YAKIMA RIVER BASIN AND CANYON FERRY 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

OVERSIGHT AND I~TVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

H.R. 1690 

TO AUTHORIZE CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF THE YAKIMA RIVER BASIN 

WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

H.R. 1477 

TO PROVIDE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF LANDS AND RECREATIONAL 

RESOURCES AT CANYON FERRY RECREATIONAL AREA, MONTANA, 

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

71Hl55 

HEARINGS HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC 

SEPTEMBER 23, 1993 

Serial No. 103-53 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON: 1994 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

Superintendent of Documents. Congressional Sales Office. Washington. DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16-043693-1 
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

GEORGE MILLER, California, ChairTTUJn 

PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

RON DE LUGO, Virgin Islands 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

RICHARD H. LEHMAN, California 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, Califoi:oia 

CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto Rico 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

SAM F ARR, California 

LANE EVANS, Illinois 

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

THOMAS J. BARLOW III, Kentucky 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisr.onsin 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, 

Ranking Republican Member 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada 

ELTONGALLEGLY,Califurrua 

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wy01ning 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

SCOTT MciNNIS, Colorado 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

JAY DICKEY, Arkansas 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Staff Director RICHARD MELTZER, GelUiral Counsel 

DANIEL VAL K:iSH, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMJTI'EE ON OvERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

GEORGE MILLER, California, ChairTTUJn 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California Ranking Republican Member 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia JAMES V. ·HANSEN, Utah 

PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

RICHARD H. LEHMAN, California JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona KEN CALVERT, California 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York JAY DICKEY, Arkansas 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

LANE EVANS, Illinois 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Staff Director 

J . STEVENS LANICH, Professional Staff Member 

LINDA GoRDON STEVENS, Clerk 

TEo CASE, Republican Consultant on Oversight and Investigations 

(II) 
CONTENTS 

H.R. 1690, Yakima River 

Hearing held: September 23, 1993 ........................................................................ . Text of the bill: H.R. 1690 ...................................................................................... . Witness statements: 

Hon. Jay Inslee, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington ................................................................................................................. . Panel consisting of: 

Daniel P. Beard, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, Department 

of the Interior ........................................................................................ . 

Ja:~~=~n~b~o!~~~~~~~~: .. ~~~~~~~ ... ~~~~~ .. ~~~~~ Ken Slattery, senior policy analyst, Water Resources Program, Department of Ecology, State of Washington, Olympia, Washington .... Panel consisting of: Ted Strong, executive director, Columbia Hiver Inter-Tribal Fish 

Commission, Portland, Oregon ............................................................ . Jerry Meninick, tribal council member and chairman, Tribal Fish 

and Wildlife Committee, accompanied by Tim Weaver, Esq., tribal 

attorney ................................................................................................. . Ross Sockzehigh, tribal council member, Yakima Indian Nation ........ . Panel consisting of: Urban B. Eberhart, Yakima River Basin Association of Irrigation Districts, Ellensburg, Washington ...................................................... . William Kinsel, Ph.D., president, Board of Directors, Kennewick Irrigation District, Kennewick, Washington ............................................ . Panel consisting of: Zach Willey, Ph.D., senior economist, Environmental Defense Fund, 

Oakland, California .............................................................................. . Dr. Brent Blackwelder, vice president, Friends of the Earth, Washington, DC, also on behalf of Sierra Club and National Wildlife 

Federation ............................................................................................. . 

H.R. 1477, Canyon Ferry Recreation Area 

Hearing held: September 23, 1993 ........................................................................ . Text of the bill: H.R. 1477 ...................................................................................... . Member statement: Hon. Pat Wllliams ........................................................................................... . Witness statements: Panel consisting of: Daniel P. Beard, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, Department 

of the Interior, accompanied by Mike Penfold, Assistant Director 

for Land and Renewable Resources, Bureau of Land Management .. Patrick J. Graham, Director, Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, 

State of Montana, Helena, Montana ................................................... . Panel consisting of: Blake J. Wordal, Lewis and Clark County Commissioner, Helena, Montana ................................................................................................. . Thomas A Budewitz, Esq., Broadwater County Commission, Townsend, Montana ....................................................................................... . David Hemion, executive vice president, Helena Area Chamber of 

Commerce, Helena, Montana ............................................................... . 

(III) 

Page 

1 

2 

31 

34 

42 

52 

59 

64 

66 

75 

80 

87 

111 

119 

120 

125 

129 

133 

142 

146 

153 
Witness statements---Continued 

Panel consisting of-Continued 

IV 

Gregg Groepper, Assistant Superintendent, Office of Public Information, State of Montana, Helena, Montana, representing Nancy 

Page 

Keenan, State Superintendent of Public Instruction .......................... 156 

APPENDICES 

September 23, 1993 

H.R. 1690, Yakima River 

Additional material submitted for the hearing record from: 

Dr. Zach Willey, Environmental Defense Fund: Draft Final Report by 

EDF to Washington State Water Resources Association and the Bureau 

of Reclamation entitled, "Water Marketing and Instream Flow Enhancement in Washington's Yakima River Basin-Procedures for Dry 

Year Leasing and Transfer of Water," dated May 28, 1993, selected 

pages [Editor's note.-This report in its entirety can be found in the 

archival file.] ................................................................................................ . Dr. Brent Blackwelder, vice president, Friends of the Earth: 1. Prepared statement of David E. Ortman, Director, Northwest Office, Friends of the Earth ..................................................................... . 2. Report entitled, "Survey of Water Conservation Programs in the 

Fifty States-Model Water Conservation Program for the Nation," 

Environmental Policy Institute, August 1982, selected pages [Editor's note.-This report in its entirety can be found in the archival 

file.] ........................................................................................................ . 3. Memorandum from Associate Solicitor, Energy and Resources to 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Policy, Budget and Administration, 

dated January 2, 1979 .......................................................................... . 4. Prepared statement of Ms. Jacquelyn Bonomo, center director, 

National Wildlife Federation Western National Resources Center, 

dated September 27, 1993 .................................................................... . Dr. William Kinsel: Prepared statement with attachments dated October 

6, 1993 ············································································································ Hon. Jay Inslee, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington: 

1. Views of the Kittitas County Cattlemen's Association, submitted 

2. b~i~~~ ~f~~=· \G~~f~sntc"~~~ty .. l~g~~~--~~~i~ti~~ ··~~b~it~d by Jim Schnebly, president .................................................................. . 3. Views of Karen Poulsen, farming family, Kittitas Valley, submitted 

to Congressman Jay Inslee and dated September 30, 1993 .............. . Northwest Power Planning Council: 1. Prepared statement of Stan Grace, chairman ................................... . 2. Letter from Mr. Grace to Chairman Miller dated September 3, 

1993 ········································································································· American Rivers, Inc.: Prepared statement with attachments of F. Lorraine Bodi and Katherine Ransel, co-directors, Northwest Office, dated 

October 7, 1993 ........... ................................................................................. . Mary Burke, Kittitas County, and member, National Cattlemen's Associa- tion and the Washington Cattlemen's Association: Prepared statement 

with attachments ......................................................................................... . Yakima River Basin, Irrigation Districts: 

1. Affidavit of Kent D. Richards, Ph.D., in support of testimony 

by representatives of Yakima River Basin Irrigation Districts [Editor's note.-Exhibits accompanying this affidavit can be found in 

the archival file.] ................................................................................... . 2. Affidavit of Charles C. Flower in support of testimony by representatives of Yakima River Basin Irrigation Districts [Editor's 

note.-Exhibits accompanying this affidavit can be found in the 

archival file.] ......................................................................................... . 

175 

183 

192 

205 

207 

209 

263 

264 

266 

269 

273 

274 

297 

313 

315 
v 

Additional material submitted for the hearing record from-Continued 

Yakima River Basin Coalition: Article titled, "Summary and Estimation 

of the Historic Run-Sizes of Anadromous Salmonids in the Columbia 

and Yakima Rivers," by Karen E. Kreeger and William J. McNeil, 

Page 

Ph.D., dated October 1, 1993 ....................................................................... 317 

H.R. 1477, Canyon Ferry Recreational Area 

Additional material submitted for the hearing record from: 

Hon. Pat Williams, a Representative in Congress from the State of Montana: 

1. Letter from Ms. Mary Alice Upton, secretary, Townsend Area 

Chamber of Commerce, to Congressman Williams dated September 

9, 1993 ···································································································· 341 2. Letter from Margaret McLaughlin, vice president, and William 

E. Leary, treasurer, Canyon Ferry Recreation Association, to Congressman Williams, dated September 23, 1993 .. ...... ....... ................. .. 342 

Canyon Ferry Recreation Association: Letter from Ms. Donald K. Johnson, president, to Chairman Miller, dated September 13, 1993 ............... 343 

H.R. 1690, TO AUTHORIZE CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF THE YAKIMA RIVER BASIN 

WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, AND FOR 

OTHER PURPOSES 

TlllJRSDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1993 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS, 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:45 a.m. in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Neil Abercrombie 

presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. NEIL ABERCROMBIE 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Good morning. Aloha. 

I am Neil Abercrombie of the Sixth District of Hawaii. I am sitting in for the Chairman this morning. Today we will hear testimony on H.R. 1690 concerning the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project. 

[The text of the bill, H.R. 1690, follows:] 

(1) 
103n CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION 

2 

H.R.l690 

To authorize certain elements of the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement 

Project, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 5, 1993 

Mr. IKSLEE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To authorize certain elements of the Yakima River Basin 

Vvater Enhancement Project, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 Nves ojth.e United States of A merica in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PURPOSES. 

4 The pu!1)0Ses of this Ad are--

5 (1) to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and 

6 w·ildlife through improved water management, im7 proved instream flows, irnproved water quality, proR tection , creation ?. nd enhancement of '"etlands, and 

9 by other appropria te means of habitat improvement; 
3 

2 

1 (2) to improve the reliability of water supply for 

2 irrigation; 

3 (3) to authorize a Yakima basin water con4 servation program that will improve the efficiency of 

5 water delivery and use; enhance basin water sup6 plies; improve water quality; protect, create and en7 hance wetlands; and determine the amount of basin 

8 water needs that can be met by water conservation 

9 measures; 

10 (4) to encourage voluntary transactions among 

11 public and private entities which result in the imple12 mentation of water conservation measures, practices, 

13 and facilities; and 

14 ( 5) to provide for the implementation by the 

15 Yakima Indian Nation at its sole discretion of (A) 

16 an irrigation demonstration project on the Yakima 

17 Indian Reservation using water savings from system 

18 improvements to the Wapato Irrigation Project, and 

19 (B) a Toppenish Creek corridor e:rlhancement project 

20 integrating agricultural, fish, wildlife, and cultural 

21 resources. 

22 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

23 As used in this Act: 
4 

3 

1 (1) The term "Basin Conservation Program" 

2 means the Yakima River Basin Water Conservation 

3 Program established under section 3(a). 

4 (2) The term "Conservation Advisory Group" 

5 means the Yakima River Basin Conservation Advi6 sory Group established under section 3(c). 

7 (3) The term "Irrigation Demonstration 

8 Project" means the Yakima Indian Reservation Irri9 gation Demonstration Project authorized in section 

10 4(b). 

11 ( 4) The term "on-district storage" means small 

12 water storage facilities located within the boundaries 

13 of an irrigation entity, including reregulating res14 ervoirs, holding ponds, or other new storage methods 

15 which allow for efficient water use. 

16 (5) The term "Secretary" means the Secretary 

17 of the Interior. 

18 (6) The term "Toppenish Enhancement 

19 Project" means the Toppenish Creek corridor en20 hancement project authorized by section 4(c). 

21 (7) The term "Yakima Project Superintendent" 

22 means the individual designated by the Regional Di23 rector, Pacific Northwest Region, Bureau of Rec24 lamation, to be responsible for the operation and 
5 

4 

1 management of the Yakima Federal Reclamation 

2 Project, Washington. 

3 SEC. 3. YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER CONSERVATION PJW. 

4 GRAM. 

5 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.-The Secretary, in consulta6 tion with the State of Washington, the Yakima Indian Na7 tion, Yakima River Basin irrigators, and other interested 

8 parties, shall establish and administer a Yakima River 

9 Basin Water Conservation Program for the purpose of 

10 evaluating and implementing measures to improve the 

11 availability of water supplies for irrigation and the protec12 tion and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources, in13 eluding wetlands, while improving the quality of water in 

14 the Yakima Basin. The provisions of this section shall not 

15 be applicable to the Yakima Indian Nation except as to 

16 any funds specifically applied for from the Basin Con17 servation Program. The Secretary may make grants to eli18 gible entities for the purposes of carrying out this Act 

19 under such terms and conditions as the Secretary may 

20 require. 

21 (b) FOUR PHAsES OF PRooRAM.-The Basin Con22 servation Program shall encourage and provide funding 

23 assistance for four phases of water conservation, which 

24 shall consist of the following: 
6 

5 

l (1} The development of water conservation 

2 plans, consistent with guidelines developed pursuant 

3 to subsection (d), by irrigation districts, conservation 

4 districts, water purveyors, other areawide entities, 

5 and individuals not included within an areawide 

6 entity. 

7 (2} The investigation of the feasibility of speS cific potential water conservation measures identified 

9 in conservation plans. 

10 (3} The implementation of measures that have 

11 been identified in conservation plans and have been 

12 investigated for feasibility. 

13 (4} Post implementation monitoring and evalua14 tion of implemented measures. 

15 (c) CONSERVATION ADVISORY GROUP.-(1} Not later 

16 than 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act, 

17 the Secretary, in consultation with the State of Washing18 ton, the Yakima Indian Nation, Yakima River basin 

19 irrigators, and other interested and related parties, shall 

20 establish the Yakima River Basin Conservation Advisory 

21 Group. 

22 (2} Members of the Conservation Advisory Group 

23 shall be appointed by the Secretary and shall be comprised 

24 of-
7 

6 

1 (A) two representatives of the Yakima River 

2 basin irrigators, 

3 (B) one representative of the Yakima Indian 

4 Nation, 

5 (C) one representative of counties and cities in 

6 the Yakima River basin, and 

7 (D) one representative of environmental interS ests. 

9 (3) The Conservation Advisocy Group shall1 0 (A) provide recommendations to the Secretacy 

11 regarding the structure and implementation of the 

12 Basin Conservation Program, 

13 (B) assist in the preparation of guidelines for 

14 the Basin Conservation Program, as provided for in 

15 subsection (d), 

16 (C) structure a process to integrate specific 

17 water conservation measures into a basin conserva18 tion plan, 

19 (D) provide annual review of the implementa20 tion of the guidelines, and 

21 (E) provide recommendations consistent with 

22 State statutes on rules, regulations, and administra23 tion of a process to facilitate the voluntacy sale or 

24 lease of water. 
8 

7 

1 The Conservation Advisory Group shall be nonvoting, 

2 seeking consensus whenever possible. If disagreement oc3 curs, any member may submit independent comments to 

4 the Secretary. The Conservation Advisory Group shall ter5 minate 5 years after the date of its establishment unless 

6 extended by the Secretary. 

7 (d) GUIDELINES.-The Secretary, in cooperation 

8 with the State of Washington, the Yakima Indian Nation, 

9 Yakima River basin irrigators, and interested agencies, 

10 shall, within 12 months after the Conservation Advisory 

11 Group is appointed, adopt guidelines to be used in the ad12 ministration of the Basin Conservation Program. The Sec13 retary shall establish the guidelines in consultation with 

14 the Conservation Advisory Group. The Secretary shall 

15 submit a detailed report to the Committee on Energy and 

16 Natural Resources of the Senate, the Committee on Inte17 rior and Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives, 

18 and the Governor of the State of Washington on the guide19 lines. At least 60 days prior to the submission of the re20 port on guidelines, the Secretary shall make a draft of 

21 such report available to the State of Washington, the Yak22 ima Indian Nation, Yakima River basin irrigators, related 

23 agencies, and the public, and establish procedures for 

24 timely comments thereon. The Secretary shall include a 

25 summary of such comments as an appendix to such report. 
9 

8 

1 The guidelines shall to the extent possible be consistent 

2 with State funding processes, regulations, and guidelines 

3 and shall contain, at a minimum, the following: 

4 (1) Standards for the scope and content of 

5 water conservation plans and for feasibility studies 

6 of specific measures. 

7 (2) Eligibility requirements for funding of pro8 posals for conservation plan development, investiga9 tion of measures, and implementation. 

10 (3) Criteria for evaluating and prioritizing pro11 posals for development of conservation plans and 

12 investigation of potential measures and implementa13 tion, including14 (A) the availability of information on water 

15 diversions and use in the area for which the 

16 measures are proposed; 

17 (B) information to be gained and applica18 bility to other areas and programs in the Yak19 ima basin; 

20 (C) cost-effectiveness and availability of 

21 non-Federal funding; 

22 (D) the amount of reduced diversions and 

23 timing in relation to present diversions; 

24 (E) the extent to which each measure will 

25 contribute to the improved use of the available 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

10 

9 

water and the reliability of the water supply of 

the Yakima River basin; 

(F) post implementation monitoring and 

evaluation; 

(G) a plan to mitigate adverse environmental effects; 

(H) the extent to which proposed measures 

incorporate the testing of innovative water management techniques and technology; 

(I) the extent to which proposed measures 

contribute to the maintenance of the economic 

viability of agriculture; 

(J) consistency \Vith applicable laws and 

Federal, State, tribal, and Yakima River basin 

water resource policies, goals, and ol{jectives; 

(K) the existence of or willingness of irrigation entities and other Basin Conservation 

Pr')gram participants to adopt procedures providing for incremental water pricing; and 

(L) willingness to permanently restrict annual \VHter diversions to a mutually agreed 

quantity in reeognition of securing funding 

from and aecomptishments of the Basin Conservation Program. 
11 

10 

1 ( 4) Institutional and economic incentives to in2 crease conservation and to promote more efficient 

3 use of water, which shall include the specification of 

4 procedures for the voluntary transfer of water within 

5 the Yakima River basin. 

6 ( 5) Procedures for administration and alloca7 tion of funds from the Basin Conservation Program. 

8 (6) Oversight of the Basin Conservation Pro9 gram and consultation requirements. 

10 (e) CosT SHARING.- (1 ) Cost!> incurred in the four 

11 phases of the Basin Conservation Program shall be shared 

12 as follows: 

Program Phase ! Non-Federal 

I Federal 

Grant J State Grant I T.AJCal 

- - - -+-

1. Development of water c<mservation 150% but 

plrtn ~; I not more 1 than 

I $:WO,OOO 

(Residual 

amount if 

any) 

50% 

pe•· reeip- I 

j ient I 

2. rnvestigatior. <.-f S>>eeific water ccn- 'I 50% bu: ! 207o after .Residuai 

str-vation rnt:Ct.;t!!f!S sum. lif 1 ! deducting 1 an1ount 

j and 2 not I state I after del g""{,nter funds for ducting 

i ~~ .OG O I Item 2 I :: d I per n•cip- 1: funds for 

1 i0nt 

1

. ,, rtem 2 

.1 ;;nd. 4. ~n on a!'ld post. im- I 357o 307o 35% 

_ _ ;;~~~~ :~: ~t::~-:~Na :_l _ I ____ L _ i3 (2) \Yater and water related resouree improvements 

14 implemented in tlw Yakir:u;. River basin subsequent to and 

) 5 ndev ni<e t of t.hi:; .'\.(':t whi(•h utilize funding from the 
12 

11 

1 Bonneville Power Administration under the Pacific North2 west Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 

3 1980 (94 Stat. 2697) to enhance fishery resources, and 

4 independent water related improvements of the State of 

5 Washington and other public and private entities to im6 prove irrigation water use, water supply, and water qual7 ity, shall be treated as non-Federal cost share expendi8 tures under this Act for purposes of the implementation 

9 and post-implementation monitoring and evaluation 

10 phases of the Basin Conservation Program. Such expendi11 tures shall be limited to 50 percent of the non-Federal 

12 portion of the total costs incurred in the implementation 

13 and post-implementation monitoring and evaluation 

14 phases of the Basin Conservation Program, and such ex15 penditures shall reduce the total amount of the non-Fed16 eral cost share required for such phases. 

17 (3) Costs of the Basin Conservation Program related 

18 to projects on the Yakima Indian Reservation are a Fed19 eral responsibility and shall be nonreimbursable and not 

20 subject to the cost-sharing provisions of this subsection. 

21 (f) PuBLIC REVIEW.-Water conservation plans rec22 ommended for funding through the Basin Conservation 

23 Program shall be made available to the public for a period 

24 of at least 30 days for review and comment prior to sub25 mission to the Secretary. A summary of such comments 
13 

12 

1 shall be included with the recommendation of the Con2 servation Advisory Group upon transmittal to the Sec3 retary. 

4 (g) CONSERVATION MEASURES.-(!) Measures con5 sidered for implementation in the Basin Conservation Pro6 gram may include, among others, conveyance and distribu7 tion system monitoring, automation of water conveyance 

8 systems, lining and piping of water conveyance and dis9 tribution systems, on-district storage, electrification of hy10 draulic turbines, tail-water recycling, consolidation of irri11 gation systems, irrigation scheduling, and improvement of 

12 on-farm water application systems. Basin Conservation 

13 Program funds may also be used throughout all four 

14 phases of the Conservation Program to mitigate for ad15 verse impacts of program measures. 

16 (2) In addition to implementing existing technologies, 

17 the Secretary shall encourage the testing of innovative 

18 water conservation measures. The Secretary shall, to the 

19 maximum extent possible under Federal and State law, 

20 cooperate with the State of Washington to facilitate water 

21 and water right transfers, water banking, dry year op22 tions, the sale and leasing of water, and other innovative 

23 allocation tools used to maximize the utility of existing 

24 Yakima River basin water supplies. 
14 

13 

1 (3) The Secretary may, consistent with applicable 

2 law, use funds appropriated to carry out this section for 

3 the purchase or lease of land, water, or water rights from 

4 any entity or individual willing to limit or forego water 

S use on a temporary or permanent basis. 

6 ( 4) On-fann water management improvements shall 

7 be coordinated with programs administered by the SeeS retary of Agriculture and State conservation districts. 

9 (h) AUTHORIZATION OF .APPROPRIATIONS.-There is 

10 hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary, at 

11 September 1990 prices, plus or minus such amounts as 

12 may be justified by reason of ordinary fluctuations of ap13 plicable cost indexes, the following amounts for the Basin 

14 Conservation Program: 

15 (1) $1,000,000 for the development of water 

16 conservation plans. 

17 (2) $4,000,000 for investigation of specific po18 tential water conservation measures identified in 

19 conservation plans for consideration for implement20 ing through the Basin Conservation Program. 

21 (3) Up to $67,500,000 for implementation, 

22 post-implementation monitoring and evaluation of 

23 measures, and addressing environmental impacts. 

24 (4) Up to $6,000,000 for the initial acquisition 

25 of water from willing sellers or lessors specifically to 
15 

14 

1 provide instream flows for interim periods to facili2 tate the outward migration of anadromous fish. 

3 Such funds shall not be subject to the cost sharing 

4 provisions of subsection (e). 

5 (5) $100,000 annually for the establishment 

6 and support of the Conservation Advisory Group 

7 during its duration. Such funds shall be available for 

8 travel and per diem, rental of meeting rooms, typ9 ing, printing and mailing, and associated adminis10 trative needs. The Secretary and the State of Wash11 ington shall provide appropriate staff support to the 

12 Conservation Advisory Group. 

13 SEC. 4. YAKIMA INDIAN NATION. 

14 (a) WAPATO IRRIGATION PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS 

15 AND APPROPRIATIONS.-(1) The Yakima Indian Nation's 

16 proposed system improvements to the Wapato Irrigation 

17 Project pursuant to this Act shall be coordinated with the 

18 Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

19 (2) There is authorized to be appropriated to the Sec20 retary not more than $10,000,000 for the preparation of 

21 plans, investigation of measures, and following the Sec22 retary's certification that such measures are consistent 

23 with the water conservation objectives of this Act, the im24 plementation of system improvements to the Wapato lrri25 gation Project. Funding for further improvements within 
16 

15 

1 the Wapato Irrigation Project may be acquired under the 

2 Basin Conservation Program or other sources identified 

3 by the Yakima Indian Nation. 

4 (3) Water savings resulting from irrigation system 

5 improvements shall be available for the use of the Yakima 

6 Indian Nation for irrigation and other purposes on the 

7 reservation and for protection and enhancement of fish 

8 and wildlife within the Yakima River basin. The convey9 ance of such water through irrigation facilities other than 

10 the Wapato Irrigation Project shall be on a voluntary 

11 basis. 

12 (b) IRRIGATION DEMONSTRATION PROJECT APPR0-

13 PRIATIONS.-(1) There is hereby authorized to be appro14 priated to the Secretary at September 1990 prices, plus 

15 or minus such amounts as may be justified by reason of 

16 ordinary fluctuations of applicable cost indexes, 

17 $8,500,000 for the design and construction of the Yakima 

18 Indian Reservation Irrigation Demonstration Project. 

19 There is also authorized to be appropriated to the Sec20 retary such sums as may be necessary for the operation 

21 and maintenance of the Irrigation Demonstration Project 

22 including funds for administration, training, equipment, 

23 materials, and supplies for the period specified by the 

24 Secretary. Funds may not be made available under this 

25 subsection until the Yakima Indian Nation obtains the 
17 

16 

1 concurrence of the Secretary in the construction, manage2 ment, and administrative aspects of the Irrigation Dem3 onstration Project. 

4 (2) The Irrigation Demonstration Project shall pro5 vide for the construction of distribution and on-farm irri6 gation facilities to use water savings resulting from the 

7 Wapato Irrigation Project system improvements for8 (A) demonstrating cost-effective state of the art 

9 irrigation water management and conservation, 

10 (B) the training of tribal members in irrigation 

11 methods, operation, and management, and 

12 (C) upgrading existing hydroelectric facilities 

13 and construction of additional hydroelectric facilities 

14 on the reservation to meet irrigation pumping power 

15 needs. 

16 (c) TOPPENISH CREEK CORRIDOR ENHANCEMENT 

17 PROJECT APPROPRIATIONS.-There is hereby authorized 

18 to be appropriated to the Secretary $1,500,000 for the 

19 further investigation by the Yakima Indian Nation of 

20 measures to develop a Toppenish Creek corridor enhance21 ment project to demonstrate integration of management 

22 of agricultural, fish, wildlife, and cultural resources to 

23 meet tribal objectives and such amount as the Secretary 

24 subsequently determines is neeessary for implementation. 

25 There is also authorized to be appropriated to the Sec-
18 

17 

1 retary such sums as may be necessary for the operation 

2 and maintenance of the Toppenish Enhancement Project. 

3 (d) REPORT.-Within 5 years of the implementation 

4 of the Irrigation Demonstration Project and the 

5 Toppenish Enhancement Project, the Secretary, in con6 sultation with the Yakima Indian Nation, shall report to 

7 the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the 

8 Senate, the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of 

9 the House of Representatives, and the Governor of the 

10 State of Washington on the effectiveness of the conserva11 tion, training, mitigation, and other measures imple12 mented. 

13 (e) STATUS OF IMPROVEMENTS AND FACILITIES.-

14 The Wapato Irrigation Project system improvements and 

15 any specific irrigation facility of the Irrigation Demonstra16 tion Project and the Toppenish Enhancement Project shall 

17 become features of the Wapato Irrigation Project. 

18 (f) TREATMENT OF CERTAIN COSTS.-Costs related 

19 to Wapato Irrigation Project improvements, the Irrigation 

20 Demonstration Project, and the Toppenish Enhancement 

21 Project shall be a Federal responsibility and are 

22 nonreimbursable and nonreturnable. 

23 SEC. 6. OPERATION OF YAKIMA BASIN PROJEC1'8. 

24 (a) WATER SAVINGS FROM BASIN CONSERVATION 

25 PROORAM.-(1) The Basin Conservation Program is in-
19 

18 

1 tended to result in reductions in water diversions allowing 

2 for changes in the present operation of the Yakima Project 

3 to improve streamflow conditions in the Yakima River 

4 basin. Commencing with the enactment of this Act, and 

5 notwithstanding that anticipated water savings are yet to 

6 be realized, the Secretary shall, through the Yakima 

7 Project Superintendent, (A) continue to estimate the 

8 water supply which is anticipated to be available to meet 

9 water entitlements; and (B) provide instream flows in ac10 cordance with the following criteria. 

Water Supply Estimate for Period (million acre Target Flow from Date 

feet): of Estimate thru October 

Downstream of (cubic 

feet per second): 

April thru May thru June thru July thru 1-· . j 

September September September September ~~:~~~ 

1

, Pro~rDDi- __L Dam versiOn am 

o) 3.2 J·---;;---2.4 --1-· ; _;-- TJ ~t 6oo 

{2 ) 2.9 I 2.65 2.2 I 1.7 500 500 

(:l) 2.65 ! 2.4 I 2.0 1.5 I 400 400 

____ I.,<'ss than line 3 water supply . 300 300 

11 The figures in the water supply columns shall hereafter 

12 in this section be referred to as "full supply". 

13 (2) The instream flows represent target flows at the 

14 respective points. Reasonable fluctuations from these tar15 get flows are anticipated in the operation of the Yakima 

16 Pr~iect. 

17 ( 3; The inst:rcam flows shall be increased for interim 

18 pt;riods during aiJy month of April through October to fa19 cilitatc when eces~~ary the outward migration of anad-
20 

19 

1 romous fish. Increased instream flows for such interim pe2 riods shall be obtained through voluntary sale and leasing 

3 of water or water rights. 

4 ( 4) The Secretary, in cooperation with the State of 

5 Washington, the Yakima Indian Nation, and Yakima 

6 River basin irrigators, shall not less than every fifth year 

7 after the completion of the first measure of the Basin Con8 servation Program, review the components which comprise 

9 the full supply. If the actual supply reflects an increase 

10 in relation to the quantity required to meet irrigation 

11 water entitlements and a reduction in water diversions 

12 which is attributed to the Basin Conservation Program, 

13 the full supply figures shown in the criteria tabulation may 

14 be adjusted downward as mutually determined and the 

15 Yakima Project shall be operated by the Yakima Project 

16 Superintendent in accordance with such adjusted criteria. 

17 Water savings resulting from improvements to the Wapato 

18 Irrigation Project shall be available for use of the Yakima 

19 Indian Nation for irrigation and other purposes on the 

20 reservation and for protection and enhancement of fish 

21 and wildlife within the Yakima River Basin. 

22 (5) Operational procedures and processes in the Yak23 1ma River basin which have or may be implemented 

24 through judicial actions shall not be impacted by this Act. 
21 

20 

1 (b) WATER FRoM LAKE CLE ELUM.-Water accru2 ing from the development of additional storage capacity 

3 at Lake Cle Elum, made available pursuant to the modi4 fications authorized in section 6(a), shall be considered a 

5 part of the basin's water supply as provided in subsection 

6 (a)(l). Releases may be made from other Yakima Project 

7 storage facilities to most effectively utilize this additional 

8 water, except that water deliveries to holders of existing 

9 water rights shall not be impaired. 

10 (c) STATUS OF BASIN CONSERVATION PRoGRAM FAll CILITIES.-Measures of the Basin Conservation Program 

12 which are implemented on facilities currently under the 

13 administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary, except as pro14 vided in section 4, shall be considered features of the Yak15 ima River Basin Water Enhancement Project, and their 

16 operation and maintenance shall be integrated and coordi17 nated with other features of the existing Yakima Project. 

18 The responsibility for operation and maintenance and the 

19 related costs shall remain with the current operating en20 tity . . As appropriate, the Secretary shall incorporate the 

21 operation and maintenance of such facilities into existing 

22 agreements. The Secretary shall assure that such facilities 

23 are operated in a manner consistent with Federal . and 

24 State law and in accordance with water rights recognized 

25 pursuant to State and Federal law. 
22 

21 

1 (d) WATER ACQUIRED BY PuRcHAsE AND LEAsE.-

2 Water acquired from voluntary sellers and lessors shall be 

3 administered in accordance with the laws of the State of 

4 Washington, including Chapter 90.38 Revised Code of 

5 Washington. 

6 (e) APPROPRIATION FOR CHANDLER POWER CANAL 

7 0PERATIONS.-There is hereby authorized to be appro8 priated to the Secretary $480,000 at September 1990 

9 prices, plus or minus such amounts as may be justified 

10 by reason of ordinary fluctuations of applicable cost in11 dexes, for facilities to automate the headgate, wasteways, 

12 and trashrack of the Chandler Power Canal to maintain 

13 operating controls for the delivery of water to the 

14 Kennewick Division as the provisions of subsection (a) are 

15 implemented. 

16 SEC. 8. LAKE CLE ELUM AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIA17 TIONS. 

18 (a) MODIFICATIONS AND lMPROVEMENTS.-There is 

19 hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary20 (1) at September 1990 prices, plus or minus 

21 such amounts as may be justified by reason of ordi22 nary fluctuation of applicable indexes, $2,934,000 

23 to-
23 

22 

1 (A) modify the radial gates at Cle Elum 

2 Dam to provide an additional 14,600 acre-feet 

3 of storage capacity in Lake Cle Elum, 

4 (B) provide for shoreline protection of 

5 Lake Cle Elum, and 

6 (C) construct juvenile fish passage facili7 ties at Cle Elum Dam, plus 

8 (2) such additional amounts as may be nec9 essary which may be required for environmental 

10 mitigation. 

11 (b) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE APPROPRIA12 TIONS.-There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to 

13 the Secretary such sums as may be necessary for that por14 tion of the operation and maintenance of Cle Elum Dam 

15 determined by the Secretary to be a Federal responsibility. 

16 SEC. 7. ENHANCEMENT OF WATER SUPPLIES FOR YAKIMA 

17 BASIN TRIBUTARIES. 

18 (a) GENERAL PROVISIONS.-The following shall be 

19 applicable to the investigation and implementation of 

20 measures to enhance water supplies for fish and wildlife 

21 and irrigation purposes on tributaries of the Yakima River 

22 basin: 

23 ( 1) An enhancement program undertaken in 

24 any tributary shall be contingent upon the agree-
24 

23 

1 ment of appropriate water right owners to partici2 pate. 

3 (2) The enhancement program shall not impair 

4 (A) the water rights of any water right owners in 

5 the tributary; (B) the capability of tributary water 

6 users to divert, convey, and apply water; and (C) ex7 isting water and land uses within the tributary area. 

8 (3) The water supply for tributary enhancement 

9 shall be administered in accordance with the laws of 

10 the State of Washington. 

11 ( 4) Any enhancement program shall be predi12 cated upon the availability of a dependable water 

13 supply. 

14 (b) STUDY.-(1) The Secretary, following consulta15 tion with the State of Washington, the tributary water 

16 right owners, and the Yakima Indian Nation, and agree17 ment of appropriate water right owners to participate, 

18 shall conduct a study concerning the measures that can 

19 be implemented to enhance water supplies for fish and 

20 wildlife and irrigation purposes on Taneum Creek, includ21 ing (but not limited to)-

22 (A) water use efficiency improvements; 

23 (B) the conveyance of water from the Yakima 

24 Project through the facilities of any irrigation entity 
25 

24 

1 willing to contract with the Secretary without ad2 verse impact to water users; 

3 (C) the construction, operation, and mainte4 nance of ground water withdrawal facilities; 

5 (D) contracting with any entity that is willing 

6 to voluntarily limit or forego present water use 

7 through lease or sale of water or water rights on a 

8 temporary or permanent basis; 

9 (E) purchase of water rights from willing 

10 sellers; and 

11 (F) other measures compatible with the pur12 poses of this Act, including restoration of stream 

13 habitats. 

14 (2) In conducting the Taneum Creek study, the Sec15 retary shall consider16 (A) the hydrologic and environmental character17 istics; 

18 (B) the engineering and economic factors relat19 ing to each measure; and 

20 (C) the potential impacts upon the operations 

21 of present water users in the tributary and measures 

22 to alleviate such impacts. 

23 (3) The Secretary shall make available to the public 

24 for a 45-day comment period a draft report describing in 

25 detail the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of 
26 

25 

1 the study. The Secretary shall consider and include any 

2 comment made in developing a final report. The Sec3 retary' s final report shall be submitted to the Committee 

4 on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate, the Com5 mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of 

6 Representatives, and the Governor of the State, and made 

7 available to the public. 

8 (c) IMPLEMENTATION OF NONSTORAGE MEAs9 URES.-After securing the necessary permits the Sec10 retary may, in cooperation with the Department of Ecol11 ogy of the State of Washington and in accordance with 

12 the laws of the State of Washington, implement 

13 nonstorage measures identified in the final report under 

14 subsection (b) upon fulfillment of the following conditions: 

15 (1) The Secretary shall enter into an agreement 

16 with the appropriate water right owners who are 

17 willing to participate, the State of Washington, and 

18 the Yakima Indian Nation, for the use and manage19 ment of the water supply to be provided by proposed 

20 tributary measures pursuant to this section. 

21 (2) The Secretary and the State of Washington 

22 find that the implementation of the proposed tribu23 tary measures will not impair the water rights of 

24 any person or entity in the affected tributary. 
27 

26 

1 (d) OTHER YAKIMA RIVER BASIN TRffiUTARIES.-

2 Similar enhancement programs may be investigated and 

3 implemented by the Secretary in other tributaries contin4 gent upon the agreement of the appropriate tributary 

5 water right owners to participate. The provisions set forth 

6 in this section shall be applicable to such programs. 

7 (e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.-(1) 

8 There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Sec9 retary $500,000 for the study of the Taneum Creek 

10 Project and such amount as the Secretary subsequently 

11 determines is necessary for implementation of tributary 

12 measures pursuant to this section. 

13 (2) There is also authorized to be appropriated to the 

14 Secretary such funds as the Secretary determines are nec15 essary for the investigation of similar enhancement pro16 grams in other Yakima River basin tributaries contingent 

17 upon the agreement of the appropriate water right owners 

18 to participate. Funds for the implementation of any simi19 lar enhancement program shall be appropriated to the 

20 Secretary following the submittal of an investigation re21 port to the appropriate congressional committees. 

22 SEC. 8. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE. 

23 (a) NEPA.-Implementation of the provisions of this 

24 Act is contingent upon compliance by the Secretary with 

76-655 0 - 94 - 2 
28 

27 

1 the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act 

2 of 1969. 

3 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.-There 

4 are hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary 

5 $2,000,000 for environmental compliance activities includ6 ing the conduct, in cooperation with the State of Washing7 ton, of an inventory of wildlife and wetland resources in 

8 the Yakima River basin and an investigation of measures 

9 including "wetland banking", which could be implemented 

10 to address potential impacts which could result from the 

11 activities taken under this Act. 

12 SEC. 9. SAVINGS PROVISIONS. 

13 Nothing in this Act shall be construed to14 ( 1) affect or modify any treaty or other right of 

15 the Yakima Indian Nation; 

16 (2) authorize the appropriation or use of water 

17 by any Federal, State, or local agency, the Yakima 

18 Indian Nation, or any other entity or individual; 

19 (3) impair the rights or jurisdictions of the 

20 United States, the States, the Yakima Indian Na21 tion, or other entities over waters of any river or 

22 stream or over any ground water resource; 

23 (4) alter, amend, repeal, interpret, modify, or 

24 be in conflict with any interstate compact made by 

25 the States; 
29 

28 

1 (5) alter, establish, or impair the respective 

2 rights of States, the United States, the Yakima In3 dian Nation, or any other entity or individual with 

4 respect to any water or water-related right; 

5 (6) alter, diminish, or abridge the rights and 

6 obligations of any Federal, State, or local agency, 

7 the Yakima Indian Nation, or other entity, public or 

8 private; 

9 (7) affect or modify the rights of the Yakima 

10 Indian Nation or its successors in interest to, and 

11 management and regulation of, those water re12 sources arising or used, within the external bound13 aries of the Yakima Indian Reservation; 

14 (8) affect or modify the settlement agreement 

15 between the United States and the State of Wash16 ington filed in Yakima County Superior Court with 

17 regard to Federal reserved water rights other than 

18 those rights reserved by the United States for the 

19 benefit of the Yakima Indian Nation and its mem20 hers; or 

21 (9) affect or modify the rights of any Federal, 

22 State, or local agency, the Yakima Indian Nation, or 

23 any other entity, public or private with respect to 

24 any unresolved and unsettled claims in any water 

25 right adjudications, or court decisions, including 
30 

29 

1 State against Acquavella, or constitute evidence in 

2 any such proceeding in which any water or water re3 lated right is adjudicated. 
31 

Mr. AMBERCROMBIE. First, we will hear from the gentleman from 

the State of Washington about his bill. Mr. Inslee, I am pleased to 

have you here. 

STATEMENT OF BON. JAY INSLEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

Mr. INSLEE. I want to thank you for holding this hearing on this 

issue which is so important to the State ofWashington. 

I want to add a comment that Representative Morrison's leadership was incredible on this project. Assuming that it reaches fruition, he will deserve 90 percent of the credit. 

The legislation before you is a product of compromise on the part 

of all these groups and reflects a real understanding of the political 

realities of the day. 

I believe this bill provides one of our best opportunities to acquire salmon habitat in the Northwest. We in the Northwest are 

very concerned that the salmon situation will end in an environmental/ecological train wreck much the same way the old growth 

forests situation has. By protecting the habitat ahead of time, this 

legislation will help to avoid the kind of agony that we have experienced with old growth forests. Another advantage of this bill is that 

by using conservation, we expand the options for all users of the 

water. 

Water conservation has the potential to significantly extend the 

amount of water available This would reduce irrigation shortages, 

which threaten the farmers in the Yakima Basin. In fact, we have 

had several water-short years recently; this bill would help farmers 

in future water-short years. It would also enhance instream flows, 

which will aid anadromous fish. 

Mr. Chairman, this legislation meets the needs of the future in 

a way that is realistic. The way it was developed is, in my opinion, 

a model for the kind of cooperation that is needed to solve the natural resource dilemmas we will face in the Northwest and across 

the country. I urge the subcommittee to favorably consider H.R. 

1690. I know I have heard questions very recently about some things 

in the bill. I look forward to meeting with all parties to resolve 

those. Thank you very much. [Prepared statement of Mr. Inslee follows:] 
32 

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JAY INSLEE 

REGARDING H.R. 1690 

BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

September 23, 1993 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the other 

members of the subcommittee very much for holding this hearing on 

H.R. 1690, which would authorize phase two of the Yakima River 

Basin Water Enhancement Project. I know we have a lot of 

witnesses today, so I will keep my comments brief. 

This bill would authorize conservation improvements in the 

irrigation projects in the Yakima River Basin. As you know, this 

legislation was developed by my predecessor, Rep. Sid Morrison, 

in conjunction with groups and organizations that have an 

interest in the Yakima River Basin, including the Yakima Indian 

Nation, irrigators, the State of Washington, the Bonneville Power 

Administration and the Bureau of Reclamation. The legislation 

before you today is the product of compromise on the part of all 

of these groups and reflects an understanding of the political 

realities of our day. 

I believe this bill provides one of our best opportunities 

to acquire Salmon habitat in the Northwest. We in the Northwest 

are very concerned that the Salmon situation will end in an 

environmental/ecological train wreck much the same way the old 
33 

growth forests situation has. By protecting the habitat ahead of 

time, this legislation will help to avoid the kind of agony that 

we have experienced with old growth forests . Another advantage 

of this bill is that by using conservation, we expand the options 

for all users of the water . 

Water conservation has the potential to significantly extend 

the amount of water available. This would reduce irrigation 

shortages, which threaten the farmers in the Yakima Basin . In 

fact, we have had several water short years recently; this bill 

would help farmers in future water short years. It would also 

enhance instream flows, which will aid anadromous fish. 

Mr. Chairman , this legislation meets the needs of the future 

in a way that is realistic. The way it was developed is, i n my 

opinion, a model for the kind of cooperation that is needed to 

solve the natural resource dilemmas we will face in the Northwest 

and across the c ountry. I urge the subcommittee to favorably 

consider H.R. 1690. Thank you very much . 
34 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you. We will begin our first panel-Dan Beard, Jack Robertson, and 

Ken Slattery. 

If it is all right with everyone we will begin with Dan Beard, 

Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation of the Department of 

the Interior. 

If I am not mistaken, Dan, this is your first appearance before 

the committee that you helped guide in the past. I am very, very 

pleased, I think, to be the first person on the Natural Resources 

Committee to be able to welcome you. 

PANEL CONSISTING OF DANIEL P. BEARD, COMMISSIONER, 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; JACK ROBERTSON, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION, PORTLAND, OR; AND KEN 

SLATTERY, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, WATER RESOURCES 

PROGRAM, DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY, STATE OF WASIDNGTON, OLYMPIA, WA 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL P. BEARD 

Mr. BEARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I must tell you, the view from down here is a lot different from 

up here. 

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to appear before the subcommittee today to testify on H.R. 1690, a bill to authorize certain elements of the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project, and 

for other purposes. 

This bill represents the culmination of a long, collaborative effort 

to conserve scarce water resources, with participation and respon- sibility shared by virtually every interest in the Yakima River watershed. 

The administration supports this cooperative effort, and applauds the various interest groups in the State of Washington that 

have worked to build a consensus on this issue. While we applaud 

and endorse these efforts, we do have some concerns with the bill. 

The Department of the Interior's major concerns with H.R. 1690 

relate to five principal areas: one, as yet unquantified tribal 

instream flow requirements for fish, since the Yakima Nation is a 

Stevens Treaty tribe; two, tribal ground and surface water rights, 

since the surface water rights are currently under adjudication and 

ground water has not been adjudicated; three, the operational implications to the Wapato Irrigation Project; four, whether benefits 

to fisheries and other public purposes are commensurate with the 

level of Federal cost sharing contained in the bill; and five, granting authorization of implementation measures prior to a comprehensive study of alternatives for meeting the Secretary's responsibilities in the Basin. The Department would be pleased to work 

with the subcommittee to resolve these concerns and to move the 

bill forward. 

H.R. 1690 would authorize in excess of $100 million to carry out 

the purposes of the bill. These activities would have to compete for 

funds within the discretionary caps within the Omnibus Budget 

Reconciliation Act of 1993. 
35 

My comments before you today will provide a brief background 

on the Yakima Project, but will focus primarily on the bill's emphasis on a watershed management approach to resolving Western 

water problems. This approach is supported by the Department of 

the Interior throughout the West. 

The Bureau of Reclamation's existing Yakima Project, developed 

primarily for agricultural purposes, consists of six irrigation water 

service divisions and a storage division. 

The irrigation districts of the six water service divisions are the 

major water use entities in the Basin and are responsible for the 

diversion, conveyance, and delivery of water to landowners within 

their service areas. 

In 1989, over 350,000 acres were irrigated in the Basin, producing crops with a gross value of $500 million. . Reclamation operates the storage division, which consists of six 

reservoirs with a total capacity of just over one million acre-feet. 

Project operation each year is keyed to meeting irrigation diversions and maximizing reservoir carryover to assure an adequate 

water supply in subsequent years. Natural and return flows are 

generally adequate to meet irrigation demands through the end of 

June. 

However, storage releases have begun as early as May in dry 

years and as late as August in wet years. This year, natural runoff 

was deficient, and water was released from storage in mid-June. 

The water supply available for irrigation this year has been 

about 60--65 percent of potential contract deliveries. 

Efforts to improve water supply conditions in the Yakima River 

basin have been pursued for many years. Initially, activities focused on the development of additional storage facilities. 

However, the construction of additional dams was not an acceptable option. Recent efforts have been directed toward water conservation measures so that instream flows can be met and irrigation supplies can be enhanced. 

Phase One of the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement 

Project was initiated in 1984. Under Phase One, fish passage and 

protective facilities were constructed. 

This bill would authorize Phase Two of the Enhancement Project. 

It focuses on structural and nonstructural water conservation 

measures to facilitate maintenance of instream flows and improve 

potential for meeting consumptive water demands. 

The major feature of the bill, the Basin Conservation Program, 

ties together measures designed to achieve stream-flow-related 

habitat needs of salmon and steelhead, enhance the economy of the 

Yakima Indian Nation, and improve the health of the local irrigated agriculture based economy. 

The Pacific Northwest Power Planning Council, the Bonneville 

Power administration, the Yakima Indian Nation, the State of 

Washington, irrigation entities, BIA, the United States Geological 

Survey, as well as the Bureau of Reclamation have cooperated in 

developing these measures. The USGS National Water Quality Assessment study in the Yakima basin can provide information on 

changes in water quality as related to changes in basin management. 
36 

AB measures are implemented under the Basin Conservation 

Program, instream flows can be further enhanced. A key component is implementation with feedback through monitoring and 

evaluation to facilitate the refinement of the program elements 

over time. 

The bill also provides for water resource activities on the Yakima 

Indian Reservation, at the discretion of the tribe. Funds for improvements to the Wapato Irrigation Project of up to $10 million 

are initially authorized with water savings for "irrigation and other 

purposes on the reservation and for protection and enhancement of 

fish and wildlife within the Yakima River Basin." 

An Irrigation Demonstration Project is authorized, subject to approval by the Secretary, using cost-effective, water management, 

and conservation. It would also provide training for tribal members 

in state-of-the-art irrigation methods and water management. 

Funds are also authorized for further planning by the tribe of the 

Toppenish Creek Corridor Enhancement Project to demonstrate integrated management of agricultural, fish, wildlife, and cultural resources. All funds authorized for water resource activities on the 

Yakima Indian Reservation are nonreimbursable. 

Checkpoints for implementing the Basin Conservation Program 

step-by-step are established by this bill. These checkpoints include 

decision-making by a local oversight group, the Yakima Indian Nation, the State government, the Secretary of the Interior, and the 

Congress. 

Local, State, and Federal funds will be dedicated over time for 

cost-shared implementation as water-user proposals for conservation are approved. This represents an innovative approach to resolving watershed problems. 

An analysis of the cost effectiveness of specific measures and environmental compliance documents, including Endangered Species 

Act considerations, would be completed prior to Secretarial approval for any action or expenditure of Federal funds. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony on H.R. 1690. I 

would be happy to answer any questions that you have. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Beard follows:] 
37 

STATEMFNT OF DANIEL P. BEARD 

COMMISSIONER or RECLAMATION 

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

ON H.R. 1690, THE YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT ACT 

SEPTEMBER 23, 1993 

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to appear before the Subcommittee today to 

testify on H.R. 1690, a bill to authorize certain elements of the Yakima River 

Basin Water Enhancement Project, and for other purposes. This bill represents a colliborative effort to conserve scarce water resources, with participation and responsibility shared by virtually every interest in the Yakima River 

watershed. The Administration supports this cooperative effort, and applauds the various interest groups in the State of Washington that have worked to 

build a ~onsensus on this issue. However, we do have concerns with this bill. 

The Department of the Interior's major concerns with H.R. 1690 relate to five 

principal areas: (1) as yet unquantified tribal instream flow requirements for 

fish, since the Yakima Nation is a Stevens Treaty tribe; (2) tribal ground and 

surface water rights, since the surface water rights are currently under 

adjudication and ground water has not been adjudicated; (3) the operational implications to the Wapato Irrigation Project; (4) whether benefits to 

fisheries and other public purposes are commensurate with the level of Federal 

cost sharing contained in the bill; and (5) granting authorization of 

implementation measures prior to a comprehensive study of alternatives for 

meeting the Secretary's responsibilities in the Basin. The Department would 

be pleased to work with the Subcommittee to resolve these concerns. 

H.R. 169r. would authorize in excess of $100 million to carry out the purposes of the bill. These activities would have to compete for funds within the 

discretionary caps within the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation .tlct of 1993. 

My comments before you today will provide a brief background on the Yakima 

Project, but will focus primarily on the bill's emphasis on a watershed 

management approach to resolving Western water problems. This approach is 

supported by the Department of the Interior (DOl) throughout the West. 

The Yakima River Basin is located in south-central Washington on the east side 

of the Cascade Range. The Yakima River and its major tributary, the Naches 

River, flow southeast to join near the City of Yakima, Washington. Further to 

the southeast, the Yakima River flows into the Columbia River. The Yakima 

River forms the eastern boundary of the Yakima Indian Reservation, which 

encompasses about one million acres in the southwest corner of the Basin. The 

Yakima River also provides the principal water source for the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs' (BIA) Wapato Irrigation Project which is located on the Yakima Indian 

Reservation and serves Indian and non-Indian water users. 
38 

The Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, adopted by the Northwest 

Power Planning Council in 1992, identified the Yakima River Ba.sin as one of 

the areas in the Pacific Northwest with the greatest potential for the · production of salmon and steelhead, although some basin stocks are currently classified as weak. Lessons learned from efforts in the Yakima Basin could be 

applicable to the Columbia River Basin, where several species of anadr~mo••s 

fish have already been listed as endangered or threatened and where additional 

petitions for listing can be expected. 

The Bureau of Reclamation's (Reclamation's) existing Yakima Project, developed primarily for agricultural purposes, consists of six irrigation water service 

divisions and a storage division. The irrigation districts of the six water 

service divisions are the major water use entities in the Basin and are responsible for the diversion, conveyance and delivery of water to landowners 

within their service areas. In 1989, over 350,000 acres were irrigated in the 

Basin, .producing crops with a gross value of $500 million. 

Reclamation operates the storage division, which consists of six reservoirs 

with a total capacity of just over one million acre-feet. Project operation each year is keyed to meeting irrigation diversions and maximizing reservoir 

carryover to assure an adequate water supply in subsequent years. Natural and 

return flows are generally adequate to meet irrigation demands through the end 

of June. However, storage releases have begun as early as Hay in dry years and as late as August in wet years. This year, natural runoff was deficient 

and water was released from storage in mid-June. The water supply available 

for irrigation this year has been about 60 to 65 percent of potential contract 

deliveries. 

Efforts to improve water supply conditions in the Yakima River Basin have been 

pursued for many years. Initially, activities focused on the development of 

additional storage facilities. However, the construction of additional dams was not an acceptable option. Recent efforts have been directed toward water 

conservation measures so that instream flows can be met and irrigation supplies can be enhanced. 

