U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

21-758 PS 2005

KEEPING THE COLUMBIA/SNAKE A

WORKING RIVER SYSTEM

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

Monday, June 6, 2005, in Clarkston, Washington

Serial No. 109-17

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

or

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska

Jim Saxton, New Jersey

Elton Gallegly, California

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland

Ken Calvert, California

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming

Vice Chair

George P. Radanovich, California

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina

Chris Cannon, Utah

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania

Jim Gibbons, Nevada

Greg Walden, Oregon

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona

Jeff Flake, Arizona

Rick Renzi, Arizona

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico

Devin Nunes, California

Henry Brown, Jr., South Carolina

Thelma Drake, Virginia

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico

Cathy McMorris, Washington

Bobby Jindal, Louisiana

Louie Gohmert, Texas

Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands

Ron Kind, Wisconsin

Grace F. Napolitano, California

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam

Jim Costa, California

Charlie Melancon, Louisiana

Dan Boren, Oklahoma

George Miller, California

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon

Jay Inslee, Washington

Mark Udall, Colorado

Dennis Cardoza, California

Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota

Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director

Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California, Chairman

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California, Ranking Democrat Member

Ken Calvert, California

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming

Greg Walden, Oregon

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico

Devin Nunes, California

Cathy McMorris, Washington

Louie Gohmert, Texas

Richard W. Pombo, California, ex officio

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona

Jim Costa, California

George Miller, California

Mark Udall, Colorado

Dennis A. Cardoza, California

Vacancy

Vacancy

Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia, ex officio

(III)

CONTENTS

Page

Hearing held on Monday, June 6, 2005 ................................................................. 1

Statement of Members:

Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Washington .................................................................................................... 5

McDermott, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Washington, Statement submitted for the record ...................................... 81

McMorris, Hon. Cathy, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Washington ............................................................................................... 4

Otter, Hon. C.L. ‘‘Butch,’’ a Representative in Congress from the State

of Idaho, Statement submitted for the record ............................................ 6

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8

Radanovich, Hon. George P., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California ................................................................................................... 2

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3

Statement of Witnesses:

Alldredge, Dale R., President, Port of Lewiston Commission, Idaho ........... 14

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 16

Appel, Steve, Vice President, American Farm Bureau Federation, and

President, Washington Farm Bureau, Endicott, Washington ................... 10

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 12

Benson, Mark J., Director, Public Affairs, Potlatch Corporation, Lewiston,

Idaho .............................................................................................................. 32

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 34

Hamilton, Liz, Executive Director, Northwest Sportfishing Industry

Association, Oregon City, Oregon ................................................................ 35

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 37

Koegen, Curt, Business Manager, International Union of Operating

Engineers Local 370, Spokane, Washington ............................................... 18

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 19

Lewis, Virgil, Vice-Chairman, Yakama Nation, Toppenish, Washington .... 24

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 26

Miles, Rebecca A., Chairman, Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee,

Lapwai, Idaho ................................................................................................ 20

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 23

Ott, Hon. Merrill, Chairman, Stevens County Board of County

Commissioners, Colville, Washington ......................................................... 30

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 31

Ryckman, Jean, Manager, Public Utility District No. 1 of Franklin

County, and Chairperson, Coalition for Smart Salmon Recovery, Pasco,

Washington .................................................................................................... 41

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 43

Semanko, Norm, Executive Director and General Counsel, Idaho Water

Users Association, Boise, Idaho ................................................................... 51

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 53

Additional materials supplied:

Columbia Basin Development League, Statement submitted for the

record ............................................................................................................. 71

Davis, Rick, Manager, Port of Clarkston, Pictures and video submitted

for the record (NOTE: Video has been retained in the Committee’s

official files) ................................................................................................... 72

Ducharme, Dick, Board Member, Snake River Salmon Recovery Board,

Statement submitted for the record ............................................................ 73

Page

IV

Additional materials supplied—Continued

Givens, James W., Lawyer, Lewiston, Idaho, Letter submitted for the

record ............................................................................................................. 75

Hemsley, Robert, Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers,

Statement submitted for the record ............................................................ 76

Johns, Ronald, Spokane, Washington, Letter submitted for the record ...... 78

Priestley, Frank, President, Idaho Farm Bureau, Boise, Idaho, Letter

submitted for the record ............................................................................... 83

List of documents submitted for the record that have been retained

in the Committee’s official files ................................................................... 84

(1)

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING ON ‘‘KEEPING

THE COLUMBIA/SNAKE A WORKING RIVER

SYSTEM’’

Monday, June 6, 2005

U.S. House of Representatives

Subcommittee on Water and Power

Committee on Resources

Clarkston, Washington

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m., at the

Quality Inn and Suites Conference Center, 700 Port Drive,

Clarkston, Washington, Hon. George Radanovich [Chairman of the

Subcommittee] presiding.

Present: Representatives Radanovich, McMorris, Hastings, and

Otter.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Good morning and welcome to the Subcommittee on Water and Power hearing in Clarkston, Washington,

regarding the Snake River. My name is George Radanovich. I represent a part of Central California near Yosemite, Fresno and

Modesto in the 19th Congressional District. And I’ve got to tell you

that it’s a pleasure to be in your community. Thanks for causing

the rain to stop and allowing me to enjoy a beautiful sunrise this

morning. You have a beautiful neck of the woods, and I’m just

thrilled to be here.

Before we get into the hearing, I would like to yield to my able

Subcommittee colleague who represents this area, Congresswoman

Cathy McMorris, and also to the hardworking Congressman who

represents nearby in Lewiston, Butch Otter, for some important

announcements before we begin the hearing.

Cathy.

Ms. MCMORRIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have a number

of citizens that are going to be providing some important duties

this morning. And we’d like to start by recognizing Gary Joiner

who’s staffed with the Washington State Farm Bureau who’s going

to lead us in the invocation. Gary.

[Invocation given.]

Ms. MCMORRIS. If you would remain standing, I’d like to recognize the Junior ROTC from Clarkston High School to Present the

Colors.

[Colors presented.]

Ms. MCMORRIS. And now I’d like to recognize Boy Scout Troop

262 to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

2

[Pledge of Allegiance recited.]

Ms. MCMORRIS. Thank you.

Now I’m going to yield to my good neighbor to the east, Butch

Otter from Idaho.

Mr. OTTER. Thank you, Cathy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank

you for calling this meeting.

Prior to introducing my guest who will sing a patriotic song on

behalf of this nation, I want to remind us all that this is the 61st

Anniversary of the invasion of Europe to end Word War II. And

part of the liberties which we enjoy which allow us to come together peacefully and meet here today is because of those efforts.

And in honor of that, I’d like to introduce to you from

Grangeville, Idaho, Melissa Casteel who will sing God Bless America.

[God Bless America sung.]

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much. Just a beautiful voice.

Thank you for that beautiful song.

Right now I’m going to give a brief opening statement. And I just

want to say—again, I came in last night and had the opportunity

to wake up and see the sunrise on the beautiful Snake River and

do a little exercise and get ready. And little did I know that America was at work with the demonstrations out front. And I hear that

they were very active. And I think that’s fantastic because everybody—we live in a land of free speech, and it was very good.

However, the rules are always a little bit different in a hearing

like this. And I do want to just take a minute to kind of describe

what this is and what it’s not.

We have taken, I think, very good care to make sure that every

view in this room is represented by the people in this panel. And

I think we’re having one or two panels? One.

One panel. So everybody here represents this. This is an official

Congressional hearing. And the purpose of the hearing is to take

input on an issue. And the input comes from the folks up here.

This isn’t a public rally here. We need to be real careful that

there’s order maintained. And I wish everybody would respect that.

But what I want to make sure that you know is that your views

are represented on this panel. And we will hold the hearing record

open for at least 30 days so that if you feel like something has not

been said, you’ll have the opportunity to create some written remarks and send them in.

So if you would respect that, I would really appreciate it. And I

do believe that the more order there is here, the better everything

is heard and the more of an opportunity that we can get a decision

on this issue that’s fair and balanced.

So with that I am going to do my opening statement and then

invite other members on the dais to do the same. And then we’ll

get into the testimony of the witnesses.

Again, thank you for being here, this beautiful part of the state.

We gather here today along the Snake River to discuss ways to

protect both endangered fish and the economy and the rural way

3

of life in northern Washington. The central part of our discussion

will be the Endangered Species Act, a well-intended law but one

that has serious consequences on rural communities.

As I indicated earlier, I’m from the Central Valley of California. And my region has felt the firsthand impacts of the Endangered

Species Act as well. In the 1990s, California levees could not be

maintained because it was the habitat of the endangered elderberry bark beetle. The water agencies were not allowed to maintain

levees. And when the floods of 1997 hit, the levees were wiped out

and two or three people lost their lives. Most recently, environmental extremists have used fund-raising and endless litigation in

an attempt to undo decades of family farming in the San Joaquin

Valley rivershed. Zealous environmental legislation has been used to rewrite his- tory at the expense of the Pacific Northwest. Despite increased

salmon runs, billions of Bonneville ratepayer dollars and unprecedented Federal attention to solving the salmon dilemma, the environmental community continues to focus on dam removal at any

cost.

I don’t think Franklin Roosevelt or Warren Magnuson envisioned removing the very dams that they championed for multiple-use

rivers in the Northwest. When the Endangered Species Act was

created in 1973, I also don’t think that anyone had in mind that

our government would be spending $4 million per salmon like the

Bonneville Power Administration was forced to do last summer because of litigation. Lawsuit abuse continues to exploit the Endangered Species Act to the point where many rural families are beginning to feel that

the only thing endangered is their community and their way of life.

It’s time to make the Endangered Species Act work for species and

all people who are affected firsthand; not the movie star activists,

the environmental attorneys and judges who don’t live with the

everyday impacts of their decisions. Today’s hearing is an important step in bringing common sense to the Endangered Species Act. And I want to commend my colleagues, Cathy McMorris, Butch Otter and, of course, Doc

Hastings, for their leadership in asking for this hearing. And Mike

Simpson as well.

I also want to thank everybody for taking the time to attend this hearing. I know it’s important, and you took time out of your Monday to be here. And it’s very much appreciated. I encourage you to

submit your comments for the record. And we look forward to hearing from my colleagues and from these witnesses. So I now recognize Ms. McMorris for her opening statement. Cathy. [The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:]

Statement of The Honorable George Radanovich, a Representative in Congress from the State of California

Today, we gather here along the Snake River to discuss ways to protect both en- dangered fish and the rural way of life. The central part of our discussion will be

the Endangered Species Act, a well-intended law but one that has serious consequences on rural communities.

As I indicated earlier, I’m from the Central Valley of California. My region has

felt the firsthand impacts of the Endangered Species Act. In the 1990’s, California

levees couldn’t be maintained because of an endangered beetle. When massive floods

4

came, the levees were wiped out and people perished. Most recently, environmental

extremists have used fundraising and endless litigation in an attempt to undo decades of family farming in the San Joaquin rivershed. Just like in this area, we in

the Central Valley have an activist Federal judge who wants to be a river-master.

Zealous environmental litigation has been used to re-write history at the expense

of the Pacific Northwest. Despite increased salmon runs, billions of Bonneville ratepayer dollars and unprecedented federal attention to solving the salmon puzzle, the

environmental community continues to focus on dam removal whatever the expense.

I don’t think Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Lyndon Baines Johnson

and Warren Magnuson had dam removal in mind when they envisioned multipleuse dams in the Northwest. When the ESA was created in 1973, I also don’t think

anyone had in mind that our government would spend $4 million per salmon like

the Bonneville Power Administration was forced to do last summer because of litigation.

Lawsuit abuse continues to the turn the Endangered Species Act upside down to

the point where many rural families are beginning to feel that the only thing ‘‘endangered’’ is their community. It’s simply time to make the Endangered Species Act

work for the species and the people, and not the movie stars, environmental attorneys and judges who don’t have to live with the impacts of their irresponsible agenda.

Today’s hearing is an important step in bringing ‘‘common sense’’ to the ESA. I

want to commend my colleagues, Cathy McMorris, Butch Otter, Doc Hastings and

Mike Simpson for their leadership in asking for this hearing. I also want to thank

everyone for taking the time to attend this hearing and encourage you to submit

your comments for the record. I look forward to hearing from my colleagues and the

witnesses.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CATHY McMORRIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Ms. MCMORRIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We’re really pleased

to have you in Clarkston this morning and welcome Congressman

Hastings and Congressman Otter to the 5th Congressional District.

We’re pleased to see everyone here and thank you everyone for

coming.

As everyone in this region recognizes, the river is very important

to our economy. I think the manager of the Port of Clarkston, Rick

Davis, said it well when he compared the Columbia/Snake River

System to Interstate 5. No one would consider shutting down Interstate 5. Yet we live in fear of shutting down many of the uses of

the Columbia/Snake River System. That would destroy our way of

life that is dependent upon the river.

I grew up in northeastern Washington state in Kettle Falls. We

had an orchard and a fruit stand that overlooked the Columbia

River. The river was both a landmark and a part of our livelihood.

Our family was not different from many of the 11 million people

who are living and working in the Pacific Northwest. The Columbia

and Snake Rivers affect our daily lives in very different ways.

We all share a desire and recognize the importance of protecting

our salmon populations. This region has invested billions of dollars,

much of it coming from the pocket of ratepayers. It’s interesting to

note that over 20 percent of BPA’s electric rates go for fish costs.

And we’ve recently seen an increase in salmon populations

throughout the rivers, and we need to maintain that momentum.

While we use the river system in different ways, we share a common goal to solve our decade’s old problem of protecting endangered species while maintaining the value of the river system.

Whether it is agriculture lands that have been developed because

of irrigation or our region’s economy which was largely built on inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:58 Oct 19, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\21758.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
5

expensive hydropower—where in the Pacific Northwest, 70 percent

of our electricity is generated from hydroelectricity—or the importance of the river as a transportation system and providing recreational opportunities, the Columbia River System ties our region

together.

The existence of barge transportation on the lower Snake River

not only benefits the residents and farmers of eastern Washington,

eastern Oregon, Idaho and Montana, but also creates over 40,000

jobs in Portland that generates millions of dollars in economic activity and tax revenue.

I think it’s interesting to note, the Columbia/Snake River barge

shipper saves $38 million annually over the cost of transporting

their cargos either by rail or truck. For example, one ton of cargo

can be transported 514 miles by barge on just one gallon of fuel.

While one ton of cargo can be moved only 59 miles on one gallon

of fuel by truck. 43 percent of U.S. Wheat exports and 23 percent

of all U.S.

Grain exports go through the Columbia/Snake River Systems.

Over 60 percent of Washington wheat travels by barge through the

Columbia/Snake River Systems.

Water from the Columbia and Snake Rivers provide important irrigation for the hundreds of crops grown throughout this region. It

helps with flood and erosion control.

This morning we’re going to hear a lot about the need to protect

our endangered salmon while not closing the river.

Any solution must take into account salmon protection and recovery, but we must not sacrifice the other important uses of the river.

The river systems throughout the Northwest are a critical part of

our region’s economy and should be used for transportation, irrigation and recreation.

The purpose of today’s hearing is to get outside of Washington,

D.C., and to the real Washington to hear from those most affected

by the issue. I’m so pleased that everyone is here this morning.

And I look forward to finding solutions that will protect our salmon, our endangered species, and our way of life.

Thank you very much.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Cathy.

I want to recognize now my friend and colleague from Washington with whom I was elected, at the same time, more than ten

years ago. Doc.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Mr. HASTINGS. George, thank you very much. And I want to welcome you up here to the great Northwest. And, actually, it’s been

11 years. It doesn’t seem like it’s been that long.

Mr. Chairman and members, I want to thank you for holding

this important hearing today. And I want to join my fellow Washingtonians once again in welcoming you to the Pacific Northwest.

I’m sure we will find great benefit in hearing firsthand from the

local residents here today as we discuss the importance of our multiple-purpose dams on the Columbia and Snake River Systems.

These individuals are on the front lines of helping to maintain

one of the most productive agricultural regions in the world, as

6

Cathy enumerated moment ago. An important transportation link

to the Pacific Rim in clean renewable source of energy, not only for

the Pacific Northwest but several other western states as well.

I’d like to also note that two of the panelists who have come here

to testify are from my district; Jean Ryckman from Pasco is the

General Manager of the Franklin PUD, and Virgil Lewis is the

Vice Chairman of the Yakama Nation. And I want to welcome both

of them here, and I look forward to hearing your perspective.

Today’s hearing, Mr. Chairman, is especially timely given the recent Court ruling that essentially invalidates the 2004 biological

opinion for the operation of the Federal Columbia River System.

Unfortunately, this same Court may be on the brink of ordering

drastic changes to the operation of this system being requested by

certain special interest groups and others. Much of what the plaintiffs have asked involves flushing more water out of the Columbia,

regardless of the impact such actions would have on power generation, navigation, recreation, irrigation and even other fish and wildlife.

So let’s be real clear about this. The real goal of these groups is

dam removal. Starting with the four lower Snake River dams. And

I can assure you that as long as I am in Congress, I will work as

hard as I can to see that these dams are not breached.

Last week I joined several of my colleagues from the Northwest

to ask the Administration to appeal this recent Federal court ruling

that I mentioned that would invalidate the 2004 Biological Opinion. In the meantime, I know the Administration is working to

reach an agreement with the Northwest Governors on alternative

actions that might spare the region the economic disruptions that

would be caused by changes to the operation of the hydrosystem

this summer.

I hope these efforts are successful. Particularly since over the

years a bipartisan group of Northwest Governors has already

agreed on more than one occasion that we can save salmon without

tearing down the dams. Ultimately we need to return decisionmaking to the agencies with expertise, make the salmon recovery

more efficient and focused, and no longer allow litigants to drive

the process.

Farmers, barge owners and Northwest electricity users alone are

not responsible for the plight of salmon. In fact, they’ve contributed

greatly over the years—is it still on? And so it’s simply not fair or

scientifically credible to put 100 percent of the burden of salmon

recovery on these people.

So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much once again for having

this hearing. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, because

what they have to say is very important as the decision process

goes.

Thank you very much.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Doc.

I now recognize the Gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Otter. Butch.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Mr. OTTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And before I begin my

opening statement today, I want to remind everybody of the great

7

rally that we had earlier. And I think a lot of good speeches, a lot

of good points were made. I want to thank all the farmers and

ranchers and laborers and everybody that labors within this economy for coming up. And beginning today with a rally like that reminding us of the importance of these kinds of open meetings and

the importance of our economy. And in particular I want to thank

Jerry Clinton from Lewiston, Idaho, and many others for helping

put that together.

I also want to congratulate the many independent truckers who

brought their rigs here today to show their support for the dams.

And Arthur Lyons (phonetic) with the Lewis Clark Terminal Association and Ken Blakeman with the Primeland Cooperatives helped

with that effort and that organization.

As I said, Mr. Chairman, many important things I think were

said out there this morning. And so I would ask unanimous consent

that to the extent that we have a record of those speeches that

were made out there this morning that those be entered as part of

the official record of this hearing.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Without objection they will be admitted.

Mr. OTTER. I would also, Mr. Chairman, and members of the

Committee, ask unanimous consent that because we are limited in

our time, there’s a lot of people that are going to want to submit

at least some perhaps rebuttal to what is heard here today but at

least have the opportunity to voice their opinion in this public

hearing. And so I would ask that this record be kept open for 30

days allowing anyone who’s here or anyone who could not make it

an opportunity to submit written testimony for their particular position on this committee. I’d ask that unanimous consent.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Without objection so ordered.

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, let me, along with my colleagues from

the State of Washington, thank you. It always seems like two

people from Washington have to show up in order to account for

one person from Idaho. And I think that that’s——

[Laughter.]

Mr. OTTER. But I was actually thinking of the other Washington.

[Laughter.]

Mr. OTTER. I was thinking of the other Washington. I think

when you throw in two people from Washington and a member

from California, that’s——

Actually, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your willingness to come

out and have a public hearing. This has been a very important

issue for the 14 years that I was the lieutenant Governor for the

State of Idaho and the five years—four-and-a-half years that I have

been a Member of Congress. This has always been an important

issue for the State of Idaho and for water management, for river

management, for transportation and for the economy.

Salmon are an important part of the heritage and the economy,

and maintaining the Salmon and the Snake River is a very high

priority. However, Federal salmon restorations decisions cannot

occur in a vacuum. We must do a better job of taking into account

how the management decisions impact people, jobs, and the economy of the Pacific Northwest.

This hearing took on an additional importance, Mr. Chairman,

when Judge Redden ruled on the biological opinion for the operVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:58 Oct 19, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\21758.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
8

ation of the Federal Columbia and Snake River hydropower system

last week. I am concerned that the ruling sets the stage for the

river to be run by court order rather than by sound science.

Even though the region has been blessed with a very wet spring,

we’re still facing a low water year. And management of this scarce

resource will be key for the survival of the salmon and the Northwest economy. The recent Federal court’s decision focusing on river

operations to the exclusion of all other factors influencing salmon

runs, from harvest to predation, to conditions that they face in the

ocean. That kind of narrow view reinforces the pressing need for

Congress to once again revisit and then overhaul the Endangered

Species Act. And it threatens this administration’s consistent commitment to balance the salmon recovery with economic vitality of

our region.

I also am concerned with the seeming impossibility of dredging

the lower Snake River. Five years ago, interventionists managed to

manipulate existing law and tied the hands of the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers with a lawsuit that blocked them from dredging the

important navigational channels of the Snake River. Their success

has had devastating consequences on the economy of Idaho.

The Snake River feeds the lower Columbia River International

Gateway, and at one point moves about 6 million tons of grain,

paper products, petroleum products, and general container cargos

produced by Idahoans every year amounting to about a billion 600

million dollars.

Barging products not only is the cheapest way to get the goods

from Idaho to the world marketplace, but it also keeps the trucks

off our already overloaded highways, improving transportation

safety and air quality in the Pacific Northwest. However, without

the ability to dredge the lower Snake River for the past three

years, the navigational channel is becoming more and more restricted each year. And the conditions will continue to deteriorate.

We will hear from the witnesses on the real impact on their businesses due to the delay in this dredging.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, this hearing is a welcome opportunity

for the folks who live—whose lives and livelihoods are most influenced by this great river system we have in the Pacific Northwest.

And to have their voices heard is an important part of this hearing.

I am grateful to you for coming to the region and for recognition

that the Columbia and Snake Rivers truly are working rivers, and

they require reasonable balanced management. I am hopeful that

this hearing will put Judge Redden’s ruling, as well as such critical

issues as meeting the needs of power generation, population

growth, irrigation and transportation, in the context for the people

of our region.

I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses. And I

thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Otter follows:]

Statement of The Honorable C.L. ‘‘Butch’’ Otter, a Representative in

Congress from the State of Idaho

Thank you Mr. Chairman for coming to the Pacific Northwest and holding this

hearing today to look at how federal management decisions impact the Columbia

and Snake river system.

9

Salmon are an important part of our heritage and economy, and maintaining the salmon in the Snake River is a very high priority. However, federal salmon

restoration decisions cannot occur in a vacuum. We must do a better job of taking

into account how the management decisions impact people, jobs, and the economy

of the Pacific Northwest.

This hearing took on additional importance when Judge Redden ruled on the bio- logical opinion for operation of the federal Columbia and Snake river hydropower

system. I am concerned that the ruling sets the stage for the river to be run by court

order rather than sound science. Even though the region has been blessed with a

very wet spring, we still are facing a low water year and management of this scarce

resource will be key for the survival of salmon and the Northwest’s economy. The

recent federal court’s decision focuses on river operations to the exclusion of all the

other factors influencing salmon runs, from harvest to predation to conditions they

face in the ocean. That kind of narrow view reinforces the pressing need for Congress to overhaul the Endangered Species Act, and it threatens this administration’s

consistent commitment to balancing salmon recovery with the economic vitality of

our region.

I also remain concerned with the seeming impossibility of dredging the lower

Snake River. Five years ago environmentalists managed to manipulate existing law

and tie the hands of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with a lawsuit that blocked

them from dredging the important navigational channels of the Snake River. Their

success had devastating consequences for the economy of Idaho. Then Snake River

feeds the lower Columbia River international gateway, and at one point moved

about six million tons of grain, paper products, petroleum products, and general container cargo produced by Idahoans a year—amounting to almost $1.6 billion. Barging products not only is the cheapest way to get goods from Idaho to the world marketplace, but it also keeps trucks off our already overloaded highways, improving

transportation safety and air quality in the Pacific Northwest.

However, without the ability to dredge the lower Snake River for the past three

years, the navigational channel is becoming more and more restricted each year,

and the conditions will continue to deteriorate. We will hear from the witnesses on

the real impact to their business due to the delay in dredging.

Mr. Chairman, this hearing is a welcome opportunity for the folks whose lives and

livelihoods are most influenced by the river systems to have their voices heard. I

am grateful to you for coming to the region, and for recognizing that the Columbia

and Snake truly are working rivers that require reasonable, balanced management.

I am hopeful that this hearing will put Judge Redden’s ruling—as well as such critical issues as meeting the needs of power generation, population growth, irrigation

and transportation—in context for the people of our region. I look forward to hearing the testimony.

Thank you.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much, Butch.

Now we will get down to the point where I will introduce our

ladies and gentlemen who are giving testimony. And each one will

be given five minutes to deliver testimony. And then after that

we’ll open it up for questions from the dais up here to the members

of the panel and we’ll proceed.

We have a great list of witnesses here today. It’s Mr. Curt

Koegen, Business Manager of the International Union of Operating

Engineers from Spokane, Washington. Mr. Steve Appel, President

of Washington State Farm Bureau, in Endicott, Washington. Mr.

Virgil Lewis, Vice Chairman of the Yakama Tribal Council, in

Toppenish, Washington. Ms. Rebecca Miles, the Chairperson of the

Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee, in Lapwai, Idaho.

It’s kind of like La Jolla. Nobody gets that one. The Honorable

Merrill Ott, Commissioner of Stevens County, Colville, Washington.

