[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 66 (Tuesday, May 24, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: May 24, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
THE ENDANGERED SALMON CRISIS
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, most Americans think of the Northwest as
a place of limitless natural bounty. They think of endless tracts of
forest, cascading rivers, towering peaks, and abundant wildlife. More
than anything else, they envision waters teaming with Pacific Salmon.
I imagine, however, that people here in the Congress know better. All
of you, my colleagues, and Members of the other body, have been
refereeing debates over Northwest natural resources for years. More
than anything, you probably think of the Northwest as the place the
Northern Spotted Owl is endangered.
Regrettably, I am here to talk about another crisis in natural
resource stewardship: the decline of Pacific Salmon off the continental
U.S. coast.
Everywhere we look along the Pacific coast today, we see salmon runs
in trouble. In the smallest coastal streams, to the most distant inland
tributaries, returning wild salmon have dwindled year after year.
Nowhere is this more pronounced than the Columbia River. Let me start
by providing a little history.
As long ago as the turn of the century, people recognized the problem
of overexploitation of the salmon resource. With fish wheels and
canneries lining the banks of the Columbia, hatcheries were developed
to augment fish stocks. Later, when the first dams were built on the
main stem, fish ladders were installed to enable returning adults to
migrate upstream and spawn. However, as we placed every increasing
demands on our water--more irrigation, energy consumption, recreation
and population growth--salmon populations followed a consistently
downward trend.
In 1980, Congress passed the Northwest Electric Power Planning and
Conservation Act. This law established the Northwest Power Planning
Council--composed of eight members appointed by the four Northwest
Governors--and charged it with adopting a regional power plan to
ensure, among other things, ``successful migration, survival, and
propagation of anadromous fish.'' In addition, the new law required
Bonneville Power Administration to ``protect, mitigate, and enhance
fish and wildlife to the extend affected by development and operation
of any hydroelectric project,'' consistent with the council's plan. By
enacting this law, Congress formally linked hydro system operators and
users to the survival of salmon.
By some measures, the council and its plan got results for the
region. Through the mid-1980's, salmon returns were generally
increasing because of hatchery production. But these returns hid the
overall decline of wild stock salmon. In 1990, petitions were filed
with National Marine Fisheries Service proposing Endangered Species Act
protection for five salmon stocks.
In 1990, our colleague from Oregon Senator Hatfield held a salmon
summit, at which all the major stakeholders--public and private
utilities, direct service industries, tribes, fishermen, activists,
farmers, and shippers--attempted to forge a regional consensus on
salmon conservation.
Depsite Senator Hatfield's best efforts--and I think it is fair to
say no Member of this body has done more to move this debate than he--
agreement on a regional plan eluded the summit participants. And
despite the hard work and sincere efforts of agencies and stakeholders,
the salmon has continued to disappear. In December, 1991, the Snake
River Sockeye were listed under the Endangered Species Act. In early
1992, they were joined by the Snake River Spring and Fall Chinook. In
May 1991, the Power Planning Council was asked by Senator Hatfield to
devise a strategy for basin-wide salmon conservation.
Since then, I have been hearing the same thing over and over: Saving
the salmon has immense economic implications for region; therefore, we
have to learn the lesson of the spotted owl and act together now to
avoid legal gridlock that would paralyze the river system.
I could not agree more. With three listed species, you would think
the message would sink in. Ideally all parties should coalesce behind a
recovery plan. Sadly, this has not happened. Instead, we have had
annual consultation under ESA, lots of study, and numerous lawsuits.
Most suits have been in response to actions by various agencies to cope
with the problem. There have been suits against every biological
opinion; the barging program has been challenged; suits have been filed
on fishing allocations, and against eastside forest plans. Each has
pushed the river system closer to gridlock.
That brings us to this spring, when Federal district court judge
Malcolm Marsh, by all accounts a distinguished jurist, ruled on a suit
brought by the States of Oregon and Idaho against the 1993 biological
opinion.
Judge Marsh found, among other things, the National Marine Fisheries
Service relied on flawed data to guide its conclusion that power dams
pose no jeopardy to listed salmon. Overall, the judge condemned
government action to date by saying current efforts are:
Too heavily geared towards a status quo that has allowed
all forms of river activity to proceed in a deficit
situation--that is, relatively small steps, minor
improvements and ajustments--when the situation literally
cries out for a major overhaul.
He added, ``the agencies have narrowly focused their attention on
what the establishment is capable of handling with minimal
disruption.''
This decision--all at once damning, sobering, and enlightening--has
left the Pacific Northwest one judicial step removed from total power
system paralysis.