Phase One of the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project was initiated in 

1984, after Congress authorized Federal participation. Under Phase One, fish 

passage and protective facilities were constructed. These ladders and screens are critical to the successful migration of salmon and steelhead in the Basin. 

This bill would authorize Phase Two of the Enhancement Project . It focuses on structural and nonstructural water conservation measures to facilitate 

maintenance of instream flows and improve potential for meeting consumptive 

water demands. 

The major fe~ture of the bill, the Basin Conservation Program, ties together measures designed to achieve stream flow related habitat needs of salmon and 

steelhead, enhance the economy of the Yakima Indian Nation, and improve the 

health of the local irrigated agriculture-based economy. The Pacific 

Northwest Power Planning Council, the Bonneville Power Administration, the 

Yakima Indian Nation, the State of Washington, irrigation entities, BIA, the 

United States Geological Survey (USGS) and Reclamation have cooperated in 
39 

developing these mea~ures. The USGS Nati~nal Water Quality Assessment study Tn the Yakima Basin can prov.ide information on changes· In water quality as related t0 changes ·in basin management. 

As measures are imple!llented under the .;as;;~ Conservation Program, instream 

flows can ~e further e!'lha.nced . A key Ct'"llponent Is implementation with · · feedback through monitoring and evaluation. to facilitate the refinement of the 

program elements over time. 

The bill also provides for water resource activities on the Yakima Indian 

Reservation, at the discretion of the tribe. Funds for improvements to the 

Wapato Irrigation Project of up to $10 million are Initially authorized with 

water savings for "Irrigation and other purposes on the reservation and for 

protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife within the Yakima River 

Basin." An Irrigation Demonstration Project is authorized, subject to 

approval by"the Secretary, using cost-effective water management and 

conservation. It would also provide training for tribal members in state-ofthe-art irrigation methods and water management. 

Funds are also authorized for further planning by the tribe of the Toppenish Creek Corridor Enhancement Project to demonstrate Integrated management of 

agricultural, fish, wildlife, and cultural resources. All funds authorized 

for water resource activities on the Yakima Indian reservation are nonreimbursable. 

Checkpoints for implementing the Basin Conservation Program step-by-step are established by this bill. These checkpoints include decisionmaking by a local 

oversight group, the Yakima Indian Nation, the State government, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Congress. Local, State, and Federal funds will be 

dedicated over time for cost-shared implementation as water user proposals for 

conservation are approved . This represents an innovative approach to 

resolving watershed problems. 

An analysis of the cost-effectiveness of specific measures and environmental 

compliance documents, including Endangered Species Act considerations, would 

be compl~~ed prior to Secretarial approval for any action or expenditure of 

Federal funds. 

Mr Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, that concludes my testimony on H.R. 1690. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

3 
40 

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, if I might interrupt for a 

moment, I apologize for the fact that I must leave shortly. Mr. Vento is holding a hearing on national parks in another building. 

I apologize to you and to the witnesses. I just wanted to point out, Mr. Chairman, that these two bills 

were introduced by Mr. Morrison and Mr. Marlenee in the last session of Congress. They did not move. I would not suspect that there 

is any partisanship involved here. But all I wanted to suggest is 

that--

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Especially with me here today. 

Mr. SMITH of Oregon [continuing]. Yes. I will not allow that to 

diminish my enthusiasm for both of these bills, which I support. Please excuse me. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. We certainly will. Mr. Beard, thank you very much for your testimony. Mr. Beard 

has not been forgotten for his service on the committee. You set our 

standard. You were just within the five-minute mark. Out of courtesy to the large numbers of people who plan to testify, if we can keep the testimony to five minutes, I can assure you, 

as Mr. Beard will assure you, that the committee pays close attention to everything that is submitted. 

In order to advance the cause then, if we can stick to the fiveminute admonition-! won't say rule-but then we could get everyone in and extend the courtesy we need for everyone's point of 

view. 

Mr. INSLEE. I want to tell you how much we appreciate your desire to move this along, Mr. Beard. In all these processes we have 

questions that come up during the process about the bill, the T's 

and the I's. I wonder if you had any comments or advice to the parties as we 

go through this process on how to assure that we keep the consensus together that has been remarkable so far to get this all across 

the goal line. I will ask for your advice in that regard. Mr. BEARD. I think the most important thing to remember is the 

word "framework." This legislation, in my mind, represents a 

framework for resolution of the problems. Sure, there are problems 

with this bill: The administration has problems; the tribe has problems; the irrigation districts have more that they would have liked 

to have achieved. BPA, I am sure, has things they would like. Every interest has problems. 

But I think we have to recognize we don't have any alternative 

but for all the parties in this room and the ones who are not here 

today to sit down and continue to work to try to resolve these problems. 

This bill represents a very workable framework for solving those 

problems. It takes the approach we need to promote by enhancing 

water conservation and efficiency improvements and other meas- ures which are not even identified. We must then do our best to 

take that water, the saved water and make it available for fisheries 

restoration. 

The choice we have is between two alternatives: We continue 

down this road using this bill as a vehicle, or we all go back to 

court. It is as simple as that. I think everybody in this room would 

agree that going back to court is not the right approach because 
41 

the courts can't provide the kinds of flexibility and tradeoffs that 

are needed to ultimately resolve this problem. 

Given your question, I would urge the parties to continue to work 

within this framework, which I think is acceptable to everybody in 

this room, and to try to seek common ground and understanding. 

I think the other thing that we all need is a little bit of faith in 

one another. 

I have heard some criticisms in the past few days that there are 

not guarantees particular things will happen. For example, will the 

saved water actually go for instream uses? 

Well, I think everybody in this room assumes that that is the 

case. We have to have a little bit of faith in one another concerning 

what is going to happen with the saved water. 

I think we all sort of have to lock hands and jump in the swimming pool together rather than do this individually. 

If for some reason that doesn't happen down the road, this bill 

passes and it doesn't happen, people can always go back to where 

they are today. This means going back to court or fighting for appropriations in the Congress or whatever. But I would urge the 

parties to use the framework and continue the negotiations and the 

dialogue. 

Mr. INSLEE. I appreciate that comment. I think you are entirely 

correct. In my view, it is better to frame the house even if we don't 

know the color of the trim at the moment. I appreciate those comments. I hope everyone was listening to them. I look forward to 

working with you. Thank you. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I was told that not everybody could hear me, 

which might have been the first time in my life. 

Can everybody hear now? 

The committee will ask some questions. Rather than go through 

everything in detail today, you may receive some written questions 

later. So if there are some things that are not covered in the hearing, that doesn't mean questions are not in mind. 

Mr. Beard, we will be sending you some detailed questions on 

cost sharing, how precisely that will be divided up and your administration approach to this and what progress toward restoring fishing resources, how they will be measured, what the measurement 

activity will be; then, on the State water rights system, whether or 

not that might impede any implementation on conservation. 

You need not answer all these things at this point; but if you 

have a summary statement with regard to any or all of them, that 

would be welcome at this time. 

Mr. BEARD. We would be happy to answer those questions for the 

record. If there are any that are of particular interest to the committee, I suppose I could address them now. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. We would rather have it in detail than some 

kind of a once-over. I think that serves the purpose of getting the 

bill passed. Very good. Thank you very much. 

Congratulations, again. I know the country is well served by your 

being in that position. 

Mr. BEARD. Thank you. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Now we will move to Mr. Jack Robertson who 

is the deputy Administrator. 
42 

STATEMENT OF JACK ROBERTSON 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the spirit of your 

admonition, I sliced some of my testimony. But I want to lead off 

on a personal note. 

We just want to make known to the committee how much Bonneville has already appreciated Mr. Beard's efforts at the Bureau on 

behalf of water conservation, not just in the Yakima basin, but particularly in the Snake basin where we face some equally serious 

challenges. 

I will be as brief as I can, Mr. Chairman. The Yakima River 

Basin Program in the bill at issue represents, as Dan said, an ambitious cooperative effort. It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee to testify in support of the Yakima River Basin Water 

Enhancement Program in the State of Washington. The Yakima River Basin Program and the bill at issue represent 

an ambitious cooperative undertaking of the Northwest Power 

Planning Council, the Bonneville Power Administration, Yakima 

Indian Nation, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, State of Washington, 

and the Yakima Basin irrigation entities. 

All the entities involved in the effort have participated in the development of the program and have been responsible for integrating all program elements into a comprehensive watershed management approach. Bonneville supports this collaborative effort for 

water conservation measures that contribute to an ecosystem-based 

solution for watersheds such as that proposed in this bill. 

Bonneville initiated fish and wildlife enhancement efforts in the 

Yakima Basin in 1982 pursuant to the Pacific Northwest Electric 

Power Planning and Conservation Act (NW Power Act) and measures of the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. 

The Council identified the Yakima Basin as one of the areas with 

the greatest potential for enhancement of Columbia Basin salmon 

and steelhead populations. The basin is viewed as a model from 

which knowledge could be applied to other activities throughout the 

Columbia River basin. 

This is significant because several species of anadromous fish 

have been listed as threatened or endangered in the Pacific Northwest, and additional petitions for listing can be expected. Petitions 

have not been filed for stocks in the Yakima basin even though 

some are classified as weak. The work completed and under way 

has deterred filings on these stocks. Bonneville believes the water 

conservation measures under this bill will further contribute to enhancement of the Yakima basin ecosystem. 

I want to give you a quick overview. Mr. Chairman, Northwest 

electric ratepayers, through Bonneville, have invested more than 

$30 million in off-site mitigation efforts in the Yakima River basin. 

Bonneville completed a major fish screening program in 1989 in 

cooperation with U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the State of Washington, and the Yakima Indian Nation. Ratepayers continue to invest in Yakima basin fish and wildlife efforts in additional fishscreening projects, fish ladders for adult salmon and steelhead, 

habitat improvement projects, supplementation research, and in a 

wildlife trust agreement with the State of Washington. 
43 

One factor which would maximize these investments by Northwest electric ratepayers and others is a method to achieve improved instream flows. The bill before you identifies regional ratepayer investments in the Yakima River basin to be used as nonFederal cost sharing. 

We suggest that the bill clearly reflect all of Bonneville's contributions to the Yakima Program-past, present, and future-as 

the non-Federal portion of costs. 

Given Bonneville's current financial situation and the increasing 

competitive pressures Bonneville faces in electricity markets, we 

also suggest that the bill not create additional obligations on Bonneville's part above and beyond what is already required by the 

Northwest Power Act and the Columbia River Basin Fish and 

Wildlife Program. 

To give you a brief overview of Bonneville's fish and wildlife investments--our region-wide investment prior to 1992 amounted to 

about $150 million per year. 

The agency's costs for fish and wildlife investments are now over 

$300 million per year, including both Endangered Species Act 

(ESA)- and non-ESA related adivities. 

Fish-related expenses now account for roughly 12 percent of Bonneville's entire budget, which includes the net cost associated with 

the Residential Exchange Program. 

The Bonneville budget for the fish and wildlife program certainly 

reflects the region's increasing commitment to protect and enhance 

fish and wildlife and is, in fact, the largest fish and wildlife program in the world. 

We note that from fiscal year 1991 through fiscal year 1993, 

costs for power purchases and foregone revenues for fish mitigation 

increased dramatically-from about $50 million in 1991 to about 

$150 million in 1993. This increase is largely associated with increases in river flows for fish migration within the Columbia River 

basin combined with continued regional drought conditions. 

Annual investments increased by almost $150 million between 

fiscal year 1991 and fiscal year 1993. We do not expect costs to continue to escalate as they have over the past 10 years, rising from 

an expense of about $40 million a year in fiscal year 1983 to an 

expense of over $300 million a year in fiscal year 1993. However, 

if costs continue to escalate, the necessary rate increases could 

jeopardize the agency's ability to continue to fund this critical program. 

Additional rate increases could also result in a loss of Bonneville 

customers and subsequent revenues. This, in turn, could threaten 

Bonneville's financial well being, including our annual Treasury 

payment. 

Should these events occur, it could well lead to reduced funding 

for fish and wildlife. 

Bonneville is initiating what we term The "Competitiveness 

Project." We have just announced, as of this Monday, a cut of 600 

to 800 people in the course of the next 3 years in an effort to slim 

the organization and to make the organization more responsive to 

dramatically changing market conditions in the electric power industry. We believe we must do this in order to stay competitive. 

Further, we believe it is essential for us to do this to continue sta-
44 

ble funding, not just of our energy-based programs, but also our 

commitments to fish and wildlife implementation. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Yakima basin water conserva- tion effort is consistent with other watershed-related programs of 

particular interest to Bonneville and is a good example of how co- operative partnerships can serve the biological and economic needs 

within an ecosystem. 

Thanks very much for your time. [Prepared statement of Mr. Robertson follows:] 
45 

STATEMENT OF JOHNS. ROBERTSON 

DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR 

BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS, 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 23, 1993 
46 

Statement of Jack Robertson, Deputy Administrator 

Bonneville Power Administration 

September 23, 1993 

Mr. Chainnan, Members of the Subcommittee: it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to 

appear before this Subcommittee to testify in support of the Yakima River Basin Water 

Enhancement Program (Yakima Program) in the State of Washington. 

The Yakima River Basin Program, and the bill at issue, represent an ambitious cooperative 

undertaking of the Northwest Power Planning Council, the Bonneville Power 

Administration (Bonneville), Yakima Indian Nation, U.S. Bureau ofReclarnation, State of 

Washington, and the Yakima Basin irrigation entities. All the entities involved in the 

effort have participated in the development of the program and have been responsible for 

integrating all program elements into a comprehensive watershed management approach. 

Bonneville supports this collaborative effort for water conservation measures that 

contribute to an ecosystem-based solution for watersheds such as that proposed in this 

bill 

Today, my testimony will focus on Bonneville's involvement in fish and wildlife 

enhancement in the Yakima River Basin, our water conservation interests in general, and 

on Bonneville's investment in Columbia Basin fish and wildlife. 

YAKIMA PROJECT BACKGROUND 

The Yakima River Basin is located in central Washington State, immediately east of the 

Cascade Mountains. The Yakima River flows southeast and enters the Columbia River 

near Richland, Washington. The Yakima Indian Reservation encompasses approximately 

I million acres in the basin. 
47 

The Yakima Project is primarily operated by the Bureau of Reclamation and was 

developed primarily for irrigation purposes. Existing project facilities and irrigation 

diversions often adversely affect instream flows necessary for the enhancement and 

maintenance of Yakima River Basin salmon and steelhead. Flows necessary for the 

successful spawning, rearing, and migration of salmon and steelhead are often difficult to 

achieve on a continuous basis. Efforts to improve the water quality and supply in the 

Yakima River Basin have been attempted for many years. Initially, activities focused on 

additional water storage projects but, due to environmental issues, the attempt to 

construct more dams was abandoned. Recent efforts have been directed toward water 

conservation in an attempt to better use the existing water available and to enhance 

instream flows for fish and wildlife. 

Bonneville initiated fish and wildlife enhancement efforts in the Yakima Basin in 1982 

pursuant to the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act and 

measures of the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. The Council identified 

the Yakima Basin as one of the areas with the greatest potential for the enhancement of 

Columbia Basin salmon and steelhead populations. The basin is viewed as a model from 

which knowledge could be applied to other activities throughout the Columbia River 

Basin. This is significant because several species ofanadromous fish have been listed as 

threatened or endangered in the Pacific Northwest and additional petitions for listing can 

be expected. Petitions have not been filed for stocks in the Yakima Basin even though 

some are classified as weak. The work completed and underway has deterred filings on 

these stocks. Bonneville believes the water conservation measures under this bill will 

further contribute to enhancement of the Yakima Basin ecosystem. 

2 
48 

3 

BONNEVILLE'S INVESThfENI IN FISH AND Wn.DLIFE 

To date, Pacific Northwest electric ratepayers, through BoMeville, have invested more 

than $30 million in off-site mitigation efforts in the Yakima River Basin. BoMeville 

completed a major fish screening program in 1989 in cooperation with U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation, the State of Washington, and the Yakima Indian Nation. Ratepayers 

continue to invest in Yakima Basin fish and wildlife efforts in additional fish screening 

projects, fish ladders for adult salmon and steelhead, habitat improvement projects, 

supplementation research, and in a wildlife trust with the State of Washington. One factor 

which would maximize these investments by Northwest ratepayers and others is a method 

to achieve improved instream flows. The bill before you identifies regional ratepayer 

investments in the Yakima River Basin to be used as non-federal cost sharing. We suggest 

that the bill clearly reflect all of Bonneville's contribution to the Yakima Program, past, 

present, and future, as the non-federal portion of costs. Given BoMeville's current 

financial situation and the increasing competitive pressures BoMeville faces in electricity 

markets. we also suggest that the Bill not create additional obligations on BoMeville's 

part. above and beyond what is already required by the Northwest Power Act and the 

Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. 

Bonneville's annual fish and wildlife investments prior to 1992 amounted to about $150 

million. The agency's costs for fish and wildlife investments are now over $300 million per 

year, including both Endangered Species Act (ESA) and non-ESA related activities. Fish 

related expenses now account for roughly 12 percent ofBoMeville's entire budget, which 

includes the net cost associated with the Residential Exchange program. The BoMeville 

budget for the fish and wildlife program certainly reflects the region's increasing 

commitment to protect and enhance fish and wildlife and is, in fact, the largest fish and 

wildlife program in the world. 
49 

4 

I want to clarify what the $300 million in annual investments includes. Of the $300 million, 

about $149 million is for power purchases and foregone revenues for fish enhancement of 

which almost $110 million are the result of actions taken under the Endangered Species Act. 

About $57 million are for expenses to implement the Northwest Power Planning Council's 

Fish and Wildlife Program. The $57 million in expense, when coupled with $25.5 million in 

capital expenditures for fish and wildlife facilities, equates to Bonneville's fiscal year 1993 fish 

and wildlife budget of$82.5 million. About $44 million are identified for reimbursement of 

operations and maintenance expenses incurred by other Federal agencies--the Corps of 

Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service--for salmon 

recovery operations such as hatcheries and barging fish. Another $55 million in fixed 

expenses are identified for repayment of capital investments and interest for hatcheries, and 

fish ladders and screens at the dams. These fixed expenses are based on total completed 

capital investments through Fiscal Year (FY) 1992, of about $536 million for the Corps of 

Engineers, and about $76 million for Bonneville, totaling $612 million in investments. They 

are also additive to the $82.5 million fish and wildlife budget for 1993. 

We note that from FY 1991 through FY 1993, costs for power purchases and foregone 

revenues for fish mitigation increased dramatically--from about $50 million in 1991 to 

about $150 million in 1993. This increase is largely associated with increases in river 

flows for fish migration within the Columbia River Basin combined with continued 

regional drought conditions. 

Annual investments increased by almost $150 million between FY 1991 and FY 1993. We 

do not expect costs to continue to escalate as they have over the past I 0 years, rising from 

an expense of about $40 million a year in FY 1983 to an expense of over $300 million a 

year in FY 1993. However, if costs continue to escalate, the necessary rate increases 
50 

could jeopardize the agency's ability to continue to fund this critical program. Additional 

rate increases could also result in a loss of Bonneville customers and subsequent revenues. 

This, in tum, could threaten Bonneville's financial well being, including our annual 

Treasury payment. Should these events occur, it could well lead to reduced funding for 

fish and wildlife. 

lliE BP A COMPETfTIVENESS PROJECT 

Bonneville's Competitiveness Project, an effort through which we are striving to become 

more results-oriented, cost-conscious, customer-focused, and market-driven, is moving us 

to rethink how we accomplish our fish and wildlife responsibilities. Increasing our cost 

effectiveness in meeting these responsibilities will help sustain our business advantage and 

the financial viability. We see the results of the Competitiveness Project as helping 

Bonneville achieve both long-term rate stability, and long-term stability in fish and wildlife 

program funding. 

Our customers as well as the State and Federal fish and wildlife agencies, Tribes, the 

Council, and other interested parties, need to be invested in Bonneville's financial and 

biological success. We want to create a system that provides incentives to help guide the 

Bonneville investment toward measurable results. Moreover, Bonneville is interested in 

examining budgeting options, including financial incentives, which reward results and 

increase funding for fish and wildlife as Bonneville's competitive position improves. We 

want to develop a structure which would lead fish and wildlife advocates to want 

Bonneville to be successful in its revenue producing programs. This option and others 

could be discussed as part of the development of Bonneville's 10-year fish and wildlife 

implementation plan. 
51 

CQNCWSIQN 

The Yakima River Basin water conservation effort is consistent with other water related 

programs of particular interest to BoMeville and is a good example of how cooperative 

partnerships can serve the biological and economic needs within an ecosystem. In this 

regard, BoMeville has contributed a significant portion of the resources in the Yakima 

Basin to date, and believes the measures outlined in this bill provide a sound complement 

to Bonneville's contribution. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. We 1

will be pleased to provide you any 

additional information you request. 

6 
52 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you, Mr. Robertson. 

Are there any questions? 

Mr. INSLEE. I want to thank the organization for its efforts to 

date which are not unnoticed in the Yakima River area. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Robertson, you mentioned on page 4 that 

you do not expect costs to escalate, I think, in the context of your 

testimony, within the outlines that you presented to us on your investment in the fish and wildlife program. Is that correct? 

Mr. RoBERTSON. Yes. We are now spending about $300 million 

a year, and we hope that will be a stable investment at least for 

the time being. 

We are very concerned, as I indicated, about the impact of additional costs on our ability to stay competitive in the electric market. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. You don't mean costs with respect to this program, but costs generally? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Yes, that is what I meant. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. We will move on now to Mr. Slattery who is 

a senior policy analyst for the Water Resources Program of the Department of Ecology of the State of Washington. 

And aloha to you, Mr. Slattery; and thank you very much for 

being here. 

STATEMENT OF KEN SLATTERY 

Mr. SLATTERY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

On behalf of the State of Washington, I appreciate this opportunity to urge your support of H.R. 1690 which authorizes elements 

of the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project. 

The State of Washington has worked diligently with the Bureau 

of Reclamation, the Yakima Indian Nation, the irrigation districts 

in the Yakima basin, and other interested parties to develop the 

legislation now before the committee. 

We believe this legislation, if passed, will lead to improvements 

in the use and availability of water for the full spectrum of water 

uses in the Yakima River basin. The bill would be particularly beneficial for the basin's fish and wildlife resources which are now considerably reduced in abundance as a result of water development 

and use. 

Conservation is the key to a better water future in the Yakima 

basin as it is nearly everywhere in the West. That is why a basin 

water conservation program is the centerpiece of this legislation. 

With appropriate conservation, the existing developed water supply of the Yakima basin can be stretched to meet currently unmet 

needs for higher instream flows. Conservation will also improve the 

tolerance of irrigation to the inevitable periodic natural water 

shortages that occur in the basin. 

The State of Washington recognized these realities many years 

ago. The State has a long and continuous record of appropriating 

State funds to assist irrigation systems in upgrading their infrastructure. 
53 

The voters of the State of Washington have approved $75 million 

in bond funds for irrigation systems throughout the State since 

1970. Much of the money distributed so far has been expended in 

the Yakima basin. 

Since 1980, the State has provided over $19 million in grants 

and over $9 million in loans toward water system improvement 

projects totalling $113 million in value in the Yakima basin. These 

funds have been used to line canals, convert from open ditches to 

piped conveyance systems, automate water delivery systems, provide reregulation of canal flows, and provide for better measurement and control of water. These improvements result in water 

savings by reducing demand on the water resource. Reduced demand means more water can remain in the Yakima River and its 

tributaries for primarily the benefit of fish and wildlife resources. 

Currently, most of the major irrigation systems in Yakima Valley 

are developing water conservation plans in accordance with State 

guidelines. And we are providing 50 percent of the grants for the 

development of those plans. 

Under our guidelines, these plans are the first step for receiving 

funding for future system improvements. The plans identify various alternatives for system improvements and estimate the water 

savings from them. The plans will provide a rational means of allocating limited monetary resources to those projects that have the 

greatest public benefits. The proposed legislation before you is, in 

every way, consistent with the approach and is basically modeled 

after the State's approach. 

The proposed conservation program in H.R. 1690 would be a cooperative Federal, State and local initiative that would continue, in 

an accelerated manner, the work that has been under way for 

many years. It is also intended to be a demonstration and test of 

water conservation as a means of generating new water supplies. 

If successful, it will provide a national model, not only of water 

conservation but also a means by which interested parties, who 

often end up on the opposite side in court, can work together to resolve a long-standing natural resource problem. 

State cost sharing would be provided for all phases of the conservation program. State bonds already have been authorized since 

1980 for use in the kinds of planning and projects contemplated 

under the bill. If the bill is passed, we will ask the legislature to 

specifically earmark bond funds to assure the availability of the 

State's cost share. 

We are very excited about the potential for innovative, nonstructural water conservation measures that are talked about in 

the bill as well, water, banking, water-rights transfers, dry-year options, which I think you will hear some more about a little later 

in the testimony today. We think that these things can help increase the streamflows at critical times and locations in the basin 

during dry years which is when the fish really have a difficult time 

in the basin. 

In 1989, our State legislature passed innovative legislation for 

the Yakima basin to enable and encourage the transfer of water 

and water rights to the State for public benefits. These rights are 

called trust water rights. The funding for these trust water rights 

may come from State, Federal, or private sources. Under this law, 
54 

water and water rights may be acquired by purchase, leasing, or 

by public funding of water conservation that results in water savings. 

I guess my point is that we do have basic law in place to help 

this bill move forward. And we have had it since 1989, basically 

when Mr. Morrison asked the State to move ahead with this kind 

of legislation. 

The legislation you are now considering is the product of many 

years of effort-too many, perhaps-and represents a revolutionary 

approach for resolving some very difficult water problems in prob- ably the key area of our State with water problems. 

The State of Washington is fully committed by its policies and by itt~ own funding efforts to improving the use and availability of 

water in the Yakima basin. Especially in helping to recover depressed fish stocks in the basin. By working together, we will improve instream flows and provide a greater measure of drought tolerance for the Basin's highly productive agricultural activities. 

The bill is a product of what we think is an unprecedented cooperative effort, in our State at least, among the major water inter- ests in the Yakima basin. The State of Washington strongly urges 

your positive consideration of the bill and offers its assistance in 

securing early passage. 

We are prepared to work with the committee and with our partners who brought this bill to you if further refinements in the bill 

are required. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Slattery follows:] 
55 

Statement of the State of Washington On H.R. 1690 

Before the House Committee on Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

September 23, 1993 

SttUemenJ of Kenneth SltUtery, Senior WtUer Policy Analyst for the Stale of Washington 

DepamnenJ of Ecology. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: on behalf of the state of Washington, I 

appreciate this opportunity to urge your support of H.R. 1690 which authorizes elements of the 

Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project. 

The State of Washington has worked diligently with the Bureau of Reclamation, the Yakima 

Indian Nation, the irrigation districts in the Yakima basin, and other interested parties to develop 

the legislation now before the Committee. We believe this legislation, if passed, will lead to 

improvements in the use and availability of water for the full spectrum of water uses in the 

Yakima River basin. The bill would be particularly beneficial for the basin's fish and wildlife 

resources which are now considerably reduced in abundance as a result of water development 

and use. 

Conservation is the key to a better water future in the Yakima basin as it is nearly everywhere 

in the west. That is why a basin water conservation program is the centerpiece of this 

legislation. With appropriate conservation, the existing developed water supply of the Yakima 

basin can be stretched to meet currently unmet needs for higher instream flows. Conservation 

will also improve the tolerance of irrigation to the inevitable periodic natural water shortages that 

occur in the basin. 

The State of Washington recognized these realities many years ago. The state has a long and 

continuous record of appropriating state funds to assist irrigation systems in upgrading their 

infrastructure. The voters of the State of Washington have approved $75 million in bond funds 

for irrigation systems throughout the state since 1970. Much of the money distributed so far has 

been expended in the Yakima basin. Since 1980, the state has provided over $19 million in 

grants and over $9 million in loans toward water system improvement projects totalling $113 

million in value in the Yakima basin. These funds have been used to line canals, convert from 

open ditches to piped conveyance systems, automate water delivery systems, provide reregulation 

of canal flows, and provide for better measurement and control of water. These improvements 

result in water savings by reducing demand. Reduced demand means more water can remain 

in the Yakima River and its tributaries for the benefit of fish and wildlife resources. 

Currently, most of the major irrigation systems in the Yakima valley are developing water 

conservation plans in accordance with state guidelines and with state funding assistance. Under 

1 
56 

our guidelines, these plans are the first step for receiving funding for future system 

improvements. The plans identify various alternatives for system improvements and estimate 

the water savings from them. The plans wiD provide a rational means of allocating limited 

resources to those projects that have the greatest public benefits. The proposed legislation before 

you is in every way consistent with the approach that the state, with the assistance of the Bureau 

of Reclamation, has been taking for some time. 

The proposed conservation program in H.R. 1690 would be a cooperative federal, state and local 

initiative that would continue, in an accelerated manner, the work that has been underway for 

many years. It is also intended to be a demonstration and test of water conservation as a means 

of generating new water supplies. If successful, it can provide a national model not only of 

water conservation, but also of federal, tribal, state, and local cooperation to resolve 

longstanding natural resource conflicts. 

State cost sharing would be provided for all phases of the conservation program. State bonds 

have been authorized for use in the kinds of planning and projects contemplated under the bill. 

If the biD is passed, we will ask the Legislature to earmark bond funds to assure the availability 

of the state's cost share. 

The legislation also provides for the testing of innovative nonstructural water conservation 

measures including water right transfers, water banking, dry year options, sale and leasing of 

water, and other tools that maximize the utility of existing water supplies. The water acquired 

in this manner would be used to increase streamflows at critical times and locations in the basin 

during dry years to benefit fishery resources. 

In 1989, the Washington State Legislature passed innovative legislation for the Yakima basin to 

enable and encourage the transfer of water and water rights to the state for public benefits. 

These rights, called trust water rights, can be used for instream flow enhancement and/or 

supplemental irrigation supply. The funding for trust water rights may come from state, federal 

or private sources. Under this law, water and water rights may be acquired by purchase, 

leasing, or by public funding of water conservation that results in water savings. This law is 

wholly consistent with the intent of the basin conservation program and will be an important tool 

for implementing the legislation now before you. 

The legislation you are now considering is the product of many years of effort and represents 

a revolutionary approach for resolving water supply problems. The State of Washington is fully 

committed by its policies and-by its own funding efforts to improving the use and availability 

of water in the Yakima basin. By working together we will improve instream flows and provide 

a greater measure of drought tolerance for the basin's highly productive agricultural activities. 

H.R. 1690 is the product of an unprecedented cooperative effort among the major water interests 

in the Yakima basin. The State of Washington strongly urge your positive consideration of the 

bill and offers its assistance in securing early passage. 

2 
57 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Are there any observations or questions? 

Mr. lNSLEE. No, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Slattery, you stated very clearly that you 

now have State water laws, particularly the trust water rights. 

Is it your belief that this will allow you to have a conservation 

program adequate to the various results and tasks that you have 

outlined? , Such as, do existing State laws allow you to do what you want 

to accomplish in your testimony? 

Mr. SLATIERY. I believe existing State law does allow us to accomplish what we have proposed in the bill. 

As I mentioned, we have a long-standing history of funding water 

conservation projects. We have a much more recent law which speaks to the ability to 

move conserved water, saved water, toward desired public purposes 

including instream flows. 

I am very confident that working with our partners we can resolve any problems that people have regarding moving safe water 

and securing it. _ Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I have one question in that regard. If you look 

at the bottom of the first page of your testimony you say "most of 

the major irrigation systems in the Yakima Valley are developing 

water conservation plans in accordance with State guidelines and 

with State funding assistance." 

My impression of your testimony was that your State laws were 

comprehensive. Why would some rather than all participate? 

Where do you get the idea? Is that a question of simply getting 

geared up, or will everyone be involved eventually? Or do some, 

under your laws, have a way to opt out? 

Mr. SLATIERY. Basically, it is voluntary. The irrigation districts 

who wish to receive funds from the State in the future, both in 

terms of grants or loans, must develop a conservation plan or we 

will refuse to provide them with the funding. 

It is basically the same set up in this piece of federal legislation, 

development of conservation plans will be the first step. 

If a district refused to do that, then they would not be on the receiving end of any funding assistance. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I am not quite sure on this level. My assumption is that everybody will participate. One of the arguments being 

made at this point is that various entities which might otherwise 

be arguing with one another have subsumed their personal, immediate interests for the good of the whole. 

Will everybody be getting the benefit of the cooperation yet not 

participate themselves? 

Mr. SLATIERY. It might be a good question for the district representative who comes along later. 

I would think there might be tremendous peer pressure to move 

into this program and be a part of it. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Why wouldn't it be a good idea to have everybody participate in it? 

Mr. BEARD. Could I amplify on that? 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Sure. 

Mr. BEARD. Any district which receives Federal water and is a 

contractor with the government, which I think includes most if not 
58 

all districts in the six divisions, is required to have conservation 

plans. 

One of the tasks that we have before us will be to ensure that 

our water conservation rules and regulations, which are in the 

process of being revised, dovetail with the State requirements and 

the requirements of this bill. 

It is my expectation certainly that our water conservation rules 

and regulations will provide for effective conservation. If this 

passes, we can use its authorities to require water conservation 

plans on the part of federal contractors. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. In other words, if someone is not participating 

now, in effect, the bill will . enable you to make rules and regulations to address the question. 

Mr. BEARD. In the federal program now, every district was to 

have submitted to the Bureau of Reclamation a water conservation 

implementation plan and program. 

We are in the process of reexamining our rules and regulations 

for water conservation. We will ensure that not only will they have 

to submit a plan, but it will also have to be implemented. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. The reason I ask the question is that this is 

a very ambitious undertaking. I certainly appreciate it and think 

well of it, but one would only have to glance at the map up here, 

and I find it virtually impossible to see how anyone could realistically say they were involved in an irrigation project that was not 

intimately connected with all other water-related activities in the 

region. 

I don't see how you can separate it out and say, we don't have 

anything to do with the area immediately next door, particularly 

where water is concerned. 

I hope that makes sense to everybody. 

Mr. BEARD. It makes sense to me. What I would say is, if they 

are a federal contractor, then they do have water conservation requirements. In addition, they have requirements under State law. The State 

law requirements are voluntary, but the Federal law requirements 

are not. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I got it. Thank you. 

Mr. Slattery, I now understand why you are a senior policy analyst rather than a junior policy analyst, because you handed that 

question off very, very fast. 

Mr. SLATI'ERY. I will pay for it later. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Let's move on to the next panel. 

Are you going to stay around, Mr. Beard? 

Mr. BEARD. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you. We will move to the second panel. These numbers, I assure you, 

are not in order of importance. 

This panel consists of Mr. Strong, Mr. Meninick, and Mr. Sockzehigh. We will start with Mr. Strong, the executive director 

of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. 
59 

PANEL CONSISTING OF TED STRONG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

COLUMBIA RIVER INTER-TRIBAL FISH COMMISSION, PORTLAND, OR; JERRY MENINICK, TRIBAL COUNCIL MEMBER 

AND CHAIRMAN, TRIBAL FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMITTEE, 

YAKIMA INDIAN NATION, ACCOMPANIED BY TIM WEAVER, 

ESQ. TRIBAL ATTORNEY; AND ROSS SOCKZEHIGH, TRIBAL 

COUNCIL MEMBER, YAKIMA INDIAN NATION 

STATEMENT OF TED STRONG 

Mr. STRONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to 

testify before this committee on a matter of great importance to the 

Yakima Indian Nation as well as the other member tribes of the 

Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. 

We are a fisheries technical agency that supports these four 

tribes, and our area includes a three-State region. 

We manage fisheries on the Columbia and its tributaries and the 

Yakima basin, a very important part of our entire fisheries restoration effort. 

I have submitted comments for the record, and today my comments will just be in support of that in hopes of keeping this very 

brief. 

The conservation usage of the Yakima River basin, as a part of 

the development for the region's economy, is part of an ambitious 

community undertaking to support the citizenry of that region. 

This bill, which proposes to provide ecosystem management, 

brings scientific management principles that are important in the 

areas of salmon restoration. 

We favorably support this bill and hope that this committee will 

report on this favorably and in doing so allow for the restoration 

of these important economic resources such as salmon in the region. 

We encourage the development of adequate instream flows, that 

is the mainstay of any salmon restoration effort. We consider that 

the region has long utilized the Yakima River basin and perhaps 

in some instances over-utilized the Yakima resources. 

This bill provides an opportunity for the people of the community 

and the United States, as a responsible ecosystem manager, to put 

back some of the vitality and life into a seriously depleted river 

basin system. 

We believe that the restoration will prove good for the region's 

economy while it provides those things necessary for sustainable 

development. That is, we can still utilize the resources of the region 

in today's environment without compromising the ability to have 

resources for future generations. 

I believe that is something very responsible and something very 

necessary if we are to pass a legacy of consideration, respect, and 

reverence for our abundant resources. 

The restoration of both the instream flows and the restoration of 

salmon will provide those things necessary for the quality of life 

that people in the Yakima basin and Columbia basin have long 

been accustomed to. It is not only a source of pride for us, but it 

gives purpose to the intent that this bill provides. 

76-655 0 - 94 - 3 
60 

Mr. Chainnan and members of the committee, the Columbia 

River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission and the parent tribes urge this 

committee to support this bill and urge that its prompt passage be 

a part of this Congress. 

Thank you very much. [Prepared statement of Mr. Strong follows:] 
61 

TESTIMONY OF TED STRONG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

COLUMBIA RIVER INTER-TRIBAL FISH COMMISSION "BEFORE THE HOUSE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

ON SEPTEMBER 23, 1993 IN WASHINGTON, D.C. 

CONCERNING H.R. 1690, A BILL TO AUTHORIZE CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF THE 

YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT 

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to testify before this Committee on an issue of great 

importance to the Yakima Indian Nation as well as the other member 

tribes of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. My name 

is Ted Strong and I am executive director of the Columbia River 

Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. The Commission was formed by 

resolution of the Yakima Indian Nation, the Confederated Tribes of 

the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, the Confederated Tribes of 

the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and the Nez Perce Tribe in 1977 . 

Its purpose is to coordinate fishery management policy among its 

member tribes and to supply technical expertise for fishery 

management activities. 

In November of 1982, the Northwest Power Planning Council 

under the authority of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power 

Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, identified the Yakima River 

Basin as a target subbasin of its Fish and Wildlife Program. By 

this action, the Council aimed to focus resources on the basin in 

order to restore its once bountiful runs of Pacific salmon. The 

Council's plan included improvements at the basin's diversion dams 

and an ambitious project designed to utilize modern artificial 

propagation techniques for the purpose of rebuilding the Yakima 

basin's salmon runs. 

The Northwest Power Planning Council is composed of 

individuals appointed by the Governors of Oregon, Washington, Idaho 

and Montana. With the Council's support, Congress passed phase 1 

of the Yakima River Basin Water enhancement Program in 1984, 

allowing for the construction of ladders and screens at the 

irrigation facilities. Phase 2, encompassed by H.R. 1690, before 

this Committee, furthers that work by: 

-defining an instream flow regime; 

-authorizing water conservation and ecosystem management 

projects; 

-providing for f~sh passage facilities at Cle Elum Dam; and, 

-supporting studies designed to improve water supplies for 

fish on basin tributaries. 

Mr. Chairman, runs of Columbia Basin salmon have declined from 

a high of between eleven and sixteen million adult salmon to the 

present return of about two million fish. Nonetheless, evidence 

from enhancement projects in other basins indicates that the salmon 

are a resilient species that can be enhanced through careful 

management. With minor modifications, the Commission believes that 

H.R. 1690 can provide t hat enhancement. 
62 

With regard to modifications, the Commission is concerned that 

section 5 does not provide clear assurances that reduction in water 

diversions through conservation or other means will be devoted to 

instream flows. Secondly, the Commission suggests that 

electrifi cation of the hydraulic pumps at Chandler Pumping Plant 

could alleviate problems of instream flows at Prosser Dam. In 

addition, we suggest that subordination of power generation at 

Chandler during low flow periods could also assist provision of 

instream flows at Prosser. 

The Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission along with 

various state and federal agencies is actively engaged in the 

restoration of Pacific salmon thoroughout the available habitat of 

the Columbia Basin. Achievement of this goal requires concerted 

efforts to protect and restore existing habitat and assist natural 

production. The Yakima Enhancement Project in combination with the 

work of the Yakima Nation to increase populations of natural 

spawning salmon is an important element in this recovery effort. 

On behalf of the member tribes of the Commission, I urge the 

Committee to favorably report H.R. 1690 and support its prompt 

passage . 
63 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you very much, Mr. Strong. 

We have been joined by Mr. Inslee of Washington, a good friend 

to everyone on this committee and an able Member whose contributions are very, very good. 

Mr. Inslee, do you have a question or observation? 

Mr. INSLEE. I do. 

I appreciate your testimony. You seem to be in a position to be 

able to comment on the relative value of this project compared to 

some others in the Columbia River system. 

My observation has been that this appears to be the one that 

gets the biggest bang for the buck from Federal investments as far 

as restoring fish habitat. 

I would like your comments in that regard. 

Mr. STRONG. We have been witness also to the Umatilla basin 

that Congress recently authorized, and it has provided immense 

benefit as far as some early returns of salmon in that area. There 

have been early returns to salmon in that area. 

We have participated in a multi-jurisdictional project in the 

Upper Grand Ground restoration. 

This falls hand-in-glove with other efforts such as those. We believe this provides the right framework and appropriate funding 

and brings together inter-jurisdictional cooperation which is extremely important in any restoration effort. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Strong, in your testimony on the first 

page, this is a shocking number to me where you indicated that between 11 million and 16 million adult salmon at one time were involved in running in the Columbia basin, and that that has declined to 2 million. 

The reason it grabs my attention is that there is a parallel in my 

State, in my home island where streams have been diverted, and 

as a result, the Native Hawaiians are not able to grow taro which 

is a staple food. 

They are trying to regain the right to get back to where they 

were. We are told that progress in the instance of growing taro has 

had a giant step backward. 

Is it your opinion that, if this bill passes, there will be a significant increase in the fish run? 

Mr. STRONG. Mr. Chairman, the significant increases will only be 

if there is a sustained will by Congress and the other members of 

the community in the Yakima basin to really put forth meaningful 

effort into restoration. 

Up until this time, it has been somewhat limited not only by 

funding but also by competing users of the Yakima River basin. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Does that go to the question I asked the previous witness as to whether conservation generally takes place and 

everybody gets in it? I assume conservation means increased 

stream flow? 

Mr. STRONG. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. We believe that the 

conservation of water means pressure for the anadromous fisheries. 

It is estimated that the highest returns in the Columbia were as 

much as 30 million in the best years. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. What years are you referring to? 
64 

Mr. STRONG. Maybe at the turn of the century, prior to the development of many of the hydropower diversions and irrigation diversions that were developed: 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. So I have reason to conclude that my previous 

observation about there being no such thing as segregated water, 

if you will, what one does affects everyone else, right? 

Mr. STRONG. Mr. Chairman, in ecosystem management, it is very 

clear that any part of that ecological system cannot be torn part 

because of the interdependent relationship between instream flows 

and wetlands and its ability to absorb moisture and release during 

low-flow years and supporting all the vegetation around it that creates more or less the sponge characteristics that support the 

instream flow. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I think I would be correct in assuming that, 

from an economic and social point of view, everyone would benefit 

if you have an increase in the salmon run? 

Mr. STRONG. That is absolutely correct. For literally thousands of 

generations of American Indians, we had a perfectly sustainable ecological system which supported our economy. That has been virtually destroyed by progress. 

We believe this is progress in another sense in that it restores 

what historically used to be an abundance of natural resources to 

provide for the economic growth. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Are you satisfied that the bill provides a 

framework for the kind of planning and implementation of planning that can and will result in increased stream flow and consequent increase in salmon runs? 

Mr. STRONG. Mr. Chairman, it has been a long, difficult climb 

uphill to this point. I believe that the lessons learned by all of the 

parties in the area really forced them to be more consultative, participative, and cooperative; and I believe this bill provides such a 

framework. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Very good. Thank you. 

Let's move, then, to Mr. Meninick. You are a Tribal Council 

member and chairman of the Tribal Fish and Wildlife Committee 

for the Yakima. 

STATEMENT OF JERRY MENINICK 

Mr. MENINICK. It is a pleasure to appear before this subcommittee to testify on H.R.l690. 

My name is Jerry Mininick. I chair the Fish and Wildlife Committee of our Council. 

I will discuss the need for the fisheries aspects of this legislation. 

My colleague Ross Sockzehigh will discuss the on-reservation components of the bill. 

We are also accompanied by Tim Weaver, who is our tribal attorney. 

For the sake of saving a little time, I have highlighted a few 

things here that I will go through. 

This bill deals principally with two resources-anadromous fish 

and water-both of which are absolutely essential to the Yakima 

Indian Nation. 
65 

In dealing with these resources, we hope the Congress will be 

mindful of an important third resource, the Yakima people themselves. 

We have lived in this basin since time immemorial, and the fishery resource is an unconditionally integral part of our lives, our 

culture, our religion; in essence, our very being. 

In the famous Winans case in 1905, the Supreme Court said 

that, "Salmon were no less important to the Yakima Indians than 

was the air they breathed." 

When the Yakima Indian Nation signed our treaty with the United States of America, the Yakima River basin produced hundreds 

of thousands of adult salmon each year. Historically, the Yakima 

was second only to the Snake River in the numbers of salmon it 

contributed to the Columbia River basin. 

Today, the situation is radically different. The development of irrigation and other such developments, while it has made the Yakima Valley an important agricultural area, has had a devastating 

impact on anadromous fish. 

Salmon runs that numbered in the hundreds of thousands now 

number less than ten thousand. Three stocks of Yakima River 

basin salmon are extinct: summer chinook, sockeye, and coho. The 

three remaining stocks-spring chinook, fall chinook, and 

steelhead-are potential candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act. 

Many Yakima basin rivers and streams currently have reaches 

that are completely dewatered during portions of the year. Other 

reaches are subjected to periods of extremely low flows. The poor 

water quality conditions in the lower 100 miles of the Yakima 

River were recently documented in a report by the U.S. Geological 

Survey. See Open File Report, Numbers 91-453 and 92-644. 

The water supply and fisheries problems in the Yakima basin 

have been recognized for many decades. Unfortunately, no effective 

action or program has been implemented to address these problems. 

The Pacific Northwest Power Planning Council, at the urging of 

the Yakima Indian Nation, included the Yakima River basin as one 

of the primary production areas in its program to restore Columbia 

basin anadromous fish and wildlife. 

Over the past ten years, over 60 million dollars, from power ratepayers, has been invested in new fish passage in the Yakima basin 

in the form of screens at irrigation turnoffs and ladders for upstream migration at irrigation dams. These new fish passage facili--

ties finally allow safe migration for adult and juvenile salmon. 

In addition, planning continues on a complex of supplementation 

facilities that will assist in the restoration of salmon runs in the 

Yakima basin, as well as provide information and data for restoration of salmon runs in other parts of the Columbia basin. 

It is important for the subcommittee to realize that much has already been accomplished with respect to restoration of salmon nms 

in the Yakima basin; but two vital components remain to be addressed: water quantity and water quality. 

The bill establishes the Yakima River Basin Water Conservation 

Program "* * * for the purpose of evaluating and implementing 

measures to improve the availability of ·.vuter suppEes for irriga-
66 

tion and the protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources. * * * " 

It is our understanding the bill will transfer water saved through 

the conservation program to instream flows in the Yakima basin 

and to establish minimum instream flows below Sunnyside and 

Prosser Dams. 

The bill before you today, H.R. 1690, is the product of long and 

diligent work by the Yakima Indian Nation, the Bonneville Power 

Administration, the Pacific Northwest Power Planning Council, 

State of Washington, Yakima basin irrigation entities, and the Bureau of Reclamation. 

While we have some concerns with certain provisions of the bill, 

we are confident that those concerns can be satisfactorily resolved 

through consultation among these entities. 

With this, I will turn the mike over to my colleague, Ross 

Sockzehigh, for the "On-reservation Components." 

I have a brief after-summary. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. All right. Mr. Sockzehigh. 

STATEMENT OF ROSS SOCKZEHIGH 

Mr. SoCKZEHIGH. Good morning, Honorable Chair, committee 

members, Mr. Abercrombie. 

My name is Ross Sockzehigh. I am a member ·of the Yakima 

Tribe and also a member of the Yakima Tribe's Council. 

I appear to offer testimony with regard to the portion dealing 

with irrigation on the Yakima Indian Reservation within H.R. 

1690. 

Although water conservation is the heart and soul of this bill, 

there are also other important specific features of this legislation 

that are very important to the Yakima Indian Nation. These include, number one, the bill authorizes improvements to the Wapato 

Irrigation Project. The WIP is located on the Yakima Indian Reservation and is the largest irrigation project in the Yakima basin, 

encompassing over 140,000 acres. The WIP is extremely important 

to the well being of the Yakima people, as well as the general economy of the Yakima basin and the Pacific Northwest. 

The physical facilities of the WIP are in an extremely deteriorated condition, to the point that the reliability and safety of the 

project are in question. The WIP, generally, is in urgent need of rehabilitation. While this bill does not authorize sufficient funding to 

address all of the physical problems on the WIP, it does provide an 

important first step. 

Two, the bill authorizes a Yakima Indian Reservation Irrigation 

Demonstration Project. There is no question that agriculture is important to the Yakima basin and to the Yakima people. The Yakima Indian Nation desires to place additional land, within the 

Wapato Irrigation Project under irrigation, and to train its members in the operation and management of such enterprises. 

There is significant additional extremely fertile land on the Yakima Indian Reservation that can produce high value crops, such as 

orchards and vineyards. 

We believe that this allows us the unique opportunity to implement water conservation on the WIP, use this saved water for addi-
67 

tiona! irrigation, and employ and train Yakima people in the operation and management of irrigation enterprises. 

In addition, the increased productivity will benefit the economy 

of the entire Yakima basin. 

Three, the bill authorizes the Toppenish Creek Corridor Enhancement Project. Too often in the past, resource management 

has been splintered-<>ne group concerned with irrigation and agriculture, another group concerned with wildlife, and still another 

group with other resources. 

The Toppenish Creek Corridor contains a number of resources 

that are important to the Yakima people, including agriculture, 

wildlife, fisheries, and cultural resources. 

The Yakima Indian Nation is already deeply involved in an extensive wildlife mitigation program along Toppenish Creek. We believe that the Toppenish Creek Corridor offers the opportunity to 

implement sound multi-resource management that will enhance 

and protect agriculture, wildlife, fisheries, and cultural resources. 

Four, the bill authorizes the investigation and implementation of 

measures to address serious instream flow problems on Yakima 

basin tributaries. These tributaries were once important producers 

of anadromous fish. 

Today, due to irrigation diversions, these streams suffer from extreme low flows or complete dewatering. Beginning with Taneum 

Creek, this legislation begins the process of healing these streams, 

and restoring anadromous fish production in them. 

While we are supportive of this legislation, the Yakima Indian 

Nation has several concerns that need to be addressed. We look forward to working with the committee to resolve these concerns. 

Principally, our concerns include the following: 

One, the process by which water saved through conservation 

measures is transferred to instream flows needs to be more explicit. 

Two, the bill needs to include language that reflects 1993 project 

operations, which the table in section 5 does not presently do. 

Three, the bill must clearly indicate that instream flows provided 

as a result of this bill are not intended to be a substitute for flows 

provided pursuant to the Acquauella adjudication. 

Four, language needs to be included that authorizes the electrification of Chandler hydropumps, and the subordination of 

Chandler powerplant. Both can be accomplished without the slightest adverse impact on irrigation water deliveries. 

We understand that regarding the last concern there, the process 

has already been undertaken as to the feasibility on the electrification of the channel hydropumps. I want to thank Mr. Beard and 

his department for that effort. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Did you want to finish the statement then? 

Mr. MENINICK. While we are supportive of this legislation, the 

Yakima Indian Nation does have several concerns that need to be 

addressed. 

We also look forward to working with the committee to resolve 

these concerns. 

[Joint prepared statement of Mr. Meninick and Mr. Sockzehigh 

follows:] 
'

Confederated Tribes and Bands 

oi the YaRima Indian Nation 

68 

Established by the 

Treaty oi June 9. 1855 

TESTIMONY OF JERRY MENINICK, CHAIRMAN, FISH AND WILDLIFE 

COMMITTEE 

AND 

ROSS SOCKZEHIGH, MEMBER OF TilE IRRIGATION AND LANDS 

COMMITTEE 

OF TilE YAKJMA INDIAN NATION 

ON HR 1690, A BILL TO AUTHORIZE CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF TilE 

YAKJMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT 

PRESENTED BEFORE TilE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND 

INVESTIGATIONS 

OF TilE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

23 SEPTEMBER 1993 

Post Office Box 151. fort Road. Toppenish. WA 98948 (509) 865·5121 
69 

MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, GOOD MORNING. IT IS A 

PLEASURE TO APPEAR BEFORE THIS SUBCOMMITTEE TO TESTIFY ON HR 1690. THE 

YAKIMA INDIAN NATION IS A SIGNATORY TO THE TREATY OF JUNE 9, 1855 WITH 

THE UNITED STATES. IN THAT TREATY, WE CEDED OVER 11 MILLION ACRES OF 

LAND THAT NOW COMPRISE MOST OF CENTRAL WASHINGTON. WE RETAINED A 

RESERVATION OF OVER 1.3 MILLION ACRES WHICH IS THE LARGEST IN THE STATE 

OF WASHINGTON. IN OUR TREATY WE ALSO RESERVED TO OUR PEOPLE A PERMANENT 

RIGHT TO HUNT AND FISH ON THE RESERVATION, TO HUNT ON OPEN AND UNCLAIMED 

LANDS AND TO FISH AT OFF RESERVATION "USUAL AND ACCUSTOMED AREAS." 

THESE RIGHTS HAVE BEEN CONTINUOUSLY UPHELD BY THE HIGHEST COURTS IN THE 

LAND. 

