[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 107 (Tuesday, July 27, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9317-S9318]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            SNAKE RIVER DAMS

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, Senators from the Northwest are sometimes 
frustrated in trying to get our message across, to deliver or reflect 
the views of our constituencies almost 3,000 miles away, and to let our 
Senate colleagues from around this country understand what it's like to 
live in the Northwest.
  The Northwest is known for clean air and water, a high quality of 
life, picturesque landscapes, the beauty and majesty of the Cascade and 
Olympic Mountains, the rolling hills of the Palouse, lush wooded 
forests, sparkling lakes, a playground for backpackers, hikers and 
recreational enthusiasts, home of America's success story--Microsoft, 
the apple capital of the world, breadbasket to the nation, a vibrant 
salmon fishery and home of the most wonderful people who possess a zest 
for life and fierce instinct to preserve and protect these truly unique 
qualities of my great state of Washington and of Oregon, Idaho, and 
Montana as well.
  Mr. President, I share the passion of my constituents. I consider it 
an honor to represent a state as great and diverse as mine. But what is 
often overlooked is the fact that our hydroelectric power system plays 
a central role in keeping Pacific Northwest a clean, healthy, and 
affordable place to live, work, play, and raise a family.
  I have come to this floor many times to explain what makes the 
Northwest tick to my colleagues and to others unfamiliar with the 
region. And I have been frustrated or puzzled by the reaction I get 
when I reflect the views of my state, and in particular, my eastern 
Washington communities.
  We have been waging a battle with this administration, radical 
environmental organizations, and other dam removal advocates over the 
issue of removing Columbia-Snake River dams.
  Advocates of dismantling our Columbia River hydro system place the 
choice in stark terms of dams or salmon. That choice, presented in such 
terms, is false. The truth is that by applying adaptive management to 
our hydro system, we can and will preserve endangered salmon runs and 
our valuable hydro system.
  I reject the false choice of salmon versus the Columbia hydro system. 
I believe passionately that we can and will restore a vibrant salmon 
fishery to the Columbia and that we can do so within the confines of 
the hydro system.
  To an outsider, one would think the administration has the momentum. 
Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt has been a roll--tearing down dams 
from the California coast to Maine in the Northwest.
  Incidentally, however, we may be a new ally in Vice President Albert 
Gore. While he has been known as a removal advocate, last week, in 
order to get a photo opportunity on the Connecticut River, he had a dam 
release some 4 billion gallons of water in order that he could go 
cancoeing. Perhaps now we have found a new use for dams and a new ally 
in the Vice President, as long as we can offer him canoeing activities 
by releasing water.
  Most of us in the region believe we have the facts and support on our 
side to defeat those who wish to remove the Snake River dams and 
thereby destroy a central piece of the Northwest economy and a way of 
life for millions of Northwesterners.
  I have asked myself--What do we have to do?
  We can have thousands rally to ``Save Our Dams''--as we did in 
eastern Washington and Oregon communities earlier this year.
  We can have our local, State, and Federal officials unite in their 
opposition to dam removal, and we have added Governor Gary Locke and 
Senator Murray to the ranks of those opposed to removing our eastern 
Washington dams.
  And we can have scientists, federal agencies, and even environmental 
groups point to global warming as a major cause for salmon decline.
  We can have the National Marine Fisheries Service scientists tell us, 
in a report released April 14, that the chance of recovery for a few 
distinct salmon runs is only 64 percent if all four lower Snake River 
dams are removed, as against 53 percent by continuing to transport 
smolts around the dams--a difference that is barely statistically 
significant.
  And we can have recent media reports tell us that the ``Outlook is 
bright for salmon runs this year.'' In this July 12 Seattle Times 
article, scientists and biologists are predicting a potential rebound 
in salmon stocks in the Pacific Northwest. And the reasons they cite 
are: improved ocean conditions, better freshwater conditions, and 
cutbacks in fishing.