There may be many people out there who disagree with Judge Marsh's
characterization of efforts to date. Clearly, immense resources have
been spent on salmon conservation efforts. But in my mind, there are
two realities we all need to consider: First, the judge has effectively
taken control of the issue; the 1994 biological opinion is based on the
same flawed data used in the 1993 opinion; and several groups have
already filed notice of intent to file suit against it.
Second, we have to look at the numbers: Snake River Spring Chinook
averaged 7,200 returning adults the past 5 years. This year, projected
returns were 6,200 adults. We are nearing the end of migration season;
as of last week, a mere 600 fish--I repeat, 600 fish--have been counted
at Bonneville dam. Factor in 10-percent mortality between dams, and we
have a catastrophe on our hands, regardless of what the law says.
In my view, we are at a crucial, if bleak, point. We can avoid the
problem, either by ignoring it, or by encouraging each affected
interest group to dig in its heels in opposition to action. Or, we can
collectively decide--as a region and a people--that we are dedicated to
recovering this species, and agree to put everything--everything--on
the table to achieve this goal.
Mr. President, I vote on behalf of the salmon. I do not want to be
the Senator who points to a picture on the wall and tells my grandkids,
``those are salmon; we used to have them.'' I believe the region has
begun to face the problem. As I mentioned before, there have been many
efforts to establish a salmon policy. My observation, however, is that
most discussions to date have focused not on salmon, but on how to
protect various economic interests from salmon recovery costs.
We have managed the river to continue access to water, to keep the
channels open to shipping at all times, and to avoid rate increases to
electricity consumers large and small. I am not saying this is wrong,
in fact, it is wholly appropriate to balance these concerns. But
efforts to date simply have not produced the desired results.
All of us together, the whole region, need to ask ourselves whether
we are committed to recovering salmon to healthy, harvestable
populations. If we are, then we must be willing to face the costs,
consider every available option, and find a way to share the burden
with equity.
So what are we going to do? In situations of great conflict,
something always has to give. It seems easiest to follow the path of
least resistance. For example, some have suggested we need to change
the Endangered Species Act, because it requires us to protect the fish.
I have heard people say, ``The salmon are listed? No problem; let's
just change the law.''
I believe there are a number of problems with this approach, not the
least of which is: It would be treating the symptom and not the cause
of our problems. Beyond that, there are a number of legal structures
already in place that make Endangered Species Act requirements look
small by comparison.
Let us assume for a moment we dispose of the ESA. The Northwest Power
Act, which requires the Power Planning Council to ensure the
``successful migration, survival, and propagation of anadromous fish''
would still be in effect. Are we prepared to terminate this portion of
the council's mission? If so, would we go a step further to relieve
Bonneville Power Administration of its requirement to ``protect,
mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife to the extent affected by
development and operation of any hydroelectric project,'' and instead
make energy production the only objective of river operations?
I think it is highly unlikely anyone here wants to undertake such an
action; but again, let us assume we do. In addition to the Northwest
Power Act, the Magnuson Fishery Management and Conservation Act,
requires ``action to conserve and manage the . . . anadromous fish
species of the United States.'' I am fortunate enough today to occupy
Senator Magnuson's seat, and I dare say there are few Members who wish
to undo one of the crowning achievements of his distinguished career.
But for hypothetical purposes, assume we repeal ESA, the Power Act,
and the Magnuson Act. Just take them off the table. That leaves a
bilateral agreement between the Governments of Canada and the United
States. Among other things, the 1985 United States-Canada Treaty
provides for each party ``to receive benefit equivalent to the
production of salmon originating in its waters.'' This spring and
summer, American citizens will be fishing in Alaskan waters for salmon
originating in Canada. Under the terms of this treaty, we are obligated
to provide a like number of fish for Canadians off the coast of
Vancouver Island. In its current condition, the Columbia River salmon
population is utterly incapable of delivering. Is anyone in this
Chamber prepared to support unilateral abrogation of this treaty?
Let us not stop here. If we do away with the United States-Canada
Treaty in addition to the other laws, one would think there were no
requirements on the Federal Government to protect the Columbia Basin
salmon. But that would be ignoring the single strongest legally
affirmed treaty obligation affecting this debate.
Considering U.S. versus Washington in 1974, Judge Boldt ruled that,
``the right of a treaty tribe to harvest anadromous fish . . . arises
from a provision in each of the Stevens treaties . . . which states,
`The right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and
stations, is further secured . . .''' Judge Boldt went on to clarify
that, ``because the right of each treaty tribe to take anadromous fish
arises from a treaty with the United States, that right is preserved
and protected under the supreme law of the land.''
In the same opinion, the Judge defined anadromous fish as both
hatchery and wild stocks, and effectively obligated the State of
Washington to ``preserve and maintain the resource.''