THIS BILL DEALS PRINCIPALLY WITH TWO RESOURCES, ANADROMOUS FISH AND 

WATER, BOTH OF WHICH ARE ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL TO THE YAKIMA INDIAN 

NATION. IN DEALING WITH THESE RESOURCES WE HOPE THE CONGRESS WILL BE 

MINDFUL OF AN IMPORTANT THIRD RESOURCE ... THE YAKIMA PEOPLE THEMSELVES. 

WE HAVE LIVED IN THIS BASIN SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL AND THE FISHERY 

RESOURCE IS AN UNCONDITIONALLY INTEGRAL PART OF OUR LIVES, OUR CULTURE, 

OUR RELIGION; IN ESSENCE OUR VERY BEING. IN THE FAMOUS WINANS CASE IN 

1905, THE SUPREME COURT SAID THAT "SALMON WERE NO LESS IMPORTANT TO THE 

YAKIMA INDIANS THAN WAS THE AIR THEY BREATHED." ONE OF THE MOST 

IMPORTANT REASONS WE SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION IS OUR DESPERATE NEED TO 

SEE THE FISHERY RUNS OF THE YAKIMA BASIN PROTECTED AND ENHANCED. 

WHEN THE YAKIMA INDIAN NATION SIGNED OUR TREATY WITH THE UNITED STATES 

OF AMERICA, THE YAKIMA RIVER BASIN PRODUCED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF 

ADULT SALMON EACH YEAR. HISTORICALLY, THE YAKIMA WAS SECOND ONLY TO THE 

SNARE RIVER IN THE NUMBERS OF SALMON IT CONTRIBUTED TO THE COLUMBIA 

RIVER BASIN. THEN THE WATERS RAN CLEAR AND COLD AND THE SALMON 

SUSTAINED THE YAKIMA PEOPLE. NOW, JUST AS THEN, SALMON DEPEND ON THE 

CLEAN, COLD WATER. 

TODAY, THE SITUATION IS RADICALLY DIFFERENT. THE DEVELOPMENT OF 

IRRIGATION, WHILE IT HAS MADE THE YAKIMA VALLEY AN IMPORTANT 

AGRICULTURAL AREA, HAS HAD A DEVASTATING IMPACT ON ANADROMOUS FISH. 

SALMON RUNS THAT NUMBERED IN THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS NOW NUMBER LESS 

THAN TEN THOUSAND. THREE STOCKS OF YAKIMA RIVER BASIN SALMON ARE 

EXTINCT: SUMMER CHINOOK, SOCKEYE, AND COHO. THE THREE REMAINING STOCKS, 

SPRING CHINOOK, FALL CHINOOK, AND STEELHEAD, ARE POTENTIAL CANDIDATES 

FOR LISTING UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT. 

MANY YAKIMA BASIN RIVERS AND STREAMS CURRENTLY HAVE REACHES THAT ARE 

COMPLETELY DEWATERED DURING PORTIONS OF THE YEAR. OTHER REACHES ARE 

SUBJECTED TO PERIODS OF EXTREMELY LOW FLOWS. THE LOWER YAKIMA RIVER IS 

POLLUTED WITH AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS AND HIGH TEMPERATURES. THE POOR 

WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS IN THE LOWER 100 MILES OF THE YAKIMA RIVER WERE 

RECENTLY DOCUMENTED IN A REPORT BY THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY. (SEE 

OPEN-FILE REPORT NOS. 91-453 AND 92-644.) 

THE WATER SUPPLY AND FISHERIES PROBLEMS IN THE YAKIMA BASIN HAVE BEEN 

RECOGNIZED FOR MANY DECADES. UNFORTUNATELY, NO EFFECTIVE ACTION OR 

PROGRAM HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED TO ADDRESS THESE PROBLEMS. THE YAKIMA 

INDIAN NATION HAS CONSISTENTLY SUPPORTED PREVIOUS .ATTEMPTS TO GAIN 

CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL OF YAKIMA BASIN WATER LEGISLATION, INCLUDING HR 

3849, INTRODUCED BY REP . McCORMICK IN 1979; S. 2322, INTRODUCED BY 
70 

SENATOR EVANS IN 1988; AND HR 3097, INTRODUCED BY REP. MORRISON IN 1991 

AND COMPANION LEGISLATION INTRODUCED BY SENATOR GORTON THAT SAME YEAR. 

THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST POWER PLANNING COUNCIL, AT THE URGING OF THE 

YAKIMA INDIAN NATION, INCLUDED THE YAKIMA RIVER BASIN AS ONE OF THE 

PRIMARY PRODUCTION AREAS IN ITS PROGRAM TO RESTORE COLUMBIA BASIN 

ANADROMOUS FISH AND WILDLIFE. OVER THE PAST TEN YEARS, OVER 60 MILLION 

DOLLARS (FROM POWER RATEPAYERS) HAS BEEN INVESTED IN NEW FISH PASSAGE IN 

THE YAKIMA BASIN IN THE FORM OF SCREENS AT IRRIGATION TURNOFFS AND 

LADDERS FOR UPSTREAM MIGRATION AT IRRIGATION DAMS. THESE NEW FISH 

PASSAGE FACILITIES FINALLY ALLOW SAFE MIGRATION FOR ADULT AND JUVENILE 

SALMON. 

IN ADDITION, PLANNING CONTINUES ON A COMPLEX OF SUPPLEMENTATION 

FACILITIES THAT WILL ASSIST IN THE RESTORATION OF SALMON RUNS IN THE 

YAKIMA BASIN, AS WELL AS PROVIDE INFORMATION AND DATA FOR RESTORATION OF 

SALMON RUNS IN OTHER PARTS OF THE COLUMBIA BASIN. IT IS IMPORTANT FOR 

THE SUBCOMMITTEE TO REALIZE THAT MUCH HAS ALREADY BEEN ACCOMPLISHED WITH 

RESPECT TO RESTORATION OF SALMON RUNS IN THE YAKIMA BASIN, BUT TWO VITAL 

COMPONENTS REMAIN TO BE ADDRESSED: WATER QUANTITY AND WATER QUALITY. 

THE BILL ESTABLISHES THE YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM 

" ... FOR THE PURPOSE OF EVALUATING AND IMPLEMENTING MEASURES TO IMPROVE 

THE AVAILABILITY OF WATER SUPPLIES FOR IRRIGATION AND THE PROTECTION AND 

ENHANCEMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES ••• " IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING 

THE BILL WILL TRANSFER WATER SAVED THROUGH THE CONSERVATION PROGRAM TO 

INSTREAM FLOWS IN THE YAKIMA BASIN, AND TO ESTABLISH MINIMUM INSTREAM 

FLOWS BELOW SUNNYSIDE AND PROSSER DAMS. 

THE BILL BEFORE YOU TODAY, HR 1690, IS THE PRODUCT OF LONG AND DILIGENT 

WORK BY THE YAKIMA INDIAN NATION, THE BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION, 

THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST POWER PLANNING COUNCIL, STATE OF WASHINGTON, 

YAKIMA BASIN IRRIGATION ENTITIES, AND THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION. WHILE 

WE HAVE SOME CONCERNS WITH CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE BILL, WE ARE 

CONFIDENT THAT THOSE CONCERNS CAN BE SATISFACTORILY RESOLVED THROUGH 

CONSULTATION AMONG THESE ENTITIES. 

ALTHOUGH WATER CONSERVATION IS THE HEART AND SOUL OF THIS BILL, THERE 

ARE ALSO OTHER IMPORTANT SPECIFIC FEATURES OF THIS LEGISLATION THAT ARE 

VERY IMPORTANT TO THE YAKIMA INDIAN NATION. THESE INCLUDE: 

1. THE BILL AUTHORIZES IMPROVEMENTS TO THE WAPATO IRRIGATION 

PROJECT (WIP). THE WIP IS LOCATED ON THE YAKIMA INDIAN RESERVATION AND 

IS THE LARGEST IRRIGATION PROJECT IN THE YAKIMA BASIN, ENCOMPASSING OVER 

140,000 ACRES. THE WIP IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO THE WELL-BEING OF THE 

YAKIMA PEOPLE, AS WELL AS THE GENERAL ECONOMY OF THE YAKIMA BASIN AND 

THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST. THE PHYSICAL FACILITIES OF THE WIP ARE IN A 

EXTREMELY DETERIORATED CONDITION, TO THE POINT THAT THE RELIABILITY AND 

SAFETY OF THE PROJECT ARE IN QUESTION. THE WIP GENERALLY IS IN URGENT 

NEED OF REHABILITATION. WHILE THIS BILL DOES NOT AUTHORIZE SUFFICIENT 

FUNDING TO ADDRESS ALL OF THE PHYSICAL PROBLEMS ON THE WIP, IT DOES 

PROVIDE AN IMPORTANT FIRST STEP. 

2. THE BILL AUTHORIZES A YAKIMA INDIAN RESERVATION IRRIGATION 

DEMONSTRATION PROJECT. THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT AGRICULTURE IS 

IMPORTANT TO THE YAKIMA BASIN, AND TO THE YAKIMA PEOPLE. THE YAKIMA 

INDIAN NATION DESIRES TO PLACE ADDITIONAL LAND - WITHIN THE WAPATO 
71 

IRRIGATION PROJECT - UNDER IRRIGATION, AND TO TRAIN ITS MEMBERS IN THE 

OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT OF SUCH ENTERPRISES. THERE IS SIGNIFICANT 

ADDITIONAL EXTREMELY FERTILE LAND ON THE YAKIMA INDIAN RESERVATION THAT 

CAN PRODUCE HIGH VALUE CROPS, SUCH AS ORCHARDS AND VINEYARDS . WE 

BELIEVE THAT THIS ALLOWS US THE UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY TO IMPLEMENT WATER 

CONSERVATION ON THE WIP, USE THIS SAVED WATER FOR ADDITIONAL IRRIGATION, 

AND EMPLOY AND TRAIN YAKIMA PEOPLE IN THE OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT OF 

IRRIGATION ENTERPRISES. IN ADDITION, THE INCREASED PRODUCTIVITY WILL 

BENEFIT THE ECONOMY OF THE ENTIRE YAKIMA BASIN. 

3. THE BILL AUTHORIZES THE TOPPENISH CREEK CORRIDOR ENHANCEMENT 

PROJECT. TOO OFTEN IN THE PAST, RESOURCE MANAGEMENT HAS BEEN 

SPLINTERED, ONE GROUP CONCERNED WITH IRRIGATION AND AGRICULTURE, ANOTHER 

GROUP CONCERNED WITH WILDLIFE, AND STILL ANOTHER GROUP WITH OTHER 

RESOURCES. THE TOPPENISH CREEK CORRIDOR CONTAINS A NUMBER OF RESOURCES 

THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO THE YAKIMA PEOPLE, INCLUDING AGRICULTURE, 

WILDLIFE, FISHERIES, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES. 

THE YAKIMA INDIAN NATION IS ALREADY DEEPLY INVOLVED IN AN EXTENSIVE 

WILDLIFE MITIGATION PROGRAM ALONG TOPPENISH CREEK. WE BELIEVE THAT THE 

TOPPENISH CREEK CORRIDOR OFFERS THE OPPORTUNITY TO IMPLEMENT SOUND 

MULTI-RESOURCE MANAGEMENT THAT WILL ENHANCE AND PROTECT AGRICULTURE, 

WILDLIFE, FISHERIES, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES . 

4. THE BILL AUTHORIZES THE INVESTIGATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF 

MEASURES TO ADDRESS SERIOUS INSTREAM FLOW PROBLEMS ON YAKIMA BASIN 

TRIBUTARIES. THESE TRIBUTARIES WERE ONCE IMPORTANT PRODUCERS OF 

ANADROMOUS FISH . TODAY, DUE TO IRRIGATION DIVERSIONS, THESE STREAMS 

SUFFER FROM EXTREME LOW FLOWS OR COMPLETE DEWATERING. BEGINNING WITH 

TANEUM CREEK, THIS LEGISLATION BEGINS THE PROCESS OF HEALING THESE 

STREAMS, AND RESTORING ANADROMOUS FISH PRODUCTION IN THEM. 

WHILE WE ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS LEGISLATION, THE YAKIMA INDIAN NATION 

HAS SEVERAL CONCERNS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. WE LOOK FORWARD TO 

WORKING WITH THE COMMITTEE TO RESOLVE THESE CONCERNS. 

PRINCIPALLY, OUR CONCERNS INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: 

1. THE PROCESS BY WHICH WATER SAVED THROUGH CONSERVATION MEASURES 

IS TRANSFERRED TO INSTREAM FLOWS NEEDS TO BE MORE EXPLICIT. 

2. THE BILL NEEDS TO INCLUDE LANGUAGE THAT REFLECTS 1993 PROJECT 

OPERATIONS , (WHICH THE TABLE IN SECTION 5 DOES NOT PRESENTLY DO). 

3. THE BILL MUST CLEARLY INDICATE THAT INSTREAM FLOWS PROVIDED AS 

A RESULT OF THIS BILL ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE A SUBSTITUTE FOR FLOWS 

PROVIDED PURSUANT TO THE ACQUAVELLA ADJUDICATION. 

4. LANGUAGE NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED THAT AUTHORIZES THE 

ELECTRIFICATION OF CHANDLER HYDROPUMPS , AND THE SUBORDINATION OF 

CHANDLER POWERPLANT. BOTH CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED WITHOUT THE SLIGHTEST 

ADVERSE IMPACT ON IRRIGATION WATER DELIVERIES. 

MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT CONCLUDES MY COMMENTS ON HR 1690. THANK YOU FOR THE 

OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY ON THIS IMPORTANT LEGISLATION. IF THERE ARE ANY 

QUESTIONS, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. 
72 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Inslee, do you have any questions or observation? 

Mr. INSLEE. No, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I have some, but they may be better addressed to Mr. Eberhart and Dr. Kinsel. 

With respect to irrigation, I will ask you, as users in the area 

who I presume have some idea of the history, it bothers me, as 

someone coming to this legislation from outside but has some 

knowledge about irrigation, because of the agribusiness in Hawaii, 

we tried to move away from old-fashioned irrigation practices 

which were very, very wasteful and move to highly specified activity with irrigation like drip irrigation. 

You may not be particular expert in that, but has there been 

some discussion in this area about whether irrigation itself can be 

improved so that stream flows do not have to be adversely effected? 

Does anyone care to comment on that? 

Mr. SOCKZEHIGH. Mr. Chairman, I will comment somewhat briefly on that. When you state that we may not be experts in drip irrigation, I am familiar with that process. I myself personally am involved with irrigation. I irrigate portions of my own land. 

We have discussed practices with the members of the Yakima 

Reservation Irrigation District about improving the delivery system 

of the Wapato Irrigation Project. 

One of them is that we would like to see, within the irrigation 

district, the demonstration project that we would emphasize that 

the major canals and the major laterals be lined to prevent complete seepage that occurs today. 

Most of these canals and major laterals lose a major portion of 

the water delivery, and much of the canals and ditches and the 

laterals are quite porous. They have sand and rocks. 

Most of the irrigation done today on the Yakima Indian Reservation is done primarily with sprinkler systems, and that does not 

use as much water as the tube system. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. It does or does not? 

Mr. SOCKZEHIGH. Does not. Sprinklers do not use as much water. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Would you say that this problem exists elsewhere throughout the region other than just the Yakima area? 

Mr. SOCKZEHIGH. Well, with regard to the Yakima Reservation, 

most, if not all, of the farmers use sprinkler irrigation. 

I cannot speak for the other irrigation districts. I don't know if 

they use, entirely, sprinkler systems within their irrigation systems 

or not; but I do know that the delivery system needs definite improvement. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I guess my question is, then, because I am 

not familiar with it but I think I know the right questions to ask: 

Is it your contention that if this bill passes that you can modernize, 

to the degree necessary, your irrigation system? 

Mr. SOCKZEHIGH. That is correct. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. And, in turn, presumably that will help to increase stream flows and the salmon run? 

Mr. SOCKZEHIGH. That is correct. The major canals and laterals, 

as I mentioned a few minutes ago, were built at the turn of the 

century, there being no funds to line these miles and miles of major 

canals and laterals. 
73 

In fact, I indicated earlier the major portion of the water delivery 

seeps into the ground, and much of the water is lost. 

We believe that if these major canals and laterals are lined, that 

a major portion can be returned as these stream flows. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Okay. Thank you. 

Do you have some kind of estimates? We have not really seen it 

so far in any of the testimony-maybe we will later-as to what it 

would mean if you could get these salmon runs returned. 

Again, it is anecdotal obviously from my point of view, but being 

part of the travel and tourism industry, I know that salmon, particularly fresh salmon if it is made available to people, is highly 

prized. 

I just have to believe that if your salmon run is way, way down 

that the entire region and most certainly the State of Washington 

and the people in it must be losing an enormous source of income. 

Why wouldn't there have been, long since, a concerted move to 

get salmon back into the forefront. I mean that is like cutting sunshine off with a light. 

Am I asking naive questions? 

Mr. SOCKZEHIGH. No, you are not, Mr. Chairman. Both Mr. 

Meninick and I, in the short period we spent on the Yakima Reservation, we saw the declining numbers of salmon within the Columbia River and the tributaries decline. 

The major portion of the blame for the decline of these runs has 

been due to the massive dams that have gone in Bonneville, the 

Dallas Dam, John Day, Umatilla; and the contributing factors also 

have been the irrigation diversions. 

It was in years past that the salmon runs were considered to be 

somewhat insignificant to irrigation. 

Having been a member of the tribe, my family and I saw the importance of attempting to preserve the salmon and also to preserve 

what we took from the salmon runs and also at the same time having been involved in livestock. We have also had horse herds. And 

it was important that we utilize water for irrigation but also at the 

same time we saw these two resources should be managed well and 

efficiently. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Do you believe that this bill will enable those 

who would like to increase the salmon run and stream flows and 

those who are interested in irrigation to be able to work more sensitively together to be able to accomplish both these things? 

Mr. SOCKZEHIGH. On the Yakima Reservation, I believe that is 

so. I am also of the firm belief that other irrigation districts within 

the Yakima basin will be able to coop~rate and work together on 

this bill to increase the instream flows. 

Last year the Yakima Tribe endorsed this bill, and I am not too 

sure about the other irrigation districts within the Yakima basin; 

but I understand everybody supports this bill this year. 

Mr. ABERCHiJMBiE. Very good. 

Mr. MEN!NICK. l\.fr. Chairman, if I may just take a couple of seconds here? 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Certainly. 

Mr. MENINICK. In part of the testimony that we have here, one 

of t~e t!ti!l~s t~at w~· point out is supplementation faci iity efforts 

on tne ). &.Y ... n:na t~a ;:;_: .. . 
74 

One of the things that we as a tribe have long known is the decline, as we have witnessed it, not only in the Yakima basin but 

in the Columbia and efforts as the areas shifted throughout the 

history into the political and legal arena and to the technical 

arena, we have adjusted accordingly to somehow educate and get 

the blessings of support in our efforts to restore the anadromous 

fish positions in the Yakima River basin. 

One such effort is the Yakima Production Project which has met 

with a lot of resistance in the local community. It has been in the 

planning stages for something like 14 years now with many, many, 

different concerns that have dragged the process for this many 

years. 

One of the things that we as a tribe are aware of is that in order 

for us to plant and attempt the enhancements of the fish population is in the basin, then as a management perspective into the 

whole region, we have to take all considerations into the habitat, 

into the watersheds, upon the mountains. 

We have, in that effort, established a working relationship 

through the decision in our ceded areas which is the watershed 

management, also the effort on the local front. 

As far as the water quality, the water quantity, those things we 

have looked at intensively. We have looked at raising taxes on our 

own reservation to somehow enhance the habitat of the mountains. 

We have been up to the timber practices. 

In some respects, we have met with resistance; but as you, know 

in Clinton's Forest Plan, we testified in that arena as the Yakima 

Nation timber operation was the only commercial timber operation 

in the whole of the United States to pass a Section VII consultation 

on the Endangered Species Act with regard to the spotted owl. 

Our justification to that fact is that many years ago we put together a forest management plan and an integrated resource management plan that takes into consideration all of the appropriate 

disciplines as far as a complete integrated resource plan. 

We feel that the approach must be consistent in all phases. It 

would be a matter of consistency to plant salmon into the region. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Meninick, I think I would have to presume that central to that whole outline that you have just given 

to us would be a comprehensive sensible water plan. 

How can you make any of it work if you don't have it? 

Mr. MENINICK. Yes. We have that in operation right now. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Perhaps it would be remodeled, but I am certainly not trying to become an instant observer and commentator 

in the sense of saying what direction you should go in. 

I am merely observing, as you look at the bill, that it would seem 

the direction the bill wants to take seems duplicative; and as soon 

as you can get it into place the more likely it is that these projects 

can be resolved, if not amicably, at least reasonably. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. MENINICK. Thank you. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Let's move to the next panel with Mr. 

Eberhart. And I believe we have a substitute, Dr. William Kinsel, 

president of the Board of Directors of the Kennewick Irrigation District. 
75 

Mr. INSLEE. I would like to add that, on some of your questions, 

I hope we can get some more specific answers from Bob Tuck, who 

was going to join us today. He is a fisheries biologist for the Nation. He is not here today. He is ill, and he wasn't able to join us. 

We will get some written answers to your questions, I think, for 

the final record. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Fine. 

Thank you, gentlemen, for being here. I think you heard some of 

the commentary and questioning. Obviously, we want to be educated in this area. It is very timely, at least from my perspective, 

to hear your testimony right now. 

We have Mr. William Eberhart from the Yakima River Basin Association of Irrigation Districts. 

Does that include all of the irrigation districts? 

Mr. EBERHART. Yes, sir, all of the irrigation districts. But there 

are also water entities that deliver water in the Yakima basin as 

well. And they are members of the association. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Very good. Let's begin with you, then. 

Thank you very much for being here. 

PANEL CONSISTING OF URBAN B. EBERHART, YAKIMA RIVER 

BASIN ASSOCIATION OF IRRIGATION DISTRICTS, 

ELLENSBURG, W A; AND WILLIAM KINSEL, PH.D, PRESIDENT, 

BOARD OF DIRECTORS, KENNEWICK ffiRIGATION DISTRICT, 

KENNEWICK, WA 

STATEMENT OF URBAN B. EBERHART 

Mr. EBERHART. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for allowing a hearing on this legislation and for giving me the opportunity to testify before you in support of H.R. 1690. 

I am a farmer in the Kittitas Valley, which is in the northern 

portion of the Yakima basin, in Central Washington State. We 

grow apples, pears and hay on our farm. 

The irrigation method we use in our orchards is entirely drip or 

micro-sprinkler application. So I am familiar with that. The different types, there is the sprinkler and certainly the drip, and I believe the tubes Mr. Sockzehigh mentioned earlier; that would be 

the siphon tubes where there is actually an open ditch and the 

water is siphoned out from the ditch into the field. 

That is why I think he was saying the sprinklers would be using 

less water. He wasn't referring to the drip, I don't believe. 

I am also a board member on the Kittitas Reclamation District, 

one of the major fully proratable irrigation districts in the Yakima 

River basin. The Yakima River basin grows almost entirely specialty crops. Many of these crops are hauled to the ports of Seattle, 

Tacoma, or Portland and exported throughout the world. 

I have had the opportunity to work on this bill and its predecessor bills. This proposed legislation has evolved into its current 

form after many years of debate and consensus building. The language in it represents a delicate balance of positions that the 

unique coalition of Yakima basin water interests have painstakingly achieved. 
76 

Most Yakima water user groups support H.R. 1690. The water 

interests who have worked on this bill include the Yakima Indian 

Nation, the State of Washington, the Northwest Power Planning 

Council, the Bonneville Power Administration, the Bureau of Reclamation, and members of irrigation entities of the Yakima River 

Basin Association of Irrigation Districts. 

It is important to understand the sensitive and delicate status of 

the coalition which favors this bill and that changes in the bill 

could cause the coalition to fall apart. 

However, as Commissioner Beard stated earlier in his testimony, 

we should continue to work within the framework of the coalition 

if changes need to be made. 

Those of us who have been intimately involved in the development of this coalition feel that these group efforts will set a precedent for dealing with complicated and controversial resource issues 

fairly, reasonably and without litigation. 

The language in the bill is within the confines of the law and 

provide for a productive and effective way to improve irrigation distribution systems and to provide additional flows in the Yakima 

River system. 

This innovative way of providing for a more consistent and adequate supply of water for irrigators while improving flows for fish 

runs should be seen as a model for other river basins in the western U.S. with similar problems. 

It also must be emphasized that this is not a settlement bill. It 

is the second step in the process to remedy the water problems in 

the Yakima basin. 

The third step should be to provide additional storage necessary 

to achieve optimum flows to improve conditions for anadromous 

fish, recreation, flood control, irrigation, and resident fish in the 

river. 

During an average year, the Yakima basin will produce 3.5 million acre-feet of water. There are 2.5 million acre-feet of water 

rights but only 1 million acre-feet of storage; thus, some of the entities in the Yakima basin may receive little if any water in watershort years unless significant additional water storage is provided. 

This bill encourages voluntary transactions of water such as 

water-rights transfers, water banking, dry-year options and the 

sale or lease of water. Funds are also included for leasing land, 

water or water rights from a willing party. This could be very useful in helping to increase flows during water-short years. 

The farmers in the Yakima basin are implementing water conservation measures on their own to improve the distribution systems. 

However, this bill provides funding to implement conservation 

measures which would be cost prohibitive for an individual entity 

to develop but which are, nevertheless, important for the entire basin's water supply. 

Many of the systems will benefit from improvements to seal 

leaks and to automate delivery systems. Examples of other improvements are lining and piping of distribution systems, constructing reregulating reservoirs, providing for tailwater recycling, 

consolidating irrigation systems, dectri(ying hydraulic turbines, 

and funding on farm improvement;o. 
77 

Also included in the bill is a tributary demonstration project 

which will help to address some of the tributary water issues. All 

of these improvements will benefit both water quality and the 

water supply available in the Yakima basin. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, this concludes 

my testimony. I urge you to support H.R. 1690. I will be happy to 

answer any questions you may have. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Eberhart follows:] 
78 

September 23, 1993 

WITNESS STATEMENT 

YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON 

Statement by Urban B. Eberhart of Yakima River Basin Association 

of Irrigation Districts before the Subcommittee for Oversight 

and Investigations of the Committee on Natural Resources on HR 

1690, a bill to authorize certain elements of the Yakima River 

Basin Water Enhancement Project, and for other purposes. 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for allowing a hearing on this legislation and for 

giving me the opportunity to testify before you in support of HR 

1690. 

I am a farmer in the Kittitas Valley which is in the northern 

portion of the Yakima Basin, in Central Washington State. We 

grow apples, pears and hay on our farm. I am also a board 

member on the Kittitas Reclamation District, one of the major 

fully proratable irrigation districts in the Yakima River Basin. 

The Yakima River Basin grows almost entirely specialty crops. 

Many of these crops are hauled to the ports of Seattle, Tacoma 

or Portland and exported throughout the world. 

I have had the opportunity to work on this bill and its 

predecessor bills. This proposed legislation has evolved into 

its current form after many years of debate and consensus building. The language in it represents a delicate balance of 

positions that the unique coalition of Yakima Basin water 

interests have painstakingly achieved. Most Yakima water user 

groups support HR 1690. The water interests who have worked on 

this bill include the Yakima Indian Nation, the State of 

Washington, the Northwest Power Planning Council, the Bonneville 

Power Administration, the Bureau of Reclamation, and members of 

irrigation entities of the Yakima River Basin Association of 

Irrigation Districts. It is important to understand the 

sensitive and delicate status of the coalition which favors this 

bill and that changes in the bill could cause the coalition to 

fall apart. 

Those of us who have been intimately involved in the development 

of this coalition feel that these group efforts will set a 

precedent for dealing with complicated and controversial resource issues fairly, reasonably and without litigation. The 

language in the bill is within the confines of the law and 

provide for a productive and effective way to improve irrigation 

distribution systems and to provide additional flows in the 

Yakima River system. This innovative way of providing for a 

more consistent and adequate supply of water for irrigators 

while improving flows for fish runs should be seen as a model 

for other river basins in the western u.s. with similar 

problems. 

1 
79 

It also must be emphasized that this is not a settlement bill. 

It is the second step in the process to remedy the water 

problems in the Yakima Basin. The third step should be to 

provide additional storage necessary to achieve optimum flows to 

improve conditions for anadromous fish, recreation, flood 

control, irrigation and resident fish in the river. During an 

average year, the Yakima Basin will produce 3.5 million acre 

feet of water. There are 2.5 million acre feet of water rights 

but only 1 million acre feet of storage; thus, some of the 

entities in the Yakima Basin may receive little if any water in 

water-short years unless significant additional water storage is 

provided. 

This bill encourages voluntary transactions of water such as water rights transfers, water banking, dry year options and the 

sale or lease of water. Funds are also included for leasing 

land, water or water rights from a willing party. This could be 

very useful in helping to increase flows during water short 

years. 

The farmers in the Yakima Basin are implementing water 

conservation measures on their own to improve the distribution 

systems. However this bill provides funding to implement 

conservation measures which would be cost prohibitive for an 

individual entity to develop, but which are, nevertheless, 

important for the entire Basin's water supply. Many of the 

systems will benefit from improvements to seal leaks and to 

automate delivery systems. Examples of other improvements are 

lining and piping of distribution systems, constructing 

reregulating reservoirs, providing for tailwater recycling, 

consolidating irrigation systems, electrifying hydraulic 

turbines, and funding on farm improvements. Also included in 

the bill is a tributary demonstration project which will help to 

address some of the tributary water issues. All of these 

improvements will benefit both water quality and the water 

supply available in the Yakima Basin. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my 

testimony. I urge you to support HR 1690. I will be happy to 

answer any questions you may have. 

2 
80 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Maybe we should move to Dr. Kinsel, and 

combine your testimony. That way we might get the questions a little more comprehensive. 

STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM KINSEL 

Dr. KINSEL. My name is William Kinsel. I am president of the 

Board of Directors of the Kennewick Irrigation District. That is at 

the lower end of the Yakima Valley. I am also a farmer. I farm 200 

acres and have a cattle ranch. 

I come here today to support the bill. I think it is an excellent 

bill because it addresses the issues of conservation of water and 

also maintenance of fish stocks. We have two concerns I would like 

to raise. 

The first of these involves something called "return flows" which 

is not addressed in the bill. You heard earlier that the Yakima 

Project consist of six divisions, five operating divisions and one 

storage division. 

We are one of the four, the four up-river divisions, that also relies, at times, on waters from the Cascade Mountains for their 

water supply. We depend almost exclusively on something called 

"return flows," in other words, flow that comes back from our upstream neighbors. 

In responding to your question, Mr. Abercrombie, earlier there, 

Does one irrigation district affect another? Yes, it does. 

So what happens upstream is very important to us. We would 

like to see some language put into the bill that addresses the impact of return flows as related to conservation. We do not feel necessarily that conservation methods as proposed in the bill are contradictory to the maintenance of return flows, but we think that 

that is a critical issue that should be addressed. 

The second issue that we would like to raise which is addressed 

in the bill regards the electrification of hydrolic pumps. Our main 

supply station is supplied by hydrolic pumps which transfer water 

from the carrier canal into our main canal. 

It has been proposed that they be electrified. We certainly understand the arguments for that; however, that does affect water 

rights. As noted on pages 28 and 29 of the bill, this bill should not 

affect the water rights of any party and particularly those which 

are under adjudication in the Acquavella lawsuit. 

This water rights issue is under Acquavella. Mr. Beard, earlier, 

made the statement that he hoped we would not have to seek litigation to settle the issues on the Yakima. I hope not either. But 

the point of the fact is that some of the water rights are under litigation now, and we will have to see how these particular issues can 

be addressed. 

You asked the question earlier whether irrigation districts practice conservation. Let me say I think we certainly do. Of our 19,000 

acres, approximately half of that is in the cities of Kennewick and 

Richmond. We are a strong advocate of pressurized water systems to the 

urban users. That is one way of significantly conserving water. 

Also we have undertaken the 25-year capital improvement 

project to line the significant area of our 81 miles of open canals. 
81 

We recogilize that seepage loses are a major concern and something that can be overcome to achieve water conservation. Probably 

in the future we will see enclosed systems such as pipe systems to 

prevent evaporation. 

I want to close by saying we certainly want to cooperate with all 

parties who have an interest in Yakima River waters. We are certainly willing to seek alternatives to our concern. 

Finally, I think it is essential that there be good communication 

among all parties. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Dr. Kinsel follows:] 
82 

KINNEWICK IRRIGATION DISTRICT 

,p.o B.ox 6900 • I<.Q'l/!~.\"1¢k, Wq>hlngfvoo • 99336 0401 

September 21, 1993 

Congress of the Unltss States 

Jw.j 111111ee, 41h. District, House of Representatives 

1431 Longworth House Office Building 

Weshlngton, DC 2051:1-<4704 

RE: SEPTEMBER 23, 1993, TESTlMONY-ENHANCEMENT BILL HR1690 

Dear Mr. lnslee: 

Conservation Is essential for the Mure of irrigation districts In the Yakima River Basin. This bUlls 

timely end when Implemented should be of value. However, the KID hilS reservaHons about certain 

as peelS: 

o A number of critical areas have not been anlllyZed-~dlng !he effect of conservation on 

retum ~ows end the effect of Increased lnstreem flows on fish enhancement 

o The current design of the Yakima Project Reservoirs does not allow for availability of storage 

water for KID without greatly affecting all other water users In the Basin 

o Electrification of hydraulic pumps does not necessarily resun in conservation. No seientlllc 

studies have yet shown that electrification improves flsh migration. 

o Other anematlves need to be explored such as redistribution and anernate diversion points 

on the Yakima and Columbia River Systems 

o Washington State Is presently adjudicating the Yakima River Water Rights. Court decisions 

could Impact certain elements in the proposed biU. 

o KID recommends further study on critical issues before the entire bill Is Implemented. 

