BPA Tier-2
and NR rates can be directly correlated with the rapidly increasing
`cost of reliability' on the Northwest power grid.
Northwest Power Grid Reliability Concerns
Over the years BPUD has been actively engaged in trying to help
shape clean energy policies. We have invested significant time and
money to help policy makers better understand electric utility
perspectives when it comes to balancing environmental costs and
benefits associated with different types of generating technologies
with financial costs and power grid reliability.
Through our membership in the Public Generating Pool (PGP) BPUD
along with other consumer-owned utilities with generation assets helped
fund and produce a study released in 2019 by E3 (Energy+Environmental
Economics) titled ``2019 Resource Adequacy in the Pacific Northwest''.
This study was also funded by investor-owned utility partners Avista
Corp., Puget Sound Energy and NorthWestern Energy.
When it comes to Northwest power grid reliability in the near to
mid-term, it's all about the impacts of coal plant retirements which
will top 4,000 megawatts by 2025. While this is consequential by
itself, Washington and Oregon clean energy policies have taken 60%
cleaner burning natural gas off the table as a logical replacement of
coal, which means keeping the grid reliable becomes far more difficult
and that hydropower will be relied upon more than ever to `keep the
lights on'.
While coal and natural gas have historically represented about one-
third of the nameplate generating capacity in the expanded Northwest
power grid footprint, they have provided about 50% of the effective
capacity; see Attachment Slide 5. Effective capacity is how much
electricity generation can be counted on when demand is at its highest
levels which of course happens during early morning and late evening
hours on the coldest days of the year, and in the early evening hours
on the hottest days.
SLIDE 5
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
So, while the Northwest is best known for abundant hydropower
when it comes to annual energy, the importance of coal and natural gas
to grid reliability should not be underestimated. And the intermittency
and variability of wind and solar power which are being strongly
promoted by federal and state policies as replacements for coal and
natural gas is not just an inconvenience, it can be the difference
between a reliable power grid and black outs.
The E3 Resource Adequacy study refers to a metric called Effective
Load Carrying Capability (ELCC) which is used in the electricity
industry to quantify the additional load (electricity demand) that can
be met by an incremental generator while maintaining the same level of
system reliability. Equivalently, ELCC is a measure of `perfect
capacity' that could be replaced or avoided with dispatch-limited
resources such as wind, solar, energy storage, or demand response.
For the Northwest power grid in place in 2018, the E3 Resource
Adequacy study determined the effective capacity of thermal plants like
natural gas, coal and nuclear to be 100%; see Attachment Slide 5. As a
variable generating technology, hydropower with over 35,000 megawatts
(MW) of nameplate capacity delivers an effective capacity of 53% due to
limits on water storage and flows as well as generating unit
availability. And the ELCC of the 7,100 and 1,600 MW of wind and solar
power was calculated to be 7% and 12% respectively.
This means despite investments in thousands of megawatts of wind
and solar `nameplate' capacity, they are only expected to contribute
500 MW and 200 MW of effective capacity respectively which is what
counts most when planning for power grid reliability. The extremely low
ELCC of wind is a function of the simple observed reality that high
electricity demand events in the Northwest tend to occur during the
wintertime when historically there is little wind blowing. Further, the
E3 study states ``existing NW wind is almost entirely located within
the Columbia River Gorge which tends to have very low wind output
during the high-pressure weather systems associated with the Greater
Northwest cold snaps that drive peak load events''. Wind ELCC in the
Northwest can be improved by building more wind farms across a larger
geographical area, particularly in Montana and Wyoming. But even the
Southwest Power Pool regional transmission operator (RTO) covering
states from Canada to northern Texas with the best wind resources in
the United States only has average Summer and Winter Wind ELCC of 15%
and 16% respectively.
In addition to effective capacity, it is critical to understand the
scale of energy supply and demand, and how much we rely on each type of
generating technology for both capacity and energy. Electricity is a
just-in-time service where the unforgiving laws of power grid physics
requires the supply of electricity to precisely match demand on a
minute-by-minute basis. And controllable technologies like hydropower
and natural gas are best suited for the balancing act.
To help better understand the distinction between energy and
capacity, consider the expanded Northwest power grid which extends into
Eastern Montana, Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado; see Attachment Slide 6.
Each circle on the map represents a Balancing Area Authority (BAA)
which are entities responsible for maintaining the precise balance of
supply (generation) and demand (electrical load) for a collection of
generating plants and a load service region. And each line on the map
represents transmission lines connecting the various BAA's together
which allows scheduled generation imports and exports and a high level
of operational coordination. Coordinated operations over a large
geographical area allows BAA's to share generating plant surpluses,
cover unplanned outages of power plants and transmission lines, and
take advantage of time and weather based load diversity.
SLIDE 6
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
To really appreciate the importance of hydropower and thermal
generation resources to power grid reliability in the Northwest it's
helpful to review data and graphs from actual grid operations like what
is shown on Attachment Slides 7 and 8. Slide 7 illustrates the
magnitude and shape of electricity demand in the expanded Northwest
power grid during a cold and snowy week in February 2021. In synch with
the `rhythm of life', electricity demand rises and falls as people wake
up and go to sleep and try to stay warm as they go about their daily
lives. It can be seen the total electricity demand reaches a level of
just over 50,000 MW with two daily peaks coinciding with early morning
and late evening heating demand.
SLIDES 7 and 8
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Slide 8 shows the controlled output of hydropower doing the
bulk of `load following' and supplying as much as 23,000 MW to meet
demand. Natural gas is also doing a bit of load following as indicated
by the shape of its production curve. Coal power which is running
mostly steady combines with natural gas to supply as much as 25,000 MW
to meet 50% of demand on the coldest days. And of course, the Columbia
Generating Station nuclear plant is providing an around the clock and
constant 1,150 MW.
Slide 8 also illustrates how wind and solar power's inability to
produce electricity in a controllable pattern matching customer demand
makes these generating resources look like `negative demand' in a get-
what-you-get pattern not correlated to the demand curve shape.
Referring to Slide 7 it's important to recognize the shape of the
`power curve' must be matched precisely and that the area under the
curve is power over time which represents energy. So, wind and solar
can be overbuilt to provide large amounts of energy and increase the
probability they will fill in more area under the curve. But the
question is how extensive will and should the overbuild be to achieve
an adequate level of effective capacity? Particularly when you consider
land-use impacts, and that overbuilding can lead to the need to curtail
wind and solar during times of low electricity demand. And replacing a
large share of controllable technologies like natural gas or hydropower
with wind and solar requires many multiplies of up-front capital costs
which translates to increases in prices utilities will have to charge
their customers for reliability.
Now with a better understanding of power grid operations and the
dynamics of supply and demand balancing, the graph in the lower right
corner of Attachment Slide 4 highlighting the benefits of the LSRD can
be appreciated even more. This graph illustrates the flexibility of
LSRD operations and how their wide range of possible hourly generation
can be used to help precisely follow demand. The graph also shows the
LSRD can produce as much as 2,500 MW of capacity and why BPA assigns as
much as 25% of their operating reserve requirements to these dams. This
is also why `blackout insurance' is an apt description of the operating
capability provided by the LSRD.
The Waning Northwest Economic Development Advantage
In recent years and months, the Tri-Cities area of Washington like
many cities in the Northwest is increasingly on the radar of companies
looking for communities to bring new industries and jobs. The kind of
jobs that include good wages and benefits and that offer stable, multi-
generational employment opportunities. There are a lot of reasons to
love the diverse communities in the Northwest but when it comes to
electricity intensive industry and manufacturing, they are being
attracted here in large part based on the reputation the Northwest has
for abundant and inexpensive hydropower. And while low-cost electricity
has been the economic engine of the northwest for decades, times are
changing, and not for the better when it comes to the possibility of
electricity-intensive development in many communities.
As previously mentioned, power markets have recently taken a turn
in the direction of significantly higher prices which is illustrated on
Attachment Slide 9. Dramatic forward price increases in the Mid-C power
market which is the central trading hub on the Northwest grid are
indications of the impact rapid coal plant retirements with no plans
for replacement with dependable technologies are beginning to have.
Slide 9 illustrates what a utility should expect to pay to secure a
year's worth of firm electricity on a calendar-year basis (calendar
strip) compared to BPA rates. ``Peak'' includes the hours between 6 am
to 10 pm (Heavy Load Hours) on weekdays and Saturdays and ``Off Peak''
are all other hours including Sundays and holidays (Light Load Hours).
SLIDE 9
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
While Northwest electric utility retail rates are currently
some of the lowest in the nation, the near-term prospects for adding
large amounts of incremental electricity demand at `reasonable rates'
using market purchases are bleak.
And for utilities with existing or emerging electricity deficits on
a seasonal basis, Attachment Slide 10 provides an additional indication
of the `cost of reliability' with 2024 forward Q3 (summer) and Q1/Q4
(fall/winter) reaching Peak prices of more than $150 per MWh and $90
per MWh respectively. As important as the magnitude of these prices, is
the slope of the curves and high rate of change of prices that began in
the spring of 2021. Using January 2021 when a Q3 forward was priced at
$45 per MWh as a basis, there has been a more than 330% increase in
2024 Peak Quarterly prices over a two-and-a-half-year period.
SLIDE 10
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
As alarming as current forward price curves are, market-based
electricity does not represent the only way for Northwest utilities to
meet growing demand. Of course, utilities can elect to build their own
generation (which is no small thing) or purchase power from new wind
and solar farms proposed for development in the Northwest. The
challenge is how do you `firm' the intermittent and variable output of
wind and solar into the future when natural gas is facing punitive
financial penalties and firm hydropower is at or close to its limits
and faces the possibility of being further diminished?
Firming with energy (battery) storage is a popular idea with some
politicians and wind and solar developers. But batteries cost billions
of dollars at the scales that would be needed, and current lithium-ion
technology has significant operational limitations with only a four-to-
six-hour discharge capability. And there is always the question of what
you will charge the batteries with? Particularly as the Northwest grid
deepens its dependence on wind and solar power and we experience multi-
day cold spells that are also windless and cloudy.
As was addressed earlier, surplus hydro can provide large amounts
of energy depending on the year but firming variable wind and solar
with variable hydro that may not show up is becoming increasingly
risky, both financially and physically.
While it remains to be seen where Mid-C prices will end up, the
simple fact is certainty in electricity generation equates to
predictable and more stable electricity rates. And high levels of
certainty are not what we are likely to get with the construction of
more wind and solar farms in the Northwest and further erosion of
hydropower.
Conclusions
Reliable electricity is critical to every aspect of modern human
living, including food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and education.
When you think about it, electric utilities are really in the health,
safety, and wellbeing business.
And while customers and policy makers rightly engage in holding
utilities accountable for providing affordable and environmentally
responsible electricity, when it comes to delivering on reliability,
there is nobody with more skin in the game than utilities. Failure to
`keep the lights on' can be a matter of life and death and will always
be the metric by which utilities will receive their harshest critiques
and ultimate judgments.
Washington and Oregon clean energy policies have boxed many
Northwest utilities into a corner by taking reliable technologies off
the table before we have dependable replacements. To compound the
problem, the political leadership in both states are actively
advocating for the diminishment of hydropower through excessive spill
and in the case of the Lower Snake River Dams, outright removal.
Aggressive clean energy polices with prohibitions and restrictions
on fossil-fuel technologies are rapidly removing reliable generating
technologies from the Northwest grid. And in the Northwest, the perfect
balancing of supply and demand required by the unforgiving laws of grid
physics will fall more and more on hydropower. At this point, many
utilities have nowhere else to turn for proven, dependable, and
sustainable generating capacity. The kind of capacity that can be
counted on to show up on the hottest and coldest days of the year.
When it comes to grid reliability, hydropower is to the Northwest
as natural gas is to California and most of the rest of the United
States. Based on sound scientific analysis and common sense, many
utilities are unconvinced that widespread development of energy-dilute
and variable wind and solar backed up by expensive and potentially
unsustainable battery storage is a reasonable or even achievable vision
for the power grid of the future.
Northwest utilities are already facing tremendous uncertainty with
many deeply concerned we could be heading for a reliability cliff.
Thankfully Hydropower is standing in the growing effective capacity gap
for now, but the Northwest grid cannot afford to see a further erosion
of its capabilities. Particularly if the levels of electrification of
transportation and natural gas end uses envisioned by some state and
federal policy makers happens, either in part or to a large degree.
One frustrating irony is that some of the same entities who helped
convince policy makers to back utilities into a corner and force a
deeper dependence on wind and solar power are continuing to cavalierly
call for the erosion and outright removal of carbon free hydroelectric
generating capacity. The very hydropower on which Washington and
Oregon's 100% clean aspirational visions and bragging rights were
established. And rather than celebrating our existing nation leading
clean energy capabilities, anti-hydropower interests are attempting to
capitalize on a shift in political power together with emotionally
charged arguments and opinions to weaken support for hydropower while
falsely promoting wind and solar technologies as environmentally benign
replacements.
The industrialization of natural landscapes, ecological disruption
and volumetric waste challenges that would be the result of replacing
diminished hydro generation with wind and solar power never seem to be
a part of the anti-dam conversation and they should be. Clearly dams
have significant environmental and ecological impacts and it is right
to continuously scrutinize and scientifically evaluate their
operations. What is not right is to proclaim an unwavering commitment
to science when it suits narrow ideological interests while being
willfully blind to the fact all energy conversion technologies have
limitations and life cycle impacts that should be considered in a
balanced costs versus benefits analysis.
Policy makers and utilities also need to face the emerging reality
that clean energy policies with strong preferences for wind and solar
power are likely to face land use conflicts and supply chain
constraints as significant limiting factors. And that this project
development `friction' and uncertainty could contribute to a growing
fragility of the Northwest power grid as the scheduled rapid retirement
of coal-fired power plants proceeds as planned and the strategy to
overbuild wind and solar projects faces the prospect of project
development gridlock in some areas.
This same uncertainty will likely be amplified further when you
consider the potential pushback by citizens and agencies representing
Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming; states that continue to be identified by
Washington and Oregon policy makers as essential to the wind, solar and
transmission line development necessary for achieving their aggressive
clean energy goals. To reinforce this point, in a January 2023 work
session with the Senate Environment, Energy & Technology Committee,
Washington state energy officials confirmed they expect 43% of
electricity will be imported into the state by 2050 and that 36% will
come from Wyoming and Montana wind farms.
To gain additional perspective, the Washington state energy
strategy (SES) indicates a near doubling of electricity consumption
will be required by 2050 to significantly decarbonize the
transportation sector and natural gas end uses. Given Washington's
annual electrical energy consumption was recently 10,700 aMW, the SES
vision would require more than 35,000 megawatts of wind power or more
than 42,000 megawatts of Washington based solar power to generate an
equivalent amount of annual energy.
Of course, no single technology is being proposed as a solution but
when you consider wind farms on average require about 140 square miles
of land for every 1,000 megawatts of installed capacity, a land area
equivalent to sixty Seattle's would have to be covered with industrial
wind turbines to achieve just the incremental energy envisioned by
Washington's SES. And when you consider the overbuild required to make
up for the deficient ELCC of wind, the build out is clearly infeasible.
As philosopher and energy expert Alex Epstein has stated ``energy
is the industry that powers every other industry. The lower cost energy
is, the lower cost everything is.'' Energy costs in Washington state
are trending upward with some of the highest priced gasoline in the
nation and carbon policies which will increase the cost of natural gas
as well. As Washington state attempts to transition away from fossil
fuels, the cost of transportation, groceries and other essentials are
likely to increase making less money available for other expenses.
Washington's goals to electrify transportation and natural gas end uses
will increase demand for electricity, requiring unprecedented capital
investments resulting in significant upward pressure on electricity
rates. Keeping electricity affordable in Washington will be more
critical than ever and more difficult than ever.
