[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 40 (Wednesday, April 1, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2986-S2987]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. GORTON:
  S. 1904. A bill to amend the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries 
Restoration Act to provide further for the acquisition and removal of 
the Elwha dam and acquisition to Glines Canyon dam and the restoration 
of the Elwha River ecosystem and native anadromous fisheries, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


    the elwha river ecosystem and fisheries restoration act of 1998

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, six months ago, I came to the floor of the 
United States Senate to announce my reluctant support for removing one 
of two dams on the Elwha River on the Olympic Peninsula. Today, after 
spending countless hours working with interested Washington State 
residents, I am introducing legislation to accomplish this difficult 
and costly endeavor provided certain conditions are met.
  As I mentioned in my statement last fall, I have never been 
enthusiastic about the idea of dam removal on the Elwha River as a 
means to enhance declining salmon runs on the river. For many years, 
national environmental groups, the Clinton Administration, much of the 
Northwest media, and many Northwest elected officials have pushed for 
removal of both dams from the Elwha River. In 1992, I supported 
legislation to begin the process of having the government acquire both 
of these dams with an eye toward removing them someday. While I have 
always been enthusiastic about the federal government buying these two 
dams from a local paper company, I continue to be skeptical toward 
claims that salmon runs will see a significant benefit through dam 
removal on the Elwha River. Anyone who believes otherwise needs to ask 
him why salmon runs on nearby rivers on the Olympic Peninsula with no 
dams are doing just as poorly.
  I am quite certain, however, that there are clear costs to dam 
removal. The taxpayers must pay at least $65 million to remove just one 
dam on the Elwha River. Power generation will be lost, and in the case 
of the Elwha River dams, serious questions remain about the potential 
damage to the City of Port Angeles' water supply. As I weigh these 
costs against the potential benefits to salmon, I have generally 
inclined against dam removal.
  Unfortunately, the issue isn't as simple as a cost-benefit analysis. 
There is a wild card over which I have no control that could have a 
devastating effect on the Port Angeles community. The lower Elwha River 
dam produces a tiny amount of power--only a quarter of the amount of 
power produced by the upper Elwha River dam and a minuscule amount in 
comparison to our productive Snake and Columbia River dams. In 
addition, the lower Elwha River dam is in poor physical condition.
  These two factors, combined with the desire of the Interior Secretary 
to tear down a dam, have me concerned that there is a very real and 
growing threat that a federal judge or the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission (FERC) could order removal of the Elwha River dams without 
Congressional approval.
  A court or agency ordered removal will impose all of the costs of 
removing the dams on the local community, jobs will be destroyed, and 
Port Angeles' supply of clean drinking water will be threatened. The 
risk of court or agency action is too great and will leave the local 
community in a terrible position if a judge, or a Washington, DC 
bureaucrat, suddenly decides he needs to be in charge of this issue.
  Instead, if Congress acts, we can remove the wild card and assure an 
important level of community protection. Thus, I have conditioned my 
support for this dam's removal on certain legislated protection for 
Port Angeles' water supply and protection for the jobs created by the 
local mill. No legislation to remove the dam will pass the U.S. Senate 
without these protections while I am a member.
  As a result of these recent developments and circumstances beyond my 
control, this comprehensive package will complete the federal 
government's acquisition of both Elwha River dams, authorizes removal 
of one dam, while at the same time protecting local economic interests.
  Over the last three years, the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee 
that I chair has appropriated $11 million of the $29.5 million 
necessary to complete the acquisition of the projects. Acquisitions of 
the projects is extremely important to the future economic health of 
the Port Angeles community. While the James River Corporation currently 
holds title to the projects, Daishowa America, as local owner of the 
directory paper mill and second largest employer in Clallam County, 
uses energy from the dams. Clearly, continued uncertainty over the fate 
of these dams reduces the competitive position of the mill and inhibits 
future investment in the plant and its equipment.
  My bill amends the 1992 Act and calls for completion of acquisition 
of the projects. As Chairman of the Subcommittee that controls the 
purse strings for this project, I have every intention of allocating 
the remaining $18.5 million needed to complete acquisition as part of 
the $699 million worth of additional Land and Water Conservation Fund 
dollars that we appropriated last year and have yet to be spent.
  In addition to committing to fund the removal of the Elwha project 
should it become law, my bill prohibits the Secretary from removing the 
larger dam, better known as the Clines Canyon Project, for 12 years. 
Many have asked why we can't remove both dams simultaneously. My answer 
is that I prefer the phased approach to restoration of the river 
spelled out by the Elwha Citizens Advisory Committee in its 1996 
report.
  The Committee, which is comprised of a diverse array of local 
interests, cautions against simultaneous removal of both dams. As an 
appropriations subcommittee chairman, I can tell them that they are 
absolutely correct because it is simply unrealistic to expect 
sufficient funds immediately to remove both projects. More importantly, 
immediate removal of both projects would have unpredictable 
consequences for the community's water supply--something my bill is 
careful to protect--and would needlessly forgo a valuable economic and 
recreational resource that can be put to use to accomplish restoration 
activities.
  When the 12 year moratorium has expired, my bill allows the Secretary 
to remove the upper dam provided he determines that the benefits of dam 
removal to salmon restoration and the natural state of the river 
outweighs the importance of the project's power generation capabilities 
and the recreational value of the lake that was created by its 
construction. The 12 year waiting period also spells out several 
important steps that the Secretary must take to evaluate the impact 
removing one dam has on fish runs. I firmly believe that should we 
decide one day to remove the second dam, we will do a far better job if 
we take the time to learn from the challenges of removing the first dam 
before deciding on the fate of the second one. Should the Secretary 
determine that it is necessary to remove the Glines Canyon project 
before 12 years have gone by, nothing in the bill I am offering today 
prevents him from seeking Congressional approval to do so.
  Finally with regard to the Elwha River, my bill takes several 
important steps to project the local community from the potentially 
adverse impacts of dam removal. They include: (1) protecting the 
quality and quantity of the community's existing water supply to meet 
current and future demands; (2) continued protection of James River and 
Daishowa from potential liability; and (3) compensation for Clallam 
County for further loss of tax revenue due to federal acquisition of 
the projects.
  As a Senator who takes pride in trying to represent all interests in 
my state, I have also taken great interest in the concerns of my 
constituents in eastern Washington, who while not directly impacted by 
the removal of the Elwha dam, have legitimate fears that something 
similar could happen to a dam on the Columbia or Snake Rivers. Clearly 
some groups and agency officials within the Clinton-Gore Administration 
want to use the removal of