Sincerely, 

KENNEWICK IRRIGATION DISTRICT 

~lliam 

~~~ Kinsel, PhD 

/1" · President-Board of Directors 

WK:ds 
83 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Do you have any questions or observations, 

Mr. Inslee? 

Mr. INSLEE. If I may. 

Mr. Eberhart, my observation is that conservation is necessary 

in this project. I would like to ask whether you believe you have 

the full commitment of the membership of the association that you 

represent to that principle. If so, how have you been able to achieve 

that consensus in the group? 

Mr. EBERHART. Mr. Inslee, we have been working on this for a 

long time. There have been some attempts at legislation on the 

Yakima. The last time something was passed, I believe, was in 

1984 with the improvements of the fish streams under the auspices 

of the Bonneville Power Act. 

We tended to do a big fix, a big storage bill; and most of that 

bumping expansion would have gone to instream flows before fish. 

That did not get through Congress. It was too big of a package. 

Now we have developed the conservation stage. Yes, I do have 

the support of the Association of Irrigation Districts that I am 

bringing here on this conservation measure. 

This is a distribution, conservation package mainly; but it does 

include money for improvements. That would be lands and through 

the Soil Conservation Service. The local offices would handle the 

money as that would go out to the fanns. 

So the answer is, yes, we do support the conservation package. 

How we got there was through years of discussion, debate, consensus building, just the need to see improvements in the Yakima 

River system. 

Mr. INSLEE. This is something I see every day driving back and 

forth from the State of Washington. But can you give us any idea 

of changes necessary on fann methods because of this system? 

Mr. EBERHART. If there have been or will be? 

Mr. INSLEE. Changes that have occurred on fann practices and 

what you see in the future. Mr. EBERHART. There have been open improvements in on-fann 

improvement. I am a farmer myself. It is impossible to put in a 

state-of-the-art system on your property; you cannot afford it. 

The money is not there. The fanners are improving the systems 

in their fields as they can work it into their budgets. Everybody 

seems to have a plan of moving ahead and tries to improve their 

systems. 

A lot of pipe has gone in, certainly sprinklers and, in my case, 

and my neighbor's cases drip irrigation and micro sprinklers. I see 

that continuing. This sped up that process in making funding available for individuals and entities to continue that at a faster pace. 

Mr. INSLEE. What has driven fann improvement? What kind of 

economic force has driven those to date? 

Mr. EBERHART. A couple of things. Water quantity available certainly drives water improvements and then also entities that do 

not usually have that problem. I know that there are water conservation measures continuing on those as well. I think it makes 

good economic sense and good environmental sense to improve the 

systems if you can. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 
84 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Eberhart or Dr. Kinsel or both, feel free 

to answer or comment if you would. We are happy to have you here today because we are taking this 

seriously. We have decisions to make that, for example, Mr. Inslee 

may be familiar with, you are familiar with it, but many of us on 

the committee are not. We have to be educated. We are not stupid 

people, but we are ignorant. 

The way to deal with ignorance is with information. The questions may seem naive or exasperating to you because you have had 

to deal with them for years. But we have to deal with them in the 

immediate context of the bill. That is the motivation here. 

I am not necessarily disturbed, but I am not quite sure what you 

mean by your statement on page two about providing "additional 

storage necessary to achieve optimum flows to improve conditions 

for anadromous fish, recreation, flood control, irrigation and resident fish in the river." 

Does that mean you want to build more dams? 

Mr. EBERHART. Yes, sir. And that may be where we have to 

achieve optimum flows in the river or to develop the full development of the fishery and to ensure that the entities in the Yakima 

River basin receive an adequate supply of water over the short 

years. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If the argument is that the return to the 

country storage in terms of other reservoirs, et cetera, would decrease what stream flows took place prior to the start of irrigation, 

the advancement of farming and the reservoir increased farming in 

the area, what would lead us to believe that storage would increase 

the flow? 

Mr. EBERHART. The basin produces 300 acre-feet of water per 

year, but it does not run off which would be more efficient for the 

resource. 

There certainly is enough water produced in the basin. We are 

dealing with a demonstration product or conservation package that 

will see just how much water can be obtained through conserva- tion. 

Once we get this legislation passed and we get the conservation 

plans done and get the improvements on the ground, we will determine how much water is actually able to be obtained through conservation; and that will then come back to you. 

We would explain to you, this is where we have gotten. This is 

how much I see it. This is how much water we have come up with. 

It doesn't look like there is enough-maybe there is enough. I don't 

think so. But if there is not enough, we will come back and ask you 

for help with additional storage I would think would improve the 

flows in the river system. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Let me pose the opposite case that, if the bill 

passes, it will require conservation, utilization of water not pre·· 

viously required. And if we do have that requirement, storage wili 

be helpful because we will be able to regulate the stream flows 

which has not been possible up to this time because it has all been 

organized by, sometimes, opposing entities all trying to get their 

own deal out under way. Mr. EBERHART. Yes, you would have better management of the 

sy:o; tem possibly with other impoundments :<\J.cilities to meet ee1t.ain 
85 

needs in certain stretches of the system at different times of the 

year. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Would it be fair to say that what this bill 

does, at least the intents of this bill, is to integrate usage in a comprehensive way? 

Mr. EBERHART. Yes. The oversight committee will see to that. If 

an entity wants to put in a conservation measure, then the committee looks it over and makes sure it makes sense. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. You are volunteers, right? Or are you elected 

officers? 

Mr. EBERHART. I am an elected officer. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. So you are a public servant. 

Dr. KINSEL. Yes. We know the feeling. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. There is only one thing worse than being 

wrong, and that is being right. People forgive you for being wrong; 

they seldom forgive you for being right. You can take that back 

with you and use it if you will. 

Let me ask you about the money, then, because you have to 

make decisions about this. The core of $67 million is probably $100 

million altogether. I am not being facetious when I say that. That 

seems like a good amount of money to me. Not that $100 million 

is to be sloughed off. I don't mean that at all, but it doesn't seem 

to me-in terms of the national interests, for this entire region and 

what it means to the country-that does not seem to me to be a 

great amount of money. 

Is this a sufficient amount of money for you to accomplish, not 

you personally but for this bill to accomplish the goal? 

Mr. EBERHART. This bill will accomplish the goal with that 

amount of money which is to give us a good idea of how much 

water can be saved through conservation. 

This is not a big fix. This is not the $500 million package that 

we came to Congress several years ago with. This is not the big fix. 

This is an attempt to get the distribution systems up and running to state-of-the-art in areas where it can be done. This, by no 

means, will fix all the problems in the Yakima Basin. But, yes, it 

will accomplish the purpose to give us an idea of what actually can 

be saved through conservation. 

Mr. KINSEL. One of the important elements in the bill on page 

5, I think, was that this involves funding feasibility studies. 

I would view this bill as a very important learning experience for 

all of us that, that as we go through, we will be learning things 

in this committee that Mr. Eberhart referred to. 

The oversight committee will pass judgment on what are good 

ideas. So that while all of us might want to spend all the money 

right at once, the idea is to learn as we go and to fund, in the future, those efforts which have paid off. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Let me conclude my commentary with an observation to you. For those of us who do not reside in the area, but 

obviously have a responsibility on the committee, looking at it from 

the point of view of the American taxpayer, because we are putting 

up tax dollars in this bill from everybody, psychologically it is a lot 

like the situation in Hawaii. I will draw a parallel, not necessarily 

an analogy. 
86 

If we did things that destroyed the natural beauty in Hawaii, we 

are just hurting ourselves. Here, psychologically, when you think 

about salmon runs, that draws a picture right away in your mind. 

If you could do something that would enhance that and show that, 

as a result of this, your ability to come to the Congress and get 

somewhere near that $500 million would probably increase enormously. 

It may not be entirely fair, but there is an image that is associated with that that has almost a romantic quality. It is the kind 

of thing that draws people to Hawaii and, frankly, sustains our 

economy. There is that vision, that picture in one's mind, that this 

is going to be great, this is a terrific thing. I think when you mention that the salmon run has been reduced-and if you would like 

to enhance that, you automatically get favorable attention of a lot 

of people because they have that same image. We want to enhance 

those kinds of things that are better economically, socially, as they 

include everyone in the country. 

Dr. KINSEL. I don't have the statistics with me, but I know that 

agriculture is the number one industry in the State of Washington, 

surprisingly enough. We often think timber is. It is agriculture. 

Here, I don't know the dollar values, but I can assure you that the 

Yakima Valley with all its irrigation is a major component of our 

total agricultural income. 

I also a professor at Washington State University involved in 

water conservation issues. In my recent research, I have learned 

that throughout the world every six seconds one acre of arable land 

disappears through decertification through urbanization, or 

through other causes. 

When we look at bills like this, we must not only think about the 

immediate future, but we must think about what happens 10 and 

20 years down the path. Where we have the availability of irrigation water that land is going to be increasingly valuable over time. 

We have a serious world problem right now with water resources. Anything we can do to enhance water availability-and as 

the gentlemen from the Department of Ecology said earlier, this 

could be a model for our Nation-watersheds like this may want 

to participate in similar programs. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. My own view at this stage is that money is 

well spent to the degree that you take difficult problems, where you 

have otherwise competing entities that are able to achieve a cooperative context within which to make decisions; $100 million, it 

seems to me, is not very much money if that can be accomplished. 

We are looking at this legislation. 

I have no further observations. 

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I have one thing. I will be happy to 

work with you regarding your concerns. I have not had a chance 

to tell you that. I think they are important ones. I look forward to 

talking to you and Mr. Ivey as the process unfolds to try to address 

those. 

I would like to indicate for the record that when we do restore 

the fish runs in the Yakima River and our quality of life and tourism increases, we will not have a "Skip Hawaii Come to Yakima 

Project" after this hearing. 
87 

Mr. EBERHART. Mr. Abercrombie, if you would like to stop by on 

one of your trips back home and take a short hop over the Cascades, we would love to give you a tour of the Yakima. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I would be happy to do that. One of the attractions we have when people fly to Hawaii is that we serve salmon. 

Mr. EBERHART. Thank you. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Our last panel then, before we move to H.R. 

1477, is Dr. Zach Willey, the Environmental Defense Fund; and Dr. 

Brent Blackwelder, who is vice president of Friends of the Earth. 

PANEL CONSISTING OF ZACH WILLEY, PH.D., SENIOR ECONOMIST, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, OAKLAND, CA; AND 

DR. BRENT BLACKWELDER, VICE PRESIDENT, FRIENDS OF 

THE EARTH, WASIDNGTON, DC, ALSO ON BEHALF OF SIERRA 

CLUB AND NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. We will start with Mr. Willey, if that is all 

right. Welcome, Aloha. Thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF DR. ZACH WILLEY 

Dr. WILLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My name is Zach Willey. I am senior economist with the Environmental Defense Fund in the Western Regional Office. I chair 

programs in the Environmental Defense Fund in the northwestern 

part of the country and British Columbia, and I presently have 

projects in Idaho and Oregon. I am very pleased to be here today. I want to start out by saying-! think this is a true statement-the Environmental Defense 

Fund is the only speaker who is not a litigant in Washington water 

affairs or Yakima water affairs. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Do you want to leave now then? 

Dr. WILLEY. I want to say that recently the Environmental Defense Fund produced a report in cooperation with the Washington 

State Water Resources Association, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the Washington Department of Ecology, major irrigation districts in the Yakima basin, and the tribes; I will submit that for 

the record today. This report was done in May and it concerned developing procedures by which water could be transferred from outof-stream to instream flows on a voluntary basis, particularly in 

dry years. 

EDF supports the intent of H.R. 1690, certainly the intent to enhance stream flows, the intent to improve the Yakima Nation's irrigation system and the intent to move toward a sustained agricultural economy. 

As usual, the devil is in the details, and I will skip through and 

touch on the concerns that we have within the context of being in 

support of the overall efforts. I am very sensitive to the delicate 

balance that has been reached in bringing this bill before you. I was able to attend some of the meetings that Congressman 

Morrison held in the last several years. I appreciate very much the 

process and the work that has gone into developing this bill. 
88 

Our concerns break down into four general areas. The first one 

has to do with the setting of instream flow standards. Nowhere in 

the bill is there mention of a biological or scientific process by 

which instream flow standards will be set. 

Instream flow standard numbers are noted in Section 5, actually 

in numbers, but there is not a process to determine whether or not 

those numbers are going to have a substantial, a marginal or an 

in-between effect on salmon runs. So we need to have some kind 

of process, I think, in place that will actually can tell us what kinds 

of instream flows are needed for these fish runs. 

The second point on instream flows, nowhere is it noted how they 

will be defined. They need to be defined as instantaneous in time. 

You could take the instream flow standard and take it as an average over the year, and it would not help salmon. That needs to be 

defined as an instantaneous standard. 

Another factor with the Yakima runs is temperature. We have 

serious water temperature problems in some spawning areas. I 

don't believe the word "temperature" is mentioned in the bill. It is 

certainly not providing a procedure by which temperature maximums will be set in conjunction with instream flow management. 

That is as a concern as well. 

Finally, the concept of out-migration flush flows for salmon 

smults is mentioned. That is the problem throughout the region. 

Getting the smolts to the ocean in a timely fashion is a factor of 

mortality. 

We also need to have to have a basis for the Yakima smolts to 

predict what a productive out-migration flush flow would be. 

In the cost-share area, our second area, three comments: We believe that the Federal cost-share ought to be dedicated to the 

instream flow benefits of the bill. If the Federal part is dedicated 

to the instream flow benefits of the bill, then the instream numbers 

in Section 5 will increase. We think that is a equitable formula to 

leverage these conservation projects for instream flows. 

With respect to the Bonneville Power Association, we encourage 

a non-Federal cost-share for Bonneville for fisheries. That is in the 

bill. We support that. Mr. Robertson mentioned that earlier. 

We also would like to have the option that Bonneville could participate as a cost-sharer on a non-Federal basis for power enhancement, if any, that result from conservation projects. What I mean 

is, if there is an increased instream flow that reaches Bonneville 

turbines on the mainstem of the Columbia, there will be a power 

benefit. Bonneville ought to have the option to participate and encourage projects that do that. 

Finally, this is a proposal, but it is mentioned in the EDS report 

that I will submit for the record, we believe an environmental trust 

fund ought to be established for the Yakima basin to manage and 

disburse the funds in the way that trust funds have been established elsewhere. 

The third area of concern is water transfers. Actually, this is an 

area of support for language in the bill in Sections 3 and 5 is excellent. We are very supportive of voluntary transfers, sales and 

leases of water for instream flows. We think the bill has made tremendous progress, actually made progress over previous versions, 

and we applaud the authors for that work. 
89 

In tenns of cost effectiveness, the bill is allowing both conservation and sales and leases to occur. There can be a fundamentally 

different process involved in each. As Mr. Eberhart said, conservation projects can be anything from improved pipe to distribution 

systems. Sales and leases can involve actual fallowing or switching 

of crops to lower water-using crops. That is the subject of a report 

that was submitted. We think both are options in this bill and 

there ought to be cost effectiveness criteria established to determine what mix of land fallowing and reductions in consumptive use 

on the one hand, and conservation projects, on the other, ought to 

have money spent on them to achieve goals. I think that would involve side-by-side comparison. 

Finally, Section 3(g)(3), we support the access of water sales and 

leases to appropriations as provided in this bill. 

Finally, in State law we have a fundamental concern there. As 

the bill is written, there will be no protection of instream flows 

from other appropriators under State law. If it can conserve water 

and keep it in the Bureau's reservoirs and release it to the environment, then it can be diverted. We do not see a clear way to protect 

against that happening except to require that the water freed up 

as a result of this program be placed in the Yakima State Water 

Trust Fund mentioned by Mr. Slattery, be held as an instream 

flow, that there be a transfer of rights from appropriations to 

instream flows and that they be held in that trust; and that the 

State then would have the authority and responsibility to protect 

those instream flow rights from appropriations within the system. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Would that require State legislation or are 

you suggesting that be in this bill and the State be subject to it 

as a result of the bill? 

Dr. WILLEY. As Mr. Slattery already mentioned in 1989 legislation was passed in Washington State in anticipation of the date in 

which a Federal bill would pass. There is no need to pass additional State legislation. There is only a need to reference the use 

of the existing Yakima trust mechanism in this bill. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. That goes back to Mr. Beard's testimony. He 

thought that rules and regulations coming from passage of a bill 

such as this would have to be handled. 

Dr. WILLEY. It could. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. We can handle it if we have the right commissioner in there, like Mr. Beard. 

Dr. WILLEY. No problem for the next four years. 

That concludes my comments. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Dr. Willey follows:] 
ENVIRONMENTAL 

DEFENSE FUND 

90 

Califomill O/fia 

Rockridge Market Hall 

5655 College Ave. 

Oakland, CA 94618 

(510) 658·8008 

Fax: 510.fi58<1630 

YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT 

H.R.l690 

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COMMIITEE ON 

National Headquarters 

257 Park Avenue South 

New"York, NY 10010 

(212) 505·2100 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Presented By 

Zach Willey, Ph.D. 

Senior Economist 

Environmental Defense Fund 

September 23, 1993 

1875 Conneceicut Ave .. N.W. 

Washington, DC 20009 

(202) 387·3500 

1405 Arapailoe Ave. 

Boulder, CO 80302 

(303) 440-4901 

128 East Hargett St. 

Raleigh, NC 27601 

(919) 82J.7793 

1800 Guadalupe 

Austin, TX 78701 

(5 12) 478·5 161 
91 

H.R. 1690- YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT BILL 

BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Testimony Presented By 

Zacb Willey, Ph.D. 

Senior Economist 

Environmental Defense Fund 

September 23, 1993 

Background and Summary 

The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) is a national, not-for-profit environmental organization 

with more than 200,000 members. EDF's program in the Northwest currently has projects 

involving water, power, fisheries, and other environmental values ir. Washington, Oregon, and 

Idaho. Each of these projects has an objective of implementing environmental improvements 

using market-based policies. 

During the past several years, EDF has worked with the State of Washington to reform several 

aspects of its water law to reduce barriers to voluntary transfers of water and water rights. More 

recently, EDF collaborated with representatives of the Washington State Water Resources 

Association, the U.S. Bureau ofReclamatio!l, the Washington Department of Ecology, major 

irrigation districts in the Yakima Basin, and the Yakima Indian Nation on a project to design 

methods to implement water leases for instream flow enhancement in the Yakima Basin. The 

executive summary and table of contents ofEDFs draft final report (May 28, 1993) ·-Water 

Marketing and Instream Flow Enhancement in Washington's Yalcima River Basin- Procedures 

for Dry Year Leaving and Transfer of Water- is included here as Attachment I. 

The introduction ofH.R. 1690 by Congressman Inslee is a-constructive attempt to complete 

longstanding efforts to improve water supply conditions in the Yakima Basin. Several 

unsuccessful attempts to enact federal legislation have been made during the past twenty years. 

There are complex and ongoing water rights issues and litigation, including the adjudication of the 

Basin's water rights, which must be addressed, or at least acknowledged, in federal legislation. 

Water rights litigation has yet to fully address the instream environmental problems of the Basin, 

although the courts have acknowledged the requirements of Yakima fisheries. The Yakima River 

has substantial environmental problems, including those involving salmon habitats which could, if 

not resolved, induce the filing of petitions for listings under the Endangered Species Act. Federal 

legislation could help to solve these problems. 

76-655 0 - 94 - 4 
92 

EDF supports the intent of H.R. 1690 and other efforts to improve both the Basin's environment 

and the sustainability of its agricultural economy. The following statement includes an outline of 

key criteria for and an evaluation of federal water legislation in the Yakima. EDF supports the 

bill's provisions on water leasing and sales and on-reservation programs for the Yakima Indian 

Nation. On the other hand, there are problems with the bill's specification of instream flow 

targets as well as the means proposed to meet these targets. 

• EDF's overall conclusion is that H.R. 1690 is a good start on a bill which needs 

substantial revisions to make it productive legislation. 

Criteria for Environmentally- and Economically-Sound Federal Legislation in 

the Yakima Basin 

• lnstream Rows: scientifically-based -- The specification of instream flow targets, standards, 

or minimum levels should be based on scientific evaluation of the effects of alternative flows on 

fisheries and other environmental values. A credible methodology, such as the instream flow 

increments methodology (IFIM), should be applied to set these standards. In addition, the 

relationship between flows and pollutants should be addressed. Of particular importance to 

salmon spawning is water temperature, which can be reduced with instream flow management. 

Finally, instream flow evaluations must be specific to river reach segments where reduced 

diversions -- as opposed to reduced consumptive uses -- are the basis for improving instream 

flows. 

• Conservation as suop!y: "wet" water-- Two types of conservation can be used to augment 

water supplies. First, increased efficiency of water delivery reduces the need to divert water and, 

to a degree, return flows to the river. The benefits to instream flows of such conservation accrue 

primarily between the point of diversion and the point( s) of return flows to the river. Second, 

reductions in consumptive use from switching to lower water-using crops or from land fallowing 

also reduce the need to divert water. Since consumptive use water was not previously 

in the river even as return flows, such water can enhance instream flows in all reaches of the river 

downstream of the diversion point. In both cases, the water being conserved will only be real, or 

"wet," if it has consistently been diverted and used. 

• Water Transfers: marut-basecl -- Any river basin has a long list of potential water 

conservation projects. Studies and plans to determine which projects should be implemented with 

what effectiveness and at what cost are useful in sorting out these options. Identification of the 

bonafide, cost -effective projects is best achieved through buyer -seller interactions and 

negotiations. 

• Fioaociol!: beneficiaries pav - Financing water conservation projects should be linked to 

the resulting benefits. Public financing should result in tangible public benefits. Revenues from 

fees on all river uses -- irrigation, municipal, industrial, recreation; fisheries; pollution sources 

(point and nonpoint) -- should be generated as a source of public funding. Environmental trust 

funds should be established to manage and disperse funds for environmental purposes. 

2 
93 

• Legal: c:oosisteot with state water Ia!!! Instream flows resulting from conservation 

projc:c:ts should have a firm basis in Washington water law. Transfers of appropriative water 

rights freed up by conservation projects are allowed by state law, and resulting instrearn flow 

rights would be held by the Washington Department of Ecology under the state's Yakima Basin 

Trust legislation (RCW 90.38). Such transfers must also be consistent with the ongoing Yakima 

Basin adjudication (State of Washington. Department of Ecology v James J. Acquavella. et al.). 

The Washington Department of Ecology must enforce the terms oftbese instrearn flow rights. 

• Institutional: irrigation district authorities - Irrigation districts must have authorities to 

finance their share of conservation projects, and to either work with landowners to implement 

on-farm conservation or develop water rate structures to provide incentives for on-farm 

conservation. 

Evaluation of H.R. 1690, and Recommendations 

The following includes an evaluation ofH.R. 1690 according to each of these criteria. 

Recommendations for changes in H.R. 1690 are included in italics. 

• Instream flows: sc:ientifigl!y-basgl -Section 5(a)(l) ofH.R. 1690 contains targets for 

instrearn flows for varying levels of "full supply" of water in the Basin. The origin of these targets 

is not stated. Inadequate streamflows in the Yakima have been identified for improvement to 

protect anadromous fisheries in the Columbia River Fish and Wildlife Program adopted by the 

Northwest Power Planning Council. In early 1992, water resource and fishery agencies, along 

with the Yakima Indian Nation, identified the fluctuating flows in the lower reaches of the Yakima 

River as a problem that affects the anadromous fish resource. 

EDF supports the intent ofH.R. 1690 to reduce these fluctuating flows in the Yakima by adopting 

instream targets. The specification of target instream flow levels in Section 5(a)(l) would, if 

implemented and enforced, provide some additional assurance of a 300 cfs target being achieved 

upon enactment of the bill, several years at least ahead of the implementation of the Yakima River 

Basin Water Conservation Program proposed in the bill. 

At the same time, the 300 cfs target already exists as a guide for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

in its operations of the Yakima Project. This target has been set with the technical advice of the 

Systems Operation Advisory Committee. As will be seen below in the discussion of Figures I and 

2, current levels of total water supply availability (TWSA) would not require, per the 

specifications in the table in Section 5(a)(l) ofHR1690, an increase above 300 cfs in target flows 

in "average years." Only in full supply years (i.e. wet years) would increases above 300 cfs be 

triggered by the provisions ofH.R. 1690. Thus, the "baseline" instream flow target of the bill is 

identical with the existing situation in most years. 

3 
94 

Further, neither the levels nor definitions ofinstream targets listed in Section S(aXI)-(3) provide 

assurance that the adverse effects of inadequate flows on salmon stocks and other environmental 

values will be significantly reduced even if these targets are achieved. 

• A process of scientific determination and review of instream targets is needed 

Credible instream flow studies, together with consultation with fisheries agencies (including the 

National Marine Fisheries Service) should be used to set minimum instream flow standards. 

"Targets" in Section 5(a)(I) should be replaced, if necessary, by such minimum flow standards. 

• Such standards should be instantaneous, i.e. measured over hourly, or at most daily, 

time periods. The discretion to allow fluctuations provided in Section 5(a)(2) should be 

curtailed by specifying such instantaneous standards to guide the Yakima Project's operation. 

• Temperature ceilings should be established for spawning flows. Add Section 7(a)(5): 

"Minimum instream flows and maximum instream temperatures shall be determined for any 

tributary for which an enhancement program is considered Such flows and temperatures shall 

be established based upon the best available scientific information and analysis concerning 

requirements of salmon spawning and other environmental uses, and shall guide the selection.of 

water enhancement projects in the tributary." 

• Increased instream flows for outward migration of anadromous fish as provided in 

Section 5(a)(3) are defined "when necessary." A process for the scientific determination of 

flushing flows for outmigration should be specified which addresses the survival and 

sustainability requirements of anadromous fish stocks .. 

• Conservation as suoply: "wet" water -- The Columbia River Fish and Wildlife Program 

adopted by the Northwest Power Planning Council calls for water conservation projects to 

enhance instream flows to be planned and implemented by the· end of 1993 and 1996 respectively. 

The intent ofH.R. 1690 is consistent with the Council's Program. EDFs evaluation above of the 

instream flow targets in the bill indicates the possibility that these targets will need to be 

increased. If so, the impacts on water supply available for irrigation and other out-of-river uses 

appear to be minimal. 

To demonstrate this, Figure I provides a baseline of water supply, or total water supply .available 

(TWSA), in recent years in the Yakima Basin. "Full water supply," a concept noted in Section 

5(a)( I), refers to water supply conditions which allow full deliveries not only to all non-proratable 

water rights but also to all proratable water rights. An "average" water supply, based on average 

use patterns in recent years, is available with full delivery to all non-proratables, and 80% delivery 

to proratables. 

The top two curves in Figure I represent these levels ofTWSA respectively. In a full water 

supply year, approximately 2.8 million acre-feet (MAF) ofTWSA exists on April I; in an 

"average use" year, 2.3 MAF exists on April I. The table in Section S(a)(I) specifies 2.65 MAF 

4 
95 

Fiprel 

TOTAL WATER SUPPLY AVAILABLE 

YAKIMA RIVER BMIN MOVE PARKER TW8A-M~) 

o.s 

0 ........._ _ _._...____.__..__, .. 

411 111 111 10t1 

S/1 711 111 

0... 

Y..._ ..... w.rlupply-,_'INnds Vs. HR 1110 

3~r---~--------------------------, 

111 711 

awillble on April I as a precolldition for the elevatioa of instream flow targets to 400 ds. Thus, 

increases in average TWSA Uldlor reductions in averap watec use will be required to triger 

increases above the 300 ds insttam target. 

5 
96 

The TWSA curves in Figure 2 compare existing full supply and "average" conditions with those 

proposed in H.R. 1690. Level "3" in Section S(aXI) approximates the existing full supply TWSA 

curve -- a 400 cfs instrearn target would be triggered currently only under "wet" or full supply 

conditions unless or until TWSA is effectively expanded by the Yakima Water Enhancement 

Program. Thus, a 400 cfs target would only be triggered in nonnal or "average" years by an 

increase in average TWSA of approximately 250,000 to 350,000 acre-feet as a result of water 

conservation projects. 

Under current "average conditions, with 2,300,000 acre-feet ofTWSA projected on April 1, a 

300 cfs minimum flow during the ensuing six months requires 108,600 acre-feet, or approximately 

4.7%, ofTWSA to be managed for instream flow releases from Bureau of Reclamation reservoirs. 

As the data in Table I below indicate, H.R. 1690 would increase the share ofTWSA required to 

meet instream flow targets to 5.7%, 6.2%, and 6.9"/o respectively for the three TWSA full supply 

levels and instream targets proposed in Section 5(a)(l). Figure 3 illustrates these increases in 

TWSA, and associated shares for instream flow targets. 

IHR 1690 (1) 

HR 1690 (2) 

!!_R 1690 (3) 

"Average Use" 

Table 1 

lWSA: Iostream Target: 

Aprii1/MAF April II MAF 

3.2 0.22 

2.9 0.18 

2.65 0.15 

2.3 0.11 

Figure 3 

Total Water Supply Levels- HR 1690 

Yaldm• River S.sin 

6 

lnstream Share of 

lWSA-% 

6.9 

6.2 

5.7 

4.8 
97 

Figure4 

HR 1690: lnstream Shares of Expanded Water Supplies 

Ylllrlma River Baaln 

~ 200 

~ 0 

2.30=>2.65MAF 2.90MAF=>3.20MAF 

2.65=>2.90MAF 

II Total Water 0 lnstream Supply 

Supply Increment Increment 

The increments in the Yakima Basin's TWSA which may be enabled by H.R. 1690 (if the TWSA 

levels in Section 5(a)(l) were realized), along with the proposed share of these increments which 

would be dedicated to instream flows under the biD's targets, are illustrated in Figure 4. The 

instream shares would be in the I 0-12% range of increments in TWSA enabled by the Yakima 

River Basin Water Enhancement Program. 

While the water supply enhancements in H.R. 1690 would improve instream flows, these flows 

could be improved substantially more and still provide significant TWSA improvements for other 

water uses. For example, the 900,000 acre-feet of enhanced TWSA which would result if level 

(I) in Section 5(a)(l) were achieved is proposed to yield a 600 cfs instrearn flow target. The cost 

sharing proposed in Section 3(e) would involve a federal grant of35% for implementation of 

water conservation projects. If the federal share were applied to instrearn flows, an instream flow 

target of 1170 cfs would result. [The 35% of900;000 AF could be shaped for instream flow 

releases over six months to maintain 870 cfs offlows in addition to the 300 cfs base which exists 

at current TWSA average conditions.] 

• It is technically feasible, and justified from a cost sharing perspective, to increase the 

instream flow targets in Section 5(a)(J) to reflect the federal government's contribution. Under 

this formula, the proposed instream targets would be revised as listed in Table 2 below. 

7 
98 

Tablel 

'IWSA - April tbna Target lnstRam Flows 

September (MAF) (cfs) 

(1) 3.2 1,170 

(2) 2.9 880 

(3) 2.65 650 

• Water Transfen; market-bued 

H.R. 1690 contains an excellent set of provisions enabling voluntary sales and leases to be utilized 

to enhance instream flows. Among the guidelines to be adopted by the Secretary of Interior in 

administering .the Basin Conservation Program are "institutional and economic incentives to 

increase conservation and to promote more efficient use of water, which shall include the 

specification of procedures for the voluntary transfer of water within the Yakima River basin" 

(Section 3(d)(4)). 

• EDF supports this guideline - it allows opportunities to implement market-based 

transfers water rights to instream flows. 

Among the conservation measures which are admissible for consideration for implementation in 

the Basin Conservation Program are water transfers and other innovative allocation tools. 

Section 3(g)(2) states "The Secretary shall, to the maximum extent possible under Federal and 

State law, cooperate with the State of Washington to facilitate water and water right transfers, 

water banking, dry year options, the sale and leasing of water, and other innovative allocation 

tools used to maximize the utility of existing Yakima River basin water supplies. • 

• EDF supports this provision's inclusion of various market-based tools for water 

reaiiOCDtion to instream flows as a component of the bill's conservation measures. The listing of 

conservation technologies (as in Section 3(g)(J)) as the only component would have forced the 

program to pick technologies rather than performance in terms ofwaJer transfe"ed to instream 

flows. This provision avoids this needless constraint. 

Section 5(a)(3) states that "instream ftows shall be increased for interim periods during any month 

of April through October to facilitate when necessary the outward migration of anadromous fish. 

Increased instream ftows for such interim periods shall be obtained through voluntary sale and 

leasing of water or water rights. • 

• While waJer sales and leases should certainly be a key option in providing 

oulllligration flows, ~other waur mode available froM conservalion should be potentially 

applicob/e to theae flows as well. Water supplies mode available froM conservation projects 

• 
99 

which improve distribution efficiency a1idi6r from land fallowing, crop switching, and other 

consumptive use reduction measures can and should be managed jointly for instream flows. An 

instream flow sub-account within the 7WSA should be created to be managed for both minimum 

flows and outmigration flushes. 

The bill provides market-based water transfer tools access to funds appropriated for the 

implementation of conservation measures. Section 3(g)(3) states that "The Secretary may, 

consistent with applicable law, use funds appropriated to carry out this section for the purchase or 

lease of land, water, or water rights from any entity or individual willing to limit or fqrego water 

use on a temporary or permanent basis." 

• The access to funds appropriated for all conservation measures is a critical 

requirement in the effective deployment of water leases and sales to reallocate water to instream 

flows. EDF suppons this access, and proposes that a process be included in the bill to require 

side-by-side comparisons of various conservation projects on the one hand with water transfers 

through acquisitions on the other to determine relative cost-effectiveness in instream flow 

enhancement performance. 

Figure5 

WATER CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITIES 

YAKJMA RIVER BASIN, WASHINGTON 

150 r-----

i COST 

I - I WATER YIELD i 100 

L ___ ~ 

9 
Price ($/Ac-Ft) 

100 

Figure6 

Marginal Cost of Water Supply 

AartculluraiSedor- Yakima Baoln 

Altom.u..C(1) 

$150 r----------------___, • Speannint 0 

$125 

$100 

$75 

$50 

$25 

• OtherHayO 

• s-eomo • 5-..ComR 

• AlfallaO 

• ComO 

• WheatO 

• Speannint R 

• ee.,.R • WheltR 

•com R 

0 Alfalfa R 

• SilageO 

• Pa!lllleO 

$O 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 ~ <450 500 550 • Peppennint R 

Quantity of Water Available (1000 AF) I ~~ :.Y R 

r:b~C:':.on:.':-I'IO':t~;.w • PaW"e R 

protlt lcro-n«<W'Icl lwod lr'lttcr r~ed.-,o 

The two types of conservation are not strictly comparable from an instrearn flow perspective since 

the conservation projects primarily reduce diversions and return flows while land fallowing 

reduces diversions and consumptive use. Nevertheless, both approaches can yield water to 

enhance instrearn flows. 

To emphasize the importance of this, the information in. Figure 5 illustrates the estimated costs of 

a number of potential conservation projects in the Yakima Basin. This data, elC!racted from 

enhancement and conservation studies undertaken by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the 

Washington Department of Ecology during the 1985-91 period, shows that the cost of producing 

diversion reductions through efficiency improvements can vary substantially -- from around 

$10/AF to over $100/AF aMually. Similarly, Figure 6 displays data (from the EDF report cited 

above-- see Attachment I to this testimony) on the costs of water made available from leasing 

and fallowing land. These costs can vary over a similar range, depending on many factors. The 

overlap of these cost ranges indicates that a mix of both types of conservation may be the optimal 

expenditure of Program funds. 

• Cost-effective expenditures of Program funds require that opportunities within each 

type of conservation be considered to achieve the marimum instream benefit from Program 

funds. 

10 
101 

• Financing; benerreiaries pay 

Section 3(hX4) provides up to $6,000,000 for initial acquisition of water specifically for 

outrnigration flows. It also requires that such funds shall not be subject to cost sharing 

provisions. The principle that federal funding be dedicated to instream flow enhancements 

underlying this provision is sound. Water users in the Yakima Basin benefit from public 

expenditures to enhance instream flows by reducing whatever legal liability they may have for 

environmental damages to the River's environment and fisheries. At the same time, as noted 

above, the dedication of the federal eost share to instream flows would significantly increase the 

amount ofTWSA to be dedicated to instream flows in Section S(aXl). 

• EDF supports a cost sharing principle which dedicates all federal funds and grants to 

the securing of water supplies for instream flows. 

Section 3(eX2) provides that expenditures by the Bonneville Power Administration to enhance 

fishery resources in the Yakima be counted as a non-Federal cost share. Since BPA's funding is 

provided primarily by electric ratepayers in the Northwest, this is a sensible provision. However, 

enhanced instream flows in the Yakima Basin have the potential to enhance hydroelectricity 

generation for BPA at the four Columbia River mainstem dams below the mouth of the Yakima 

River. BPA should have the option to cost share conservation projects in the Yakima based on 

this power benefit, and this should count as non-Federal cost share as well. 

• BPA's participation in Yakima projects should be encouraged for either fishery 

resources or power benefits. and resulting cost shares should be considered to be non-Federal. 

The biU proposes to rely entirely on traditional mechanisms for appropriations and cost sharing. 

Protections are needed for Program funding. The establishment of a mandatory Yakima River 

Environmental Trust Fund should be authorized to manage Program funds. H.R. 1690 should 

include a section authorizing water user fees in the Yakima Basin for ;ill users -- out-of-stream; 

recreation; fish and wildlife; and sources of water pollution. Consultation with the House Ways 

and Means Committee on the establishment of a mandatory trust fund should be initiated. 

• A mandatory Yakima River Environmental Trust Fund should be established to 

manage funds from federal appropriations, state and local cost shares. and broad-based water 

user fees. 

• Legal; consistent with state water laws 

Section S(a)(l) provides that "the Secretary shall ... provide instream flows in accordance with the 

foUowing criteria." While this provides the authority for the Yakima Project Superintendent to 

establish an instream flow account within the TWSA accounting system, it provides no protection 

from diversions of instream flows by other appropriators. To provide such protection under state 

law, the bill should authorize the Secretary to apply to the State of Washington to transfer water 

11 
102 

rights underlying water supplies for instream flows to the Yakima Basin Trust Program pursuant 

to RCW 90.38. Under this program, the Washington Department of Ecology would hold in trust 

the instream flow rights, and would be responsible for enforcing their protection. 

• H.R 1690 should authorize the Secretary to establish an instream flow account within 

the Yakima Project's IWSA accounts, and to transfer the water rights in the instream flow 

account to the Washington Department of Ecology to hold and protect in trust as instream flow 

rights pursuant to RCW 90. 38. 

• Institutional: irrigation district authorities 

Section 3( d){3 ){K) states a criterion for evaluating and prioritizing proposals for conservation 

plans and implementation of measures as "the existence of willingness of irrigation entities and 

other Basin Conservation Program participants to adopt procedures for incremental water 

pricing'' There may be some question about the extent of the authorities of irrigation districts 

with federal water contracts to implement incremental pricing. The bill should clarify this 

authority for the irrigation districts. 

• The authorities of irrigation districts with contracts for federal water storage to 

implement incremental pricing should be clarified and made applicable to both fixed and 

variable rate components. 

12 
103 

[Attachment 1] 

WATER MARKETING AND INSTREAM FLOW ENHANCEMENT 

IN WASHINGTON'S YAKIMA RIVER BASINPROCEDURES FOR DRY YEAR LEASING 

AND TRANSFER OF WATER 

A DRAFT FINAL REPORT 

BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND 

TO THEW ASHINGTON STATE WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION 

AND THE U. S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 

MAY 28, 1993 
104 

WATER MARKETING AND INSTREAM FLOW ENHANCEMENT 

/N WASHINGTON'S YAKIMA RIVER BASIN- PROCEDURES 

[FOR DRY YEAR LEASING AND TRANSFER OF WATER 

fA DRAFT FINAL REPORT I 

:BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND TO 

ITHE WASHINGTON STATE WATER RESOURCES 

ASSOCIATION AND THE U. S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, 

:MAY 28, 1993 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Executive Stimmary 

I. Introduction 

2. Principles Governing the Implementation of the Yakima Basin 

Water Leasing Program to Enhance Instream Flows 

A. Recitals 

Pages 

: Ex l-3 

! l-1 -

! 1-2 

2-1 -

:2-7 

B. The Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... ........ ... .. ..... . . ' 2-4-

'2-7 

3. Key Institutions in the Implementation ofthe Yakima Basin 

Water Leasing Pro!,>ram ....... ... . 

A. Water Leases for lnstream Flows: Yakima River Basin 

Trustees 

:3-1-

i 3-13 

\3-1 -

I 3-5 

B. Leasing Pro!,>ram Review: Lease Oversight Committee ... .... i 3-5 -

! 3-7 

C. Shaping of Leased Water for In stream Flows: U S. Bureau oti 

Reclamation i 3-8 -

! 3-11 
105 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Pages 

D. Water Rights Transfers and Instream Flows: Washington 

Department of Ecology .............. ... ' .....••... . ..•..... . ... . .......... ... 3-ll3-12 

E. Instream Flow Targets: Systems Operation Advisory 

Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ························ ....... ...... 3-1 2 -

3-13 I F. Adjudication I Transfer Order: Superior Court of the State of 

I Washington for the County of Y ak.ima ........ ........... ................ 3-13 

I 4. Economic Elements of Lease Contracting and Pricing for Water . 

i Transfers in the Yakima River Basin ...•••.. .........•..•...••••..•••.....•.• 4-1 -

! 4-28 i A. Lease Prices 4-l -

I 

............ ..... ..... ...... ...... ......... ....... .......... ... ... . . .. 

4-3 

r 

B. Lease Options . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................... ..................... ....... .. . . .... 4-3-

4-5 

! c. Opportunities for Leasing Consumptive Water Uses in the t 

I Yakima Basin . ........ . .............. 4-5-

4-9 

i D. Estimates of Cost-Based Water Leasing Rates ..... ... ... .... ....... 4-9-

! 14-13 

! E. Illustration of the Financial Requirements of a Water Leasing 

i Program for Enhanced lnstream and Smolt Pulsing Flows in 

I 

the Yakima River .... ........... ... ............. ................ .... ...... ... .. 4-13-

4-15 

I Appendix 4A -- Option Contracting for Natural Resource 

Acquisitions ·················· ........•..•.......... .... .... ............. . . . . . . . . . . . 4-16-

4-22 

Appendix 48 --Methodology for Estimating Marginal Costs of 

Water Supplies from Leasing in the Yakima Basin-- Temis 

and Data Sources for Figures 4-4A, 4-4B, and 4-4C ............... 4-23-

4-28 
106 

r ABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Pages 

I 5. Alternatives for Solicitation of Water Supplies and Lease Asking 

I Prices .. ....................................................................................... 5-l -

i 5-20 

i 

! 

A. Standing Offers ....... .......... .................... ....... ... ......................... . 

B. Negotiated Sales ...... ... .. ..... .... .................... ...... .............. ..... .. . 

C. Auctions 

Appendix 5A --Types of Auctions ..... ... .. ... ..... ... .... . 

6. Proposed Option and Water Lease Agreement to Secure 

Enhanced In stream Flows in the Yakima Basin 

5-1-

5-6 

5-6-

5-9 

5-9-

5-14 

5-15-

15-20 

6-1 -

6-7 

A. Recitals ......... i 6-l 

B. Elements of Agreement 

C. Attachment 2: Source of Leased Water -- Lessor's Leased 

Water Program I Certification of Beneficial Use 

.. j6-l -

16-4 

! 

.1 6-5-

16-7 

7. Legal Factors in Water Leases and Transfers in the Yakima River 

Basin ..... ........ ................ . ........... .......................... .. .... .. .............. 7-1 -

7-11 

A. Federal Water Law ............ ............................. ...................... .. . . 7-1 -

7-5 

B. Washington State Water Law ... .......... .. ....... .. .. ... ... ...... .. ..... ..... . 

C. Yakima Basin Water Rights Adjudication 

8. Financing Water Leases for Instream Flows '· .... ................ ... ........ . 

7-5-

7-9 

7-9-

7-11 

8-l -

8-19 
107 

IT ABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

I A. Federal Authorizations .............. ·o. ·o ..... . . ·o. ·o .. 0. ·o .. 0 •• • ••• • •••• • •••• 

i 

B. Federal User Fees ·· ·· ·· ····o··o·········· · ·· ··· o·· o··· o··o··o··o··o··o 

I 

C. Hydropower/ Bonneville Power Administration .......... . ..... . 

D. State of Washington Programs 

E. Public-Private Partnerships ..... ··· o ··o····· ········ 

Pages 

8-1 -

8-2 

8-2-

8-5 

8-6-

8-7 

8-7-

8-9 

8-9-

8-ll 

Appendix 8A --Federal Authorities to Acquire Land and Water. .. 8-12-

8-19 

9. Recommendations . . . . . . . . ......... .... 0 • 0 ... .. ... .. 0 .. .. . 9-1 -

9-2 
108 

WATER MARKETING AND INSTREAM FLOW ENHANCEMENT IN 

WASHINGTON'S YAKIMA RIVER BASIN - . PROCEDURES FOR DRY 

YEAR LEASING AND TRANSFER OF WATER 

A DRAFT FINAL REPORT 

BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUNDTO 

THE WASHINGTON STATE WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION AND 

THE U. S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, 

MAY 28,1993 

Executive Summary 

Inadequate streamflows in select tributaries of the Columbia River Basin have 

been identified for improvement to protect anadromous fisheries. The Phase I 

amendments to the Columbia River Fish and Wildlife Program adopted by the 

Northwest Power Planning Council call for water conservation projects to enhance 

instream flows to be planned and implemented by the end of 1993 and 1996 

respectively. In early 1992, water resource and fishery agencies, along with the 

Yakima Indian Nation, identified the fluctuating flows in the lower reaches of the 

Yakima River as a problem that affects the anadromous fish resource. The 

establishment of a water leasing procedure to augment flows in the Yakima at 

critical times was called for by these groups. 

The Washington State Water Resources Association and the U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation have established a Yakima Basin Water Leasing Project under the 

cooperative direction of representatives of Yakima Basin water districts and 

landowners; the Washington Department of Ecology; the U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation; and the Yakima Indian Nation. In late 1992, the Environmental 

Defense Fund (EDF) was invited to develop the procedures and information 

necessary for water leases and transfers to instream flows to occur in the Yakima 

Basin. This report by EDF contains the following elements: 

• Principles governing the implementation of a Yakima Basin Water Leasing 

Program to enhance instream flows are stated for review and consideration by the 

Basin's water using communities. 

EXSUM-1 
109 

• Key institutions in the implementation of a Yakima Basin Water Leasing 

Program are identified, and their respective roles in the Program are evaluated. 

• The formation of two key entities is proposed for the successful implementation 

of a Water Leasing Program. The Yakima Basin Trustees would represent the 

instream flow "demand side" interests, with financial suppon for the Program being 

a prerequisite to Trustee membership. A Lease Oversight Committee would 

represent water rights holders in the Yakima Basin, and would serve as a reviewer 

of proposed leases to assure that no injury to other water rights holders would occur· 

as a result of Program water leases. 

• Economic elements of water lease contracting and pricing are analyzed, including 

sample estimates of lease prices and an explanation of how option contracting could 

be used for dry year water leasing for instream flow enhancement in the Yakima 

Basin. Estimates are provided of the financial requirements to undertake an 

illustrative Program of enhanced instream and smolt pulsing flows in the Basin. 

• Alternative methods for the solicitation of water supplies and lessor asking prices 

are evaluated, with the choice among these methods identified as a key initial task of 

the Yakima Basin Trustees. 

• A proposed agreement for a dry year lease -- along with an option to lease --

water for enhanced instream flows is presented. Included in the agreement are 

informational requirements which would also meet any legal conditions governing 

water transfers existing in Washington State water law and in the procedures of the 

Yakima Basin water rights adjudication contained in orders issued by the Superior 

Coun of the County of Yakima. 

• A survey is provided ofpeninent legal factors governing a Yakima Water 

Leasing Program which currently exist in state and federal water laws as well as in 

the water rights adjudication proceedings. 

+ Five potential types of funding for the Yakima Water Leasing Program are 

identified and discussed, including federal spending authorities; federal user fees; 

authorized programs of the State of Washington: the programs of the Bonneville 

Power Administration: and models for public-private pannerships to acquire water 

or land for environmental purposes. 

EXSUM-2 
110 

The impetus for this project and report is to initiate a process leading to the 

actual conswnmation of dry year leases to enhance instream flows in the Yakima 

Basin. An agenda for future actions to continue this process is as follows: 

• Reconstitute the Yakima Water Leasing Working Group to include existing 

members of the group willing to serve on a Yakima Water Leasing Program Pilot 

Committee to oversee a Pilot Water Leasing Program during the 1993-95 period. 

• Identify three to five funding entities willing to contribute both funds and a 

representative to a pilot Yakima Basin Trustees group during the 1993-95 period. 

• Target one or more pilot water leases in the Yakima Basin with the potential to 

deliver at least 50 cfs of enhanced instream flows at the Parker gauging station for a 

6 week period during the 1994 and 1995 water years. 

• Raise at least $400,000 to cover the costs of the Pilot Program during the 

1993-95 period, including the costs of both pilot water leases and of staffing the 

Pilot Program. 

• Develop an educational packet of briefing materials based on the information in 

this repon for use in discussions with members of the Yakima Basm's water using 

communities. 

• Schedule and deliver a number of briefings for a broad spectrum of water using 

communities in the Yakima Basin as well as for pertinent state, federal, and private 

entities. 

• Work with the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation's Yakima Project staff to develop an 

operating agreement suitable for use by the Trustees and lessor water districts in 

managing leased water supplies. 

• Develop a l<;>ng-term organizational plan for the Trustees, including the possible 

incorporation of a Yakima Basin Trustees organization in the State of Washington 

as a nonprofit public interest organization with the goals of enhancing instream 

flows in the Yakima Basin using voluntary water leasing and marketing. 

EXSUM-3 
111 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you. They were very succinct and 

clear. You mentioned the environmental trust fund. Who would administer that? 

Dr. WILLEY. There could be many models, like the Interior Fish 

and Wildlife Trust Foundation. It could be put into the private sector as a nonprofit entity. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Do you have a recommendation? 

Dr. WILLEY. I think most of the experience of the Federal Government is to have a federal agency oversee it. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you. 

Now Dr. Blackwelder, you are going to be our concluding testimony. We do have to move to the next bill. Mr. Williams is here 

and I believe he will have that time. Dr. Blackwelder, we appreciate your being here. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF DR. BRENT BLACKWELDER 

Dr. BLACKWELDER. I am vice president of the Friends of the 

Earth. I will offer brief testimony today on their behalf as well as 

Sierra Club and the National Wildlife Federation. 

I would also like to have included in the record a statement by 

David Ortman who is director of our Northwest Office which is located in Seattle. He has been involved in Yakima basin issues for 

a long period of time going back to 1977. We detail in this statement some of the input we have made over the years on issues pertaining to this basin. 

[EDITOR's NOTE.-The prepared statement of Mr. Ortman can be 

found in the appendix of this hearing record.] 

Dr. BLACKWELDER. I would like to provide for the committee's 

use a copy of the report which I prepared along with my colleague, 

Peter Carlson in 1982. I know some of the members of the committee are new and we think that this bears upon the issues being discussed. This report describes varieties of water conservation programs in every single sector, irrigation, municipal and industrial 

use as well as home use. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Any and all submissions the people would like 

to present, either today or two weeks from today, we will be happy 

to receive them and they will receive, in turn, the committee's attention. 

Dr. BLACKWELDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity 

to appear today on behalf of Friends of the Earth. Friends of the 

Earth is a global environmental advocacy organization with affiliates in 50 other countries. The following statement is made on behalf of Friends of the Earth, the Sierra Club and National Wildlife 

Federation on H.R. 1690, a bill to authorize certain elements of the 

Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project. According to the 

Bureau of Reclamation (FONSI, Fish Passage and Protective Facilities, Nov. 1984), historically the most significant fishery resource 

of the Yakima River basin has been anadromous fish. During the 

late 1800s, between 500,000 to 600,000 adult salmon and steelhead 

returned to the Yakima system annually. Runs of spring, summer, 

and fall chinook, coho, and sockeye salmon, as well as steelhead 

trout, were all present in the river and served as the basic resource 

base for several valuable commercial, sport, and tribal fisheries. 
112 

Current spawning migrations of anadromous salmonids in the 

Yakima basin have been severely depleted from historic levels; the 

spawning escapement in 1984 averaged about 2,000 fish of all species and some runs have become extinct. As organizations concerned with the health of Northwest rivers and the long overdue 

need to address real water conservation efforts in the Yakima 

River basin and to restore fish and wildlife resources in this system, we request that the House Natural Resources Committee address the following issues: 

According to the Bureau of Reclamation (FEIS, Bumping Lake 

Enlargement, August 1979), the only formal agreements with the 

Bureau of Reclamation for minimum flows for fish enhancement involves a 1958 agreement with the then Bureau of Sport Fisheries 

and Wildlife to provide minimum flows over Prosser Dam. 

These flows, however, are subject to maintaining prior existing 

water rights and water contracts. The existing Yakima Basin 

Project has been run for irrigation purposes to the detriment of 

other needs in the basin. The Yakima Basin Project must be 

amended to recognize the legitimate purposes of protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife and maintenance of instream flows. 

The State of Washington has responsibilities under the 1917 

Water Code and other water-related legislation. Due to the inactions of the State, however, the Yakima River basin remains overallocated and the ongoing water rights adjudication has not proven 

helpful in resolving issues in the basin. 

In addition, impediments remain to ensuring that water savings 

can be allocated to instream flows. Further Federal expenditures in 

the basin should be made dependent on a finding by the Secretary 

that the State of Washington has made maximum use of its water 

authorities and removed impediments to designating water for 

instream flows needs. 

Two related issues involve the resolution of the 1945 Federal 

Court Consent Decree, which affirmed the "obligations of the United States to deliver water from the natural flow of the Yakima 

River, and its tributaries, from storage in its various reservoirs on 

the Yakima watershed, and from other sources, to the plaintiffs, to 