The availability of affordable and reliable electricity provided by
BPA hydropower has been treated as a certainty for decades. BPUD
customers (particularly those in lower income categories) have adapted
their lives and budgets consistent with these expectations to be sure
their lights stay on, and they are protected from extreme heat and
cold. While we don't think about it much in the U.S., it is clear from
a global perspective that energy poverty is human poverty. And I fear
low income and vulnerable populations in the Northwest may be in for a
very difficult time in the years to come if we continue down the path
we are on. Every dollar counts for many of BPUD's customers. And as a
consumer-owned utility our customers expect us to hold the line on
electricity rates and they always hold us responsible when the lights
go out.
______
[Applause.]
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Dunn.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Michelle Hennings, the
Executive Director of the Washington Wheat Growers Authority in
Ritzville, Washington, for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MICHELLE HENNINGS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON
ASSOCIATION OF WHEAT GROWERS, RITZVILLE, WASHINGTON
Ms. Hennings. Chairman Bentz, thank you for the opportunity
to testify today. My name is Michelle Hennings, and I am the
Executive Director of the Washington Association of Wheat
Growers. I am speaking today on behalf of Washington wheat
growers and personally as a wheat farmer from eastern
Washington.
The Washington Association of Wheat Growers represents over
4,000 producers across the state of Washington who rely on the
Columbia Snake River System, and the Lower Snake River dams in
particular, for their livelihoods.
Washington is the fourth-largest agricultural exporter of
wheat in the nation, and in the top 20 for overall exports of
agricultural goods. Washington's agriculture industry, and its
ability to produce and export products globally, are critical
to the state's economy. A significant volume of food and
agriculture products from other states, including soybeans,
wheat, and corn, are exported through Washington state ports
each year. Once these pass-through exports are combined with
Washington-grown or processed exports, the total value reaches
over $23 billion.
Farmers, including myself and my family, rely on barge
transportation to ship goods to market. Not only is the Snake
River System critical for Washington State, but farmers across
the country rely on its transportation benefits as well. In
fact, more than 60 percent of all U.S. wheat exports move
through the Columbia Snake River system. Specifically, 10
percent of wheat that is exported from the United States passes
through the four locks and dams along the Lower Snake River.
Any disruption to the Lower Snake River System could hurt
existing relationships with trade partners. Over the last
several decades, our industry has built relationships with
customers around the world, using our world-class inland
waterways infrastructure to safely and efficiently move Ag
products. Breaching the dams could significantly hurt our
ability to consistently provide a cost-competitive, high-value
food product compared to our competitors in Canada, Australia,
Russia, and elsewhere.
Droughts affect the state's agricultural production and
have become more frequent in recent years. As a result,
irrigation is necessary for the production of most crops,
especially east of the Cascades. In fact, the local Natural
Resource Conservation Service office estimates over 50,000
acres of land are irrigated from the reservoirs created by the
four Lower Snake River dams. In addition, even in places with
high rainfall, such as western Washington, irrigation still
serves a critical purpose as the majority of the precipitation
occurs in the winter months, and summers tend to be drier.
While there have been claims that benefits from the dams
can be replaced, the bottom line is there is insufficient
alternative transportation infrastructure to replace the barge
shipment of wheat in the Pacific Northwest region to export
markets. In addition to insufficient railroad infrastructure,
ongoing operational and service issues continue to restrict
existing shipping capacity by rail.
It is also important to note, barges are 30 percent more
fuel efficient than rail and 78 percent more efficient than
trucks. Additionally, barges are the only mode of
transportation out of those three to improve fuel efficiency
consistently, based on a National Waterways Foundation study.
While Washington wheat growers strongly oppose breaching
the four Lower Snake River dams, it is important to understand
that we strongly support efforts to ensure the long-term health
of salmon populations. As there is no definitive science behind
dam breaching being a ``silver bullet'' solution for salmon
recovery, we believe that state and Federal efforts would be
better focused on building upon efforts proven to positively
impact salmon populations. More specifically, we support
investments made at the Federal and state level including fish
habitat restoration, toxin reduction, predator abatement, and
expanding the state-of-the-art fish passages that these dams
already have, instead of eliminating them. This is the kind of
real work and investment of tax dollars that is needed to help
our salmon and our region survive and thrive.
For the younger generation hoping to start or takeover a
family-owned farm, the benefits provided by the dams,
especially the irrigation and transportation benefits, are
critical to the economic viability of the business. If the dams
were to be breached, the higher transportation costs could
drive many family farms out of business.
The importance of the Columbia Snake River System for the
agriculture industry as a whole, and in particular for wheat
growers across Washington, cannot be overstated. I look forward
to discussing the importance of the four Lower Snake River dams
with you today. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hennings follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michelle Hennings, Executive Director, Washington
Association of Wheat Growers
Chairman Bentz, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My
name is Michelle Hennings, and I am the Executive Director of the
Washington Association of Wheat Growers. I am speaking today on behalf
of Washington wheat growers and personally as a wheat farmer from
eastern Washington.
The Washington Association of Wheat Growers represents over 4,000
producers across the state of Washington who rely on the Columbia Snake
River System, and the Lower Snake River Dams in particular, for their
livelihoods.
Washington is the fourth-largest agricultural exporter of wheat in
the nation, and in the top 20 for overall exports of agricultural
goods.\1\ Washington's agriculture industry, and its ability to produce
and export products globally, are critical to the state's economy. A
significant volume of food and agriculture products from other states
including soybeans, wheat, and corn are exported through Washington
state ports each year. Once these pass-through exports are combined
with Washington-grown or processed exports, the total value reaches
over $23 billion.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Annual State Agricultural Exports Interactive Chart. USDA ERS--
Annual State Agricultural Exports. (n.d.). https://www.ers.usda.gov/
data-products/state-agricultural-trade-data/annual-state-agricultural-
exports/
\2\ Exports statistics. Statistics/Washington State Department of
Agriculture. (2022). https://agr.wa.gov/departments/business-and-
marketing-support/international/statistics
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farmers, including myself and my family, rely on barge
transportation to ship goods to market. Not only is the Snake River
System critical for Washington state, but farmers across the country
rely on its transportation benefits as well. In fact, more than 55
percent of all U.S. wheat exports move through the Columbia Snake River
system. Specifically, 10 percent of wheat that is exported from the
United States passes through the four locks and dams along the Lower
Snake River.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Facts about U.S. wheat exports and the Columbia Snake River
system. U.S. Wheat Associates. (2022, March 15). https://
www.uswheat.org/wheatletter/facts-about-u-s-wheat-exports-and-the-
columbia-snake-river-system/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any disruption to the Lower Snake River System could hurt existing
relationships with trade partners. Over the last several decades, our
industry has worked to build relationships with customers around the
world, using our world class inland waterways infrastructure to safely
and efficiently move agricultural products. Breaching the dams could
significantly hurt our ability to consistently provide a cost-
competitive, high value food product compared to our competitors in
Canada, Australia, Russia, and elsewhere.
Droughts affect the state's agricultural production and have become
more frequent in recent years. As a result, irrigation is necessary for
the production of most crops, especially east of the Cascades. In fact,
the local Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) office estimates
over 50,000 acres of land are irrigated from the reservoirs created by
the four Lower Snake River Dams.\4\ In addition, even in in places with
high rainfall, such as western Washington, irrigation still serves a
critical purpose as the majority of the precipitation occurs in the
winter months and summers tend to be dryer.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ US Army Corps of Engineers. (n.d.). Water Supply. https://
www.nww.usace.army.mil/Portals/28/docs/library/2002%20LSR%20study/
DREW%20Products/water_supply.pdf?ver=2019-06-19-164 751-430
\5\ Water management: Food systems: Washington State University.
Food Systems. (n.d.). https://foodsystems.wsu.edu/ecological-soil-
management/water-management-2/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While there have been claims that benefits from the dams can be
replaced, the bottom line is there is insufficient alternative
transportation infrastructure to replace the barge shipment of wheat in
the Pacific Northwest (PNW) region to export markets. In addition to
insufficient railroad infrastructure, ongoing operational and service
issues continue to restrict existing shipping capacity by rail.
It's also important to note, barges are 30 percent more fuel
efficient than rail and 78 percent more efficient than trucks.\6\
Additionally, barges are the only mode of transportation out of those
three to improve fuel efficiency consistently, based on a National
Waterways Foundation study.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ National Waterways Foundation. (n.d.). Waterways: Better for
the Environment, Better for Communities. National Waterways Foundation.
https://nationalwaterwaysfoundation.org/about/
ourmission#:?:text=Barges%3A%20Most%20Fuel%20Efficient,a%20single%20gall
on%20of%20 fuel.
\7\ Center for Ports and Waterways, & Texas A&M Transportation
Institute. (2022, January). National Waterways Foundation. A Modal
Comparison of Domestic Freight Transportation Effects on the General
Public: 2001-2019. https://nationalwaterwaysfoundation.org/file/28/
tti%202022%20final%20report%202001-2019%201.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While Washington wheat growers strongly oppose breaching the four
Lower Snake River Dams, it is important to understand that we strongly
support efforts to ensure the long-term health of salmon populations.
As there is no definitive science behind dam breaching being a ``silver
bullet'' solution for salmon recovery, we believe that state and
federal efforts would be better focused on building upon efforts proven
to positively impact salmon populations. More specifically, we support
investments made at the federal and state level including fish habitat
restoration, toxin reduction, predator abatement, and expanding the
state-of-the-art fish passages that these dams already have, instead of
eliminating them. This is the kind of real work and investment of tax
dollars that is needed to help our salmon and our region survive and
thrive.
For the younger generation hoping to start or takeover a family-
owned farm, the benefits provided by the dams, especially the
irrigation and transportation benefits, are critical to the economic
viability of the business. If the dams were to be breached, the higher
transportation costs could drive many family farms out of business.
The importance of the Columbia Snake River System for the
agriculture industry as a whole, and in particular for wheat growers
across Washington, cannot be overstated. I look forward to discussing
the importance of the four Lower Snake River Dams with you today. Thank
you.
______
[Applause.]
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Ms. Hennings.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Alex McGregor, President of
the McGregor Company in Colfax, Washington, for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ALEX McGREGOR, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
THE McGREGOR COMPANY, COLFAX, WASHINGTON
Mr. McGregor. Thank you. Chairman Bentz, members of the
House Natural Resources Committee, members of the Western
Caucus, and honorable Members of Congress, good afternoon,
friends.
The Inland Pacific Northwest is an agricultural cornucopia.
Ninety percent of Washington wheat heads for export annually.
The river terminals that line this gateway handle more of it
than any other gateway in the United States. Representative
Newhouse reminds audiences that if you have had French fries
anywhere on the globe they were likely put in the ground here
and processed here.
More than $8 billion of grown or processed food is exported
from Washington alone. That was in 2022.
A marine superhighway, this Columbia Snake River System,
authorized by the U.S. Congress, is a keystone to the efficient
transport network upon which so very much depends. Exchange an
efficient low-carbon, timely transport system with some kind of
makeshift alternative added to an already overburdened road and
rail system, and you have cooked up a recipe for trouble.
Shipments must be timely. Delays are harmful to millers
across the Pacific, with orders to fill and hungry people who
depend upon us. Sixty percent of U.S. wheat bound for export
goes through our river system, 50 percent of wheat for
international food programs, 100 percent of U.S. wheat to war-
ravaged Yemen.
Joe Anderson, a Palouse country grower and Port of Lewiston
Commissioner, states that, ``Thanks to the river system,
farmers can now load a barge and have it transferred for export
in Portland in as little as 2 days.'' Compare that, friends, to
rail, which struggled mightily last year, with more than
142,000 shipments delayed 11 days or more across the nation
during the first quarter alone. Nor can growers wait for
fertilizer deliveries when crops must be nourished and seeded,
and delays cost yield potential for the next harvest.
Last year, we were stunned when fertilizer manufacturers,
upon who we depend, were told by the Union Pacific to cut
shipments 20 percent, warning that ``non-compliance'' would
result ``in the embargo of its facilities.'' Then-Deputy
Agriculture Secretary Jewel Bronaugh told the Surface
Transportation Board of poor service and unreasonable rates
from the big outfits. As she put it, ``Farmers struggle to make
ends meet, consumers pay higher prices at the grocery store,
and the United States becomes less competitive on the global
market.'' Last month, Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack stated rail
service ``remains inadequate and unreliable for many
agricultural shippers.''
What about trucks? If we tried to jam millions of tons more
cargo into trucks when the National Highway Transportation
Administration warns that fatal crashes have already reached a
crisis level, we would clog the I-84 freeway to Portland and
fill the skies of the Columbia River Gorge Scenic Byway with
diesel smoke en route. We could not find drivers anyway. They
are chronically short, regionally and nationally.
Meanwhile, NOAA Fisheries warns of a horrendous situation,
the potential for 90 percent losses of salmon and steelhead at
sea. It is ``the reality of where we are right now, with the
amount of CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere,''
Fisheries ecologist Lisa Crozier states.
Dismantling marine transport would make it worse. Tugs and
barges produce 86 percent less hydrocarbons than trucks, 80
percent less than rail, 95 percent less nitrous oxide than
trucks, 71 percent less than rail.
Instead of breaching dams, Crozier suggests the goal should
be for people to come together and look for holistic solutions.
By working together we can make real and lasting progress,
improving prospects for salmon without endangering livelihoods,
our economy, and the world-class crops that we must transport
to feed a hungry nation and the world.
We believe that pulling together we can have healthy rivers
and a healthy economy, and friends, we should accept nothing
less. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McGregor follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alex McGregor, Chairman, The McGregor Company
Pulling Together, We Can Have Healthy Rivers and A Healthy Economy
Good afternoon. I'm Alex McGregor, chairman of The McGregor
Company, an agricultural retailer, and managing partner of McGregor
Land and Livestock, a wheat and livestock ranch now celebrating its
140th year.
The Inland Pacific Northwest is an agricultural cornucopia. From
rolling hills of wheat to arid lowlands transformed with the waters of
the Columbia and Snake into bountiful and diverse crops, we play a
vital role in feeding the nation and the world. People around the globe
have depended on the crops we grow for a very long time--since 1868
when the first British ship left Portland headed for Liverpool with a
full load of flour and grain. Within three decades 136 vessels left our
gateway in a single year, with more than 32 million bushels of wheat
onboard, headed for the United Kingdom, San Francisco and Los Angeles
but with markets across the Pacific, particularly Japan and China,
starting to dominate.
No wonder that the Northwest economy is more trade-dependent per
capita than any other region. Ninety percent of Washington wheat heads
for export annually--the river terminals that line this gateway handle
more of it than any other port in the nation. Representative Newhouse
reminds audiences that if you've had French fries anywhere on the
globe, they likely got their start in our irrigated fields here. More
than $8 billion in grown or processed food exports in Washington alone
in 2022.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://agr.wa.gov/departments/business-and-marketing-support/
international/statistics
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A maritime superhighway, the Columbia-Snake River System,
authorized by the U.S. Congress, is a keystone to the efficient
transport network upon which so much depends. The exports from this
state are but part of the picture--an additional $14 billion of wheat,
soybeans (#2 gateway in the nation for them), corn and much more
arrives here from states across the northern tier and the Midwest.
Closer to home, tugboat companies ship over eight million tons of
cargo--not only grain but many other products like ethanol in double-
hulled barges to Portland, refined liquid products up and down the
river, wood chips, paper, wind turbine blades, even municipal solid
waste from our urban neighbors is river-bound. Exchange an efficient,
low carbon, timely transport system with some sort of makeshift
alternative added to an already over-burdened road and rail network--
and you've cooked a recipe for trouble. And more than 30,000 visitors
annually are transported by cruise lines--an economic shot in the arm
for many communities that would likely cease without the dams.