[[Page S2987]]

Elwha River dams as a first step toward removing or severely limiting 
the effectiveness of Columbia River system hydroelectric dams. Already, 
the Army Corps of Engineers is evaluating dam removal on the Snake 
River as a legitimate option. The Corps has even taken the 
unprecedented step of paying Pacific Northwest residents $12 to fill 
out a totally biased survey in favor of dam removal to build support 
for this cause.
  I will never support such efforts to cripple the world's most 
productive hydro system. As the source of the nation's lowest power 
rates, water for irrigating productive farmland in three states, and a 
cost effective transportation system that moves our agricultural 
products to market, these dams are truly the lifeblood of our economy 
in the Pacific Northwest.
  While Columbia River dams have hurt salmon runs, that damage was felt 
primarily in the 1930's and 1940's. Since the last Columbia River dam 
was constructed we still had large and healthy salmon runs. The last 
decade's decline in Columbia River salmon runs cannot be honestly 
attributed solely to our hydroelectric facilities.
  Nevertheless, we can and should do more for salmon especially by 
acting in a more coordinated way to restore this vital resource. But 
the costs associated with removing dams on the Snake and Columbia 
Rivers will vastly exceed any potential benefit that might occur in 
terms of salmon restoration.
  Rather than working cooperatively with local communities directly 
impacted by the Columbia-Snake Resource on a rational policy that 
balances the rivers' important uses, the Clinton-Gore Administration 
has chosen a combative policy. Its approach punishes people who make 
their livelihoods from this resource and who have made good faith 
efforts to reach out and work together.
  Another example of the draconian actions federal agencies are using 
against ordinary people who depend on the Columbia Snake River System 
for their livelihoods is the National Marine Fisheries Service's 
recently announced Columbia Basin water policy. The NMFS approach seeks 
to discourage or even eliminate any new additional water withdrawals 
for municipal, industrial, or irrigation development within the Basin. 
The NMFS policy goes even further in challenging the legislative 
authority of states to regulate, manage, and allocate water rights. If 
adopted, the NMFS policy would effectively abrogate state authority to 
grant future water rights for such uses. By calling for a review of 
existing water withdrawals, the policy postures toward challenging 
existing state-granted water rights. The agency has completely ignored 
the efforts of local irrigators to work together on a plan that 
balances the rivers' competing uses. Moreover, the agency has taken 
this direction without Congressional approval.
  Given the out-of-control nature of agencies like the Corps and NMFS 
to go beyond their statutory authority to severely compromise the 
Columbia-Snake system as well as their eagerness to tear down a 
Columbia-Snake River dam, I would not be surprised to see this 
administration try to fulfill its dream without Congressional approval.
  The people of my state are simply fed up with this top down approach 
and my bill attempts to do something about it. In addition to 
prohibiting the removal or breach of any dam on the Columbia or Snake 
Rivers, my bill prohibits any federal or state agency from taking the 
following actions without an act of Congress:
  (1) Impairing flood control activities on the Columbia-Snake system;
  (2) Reducing the power and energy generating capacity of federally 
owned and federally licensed projects to unaffordable levels;
  (3) Further restricting access to the Columbia or Snake River for 
irrigation and recreational use;
  (4) Impairing the river navigation system; and
  (5) Restricting state water rights.
  I look forward to working with the Administration and my colleagues 
from the Pacific Northwest on building support for my proposal. If the 
Administration can not bring itself to support something very close to 
what's in the Columbia-Snake River section of this bill, we will know 
just how serious it is about dam removal in eastern Washington. I have 
made major concessions to bring myself to support removal of a dam even 
though I find the policy a dubious one, and if the administration is 
serious about preserving the effectiveness of the Columbia-Snake system 
it will support my proposal.

                          ____________________