the defendants, and to the lands within the Wapato Indian Irrigation Project" (1945 Consent Decree p. 2). 

First, when this bill was drafted by former Rep. Morrison, the 

Cle Elem lake rise storage water was dedicated to instream flows. 

However, when confronted with the 1945 Consent Decree, the language was changed to its existing form, allocating the water savings to the total water supply of the basin, to be portioned out 

under the 1945 Consent Decree. In addition, because the Cle Elem 

Reservoir rise is a structural project in what is being promoted as 

a water conservation bill, we request that Subsection 5(b) and Section 6 of the bill be deleted. 

Second, Section 5 is the heart of H.R. 1690, but it too assumes 

that a reduction in the Yakima basin water supply can take place, 

raising a similar conflict with the 1945 Consent Decree. Because 

the 1945 Consent Decree has proven to be a major stumbling block 

to efforts in the Yakima basin, the conflicts between Section 5 and 

the 1945 Consent Decree must be resolved. 
113 

Although both a previous Act of Congress (43 U.S.C. 930b) and 

the Northwest Power Planning Act Fish and Wildlife Plan call for 

the preparation of water conservation plans in the Yakima basin, 

no deadline was established for the completion of such plans. Future Federal expenditures in the Yakima basin should be conditioned on a 24-month deadline for the preparation of such water 

conservation plans. This would be consistent with the fourth objective of the Yakima River Basin Enhancement Project which was 

"Developing a comprehensive plan to enable efficient management 

of the basin's water supply." One additional possibility is to focus 

an intense water conservation efficiency program on the Wapato Irrigation District to assist the Yakimaindian Nation. 

The issues raised above are critical ones. We remain willing to 

work with the committee and our Washington Congressional delegation on their resolution. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to present 

this testimony. I would ask that a separate statement and attach- ments prepared by our Northwest Office be entered into the hearing record. 

[Prepared statement of Dr. Blackwelder follows:] 
114 

JOINT STATEMENT OF 

FRIENDS OF 1HE EARTII 

SIERRA CLUB 

NATIONAL WILDUFE FEDERATION 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. House of Representatives 

23 September 1993 

on H.R. 1690- To authorize certain elements of the Yakima River 

River Basin Enhancement Project 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to appear today on behalf of Friends of the Earth. 

Friends of the is a global environmental advocacy organization 

with affiliates in SO other countries. 

The following statement is made on behalf of Friends of the 

Earth, the Sierra Club and National Wildlife Federation on H.R. 

1690, a bill to authorize certain elements of the Yakima River 

Basin Water Enhancement Project. 

According to the Bureau of Reclamation (FONSI, Fish Passage 

and Protective Facilities, Nov. 1984), historically the most 

significant fishery resource of the Yakima River basin has been 

anadrcimous fish. During the late 1800's, between 500,000 to 

600,000 adult salmon and steelhead returned to the Yakima system 

annually. Runs of spring, summer, and fall chinook; coho; and 

sockeye salmon, as well as steelhead trout, were all present in 

the river and served as the basic resource base for several 

218 D Street, SE • Washington, DC 20003 • Phone: (202) 544·2600 • Fax: (202) 543-4710 •. EcoNetlD: foedc 

jane Perkins, President 
115 

valuable commercial, sport, and tribal fiSheries. 

Current spawning migrations of anadromous salmonids in the 

Yakima basin have been severely depleted from historic levels; 

the spawning escapment in 1984 averaged about 2,000 fish of all 

species and some runs have become extinct. 

As organizations concerned with the health of Northwest 

Rivers and the long overdue need to address real water 

conservation efforts in the Yakima River Basin, and to restore 

fish and wildlife resources in this system, we request that the 

House Natural Resources Committee address the following issues: 

• According to the Bureau of Reclamation (FEIS, Bumping Lake 

Enlargement, Aug 1979), the only formal agreements with the 

Bureau of Reclamation for minimum flows for fish enhancement 

involves a 1958 agreement with the then Bureau of Sport Fisheries 

and Wildlife to provide minimum flows over Prosser Dam. These 

flows, however, are subject to maintaining prior existing water 

rights and water contracts. The existing Yakima Basin Project 

has been run for irrigation purposes to the detriment of other 

needs in the basin. The Yakima Basin Project must be amended to 

recognize the legitimate purposes of protection and enhancement 

of fish and wildlife and maintenance of instream flows. 

• The State of Washington has responsibilities under the 1917 

Water Code and other water related legislation. Due to the 

inactions of the State, however, the Yakima River Basin remains 

overallocated and the ongoing water rights adjudication has not 

proven helpful in resolving issues in the basin. In addition, 

impediments remain to ensuring that water savings can be 

allocated to instream flows. Further Federal expenditures in the 

basin should be made dependent on a finding by the Secretary that 

the State of Washington has made maximum use of its water 

authorities and removed impediments to designating water for 

instream flows needs. 

• Two related issues involve the resolution ·of the 1945 

Federal Court Consent Decree, which affirmed the "obligations of 

the United States to deliver water from the natural flow of the 

Yakima River, and its tributaries, from storage in its various 

reservoirs on the Yakima watershed, and from other sources, to 

the plaintiffs, to the defendants, and to the lands within the 

Wapato Indian Irrigation Project" (1945 Consent Decree p. 2). 

First, when this bill was drafted by former Rep. Morrison, 
116 

the Cle Elem lake rise storage water was dedicated to instream 

flows. However, when confronted with the 1945 Consent Decree, 

the language was changed to its existing form, allocating the 

water savings to the total water supply of the Basin, to be 

portioned out under the 1945 Consent Decree. In addition, 

because the Cle Elem Reservoir rise is a structural project in 

what is being promoted as a water conservation bill, we· request 

that Subsection 5(b) and Section 6 of the bill be deleted. 

Second, Section 5 is the heart of H.R. 1690, but it too 

assumes that a reduction in the Yakima Basin water supply can 

take place, raising a similar conflict with the 1945 Consent 

Decree. Because the 1945 Consent Decree has proven to be a major 

stumbling block to efforts in the Yaldma Basin, the conflicts 

between Sec. 5 and the 1945 Consent Decree must be resolved. 

• Although both a previous Act of Congress (43 U.S.C. 930b) 

and the Northwest Power Planning Act Fish and Wildlife Plan call 

for the preparation of water conservation plans in the Yakima 

Basin, no deadline was established for the completion of such 

plans. Future Federal expenditures in the Yaldma Basin should be 

conditioned on a 24 month deadline for the preparation of such 

water conservation plans. This would be consistent with the 

fourth objective of the Yaldma River Basin Enhancement Project 

which was "Developing a comprehensive plan to enable efficient 

management of the basin's water supply". One additional 

possibility is to focus an intense water conservation efficiency 

program on the Wapato irrigation district to assist the Yakima 

Indian Nation. · 

The issues raised above are critical ones. We remain 

willing to work with the Committee and the WA Congressional 

delegation on their resolution. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you aeain for the opportunity to present 

this testimony. I would ask that a separate statement and 

attachments prepared by our NW Office be entered into the hearing 

record. 
117 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you. Your testimony flows together 

with all of that right from the beginning, which is to say that we 

need to have some time limits here. 

If this bill passes, it seems to me all the efforts to accomplish 

what you just talked about are there, but we need to actually do 

it; that is to say, it would not be any advantage to set in language 

what should be done and then have everything stand in limbo. I believe that is a clear summary of your statement; would you 

agree? 

Dr. BLACKWELDER. Yes. The year they began the water conservation plans was 1974. While there are some that have moved ahead, others are taking quite a leisurely time, so that emphasizes the 

need for deadlines. If you can make these changes and come to grips with conflicts 

over the 1945 consent decree and deal with the Solicitor's opinion, 

which I also might provide for the record, dated January 2, 1979, 

then we can move ahead. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I quite agree with the necessity for getting 

this done; and to the degree that the bill does not establish it, I 

certainly would recommend that we set some time lines. Dr. BLACKWELDER. For our support, the Friends of the Earth, 

needs these changes we are recommending. They need to be put in 

or clarified, where they are not as clear. We provided in that detailed statement what are at least our ideas as to how that should 

be done. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Very good. That is excellent. That will set the 

perspective for us. 

Mr. Inslee. Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to put in the record a 

letter from the King County Cattlemen's Association. [EDITOR's NOTE.-This document can be found in the appendix of 

this hearing record.] 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you very much. This has been enlightening to me. I can assure you that all the statements submitted 

will get our close attention. I believe it is the Chairman's intent to 

see to it that action is taken on this bill. Rest assured, all your efforts today will be rewarded with the passage of a bill that will 

benefit all parties concerned, including the taxpayers of the United 

States, and most certainly the region involved. 

A mahalo for everybody being here today. Thank you very much. 

We will move now to H.R. 1477. While we are getting set up, I 

believe Mr. Williams will be the Chair. 

[Whereupon, the subcommittee proceeded to other business.] 

H.R. 1477, TO PROVIDE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF LANDS AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES AT CANYON FERRY RECREATION 

AREA, MT, AND OTHER PURPOSES 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1993 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS, 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 12:15 p.m. in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Pat Williams presiding. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. We will continue the committee's hearing on H.R. 

1477. 

[The text of the bill, H.R. 1477, follows:] 

(119) 
120 

103o CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1477 

To provide for the management of lands and recreational resources at Canyon 

Ferry Recreation Area, Montana, and other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARcH 24, 1993 

Mr. WILLIAMS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To provide for the management of lands and recreational 

resources at Canyon Ferry Recreation Area, Montana, 

and other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "Canyon Ferry Recre5 ation, Tourism, and Economic Development Management 

6 Act". 

7 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

8 Congress finds and declares that9 (1) there is a Federal responsibility to provide 

10 opportunities for public recreation, tourism, and eco-
121 

2 

1 nomic development at Federal water projects, in 

2 partnership with other Federal and non-Federal in-· 

3 terests; 

4 (2) certain provisions of the Federal Water 

5 Project Recreation Act (Public Law 89-72 as 

6 amended) unduly restrict the management of the 

7 Canyon Ferry Recreation Management Area because 

8 the provisions do not allow for the increasing eco9 nomic burden that construction and management of 

10 recreational facilities are placing on managing enti11 ties, especially at the State and local levels; 

12 (3) non-Federal responsibility for a significant 

13 portion of all costs of operation, maintenance, and 

14 replacement of facilities on Federal lands at the 

15 Canyon Ferry Recreation Management Area as well 

16 as total management responsibility is an unfair bur17 den on non-Federal managers, especially in instances 

18 where the facilities are old, undersigned, do not pro19 vide adequate access for the disabled, and are uti20 lized by national and international publics, and re21 sponsibilities for complex fisheries reservoir manage22 ment and for wildlife and wetlands management 

23 have been borne solely by the non-Federal entities, 

24 further increasing the overall management burden; 

25 and 

BR 1477 m 
122 

3 

1 ( 4) the recreational, tourism, and economic de2 velopment needs at the Canyon Ferry Recreation 

3 Area can best be met through cooperative manage4 ment efforts by the Bureau of Reclamation, the Bu5 reau of Land Management, the State of Montana, 

6 and other appropriate entities. 

7 SEC. 3. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS. 

8 (a) AUTHORIZATION.-The Secretary of the Interior 

9 (hereafter in this Act referred to as the "Secretary''), act1 0 ing through the Bureau of Reclamation and the Bureau 

11 of Land Management, may enter into such agreements as 

12 are necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act. 

13 (b) CONTENTS OF AGREEMENTS.-Any management 

14 agreement entered into under this Act shall provide that 

15 the management responsibilities given to the Bureau of 

16 Land Management for lands withdrawn or acquired for 

17 reclamation purposes shall be accomplished in accordance 

18 with the statutory authority generally exercised by the 

19 Bureau of Land Management in the management of the 

20 public lands. 

21 SEC. 4. PROTECTION OF AUTHORIZED PURPOSES OF REC22 LAMATION PROJECTS. 

23 (a) NO ALTERATION OF PuRPOSES OF CANYON 

24 FERRY UNIT.-Nothing in this Act is intended to change, 

BR 1477 m 
123 

4 

1 modify, or expand the authorized purposes of the Canyon 

2 Ferry Unit. 

3 (b) ORIGINAL PURPOSE OF CANYON FERRY DAM 

4 AND RESERVOIR UNAFFECTED.-Nothing in this Act 

5 shall change the responsibility of the Bureau of Reclama6 tion to meet the needs for which the Canyon Ferry Dam 

7 and Reservoir were originally constructed. 

8 (c) No AUTHORIZATION TO .AFFECT WATER SUP9 PLY.-This Act is not intended to authorize any action 

10 or inaction by any person, including any person who has 

11 contracted for the water supply from a reclamation 

12 project, that reduces the quantity, or modifies the time 

13 and manner of availability, of the water supply from the 

14 Canyon Ferry Unit to project beneficiaries. 

15 SEC. 5. MANAGEMENT. 

16 (a) MANAGEMENT UNDER THE PLAN.-The Sec17 retary shall manage all lands and facilities in the area as18 sociated with recreation, tourism, and related economic de19 velopment pursuant to the Canyon Ferry Resources Man20 agement Plan, of 1993, and any amendments thereto. 

21 (b) EXEMPTION FROM PROVISIONS OF THE FED22 ERAL WATER PROJECT RECREATION ACT.-Provisions of 

23 the Federal Water Project Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 

24 4601-12) that limit or prescribe costs that may be in25 curred by Federal and non-Federal entities for recreation 

HR 14'7'7 m 

76-655 0 - 94 - 5 
124 

5 

1 planning, management, or facilities, or that require non2 Federal management of recreation facilities or programs 

3 do not apply to the Area. 

4 (c) RECREATION USER FEES.-All recreation user 

5 fees collected from the Canyon Ferry Recreation Area by 

6 the managing l{gency( ies) shall be retained by the manag7 ing agency(ies) and used exclusively to fund the operation, 

8 maintenance, and development of the Canyon Ferry 

9 Recreation Area for recreation, tourism, and economic de10 velopment. Fees collected for cabin site permits, conces11 sion operations, entrance fees, and other special use fees 

12 are all considered to be recreation user fees. 

13 (d) CONTENTS OF AGREEMENT.-The cooperative 

14 agreements shall provide that the responsibilities given to 

15 the Bureau of Land Management for the area will be car16 ried out in accordance with the statutory authority gen17 erally exercised by the Bureau of Land Management in 

18 the management of the public lands. 

0 

BR 1477 IH 
125 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAT WILLIAMS 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I want to begin by welcoming the folks who have 

traveled here on behalf of Montana. These folks and many others 

understand these decisions about the management of Canyon Ferry 

are very important to our State, and I will be working with all of 

you to come to a final appropriate agreement about future management of Canyon Ferry. 

As many of you know, the Canyon Ferry Project was authorized 

by the Flood C<mtrol Act of 1944 and construction was completed 

in 1954. The project provides 50,000 kilowatts of power, irrigation 

water to about 43,000 acres in and around the Helena Valley, and 

some of Helena's municipal drinking water. 

In 1957, the State of Montana entered into a 30-year Memorandum of Understanding with the United States to manage the wildlife and recreation resources at Canyon Ferry, and over the years 

the lake has become one of Montana's most heavily used, and heavily fished, State-run recreation areas. The MOU was extended on 

three occasions, the last one expiring at the end of this month. The 

State of Montana has formally notified the Bureau that it will 

withdraw from Canyon Ferry if current conditions continue. In the 

face of severe budget difficulties, and facing dramatic needs to 

make major improvements to the recreation facilities at Canyon 

Ferry, the State of Montana concluded some time ago that its position as the sole recreation manager was untenable unless greater 

Federal involvement could be secured. In response, the Montana 

Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, the Federal Bureaus of 

Reclamation and Land Management, and representatives of local 

groups began discussions about the future management at Canyon 

Ferry. 

The agreement which emerged from those discussions is implemented under the bill we are discussing today. This bill authorizes 

a three-way partnership in providing recreation at Canyon Ferry, 

and as of fairly recently the bill had the enthusiastic support of all 

the participants as well as virtually all Montanans who are concerned about the lake. 

Under the agreement, and this bill, the BLM becomes the lead 

agency in managing the recreation facilities and the public lands 

at Canyon Ferry. BLM is heavily involved in providing recreational 

experiences across Montana and is particularly involved in sites 

along the Missouri River. Importantly, the agency has shown significant leadership in identifying how we can develop the great potential we have at Canyon Ferry. The Bureau of Reclamation retains its historic responsibilities 

under the Pick-Sloan program to manage the power, irrigation and 

flow regime of the reservoir, and maintains its ultimate responsibility for management of all aspects of the Canyon Ferry Project. 

The third leg of the agreement, the Montana Department of Fish, 

Wildlife and Parks retains its historic responsibilities to manage 

the fishery and wildlife resources, to administer the cabin leases, 

to be involved in the ongoing recreation site operations, and to collect all revenues associated with recreational use of the lake. So 

today we will hear whether or not these agreements are still honored by the various parties who signed the agreements. While there 
126 

may be a number of different ways to get us from here to there, 

there should be no misunderstanding about the final goal. 

Canyon Ferry is one of the Treasure State's treasures and this 

legislation is a way, we think a good way, agreed upon by agencies 

of the Federal Government and the State, but maybe it is not the 

only way to significantly improve the quality of the recreational experience at that treasure. That's our bottom line. I am interested 

to know how our witnesses believe we can reach that bottom line. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:] 
127 

PAT WILLIAMS ~AOfr(TANA 

MAJOftfTT OE~ WHIP 

:r•I)M'tiUIIMIUI\.DIMO 

WA.SHINGlOff, CC 201 II 

Q02)22~211 £on~ttl!l! of tbt llnittb 6tattl! 

J;oWir of ltrprnrntatlbd 

IIM!IIngt011, :ac: ~l!>--2601 

OPENING STATEMENT 

U.S. REP. PAT WILLIAMS HR 1477 

September 23, 1993 

LQOII'I'N'OI .. M'T~ 

POITSJCOHDAIIn" IDUC4110111 CIINIMLCOIIIttiiOCifnl 

NA'nOMA&. PAM' NCI ""*-'C LANDI IIIAlMAMIIICMUfN!Itl 

I want to first of all thank the Chairman, Mr. Miller, for 

scheduling this hearing on my bill, the Canyon Ferry Recreation, 

Tourism, and Economic Development Act. The Chairman's help in 

scheduling this hearing has helped us focus attention - here in 

Washington - on the problems, and their solutions, at canyon 

Ferry as no other event could. 

I want to welcome the folks who've traveled back here on behalf of Montanans to testify before the Committee. These folks understand that these decisions about the management of Canyon 

Ferry are terribly important to our state. 

And at the outset I want to state very clearly that I firmly 

intend to keep the momentum that the Chairman has given us in 

scheduling this hearing, and that I will be working with all of 

you to come to a final agreement about the future management of 

canyon Ferry at the earliest possible date. 

The Canyon Ferry project was authorized by the Flood Control 

Act of 1944 and construction was completed in 1954. The project 

provides 50,000 Kilowatts of power, irrigation water to about 

43,000 acres in and around the Helena Valley, and some of 

Helena's municipal drinking water. In 1957 the state of Montana 

entered into a 30 year memorandum of understanding with the United States to manage the wildlife and recreation resources at 

canyon Ferry, and over the years the lake has become one of 

Montana's most heavily used, and heavily fished, state-run recreation areas. The MoA was extended on three occasions, the 

last one expiring at the end of this month. The State of Montana has formally notified the Bureau that it will withdraw from canyon Ferry it current conditions continue . 

In the face of severe budget difficulties, and facing 

dramatic needs to make major improvements to the recreation 

facilities at Canyon Ferry, the State of Montana concluded some 

time ago that its position as the sole recreation manager was 

GMATFA&.LS 

COOIITHOU$1 AHNE.It 

325 2NDAVt. N. 

t40t ) 17 1-124' 

liM 306, ) '""' 0$ W. MEACUAY 

!401) 7ll•·U04 

....... 214N. UTHST11(n 

1401) 21t-10\l 

M ISSOIJl.A. 

302 WUT I#IOADWAY 

(4ot} Ut-6UO 

HI UNA 

)liN. I'..._.. Alit. 

I'.O. IOllll .. l 

j401) Ul-7UI 
Rep. Pat Williams 

page two 

1~ 

untenable unless greater federal involvement could be secured. 

In response, the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, the Federal Bureaus of Reclamation and Land Management, and 

representives· of local groups began discussions about the future 

management at Canyon Ferry. 

The agreement which emerged from those discussions is 

implemented under the bill we are discussing today. This bill 

authorizes a three way partnership in providing recreation at Canyon Ferry, and as of fairly recently the bill had the 

enthusiastic support of all the participants as well as virtually all Montanans who are concerned about the lake. 

Under the agreement, and this bill, the BLM becomes the lead 

agency in managing the recreation facilities and the public lands at Canyon Ferry. BLM is heavily involved in providing 

recreational experiences across Montana and is particUlarly 

involved in sites along the Missouri River. Importantly, the 

agency has shown significant leadership in identifying how we can 

develop the great potential we have at Canyon Ferry. 

The Bureau of Reclamation retains its historic 

responsibilities under the Pick Sloan program to manage the power, irrigation and flow regime of the reservoir, and maintains 

its ultimate responsibility for management of all aspects ot the 

Canyon Ferry Project. 

And the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks retains its historic responsibilities to manage the fishery and 

wildlife resources, to administer the cabin leases, to be 

involved· in the ongoing recreation site operations, and ·to collect all revenues associated with recreational use of the 

lake. 

Today we will hear whether or not these agreements are still 

honored by the various parties. And while there may be a number 

of different ways to get us from here to there, there should be · no misunderstanding about the final goal . Canyon Ferry is a treasure of the State of Montana, and this legislation is a way - perhaps not the only way - to siqniricantly improve the quality 

of the recreational experience there. That's my bottom line, 

and I'm interested to hear, now, how the witnesses propose that 

we proceed. 
129 

PANEL CONSISTING OF DANIEL P. BEARD, COMMISSIONER, 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED BY MIKE PENFOLD, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR LAND AND RENEWABLE RESOURCES, BUREAU OF 

LAND MANAGEMENT; AND PATRICK J. GRAHAM, DIRECTOR, 

DEPARTMENT OF FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS, STATE OF 

MONTANA, HELENA, MT 

Mr. WILLIAMS. We have a lot of friends here today. We are joined 

here by the Honorable-and it is a delight to refer to Dan Beard 

as Honorable-we are joined by the Honorable Dan Beard, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation of the Department of the 

Interior. 

It is good to see you. 

STATEMENT OF DAI\TJEL P. BEARD 

Mr. BEARD. Thank you. I am accompanied by Mike Penfold, the 

Assistant Director for Land and Renewable Resources for the Bureau of Land Management. 

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to appear before the subcommittee 

to testify on H.R. 1477, a bill to provide for the management of 

lands and recreational resources at Canyon Ferry Recreation Area, Montana, and other purposes. 

The bill would achieve these objectives through a cooperative 

management arrangement between the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the State of Montana. The 

legislation's goal of preserving and enhancing the important recreational opportunities available at Canyon Ferry is commendable. 

As a new administration, we are looking into the many issues 

raised by the FederaVnon-Federal management of recreation areas, 

including the Memorandum of Understanding for · Canyon Ferry, 

which we believe needs to be amended. Pending completion of this 

review and consultation with our state and Federal partners, we 

believe enactment of this legislation is premature. Mr. Chairman, since the Canyon Ferry legislation was first introduced in July 1992, several changes have occurred. Prior to enactment of P.L. 102-575 in late October 1992, expenditures for rec·· reational development by the Bureau of Reclamation were limited 

by law to $100,000 per site. 

In addition, there was no authority for the Bureau of Reclamation to enter into cost-sharing arrangements with non-Federal interests for the operation and maintenance of recreational areas. 

Without question, those limitations restricted Reclamation's flexibility in working creatively with our non-Federal managing partners. Title XXVIII of P.L. 102-575. the Reclamation Recreation 

Management Act of 1992, lifted the $100,000 cap and provided specific authority for Reclamation to share up to 50 percent of the 

costs associated with operation and maintenance, as well as capital 

improvements for recreational facilities. 

We are in the process of developing policies regarding sharing 

the management and financial responsibilities at all our reservoirs 

in the West. Keeping in mind the caps contained in the 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, this effort is part of a general review of the Reclamation program and implementation of the 1992 

Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustments Act (P.L. 
130 

102-575). In addition, we are concerned with the imprecise language in Section 5(c), which may have PAYGO implications and 

may be inconsistent with the policy regarding fees collected at 

other federally administered sites. 

It is my hope that State and local governments will respond positively to Reclamation's new authority to enter into cost-sharing arrangements with non-Federal site managers. We are willing to 

work with non-Federal entities and the Congress to preserve cooperative management of recreation at Reclamation sites. 

I believe there is an important Federal responsibility to provide 

the public with recreational opportunities and facilities at our reservoirs which are safe, accessible to all, and which will add to the 

enjoyment of the recreating public. 

I will be happy to answer any questions Members may have. Thank you. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Beard follows:] 
131 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL P. BEARD 

COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

ON H.R. 1477, 

THE "CANYON FERRY RECREATION, TOURISM, AND ECONOMIC 

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT ACT." 

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to appear before the subcommittee to 

testify on H.R. 1477, a bill to provide for the management of 

lands and recreational resources at Canyon Ferry Recreation Area, 

Montana, and other purposes. The bill would achieve these 

objectives through a cooperative management arrangement between 

the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the 

State of Montana. The legislation's goal of preserving and 

enhancing the important recreational opportunities available at 

Canyon Ferry is commendable. 

As a new Administration, we are looking into the many issues 

raised by the Federal/non-Federal management of recreation areas, 

including the Memorandum of Understanding for Canyon Ferry, which we believe needs to be amended. Pending completion of this 

review and consultation with our state and Federal partners, we believe enactment of this legislation is premature. 

Mr. Chairman, since Canyon Ferry legislation was first introduced 

in July 1992, several changes have occurred. Prior to enactment 

of P.L. 102-575 on October 30, 1992, expenditures for 

recreational development by the Bureau of Reclamation were limited by law to $100,000 per site. In addition, there was no authority for the Bureau of Reclamation to enter into costsharing arrangements with non-federal interests for the operation and maintenance of recreational areas. 

Without question, those limitations restricted Reclamation's 

flexibility in working creatively with our non-Federal managing 

partners. Title XXVIII of P.L. 102-575, the Reclamation 

Recreation Management Act of 1992, lifted the $100,000 cap and 

provided specific authority for Reclamation to share up to 50 

percent of the costs associated with operation and maintenance, as well as capital improvements. 

We are in the process of developing policies regarding sharing 

the management and financial responsibilities at all our reservoirs in the West. Keeping in mind the caps contained in 

the 1993 Ominous Budget Reconciliation Act, this effort is part 
132 

of a general review of the Reclamation program and implementation of the 1992 Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustments 

Act (P . L. 102-575). In addition , we are concerned with the 

i mp recise language in section 5(c), which may have PAYGO 

i mpl i cati ons and may be inconsistent with the policy regarding 

fees collected at other federally administered sites. 

It is my hope that state and local governments will respond 

positively to Reclamation's new authority to enter into costsharing arrangements with non-Federal site managers. We are willing to work with non-Federal entities and the Congress to 

preserve cooperative management of recreation at Reclamation 

sites. 

I believe there is an important federal responsibility to provide 

the publ i c with recreational opportunities and facilities at our reservoirs which are safe, accessible to all, and which will add 

to the enjoyment of the recreating public. I will be happy to answer any questions Members may have. Thank you. 
133 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Before we go to questions, we will hear from the 

other member of this panel, the Director of Fish, Wildlife, and 

Parks for the State of Montana. 

Pat, how are you? 

STATEMENT OF PATRICK J. GRAHAM 

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, I am fine. I am speaking on behalf of 

Governor Racicot, and I thank you for the opportunity to discuss 

this matter of urgency to Montana, and our nonresident visitors 

from across the country. 

Canyon Ferry Reservoir provides the most visitor days of any of 

Montana's State parks, but its potential as a major national recreational facility is far from being realized. 

For over 35 years the State of Montana has operated the recreation and wildlife management at Canyon Ferry under an agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation. 

The Federal reservoir is located in southwestern Montana near 

the headwaters of the Missouri River. During the period of our operation the State has expended hundreds of thousands of State dollars with very little Federal financing to develop recreational facilities at Canyon Ferry. 

Unfortunately, Montana can no longer afford to run this complex 

facility for the Department of the Interior. There have been significant increases in visitation since the mid-1980s, deteriorating infrastructure, and new Federal requirements. Many of the facilities 

do not meet minimum human health and safety standards and violate American Disabilities Act requirements, thus denying access to 

the disabled. 

While we struggle to provide services and maintain State-owned 

facilities, we cannot justify continuing to also operate Federalowned facilities without a substantial Federal partnership as embodied in this bill. Montana does not have dollars available for 

matching Federal dollars for capital improvements as provided 

under Public Law 102-575; therefore, new legislation and partners 

are needed. 

A three-way partnership between the Bureau of Reclamation, 

Bureau of Land Management, and Montana can combine the 

strengths of all three agencies to provide what no single agency can 

do for our citizens. We have been pleased with the willingness of 

the Bureau of Land Management to join the partnership and serve 

the public. We also understood that the Bureau of Reclamation was 

a willing partner as evidenced by their signing of a three-way 

Memorandum of Understanding on August 23, 1993. 

If H.R. 1477 fails and, thus, the partnership fails, the State of 

Montana will withdraw from managing the recreation at Canyon 

Ferry Reservoir, and the site will revert in total to the Department 

of the Interior. 

Even the original MOU, which was developed back in the 1950s, 

referred to a reservoir development plan that stated, "Minimum 

basic facilities are justifiable as Federal costs." 

Our decision to be or not be a partner will in no way change in 

our estimation the Federal responsibilities or liabilities at this site. 

Interior has the same responsibilities for meeting health, safety 

and disability standards that we would be expected to meet. These 
134 

needs are real and are detailed in a recently completed $200,000 

Federal management plan for Canyon Ferry that was paid for by 

the Bureau of Reclamation. The partnership embodied in H.R. 1477 is a cost effective and 

logical program to meet the needs of all agencies involved, and the 

citizens we serve. It is a model of what can be done to creatively 

solve an important problem and make government work. 

I appreciate your favorable consideration of H.R. 14 77. Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Graham follows:] 
135 

Testimony presented to the 

u.s. House of Representatives co .. ittee on Batural Resources 

September 23, 1993 

H.R. 1477 

Presented by: 

Patrick J. Graham, Director 

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks 

1420 East sixth Ave. 

Helena, Montana 

On behalf of Governor Marc Racicot, I thank you for the opportunity 

to discuss this matter of urgency to Montana, and our non-resident 

visitors from across the country. Canyon Ferry Reservoir provides 

the most visitor days of any of Montana's state parks, but its 

potential as a major national recreational facility is far from 

being realized. For over 35 years the State of Montana has 

operated the recreation and wildlife management at Canyon Ferry 

under an agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation. The federal 

reservoir is located in southwestern Montana near the headwaters of 

the Misso11ri River. During this period the state has expended 

hundreds of thousands of state dollars with very little federal 

financing. 

Montana can no longer afford to run this complex facility for the 

Department of the Interior. There have been significant increases 

in visitation since the mid-1980s, deteriorating infra~tructHr!'· and 

new federal requirements. Many of the facilities do r.ot u1eei. 

minimum human health and safety standards and violate American 

Disabilities Act requirements, thus denying access to the disabled. 

While we struggle to provide services and maintain state-owned 

facilities, we cannot justify continuing to also operate federal 

owned facilities without a substantial federal partnership as 

embodied in this bill. Montana does not have dollars available for 

matching federal dollars for capital improvements as provided under 

PL 102-575, therefore, new legislation and partners are needed. 

A three-way partnership between the Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau 

of Land Management and Montana can combine the strengths of all 

three agencies to provide what no single agency can do for our 

citizens. We have been pleased with the willingness of the Bureau 

of Land Management to join the partnership and serve the public. 

We also understood that the Bureau of Reclamation was a willing 

partner as evidenced by their signing of a three-way Memorandum of 

Understanding on August 23, 1993. 
136 

If H.R. 1477 fails and thus the partnership fails, the State of 

Montana will withdraw from managing the recreation at Canyon Ferry 

Reservoir and the site will revert in total to the Department of 

Interior. Contrary to speculation that Montana is bluffing, we 

will take this action and be totally removed by January 1, 1994 at 

the latest. Since our lease runs out on October 1, 1993, we will 

have no legal obligation to remain. 

Even the original MOU referred to a reservoir development plan that 

stated "minimum basic facilities are justifiable as federal costs." 

Our decision to be or not be a partner will in no way change the 

multi-million dollar obligation that BOR or the Department of 

Interior has for meeting health, safety and disability standards 

except there will be no partners to assist in this effort. These 

needs are real and are detailed in the recently completed $200,000 

federal management plan for Canyon Ferry paid for by the Bureau of 

Reclamation. 

The partnership embodied in H.R. 1477 is a cost effective and 

logical program to meet the needs of all agencies involved, and the 

citizens we serve. It is a model of what can be done to creatively 

solve an important problem and make government work. 

I urge your favorable consideration of H.R. 1477. 
137 

Mr. WILLIAMS. We have a vote on in the House. After a few questions of this panel, we will break to vote and then come back for 

our second panel. 

Dan, I recognize that this agreement was signed, in effect, in a 

previous administration and that each new administration, particularly the one that has not had the executive branch for a dozen 

years comes in and wants to make some necessary changes, as they 

see it. I think that is an appropriate thing in a democracy. But 

truly you understand the dilemma that is faced by the parties to 

the agreement by this. You know, by your testimony that says this 

agreement is not entirely appropriate under your new direction. Can you walk down the other side of the street for a minute here 

and give folks some assurances, particularly people out in Montana, that this is just a pause in the process and that we are still 

going to try to move to a partnership, maybe this one or one that 

will be equally beneficial? 

Mr. BEARD. Well, I think I can, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to 

be conclusionary because I think your phrase "pause in the process" is probably appropriate. The three-way agreement in the legislation represented an understanding that was reached between the parties. Not being part 

of that process, I had a lot of questions when I came in. Others 

within the administration also had questions. 

So what we have asked you for is a little bit of time to get an 

opportunity to sit down and look at this. I would say that the principles involved in both the legislation and in the MOU are principles that we support. 

In other words, there ought to be a partnership between the Federal Government and non-Federal entities. We think such partnerships lead to the best recreational opportunities, and are the most 

effective and efficient way to operate. We also recognize that there 

is a need to improve the facilities at Canyon Ferry, which we are 

also very concerned about. 

One of the reasons for my hesitancy, Mr. Chainnan, is that we 

have approximately 300 recreation sites. I have 72 partners, 68 of 

them non-Federal partners. We have had several recreation facilities that have been turned back to us from those non-Federal partners. Since most non-Federal agencies are experiencing budget cuts 

and problems. 

So I have to look at the overall picture, if you will, about what 

is the financial exposure for the entire system for which I am responsible. 

\\'hat I can say though is that I think we can give assurances 

that we are more than willing to sit down with the State, and obviously with BLM and the local interests, and try to go through this 

so that we can get a better understanding of what is possible at 

this site. Mr. WILLIA.!"\18. I understand your review of these matters-not 

just your particular memorandum of understanding, but nationwide with these matters-will take past the first of the year. This is an agreement that goes hack prior to you and to their administration. Would you be willing to take a look at this agreement 

outside of your otheJ:" review, the ones that are going to take until 
138 

after the first of the year? Could you separate this out and give it 

earlier consideration? 

Mr. BEARD. Sure. I would be happy to. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Why wouldn't a three-way partnership be better 

on a facility of this magnitude than having it run by just one agency? 

Mr. BEARD. Well, I think as an overall policy matter, at least for 

reclamation facilities, our preference is to have non-Federal partners operating these facilities for two reasons: First, they generally 

are closer to the needs and interests of the communities; and second, there are financial advantages. 

In other words, under the laws by which we operate, non-Federal 

interests are authorized to keep the revenues derived from leases 

and other activities at our reservoir sites. If they are turned back 

to us, then revenues received must go back into the Treasury. So 

that presents a problem. 

That is why we find it preferable when revenues derived at the 

project are then put back into the project. 

Certainly, we have lots of facilities. BLM manages eight of our 

facilities across the West. We have sites managed by the Park 

Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as the Forest Service; and we have non-Federal partners involved in all these as well. 

It is certainly no problem to work out an arrangement between the 

Federal and State governments to operate this facility. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Assistant Director Penfold, even though you did 

not offer formal testimony, I appreciate your willingness to be here 

and to answer questions. Separating BLM out as an agency within 

Interior, are they still supportive of the cooperative agreement? 

Mr. PENFOLD. It is good to see you, sir. We went into the agreement with some considerable enthusiasm. We support the Commissioner in this "pause," as he has called it, to review their activities. 

We have had a chance to look at our fiscal year 1994 and 1995 

budgets. 

We have a serious concern about whether we are going to be able 

to meet the tone and the degree of commitment that was originally 

laid out in that agreement. So it is appropriate that we kind of 

take another deep brt<lth and take a hard look at what the best, 

constructive relaticnship should be during this period of time. Mr. WILLIAMS. At the time of signing this agreement, was BLM 

unaware of the difficult financial constraints that probably faced it 

'.vithin the next few years? You have been facing them for a num--

ber of years. What magically changed on January 1 to make ynu 

realize that, gee, there is less money t han we thought? 

AB I look at the budget, BLM does not have as much money :d 

BLM fiscal analysts predicted. ·Mr. PENFOLD. We have had some g-rowf 1 in some projects, but 

:r' fiscal 1995, we are looking at a fl a r, program. Other things that 

h ·•.ppen to our budget 11ave to do with ether initiatives going on. 'Ne have had a chance to review on a nationwide basis our com-

;nitments We found it_ a ,fairly sobcrhg picture when we looked a 

u.tt 1_,:_: more com.prehens~_veJ.y . 

\I1 WILLIAMS. Mr. Cr.ra1nussioner. do V'.li! nave to leave 

,N ~i ? I have_to go vote _I know_ v. e.h;J.ve e~~t( nded the time hec8u:e . ":e 'B.St h.eanng we nt dtwut 4~: n :m" t.es l.-,, gcr than we esr:0u ·:·c 
139 

Mr. BEARD. I will be happy to. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I will be back in about five minutes. We are in 

recess. [Recess.] 

Mr. WILLIAMS. The subcommittee will come to order. 

Mr. Penfold, you mentioned the difficulty in the BLM budget 

which we all recognize as being real. Is your understanding the 

same as mine, and that is that the Memorandum of Understanding 

in this legislation anticipates that BLM's contribution would come 

out of BLM funds which would not require any earmarking by Congress in our appropriation legislation for BLM? 

That is to say, the Memorandum of Understanding would not go 

forward; only if the Congress of the United States specifically earmarked BLM funds for these uses at Canyon Ferry- rather, if t his 

legislation passed, BLM would use their own fund monies? 

Mr. PENFOLD. The idea in the MOU as it was crafted would be 

that our participation would be subject to appropriation funds. The 

Bureau has the license--unless they are earmarked to move funds 

to particular projects. AB you know, Congressman, sometimes Congress will earmark funds for a particular project and sometimes 

they do not. So within those earmarked funds, we have the ability 

to move those funds from one project to another depending on priorities. 

The primary focus of the BLM obligations under the MOU as it 

was crafted, would be to do some of the investments and some of 

the refurbishing improvements where the State receipts coming 

from the area would have gone back into the day-to-day management of the area. So funds that we anticipated would have been 

used to do the reconstruction and refurbishing improvements primarily. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. BLM does not have a matching fund requirement; 

is that correct? 

Mr. PENFOLD. We do a lot of matching activities. In regards to 

management of a site like this, we do not have a specific requirement of how much, the percentage; that is correct. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Beard, does your agency have a matching 

fund requirement for activities of this sort? 

Mr. BEARD. Yes. We are authorized only to provide up to 50 percent of the cost of operation and maintenance of the facility and 50 

percent of the cost of construction of the facilities. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Graham, if we don't pass this bill or come up 

with something very similar by administrative direction, what do 

you foresee as the State's next step and what will be the ramifications for the users of the lake and the surrounding area? 

Mr. GRAHAM. We have been working on an agreement for about 

four years now since our 30-year agreement expired and with the 

expectation that the State was not in good financial situation to 

provide what that recreation facility needed. 

We are in actually worse financial condition now than we were 

then. We have done what we can on-site to meet our operation 

needs. We still fall about $75,000 to $80,000 short a year. We don't 

have resources to match with either Federd agency for the capital. 

So our expectation would be that if we can't come to an agreement here, that the residents are not any better off if we stay in 
140 

it than if we walk away from it. Our expectation would be that we 

redirect our resources to our State park facilities and allow the 

Federal Government to make the choices they have to make about 

managing that recreation facility there. 

The other two major Bureau of Reclamation projects in the State, 

Hungry Horse Reservoir and Yell ow Tail Reservoir, are both currently operated with Federal partners. U.S. Forest Service manages recreation on Hungry Horse and that National Park Service 

manages recreation on Yellow Tail. This is the only Federal reservoir in the State like this that we currently manage. 

It would be hard for me to determine what the impacts would be 

on the users until I knew what the Federal agency's intentions 

were about collecting fees or how they would manage the other facilities. 

But I would expect that at some point the Federal agencies 

would be back in here looking for some support to do the same 

thing that we are asking for today, because those facilities in fact 

do not meet, in many cases, health and disability standards. 

Mr. WILLIA.t\1:8. Mr. Beard, what is your agency's response if the 

Slate, as Mr. Graham says, redirects their attention elsewhere, 

which I think is another way of saying the State will walk away. 

What is your agency's response to that, and what do you think the 

ramifications of that will be to users and the like? 

Mr. BEARD. First of all, 1 would say that I hope they would not 

do it, but that is a choice that they have to make based on their 

financial conditions. 

I have talked with our personnel in the Montana Projects Office 

to make sure that on October 2 the gates are open and the facilities 

are available to the public under our management, should the 

State decide, as they have stated in their correspondence to us, not 

to continue the present arrangement. 

I have been assured that the facilities will be operated and maintained correctly. I think the central issue we are really focusir.g on 

here, in my mind, is not who manages the recreation. The question 

is, how do we pay for the capital improvements that are needed to 

correct some of the deficiencies at the lake? 

.A.re they going to be paid entirely by the State? Fifty percent by 

the State? If it is managed eithQr with Reclamation or BLM withnut the State participation, then it would be 100-percent financed 

by the Federal Government, as opposed to 50 percent or not at all, 

if the State were to do it. 

That is the central question. You see the ping-pong ball bouncing 

a little bit here. I think that is because each one of us faces budget 

constraints and difficulties in looking at, as I understand the showcase proposal brochure, approximately a $10 million plan that has 

been mapped out for improving the facilities. I don't know when 

that estimate was made, but it must be reexamined. We are looking at a considerable expenditure of funds to improve 

the facilities. If we don't undertake those, then I think there will 

be deterioration in the facilities. Frankly, we cannot allow them to 

be substandard facilities. So the choices are you either approve the 

expenditures, operate them in a substandard way, or you close 

them. The managers will have to make that choice as we reach 

those points. 
141 

My hope is that we can find a way in which we can make the 

capital expenditure improvements that we need and continue a 

partnership arrangement with our non-Federal entity. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Graham, how would the State handle the 50/ 

50 requirement that Mr. Beard's agency has as a mandate? 

Mr. GRAHAM. We have sufficient funds that we could match the 

50/50 operations. But we don't have funds to match with the 50/ 

50 with capital. If we did, we would be more than happy to put 

those dollars into the project. We just don't have them. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. We have another vote on in the House, unfortunately. Let me just ask as a final question-or I guess, request because I have already asked Mr. Beard if he could do this. But obviously we are in a very difficult situation here because we had an 

agreement between the State and two agencies. I don't hear anyone 

at the table saying we want to break that agreement. 

You have requested a pause, and again I ask if that pause could 

be less prolonged than the pause that will be required by your entire review of similar situations. Also, I recall your answer; you 

said, yes, you could try to find a resolution to this fairly quickly. 

We don't know what that resolution would be, but if I do have 

your commitment to place this at the top of the agenda, then we 

could pause in the legislative agenda here, and at least for a matter of weeks, we could delay further consideration on this bill until 

we saw what the administration might be proposing. 

But I do understand that you are willing to place this at the top 

of the agenda and come to a decision quickly on it. 

Mr. Beard. 

Mr. BEARD. I would be happy to do so. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Penfold, inasmuch as your agency is party to 

this, I assume you, too, are willing to? 

Mr. PENFOLD. Absolutely. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Graham, the State, I assume, is not happy 

about the possibility of renegotiation, but willing to move to try to 

resolve this matter quickly? 

Mr. GRAHAM. If we can resolve it quickly, as you requested, we 

will certainly do everything that we can. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Graham, do you have anything else that you 

would like to speak to before this panel is concluded? 

You have come a long way. You have put a lot of consideration 

and effort into this. If you have any exceptions or objections you 

would like to express here, or lay out any parameters with regard 

to future negotiations, this might be an appropriate time to do so, 

if you thought it was necessary. 

Mr. GRAHAM. I appreciate that. I guess I have just two brief 

points. One would be that we talk a lot about what might be in the 

future. I guess we have to look back at the past 35 years at the 

State's commitment and the amount of money we have contributed 

to managing the facilities up to this point without the Federal 

management or support. 

Now we are looking at some different kinds of waiting in that 

management system in terms of who would pick up what responsibilities. I don't think we can look from this point forward and say 

what is fair if we have to take into consideration how much of this 

load the State has carried for the last 35 years. 
142 

Second, there has been a lot of talk about reinventing government. I know that means different things to different people, but 

I think the partnership developed here brings in the expertise and 

resources of three agencies who can do what none of us could be 

able to do separately. I certainly hope we can find a way to make 

that work. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, we appreciate your coming back here. I am 

particularly appreciative and supportive of the State's position and 

your position. We will try to advocate for your position as we sit 

with all of you and try to work out a resolution to this. 

Pat, Dan, Mike, thank you very much for being with us. We will 

dismiss this panel. You are invited to stay if you would like. If you 

have other things, I know you might have to leave, that will be 

fine. We will reconvene our next panel in just a few moments. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. WILLIAMS. The subcommittee will resume. 

PANEL CONSISTING OF BLAKE J. WORDAL, LEWIS AND CLARK 

COUNTY COMMISSIONER, HELENA, MT; THOMAS A. 

BUDEWITZ, ESQ., BROADWATER COUNTY COMMISSION, 

TOWNSEND, MT; DAVID HEMION, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, HELENA AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, HELENA, 

MT; AND GREGG GROEPPER, ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT, 

OFFICE OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, STATE OF MONTANA, 

HELENA,MT 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Wordal. 

STATEMENT OF BLAKE J. WORDAL 

Mr. WORDAL. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee on 

Natural Resources Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify today and to express the 

position of Lewis and Clark County on H.R. 1477 introduced by 

Montana Representative Pat Williams to provide for the management of lands and recreational resources at Canyon Ferry Recreational Area, which is located in Broadwater and Lewis and 

Clark Counties in Montana. 

I believe that it is important for you to have some knowledge 

about our county in order to better understand our interest in this 

legislation. 

Lewis and Clark County straddles the Continental Divide in 

western Montana and is home to our State capital, Helena. The 

county is fairly large, approximately 3,4 76 square miles, and over 

70 percent of the county is publicly owned. Our major industries 

are agriculture, mining, timber, tourism and government. 

The Missouri River traverses through 64.7 miles of our county, 

and three dams along the river corridor provide important power 

production for Montanans and major water resources for agricultural production, fish and wildlife habitat and recreation. These 

dams include one at Canyon Ferry currently managed by the Bureau of Reclamation and two which are privately managed by the 

Montana Power Company. 

As is apparent, Lewis and Clark County has a significant interest in the future management of Canyon Ferry Reservoir, as well 

as a significant interest in our relationships with both Federal and 
143 

State agencies in managing public lands throughout our county. 

We are expressly interested in management of public lands along 

the Missouri River corridor. 

Lewis and Clark County has worked with a wide array of Federal, State and local agencies and private parties to develop a management plan for Canyon Ferry. Specifically, we have worked with 

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Forest Service, 

BOR, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks and 

Broadwater County to strengthen and clarify management responsibilities there. 

The major reason why our county made a commitment to participate in this process is because of the deterioration evident in the 

public recreational facilities at the Canyon Ferry Recreational 

Area. This area is known throughout Montana as one of the premier recreational facilities in the State and provides important recreational opportunities for the citizens of our county. Believe that 

it is important also to note the meaningful educational services 

provided by the Canyon Ferry Limnilogical Educational Institute 

for the upper Missouri River corridor. Because of the deterioration, 

we believed that a change was necessary. 

During the past 40 years, the Federal presence at Canyon Ferry 

has been the BOR. Frankly, that presence has been minimal and 

inadequate. As a result, campgrounds are overcrowded; the public 

health is in danger because of insufficient planning for sewer and 

water replacement systems for the 266 leased parcels which are 

less than one-half acre in size; and water supplies at camping sites 

have tested deficient for bacteriological contamination. 

This is in sharp contrast to the county's experience with the 

BLM. BLM manages a host of recreational sites and facilities 

throughout Montana. BLM serves as the lead Federal agency for 

improving recreational opportunities at the two privately operated 

dams in Lewis and Clark County. Our experience has been that 

BLM is generally open, flexible and solution-oriented. 

The plan which was developed to manage Canyon Ferry by all 

of the interests involved, including both BOR and BLM, is embodied by H.R. 1477, and we endorse this legislation without hesitation. 

I might add, Congressman, that in response to the testimony 

given earlier by BOR and BLM, we are more than happy to take 

a deep breath, but we hope that we are included in those discussions as well because we are parties, and I think important ones 

in the future of that area. 

Any management plan that is developed by the consensus, which 

is an approach that I believe is best when dealing with such a myriad of agencies and responsibilities we will endorse. Lewis and 

Clark County urges your favorable consideration of H.R. 1477. 

I am more than happy to respond to any questions which you 

may have. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Wordal follows:] 
144 

LEWIS AND CLARK 

CouNTY 

Boord of County Commisslone~ 

September 23, 1993 

H.R. H77 

TESTIMONY OF BLAKE J. WORDAL, LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY COMMISSIONER 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Cornrni ttee on Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations: 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and to express the 

position of Lewis and Clark County on H.R. 1477 introduced by 

Montana Representative Pat Williams to provide for the management 

of lands and recreational resources at Canyon Ferry Recreational 

Area which is located in Broadwater and Lewis and Clark Counties in 

Montana. 

I believe that it is important for you to have some knowledge about our county in or<~.er to better understand our interest in this 

legislation. 

Lewis and Clark County straddles the continental divide in western Montana and is home to our state capitol, Helena. The county is 

fairly large, approximately 3,476 square miles, and over 70 percent 

of the county is publicly owned. Our major industries are agriculture, mining, timber, tourism and government. 

The Missouri River traverses through 64.7 miles of our county and 

three dams along the river corridor provide important power 

production for Montanans and major water resources for agricultural 

production, fish and wildlife habitat and recreation. These dams 

include one at . Canyon Ferry currently managed by the Bureau of 

Reclamation (BOR) and two which are privately managed by the Montana Power Company. 

As is apparent, Lewis and Clark County has a significant interest 

in the future management of Canyon Ferry Reservoir, as well as a significant interest in our relationships with both federal and state agencies in managing public lands throughout our county. Wo 

are expressly interested in management of public lands along the 

Missouri River corridor. 
145 

H. R. 1477 testimony by Blake J. Wordal 

page 2 

Lewis and Clark County has worked with a wide array of federal, state and local agencies and private parties to develop a 

management plan for Canyon Ferry. Specifically, we have worked 

with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 1 National Forest Service, 

BOR, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks and Broadwater 

County to strengthen and clarify management responsibilities there. 

The major reason why our county made a coiTUTiitment to participate in 

this process is because of the deterioration evident in the public 