Like thousands of other wheat growers, my family trucks our grain
to lower Snake River terminals. Shipments must be timely, delays
harmful to millers across the Pacific, with orders to fill, and hungry
people who depend upon us--60% of U.S. wheat bound for export leaves
our river docks, 50% of wheat for international food programs, 100% of
U.S. wheat for war-ravaged Yemen. Joe Anderson, a Palouse country
grower and Port of Lewiston Commissioner, states that ``Thanks to the
river system, farmers can now load a barge and have it transferred for
export in Portland in as little as two days.'' Compare that to rail,
which struggled mightily last year, with more than 142,000 shipments
delayed eleven days or more across the nation during the first quarter
alone. The National Grain and Feed Association said its members who
depend upon rail ``have had to shut down mills or cut off sales because
they have run out of grain while awaiting deliveries.''
Nor can growers wait for fertilizer deliveries when crops must be
nourished and seeded and delays cost yield potential for the next
harvest. My family business, in the peak of busy season last fall with
supplies tight, called for 4.5 million more gallons of liquid
fertilizer, on short notice, for farm families who needed it right
away--barges and tugs were the only hope, and they came through for us.
While we ship by rail, too, we were stunned when fertilizer
manufacturers upon whom we depend were told by the Union Pacific to cut
their shipments by 20%--warning that ``non-compliance'' would result
``in the embargo of its facilities.'' \2\ The railroad also notified
shippers it was parking some of its own rail cars on sidings, taking
them out of service until demand slackened. Former Deputy Secretary of
Agriculture Jewel Bronaugh told the Surface Transportation Board \3\ of
poor service and unreasonable rates from the big outfits: ``Farmers
struggle to make ends meet, consumers pay higher prices at the grocery
store and the United States becomes less competitive on the global
market.'' Last month Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack thanked the STB for
cracking down on embargoes but stated rail service ``remains inadequate
and unreliable for many agricultural shippers.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.cfindustries.com/newsroom/2022/union-pacific-
shipping-restrictions
\3\ Surface Transportation Board Docket No. EP 770, April 26, 2022
\4\ USDA AMS Secretary Vilsack Letter on Rail Service Issues, May
12, 2023
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What about trucks? From the lower Snake River grain terminals to
Pasco would require 150,000 semi-tractors annually, 411 trucks per day,
to haul the grain now shipped by barge. The notion that drivers would
be told to stop in the Tri-Cities, then unload onto a barge, as dam
opponents have suggested, defies logic. Studies of Northwest rail, the
Washington Grain Train strategic plan and railroaders themselves agree
that they're not much interested--unit trains and long hauls, the
longer the better, pay the bills. Load that grain onto a truck in
Lewiston and on that truck it will stay all the way to our ocean ports.
And if we tried to jam millions of tons more cargo onto trucks when the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration warns of crashes at a
``crisis level,'' \5\ we'd clog the I-84 freeway to Portland and fill
the skies of the Columbia River Gorge Scenic Byway with diesel smoke
enroute. We couldn't find drivers anyway--they're chronically in short
supply regionally and nationally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/early-estimate-2021-
traffic-fatalities
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile NOAA Fisheries warns of a ``horrendous situation''--the
potential for 90% losses of salmon and steelhead at sea: ``The reality
of where we are right now with the amount of CO2 we are
pumping into the atmosphere,'' fisheries ecologist Lisa Crozier states.
A situation we'd only make worse if we allowed our dams to be breached
and our barges and tugs left parked on a mud bank--EPA's Emissions
Control Laboratory studies show river shipping produces 86% less
hydrocarbons than trucks, 80% less than rail, 95% less nitrous oxide
than trucks, 71% less than rail.
Time to get out of the courthouse, after two decades, and get with
the real world of helping our iconic Northwest fish. As Crozier puts
it, ``The goal is for people to come together and look for holistic
solutions.'' By working together, we can make real and lasting progress
improving prospects for salmon without endangering livelihoods, our
economy, and the world class crops we must transport to a hungry nation
and the world. We believe that, pulling together, we can have healthy
rivers and a healthy economy. We should accept nothing less.
______
[Applause.]
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. McGregor.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Todd Myers, Environmental
Director for Washington Policy Center in Cle Elum, Washington,
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF TODD MYERS, ENVIRONMENTAL DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON
POLICY CENTER, CLE ELUM, WASHINGTON
Mr. Myers. Good afternoon. My name is Todd Myers, and I am
the Environmental Director at the Washington Policy Center. I
worked previously at the Washington State Department of Natural
Resources when the state implemented the landmark Forests and
Fish rules that created new protections for salmon streams to
keep them cool. And I am currently a member of the Puget Sound
Salmon Recovery Council, which makes me a salmon recovery
counselor.
To understand the controversy about the Snake River, it is
important to understand the current state of salmon runs.
Seattle Times recently noted that the state and tribes have
invested millions to raise hatchery fish, restore critical
habitat, keep rivers cool, and clean up industrial agricultural
pollution. Yet, the efforts have not been enough to keep the
river open to fishing this summer. The story, however, was not
about the Snake River but the Snohomish River in western
Washington, where there are no dams.
The unfortunate reality is that salmon across the Pacific
Northwest are struggling. A recent assessment by NOAA Fisheries
found that the Chinook populations in the Puget Sound actually
declined between 2004 and 2019. The Washington State of Salmon
in Watersheds report notes that salmon populations across the
state are not improving, including Puget Sound, the Snake
River, the Lower Columbia, and elsewhere.
Although they are struggling, claims that the Snake River
salmon are on the edge of extinction have repeatedly been
incorrect. Just 2 years ago, dam opponents wrote in the Spokane
Spokesman-Review, ``Imagine Snake River without any salmon.''
Dam opponents claim that starting in 2019, wild Chinook
populations would steadily decline and be ``functionally
extinct'' by 2025. The dam opponents have been wrong. For all
Chinook, 2022 was the third year in a row of increases and the
fifth-highest returns since 2000. Despite the predictions that
they would decline, wild Chinook returns more than doubled last
year.
In spite of this real-world data, hyperbole and the slow
pace of recovery has created frustration for salmon advocates,
including me. The frustration is becoming counterproductive,
however, leading some to grasp at silver-bullet solutions
rather than focus on a region-wide, science-based approach that
is the most likely path to increasing salmon populations.
Spending $35 billion, or more, to destroy the four Lower Snake
River dams would be counterproductive, not just for the
climate, energy reliability, and the economy, but for salmon,
by misallocating resources that could do so much good across
the region and distracting from many more immediate and
critical challenges faced by salmon. Lack of quality habitat,
high water temperatures, predation by seals and sea lions,
ocean conditions, and pollution all make increasing salmon
populations difficult.
Dams play a role in that list of impacts on salmon, but the
Snake's impact is limited. Between 96 and 98 percent of young
salmon traveling downstream when they are most vulnerable
successfully pass each dam. Spending tens of billions for such
a small theoretical increase in survival is a dubious
investment.
This is one reason the largest-ever scientific study of the
impact of the dams, completed by Federal scientific agencies,
determined that the dams should not be removed. Some who want
to destroy the Snake River dams point to the removal of two
dams on the Elwha River in Washington State. The dams have been
gone for a decade, but the Chinook run in 2022 was actually
below the 10-year average, and about 95 percent of Elwha
Chinook are still hatchery fish. Dam removal simply is not a
silver bullet.
Some have expressed concern about the impact the dams have
on river temperatures. Salmon are cold water fish, and warm
temperatures is an area of concern. But the salmon stock most
in jeopardy, the spring and summer Chinook, typically travel
downstream and then return when river temperatures are below
the 68-degree threshold considered to be the danger zone for
salmon. By way of contrast, the fall Chinook, which are
approaching recovery goals, are exposed to the higher
temperatures.
Despite that, some dam opponents cite an EPA model from
2003, to claim river temperatures are being significantly
increased by the dams. To test the validity of that model, I
looked at real-world data between 2007 and 2019. The data show
that the maximum temperature increase between the dams is well
below the model's projections. During both the spring and fall
Chinook runs, the temperature increase was relatively small.
Finally, the temperature difference between the dams has
actually declined over the past 15 years as the Corps of
Engineers has successfully found ways to keep the river cool.
Rather than offering money on politically targeted
projects, the State and Federal Governments should increase
funding for science-based salmon recovery. With a long-term
commitment, we can bring salmon back on the Snake and across
the Pacific Northwest. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Myers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Todd Myers, Environmental Director,
Washington Policy Center
My name is Todd Myers, and I am the Environmental Director at the
Washington Policy Center. I have worked in environmental policy for
more than two decades, including work at the Washington State
Department of Natural Resources when the state implemented the landmark
Forests and Fish rules that removed culverts and opened thousands of
miles of fish habitat and created new protections for salmon streams to
keep them cool. I am currently a member of the Puget Sound Salmon
Recovery Council.
Across the Pacific Northwest, including the Snake River, salmon
recovery is going much more slowly than I would like. After decades of
effort, we are missing our salmon recovery goals in every part of the
state and in several places across the Pacific Northwest.
Understandably, this is creating frustration among those of us for who
work on improving salmon populations. I worry, however, that this
frustration is becoming counterproductive--leading some to grasp at
silver bullet solutions rather than focus on a region-wide, science-
based approach that, while slow, is the most likely path to increasing
salmon populations.
Spending $35 billion--or more--to destroy the four Lower Snake
River dams would be counterproductive, not just for the climate, energy
reliability, and the economy, but for salmon by misallocating resources
that could do so much good across the region.
The federal scientific agencies agree. The most comprehensive study
of the impact of the dams ever completed, the Columbia River System
Operations EIS, determined the dams should not be removed. That study
concluded keeping the dams would ``meet the Improve Juvenile Salmon,
Improve Adult Salmon, and Improve Lamprey objectives. According to the
CSS model, Snake River Chinook and steelhead are expected to see
relative improvements in SARs [smolt-to-adult return ratios] of 35% and
28% respectively.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Columbia River System Operators, ``Columbia River System
Operations Final Environmental Impact Statement,'' July 2020, https://
www.nwd.usace.army.mil/CRSO/Final-EIS/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By way of contrast, the report from the Biden Administration
calling for the destruction of the dams stated very clearly that it is
not a scientific document. A note early in the report says, ``This
report does not constitute a regulatory or policy requirement and does
not supersede or modify existing analysis in ESA recovery plans,
viability assessments, 5-year reviews, or ESA consultation documents.
The report also does not assess the impacts of implementing any
rebuilding measures nor suggest funding sources, needed authorizations,
or regulatory compliance measures required for implementation.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ NOAA Fisheries, ``Rebuilding Interior Columbia Basin Salmon and
Steelhead,'' September 30, 2022, Rebuilding Interior Columbia Basin
Salmon and Steelhead / NOAA Fisheries
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That report sets the bar for Snake River recovery at what they call
``mid-range'' population, which they acknowledge ``exceed ESA recovery
abundance thresholds.'' It notes, ``Columbia River salmon and steelhead
abundance remains farm below historical levels.'' This is an
aspirational goal, but no river in the Northwest (or perhaps the
nation) meets this recovery bar. If the goal is set above ESA targets
or at the level of historical abundance, there is little justification
for singling out the Snake River compared to the many other rivers with
poor returns compared to historical levels.
The status of salmon populations and recovery
To understand why the EIS supported keeping the dams and why
focusing on the Snake River dams is counterproductive, it is important
to understand the current state of salmon runs. The Seattle Times
recently noted, ``The state and tribes have invested millions to raise
hatchery fish, restore critical habitat, keep rivers cool and clean up
industrial and agricultural pollution. Yet the efforts haven't been
enough to keep the river open to fishing this summer . . .'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Breda, Isabella, ``Summer Chinook fishing on premier WA rivers
called off as salmon struggle,'' The Seattle Times, June 21, 2023,
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/summer-chinook-
fishing-on-premier-wa-rivers-called-off-as-salmon-struggle/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story wasn't about the Snake River, but the Snohomish River in
Western Washington where there are no dams. While some are fixated on
the status of salmon on the Snake River, the unfortunate reality is
that salmon across the Pacific Northwest are struggling.
For example, a recent assessment by NOAA Fisheries found that
Chinook populations in Puget Sound declined between 2004 and 2019. As
the Washington State report on the State of Salmon in Watersheds notes,
salmon populations across the state are not improving, from Puget Sound
Chinook, to the Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook (but not the Fall
Chinook), Lower Columbia Chinook, as well as runs elsewhere.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office, Governor's
Salmon Recovery Office, ``Salmon Abundance,'' https://
stateofsalmon.wa.gov/statewide-data/salmon/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The challenge Washington and neighboring states face is that
recovery is complex and we have to address numerous factors. Lack of
quality habitat--good estuaries and floodplains or fish barriers like
culverts--is one problem. High water temperatures in streams is another
threat. A report this year from the Washington State Academy of
Scientists noted that the number of Chinook being eaten by seals and
sea lions is ``substantial and has increased steadily,'' concluding
that ``predation is considered a primary driver of increasing mortality
rates.'' \5\ Ocean conditions also play a major role in the cycle of
salmon returns. Pollution, like 6PPD-quinone, a compound in tire rubber
which kills coho salmon at low doses, also puts pressure on salmon
populations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Washington State Academy of Sciences, ``Pinniped Predation on
Salmonids in the Washington Portions of the Salish Sea and Outer
Coast,'' November 2022, https://app.leg.wa.gov/ReportsToTheLegislature/
Home/GetPDF?fileName=Pinniped%20Predation%20on%20Salmonids
%20in%20the%20Washington%20Portions%20of%20the%20Salish%20Sea%20and%20Ou
ter%20 Coast_5d43c6d6-3aad-442a-9271-0315d351eaf2.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With so many factors, salmon recovery is complex, and results take
a long time. A recent scientific assessment of the effectiveness of
salmon recovery efforts noted that in some cases it could take two
decades to simply discern the benefits of habitat restoration projects.
Dams play a role in that complex list of impacts on salmon. I
personally have voted for Washington state to remove a dam on the
Nooksack River. The key, however, is not to focus on particular types
of risks to salmon, but to target our efforts where they can make the
most impact to increase salmon populations. Fixating on dams can lead
us to search for silver bullet answers that aren't there.
The experience of dam removal on the Elwha River
For example, some who want to destroy the Snake River dams point to
the removal of two dams on the Elwha River on the Olympic Peninsula in
Washington state. The dams have been gone for a decade, but Chinook
populations have not improved. The Chinook run in 2022 was below the
10-year average and Chinook fishing is still banned on the Elwha due to
low populations. Additionally, about 95 percent of Elwha Chinook are
hatchery fish. Those who hope that removal of the Snake River dams will
help increase the population of wild salmon cannot currently point to
the Elwha.
Even on the Elwha River, where the dams had no fish passage--in
contrast to the Snake River dams--the recovery strategy includes many
elements. A recent scientific assessment of salmon recovery across the
Pacific Northwest from federal agencies noted that the population
increases that have occurred are due to many factors. The authors
wrote, ``Harvest limitations, natural fish recolonization, and hatchery
fish supplementation were combined with the expanded availability of
freshwater habitat to accelerate fish response.'' \6\ Even in the case
of the Elwha, recovery involved many complementary actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership, ``Management
Implications from Pacific Northwest Intensively Monitored Watersheds,''
May 31, 2022, https://www.pnamp.org/document/15207
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A focus on dam destruction as the key to increasing populations
contradicts the science and experience of salmon recovery in the
Pacific Northwest.
