89–006

106TH CONGRESS REPT. 106–1029 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session Part 1

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION REGARDING DAMS ON THE

COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER SYSTEM

DECEMBER 14, 2000.—Ordered to be printed

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, from the Committee on Resources,

submitted the following

REPORT

together with

ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS

[To accompany H. Con. Res. 63]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 63) expressing the sense of the Congress opposing removal of dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers

for fishery restoration purposes, having considered the same, report

favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the

concurrent resolution be agreed to.

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of House Concurrent Resolution 63 is to express the

sense of the Congress in opposing removal of dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers for fishery restoration purposes.

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

At the time this Resolution was introduced, as part of the ongoing efforts to recover runs of endangered salmon and steelhead

trout, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers was studying the feasibility of removing a number of federal dams on the lower Snake River to enhance fish runs.

These dams include the Ice Harbor Dam, the Lower Monument

Dam, the Little Goose Dam and the Lower Granite Dam. The study

was to consider several courses of action, including breaching the

dams or extreme draw down of the operating pools behind them.

2

House Concurrent Resolution 63 notes that hydropower from

dams on the Columbia and Snake River system provide 75 percent

of the electricity available in the northwestern United States. Flood

control benefits provided by these dams in 1996 and 1997 are estimated to be $4.6 billion. Barge transportation on the Columbia and

Snake River system transports 43 percent of all U.S. wheat exports

in 1997 and saved $38 million per year over land-based operations.

Over half the irrigated farmland in Oregon, Washington and Idaho

are irrigated with River system water. Recent studies by the National Marine Fisheries Service indicate that survival rates of

salmon and steelhead migrating down the system have remained

the same or increased since 1961, even as four dams were added

to the Snake River. A federal interagency group concluded that removing four dams on the lower Snake River could not guarantee

meeting fish restoration targets. Improved fish hatchery processes

have resulted in the first successful run of coho salmon on the

Yakima River in three decades.

House Concurrent Resolution 63 will express the sense of Congress in opposing removal of dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers for fishery restoration purposes. The Resolution indicates that:

(1) the dams on the Columbia and Snake River system provide tremendous economic and environmental benefits to the United States

that should be retained; (2) plans for the recovery of federally-protected fish species in the Columbia and Snake River system should

not rely on dam removal schemes; (3) efforts to maintain healthy

and sustainable populations of resident and anadromous fish in the

Columbia and Snake Rivers must address all the factors impacting

species population and health, including ocean conditions, harvest

levels, predation, and passage around and through hydroelectric

projects; and (4) any comprehensive fish recovery plan for the Columbia and Snake River system must be based on sound data and

consider the economic and social costs associated with changes to

the management and use of the River system infrastructure.

COMMITTEE ACTION

Congressman Doc Hastings introduced House Concurrent Resolution 63 on March 18, 1999. The resolution was referred to the Committee on Resources and additionally to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Within the Committee on Resources,

the resolution was referred to the Subcommittee on Water and

Power and the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife

and Oceans. The two Subcommittees held a joint hearing on the

resolution on May 27, 1999. On July 21, 1999, the Resources Committee met to consider the resolution. The Subcommittees were discharged from further consideration of the measure by unanimous

consent. No amendments were offered and the resolution was ordered reported to the House of Representatives by voice vote.

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Resources’ oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in

the body of this report.

3

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States

grants Congress the authority to enact this resolution.

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII

1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of

the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out this resolution. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that rule

provides that this requirement does not apply when the Committee

has included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the

bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office

under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2) of rule

XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section

308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this resolution does

not contain any new budget authority, spending authority, credit

authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures.

3. Government Reform Oversight Findings. Under clause 3(c)(4)

of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee has received no report of oversight findings and recommendations from the Committee on Government Reform on this

resolution.

4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause

3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and

section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for this resolution

from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE,

Washington, DC, July 26, 1999.

Hon. DON YOUNG, Chairman, Committee on Resources,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has reviewed H. Con. Res. 63, expressing the sense of the Congress opposing the removal of dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers for

fishery restoration purposes, as ordered reported by the Committee

on Resources on July 21, 1999. CBO estimates that approval of this

resolution would have no impact on the federal budget. Because the

resolution would not affect direct spending or receipts, pay-as-yougo procedures would not apply.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis.

Sincerely,

BARRY A. ANDERSON

(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4

This resolution contains no unfunded mandates.

4

PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

This resolution is not intended to preempt any State, local or

tribal law.

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

If passed, this resolution would make no changes in existing law.

(5)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

H. Con. Res. 63 would have the Congress conclude—prior to receiving all the facts and without regard to science—that removal

of four dams on the lower Snake River should not even be considered as an option to aid salmon recovery. There is no question that

dams in the Columbia River region provide economic benefits, and

it is my view that any fish recovery plan should be based on sound

data and thoroughly consider economic and social costs associated

with changes to river management and infrastructure. However,

because this resolution seeks to eliminate dam removal from consideration before scientific and economic evaluations are complete,

I oppose it. Instead, the more responsible approach is to encourage

the Administration to analyze all options with equal rigor so that

federal, state, local, tribal, and other stakeholders have access to

the very best information when making difficult decisions.

