[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 RIVER FEDERAL HYDROPOWER SYSTEM

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, late yesterday afternoon, the National 
Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS] briefed Congress on the outcome of its 
consultations with other agencies regarding the operation of the 
Columbia River Federal Hydropower System. These consultations are 
required under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and result in a 
biological opinion that determines whether the operation of Federal 
dams will jeopardize the continued existence of endangered salmon and 
other species.
  This announcement has been much anticipated in the Northwest, as the 
biological opinion could govern Columbia River operations for the next 
5 years. The stakes for individual ratepayers, energy-intensive 
industries, farmers, boaters, and fishermen are enormous.
  Two weeks ago, Senator Craig and I took to the Senate floor to bring 
this issue to the attention of my colleagues, and to issue a strong 
warning to NMFS that real jobs and real people would be affected by its 
decisions. At that time there were indications that radical flow 
proposals were being advocated by NMFS--proposals that could cost 
Northwest ratepayers hundreds of millions of dollars per year and leave 
area reservoirs virtually dry.
  The opinion that NMFS released yesterday is not as drastic as 
originally feared, but it will still result in additional costs to 
Northwest families and businesses. It also raises serious questions 
about how the Endangered Species Act works--or better yet, does not 
work.
  Though it is a complex document, the crux of the opinion is that the 
agencies that operate the Columbia River hydro system and market its 
energy--the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation and the 
Bonneville Power Administration--will have to devote some 11.5 million 
acre feet of water to salmon enhancement. This represents a significant 
increase in flows over the 8.5 million acre feet called for in both the 
Northwest Power Planning Council's Strategy for Salmon and the recovery 
plan drafted by a NMFS-appointed recovery team.
  For a variety of reasons, this persistent ratcheting-up of flow 
requirements is becoming difficult to justify.
  First, there is very little science on the relationship between flows 
and salmon survival. No one doubts that a pristine, undammed river 
would produce more fish, but we do not have a pristine, undammed river. 
On the other hand, there is serious doubt as to whether additional 
water releases in the existing river system will have any measurable 
benefit for fish. Studies are currently being performed to explore this 
relationship, but these studies are incomplete.
  Second, the biological opinion mandates flows well beyond those 
recommended in the recovery team's plan. The recovery team was itself 
picked by NMFS, and is comprised of fish biologists and other experts 
with extensive knowledge of the Columbia River system. Though the 
recovery team plan is not yet in final form, it is unlikely that its 
flow recommendations will be as high as those included in the 
biological opinion released yesterday. This disparity becomes even more 
glaring when one considers that the standard which the recovery team is 
trying to meet--recovery of the species--is by definition more exacting 
than the ``no jeopardy'' standard which NMFS must meet in its 
biological opinion. As Congressman DeFazio, of Oregon, noted the other 
day, ``this is a very political biological opinion.''
  Finally, there is the issue of cost; the effect on people that is so 
often ignored in these matters. By the most conservative estimates, the 
opinion will increase the cost of Bonneville power by $40 million per 
year. This figure does not include the costs to other utilities with 
projects on the Columbia. These costs themselves come on top of the 
hundreds of millions of dollars per year in higher power costs which 
the people of the Northwest are already paying for fish and wildlife.
  The opinion may also be the incremental cost that triggers the 10 
percent interim rate adjustment clause included in Bonneville's last 
rate case. Such an increase would adversely impact all ratepayers, but 
would hit struggling, energy-intensive industries such as aluminum and 
pulp and paper especially hard. Irrigators in the Upper Snake River 
Basin will be affected by the opinion, and those who enjoy boating, 
fishing, and recreation on Federal reservoirs in Montana, Idaho, and 
Washington will also pay.

  Mr. President, this means working families will feel the impacts of 
this decision the most--and for what? NMFS cannot identify the benefit 
to salmon. Bonneville certainly cannot. Rather, this decision seems 
designed to meet some undefined political agenda.
  My agenda is clear, Mr. President--keep people working and do 
everything that is reasonable to restore wild salmon runs. The plan 
announced today does not follow this agenda, as it will hurt people, 
cost jobs, and do little, if anything, to help salmon. How is that 
progress?
  The costs associated with the NMFS plan also represent resources that 
could be devoted to other salmon recovery measures with proven and 
identifiable benefits. Apparently, however, such programs are not such 
a high priority for NMFS when the agency must pay the costs itself. 
Just 2 days ago we got our first look at the President's budget. Most 
people in the Northwest were surprised to learn that funding for Lower 
Columbia hatcheries, Columbia River irrigation diversion screening, and 
a Columbia River salmon smolt program had all been cut. These are all 
programs with proven, identifiable benefits for fish, and small price 
tags in comparison to the flow measures contained in the biological 
opinion.
  Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for the two individuals 
who were instrumental in developing this opinion. Randy Hardy has 
proven to be an extremely able Administrator of the Bonneville Power 
Administration, and Rollie Schmitten has certainly earned his recent 
promotion from NMFS Regional Director to Assistant Administrator of 
NOAA for fisheries. I have no doubt Mr. Hardy, Mr. Schmitten, and the 
other officials involved did the best they could to produce an opinion 
that can withstand the inevitable flood of lawsuits.
  The problem instead lies with the statute under which these lawsuits 
will be filed. The Endangered Species Act provides little room for 
balance between the interests of humans and listed species. Listed 
species always get the benefit of any doubt. The act provides no means 
of rationally allocating limited resources for species protection, nor 
does it give those who will be affected by its enforcement any say in 
the section 7 consultation process.
  Legislation I have introduced with Senator Shelby would allow for 
greater balance between the needs of humans and other species. The bill 
would also change the section 7 process to allow customers of Federal 
agencies to participate in consultations. Each Federal agency would 
also be required to consider its obligations and responsibilities under 
other statutes, treaties, interstate compacts, and contractual 
agreements during consultations.
  Unfortunately, it appears that neither the leadership in Congress nor 
the administration wish to take up the reauthorization of the 
Endangered Species Act this year. The administration is saying ``we can 
make it work, give us a chance.'' To be honest, I don't think it can be 
done. The act is too inflexible, and places an extravagant premium on 
genetic diversity that we cannot afford.
  But if the administration is serious about working within the 
existing act, it has one more opportunity to demonstrate that families 
and communities do matter. The National Marine Fisheries Service will 
soon begin work on its own official salmon recovery plan as required by 
the act. This plan ideally will build on the work of the recovery team, 
and when complete will replace the section 7 consultation process as 
the primary governor of river operations.
  If NMFS does not stray far from the recovery team's plan--and for 
that matter the regional council's plan--it stands a chance of 
retaining some semblance of regional consensus on salmon recovery. I 
also think it will stand a better chance of surviving the lawsuits to 
which the agency will be subjected.
  If NMFS instead uses the recovery plan to demand yet more sacrifice 
by the people of the Northwest without very firm evidence that the 
salmon will benefit, it had better be prepared for a very angry 
response--not only from this Senator, but from the people of the 
Northwest.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.

                          ____________________