Mr. Dale Alldredge, President of the Commission of Port of Lewiston, Idaho. Liz Hamilton is the Executive Director of the Northwest

Sportfishing Industry Association, Oregon City, Oregon. Mr. Mark

Benson, Potlatch Corporation, Lewiston, Idaho. Ms. Jean Ryckman,

General Manager of the Franklin County PUD in Pasco, WashVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:58 Oct 19, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\21758.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
10

ington. Norm Semanko, Executive Director and General Counsel of

the Idaho Water Users Association in Boise, Idaho.

And before we begin the testimony, I want to yield just a second

to my friend from Idaho. Butch.

Mr. OTTER. Thank you very much.

Ladies and gentlemen, I’d like you to join with me. I want to

make a presentation to Melissa Casteel for that beautiful song that

she played. It is an American flag that has been flown over the Nation’s Capitol. And thank you very much for opening our——

[Applause.]

Ms. MCMORRIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have flags for the

Boy Scouts and for the ROTC from Clarkston High School. If anyone is here representing those groups any longer, we’ll present you

with a flag too. Thank you.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much.

Now we’ll begin the testimony. I’m going to work from my left

to the right. You’ll notice we have little boxes here. Those are timekeepers. We like to limit the testimony to five minutes. Again,

every person giving testimony here has already submitted their

complete testimony for the record. It’s in the written part of the

testimony.

Feel free to be extemporaneous on your remarks, if you would

like to. We’d like to hold the witnesses to five minutes because we

do have a lot of people and not a lot of time. I do want to say, too,

that I have been away from home about six days now. And I want

to catch a plane to go back home. And I may be leaving at about

11:30 or quarter to 12:00. But we will keep the hearing open as

long as needed in order to get all of the testimony into the record.

The lights work like a traffic light. Green means go; yellow

means speed up; and red means stop. So use those as you go

through.

Mr. Appel from the Washington State Farm Bureau.

Welcome to the hearing. You may begin.

STATEMENT OF STEVE APPEL, VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN

FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, PRESIDENT, WASHINGTON

FARM BUREAU

Mr. APPEL. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I

want to thank you for the opportunity to testify on an issue that

is very personal to me. I’m here today as President of the American

Farm Bureau—or Vice President of the Farm Bureau Federation

and as President of the Washington State Farm Bureau.

Perhaps even more importantly than that, I’m here as a farmer

who grows wheat just 50 miles away from here. The wheat I grow

is loaded onto barges at Almota in Central Ferry and it’s towed to

Portland where it’s put on ocean-bound ships.

I know how important the Snake/Columbia River corridor is to

agriculture. And I know how important a working river is for my

neighbors, my community that I grew up in, and the communities

throughout the Northwest. We need the river system. We depend

on the water from the rivers for irrigation, to transport the barges

with our crops to market. And we depend on those same barges to

bring our fuel and fertilizer up river to us. We also depend on

11

clean, renewable, low-cost hydroelectric power to keep our farming

affordable.

The Snake/Columbia River system is the third largest grain corridor in the world. It’s the largest transportation corridor for wheat

in the United States. Nearly 10 million tons of wheat is shipped

down the river annually. Almost 5 million tons of that is put into

the barges on the Snake River portion of the system.

Eliminating the Snake River dams would devastate the agriculture in eastern Washington and hurt farmers as far away as

North Dakota. And it would force many farmers off their land and

turn agricultural communities into ghost towns.

Those people who say that we can easily replace barges with

trucks and rail cars simply haven’t looked at the facts. A single

barge carries as much as 35 railroad cars or as much as 134 semitrucks. And we would need to have the equivalent of 120,000 rail

cars annually or 700,000 semi-trucks to replace the barges on the

waterway. That’s thousands of trucks crowding the interstate on

the way down to Portland.

Higher costs, more pollution. Doesn’t make sense to me.

And even if enough rail cars or trucks existed, the Corps of Engineers has determined that if you drop the river levels, those lines

would probably collapse into the river gorge in more than 60 different places.

We believe, supported by sound science and years of study by the

National Marine Fisheries Service, that we can protect the salmon

without destroying the infrastructure that is the centerpiece of

eastern Washington’s economy.

As you know, between salmon and the spotted owl, the Northwest has been in the crosshairs of the ESA for more than a decade.

And the most important thing that we’ve learned during this time

is the ESA is not about saving species. Instead, the ESA is about

litigation, continual and costly litigation. Well-funded special interest groups that sue again and again until they get the answer they

want from the courts.

It’s been well publicized that the ESA has not been particularly

effective at recovering threatened or endangered species. Only 15

of the 1300 species listed have ever been, quote, recovered. In fact,

more species, 16, have been delisted because of original errors in

the listing data. However, the ESA has been very effective at disrupting the lives of ordinary Americans.

For example, for the past two years, farmers in Washington, Oregon and parts of California have been unable to use perfectly

legal, extensively tested, and EPA-approved agricultural chemicals

within a football field of the river. Not because there’s evidence

that those chemicals are hurting salmon but because a Federal

judge in Seattle found fault with the way that EPA consulted with

U.S. Fish and Wildlife.

The farmers have done nothing wrong. Nobody has accused them

of doing anything wrong, but they’re the ones who are being punished. And when Farm Bureau filed an appeal, the same judge

ruled that the economic hardship his order would have on farmers

was, and I quote, Not relevant.

Not relevant. Well, if it’s not relevant then something is badly

out of whack with the law. There has to be a better balance

12

between saving species and protecting the livelihoods of innocent

people.

Two weeks ago, for the third time in 12 years, a Federal judge

in Oregon ruled against the government over what’s known as a biological opinion for the operation of the Columbia/Snake River

dams. The administrative record in this case already fills more

than 56 boxes, if you look over here, with more than a ton of paperwork. And we still don’t know what to expect or what is expected

of us. And now that one judge is set up to micromanage the entire

river system.

The judge in this case will decide next week how much water will

be spilled over the dams this summer to flush juvenile fish down

river. And ultimately, this case will affect the management of more

than 70 million acres of Columbia River basin, private and public.

It will affect more than 219,000 square miles in seven western

states.

And at this point, it looks like it will be decided by a judicial system that places the ESA ahead of people and the rights of fish

ahead of the rights of farmers and ranchers, whatever the cost.

That’s just wrong.

Let me just wrap up by saying that farmers and ranchers care

about the environment. We care about the land and how we make

our living and where we raise our families. But the ESA punishes

the innocent.

The most effective conservation programs are ones that reward

people for doing a little bit extra. The ESA, on the other hand, is

a sledge hammer that too often leaves innocent property owners

battered and bloodied. That’s not the way the laws in this country

are supposed to work. And after 32 years of little or no success, it’s

time to fix what’s wrong with the ESA.

Again, I want to thank the Committee for the opportunity to talk

with you here today and will be happy to answer any questions

that you want to ask.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Appel follows:]

Statement of Steve Appel, Vice President, American Farm Bureau

Federation, and President, Washington Farm Bureau

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee:

I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify on an issue that is very personal

to me.

I am here today as vice president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, the

largest general agricultural organization in the world, and as president of the Washington Farm Bureau, the largest general agricultural organization in Washington

state, representing more than 35,000 member families.

Perhaps even more importantly, I am here as a farmer who grows wheat not more

than 50 miles from where we are today.

The wheat I grow is loaded onto barges at Almota or Central Ferry—downriver

from here—and towed to Portland, where it is loaded on ocean-bound ships for export.

I personally know how important the Snake/Columbia River corridor is for agriculture. And I know how important a working river is to my friends, my neighbors...to the community I grew up in, and to communities throughout Eastern

Washington, Oregon and Idaho.

Let me put this as bluntly as I can.

We need the Snake/Columbia River system. We depend on water from the rivers

for irrigation. We depend on barges to get our crops to market economically. We depend on barges to get the oil and fertilizer we need up river. And we depend on

clean, renewable low-cost hydroelectric power to help keep farming affordable.

13

The Snake/Columbia River system is the third-largest grain corridor in the world, and the largest transportation corridor for wheat in the United States. Nearly 10 million tons of wheat are shipped down the river to Portland every year...with almost 5 million tons loaded onto barges from facilities along the Snake

River. Those barges also haul tons of potatoes, peas, beans, sweet corn, lentils, onions and other agricultural crops. Eliminating the Snake River dams—physically or operationally—would devastate the agricultural economy of Eastern Washington and hurt farmers as far away as

North Dakota. It would force many farmers off the land and turn agricultural communities into ghost towns. And those people who say we could easily replace the barges with trucks or rail cars haven’t looked at the facts.

A single barge carries as much as 35 railway hopper cars, or as much as 134 semi-trucks. We would need the equivalent of 120,000 rail cars annually, or 700,000

semi-trucks, to replace barges on the Snake/Columbia waterway. That’s thousands of trucks crowding onto the interstate through the Columbia Gorge all the way into Portland, more air pollution, higher costs for farmers—

doesn’t make sense to me.

And even if enough rail cars and trucks existed—and they don’t—the Corps of En- gineers determined that the roads and railways along the river would probably collapse and tumble into the river gorge in more than 60 places if the dams were

breached and the reservoirs drawn down.

Let’s get real here. We continue to believe—supported by sound science and years of study by the National Marine Fisheries Service—that we can protect salmon

without destroying the infrastructure that is the centerpiece of Eastern Washington’s economy. Now, with the time I have remaining, I’d like to comment on enforcement of the Endangered Species Act in general. As you know, between salmon and the spotted owl, the Northwest has been in the crosshairs of the ESA for more than a decade. And the most important thing

we have learned during this time is that the ESA is NOT about saving species. Instead, the ESA is about litigation...continual and costly litigation...by well-fund- ed special interest groups that sue again and again until they get the answer they

want from the courts. And it’s about control of our land and water

It’s been well publicized that the ESA has not been particularly effective in recov- ering threatened or endangered species. Only 15 of the 1,300 species listed as threatened or endangered have ever been (quote) recovered. In fact, more species—16—have been delisted because of original

errors in the listing data than because of any efforts at recovery. However, the ESA has been very effective at disrupting the lives of ordinary

Americans.

For example, for the past two years, farmers in Washington, Oregon and parts

of California have been unable to use perfectly legal, extensively tested and EPAapproved agricultural chemicals within a football field of any river or creek NOT

because there is evidence those chemicals are hurting salmon, but because a federal

judge in Seattle found fault with the way the EPA consulted with U.S. Fish and

Wildlife.

These farmers have done nothing wrong. Nobody has accused them of doing anything wrong.

But they are the ones who are being punished—in the name of the ESA.

And when Farm Bureau filed an appeal, the same judge ruled that the economic

hardship his order would have on farmers was, and I quote, ‘‘not relevant.’’

Not relevant? The law is punishing hard-working Americans who have done nothing wrong and that’s not relevant?

If that’s ‘‘not relevant,’’ then something is badly out of whack with the law.

There has to be better balance between saving species and protecting the livelihoods of innocent people.

I know I’m almost out of time, but I want to make just one more point.

Two weeks ago, for the third time in 12 years, a federal judge in Oregon ruled

against the government over what is known as a biological opinion for the operation

of Columbia/Snake River dams.

The administrative record in this case already fills more than 56 boxes—more

than a ton of paperwork.

And we still don’t know what to expect...or what is expected of us. And now, one

judge is set up to micromanage the entire Snake/Columbia River hydroelectric system.

Already, the judge in this case will decide next week how much water will be

spilled over the dams this summer to flush juvenile fish down the river—reducing

14

water for irrigation, lowering river levels for barging, and further driving up electrical costs for the Northwest.

And ultimately, this case will affect the management of more than 70 million acres of land in the Columbia/Snake River Basin—private and public.

It will affect more than 219,000 square miles in seven Western states.

And at this point, it looks like it will be decided by a judicial system that places the ESA ahead of people...and the rights of fish ahead of the rights of farmers and

ranchers...whatever the cost.

That’s just wrong.

Let me just wrap up by saying that farmers and ranchers care about the environ- ment. We care about the land—it’s how we make our living and where we raise our

families—and we care about the wildlife.

But the ESA punishes the innocent. It punishes the very people who have taken care of the land. It punishes the people who provide the habitat for the species it

is supposed to protect.

The most effective conservation programs are the ones that reward people for doing that little extra. The ESA, on the other hand, is a sledgehammer that too

often leaves innocent property owners battered and bloodied. That’s not the way the laws in this country are supposed to work, and after 32 years of little or no success...after 32 years of trampling on individual rights...it’s

time to fix what’s wrong with the ESA. Again, I want to thank the committee for this opportunity, and I would be happy

to answer any questions I can. NOTE: An attachment to Mr. Appel’s statement has been retained in the

Committee’s official files.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Appel. I appreciate

your testimony. Next is Mr. Dale Alldredge with the Port of Lewiston. Welcome.

STATEMENT OF DALE ALLDREDGE, PRESIDENT,

COMMISSION, PORT OF LEWISTON, IDAHO

Mr. ALLDREDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s a pleasure to be here today. And I don’t know if I’m more nervous today than I was

ten years ago when I got married in this very room. So if I stammer a little bit, now you know why.

Mr. RADANOVICH. You were stammering ten years ago?

Mr. ALLDREDGE. Yes, I was. Thank you again. My name is Dale Alldredge. And I am very proud to serve as the President of the Port of Lewiston Commission. The Port of Lewiston is actually Butch’s port. Idaho’s only seaport and here at the

head of the navigation of the Columbia/Snake River system.

We are just one of 25 public port districts on the Columbia/Snake

River navigation system. This system is the number one export

gateway of the United States for wheat and barley. And number

one on the West Coast for forest and paper products. In all, about

12 million tons of cargo move each year on this system valued at

approximately $2 billion.

According to a recent economic study, maritime commerce along

the Columbia/Snake River system is estimated to sustain 40,000

family wage jobs.

Everyone knows that barging is the lowest cost and most environmentally responsible form of transportation.

According to the U.S. Maritime Administration—and excuse me

for repeating some of your quotes, Congresswoman—one gallon of

fuel on a barge will move one ton of cargo 514 miles compared to

202 miles by rail or only 59 miles by truck.

Air pollution comparisons yield similar results, with barging

being far cleaner for the environment than rail or trucking.

15

A typical grain ship departing the Columbia River to foreign

markets carries 60,000 tons of wheat. To move that amount of

grain from Lewiston to Portland takes only 4-and-a-half barge

tows. But it would take six 100-car unit trains or a total of 2400

semi-trucks to move that same amount of grain.

Annually, barging keeps 700,000 trucks off the interstate which

in turn it helps protect the sensitive air-shed in the Columbia

River Gorge.

In Idaho—the Idaho and national economy is stronger because

the Columbia/Snake River system provides economic benefits to the

other states we serve, including Washington, Montana, Wyoming

and the Dakotas. The producers in these states rely on our Columbia/Snake River system to reach highly competitive foreign markets.

All these benefits depend on the maintenance of the multi-purpose Federal projects on the Columbia/Snake River system. Which

brings us to why we’re here today.

Some groups are using the ESA Act as a vehicle to call for the

removal of the Snake River dams. Either option of removal or

drawdown would end navigation and eliminate or significantly reduce hydropower production.

Studies by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, a

Corps of Engineers System Operation Review, a Federal agency

Environmental Impact Study, three independent Salmon Recovery

Teams, and three biological opinions have all rejected dam breaching.

If advocates of dam breaching are successful, Ports of Lewiston,

Clarkston and Whitman County will cease to operate for maritime

cargo. Locally, this will mean the loss of over 1600 jobs and $36

million a year in direct payroll. We will lose millions of tons of

cargo, hundreds of millions of dollars of commerce and the opportunity to move products to market from Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and the Dakotas at rates that allow us to compete

in national markets.

And navigation means more to this region than just moving

cargo. Each year more than 15,000 tourists visit our area here on

cruise boats that rely upon the Columbia/Snake River system of

locks and dams to reach eastern Washington and northern Idaho.

Dam breach advocates claim that fish are going extinct. But the

fact is there are more fish in the river today than at any time since

the first dam was built at Bonneville in 1938. Since 2000 we have

experienced——

[Brief interruption.]

Mr. RADANOVICH. Again, if we could have order so that we can

hear the testimony, it would be appreciated.

Mr. ALLDREDGE. Since 2000 we have experienced the four highest years of fish returning to the river. In fact, from 2000 to 2003,

returns of Snake River steelhead are up 57 percent, Snake River

summer chinook are up 91 percent, and Snake River Fall chinook

are up 217 percent.

Dam breach advocates claim that the dams are killing all the

fish. But, in fact, according to NOAA Fisheries, survival through

the river system is higher today than it was before the Snake River

dams were built.

16

Dam breach advocates claim that taking out Snake River dams is the only way to save salmon. What they don’t say is there are

26 runs of fish listed as threatened or endangered from northern

California to the Canadian border. And only four of these listed

runs pass by these four Snake River dams. Changing ocean conditions has been cited as one of the principal reasons for recent record salmon runs. Salmon spend approximately 10 percent of their life in the river and 90 percent in the

ocean. It simply is not credible to claim that breaching dams is the

only answer for salmon. Dam breach advocates claim that we can simply shift cargo from

barge to truck or rail. That’s not true. The costs are significantly

higher and few containers of high value commodities can afford the

higher rates. And the vast majority of our cargo is grain.

Farmers can’t get truck drivers to meet their needs today and

aren’t likely to find enough drivers for an additional 700,000 twoday trips to Portland or Vancouver. And if they could, the farmers

couldn’t afford them. The price of grain is set on the world market,

and farmers can’t simply increase their price to cover the increased

cost. And rail is not a better alternative.

Railroads have a poor history of offering reliable service to our

grain shippers. Cars are not often available when they’re needed,

they are not delivered on time, and fewer cars are delivered than

ordered. Lack of reliable service would cause our grain shippers to

default on the delivery terms of their contracts.

Mr. Chairman, we believe that a multi-purpose river system and

healthy fish runs are compatible. In 2002 the Corps of Engineers

completed the lower Snake River EIS, a five-year, $25 million

study. The Corps concluded that we can have healthy fish runs and

a multi-purpose river system. Recent record fish runs verify the

Corps’ finding.

Mr. Chairman, we are seeking your support and the support of

your Committee to ensure that fish runs and family wage jobs are

both available for future generations.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Alldredge follows:]

Statement of Dale Alldredge, President,

Port of Lewiston Commission

Thank you for inviting me to testify today on this important matter.

My name is Dale Alldredge.

I am proud to serve as the President of the three-member Port of Lewiston Commission, elected by the citizens of our Port District.

The voters of Nez Perce County established the Port of Lewiston in 1958 with a

resounding 80% approving the development of Idaho’s only seaport. The mission of

the Port is to create living wage jobs by facilitating trade and economic development

for the benefit of the citizens of Idaho.

We worked for 20 years to bring navigation to Lewiston, and the State of Idaho

and our nation have benefited ever since.

The Port of Lewiston serves a wide range of Idaho farmers, food processors and

forest products manufacturers, including wheat growers in Grangeville, pea and lentil producers in Moscow, and the 2,000 employees of Potlatch Corporation, manufacturing paper products just a mile up the road in Lewiston.

We are just one of the 25 public port districts on the Columbia Snake River navigation system.

• This system is the number one export gateway in the United States for wheat,

number one in the nation for barley exports, and number one on the West Coast

for forest products and paper products exports.

17

• In all, about 12 million tons of cargo move each year on this system, valued at

$1.5 - 2 billion annually. • According to a recent economic impact study, maritime commerce along the Columbia-Snake River system is estimated to sustain 40,000 family wage jobs. Everyone knows that barging is the lowest cost, least polluting form of transportation. • According to the U.S. Maritime Administration, one gallon of fuel moves each

ton of cargo 514 miles by barge compared to 202 miles by rail and only 59 miles

by truck. • The air pollution comparison yields similar results, with barging being far

cleaner for the environment then rail or trucking. • A typical grain ship departing the Columbia River to foreign markets carries

60,000 tons of wheat. • To move that amount of grain from Lewiston to Portland or Vancouver takes

4 1/2 barge tows. • But it would take six 100-car unit trains or a total of 2,400 semi-trucks to move

the same amount of grain. • Annually, barging keeps 700,000 trucks off the interstate, helping to protect the

sensitive airshed of the Columbia River Gorge. The Idaho economy is stronger and more stable because of our ability to provide the lowest cost, and cleanest form of transportation for Idaho products to reach

international markets.

And our national economy is stronger, because the Columbia Snake River naviga- tion system provides economic benefits to the other states we serve across the northern tier of the country, including Washington, Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas. The producers in these states rely on our Columbia Snake River navigation sys- tem to reach highly competitive foreign markets. All of these benefits depend on the maintenance of the multiple-purpose federal

projects on the Columbia Snake River System. Which brings us to why we are here today.

Some groups are using the Endangered Species Act as a vehicle to call for the removal of the Snake River dams, or drawing down reservoirs far below their engineered design range. Either option would end navigation and eliminate or significantly reduce hydro- power production.

Studies by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, a Corps of Engineers System Operation Review, a federal agency Environmental Impact Study (EIS),

three independent Salmon Recovery Teams, and three biological opinions have all

rejected dam breaching. But dam breaching and drawdown continues to remain on the table.

In fact, the U.S. District Court in Oregon will hear oral arguments this coming

Friday, June 10th, from plaintiffs who are seeking a preliminary injunction to

change river operations and draw down the Lower Granite Reservoir to 10 feet

BELOW the design range of the dam and reservoir.

That is the river that you see just outside the window of this hotel. And that river

is the lifeblood of the regions economy. 90% of the agricultural production (wheat

and pulses) grown within our region is exported.

If advocates of dam breaching are successful, the Ports of Lewiston, Clarkston and

Whitman County will cease to operate for maritime cargo.

Locally, this will mean the loss of over 1600 jobs and $36 million in earnings in

this Valley.

We will loose millions of tons of cargo, hundreds of millions of dollars of commerce

and the opportunity to move products to market from Washington, Idaho, Montana,

Wyoming, and the Dakotas—at rates that allow us to compete with foreign producers.

And navigation means more to this region than just moving cargo.

Each year on the Lower Granite Pool, more than 15,000 tourists visit our area

on cruise boats that rely on the locks, dams and reservoirs.

• These boats bring much needed economic activity to our region.

Dam breach advocates claim that fish are going extinct.

• But the fact is there are more fish in the river than at any time since the first

dam was built at Bonneville in 1938.

• The four highest years of fish returning to the river are the last four years.

Æ From 2000 to 2003, returns of Snake River Steelhead are up 57%; Snake

River Spring/Summer Chinook are up 91% and Snake River Fall Chinook are

up 217%.

• This year’s early returns are off from last year. Fish biologist’s cannot explain

why but, that doesn’t seem to slow down the claims that dams are to blame.

18

Dam breach advocates claim that the dams are killing all the fish.

• In fact, according to NOAA Fisheries, survival through the river system is higher today than it was before the Snake River dams were built.

Dam breach advocates claim that taking out the Snake River dams is the only

way to save the salmon.

• What they don’t say is that there are 26 runs of fish listed as threatened or

endangered from Northern California to the Canadian border...and only four of

those listed runs pass these Snake River dams.

• Changing ocean conditions has been cited as one of the principle reasons for recent record salmon runs. Salmon spend approx. 10% of their life in-river and

90% in the ocean. It is simply not credible to claim that breaching dams is the

only answer for salmon.

Dam breach advocates claim that we can simply shift cargo from barge to truck

or rail.

• That is not true...the costs are significantly higher.

• Few containers of high value commodities could afford the higher rates.

• However, the vast majority of our cargo is grain.

• Farmers can’t get truck drivers to meet their needs today, and aren’t likely to

find enough drivers for an additional 700,000 two-day trips to Portland or Vancouver.

• And if they could, the farmers couldn’t afford them.

• The price for grain is set on the world market.

• The farmers can’t simply increase their price to cover the increased cost.

• This additional cost of doing business would come directly out of the pockets

of farmers, and would likely result in the departure of many families from farming.

Rail is no better as an alternative.

• Railroads have a poor history of offering reliable service to our grain shippers.

• Cars are often not available when needed, they are not delivered on time, and

fewer cars are delivered than ordered.

• Lack of reliable service would cause our grain shippers to default on the delivery terms of their sales contracts.

We believe that a multipurpose river system and healthy fish runs are not mutually exclusive.

In 2002, the Corps of Engineers completed the Lower Snake River EIS, a 5-year,

$25 million study. The Corps EIS concluded that we can have healthy fish runs and

a multi-purpose river system. Record fish runs over the past four years, verify the

Corps findings.

Chairman Radanovich, we are seeking your support and the support of your committee to ensure that fish runs and family wage jobs are both available for future

generations.

ESA reform is necessary to balance conflicting federal restrictions. For example,

it is difficult to restore endangered fish runs when sea lions and terns are consuming Snake River salmon by the thousands. However, federal restrictions prevent

government agencies from even trying to relocate terns and seals.

By making reasonable reforms to ESA, we are confident that we can have harvestable fish runs on the Snake and Columbia Rivers while maintaining infrastructure, and the tremendous economic benefits of the multiple-purpose river system.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Alldredge. As you can see,

we’re having a little problem with our clocks. We’ll get that ready,

but I want to introduce Mr. Curt Koegen for the International

Union of Operating Engineers.

And, Curt, if you could limit your testimony to five minutes, that

would be great. Please begin.

STATEMENT OF CURT KOEGEN, BUSINESS MANAGER,

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL

370

Mr. KOEGEN. I’ll probably be a little shorter than that. I’m glad

I’m not the only one that’s nervous here.

I’d like to thank you for letting me take part in this hearing. I’m

here to speak against the breaching of the dams. Although——

19

Mr. RADANOVICH. Can you hold just a second and get that mic

fixed.

[Brief pause.]

Mr. KOEGEN. I’m opposed to breaching of the dams. Although

breaching would create a lot of work, temporary construction work,

I think it would be devastating to the economics of the region, not

only for the Lewiston-Clarkston area but the Pacific Northwest as

a whole.