recreational facilities at the Canyon Ferry recreational area. This area is known throughout Montana as one of the premier 

recreational facilities in the state and provides important 

recreational opportunities for the citizens of our county. I 

believe that it is important also to note the meaningful 

educational services provided by the Canyon Ferry Limnological 

Educational Institute for the upper Missouri River corridor. 

Because of the deterioration, we believed that a change was necessary. 

During the past forty years, the federal presence at Canyon Ferry 

has been the BOR. Frankly, that presence has been minimal and 

inadequate. As a result, campgrounds are overcrowded; the public 

health is in danger because of insufficient planning for sewer and water replacement systems for the 266 leased parcels which are less than one-half acre in size; and water supplies at camping sites 

have tested deficient for bacteriological contamination. 

This is in sharp contrast to the county's experience with the BLM. BLM manages a host of recreational sites and facilities throughout 

Montana. BLM serves as the lead federal agency for improving 

recreational opportunities at the two privately operated dams in 

Lewis and Clark County. Our experience has been that BLM is 

generally open, flexible and solution-oriented. 

The plan which was developed to manage Canyon Ferry by all of the 

interests involved, including both BOR and BLM,is embodied by H.R. 

1477, and we endorse this legislation without hesitation. It was developed by consensus, an approach that I believe is best when 

dealing with such a myriad of agencies and responsibilities. Lewis 

and Clark County urges your favorable consideration of H.R. 1477. 

I am more than happy to respond to any questions which you may 

have. 
146 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Our next witness is from another town in Montana that is located very near Canyon Ferry and whose citizens 

have many uses for it. 

Mr. Tom Budewitz, we are happy to have you here 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS A. BUDEWITZ, ESQ. 

Mr. BuDEWITZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a delight to be 

here. I am an attorney in Townsc.nd and I represent the 

Broadwater County Commissioners on a regular basis. They have 

asked me to come back here and speak in support of this bill. I am 

also speaking on behalf of a number of interest groups in 

Broadwater County, in Townsend, including the city of Townsend, 

Townsend Rotary Club Lions Club, Townsend Chamber of Commerce, Broadwater Stream and Lake Committee and numerous 

other groups and individuals in the area who have a particular interest in this great resource. 

The primary industry in the county is agriculture, but this represents a opportunity to develop some economics in the country 

that frankly don't exist. It is a small county, only about 3,500 people. Townsend is only about 1, 700 or 1,800. Townsend is located 

within a mile of the south end of Canyon Ferry Lake. We are at 

the opposite end from Helena. We are the closest town of any size 

at all to the lake 

As would be expected in an area like this located in the Missouri 

Valley between two mountain ranges overlooked by 9,000-foot 

Mount Baldy, which was capped with snow when I left, and there 

will be snow on it when I get back. It is a beautiful area, full of 

elk, deer, antelope, birds of every kind and excellent fishing. You will hear those from time to time who criticize who ever is 

running Canyon Ferry. It has been the State Fish and Game, Wildlife and Parks Department for a number of years, the degree of 

happiness of the locals with the State Fish and Game Department. 

It depends on how the fishing is generally. There were a lot of promises made back 40 years ago when this 

facility was built. One of those included irrigation. 

Oddly, the driest areas in Broadwater County are those areas 

immediately adjacent to Canyon Ferry Lake. There is no irrigation 

along the lake in Broadwater County. There is some indirect irrigation benefit on the Missouri River which flows between the Townsend Dam and the Canyon Ferry Dam for about 20 miles, but nothing directly from this lake. 

Broadwater Country has been, frankly, left short for the last 40 

years. There has been no economic development to speak of in 

Broadwater County, even though 75 percent of this lake lies within 

Broadwater County. If you look, there are some maps contained in 

the draft management plan that show where the various recreation 

areas are. Virtually all of them are located on the Lewis and Clark 

County side of the line. 

I am not here to start a fight between Lewis and Clark and 

Broadwater Counties. What we are here to do is to support this 

plan which we believe would allow for increased economic development, increased development of the resource, which would undoubtedly flow on both sides of the county line, because it is needed 

on both sides. 
147 

It just so happens that for the last 40 years we haven't gotten 

much. That is despite the fact that virtually everyone that uses 

Canyon Ferry that comes from the south or east of the lake has 

to drive through Townsend to get to the lake. 

The closest facility to get into the water where there is a boat 

ramp is at the Silos Recreation area approximately six miles from 

Townsend and there are no docks. So in order to use a boat dock 

at Canyon Ferry you have to drive through Townsend, another 30 

miles up to the yacht basin on the north end or to Goose Bay or 

Confederate on the east side. Those are all located anywhere from 

20-30 miles from Townsend. 

Naturally, when we think of economic development in 

Broadwater County the obvious place to look is Canyon Ferry Lake. 

Any economic development there will improve business in Townsend, will be able to affect every business, motels, restaurants, 

bars, all the service industries, local automobile dealer, everyone 

gains. Over the last year there has been much more interest in economic development in Broadwater County. Every time there is talk 

about economic development on the local level, we in Broadwater 

County think how great it would be if some of that economic development happened here where there is such a natural resource 

available, such an obvious place to develop. Now my friends in Broadwater County who sent me here to 

speak are hard-working folks who don't mind paying their fair 

share of taxes as long as they think they are getting their money's 

worth. 

They have been generally pleased up to now with the manage- ment at the lake despite their unhappiness with management's inability or unwillingness to spend the money needed for improvements. They support this resolution because it recognizes the Federal re- sponsibility to provide opportunities for public recreation, tourism 

and economic development at Federal water projects and provides 

for a partnership with other interested parties, both Federal and 

State. 

Likewise, it would make no sense at all to eliminate completely 

all State involvement in Canyon Ferry considering the expertise 

which the State Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks has devel- oped over the years and the interest of the people of Montana in 

a resource such as Canyon Ferry. Likewise, both the Bureau of Reclamation and the Bureau of 

Land Management have their own expertise and experience which 

contribute to the value of this resource. Frankly, we are not sure 

why there are two agencies of the same department of government 

fighting over who is going to control this resource. We understand 

it is the nature of government that these kind of fights will happen. When it happens to us, however, it is small consolation. 

We say, Don't let turf fights or gridlock interfere with what is 

otherwise the right thing to do. Don't let the Bureau of Reclamation delay the improvement of Canyon Ferry because it suddenly 

has an appetite for more authority. Don't let bureaucracy become 

the end instead of the means. Instead, pass this resolution and let 

the Bureau of Reclamation and the Bureau of Land Management 

solve their internal problems without hurting the people. 
148 

As an additional comment, I would simply like to say that based 

on what I heard this morning from BuRec and BLM, it appears 

that there is some room for speeding up their consideration of this 

project. 

Frankly, I am not sure how I am going to go back to Townsend 

and explain to my friends, the folks up there, what really is going 

on. I don't know how I am going to explain to them how two government agencies can fight with each other within the same department. 

They will understand that there are certain changes that happen 

when there is a change in administration. But they don't understand when it comes home, when it hurts them. 

We support cooperation on Canyon Ferry. This document is a 

copy of the draft management plan. As I understand it, about 

$200,000 came from the Bureau of Reclamation to fund that plan. 

It was a cooperative effort. That is what happens with cooperation 

between the various involved agencies. This is what happens when 

they fight over it; "Crunch Time on Canyon Ferry," this is the 

headline from the Townsend Star last week. 

This is a problem of real interest to the folks in Broadwater 

County, small as it may be. They are the closest ones to the lake, 

and they are the ones who probably care the most about what goes 

on out there. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Budewitz follows:] 
149 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS A. BUDEWITZ 

TO: THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON NATURAL 

RESOURCES regarding H.R. 1477. 

I am Tom Budewitz, an attorney from Townsend, Montana. 

Approximately 75% of Canyon Ferry Lake is located in Broadwater 

County of which Townsend is the County Seat. 

I am here on behalf of the Broadwater County Commissioners and 

also speak for a variety of local interest groups including the 

city of Townsend, Townsend Rotary Club, Townsend Lions Club, 

Townsend Chamber of commerce, Broadwater stream and Lake committee 

and numerous other groups and individuals in the area. 

The primary industry in the County is agriculture with many 

small farms and ranches . There are also two saw mills and a lime 

rock mining and processing plant. The County has a population of 

approximately 3,500 people, half of whom live in Townsend which is 

located about a mile from the south end of canyon Ferry Lake. 

As would be expected in an area like this located in the 

Missouri Valley between two mountain ranges overlooked by 9, 000 

foot Mount Baldy, which is capped with snow as I speak, the County 

is a prime recreational area with abundant elk, deer, antelope, 

birds of every kind and excellent fishing . The farmlands are 

generally very productive although thousands of acres of the 

richest farm and pasture land were covered by water when the lake 

was filled. 

Oddly, the driest land in the County is located immediately 

adjacent to the lake despite promises at the time the dam was built 

that the lake would be a source of irrigation water. so too, those 
150 

thousands of acres were removed from the local tax base and the 

south end of the lake has received very little in the way of 

capital improvements necessary to attract people and economic 

development to the County. That is despite the fact that a 

percentage of Canyon Ferry's users are either from Broadwater 

County or travel through the County to get to the developed areas 

on the north end of the lake. 

Broadwater County has, in short been left out for 40 years and 

it does not want to see that continue indefinitely. The recently 

completed study and draft management plan for Canyon Ferry contains 

a plan for capital expenditures at Canyon Ferry over the next 10 

years. While we have been working at getting some changes in the 

plan which would have more direct impact on Broadwater County, we 

are generally happy with the idea behind the plan which would 

likely create real economic growth in all of the population centers 

surrounding the lake including Townsend. Every business in 

Townsend, the restaurants, motels, groceries stores, the Ford 

dealer, the hardware store and every other business benefits from 

more people using the south end of the lake. What we really want 

is a marina and boat docks at the Silos Recreation Area which is 

approximately seven miles from my house in Townsend. We won't have 

a marina, which would be privately owned and financed, until a 

breakwater is built and the bay deepened. Those improvements 

aren't fancy but they will cost a lot of money. The State doesn't 

have the money. For those who question whether the State really 

does have the money but doesn't want to spend it on Canyon Ferry, 

2 
151 

I remind you of the recent national news stories that our Governor 

is the lowest paid in the country. At a time when our university 

system is facing severe financial cutbacks, it is not likely that 

any extra money will be found in State Government. 

My friends in Broadwater County who have sent me hear to speak 

to you are hard-working folks who, don't mind paying their fair 

share of taxes as long as they think they are getting their money's 

worth. They have been generally pleased to now with the management 

at the lake despite their unhappiness with management's inability 

or unwillingness to spend the money needed for improvements. They 

support this resolution because it recognizes the Federal 

responsibility to provide opportunities for public recreation, 

tourism and economic development at federal water projects and 

provides for a partnership with other interested parties both 

Federal and state. It would make no sense at all to eliminate 

completely all State involvement in Canyon Ferry considering the 

expertise which the state Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks 

has developed over the years and the interest of the people of 

Montana in a resource such as Canyon Ferry. Likewise, both the 

Bureau of Reclamation and the Bureau of Land Management have their 

own expertise and experience which contribute to the value of this 

resource. 

Frankly, I am not sure why there are two agencies of the 

Department of Interior fighting over who is going to control this 

resource. I understand that it is the nature of government that 

such turf fights will happen. When it happens to us, however, we 

3 
152 

say: Don't let turf fights or gridlock interfere with what is 

otherwise the right thing to do. Don't let the Bureau of 

Reclamation delay the improvement of Canyon Ferry because it 

suddenly has an appetite for more authority. Don't let bureaucracy 

become the end instead of the means. Instead, pass this resolution 

and let the Bureau of Reclamation and the Bureau of Land Management 

solve their internal problems without hurting the people for whose 

benefit they exist. 
153 

Mr. WILLIAMS . .Our next witness is also from Helena, the executive vice president of the Helena Area Chamber of Commerce, Mr. 

David Hemion. 

Thank you for being with us. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID HEMION 

Mr. HEMION. Thank you for the opportunity, Congressman Williams. I have submitted comments for the record, so I will briefly 

summarize those in the interests of time. 

First, we support H.R. 1477, especially, as the title suggests, 

those objectives that deal with tourism and economic development 

and commend you for bringing forward this bill. 

Canyon Ferry is extremely important to Helena and our tourism 

economy. It has about a $4 million annual impact on our economy. 

We also recognize that Canyon Ferry does not exist in a vacuum 

of local interest. It is an important recreational resource with 

unique visitor attractions such as its inland salmon fishery, Bald 

Eagle migration and other such attractions. 

We believe Canyon Ferry can serve to reduce pressures on other 

nearby attractions like Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks. In 

fact, that objective is the central focus of the new tourism strategy 

which our chamber and others in Montana have joined, the Trail 

of the Great Bear. That links Yellowstone, Glacier Park and the 

crown jewels of Canada's National Park System, Banff and Jasper. 

The initiative seeks not only to promote these prime attractions, 

but also to channel visitors to less well-known but equally spectacular places along this corridor such as Canyon Ferry. 

In order to maximize the recreational opportunities available to 

tax payers and to capitalize on Canyon Ferry's potential additional 

Federal support is needed as has been indicated for improvements 

to the facilities at Canyon Ferry. 

Briefly, in a related issue, we would also like to indicate our support for the efforts of the Canyon Ferry Limnilogical Institute, of 

which you will hear more, to access Federal facilities at Canyon 

Ferry in order to secure its future as an important scientific and 

educational organization. Finally, I would just say that, speaking on behalf of the community of Helena, we would be extremely disappointed with an alternative that studies this problem and does not bring it forward to 

some quick action. 

So we commend you also for urging a speedy resolution for whatever consideration by the agencies is required in order to resolve 

the problem. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you very much. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Hemion follows:] 
201 E LY:-JDALI::: AV E. · HELENA. MT 5460 1 • 406-442-4 12 0 

HELENA AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 

STATEMENT BY DAVID HEMION 

EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT 

154 

HELENA AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES , U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 23 , 1993 

MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, I AM DAVID HEMION, 

EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE HELENA AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. IT 

IS AN HONOR TO HAVE BEEN ASKED TO COME TODAY TO REPRESENT THE VIEWS 

OF OUR ORGANIZATION AND OUR COMMUNITY REGARDING H.R. 1477, THE 

CANYON FERRY RECREATION, TOURISM AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 

MANAGEMENT ACT . 

IT IS OUR HOPE THAT THIS COMMITTEE WILL RECOMMEND PASSAGE OF H.R. 

14 7 7, AS THE ACT WILL ENHANCE THE PUBLIC'S ABILITY TO ENJOY A 

RECREATIONAL RESOURCE IT ALREADY OWNS, WHILE HAVING A MOST POSITIVE 

ECONOMIC BENEFIT TO OUR STATE AND THE HELENA AREA. 

HELENA IS THE STATE'S CAPITAL CITY AND IS LOCATED ABOUT 15 MILES 

WEST OF CANYON FERRY. ACTIVITIES AT CANYON FERRY HAVE A DIRECT 

IMPACT ON OUR LOCAL ECONOMY. 

CANYON FERRY RESERVOIR IS A PROMISE WAITING TO BE FULFILLED. IN ITS 

NEARLY FORTY- YEAR HISTORY, IT HAS NEVER BEEN ALLOWED TO BE MANAGED 

AND DEVELOPED TO THE EXTENT THAT THE PUBLIC COULD RECEIVE THE 

MAXIMUM RECREATIONAL BENEFITS THEY ARE ENTITLED TO FROM THEIP. 

INVESTMENT. DURING THAT TIME THE PRIMARY MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITY 

FOR CANYON FERRY HAS BEEN LEFT WITH THE STATE OF MONTANA, A 

SITUATION WHICH HAS STRETCHED THE RESOURCES OF ONE OF THE POOREST 

STATES. 

PLEASE CONSIDER THAT MONTANA IS THE NATION ' S FOURTH LARGEST STATE 

IN AREA, BUT IS 44TH IN POPULATION. THE AVERAGE WAGE IN MONTANA 

RANKS FOURTH FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE STATES, A FULL THIRD LESS TMAN 

THE NATIONAL AVERAGE. (1992 FIGURES, U.S. DEPT. OF LABOR; MONTANA : 

$19,378, U.S.: $25,903). THE COMBINATION OF THESE FACTORS LEAVES 

THE STATE IN A PRECARIOUS POSITION TO FUND ITS PUBLIC OBLIGATIONS. 

AS YOU KNOW, TME STATE OF MONTANA HAS INDICATED IT CANNOT CONTINUE 

TO ABSORB THE COST OF MINIMALLY MAINTAINING RECREATION AT CANYON 

FERRY, MUCH LESS ENHANCE AND EXPAND CANYON FERRY TO MEET THE 

PUBLIC'S DEMAND FOR USAGE OF THIS RESOURCE. 

THE ECONOMIC FORECAST FOR OUR STATE AND REGION UNFORTUNATELY DO NOT 

INDICATE THAT THIS SITUATION WILL IMPROVE. TRADITIONAL MONTANA 

''"''"''' '"" " T, .... ,., '"''''''' '' ''"'"' '' """''"'~'![;;;]! 
155 

MINING EMPLOYMENT IS CYCLICAL AND INCREASINGLY LESS LABOR 

INTENSIVE. IN HELENA OVER THE COMING TWO YEARS WE ARE FACING THE 

LOSS OF HUNDREDS OF OUR HIGHEST PAYING JOBS DUE TO THE 

CONSOLIDATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE 

DOWNSIZING OF GOVERNMENT. 

EMPLOYMENT IN THE TOURISM INDUSTRY WILL HELP OFFSET SOME OF THIS 

DECLINE AND THIS ACT CAN BE A VERY POSITIVE STIMULUS TO THAT END. 

TOURISM SERVICES HAS BEEN A GROWTH INDUSTRY FOR MONTANA AND THE 

HELENA AREA. WITH AN ENHANCED RESOURCE AT CANYON FERRY WE CAN 

LOGICALLY EXPECT TO ATTRACT MORE TOURISTS WHOSE SPENDING WILL 

BENEFIT THE LOCAL ECONOMY. 

FROM STUDIES CONDUCTED AS A PART OF THE RECENTLY COMPLETED CANYON 

FERRY MANAGEMENT PLAN, WE KNOW THAT TOURISM AT CANYON FERRY HAS A 

FOUR MILLION DOLLAR IMPACT ON OUR AREA IN DIRECT PURCHASE AND 

INDIRECT BENEFITS. CURRENTLY ABOUT 25 PERCENT OF THOSE VISITING 

CANYON FERRY ARE FROM OUT OF OUR STATE. THIS IS IMPORTANT, BECAUSE 

IT INDICATES THAT FEDERAL TAXPAYERS FROM OTHER STATES ARE 

BENEFITING FROM THIS RESOURCE. VISITORS ARE DRAWN BY THE INCREDIBLE 

MOUNTAIN SCENERY AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO ENJOY UNIQUE FEATURES, SUCH 

AS A PROLIFIC INLAND SAUION FISHERY AND THE PRESENCE OF HUNDREDS OF 

MIGRATORY BALD EAGLES. 

LOOKING TOWARD THE FUTURE WE CAN SEE CANYON FERRY BECOMING AN 

INCREASINGLY IMPORTANT NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL RECREATIONAL 

RESOURCE. WE HAVE RECENTLY ENTERED INTO A TOURISM PROMOTIONAL 

STRATEGY KNOWN AS "THE TRAIL OF THE GREAT BEAR". THE OBJECTIVE OF 

THIS EFFORT, WHICH IS A COLLABORATION OF THE STATES OF MONTANA, 

WYOMING AND THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, IS TO ACQUAINT TOURISTS WITH 

TRAVEL AND RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES ALONG A CORRIDOR STRETCHING 

FROM CANADA 1 S BANFF AND JASPER NATIONAL PARKS THROUGH THE WATERTONGLACIER INTERNATIONAL PEACE PARK AND ON TO YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL 

PARK. 

AN IMPORTANT PART OF THIS STRATEGY IS TO ATTRACT VISITORS TO THE 

AREAS ADJOINING AND IN BETWEEN THE WELL-KNOWN PARKS, THEREBY 

LESSENING THE DETRIMENTAL IMPACTS OF INCREASING NUMBERS OF VISITORS 

TO THESE FRAGILE ECO-SYSTEMS. CANYON FERRY PLAYS A KEY ROLE IN THIS 

STRATEGY, AS A RESOURCE WHICH COULD ABSORB ADDITIONAL VISITATION. 

IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THIS ROLE, HOWEVER, CANYON FERRY NEEDS 

UPGRADING. ITS WATER, ROAD AND CAMPING FACILITIES NEED TO BE 

MODERNIZED AND EXPANDED. WHILE THE STATE OF MONTANA HAS PROVIDED 

SOME IMPROVEMENTS, IT DOES NOT HAVE THE RESOURCES TO MAINTAIN AND 

EXPAND CANYON FERRY AS IT SHOULD BE DONE. 

ONE FINAL ISSUE WHICH THE HELENA CHAMBER WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS IS 

THE FUTURE OF THE CANYON FERRY LIMNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE. WE HOPE THIS 

BILL WILL ALLOW THE INSTITUTE TO CONTINUE TO ACCESS BUREAU OF 

RECLAMATION FACILITIES AT CANYON FERRY RESERVOIR. THE INSTITUTE IS 

PROVIDING OPPORTUNITIES TO TRAIN STUDENTS FOR CAREERS IN THE 

SCIENCES, AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN OUR NATION'S FUTURE. WHILE IT 

BEGAN AS A PROJECT FOR LOCAL HELENA STUDENTS, ITS ENROLLES NOW COME 

FROM ACROSS THE NATION AND EVEN FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES. WITHOUT 

CONTINUED ACCESS TO THIS SITE, THE INSTITUTE WILL BE IN JEOPARDY. 

THE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR CANYON FERRY MUST RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE 

OF THE LIMNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE AND PROVIDE SUITABLE SUPPORT AS 

POSSIBLE. 

76-655 0 - 94 - 6 
156 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Our final witness is the assistant superintendent 

of the Helena Office of Public Instruction. 

STATEMENT OF GREGG GROEPPER 

Mr. GROEPPER. Today I am here to support the legislation, representing Nancy Keenan, State Superintendent of Public Instruction. I am here to support the legislation and ask consideration for 

a small amendment to guarantee a long-range environmental education center at Canyon Ferry, specifically at the Canyon Ferry Village site. 

You may hear later, after the Bureau of Reclamation has had a 

chance to look at that, that BuRec is opposed to this piece of legislation because it sets a precedent requiring BuRec to pay for recreation management at the lake. 

We in Montana look at this bill as an important first step in 

compensating Montana for all the unfulfilled promises by BuRec 

under the original Pick-Sloan Plan for the 1944 Flood Control Act. 

Originally, there were promises under that Act of 17 hydro facilities, we have 26. 

There were promises of 758 MW of power; there are over 3,000 

MW being generated. 

The estimate of electric power value was only going to be $3.8 

million; it is over, $160 million. 

While the navigation use of that facility, that drainage, was supposed to be 20 million tons; it is only averaging about 2.2 million 

tons average. 

Montana was promised 970,000 acres of irrigation; to date we 

only have 73,000 acres of irrigation. 

We will reserve the 104 megawatts of irrigation power, we are 

only using 14 megawatts of irrigation power. 

The storage of these facilities along the Missouri have increased 

from 41 million acre-feet to 74 million acre-feet. 

More importantly, Montana generates 21 percent of the power for 

this entire project and receives only 6 percent. That is important 

to us because that power is very inexpensive. 

Montana has been significantly shorted on every promise under 

this plan, while the system generates substantially more revenue 

than anticipated. 

Congressman Williams, you are to be commended for bringing 

the bill. We think it is a good first step toward compensating Montana for the unfulfilled promises of Pick-Sloan. 

The other reason I appear before you today is, I guess, reluctantly I came all the way to Washington, DC, to ask your help in 

resolving what has been a four-year problem in Montana for the 

Montana Office of Public Instruction. It gets back a little bit to 

some of the testimony you have already heard. 

We have tried in Montana in the Office of Public Instruction for 

over four years to get a long-term commitment for environmental 

education at the Canyon Ferry Village site. I have been personally 

involved in those negotiations for over four years and, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your interest in environmental education as you 

evidenced throughout your term here in Congress. 

Yet in spite of the specifically stated goal of the Bureau of Reclamation "to further public education and involvement in resource 
157 

management, development and protection," and I get that quote, 

Mr. Chairman, out of the Bureau of Reclamation's strategic plan 

from June of 1992, this is not an old document, but in spite of that 

promise, all we have now is an agreement with BuRec, we only 

have a commitment to use the Canyon Ferry Village site for education purposes through December of 1995; then they told us we 

have to vacate the buildings we are using, so BuRec can tear them 

down and build an administrative complex. 

Perhaps I could explain what the Office of Public Instruction and 

through its contractor, the Canyon Ferry Limnilogical Institute, is 

doing at this site. You have three maps, that I ask to have put into 

the record. 

[The maps follow:] 
Ci.ll)On Ferry 

C&nyon Ferry 

Villa1e 

. -. 

158 

• Goose B.!y 

Mo.rina 

R<Hd SLate Puk 

160 

Canyon Ferry Village Area 

L-=-=----___::::=:'!!!!!I! ____ ~SI!!I!:__FWP Starr Quarters 

L--------------------FWPOrtice 

Scale: I inch = 350 feet 

This is the point of land which contains the cui 'd sac and houses built in the late 1940's and 

early 1950's to house employees constructing Canyon Ferry Dam and subsequently working 

there. Employees no longer occupy these houses. Two are used by MT Fish Wildlife and 

Parks, one by BLM, and seven by the Canyon Ferry Limnological Institute to deliver its 

educational program. Five houses are empty. Additional houses are needed for laboratories 

and dormitories. The dormitories currently accommodate 15 people, utilizing both bedrroms, 

living room and kitchen as sleeping quarters. The institute is fully occupying all space in 

these seven buildings, even using garages for conference rooms and laboratories. All 

basements are also fully utilized for laboratories, except for the basement which is utilized 

as a laundry for participants. 
161 

Mr. GROEPPER. Just to put into perspective our request here, the 

first map shows Canyon Ferry Lake in scale and then at the top 

of the map you will see a little box that it says Canyon Ferry Village. 

If you turn to the second map--and the scale, each one of those 

boxes, is about a mile, Mr. Chairman-it shows the dam, and there 

is a little green circle on the right that shows a portion of the Canyon Ferry Village site that we are currently using in conjunction 

with the Limnilogical Institute for Environmental Education. 

The third page is a more expanded scale of that small area on 

the second page. I circled in green the area we are talking about 

to try to get some guarantee for long-term use of environmental 

education. The lake is over 30 miles long. It has over 78 miles of 

coastline. The site we are talking about, in total, comprises just a 

few acres, and I guess just a thousand feet of shore line. 

What is going on at this site right now, the Office of Public Instruction has a lease with the Bureau of Reclamation to use eight 

buildings and access to the bay. Our annual lease cost is now over 

$5,000 a year plus electricity. 

We, in turn, subcontract with the Canyon Ferry Limnilogical Institute (CFLI), a private, nonprofit education corporation. Under 

the subcontract, CFLI does environmental education teacher training, runs a summer science camp, coordinates teachers and students in seven States who are monitoring water quality in the entire Missouri River basin, and they have presently under way 

teacher and student exchanges with Russia through Moscow University. 

The faculty of CFLI has three Presidential awardees, two 

McAuliffe Fellows, one State Biology Teacher of the Year, and one 

Western regional "Search for Excellence Awardee." 

I call your attention to a document that is also in the record. On 

the back of that you will see there the accomplishments of some 

high school students who went through this institute in the summer. 

We have Westinghouse Talent Search winners. We have Congressional Accommodation Presidential winners. We have Presidential Scholars, a number of significant scientific achievements. 

We are only able to operate this project in the summer right now. 

What we are looking to have is a long-term commitment so the Office of Public Instruction can work with the Canyon Ferry 

Linmilogical Institute, to develop Montana's first magnet science 

and environmental education center. But we have to have a longterm commitment before we can do that. 

Once we can set that center up, we can have children in Montana, grades K-12 attending year round, taking access of the tremendous scientific equipment that is out there and expanding the 

use of this facility. 

So, Mr. Chairman, what we would really like to see is something 

in the bill. We appreciate a pause, a time to look at this, but we 

are concerned that if we don't have something in the bill, we will 

have another four years of dealing with bureaucracy trying to establish a long-term commitment here. Without that long-term commitment of the site, we cannot get funding for the Canyon Ferry 

Limnilogical Institute for private sources. 
162 

What we are asking for is not unusual. The Department of Agriculture in Montana has made a long-term lease with Western Montana College for facilities at $1,000 a year for 20 years. 

The Forest Service has a long-term lease with educational facilities for use of the Big Creek Ranger Station, and they are currently 

talking about a 50-year lease. 

We would like a guarantee in the bill that the Office of Public 

Instruction could have a similar long-term commitment for the unoccupied buildings at the Canyon Ferry Village site, along with access to the Bay. 

We think the public interest is better served dedicating these 

empty buildings to education instead of tearing them down, at 

some government expense, and building an administrative complex. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Groepper and attachment follow:] 
Gregg Groepper 

Assistant Superintendent 

Representing Nancy Keenan 

1~ 

State Superintendent of Public Instruction 

I'm here to support the legislation and ask consideration for a 

small amendment to guarantee a long range environmental education 

center at Canyon Ferry, specifically at the Canyon Ferry Village 

site . 

1. You may hear later that BuRec is opposed to this piece of 

legislation because it sets a precedent requiring BuRec to pay 

for recreation management at the lake. 

We in Montana look at this bill as an important first step in 

compensating Montana for all the unfulfilled promises by BuRec 

under the original Pick-Sloan Plan. 

Promises 

17 Hydro facilities 

758 MW of power 

Electric power value $3.8M 

Navigation use 20M tons 

970,000 acres of irrigation 

104 MW irrigation power 

Storage of 41 M acre feet 

In addition: 

Results 

26 Hydro facilities 

3,116 MW 

$160.0M 

2.2M tons average. 

73,000 acres 

14MW 

74M acre feet 

Montana generates 21% of the power and receives only 6% 

Montana has been significantly shorted on every promise while the 

system generates subs~antially more revenue than anticipated. 

Congressman Williams is to be commended for bringing the bill 

before you. It's a good first step toward compensating Montana 

for the unfulfilled promises of Pick-Sloan. 

The other reason I appear before you today is to ask your 

consideration in stabilizing a frustrating problem specific to 

the Montana Office of Public Instruction. 

Our office has tried for over four years to get a long term 

commitment for environmental education at the Canyon Ferry 

Village site. Environmental education has long been an interest 

of Congressman Williams as evidenced by his support of the 

Rattlesnake Wilderness area near Missoula. 
164 

Yet, in spite of the specifically stated goal of BuRec to 

"further public education and involvement in resource management, 

development, and protection" we only have a commitment through 

December of 1995 then we have to vacate the buildings we are 

using so BuRec can tear them down and build an administrative 

complex. 

Perhaps I could explain what we are doing at this site. 

First to put the site in perspective I have a couple maps f o r 

your information. 

The lake is over 30 miles long and has over 78 miles of 

coastli ne. The site we're talking about is only a few acres . 

What's going on : 

The Offi c e of Public Instruction has a lease with BuRec for use 

of 8 buildings and access to the bay. The annual lease cost is 

now over $5,000 a year plus electricity. We in turn subcontract 

with the Canyon Ferry Limnilogical Institute (CFLI) , a private 

non-profit education corporation. Under the subcontract CFLI; 

does environmental education 

teacher training 

runs a summer science camp 

coordinates teachers and students in 7 states who are 

monitoring water quality in the Missouri River basin. 

teacher and student exchanges with Russia through Moscow 

University. 

The Faculty has: 

3 Presidential awardees 

2 McAuliffe Fellows 

1 state biology teacher of the year 

1 Western regional "Search for Excellence Awardee" 

Where our office would like to go is to develop Montana first 

magnet science school on a year round basis so more Montana 

students can take advantage of the great facilities. 

Students have been very successful as evidenced by the handout . 

I ' d draw special attention to 3 Presidential scholarships and a 

Congressional commendation for research affecting public health. 

Since we have been unable to achieve a long term commitment 

through over 4 years of discussion, we'd ask the committee to 

include language in the bill requiring long term use by the 

Montana Office of Public Instruction of the residences and the 

point, as long as the property is used for education purposes . 
165 

The Department of Agriculture has made a long term lease with 

Western Montana College for $1,000 per year. The Forest Service 

has long term lease for use of the Big Creek Ranger Station, and a 50 year lease is under consideration. We'd like a guarantee, 

in the bill, for long term use of the facilities we're presently 

using, along with the point of land described in the maps and access to the Bay. 

We think the public interest is better served dedicating these 

empty buildings to education instead of tearing them down, at some government expense, and building an administrative complex. 
AFFILIATES 

Organization Provision 

Montaoa Office of Public Instruction Supervision 

US Buruu of Reclamalioo Housing 

Monlllll Sial<: Uoivenily Credil 

Nalural Produds lnslihlle Menlllr.illip/Equip 

Missouri Wesltnl Slale College Downstteam Coord 

Moscow Slalc Uoiversily, Russia Professors 

MT Depl. of Helalb, Waler Qualily Buruu Technical Support 

BOARD OF DIRECTORS 

Alan Nichol-. O..ir 

Gil Alexander, D. Sc., President 

~tick Gny, Vice-paidenl 

Ron Drake, Treasurer 

Myrna Doney, Secrooary 

Marilyn AJeunder 

Mullolz,Pb. D. 

John Amend, Pb.D. 

RK:hMoy 

Abc Hoopcalad, Pb.D. 

Vivian Dnk.e 

BiiiSiebbills 

Mignon Waterman 

Joe Moreland 

Ray Hamilton 

EnUeNunn 

EdJolmsoo 

Roben Briw 

Nicboboo, Inc., President 

CFU Director 

Vo-Tech, Electronics 

Dnke Engineering. I'm. 

Vo-Tech, Computer Apps. 

Ofi'"K:e Manager/Director 

Hydromclrics, President 

Mo111ana State Univcn ity 

Depc . of Nal. Res. 4< 

Cons. 

MI. Depl or Heallh, WQB 

lA.C County Water Dist. 

JCTVH TV, Manager 

MT S111e Senaoor 

USGS, Water Res. Oiv Dir 

O.Cmist 

US Forese: Service, Retired 

Statistician 

MT Systemic Jnitia· 

live for Mathematics 

&Science 

ACCOMPLISHMENTS 

of STUDENTS 

Westinghouse Science Talent Scan:h - I in Top 10, 

1 in Top 40, 3 in Honors Group 

Junior Science & Humanitlea Symposium 

National - I lSI pi"", 2 2nd places 

Regional - 4 lsi places, 4 2nd places, 28 Delega1es 

DOE Fellowships - 4 Fellowships 

Junior Academy of Scleoas 

Nalional - 3 presen1ers 

Slale - 6 lsi plaas, I 2nd place:, 2 3rd places 

Published in Proceedings gf the Montana Academy of 

3 high school sludeniS 

!!SA WDAY ALL Amtrieu Academic: Team - I lsi Team, 

I 2nd Team, 3 C<!llegc lsi Team, I Honorable Menlion 

Amorialn Caaar Soclely FeUowshipo - 5 Fellowships 

ACS Chemistry Olympiad - Monlana Section, 2 lsi Places 

Jatrna11tioaal Sdeace Fair - Environmental Science lsi Place, 

3rd place: Grand Award. American Walcr Works Assoc. 

1st place, Department of the Interior/Bureau of 

Reclamation 1st place, 1st & 4th place Grand Award in 

Microbiology, 2nd in Biochemislry, lsi place Fish 4< 

WiidlifeScrvice 

American World or Water- lsi place 

Montana Engineering Sociely Award - lsi place 

Congnaloaal Commeadation for research affecting public 

heailh - I hi$1> school Sludenl 

Taady Scholar- lsi place: 

National Hortk:uhure Award - lsi place 

Barry Goldwater Scholanhip - 2 srudeniS 

Presidential Scholarships - 3 sludeniS 

Rese~~n:b published ia Mogtaoa Ckarwatcr - 1 student 

National Y outb Science Camp - l studenl 

Ford Fouodation Award - 1 student 

Amerk:an Lung Association Award - I Sludenl 

Summer Jatem Rfll'artb Asst.. at Brookhann National Lab 

l high school sludenl 

Frltowsbip at Brandeis Univenlty - 1 student 

C

L

The 

pub

Con

tion

citiz

aqu

and 

agre

tion 

mat

The 

nate 

origi

mari

as pr

prog

intim
MISSION 

Interest students jn careers jn science. engineedng. and technical fields tohelpmeetAipedca 's 

.!~«lb.. This is accomplished by involving students in 

hands-on science projects that are meaningful, yet 

within their range of capability. 

• Enhance teachers' scientific understanding 

and laboratory comoetence. This is accomplished 

by involving them in the use of standard and cutting 

edge laboratory and field equipment as they design 

and conduct projects they can implement in their own 

classrooms. 

lncRJSe scientjfic literacy. This is accomplished by involving citizens in programs which expand their knowledge of scientific, social, political, 

and economic issues which involve the environment, 

especially water. 

.----1 

LOCATION 

Located 18 miles east of Helena, Montana, on the 

shores of Canyon Ferry Reservoir, our site at Canyon 

Ferry Village is made available through a US Bureau 

of Reclamation special use agreement with the 

Montana Office of Public Instruction, which contracts with us to provide educational services. 

Our location on the uppermost large impoundment of 

the Missouri River provides unique opportunities for 

investigating the river and its headwaters before the 

Missouri River merges with the Mississippi River 

2700 miles downstream. 

We 

pro

teac

Mo

ity o

stud

vol

dev

pro

Wat

Mis

Lak

Inde

Mo

Var
168 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Graham, would you grab a chair and come 

back to the witness table, please? I want to begin by asking the 

State's opinion and view of Mr. Groepper's suggestion about a longterm commitment for the continuation of the Linmilogical Institute, 

but more an environmental education center on that site. Does the 

State have a opinion about that-that is, a legislated solution? 

Mr. GRAHAM. No, we don't. I am certainly familiar with the Institute and the people that run it. We support it. We put money into 

it. When it comes to the facilities and those kind of questions, those 

are Federal facilities and we have not taken a position. 

I think it would be well if we could resolve the issue. I appreciat& 

the frustration of the Institute not being able to get firm commitments from the Federal Government there. Whether putting it in 

the bill is an adequate way to go or if there is some other way to 

go about it, I cannot say. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Groepper, in the discussions that went forward between the State and the two agencies, was Superintendent 

Keenan's office involved in those discussions? 

Mr. GROEPPER. Mr. Chairman, we were involved in the discussions with the Bureau of Reclamation. It was since 1992 that we 

have been involved in the discussions. I would have to say they are 

some of the most frustrating sets of discussions I have ever been 

party to. Mr. WILLIAMS. With regard to the discussions on the Memorandum of Understanding, was the Superintendent's office involved in 

that? 

Mr. GROEPPER. Mr. Chairman, we are not involved at all. We 

were talking with BuRec. It was never brought to our attention 

that there was a discussion going on about this or that we should 

be a party to that discussion. Mr. WILLIAMS. I have had communication with BuRec about this 

and they have been resistant, as you know, to the Institute's longterm use of the current site. I have managed to get some flexibility 

out of them through the years, working with both your office and 

with Gil about it. 

It is my sense that the agencies would not support legislation 

that required or that instituted a legislative solution to the problem. 

Now, inasmuch as the Memorandum of Understanding may-and 

I emphasize "may''-during this pause be reopened for further negotiations, then that happy news in that sad situation is that it 

might allow another party, namely the Superintendent and the 

folks from the Limnilogical Institute to enter the negotiations to 

see if we could not find a legislative solution for them. 

I would be happy to pursue that with you and with Nancy Keenan, to see if we can get you a seat at the table. 

Mr. GROEPPER. Mr. Chairman, I believe at this point we would 

be happy for any involvement. I guess what I was trying to address 

earlier, the negotiations heretofore have been frustrating because 

it is apparent that the Bureau of Reclamation wants to reserve the 

site of land where those buildings are for a future administrative 

complex. 

We have had better discussions and a more amiable sense of resolving this with the Bureau of Land Management, quite frankly, 
169 

than we have had with the Bureau of Reclamation, but we certainly would be willing participants at the table to try to keep this 

science camp going on a long-term basis. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Budewitz, are you recommending any 

changes in the Memorandum of Understanding to try to improve 

the reservoir's benefit to Townsend? I have noticed, as well, 

through the years that Lewis and Clark County has received more 

of the benefits, at least with the site development, than has 

Broadwater; but I am uncertain whether you are making recommendations with regard to a new Memorandum of Understanding. 

Mr. BUDEWITZ. I don't think it would require any changes in the 

Memorandum of Understanding. What it will require is money. The 

difficulty had always been, as I understand it, in the past, that fish 

and game in the State of Montana simply don't have the money for 

the development of any additional facilities at Canyon Ferry. If 

there is going to be any new money spent, it is going to have to 

come from the Federal Government, from one of the two Federal 

agencies. 

We are generally satisfied with the proposals contained in the 

draft management plan. Through the course of the public legislation that was held last spring, we made known some requested 

changes and modifications in that plan. The final draft of the plan, 

I don't think has been adopted yet. But we think that the priority 

says that the expenditure of money can be handled within the 

management plan, rather than through legislator, through any 

amendments to the MOU. Once this resolution is passed, that enables the BLM to spend money at Canyon Ferry. 

The projects that are identified in this management plan, I have 

been told would cost about $10 million. They are talking about 

spending perhaps $1 million a year for 10 years. It is a 10-year 

plan. That is fine. We would like to see it $20 million or $30 million, but $10 million is more than has been spent for quite some 

time in the development of additional sites or the improvement of 

existing sites at Canyon Ferry. We are happy with that. 

We are not asking for Cadillacs. We want the expenditure of 

some money by an agency that has some money at Canyon Ferry, 

and we will take our chances on getting our fair share. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, I would address my response to you, as well 

as Mr. Hemion and Mr. Wordal and that is that it is almost a certainty that whichever of the two agencies here, BLM or BuRec, 

takes the lead in this, the facilities at Canyon Ferry are going to 

receive additional money and the burden on the State is going to 

be reduced. 

One of the real questions before us is. Will the Federal contribution require a match from the State or not? I know each of you is 

sensitive to deficit problems because you come from a State, our 

State, that has a deficit, as do three dozen other States in this 

country. You come to address a Federal Government that also has 

a deficit. 

Let me ask you a somewhat rhetorical question. I do this not to 

try to influence in any way the rewriting of the Memorandum of 

Understanding, because my own preference is that this Memorandum of Understanding go forward. 
170 

By the way, before this hearing closes, I ought to be sure I make 

that clear. I am for this bill as it sits. A pause is one thing; changing the language of the legislation is entirely another matter. I 

have agreed only to the pause. 

Having said that, and given the deficits both in your State and 

in our Nation, is it fair or unfair-and fairness is always in the eye 

of the beholder-to ask the Federal Government to pay virtually 

the entire cost of this with no match from the State? What are the 

benefits that each of you could speak to that are received by Montanans that are worth a match from the State of Montana? 

Mr. Wordal, you are the Commissioner in the county that enjoys 

the greatest benefit. 

Mr. WORDAL. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to point out 

what the Director of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks mentioned in his testimony, and that is that we need to focus on this, not just from this 

day forward but from the past. The State has spent a great deal 

of money on facilities at Canyon Ferry that have not been matched 

by BuRec. 

The county, as well, spends a great deal of money that is not recognized. In fact, you could not reach Canyon Ferry Reservoir if it 

were not for county roads. We have built them; we maintain them. 

People would not be able to use the recreational facilities or even 

approach the dam itself if it were not for those county roads. That 

is part of the money that we contribute to this partnership. 

I think that often that county element is overlooked, that with 

better recreational opportunity there will be more use of those 

roads. More use of those roads means that they deteriorate quicker. 

We are willing to deal with that part that is ours in this grand 

reawakening of Canyon Ferry, as we have done down on the Bear 

Tooth to other recreational facilities-in cooperation, I might mention, with Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, BLM, and the National Forest 

Service. We are more than happy to pull our own weight. 

But when it comes to the capital expenses that are needed at 

Canyon Ferry, Lewis and Clark County does not have the resources, and I know the State does not have the resources; those 

capital improvements are expensive. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Budewitz, you mentioned and I alluded to my 

agreement with you that your county and the city of Townsend has 

had the short side of the benefits and improvements at Canyon 

Ferry. How would you respond to a match rather than entire Federal contribution? 

Mr. BUDEWITZ. Personally, I would echo Blake's comments and 

say not only do we supply roads in access to the lake, but fire service, law enforcement service and other impacts. But I will tell you, 

Mr. Chairman, that frankly, in considering the draft management 

plan-that is, before we attended the various public hearings that 

were held on this plan-in my discussions with the Broadwater 

County commissioners, one of the principal interests in Broadwater 

County at Canyon Ferry, probably the major thing that we want 

at Canyon Ferry is the construction of a breakwater at the Silos 

Recreation Area. 

The Silos are located about six miles from the front door of my 

house in Townsend. There are no docks. You can put a boat in the 

water at the Silos at the ramp, but you cannot dock your boat there 
171 

even temporarily. There are no docks. The reason is that there is 

no breakwater. There has to be a breakwater constructed there, a 

permanent one; they tried a temporary one a few years ago, and 

it didn't work. 

There has to be a permanent breakwater. I don't know what that 

will cost to build. The commissioners may have in the context of 

discussing this plan and identifying that that is what has to be 

built there. In order to really, truly develop the Silos area, they 

have talked about the possibility of even private funding or raising 

money locally-if not tax money, private money-by voluntarily 

supplying materials, by matching Government grants in that fashion if those types of grants were available. 

So I say, the folks in Broadwater County would obviously prefer 

that. The Federal Government must recognize it is a Federal facility that was built 40 years ago, based on promises that have not 

all been kept; and it is time for the Federal Government to do some 

of the things that should have been done for the last 40 years. 

But I say that, while at the same time recognizing that we are 

not begging for money. What we want is enablement. What we 

want is a plan that will allow development at Canyon Ferry. If the 

money becomes available, that is great. That is a windfall to us. 

What we want is enablement. We want a system set up so that 

there is a plan such as this that provides for the development perhaps in stages and based on a prioritization of available money 

over a period of time-put that in place first, and then if the money 

becomes available and under what circumstances the money becomes available is another problem and we will deal with that. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Hemion, the Chamber of Commerce, both 

Montana and other States and particularly nationally, has been an 

aggressive proponent of reduced Federal expenditures and, as I recall, was supportive of the kinds of ideas that came out a number 

of years ago in the Grace Commission Report, a number of proposals, many of which have been accepted by the Congress and encouraged by the U.S. Chamber. That is an effort to reduce the Federal 

deficit. 

Included in those reports were significant increases in fees on 

local people who use recreation areas or a no less than 50/50 match 

and some went to an 80/20 match, 80 local and States, and 20 Federal. 

Grace's logic was that local people use the areas, local people 

ought to be the ones to pay for it. The Congress has resisted that 

through the years, I have resisted myself, but now we have a democratic administration newly arrived that is taking this MOU and 

others similar to it and saying, hold it, we are going to stop the 

open-ended, no-match expenditure of Federal money and, interestingly enough, moving toward what the Grace Commission asked 

for. 

What do you think, given that? 

Mr. HEMION. Philosophically I would tend to agree that there 

probably needs to be a more direct relationship between the users 

of facilities and what it takes to run those. That is probably no surprise coming from this perspective. However, the reality is different, that we have a Federal facility, as has been stated, that has 

been basically carried by the State in terms of its recreational obli-
172 

gations for the history of the project, and that situation, I think, 

has to be looked at somewhat uniquely. 

There are certainly, I wouldn't say significant increases in fees, 

but I think some increases in fees may need to be looked at if there 

are benefits that are derived from those fees. For example, the Park Service has just agreed to start collecting 

fees at the entrance points where they have where they have abandoned those points in the past because the fees they collected had 

to revert to the Treasury instead of back to the Park Service even 

to provide payment to the people collecting the fees. So if some kind of a relationship on a more beneficial use of 

those fees could be directed at Canyon Ferry, I don't think you 

would see a resistance from local people in paying more, if the facilities were well maintained, if they were brought up to code and 

if they were expanded to do the things that Canyon Ferry has the 

potential to do in the mix of regional tourism for that part of the 

country. On the other hand, I don't think the fees will be able to carry 

the burden alone and there is a sense that this situation ought to 

be looked at a little more in isolation in terms of the Federal participation. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Graham, you spoke to this some in my earlier 

question to you, but given the testimony that has preceded, what 

is your view of the State accepting a match? 

Mr. GRAHAM. A couple of things. 

We have been aggressive in trying to get some of that local contribution back into the management of that reservoir. In the last 

ten years, we have tripled our revenues from all the various 

sources that we have, including creating an entrance fee, raising 

camping fees, raising leases for cabin site owners and concession 

fees. 

So the four areas that we have available to raise revenues and 

tum the money back into the site we have used and increased as 

well as an increasing amount of use. 

The other point I would like to make is that we manage the fishery, the wildlife, through management of the pond system, the 

Dust Abatement program there. All those are State-funded programs that the State does without any compensation back from the 

Federal Government. 

So from our perspective, I think we are providing quite a bit of 

State side to this program that we are not getting 50/50 costshared for. 

Looking at the bigger picture, we are putting a fair amount of 

resources into the project. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you. 

I want to place into the record at this point two letters that we 

have received. One is from the Townsend Area Chamber of Commerce over the signature of Mary Alice Upton; and the other letter 

of testimony that will be included in the record is from the Canyon 

Ferry Recreation Association over the signatures of Mr. 

McLaughlin and Mr. Leary. 

[EDITOR's NOTE.-These documents can be found in the appendix.] 
173 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I want to say again that I am supportive of the 

memorandum. I am supportive of the MOU and of this legislation 

which would authorize that agreement. We recognize full well that 

any legislation that is to pass and ultimately be signed into law 

must have the support of the administration. 

I am hopeful that in this pause we can arrive at support for this 

legislation. But we do have to consider that the Congress doesn't 

sign bills into law; the President signs bills into law. So we have 

an Executive Branch to negotiate with here, and so we will do that. 

I have decided that if the negotiations begin to drag, or we are unable to reach any agreement, then I will propose to move the legislation as is possible with amendments for the Limnological Institute and the education center. But let's see first if we can't find 

agreement with the administration, and just as importantly, with 

the leadership of this committee and the House. 

My two colleagues, Senator Baucus and Senator Burns, will of 

course need to get the same type of unanimity with the administration and with their leadership in order to move the bill over there 

as well. 

Again I want to thank all of you for coming back. Your counsel 

has been very important to us and I appreciate seeing all of you 

and hearing your testimony. 

Thank you very much. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

APPENDIX 

YAKIMA RIVER BASIN 

September 23, 1993 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD 

WATER MARKETING AND INSTREAM FLOW ENHANCEMENT 

IN WASHINGTON'S YAKIMA RIVER BASINPROCEDURES FOR DRY YEAR LEASING 

AND TRANSFER OF WATER 

A DRAFT FINAL REPORT 

BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND 

TO THE WASHINGTON STATE WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION 

AND THE U. S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 

MAY 28,1993 

(175) 
176 

WATER MARKETING AND INSTREAM FLOW ENHANCEMENT 

IN WASHINGTON'S YAK/A£4 RIVER BASIN- PROCEDURES 

FOR DRY YEAR LEASING AND TRANSFER OF WATER 

A DRAFT FINAL REPORT 

BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND TO 

THEW ASHINGTON STATE WATER RESOURCES 

ASSOCIATION AND THE U. S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, 

MAY 28, 1993 

TABLE OF CONTENTS Pages 

Executive SlliiUilai)' ..................................................... .................... .. .. Ex l-3 

1. Introduction ··············································· ································ I -1 -

1-2 

2. Principles Governing the Implementation of the Yakima Basin 

Water Leasing Program to Enhance Instream Flows ................ .. 2-l -

. ~ 2-7 

A. Recitals ························· ······················································ 2-l -

2-4 

B. The Program .... ,. ......... .......... ............................ .. .................... 2-4-

2-7 

3. Key Institutions in the Implementation of the Yakima Basin 

Water Leasing Program ·························································· 3-1-

3-13 

A. Water Leases for Instream Flows: Yakima River Basin 

Trustees ··························· ···················································· 3-1-

3-5 

B. Leasing Program Review: Lease Oversight Committee . ....... 3-5-

3-7 

C. Shaping of Leased Water for lnstream Flows: U.S. Bureau ol 

Reclamation ........ .. .................. ........................ .. .. ...................... 3-8-

3-11 
177 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Pages 

D. Water Rights Transfers and Instream Flows: Washington 

Department of Ecology .. .. ........... ·· ······ ··· · ·· ··· ······················ 3-11 -

3-12 ; 

E. Instream Flow Targets: Systems Operation Advisory 

Committee ·············· ···· ···· ~· ························ ··· ·· · ·············· .... . 3-12-

3-13 

F. Adjudication I Transfer Order: Superior Court of the State of 

I Washington for the County of Yakima ......... .......................... 3-13 

4. Economic Elements of Lease Contracting and Pricing for Water 

I Transfers in the Yakima River Basin ········· ···· ··· ·\··· ··············· ····· 4-l -

4-28 

A. Lease Prices ...... ........ ......... ... ... ... ............................................... 4-1 -

4-3 

B. Lease Options . ...... ......... ... ......... ......... .... ... ... ...... .............. ....... . 4-3-

·-- 4-5 

c. Opportunities for Leasing Consumptive Water Uses in the 

Yakima Basin ........ ....... .. ................................ ... ................... . . 4-5-

4-9 

D. Estimates of Cost-Based Water Leasing Rates .. ······· ······ ····· · 4-9-

I 4-13 

I 

E. Illustration of the Financial Requirements of a Water Leasing 

Program for Enhanced Instream and Smolt Pulsing Flows in 

the Yakima River ........ .. ....................... ........ ..................... .. 4-13-

4-15 

Appendix 4A --Option Contracting for Natural Resource 

Acquisitions .. ..... .... .......... .. ............................ ... ...... .... ...... .. ........ 4-16-

4-22 

Appendix 4B --Methodology for Estimating Marginal Costs of 

Water Supplies from Leasing in the Yakima Basin-- Terms 

and Data Sources for Figures 4-4A, 4-4B, and 4-4C ............. .. 4-23-

I 4-28 
I 

! 

I 

178 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Pages 

5. Alternatives for Solicitation of Water Supplies and Lease Asking 

Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-l -

A. Standing Offers ....... ....... .. ... ... ... ................ ....... ...... ... .......... . 

B. Negotiated Sales .. 

C. Auctions ....... ... ...... .. ... , ....... ... ...... ... .. ........................... ... ...... .... . 

Appendix SA-- Types of Auctions .. .......... ....... ..... . 

6. Proposed Option and Water Lease Agreement to Secure 

Enhanced In stream Flows in the Yakima Basin ... .................. . 

A. Recitals ............... . 

B. Elements of Agreement ................................. ...... ................. .. 

C. Attachment 2: Source of Leased Water- Lessor's Leased 

Water Program I Certification ofBeneficial Use ................... . 

7. Legal Factors in Water Leases and Transfers in the Yakima River 

5-20 

5-l -

5-6 

5-6-

5-9 

5-9-

5-14 

5-15-

5-20 

6-l -

6-7 

6-l 

6-l -

6-4 

6-5-

6-7 

Basin .. ... ............. ................... ............ .. .................................. ... 7-1-

A. Federal Water Law ........................................... ......... ............ . 

B. Washington State Water Law .... ... ... .. ........ ... ..... . .... ................. . 

7-ll 

7-l -

7-5 

7-5-

7-9 

C. Yakima Basin Water Rights Adjudication .. ....... .... .. ... .......... 7-9-

8. Financing Water Leases for Instream Flows ...... ...... ............. ........ . 

7-11 

8-1 -

8-19 
179 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Pages 

I 

I I · 

A. Federal Authorizations ... ................... ... ............................ ..... .. 

B. Federal User Fees ... ................. .. ... .......... .. .... .. .... .. ................. .. 

C. Hydropower/ Bonneville Power Administration .................. .. .. 

8-l -

8-2 

8-2-

8-5 

8-6-

8-7 

D. State of Washington Programs .................. .. .. .......... .. ........ .... 8-7-

8-9 

E. Public-Private Partnerships ... .. ..... .. ....... ............. ..... .. .. .. .. ......... 8-9 -

8-11 

Appendix 8A -- Federal Authorities to Acquire Land and Water ... 8-12-

8-19 

9. Recommendations ............ ....... .. ................. .............. ..... .. ..... .. ...... . . 9-l -

9-2 
180 

WATER MARKETING AND INSTREAM FLOW ENHANCEMENT IN 