  But still we hear the dam removal clamor from national environmental 
groups and bureaucrats in the Clinton-Gore administration. And we have 
an energized Interior Secretary who in his words has been ``out on the 
landscape over the past few months carrying around a sledgehammer'' 
giving speeches saying ``dams do, in fact, outlive their function'' and 
``despite the history and the current differences over dams, Babbitt 
said he believes change is inevitable.'' (Trout Unlimited Speech, CQ, 
July 17, 1999)
  Here I am again, to share some compelling statistics recently 
released by the Army Corps of Engineers that further prove that 
removing dams in eastern Washington would be an unmitigated disaster 
and an economic nightmare.
  Ten days ago, the Corps released three preliminary economic studies 
that will be included in an overall Lower Snake River Juvenile Fish 
Migration Feasibility Study set for completion later this year.
  The Corps studies quantified the economic impact of the removal of 
the four Snake River dams as removal relates to the region's water 
supply, navigation, and power production.
  I simply cannot overstate the importance of these studies and what 
they mean for the future of the Pacific Northwest, its economy and the 
livelihood of our families and communities.
  That is why I was surprised when there was little attention paid to 
the release of these three studies. I can remember that as recently as 
March of this year when the Corps was preparing to release a study on 
recreation benefits involving the four lower Snake River dams, 
environmental groups including the Sierra Club, NW Sportfishing 
Industry Association, Trout Unlimited, and Save Our Wild Salmon were 
tremendously successful in getting the media's attention and 
substantial coverage of their claims that removing the four Snake River 
dams would bring a $300 million annual recreational windfall to the 
region.
  The environmental groups leaked the $300 million number knowing that 
the study was incomplete, but the false information made big news. 
Then, the report was completed and the truth was told. In fact, the 
real number, according to the Corps report is: ``Under the natural 
river drawdown alternative, the value of recreation and tourism then 
increased to $129 million annually, which represents an increase of 
about $67 million per year.''
  Why did this report, with complete analysis, receive so little 
attention:
  I am again surprised at the lack of attention given to the results of 
the latest three studies, which standing alone, send such a clear 
signal to this administration, radical environmental groups, and dam 
removal advocates everywhere that they should abandon their cause.
  Let me share these numbers with you:
  First, starting with power production:
  The economic effect of breaching on the region's power supply would 
be $251 million to $291 million a year.
  Residential bills for Northwest families and senior citizens would 
increase $1.50 to $5.30 per month.
  But the region's industrial power users, which rely on cheap power to 
provide thousands of jobs can see a monthly increase ranging from $387 
to $1,326. Our aluminum companies would see an increase in their 
monthly bills ranging from $222,000 to $758,000.
  If the Snake River dams are breached, how would we replace the 1,231 
megawatts the dams produce annually? Keep in mind it takes 1,000 
megawatts to serve Seattle. The answer is, there is no cheap 
alternative. We can increase power production at thermal power plants 
or build new gas-fired combined-combustion turbine plants.

[[Page S9318]]

  Finally, these power estimates wouldn't be complete without reminding 
my colleagues that last month the Administration sought to collect at 
least $1 billion beyond normal power costs to create a `slush fund' to 
fund the removal of the four Snake river dams. I was delighted to pass 
any amendment prohibiting the Bonneville Power Administration from 
raising rates on Northwest power customers for a project they don't 
even want.
  Second, lets look at irrigation.
  The Corps report assumes that there is no economically feasible way 
to continue to provide irrigation to the 37,000 acres of farmland 
served by the four Snake River dams. The report assumes 37,000 acres of 
farmland will be taken out of production as a result of breaching those 
dams.
  What does this loss of water supply mean for eastern Washington?
  The loss of irrigated farmland would cost $9.2 million annually.
  The cost to retrofit municipal and industrial pump stations would be 
$.8 to 43.8 million a year.
  The cost to retrofit privately-owned wells would be 43.9 million 
annually.
  In light of these sobering statistics, what options would be left for 
irrigators? The Corps estimated the economic effect on dam breaching on 
farmland value would amount to more than $134 million. The Corps also 
considered ways to alter the irrigation system in order to continue to 
irrigate the 37,000 acres--to accomplish this alternative, we would 
have to spend more than $291 million--more than the value of the land. 
