[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.

                          ____________________