The status of Snake River salmon
It is also important to note that the claims we hear today that
Snake River salmon are on the edge of extinction have repeatedly been
inaccurate. In 1999, environmental groups purchased an ad in The New
York Times claiming that unless the Snake River dams were removed,
``wild Snake River spring Chinook salmon, once the largest run of its
kind in the world, will be extinct by 2017.'' \7\ Instead, about six
times as many Chinook, wild and hatchery, returned in 2017 as in 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Kareiva, P. and Carranza, V., Fealty to symbolism is no way to
save salmon. In: Effective Conservation Science: Data Not Dogma. Edited
by Peter Kareiva, Michelle Marvier, and Brian Silliman: Oxford
University Press (2018). Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/
9780198808978.003.0015, https://academic.oup.com/book/26688/chapter-
abstract/195481536
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar claims are being made today.
Just two years ago, dam opponents wrote in the Spokane Spokesman-
Review, ``Imagine Snake River without any salmon. That's not
hyperbole.'' \8\ It is hyperbole. Using a projection from the Nez
Perce, dam opponents claimed that wild Chinook populations would
steadily decline and would be ``functionally extinct'' by 2025. In
fact, wild Chinook returns more than doubled last year. For all
Chinook, 2022 was the third year in a row of increases and the fifth-
highest returns since 2000.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ O'Mara Collin and Macy, Ayssa, ``Sen. Murray and Gov. Inslee
must keep their promise to save wild salmon,'' Spokane Spokesman-
Review, June 6, 2021, https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2021/jun/06/
collin-omara-and-alyssa-macy-sen-murray-and-gov-in/
\9\ Columbia Basin Research, ``DART Columbia Basin ``Quick Look''
Adult Passage/Columbia Basin Research,'' https://
www.cbr.washington.edu/dart/quick_look/adult
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was not unexpected. Ocean conditions play a significant role
in the cycle of salmon returns on the Snake and across the Pacific
Northwest. In 2019, dam opponents claimed low populations were evidence
that salmon would soon disappear on the Snake. That year, however, was
the bottom of the population cycle and, predictably, populations have
increased over the past three years as ocean conditions improved.
That is why in 2019 I predicted the increase we have seen over the
last three years. That year, I co-authored an op-ed with Governor
Inslee's former salmon advisor, in which we noted, ``Some people point
to low runs in 2019 on the Snake as evidence that we need to remove the
dams. Salmon populations run in a cycle, however, and we are seeing the
same low runs across the region.'' \10\ Despite that predictable cycle,
there will be a downturn again in the near future and we will hear that
salmon are doomed. This is not a rational or science-based way to make
public policy or to help salmon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Myers, Todd and Martin, Steve, ``Removing Snake River dams is
misguided approach to saving orcas,'' The News Tribune, January 25,
2020, https://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/op-ed/
article239608063.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smolt-to-Adult return ratios (SARs)
While Chinook and other Snake River salmon are unlikely to become
extinct, they are not recovering as quickly as we would like. One
metric used to assess the success of recovery efforts is the smolt-to-
adult return ratio, known as SARs. This is simply the metric of what
percentage of baby salmon (smolt) that head downstream return four
years later. The higher the ratio, the more likely a salmon stock is to
become self-sufficient and increase population.
The ratio can also test another hypothesis from dam opponents--that
the stress of passing the dams creates delayed mortality among Snake
River salmon. Even if 96 to 98 percent of smolt successfully pass each
dam, the claim is that salmon die at higher rates later.
The data show this is unlikely and that SARs on the Snake River are
similar to other rivers, with and without dams. A peer-reviewed study
of SARs across the Northwest from Welch et al. published in October
2020 concluded, ``Within the Columbia River, the SARs of Snake River
populations, often singled out as exemplars of poor survival, are
unexceptional and in fact higher than estimates reported from many
other regions of the west coast lacking dams.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Welch, David Warren, and Porter, Aswea Dawn, and Rechisky,
Erin Leanne, ``A synthesis of the coast-wide decline in survival of
West Coast Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, Salmonidae),''
Fish and Fisheries, Volume 22, Issue 1, January 2021, https://
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/faf.12514
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After some dam opponents criticized the study, an Independent
Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB) was convened and agreed with the
study's assessment of Snake River SARs. The authors of that assessment
wrote, ``The ISAB concurs with the general conclusion . . . that
current SARs for Chinook populations from the Columbia Basin and in
other systems are generally low, with recent values below 2% (after
accounting for fishery interceptions) being common.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Independent Science Advisory Board, Northwest Power and
Conservation Council, ``ISAB Review of the Coast-Wide Analysis of
Chinook Salmon Smolt to Adult Returns (SARs) by Welch et al.,'' June
29, 2021, https://www.nwcouncil.org/reports/isab-review-coast-wide-
analysis-chinook-salmon-smolt-adult-returns-sars-welch-et-al/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite that, some have claimed that high SARs on the Yakima River
(not far from the mouth of the Snake River) cited in that study, are
evidence that the dams are the cause of the low returns. That is
contradicted by the data and local experts.
The same data from the Welch et al. study show that two rivers even
farther downstream--the Warm Springs River and the Carson River--have
lower SARs than the Snake River populations. If dams are the cause of
low SARs, why do returning salmon that pass fewer (or no) dams have
even worse return rates?
Additionally, salmon recovery experts I spoke to in the Yakima
River watershed indicate that while the SARs were good for a short
period of time, the current SARs may actually be lower than the Snake.
The simple truth is that when we look at the science of salmon
returns on the Snake, we return to the conclusion that salmon recovery
is slow everywhere and that the Snake River runs reflect broader trends
and are not unique.
The impact of the dams on river temperatures
As the concern about climate change and the impact on habitat
increases, some have expressed concern about the impact the dams have
on river temperatures. Salmon are cold water fish and warm water
temperatures is an area of concern for all salmon. As I noted, I was at
the Washington State Department of Natural Resources when we changed
forest practice laws to address this very issue--providing more shade
to keep streams cool.
On the Snake River, however, it is unlikely that the dams are
significantly impacting temperatures and that temperature is the cause
of poor returns.
The salmon stock in most jeopardy, the Spring/Summer Chinook run,
travel downstream before river temperatures are typically warm enough
to have a negative impact.\13\ They also return in the Spring when
temperatures are well below the 68-degree threshold that is considered
to be the danger zone for salmon. By way of contrast, the Fall Chinook,
which return later and are sometimes exposed to higher temperatures,
are one of the few salmon populations in Washington state this is
recovering, and the state of Washington lists them as approaching
recovery goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ National Marine Fisheries Service West Coast Region, ``Status
of the Species: Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon,'' February
2023, https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/s3/2023-02/feb-2023-status-snake-
r-spring-summer-chinook.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spring Chinook simply aren't exposed to high temperatures. Even
this year, when the Spring Chinook run was delayed a few weeks,
temperatures on the Snake were still about 59 degrees during the peak
of the Spring run--well below the temperature that risks significant
impacts.
Despite that, some dam opponents claim the dams are increasing
river temperatures and harming salmon. In a letter, dam opponents cited
at 2003 model from the EPA, and claimed, ``When considered
collectively, the four lower Snake Dams could affect temperatures up to
a potential maximum of 6.8+ C/12.2+ F.'' \14\ It has now been two
decades since that model was released and we can use real-world data to
determine the accuracy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Cannamela, David, ``2019 Scientists'' Letter re: Warming
waters in the lower Snake River, threat to salmon survival,'' email to
Scott Pugrud and the Idaho Office of Species Conservation, October 21,
2019, https://species.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/4.-Salmon-
Workgroup-Public-Comment-10.22.19.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, the model does not pass a simple smell test. The hottest
summer in the last two decades was in 2015, where poor snowpack
combined with a hot summer to increase river temperatures. Even then,
temperatures at the Ice Harbor Dam--the farthest downstream--never
reached 73 degrees. If the 12.2 degrees F impact was accurate, it would
imply the temperature without the dams would have been 61 degrees. That
is simply not possible since the temperature at the Lower Granite Dam,
the farthest upstream, was about 67 degrees at that time and it is not
likely that temperatures downstream would be lower than upstream.
Similarly, when Washington state set temperature records in June
2021, the water at Ice Harbor dam reached only 72 degrees. Suggesting
that temperatures should have been 12 degrees lower is not plausible.
I did an additional test of the model by examining river
temperatures between 2007 and 2019.\15\ According to the EPA model, the
maximum temperature impact between Lower Granite and Ice Harbor is
estimated at 4.69 degrees C. Using data collected by the Army Corps of
Engineers, over thirteen years there is not a single instance of
temperatures reaching that level of difference.\16\ We measured the
temperature difference in two ways. First, we looked at same-day
comparisons between the two dams. The highest real-world difference we
found was 3.9 degrees C on August 10, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Myers, Todd, ``Real-world data contradicts letter on Snake
River dams and temperatures,'' Washington Policy Center, January 13,
2020, https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/real-world-
data-conradicts-letter-on-snake-river-dams-and-temperatures
\16\ Columbia Basin Research, ``Columbia Basin Conditions Year
Comparisons for Single Project,'' at http://www.cbr.washington.edu/
dart/query/basin_conditions_projcomp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also looked at temperature differences over the course of a week
because it takes time for water to travel downstream. The highest
variance we saw over the course of a week was 3.7 degrees, which
occurred during the last week of July 2007. The amount of time it takes
water to travel downstream varies, and other calculations are possible.
But, it is unlikely that any timeframe would yeild the 4.69 degrees
temerature rise projected in the model.
Even if the model exaggerates the temperature impact, the dams may
still increase temperatures, albeit by a lower amount, and that could
harm salmon.
It is important to note that unlike dams that have large reservoirs
behind them, like the Grand Coulee Dam on the upper Columbia, the Snake
River dams are ``run of river,'' which means they do not store water to
the degree that other dams do. Slow-moving pools behind dams tend to
increase water temperatures. The Snake River dams can still have an
impact on temperatures, but the potential impact is less than we see
elsewhere.
Some portion of the increase in river temperature is due to natural
causes and the river warms naturally as water flows downstream.
Disaggregating what portion of the impact is natural and what is due to
the dams is difficult, which is why EPA used a model rather than real-
world data. Actual temperature data can, however, provide a reasonable
range of temperature impact. Examining data between 2007 and 2019
reveals that the impact of the dams on temperatures is likely small and
decreasing.
Comparing temperatures between Lower Granite dam (the farthest
upstream) and Ice Harbor (the farthest downstream) on the same day
shows the maximum temperature difference--and the maximum potential
impact of the dams on temperature and fish--fell from 3.9 degrees C in
2007 to 2.1 degrees C in 2019--a reduction of 46 percent. Comparing
temperatures at Lower Granite to those a week later at Ice Harbor shows
a similar decline, with the maximum increase in temperature falling
from 3.7 degrees C to 2.4 degrees C--a decline of 35 percent.
Focusing on the maximum difference doesn't tell the whole story.
Those temperature increases occur when there are few fish in the river,
between the Spring and Fall runs. When fish are in the river, the
average temperature difference in the Spring is about one degree C
(less than two degrees F). The same is true in the Fall, with average
temperature differences reaching about one degree C.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Before we published this research, I sent it to the dam
opponents who signed the letter expressing concern about the dams'
impact on temperatures. They responded that they would not be providing
feedback.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The decline in temperature differential within the same year, and
over the past two decades is evidence that the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers are improving their ability to manage river temperatures and
reduce the impact of the dams. One technique is to release cold water
from the Dworshak Dam on the Clearwater River in Idaho when salmon are
spawning.
Again, it is likely that the four Lower Snake River dams have some
impact on river temperatures, but the real-world data are at odds with
the model's projections. Those data show that the potential temperature
impact is small when salmon are spawning, that temperatures are
typically below levels considered serious for salmon, and that the
temperature impact has significantly declined over the past 15 years.
The Snake River dams and Southern Resident Killer Whales
Finally, one additional argument for destroying the dams is that
improved salmon runs would also help the Southern Resident Killer
Whales in Puget Sound, which are a listed species. The Southern
Residents rely almost entirely on Chinook for their diet and low
populations across the region are the major cause of their decline.
Some have argued that destroying the dams would increase the number of
Chinook available to the Southern Residents.
Scientists from NOAA Fisheries have stated clearly that destroying
the dams would not have a meaningful impact on salmon available to the
Southern Residents.
In a 2016 NOAA fact sheet titled, ``Southern Resident Killer Whales
and Snake River Dams,'' agency staff wrote, ``the relative size of the
Snake River salmon stocks compared to others on the West Coast means
that increases in their numbers, whether from breaching dams or
otherwise, would result in only a marginal change in the total salmon
available to the killer whale.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ NOAA Fisheries Service West Coast Region, ``Southern Resident
Killer Whales and Snake River Dams,'' 2016, https://
www.salmonrecovery.gov/doc/default-source/default-document-library/3-
16-2016_srkw_factsheet_pdf_t_d.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, NOAA Fisheries and the Washington State Department of
Fish and Wildlife prioritized the most important watersheds for Puget
Sound orca, ranking the Snake River ninth overall.
NOAA's fact sheet went on to say, ``The best option for long-term
recovery of both salmon and whales is restoring habitat across a
diversity of west coast rivers.'' Again, focusing so much attention and
resources on the Snake River distracts from salmon recovery efforts
across the region that are more critical, both to the orca and salmon.
What can be done for salmon?
What, then, should be done to help recover salmon on the Snake, the
Columbia, and other parts of the region?
First, we cannot allow frustration at the slow pace of recovery
across the region to cause us to look for silver bullets that don't
exist. Scientific prioritization must continue to be our guide on where
and how to allocate state and federal dollars. It took decades for
salmon to get to this point and it will take time for them to recover.
Second, the federal government should continue to support the work
of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to find ways to reduce the
impact of the dams in particular and improve our understanding of
salmon runs more generally. Technology they have developed has already
been very effective at tracking salmon and reducing mortality at the
dams. One reason up to 98 percent of smolt successfully pass individual
dams is the work of PNNL to understand how salmon interact with the
dams.
Third, the federal government should follow the recommendations of
NOAA Fisheries in the most recent status review of Snake River Spring/
Summer Chinook. That review, released in February of this year, notes,
``The greatest opportunities for advancing recovery include: (1)
prioritizing actions that improve habitat resilience to climate change;
(2) reconnecting stream channels with floodplains; (3) developing
local- to basin-scale frameworks that prioritize restoration actions
and integrate a landscape perspective; (4) implementing restoration
actions at watershed scales; and (5) reducing pinniped predation on
adults returning to the lower Columbia River.''
Finally, both the state and federal governments should increase
funding for science-based salmon recovery grants. There is much more
work to be done to recover salmon and it will require funding. Rather
than offering money to politically targeted projects, it should be put
into grant programs using science-based metrics.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide information on this
important issue.
______
[Applause.]
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Myers.
I will now recognize Dr. David Welch, President of Kintama
Research Services in British Columbia, Canada, for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAVID WELCH, Ph.D., PRESIDENT & FOUNDER, KINTAMA
RESEARCH SERVICES LTD., NANIAMO, BC, CANADA
Dr. Welch. Thank you, Chairman Bentz and members of the
Committee. I appreciate the invitation to testify.
Time is short so I am simply going to start by noting that
I have been working on salmon-related issues for 38 years over
my career, and during my professional life I have received many
awards. I mention that now because I am going to say some
fairly strong contrarian statements to the argument that the
science around the Snake River dam influences on salmon is
settled. I think it is far from that. And I want to illustrate
that with two points. My written testimony is much more
extensive.
The first is that I want to quote from a colleague of mine,
who I disagree with professionally, but does wonderful research
for the other side of the argument, Dr. Steve Haeseker of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Dr. Haeseker has shown that
survival through the eight dams, from Lower Granite Dam down to
Bonneville Dam, is about 53 percent. By the time the adults
come back, it is 1 percent. So, advocates for taking out the
dams say, well, half the problem is in the power system because
half the fish have died.
I have a very different view, which can be simply stated.
One out of two fish dies from all causes in the power system.
