[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 56 (Tuesday, May 10, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: May 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
RIVER SPILLAGE
Mr. GORTON. Madam President, late yesterday the National Marine
Fisheries Service requested of the Corps of Engineers that it begin
immediately a substantial spillage of water over the dams on the
Columbia and the Snake Rivers. That spillage, of course, would take
place without the water going through the generators and without,
therefore, the production of power which is the primary purpose of the
dams.
The reason for this request for spillage is that the National Marine
Fisheries Service feels that it would help somewhat the passage
downstream of Snake River spring chinook salmon, a threatened species,
which it is the desire of all to save if at all possible.
The Corps of Engineers immediately responded by pointing out that to
engage in such a spillage would be a violation of laws and regulations
of the States of Washington and Oregon designed to prevent the
supersaturation of the water that has been demonstrated literally to
kill salmon smolt in the past. The Corps of Engineers said that in any
event it could not accede to this request of the National Marine
Fisheries Service without the consent of the Governors of Washington
and Oregon. At this point, at least, the controversy rests at that
stage.
All are concerned, of course, and wish for the restoration of this
run of salmon and of other runs of salmon as well. All agree on the
proposition that a certain cost to the Pacific Northwest is appropriate
in connection with saving these runs of salmon.
The problem with this action, however, is that it is far from clear
that there will be any benefit to wild stocks of chinook salmon or, for
that matter, any of the other affected runs.
The salmon recovery team that was appointed by the National Marine
Fisheries Service to make recommendations as to the restoration of
those runs clearly recommended that spillage be reduced, not increased,
and that the Federal agencies involved instead concentrate on improving
barge transportation as at least a short-run solution, and perhaps as a
long-run solution as well.
The salmon recovery team pointed out the obvious--that barge
transportation of salmon smolt created far less disruption in the
rivers to the production of power, to transportation, and to the
availability of water for irrigation, and it found at least temporarily
that solution to be a better solution than spillage.
This salmon recovery team study has undergone peer review. The
credentials of the team members have not been challenged. Indeed, they
could not be. They are the finest fish scientists in the Pacific
Northwest. Yet we have this sudden, and I think panicked,
recommendation that we engage in that form of action for recovery which
is least certain of success and most expensive to the rest of the
community.
By the very estimates of the National Marine Fisheries Service
itself, there will be only a modest 5.3-percent increase in survival
for those salmon smolt, the young salmon, that actually migrate in the
river.
At the present time, that is roughly 2 percent of the salmon, with 98
percent being transported. Even under this proposal, only 17 percent of
the salmon would be spilled over the dams, while 83 percent would still
be transported by barge. So the 5.3 percent increase in salmon survival
estimated by the National Marine Fisheries Service itself would apply
only to the 15 percent increase of those smolts that were spilled over
the dams. This is, I have said before, in the face of the fact that the
Recovery Team finds the survival to be greater with respect to
transportation than it is with spillage.
What are the costs? Well, the initial costs of lost power generation
estimated by the National Marine Fisheries Service itself are in the
$25 to $35 million range. The Bonneville Power Administration estimates
costs much higher than that if the spills are extended into August as
many expect. If that takes place and if there are no other changes in
the law, it is almost certain to trigger a 10-percent increase in the
power charges imposed by the Bonneville Power Administration because of
the loss of this low-cost hydro power. That 10 percent rate increase,
in turn, will almost certainly force the closure of one, or more than
one, of the aluminum mills in the region, which are already in
desperate condition because of competition from very cheap Russian
aluminum being dumped onto the world market.
So the cost, in addition to the 10-percent increase to all Bonneville
ratepayers, may be hundreds or even thousands of jobs in aluminum mills
in the Pacific Northwest. At this point, since we only heard of this
proposal last evening, only the roughest of cost estimates can be made.
But it is clearly possible that if one takes the percentage of
additional survival which the National Marine Fisheries Service
estimates and its estimate of the number of smolts that will go down
the river this year and will come back at the end of their life cycle,
that we may very well, as ratepayers in the Pacific Northwest, pay $1
million per wild salmon--$1 million for each additional wild spring
chinook salmon that returns up the river. Perhaps that figure is as low
as $500,000 per salmon, but it could easily be $1 million per fish.
I have gone on and estimated the impact on the hatchery stock of
spring chinook salmon--something secondary to the National Marine
Fisheries Service purposes in this case--and calculating in the same
way and evaluating wild stock equally with hatchery stock, we might
bring that figure down to $50,000 per salmon. But still, even if we
include both the hatchery stock and the wild stock and use the survival
rates used by the National Marine Fisheries Service itself, we are
talking about $50,000 per fish--if they are right and this will help.
But weighing against that is the view of many members of the recovery
team, and those who have reviewed its report, that because of the
supersaturation of the water, we will actually lessen survival rather
than increase it.
Madam President, this proposal is lunacy. I am delighted that the
Corps of Engineers has at least put up a yellow light and said: Look at
this problem of supersaturation, get the permission of the Governors to
violate their own laws before you go ahead and do it.
I want to protect salmon runs in the Pacific Northwest very badly.