Just the maintenance dredging on the Columbia/Snake River employed 30 to 50 people yearly. Not including the work that’s done

up here that hasn’t been done for a few years, run about ten operators for that. Besides the jobs created by the dredging, there’s

maintenance people at each dam. There are people employed at the

ports to handle the commodities.

I believe if we lost the dams, those jobs would disappear. These

are family wage jobs with benefits. I think they would be replaced

with minimum wage jobs, service jobs. And it would be economically devastating. I think we’d lose our tax base. I just see no

positives with it at all.

As everybody has already stated, barging is a very efficient method of moving commodities down the river. I won’t go back over the

same figures they went through. But our infrastructure in our area

cannot handle the truck traffic to move the commodities by truck.

The rail system’s also inadequate.

We don’t have the financial resources right now to improve the

infrastructure—to maintain the infrastructure, really, we have

right now, let alone improve it for the increased truck traffic, for

the 700,000-plus trucks a year that would have to be done just to

handle the grain alone. We don’t have the money for it.

The dams on the Snake River currently—the Snake River system

currently give about 60 percent of the power for the Pacific Northwest as a region. This is pollution-free energy. And how is it going

to be replaced if we stop it.

At what cost to the consumers and businesses? How long will our

businesses stay here without the cheap power? If the power skyrockets, our businesses will go away.

One of the contractors I dealt with that bids this type of work

typically made the statement that’s one of the reasons we stay here

in Washington is cheap power. If that’s gone, what reasons do we

have to maintain or bring businesses into our region.

As I stated earlier, breaching the dams would be great work.

And, in my opinion, it would probably be great work to go back and

fix them when we realize what we did wrong on them. But it’s temporary work. The jobs that are here now are full-time, permanent

jobs, family wage jobs that support the region.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Koegen follows:]

Statement of Curt Koegen, Business Manager,

International Union of Operating Engineers Local 370

Thank you for allowing me to take part in this hearing.

I am opposed to breaching the dams on the Snake River for many important reasons. Although breaching the dams would generate temporary work for construction

workers, I believe that to do so would be economically devastating to not only the

Lewiston/Clarkston area but also to the Pacific Northwest as a whole.

20

Maintenance dredging on the Columbia/Snake River system employed approximately 30 to 50 Operating Engineers yearly until the dredging was stopped. Besides

the jobs created by the dredging, all of the dams have maintenance personnel, each

Port District employs workers to handle the commodities that are barged down

river. These are family wage jobs with benefits. I believe that if the dams were

breached most of these jobs would be lost or replaced with minimum wage jobs.

Barging is a very efficient method of moving commodities to the coast. One barge

can handle as much grain as 134 semi-trucks and a tow as much as 538 trucks (see

attachment A). Fuel and emissions are considerable less per ton-mile compared to

trucks or rail. Our regions infrastructure will not safely handle the increase in truck

traffic. We currently do not have the financial resources to fix the roads we have,

let alone the fund the major reconstruction that would be needed for the increased

truck traffic.

The dams on the Columbia/Snake river system supply approximately 60% of the

electricity for the region. How is this pollution free energy going to be replaced and

at what cost to the consumers and businesses that rely on this power? How long

will business stay in our region if their power costs skyrocket?

As I stated earlier, the breaching of the dams would be great work for the Operating Engineers, and in my opinion, it would be great work to rebuild the dams

when it was realized that breaching them was a mistake.

Thank you.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Koegen. I appreciate your

testimony.

Next is Ms. Rebecca Miles, Chairman of the Nez Perce Tribal

Executive Committee. Ms. Miles, welcome to the Subcommittee.

And you may begin your testimony.

STATEMENT OF REBECCA MILES, CHAIRMAN,

NEZ PERCE TRIBAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Ms. MILES. Thank you.

21

Respectfully, Mr. Chairman and members. Ta’c meeywei. Good

morning. My name is Rebecca Miles, and I am the Chairman of the

Nez Perce Tribe. And we welcome you to our homelands and our

rivers.

We, the Nimiipuu, have lived and fished here since time immemorial. We have always lived here, and we have always been connected with this place and all of its creatures. Our leaders have always been strong, courageous and determined to leave this world

a better place. We speak from our hearts and minds to honor those

that have come before us and to preserve our culture and our way

of life for our children’s children and their children’s children.

This month marks the 150th anniversary of our 1855 Treaty

with the United States government. At this ceremony there were

not enough spring chinook for the ceremonial sustenance needs of

not only the Nez Perce but the other Stevens Treaty Tribes, including Umatilla, Yakama and Warm Springs.

Our treaty reflects our status as a sovereign. Our treaty reserves

to our people the rights that have always been exercised; the right

to take fish, more specifically native fish, at all our usual and accustomed places and to hunt, gather and pasture on open and unclaimed lands. Our treaty, the United States Constitution acknowledges, is the supreme law of the land. Our treaty imposes trust obligations on the United States. And our treaty is a contract with

the citizens of this nation. ‘‘Great nations, like great men, keep

their word.’’

As our ancestors demanded, we ask you speak straight to us. We

request that you honor this nation’s treaty and trust obligations.

And as elected officials, we ask that you fulfill your duties by carefully considering all points of view.

The Nez Perce Tribe appreciates this opportunity to testify before

you, even though we were only invited at the very last minute. In

1855 at the treaty council, Lookingglass was nearly excluded because he and others were in buffalo country. And he made it to the

Walla Walla Treaty Council in a day and a half. And his presence

and his words made a difference in securing our treaty rights. We

hope that our words today at this hearing, ‘‘Keeping the Columbia/

Snake A Working River System,’’ will make a difference in restoring salmon runs of the Snake and Columbia Rivers and in restoring our communities.

I want to make three points today.

First, the Snake River is not a working river for salmon. This is

not just the view of the Nez Perce; its fisherman or our biologists.

This is the view of the best available science. Biological Review

Team, convened by NOAA Fisheries, recently concluded that all the

Snake River salmon runs are in dire status. Specifically, they found

the status of the species already listed as threatened—Snake River

spring/summer chinook, Snake River fall chinook, and Snake River

steelhead—are headed downward and are likely to be listed as endangered with the foreseeable future. Snake River sockeye are, of

course, already endangered. Salmon cannot withstand the status

quo. We must face this reality and acknowledge that this is occurring on our watch.

Second, we all share responsibility for ensuring the salmon in

our local communities are sustainable for the long-term. The future

22

of this region and our homeland must be founded on our natural

resources and our geography. The economic benefits of healthy,

harvestable salmon runs are enormous. Again, this is not just our

view. It is the view of independent experts.

The report entitled, ‘‘The Economic Impact of the 2001 Salmon

Season in Idaho,’’ found that the economic benefit of the salmon

season was nearly $90 million. Just this year, the report titled,

‘‘The Potential Economic Impact of Restored Salmon and Steelhead

Fishing in Idaho,’’ concluded that restored salmon and steelhead

fisheries could produce $544 million a year in economic activity in

Idaho. The Clearwater and Salmon Basins would be the biggest

beneficiaries, to the tune of $331 million.

Our economy in this region is diversifying. In fact, the Nez Perce

Tribe is the second largest employer in this area. Geographically,

Lewiston and Clarkston will always be a center for getting goods

to market. Rail and truck transport provide viable and reliable alternatives to the heavily subsidized barge system. Again, this is not

just our view; it is shared by those who have carefully studied this.

We, as Indian people, have withstood a number of transitions.

We look forward to working with our neighbors and making the

transition to a river that works for salmon and for our local communities.

The final comment I guess, the third option—all options for salmon and our local communities must be on the table. The Nez Perce

Tribe is doing everything we can to rebuild salmon to healthy, harvestable levels. We have received national awards for our habitat

rehabilitation work in collaboration with the U.S. Forest Service.

We operate the Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery, a facility that uses the

state-of-art techniques to mimic nature and that is designed to assist in rebuilding the natural runs. And consistent with our traditional idea of conservation we have practiced since time immemorial, we have voluntarily restricted our harvests for decades.

Yet these actions alone are not enough. The Federal Columbia/

Snake River dams do the most harm to salmon, and these dams

need to make the largest contribution to rebuilding these runs.

Judge Redden’s recent ruling comes as no surprise. It is simply a

reminder that the law does not allow the impacts of the Columbia/

Snake River dams and the imperiled status of the fish to be ignored by the Federal Government.

We need to consider the best scientific and economic options, not

just the most politically expedient ones. The Nez Perce Tribe continues to support breaching the four lower Snake River dams and

investing in the local communities affected by that decision. Again,

this is not just our position; the best science and the best economics

support breaching these dams.

The Nez Perce Tribe is committed to working with our neighbors

in making this transition and protecting our Northwest way of life.

In closing, the only way that we will all win is to ensure that

the Columbia and Snake Rivers work for salmon and our communities. We trust that you will take our words to heart.

Qe’ciyew’yew.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Miles follows:]

23

Statement of Rebecca A. Miles, Chairman,

Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee, Lapwai, Idaho

Ta’c meeywei. Good morning. My name is Rebecca Miles. I am Chairman of the Nez Perce Tribe.

The Nez Perce Tribe welcomes you to our homelands and our rivers. We, the Nimiipuu, have lived and fished here since time immemorial. We have always lived

here, and we have always been connected with this place and all of its creatures. Our leaders have always been strong, courageous, and determined to leave this world a better place. We speak from our hearts and minds to honor those that have

come before us, and to preserve our culture and our way of life for our children’s

children.

This month marks the 150th anniversary of our 1855 Treaty with the United

States government. Our treaty reflects our status as a sovereign. Our treaty reserves to our people the rights they have always exercised: the right to take fish

at all our usual and accustomed places, and to hunt, gather, and pasture on open

and unclaimed lands. Our treaty, the U.S. Constitution acknowledges, is ‘‘the supreme law of the land.’’ Our treaty imposes trust obligations on the United States.

And, our treaty is a contract with the citizens of this Nation. ‘‘Great nations, like

great men, keep their word.’’

As our ancestors demanded, we ask you that you speak straight to us. We request

that you honor this Nation’s treaty and trust obligations. And, as elected officials,

we ask that you fulfill your duties by carefully considering all points of view.

The Nez Perce Tribe appreciates this opportunity to testify before you at this

hearing, even though we were invited only at the very last minute. In 1855, at the

treaty council, Chief Lookingglass was nearly excluded because he and others were

returning from buffalo country. His presence, and his words, made a difference in

securing our treaty rights. We hope that our words today at this hearing on ‘‘Keeping the Columbia / Snake A Working River System’’ will make a difference in restoring the salmon runs of the Snake and Columbia rivers, and in restoring our communities.

I want to make three points.

First, the Snake River is not ‘‘A Working River’’ for salmon. This is not just the

view of the Nez Perce Tribe, its fishermen, or its biologists. This is the view of the

best available science. The Biological Review Team, convened by NOAA Fisheries,

recently concluded that all of the Snake River salmon runs are in dire status. Specifically, they found that the status of the species already listed as ‘‘threatened’’—

Snake River spring/summer Chinook, Snake River fall chinook, and Snake river

steelhead—are headed downward and are likely to be listed as ‘‘endangered’’ ‘‘within

the foreseeable future.’’ Snake River sockeye are, of course, already endangered.

Salmon cannot withstand the status quo. We must face this reality, and acknowledge that this is occurring on our watch.

Second, we all share responsibility for ensuring that salmon and our local communities are sustainable for the long term. The future of this region and our homeland

must be founded on our natural resources and our geography. The economic benefits

of healthy, harvestable salmon runs are enormous. Again, this is not just the Nez

Perce Tribe’s view. It is the view of independent experts.

The report titled, ‘‘The Economic Impact of the 2001 Salmon Season In Idaho,’’

found that the economic benefit of the salmon season was nearly $90 million dollars.

Just this year, the report titled ‘‘The Potential Economic Impact of Restored Salmon

and Steelhead Fishing in Idaho’’ concluded that restored salmon and steelhead fisheries could produce $544 million dollars a year in economic activity in Idaho. The

Clearwater and Salmon Basins would be the biggest beneficiaries, to the tune of

$331 million dollars.

Our economy in this region is diversifying. In fact, the Nez Perce Tribe is the second largest employer in this area. Geographically, Lewiston and Clarkston will always be a center for getting goods to market: rail and truck transport provide viable

and reliable alternatives to the heavily-subsidized barge system. Again, this is not

just the Nez Perce Tribe’s view; it is shared by those who have carefully studied

this.

We, as Indian people, have withstood a number of transitions. We look forward

to working with our neighbors in making the transition to a river that works for

salmon and for our local communities.

Third, all options for salmon and our local communities must be on the table. The

Nez Perce Tribe is doing everything it can to rebuild salmon to healthy, harvestable

levels. We have received national awards for our habitat rehabilitation work in collaboration with the U.S. Forest Service. We operate the Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery,

a facility that uses state-of-the art techniques to mimic nature and that is designed

24

to assist in rebuilding the natural runs. And, consistent with our tradition of conservation, which we have practiced since time immemorial, we have voluntarily restricted our harvests for decades.

Yet, these actions alone are not enough. The federal Columbia/Snake River dams

do the most harm to salmon, and these dams need to make the largest contribution

to rebuilding the runs. Judge Redden’s recent ruling comes as no surprise. It is simply a reminder that the law does not allow the impacts of the Columbia/Snake River

dams and the imperiled status of the fish to be ignored by the federal government.

We need to consider the best scientific and economic options, not just the most

politically expedient ones. The Nez Perce Tribe continues to support breaching the

four lower Snake River dams and investing in the local communities affected by

that decision. Again, this is not just the Nez Perce Tribe’s position; the best science

and the best economics support breaching these dams.

The Nez Perce Tribe is committed to working with our neighbors in making this

transition and protecting our Northwest way of life.

In closing, the only way that we will all win is to ensure that the Columbia and

Snake rivers work for salmon and our communities. We trust that you will take our

words to heart. Thank you. Qe’ciyew’yew.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much.

Next is Mr. Virgil Lewis of the Yakama Tribal Council. Mr.

Lewis, welcome to the Subcommittee.

STATEMENT OF VIRGIL LEWIS, SR.,

VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE YAKAMA NATION

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the

opportunity to speak before you today. My name is Virgil Lewis, Sr.

I am the Vice Chairman of the Yakama Nation Tribal Council.

I think it is important for you and the members of the

Committee to hear how the tribes feel about the Endangered

Species Act, the Snake River dams, and the recent Federal court

ruling regarding the 2004 BiOp.

I have heard much discussion about how important the Snake

River dams are to the economy in certain areas and how recent decision by Judge Redden intended to protect salmon should be reversed because of its potential impact on the economy. I am not

here to dispute those feelings, but I am somewhat saddened by

these statements because they infer that the salmon are not important, or certainly that they are not as important, as other resources.

In 1905 in the famous Winans case, the United States Supreme

Court stated quite clearly how important salmon were to us. The

Supreme Court said for the Yakama people, ‘‘Salmon were not

much less necessary to the existence of the Indians than the atmosphere they breathe.’’ Let me repeat this simply: Salmon are as important as the air we need to breathe.

Mr. Chairman, no people on the face of this earth have been

more negatively affected by the destruction of the salmon runs

than have the Indian people of the Columbia River. Salmon are a

critical part of our religion. They are a critical part of our culture.

They are a staple in our diet and have been the basis of our economy.

For thousands of years the Columbia provided everything that

Indian people needed to make a living. So important was fishing

to our livelihood and culture that our elders made sure to reserve

the rights to fish for future generations in a treaty with the

25

Federal Government that was negotiated not far from here exactly

150 years ago today. The resulting Treaty of June 9th, 1855, was

not a granting of rights to the Indians, but rather a reservation of

rights already held by them, which included the right to continue

making a living from the river.

Today, few tribal families can earn their livelihoods from fishing.

And that solemn promise made by the United States 150 years ago

to preserve our way of life stands unfulfilled.

We hope you will take this into account in your deliberations on

this matter and particularly when you talk about keeping the Columbia and Snake working rivers. Our summer chinook fishery

closed totally in 1964, and our spring chinook fishery closed in ’77.

They remained totally closed for nearly 30 and 20 years respectively. This had the equivalent economic and cultural impact on the

Indian people of no barges to Lewiston or crops in southern Idaho

for that same period; yet we have seen no Congressional hearings,

no disaster declarations or relief in any form.

For the last 40 years, the Columbia has been a working river for

only some, with little consideration for those left out. Today we ask

only for it to be a working river for all. We have sought relief in

the only forum where our voices seem to be heard, the Federal

courts. Perhaps this committee can change that fact and demand

that those who make decisions on the use of this river fairly include and listen to all those who are impacted by the decisions.

Without such a commitment there can be no working river for all.

Having said that, our decision to keep Snake River dam breaching an available option was based upon culture, science and economy. We recommend staying open to the possibility of breaching

because of the weight of scientific evidence and because we believe

it can be properly planned, engineered and mitigated for. However,

we realize that none of the dams on the mainstem Columbia are

likely to be breached, nor would we necessarily call for such action.

My tribal constituents are diverse and widely vested in the eastern Washington economy. We are taxpayers and utility ratepayers.

Our tribal economy is heavily dependent upon the health of the

broader economy.

Nevertheless, our traditional economy, our salmon economy, has

collapsed, and aggressive actions are needed to restore it. This is

why the tribes made a practical decision to take on our share of

the responsibilities to implement the aggressive non-breach strategies of the 2000 Biological Opinion. That plan was, in our estimation, able to succeed only if all of the actions needed to compensate for the lower Snake River dams were implemented in full

and on schedule.

We worked to rebuild the Snake River fall chinook by

supplementing the naturally spawning populations with suitable

hatchery adults. We also developed recommendations in our River

Operations plan that addressed specific issues of flows, spill, fish

transportation, adult passage and fish facility operations.

Our analysis of the performance record found overwhelming failure on the part of the Federal Government to adequately fund and

implement the 2000 Salmon Plan over the course of four years. The

analysis concluded that from 2001 to 2004, the Federal Government failed to complete an average of 70 percent of the measures

26

1 United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371, 381 (1905)

called for in the Federal Salmon Plan and only funded roughly 50

percent of the money needed. The forthcoming rate case provides a perfect opportunity for the Bonneville Power Administration to step up to the plate and implement the sub-basin by sub-basin restoration plans by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council. The Columbia Basin Fish

and Wildlife Authority and the Yakama Nation, among others,

have endorsed it. It can be done in a fashion that will have nominal impact.

Mr. Chairman, before I became a member of the Council, I was

the foreman at the Cle Elum Hatchery, a facility on the innovative

cutting edge of hatchery reform. Hatcheries must play a role in

salmon recovery and tribes can provide the leadership in that regard. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, on behalf of the

Yakama Nation I thank you again for this opportunity to speak

with you today. And I’ll be happy to answer any questions you

might have. [The prepared statement of Mr. Lewis follows:]

Statement of Virgil Lewis, Vice-Chairman, Yakama Nation

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today. My name is Virgil Lewis and I am Vice-Chairman of the

Yakama Nation Tribal Council. Thank you for providing me with the opportunity

to testify before you today. I think it is important for you and the members of the

Committee to hear how the tribes feel about the Endangered Species Act, the Snake

River Dams and the recent federal court ruling regarding the 2004 Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) Biological Opinion, commonly known as ‘‘the

BiOp.’’ I look forward to sharing with the committee the challenges of rebuilding

long-depressed stocks of Columbia River salmon to sustainable and harvestable levels and our commitment to pragmatic and effective actions to do just that. And finally, I will share with this committee, in the form of recommendations, our sincere

and seasoned belief that the long-term realization of a truly ‘‘balanced’’ and working

river lies within coordinated and effective sovereigns implementing coordinated and

effective measures. I will occasionally refer to ‘‘tribes’’ in plural. In those instances

I’m referring to the tribes of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission of

which the Yakama Nation is a member and shares unified goals with the Nez Perce,

Umatilla and Warm Springs Tribes.

I have heard much discussion about how important the Snake River Dams are

to the economy in certain areas and how the recent decision by Judge Redden intended to protect salmon should be reversed because of its potential impact on the

economy. I am not here to dispute those feelings but I am somewhat saddened by

these statements because they infer that the salmon are not important—or certainly

that they are not as important—as other resources. In 1905 in the famous Winans 1

case, the United States Supreme Court stated quite clearly how important salmon

were to us. The Supreme Court said for the Yakama people that salmon ‘‘were not

much less necessary to the existence of the Indians that the atmosphere they

breathed.’’ Let me repeat it simply: Salmon are as important as the air we need to

breath.

Mr. Chairman, no people on the face of this earth have been more negatively affected by the destruction of the salmon runs than have the Indian people of the Columbia River. Salmon are a critical part of our religion, they are a critical part of

our culture, they are a staple in our diet and they have been the basis of our economy. Fishing is how many of our members earn their livelihood. To us, salmon fishing is not recreation; it is a major aspect of our lives. The federal government committed to us, in no uncertain terms, to protect our treaty fishing rights when the

Executive Branch negotiated and the Senate of the United States ratified our Treaty. So important was fishing to our livelihood and culture that our elders made sure

to reserve the right to fish for future generations in a treaty with the federal government that was negotiated not far from here exactly 150 years ago today. The

27

resulting Treaty of June 9, 1855 was not a granting of rights to the Indians, but

rather a reservation of rights already held by them, which included the right to continue making a living from the river. Today, few tribal families can earn their livelihoods from fishing, and that solemn promise made by the United States 150 years

ago to preserve our way of life stands unfulfilled. We hope you will take this into account in your deliberations on this matter and particularly when you talk about keeping the Columbia and Snake ‘‘working rivers.’’

Our summer chinook fishery closed totally in 1964 and our spring Chinook fishery

closed in 1977. They remained totally closed for nearly 30 and 20 years, respectively. This had the equivalent economic and cultural impact on the Indian people

of no barges to Lewiston or crops in southern Idaho for that same period, yet we

have seen no Congressional hearings, no disaster declarations or relief in any form.

For the last 40 years the Columbia has been a ‘‘working river’’ only for some, with

little consideration for those left out. Today we ask only for it to be a working river

for all. We have sought relief in the only forum where our voices seem to be heard,

the federal courts. Perhaps this committee can change that fact and demand that

those who make decisions on the uses of this river fairly include and listen to all

those who are impacted by those decisions. Without such a commitment there can

be no working river for all. Having said that, we reached the decision to keep Snake River dam breaching an available option based upon culture, science and economy. We recommend staying

open to the possibility of breaching because of the weight of scientific evidence and

because we believe it can be properly planned, engineered and mitigated for. However, we realize that none of the dams on the mainstem Columbia are likely to be

breached, nor would we necessarily call for such action. My tribal constituents are

diverse and widely vested in the Eastern Washington economy. We are fishermen,

farmers, ranchers, small business owners. We are taxpayers and utility rate payers.

Our tribal economy is heavily dependent upon the health of the broader economy.

Nevertheless, our traditional economy—our salmon economy—has collapsed, and

aggressive actions are needed to restore it. Wide-scale displacement of our people

to make way for dams has been compounded by steady declines in fishing opportunity. Our fisheries are a mere fraction of their historic levels, with tribal fishing

in the Lower Columbia at approximately 10% of its historic level. Above Lower

Granite dam the tribal fishery is 1/10th of one-percent of its historic level. This

spring has been a particular disappointment as one of the lowest returns on record

of spring Chinook over Bonneville Dam. Treaty ceremonial fishing was closed prematurely for the first time in a decade as the expected abundance of fish failed to

arrive. Several tribal longhouses did not have adequate fish for the traditional first

salmon and first foods ceremonies. The Celilo longhouse had to resort to the remnants of last year’s catch and to accept fish donated by other fishing groups. These

are cultural and religious practices we have been undertaking for thousands of

years. I cannot overstate the frustration and anger of my people at this turn of

events. The Yakama Nation has hundreds of families that rely on commercial fishing, in whole or in part, as their primary occupation and source of income. Regrettably, our people will not have a single day of commercial fishing this year. The

people of the Yakama Nation have sacrificed and paid a heavy price for the good

of the region, in the form of hydroelectric power development. If other stakeholders

were willing to sacrifice a fraction of what we have, the salmon runs could be significantly restored.

Aggressive non-breach and the pragmatic approach

This is why the tribes made a practical decision to take on our share of the responsibilities to implement the ‘‘aggressive non-breach’’ strategies of the 2000 Biological Opinion. That plan was, in our estimation, able to succeed only if all of the

reasonable and prudent actions were implemented in full, and on schedule. We

worked to rebuild Snake River Fall Chinook by supplementing the naturally spawning population with Lyon’s Ferry hatchery adults. We also developed recommendations in our River Operations plans that addressed the need for the Columbia and

Snake Rivers to operate more like a dynamic river and less like a slackwater channel. Every year since 1999, the tribes have sent to the federal operators a river operations plan with specific recommendations for flows, spill, fish transportation, adult

passage and fish facility operations. These plans are based upon the best available

science and developed through prior collaborative biological opinion processes. Unfortunately, the federal operators rarely responded to tribal input and failed to provide good river conditions. Our analysis of the performance record found overwhelming failure on the part of the federal government to adequately fund and implement the 2000 Salmon Plan over the course of 4 years. The analysis concluded

that from 2001-2004, the federal government failed to complete, on average, over

28

70% of the measures called for in the federal Salmon Plan and only funded roughly

50% of the money needed. With that, our tribes had no choice but to join litigation

on the 2000 Biological Opinion. Had our recommendations—which were compatible

with recommendations of many other experts—been implemented between 2000 and

2004, Judge Redden’s ruling of two week ago would not have been necessary.

The 2004 BiOp

Judge Redden’s opinion, delivered on May 26, reflects the views expressed by the

tribes through our active participation in this case. Like Judge Redden, the tribes

were dissatisfied with the lack of collaboration and remediation for the basic infirmities in the 2000 FCRPS BiOp and the wholesale change in the biological framework in the 2004 FCRPS BiOp. The judge’s well-grounded, comprehensive and unambiguous opinion offers a renewed opportunity for the federal government to address the tribes’ proposals for salmon restoration, including the tribes’ 2005 River

Operations Plan and future plans. We look forward to a real dialogue with the federal government about achieving the complementary mandates of the ESA and

other federal laws, particularly treaty fishing rights.

