[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.

                          ____________________