[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 13 (Thursday, February 10, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                COLUMBIA-SNAKE RIVER BIOLOGICAL OPINION

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, yesterday afternoon a team of five 
Federal agencies announced agreement on an interim plan to protect 
endangered Columbia and Snake River salmon. This plan was formulated 
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, and takes the form of a 
biological opinion on the effects of Columbia/Snake River operations on 
listed salmon population.
  My region, the Pacific Northwest, has been plagued by uncertainty and 
anxiety over the fate of both salmon and people who depend on the river 
system for economic vitality. The region is in the midst of its third 
straight drought year. Quite rightly, there has been fear on all sides 
that salmon stocks are so diminished that strict, draconian measures 
will be necessary to bring them back. Such measures can only bring 
economic dislocation.
  Mr. President, the plan announced yesterday is not extraordinary. It 
does not contain bold new science, nor radical protective measures, nor 
extreme, unanticipated costs. It is a creative compromise that seeks to 
balance the needs of fish with the ability of the region to pay for 
them. What is extraordinary about the plan is the way it was drafted.
  Perhaps for the first time ever, five Federal agencies came together 
in a spirit of cooperation to agree on the best course of action to 
protect regional interests. They have a 5-year framework that allows 
flexibility to respond to water conditions annually. This will provide 
certain stability that business, farmers, and consumers haven't had in 
the past 2 years.
  The National Marine Fisheries Service, the Bonneville Power 
Administration, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the Army Corps of 
Engineers, and the Bureau of Reclamation--instead of working against 
each other--combined their collective resources and got the job done. 
The process was more open than most consultations under section 7 of 
the Endangered Species Act. The Governors of Washington, Oregon, 
Montana and Idaho were all given a chance to participate. In fact, this 
plan has been submitted to the Governors for comment before becoming 
final.
  This represents better than any other statement or action that 
general consensus can be reached in the Northwest on tough natural 
resource issues. Division and conflict are not going to solve our 
problems. We've seen in the past what happens when public policy must 
be decided in a court room: no one wins.
  I commend the agencies and the Governors for their hard work and 
diligence. It remains to be seen whether this plan will deliver. In 
fact, it's success depends a great deal on better rainfall. But it is a 
good step forward, and hopefully it clears the way for merging existing 
salmon strategies and developing regional consensus on a long-term 
recovery plan.

                          ____________________