[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]