WASHINGTON'S YAKIMA RIVER BASIN - PROCEDURES FOR DRY 

YEAR LEASING AND TRANSFER OF WATER 

A DRAFT FINAL REPORT 

BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND TO 

THE WASHINGTON STATE WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION AND 

THE U. S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, 

MAY 28,1993 

Executive Summary 

Inadequate streamflows in select tributaries of the Columbia River Basin have 

been identified for improvement to protect anadromous fisheries. The Phase I 

amendments to the Columbia River Fish and Wildlife Program adQpted by the 

Northwest Power Planning Council call for water conservation projects to enhance 

instream flows to be planned and implemented by the end of 1993 and 1996 

respectively. In early 1992, water resource and fishery agencies, along with the 

Yakima Inciian Nation, identified the fluctuating flows in the lower reaches of the 

Yakima River as a problem that affects the anadromous fish resource. The 

establishment of.awater leasing procedure to augment flows in the Yakima at 

critical times was called for by these groups. 

The Washington State Water Resources Association and the U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation have established a Yakima Basin Water Leasing Project under the 

cooperative direction of representatives of Yakima Basin water districts and 

landowners; the Washington Department of Ecology; the U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation; and the Yakima Indian Nation. In late 1992, the Environmental 

Defense Fund (EDF) was invited to develop the procedures and information 

necessary for water leases and transfers to instreliJII flows to occur in the Yakima 

Basin. This report by EDF contains the following elements: _ 

• Principles governing the implementation of a Yakima Basin Water Leasing 

Program to enhance instream flows are stated for review and consideration by the 

Basin's water using communities. 

EXSUM-1 
181 

• Key institutions in the implementation of a Yakima Basin Water Leasing 

Program are identified, and their respective roles in the Program are evaluated. 

• The formation of two key entities is proposed for the successful implementation 

of a Water Leasing Program. The Yakima Basin Trustees would represent the 

instream flow "demand side" interests, with financial support for the Program being 

a prerequisite to Trustee membership. A Lease Oversight Committee would 

represent water rights holders in the Yakima Basin, and would serve as a reviewer 

of proposed leases to assure that no injury to other water rights holders would occur 

as a result of Program water leases. 

• Economic elements of water lease contracting and pricing are analyzed, including 

sample estimates of lease prices and an explanation ofhow option contracting could 

be used for dry year water leasing for instream flow erihancement in the Yakima 

Basin. Estimates are provided of the financial requirements to undertake an 

illustrative Program of enhanced instream and smolt pulsing flows in the Basin. 

• Alternative methods for the solicitation of water supplies and lessor asking prices 

are evalJiated, with the choice among these methods identified as a key initial task of 

the Y'akima Basin Trustees. 

• A proposed agreement for a dry year lease -- along with an option to lease --

water for enhanced instream flows is presented. Included in the agreement are 

informational requirements which would also meet any legal conditions governing 

water transfers existing in Washington State water law and in the procedures of the 

Yakima Basin water rights adjudication contained in orders issued by the Superior 

Court of the County of Yakima. 

• A survey is provided of pertinent legal factors governing a Yakima Water 

Leasing Program which currently exist in state and federal water laws as well as in 

the water rights adjudication proceedings. 

• Five potential types of funding for the Yakima Water Leasing Program are 

identified and discussed, including federal spending authorities; federal user fees; 

authorized programs of the State of Washington; the programs of the Bonneville 

Power Administration; and models for public-private partnerships to acquire water 

or land for environmental purposes. 

EXSUM-2 
182 

The impetUs for this project and report is to initiate a process leading to the 

actual consummation of dry year leases to enhance instream flows in the Yakima 

Basin. An agenda for futme actions to continue this process is as follows: 

• Reconstitute the Yakima Water Leasing Working Group to include existing 

members of the group willing to serve on a Yakima Water Leasing Program Pilot 

Committee to oversee a Pilot Water Leasing Program during the 1993-95 period. 

• Identify three to five funding entities willing to contribute both funds and a 

representative to a pilot Yakima :aasin Trustees group during the 1993-95 period. 

• Target one or more pilot water leases in the Yakima Basin with the potential to 

deliver at least 50 cfs of enhanced instream flows at the Parker gauging station for a 

6 week period during the 1994 and 1995 water years. · 

• Raise at least $400,000 to cover the costs of the Pilot Program during the 

1993-95 period, including the costs of both pilot water leases and of staffing the 

Pilot Program. 

• Develop an educational packet of briefing materials based on<th~ information in 

this report for use in discussions with members of the Yakima Basin's water using 

communities. 

• Schedule and deliver a number of briefings for a broad spectrum of water using 

communities in the Yakima Basin as well as for pertinent state, federal, and private 

entities. • 

• Work with the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation's Yakima Project staff to develop an 

operating agreement suitable for use by the Trustees and lessor water districts in 

managing leased water supplies. 

• Develop a long-term organizational plan for the Trustees, including the possible 

incorporation of a Yakima Basin Trustees organization in the State of Washington 

as a nonprofit public interest organization with the goals of enhancing instream 

flows in the Yakima Basin using voluntary water leasing and marketing. 

EXSUM-3 
183 

WRITfEN STATEMENT OF 

FRIENDS OF THE EARTII 

David E. Onman 

Director 

Northwest Office 

Friends of the Earth 

· before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. House of Representatives 

23 September 1993 

on H.R. 1690 ·To authorize certain elements of the Yakima River 

Basin Enhancement Project. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit these written 

comments for the hearing record on H.R. 1690, a bill to authorize 

certain elements of the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement 

Project, and for .other purposes. 

My name is David E. Ortman, Director of the Northwest Office 

of Friends of the Earth, 4512 University Way N.E., Seattle, WA 

98105. We have been intimately involved in Yakima River Basin 

issues for the past two decades. In April of 19TI, on behalf of 

Friends of the Earth, I testified before the Bureau of 

Reclamation on a Draft Environmental Impact Statement in 

opposition to a proposed Bumping Lake Enlargement project. In 

April of 1979, I testified before the House Committee on Interior 

and Insular Affairs in W A D.C. on H.R. 3489, a bill to authorize 

an enlarged Bumping Lake Dam (which we opposed) and H.R. 2757, a 

bill which we helped write to establish the original Yakima River 

Basin Water Enhancement Project legislation which passed as P.L 

96-162. 

On 6 July 1982, I submitted a report to the N.W. Regional 

Power Council on the Proposed Yakima River Basin Fish and 

Wildlife Recommendations under the Pacific Northwest Electric 

Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980. On 20 September 

1982, I submitted written comments to the BuRec on its Phase 1 

Study Team Report on the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement 

Project reevaluation of potential storage reservoirs. In June 

of 1986, I submitted comments to the BuRec on its Phase 2 Status 

Report. 

218 D Street, SE o Washington, DC 20003 o Phone: (202) 544-2600 o Fax: (202) 543-4710 o EcoNe t ID: foedc 

lane Perkins. President 
184 

In addition, I testified before the Subcommittee on Water 

and Power of the U.S. Senate at two Yakima, Washington field 

hearings. The first on 1 July 1986 on S. 2519 and the second on 

19 October 1987 on S. 1435. 

The Yakima River is an overallocated basin. In our view, 

the State of Washington has not carried out its responsibilities 

for efficient water management. A recent State Supreme Court 

case has further clouded the issue of the state's role. 

Furthermore, the Yakima Indian Nation has been poorly served by 

the Bureau of Reclamation's Yakima Basin Project. In addition, 

we are extremely concerned about the status of anadromous fish 

runs in the Yakima River Basin. In our view, several of these 

runs should now be listed under the Endangered Species Act. 

Since neither a State or Federal Environmental Impact 

Statement has been prepared, it is incorrect to say that a Yakima .. 

River Basin Enhancement Project exists or has been agreed to. 

Since 1979, the joint work of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

(BuRec) and the WA Department of Ecology (Ecology) to carry out 

P.L 96-162 has, however, revealed several non-controversial 

elements which appear to have merit, regardless of any total 

resolution of the complex issues in the Yakima River Basin. 

The first s'"u~h identified element was the need to 

rehabilitate fish passage facilities at existing irrigation 

facilities in the Yakima Basin. In 1982, we supported H.R. 5301, 

a bill to rehabilitate the Yakima River Basin anadromous fish 

runs. As passed by Congress, the bill corrected decades long 

functional design problems which had plagued upstream anadromous 

fish passage. 

These efforts have not, however, dealt with the fundamental 

misallocation of water resources in the Yakima River Basin. Nor 

have they lead to increased instream flows for fisb and wildlife. 

For example, roughly half the Wenatchee National Forest is 

in the Yakima River Basin. In 1986, we reviewed the Wenatchee 

National Forest DEIS and Proposed Land and Resource Management 

Plan. We were dumbfounded to find that the U.S. Forest Service 

proposed, through additional clearcutting, to increase annual 

water yield 13,300, 19,100, and 23,900 acre-feet in the first, 

second and fifth decades. Yet the Wenatchee National Forest made 

no effort to determine when this increased water yield will take 

place. If it occurs during times of peak runoff, this water 

yield will be wasted. If, however, water yields from the forest 
185 

could be delayed longer into summer by retaining snowpack, 

instream flows would receive additional benefits. 

In our view, the Yakima River Basin is like a sponge and 

that sponge should be squeezed tightly before additional dams are 

built. It is our position, that the primary reason for the 

existing difficulties in the basin lies in the fact that under 

the 1945 Federal Court Consent Decree, of the three major needs 

(senior irrigators, junior irrigators and instream flows) only 

senior irrigators get their allotment, come hell or low water. 

All water interests could co-exist over the long haul, if the 

occasional water short year were shared. Certainly, instreamflows and junior irrigators have borne the brunt of shortages in 

the past. If the shortages were shared along with the senior 

irrigators, new darns in the basin could be avoided. Water 

conservation remains the least environmentally damaging 

alternative. 

The Yakima River Basin Enhancement Project was authorized 

with four objectives. Objective four was "Developing a 

comprehensive plan to enable efficient management of the basin's 

water supply." Nearly fifteen years have passed and the BuRec 

has yet to make any progress on meeting this objective. 

As we not'ect'in 1986, one reason for the lack of certainty 

concerning remaining water conservation benefits is that Section 

390jj(b) of Public Law 97-293 has still not been carried out: 

"Each district that has entered into a repayment contract or 

water service contract pursuant to Federal reclamation law or the 

Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended (43 U.S.C. 390b), shall 

develop a water conservation plan which shall contain definite 

goals, appropriate water conservation measures, and a time 

schedule for meeting the water conservation objectives." 

The N.W. Regional Power Planning Council recognized the 

importance of water conservation and required in its 1984 

Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program: 

"Each Yakima River Basin irrigation district that has 

entered into a repayment contract or water service contract 

pursuant to federal reclamation law or the Water Supply Act of 

1958, as amended (43 U.S.C. 390(b), will promptly develop a water 

conservation plan which will contain definite goals, appropriate 

water conservation measures, and a time schedule for meeting the 

water conservation objectives." (904(a)(4)(B). 
186 

However, the Power Council did not set a deadline by which such 

plans should be prepared. We would request that the Committee 

obtain from the BuRec a list of all conservation plans prepared 

to date. 

The current discussion bill is deficient for the following 

reasons: 

The purpose section should be amended to the following proposed 

language: 

Section 1. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS AND PURPOSE 

The Congress finds that -

(a) The Bureau of Reclamation's Yakima Basin Project was created 

primarily to provide irrigation water from the Yakima River for 

agricultural production in the basin. 

(b) While the Bureau has established a significant record and 

successful history of agricultural production, the Yakima Basin 

project, in combination with Congressionally authorized dams on 

the lower Columbia River, has had a longterm adverse impact on 

fish and wildlife_resources in the Yakima basin . . ' 

(c) A number of trends and changing circumstances require a 

reevaluation of the Bureau's mission and its priorities for the 

Yakima Basin. 

(d) The era of constructing large federally financed water 

projects is over. 

(e) More attention must be given to alternative means of 

supplying water through improved system management, joint use of 

surface and ground-water supplies, and reevaluati,ng priority of 

use. 

(f) Conserv;~.tion of water, restoration and enhancement of 

wetlands, restoration of anadromous fish and wildlife and 

protection of the environment are major public concerns and are 

made purposes of the Yakima Basin Project. 

(g) This act implements Phase 2 of the Yakima River Basin Water 

Enhancement Project (Hereinafter called the Enhancement Project). 

The Enhancement Project feasibility study was authorized in the 

Act of December 28, 1979 (93 Stat. 1241). 
187 

(h) Fish passage and protective facilities (Phase 1) were 

authorized by the Act of August 17, 1984 (98 Stat. 1940), and 

August 22, 1984 (98 Stat. 1379). 

(i) It is the objective of the Enhancement Project to carry out 

the purposes set out below with minimal adverse impact upon 

environmental and cultural resources. 

(j) The purposes of Phase 2 are: 

(1) to protect, mitigate, restore and enhance fish and 

wildlife by optimizing instream flows; 

(2) to improve water quality and restore natural instream 

flows within the basin; 

(3) to improve the efficiency of water delivery and water use 

for irrigation purposes through studies, implementation, and 

evaluation of a basin water conservation program; 

( 4) to determine the amount of basin water useage that can be 

met through water conservation measures; 

(5) to provide, for the implementation by the Yakima Indian 

Nation of an tingation demonstration project on the Yakima 

Indian Reservation. 

(6) to encourage the State of Washington to make maximum use 

of its water authorities to help meet the purposes of this act. 

SECTION 3 

This entire section is built upon the faulty premise that 

irrigation districts which now claim priority of ownership of 

water rights in the basin will be attracted to a vobmtary 

program of water conservation. For example, the development of 

water conservation plans by irrigation districts, state 

conservation districts, water purveyors, other areawide entities, 

and individuals not included within an areawide entity should be 

required, not merely encouraged, as is presently the _case in 

3(b)(l). In the absence of water conservation plans, the entire 

water conservation program falls apart. 

Subsection (b)(1) change "consistent with guidelines" to 

"consistent with regulations promulgated by the Bureau of 

Reclamation, after public notice and ·comment. • 

76-655 0 - 94 - 7 
188 

Subsection (c) We object to the Yakima River basin irrigators 

having two seats on a Conservation Advisory Group. If one person 

can represent both counties and cities in the basin, then one 

person can represent the irrigation interests. We also note that 

the State of Washington is not represented on this Advisory 

Group. 

Subsection (d) We recommend changing the word "guidelines" to 

regulations in this section. What is the point of asking an 

Advisory Group to assist in the preparation of "guidelines", when 

such guidelines may not be implemented or enforced? The process 

for the public to review the "guidelines" is also faulty. The 

Secretary should be instructed to provide a responsiveness 

summary to all substantive comments, not merely include a summary 

of public comments to the "guidelines" report. 

As regulations, the areas to be addressed such be amended as. 

follows: 

Subsection (d)(l) add: "Such plans shall be carried out within 24 

months of the enactment of this legislation." 

New Subsection (d)(M) "the extent to which each measure will 

contribute to ~h.~ restoration of fisheries and wildlife and their 

habitat". 

Subsection (e)(l) should be amended by adding: "Funding for any 

phase of the Basin Conservation Program shall be based on the 

extent to which non-Federal interests have entered into binding 

agreements with the Secretary to fund 50 per centum of the total 

water conservation planning and feasibility study costs. 25 per 

centum shall be payable in cash prior to initiation of such plans and studies. The remainder may be met with in-kind 

contributions. 

Subsection (e)(2) amend to read 'The construction of facilities 

or other expenses incurred to restore and tnitigate anadromous 

fish runs in the Yakima Basin shall be allocated 50 per centum to 

the Yakima Basin Project and 50 per centum to the Bonneville 

Power Adtninistration. The construction of facilities or other 

expenses to enhance resident fishery resources in the Yakima 

Basin shall be allocated 50 per centum to be paid by the State of 

Washington and 50 per centum to the Federal Government. The 

construction of facilities or other expenses to enhance 

anadromous fish runs shall be paid by the Federal Government. 
189 

New Subsection (e)(4): Within three years of the enactment of 

this Act, a 50% water delivery surcharge shall be assigned to any 

portion of the Yakima Basin Water Project for which an 

adjudicated water right has not been secured. 

(h) Authorization of Appropriations. 

A new subsection ( 6) as follows: "There is hereby authorized to 

be appropriated to the Secretary $300,00 for.environmental 

-rcompliance activities including; 

( 1) the preparation of a programmatic environmental impact 

statement on the Enhancement Project 

(2) an investigation of wildlife resources and their habitat 

which could be impacted by the enhancement project and proposals 

for habitat replacement or restoration; 

(3) an evaluation of the water conservation opportunities 

which could be achieved on the Wenatchee National Forest and 

which would display the positive water conservation impacts of 

managing the Wenatchee National Forest to retard water runoff 

from snowmelt in order to better meet instream flow needs in the 

Yakima Basin/-• 

( 4) an analysis of how the existing storage reservoir system 

could best be managed to maximize benefits for Senior irrigation 

districts, Junior irrigation districts and instream flow needs; 

In order to address the problems associated with the State of 

Washington existing water law programs, the following New 

Subsection (7) should be included: 

"No funds shall be appropriated by the Secretary for any 

modifications to the Yakima Basin Project until the Secretary has 

issued findings. after notice and comment that the State of 

Washington has made maximum use of its various water authorities, 

including enforcement of the State's water code, to help meet the 

purposes of this act. • 

SECI10N 4. Yakima Indian Nation. 

While we do not speak for the Yakima Indian Nation, we are 

extremely interested in whether the improvements and 

appropriations proposed for the Wapato Irrigation Project might 
190 

not afford the centerpiece of a water conservation project for 

the Yakima Basin. Congress should look closely at how Section 4 

might serve as a model for the Bureau of Reclamation to carry 

forward its mission of water conservation and efficiency 

improvements. 

SECTION 5. Operation of Yakima Basin Projects. 

This is section is the weakest portion of the bill. 

Subsection (3) makes clear that any increased instream flows for 

such interim periods shall be obtained through voluntary sale and 

leasing of water or water rights. 

The criteria which appears in the chart under subsection 

(a)(l){B) is essentially the status quo. According to subsection 

2, "reasonable fluctuations from these target flows are allowed". 

Therefore, the entire application of this section is dependent 

on the whims of the Bureau of Reclamation. How big a target miss 

is allowed? What remedy is available if the target is not met? 

The concept of target flows should be replaced with instream 

flows figures that must be achieved at the two division points. 

In additiop,-tf the concept of minimum flows is to have any 

real meaning," the criteria in the chart should be amended to 

eliminate the 300 cfs target flows for less than line 3 water 

supply. 

Significant problems exist in subsection ( 4 ). Any attempts 

to adjust downward the full supply figures must be "mutually 

determined". This means that the Yakima River basin irrigators 

can permanently block any adjustments. P.L. 96-162 carved out a 

role for the U.S. Geological Survey to analysis water supply data 

in the basin. Adjustments to the criteria tabulation could 

involve a review by the U.S. Geological Survey 3.Jld binding 

recommendations to the Secretary by U.S.G.S. 

If the full supply figures are adjusted downward, the Yakima 

Project is suppose to be operated by the Yakima Project 

Superintendent in accordance with such adjusted criteria. We 

question how this can provide certainty given the status of the 

Federal District Court 1945 Consent Decree. This Consent Decree 

allocated the entire water supply of the basin in low water years 

to the irrigation districts. In the past we have suggested that 

a filing be made by the irrigation districts to supplement the 

Consent Decree. To date, the districts have been unwilling to 
191 

consider this alternative. 

SECTION 6. Sec. 6 Lake Cle Elum and Subsection S(b). We are 

opposed to the inclusion of the Cle Elum dam rise at this time. 

Modifying the radial gates at Cle Elum Dam is a storage 

augmentation project. As such, its inclusion raises difficulties 

in selling this as a non-structural non-storage water 

conservation package. Former Rep. Morrison, in his early drafts 

of this bill attempted to allocate "additional storage capacity" 

to instream flows. However, the 1945 Consent Decree affirms the 

"obligations of the United States to deliver water from the 

natural flow of the Yakima River,and its tributaries, from 

storage in its various reservoirs on the Yakima watershed, and 

from other sources, to the plaintiffs, to the defendants, and to 

the lands within the Wapato Indian Irrigation Project, are as set 

forth hereafter in this judgment." (1945 Consent Decree - page 

2.) 

As a result, in this legislation the water from any Cle Elum rise 

is considered a part of the basin's water supply to be allocated 

to the irrigators as set out in the Consent Decree. 

SECTION 7. • ·-. 

In our view, this Section contains too many opportunities 

for water right owners to block any enhancement program 

undertaken in any tributary. Subsection (a)(1) establishes that 

an enhancement program shall be contingent upon the agreement of 

appropriate water right owners to participate. These impediments 

should be removed. 

SUMMARY · · · - _ 

In conclusion, based on our past extensive. involvement in 

this issue, we are skeptical that voluntary arrangements are 

going to translate into increased instream flows for wildlife and 

anadromous fish. We strongly urge the Committee to resolve the 

uncertainties involved in guaranteeing instream flows in the 

Yakima River Basin. 
192 

SURVEY OF· \VATER 

CONSERVATIOr'J PROGRAMS 

in the 

FIFTY STATES 

Model Water Conse r\~ aton Program 

Brent Blackwelder 

Peter Carlson 

August 1982 

Okpr i nt c d April. l 'JM.'o) 

for the Na ~: ., . _ u:,_:: l 

E .'\i V I a (' _, .\1 L :"0 T ,4. L. P o L I C Y 

! :-;>T I T l ; T F 

~ ' : • · · ·-,_ . !;;·.,:•;.,, , I I I :0 o • • ; .'• ,_: - 14 -< -21~ ~· 
193 

SURVEY OF THE WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS IN THE 

FIFTY . STATES 

MODEL WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR THE NATION 

Brent Blackwelder 

Peter Carlson 

August, 1982 

(Reprinted April, 1984) 

Prepared for: 

United States Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Contract No. 14-34-0001-1437 
194 

DISCLAIMER 

This report has been reviewed by the Office of Water Research and Technology 

of the Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior and approved for 

publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the 

views and policies of the Department of the Interior, nor does mention of trade 

names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 

The work upon which this report is based vas supported in whole by funds 

provided by the.Uqited States .Department of the Interior, Office of Water Research 

and Technology, as authorized under the Water Research and Development Act of 1978. 

The Office of Water Research and Technology has since been terminated effective 

August 25, 1982, by Secretarial Order 3084 and its programs transferred to other 

bureaus and offices in the Department of the Interior, The Water Conservation 

Research and Development Program was among those transferred to the Bureau of 

Reclamation. 
195 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Abstract 

Executive Summary 

I. Survey of Water Conservation Programs in 

the Fifty States 

II. Municipal Sector 

A. 13-Point Model Program for Water Conservation 

B. Potential Water Savings from the Model Program 

c. Benefits of Water Conservation 

1. Benefits to the Community 

2. Benefits to the Homeowner 

3. Benefits to the Owners of Apartment Houses 

4. Benefits to Hotels and other Commercial 

Establishments and to Educational Institutions . --::; 

5. Sewage Plant Benefits 

o. Alleged Adverse Effects of Water Conservation 

E. Check-List of Useful Water Conservation Measures 

1. Retrofitting with Low-Flow Devices 

2. Metering 

3. Plumbing Code Changes 

4. Leak Detection and Repair 

5. ~?lie Education/Information Program 

6. Rate Structure/Billing Practices 

7. Drought Contingency Plans 

8 . Reuse and Recycling 

9. outdoor Use 

10. Groundwater Management 

iii 

viii 

ix 

1 

5 

5 

9 

10 

ll 

12 

12 

12 

16 

18 

22 

22 

23 

23 

23 

24 

26 

26 

28 

28 

28 
196 

F. Municipal Water Conservation Measures 

1. Leak Detection and Repair in Homes 

and in the Distribution System 

2. Plumbing Code Revision 

3. Outdoor Water Use by Cities and Towns 

4. Pricing and Rate Structure 

III. Industrial Sector 

A. Introduction 

B. Use of Water in Manufac turing 

C. Use by Mineral Industries 

D. Use by Steam Electric Power Plants 

E. Techniques for Reduc ing Water Withdrawls 

F. Examples of Industrial Water Savings 

. -~ 

1. Steel Industry 

2. Paper Industry 

3. Chemical Industry 

.1 . Miscellaneous Industries 

G. Potential of Recycling and Reuse 

H. Conclusion 

IV. Agricultural Sector 

A. Introduction 

B. Types of Irrigation 

c. Techniques for Improving Irrigation Efficiency 

D. Barriers to Agricultural Water Conservation 

29 

29 

36 

40 

46 

53 

52 

55 

61 

61 

63 

67 

67 

73 

76 

77 

78 

79 

83 

83 

83 

87 

97 

1. Western Water Law as a Barrier to Efficiency 97 

2. Pricing of water from Federal Projects as a Barrier 99 

3 . Attitudes and Lack of Knowledge of Potential Improvements 100 
197 

E. OVercoming the Barriers to Efficiency Improvements 

l. Changes in State Water Law 

2. Changes in Pricing of Water From Federal Projects 

3. Increased Incentives and PUblic Education 

4. Disincentives 

F. S\lllllllilry and cOnclusions 

G. Arizona's Model Demonstration Project 

APPENDICES 

I . State water Conservation Programs 

II. Groundwater Management as it Relates to Water Conservation 

Selected Bibliography 

v 

100 

100 

102 

102 

105 

105 

108 

113 

133 

138 
198 

LIST OF. TABLES 

TABLE I: STATUS OF STATE WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS 

TABLE II-1: SAVINGS FROM CHANGES IN PERSONAL HABITS 

TABLE II-2: ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF CASE STUDY CONSERVATION PROGRAMS 

TABLE II-3: WATER CONSERVING DEVICES COSTS AND RELATIVE SAVINGS 

TABLE II-4: WATER & MONEY-SAVED BY A FAMILY OF FOUR / HOT WATER 

IS EXPENSIVE 

TABLE II-5: 1,000'S OF GALLONS OF WATER TO BE SAVED BY DEVICE PER 

YEAR TO JUSTIFY INVESTMENT . 

TABLE II-6: ESTIMATED IMPACTS OF WATER CONSERVATION OF W~ATER 

TREATMENT PLANTS 

TABLE II-7: ESTIMATED IMPACTS OF WATER CONSERVATION ON INTERCEPTOR 

LIFE 

TABLE II-8: 

TABLE II-9: 

IMPACT OF WATER CONSERVATION ON SEWER .VELOCITIES 

.~y . OF PRICING SYSTEMS 

2 

9 

11 

13 

14 

15 

17 

19 

20 

27 

TABLE II-10 : BEAT THE PEAK STATISTICS 42 

TABLE III-1: TOTAL WITHDRAWALS AND CONSUMPTION, BY FUNCTIONAL USE, 

FOR THE 21 WATER RESOURCES REGIONS-"1975," 1985, 2000 56 

TABLE III-2 : FRESH WATER WITHDRAWALS BY MANUFA~IURING INDUSTRIES - 1975 57 

TABLE III-3: PURFOSE OF FRESH WATER INTAKE BY MAJOR INDUSTRIES 59 

TABLE III-4: FRESH WATER WITHDRAWALS AND ~ACTURING INDUSTRIES - 1975 60 

TABLE III-5: WATER USE WITHDRAWAL AND CONSUPTION IN THE MINERAL 

INDUSTRIES - 1975 62 

TABLE III-6: MAJOR U.S . ENERGY DEMAND SCENARIOS (1980 Energy Demand • 

78 QUADRILLION BTU) 64 

TABLE III-7: WATER USE BY STEAM ELECTRIC, MANUFACTURING AND MINERALS 

INDUSTRIES IN THE UNITED STATES 65 

TABLE III-8: 1976 STEEL CAPACITY OF INTEGRATED PLANTS BY WATER RESOURCE 

REGIONS - SUMMARY 69 

vi 
199 

LIST OF TABLES CONTINUED •••• •• •• • •• 

TABLE III-9 AREAS WHERE DISCHARGES MAY BE REUSED AFTER BPT 

LEVEL TREATMENT 

TABLE III-10: AREAS WHERE DISCHARGES MAY BE REUSED AFTER BAT 

LEVEL TREATMENT 

TABLE III-11 : INTEGRATED STEEL PLANT WATER USAGE BASED ON 

PROJECTED 1985 PRODUCTION RATE OF 170 MILLION 

INGOT TONS 

TABLE III-12 : SUMMARY TABLE 

TABLE IV-1: IRRIGATION ~YSTEM ANNUAL COST - SAN JOl\QUIN VALLEY 

TABLE IV-2: METHOD ADAPTABILITY 

TABLE IV-3: TYPICAL DEPLETION UPDATE I TYPICAL CENTER PIVOT SCHEDULE 

TYPICAL FORCAST DEPLETION TABLE I 'TYPICAL SURFACE 

IRRIGATION SCHEDULE I TYPICAL REGIONAL ET PRINTOUT 

TABLE IV-4: MEASURES TO IMPROVE IRRIGATION WATER USE AND MANAGEMENT 

TABLE IV-5: -~STIMATED SEASONAL AVERAGE AND PEAK WATER USE PERIOD AELQ 

71 

72 

74 

80 

86 

Bfl 

I 

90 

94 

AND AELH RANGES FOR VARIOUS IRRIGATION SYSTEMS 95 

TABLE IV-6: MEASURES NEEDED FOR IMPROVED IRRIGATION WATER MANAGEMENT -

17 WESTERN STATES 103 

TABLE V-1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 115 

BULLETIN lll98 (POTENTIAL RESIDENTIAL INTERIOR 

SAVINGS FOR VARIOUS FIXT!JR,ES AND APPLIANCES) 

vii 
200 

Abstract 

A survey was made of the water conservation programs in each of the 

fifty states to determine whether each state had a water conservation program or 

requirements in each of the following thirteen areas: public education, plumbing 

codes, retrofitting with low-water-use fixtures, metering, leak detection, rate 

structures, drought contingency planning, reuse and recycling, outdoor use, 

groundwater management, industrial use, agricultural use, and government 

buildings and grants. A· brief description· of statewide or local programs of 

significance was prepared for each state c While awareness of water conservation 

measures is increasing, there is still substantial room for increases in 

efficienc y in water use. The most comprehensive programs are being carried out 

in California, Massachusetts, · Minnesota, and Maryland. Drawing upon the most 

successful water conservation programs around the country, we., prepared a model 

water conservation program for domestic and municipal use, industrial use, 

and agricultural use. Our model program can cut domestic and municipal use 

between 15 percent and 70 percent. The model program for industrial use 

categorizes various methods £or reducing industrial withdrawals and consumption 

of water and o~~nes success stories in the steel, chemical, and paper 

industries. The model program for agricultural use identifies the various 

techniques for improving the efficiency of water use, describes the pctential 

savings from instituting such measures, points out the barriers to efficient 

use, and suggests ways to overcome the barriers. 

viii 
201 

Executive SUDMry 

The purpose of this research project was first to ascertain 

what each of the 50 states was doin<J in the area of water conservation. 

The Environmental Policy Institute attempted to ascertain where the most 

innovative and successful programs were occurring. Based upon our findings, 

we next undertook to draft model municipal, industrial, and agricultural 

water conservation programs. 

While awareness of water conservation measures is increasing, 

there is still substantial room for increases in efficiency in water use. 

The most comprehensive water conservation programs are being carried out in 

California, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Maryland. Most states, however, 

could do substantially more by adoptin<J some of the programs and measures 

that are working in these four states. 

The Environmental Policy Institute recommends the following 

thirteen-point program for water conservation in the municipal sector: 

1. Plwnbing code changes .to require low-flow fixtures and appliances and insulation of hot water pipes. 

2. ~ofit of existing buildings and homes with low-water-use 

fixtures. 

3. Leak repair within buildings and homes. 

4. Leak repair in the water distribution system. 

5. Metering all areas and checking of meters for accuracy. 

6. Revision of rate structure. 

1. Public education program. 

8. Outdoor water use codes. 

9. Drought contingency plan. 

10. Program for recycling and reuse. 

11. Pressure reducing valves. 

12.. watershed protection and planning. 

13. Selected changes in personal hab.i.ts. 

Carrying out these -sures can reduce water use in this sector 

by 15 to 70,. The extent of the reduction can be very large in areas where 

there is substantial leakage in buildinqs and in the distribution systea. 

ix 
202 

Executive Summary 

The Environmental Policy Institute finds that substantial water 

conse rvation in the industrial sector is already occurring because the 

requirements of the Clean Water Act make it far more economical for 

indust ries to recycle many times before .discharge. The largest use of 

water in manufacturing is for cooling and there is ample opportunity for 

rec yc ling of cooling water. Other measures that help reduce industrial 

water use include: 

1. Pressure reducing 'valves .. 

2. Increased efficiency in applic ation of process wa~r. 

3. Use of the wastewater from one product as process water 

for another product. 

4. Leak detection and repair·. 

5. Use of all the techniques of residential water conservation 

to reduce water use by employees. 

6 . Modffibation of process to reduce or eliminate water use. 

7. Subst itution of salt or brackish water for fresh water. 

The Water Resource s ·Council (WRC) projection of a sharp decline in 

wa ter withdrawls by manufacturing from 51.2 pillion gallons a day (bgd) in 1975 

to only 23.7 bgd in 1985 correctly indicated the extent of the water recycling 

and reuse being undertaken by industry . We find the WRC projection for water 

use by steam electric power plants, however, to be in error because this estimate was based on an old forecast of rapid demand growth made by the Federal 

Power Commission (now the Federal Energy Requlatory Commission). Events of the 

past decade have rendered this estimate obsolete. Even though the WRC projects 

a drop in water withdrawls by steam electric power plants, the drop· will be far 

more substantial as a result of the sharp decline in energy growth. 

Continued development of recycling and reuse technology, combined 

with enforcement of the Clean Water Act, can enable the nation to handle 

problems of water supply for i ndustry. The Environmental Policy Institute 

also recommends that each industry conduct a water "audit" or thorough 

X 
203 

Executive Summary 

investigation of places in each plant to cut waste or to install new and 

more water efficient equipment. 

Irrigated agriculture accounts for 47.5\ of the water withdrawls 

and 82.8% of the water consumption in the nation. The Department of Interior 

and the Department of Agriculture have described a substantial number of 

methods for increasing the efficiency of water use in agriculture, as has 

the American Society of Agricultural Engineers. These measures consist 

of the appropriate selection of irrigation method (drip, sprinkler, or 

gravity) and the use of techniques both on the farm and in the water distribution system to the farm. Laser leveling of fields in cer~in parts of the 

West has produced significant reductions in water use. Modern irrigation 

scheduling techniques can tell a farmer exactly when to irrigate and how 

much water to apply to a given crop. 

Even though many techniques for increasing the efficiency of water 

use in agriculture have been developed, there are substantial barriers that 

prevent these t~;hniques from being adopted. The Environmental Policy Institute 

found that the barriers include: (1) certain features of Western water law; 

(2) the subsidized price of irrigation water from federal projects; and (3) the 

attitudes and lack of knowledge among irrigators. To overcome these barriers 

we suggest four approaches: (1) continue changes in state water law to 

regulate groundwater withdrawls and to allow the sale or leasing of water 

rights and water banking; (2) increase efforts to price water from federal 

projects at its market value; (3) provide increased incentives (tax credits 

or low-interest loans) for putting more effiGient measures into place; and 

(4) institute disincentives such as pump taxes and stiff fines for violators 

of water codes and condition eligibility for federal farm proqram help (such 

as price supports, set-asides, and disaster loans) on the adoption of 

appropriate water conservation measures. 

If the conservation measures we have suggested for the municipal, 

industrial, and agricultural sectors are put into place, the Environmental 

Policy Institute believes that the nation not only will be able to avert 

a water crisis, but will reap substantial benefits. Federal leadership, both 

xi 
Executive SUmmary . 

through agency programs and through water conservation grants, is essential 

for the success of a nationwide water conservation effort. 

xii 
205 

JAN 02 J979 

Drlputy Aaistant Bectetary 

PolicY, !~Wget and Mminiatraticn ~~, 

Aaaoc:iat. Solicitor," Energy and lleDOI.IrCeS -~ ',.: 

.. . 

'l'tlia rupcnla to yo.Jr OCt.cbar 23, 1978 IIIII:Dranaw on thia a'ubjeot to .the 

Solicitor. . 

1 have rtrYie.lod the lli.J:¢r.g Loke inla'CCJCI'tCnt ~ a~ tt.e 1945 

decl:ee end nave dolttorctnea that, •t pteaent, l:f.Clt'e ia no definitive .Witf to uaure tha,; the fishery re,loaau b:alt _the ~ca ~ . .l.akle 

·- PtOtee . _ --~ BI:\lOr:.APPt"Qm:~~s on the Yakima ~ir· ~5 'Ci5'nuent ciocrE>e. ~ ~s of tN dec:rCG m:e ar.bi 

in this rost=OCt ·iirlcl a caritic:.ati.on, either tl-.t"'UC,)h litu.)4tion or l%endar.a'lt of the dec:roe itself, is necessary to secure the !i&heey f~ · 

u ~w~latcd in the l-"t''PPO8d fouibllity ~J.Xlrt. · 

. ' 

~ 1945 o:ll'..tent dtoei!'QQ eatAblishcs the obligetion of the ~ited St.at:es 

to make del.l.veries of riatur.U. flow <Vld ·~ wator to irrigaticn clia 

in the Yakil!la Ri'IIClr U.Sin. '1h1i ~defines •total water suwly . avai,l&bJ.o• for 4iatr.WUt1on ·toe; the ":rwoi:.Ural !101·1 of the ):'l\ldr.a FJ:ver and 

it.a tr!J?ut=iea, fr<r.l :Jtoraq£ in the vadOI.:S ~rnt'l!l}t ~erwi7A ~ 

the Yakila W\1lb!rS!lCI<i ancJ ·trcn other IIJOUrou.. •• . It a this defl.nitlaft 

Vlic:b lei:lcls me to beliwe thilt the r\\....,ly atored water in the enl.ct.Jer.a\t 

my L>e ~SUbject to Alloc::aticn urx.ler the decree. 'the pivotAl question 

is lotlother thll <'lecl."ee wu in~ w affect. future reservoirs <XII:I8tl:uc1~ 

by the tklit:ed States or to only those existing in 1945. 

It is my opinion that a lo:I!IAl solicitor's Opinion en this issue at th1 

tilne ~ bO of very littlv value ~ess of the concluaion react:~. 

Whatever c.leteuaination the Solicitor reec:r.ect, tl.e ultilrw:tw clec:iaion 

would have to be J:llllle D'J the · l'C!ooral District Court as an intezp:e~ 

of tt. c:JecreG. in adcUtJ.on, thflrc ia 8\.lbstAntial litigation Cle"90in9 _in 

• 

207 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION Suite 512 921 S.W. Marrisun Portland. Oregon 9nOS 

503-222-1429 

l'•xo 503-27.2-3203 

September 27, 1993 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

Committea on Natural Resources u.s. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Re: Testimony on H.R. 1690, a bill to authorize certain 

elements of the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement 

Project 

Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the Western National Resource Center of the 

National Wildlife Federation. NWF is the nation's 

largest conservation organization, with members in Washing~rt State and throughout the United States. We are deeply concerned about the health and productivity of 

Pacific Northwest river basins. We strongly support 

legislative efforts to protect water quality and quantity 

in the Yakima River Basin. However, H.R. 1690 as written 

does not ensure that real water conservation will occur. We urge you to address the following issues in your 

consideration of the bill: 

1) H.R. 1690 purports to resolve water allocation 

problems in the Yakima Basin and offer conservation 

opportunities. However, the existing Yakima Basin 

project has benefitted senior irrigation districts 

at the expense of instream f1ows for anadromous 

fish, and the bill will not rectify this situation. 

We ask that you amend the Yakima River Basin Project 

to ensure adequate instream flows to protect and 

enhance fish and wildlife. 

2) No dates are established for the development ot 

water conservation plans by the irrigation 

districts. We urge the Committee to set a two-year 

deadline for preparing water conservation plans for 

the Yakima Basin. 

3) The bill does not provide adequate flow protection 

tor the remaining runs of wild anadromous fish in 

Working for tiJ<' Nature of Tomorrow(~ 
208 

the river. The Yakiaa River is overallocated, and 

ongoing water rights adjudication has not brouqht the State of washington any closer to .. eting ita 

responsibilities under the 1917 Water Code and 

related 189islation. FUrther federal spending in 

the basin should be conditioned upon a finding that 

the State of Washington has acted to ensure adequate 

water for inatream flows. 

NWF would like to work with the co .. ittee and the 

Washington delegation to pass a water conservation bill 

for the Yakima Basin. such a bill, however, should truly offer conservation opportunities. Thank you again for 

the opportunity to subait teatiaony. 

Sincerely, 

Yacquelyn 

~-o~ Bonomo 

Center Director, NWF Western Natural Resource Center 
209 

KENNEWICK IRRIGATION DISTRICT 

P:.a. Box·6900: •• Kennewick·, Washington • 99336-0401 

Chairman of the Committee on National Resources 

October 6, 1993 

u .s. House of Representatives 

1324 Longworth Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Honorable Chairman Miller and Representatives: 

I thank you for the invitation to address the Subcommittee on the 

Enhancement Bill, HR1690, and in particular appreciate the 

efforts of our representative, Jay Inslee, in his proposing this 

Bill. I am Dr. William Kinsel, Coordinator of Mechanical 

Engineering at Washington State University, Tri Cities Branch in 

Richland, wa~hington. I am also a farmer who irrigates 

approximately 200 acres in southeast Washington state. I am the 

President of the Board of Directors of the Kennewick Irrigation District which receives its water at the lower end of the Yakima 

River in conjunction with the Bureau of Reclamation Yakima 

Reclamation Project. 

The Yakima Reclamation Project serves five operating divisions 

including the Kennewick Division. The Kennewick Irrigation 

District is within the Kennewick Division. My comments address 

several particular topics including the following: 

1. The issue of return flows as they effect not only the 

Kennewick Irrigation District, but all other operating divisions 

of the Yakima Reclamation Project. 

2. The electrification of hydropumping stations including 

the Chandler facility. 

3. The variety of causes which effect salmon populations. 

4. The need for scientific studies of various proposals as they relate to maintenance or enhancement of fish life and review 

of scientific studies which have already been addressed and 

provided to the Bureau of Reclamation and other entities. 
210 

RETURN FLOWS 

The Yakima Reclamation Project has the storage capacity to 

service four of the five operating divisions. That is, the 

project design anticipates providing four of the five operating divisions with waters from storage reservoirs. The design anticipates delivery of waters to the fifth division, namely Kennewick, from return flows. Return flows are those water 

quantities that have already been diverted for irrigation, municipal or industrial uses and .are again available for reuse for similar or other purposes. Return flows a:ce, of course, of 

paramount interest to the Kennewick Irrigation District as a water supply identified specifically in the Bureau of Reclamation - Kennewick Irrigation D-istrict contract. The availability of 

return flows are also of grave importance to the remaining four 

divisions. Should return flows diminish to the point of 

requiring the Kennewick Irrigation District to receive water from 

storage reservoirs, any such releases would dire·ctly impact the 

storage relied upon by the remaining four divisions. An issue of concern then regarding this legislation in HR1690, is both the 

effect of conservation on return flows and· the disposition of 

water savings realized from such conservation. 

There are indications that return flows have diminished over the past twenty years. The Bureau likely has information which 

would shed light on the expected impact of conservation on return 

flows. That· likelihood has not been developed to date to the 

knowledge of the Kennewick Irrigation District. These must be 

studied so that considered decisions can be made with regard to 

the ultimate impact of conservation. To that end, individuals 

from the Kennewick Irrigation District will indeed be in contact 

with the appropriate Bureau of Reclamation personnel. It is also 

anticipated that individuals from the other four Yakima Project divisions will give consideration to this issue. 

The issue of the disposition of saved waters from . conservation efforts is given new perspective in light of the 

possibility that conservation may result in reduced return flows. 

Reduced return flows equates to storaqe demand by the Kennewick 

Irrigation District. Should sufficient storage not be available, 

then all divisions within the Yakima Project would have to 

prorate the waters available. The return flow issue leads 

directly -to a consideration of the total storage water supply (TWSA) • Waters saved from conservation, if returned to TWSA, 

would assist the . Yakima Project in meetinq its supply obligations. Saved water, if returned to the river only, would 

obviously not assist the Project in meeting its obligations and 

would thus leave the five divisions exposed to water short years on a greater number of ~ccasions. 

Thus, the issue of impact on return fJUtws from conservation 

must be examined. That examination may well influence_ 4ecisions 

made with regard to the disposition of saved water to TWSA. 

2 
211 

THE ELECTRIFICATION OF HYDROPUMPING STATIONS INCLUDING THE 

CHANDLER FACILITY 

The proposed Bill refers to the electrification of 

hydropumping plants. The irrigation supply received by the 

Kennewick Irrigation District is diverted at the Chandler 

hydropumping station. The Chandler station is at the end of a power canal some eleven miles downstream from the Prosser dam . The hydropumps are operated by water pressure. Some one and one- quarter units of water are required to pump each unit of the 

Kennewick Irrigation District's supply. The possibility of 

electrification of these hydraulic pumps has been discussed over the years and has been recently raised again by the Bureau of 

Reclamation. 

The issue of electrification must be considered in light of 

the present adjudication of water rights in the Washington State 

Superior Court Case of State of Washington vs. James Aquavella. The Aquavella case has been pending since 1977. Water rights are presently being decided with regard to major irrigation districts. Water rights testimony for the· Kennewick Irrigation District is scheduled for mid-1994. 

A principal element of the water rights concerns the 

irrigation delivery system. That system is described in detail 

in the 1953 USBR-KID Repayment Contract. The contract states the 

principal facilities of the Kennewick Irrigation District 

irrigation system include the Prosser-Chandler power canal, and 

the Chandler hydraulic pumping plant, in addition to other 

irrigation system components. Other aspects of the contract 

refer to Chandler and the hydraulic pumping plant. Thus, it is 

highly likely that the adjudication will determine that an element of the Kennewick Irrigation District's water right is 

constituted of the Chandler power canal and hydropumping system. 

Thus, this particular issue must be considered in light of 

the presently pending litigation. However, the District does not 

preclude the potential of other arrangements and has indeed 

discussed alternative diversion points with the Bureau of 

Reclamation and other entities. Alternate diversion points downstream from the power canal located within the McNary pool have been discussed. However, the impact of such changes on existing water rights is complex and will require substantial 

consideration and perhaps resolution with interested parties includinq the United States and the State of Washinqton. 

CAUSES OF REDUCTION OF SALMON POPULATIONS 

Several comments made at this hearing have suggested that 

irrigation is the primary cause of the reduction anadromous fish 

population. However, the scientific community recognizes multiple causes which result in impacts on anadromous fish 

populations. Some of the conditions and factors in and outside 

3 
212 

Yakima River Basin which impact or affect Yakima River Basin 

anadromous fish populations include the following: 

(a) Commercial ocean, high seas drift net, and lower Columbia 

River fishery. 

(b) Sport fishery. 

(c) Indian fishery. 

(d) Columbia River Dams - Mainstem, juvenile, adult, passage mortality. 

(e) OVer wintering. 

(f) Predation (squawfish, seals, etc.) 

(g) Temperature, instream flow. 

(h) Loss of habitat not caused by low flows. 

(i) Mixed stock fishery (upriver indigenous naturally spawning vs. hatchery supplemented lower river). 

(j) Disease. 

(k) Lack of agency, government coordination, cooperation. 

(1) Poor land management activities (logging, grazing, etc.). 

(m) Ocean conditions (El Nino, availability of feed). 

(n) Tagging, sampling, research .mortality. 

(o) Flooding. 

It is unrealistic to assign irrigation to the role as a principal cause of a decline in salmon populations. Due consideration must 

be given to a multitude of causes lest a particular group be 

singled out with drastic changes made only to later learn that 

other causes have had a far wider and continue to assert enormous impact on salmon population. 

Additionally, points of interest with regard to declining salmon populations were considered by the state Superior court in 

the State of Washington vs. James Aquavella. Those points focused on the water right which remained as it relates to fish 

interests. Yakima County Superior Court ruled in 1990 that a water right remained in an amount sufficient to maintain fish 

life. The Court clearly distinguished between the purpose of the 

remaining water right and water which might be considered for the 

purpose of •enhanceaent• (increasing fish population). The issue 

of the Yakima Indian Nation having received compensation through the Indian Claims Commission for particular fishing rights was an integral part of the Court's 1990 decision. The 1990 decision 

4 
213 

was upheld by the Washington State Supreme Court in 1993. No 

appeal was taken to the United States Supreme Court. 

SCIENTIFIC STUDIES 

Decisions regarding river management should be 

scientifically based. The entire ecological system should be 

considered. However, economic and societal impacts must not be 

overlooked. I appreciated Commissioner Beard's reference to. the 

need for studies. I am aware that the BPA has conducted studies. 

I note that Or. Willey's comments, today, refer to the need for 

additional studies commenting on the need to examine a temperature cap for the river and making reference to "flushing 

flows" for assistance in out-migration of spring Chinook smelts. 

The irrigation community agrees with the need for a scientific 

basis in pursuing not only river operations and management but 

also evaluation of activities relating to the salmon issues. To 

that end, a coalition of Yakima Basin Irrigation Districts has 

developed and analyzed data relating to the effect, if any, of 

storage releases on the out-migration of spring Chinook smolts. 

Storage releases related to this issue would be requested in the 

May to June timeframe. The principal purpose of such requests is 

to assist and facilitate out-migration of smolt. There is an obvious impact on irrigation in the release of storage water. 

Obviously any waters released are not then available to meet the 

Bureau's obligations and the irrigation communities needs when 

storage control is commenced. 

Demands for release from the storage, made on the basis of 

need related to out-migration of smelt, have been discussed and 

immanent during years past. Such releases have not yet been 

made. Nevertheless, such demands have been expected. Demands 

have been urged as having a basis in common knowledge of 

facilitating out-migration of Chinook smelts. However, neither 

data or scientific analysis have been readily produced by individuals or entities making or proposing such storage release 

demands. 

In response the contention that storage releases facilitate 

out-migration, the irrigation community has undertaken both data 

gathering and analysis of the relationship, if any, between outmigration and storage releases. Or. William McNeil, (Dr. 

McNeil's Curriculum Vitae is included herein for the Committee's 

consideration as Exhibit "A") has undertaken the principal analysis. The analysis concludes that there is not a correlation 

between the release of pulses of storage waters (referred to by 

others as "flushing flows") and an increase in out-migration of 

spring Chinook smelts. Copies of the analysis have provided to 

the Bureau of Reclamation during the spring of 1992 and again in 

1993. The materials have also been made to other entities 

including the Yakima Indian Nation. A copy of Dr. McNeil's 

study, as released to the Bureau, is incorporated herein and 

included for the Committee's consideration as Exhibit "B." 

5 
214 

It abould be noted that the irriqation c~ity has 

requested data and analysis vbich supports the contention that 

flushinq flows indeed facilitate •iqration of ..alta. These 

d ... nds have been .. de directly to Mr. Bob TUck, bioloqist for 

the YakiDa Indian Ration, in bis capacity on the Yaki.a River 

•syst .. operation advisory co.aittee•. SUch d ... nds were actually .. de in early 1992 . There has been no response as of 

the data of this testimony. 

COHCLUSIOH 

The concept of conservation ~d indeed enhancaaent of fish 

populations is at first blusb very appaalinq. The concepts certain are da .. ad worthy of very serious consideration and 

pursuit. However, ca.plaxities exist which .ust be ax .. ined . 

I would conclude with several co .. ants relatinq in qaneral 

to the proposed enhanc .. ent bill as follows: 

1. The d .. onstration project indicated for the Wapato Irriqation Project should be •et in kind with d .. onstration 

projects for other irriqation districts and divisions within the 

Yakiu Project. 

2. There are at least two types of conservation includinq 

on-tara conservation vbich is larqaly under the control of the 

particular consu.er or irriqation district client, and 

conservation -within the irriqation district focused prilllarily on irriqation district delivery syst.... The on- tara conservation 

would principally taka the fora of consu.er adaptation to 

different types of irriqation .. ana. Irriqation district 

conservation efforts .. y focus on utilization ·of irriqation canal 

lininq and in replac .. ent of irriqation canals with piped syst811s. Conservation efforts, as noted above, .. y iapact return 

flows. Impacts on qround water and indeed wallll .. y also occur and require consideration. 

3. The enhanc .. ent bill cont .. plates the formation of a ca..ittee for the use and t.pl .. entation of proposals. The 

Kennewick Irriqation District and division. should be a •ember of 

that ca..ittee. The District's concern with return flows, and 

its hiqhly urbanized nature demonstrates needs which are different fro• those of other districts within the project. 

4. The District would support the construction of 

additional reservoir storaqa as a •eans of providinq waters 

available for •enhanc .. ent• purposes. 

I .. honored to have been invited to address the Ca.aittea. 

Thank you very .uch for your attention. Both sa~n and 

irriqated aqriculture are of siqnificant importance to the State 

of waahinqton. Actions vbich effect either or both can certainly have wide-spread effects on-a larqe percentaqe of the state' s population. Thus, I co..end you to qive due consideration to the 

6 
215 

many complex issues to be considered and hope to be of assistance 

should further questions need be addressed. 

c:\ ..• \kid\10193.ltr 

Sincerely, 

~)~ William Ki~~~,-PhD President, Board of Directors 

Kennewick Irrigation District 

Coordinator of Mechanical 

Engineering, Washington State 

University, Tri-Cities Branch 

Farmer 

7 
216 

EXHffiiT A 
217 

CURRICULUM VITAE 

MCNEIL, WILLIAM J .. Professor of Fisheries and Fisheries Consultant 

ADDRESS: Oregon State University 

EDUCATION: 

Hatfield Marine Science Center 

Newport, OR 97365 

or P. 0. Box 104 

Newport, Oregon 97365 

PHONE: (.503) 867-0100 

B.S. in fisheries. Oregon State University (19.52); M.S. in fisheries. 

Oregon State University (19.56): Ph.D. In fisheries, University of Washington 

( 1962} 

EMPLOYMENT: 

Self-employed consultant (1988 ·present}; Professor, Coastal Oregon 

Marine Experiment Station (1990-present);Professor of Fisheries and Director, 

Cooperative Institute for Marine Resources Studies. Oregon State University 

(1985-1990): General Manager, Oregon AquaFoods. Inc., Weyerhaeuser Co. 

(1976·198.5}; Program Manager, Alaska Salmon Investigations. National .Marine 

Fisheries Service (1972-1976); Associate Professor Fisheries, Oregon State 

University (1966-1972); Supervisory Fishery Research Biologist, U.S. Bureau of 

Commercial Fisheries (1962-1966}; Research . Associate, Fisheries Research 

Institute. University of Washington (1956-1962} 

PROFESSIONAL RECOGNITION: 

Lectures .. Norwegian Society for Aquaculture Research and 

Directorate for Nature Management (Norway) (1990); Washington State 

University (1988): Instituto Profesional de Osorno (Chile) (1987): Lewis and 

Clark College (198.5, 1987, and 1989); University of Oregon (1980-1984); Portland 

State University (1983); ·wmamette University (1983); TINRO (USSR) (1976, 

1978. and 1990): University of Alaska (1974-1976 and 1989). Symposia -· Keynote Speaker, Fisheries Biuengineering Symposium 

(1988); Convenor, World Salmonid Conference (1986); Keynote Speaker, 

Salmonid Reproduction Symposium (1983); Convener, Panel on Ranching, 

World Mariculture Society (1982); Convener. Symposium on Salmonid 

Ecosystems of the North Pacific (1978); Steering Committee, North Pacific 

Aquaculture Symposium (1980); Steering Committee, World Technical 

Conference on Aquaculture (1976); Convener, Conference on Marine 

Aquaculture (1968). 

Advjsor:y and Executive \..ommittees and Socjetjes ·- Scientific Advisory 

Committee for Prince William Sound (Alaska) Ecological Research Center 

(1989-present): Secretary, Oregon Governor's Salmon Advisory Committee 

(1981-1986}; Advisor, Alaska Department of Commerce (1984 and 1985); 

Member, Bonneville Power Admin. Research Review Panels (1985 and 1989); 

Member, N.W. Power Planning Council Committee on Genetics Policies (1989): 

President, Oregon Chapter American Fisheries Society (1982 and 1983): 

Executive Committee, National Sea Grant Assoc. (1980·1983); Chalnuan. 

Governor's Alaska Fisheries Council (1975-1978). Chairman, Fisheries 

Technical Advisory Committee, .Sheldon Jackson College (1974-1977); Advisor, 
218 

National Academy of Sciences Committee on Aquaculture (1977); Fellow 

American Institute of Fisheries Research Biologists (since 1972). 
219 

C 0 N S U L TIN G: Current and recent consulting activities. 

Client Years 

Wash. Water Power Since 1992 

Direct Service Industries Since 1989 

Yakima River Basin 

Coalition 

Grant County PUD 

Since 1989 

Since 1989 

Oregon Forest Industries 1991-1992 

Council 

Oregon Coastal Zone Mgt. Since 1990 

Assoc. 

Prince William Sound 1989-90 

Aquaculture Corp. 

Pope Resources 1988-89 

Topic · 

Dams ed salmon in 

Clearwater River, ID. 

Endan1ered Species Act 

and salmon In the 

Columbia Basin 

Irrigation and salmon in 

Yakima River, WA. 

Passage of juvenile 

salroon at two mid 

Columbia R. dams 

Forestry and salmon in 

the Pacific Northwest 

Restoration plan for 

Tillamook Bay, OR. 

Impact of Exxon Valdez 

oil spill on hatchery 

salmon 

Evaluation of Hood 

Canal/Port Ludlow 

properties for 

aquaculture 

PUBLICATIONS: Approximately 80 published reports on subjects related to 

salmonids. 

76-655 0 - 94 - 8 
220 

LIST OF PUBLICATIONS 

Sheridan. William L. and W.1. McNeil. 1960. In "Research in Fisheries". 

Contribution No. 77, University of Washington, College of Fisheries, p. 16-17. 

McNeil, William J. and W.H. Ahnell. 1961. In "Research in Fisheries". 

contribution 116, University of Washington, College of Fisheries, p. 20·21. 

McNeil. William J., P. Shapley, and D.E. Bevan. 1962. In "Research in 

Fisheries". Contribution No. 139, University of Washington, College of 

Fisheries, p. 15-18. 

McNeil, William J. 1962. Variations in the dissolved oxygen content of intra· 

gravel water in four spawning streams of southeastern Alaska. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Spec. Sci. Rpt., fisheries No. 402, 15 pp. 

McNeil, William J. 1963. Quality of the spawning bed u it relates to survival 

and growth of pink salmon embryos and alevins and time of fry emergence. 

16th Int. Cong. Zoo!. Proc. 1:242 (Abstract). 

McNeil, William J. 1963. Status of research on the improvement of salmon 