Mr. President, we could eliminate every Federal law enacted by
Congress governing fisheries management, and the 1974 Boldt decision
would still bind my State to protect wild salmon and protect the rights
of all people in my State to harvest them. I could ask the same
question I asked a moment ago: Is the Senate prepared to support
unilateral abrogation of this treaty?
In sum, there are no less than four major legal obligations--maybe
more--driving the need for salmon recovery in addition to ESA: The
Northwest Power Act, the Magnuson Act, the United State-Canada Treaty,
and United States treaty obligations under United States versus
Washington. I did not even mention the FERC relicensing process and the
Clean Water Act, both of which require consideration of factors related
to salmon recovery.
So, while ESA may seem like a tempting target, changing it would not
solve the problem. If fact, the implied intent behind such action would
be a willingness to write off salmon to extinction. I believe this is a
short-sighted policy the people of Washington State will not support; I
know I will not.
Instead, I believe we need to get serious, take a comprehensive look
at the Northwest resource-based economy and make some decisions that
will allow all of us to live together with a healthy economy and a
healthy environment. As I said a moment ago, everything has to be on
the table.
We have to begin with the salmon life cycle. What do we know about
it? We know salmon are hatched in the clean gravel of our headwaters.
We know they rear in the estuaries where the rivers meet the sea. We
know they enter the ocean and live an unknown life, and then return to
fight their way upstream to lay the eggs of future generations.
Each of these phases in the cycle must be part of the solution. A
number of steps have already been taken. As almost everyone already
knows, the entire coastal harvest will be shut down this year as a
result of poor ocean conditions. This has led five counties and the
State of Washington to declare a state of emergency. In addition, I am
hearing from NMFS there will be virtually no fishing permitted on the
main stem of the Columbia and Snake rivers.
To date, commercial and recreational fishing interests have gone
along with this policy, because they recognize the dire situation we
are facing. These steps are correct, and I applaud the people of
Washington for supporting them.
President Clinton's forest plan essentially gears forest management
toward salmon conservation by recognizing the importance of good
spawning habitat. East of the Cascades, the Forest Service is proposing
PACFISH, a strategy to create stream-side buffers forest-wide to
protect spawning grounds. No one here knows better than I the
sacrifices timber communities have been called upon to make these last
few years. Yet here they are, facing conservation measures for fish
that take more timber out of the harvest rotation.
There are theories about how hatchery fish affect wild salmon. They
suggest hatchery fish compete with wild fish for food, among other
things, and generally weaken the gene pool. It is my understanding the
Power Planning Council has undertaken a major evaluation of hatchery
operations and their relationship to wild stock survival. This too is a
necessary step.
In terms of the salmon life cycle, therefore, it is safe to say that
harvest, habitat, and hatcheries (to a lesser extent) are being
addressed in the region through serious, concrete steps. The people and
economic activities associated with these issues are facing very real
sacrifice. The only other link in the chain is the hydroelectric
system.
Because there are three listed salmon stocks, the river system is
subject to consultation with NMFS under ESA to ensure operations do not
jeopardize the fish. Each successive biological opinion rendered
through consultation has gotten more costly and more onerous for the
power system. More than one-third of the recent rate increase is
attributable to ESA requirements.
The latest opinion--currently subject to challenge as inadequate--
calls for additional flows, water conservation, and in-season
management. All of these things are costly, and I think Randy Hardy,
Rollie Schmitten, Gary Smith, and other Federal officials involved
deserve a lot of credit for balancing competing interests under
difficult circumstances. But we still have not achieved the desired
results.
We are awaiting a recovery plan, pending the consideration by NMFS of
recommendations by the recovery team appointed to study the problem.
These recommendations, and the way they have been received in public,
offer an example of just how complicated this issue is. Everyone seems
to agree that we must base our actions on the best available science; I
know I do. But the recovery team--held aloft as the latest, best
science--calls for no less than nine additional areas of study in
migration alone.
The fact of the matter is, the science on this issue is incomplete,
and is likely to remain so for a long time. It seems like every meeting
I have on this issue begins with a discussion of how little is known
about salmon. The sooner we face that reality, the better off we will
be.
NMFS announced something last week that again points out the
complexity and controversy at hand. Faced with Spring Chinook returns
less than 10 percent of normal, NMFS decided to undertake additional
in-season management efforts, based on the belief action is needed now
to improve adult returns later. In consultation with the Power Council,
State agencies, and tribal governments, NMFS decide to expand in-stream
smolt migration by increasing the amount of water spilled over eight
hydro dams on the Snake & Columbia Rivers.
Needless to say this action cause quite a stir. Concerns have been
raised on both coasts, about the costs of this proposal, some $25 to
$75 million depending on the duration. In addition, it is possible the
spill will harm returning adult salmon. Obviously, this would be
counter to recovery efforts. And there is disagreement over whether it
is based on sound science.