Our farmers and agricultural communities are struggling enough as it 
is, and removing their ability to even water their crops puts them 
beyond despair. Therefore, the Corps assumes this irrigated farmland 
will disappear.
  Lastely, let's look at transportation:
  The Corps studied transportation impacts of breaching the four Snake 
river dams.
  The transportation costs resulting from breaching the four Snake 
River dams would rise to $1.23 per bushel from .98 cents per bushel--a 
24 percent increase.
  The annual increase in transportation costs to the region would be 
$40 million for all commodities.
  Breaching the four dams would remove 3.8 million tons of grain from 
the Snake River navigation system. Of this 3.8 million, 1.1 million 
would move to rail transportation and 2.7 million tons would move to 
truck transportation.
  According to the report, barge transportation of commodities on the 
Snake river limits the cost of rail transportation and truck 
transportation. Removing competition among these types of 
transportation could drive up costs. According to the report, barge 
transportation has saved, on average, $5.95 in per ton when compared 
with other transportation alternatives. ``Disturbing this competition 
would be one of the most important regional consequences of permanent 
drawdown.''
  According to the Washington State Legislative Transportation 
Committee, additional costs resulting from road and highway damage 
range from $56 million to $100.7 million.
  Further, it is important to note that the navigation system of the 
Columbia allows enough barge transportation that if it were destroyed, 
more than 700,000 18-wheelers a year would be added to our already 
congested state roads and highways to replace the lost hauling 
capacity. (Source: Pacific Northwest Waterways Association)
  I want to put all this together and construct a picture for you and 
what this scenario would mean in eastern Washington.
  In exchange for breaching or removing the four Snake river dams, 
here's what the citizens of the Pacific Northwest could get:
  We would lose four dams that produce hydro-power, which emit no 
pollutants into the air, for a thermal based power source that would 
jeopardize the clean air unique to the Northwest and enjoyed by 
countless residents and visitors to our state.
  The 37,000 acres of irrigated farmland in Franklin and Walla Walla 
counties and the hundreds of employees that help supply food to more 
than a million people would disappear.
  There is a likelihood that there would be a temporary loss of water 
for well users after dam breaching due to the inability to alter well 
depths until the actual removal of dams.
  The increased truck traffic on our roads to haul wheat and barley to 
coastal ports will have an adverse effect on air quality and impose an 
additional financial burden on the family farm, which for many would be 
too much to bear and force them to give up their land.
  So what do we get by removing the four Snake River dams? Shattered 
lives, displaced families and communities who will have seen their 
livelihoods destroyed, generations of family farmers penniless, 
industries forced to drive up consumer costs, air pollution, a desert 
that once bloomed with agriculture products goes dry, a far less 
competitive Northwest economy and a Northwest scrambling to repay a BPA 
treasury debt with less revenue, and scrambling to buy or build higher 
cost polluting sources of power.
  So according to these three latest studies, the bottom line is that 
if we breach the four dams to increase our chances of bringing a select 
number of salmon runs back by only 11%, the Northwest will suffer 
economic impacts of $299 to $342 million a year in perpetuity. This 
staggering figure doesn't even include the estimated $1 billion it 
would take to actually remove the dams.
  If we remove the Snake river dams, over the next 24 years we only 
improve our chances of recovering spring and summer chinook to the 
survival goals set by NMFS by 11 to 30 percent over the current system 
of barging. Over 24 years, NMFS would like to reach the survival 
standard of returning 150 to 300 spring and summer chinook to the Snake 
River tributaries each year.
  But there is something else that these numbers, studies and data 
can't quantify:
  What many outside the region don't understand is that the four dams 
on the Lower Snake river are part of our life, heritage, and culture.
  I repeat the call I issued last month to the administration and dam 
removal advocates: abandon your cause and work with the region on cost-
effective salmon recovery measures that can restore salmon runs and 
preserve our Northwest way of life.
  Mr. SCHUMER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President.

                          ____________________