[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 15]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 21290]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



        CHILOQUIN DAM FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY ACT OF 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. PETER A. DeFAZIO

                               of oregon

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, October 30, 2001

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, nobody could have foreseen the devastating 
drought that has besieged Oregon over the past year. The lack of water 
has adversely effected agriculture, energy generation, recreation, and 
fish and wildlife habitat. The Klamath Basin in Southern Oregon and 
Northern California has suffered particular hardship through this 
drought. The snowpack and rainfall that supply the Basin with life-
sustaining water are critical to the economic viability of the Basin, 
and have been significantly below normal. Because the federal 
government, through the Bureau of Reclamation, has encouraged the 
Basin's dependence with nearly a century of promised federal water 
allocation, this Congress has an obligation to take further steps to 
provide further funding for relief and mitigation.
  The Chiloquin Dam, on the Sprague River, currently blocks as much as 
ninety percent of the spawning grounds for two species of listed as 
endangered suckerfish. This bill, H.R. 2585, to study the feasibility 
of increasing fish passage at Chiloquin Dam, would be a modest but 
important step toward providing a long-term solution for the Basin's 
water shortage.
  Last spring, the federal government announced that many of the 
irrigators in the Klamath Basin would not receive their annual 
deliveries of water from Upper Klamath Lake. This decision was largely 
based upon the U.S. Fish and Wildlife's portion of the biological 
opinion stating that water levels in Upper Klamath Lake must remain at 
a certain level to protect the endangered suckerfish. By improving fish 
passage at Chiloquin Dam in the Modoc Point Irrigation District, we can 
be proactive in recovering suckerfish populations. Hopefully, working 
toward full recovery of the species will eventually result in a 
delisting, thus providing for fewer restrictions on lake levels and 
more flexible water management.
  The situation in the Basin has been exacerbated by judges' rulings 
and the application of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In 1995, as a 
member of the House Resources Committee, I voted in favor of reforming 
the ESA. The bill I supported, authored by a moderate Republican, would 
have maintained the core principles of the ESA, but could have 
prevented the fish versus people situation that we now have. The 
reforms would have involved the state in any proposed species listing. 
It would have allowed the state to propose an HCP or long term recovery 
strategy to prevent a listing. It would have also clarified the process 
to weigh social and economic impacts prior to listing. Unfortunately, 
the moderate, bi-partisan reforms I supported were rejected by Chairman 
Young. Instead, he pushed for a virtual repeal of the ESA. The 
Chairman's radical approach to reforming the ESA was flatly rejected by 
the Republican leadership.
  The ESA expired in 1992. With exception of the 1995 attempt, the 
Republican House leadership has scheduled no action to review, reform, 
or re-authorize the ESA. Unfortunately, it continues to be authorized 
year to year, without change, through appropriations riders. Hopefully, 
the dire circumstances in the Klamath Basin and elsewhere will be a 
catalyst for the House to properly re-authorize and reform the ESA.
  I am pleased to be working with Mr. Walden, and many members of the 
Oregon and California delegations, to find reasonable short and long 
term solutions to the situation in the Basin. This bill can provide for 
one of those reasonable solutions. I urge adoption of H.R. 2585, the 
Chiloquin Dam Fish Passage Feasibility Study Act.

                          ____________________