H. Con. Res. 63—while superfically reassuring to economic interests vested in the status quo—is counterproductive and would assure only that selective facts and science are used during the difficult process of determining how best to improve the conditions for

salmon in the Pacific Northwest. This type of approach is fundamentally flawed and should be rejected by the House.

PETER DEFAZIO.

(6)

DISSENTING VIEWS

H. Con. Res. 63 would have the Congress conclude—prior to receiving all the facts and without regard to science—that removal

of four dams on the lower Snake River should not even be considered as an option to aid salmon recovery. There is no question that

dams in the Columbia River region provide economic benefits, and

it is our view that any fish recovery plan should be based on sound

data and thoroughly consider economic and social costs associated

with changes to river management and infrastructure. However,

because this resolution seeks to eliminate dam removal from consideration before scientific and economic evaluations are complete,

we strongly oppose it. Instead, the more responsible approach is to

encourage the Administration to analyze all options with equal

rigor so that federal, state, local, tribal, and other stakeholders

have access to the very best information when making difficult decisions.

The Columbia River system once contained the largest chinook

salmon population in the world. The Snake River, the largest tributary of the Columbia River, provides a vital migration route for

salmon traveling between the Pacific Ocean and rivers in central

Idaho to complete their life cycle. These fish require riverine habitat for spawning, ocean habitat for growth to sexual maturity, and

the means to travel in between the two. Snake River salmon populations have experienced such dramatic declines that every one

(sockeye, spring/summer chinook, fall chinook, and steelhead) is

listed under the Endangered Species Act. Coho have been declared

extinct. Although the resolution states that survival rates of salmon and steelhead migrating down the Columbia and Snake River

system have stayed the same or increased since 1961, the critical

variable—numbers of adult fish that return to reproduce—has declined to a level far below what is required even to maintain the

depleted populations.

Plummeting salmon numbers in the Columbia River region have

been attributed by scientists to several causes: dams that impede

migration, loss or degradation of habitat (including losses due to

reservoirs of still, warm water associated with dams), predation,

fishing, and climatic conditions. In addition to supplementing natural populations with hatchery-reared fish, other methods such as

fish ladders, spillage of juveniles over dams, and trucking/barging

of juveniles currently are used to try to maintain viable salmon

populations. These efforts, however, have failed miserably.

The Administration is in the process of analyzing alternatives

available to facilitate recovery of endangered and threatened salmon populations along the Snake River in Washington. A decision

that reflects analysis consequences and salmon recovery benefits is

due in late 1999. One option under consideration involves breaching four dams on the lower Snake River (Ice Harbor, Lower MonuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:56 Dec 17, 2000 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR1029P1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: HR1029P1
7

mental, Little Goose, and Lower Granite Dams); these are 4 of the

29 federal dams in the Pacific Northwest. It is important to recognize that some of the assertions made in H. Con. Res. 63 address

dams throughout the entire Columbia River basin rather than the

four dams being considered for breaching. These four dams produce

approximately 5% of the total electricity in the Pacific Northwest,

provide no flood control, and irrigate a minute fraction of the farmland in the region. And while the dams effectively subsidize barge

transportation, other modes of commercial transport are placed at

a disadvantage.

Underlying H. Con. Res. 63 is the ‘‘slippery slope’’ fear that the

entire Pacific Northwest hydropower system could be at risk. But

among a number of alternatives, the Administration is only evaluating the removal of four dams on the Snake River, and neither the

final recommendation nor the scientific or economic analyses have

yet been completed. Moreover, the Administration has not yet released the documents—a draft biological opinion on operation of

the Columbia/Snake federal dams; a draft recovery plan for Snake

River salmon; and an environmental impact statement on future

management of the lower Snake River dams—upon which it will

base its December 1999 decision. Although the Administration has

not submitted a formal position on this resolution, the U.S. Army

Corps testified on May 27, 1999, before the Subcommittees on

Power and Water and Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and

Oceans, that current studies of all options should be allowed to be

completed before deciding on the best course of action regarding

the Snake River dams.

If restoring salmon populations were the only goal, the vast majority of independent scientists agree that the best available recovery plan would include removal of the four lower Snake River

dams. However, removing four dams in the lower Snake River will

also have an economic impact on the region, affecting some stakeholders more than others. These impacts should be and are being

considered during the decisionmaking process. However, it is important to acknowledge that there are also substantial costs to

maintaining the current system, including the demise of recreational and commercial fishing industries, potential lawsuits by

Canada and the Tribes for broken treaty agreements, and increased expenses related to fish restoration practices. For example,

estimates of current expenditures related to salmon recovery in the

region—expenditures which are currently failing to produce needed

results—are on the order of $1 billion per year.

8

H. Con. Res. 63—while superfically reassuring to economic interests vested in the status quo—is counterproductive and would assure only that selective facts and science are used during the difficult process of determining how best to improve the conditions for

salmon in the Pacific Northwest. This type of approach is fundamentally flawed and should be rejected by the House.

GEORGE MILLER.

GRACE NAPOLITANO.

BRUCE VENTO.

MARK UDALL.

NEIL ABERCROMBIE.

RUSH HOLT.

Æ