Injunctive relief

You’re aware that a federal judge will consider a request for injunctive relief this

Friday that is designed to increase survival of migrating juvenile Snake River Fall

Chinook, an ESA listed stock and one that severely constrains the tribes’ fall fisheries. The actions in the relief request are a blend of increased flows, spills and reservoir drawdowns designed to increase water velocities by only 10%. However, by

doing this we can achieve a 300% survival increase in this stock. These measures

will have only minor impact to residential ratepayers, raising their average monthly

rate by 11 cents.

Mr. Chairman, I understand your concerns about ESA litigation and want you to

know that the Yakama Nation works first and foremost to collaborate and negotiate

agreements. In that spirit I would like to offer this committee some recommendations, some of which you would have an active role and others which I hope you

will consider supporting in principle.

Recommendations

1) Mitchell Act

Mr. Chairman, before I became a member of the Yakama Nation Tribal Council

I was the manager of the Cle Elum Hatchery, a facility on the innovative cutting

edge in of hatchery reform. Hatcheries should play a role in salmon recovery and

the tribes can provide leadership. We have proposed a biologically credible integrated plan to modify hatchery management practices throughout the basin in order

to supplement rather than supplant natural spawning salmon populations.

Similarly, restoring Pacific salmon and providing for sustainable fisheries requires

using at least some of the Columbia River (Mitchell Act) hatchery program to supplement naturally spawning stocks and populations. To accomplish this goal Congress should allocate $36 million for the tribes and states, as co-managers, to jointly

reform the Mitchell Act hatchery program. Of this amount, $9 million, or 25% of

enacted funding, should be contracted to the tribes for new or expanded supplementation projects. In addition, to carry out activities identified as necessary in the Federal Caucus All-H Paper and the BiOp, provide $20.6 million for the Columbia River

facilities program area for screens and fish passage programs.

2) Linking authorities and processes

A key focus between the tribes and federal executives, state and federal fishery

agencies, the Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC) members and the Northwest Power

and Conservation Council (NPCC) must be the linkage between the authorities/processes that guide salmon recovery, restoration and management. These key authorities/processes include:

1855 Treaties: These agreements between our tribes and the United States are

the supreme law of the land under the U.S. Constitution (covered by the Supremacy

Clause). Under the treaties—as the Supreme Court has stated on numerous occasions—the United States has a clear obligation to protect salmon runs so that our

treaty fishing rights can be implemented.

U.S. vs. Oregon: This, the oldest continuing case in the federal district courts

was primarily aimed at defining the treaty fishing right particularly in terms of allocation of harvest among the parties and necessary escapement.

Northwest Power Act: Passed in 1980 by the Congress and shortly thereafter

adopted by the states of Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Montana, this Act was interpreted by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as an interstate compact conferring

29

authority upon the governor-appointed NPCC, to direct the use of the Bonneville

Fund for protection, mitigation and enhancement of Columbia River fish affected by

any hydroelectric project in the basin. Various federal statutes including this one

discuss giving equal consideration to power production and fishery and fishery habitat protection. This has not happened. The Northwest Power and Conservation

Council—using Bonneville Power Administration dollars—oversaw a comprehensive

subbasin by subbasin analysis of each of the subbasins with the Columbia River.

A comprehensive plan for habitat restoration of each subbasin is on the books and

ready to be implemented. This plan will also create significant employment, particularly in the eastern side of the Columbia Basin. The Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA) has also examined what is needed and the Yakama Nation

and CBFWA are in agreement on a comprehensive plan. It has to be implemented

and paid for by the BPA who are showing little willingness to do so and simply acting as if there is no problem the same business as usual approach we have seen

in recent years. The costs to the ratepayers would be minimal. At the most, one dollar per month for customers of utilities that buy all their power from BPA and less

for customers of utilities that don’t buy all their power from BPA. If the Congress

is serious about addressing this situation, using your influence with BPA on the

forthcoming ‘‘Rate Case’’ *would greatly assist the restoration of these salmon runs

and would do so without additional federal appropriations.

Pacific Salmon Treaty: Canada and the United States adopted the Pacific

Salmon Treaty in 1985 to provide for the conservation of Pacific salmon stocks, including those originating from the Columbia River.

The processes listed above are authoritative in that they are derived from treaties,

federal statutes, and federal judicial interpretation. Except for U.S. v. Oregon, each

process is linked to funding sources including the Bonneville Fund, appropriations

such as the PCSRF and PST budgets. Each process, however, is developing a series

of goals and objectives that are not necessarily linked to those arising from the

other processes. The task of linking the processes is a task of leadership. In the absence of leadership that recognizes the linkages, the processes default to the organizational staff leading them and piecemeal planning results at a high cost without

the likelihood of implementation.

An important step toward making linkages is to consolidate the technical work

under each process and provide a means to address common data and analysis for

each process in a unified manner. The tribes are focusing major attention on this

issue but without leadership from the executives of both federal and state agencies,

we are unlikely to be successful.

Conclusion

In closing I’d first like to reaffirm the testimony provided to this committee on

May 6th by Olney Patt, Jr., executive director of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal

Fish Commission. I would also like to say that while I have not had time to run

this testimony by the other members of the Commission, that I fairly confidant that

the Warm Spring Tribe and the Umatilla Tribe of Oregon and the Nez Perce of

Idaho, would share the perspective I have shared with you today.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, when I visit our tribal families

along the Columbia River it is the most uplifting but difficult tasks of being a tribal

leader. Tribal fishers are proud people, hardworking, a strong community. It does

my heart good to know that the Columbia River’s original working class is strong

and vital. I’m honored to represent them. But they’re wise to false hopes and promises, and they’ve seen a lot of them. They deserve assurances. We all do.

Salmon will not recover without a river that acts like a river. While recent ocean

conditions have been favorable for hatchery returns, the wild stocks are still doing

very poorly and are in danger of extinction because of poor river conditions. The federal operators must not shirk their duty to provide good river conditions that support salmon survival rates that are necessary to meet recovery of Columbia River

stocks to sustainable, harvestable levels. The Yakama Nation is committed to working with Congress, the Administration, the States and other Tribal governments to

realize an equitable, affordable and effective salmon restoration plan.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, on behalf of the Yakama Nation

I thank you again for this opportunity to speak with you today and would be happy

to answer any questions you might have.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. I appreciate your

testimony.

30

Next is Commissioner Merrill Ott from Stevens County. Commissioner, welcome to the Subcommittee. You may begin your

testimony.

STATEMENT OF MERRILL OTT, COMMISSIONER,

STEVENS COUNTY, WASHINGTON

Mr. OTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Radanovich and members of the Subcommittee, thank

you for inviting me to testify on this important topic.

As Chairman of the Stevens County Board of County Commissioners, I represent over 40,000 citizens in the rural northeastern

part of Washington state. I am also speaking on behalf of the Eastern Washington Council of Governments, comprised of commissioners from the six counties surrounding Lake Roosevelt on the

main-stem of the Columbia River. I’m also a farmer who relies on

the margin capacity of the Snake River to ship my wheat to port.

In addition to the daily business of running our respective counties, commissioners from the Council of Governments are leaders in

regional planning efforts such as watershed planning, sub-basin

planning, salmon recovery planning and growth management,

which require balancing economic development and the protection

of critical areas for fish and wildlife habitat. And I am personally

involved in many of these efforts.

It is with this experience that I express the following concerns,

concerns that I hear constantly from county commissioners

throughout the Northwestern United States, about maintaining a

reasonable balance between economic, social and environmental interests. Collectively, we commissioners are deeply concerned about

transparent efforts by non-local organizations to re-engineer the

very fabric of our entire region without local representation. The

proposal to remove the dams on the lower Snake River is an obvious example of this.

Enormous economic sacrifices have already been made by the

people of this region in an effort to implement environmental protections. Entire sectors of our economy have all but disappeared,

while the hoped-for environmental benefits are still unproven.

Because of our extensive planning experience, local government

is well equipped to evaluate the effectiveness of proposed environmental protections and the economic tradeoffs that are required to

implement those protections. Yet our voice is seldom heard in this

debate.

Determined local resistance to extreme proposals such as the removal of major dams from our river system is based on firsthand

experience with the impact of mandated environmental policies on

the continuing economic vitality of our region. The dams of the

lower Snake River are integral elements of the larger regional system. Their removal would have broad economic implications. In addition, the proposal lacks credibility because there is little or no

evidence to demonstrate that removal will significantly improve

salmon populations.

We believe strongly in supporting the multiple uses we currently

enjoy on the Columbia and Snake River systems, including the environmental health of our home. But we never lose sight of the fact

31

that this huge river system is the critical economic driver of our region. We depend upon its stability to make our region viable.

The region’s county commissioners are charged with the protection of the health, welfare and safety of the citizens they represent.

In eastern Washington, the trend toward regional, state and Federal management of local issues has threatened our very existence.

Appointed officials and our courts continue to issue directives without adequate thought to their effect on our region’s citizens, and

without adequate funding to implement those programs.

We understand that decisions must be based upon consistent

policies that provide protection and certainty to agricultural, tribal,

municipal, industrial and environmental interests. However, the

decisionmaking process must include and consider input from the

region’s locally elected officials.

We do not want to see this important agricultural region continue to degenerate into a litigious battlefield where Federal judges

run the rivers and local voices continue to go unheard. We need to

keep the Columbia and Snake River system as viable working

rivers for all the region’s residents, while using local expertise and

the best scientific information to provide a balance between economic and natural resources. We understand that this balance

must provide protection for fish and clean, low-cost hydropower,

transportation and irrigation for our region. We must not forget

that our region’s citizens have a vital interest in the management

of their own resources, and that county governments are a key to

implementing effective solutions.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ott follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Merrill Ott, Commissioner,

Stevens County, Colville, Washington

Chairman Radanovich and Members of the Subcommittee, Thank you for inviting

me to testify on this issue.

As Chairman of the Stevens County Board of County Commissioners, I represent

over 40,000 citizens in the rural northeastern part of Washington. I am also speaking on behalf of the Eastern Washington Council of Governments comprised of commissioners from the 6 counties surrounding Lake Roosevelt on the mainstem of the

Columbia River.

This region’s over 400,000 residents rely on the clean, renewable and low-cost energy that the Columbia and Snake Rivers provide. In addition, our rivers provide

water reservoirs for irrigation, flood control measures, barge transportation, fisheries, recreation, and more. These are all part of an interdependent system.

Our region has long understood the delicate relationships between environmental

factors, economic factors, and social factors that make up the fabric of our entire

local ecosystem.

As County commissioners, my colleagues and I are particularly sensitive to the

interplay between environmental and economic issues on the ground where it most

impacts people’s lives. In addition to the daily business of running our respective

counties, Commissioners from the Council of Governments are in the lead on regional planning efforts such as Watershed planning, Growth Management, which requires balancing economic development and the protection of Critical Areas for fish

and wildlife habitat. Other examples include Subbasin planning; and salmon recovery efforts.

I am personally and deeply involved in many of these ongoing efforts, often on

a daily basis. It is from that perspective that I express the same concerns I’ve heard

from County commissioners throughout the Northwestern United States have about

maintaining a reasonable balance between economic, social and environmental interests. Collectively, we are deeply concerned that others (who will not be directly

affected by proposed changes) are determined to re-engineer the very fabric of an

32

entire region more to their liking, whether or not the people most affected agree

with those proposed changes.

We believe strongly in the viability of the multiple uses we currently enjoy with

the Columbia and Snake River systems.

This huge river system is the key to the economic production capacity of the region. We depend upon its stability to make our region viable.

The region’s county commissioners are charged with the protection of the health

and welfare of the citizens they represent. In northeastern Washington, the trend

towards regional, state, and federal judicial management of local issues has threatened our very existence. For example, despite the attention and effort of local government, state agencies exercise dominant control over growth management and

watershed management. As a result, counties are faced with dramatically increased

cost of government, and dramatically reduced available services for our citizens. The

cost of continual environmental litigation, is over-loading our county governments.

Appointed officials and our courts continue to issue directives, codes, and laws, without adequate thought to their effect on our region’s citizens, and without funding

to adequately implement these programs at the local level.

We understand that any decisions about water use must be based upon consistent

policies which provide adequate protection and certainty to agricultural, tribal, municipal, industrial and environmental interests. However, the best decision-making

must include and consider input from the ground level—in this case, from the region’s state and locally elected officials.

We do not want to see this important agricultural region become a litigious battlefield where federal judges run the rivers and the local voice is unheard.

We need to keep the Columbia and Snake River system as viable working rivers

for all the region’s residents, while using our best local expertise and scientific evidence to provide a balance between human economic needs and our natural resources. We understand that this balance must occur in order to provide protection

for fish and clean, low-cost hydropower, transportation and irrigation for our region.

But, we must not forget that our region’s citizens have a vital role in management

of these resources, and that our county governments are key to implementing and

achieving the desired outcome.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Ott. I appreciate your

testimony.

Next is Mr. Mark Benson from Potlatch Corporation. Mr. Benson, welcome to the Subcommittee. You may begin your testimony.

STATEMENT OF MARK BENSON, DIRECTOR,

PUBLIC AFFAIRS, POTLATCH CORPORATION

Mr. BENSON. Thank you and good morning.

I’m Mark Benson, the Director of Public Affairs for Potlatch Corporation. Potlatch is a mid-sized forest products company with forest lands and manufacturing operations in several states. We operate a large manufacturing complex right next-door in Lewiston,

Idaho, where operations include the manufacture of pulp and paperboard, consumer tissue and lumber. We employ just under 2,000

people here in the Lewis-Clark Valley and have an annual payroll

of just over $100 million.

During the past century, Potlatch has made considerable investment at our site located along the banks of the Clearwater River.

The lumber mill was built in the 1920s, followed by the pulp and

paper operation in the 1950s, which was followed by our tissue operation in the 1960s. All these facilities have been substantially

modernized over the decades.

We have always relied on the working rivers of the region, most

notably the Clearwater and the Snake. In the early days of

sawmilling, our log supply was floated down the Clearwater River

from the forests of the upper river basins. Much of the log supply

33

needed to run the mill was delivered by way of the river during a

few-week period each spring.

When lower Granite Dam and the locks were put in place in the

1970s, we began using the Snake River to transport our paperboard products outbound to destinations in the Pacific Rim. This

transportation alternative allowed us to compete internationally in

a very competitive global market. During the past couple of years,

we have begun to ship limited quantities of wood chips and sawdust upstream to help supply the raw material needs of our pulp

mill and paperboard operation.

Unfortunately, in the aftermath of the West Coast longshoreman

work stoppage of a couple of years ago, we were forced to ship

much of our Asian-bound products by truck and rail to the Puget

Sound ports to reach our Pacific Rim customers. It was simply a

matter of not being able to meet the needs of our customers

through the bottlenecked Port of Portland that necessitated that

operational change. Since that time, service through Portland has

worsened, and we have redirected most of our Asian-bound shipments through the Puget Sound ports.

I would like to point out to you that this is not the first time that

we have shifted our shipping from the Snake/ Columbia system to

the Puget Sound ports. West coast shipping has been and will always be somewhat dynamic. Business will move back and forth between competing ports over time. Let me make it absolutely clear

that our current shipping patterns through Puget Sound do not

cause us to view the Snake/Columbia system as any less important

to our long-term economic viability. We are an inland producer

with substantial Pacific Rim markets. We need economical and efficient transportation alternatives to meet the demands of our customer base.

As evidenced by our recent increase in the Snake/Columbia system, when we can effectively access our Asian customers through

the Port of Portland, we will utilize the Snake/Columbia system.

We would like to increase our use not decrease our use of the

Snake/Columbia system. This river is an important element of our

long-term shipping strategies.

In addition to the facilities we operate at Lewiston, as mentioned

thus far in my comments, we also operate a 17,000-acre hybrid

poplar farm near Boardman, Oregon. This very high-tech operation

uses irrigation from the Columbia River’s John Day Reservoir.

Without the water from the Columbia, this operation would cease

to exist.

There’s no question that the ongoing debate about the Snake/Columbia system is centered on fish. It is our hope that the fish of

this region will continue to increase in numbers and in population

viability. We don’t view this as an either-or proposition. We believe

that our working river can provide the habitat for fish and at the

same time can provide the other services we in the region depend

on.

Being located on a working river where endangered species exist

definitely adds to the complexity of doing business. It doesn’t mean

that operations or the use of resources need to stop.

After working for several years with multiple Federal and state

agencies, we have just been granted a new NPDES permit, the

34

permit that governs our effluent discharge into the river. With the

newly granted permit, Potlatch is now the most stringently regulated pulp mill located on the Columbia River system. The requirements of this permit provide assurances that our effluent discharge

does not harm the endangered fish in the river. While the permitting process was painstakingly slow and quite costly, it does demonstrate that the needs of fish and the needs of

an industrial operation can be met simultaneously. Let me add

here that there are many examples here in the Pacific Northwest

where resource-based industries are demonstrating that we can

have viable businesses and also provide for the needs of endangered species. I believe that the many interests and government agencies in this region can work together to maintain viable fish populations

and viable businesses while keeping the Snake/Columbia system a

working river with the dams in place. In closing, let me thank you for your interest in this matter and ask you to stay the course to keep our river a working river. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. And I will be avail- able for questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Benson follows:]

Statement of Mark J. Benson, Director of Public Affairs,

Potlatch Corporation

I am Mark Benson, Director of Public Affairs for Potlatch Corporation. Potlatch

is a mid-sized forest products company with forest lands and manufacturing operations in several states. We operate a large manufacturing complex next door in

Lewiston, Idaho where operations include the manufacture of pulp and paperboard,

consumer tissue and lumber. We employ just under 2,000 people here in the Lewis

Clark valley and have an annual payroll of just over $100 million dollars. During the past century, Potlatch has made considerable investment at our site located along the banks of the Clearwater River. The lumber mill was built in the

1920s followed by the pulp and paperboard operation in the 1950s and the tissue

operation in the 1960s. All facilities have been substantially modernized over the

decades.

We have always relied on the ‘‘working rivers’’ of the region, most notably the

Clearwater and the Snake. In the early days of sawmilling, our log supply was floated down the Clearwater River from the forests of the upper river basins. Much of

the log supply needed to run the mill, was delivered by way of the river during a

few week period each spring.

When Lower Granite dam and locks were put in place in the 1970s we began

using the Snake River to transport our paperboard products outbound to destinations in the Pacific Rim. This transportation alternative allowed us to compete internationally in this very competitive global market. During the past couple of years

we have begun to ship limited quantities of wood chips and sawdust upriver to help

supply the raw materials needs of our pulp and paperboard operation.

Unfortunately, in the aftermath of the west coast longshoreman work stoppage of

a couple of years ago, we were forced to ship much of our Asian bound products by

truck and rail to the Puget Sound ports to reach our Pacific Rim customers. It was

simply a matter of not being able to meet the needs of our customers through the

bottlenecked Port of Portland that necessitated that operational change. Since that

time, service through Portland has worsened and we have re-directed most of our

Asian bound shipments through the Puget Sound ports.

I would like to point out that this is not the first time we have shifted our shipping from the Snake—Columbia system to the Puget Sound ports. West coast shipping has been and will always be somewhat dynamic. Business will move back and

forth between competing ports over time. Let me make it absolutely clear that our

current shipping patterns through the Puget Sound Ports do not cause us to view

the Snake—Columbia system as any less important to our long-term economic viability. We are an inland producer with substantial Pacific Rim markets. We need

economical and efficient transportation alternatives to meet the demands of our customer base. As evidenced by our recent increase in the use of the Snake—Columbia

35

system, when we can effectively access our Asian customers through the Port of

Portland, we will utilize the Snake—Columbia system. We would like to increase

our use not decrease it. This river system is an important element of our long term

shipping strategy. There is no question that the ongoing debate about the Snake—Columbia system is centered on fish. It is our hope that the fish of this region will continue to increase in numbers and in population viability. We don’t view this as an ‘‘either/or’’

proposition. We believe our ‘‘working river’’ can provide habitat for fish and at the

same time can provide the other services we in the region depend on. Being located on a ‘‘working river’’ where endangered species exist adds to the complexity of doing business. It doesn’t mean that operations or the use of resources

need to stop.

After working for several years with multiple federal and state agencies we have just been granted a new NPDES permit, the permit that governs our effluent discharge into the river. With the newly granted permit, Potlatch is the most stringently regulated pulp mill located on the Columbia River System. The requirements

of this permit provide assurances that our effluent discharge does not harm the endangered fish in the river. While the permitting process was painstakingly slow and

quite costly, it does demonstrate that the needs of fish and the needs of an industrial operation can be met simultaneously. Let me add here that there are many

examples here in the Pacific Northwest, where resource based industries are demonstrating that we can have viable businesses and also provide for the needs of endangered species. I believe that the many interests and government agencies in this region can work together to maintain viable fish populations and viable businesses while keeping the

Snake—Columbia system a ‘‘working river’’ with the dams in place. In closing, let me thank you for your interest in this matter and ask you to stay the course to keep our river a ‘‘working river’’. Thank you for the opportunity to comment today. I will be happy to answer any

questions.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Benson. I want to make sure that everybody can hear. If I could ask the folks in the far back of the room, if you do have a problem hearing,

please just raise your hand and I’ll make sure that we make the

adjustments here to make sure everybody can hear. So please do

that if you’re having problems. Next is Ms. Liz Hamilton who’s representing the Northwest

Sportfishing Industry Association. Ms. Hamilton, welcome to the

Subcommittee. You may begin your testimony.

STATEMENT OF LIZ HAMILTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

NORTHWEST SPORTFISHING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

Ms. HAMILTON. Thank you. I’m nervous. I’ll do my best.

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, I’m

really honored to be able to be before you today representing the

Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association.

We’re a trade group of over 300 businesses spread throughout

the region, including some of the larger businesses you might recognize like G.I. Joes and Fred Meyer, to smaller businesses, mom

and pops, people who work out of their boat and that sort of thing,

as well as most of the larger sportfishing clubs are members of our

organization.

Our industry employs over 36,500 and supplies this region with

over $3-and-a-half billion in economic blessings to the region.

We are here to plead the future help of salmon and our businesses because they’re bound together in the operation of the Federal hydrosystem.

Of course the Snake and Columbia River are working rivers. But

to sustain our families they need to be rivers to work for us too.

36

The wealth of our salmon populations must be integral with other

things that Northwesterners rightfully depend on, like fishing, irrigation, power, recreation and navigation. But instead we often feel

like the jobs provided by these rivers are downplayed and undervalued. And the focus is often on maximizing other uses at the expense of salmon.

To the 36,500 family wage jobs in the Northwest, rivers that

work have to have healthy, abundant fishable populations. These

fish are a little like a gold nugget swimming through the river.

You’ve all heard about the Idaho study already demonstrating that

restoring Snake River salmon and steelhead to levels that were

seen in our lifetime would generate over half a billion annually for

the state, the lion’s share of this money going to small river-based

communities.

In 2001, the spring chinook season brought the town of Riggins,

Idaho, a nearly quarter of its annual income. When Brewster,

Washington, the town of 2,000, has salmon season, one fishery provides $1.2 million to about 15 miles of river. So salmon are big

business. It’s just hard to recognize that.

From Riggins to Lynnwood to Hood River to Roseburg, this river

that works conjures up for us images of abundant salmon populations and an economic boost. This boost would double the economics generated by our industry. I’ll tell you why later.

We approach the Endangered Species Act protections from the

perspective that salmon mean business. For fishing businesses to

grow, we need to improve salmon passage and habitat so that more

fish return. To make these rivers work, we need to maximize our

investments to make sure that the negative impacts of the dams

on the Columbia Basin are reduced.

Many people speak of balance. I love that word. It’s fair. We

should all remember it. However, the fishing community has lost

90 percent of our ability to harvest since 1974. So the balance, in

our opinion, needs to look in our direction a little more, please.

There is no question that the ESA has been a good thing for

sportfishing businesses. But this has to include a Federal salmon

plan that actually pencils out for recovery instead of slowing the

rate of extinction.

Our failure to recover salmon and steelhead in the past is not a

reason to give up. And this is the wrong reaction to our nation’s

failure to nurture this law up to its true promise. Otherwise our

salmon economy is in danger. And it’s a little like refusing to go

to the emergency room after having a heart attack.

Thus we seek a Federal salmon plan that works. This

hydrosystem is the major factor for decline. A to Z, the scientists

agree on this. And it needs to be accountable to the salmon communities as well. Avoidance leads not only to salmon declines and extinction, it forces us into court where we don’t want to be and

shouldn’t have to be, causing nasty political fights and constraining

economies in rural Northwest communities from the mountains of

central Idaho, but especially on the Oregon and Washington costs.

Many industries, including ours, and those sitting at the table

have already made tremendous sacrifices to save salmon. Logging

and agriculture. But management of the dams can virtually erase

these sacrifices.

37

We prefer a vision of the future which allows for salmon recovery with over 3 billion a year in new fishing economics. But we also

have to figure out a way to protect the existing things that are important to this region as well, like irrigators and grain shippers. We merely ask for Northwest ratepayers and other industries to make minor changes during this low water year in order to more

equitably distribute the burden among all user groups that share

in the benefits of these rivers.

Since 2001, juvenile Snake River salmon are frequently migrat- ing through an unhealthy, hot, slow-flowing river that is one of the

cause of this year’s poor spring salmon returns. And not surprisingly, since 2001 spring salmon have been on a dramatic decline.

The impact of river changes for other rivers is real, but we think

it’s fair, given decreasing fish numbers.

Because surely it is not too much for this great region in this

great nation to help an industry that is bleeding out jobs and fears

that the continuing losses will continue with the status quo.

Surely it’s not too much for our gift of the sea, those salmon and

steelhead that travel over 900 miles, to die and nurture this region.

And surely it’s not too much for our family fishing culture that

keeps us bonded, family and friends, in outdoor activities away

from computer screens, drugs and other distractions.