One out of 50 of those fish, or 2 percent, survives to come
back from the ocean. So, in fact, the impacts beyond the dams
is far greater than in the dams, which is why I think it has
been so difficult for people manipulating things in freshwater
to try to improve salmon returns. I would like to see salmon
returns improved as well, but it is a very difficult thing when
you are working on one piece of the puzzle that is a small
component of the overall effect.
So, just to make that point again, the ocean is about 25
times more powerful in determining the salmon returns than is
the whole power system, the eight dams, the fish predators, the
bird predators, and the diseases.
My second point is that although those in favor of dam
breach do not explicitly state that dam breach actually has a
very small effect on overall salmon survival. They argue that
delayed mortality in the ocean due to the passage through the
dams is a big effect.
That was recently published in a paper with 12 authors
called the Storch et al. paper, and they cited their own work,
which includes many illustrious salmon scientists that argued
for delayed mortality. Unfortunately, the problem with that
paper is that they did not cite any of the work that we had
done, where we explicitly tested whether there was a difference
in survival between Yakima and Snake River salmon going down
the river, down through the lower river and up to the coast to
the northern tip of Vancouver Island. We found the survival was
the same.
Now there is a whole backstory to that which I cannot get
into now, but none of that was discussed. It was simply
presented to the scientific audience in a scientific review,
that fait accompli that it was simply due to dam passage, even
though the publications are out there that do not agree with
that. That is not science.
It is unfortunate that it has happened. Why that happened I
don't understand. But the message here for the Committee, and
more broadly, is that we need to look at these things from a
much broader, more pragmatic viewpoint. Some of the ideas
around what the dams are doing are simply wrong or are not
being supported, but they are being ignored because they do not
fit with a particular message or goal that people want to do.
The gold standard in science is these sorts of experimental
tests of theories. That is when science moves forward. It is
when we move away from our own pet theories and we say we were
wrong. We had a good idea, but the idea didn't pan out. That is
not happening here, unfortunately, because the view has become
very polarized, people do not want to move off their views from
50 years ago.
Put simply, I think that the Snake River dams never caused
the major problems that people thought they did over half a
century ago. They didn't understand the effect of the ocean
back then, and the overestimated what the construction of the
Snake River dams was going to do. I think we need to try to
redress that. We need to also bring people together, both
scientists and the public, to try to address these things, to
test things in the most careful way that we can, and to try to
move things forward.
In summary, I think the courts actually had it right in
rejecting the biological opinions over the last three decades.
The problem is out in the ocean, and the solutions that are
being put forward, have been things in freshwater that are not
reasonably likely to turn those around. And for those reasons I
think that the courts have actually been ahead of the
scientists in saying that many of the things that are being
proposed are not going to work, and we need to look at that
much more closely as a possibility.
So, in summary, I would like to say to you, as
policymakers, members of the audience, that if I am correct in
my beliefs and my statements, the science around Snake River
dam breaching is far from settled. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Welch follows:]
Prepared Statement of David W. Welch, President, Kintama Research
Services Ltd
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today regarding
salmon and the four lower Snake River dams. I am Dr. David Welch,
President of Kintama Research Services, Ltd. Time is short, so I will
start by simply stating that I am an expert on Pacific Salmon, and
particularly on the ocean phase of their lives, which remains so
mysterious to all of us.
I have appended my resume to my written remarks, but I will note
here that over my 38 years of professional life working on salmon
issues I have received many awards. Amongst those most relevant to your
subcommittee's mandate are the 2007 Prix de Distinction from Fisheries
& Oceans Canada ``For outstanding scientific contributions related to
national and international climate change research'' then in 2008 the
Prix d'Excellence from Fisheries & Oceans Canada ``In Recognition of
Exceptional Scientific Contributions to the Government of Canada''. I
believe that the Prix d'Excellence is Fisheries and Oceans Canada's
highest award.
In 2012 I received both the Award of Excellence in Fisheries
Management from the American Fisheries Society ``. . .for inspirational
leadership in the fishery profession and substantial achievements for
the American Fisheries Society and the fisheries resource'' and the
J.P. Tully Medal in Oceanography from the Canadian Society for
Meteorology & Oceanography ``. . .for three decades of research
dedicated to understanding the sea life of salmon using innovative
data-gathering techniques with special reference to acoustic arrays . .
. This program has provided a core research platform for a wide range
of scientists to address questions concerning fish movement and
survival''. More recently, in 2022 I was also honored by election as a
Foreign Fellow of the Explorers Club in NYC and as an Elected Fellow of
the Royal Canadian Geographical Society.
I list these awards because I am going to make some strongly
contrarian scientific statements about the science behind Snake River
dam removal and it is important for your subcommittee to be able to
evaluate my credibility in making these remarks.
The ocean phase of the life history of salmon is fundamental to the
issues your subcommittee is now struggling with concerning the role of
the Snake River dams in causing the low levels of returning adult
salmon. Unfortunately, the ocean has received short shrift by too many
of my colleagues, who are looking for things they can do in freshwater
to fix, or compensate, for the poor ocean survival of Chinook salmon
and steelhead. To understand why I think this approach is unlikely to
work and why so many freshwater focused studies get off on the wrong
foot, your subcommittee needs to only consider the basic facts of the
mater. I will frame these issues very simply for your subcommittee by
citing the work of one of the critics of the Snake River dams whose
work I much admire, Dr Steve Haeseker of the US Fish and Wildlife
Service. Despite our radically different perspectives on the impact of
the dams on salmon, I would like to highlight the quality of Dr
Haeseker's careful studies. However, I will also use Dr Haeseker's fine
work to illustrate why all of the dams now play such a small role in
the poor returns of Snake River salmon from the ocean.
Dr Haeseker's studies show that on average about 53% of young
salmon, or smolts, survive the journey down the Snake and Columbia
Rivers from Lower Granite Dam to Bonneville Dam. I agree with him. The
critics of the dams say that therefore because ``almost half'' of all
the salmon die by the time they reach Bonneville Dam, so this is half
the salmon problem. They are profoundly wrong. To understand why, let's
round average survival in the FCRPS down to 50% to make the numbers
simpler to follow. By the time the adults come back from the ocean,
survival to adult return, or the ``SAR'', is 1.1%. Let's make that
number 1%. So, now we have \1/2\, or 50%, of the salmon dying from all
causes in the FCRPS (dams, predatory birds and fish, and diseases) and
just 1/50th of those lucky survivors, or 2%, coming back from the
ocean!! \1\ That makes the ocean about 25X more powerful in determining
the poor adult return to the Snake River.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Just for completeness, let's do the arithmetic with the actual
averages: smolt survival through the entire eight dam FCRPS averages at
53% and adult returns average 1.1%. Then survival in the FCRPS is 53%
and survival in the lower river below Bonneville Dam until adult return
is 1.1/53=2.08%. Using more exact numbers makes no practical difference
to the argument. See my response to the ``Group of 68'' letter for a
fuller analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please let that sink in, because the enormity of that difference is
critical to your understanding of the potential role of the dams in the
conservation problem for Snake River salmon. Survival in the lower
river and the ocean is only 1/25th the all-cause survival in the
FCRPS--dams, predatory birds and fish, and all diseases. Despite this,
salmon biologists have persisted for half a century in identifying the
Snake River dams as the root cause of the problems and that removing
these four dams will magically fix the problems. Yet my high school
level use of fractions shows that the critics' own numbers reveal a
very different perspective on the cause of the problem, one that is
never explicitly laid out as I have just done for you.
Rather than recognize that the direct impact of the dams on salmon
survival is now tiny, nearly 25 years ago the theory was put forward
that survival in the ocean was bad because of damage inflicted by the
dams. . . so-called ``delayed mortality''. It was a creative idea in
its time, because it basically acted like a force multiplier in
military parlance; something that made the impact much larger than one
would initially expect and essentially arguing that poor marine
survival actually had a large component attributable to the dams. In
support of this view, the proponents of delayed mortality point to the
three times better survival of Yakima and John Day River salmon
populations that don't go through the Snake River dams.
Unfortunately, it has been very difficult to get engagement on this
basic issue. Back in 2021 a group of 68 biologists wrote to the Pacific
northwest Governors, Members of Congress, and Senators essentially
saying that ``the time is now to remove the Snake River dams''.
Frustrated by the woolly thinking in that letter, I wrote my own
rebuttal and sent it to the same group of policy makers the Group of 68
had sent their letter to. Also, as a courtesy, I sent it to those of
the 68 biologists whose email addresses I had at hand. Later, I also
submitted a version of that rebuttal to the Council on Environmental
Quality, or CEQ. (I will submit a copy of this, my supplementary
written testimony to the CEQ again). To date, I have not had a single
response telling me why I was wrong in my analysis that even breaching
all eight dams would not even come close to achieving the stated policy
goal of achieving a 4% SAR.
For simplicity, attached to my testimony is my earlier technical
response I wrote that examined the claim of the Group of 68 biologists
advocating for Snake River dam removal because it was the only feasible
way to recover salmon populations to ``abundant and harvestable''
levels.
Several peer-reviewed scientific papers have been published in the
past year, essentially supporting the letter written by the Group 68
biologists who in 2021 advocated for Snake River dam removal. All state
that removing the lower Snake River dams is the best chance of
recovering Snake River salmon populations to ``abundant and
harvestable'' levels. I am here to advise you today that that these
scientists are wrong, and that the recommendation of my colleagues to
remove the Snake River dams to help the Snake River salmon will have
only the tiniest of impacts on adult return rates, or ``SARs''. Actions
to breach the dams may in fact very well reduce SARs because past
advocacy in favor of dam breaching has consistently failed to consider
what happens to the smolts, or young salmon, if they are flushed into
the ocean more quickly. Not only do we not know if salmon survival is
better in the ocean than what is experienced during downstream
migration through the hydropower dams, the studies conducted by both
NOAA and the Fish Passage Center's Comparative Survival Study contain
logical errors that perpetuate mistakes first made during the studies
conducted nearly half a century ago blaming the impact of Snake River
dam construction on the demise of Snake River salmon populations.
I understand many within the Columbia River Basin are claiming that
the science around dam breaching is ``settled'' and there is no need
for further debate. In contrast to this widely promoted view, I wish to
offer today a strongly contrarian testimony. It is my professional
opinion that the science of salmon recovery is far from settled, and
indeed is riddled with a number of basic errors of logic that the
believers in dam breaching have continued to make for over half a
century. Unfortunately, these errors--only two of which I will touch
upon today--are compounded by an apparently deliberate twisting of the
scientific facts that minimize serious known problems with the
narrative that is now being promoted. I wish it wasn't so, but I have
to state that I believe this conduct is scientifically dishonest. How
much is deliberate and how much is simply from a zealous belief that
refuses to address the basic problems with various claims about the
role of the Snake River dams I cannot say.
Although those in favor of dam breaching do not explicitly state
that Snake River dam breach will actually have only tiny impacts on
salmon survival, they do argue that in fact that ``delayed'' mortality
caused by the dams reducing survival in the ocean is a major factor. In
fact, in a recent scientific review paper by Storch et al. (2022), the
group of 12 authors go so far as to state that ``. . . effects of the
hydrosystem can manifest in reduced ocean survival . . . because of
out-migration experiences''. This paper has had substantial impact on
the debate in the Columbia on the role of the dams, no doubt due at
least in part to the illustrious reputation of many of the authors,
which includes a number of the scientists who originally developed the
delayed mortality theory.
Remarkably, despite billing itself as a scientific review paper,
the Storch et al paper makes no effort to even acknowledge that the
delayed mortality theory was directly tested in a series of peer-
reviewed papers by myself and colleagues. The most prominent of these
papers was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences (Rechisky, Welch et al., 2013). The Proceedings of the US
National Academy of Sciences is considered to be one of the top five
scientific journals in the world across all disciplines. In our 2013
paper my colleagues and I reported the results from an experiment to
directly measure the survival of Yakima and Snake River smolts in the
lower Columbia River and north along the west coast of North America
all the way to the northern tip of Vancouver Island, some 1,500
kilometers and almost two months after passing out of the hydropower
system. The purpose of this breakthrough scientific paper was to show
that survival could be directly measured in the ocean and to explicitly
test the theory that ``delayed'' mortality due to Snake River dam
passage reduced the survival of Snake River smolts relative to the
Yakima population, which had three times higher adult return rates.
These much higher return rates are the evidence that proponents of the
delayed mortality theory point to when they argue that breaching the
Snake River dams will ``fix'' the Snake River conservation problem.
Despite explicitly testing whether the Yakima R smolts that did not
go through the Snake River dams had better survival than the Snake
River smolts--the key claim needed to make Snake River dam breaching
work--the authors of the Storch et al paper chose to exclude any
mention of these studies even though many of the Storch et al authors
are well aware of these publications.
The gold standard in scientific research is exactly these sort of
treatment-control experiments we conducted over multiple years for
Snake River salmon (Rechisky, Welch et al 2013). Yet the Storch et al
authors chose to only cite their own highly selective correlation
studies that show a higher return rate for Yakima R smolts, which they
interpreted as being due to the smolts not migrating through the Snake
River dams. So, the Storch et al authors cited their own correlation
studies, but refused to even mention to the readers that explicit
testing of their theory found no evidence to support their theory. Some
``review''!
There is an interesting history here that would have actually made
for an informative debate. After our paper was published Dr Steve
Haeseker of the FWS, one of the scientists on the other side of the
debate who I greatly respect, wrote a critique submitted to the journal
arguing that our results might be due to the use of ``non-
representative'' smolts. In essence, Dr Haeseker suggested that perhaps
we had obtained the same survival because we had selected smolts from
the two populations for the experimental test that were the same size
and forced them to migrate to sea at the same time whereas in the
normal course of events the smolt size and migration timing might be
different. We replied that if Dr Haeseker was correct, then either
increasing the size of the smolts or changing the run timing was
causing a six-fold increase in Snake River smolt survival for those
smolts we hadn't tested, which was more than enough of an improvement
to achieve the ``abundant and harvestable'' standard now being
promoted. We also pointed out that even if Dr Haeseker was correct
(which was a big ``if''!), we had still moved the goal posts because
the original version of the delayed mortality theory just claimed that
the Snake River dams were bad for all salmon. Now the proponents of dam
breaching were arguing that there must be some sort of specialized
conditions (small smolts or some subtle difference in migration timing)
that were needed to make the theory work.
In any event, a year later we published (in 2014) a further study
that removed both of Dr Haeseker's objections and found that the
survival of smolts that did or did not migrate through the Snake River
dams was essentially the same. As a result, our experimental results
say that Snake River dam breach cannot yield the claimed improvements
to adult returns.
Storch et al elected not to mention any of these issues in their
review and remained completely silent on the critical point that a
direct experimental test of their key claim had been explicitly
refuted. This is not science. It is wrong and unless put to rights will
deliberately mislead the policy makers who have the difficult job of
balancing the competing pressures of our societies. It will also
mislead the Tribes, with their deep connection to the land and the
salmon, who are essentially being told that supporting dam breach will
ensure that their peoples will have abundant and harvestable Chinook
salmon.
Yet that belief almost certainly is wrong. In October 2020 we
published a paper reviewing all of the government data on smolt to
adult return rates, or SAR, of Chinook salmon for the entire coast of
North America--from California to SE Alaska (Welch et al 2020). We
deliberately chose to be provocative by comparing the survival of all
other regions to that for the Snake River. What we found was that for
all other regions--including northern British Columbia and SE Alaska,
regions with essentially pristine freshwater habitat values and no
dams--SARs have now fallen for all regions to be essentially the same
as those for the Snake River region. If Alaskan Chinook salmon really
do have adult return rates now as low as the Snake River, how are the
Tribes going to be assured the ``abundant and harvestable'' Chinook
returns that they argue the treaties must provide them with? Clearly,
decommissioning the Snake River dams won't provide this because Alaskan
natives are also suffering from the same lack of Chinook salmon,
despite the absence of any dams.
