[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 7360-7361]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     PACIFIC NORTHWEST DAM REMOVAL

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, dam removal as a serious option for salmon 
recovery on the Snake River died last week. It was killed by the 
National Marine Fisheries Service, the arm of the Clinton 
administration assigned to save those endangered salmon.
  Why and how?
  Three runs of salmon on the upper Snake River were listed as 
endangered in 1991 and 1992. On April 14, NMFS announced its 
determination that only 19 percent of salmon smolts barged around the 
dams, die. In fact, we now know that downriver survival rates are at 
least as high as they were in the 1960's before the Snake River dams 
were built!
  As a result, NMFS now believes that the chance of recovery for the 
endangered runs is only 64 percent if all four Snake River dams are 
removed, as against 53 percent by continuing to transport smolts around 
the dams. The difference is barely statistically significant.
  We can assume that NMFS science is the best available. That science 
is a vital component of public policy, but only one component of good 
public policy and not absolutely determinative to the exclusion of all 
other concerns.
  So against the modest 11-percent improvement in survival chances for 
these populations of salmon from dam removal, we must weigh the immense 
costs of removal. Earlier this month at a Senate Energy Committee field 
hearing, a representative from Bonneville Power testified that BPA 
would lose approximately $263 million in power revenues in each average 
water year in perpetuity under medium future economic conditions. BPA 
also estimates that removal of the four lower Snake River dams is 
likely to increase its power rates by as much as 30 percent. The cost 
of removal itself, the destruction of navigation, the loss of irrigated 
farms and the human and community devastation add untold billions to 
that figure. That cost is vastly out of proportion to the salmon 
recovery goal, much less to the extremely modest improvement even in 
the prospects for recovery.
  So dam removal as a rational option is dead. We in the Pacific 
Northwest, specifically residents in eastern, rural Washington, have 
been waging this war with the environmental community. It gives me 
great pleasure today to present my assessment of the recently released 
National Marine Fisheries Service report on Snake River dams and salmon 
recovery options.
  I cannot support the effort to dismantle the world's most productive 
hydroelectric system when the costs are so great in relation to the 
benefit to a few selected salmon runs. Under the current management of 
the Columbia/Snake River system, Northwest ratepayers have contributed 
$366 million per year on average since 1995 to salmon recovery. The 
plan requires flow augmentation, dam spill, surface bypass, juvenile 
and adult fish passage improvements, water supply studies, PIT tag 
monitoring, and additional salmon barges. Although many, myself 
included, have been highly critical of Federal salmon recovery efforts, 
the results are beginning to show signs of progress. Based on new 
technology for salmon monitoring using Pit-Tags, NMFS estimates a 
significant increase in downriver survival for juvenile salmon. It 
estimates salmon are now surviving at a rate of 50 to 68 percent for 
juvenile salmon that migrate through eight Snake and Columbia River 
dams. Since about 60 percent of juvenile salmon are barged at a 
survival rate of 98 percent, the combined salmon survival rate to 
Portland, past eight dams, exceeds 80 percent.
  Why are some in such a rush to consider dam removal when faced with 
these statistics? According to NMFS, these statistics may be further 
enhanced during the next three to four years of monitoring the adult 
fish returning to the river. However, the single-interest advocacy 
groups claim we can't wait any longer--they say we must remove the dams 
now.
  Let me reemphasize one glaring fact. The overall survival rate past 
the four lower Snake dams is at least as high today as it was in the 
1960's before the dams were built, according to NMFS' own biologists. 
Much of this recent improvement in survival rates can be attributed to 
technical and operational improvements at the dams. There is much more 
that can be done to improve survival rates past the four lower Snake 
dams. Unfortunately, the Army Corps of Engineers has been waiting to 
see if these dams are going to be removed before spending any more 
money on further improvements that could provide immediate benefits.
  Although the passage survival is much higher now, adult salmon 
returns continue at a distressed level. A likely theory is that 
declines are due to the rise in ocean temperatures. During the Easter 
recess, my Interior appropriations subcommittee held a field hearing on 
Northwest salmon recovery in Seattle. One of NMFS' own fisheries 
biologists expressed optimism that the likelihood of decreasing ocean 
temperatures off the coast in the Pacific Northwest as indicative of an 
improving climate for salmon in the Northwest.
  We are likely to obtain valuable new information about adult salmon 
returns and likely will witness a dramatic change in the ocean 
environment. Even under current circumstances, the difference between 
removing dams, to save fish or barging them around dams is too close to 
call. And when all the costs of dam removal are factored into this 
equation, it is hard to imagine why anyone would want to take this 
dubious course of action.
  In the meantime, the debate over dam removal has led to unfortunate 
consequences. More realistic and cost effective salmon recovery 
measures with a proven track record have been delayed. I am committed 
to securing the funds necessary not only for dam improvements but also 
for local salmon enhancement groups and other conservation 
organizations to continue their efforts to restore salmon habitat 
throughout the state. Salmon recovery will take place when local people 
who care passionately about local watersheds have the freedom and the 
resources to take the steps needed on a stream-by-stream and river-by-
river basis.
  At my recent field hearing, I was most impressed with the way people 
in my state are coming together in unprecedented ways. Rather than 
focusing on past differences, farmers, loggers, fishermen, 
conservationists, locally elected officials, and countless others 
representing a vast array of interests and perspectives are working 
together to develop habitat restoration and watershed improvement plans 
throughout the state that will not only provide immediate benefits to 
our salmon resource but will do so in ways that will take into 
consideration the economic and social needs of our communities.
  A good example of how collaborative efforts can achieve positive 
results for the salmon resource recently took place in the Hanford 
Reach area of the Columbia River. Ten years ago, the fall chinook stock 
in the Hanford Reach was in bad shape. Now it is the most abundant of 
the wild Columbia River stocks. This is due largely to the efforts of 
the Grant County Public Utility District which led the effort to reach 
an agreement that protects the fish by regulating river flows from the 
time the adults spawn to the time the juveniles emerge from the gravel.
  Last year, biologists discovered juvenile chinook were stranded after 
emerging from the gravel. Grant County PUD again led discussions 
involving all review mid-Columbia hydroelectric projects, together with 
federal, state, and tribal fishery agencies to develop a program to 
reduce the number of young fish stranded because of river flow 
fluctuations. Implementing this

[[Page 7361]]

agreement requires a substantial loss in valuable power generation, but 
represents an unprecedented example of how hydroelectric projects can 
work proactively and cooperatively with fishery management agencies to 
protect salmon. This model effort deserves our encouragement and 
support.
  Clearly, the approach being taken by communities throughout my state 
is far preferable to the divisive one being advocated by those who want 
to rip out dams in the Northwest. Rather than continuing down this 
misguided and confrontational course which will cost more and provide 
no assurances of enhanced recovery, I today call on dam removal 
advocates to abandon their cause, and to recognize the real 
implications of the NMFS report. If they are truly interested in 
restoring salmon, they will work with me and others in the mainstream 
who want to do something now positively to recover our salmon resource.
  But Mr. President, we must keep in mind one important fact. 
Environmental bureaucrats in the Clinton-Gore administration have made 
it their standard operating procedure not to listen to what I, much 
less the region, thinks about dam removal. In fact, the Administration 
must have an unwritten rule somewhere not to pay attention to local 
people in the communities that would be destroyed by such action. It's 
alarming that while the region is increasingly united in its effort to 
preserve dams and the Northwest way of life, from the local level to 
the statehouse to our congressional delegation--the administration and 
the environmental community refuses to concede.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to 
speak in morning business for up to 25 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________