The failure to make the river working is costing our jobs. The

second largest employer in Hood River County lost nearly half a

million from salmon closures this year and is laying people off.

Surely you care, along with us, about a river that works for all.

It is our conclusion that our nation and our salmon and our jobs

need an Endangered Species Act that works. We merely need leaders to see that it is applied honestly and fairly by the Federal agencies to ensure that the hydrosystem allows the river to work for a

variety of interests rather than a few.

This for fishing industry in this region needs leadership with vision, leadership with problem solving, not fear mongering. We are

counting on you to provide this leadership. And, again, I thank you

for the honor of being here today.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hamilton follows:]

Statement of Liz Hamilton, Executive Director,

Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the

opportunity to testify today. My name is Liz Hamilton, and I am executive director

of the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association (NSIA). NSIA is a group of over

300 fishing businesses with representatives throughout the region. My members include both larger businesses such as G.I. Joes and Fred Meyer, as well as smaller,

family-owned businesses. In addition most of the larger sportfishing clubs are members of NSIA, as are many individuals who share our goals and vision. (Membership

listing attached) But in all cases, NSIA members participate in a multi-billion dollar

industry in the Northwest and we are acutely aware that the future health of salmon and steelhead and our businesses is tied to the management of the Columbia and

Snake rivers and the federal hydrosystem.

I submit the following testimony in order to share with you the importance of restoring healthy salmon and steelhead populations in the Snake and Columbia rivers

to the members of the NSIA, the Northwest economy in general, and the quality

of life in this part of the country.

The Snake and Columbia are working rivers, but need to work a lot better. Northwesterners rightfully depend on the Columbia and Snake for fishing, irrigation,

power, recreation, and navigation. Unfortunately, the fish, recreation, and associated jobs provided by these rivers are downplayed and undervalued. Instead the

38

focus is often on maximizing energy revenue at the expense of salmon—even when

the economic benefits associated with healthy salmon populations are too big to ignore. I urge subcommittee members to keep in mind that to the 36,000 family wage

jobs in Northwest sportfishing, working Northwest rivers must have healthy, fishable populations of salmon and steelhead. That is why the Northwest Sportfishing

Industry Association is part of a broad coalition of sport fishing, commercial fishing,

and conservation organizations working to improve conditions for salmon in the

mainstem Snake and Columbia rivers. We do this work because we must to survive.

When I say that salmon are part of working river, I mean that in terms of jobs. Looking at Idaho in particular, a 2005 study by Ben Johnson Associates (submitted

along with this testimony) found that restoring Snake River salmon and steelhead

just to the levels seen during the 1950s (still less than 10% of historic populations

for Snake River spring/summer chinook) would generate $544 million annually for

the state, $330 million of which would go directly to rural river-based communities—that’s about 270 percent better than was generated during 2001, when Idaho

had a salmon fishing season for the first time in years. That year, Snake River

spring/chinook season brought the town of Riggins, Idaho nearly one quarter of its

annual income from 2001. To Riggins, the term ‘‘working river’’ conjures up images

of abundant salmon runs and an economic boost.

The businesses of NSIA are convinced that the Idaho numbers would pale compared to Oregon and Washington economics if a similar study were conducted for

those portions of the Columbia. Restoring Columbia and Snake to the levels examined by the Idaho study would allow the region-wide economic benefits of recreational salmon and steelhead fishing to double. NSIA approaches Endangered Species Act protections for Snake and Columbia salmon and steelhead from the perspective that salmon mean business, and if we

want the fishing business to grow, we need to improve salmon habitat so that more

fish return. If we want to make these rivers work for fishermen and fishing businesses, we need to do more, not less, to make sure that negative impacts of federal

and non-federal dams throughout the Columbia Basin are reduced. That’s why 1,100

businesses, tied to sportfishing, recently signed a letter (submitted with this testimony) in support of H.R. 1615, the Salmon Planning Act, a bill that would ask the

federal government to fully consider how best to remove the lower Snake River

dams and replace their benefits.

There is no question that the ESA is a good thing for salmon and salmon fishing businesses. To reap the full benefits of this law, it needs to be implemented and

enforced, not ignored. We need a federal salmon plan that results in the recovery

and delisting of salmon, not just a plan that lets these fish limp along the edge of

extinction. The longer that they hover near the edge, the more likely it is they’ll

fall into extinction.

It is preposterous to use our failure to adequately recover salmon and steelhead

to date as a reason to weaken the law itself. This is the wrong reaction to our nation’s failure to nurture this law live up to its promise. Instead, we must admit that

our salmon—and our salmon economy—are in danger. Ignoring the problem would

be like refusing to go to the emergency room after having a heart attack because

you don’t want to face the fact that you either need to change how you live or die.

Because our businesses depend on restoring healthy salmon populations, NSIA

has long advocated for a stronger federal salmon plan. That’s why we were forced

to join the plaintiffs that two weeks ago convinced a federal court to invalidate the

2004 salmon plan, also known as the BiOp.

Everyone who cares about maximizing the potential of the Columbia and Snake

rivers for the economic well-being of the Pacific Northwest—including the inland

Northwest—is joyous that Judge Redden struck down the administration’s convoluted disingenuous salmon plan. While there has never been a biological opinion

in place on the Columbia and Snake that would, if implemented, have restored Columbia Basin salmon and steelhead to self-sustaining, harvestable levels, the 2004

federal salmon plan was a step backward to the plans of the early nineties that

‘‘cried out for a major overhaul.’’

The plan would have allowed federal dam managers to leave unaddressed 96 to

100 percent of the mortality that the federal hydrosystem imposes on juvenile Snake

River salmon and steelhead as they migrate toward the ocean. In other words, the

best we could hope for from the plan is that 10 years and $6 billion from now, Snake

River fish hardly be better off during their migration than they are now. The

hydrosystem would still been allowed to kill between 49 and 86 percent of the Snake

River salmon and steelhead migrating downstream.

Legal questions aside, our fears about the scientific inadequacy of the 2004 Salmon Plan’s approach were recently confirmed through an independent scientific review conducted by the American Fisheries Society at the request of the Northwest

39

native tribes. Among other things, that review concluded that the Salmon Plan’s

failure to address the impact of the dams and reliance on things like trucking and

barging fish downstream instead is quite simply scientifically inadequate to put

salmon on track for recovery.

It would be hard to argue that it’s in the best interest of Northwesterners to leave

the hydrosystem off the hook for the salmon declines it causes. We’ve tried that

strategy for decades, and it leads not only to salmon declines and extinction, but

to litigation, nasty political fights, and stagnant economies in rural Northwest communities from the mountains of central Idaho to the Oregon and Washington coasts.

And those communities, including my businesses, have already made sacrifices to

recover salmon, but the dams simply exact too large a toll to leave them off the hook

any longer.

It’s time for an alternative to this sluggish status quo, and even more than in the

late 1990s it’s clear that the centerpiece of such an alternative should be removing

the four lower Snake River dams and investing in fully replacing their benefits. This

can be accomplished for approximately the same taxpayer and electric ratepayer investment as is required by the existing salmon plan, and still leave sufficient funding for habitat restoration in the Columbia River and its non-Snake River tributaries. Some in this crowd may believe otherwise, but I guarantee you that no serious salmon advocates—I repeat, none—are talking about removing the higher value

dams along the Columbia—just the four obsolete dams on the lower Snake River.

Federal agencies themselves have concluded that removing the lower Snake dams

is the most scientifically certain way to recover Snake River salmon. This conclusion

has since been buttressed by others, including the aforementioned American Fisheries Society, which determined in their independent Salmon Plan review that

Snake River salmon survival and recovery would ‘‘be assured’’ with lower Snake

River dam removal.

On the other side of this equation is the status quo, which is guaranteed to

present no new economic opportunities for fishing businesses or anyone else. Instead, we’ll keep fighting over a diminishing resource until the potential for restoring it is eventually gone. I prefer my vision of the future, which allows for salmon

recovery, over $3 billion per year in new fishing and recreational opportunities, and

protection for existing businesses like irrigators and grain shippers.

But we’re not yet to the point where the federal agencies in charge of salmon recovery, share this vision, despite all the evidence. Which leads me to this summer

and our modest request for help in turning things around for salmon migrants and

our future.

This proposal is important to keep these rivers working for fishermen, even at low

current levels. Absent the improved flow and dam operations we are requesting,

fewer Snake River fall chinook are likely to return in three to five years. These

steps are particularly important in light of what would otherwise be poor river conditions this summer and the fact that ocean conditions may be taking a turn for

the worse.

No one doubts that ocean conditions play a large role in the fate of salmon populations—they have for thousands of years. In the past, our rivers have been in good

enough shape to ensure the survival of salmon runs during bad ocean conditions.

Now we fear that the Snake River outmigrants cannot endure another of the ocean’s

endless cycles.

Our river proposal request merely asks that salmon migrating through the Snake

and Columbia rivers this summer are given the semblance of a fair shake during

this low water year. Scientists tell us this modest proposal will likely double the

survival rates of juvenile Snake River fall chinook, and flow targets and water temperatures will still be well below what biologists (and our laws in the case of water

temperatures) say we should be shooting for if we are to recover the salmon and

steelhead of the Columbia and Snake.

Unfortunately, what’s been typical of salmon migration conditions under the river

management decisions that have been made since 2001 is that salmon and salmon

dependent businesses are repeatedly sacrificed for the sake of maintaining status

quo river operations. We are asking for Northwest electric ratepayers, shippers, and

irrigators to make minor changes during this low water year in order to more equitably distribute the burden among all the groups that share in the benefits of these

great rivers.

The science strongly suggests that improving river conditions and decreasing

reliance on juvenile fish transportation would help improve Snake River fall chinook

survival, and a strategy that ‘‘spreads the risk’’ between transported and nonVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:58 Oct 19, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\21758.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
40

1See, ‘‘Effects of Federal Columbia River Power System on Salmonid Populations,’’ NOAA

Technical Memorandum NFMS-NWFSC-63, February 2005, p. xvi. Available at http://

www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/25/6061—04142005—152601—effectstechmemo63final.pdf

transported fish is warranted. 1 While ocean conditions were largely responsible for

the rebound in salmon runs earlier this decade, another contributor was the fact

that in the late nineties, the Bureau of Reclamation actually delivered the amount

of Idaho water that has been promised since the 1995 BiOp. Since 2001, the percentage of juvenile Snake River salmon migrating through an unhealthy, hot, slowly

flowing river has increased considerably, and that is likely one cause of this year’s

poor spring chinook returns.

And this year’s fish returns are not just a little bit lower, they’re much lower. Revised projections have made it appear that Snake River spring/summer chinook will

return at their lowest levels since the bad old days of the mid-1990s, with returns

as low as they were when these fish were first listed under the ESA in 1992.

The impact of these changes for other river users is real, but equitable given decreasing fish numbers, a less favorable ocean, and current river conditions. Northwest electric ratepayers would likely pay an additional 11 to 54 cents per month

on their residential power bills next year—I haven’t met anyone who would not be

willing to pay a little more on their electric bills if it meant having a better chance

to recover these legendary fish and give their families more chances to fish for them.

Idaho irrigators would still be providing less than the 427,000 acre feet of water

they promised under the recently ratified Snake River Water Rights agreement with

the Nez Perce, the State of Idaho, and the Bureau of Reclamation, so impacts to

upper Snake River water users would be less than they would normally anticipate

if the agreement were enforced.

For about 2 months shippers shipping from the Port of Lewiston may need to ship

either by barge about 30 miles downstream from Lewiston or move their goods by

rail or truck, as the Potlatch Corp. has already been doing.

These are not insignificant sacrifices, but they are not out of proportion to those

that will be made this year, and have been made for years, by communities that

depend on salmon and steelhead fishing for their income and well-being. Due to decreasing spring chinook since 2001 and their precipitous declines over the last two

years, our industry is in the process of layoffs.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. It is NSIA’s conclusion that

our Nation, our salmon and our jobs need the Endangered Species Act. The Act is

right for the fish and right for our businesses—it just needs to be applied honestly

and fairly by the federal agencies to ensure that the federal hydrosystem allows the

Snake and Columbia rivers to work for a variety of interests, not just a few.

[The Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association 2005 Membership List submitted for the record by Ms. Hamilton follows:]

41

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Ms. Hamilton.

Next is Ms. Jean Ryckman of the Franklin County Public

Utilities District. Ms. Ryckman, welcome to the Subcommittee.

STATEMENT OF JEAN RYCKMAN, MANAGER,

FRANKLIN COUNTY PUD

Ms. RYCKMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In addition to representing Franklin County PUD ratepayers, I

am also the Chair of the Coalition for Smart Salmon Recovery. It

42

is a group of irrigators, businesses, electric ratepayers, both public

and private, throughout the region, the four-state region.

And as you have heard today, the Columbia/Snake River system

is the lifeblood of this region. One of the primary river system benefits that seems to be glossed over whenever the issue of salmon

within the Endangered Species Act comes up is its impact on hydropower.

Hydropower is the world’s leading renewable resource for generating electricity. This clean and affordable source of power continues to be the backbone of a strong Northwest economy. It supplies over half of our electricity. It helps improve the air we

breathe and reduces global warming because it does not pollute the

air. Hydropower enables the development of the region’s wind energy because it has the ability to respond immediately to fluctuating energy demands and the intermittent nature of wind. Hydropower is reliable. It provides both environmental and societal

benefits.

Dams are just one piece of the recovery puzzle. Dam operators

have made, and continue to make, enormous efforts and contributions—by changing river operations and improving facilities—to

make improvements to the river system for the salmon. As a result,

in 2000 NOAA Science Center confirmed that survival of juvenile

salmon passing through the river is as strong as it was before the

four lower Snake River dams were built. Salmon survival at dams

has improved significantly.

You know, as you’ve heard today, the salmon are a treasured

symbol for all of us here in the Northwest, and the good news is

they are not going extinct. NOAA Fisheries latest report shows

that all ESA listed salmon stocks have improved significantly since

2000, resulting in longer fishing seasons and more fish throughout

the basin in that four-year period. Even this year’s mysterious run

of spring chinook is significantly improved from what we saw

throughout much of the 1990s.

In our efforts to save salmon, we’re largely missing the point.

Most of the attention continues to be focused on dams, when the

evidence shows that they are not the limiting factor. In this year’s

strange spring chinook run, it tells us that the ocean is having a

huge impact. Out in the ocean things are happening that we can’t

see and that we cannot control.

Salmon recovery requires a close look at all of the H’s; hatcheries, harvest, habit and, yes, hydropower. But a myopic focus on

the dams distracts us from the real things that we can do to help

the fish.

The salmon recovery effort is out of balance. Rather than relying

on the best available science, it often seems to be guided by rhetoric and personally held beliefs, not evidence.

Electricity ratepayers are taxed to fund the bulk of the effort,

and we have a right to demand results. We must balance the needs

of fish with the equally compelling needs of people. Pasco School

District in my community serves approximately 10,000 students.

Last year that school district paid through its electricity rates

$155,000 for salmon recovery. That’s enough money to buy a brand

new textbook for one-half of those 10,000 students every single

year.

43

It’s ironic, you know, that it has fallen to the electricity con- sumers to demand biological justification for the expensive

programs promoted by the salmon interests. There’s no accountability from those who are asking for Bonneville money. And further, there’s the assumption that our electric customers will fund

every project that might help fish, whether it has anything to do

with power production or not. BPA estimates that fish and wildlife

costs will make up to 28 percent of the Agency’s revenues in the

’07-’09 rate period. School children, farmers, senior citizens and

every electric customer in the Northwest will bear these costs. The ESA, as it exists, exposes conflicting goals in Federal poli- cies. NOAA Fisheries, as part of the Department of Commerce, is

responsible for promoting and allocating the salmon fishery for

commercial purposes. That same agency is responsible for protecting those ESA listed salmon. And also the ESA encourages endless litigation and allows our energy and money to be diverted

rather than focusing on credible, science-based salmon protection

efforts. It takes the operational decisions away from those who

have expertise and hands it to the litigants. Mr. Chairman, Bonneville customers and the people who pay through their power bills are committed to salmon recovery. And

since we fund the bulk of the effort, we believe it is appropriate for

us to demand results.

Please help us bring common sense back to the ESA. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ryckman follows:]

Statement of Jean Ryckman, Manager, Public Utility District No. 1 of

Franklin County, Chairperson, Coalition for Smart Salmon Recovery

Introduction:

Jean Ryckman has 28 years of electric utility experience. She has worked for Franklin PUD for 25 years and began serving in her current capacity of Manager

of the utility in January, 2004. Jean is currently Chairperson of the Coalition for

Smart Salmon Recovery and president of the Board of Conservation and Renewable

Energy Systems. She is also a participant in the BPA Power Function Review, Public Power Council, Pacific Northwest Utility Conference Committee, and Washington

PUD Association. She serves on the Boards of United Way, Tri-Cities Visitor and

Convention Bureau, and Pasco Chamber of Commerce. Ms. Ryckman is past-president of the Pasco School Board, past-chair of Columbia Basin College Advisory Committee, and past-chair of the WPUDA System Design and Evaluation Committee.

Testimony:

Before commenting on the impact of the Endangered Species Act here on the Columbia and Snake River Hydrosystem, it is important to reiterate how crucial this

multi-purpose river system is to all of us in the Northwest. It is no exaggeration

to say it is the lifeblood of this region. One of the primary river system benefits that

seems to be glossed over whenever the issue of salmon within the Endangered

Species Act comes up is the impact on hydropower.

Hydropower is the world’s leading renewable resource for generating electricity.

This clean and affordable source of power continues to be the backbone of a strong

Northwest economy, supplying half of our electricity. Hydropower helps improve the

air we breathe, and reduces global warming because it does not pollute the air. Hydropower enables the development of the region’s wind energy resource, because it

can respond immediately to fluctuating energy demand and the intermittent nature

of wind. Hydropower is reliable. Maintaining the flexibility of our hydrosystem is

the surest way to maximize it as one of the region’s greatest natural resources. It

provides both environmental and societal benefits.

Dams are just one piece of the salmon recovery puzzle. Dam operators have made,

and continue to make, enormous efforts and contributions—by changing river operations and improving facilities—to make improvements to the river system for salmon. As a result, in 2000, NOAA Science Center confirmed that survival of juvenile

salmon passing through the river is as strong as it was before the four lower Snake

44

River Dams were built. Salmon survival at dams has improved significantly. At

most projects, well over 90% of the juvenile salmon safely pass the dams. The salmon are a treasured symbol to all of us in the Northwest, and the good news is—they are not going extinct. Despite the gloom and doom messages you have

been hearing about the health of our Northwest fish, NOAA Fisheries latest report

shows that all ESA-listed salmon stocks have improved significantly since 2000.

Snake River Fall Chinook increased by over 300% during that four year period resulting in longer fishing seasons and more fish throughout the Basin. Even this

year’s mysterious run of Spring Chinook is significantly improved from what we saw

throughout much of the 1990’s. In our efforts to save salmon, we’re largely missing the point. Most of the atten- tion continues to be focused on dams, when the evidence shows that they are not

the limiting factor. In fact, this year’s strange Spring Chinook run tells us that

there is a lot going on with these fish, and most of it happens out in the ocean

where we can’t see it, let alone control it. Juvenile salmon that migrate to the ocean

any given year do not all return to the Columbia River at the same time. Some stay

out in the ocean for 1 or 2 or 3 years. Last year, a huge number of jacks—or early

returns—returned to the river. Typically this corresponds to a strong run the following year. The strong forecast for this year’s return was based on the large number of jacks that returned last year. The fact that the number of fish we’ve seen

is lower than we would expect tells us that something happened to them between

last year and this year ‘‘something in the ocean, when they were far removed from

the Columbia River.

Salmon recovery will require a close look at all of the ‘‘H’s: Hatcheries, Harvest,

Habitat, and yes, Hydropower and the dams. But a myopic focus on the dams and

the costs some feel they should bear distracts us from the real things we can do

to help the fish.

The salmon recovery effort is out of balance. Rather than relying on the Best

Available Science it often seems to be guided by rhetoric and personally held

beliefs—not evidence.

Electricity ratepayers fund the bulk of the effort and have a right to demand results. We must balance the needs of fish with the equally compelling needs of

people. Pasco School District, in Franklin County, Washington, serves approximately 10,000 students. The school district paid, through its electric rates, $155,000

toward salmon recovery efforts in 2004 and indications are that cost will be higher

next year. The amount Pasco School Districts pays for salmon each year would provide new textbooks for one half of the students in that year.

Northwest power consumers, through Bonneville Power have invested over $6.5

billion since 1978 in salmon recovery. It is ironic that it has fallen to the electricity

consumers to demand biological justification for the expensive programs promoted

by the salmon interests. There is no accountability from those asking for Bonneville

money. Further, there is the assumption that our electric customers will fund every

project that might help fish, whether it has anything to do with Bonneville’s power

production or not. BPA estimates that fish and wildlife costs will make up 28% of

the Agency’s revenue requirement in the next rate case (‘‘07 to ‘‘09). School children,

farmers, senior citizens, and every electric customer in the Northwest will bear

these costs.

The ESA, as it exists, exposes conflicting goals in federal policy. An example:

NOAA Fisheries, as part of the Dept. of Commerce, is responsible for promoting and

allocating the salmon fishery for commercial purposes. That same agency is also responsible for protecting those ESA listed salmon. There continue to be expectations

that the federal hydrosystem will make up for deficiencies in salmon returns or past

policy decisions no matter where the responsibility should rightfully rest.

The ESA, as it exists, encourages endless litigation and allows our energy and

money to be diverted to determining who is ‘‘right’’ rather than focusing on credible,

science-based salmon protection efforts. Litigation consumes enormous amounts of

time and money. Litigation can take operational decisions away from those who

have the expertise, and hand it to litigants, as currently demonstrated in the case

before Judge Redden. Litigants pursue political agendas rather than a balanced approach that recognizes the many uses and benefits of the river system

Conclusion:

BPA’s customers and the people who pay through their power bills are committed

to salmon recovery. Since we fund the bulk of the effort we believe it is appropriate

for us to demand results.

Electricity rates in the Northwest are almost 50% higher than they were in 2001.

BPA’s commitments to fish and wildlife make up about a quarter of their total

power costs and these costs are expected to grow.

45

We are frustrated because the context under which salmon decisions are made

has not provided enough accountability or tools to measure success. As a

consequence, electricity ratepayers end up with ever increasing costs, without

corresponding clarity as to what their significant contributions to the effort are

achieving.

BPA’s customers will spend nearly $700 million this year alone on salmon recovery, and at the end of the year, we will be unsure if we are any closer to reaching

the region’s mitigation goals.

Now more than ever we need to listen to the science, keep doing the things that

are working, and look for other opportunities to make smart decisions that will enhance these beautiful, multi-use rivers, the inhabitants of the rivers, and the health

of our region.

Supporting Information for Testimony

KEEPING THE COLUMBIA/SNAKE A WORKING RIVER SYSTEM

JUNE 6, 2005

1. Northwest Energy Supply

This chart shows the Northwest’s dependence on clean, renewable hydropower.

There is over 33,000 MW of hydropower capacity in the Northwest. This equates to

almost 30 nuclear plants the size of the Columbia Generating Station, or 75 coal

plants the size of the Boardman facility, or over 130—249 MW capacity combustion

turbine plants.

2. Fish Counts at Bonneville Dam 1938—2004

Adult salmon have been passing Bonneville Dam in record numbers for the past

four years. This is a product of good ocean conditions and effective investments in

the hydropower system.

3. 2005 Spring Chinook at Bonneville Dam

The 2005 adult return to Bonneville Dam is much less than the 10 year average,

yet it is still significantly more than the returns of the early ‘‘90s.

4. Salmon Return Increases

From NOAA Fisheries, a look at improvements in fish returns by species. This

again demonstrates that fish returns have improved significantly in the past few

years.

5. Total Fish and Wildlife Spending 1978-2004

Bonneville Power Administration is spending more than $600 million per year on

fish and wildlife mitigation. This includes the cost of the Northwest Power & Conservation Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program and the cost of operating the river

for fish.

6. BPA’s Total Fish & Wildlife Program: Total Annual Average Cost

This chart of BPA’s estimate for fish and wildlife costs for the 2007-2009 rate period demonstrates that fish mitigation costs are projected to continue to climb.

7. Regional Impacts of Plaintiff’s Proposal 5/19/05

This 2-page summary was provided by the Federal Caucus www.salmon

recovery.gov. This is a summary of the potential impacts of the Plaintiff’s proposal

for a preliminary injunction regarding the 2004 Biological Opinion.

46

47

48

Frequently Asked Questions about Columbia Basin Salmon Returns

What is the status of the runs?

• For the fifth year in a row (2000-2004), near record salmon returns in most

areas of the Columbia and Snake basins indicate that, with help from improved

ocean conditions, our approach to improving hydrosystem passage and survival,

salmon habitat and hatchery practices is having a positive impact on listed fish.

Returns for nearly all stocks far surpassed ten-year averages.

• Historically, year-by-year salmon returns show a great deal of volatility.

49

What about the reports of a low return of spring Chinook this year?

• As of May 17, 2005, approximately 60,000 spring Chinook have passed Bonneville Dam. This number is indeed lower than the predicted returns. Sometimes

run size predictions differ substantially from actual returns.

• The number of 2005 spring Chinook still represents a significant number of

spring Chinook when compared to runs less than ten years ago. In 1996, only

12,000 spring Chinook were counted at Bonneville.

• This year’s spring Chinook run is made up of juveniles that migrated out of the

Columbia River in 2002 and 2003. In 2003, survival through the Columbia

River hydrosystem for the out-migrating juveniles was one of the highest ever

observed.

• The return of jacks—precocious salmon that return a year ahead of the rest of

its age group—was strong in 2004. Jacks are often considered an indicator of

the following runs.

• These facts demonstrate that river conditions are only one factor affecting salmon survival and may be overshadowed by other influence that scientists only

partially understand, such as ocean conditions.

• The federal agencies are continuing to monitor the spring Chinook returns and

will conduct a targeted scientific review of in-river conditions.