Storch et al did cite this one paper of ours, but again
mischaracterized it. Storch et al cited our paper in one line saying
that we ``. . . suggested that most variation in life-cycle survival
can be explained by marine effects common among populations of Chinook
Salmon throughout the west coast of North America''. In fact, our
message was much more straightforward . . . we never talked about the
variability in salmon returns caused by the ocean, we simply reported
that the average survival was essentially the same everywhere--Snake
River dams or no dams! It is the latter issue that is the important
policy issue and the Storch et al authors deliberately sidestepped
addressing it. Equally serious, in the Welch et al (2020) paper, we
showed that much of the data used in the annual CSS study (that many of
the Storch et al authors also contribute to) do not support the authors
own thesis that Snake River dams are bad for Chinook salmon. For
example, we showed that the CSS' own data on Snake River Fall Chinook
show that these populations have higher SARs than the SARs of mid-
Columbia Fall Chinook that don't migrate through the dams. If dams are
the only real cause of these differences in salmon survival, what are
policy makers to make of these higher Snake River Fall Chinook
survival? Will dam breach actually reduce Snake River Fall Chinook
abundances? This seems unlikely, but I raise it to illustrate how
selectively blaming the dams for the things that people don't like (bad
return numbers) is unlikely to lead to good policy.
Selective citation of just the data fitting one's personal beliefs
is unfortunate, but especially so by scientists claiming that dam
breaching will fix the salmon conservation problems. Roughly $18
Billion has been spent so far on salmon conservation efforts in the
Columbia River Basin with only very modest improvements in the state of
the salmon resource. A further $35 Billion to allay the economic harms
of dam breach is now being proposed by Rep. Mike Simpson, apparently
because of assurances by some in the biological community that dam
breach is the only way to improve the salmon resource and honor treaty
obligations to the Tribes. Yet when the Storch et al authors play fast
and loose with the facts it is time to call out these bad behaviours.
In fact, I would argue that the Courts have recognized these
problems better than regional salmon biologists. Three different
federal judges working over nearly 40 years have essentially rejected
all of the Biological Opinions on the basis that they were not
reasonably likely to address the problem--poor returns from the oceans.
In my view the Courts are saying that tinkering with freshwater issues
that don't address the bad survival happening somewhere in the ocean
after the smolts leave isn't likely to address the real conservation
issue--there aren't enough adults coming back from the ocean. I agree
with the Courts.
Following my reading of professional declarations to the Court of
Judge Simon Mitchell prepared by Ed Bowles, Howard Schaller, and Dave
Johnson back in 2021, I was puzzled by why these authors all made the
same repeated errors of logic in their claims. When thinking about
those Court rulings and then pondering why so many talented salmon
biologists consistently ignored the ocean issues in favour of finding
something--anything--to work on in freshwater, I decided to go back and
read the original studies by the Bureau of Fisheries (NOAA's
predecessor) implicating the Snake River dams in the demise of the
salmon runs half a century ago (Raymond 1968, 1979, 1988). It turns out
that there are severe problems with both Raymond's original studies
blaming the demise of Snake River salmon populations on the
construction of the dams back in the 1960s & 1970s AND with how
subsequent research has built upon those studies. In a word, the
research that has been conducted for nearly half a century on the
decline of Snake River salmon populations has major, possibly
catastrophic, flaws.
Put simply, the Snake River dams probably never caused the major
decline in salmon runs that has been claimed for over half a century
(certainly not of the magnitude claimed).
I do not make these statements lightly. In the course of my
research, I also made what I consider to be several major additional
scientific breakthroughs as to why salmon recovery efforts in the
Columbia River Basin have been so ineffective. I outlined two (of six)
issues in two presentations I gave this past March at a seminar
organized on ``The Mighty Columbia'' on March 3rd and at the
Washington-BC meeting of the American Fisheries Society on March 21st.
Again, to date I have received no communications refuting my analysis.
In brief, the original studies conducted in the late 1960s and
1970s by Howard Raymond for the Bureau of Fisheries (NOAA) implicating
the Snake River dams as the cause of the major decline in survival
contain several major errors of logic. These errors do not even require
data to demonstrate their fundamental flaws. The key error is
surprisingly simple: Raymond (1968) argued that the construction of the
Snake River dams would turn the free-flowing river into a series of
impoundments, dramatically increasing the migration time of the smolts
as they travelled downstream to reach Bonneville Dam, the final dam in
the Columbia hydropower system. Raymond argued that this would decrease
survival and apparently all authors since him have agreed with this
simple premise; many statements in various annual memos by NOAA and
reports by the FPC's CSS make the statement that higher flows reduce
travel time and survival of smolts. Yet this conclusion, as simple (and
technically correct) as it is, is also highly misleading: measuring
survival over a shorter time period means that survival has to
increase!
Consider the case of the roughly 50% smolt survival to Bonneville
Dam that Dr Haeseker (and many others) have reported on. If increased
flows cut travel time in half and survival increases to 71% most
Columbia River biologists would conclude that policy actions leading to
increased flows (such as spill) were increasing survival by 21% . . . a
major increase. Yet 71% x 71% is just 50% . . . no real change. What
has actually happened here is that the observation time has been
reduced, so fewer smolts die. Only if survival is higher than 71%
(which is generally not checked in Columbia River studies) can there be
a real improvement in in-river survival to Bonneville Dam. Even more
important, survival during the extra time salmon spend in the ocean is
completely unaccounted for. Unless survival rates in the ocean are
better than in the hydropower system there can be no benefit from
increased flow. Despite the elementary nature of these issues, they are
almost never factored into statements about how increased flow improve
smolt survival. That such a fundamental issue should be overlooked in
the Columbia is a very troubling issue and suggests that biologists are
not thinking about the issues carefully enough.
A second troubling example of insufficiently critical thinking in
Columbia River salmon conservation work concerns the Fish Passage
Center's Comparative Salmon Survival Study. This is an important report
with multi-agency input that annually reports on smolt to adult (SAR)
survival trends using PIT tags and evaluates how the dams influence
survival. In October 2020 we published our findings that SARs were very
similar coastwide and not materially different from Snake River values
(Welch et al 2020). However, in that paper we also reported on our
comparison of survival estimates using PIT tags with CWT (coded wire
tags), which are occasionally used in the Columbia to measure survival
and nearly always used elsewhere for this purpose. PIT tags are
considered ``the gold standard'' in the Columbia Basin because an
essentially perfect count of the returning adults is possible at the
dams. Amazingly, despite their use for over two decades in the annual
CSS Reports, we discovered in our work that the commercial and sport
catch of salmon is not surveyed for PIT tags and that the unaccounted
for harvest rates in salmon fisheries are large and varying over the
years, not small (around 1%) as had been assumed by the CSS authors.
Making things even more serious, tribal fish catch above Bonneville Dam
needs to be added to the catches we reported on. The Boldt decision
allocating half of harvest to Tribal Fisheries suggests that for many
populations the impact of the missing harvest may be twice as large as
we documented for (at least) Spring Chinook.
We were kind to the Fish Passage Center and the CSS report, and
reported these flaws in our paper but did not pillory anyone for this
error--I strongly believe that science progresses when errors are
identified. Yet in the two years and eight months since the publication
of our report, there seems to be zero effort made to address these
problems with using PIT tags--the CSS annual reports make no mention of
the issue, despite the ISRB politely reminding them of the issue in
their review of the 2021 report. In point of fact, the failure to
incorporate salmon catches into the survival estimates could be
catastrophic for efforts to interpret how the dams are actually
affecting salmon returns using PIT tags, because salmon managers
actively manipulate harvest rates based on what they think ocean
survival will be like. Despite gently pointing this out in our 2020
paper, apparently no attempt has been made to evaluate whether the
missing catch invalidates the recommendations in these annual CSS
reports. (We published a simple explainer of these issues for policy
makers to accompany the publication of our 2020 paper, which can be
reviewed here: Summary for Policy Makers-Animation: https://youtu.be/
FN7yp3FefB8 ; Text:https://www.scientia.global/wp-content/uploads/
David_Welch/David_Welch.pdf).
Mistakes happen. However, in science we correct our mistakes. So
far as I am aware, there has been no effort made to correct PIT tag-
based SAR estimates for the missing catch, despite the CSS annual
reports forming much of the policy basis used to argue for breaching
the Snake River dams. In a similar vein, these same reports fail to
address the very elementary point that without correcting for the time
taken to reach Bonneville Dam, the generally higher survival reported
in years of high flow or high spill may simply reflect the fact that
survival is measured over a shorter period of time in those years. In
summary, I find it frankly shocking that major issues like these remain
unidentified and frankly un-addressed even when pointed out. This
behaviour biases the policy debate around the role of the Snake River
dams. So my final comment to you as policy makers is that if I am
correct, the science around Snake River dam breaching is far from
``settled''.
References
Haeseker, S. (2013). ``Nonrepresentative fish and ocean migration
assumptions confound inferences in Rechisky et al.'' Proc. Nat. Acad.
Sci. USA DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1309087110.
Raymond, H.L. (1968). ``Migration Rates of Yearling Chinook Salmon in
Relation to Flows and Impoundments in the Columbia and Snake Rivers.''
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 97(4): 356-359 DOI:
10.1577/1548-8659(1968) 97[356:MROYCS]2.0.CO;2.
Raymond, H.L. (1979). ``Effects of Dams and Impoundments on Migrations
of Juvenile Chinook Salmon and Steelhead from the Snake River, 1966 to
1975.'' Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 108(6): 505-529,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1577%2F1548-
8659%281979%29108%3C505%3AEODAIO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Raymond, H.L. (1988). ``Effects of Hydroelectric Development and
Fisheries Enhancement on Spring and Summer Chinook Salmon and Steelhead
in the Columbia River Basin.'' North American Journal of Fisheries
Management 8(1): 1-24, http://dx.doi.org/10.1577%2F1548-
8675%281988%29008%3C0001%3AEOHDAF% 3E2.3.CO%3B2
Rechisky, E.L., D.W. Welch, A.D. Porter, et al. (2013). ``Influence of
multiple dam passage on survival of juvenile Chinook salmon in the
Columbia River estuary and coastal ocean.'' Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
110(17): 6883-6888 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1219910110.
Rechisky, E.L., D.W. Welch and A.D. Porter (2013). ``Reply to Haeseker:
Value of controlled scientific experiments to resolve critical
uncertainties regarding Snake River salmon survival.'' Proc. Nat. Acad.
Sci. USA DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1310239110.
Storch, A.J., H.A. Schaller, C.E. Petrosky, et al. (2022). ``A review
of potential conservation and fisheries benefits of breaching four dams
in the Lower Snake River (Washington, USA).'' Water Biology and
Security 1(2) DOI: 10.1016/j.watbs. 2022.100030.
Welch, D.W., A.D. Porter and E. L. Rechisky (2020). ``A synthesis of
the coast-wide decline in survival of West Coast Chinook Salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, Salmonidae).'' Fish and Fisheries 22(1):
194-211 DOI: 10.1111/faf.12514.
*****
ATTACHMENT
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Applause.]
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Dr. Welch, and I want to thank all
the witnesses for their testimony.
Before I recognize Members for questions, I want to let
everyone know that we intend to do more than one round of
questions. I now recognize Mr. Newhouse for 5 minutes.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank
all the witnesses for their testimony today. It never fails
that we learn something from these exercises, and I appreciate
very much you taking the time to be with us.
Mr. McGregor, I could not help but notice in your closing
comments something that I have been trying to verbalize for a
long time, but putting it succinctly you say it is ``time to
get out of the courthouse.'' I could not agree more that we
need to come together, and Ms. Quan and I were discussing this
very same concept. If we look just a little bit north, the
Yakima River Basin Enhancement Project I think truly
exemplifies bringing diverse interests and opinions together
around one table and working together to come up with
solutions. And it seems to me that this is way beyond time that
we do that here in the Columbia and Snake River basins, so
thank you for those words.
I am of the school of opinion that the benefits far
outweigh the negative aspects of these dams and that we need to
do all we can to make them work for people and for fish.
A couple of specific questions. I want to start with Mr.
Myers, if I could. Todd, you talked about the ability of salmon
to return and comparing to other rivers. Statistics tell us a
lot about the dammed rivers and the undammed rivers. Could you
expound a little bit more about that and make sure that we
understand the comparisons there? Are there significant
differences between those that are impeded by dams and those
rivers that are not, and if not, why do you think that is the
case?
Mr. Myers. Thank you for the question. I think Dr. Welch
actually has done some excellent work on that very question so
maybe he can address that specifically. But what we see very
clearly is that the returns across the Pacific Northwest, on
the Snake, on the Columbia, in Puget Sound are all below where
we want them to be. And the reason that you see these sorts of
consistencies is because of ocean conditions.
This is pretty well known that there is a cycle of
population, and you see it on the Snake River. In 2019, many of
the advocates of destroying the dams argued that the very low
population and the very low returns we saw in 2019 were
indicative of a long-term trend. That year, I actually joined
with Governor Inslee's former salmon advisor and wrote a piece
saying, no, this is a cycle and this a downturn, and what we
are about to see is an upturn, and that is exactly what has
happened over the next 3 years.
The challenge in identifying the impact of the dams is to
determine the signal from the noise. There are so many things
that are impacting salmon recovery. Any time there is a
downturn, you can blame the dams, and any time there is an
upturn, they say, ``Oh, it is something else that is causing
it.'' So, I think that is the real challenge, in trying to
identify the particular impact of the dams, especially when you
see salmon returns across the Northwest struggling. It makes it
clear that the other problems are much larger.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you. Mr. Dunn, in your testimony, you
talk about the issue of total dissolved gases, and the fact
that just a few short years ago, fish biologists were concerned
that a level of 115 percent would be detrimental to salmon.
While it is not widely reported, it says that increasing spill
to 125 percent, where I think that is where we are now much of
the time.
Can you tell me if we are seeing a benefit to the salmon by
those increased flows, or are we seeing a detriment like we
used to think we would at 115 percent?
Mr. Dunn. Thank you for the question. I think it helps to
go back and also recognize that the increase in spill from the
115 percent level to 125 percent was a negotiated deal, and
utility offtakers like Benton PUD negotiated a reduction in our
contractual rights to electricity. So, spill, meaning diverting
water over the spillway versus putting it through the turbine
generators, has an impact. And after this negotiated
settlement, we lost 4 percent of our firm contracted rights.
So, don't forget that.
Obviously, as a utility manager, when I come into the game
I am asking questions and saying, OK, again, kind of restating
what you are asking, spilling to a total dissolved gas level of
115 percent was for years the limit, and that was based on
biologists and others recognizing that when you gasify the
water it is harmful to salmon and other aquatic species. So, it
is being portrayed as kind of a last-ditch effort to get more
smolt out to the ocean. We have agreed to this increase from
115 to 120 and now to 125.
Now, to more directly answer your question, I think the
science is not settled on it yet. I question whether we have
adequate instream instrumentation to even monitor it
adequately. You have to assess the physical state of the smolt
as they are going down the river for gas bubble trauma, so that
requires the ability to get in the river.
And the other thing is counting smolt. If they are going
over the spillway, it is difficult to impossible to know how
many are actually being diverted, so it is making it difficult
to know. I think the short answer is no, we don't know if it is
beneficial. In fact, it could be hurting them, and salmon need
2 to 3 years to get back.
Mr. Bentz. Excuse me for interrupting, if you could wind
up.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize, we went
over time. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you. I now recognize Mrs. McMorris Rodgers
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you again for
bringing the field hearing to eastern Washington, and to all
who have testified. I really appreciate you all being here.
I wanted to start with Regional Administrator Quan, and
again, thank you for being here and congratulations on assuming
this role. I wanted to focus on an issue that really is having
an outsized impact on Pacific science, but something that we
don't fully understand, and that is impact of the ocean
conditions on salmon returns.
