[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.
____________________