What about sea lions eating the fish?

• The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (which owns and operates Bonneville Dam)

has estimated that, over the last few years, between 0.5 and 2.0 percent of the

total adult spring Chinook run has been eaten by pinnipeds (seals and sea

lions) in the Bonneville tailrace alone.

• To discourage sea lion incursions, engineers and biologists have been using escalating harassment techniques agreed upon by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Marine Fisheries Service and Oregon and Washington departments of fish and wildlife, aimed at keeping the pinnipeds out of the fishways.

These techniques are consistent with the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

What will it take to recover these fish?

• Recovery of these fish to sustainable population is a common goal among all

parties working on salmon issues. Every citizen in the Pacific Northwest has

a stake in this work. Salmon are a cultural icon and provide important economic benefits to the region. If we are to be successful we must work together

to support our dual goals of a healthy environment and a strong economy.

50

Exhibit 7

REGIONAL IMPACTS OF PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSAL

5/19/05

The following are highlights of the federal agencies’ response brief regarding potential impacts of plaintiff’s proposal, National Wildlife Federation et al v. National

Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, filed April 22, 2005,

U.S. District Court, District of Oregon.

Biological Impacts

The Federal action agencies’ Updated Proposed Action follows the most prudent

course of staying with the strategy under which the runs have increased, while committing to fund research to better understand the biological phenomenon of yearling

life history strategy of fall Chinook.

To choose an untried operation in such a critically low water year would be to

experiment with this threatened species running the risk that any speculative increases in survival through in river migration do not materialize. A prudent salmon

manager should not gamble with species at risk. While the plaintiffs have not described with specificity the particular operations of the hydro system they would undertake to achieve their goal, based on my knowledge and experience it appears that

the operations necessary to achieve the water particle travel time goal this summer

would case greater mortality to listed fish than those in the current biological opinion.

Declarations of D. Robert Lohn, Regional Administrator, National Marine

Fisheries Service

In addition to failing to provide quantitative survival data on their recommended

spill operations at the lower Snake River projects, the [plaintiff’s] also fail to discuss

the biological risks to different salmonids stocks associated with their suggested action.

Declaration of Rock Peters, Senior Program Manager, Northwest Division,

United States Army Corps of Engineers

51

Resident Fish Impacts

Grand Coulee lower lake levels will also adversely affect resident fish interests. Lower lake levels increase entertainment of resident fish through the dam; block

resident fish from spawning sites; reduce nutrients for resident fish due to decreased water retention time, and impact net pen operations which require a water

surface elevation of 1283 feet or higher. Declaration of D. James Fodrea, Jr., Columbia/Snake Salmon Recovery

Office, United States Bureau of Reclamation

Navigation Impacts

Drawdown of Lower Granite reservoir below Minimum Operating Pool would shut down the lock operation to commercial vessels because there is insufficient draft

over the upstream sill of the lock and in the channel above the lock. This eliminates

commercial traffic above Lower Granite Dam, which includes the ports of Lewiston,

Clarkston, and Wilma...total economic losses over a 2-1/2 month drawdown period

yields an average loss of $2.5 million. This assumes there is capacity to handle

changes in transportation modes, which is the short-term may not be adequate unless much higher costs are paid. Declaration of Gregory S. Graham, United States Army Corps of Engineers

Irrigation Impacts

The proposals for injunctive relief made by plaintiffs could have significant, long- term negative impacts on virtually all of Reclamation’s projects in the Columbia and

Snake River Basins; these impacts include harm to other species listed under the

ESA, potential violations of clean water standards, violations of state water laws,

failure to meet authorized project water deliveries, economic impacts and an increased likelihood that Reclamation reservoirs would not refill sufficiently to meet

salmon flow augmentation obligation and other authorized project purposes in future years. Declaration of Kenneth R. Pedde, Deputy Regional Directory, Pacific

Recreational Impacts

The additional draft would have potential adverse economic impacts to the tribal

and other recreational concessions for 2005 due to the effects of reduced [Grand

Coulee] lake levels on recreational activity. We estimate that half of the boat ramps

on the lake would be inaccessible with the additional draft.

Declaration of D. James Fodrea, Jr., Columbia/Snake Recovery Office,

United States Bureau of Reclamation

Drafting Dworshak from elevation 1520 feet to elevation 1470 feet would ‘‘reduce access to available recreational boat rams (see Graham’s declaration).

Declaration of David J. Ponganis, United Stated Army Corps of Engineers

Northwest Region, United States Bureau of Reclamation, Boise, Idaho

Economic Impacts

Simply put, the effects of the proposed 2005 operations carried over into 2006 (as- suming an average water year and average market conditions and resumption of

UPA operations) would result in an expected loss of revenues over the two years,

FY2005 and FY2006 of $102 million.

Declaration of Roger Schiewe, Fishery Impact Technical Expert and

Principal Hydro Power Systems Operations Engineer, Bonneville Power Administration

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Ms. Ryckman. I appreciate your

testimony. Mr. Norm Semanko, Idaho Water Users Association. Norm,

welcome to the Subcommittee. You may begin.

STATEMENT OF NORM SEMANKO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND

GENERAL COUNSEL, IDAHO WATER USERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. SEMANKO. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,

thank you very much for this invitation. My name is Norm Semanko. I’m the Executive Director and General Counsel for the Idaho Water Users Association. I’m

pleased to be joined here today by Tom Miram (phonetic) who’s the

Executive Director for our sister agency the Washington State

52

Water Resources Association. Together with those two groups, the

Oregon Water Resource Congress, all three of us represent millions

of acres of irrigated grounds in the Pacific Northwest.

The Water Users Association is affiliated with the National

Water Resources Association. We certainly appreciate the positive

working relationship we have with the Subcommittee and look forward to the important work that we do with the Subcommittee in

the future.

I’m also here today representing the Coalition for Idaho Water.

And the Coalition is a broad-based collection of agricultural groups,

businesses and local governments in Idaho, formed in 1993, unfortunately, for the specific purpose of defending Idaho’s water from

legal threats under the Endangered Species Act, so serious that

they had come.

We are pleased to count among our members in this area, Lewiston Orchards Irrigation District, the Lewiston-Clarkston Chamber

and the Port of Lewiston.

Mr. Chairman, the vast system of dams, reservoirs and canals

built by the Bureau of Reclamation since the passage of the Reclamation Act in 1902 has truly made the desert bloom throughout

the Pacific Northwest. In our three Pacific Northwest states, vast

tracts of irrigated agriculture have contributed to our nation’s economy, provided a steady and dependable supply of food and fiber,

and helped create a way of life that defines who we are as a people.

As originally expressed by an optimistic farmer who posted a sign

on a desert ranch in the Boise Project before the first water delivered in the area, ‘‘We still have faith in God and U.S. Reclamation.’’

These water projects provide many other benefits to our region.

The livestock industry benefits from the water provided by Reclamation. Significant power is generated from its facilities, helping

fuel our regional economy. Flood damage is prevented by Reclamation as well. And recreational opportunities are provided in the reservoirs and on our rivers because of Reclamation projects.

I have provided the Subcommittee members with just a representative sample, brochures of six different Reclamation projects

in the Pacific Northwest. Just these six projects in the three states

provide over $5 billion in direct benefits to the Pacific Northwest.

And this is not to speak of the agriculture and other sectors of our

economy that are directly supported by the Reclamation projects.

Mr. Chairman, as we sit here today, make no mistake about it.

Our dams and our reservoirs, our managed river systems, and our

entire way of life are under direct assault in the courts by extremist environmental groups. Most recently, a coalition of environmental groups has asked the Federal district court of Oregon to

draw down reservoirs and drain others through flow augmentation

in order to increase the velocity of the lower Snake and Columbia

Rivers by 10 percent this summer.

As a former staff member for Senator Craig, I sat in Lewiston

and saw the test drawdown in 1992. It was an unmitigated disaster, wreaked havoc on the area, and did nothing for the salmon.

We do not need to repeat that experiment.

This motion threatens to wreak havoc on our region by crippling

our river transportation system, our power system, taking badly

53

needed water supplies away from farmers and ranchers, and even

stealing water from our municipalities, resident fisheries, and local

recreation by asking for an additional 10 percent on top of the projected flows for the summer.

I might add here, Mr. Chairman, that Mother Nature has already outdone the environmental groups. Since the original motion

was filed, the projections for summer flows have increased by 50

percent. It is time to withdraw the motion. It is pointless. All it will

do is cause pain and suffering to the region.

It is no secret that the environmental groups do not covet our

water so much as they seek to impose pain upon every sector of

this region until we all support the ultimate goal of these groups,

which is removal of the dams. But as the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals recognized recently, such a drastic step cannot be taken by

the Federal agencies. It cannot be taken by any Federal judge.

Only Congress can deauthorize the Federal dams and order their

removal. But the environmental groups continue and will continue

to do all they can to create a political constituency for their cause

with their out-of-state grants and other monies.

We are very proud of our Congressional delegation in Idaho

standing strong against dam removal. And, frankly, if I have anything to do with it, I don’t see this changing any time soon.

Mr. Chairman, Senator Crapo a few months ago offered these

folks a table, a table to negotiate and discuss these issues. But they

chose the courtroom. And so there we are.

Mr. Chairman, any solution to this set of problems needs to include a strong dose of common sense. And a good place to start is

with the numbers of fish in the river system. Unfortunately, Judge

Redden in issuing his decision did not look at the recent salmon

numbers, instead choosing to rely on more questionable analyses.

If you were to believe the environmental groups, the salmon are

supposed to be extinct by 2017. Remember the extinction vortex?

That doesn’t look like a very good prediction right now.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify and look

forward to answering your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Semanko follows:]

Statement of Norm Semanko, Executive Director and General Counsel,

Idaho Water Users Association

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Norm Semanko.

I am the Executive Director and General Counsel for the Idaho Water Users Association (IWUA). I appreciate the invitation to testify before you today.

Originally formed in 1938 as the Idaho Reclamation Association, IWUA is a nonprofit corporation representing more than 300 irrigation districts, canal companies,

water districts, ground water districts, public and municipal water providers, hydroelectric companies, aquaculture facilities, agribusinesses, professional firms and individuals, all dedicated to the wise and efficient use of our water resources. Our

members deliver irrigation water to more than two-and-a-half million acres in

Idaho. Many of our members also rely upon the power and transportation benefits

provided by the current river system.

IWUA is affiliated with the National Water Resources Association, which I currently serve as President. I am also a member of the Western States Water Council,

which advises the Western Governors’ Association on water-related matters, and a

member of the Advisory Committee for the Family Farm Alliance, a grass-roots organization representing farmers and ranchers that receive water from Bureau of

Reclamation projects in the West. Finally, I represent the Coalition for Idaho Water,

a broad-based collection of agricultural groups, businesses, local governments and

54

others, formed to defend Idaho’s water from legal threats posed by the Endangered

Species Act (ESA).

You have asked that I address my views on the value of the multiple-use Columbia/Snake River system, potential threats to it, and ways to balance economic needs

and environmental protection within the region that depends on the system. I am

pleased to do that.

The Value of the Multiple-Use Columbia/Snake River System

The vast system of dams, reservoirs and canals built by the Bureau of Reclamation since the passage of the Reclamation Act in 1902 has truly made the desert

bloom throughout the Pacific Northwest. In Idaho, Washington and Oregon, vast

tracts of irrigated agriculture have contributed to our nation’s economy, provided a

steady and dependable supply of food and fiber, and helped create a way of life that

helps define who we are as a people. As originally expressed by an optimistic

farmer’s sign posted on a desert ranch in the Boise Project before the first water

deliveries were made to the area, we still ‘‘have faith in God and U.S. Reclamation’’.

These water projects provide many other benefits to our region. The livestock industry benefits from the water provided by Reclamation. Significant power is generated by these facilities, helping fuel our regional economy. Flood damage is prevented by Reclamation projects, as well. Recreational opportunities are provided in

the reservoirs and on our rivers because of Reclamation projects.

For the benefit of the Subcommittee, I have provided copies of the ‘‘Story of’’ several Reclamation projects on the Columbia/Snake River System, summarizing the

project-by-project benefits in several areas of the region. The overall value of the Bureau projects to the region is overwhelming.

Here are just some of the numbers.

The annual value of the irrigated crops in the Minidoka, Palisades, and Boise

Projects in Idaho is nearly $1.2 billion dollars. For the Columbia Basin Project in

Washington, the annual crop value is $630 million. It is $700 million in the Yakima

Project in Washington and almost $100 million in the Owyhee Project in Oregon

and Idaho. That’s more than $2.5 billion per year of crop value in the region, in just

those six Reclamation projects in Idaho, Washington and Oregon. There is another

$1 billion annually in benefits from the livestock industry derived from these same

projects.

And the hydroelectric power benefits? Almost $1 billion per year; again, just for

these six Reclamation projects. These aren’t the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dams

on the Lower Snake and Columbia Rivers; just the Reclamation projects.

The benefits to the public provided through flood control are likewise immense.

Again, just for these six Reclamation projects, there is nearly $100 million per year

prevented in flood damage in the region.

Some would argue that these dams have crippled our ecosystems and decimated

our fish runs. The facts just don’t bear this out.

The amount of water arriving at Lower Granite Dam each year from Idaho has

remained virtually unchanged over the last century. Summer flows have actually increased because of regulated flows released from behind the dams.

So what impacts do the dams have on fishing? It’s no secret that flows in damcontrolled rivers are more stable and more predictable, providing superior fishing

opportunities with long, sustained releases through the summer. As the outdoor reporter for the Idaho Statesman recently observed, ‘‘Dam-controlled rivers are more

predictable because dam operators can control the flows. If you plan to fish a river,

those are a better bet than free-flowing rivers.’’ ‘‘Anglers: High water is everywhere’’, Idaho Statesman, May 26, 2005.

There is also more dependable water for rafting and other recreational pursuits

because of the reservoirs and steady releases into the river during the summer period. For the six projects that I previously mentioned, there are more than six million recreation visits annually to the reservoirs and rivers that are regulated by Reclamation. The annual economic benefit is about $170 million.

Potential Threats to the System

Make no mistake about it. As we sit here today, our dams and reservoirs, our

managed river systems, and our entire way of life are under direct assault by extremist environmental groups.

These groups have suggested that Reclamation reservoirs should be drained in a

vain and pointless attempt to ‘‘save’’ the salmon. Most recently, a coalition of environmental groups has asked the federal district court in Oregon to draw down reservoirs and drain others through flow augmentation, in order to increase the velocity of the lower Snake and Columbia Rivers by ten percent this summer. A hearing

on this request is scheduled for this Friday, June 10 in Portland, in the aftermath

55

of the judge’s May 26 decision striking down the biological opinion for the Federal

Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) dams. This motion threatens to wreak havoc on our region by crippling our river trans- portation and power systems, taking badly needed water supplies away from farmers and ranchers, and even stealing water from our municipalities, resident fisheries, and local recreation. As a State and as a region, we cannot tolerate these

kinds of devastating impacts this summer or ever. From a hydrologic standpoint, the motion is without merit and should be with- drawn immediately. At the time the motion was made in March, the summer flow

projections at Lower Granite on the lower Snake River were at 46% of normal.

Today, the updated summer flow projections are at 70% of normal. The bottom line:

the flow at Lower Granite is projected to be at least 50% higher than it was at the

time the motion was made. In short, the dire, low water conditions that led to the

filing of the motion have improved. Mother Nature has more than granted the requested relief of 10% already. It is no secret that the environmental groups do not covet our water so much as they seek to impose pain upon every sector of the region until we all support the

ultimate goal of these radical groups removal of the dams. As the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals recognized recently, such a drastic step cannot be taken by the

federal agencies, nor can it be ordered by any federal judge. Only Congress can deauthorize the federal dams and order their removal. The environmental groups continue to do all they can to create a political constituency for their cause.

In a separate lawsuit, several of the same environmental groups have directly

challenged the continued operation of the Bureau of Reclamation projects in the

Upper Snake River Basin, above Hells Canyon. This includes the Minidoka, Palisades and Boise Projects in Idaho, the Owyhee Project in Oregon and Idaho, and

several others, with a total active storage capacity of more than seven million acrefeet of water. If recognized by the court, the environmentalists’ misguided claims

could have resulted in the denial of water for Idaho citizens, for the purpose of

meeting in-river flow objectives for the salmon that cannot possibly be justified.

Since the action was filed, a new biological opinion has been issued for the projects,

rendering the motions of the environmental groups moot. Nonetheless, the threat

continues to hang over Idaho and Oregon farmers, ranchers, businesses and communities.

As if that is not enough, environmental groups have also targeted the three hydroelectric dams in Hells Canyon, owned and operated by Idaho Power Company

and licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). As part of the

current relicensing process, they have asked FERC to order Idaho Power to study

decommissioning, or removal, of the dams in order to ‘‘Restore the Canyon’’. These

dams supply over 75% of the hydroelectric power generated by Idaho Power, upon

which Idaho businesses, irrigators and the general public rely for a firm supply of

power. Obviously, it is ludicrous to talk about removing these dams. Yet, we expect

a full-blown battle in front of FERC on this question.

The same groups have also proposed passage and reintroduction of salmon protected under the Endangered Species Act, into the Snake River and its tributaries

above Hells Canyon. Comparable estimates of the impacts that this would cause to

farmers and ranchers in the Upper Snake River Basin, in order to comply with the

ESA and other federal laws, are in the $600 per acre range. The actual costs are

likely to be much higher. These impacts would also be felt by businesses and municipalities. There would be direct and substantial impacts on the continued operation of the Reclamation projects in Idaho and Oregon. The existing biological opinion for our projects would likely be thrown out in order to evaluate the impacts of

the projects on the listed fish transplanted into our area. We cannot withstand this

kind of hit. Again, this argument is likely to play itself out in front of FERC.

In addition to the water projects in southern and eastern Idaho, the FCRPS litigation likewise threatens water levels in locally important waters such as Dworshak

Reservoir, Cascade Lake, and Lake Pend Oreille.

Balancing Economic Needs and Environmental Protection

Any solution to the current set of problems in the Columbia/Snake River system

needs to include a strong dose of common sense. A good place to start is with the

actual number of fish in the river system.

Over the past several years, salmon and steelhead numbers are up—significantly.

You would think that this would be good news to the environmental community. Instead, they refuse to acknowledge the increased runs, choosing to characterize them

as some kind of short-term spike that will soon return to the ‘‘extinction vortex’’ that

they once so boldly predicted would end with the salmon’s demise by 2017. Needless

to say, that prediction is not looking too good these days.

56

The federal government has refused to include healthy, returning populations of

hatchery fish in their counts of salmon abundance. Despite a successful lawsuit in

federal district court, recognizing that genetically identical salmon that swim sideby-side must be treated the same under the ESA, the shell game continues. On the

one hand, the federal government says that the fish are threatened and endangered,

even when considering hatchery populations. On the other hand, they say that there

is a ‘‘surplus’’ of fish and that it is permissible to harvest them.

As a result of these failures, another lawsuit is likely to be filed in the near future, challenging the federal government’s continued failure to comply with the law.

IWUA and the Coalition for Idaho Water will both be parties to that lawsuit; I will

proudly carry the banner as co-counsel with the Pacific Legal Foundation, the nonprofit public interest law firm that successfully prosecuted the previous hatchery

lawsuit.

By counting the hatchery fish, as well as the non-ocean going fish that are also

genetically identical to the anadromous fish, we should be able to distinguish between those stocks that are actually in trouble and those that have suffered from

an impermissibly artificial distinction between so-called ‘‘natural’’ and ‘‘unnatural’’

fish.

Recognition of the increased fish runs and inclusion of hatchery fish should eventually result in delisting of at least some of these stocks, and an increased ability

to harvest them. It should also serve to remove some of the restrictions that exist

in many sectors of our region under the ESA.

This can be done without removing the dams and without draining Idaho and

other areas of our region.

Another needed and long overdue step is to improve and modernize the ESA.

Many good ideas exist for making the Act better and are under active consideration,

not just by Congress, but by many stakeholders and other interested groups. I applaud the House Resources Committee for the leadership that it has provided on

this issue and look forward to favorable consideration of legislation by Congress to

amend the ESA in the near future so that it can work better for the benefit of all

Idahoans.

By taking some common sense steps, and looking at all of the facts, we can preserve the tremendous benefits of the Columbia/Snake River system, as a working

river, while also enjoying continued salmon and steelhead returns for generations

to come.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you once again for the

opportunity to testify.

NOTE: The following brochures submitted for the record by Mr. Semanko have

been retained in the Committee’s official files:n

• The Story of the Minidoka Project, Idaho-Wyoming;

• Palisades Project, Idaho-Wyoming;

• Boise Project, Idaho-Oregon;

• Owyhee Project, Oregon-Idaho;

• Columbia Basin Project, Washington; and

• Yakima Project, Washington

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Semanko. For the record, too,

I——

[applause.]

I need to remind folks in the audience that this isn’t a—this isn’t

that type of public hearing. And, again, what we’re trying to do is

take into the public record all of the information so that we can get

a good solution to this problem; the applause in the audience

doesn’t help. So if you can work with us to try to get through this,

we’ll make sure that we can get the best results out of this hearing.

For the record, it was Mr. Bruce Babbitt from Latham and Miller

was invited but is not here today, just for the record.

I would like to now recognize for questioning. At this point we

are opening up to the dais up here questions for the people who

are testifying. And I’m going to defer to Ms. McMorris to begin that

questioning.

Ms. MCMORRIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

57

Excellent testimony. I wanted to start by asking each one of

you—just briefly, if you would like to comment—but to specifically

comment on the most recent decision made by Judge Redden and

how you see it impacting the river. Whether it comes—you know,

the barging, the potential (inaudible) just from what you know related to that decision.

Mr. OTT. Thank you, Cathy.

From the County Commissioners’ viewpoint, an interesting concept has been surfacing. And that’s the concept of uncertainty for

people involved in production activity when a—a significant decision like this is brought out. Many people who are trying to capitalize.

Their—either their production or capitalize some investment in

equipment are finding it difficult to obtain loans of long-term significance because the lending institutions themselves do not have

certainty of what’s going to happen to this river system.

And so we’re beginning to see some economic impacts of that

based on instead of a 10- or 15-year loan, we’ll give you a two-year

loan or a three-year loan, until we see what happens on these

rivers. So we’re going to see four, five and ten years from now the

effects from this, lost production, perhaps people losing jobs. Perhaps we’re going to see other businesses going elsewhere to find a

more stable economy or more stable certainty of being able to capitalize a business.

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Ms. McMorris.

My name is Virgil Lewis. And there was a segment in my testimony that I did not—was not able to read due to time constraints.

It’s in regard to the BiOp that Judge Redden ruled on. And in our

opinion, if there were a 10-percent increase in velocity, then by

doing this we can achieve a 300-percent survival increase in this

stock. And a 300-percent increase in salmon production and also

survival of the juveniles outflowing out into the ocean, once they

return, the economic benefit would be very large indeed.

In regards to the barging industry itself, I have not had the opportunity to actually take a look at what the barging impacts

would be. I’m looking at it strictly from a Tribal Council standpoint. And from our point of view, working together with the hatcheries, specifically working with the wild hatcheries, working with

the wild salmon to supplement—supplement the wild runs by taking wild fish into the hatchery and raising that fish and releasing

it and hoping that those fish will come back, not specifically to the

hatchery but to different parts of the region.

The Cle Elum Hatchery is very similar to the Nez Perce Tribal

Hatchery in that we take wild salmon every year into our facility.

And we raise those salmon to a certain age, and we release them

at different locations on the Yakima River system. This has proven

to be very successful. It has worked tremendously. We have a

spring chinook salmon fishing season on the Yakima River system.

There has not been one for 30 years. It has proven very successful

for us.

Thank you.

Ms. MILES. Thank you, Ms. McMorris. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

I strongly agree with Mr. Lewis’s comments. I also, I guess, want

to make two points, when you specifically asked regarding Judge

58

Redden’s ruling. For the Nez Perce Tribe, there are two overall

general things that helped validate the Nez Perce Tribes, not just

our—it’s not just a personal belief, I guess I wanted to state. But

it requires requirements in ESA, the recovery of wild salmon—wild

salmon and steelhead, not just preventing. And that’s validated

what we’ve been stating and our science has been stating all along.

Also, the impacts of Columbia and Snake River dams can’t be ignored. These dams kill more than 80 percent of Idaho’s migrating

salmon and steelhead.

And I just wanted to make those two points because for a long

time—and I’m seven generations from Old Lookingglass. The one

I mentioned in my testimony. And it’s often viewed that we forget

many times over these generations that the new generation will

forget. And I just want to reassure and in this testimony that we

have not forgotten what our leader stood for. And that those—that

ruling validated finally our belief what—which even was labeled

here as almost like a personal belief.

Thank you.

Mr. ALLDREDGE. The only comment that I would like to make—

and thank you for bringing this up—is that Judge Redden’s decision provided the opportunity for the plaintiffs to ask for another

hearing. And on Friday of this week there will actually be another

hearing regarding the—a preliminary injunction proposed by the

plaintiffs to change immediately the operations of the river, and including the river that you can see just outside of this hotel.

And part of that—the proposal is to lower the lower Granite pool

10 feet below minimum operating pool.

Which effectively immediately eliminates all commercial navigation upon the—in the lower Granite pool. It eliminates the movement of grain. It eliminates the movement of containers. It eliminates the arrival of cruise ships bringing those 15,000 tourists to

our area every year.

We are very, very concerned about this. And we hope that Judge

Redden does not allow the actions proposed by the plaintiffs.

Mr. APPEL. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question.

I would like to just add my support to what Commissioner Ott

had to say. The uncertainty that rulings like this create, really

causes me a great deal of concern.

You know, we’ve spent a lot of years, a lot of time talking about

the issue, talking about what it takes to recover the salmon. We

start making plans down that road, and then suddenly you throw

everything out, and we start all over again with the arguments and

the issues.

In terms of a judge making these kinds of decisions, that concerns me also. You know, after all, we’ve had a lot of—a lot of

science that has been looked at. We’ve had the Corps of Engineers

and National Marine Fisheries studying this issue all this time.