At the end of last year, Northwest Fisheries Science Center
published on NOAA's website an article titled ``Oceans'
Influence on Salmon Plays Out in Varied Returns to Different
Rivers and Regions,'' and in the article NOAA said, ``steelhead
returns to the Snake River in 2021 were among the lowest on
record, and steelhead to some tributaries of the Fraser River
in Canada fell close to extinction levels.'' However, Bristol
Bay in Alaska, the greatest return of sockeye salmon on record.
This year we have already seen wild steelhead make huge gains
from last year on the Snake River.
Are there specific ocean indicators that NOAA is tracking
that consistently correlate with high or low returns for
Columbia Basin salmon?
Ms. Quan. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. We are
tracking a number of indicators in the ocean and have for many
decades, relative to conditions. I would say that the ocean
conditions are a great concern to us, and a particular concern
to the commercial, recreational, and tribal economies that rely
on those fisheries.
We also know that when we listed salmon, we looked at
indicators in the ocean, in freshwater, and we looked at the
things that we could control and manage to improve them, and
that is harvest, hatchery, habitat, and hydropower, and those
four H's still play into our management. Those are still really
the dials we have to turn to improve salmon and get them back
to healthy and harvestable levels.
So, we are monitoring ocean conditions, and both ocean and
freshwater conditions are having impacts on their survival.
Mrs. Rodgers. OK. In British Columbia, the Fraser River has
no dams. Correct?
Ms. Quan. Yes.
Mrs. Rodgers. Has NOAA found what accounted for the
extinction level returns on steelhead on the Fraser in 2021?
Ms. Quan. I don't think we know exactly what accounted for
that.
Mrs. Rodgers. OK. Dr. Welch, keeping on the topic of salmon
returns on rivers that do not have dams, one of the points that
we hear over and over from the dam removal advocates is that it
is the smolt-to-adult return ratios on the Lower Snake River
that is specific to setting salmon on a path to extinction.
Would you speak to your research up and down the West Coast on
the rivers that are dammed and do not have dams, and just what
your research has shown.
Dr. Welch. Certainly. I am concerned that salmon are on an
extinction level trajectory. The problem is it is not just in
the Columbia River. Up and down the West Coast, survival rates
to adult return are virtually the same as the Snake River
virtually everywhere, so we published that in 2020, including
southeast Alaska with its natural, pristine, freshwater
habitats, hatchery, and wild salmon have survival rates that
are the same as that are being reported for the Snake River.
So, we deliberately made the comparison up and down the
coast relative to the Snake River, as always thought to have
very poor survival, but the point was it is the same.
Mrs. Rodgers. OK. Thank you. I just want to try to get one
more.
Ms. Coffey, the Washington State Academy of Scientists
recently did an analysis of salmon predation by seals and sea
lions, and the report said the number of Chinook salmon that
fall prey to seals and sea lions is substantial and has
increased steadily. The report included some recommendations
that the state of Washington experiment with reducing seal and
sea lion populations.
Does the Army Corps face any barriers to removing seals and
sea lions, and how can Congress help?
Ms. Coffey. Thank you, ma'am, for that question. We do have
data on Bonneville Dam. That is where we usually see those
seals and sea lion issues occur. We have been working closely
with the services over the last several years in order to look
at how to work with them and look at how to manage those
predators better.
I would have to get back to you on any specifics that
Congress can help us with as far as future actions, but we have
had some success over the last couple of years working with the
services in trying to kind of mitigate for those predators in
that part of the Basin.
Mrs. Rodgers. OK. I look forward to that. I yield back.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Collins for 5
minutes.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I said, I am in
the trucking business. I am just a small businessman. And when
things hit me negatively in my business, I think of two things:
what is the problem and what is the solution. As we go through
the next few minutes, I hope you will go along with me to see
if we can figure out exactly what the problems are and what the
solution is.
Now I thought I was in the most regulated industry that
there is in this country. That is until I started getting out
and meeting folks like you. And now I think we are all in the
most regulated industry that there is in the country.
[Applause.]
Mr. Collins. Being out here and going to these hearings is
one of the most educational things that I have been able to do
in my first 200 days, and I just want to give you an FYI. We
got notice on this hearing on May 23. You had up until a week
before this hearing started to say that you were going to
attend. Now, there is not a single Democrat up here, not a
single person from the other side of the aisle that is
interested in looking you in the face and seeing what you have
to say, and I hope you take that to heart and notice that.
This is what I have seen so far, and I am going to try to
hurry through this. But I saw an EPA that was out of control in
the Midwest, in Minnesota, destroying a small town up there, 20
years working on a mining permit. The biggest, largest deposit
in the world for critical minerals. Keep that in mind as we
go--critical minerals, for your EVs. Twenty years working on a
permit, destroying the entire town.
The East Coast, we have NOAA over there trying to destroy
an entire industry, the recreational fishing industry, over a
right whale issue that they cannot even scientifically base
what the problem is. Man, now we are out here on the West
Coast.
Ms. Quan, I would like to start off--if I pronounced it
wrong, I am sorry--when did Congress authorize NOAA?
Ms. Quan. Pardon me?
Mr. Collins. When did Congress authorize NOAA as an agency?
The answer is never. You don't have the authorization. You are
another glaring example of an unauthorized, unaccountable
agency that is out there, that is politically motivated, that
is making rules on people across this country with no
accountability. It reminds me of the hearing that we held last
week with the Council on Emissions Quality, a Biden
administration office that is out there regulating the stew out
of people, using foreign entities in that case, with no
accountability to you, the taxpayer.
Mr. McGregor, I want to switch gears. You are a man in my
industry. Are you multi-generational?
Mr. McGregor. Yes, I am.
Mr. Collins. What generation?
Mr. McGregor. We are third generation, 140 years in
business.
Mr. Collins. Can you tell us, has inflation had an impact
on you so far, in the past couple of years?
Mr. McGregor. We certainly feel inflation. In agriculture,
in particular, we are vulnerable to inflation because it
increased the cost of production so rapidly and dramatically,
and we can't control the price at which we sell our products.
They go overseas at the prevailing price. So, it is very
difficult for agriculture in inflationary----
Mr. Collins. Your production has gone up in pricing. You
are in trucking, I can see, because you truck to the barge.
We have an 80,000-driver truck shortage out there. They
want to blow up these dams, and then you are going to have to
truck or rail. Is that going to be economically feasible?
Mr. McGregor. We are very familiar with the shortage of
truck drivers. It is a constant struggle to find them. We have
about 60 semis on the road, and it is hard to fill those
positions with people.
Mr. Collins. I think we all understand it. It is not.
You know, folks, I hope you all understand. These are the
two problems that I see out there. This is the over-arching
problem I see. You have an administration with an ideology that
is way left wing and out of control. They don't care if you
have enough electricity or not. That is not the point. You
already live too good. You need to be brought down. You don't
need all that electricity.
The problem we have here, immediately, is we have over-
reaching, unaccountable agencies out there that can issue
rules, listen to comments and don't really care. They are still
going to issue rules and destroy industries, destroy your
livelihood.
The solution to this is Congress needs to take control.
These unauthorized agencies, we need to either authorize them,
or defund them and get rid of them.
[Applause.]
Mr. Collins. The other part of this immediate solution, we
need to rein these other agencies in through this REINS Act. We
have good legislation out there to do that, Mr. Chairman.
And with that, I know I am over, and I yield back.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Collins.
[Applause.]
Mr. Bentz. The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes.
Ms. Quan, I am looking at your testimony and I am struck by
some of the language I see on page 3 that talks about the
difference between what the ESA would require, on the one hand,
and what perhaps NMFS is shooting for on the other. The phrase
in the second paragraph reads, ``Broad-sense recovery goals
seek salmon and steelhead numbers that contribute fully to the
culture, environment, and economy of the region.'' That would
suggest a number far greater than what the ESA would require.
Is that correct?
Ms. Quan. That is correct.
Mr. Bentz. And who establishes, to Mr. Collins' point, who
is it that establishes or established the broad-sense recovery
goals? Where did that standard come from?
Ms. Quan. The rebuilding report that we issued back in
2022, were goals built out of the Columbia Basin River
Partnership. That was a partnership pulled together through a
number of stakeholders in the Basin, and they helped us
establish those goals.
Mr. Bentz. I think you actually address that in the last
paragraph on page 3 of your testimony. It seems odd that the
future of this Northwest would be determined by a group of
people that get together, unelected, to discuss how this
standard is going to be established, because then we move into
the litigation that is now pending in front of Judge Simon. And
he has allowed entry of a TRO, and now there is a mediation
ongoing.
You are party to that. You are participating in that
mediation. Can you share with us where you are, where that
mediation is?
Ms. Quan. The mitigation is confidential at this time.
Mr. Bentz. Yes, it is confidential. I know that. I wanted
you to say it out loud so everybody here knew that their future
is being mediated by a group of parties to a lawsuit, and that
they have no part in it.
Now there was an attempt, and you know this, because you
and I were trying to have a conversation and I was about to go
back into the hearing room last week, to question Brenda
Mallory, who is the head of CEQ, about this exact issue.
Because, in fact, in the Federal Register Ms. Mallory, head of
the Council on Environmental Quality out of the White House,
stated that she was actually asking that members of the groups
go out into the community and find out what they were thinking,
which I found odd. It is something that perhaps Congress should
be doing, and that is exactly what we are doing today. We are
out here trying to find out what is going on, and more to the
point, shine light on what is going on.
But you are telling me that this mediation in a lawsuit
that is going to determine, through Judge Simon's powers, the
future of this area, is that what I am hearing? And if so, when
might we expect to know what our future might be, as determined
by the folks party to this mediation?
Ms. Quan. Unfortunately, I cannot speak to ongoing
litigation or matters that are confidential.
Mr. Bentz. And who established that confidentiality? Was
that Judge Simon by order, or by agreement among the group?
Ms. Quan. What I can tell you is the mediation is being led
and conducted by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation
Service, and the agreements of the parties there are that----
Mr. Bentz. Pardon me for interrupting. I didn't have a
chance to go through all of the filings in the litigation,
although I have most of them in this notebook right here. It is
just that they are lengthy, and I had too many other things
going on. But I will go through them, and I will check to see
if Judge Simon actually ordered that confidentiality or not.
Because I think it is particularly important to all of us that
we know what is going to design the future of this part of the
great United States.
I am particularly challenged by seeing how agencies are
acting in a way that would moot the oversight of Congress, and
to that end I just want to mention how, when I asked Brenda
Mallory whether Congress would have anything to say about the
removal of the dams, she assured me that if they were removed
and breached, of course Congress would have to become involved.
But that is not what is really going on in your mediation, is
it? You don't have to answer.
But what is really going on is an attempt to de-water the
pools behind the dam and leave just the river, so that the two
upper dams are merely, I call them ripples in the mighty Snake.
And that is what I think you are discussing right now because I
have seen a legal memo that has been given to all of you saying
exactly that. Are you free to agree with me on this?
Ms. Quan. I am not aware of the legal memo you are speaking
of, so I cannot agree or disagree.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you.
I now recognize Mr. Newhouse for 5 minutes.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity for a second round of questioning.
If we look back at last fall's report that was requested by
Governor Inslee and Senator Murray, and even if we look further
back a couple of years to Representative Simpson's project
proposing the removal of the Snake River dams, they make a
statement in there similar to what I heard, Ms. Quan, you made
reference to. And, unfortunately, I don't have your testimony
in front of me, so I apologize I don't have all the specifics,
but you talked about the fact that important services would
need to be replaced in the event of the breaching of the dams.
Both of those other reports I referred to also said the
power generated from the Snake River dams would have to be
replaced and operational before the breaching could occur.
And this question is for, gosh, everyone and anyone in
particular--Mr. Hairston maybe has a thought, Mr. Dunn, maybe
all of you do. Since we do not have the ability to replace the
power that is generated by the Snake River dams currently--in
fact, I said earlier it would take 6,000 acres of solar panels
to achieve the output that the four Lower Snake River dams
provide, and that only happens during the daylight hours, so we
still do not even have it with that--isn't this discussion,
this argument, really just an exercise in futility at this
point since we do not have the ability to replace that power.
Any response? Mr. Hairston, perhaps we could start with
you?
Mr. Hairston. Yes. Thanks for the question, Congressman
Newhouse. I would say that we have put together a study. We
initiated a study to look at replacement of the Lower Snake
dams. And, yes, we are at a point in time where we are having
those discussions about what it would take, and the Murray-
Inslee report did identify, like you said, the need to have
replacement resources in place.
As I said in my testimony, the study indicated that it
would cost anywhere between $11.2 and $19.2 billion, in present
value, to replace what is given, what we have today.
It also looked at replacing anywhere between 2,300 to 4,300
megawatts in resources, so what you were saying in terms of the
solar panels is on the right track. It would take an enormous
amount of resources, according to the study.
And then also the annual cost could run anywhere between
$415 million to $860 million per annual by 2045, according to
the study that we commissioned.
And then the last thing I would share with you is that it
also indicated an increased cost to public power customers,
anywhere between $100 to $230 per household per year by 2045.
So, yes, we have looked at, or we commissioned the study,
Bonneville did, to look at replacement. There are varying
opinions on it, but the bottom line is that we did see
significant costs in doing that.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you. Mr. Dunn, do you have any
reaction?
Mr. Dunn. I will make it quick. I don't want to get you in
trouble. Just remember, if you are going to replace
controllable technology that can balance supply and demand,
like hydro, there really is no equivalent technology on the
table in Washington and Oregon. Oregon has taken new natural
gas off the table. It is illegal to build a new natural gas
plant. Washington, while it is not illegal, has made it so it
is cost prohibitive. Nobody in their right mind is going to
build a new natural gas plant in Washington.
So, to answer your question, what you do to replace hydro
with wind and solar and batteries is you play a probability
game, and we are increasingly playing a probability game that
there will be adequate wind or there will be adequate sun plus
storage. And it was already mentioned earlier, multi-day cold
snaps are windless and often cloudy.
I hope that helps, but we have cornered ourselves and we
really have no replacement technology that can do it
affordably.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you very much. That absolutely helps,
and I appreciate your explaining that in terms that make this
conversation almost academic in the fact that we should be
spending our time on how can we continue to allow dams and
salmon to co-exist instead of eliminating one of the most
important sources of energy that we have ever seen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Bentz. The Chair recognizes Mrs. McMorris Rodgers for 5
minutes.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. And just as a follow-up, Mr.
Hairston, I appreciate the study that BPA did, would you
explain how four dams in Washington State are able to help keep
the lights on in California?
Mr. Hairston. Absolutely. The value of the Lower Snake dams
also, I mean, first of all it starts within region, but also it
is extra-regionally. As I said in my testimony, when we do
experience heatwaves or cold snaps and there is high power
demand, those Lower Snake dams, along with the rest of the
hydro fleet are able to respond instantaneously. So, when there
is a need on the system, we are able to ramp those up.
Anywhere, on average, we can get 1,000 megawatts from them, but
that could actually be pushed as high as 2,000 megawatt
capacity, if necessary. We are also capable of carrying
reserves with those projects.
If you look as a system as a giant machine, which----
Mrs. Rodgers. Battery, maybe. Look at the whole system as a
giant battery.
Mr. Hairston. Yes. We have it interconnected with
transmission, and we are able to send those megawatts under
demand down south, when necessary, to avoid blackouts. And
really, at the end of the day, it is about reliability and
resiliency for us.
Mrs. Rodgers. Sometimes I like to refer to the dams as the
largest natural battery out there.
Is BPA participating in the confidential mediation that is
underway?
Mr. Hairston. Yes, we are.
Mrs. Rodgers. Who is leading it?
Mr. Hairston. Well, CEQ, along with FMCS, are heading up
the mediation.