So, I am sure, does the President, who also represents the State of
Washington, and all of the Members of our congressional delegation, and
those of Oregon and Idaho and Montana, as well. The salmon are part of
our heritage, and they are obviously a vitally important part of our
economy.
Nevertheless, we have to face the fact that we have limited resources
to devote to salmon recovery and therefore should use them in the
wisest and most effective possible manner. Perhaps there is never going
to be a regional consensus on one specific salmon recovery plan. Too
many different interests are involved, and our scientific knowledge is
still limited. That is not an excuse, however, for failing to use the
best scientific evidence that we have available at the present time.
That best evidence would come from the finest team of experts we could
find, and we should follow that team's recommendations to the best of
our ability.
That, however, we have already done. That is exactly who the recovery
team consisted of and what the recovery team recommended. I have warned
the National Marine Fisheries Service that to ignore the recovery
team's clearly would reduce the entire process to a cynical exercise in
public involvement. This appears, unfortunately, to be exactly what is
happening.
Under pressure from a recent court decision that some have
interpreted as contradictory to the recovery team recommendations, the
National Marine Fisheries Service seems to be beating a hasty retreat.
Instead of rallying around the recovery team and supporting the team
plan, and indeed its own opinion on hydro system operations, the
National Marine Fisheries Service is going off in another direction,
one which is extremely risky for fish, extremely costly to the people
of the Pacific Northwest, and one that will almost inevitably lead to
more drastic measures with an equally questionable chance of success.
The National Marine Fisheries Service proposal means that there will
be more fish traveling in the river. Can anyone tell us that this will
not eventually lead to demands for even greater flows to speed those
fish down the river?
Having criticized this proposal by the National Marine Fisheries
Service as sharply as I have, I am obviously obliged to provide an
alternative.
Madam President, I have for a long time vocally advocated changes in
the Endangered Species Act which will create a greater balance between
the interest of the particular endangered species and the general
interests of society--economic, social, cultural, historic, and the
like. Those proposals are controversial. They are unlikely to pass
Congress during the course of this year. I think we can put them to one
side at this point. I think it appropriate to put them to one side and
to say ``Let us do what the recovery team proposed, work within the
Endangered Species Act itself and see whether or not we can make it
work.'' This may be an admission against my interest, because if in
fact the National Marine Fisheries Service cannot make it work in the
way in which the people of the Northwest consider balanced, if they
start costing thousands of jobs and do not do the task they have set
out to do by this proposal, I suspect that pressure to change the
underlying act itself will be even greater.
In connection with this proposal, I believe I have reflected views
which I understand have been expressed today to the administration by
the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives, who sees the
same potential catastrophe from this proposal I have outlined to this
body.
So I propose that the National Marine Fisheries Service adopt the
Recovery Team plan lock, stock, and barrel, on the grounds that it is
the best available, peer-reviewed, scientific proposal on the subject
of this spring chinook salmon run.
If, on the other hand, the National Marine Fisheries Service or any
other Federal agency decides as arbitrarily as it seems to be deciding
at the present time that additional measures such as these huge spills
are required, then let the cost of that additional measure come from
the Federal Treasury.
I am sick and tired of the ratepayers of the Northwest being stuck
with exorbitant Endangered Species Act related costs simply because the
Bonneville Power Administration is a convenient revenue generating
machine. The administration could easily say that any of these
additional costs will be subtracted from the Bonneville Power
Administration's debt. It could under those circumstances engage in
these experiments to its heart's content without threatening the jobs
of workers in the aluminum industry and other energy-intensive
industries, and without threatening the cost of power for the people of
the Pacific Northwest who are dependent on the Bonneville Power
Administration.
Until the administration agrees to defray these costs, however, it
seems to me that the most appropriate step is for the Governors of the
States of Washington and Oregon to refuse to grant the consent which
they have been asked to grant by the Corps of Engineers. After all,
these State law requirements were designed to prevent water quality
problems such as supersaturation, and were entered into after great
study and with great care and should not arbitrarily be abandoned
because the National Marine Fisheries Service is under political
pressure to do something.
Ratepayers in the Pacific Northwest are already paying more than $350
million per year for salmon recovery, and that amount has more than
doubled in the course of the past 2 years. Even if we go with the
Recovery Team's plan, those costs will increase. But under those
circumstances, they will increase for purposes and for goals which a
scientific recovery team says are likely to be successful and to help
us with our quest in the Pacific Northwest. If the administration
wishes to ignore the Recovery Team to ask for more, it ought to pay for
it itself, and the way to pay for it is by subtracting all of these
additional costs from the Bonneville Power Administration debt.
Our Governors can help us in this cause. Our Speaker and our
congressional delegation can help us in this cause.
I believe this will reflect the desire of the people of the Pacific
Northwest to have salmon recovery, their desire to see to it that it is
scientifically based, and their desire to see to it that they get value
for the money they invest in this important cause.
Madam President, this is an urgent situation. It is something that I
hope the administration will reconsider. It is something I hope our
Governors will help us on. It is the way to deal properly both with the
salmon, given the present Endangered Species Act, and with the needs of
the people of the Pacific Northwest for inexpensive power, not just for
their homes and for their small businesses but for the industries upon
which their prosperity is based.
Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________