They came out with their recommendation, and the judge on his

own decided to throw that out.

I would urge you to take the look at the declaration that is attached to my written testimony. It’s a declaration by Dr. James Anderson, Research Associate Professor in the School of Aquatic and

Fishery Sciences at the University of Washington. This was made

59

in support of the BiOp. And I would urge you to take a look at

that.

Mr. BENSON. Mr. Chairman and Representative McMorris, it concerns me a lot, frankly, that we’re in a place where a judge is making these kinds of decisions and over the work that’s been done by

the agencies that we have in place to make the decisions that agencies I believe should make.

That said, though, I would like to call your attention to the pictures on the wall behind you, which are pictures of the 1992 drawdown. And you can see those, either from where you are or later

when you get up, that that particular experiment wreaked havoc

up and down the reservoir system.

And I hope that that’s not where we’re headed again.

As you know, on the 10th of this month, the judge will hear additional comments about the possibility of drawdown. And I would

ask that you would take great consideration and be as concerned

as I am about what might be coming in the way of drawdowns because of the judge’s decision.

Ms. RYCKMAN. I think it’s important to note that Judge Redden

did not question the science behind the BiOp in his decision or the

proposed actions. His ruling was focused on legal technicalities, on

whether it met legal requirements.

One example is that he found the government had improperly

segregated the operation of the dams from the existence of the

dams in the analysis on—I think he also segregated the fishing impact. So this is not a scientific decision this time by Judge Redden.

And as of Friday, I understand the Federal Government had not

decided whether or not it would appeal. And so I expect that the

seven programs that are underway will continue as planned right

now.

Having said that, as you heard that on Friday, Judge Redden

will hear oral arguments on a request from the plaintiffs. And they

are—it must be my magnetic personality; do you think?

[Laughter.]

Ms. RYCKMAN. The plaintiffs are asking for more spill, less transport and additional drafts. The expected cost of that would be a

$102 million tax imposed on Bonneville ratepayers.

Mr. SEMANKO. Ms. McMorris, there were two different motions

that were filed early this spring in Judge Redden’s court by the environmental groups. And I should say that Judge Redden is (unintelligible) senior activist judge—or I’m sorry—senior active judge,

and he has a sympathetic ear for the environmental groups. He famously now, a year or so ago, said he didn’t want to preside over

the last salmon being caught in the river. I think we’re quite a

ways away from that. But I think it indicates kind of where he’s

headed.

Two motions. One was a motion for summary judgment as to

whether the Biological Opinion’s any good or not. And that’s what

he ruled on on May 26. He said I don’t think this opinion is very

good. And for reasons that we don’t have time to get into today, I

think the chances of that being reversed on appeal are very good.

He did not—I think he went out of his way to instead of looking

at whether it’s an adequate Biological Opinion, good enough. He’s

looking for the best possible Biological Opinion from his

60

perspective. And that is not the standard by which a Court should

be looking at these issues on the Administrative Procedures Act.

The second motion, of course, is the motion that’s going to be

heard on Friday. And that’s a motion for injunctive relief. And usually a motion for injunctive relief is reserved for when something’s

got to change right now, and you can’t wait for a final decision by

a Court.

And again, when that motion was filed, the river flows were substantially low. They are still low as Representative Otter has mentioned. But there has been already a 50-percent increase in the

projection. Now, this projection is for the period from June 21st to

August 31st. That’s the summer flow period. Back in March the

projection for that period was 46 percent of normal.

Right now as we sit here today, the projection is 70 percent of

normal. Still low but certainly not meriting the kind of relief that

the environmental groups are requesting. So, again, that’s why we

would hope that that motion would be filed. Mother Nature has, in

essence, mooted that injunction motion in our view.

Ms. HAMILTON. May I make a brief comment?

Mr. RADANOVICH. Oh, I’m sorry. Yes.

Ms. HAMILTON. Congresswoman and Chairman, I appreciate the

opportunity to answer this question as well.

Not being a lawyer, I can’t get my arms around all the technical

terms like segmentation and that sort of thing.

The thing that the judge said that we rejoiced over was our

agreement that the plan did not model out for recovery. The plan

slowed the rate of extinction, which wasn’t acceptable to the people

in the jobs that I represent.

So all the rest of the legal technicalities were over my head. But

that point was clear to us that the judge said that the plan had

to be leading in the right direction, not leading in the wrong direction for fish.

And folks here are right. We’ve had some rain. But unfortunately

we prefer not to be the ‘‘pray for rain’’ industry. And that’s the

place we’ve been with the current management of the system. If

God or Mother Nature gives us plenty of rain, then the fish do better. And you can look at the historical records on this. When we

have the flows and spills, we get fabulous adult returns.

When you look at ’01, the year that everyone said mission accomplished on these fish, they went out on great flows with spill. When

you look at ’05, it’s almost the reverse conditions, that those fish

went to the ocean and the ones that are not coming back today.

I appreciate the comments about certainty as well. I work for an

industry that has all the sectors other industries have. We manufacture, we wholesale, we distribute, we retail, plus the hospitality

part of our industry. And we need to plan as well.

And a hot river hurts us triple, not just single. So we have harm

done to the babies in the river when it’s hot. We have harm done

to the adults that are in the river. And the other thing is that you

can have a river full of fish, and if it’s hot they don’t bite because

they’re so stressed. So they’d jump in the boat before they’d fish.

So we lose our industry when we don’t have a river that’s working

for fish.

Ms. MCMORRIS. Thank you.

61

Mr. HASTINGS. I have to say that I thought the testimony that

I heard from everybody was very good testimony. And I have had—

I guess it’s a privilege to attend several of these type of hearings

or rallies, you know, the rallies that are outside the hearings, regarding this issue many times.

And it is interesting, from what I heard today, is what I had not

heard or I—what I didn’t hear today is what I had heard in the

past, which I think is significant and perhaps it means that we are

making progress on this. And let me just point out one area in that

regard.

Most of the testimony here—I think all of the testimony here is

pretty much that, you know, because of the development here, we

have the dams. And with the exception, in fact, in Ms. Hamilton’s

testimony that she didn’t say orally, she says that those serious

people are in favor of removing any of the dams except the Snake

River dams.

But what was not mentioned—and I mentioned this in my opening remark and others here had mentioned this—that it’s not an

either-or situation. And I point out to you this. In my district,

which is through central Washington, I have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,

9, 10 dams that are—starting with Grand Coulee Dam on down

through the big Columbia and through the Dalles Dam that are in

my district or part of my district.

Part of those dams came to an agreement, if you will, that I

thought was very significant. And that is the mid-Columbia dams—

or three of the mid-Columbia dams in central Washington came to

a habitat conservation plan that called for no net loss through

those dams. Now, that was a very significant achievement. Took

about seven or eight years to do that. I just want to point out that

there is a way we get through this if we work at it.

And I want to—also want to compliment Mr. Lewis for his coming back the second time and talking about the hatchery program.

Because there are advocates—and I will put them, frankly, on the

extreme side—that say that it has to be wild fish only. And we

shouldn’t even consider the idea of anything having to do with

hatchery. I’ve been to the Cle Elum Hatchery, and I think that,

from some of the other hatcheries I’ve seen, is certainly more of the

state of art, I think, to the credit of the Yakamas. And so if we can

look at that and get rid of—get outside of this idea that it only has

to be wild and let’s put in everything together, I think we can find

common ground.

But I—I would also make this observation. Because I remember

the great debate in 2000, specifically, in the 2000 Presidential election, talking about removing the dams on the Snake River. And I

recall—somebody told me because I don’t subscribe to this newspaper that I’m talking about.

But I understand that the New York Times for four or five days

ran full-page ads on removing the dams on the Snake River. To

which I wonder, how many people out here subscribe to the New

York Times and would be impacted by their advertising of taking

out the dams?

I just think that’s a lot of the—there are some. I don’t think

you’re the audience that you’re being reached, though, in my view.

62

It just tells me that—which was said, I think, by several of the

people who gave testimony today, that a lot of this is outside—I

would say outside agitation, and maybe the ‘‘agitation’’ is too far.

But they certainly have a different agenda than those of us that

live here.

So I—I just wanted to make those points. And there is just one

question that I would like to pose, I guess, if anybody would want

to answer it, in the very brief time that I have. Is that if the idea

is to return fish and particularly try to recover endangered fish,

then why do we harvest those fish that are in danger.

I think it’s a very legitimate question that needs to be responded

to. If anybody on the panel would like to respond to that, I would

like to hear it.

Ms. HAMILTON. I’m going to defer to him first.

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name

is Virgil Lewis, Sr.

The justification for the Yakama Nation in regards to harvest

goes back centuries, I guess you could say. Our attempt at the Cle

Elum Hatchery is an attempt to rebuild the wild stocks. We take

wild salmon into our hatchery, and we raise those juveniles. And

it takes us about, oh, a year and a half before they’re actually released back into the mainstem Yakima River and then out into the

Columbia River.

Now, those fish, when they come back, they’re not wild fish, but

they come back to an area where they spawn naturally. And our

attempt is to get those hatchery fish that we reared as wild fish.

Their parents were wild. So our attempt is to get those fish back

into the system so that their—their progeny will go out into the

system and come back and return as wild fish. That is our attempt.

Supplementation, if you will. And that’s the term that we use.

Every year—we continually use wild fish. We don’t take hatchery

fish into our hatchery. We take wild fish.

The reason that the Yakama Nation members harvest salmon—

it’s not specifically targeting wild fish. The Yakama Nation will

harvest whatever is available. Our harvest—our harvesting has

been constrained, as I mentioned, 30 years, 20 years. Recently because the Yakama Nation has rebuilt—helped rebuild the spring

chinook salmon, we have just recently started harvesting spring

chinook salmon in Zone 6.

Now, the fishermen below the Bonneville Dam, they are able to

harvest salmon before they get—before we do, before they pass

Bonneville Dam. But the reason that we—we want to harvest fish,

any fish, so that we can provide for our families.

Mr. Hastings, as you may be aware, Yakama Nation is comprised

of almost 10,000 members. And of that, I would say 75 to 80 percent of those individuals are fishermen. The other 20 percent, because there hasn’t been that many fish to harvest, they’re—the

children are growing up to be adults now. And they’re seeking jobs

doing other things. But we still have that tradition on the Columbia River that we honor the first fish that comes back. And many

politicians, elected officials, have been to Celilo to the first salmon

ceremony that we hold every year.

63

If we can have any way of rebuilding the wild fish in any fashion, that is our ultimate goal is to rebuild those fish, wherever they

may be.

Mr. HASTINGS. I would just like to make an observation to follow

up. Because while I—I applaud you for your work on the hatchery

fish—I think that’s exactly where we ought to be going on this. But

we probably are splitting hairs. Because the question is: What is

a hatchery fish.

Do you take wild—I mean, by definition—at least the definition

that others have talked to me about, wild fish are left wholly within the rivers and are not touched by outside support in order to

spawn. You by definition say you take outside—you take wild fish

and put them in a hatchery.

Now, this—I’m not going to—we’re probably arguing a small

point here. But I think it is, in fact, very, very significant.

Second, I would just concede your point. Because of the treaties,

you may have a larger call on the harvesting, whether they’re endangered or not. I would concede that. You’d probably have a better

case on that than somebody—somebody else. Even though we are—

all live under the laws of the United States.

Do you want to say something?

Ms. MILES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And I mean no disrespect, but I feel very frustrated after many,

many years having to justify our right to harvest fish. On behalf

of the Nez Perce Tribe, I’d like to, first and foremost, point out that

we are not an interest group.

We are a sovereign nation that has a legal right.

And I can’t imagine and I can’t get into the minds of my leaders

that we would be down here seven generations now having to justify the millions and millions and millions of acres they gave up

and the lives that were lost for our very right to harvest fish. And

it is the Nez Perce Tribe and other treaty tribes that are the lead

in restoring what was our own right. What was reserved for us. It

wasn’t given to us by anybody.

And that validity in Judge Redden’s ruling, in my personal belief,

finally said that the tribes—the tribes have sustained this way of

life for thousands of years. And we truly believe that that was by

no mistake. It’s not a mistake to our people. But I guess I feel a

little on the defensive after all these years and as somebody as

young as myself, the frustration the tribes go through all the time

of having to justify our harvest. That—our harvest and our way of

life has sustained us for thousands of years.

By not having our traditional foods, Mr. Hastings, it has severely

damaged our health, health disparities in our nations. Our economies—our very freedom that we talk about in this country was

never given to our people. That freedom that we use very loosely

in this country, that freedom is not given to everybody. And I just

want to make that point.

I can’t be more passionate about how much I am going to fight

for that freedom to choose our way of life. The freedom that our

leaders—that our leaders when they gave up millions of acres they

said that we would have.

Thank you.

64

Mr. HASTINGS. Yes, I appreciate that. I wasn’t going to infer you

shouldn’t have the right to harvest at all. I don’t want you to take

that inference away.

My question was specifically on endangered—fish that are listed

as endangered species. That’s—that was my point. And perhaps

you have a—you know, I think you have an observation whether

others should be able to harvest endangered fish, given the concession that you feel so strongly about the right to harvest. What

about others harvesting endangered fish?

Ms. MILES. I guess just more specifically to answer your question. The tribes have governed themselves. We govern our own fishermen. We put on our own regulations. Higher demands than anybody outside of the tribe. When—and those hurt our fisheries.

When we don’t have enough fish, we—we have govern ourselves

and say so. And we do so. We are not asked to do so. We govern

ourselves the way we have—the way we always have.

So I guess more specifically to answer your question, we watch

those runs as closes as anybody.

Thank you.

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Hastings, I just want to make one more comment.

Rebecca brings out something that is very important. Once the

tribes reach a certain point and impact on the wild fish, then we

have to stop fishing. And we do that. We do that voluntarily.

We make sure that our fishermen are accounted—everything

that they catch is accounted for. So that once we reach a certain

impact, say, for instance, on the Snake River steelhead—yes,

they’re listed steelhead. Once we reach that impact, then we stop

fishing. Regardless if there’s fish still in the river.

Ms. HAMILTON. I appreciate the opportunity to answer this question. Sport fisheries in particular. And I’m just going to use nontreaty and lump it together. That’s all the fisheries that are below

Bonneville. And I’ll send you the data on this. But we’ll pick two

fisheries that are very, very big to us; steelhead and spring salmon.

And in those two fisheries, the—all the sport and commercial

harvest in the river pass 98 out of every 100 to spawning bed the

wild fish. Those fisheries are managed to stay under 2 percent.

Now, if you take a step back from there, every single listed stock

that heads for the Snake, if you add up ocean sport, commercial,

tribal and in river sport, commercial, tribal fisheries, none of that

harvest for every single listed fish, with the exception of one,

matches the harvest of hydro.

So our—we—we feel like we’re the constrained. We’re the ones

that are constrained. Our fisheries are deeply, deeply constrained.

And they’re managed so carefully that this year when the—when

the spring chinook fishery crashed and came in in a third of what

we expected, we still met that 1 percent the sportfishing community gets on wild fish.

Now, we don’t keep them. The 1 percent is calculated on catch

and release.

Mr. SEMANKO. Mr. Chairman, a great question.

The way I intend to look at it, Representative Hastings, is if the

listing petitions were filed today instead of 15 years ago and the

government looked at the genetically identical hatchery fish and

65

the genetically identical non-oceangoing fish, would the government list the fish today.

I think that’s a legitimate question asked. Because legally they

have not done it correctly. We’ve had at least one Federal district

court and the Ninth Circuit uphold that saying they haven’t been

counted correctly.

But unfortunately the government still hasn’t got it quite right.

They’re going to finalize their new decision and their new policy

here later this spring. And there will be a new lawsuit. The government will be made to count the fish correctly. And when they do,

when they count the fish correctly, I’m going to be proud to be a

co-counsel with Pacific Legal Foundation when we bring that case

on behalf of citizens in four different states.

We will find out which stocks are really in trouble and need to

be protected and those that have been merely impermissibly, artificially distinctioned out between so-called natural fish and unnatural fish.

If we recognize the increased fish runs by including the hatchery

fish and also the non-oceangoing fish—which, last I checked they

were real fish—there should be an increased ability to harvest

those fish. And we all are in favor of fishing. It should also serve

to restructure our region ESA.

It is absolutely ridiculous that a farmer in central Idaho who

might impact the salmon or bull trout some day made not to be

able to divert his water and has to buy hay for the last four years

because it might impact some fish that might be endangered while

we continue to harvest them. That makes no sense.

I’m not pointing fingers; just showing how ridiculous the situation is now. And this can be done without removing the dams and

without draining Idaho and other areas of our region. Unfortunately it’s going to require additional litigation. And you’re going

to see it this summer, I believe.

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you.

Mr. OTT. Thank you, Representative Hastings.

Something that’s missing on this I think that we need to get into

the record is the fact that we’re looking at a very tightly focused

area. And the salmon throughout the Pacific Arch are harvested,

not only by the issues that we’re talking about here today—and I

was just speaking with Mr. Lewis here.

What’s the effect of the worldwide take on the salmon population?

Here we have listed endangered species, but what do we know

about Japan or Russia and the amount of take they have had? Are

they abiding by the international treaties.

And I believe we only need to look to the eastern side of the

country where they have the cod fishing restraints placed on for a

period of five years due to overfishing.

Second, we haven’t even addressed the fact that we’ve got a huge

take by natural predation out of the mouth of the Columbia. Not

even being addressed, and that’s a huge effect upon the salmon

populations. Where we have other species being protected who are

predating upon the other protected species. And so we have consequently stuck ourselves in the middle of a natural balance, and

I think we’ve probably done more damage than good on that.

66

So if we want to recover the salmon, I would suggest perhaps we send those (unintelligible) elsewhere and send those sea lions elsewhere and see what happens to those populations then and give

them a chance to recover.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. I have a couple of questions.

It was mentioned—the economic benefit of—if the dams were removed, the economic increase or the viability of the salmon industry—the fishing industry as a result of that.

And if I get, Ms. Hamilton, the number I heard—either a half

billion or 3 billion would be the potential economic benefit to a restored fishery—if I could say it that way. Am I correct on that? Or

which number is correct.

Ms. HAMILTON. A half a billion was a figure that would benefit

the State of Idaho. 3 billion as a region.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Can I get a sense of what would be lost by the

dam removals to the economy? Is there a—I’m trying to assess——

Ms. HAMILTON. You know, I think that’s a great question and an

important question. But the problem is that we really have never

had the chance to look at it because that option has not been on

the table for study.

Our folks are not about dam breaching. We’re about salmon recovery and we’re about what works and what’s cheapest. Now, I’m

going to tell you that the folks that I work for that have looked at

this issue actually think the dam removal is the cheapest way.

But if we—if we’re going to have an honest——

Mr. RADANOVICH. If I can—what I’d like to do is get a sense of

what would the economic loss be to try to balance out that number

if the dams were removed.

And if you could answer it, that would be fine.

Otherwise if somebody else can answer that, I would appreciate

it.

Ms. HAMILTON. Well, two points, quickly. And one is that I—I do

think that we need to look at this. This is exactly the sort of question that this region needs to ask is what would it cost. And second, I guarantee you it will be cheaper than doing the wrong thing.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you.

Can someone answer that question for me? Has there been a

study that said what would be the economic benefit if the dams

were removed to the non-fishing economy of the area?

Ms. HAMILTON. Are you talking construction jobs and tourism

and that sort of thing?

Mr. RADANOVICH. You mean nobody has studied the economic impact to this area if the dams were removed? Is that the answer to

that?

Ms. HAMILTON. We need to get you those numbers.

Mr. SEMANKO. Mr. Chairman, I think everyone is hesitating because no one has a—up here probably has a comprehensive, absolute number for you.

I can tell you that the trade—and our friends from the ports

might elaborate on this—$15 billion trade industry that we have

right now out of the ports in the Pacific Northwest. That would be

obviously jeopardized.

On the power side, you lose 5 percent of the power grid, enough

to fuel Montana or the city of Seattle. Some say that’s insignificant

67

and it can be replaced. The last I heard, it was a coal train a mile

or two miles long every day, in terms of coal fire power plant generation to replace that.

So there are costs besides economic costs. Environmental costs,

et cetera.

In terms of irrigated agriculture, I don’t think anyone knows for

sure what the impacts would be. My favorite line from my friends

in the environmental community is that if we remove those four

dams—that only 4 of the 26 species go through, by the way—we

won’t need Idaho water anymore. Well, there’s still a flow target in (unintelligible). There’s still 18

other species. So the demands for Idaho water will continue no

doubt in the future as well. And that has a direct impact on 7 million acres—or a 7-million acre feed of active storage capacity above

Hells Canyon and the millions of acres of irrigated land up there.

But others on the panel may have specific numbers in their sectors.

Ms. RYCKMAN. Mr. Chairman, we’ll be happy to get those numbers to you. I don’t have those at my fingertips.

There has been a study done just specifically on impacts to the

irrigation community and different of those aspects.

So we’ll get that information to you.

Mr. RADANOVICH. And I just got to think that having that number would be really valuable to the debate here.

Ms. RYCKMAN. We’ll make sure you get it.

Mr. BENSON. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Corps or EIS does

include a lengthy study and that that study uses a number of

around $300 million as the net benefit to leaving the dams in place.

Annually.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Annually.

We’re done then. The other question that I have—and maybe Ms.

Ryckman can answer it for me. What is the—I heard—Mr.

Semanko mentioned a loss of 5 percent electricity to the grid. How

does that—where is it thought that the replacement might be to

that energy loss?

Ms. RYCKMAN. Well, it’s kind of interesting. It depends on who

you ask.

There are people who will tell you that we can gain that much

through conservation efforts. We’re talking about 1200 megawatts,

approximately, of electricity. Franklin PUD has been aggressively

pursuing conservation for 20 years. We have managed to achieve

one average megawatt in that 20 years. We’re not stopping. We’re

continuing to be aggressive and we’re finding new ways. But you

can see what a huge, huge obstacle that would be.

Also, I mentioned that hydro helps to firm our wind. We do have

wind energy that is being installed because it’s a great clean, renewable resource. But the reason that it is so viable in our region

is because we have the hydropower to back it up. So our wind

projects would not be nearly so viable without hydro.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Do you have a sense of the area that might be

affected by that 5 percent loss and how that might translate into

rate increases for those users?

Ms. RYCKMAN. The entire region would be affected because it——

Mr. RADANOVICH. The region meaning——

68

Ms. RYCKMAN. The four-state area; Washington, Idaho, Oregon,

Montana.

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK. All right. Thank you.

Ms. RYCKMAN. Because, you know, those are operated by the Corps (unintelligible) Bonneville Power Administration, and most

of us buy our power from them.

To replace it—right now, Franklin PUD has recently built a combustion turbine plant. And the market has to be at about $75 per

megawatt in order for that to be viable. So you’re talking about a

resource that’s about 31 mills compared to one that would be about

75 mills. That would have a huge impact on rates. And our rates

have already increased about 50 percent in the last few years.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you.

Mr. SEMANKO. And, Mr. Chairman, before we get too excited, I

was placing 5 percent of BPA’s grid. American Rivers and Idaho

Rivers United are among the groups that are involved in the dam

removal at the lower Snake have filed petitions with the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission asking them to study decommissioning or removal of the three dams in Hells Canyon that provide

75 percent of Idaho power companies’ power for Idaho and southern—northern Nevada.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. Anybody else?

Ms. RYCKMAN. There are also the dams of the mid-Columbia.

Chelan, Grant and Douglas PUDs operate dams also that are not

included in that 5 percent.

Mr. RADANOVICH. All right. Thank you very much.

Mr. Otter.

I21Mr. OTTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know you’re going to

have to leave in order to catch that flight out of town. But I appreciate very much your leadership, and I appreciate you being here.

Thank you.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Sorry to have to leave, but thank you very

much.

Mr. OTTER. [presiding.] You know, this has been a very interesting testimony for me this morning because so many times, as I

mentioned in my introductory remarks, in the 14 years between

1987 and 2000, when I was the lieutenant Governor of Idaho, we

always had competing—obviously competing interest that seemed

to bear absolutely no sympathy for the other side.

And, you know, I believe that Mr. Lewis and Ms. Miles are both

very much concerned about your jobs. I believe that you are concerned about their traditions. And so that’s a big step forward. And

the demeanor in which everybody in this room has presented themselves with this morning, with a couple of passionate exceptions, I

think is—has brought us to a new front and perhaps a new time

when we’re going to be able to consider this in thoughtful process

rather than impassioned pleas. And that’s an important hurdle for

us to arrive at. Because I think perhaps maybe we finally recognize

that we’re all in this together. And that one doesn’t necessitate the

loss of another. So perhaps it can be win-win.

I was interested in Doc Hastings’—in Congressman Hastings’

comments and questions. And one of the reasons I was interested

in his comments is because under the ESA reform, which has been

one of the issues that I have worked on for the four-and-a-half

69

years that I’ve been in Congress, is we do, in fact, have some advocates, some of our colleagues from mostly the northeast, who would

actually present in reform of the Endangered Species Act that no,

no take would be allowed of any species until such species had

been removed from either the endangered or threatened list.

And so, you know, I don’t want to—a long dissertation from anybody. But I would like to go down and find out how many of you

would be willing to support that kind of reform on the endangered

species list with a simple yes or no, please.

Mr. ALLDREDGE. No.

Mr. KOEGEN. Yes.

Mr. OTTER. Ms. Miles.

Ms. MILES. No.

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Lewis.

Mr. LEWIS. No.

Mr. OTT. No.

Mr. BENSON. No.

Ms. HAMILTON. No take would be no hydro.

Mr. OTTER. Pardon me.

Ms. HAMILTON. I said no take would be no hydro.

Mr. OTTER. Now, see. You already broke the rules.

Ms. HAMILTON. No.

Ms. RYCKMAN. Yes.

Mr. SEMANKO. No.

Mr. OTTER. Well, you see what we’re up against. And we’re supposed to delivered in body in the U.S. Congress.