Mrs. Rodgers. Do you have any idea when Congress, the
elected representatives of the people, may get an update about
this confidential mediation, that includes potential breaching
of the dams?
Mr. Hairston. I would have to refer you to CEQ for that
question.
Mrs. Rodgers. OK. Thank you. Mr. Dunn, I appreciated your
testimony today and really highlighting Washington State, now
we are on this 100 percent clean energy goal, right? Washington
State has already been, are we not the greenest, cleanest
electricity in the country?
Mr. Dunn. Near the top.
Mrs. Rodgers. Hydro, 15 percent renewable portfolio
standard. That is getting up pretty high. And you mentioned
that our electricity rates are 33 percent less than the
national average. I am noting right now that our gas prices are
the highest in the country.
Where do you see this headed as far as affordability,
reliability, in our region? I don't want us to be in the same
position as families and businesses in California who were told
to stop using energy last summer. Any insights that you have
into the impact of potential further decrease of the capacity
of the four Lower Snake River dams?
Mr. Dunn. Yes. People need to understand, the hydropower
system is really unmatched. There is really nowhere else in the
United States that even comes close. So, our costs are so low
it is hard to really even compare it to the rest of the
country. But I mentioned Snake River dams are 1.4 cents per
kilowatt hour. Remember, our retail rates, on average, are 7.2,
so Bonneville's delivered costs are 3.6. That kind of puts it
in the ballpark.
So, as we talk about replacing hydro with wind and solar
and batteries, people need to remember that because wind and
solar are not effective capacity resources, meaning you cannot
control them to align their production with demand for
electricity, you have to overbuild them, and again, you are
playing a probability game and so you have to cover lots of
acreage with these kinds of resources. So, when you overbuild,
the capital costs of those resources that are portrayed as kind
of low cost, well, in a vacuum they might be low cost, but in a
system where you have to deliver both energy and capacity, you
overbuild, so there are billions of overinvestment that is
necessary.
So, to answer your question, rates are going to go up. What
is really standing in the gap right now in terms of reliability
and rates is the hydropower system. That is why I said, we
cannot afford to lose even a drop of hydro because it is just
in a class by itself. Natural gas could help, but it is off the
table.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. I want to get to Mr. McGregor,
just for a little bit of my remaining time. You speak so
eloquently about the farmer, the American farmer, eastern
Washington. What do you see the impact of these decisions on
energy security and food security?
Mr. McGregor. I see the impact of this issue having a
bigger importance than the Pacific Northwest. In particular, I
look at all the commodities that are moved from the northern
tier states, the Corn Belt, to take advantage of that wonderful
marine superhighway that we have. Best recent estimate is $14
billion of goods shipped down that system from outside what we
produce here in the Pacific Northwest. So, that is really
vital.
I also think of how vital that system is for us on
timeliness, which I had mentioned. Everything in agriculture is
so keyed on that. You cannot have delays that go on and on and
on. It is just crucial for agriculture to move fast. And with
rail, you can have cars scattered all over the United States,
and now even Canada and Mexico. A friend of mine, a longtime
railroader, says, ``There is railroad time and then there is
real time.'' And railroad is important, but it is really vital
to have the shipment by barge when you are up against it.
Here is an example. We bring up-river to nourish and
supplement liquid nutrients for about 1.5 million acres, and
where we can we use rail in the off-season, where there is
time. But when you are up against it, you don't have that time.
Last fall, we needed 4.5 million gallons of liquid fertilizer
on short notice. Rail could not come through. Our own truck
fleet could not possibly keep up with it, nor could anyone
else's. Tugs and barges were where we turned, and they came
through for us. It really is a crucial cornerstone so we move
ahead.
And I think so much can be gained by pulling together. That
is what we strive for in agriculture is to find ways that we
can care for our salmon and find ways we can work together to
keep our economy robust too, which is absolutely fundamentally
critical.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Collins for
5 minutes.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to pick
up kind of where I left off there with what I have been seeing
and kind of what I saw today when we visited the Ice Harbor
Dam. You know what I saw? I saw an incredible group of people
that were knowledgeable and excited. They were eager to face
challenges, and they were meeting them.
You take a look at two things. They were producing
electricity out there, and at a lower cost, being more
efficient, changing out turbines as technology changes,
environmentally sound. I mean, a 98 percent success rate with
the salmon crossing through there. And economically, just
moving products up and down the waterways. They were doing it
while we were standing there.
So, with that in mind, Mr. Hairston, with a huge push
toward electric vehicles and electric stoves, we don't want to
leave that out, even without removing the dams, are the
Northwest current and future energy resources adequate?
Mr. Hairston. We are going to need to build more resources.
We also need to build more transmission. We are going through
our renewal of our 20-year power contracts, and as Mr. Dunn was
saying, our customers would like to see more. They would like
to get more energy from us, at a lower cost. So, we are looking
at what resources will be necessary for the future to meet
electrification as well as investments in transmission. And I
also want to mention energy efficiency. That is a key
component. We saved over 7,000 megawatts since the induction of
the POWER Act, and we are going to continue to forge ahead
there.
But by and large, given whether it is our own forecasts or
what we are seeing come out in the industry, there is going to
be a requirement to build more resources as well as more
transmission.
Mr. Collins. So, what about our current needs, like now for
the next 5 years? Do we have energy resources to meet that?
Mr. Hairston. I would say for the next 5 years things are
getting tight. However, we have seen a kind of movement in the
Northwest where utilities have gotten together under the
Western Resource Adequacy Program, where utilities have come
together for the first time in a transparent fashion to look at
reliability and to make sure that we are working together to
meet any of the reliability needs as we move forward. So that,
as well as building new resources, based on the incentives that
are out there. And then we are also looking at how we can
integrate resources a lot quicker through queue reform and
other things on the transmission side of the business.
So, in the next 3 to 5 years I believe we are going to be
able to manage it pretty solidly, based on what we have been
doing together.
Mr. Collins. Factoring in any blackouts in that time frame?
Mr. Hairston. I beg your pardon.
Mr. Collins. Brownouts. Any brownouts factored in?
Mr. Hairston. Well, we are keeping the probability of that
down by virtue of having the Lower Snake River dams and other
hydro facilities and plants in place. That probability is
around 6.6 percent, in I want to say a 15-year timespan. So
long as we have our resources working, and like I said, working
together with other entities in the region, we should be in
very good shape in terms of resiliency and reliability.
Mr. Collins. All right. Thank you.
Ms. Hennings, can you estimate the value of the Northwest
wheat, grain, and irrigated agriculture to our nation's food
security?
Ms. Hennings. Well, nearly 500,000 acres are irrigated in
Benton, Franklin, and Walla Walla Counties from the Snake,
Columbia, and aquifer. So, a dam breach would not just remove
direct irrigation from the Snake, but it would result in a
groundwater drop of 100 feet, requiring new, deeper wells for
those using the aquifer.
I get the question of can we do without the irrigation on
the Snake, and absolutely not. We are here to feed the world,
and we cannot reduce the amount of production that we are
producing.
Mr. Collins. All right. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Collins.
Ms. Quan, actually, let me go to Ms. Coffey first. I am
looking at your testimony, and I note on page 1, next to the
last paragraph, ``With appropriate maintenance, repair,
rehabilitation, and replacement of components as needed, the
Corps could continue to operate these four dams on the Lower
Snake River for many years. Deauthorization and removal of the
dams would require specific authorization and appropriations
from Congress.''
Is your agency party to this secret mediation that is going
on?
Ms. Coffey. Sir, the Corps of Engineers is part of the
mediation process.
Mr. Bentz. Is the answer yes?
Ms. Coffey. Yes.
Mr. Bentz. And are you also sworn to secrecy, so you can't
share with us what our future is?
Ms. Coffey. We are still under the confidential agreement.
Mr. Bentz. And who was it that swore you guys to secrecy
again? Was it the judge who said you could not talk about what
you are doing in the mediation?
Ms. Coffey. It is just part of the agreement we have as
part of the litigation stay that is approved by the judge.
Mr. Bentz. Your statement here says deauthorization and
removal would require congressional oversight. It has been said
that if the district court upholds agency discretion to engage
in the functional equivalent of dam breaching, extreme
drawdowns that substantially reduce, if not eliminate,
electricity production from the Snake River dams, and destroy
navigation by existing barges during large, if not all,
portions of the area. Congressional oversight and approval
would not be necessary. Do you agree?
Ms. Coffey. Sir, I think the question you are asking is
whether or not any type of operational changes would need
congressional approval. Those, specifically, would be at the
discretion of the agency to look at. We do look at all the
factors related to being able to do our mission.
Mr. Bentz. I think your answer is no. Your answer is no. If
it is operational, you are saying no, congressional
authorization is not necessary. So, why did you put this
paragraph in about deauthorization and removal? And I hate to
be mean about this but it is pretty important to everybody in
the room. Because the same language was included in the CEQ's
two-page filing in the Federal Register on May 3, where they
are very careful to point out, ``but not limited to mitigation
corridor restoration through breaching for Snake River dams,
which would require congressional authorization.'' But that is
not the way you guys are going. What you are doing is working
together in this mediation to determine an operational means of
mooting, neutering, taking away these dams. That is what is
really going on.
Dr. Welch, you had a very, very important thing that you
said early on. I just want to go back to it, and I am looking
at page 2 of your report. I believe you were going through and
explaining why sending more fish from Bonneville down to the
ocean is apparently so dangerous for those fish because so few
come back. And I think you need to say it again. I really want
you to get this paragraph across to everyone in the couple of
minutes we have left.
I mean, it is shocking, really. A lot of the smolts don't
make their way down to the ocean. Let's say half do because
that is what your paragraph says. But the half that get into
the ocean, only a fraction come back. So, is it correct that
perhaps our agencies that are sitting here should be, instead
of beating up on the economy of the Northwest, shouldn't they
be focusing on the ocean? Please give us your thoughts.
Dr. Welch. Well, I am a long-term advocate for ocean salmon
research in both Canada and the United States, more than we are
doing, but it is directly relevant to these policy questions
that you folks are struggling with. To reiterate the point that
I made, 1 out of 50 of the smolts that pass Bonneville, or 2
percent, come back. So, one-half of the fish die in the power
system, 50 percent make it. One out of 50 comes back. That is
the 1 percent return that is current up and down the coast.
The key point is that it is up and down the coast. It is
not just in the Columbia River, not just in the Snake River.
But we need to understand why survival is so poor in the ocean,
because the point I have made for years is we don't even know
if survival is worse in the ocean than it is going through the
power system. So, if it is worse, pushing the fish out to sea
faster with spill is going to be counterproductive. It is
actually going to reduce the adult returns.
Mr. Bentz. Is it your opinion that we need more studies of
what is going on in the ocean?
Dr. Welch. Well, you cannot ask a scientist if we need more
science. I would get my membership card taken away if I didn't
say that.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Welch. But I think we need more focused studies that
are not just promising to study things but really focused on
things that will address the policy questions that you folks
are struggling with from your end.
Mr. Bentz. Well, we are out of time, and this is amazing
how fast these 2 hours have gone by. But I want to thank all of
you for your valuable testimony and the Members for their
questions.
The members of the Committee may have some additional
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to
these in writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the
Committee must submit questions to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5
p.m. Eastern time on Thursday, June 29. The hearing record will
be held open for 10 business days for these responses.
If there is no further business, without objection the
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:03 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Russ Fulcher, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Idaho
Thank you to Chairman Bentz and Members of the Waters, Wildlife, &
Fisheries Subcommittee for the opportunity to submit, for the record, a
brief statement on the hearing titled: ``The Northwest at risk: the
environmentalist's effort to destroy navigation, transportation, and
access to reliable power.'' For the Northwest United States, the lower
Snake River dams bring reliable energy, boost American exports, and
offer wealth for millions of Americans.
These essential components of this maritime highway represent
energy reliability from continuous production of hydropower to meet
growing populations. Idaho's grain and other producers rely on the dams
to help navigate these critical foods to ``feed the world.'' And the
wealth generated from these dams means we can keep families intact,
communities whole, and economic opportunities in place. We should not
supplant these ingeniously engineered systems with an ill-timed road
network or other uncertain network. With ingenuity and technology, we
can ensure wise stewardship of our environment, future energy needs,
and prosperous communities.
Generations of Americans have relied upon these energy and
transport systems to make a future for their families and their
communities. With U.S. adversaries competing on the world stage, now is
not the time for us to go back into a dark and bleak anti-growth
future.
As we make strides towards a cleaner energy future, let's make the
systems we have today work for future generations. I cannot in good
faith tell the residents of Idaho to trade energy reliability for
energy stagnation and economic uncertainty all to meet the whims and
desires of the Biden Administration's push for environmental justice.
Rather, I am encouraged by the admission of Council for Environmental
Quality Chair, Brenda Mallory, that indeed, only Congress can authorize
certain purposes to these dams, or for the removal of them physically.
Without the lower Snake River dams, families will go without power
in the heat of summer and the cold of winter. The economic ruin that is
certain to follow will not provide justice to communities across
Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon already surrounded by federal
lands rife with bureaucratic red tape.
I am constantly inspired by the resilience of the farmers,
ranchers, barge and port operators, recreational tourism, power, and
all the immense benefits provided by the lower Snake River dams. For
the time I am in office, I call on all interested parties to weigh in
on where we are at in this country with our foreign adversaries, and
consider--if the United States needed to be truly energy independent
sooner rather than later, would we even be having conversations about
removing strategically important energy and trade systems? I think not.
I thank the Committee on Natural Resources for holding this
important hearing and providing an opportunity for the communities in
the Northwest to be heard on a national stage.
______
Submission for the Record by Rep. Bentz
Statement for the Record
Michael C. Seyfert
President and Chief Executive Officer
National Grain and Feed Association
The National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA) thanks the Committee
on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries and
the Western Caucus for holding a hearing focusing on the benefits of
the Columbia and Snake Rivers, and recent actions by environmental
activists to breach the dams. The NGFA is opposed to any actions by
federal or state governments that could result in breaching the Lower
Snake River Dams.
The NGFA consists of nearly 1,000 grain, feed, processing,
exporting and other grain-related companies and cooperatives operating
more than 8,000 facilities. Our membership includes grain elevators;
feed and feed ingredient manufacturers; biofuels companies; grain and
oilseed processors and millers; exporters; livestock and poultry
integrators; transportation companies and associated firms that provide
goods and services to the nation's grain, oilseed, feed, and processing
industry. Our industry feeds the world.
Barge transportation moves about half of all grain exports to
export elevators and is critical to NGFA members in the Pacific
Northwest. The Columbia-Snake River System is the third-largest grain
export corridor in the world, transporting nearly 30 percent of U.S.
grain and oilseed exports.
Breaching the Lower Snake River Dams in the Pacific Northwest would
create severe economic harm to the entire U.S. agricultural value
chain. Removing the Lower Snake River Dams will hurt producers and
negatively impact the operations and livelihoods of NGFA members who
have made investment decisions based on the ability to utilize barge
transportation. In addition to the impact on agriculture in the Pacific
Northwest and throughout much of the western and northern United
States, reduced exports will have a tremendous negative impact on
global food security, which has already been affected by the Russian
invasion of Ukraine.
During a recent listening session held by the Federal Mediation
Service, advocates of breaching the dams suggested barge traffic could
be replaced by rail or truck transportation. The NGFA would like to
clarify that the required infrastructure capacity simply does not
exist, and it is highly unlikely that it could be created in an
economically viable amount of time.
Importantly for this discussion, barges are the most
environmentally friendly mode of transportation for grains and oilseeds
with one four-barge tow moving as much grain as 140 rail cars or 538
semi-trucks. This fact cannot be ignored in the debate about the
environmental impacts of breaching the dams.
We thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to offer comments on
this issue.
[all]