I am inclined to support the new spill proposal. At best, it may
achieve marginal benefit for fish. At worst, it might hurt fish and
cost a lot of money. Therefore, we need to view it as experimental. And
we should only proceed with approved, careful monitoring in place.
The real value in the spill proposal extends beyond what it does for
fish. For the first time, the region had to face precipitous action in
response to an emergency situation. And though the spill program is a
small measure comparatively, it represents the kind of decisions the
region must face in the future if we are to be serious about salmon
recovery. We must face the reality that we may have to base certain
actions on subjective judgments.
Mr. President, I do not want to fault the dams; I do not want to
fault anyone. This is not a time to point fingers and further divide my
region. Besides, the Columbia Basin system of dams, locks and
irrigations facilities was a visionary undertaking of historic
proportions. Who can forget Woody Guthrie singing ``Roll on Columbia,
roll on?''
This whole situation suggests, to me, we need to rethink our
approach. First and foremost, we have to have a strong, well-reasoned
recovery plan that addresses each phase of the salmon life cycle.
Beyond that, we need a region-wide strategy to conserve all salmon
stocks. The Power Planning Council made a good start with its
``Strategy for Salmon.''
In the future, it will be imperative for the work of the council and
the Federal Government be collaborative and complimentary. And I cannot
emphasize strongly enough: we must constantly remind ourselves the cost
of acting now may be infinitely less than being forced to act later.
Mr. President, my bottom line is this: the Federal Government needs
to equip BPA to respond to this problem. We are asking BPA
simultaneously to be more competitive and recover the salmon. But these
missions would appear to be mutually exclusive. If we want BPA to do
both--compete with other energy sources and conserve the salmon--maybe
that would be reflected in what it returns to the Treasury.
There are a number of options we should consider. They include
requiring a Treasury payment that reflects annual water conditions;
instituting lower power rates for poor water years; extending BPA's
debt repayment schedule; or forgiving a portion the debt attributable
directly to salmon recovery. There may be other ideas.
The Treasury Department, OMB, and BPA have recently been discussing
debt refinancing. To the extent this would require legislation, I
believe it is appropriate to consider the options I have mentioned here
in Congress. The goal should be to build flexibility into the current
situation for the lead agency to lead. As I said before, everything
must be on the table.
I want all my colleagues to understand something: the waters of the
Columbia have carried this Nation forward. They generated power for the
smelters that produced aluminum for the bombers that soared over the
Axis powers in World War Two. They cooled the reactors that forged
America to victory in the cold war. And they made the arid fields of
eastern Washington and Oregon fertile, creating an export economy
unparalleled in the world.
This system has spurred the Pacific Northwest to economic might. But
no one--here, or anywhere else--can deny the benefits of this system to
the entire Nation over the years.
Just as I point out to my colleagues benefits to the Nation from the
Columbia River system, I will be frank with my constituents. I will not
lie to them, and I will not sugar-coat it; despite all our efforts to
date, the results simply are not there.
Consider the 1944 Snake river projections: The Spring Chinook run is
estimated at less than 2,000; Fall Chinook returns are estimated at
less than 400; and Sockeye returns to Redfish Lake are estimated at
less than 10. Ten fish. We have a very serious problem, and it is going
to cost a lot to fix.
Coastal fishermen and charter boaters are sacrificing; loggers and
mill-workers have already sacrificed. The rest of us need to decide
what we can contribute to making this situation better for our State,
our region, and the country. Because we must face this salmon crisis, I
urge all stake holders not to fear change; rather, I encourage you to
consider different ways to do the things you have always done.
Residential electricity consumers need to decide whether they are
willing to accept higher power rates to recover salmon. Farmers need to
decide whether they can ship their commodities at specific times, or by
different transportation modes, to recover salmon. And policy makers
need to decide whether to support stronger measures in order to recover
salmon.
No one wants to take away jobs; no one wants to diminish any
industrial sector; it is in our collective interest to foster a strong,
growing economy. With this in mind, we have to remember that salmon
were here first. Everything that has happened since has affected
salmon; not vice versa. They signify our culture; they nurtured our
forebears; and they helped our region grow. If we value our identify as
Northwesterners, then we cannot forget that salmon are a metaphor for
our heritage.
I do not know how long it will take to resolve this problem, or even
if it can be resolved. But I pledge myself to do everything I can to
support salmon recovery. I pledge not to cast blame, but to encourage
all to contribute something to the debate. I pledge to work with my
colleagues in the delegation and the Congress to find solutions that
bring people together, that serve our region and our Nation well.
Hopefully, together, with wisdom, conviction, and not a small amount of
trust, we can find our way.
____________________