And here, I—as I said in my opening remarks, I fully think you

appreciate the judge’s position. And I think you’re sensitive to each

other’s position. And in some cases, at least in the folks setting

here at this table, I truly believe you’re looking for balance.

And so if you folks can get together and decide this, I’m telling

you, the last place in the world that you want to turn over everything to is us. And so——

[Laughter.]

Mr. OTTER. I want to—you know, I want to encourage—I want

to encourage you. I want to encourage you to use this day as a beginning and a new beginning. And one that understands each

other. And one that has equal enthusiasm for the other person’s

end result. And I think then and only then are we really going to

wind up to where we need to be.

Because, you know, if it’s going to be the Reddens in the world

versus the Doc Hastings and the Cathy McMorrises and the Butch

Otters of the world—he can say whatever he wants. But until we

fund it, he’s not going to get a damn thing.

He can manage that river if he wants. But if we don’t fund it,

because we don’t see the balance in it, he’s not going to get anything done. But he’s going to spend a lot of time out there with a

shovel trying to herd 30 inches of water. You know. And I’m a

farmer, so I’ve had to do that.

But I just—I really am—I’m really encouraged because I think

this is the first one of these in all these years that I have attended

that has ever been met, I think, with the appreciation that it has.

I know that we’ll have many more of these hearings. And it is

my hope, maybe even a prayer, a desperate prayer at this point,

70

that it’s met with an equal table of reasonableness. Because we are

looking for balance.

Do I know balance? Now, I’m listening. I don’t know what the

balance is. But I do know that there are folks like yourselves that

do know what the balance is. And so I haven’t got a series of questions to hopefully pick and choose—or to pick and choose sides on

this. But I do have a hope. And I hope that you recognize, as I

think I do, that this was really the time.

Do I want to put farmers out of business? No. Do I want to put

the shipping and the transportation business—do I want to disenfranchise Idaho in the Taipei, Taiwan, market?

I sold 168,000 tons of soft white wheat there in the late ’80s as

the lieutenant Governor of Idaho. And we shipped it. And we were

proud of it. And I’ll tell you what. The only reason we got that business and nobody else did is because the cheapest transportation

known to man, other than throwing it—and we can’t throw it all

the way to Taipei—was that water system.

And so that kept us competitive. And that made us competitive.

And I just happened to notice, by the way, in the chart—Doc,

would you—what did you do with that chart? Well, I’ve since lost

the chart, I guess.

But I just happened to notice in that year—in those years over

a million fish returned—totals, all the totals. I’m not speaking specific because I—I did see that certain fish didn’t return in the previous numbers that they had.

And I think the sockeye salmon was one of them, the pink was

another, and the chum was another. But I did see that in those

years, when we were shipping 168,000 tons of soft white wheat to

the world’s plight, to the food market—thank you—in 1987,

995,370 fish returned, in 1987. 1988, it dropped off a little bit.

Came back the next year.

But my point is—my point is that I’m grateful. First off, I’m

grateful for you being here today and recognizing that you do have

a position and you have a position that needs to be protected and

that needs to be considered. Now, but you also recognize that the

other person does.

And I would tell you from my four-and-a-half years experience at

Congress, you’ve got a whole lot more legitimacy in your deliberations then we would have in ours, should it be our decision.

So my thanks for you being here. Are you going to have a second

round?

Ms. MCMORRIS. No.

Mr. OTTER. Thank you very much.

Ms. MCMORRIS. I think on that note we’re going to thank the

witnesses for their valuable testimony, for everyone for being here,

for the members of the Subcommittee.

We may—the members of the Subcommittee may have additional

questions for you. And we would ask you to respond in writing. The

hearing record well be held open for 30 days for those responses.

If there’s no further business before the Subcommittee, I again

thank the Subcommittee. And our witnesses and the Subcommittee

stand adjourned. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 12:00 noon, the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

71

Additional material submitted for the record follows:

• Columbia Basin Development League, Statement submitted for

the record • Davis, Rick, Manager, Port of Clarkston, Pictures and video

submitted for the record (NOTE: Video has been retained in

the Committee’s official files) • Ducharme, Dick, Board Member, Snake River Salmon Recovery Board, Statement submitted for the record • Givens, James W., Lawyer, Lewiston, Idaho, Letter submitted

for the record • Hemsley, Robert, Association of Western Pulp and Paper

Workers, Statement submitted for the record

• Johns, Ron, Spokane, Washington, Letter submitted for the

record

• Priestley, Frank, President, Idaho Farm Bureau, Boise Idaho,

Letter submitted for the record

Statement of the Columbia Basin Development League

Mr. Chairman, the Columbia Basin Development League appreciates the opportunity to submit this statement in the record that expresses our position on the

need to recognize the many important uses of water from the Columbia/Snake River

system, and particularly the value that is derived from the Columbia Basin Project.

The League believes that the Columbia River contains adequate water to meet the

needs of the multiple uses that draw upon it. We support a balanced approach to

water management that recognizes all these uses and the benefits they provide to

the region.

Specifically, benefits from the Columbia Basin Project come in the form of irrigated agriculture, hydropower, recreation and the environment, through enhanced

fish and wildlife habitat. Communities and families particularly in eastern Washington, but also around the region and throughout the country, enjoy the economic

benefits of the Project. The following statistics help quantify the multi-faceted value

provided by the Project:

• Currently 670,000 acres are under irrigation. Congress originally authorized

1,095,000 acres.

• Approximately 2,050 farms are supported by the Project.

• Over 60 different crops are grown on Project lands—many of which are shipped

throughout the U.S. as well as overseas.

• 405,000 acres are dedicated to fish and wildlife habitat and water-based recreation.

• Recreational land supports 3-million public visits per year.

• Seven hydroelectric facilities on Project canal systems, plus the Grand Coulee

Dam, produce 6,700 megawatts of electricity—enough power for six cities the

size of Seattle and eight times the power needed for Northwest agriculture.

• The annual economic contribution to the State of Washington includes:

Æ State farm-gate value—over $630 million or 18-percent of state gross value

Æ Cumulative crop value—$3 billion

Æ Property tax revenues—$10 million

Æ Average value per irrigated acre—$1,050

Æ Annual income from ag processing facilities supported by the Project—$548

million

In its effort to support continued development of the Columbia Basin Project, the

League has launched a major initiative to bring more water to the region—especially to those areas already in production in the Odessa Sub-Area. This 250,000-

acre agricultural region is in serious jeopardy because of the depleting aquifer. Production from the Odessa Sub-Area constitutes a significant portion of the agricultural economy in eastern Washington. If the Odessa Sub-Area reverts to dry-land

farming because of lack of water, the impact on the state will be devastating. Production will be lost. Processing, distribution and other farm service businesses will

suffer. And the tax base will erode.

To this end, the League endorses an exchange project that will substitute surface

water from the Columbia for ground water in the Odessa aquifer. The Columbia

River is a renewable, sustainable resource. It contains plenty of water for everyone,

but often it’s not available at the right time. The agricultural community is doing

72

its part by implementing systems and practices that preserve water. The next step

is to establish adequate off-river storage that will allow water to be released when

it is needed—both for species protection and for agriculture. To advance this project,

the League has launched the Columbia Basin Water Initiative with three major

goals:

• Develop better public understanding of the Columbia Basin Project and its ability to address the declining water resources

• Develop cooperative partnerships with affected public agencies that would allow

use of privately raised money to encourage and stimulate appropriate action

• Support legislative action to secure appropriate funding

The League is committed to bringing together government agencies, organizations

and individuals who have a stake in developing our water resources. We are working closely with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the Washington State Department of Ecology to advance a project that will bring much-needed water to the Columbia Basin Project. We envision that this project will:

• Reduce ground water pumping in the Odessa sub-area, thus providing more

ground water for the region’s cities and industries • Lead to recharging the Odessa Aquifer—a valuable natural resource

• Provide farmers with the opportunity to diversify crop production

• Stimulate the economy through an important public works project

• Provide additional agriculture infrastructure, such as food processing, that will

generate jobs

• Provide a safe, adequate domestic food supply—an integral component of our

national security

• Establish additional fish and wildlife habitat

Mr. Chairman. Thank you for considering the position of the Columbia Basin Development League on this critical issue. We look forward to working with you and

the committee, as well as with our Washington delegation—especially Representatives Hastings and McMorris, and Senators Murray and Cantwell—to find solutions

that protect all the users of the Columbia River.

If you have questions, or would like further information, please contact League

Executive Secretary Alice Parker, P.O. Box 1235, Royal City, WA 99357. Phone:

509-346-9442 or e-mail to mrsp@smwireless.net.

[Pictures submitted for the record by Rick Davis, Manager, Port

of Clarkston, follow:]

73

Statement submitted for the record by Dick Ducharme,

Board Member, Snake River Salmon Recovery Board

My name is Dick Ducharme. I currently live on a ranch on the Tucannon River,

a small tributary to the Snake River located in Southeastern Washington. I am a

board member of the Snake River Salmon Recovery Board, a WRIA 32 (Walla Walla

River Basin) planning unit member, a member of the WRIA 35 (Middle Snake River

Area) planning unit, and a board member of the Walla Walla Watershed Alliance.

The WRIA 32 Planning Unit just completed the plan for the Walla Walla River

basin, a four year process entailing over 200 meetings and 7200 volunteer and consultant hours. It was adopted unanimously by local governments, the Confederated

Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation and all of the individual members of the

planning unit. The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board is in the final process of

adopting its plan which is over 600 pages in length and has had technical input

from the CTUIR, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, NOAA - Fisheries,

U.S. Department of Fisheries and the Washington Dept. of Ecology.

I list my activities in these planning efforts as evidence of my familiarity of the

issues involved before the sub-committee but do not make this presentation on behalf of any of these organizations. This presentation is solely on my own behalf as

a citizen residing within the Snake River Basin.

There have been many reasons reiterated over and over for the removal of the

four dams on the middle Snake River. The latest reiteration of these reasons was

put forth by former Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, in a round of editorial

74

board meetings he made in major metropolitan centers such as Los Angeles and

New York. Most of the reasons put forth have been discredited as lacking any scientific justification but should be addressed point by point once again for the benefit

of the subcommittee.

First, the dams have not made the ‘‘wild Snake’’ into a slack water barge channel. The dams are run of the river dams with significant current running between them

at all times. This current can be seasonally increased to benefit fish passage by the

operation of the many dams on the system above the dams in question. Recent studies indicate that distance from the ocean and not time of travel is the determining

factor on mortality. Also the ‘‘hot pools of death’’ argument has been used by the

environmentalists to justify removal when in fact it has been shown the dams can

actually provide cooler summertime water temperatures than if they were removed. Second, the near extinction of the Redfish Lake sockeye in Idaho claimed to be a result of the dams has been shown to be the result of the State of Idaho’s decision

at one time to enhance the Redfish Lake rainbow trout fisheries by poisoning the

resident sockeye salmon. Poison is the reason why only one fish was left to spawn. Third, Chinook salmon and steelhead runs for the past six years are at all time record levels. This includes both spring and fall Chinook and includes both hatchery

and wild stock. The runs have been the largest since counts were started at Bonneville Dam. Bonneville was one of the first dams on the Columbia system so current

fish counts are greater than before most of the dams above Bonneville were constructed.

An extremely important fact is that ninety five percent of all Snake River fall Chi- nook Salmon spawning historically took place above Hells Canyon Dam. This dam

is on the Snake River immediately above the four Middle Snake River dams. Hells

Canyon Dam has no fish passage facilities. Even if you removed the four Middle

Snake River dams this upstream fall Chinook Salmon spawning habitat would remain inaccessible.

Fourth, the ability to move the wheat by rail that moves by barge at anywhere near the same cost, if at all, is a complete fabrication. Anyone at all knowledgeable

about eastern Washington transportation knows that neither the Burlington Northern Santa Fe nor the Union Pacific have sufficient rail cars to meet the current rail

demand for grain shipments. In fact, this rail duopoly ships grain when they want

to and not when producers need to get it to the ports. There is no way they could

physically ship additional grain as their mountain pass lines to the coast and its

ports are currently at full capacity. The 3 to 7 cents per bushel savings from barge

shipment Babbitt speaks of is only because of the barge shipping alternative. The

real cost difference without barge competition would be somewhere between 20 and

30 cents per bushel and that was before the recent increases in the price of fuel.

Washington and Oregon agricultural products shipped on the river are mostly commodities competing in a global economy. Increased costs will not be borne by the

purchaser but will be at the expense of the producer.

Fifth, neither science nor logic—nor economic theory—supports those who would remove the dams. The statement that removing the four dams in and of itself would

restore the fishery is a falsehood and to value the restored fishery at $1 billion annually is a fantasy. Compare that with the value of the entire Alaska salmon fishery. Are the four dams beneficial to salmonid production? Probably not. Is the removal of the four dams in question critical to the recovery of salmonid production in the

Columbia Basin? Absolutely not. It has been scientifically recognized that policies

regarding hydro, habitat, hatcheries and harvest must be addressed to increase fish

production. There are scores of dams on the Columbia and Snake River systems

many of which have greater impact on fish production than the four on the Middle

Snake River, hi fact there are dams in Representative McDermott’s backyard on the

Skagit River and the Cowlitz River that have no fish passage facilities that have

done considerably more damage to their endangered fish populations that the four

dams he seeks to remove. Perhaps it is because they are owned by the Cities of Seattle and Tacoma and are major producers of electricity for his constituents that

they are not the subject of this hearing. The removal of the four dams is the current

cause celeb of the professional environmental movement. What is tragic is they are

able to champion this simplistic solution to a complicated problem in major urban

media outlets without question. The professional environmental movement excels at

propaganda. However, in the end, science and truth will be their undoing and bring

us real solutions to complicated environmental problems.

[A letter submitted for the record by James W. Givens, Lawyer,

Lewiston, Idaho, follows:]

75

76

Statement submitted for the record by Robert Hemsley on behalf of the

Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers

The Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers has more than 9,000 union

members across the Western United States, often in small, rural communities such

as Wallula, Washington. Our members have a special concern for their communities

and for the environment. Our livelihoods depend upon natural resources: we live in

communities where natural resources provide a major source of revenue for our children’s schools; we live in a beautiful region of the world where water is an important renewable resource; and we consider ourselves guardians of the resources

which surround us. We want our grandchildren to inherit our economic and environmental legacy.

Yet, we are discouraged by judicial rulings which restrict citizens and remove

communities from environmental equations. And we are puzzled when some suggest

that the destruction of dams would enhance the environment. How would the reduction of regional energy enrich our economy and enhance the environment? Perhaps

we take for granted achievements which have transformed our world. One of the

greatest monuments of the 20th century was the building of dams and the harnessing of power: making electricity accessible for everyone and connecting citizens

and communities-both rural and urban.

In 1920—within the lifetime of the greatest generation—45 percent of residential

homes in rural Washington State had no electricity. Across the country, the disparity was even greater: only seven percent of the six and half million farms in the

United States had electricity. (‘‘Rural’’ was defined in the 1920 Census as population

centers with fewer than 2,500 people). Imagine, entire regions without electricity for

homes, farms, and schools. Poverty was pervasive in rural America-even before the

Great Depression, yet it was during the Great Depression that Americans began to

escape poverty and to create prosperity for generations by generating hydroelectric

power for homes, agriculture, and communities. As electricity connected regions,

agriculture and manufacturing developed and families prospered in communities

previously ignored by the outside world.

77

This connection of communities changed the social structure of our country. Communication enlivens democracy as more citizens are able to participate in the process. In 1930, before the creation of the Tennessee Valley Authority, fewer than one

percent of African-American families living in several southern states owned a

radio. The establishment of affordable electricity not only enhanced economic opportunity across the South, it also hindered oppression as citizens began to connect

with the outside world.

And democracy always thrives when the child of a mill worker has the same opportunities as the child of a mill manager. In many of our union mills, three and

four generations of a family have been employed at the same mill. Now, ironically,

the children of our union members are hired as managers in the mills because of

the opportunities generated by good, family jobs: opportunities enriched by the utilization of renewable water resources and the establishment of low-cost electricity,

which, until recently, had been available and affordable to everyone.

However, communities are endangered and family farms and family jobs are jeopardized when government by judiciary ignores the input of common citizens.

The union members of the Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers request that our elected officials remember working families and rural communities

when recommending resource policy. Common citizens-not judicial viceroys-are the

proper guardians of our resources and our future.

[A letter submitted for the record by Ron Johns, Spokane,

Washington, follows:]

78

79

80

81

Statement submitted for the record by The Honorable Jim McDermott, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to share my views on the impor- tance of maintaining a healthy and robust Columbia/Snake River system. The Columbia River flows for 1,200 miles, from the Canadian Rockies, down through Washington, where it connects with its largest tributary, the Snake River, finally feeding

into the Pacific Ocean along the Washington/Oregon border. In the more than

10,000 years since the Columbia River basin was first inhabited, the river and its

tributaries have been essential to the culture, ecology, development and sustainability of the region, providing an abundant source of food and fresh water to the

region’s people.

More recently, since the construction of hydroelectric dams along the Columbia

and its tributaries beginning in the early 1900’s, the river has had a more diverse

set of purposes. Construction of the dams made possible reliable and affordable

power production and enhanced irrigation, flood control, and navigation. The Columbia River system today, with its hundreds of dams, is the most hydroelectrically developed river system in the world. However, one dramatic downside to the hydroelectric development of the river has been its detrimental effects on fish populations.

Salmon runs are now at 1-3% of the levels they were when Lewis and Clark journeyed through the area. More than a dozen species of salmon and steelhead are now

so depleted that they have been listed under the Endangered Species Act. The dams

are not the only reason for the declines in fish runs- pollution and habitat degradation have also been a factor- but few would dispute that the dams are a major contributor.

Unfortunately, for a number of reasons, the issue of salmon recovery has become

an explosive topic in the Pacific Northwest. Too many leaders have chosen politics

over policy, and the result has been a divided region, dwindling salmon runs, and

a reliance on the judicial branch to make management decisions. I believe the economic, cultural, and ecological significance of salmon to the region are not things

that should be discounted, or used to divide people. It is high time that we in the

Northwest start making decisions based on sound public policy, not political expedience.

I was disheartened to see that a brochure being distributed by the Farm Bureau,

announcing this hearing and the rally beforehand, characterized my intentions as

wanting to ‘‘remove 4 dams, just for starters’’ and my bill, the Salmon Planning Act,

as a bill ‘‘to destroy four dams.’’ This is a gross mischaracterization of my position

and my legislation, and it is precisely the kind of dialogue that has divided this region and served everyone poorly.

On the contrary, I do not take any joy in the thought of removing the four Lower

Snake River dams, nor have I concluded that it is necessary. And I find the suggestion that I want to remove other dams in the region laughable. My bill does not

propose that we remove the dams. It proposes that we find out what removing the

dams would and would not do for salmon and for local communities.

The Salmon Planning Act, if one were to take the time to read it, authorizes a

study to determine the effects that removal of those four dams could have on the

region. The study includes the effects on communities near the dams, transportation

along and on the river, irrigation, energy production, and salmon populations.

Many people point out that the Lower Snake River dams irrigate very few farms

and provide only 4% of the region’s electricity, and that the products that are currently barged from Lewiston can alternately be moved by trucks and rail. They

point to the fact that in April of this year the Potlatch Company, the largest container-shipping client of the Port of Lewiston, shipped only 46 containers of paper

products through Lewiston, down from 548 containers in April, 2004. Others would

argue a different view. The Salmon Planning Act would require the Government Accountability Office, the non-partisan investigative arm of Congress, to study these

issues and provide Members of Congress with the unbiased scientific and economic

data they need in order to make balanced, informed decisions about the future of

this region.

Spring Chinook run projections this year have been revised downward from

250,000 to 80,000. We can’t count on ocean conditions to continue to save the day.

Let’s not fool ourselves, with the way things have been going the timeline on extinction is very short. If we continue heading on this course, the courts are going to

have to force this decision on Congress without everyone knowing exactly what that

would mean.

Lastly, Section 5 of my bill speaks to a legal loophole that has been identified by

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Army Corps has testified that it lacks legal

authority to remove the dams, even if directed to by Congress. My bill removes this

82

loophole, leaving the Corps able to carry out a potential Congressional mandate. The

Salmon Planning Act does not pre-judge the question of dam removal- it just asks

that Congress be provided with the highest quality information on this issue so that

it can make decisions that are in the best interest of our region.

Opponents of the bill have tried to use this section to say that if the bill passes

the dams will be removed. That is completely untrue. The Army Corps would still

have to determine that removal was necessary, and Congress would still have to appropriate hundreds of millions of dollars to carry out the work. Section 5 does not

tear down the dams, it merely removes legal uncertainty about whether the Army

Corps can remove the dams if directed to do so.

We have a legal, moral, and economic responsibility to restore salmon runs to

healthy, harvestable levels. Recent studies have shown that restored fisheries could

bring $5.5 billion annually to the Northwest for the sport-fishing industry and the

local communities and businesses that support it. That figure doesn’t even take into

consideration the economic benefit that restored runs would bring to tribal and commercial fisheries.

Recently, a letter was delivered to Members of Congress from more than 1,000

businesses supporting the Salmon Planning Act. If you look at the list of businesses

on the letter, I think the economic benefit of restored salmon runs becomes apparent. Businesses signing the letter include fishing groups, outfitters, fishing equipment providers, sporting goods companies, rafting and fishing guides, hotels, restaurants, and boating companies, indicating the wide range of service industries

that stand to gain from healthy fish runs. These companies are located in more than

35 states, highlighting the regional and national benefits of a restored fishery. The

list includes major corporations, such as Patagonia and Helly Hansen, small familyowned businesses, and everything in between. People need to understand that this

is not just an environmental issue- common-sense salmon recovery is also about protecting family-wage jobs and supporting rural communities.

I hope that my bill and the issue of salmon recovery in general are given serious

consideration at this hearing. Last year 111 Members of Congress cosponsored the

Salmon Planning Act, and already this year we have new cosponsors from both parties. The sooner we stop mischaracterizing each other’s intentions and start committing ourselves to serious public policy discussions on this issue, the better off the

region will be.

[A letter submitted for the record by Frank Priestley, President,

Idaho Farm Bureau, Boise Idaho, follows:]

83

84

Information submitted by the following individuals has been

retained in the Committee’s official files:

• Alby, Ted, Ph.D., Paradox Northwest Associates, Inc.,

Vancouver, Washington

• Arnett, Jim, Clarkston, Washington

• Aschkenasy, Herbert

• Barnes, Barry M., President, Riverview Marina, Custom Boats,

Barnes Inc.

• Bayley, Joseph

• Bolon, Robert N.

• Borck, Gretchen, Director of Issues, Washington Association of

Wheat Growers, Ritzville, Washington

• Boyd, Will, Moscow, Idaho

• Brock, Frank, Chair, Board of County Commissioners,

Franklin County

• Burch, Eddie W., Georgia Pacific, Crossett, Arkansas

• Burns, James, Milton-Freewater, Oregon

• Case, Dale, Cove, Oregon

• Clevenger, Garrett, Moscow, Idaho

• Crea, Bill, Fenn, Idaho

• Crews, Bob

• Cummings, Kenneth, Region Manager, Forest Capital Partners

• Cutsforth, Penelope T., Pendleton, Oregon

• Darland, Chuck, Central Point, Oregon

• Detering, Julia

• Dokken, David

• Ellsworth, Don

• Elskamp, Paula, Chair, Lewis Clark Chapter, Idaho Women in

Timber

• Emtman, Jeff, State President, Washington Association of

Wheat Growers

• Evett, Arlene, Elk City, Idaho

• Evett, Mike, Elk City, Idaho

• Fletcher, Douglas

• Gasser, Robert and Patsy, Merrill, Oregon

• Gifford, Jeff, Chairman of Pulp and Paperworkers’ Resource

Council

• Harris, Ron and Judy, Ione, Oregon

• Hathway, JoAnn, Corvallis, Oregon

• Hays, John V., Rancher, Unity, Oregon

85

• Helms, Deborah, Lewiston Idaho • Heminger, Howard, Ontario, Oregon • Hendricks, Frances, Aumsville, Oregon • Hennings, Curtis R., Chairman, Washington Wheat

Commission • Hosken, Charles, General Manager, Public Utility District

No. 1 • Johnson, Larry, Director of Corporate Development, Agency

Relations, Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency • Keifer, John, Boise, Idaho • Klemm, Jerry, Chairman, Joint Lewiston, Idaho/Clarkston,

Washington Chambers, Natural Resources Committee • Kovash, Arlene, Oregon Women for Agriculture • Loaiza, Mark, Troy, Idaho • Mayhew, Gary, Arkansas • Meeks, David, Donna, Leslie, and Jamison, Lewiston, Idaho • Meyer, Bruno, Medford, Oregon • Moll, Glenn F., President Pro-Tem, Village of Newberry,

Michigan • Nichols, Cynthia, Moscow, Idaho • Penegor, Suzanne L., Eugene, Oregon • Peterson, Margery and Farrell • Reid, Charles, Student, University of Arizona • Reynolds, Keith, Fort Spring, West Virginia • Riddle, Lee, Brookings, Oregon • Robison, Daryl C., Sixes, Oregon • Rud, Paul, Lewiston Chamber Board, Lewiston, Idaho • Ruddenklau, Helle, Amity, Oregon • Schell, Pete, Schell Industrial Design, Elk, Washington • Schott, David R., Executive Vice President, Southern Oregon

Timber Industries Association, Medford, Oregon • Stacey, Kathy E., Idabel, Oklahoma • Stark, Wendell M., Orofino, Idaho • Stewart, Wayne K., Otis Orchards, Washington

• Stout, Benjamin B., Ph.D., Albany, Oregon

• Tacke, Neal, CLD Pacific Grain, Lewiston, Idaho

• Thomas Jack E., III, Gladstone, Michigan

• Van Leuven, Rian

• Winowiecki, Leigh, Moscow, Idaho

• Wittman, R.L. ‘‘Dick’’, Wittman Farms, Culdesac, Idaho

Æ