spawning beds in Alaska. In Croker. Richard S. and Don Reed (editors). Repon 

of Second Governor's Conference on Pacific Salmon, p. 111. 

McNeil, William 1. 1964. Redd superimposition and egg capacity of pink 

salmon spawni~g beds. 1. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada. 21 (6): 1385-1396. 

McNeil, William 1. 1964. A method of measuring monality of pink salmon eggs 

and larvae. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fishery Bulletin 63 (3}: 575-588. 

McNeil. William J. and W.H. Ahnell. 1964. Success of pink salmon spawning 

relative to sl:j;e of spawning bed materials. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Spec. 

Sci. Rpt., Fisheries No. 469, 15 pp. 

McNeil. William J., R.A. Wells, and D.C. Brickell. 1964. Disappearance of dead 

pink salmon eggs and larvae from Sashin Creek, Baranof Island, Alaska. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Spec. Sci. Rpt., Fisheries No. 48,, 13 pp. 

McNeil, William 1. 1966. Effect of the spawning bed environment on 

reproduction of pinlc and chum salmon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fishery 

Bulletin 65 (22): 495-523. 

McNeil, William J. 1966. Distribution of spawning pink salmon In Sasbin 

Creek, southeastern Alaska, and survival of their progeny. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Spec. Sci. RpL, Fisheries No. 538, 12 pp. 

Smedley, Stephen c. and W.I. McNeil. 1966. Freshwater survival of pink 

salmon transplanted to Sashin Creek, Baranof Island, Aluka. Alaska Dept. of 

Fish and Game. Information Leaflet No. 91, 21 pp. 

McNeil. William J. 1966. Potential egg deposition by pink and chum salmon 

and resultant fry production with remarks on randomness in distribution of 
221 

pink salmon n:dd$. /rt Sheridan, W .L. Proceedings of the 1966 Northeast 

Pacific Pink Salmon Workshop. Alaska Dept. of Pish and Game, Infonnatlon 

Leaflet 87: 19-40. · 

McNeil, William J. 1967: Randomness in distribution of pink salmon redds. J. 

fish. Res. Bd. Canada, 24 (7): 1629·1634. 

Olson, Jerrold M. and W.J. McNeil. 1967. Research on pink salmon at Little Port 

Walter, Alaska. 1934-64. U.S. fish and wildlife Service, Data Report 17, 301 pp. 

Sheridan, W.L. and W.J. McNeil. 1968. Some effeciS of Ioggins on two salmon 

streams in Alaska. Journal of Forestry. February 1968, 128·133. 

McNeil, William J. 1968. Migration and distribution of pink salmon spawners 

in Sashin Creek in 1965, and survival or their progeny. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Fishery Bulletin 66 (3): 515·586. 

McNeil, William 1. 1968. 

salmon in spawning beds. 

AIFRB: 96·114. 

Effect of stream flow on survival of pink and chum 

Proceedings of· Forum on Logging and Salmon, 

McNeil, William J. 1969. Survival of pink and chum salmon eggs and aievins. 

In T.G. Northcote (editot). Symposium on Salmon and Trout In Streams. H.R. 

MacMillan Lectures in Fisheries: 101-117. 

McNeil. William J .. S.C. Smedley, and R.J. Ellis. 1969. Transplanting adult pink 

salmon to Sashln Creek, Baranof Island, Aluka, and survival of their progeny. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Spec. Sci. Rpt., Fisheries No. 587, 9 pp. 

McNeil, William 1. (editor). 1970. Marine Aquaculture. Oregon State 

University Press. Corvallis, 172 pp. 

McNeil, William J. 1970. Culture of salmon acclimated to sea water. Western 

Div. American Fish. Soc. 

Wells, Ralph A. and W.J. McNeil. 1970. Effect of quality of the spawning bed on 

growth and development of pink salmon embryos and alevins. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Spec. Sci. Rpt., Fisheries No. 616, 6 pp. 

McNeil, William J. 1970. Heated water from generators present fish-culture 

possibilities. American Fish Farmer, Vol. 1, No. 11 (Oct. 1970): 18·20. 

McNeil, William J. 1970. Heater water in aquaculture. Transactions of the 

Thermal Effluent Information Meeting. Idaho Nuclear Energy Commission: 24-

28. 

McNeil, William J. 1970. Future opportunities for aquaculture. In Man and 

Aquatic Communities, Oregon State University Water Resources Research 

Institute, Spring Quarter, 1970: 71·78. 

McNeil, William 1. 1970. Marine food resources of Oregon. IN Oregon 

Community of Tomorrow. Marine Science. Oregon State University, 

Cooperative Extension Service: 4~7. 
222 

McNeil, William J. 1971. Salmon: pride of die Columbia. NOAA, Vol. 1 (4): 20-23. · 

McNeil. William J. 1971. Ocean food resources and the future of marlculture. 

Topics In Ocean Bnafneering Circular 41, p. 1·11, Engineering Experiment Sta., 

Oregon State University. 

Kepshlre, B.M. Jr. and W.J. McNeil. 1972. Growth of prernigratory chinook 

salmon in sea water. fish. Bull. 70; 119·123. 

McNeil, William 1. 1973. Ocean ranching of pink and chum salmon. Alaska 

Seas and Coast. University of Alaska, 9 (no. 2); p. 1, 6, and 7J 

McNeil, William J. 1973. Ocean ranching of plnlt and chum aal.mon. Third 

Teclmical Conf. on Estuaries. Oregon State University, Eng. Bxp. Sta. Clrc. 46, p. 

16020. 

McNeil, William 1. 197~. Perspectives on Ocean Ranching of Pacific Salmon. 

Proc.. Sixth Annual Meeting World Mariculture Soc. Louisiana State 

University, Baton Rouge, p. 299·308. 

McNeil. William J. and J.E. Balley. 197S. Ocean Ranchers Manual. NW Fisheries 

Center, Processed Rpt., 9S pp. Reprinted by Alaska Sea Grant Program, 1977. 

McNeil, William J. 1975. Proposed use of geothermal water for salmon 

aquaculture on Umnak Island. Alaska. In R.B. Forbes (editor). Proceedings of 

Alaskan Geothermal Energy and Wind Power Resources Planning Conference. 

University of Alaska Geophysical Institute. Appendix :E.-1. 

McNeil, William J. 1976. Potential for salmon aquaculture in Alaska. In D.H. 

Rosenberg (editor). Proceedings of the Conference on Salmon Aquaculture 

and the Alaskan Fishing community. University of Alaska Sea Grant Rpt. 76 

(2): 2.5-67. 

McNeil. William J. 1977. Artificial recruiunent of Pacific salmon_ In Japan, 

Republic of Korea, and the Soviet Union. Northwest and Alaslca Fisheries 

Center, Processed Rpt., 38 pp. 

McNeil, William J. 1977. Artlflcial recruitment of pink and chum salmon in 

Japan and eastern USSR. Nonhwe$t and Alaska Fisheries Center. Processed 

Rpt., 13 pp. 

McNeil, William J. 1977. Problems in food production and nutrition; the role of 

aquaculture. Oregon State University. Nutrition Research Institute 

Symposium, p. 33-38. 

Ellis. R.I. and W.J. McNeil. 1979. Possible management procedures for 

increasing production of sockeye salmon smelts In the Naknek River system, 

Bristol Bay, Alaska. NOAA Tech. Rpt. NMFS SSRF-733, 9 pp. 

McNeil, William J. 1979. Review of transplantation and artificial recruitment 

of anadromous species. /n T.V.R. Pillay and W.A. Dill. Advances in 

Aquaculture, p. 547·,4. Fishing News Books, London. 
223 

McNeil, William 1. 1979. T"hnology for salmon enhancement: statua and 

outlook. Symposium on biology of salmona. Usho-SakhaliDsk. USSR. Oct. 1978. 

McNeil, William 1. 1979. Wbat arc the prospect& of aquaculture? In 

Aquaculture: a Modem Fi1h Tale, p. l-6. Water Resources Research Institute, 

Oreson Stale University, Corvallis. 

McNeil, William 1. 1980. Salmon ranching in Alaska. In J. Thorpe (editOr). 

Salmon Ranchina. p. 123·27. Academic Press, London. 

McNeil. William 1. 1980. Lesal aspects or ocean ranchina In the Pacific. In 1. 

Thorpe (editor). Salmon Ranching, p. 383-394. Academic Press. London. 

McNeil, William J. 1980. Vulnerability of pink salmon populations to natural 

and fishing mortality. In D.C. Himsworth and W.J. McNeil. Salmonid 

Ecosystems of the North Pacific Ocean, p. 137-lSl. Oreaon State University 

Preas, Corvallis. 

McNeil, William 1. and D.C. Himsworth (editOrs). 1980. Salmonid Ecosystems of 

the North Pacific Ocean. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, 331 pp. 

McNeil. William 1. 1980. Private salmon ranching in Oregon. Farm and land 

Relator. 10: 8·11. 

McNeil, William 1. 1981. Salmon ranching in Orcson. In Aquaculture 

Extensive et Repeuplement, p. 171-178. Pub. du CJVBXO. Actes de Celloques 12, 

Centre Ocanologique de Bretagne, Brest, Prance. ' 

McNeil, William J. 1981. Constraints and outlook for fisheries and aquaculture. 

In W.W. Smoker (editor). Fisheries Education in Alaska. Alaska Sea Grant Rpt. 

82 (4): SS-93. 

McNeil, William J. 1981. World salmon ranching: status and outlook. In T .J. 

Hasler (editor). Proceedings: Propagation. Enhancement, and Rehabilitation 

of Anadromous Salmonid Populations and Habitat In the Paclfic Northwest 

Symposium, p. 13·15. Humboldt State University, Arcata. 

McNeil, William J. 1981. The private sector's role in salmon ranching. In . 

Hasler (editor}. P. 21. loc. at. 

McNeil, William 1. 1982. Book review of Coas1al Aquaculture Law and Polley by 

Gerald Bowder. Fisheries 7: 50-.51. 

McNeil, William J. 1982. Salmon ranching in the northeastern Pacific: status 

and outlook. ICES Rpt. C.M. 1982/F: 20, 4 pp. 

McNeil, William J. 1982. Structure and economics of Soviet and Japanese 

salmon rnnching efforts. In T. Grady (editor). Proceedinss of the Third Alaska 

Aquaculture conference. Alaska Sea Grant Rpt. 82 (8}: S9-66. 

McNeil, William I. 1984. World Salmon Ranching. Marine Technology Soc., 

Ocean '83, 880-883. 
224 

Gowan, R. and W.J. McNeil. 1984. Factotll associated with mor1&llty of coho 

salmon (Qncorbyncbus ~ from saltwater releaae facilities In Oreaon. In 

Pearcy W.A. (editor). The Influence of Ocean Conditions on the Production of 

Salmonids in the North Pacific. Oregon state University Sea Orant Publication, 

p. 3·18. 

McNeil. Wllllam J. 1984. Salmon ranching: a growina Industry In the North 

Pacific. Oceanus 27 (1): 27·31. 

McNeil, William 1. 1985. Pink and chum &almon supply and outlook. Proceedlnss of the 1984 Pink and Chum Salmon Workshop, p. 186-190. Oceans 

and Fisheriea, Canada. 

McNeil, William J. and R.F. Severson. 1985. Impacts of ocean fisheries on 

natural and ranched stocks of Icelandic salmon. fish Farmins Symposium, 

Reykjavik, Iceland. 

McNeil, William J. 1985. Comments on north Pacific fisheries Delphi project. 

In 1. Yuska and N. Ridlinaton (editors). Seafood Quality and Product Form. 

Oregon Sea Grant ORESU·IN-85-004, p. 3·8. 

McNeil, William J. 1987. Offshore transpon and release of salmon smolta. 

Bonneville Power Administration Smo1t Workshop, Kahneetah, Oreron. 

McNeil. William J. (editor). 1988. Salmon Production, Manaaement, and 

Allocation. Oreson state University Prea. Corvallis, 194 pp. 

McNeil. William I . 1988. Mariculture: an aid or hindrance to management. 

Trans. S3rd N.A. Wildl. & Nat. Res. Conf., p. S69-S76. 

McNeil, William J. 1989. Book review of Salmon and Trout Pumins. Fisheries. 

14: 57-SS. 

Kreeger, K, and W.J. McNeil. 1989. Estuarine dependence of juvenile chinook 

as it relates to salmon ranching. Nonhwcst Environ. Jour. 3: 165·167. 

McNeil, William J. 1989. Aquaculture and salmon ranching. In C.L. Smith 

(editor). Ocean Agenda 21. Oregon Sea Grant ORESU-B-89-001. p. 52-SS. 

McNeil, William J. In press. Future of salmon aquaculture. American 

Fisheries Society Symposium 10: 12-18. 

McNeil, W.J .. R. Gowan, and R. Severson. 1991. Offshore release of salmon 

smolts. A.merican Fisheries Society. 10; S48·SS3. 

McNeil, William 1. 1991. Expansion of cultured Pacific salmon into marine 

ecosystems. Aquaculture. 98: 172·183. 

McNeil, William J. 1991. Sea ranching of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus 

!c!sutch) In Oregon. pp. 1·10. IlL N. Pedersen and E. Kjorsvlk (eds). Sea 

Ranchina •• Scienlifle Experiences and Challenges. Proceedings from the 

Symposium and Workshop on Sea Ranching. Norwegian Society for 

Aquaculture Research 21·23 October 1990, Bergen. Norway. 
225 

EXHIBIT B 
226 

STREAM DISCHARGE AND SEA WARD MIGRATION 

OF STREAM-TYPE CHINOOK SALMON 

IN THE YAKIMA RIVER 

By Dr. William J. McNeil 

Reports of: April25, 1992 

May 12, 1992 

March 15, 1993 
227 

STREAM DISCHARGE AND SEAWARD MIGRATION 

OF STREAM-TYPE CIDNOOK SALMON IN 

THE YAKIMA RIVER 

March 15, 1993 

By Dr. William J. McNeil 
228 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Analyses of inter-annual variability in passage time of juvenile stream-type 

chinook and flow at Prosser Dam on the Yakima River contradict an assertion 

that migration is delayed in years of low flow and advanced in years of high 

flow. The null hypothesis which states that there is no association between 

annual passage time and flow is accepted based on results of the analyses 

presented herein. 

Analyses of intra-annual variability in passage time of juvenile stream-type 

chinook and flow at Prosser Dam fail to support an assertion that increased 

daily passage is largely synchronized with Increased daily flow. The null 

hypothesis which states that there is no association between increased 

numbers of juveniles passing Prosser Dam on a daily basis and increased daily 

flow is accepted based on results of the analyses presented herein. 

INTRODUCTION 

This report addresses relationships between migration of stream-type' juvenile 

chinook salmon at Prosser Dam and stream flow. 

Two kinds of variability associated with migration are assessed: 

• Inter-annual to address an assertion that annual migration is advanced 

by high flqw. 

• Intra-annual to address an assertion that daily migration is associated 

with daily pulses of high flow. 

INTER-ANNUAL VARIABILITY 

A null hypothesis that passage time is not associated with flow at Prosser Dam 

is tested with linear correlation. Passage of juveniles at Prosser Dam2 in the 

ten-year period 1983 through 1992 are correlated with daily discharge. 

Discharge is measured before irrigation water is diverted at Prosser Dam. 

The procedure involves the following steps: 

Step 1. Determine lor each year of observation the Julian dates on 

which the daily cumulative passage reaches 20, 50, and 80 

percent of the total annual cumulative passage. 

I Stream-type juvenile chinook remain in freshwater for at leas! one year 

before migrating to sea. 

2The daily counts arc estimated by the Yakima Indian Nation as a pari of 

Bonneville Power Administration Project 82-16. 

2 
229 

Step. 2. Calculate mean dates for 20th, 50th, and 80th percentiles of 

cumulative passage. 

Step 3. Caiculate for each year the 20-day average flow preceding 

Julian dates corresponding to the 20th, 50th, and Both 

percentiles of cumulative passage3. 

Step 4. Test the null hypothesis that there is no association between a 

numeric expression of passage time and flow. 

Two methods are employed here to test the null hypothesis. The first method 

treats time as a constant and allows percentile of cumulative passage to vary. 

The second method treats percentile of cumulative passage as a constant and 

allows time to vary. By treating cumulative passage as a constant, day length (= 

smoltification) may become a confounding variable. However, by treating time 

as a constant, potential confounding effects from day length (= smoltification) 

are avoided through design of the analytical methodology. 

The method where cumulative passage is treated as a variable is compared to 

the method where time (Julian date) is treated as a variable in Table 1. The 

examples in Table 1 pertain to the 50th percentile of cumulative passage. 

The r-values (Table 1) are of opposite sign. If the assertion that passage time is 

advanced by high flow is correct, the association between variables will be 

direct (positive r-yalue) by the method where cumulative passage varies and 

inverse (negative r-value) by the method where time varies. However, signs of 

r-values in Table 1 are opposite to expectation based on the popular belief 

(assertion) that migration is advanced by high flow and delayed by low flow. 

Nevertheless, r'values obtained by each method are not significantly different 

from r m 0. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted and the alternative 

hypotheses4 are rejected. 

Correlation coefficients obtained for the 20th, 50th, and 80th percentiles of 

cumulative passage by the two methods are compared in Table 2. The r-values 

are consistently lower for the method where cumulative passage varies (time is 

constant) than for the method where time varies (cumulative passage is 

constant). Perhaps this at least partly results from removal of bias due to day 

length (• smoltificalion} from the method where cumulative passage varies. 

None of the r-values are significantly different from r = 0. There is no basis to 

reject the null hypothesis of no association between passage time and flow at 

Prosser Dam based on observed inter-annual variability. 

lThe twenty-day period for averaging flow begins on day (k-19) and ends on 

day k (the date cumulative passage attains the 20th, 50th. or 80th percentile). 

4 The alternative hypotheses arc tha\ (I) migralion is advanced by high flows 

and delayed by low flows and (2) migration is advanced by low flows and 

delayed by low flows. 

3 
230 

Table 1. Comparison ol two methods to evaluate association ol passage time 

with flow at Prosser Dam, 1983 through 1992. 

Time is ConstantS and Cumulative Passage is 

Cumulative Passage is Constant6 and Time is 

~ ~ 

Percentile ol 

Cumulative Time (Julian 

~ Flow lkcts) date) Flow (kcls) 

1983 0.52 5.45 113 5.45 

1984 0.35 3.85 124 3.85 

1985 0.38 4.92 119 4.92 

1986 0.42 3.73 115 3.73 

1987 0.53 3.01 113 3.01 

1988 0.51 3.13 113 3.13 

1989 0.51 6.06 113 6.06 

1990 0.85 5.16 106 5.16 

1991 0.69 3.06 111 3.06 

1992 0.88 2.21 100 2.21 

r (8 d f)= -o.259 r (8 d f) .. +0.277 

5 Time is fixed at Julian day 113 (April 23). 

6 Cumulative passage is fixed at the 50th percentile (median). 

4 
231 

INTRA-ANNUAL VARIABILITY 

Intra-annual variability addresses within year fluctuations of flow and the 

association of such fluctuations with migration. The methodology for evaluating 

intra-annual variability and Its association with flow is different from that used in 

the previous discussion of inter-annual variability. 

The methodology involves the following steps: 

Step. 1. Determine Julian dates of observations which encompass the 

frve to ninety-five percent cumulative number of juveniles 

passing Prosser Dam in each of the 1 0 years of observations. 

The analyses consider, therefore, the mid ninety percent 

cumulative passage. 

•. 

Step 2. Calculate the fraction of the total number of juveniles annually 

passing Prosser Dam but remaining upstream of Prosser Dam 

on day (k-1) and passing Prosser Dam on day k. The purpose 

is to obtain estimates of daily fractions of migrants corrected for 

bias due to •sampling without replacement". 

Step 3. Determine the daily difference (positive or negative) in the 

estimated fraction of juveniles (from step 2) passing Prosser 

·Dam. A positive value indicates increased daily migration. A 

negative value indicates decreased daily migration. 

Step 4. Calculate the daily incremental change (positive or negative) in 

fraction of existing standing stock of juveniles migrating daily. 

For example, a value of -0.1 0 means that the fraction of juveniles 

observed to migrate on day k is 1 0 percent less than the fraction 

observed on day (k-1 ). Conversely, a value of +0.1 0 means that 

the fraction observed on day k is 1 0 percent more than the 

fraction observed on day (k-1 ). These calculated fractions 

represent the "daily incremental change•. 

Step. 5. Calculate the daily incremental change (positive or negative) in 

observed daily stream discharge at Prosser Dam before water is 

diverted to the irrigation canal. The daily incremental change in 

stream discharge is expressed as a fraction which is similar to 

that calculated for daily migration of juveniles. 

Statistical associations between daily incremental change in juvenile passage 

and daily incremental change in stream discharge are first examined by 

comparing frequency of positive and negative signs. Single-sample chi-square 

tests make use of signs (positive or negative) and do not require numeric 

values. Single-sample chi-square tests also require no assumptions about 

underlying distributions since they are nonparametric tests. The approach used 

here is to compare the frequency of occurrence of positive incremental change 

in juvenile passage at Prosser Dam with a positive incremental change in 

stream discharge under the null hypothesis that daily incremental changes in 

5 
232 

Table 2. Comparisons of linear correlation coefficients where lime is constant 

(variable cumulative passage) and where cumulative passage is 

constant (variable time) at Prosser Dam, 1983through 1992. Flow is 

variable for both methods. 

r-values 

where tjme js constant at 

-0.232 -0.259 +0.081 

r-values where 

cumulative passage js constant at 

+0.391 +0.277 -0.149 

Note that none of the r-values differ significantly from r .. 0. 

6 
233 

numbers of juveniles are not associated with daily incremental changes in 

stream discharge. 

A popular alternative hypothesis asserts that positive incremental change in 

numbers of juveniles passing Prosser Dam are associated with positive 

Incremental change in stream discharge. Should this be correct, the chi-square 

goodness of fit tests presented here should reject the null hypothesis that daily 

incremental changes in juvenile migration and daily flow are not associated. 

The null hypothesis is tested by assuming that each of four conditions occur 

with equal frequency : 

• Positive daily increment of juveniles with positive daily increment of 

flow (+1+). 

• Positive daily increment of juveniles with negative daily increment of 

flow(+l-). 

• Negative daily increment of juveniles with negative daily increment of 

flow(-1-). 

• Negative daily increment of juveniles with positive daily increment of 

flow(-1+). 

Test results wherE! a positive daily increment of juveniles and flow occur 

together are given in Table 3 for the case where both variables are measured 

on the same day. Table 4 gives similar lest results for the case where 

Incremental change in juveniles is measured on day {k-1) and incremental 

change in flow is measured on day k. 

There is no basis to reject the null hypothesis that the frequency of positive 

Incremental changes in numbers of juvenile migrants and flow are not 

associated. Chi-square values are not significant for either the case where 

incremental change is determined on the same day for both variables (Table 3) 

or the case where migration response is delayed by one day (Table 4). The chisquare value was considerably higher (although not significant) In the second 

than in the first case. The higher value of chi-square in the second case results 

from consistently lower observed values of positive incremental changes In 

migration and flow than expected -- suggesting a possibility that increased flow 

may have a minor inhibitory influence on daily migration measured one day 

after a flow event. 

No attempt has been made up to this point to focus on associations between 

relatively large daily incremenlat changes in migration, which occur 

Infrequently, and daily incremental changes in stream discharge. If one defines 

a daily incremental increase of 0.50 and greater in the fraction of the standing 

stock of juveniles passing Prosser Dam on a daily basis as a "migration spike", 

It Is interesting to note that "spikes" in association with increasing and 

decreasing stream discharge occur at similar frequencies (Table 5). 

7 
Based on the above assessment of intra-annual variability in migration of 

juvenile stream-type chinook, it is concluded that daily incremental juvenile 

passage (positive or negative) has little or no association with daily incremental 

flow (positive or negative) at Prosser Dam. 

8 
235 

Table 3. Chi-square one-sample test comparing positive dally Incremental 

change in migration on day k with positive daily Incremental change 

in stream discharge on day k at Prosser Dam. 

1983 

1984 

1985 

1986 

1987 

1988 

1989 

1990 

1991 

1992 

Frequency of !tl change jn mjgra!jon 

wjth !tl change In djscharge 

Obseryed 

10 

14 

13 

14 

9 

7 

15 

8 

11 

10 

chi-square (9 d f)= 1.73 (n s) 

Expected7 

11.25 

13.25 

12.00 

12.00 

9.75 

9.25 

13.50 

9.00 

9.75 

11.00 

1 Expected values are one-fourth of the total frequency of daily incremental 

changes regardless of sign. in number of migrants and flow, omitting 

comparisons where there arc no daily incremental changes in either the 

number of migrants and/or now. 

9 
236 

Table 4. Chi-square one-sample test comparing positive daily incremental 

change in migration on day (k-1) with positive daily incremental 

change in stream discharge on day k at Prosser Dam. 

1983 

1984 

1985 

1986 

1987 

1988 

1989 

1990 

1991 

1992 

Frequency of(+) change In migration with(+) 

change in djschame 

Observed 

9 

9 

12 

12 

3 

7 

10 

4 

9 

9 

chi-square (9 d f) = 11.35 (n s) 

Expected8 

11.25 

13.25 

12.00 

11.75 

9.75 

9.25 

13.50 

9.25 

9.75 

11 .00 

8 Expected values are one-fourth of the total frequency of daily incremental 

changes regardless of sign in number of migrants and now. omilling 

comparisons where there are no daily incremental changes in either the 

number of migrants and/or flow. 

.• 0 
237 

Table 5. Frequency of "migration spikes• (daily incremental counts of juveniles 

increase by 0.50 or more) with increasing and decreasing daily 

incremental discharge. 

1983 

1984 

1985 

1986 

1987 

1988 

1989 

1990 

1991 

1992 

Total 

Observed frequency of "Migration Spikes" where 

Oajly Incremental Qlscharoe js 

4 

6 

5 

12 

7 

3 

12 

6 

4 

..a 

65 

7 

4 

6 

5 

6 

7 

7 

7 

2 

..:z. 

58 

1 1 
238 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 

The ten years of data on passage time of juvenile stream-type chinook at 

Prosser Dam is among the most extensive available to examine associations 

between migration and flow. An assessment of inter-annual variability which 

treats the percentile of cumulative passage as a variable and time (date) as a 

constant removes possible confounding effects of day length (= smoltification) 

from the analysis. The resuhs of such an analysis reported herein provide a 

basis to accept the null hypothesis that there is no association between interannual measurements of passage time and flow. 

Assessments of intra-annual variability in daily migration and flow presented 

herein are based on data which have been corrected for sampling without 

replacement. This is necessary because the total number of juvenile migrants 

passing Prosser Dam in any given year is finite. Daily removals from the 

standing stock remaining upstream from Prosser Dam reduce the number of fish 

in the denominator for calculating daily fractions of the population that actually 

pass Prosser Dam. After making corrections for sampling without replacement, 

it is concluded that daily incremental increases in fractions of juveniles passing 

Prosser Dam are largely unrelated to daily incremental increases in flow. The 

null hypothesis that there is no association between intra-annual daily migration 

and flow is, therefore, accepted. 

12 
239 

P.O. Box 1104 

Newport, Oregon 97365 

May 12, 1992 

To: 

From: 

Floyd Ivey and Chades Flower 

Bill McNeil 

Re: Daily fluctuations in yearling chinook smolt passage at 

Prosser Dam vs. daily fluctuations in discharge, 

This memo summarizes some additional preliminary results of my 

assessment of daily smolt migration vs. daily discharge. I am 

reporting herein the results of preliminary analyses based largely on 

chi-square goodness of fit for one-sample tests. The data are 

examined from two perspectives: 

1) Frequency of occurrence of positive change in incremental 

fractions of smolts migrating daily versus positive 

change in daily discharge. 

2) frequency of occurrence of negative change in incremental 

fractions of smolts migrating daily versus negative 

. change in discharge. 

The purpose of this assessment is to address assertions by SOW AC 

that migration of yearling chinook smolts is regulated by stream 

discharge, i.e. increased discharge stimulates migration and vice 

versa. 

My methodology involves the following steps: 

Step 1. Determine Julian dates of observations which 

encompass the five to ninety-five percent cumulative 

number of smolts passing. Prosser Dam in each of the 

eight years of observations. The analysis considers, 

therefore, the annual mid ninety percent cumulative 

passage. 

Step 2. Calculate the fraction of the total number of smolts 

· migrating annually which remain upstream of Prosser 

Dam on day (k-1) and which pass Prosser Dam on day 

k. This provides estimates of daily fraction of migrants 

corrected for bias due to "sampling without 

replacement". 
240 

~ Determine the daily difference (positive or 

negative) in the estimated fraction of smolts (from 

step 2) passing Prosser Dam. A positive value 

indicates increased daily migration. A negative 

value indicates decreased daily migration. 

Step 4. Calculate the daily incremental change (positive or 

negative) in fraction of smolts migrating daily. For 

example, a value of ~0.10 means that the fraction of 

smolts observed on day k is 10 percent less than the 

fraction observed on day (k-1); whereas, a value of 

+0.10 means that the fraction observed on -ift. day k is 

10 percent more than the fraction observed on day 

(k-1). These calculated fractions represent the "daily 

incremental change". 

~ Calculate the daily incremental change (positive or 

negative) in observed daily stream discharge at 

Prosset" Dam before water is diverted to the irrigation 

canal. The daily incremental change in stream 

discharge is expressed as a fraction which is similar 

to that calculated for daily smolt migration. 

Daily incremental change in smolt migration and stream discharge 

can be compared for possible statistical associations. A preliminary 

approach taken here is to compare the frequency of occurrence of 

positive incremental change in migration with a positive incremental 

change in stream discharge and a negative incremental change in 

migration with a negative incremental change in stream discharge. 

The single-sample chi-square tests make use of signs (positive or 

negative) and ignore numeric values. They require no assumptions 

about underlying distributions. 

SOW AC asserts that increases in migration are associated with 

increases in stream discharge and decreases in migration are 

associated with decreases in discharge. · The chi-square goodness of 

fit tests presented here should lead to rejection of the null 

hypotheses that daily incremental changes in migration are not 

associatt:d · with ·daily i.Jtcl\:lll~ntal cbans~s ln discharge if the SO WAC 

assertions are to be supported. This implies that the frequency of 

positive and negative values are equal. Table 1 summarizes test 

results where positive daily incremental change ·in migration is 
Table 1. 

1983 

1984 

1985 

1986 

1987 

1988 

19892 

1990 

1991 

241 

Chi-square one-sample test comparing positive daily 

incremental change in migration with positive daily 

incremental change in stream discharge. 

Frequency of (+) 

change in migration 

and {+) change in 

discharge Total observationsl 

10 24 

13 24 

13 26 

14 " 26 

9 21 

7 21 

9 17 

11 2 1 

Chi-square (7 dt) ,. 1.93 (ns) 

lTotal observations Include those In the second column above plus the number 

of observations where positive change In migration . was paired with negative 

ch11nge in discharge. 

lData not available. 
242 

compared to positive daily incremental change in stream discharge. 

Table 2. summarizes test results where negative daily incremental 

change in migration is compared to negative daily incremental 

change in stream discharge. 

The low chi-square value from Table 1 suggests that there is no 

statistical association between positive daily incremental change in 

migration and positive incremental change in stream discharge, 

where the expected number is one-half of total obs.ervations. 

However, the chi-square value from Table 2 provides a result which 

is equivocal. One would reject the null hypothesis that smolt 

migration is unaffected by discharge at a = 0.05 and accept the null 

hypothesis at a. = 0.02. Closer examination of the individual yearly 

frequency distributions in Table 2 reveals that the large chi-square 

value is due mainly to 1984 when only two' observations related a 

negative change ilt migration to a positive change in discharge. If the 

1984 data are removed from the analysis, the resulting value of chisquare (6 df) becomes 5.12 (P1 = 0.50) (ns). Thus, with the exception 

of 1984, it appears tltat declining daily smolt migration is not 

associated with declining stream discharge. Without exception of any 

of the years. of observation, it appears that increase~ smolt migration 

is not associated with increased daily stream discharge. 

Another set of observations which cast doubt over the correctness of 

SOW AC assertions that migration is stimulated by increasing stream 

discharge and inhibited by decreasing stream discharge relates to 

periodic surges in smolt migration past Prosser Dam. If one defines a. 

daily incremental increase of 0.50 and greater in the fraction of 

smolts passing Prosser Dam as a "migration spike", it is interesting to 

note that ~spikes" in association with increasing and decreasing 

stream discharge occur , at about the . same frequency (see Table 3 ). 

I see no scientific basis at this point of our understanding of 

relationships between smolt migration and discharge to accept 

SOW AC assertions on tlte subject. 
243 

Table 2. . Chi-square one sample test comparing negative daily 

incremental change in migration with negative daily 

incremental change in stream discharge. 

Year 

1983 

1984 

1985 

1986 

1987 

1988 

19894 

1990 

1991 

Frequency of (-) 

change in migration 

and (-) change in 

discharge Total observations3 

12 21 

24 26 

12 22 

16 . 22 

9 18 

10 16 

16 20 

11 1 8 

Chi-square (7 dO = 14.43 (0.02 < P < 0.05) 

3Total observations include !hose in the second column abovo plus the number 

of observations where negatlvo change ·In migration was paired with positive 

change In discharge. 

4oata not available. 
244 

Table 3. Frequency of "migration spikes" with increasing and 

decreasing daily incremental discharge .. 

Frequency of "Migration Spikes" 

Positive incremental Negative incremental 

~ discharge discharge 

1983 

1984 

1985 

1986 

1987 

1988 

19895 

1990 

1991 

Total 

.Snnta . uot available 

4 . 

6 

s 

12 

7 

3 

6 

.4. 

47 

7 

4 

6 

5 

6 

7 

7 

~ 

44 
245 

STREAM DISCHARGE AND SEAWARD MIGRATION OF 

STREAM-TYPE CHINOOK SALMON IN 

THE YAKIMA RIVER 

ltcJlOI·t of l'rogress 

IJy Willinm .1. 1\lcNcil 

for Yakima River Uasin Coalition 

A11ril 25, 1992 
246 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Year-by-year difCerences in seaward migration of juvenile streamtype! chinook salmon passing Prosser Dam are not associated with 

stream discharge based on Spearman rank and linc:1r correlation 

analyses. Day-by-day fluctuations in migration rate past Prosser 

Dam are also not associated with stream discharge based on a chisquare one-sample test. 

lNTIWDUCriON 

Much of the runoff entering the Yakima River is collected in storage 

reservoirs for agricullure. A proposal to supplement discharge in the 

April/May migrution period of streanHype juvenile spring chinook2 

has raised questions about the affect of increased discharge on 

migration timing. Purpose for increasing discharge would be to 

advance the time· of smolt migration and reduce time in transit 

through the Yakima River. It h:1s been hypothesized that increased 

discharge wiil stimulate migratory behavior of smolts and expedite 

seaward nw .. ent. It has also been asserted that mortality of 

,·ould . be lessened thro_ugh a reduced period of contact with 

. urs. 

In this report, I attempt to evalu:1te four topics which relate to time 

of migration of juvenile stream-type chinook observed to pass 

Prosser Dam on the Lower Yakima River: 

(I) Annual patterns in migrution timing; 

(2) Annual patterns in stre.ilm discharge; 

(3) Correlation of :uuluill patterns in migration timing to 

stream discharge; and 

(4) Association of fluctuations in daily migration to daily 

discharge. 

I Stream-type juveniles reside in. fresh water fur more than one year before 

migrating to sen. 

2 Leller from Systems Operations AdVisory Cununillee (SOAC) to Ray Nelson 

dated May 7, 1991. 

2 
247 

Data used in this report are for daily estim:lled numbers of spring 

chinook smolts passing Prosser Dam and daily stream discharge at 

Prosser Dam for the eight years 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 

1990, and 1991. I have no explanation for the missing 1989 data 

other th:m they appear not to have been released by the fishery 

agencies responsible for data collection. Discharge data at Prosser 

Dam include both spill water and irrigation diversion water. 

MiqRATION TIMING 

Ninety-seven percent of estimated number of stream-type chinook 

smolts pafis Prosser D:un in the 70-day period April I through June 

9. Average percentages of the migration over ten -day intervals are 

given in Table I for the eight years of record . 

Another measure of migration timing involves the daily summation 

of the number of sri10lts passing Prosser Dam in a given year. I will 

refer to this measure as "cumulative passage" . 

Cumulative passage begins with zero percent and ends with 100 

percent of the total number of migrating smolts. The curve of 

cumulative passage has a sign1oid shape (figure I). I will make use 

or dates corresponding to nine percentages ( 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 

80, and 90) of cumulative passage for correlation analyses relating 

smolt passage dates to ·stream discharges at Prosser Dam. The fifty 

percent cumulative passage identifies the medi:m . 

3 
0 

bJl 

<II "' 

en 

"' ~ 

0 

> 

"" 

=' 

E 

=' 

u 

~ 

::: 

0 

u 

.... 

0 

~ 

100 

75 

50 

I 

25 

/ 

April 

Figure l. Mean cumulative pas

at Prosser Dam for ei
249 

Table I. Mean percentage of the total estimated number of streamtype chinook smolts passing Prosser Dam in 10-day 

intervals for 1985 through 1991 (1989 is missing). 

Interval of time 

April 1-10 

April 11-20 

April 21-30 

May 1-10 

May 11-20 

· May 21-30 

May 31-June 9 

Mean Percentage 

12% 

30% 

24% 

12% 

10% 

6% 

~ 

97% 

4 
250 

Stream discharge is highly variable among years. Discharge is 

expressed here in thousands of cubic feet per second (kcfs) in the 

Yakima River immediately upstream from Prosser Dam. 

Statistics on stream discharge used in this report for correlation with 

date of migration are average values for five days--the date on 

which a given cumulative passage had been reported plus the four 

preceding days. . For example, if x percent cumulative passage had 

been observed on day k, the corresponding stream discharge would 

be the average of observations on days. k, (k-1), (k-2), (k-3), and (k4). Purpose of the five-day averaging is to smooth short-term 

fluctuations in recorded daily stream discharge. Variability among 

years for stream discharge corresponding to selected percent 

cumulative passage at Prosser Dam is shown in Table 2. 

MIGRATION AND DISCHARGE 

A functional relationship between stream discharge (or water 

velocity) and time of migration has been hypothesizedl. This 

hypothesis implies that early migration is controlled by high 

discharge and lnte (delayed) migration by low discharge. 

Two correlation techniques are used here to test for an association 

between annual patterns in smolt passage date at Prosser Dam and 

annual patterns in stream discharge--Spearman rank correlation 

coefficient and linear correlation coefficient. Both correlation 

coefficients are used with the same data to test the null hypothesis 

that annual passage date (i.e. migration timing) and annual stream 

discharge are not associated. 

3 See, for example, Berggren and Filardo. 1991. An analysis of Ylriables 

influencing the migration of juvenile salmonids in the Snake and lower 

Columbia rivers. Fish Passage Center, Columbia Basin Fish and Wil~lifc: 

Authority, Portland, OR, March 7, 1991. 

5 
251 

Table 2. Variability among years for discharge corresponding to 

percent cumulative passage of stream-type chinook 

smolts at Prosser Dam, Yakima River, over eight years 

of ·observation. 

Variable SlrcaoJ Dis~:llau:c C2[[CSI221Jdin.: 12 C!.IDJI!!illi¥C 

JJr& ~ ~ ~ 

~ 

~ ~ ~ lilr& 

Average 

five-day 

Discharge 

(kcfs) 4.0 4.0 3.7 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.3 3.4 

Standard 

Deviation 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.5 2.0 1.6 1.9 

Coefficient 

of 

Variation4 

(%) .34 32 39 35 43 57 48 54 

4 The coefficient of variation is lhe standard deviation e1prcsscd u a 

percentage of the mean. 

76-655 0 - 94 - 9 

6 

~ 

3.6 

1.4 

40 
252 

Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient 

This technique provides a nonparametric measure of association 

between iwo variables. The variables used here are Julian date 

corresponding to selected percentages of cumulative passage and 

stream discharge. The selected percentages of cumulative passage 

are 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90, which encompass the mid 

80 percent of the total number of stream-type chinook smolts 

estimated to pass Prosser Dam in each of the eight years of 

observation. Stream discharge values corresponding to dates of 

cumulative passage are averages of five daily discharge 

measurements at Prosser dam as previously described. 

Observations used to rank Julian dates of cumulative passage 

(earliest to latest) are given in Appendix Table I. Observations used 

to rank stream discharge (highest to lowest) are given in Appendix 

Table 2. The calculated Spearman rank correlation coefficients (rs) 

are given in Table 3. 

Based on the· calculated Spearman rank correlation coefficients (Table 

3), I accept the null hypothesis that date of annual smolt passage at 

Prosser Dam and stream discharge are not associated. Years of early 

migration are not statistically associated with years of high stream 

discharge and vice-versa. 

The Spearman rank correlation coefficient is a distribution-free 

(nonparametric) method of evaluating statistical associations. As 

with numerical correlation methods (e.g. linear correlation), values of 

the Spearman rank correlation coefficient range form + 1.0 to -1.0. 

Values of +1.0 or -1.0 indicate perfect association between variables. 

A plus sign indicates direct order of variables and a minus sign 

reversed order. Not only are values of rs (Table 3) weak, but there is 

some (two out of nine cases) reversal of signs, a further indication 

that annual migration timing is not associated with annual stream 

discharge. 

7 
253 

Table 3. Values of the Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) for 

associating annual Julian date of cumulative passage of 

stream-type chinook smelts with annual stream 

discharge at Prosser Dam, Yakima River. 

Percent Cuinulatjye Passaae 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

Spearman Rank Correlation 

Coefficjen t 

r5= +0.012 (ns)5 

r5 = +0.500 (ns) 

r 5 = -0.482 (ns) 

r 5 = +0.333 (ns) 

r 5 = +0.566 (ns) 

r 5 = +0.333 (ns) 

r5 = +0.262 (ns) 

r5 = +0.137 (ns) 

r s = -0.238 (ns) 

3 rs is not sisnificantly different from rs .. 0 at the five percent level ol 

probability for all levels of cumulative passage. • 

8 
254 

Linear Correlation Coefficient 

Linear correlation (r) is a numeric method of testing the association 

between two vaiiables. The two numeric variables of interest are 

Julian dates corresponding to the previously selected percentages of 

annual cumulative passage and stream discharge. Julian dates for 

cumulative passage are given in Appendix Table I. Data on stream 

discharge are given in Appendix Table 2. Spearman rank correlation 

coefficients and linear regression coefficients presented in this report 

are calculated from the same sets of data (Appendix Tables 1 and 2). 

The values of calculated linear correlation coefficients (r) are given in 

Table 4. Results are similar to those reported for Spearman rank 

correlation coefficients which is to be expected since the same 

observational data were employed in each test. 

There does not appear to be a basis to conclude from. linear 

correlation that annual migration timing of stream-type chinook 

smohs at Prosser Dam is controlled by stream discharge. There is a 

reversal of sign in two cases out of nine (Table 4), which further 

weakens arguments that lime of annual migration is controlled by 

stream discharge. For the hypothesis that early migration is 

associated with high stream discharge to be supported, linear 

correlation coefficients should approach unity and possess a negative 

sign. 

DAILY FLUCTUATIONS 

The previous correlation analyses provide insights into among-year 

assoctallons between migration timing and stream discharge. 

However, a question has been raised about the influence of withinyear (daily) fluctuations of discharge on migration. It has been 

hypothesized by SOAC (see footnote I) that daily patterns of 

migration closely follow daily patterns of stream discharge. This 

hypothesis implies that daily increases in stream discharge are 

accompanied by increases in migration and vice versa. To evaluate 

this hypothesis, daily observations on the estimated percentage of 

stream-type chinook smolts which are present upstream from 

Prosser Dam on day (k-1) atid which migrate past Prosser Dam on 

9 
255 

Table 4. Values of linear correlation coefficients (r) for associating 

annual Julian date of passage of stream-type chinook 

smolts with annual stream discharge at Prosser Dam, 

Yakima River. 

Percent Cumulative Passage 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

Linear Correlation Coefficient 

r = -0.028 (ns)6 

r = -0.365 (ns) 

r = +0.378 (ns) 

r = -0.274 (ns) 

r = -0.287 (ns) 

r = -0.152 (ns) 

r = -0.072 (ns) 

r = -0.215 (ns) 

r = +0.217 (ns) 

6 r Is not significantly different from r = 0 at the five percent level of 

probability for all levels of cumulative passage. · 

I 0 
256 

day k are paired with stream discharge on day k. These pairings are 

recorded for each year between dates for ten and 90 percent 

cumulative passage. Pairings expressing the same direction of 

change (i.e. increased fraction migrating with increased discharge 

and decreased fraction migrating with decreased discharge) are 

classified as "same". Pairings expressing opposite direction of change 

(i.e. increased fraction migrating with decreased discharge and 

decreased fraction migrating with increased discharge) are classified 

as ''opposite''. The relatively few observations where either the 

fraction of smolts passing Prosser or stream discharge or both are 

unchanged are omitted from the analysis. The hypothesized 50-50 

split in the two frequencies ("same" and "opposite") is based on the 

assumption that the percentage of migrants remaining upstream 

from Prosser Dam on day (k-1) and migrating past Prosser Dam on 

day k is independent of discharge. The daily population remaining 

above Prosser Dam is calculated by subtracting cumulative daily 

estimated numb_ers of smolts migrating past Prosser from the 

seasonal total. 

The null ·hypothesis that there is no difference in the expected 

number and th_e observed number of pairings which are classified as 

"same", beyond that occurring by chance, is tested with a chi-square 

one-sample test. Observed and expected frequencies for each of the 

eight years of observation are given in Table 5. The value chi-square 

(7 df) = 8.00 leads me to accept the null hypothesis. There is no 

significant statistical association between daily fluctuations in 

migration rate and stream discharge where the calculation of 

migration rate is based on the number of migrants estimated to be 

present upstream of Prosser Dam on the day preceding the date that 

migrants are counted. 

CONO.USIONS 

Based on observations of stream discharge corresponding to each of 

the nine cumulative passages listed in Appendix Table 2, it is 

apparent that year-to-year differences in stream discharge at 

Prosser Dam exceed 200 percent. Even so, no statistically significant 

association between stream discharge and time of migration of 

stream-type chinook smolts is demonstrated by any of the methods 

described in this report. It is concluded that neither annual (among 

II 
257 

year) nor daily (within year) migration patterns are significantly 

affected by stream discharge. 

12 
258 

Table 5. Observed and expected frequencies of paired observations 

on changes in daily fractions of juvenile chinook migrants 

passing Prosser Dam and changes in daily stream 

discharge. 

1.2..U 

1.2..8..i 

l.2.U 

~ 

ill.1 

.l..2.ll 

.l2.2Jl 

l..2..2.l. 

Number of Cases Where the Daily qactjoo 

Mjgratjog and Daily Discharge Change jn the Same 

Observed 

FreQuency 

16 

35 

23 

30 

14 

1 9 

17 

15 

Djrectjon 

Expected 

Frequency 

17 .5 

24 .0 

21.0 

25.0 

15 .5 

15.5 

14.0 

16.0 

Total Number 

~ 

35 

48 

42 

50 

3 1 

3 1 

28 

32 

Chi-square (7 df) = 8.00 (0.50>Prob.>0.30). 

1 3 
259 

14 

Appendix Table 1. Observations on cumulative passage of streamtype chinook smolts at Prosser Dam, Yakima River. 

Cumula!iv~ ll!liill! :Qal!l fQ[ Cu•nulaliv!l Pa~~ag!l in Y!li!r 

~ 

1..2.8.3. l.2..8..4 12..l!..5. l.2..8..Q l.2..8.1 l...2..8Ji .l..2..2.Q l2.2l 

10% 99 99 101 98 94 102 94 97 

20% 107 107 102 100 101 104 98 102 

30% 109 1 11 106 108 105 106 105 104 

40% 1 11 117 116 1 13 107 108 106 109 

50% 113 124 1 19 114 112 1 13 106 111 

60% 116 135 123 120 11 7 118 106 112 

70% 121 137 128 127 11 9 129 106 1 13 

80% 125 140 13 8 13 8 120 133 107 119 

90% 136 148 145 149 127 134 120 128 
260 

Appendix Table 2. Observations on discharge corresponding to dates 

of cumulath·e passage of stream-type chinook smolts at 

Prosser Dam, Yakima River. 

Cumulative Djschar~:e fkc(s)7 

f..w.a.ll 

10% 5.6 3.8 4.6 5.7 2.6 1.9 4.5 

20% 4.4 4.0 5.0 5.5 3.5 1.7 5.3 

30% 4.6 4.6 6.5 2.7 2.6 2.5 3.3 

40% 5.5 3.3 2.1 2.2 2.6 4.3 3.6 

50% 6.7 2.7 2.2 2.3 2.8 4.4 3.6 

60% 8.1 3.3 2.4 1.8 2.2 3.7 3.6 

70% 6.7 4.4 2.4 2.1 2.5 1.9 3.6 

80% 6.8 5.2 2.2 1.8 3. 1 1.7 4.4 

90% 5.2 5.3 3.9 2.8 4.6 2.2 3.7 

1 Discharge is an average of five days which Include !he day of cumulative 

passage (day lc) and the four preceding days (day k-1. lc-2. k-3, and 'k-4). 

I 5 

3.2 

3.0 

2.6 

2.9 

2.9 

2.9 

3.0 

2.2 

1.3 
261 

GLOSSARY 

Chi-square distribution. A family of probability density functions 

used to evaluate statistical associations. 

Chi-square one-sample test. A nonparametric statistical test which 

may be used to test a hypothesis which calls for drawing one sample 

to evaluate a significant difference between observed and expected 

proportions. 

Cumulative ·passue The summation of daily fractions of the total 

population of juvenile migrants passing an index point (e.g. Prosser 

Dam): 

Distribution-free. See nonparametric. 

Expected frequency. A theoretical or hypothesized frequency of 

proportions used in statistical tests such as the chi-square onesample test. 

Julian date. A_ calendar in which days . of the year are numbered 

seque·ntially from January 1 (Julian day I) to December 31 (Julian 

day 365). 

k.ds..., Thousai1ds of cubic feet per second. 

Linear correlation coefficient. A parametric measure of the linear 

relationship between two numeric variables. Values range from -1.0 

to + 1.0, i.e. from perfect negative to perfect positive correlation. 

Correlation coefficient of zero means no correlation. 

Nonparameuic A statistical method not requiring assertions about 

parameters or about the form of the underlying distribution. 

Null hypothesis, A hypothesis of no differences which is frequently 

formulated for the purpose of being rejected. 

Spearman rank correlation coefficient. A nonparametric measure of 

association betweeri two variables. Values range from -1.0 to +1.0, 

i.e. from perfect correlation of reverse rankings ( -1.0) to perfect 

correlation to identical rankings . (+ 1 .)). Correlation coefficient of zero 

means no correlation. 

16 
262 

Standard deyjntion A measure of dispersion in a frequency 

distribution, equal to the square root of the mean of the squares of 

the deviations from the arithmetic mean of the distribution. 

Stream-type chjnook, A life-history type of chinook salmon where 

juveniles remain in fresh water for more than one year before 

migrating to the ocean. 

1 7 
111111118 

DIITTIIBm'l 

263 

1111111111 

••ac111111 

ELL.EN.aUI'IO. WA.HINGTON 

U.S. House ofRepre.1CDWive 

Committee of Natucal Resources. 

Subcommittee 011 Oversight and Investigations 

Prom: 

Yakima Enhanc:emcnt Bill 

Hearing, 23 September 1993 

Kittitas County Cattl.cmen's Msociation 

. . Our association aupport3 tbis bill as a sipificant step tOward solving the watm problemJ of our valley and the Yakima Basin. The Xittitu Valley is unique in that we have excelleat habitat for 

fish and wildlife, a large agricultutal base and rely upon water stmage (more that 213 from the 

soowpack) and many tributaries of the Yakima River for water. 

The Yakima Basin is also unique, having no damJ that seriously impede fish passage durin& 

Jni&ration. Watl:r sto~ originally built for agriculture use bas been used for fish enhancement 

This baa caused sotne constEmati.on iJI the agrlcultmal community. This bill will addiess 

efficiency of water use which we hope will indicate iDJaainative ways to use water and perhaps 

allay SQmc of the appidlcnaion of~ water WICZI. 

The need for water in the Yakima Basin exceeds the supply in water-short years and this bill will 

address the role of conservation in the system picture. We IQ]i1;c the need for dctt.rmiDin& the 

impact of conservation practice upon the available water supply. Present allocations exceed the 

supply, the conservation pn!Ctices can reduce this shortfall. 

Implementation of this bill may eslabi.Wl a buelinc of wa= quantity. 'Ibis can be compared 

1o the needs to show the additional water needed in the basin. Only then can we properly 

address ways tO get more water., Improving the water cycle by proper land management is a 

way. Approaches could include good il32ing practices, re1'olatalion, and small dams or ponds 

in the headwater and moun1ain areas. larie dams may be a viable option when the tradeoffs 

arc done. All these actions requ~ the .results of the Yakima Enhancement Bill and we urge you 

to recommend passage of the bill. 

~ Bob Greene, President 

Kittitas County Cattlemen's Association 

Rt 3, Box 1021 

Ellensbure, WA 98926 
264 

Jrlft'l!rAs CXIIia.'!: 

R:lll'iB 

'llllri'Q1'CIIS 

1, 801 950 ~ 

III:.LINSlltlRG • 98926 

US HOUSE o• REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

SUBJECT: YAKIMA ENHANCEMENT BILL 

HEARING, 23 SEPTEMBER !993 

OATEs 17 SEPTEMBER 1S93 

FROMs KITTITAS COUNTY IRRIGATORS ASSOCIATION 

OUR ASSOCIATION HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN DEVELOPMENT OF THIS BILL FOR 

SEVERAL YEARS AND SUPPORT IT AS A STEP TOWARD SOLVING THE WATER 

NEEDS OF THE YAKIMA VALLEY. THE KITTITAS COUNTY IRRIGATORS ARE 

USERS OF TRIBUTARY WATERS AS WELL AS THE YAKIMA RIVER. OUR 

IRRIGATION IS FROM LARGE SYSTEMS, SMALL SYSTEMS AND INDIVIDUAL 

DIVERTERS FROM THE YAKIMA OR ITS TRIBUTARIES. WE URGE YOU TO 

RECOMMEND PASSAGE OF THIS BILL AS A STEP TO A SYSTEM SOLUTION OF 

WATER USAGE"IA THE YAKIMA BASIN. 

THE YAKIMA BASIN IS A HIGHLY PRODUCTIVE BASIN FOR ANADROMOUS 

FISH, AS WELL AS FOOD AND TIMBER. THE FIRST TWO ITEMS NEED WATER 

TO SURVIVE IN THIS SEMI-ARID AREA. WATER NEEDS AND ALLOCATIONS 

EXCEED WEATHER-DRIVEN WATER AVAILABILITY AS A FUNCTION OF THE 

CALENDAR. STORAGE HAS BEEN BUILT, WHICH HAS H~PED, BUT DOES NOT 

MEET NEEDS. THE NEXT LOGICAL STEP IS A RATIONAL EVALUATION AND 

IMPLEMENTATION OF A CONSERVATION PROGRAM. THE BILL DOES THIS. 

BApiN WATER STOP~GE WAS BUILT ABOUT GO YEARS AGO AND MEETS ABOUT 

ONE THIRD 0~ OUR NEEDS. NATURAL STORAGE OF THE SNOW PACK IS 

SUPPOSED TO MEET MOST Or THE REMAINING NEEDS. NEW NEEDS ARE 

BE.NG DEFlNED NOW TH~T WERE NOT PR5VIOU6LY APPRECIATED. ONE 

CONCERNS FISH. THE INSTREAM FLOW NEEDED FOR FISH IS BEING 

QUANTIFIED. THIS FLOW IS NEEDED FOR INCUBATION Of FISH NESTS, 

HIGH SHORT TERM FLOW WHICH MAY STIMULATE DOWNSTREAM MIGRATION, 

SUFFICIENt FLOW TO MAINTAIN FISH-LIVABLE WATER iEMPERATURES, AND 

ADEQUATE FLOW TO PROTECT YOUNG FISH 'ROM PREDATORS. THE YAKIMA 

BASIN IS UNIQUE IN THAT IT IS THE ONLY BASIN IN THE COLUMBIA 

SYSTEM THAT HAS NO DAM IMPEDIMENTS TO riSH RUNS AND SPAWNIN~ 

AREAS. WE CAN HELP IN THE MITIGATIOI>I OF HOSTILE SITUATIONS ON 

THE MAIN STEM 0~ THE COLUMBIA RIVER. 
265 

IDnTAS aDII.'!' IllRIGI:l'CilS vax=rmtJi 

lalTB 1, BOX 950 

ELL!HII!lRl 10. 98926 

AGRICULTURE HAS CHANGED OVER THE YEARS. MUCH OF THE YAKIMA BASIN 

HAS PRORATABLE WATER ALLOCATIONS, ' OR JUNIOR WATER RIGHTS, JUNIOR 

WATER RIGHT HOLDERS MUST REDUCE THEIR WATER USAGE IN WATER-SHORT 

YEARS TO INSURE THAT SENIOR WATER USERS CAN GET THEIR FULL 

ALLOCATION. EARLY ON, FARMERS COULD TAKE ONE CROP A YEAR FROM 

THE LAND AND SURVIVE ECONOMICALLY , NOW , WITH VERY NARROW 

OPERATING MARGINS IT BECOMES VIRTUALLY MANDATORY THAT WE GET TWO 

CROPS PER YEAR FROM . OUR INVESTMENT, IF WATER USA~ is 

RESTRICTED MANY SMALL FARMS WILL BE FORCED INTO ALT,ERN.ATE USES, 

IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE YAKIMA BASIN SURVIVES AS A SYSTEM. 

WE PRODUCE FISH, FOOD AND TIMBER PLUS HAVE A REASONABLE 

INDUSTRIAL BASE. THESE ARE ALL WATER DEPENDENT TO A SIGNIFICANT 

DEGREE. WE URGE PASSAGE OF THE YAKIMA ENHANCEMENT BILL AS AN 

IMPORTANT STEP IN RESOLUTION OF THE WATER REQUIREMENTS OF THE 

YAKIMA BASIN, WE UNDERSTAND THE REALITY THAT THIS .RESOLUTION 

REQUIRES THE ROLE OF CONSERVATION TO BE WELL DEFINED BEFORE THE 

NEED FOR AqP~TIONAL WATER CAN BE QUANTlriED. 

WHEN THIS IS COMPLETE WE MUST EXAMINE HOW ADDITIONAL WATER CAN BE 

MADE AVAILABLE AT THE CORRECT TIME. IMPROVING THE WATER CYCLE BY 

REFORESTATION AND PROPER RANGE MANAGEMENT IS ONE APPROACH, 

STORAGE &Y DAMS IS ANOTHER APPROACH. SMALL DAMS, DISTRIBUTED ON 

TRIBUTARIES OR LARGE DAMS ON MAJOR ~ATERWAVS MUST BE COMPARED. 

THE GOAL MUST SE TO USE THE WATER THAT NOW FLOWS TO THE SEA 

DURING TIMES WHEN IT CAN NOT SE USED OR IS EVEN A BURDEN ON THE 

ENVIRONMENT, WE MUST RESTORE AND CONT~L OUR ENVIRONMENT TO 

PERMIT SATISI'"ACTION OF" OUR WATER NEEDS. PASSAaE OF THIS 

YAKIMA ENHANCEMENT BILL IS A NEEDED STeP IN THE PROCESS. WE 

AGAIN URGE YOU TO RECO~END PASSAGE Or THIS 8IL~. 

0:: .. ~ VERY TRUL~Y YOURS, 

rx; SCHNEBLY 

PRESIDENT 

~~ 
266 

Septe~ber 30, 1993 

'.!'he lfonorable Congra&;SIIIIU'I J ey lna.l.eo 

U.S. House of Repreeentatives 

Waahinston, D.C. 20515 

Dear Cong~eaaman InNlee, 

My nMrne is Kar•n Poulsen and X lUI e. tou1·t.h 1encn·ation £u.l.1-

time f•rml!!r from th11 1\i t.t.i taR Val..loy. I am pr-esenting t.his 

wrHten toatimony on Hk 16110, 'lhe Y<lma ldVOl' flaMln l!:nhancctment 

PL•o ,ject. , ! would . lil>e to have had t.i11e to mot-e fully re,· iew 1;hi~o~ 

bill a~; writ~en, but 1 undor~otanct that thia brlet· co111111ent peric..d tondt~ O<:tober lat. My que~ttiona and ooiDIJienta are referenced by both 

pate and line number &8 Wl'i tteu in the bill. 

l. F1r~<t 11 comment., The Yakima Basin Buraau of kec.l.amation 

P:·oJeot tjlr.a esta.bJ.iahed for tho sole purpose to supply a reliable 

•~>urce of irl'ilfation wat.er tor acr·icul t\ll'f>. 

2, Will the aonies beint paid back to the Fedet'al. Govet·nment. 

by irdgo~<tion diatricta for tbu installation of the ot-illlnal aureau 

ProJec:t. be reduced when "conaet·vec.t waters" stored in thfl bu1•euu 

res.,rvoir's are! uaeod for other vurl>Oiles, i.e. pr•oteet, 11it.Ltat.e 11ud 

enhance fisn and w.l.ld.LUe,, , ? (reference pase l, lincu ii tl\ru !1"1. 

3, The total a.va il.abltt w"ter aupplr averageo;~ ovel' 3 mill. ion 

>i(lre feet p,er year. -rbe annuAl uea11e ls aboul. 2. ~ m.iJ.liou act•e 

teet. Water 11torace rwailal:l!e in the basin is about l.l million 

acre feet. ·rbia baa ill has Ill ullld.lle1· percent ot 1 t 1 11. tc.tal annual 

need a JDCt from atoratrf' than aJ.oaoflt. 11n)~ wher.. el ao in the we at. 

Other ar·eaa have up Lo two-year' 11 IOOJ:'th ot atorH.ge, The Wt\t.er 

~1nort f~om thla baaln, even durint yeara of drouth~, like 19~a. 

exct~ediW tlle appropr.tat he wate1• dghts, Tbe ti11in1 of t.bo ••muf t 

and t.he location anti si ~" of' the atorage lll whAt. uet.erainfle wheth~l' 

wat~r noedM clln ue aet. I!&C:h yeur, rhe K1ttitalil vall~:v actil ab 4 .rtant •t.oraeo rea-ervol t•, .. baorbing water early i.n the year &lid 

l"elea<lllns 1t t.hrouteh aprUII!Ko dr1111u1 and Beepas .. , tu•ck inco th<> ~F~t~m lac~r in tho Hea~on whon ~tor•K• 1• aL it's lu~eat point. 

lf atx·ir•f!ent conaervatl.on a~:~aaur4te are i~pleme11tecl in th~a v"lley, ~<here w.tll thea~ con¥ex·vod ..,,.ter11 bo stored for lat<'~ u•aaon use'? 

4, 1 f water' a are J.et111ed or a old for wil.dl.ite eubanc:ellflnL Ol' 

in .. tl'ftl\111 flow a, tho11o w~tera wtll have to travel throutl• th~ 

s:yst<ua wil;hout be inA diver1.ed by downstream water u11er11. l'h•ae 

wAter'll will be ooiDJIIJ.ogled wit.h rttturn flow• frna f1elda and 

dl'aina. Al.l down IILI'&am ur.~er» that c:u.rrently divert axi~ttinll 

return flowa will now be forced to 1natall at tbejr owu e~pen.s• new 

water diversion facilit.ioa that wi.lJ. have the CR!I~<billty of 

raO!ttftrinS these wildliftt enho.nc:eml!>nt and in at ream f lnw wat.er., past 

thl!til" diversion po1nta. Thia 1M not acceptable! (refe"ence p"\(e 6, 

linea 21 thru 241. 
267 

5. Divert ina fund a from agr.icuJ. t.ur~l prochiC::tion l;o meet tha 

30 percent local coat llharin!( requj rements will bav& a severo 

economic 1mpact to act•i.oulturo. l'hia ill eapeciaJ.h· true if th~>l o 

is no guarantee that. even :10 percent t•f the saved wat.o1•, based on 

the 30 perc;:ent of Ute ColiL bocne by tht! watel' ll~l!l', wi..l.l be 

available for his own use. The~~ l!l a l(r<!'at push In thill vn.lley 

for oon,·•raion of a,;:· icu.ltut t~ laud& to bouain!f. Thi.u w LJ.l 

Cl'!r't.ainly 6lCCI'lP.r·11.tu th6lt c:onv<!lrsion I I ret'e1·t<nce page II, 1 i.ne 10 

and page 10, llu<~ 12). 

6. Ovor 30,000 A~re8 of tiwothr har with ~ ~u~• value of $19 

Niil.ion is crown in tbt• Kit.t.lta~ Valley. lhw r.o climatic: 

conditions, riwothy ls the onl, profitable crop Lhat most of ~hn 

ltl.rll.l 1n this vu!lc3'· wil..l proctuc.:t.. 'l'imot.hy 111 a l·:llt.r.r int11m<l., . .., 

(:l'Oi> llnd re<{uiraa •• l>il:'!f& ,.11ount ,,[ Wl<tru· in ord<'l' tu tsl•aw tho 

c,tuali tY thllL hlllli ~alr.l!d it IIOI'.I.d ,.. Lde demAnd. rucrE<oment.ll.l pric.:inl( 

of waLer as ~1'6 vowo~ ~nLe~, ls in o1f~ct placlnc ~ tnx on it's 

U$a. T~ prico th~ wat~r ueeded out ot roach for timothY crow.,rs 

k'il.1 O.<;H in ~nc.:uul·,.gt: COtlhH ~io•l o ,. 1.-:wd l;o houaes. ( roi'•Jt ~nco~~ J>llllo 

H, lin~s tfi thru 19). 

·1. lrl'iCtLtor.·.$ ln th<:> {all:iiRB Ua~~: i.n are L.,ln11 11uttrl undeL· 

A< qu~vell~t t.o !'lort o\lt t.• .. Ler l'i!lhtt~ clo..lms, ln addit.ion, many 

il•riaatot·s an• al.L•oady or<., Nodn~ unucH· limiting O((l·et,IM•Wts i.n tlm~:>&l 

o£ r<hort •~ut ar. Tho "bE>uttfit.a" it ril!b.l ors were aur•Po~teod to rcc;ei''"' 

r .. r ~<i'i(ll i.ng t.ha origin"" 1 tnlitin!!l a~troatlleuta in "i1ich "ub .. tuu~ial 

"'llt.er rilhLH were fiivtln uv Hre no~oo· havint to be fou~ht for in uourt. 

at. •-be .il' own· expcm•Hl, ll~l<> t.u ~h;i ... , Lh"'t'O .ls no II' a)· lhat ·, and RJt!LI\Y 

ochor lrrLgutors would gtv• a~ny p~rt of our current wa~~r ~lgh~~ 

1,<, bt' c puc·tJ.cipant in tllil!l enhan<>emen1. proJe<:t. 1~ .. don ' t tt·us t 

uur l(overnmertt. ! 

a. Quot~tioru• thai. ,·&eEui un'iwering: 

k'j·,y doesn't tht1 D"'01on~o~trat.ion Project on the Yakimtt lndiar. 

Flet~el'\'ll'.iou rc:quire th~ IndiAns t.n fund 11t .leuat p•u·l of tho <>OIIt 

t:hom~elvea aY tbe rest. \'f us wl.ll httVIJ to do 11' we PRr·t.iolputl!l in 

thi.loi projec: t'! We are a .l.1: eady iJ~<Ying fodvt·aJ. t.aY.t'" •;o f•lnu thl." 

~ovarn•ent's ~urtinn. 

Why are the iurHans guuraatcecl all of thtt ''saved watel: '' 

fr·orn hoir projeot to US'..' &-9 th«y ._.ish, l<lhttn tho oth.f'lr Pltrti"lpanta 

oro giv~n no such 11uaru.<1tee! I r•Jfel'Once pa!le 11, J lui!'& 11 throu :ilil ~nd Pill!'~ )4, linea 13 thr•u pug eo 17, l inP. ~2). 

9. Whore are the guu.rant~e• that water leased ac 11oLd wiLh 

porH<ibl•o "han!lea ln ,,,.e o1· d1 voreion pointe wi 1 t not ad\•erasely 

~~offC'lct 1~ater useL·a, wlldl i {'e llabj tat, or in:;~ l.re~&m flew•? I refou ~'"c" 

pat~ 21, lines 1 thru 5), 

10. Tluu·e ar1~ guart.\n~eells wr:i tt.en lnt.o th hs doc;umeut. \'.l;a.t; 

w~<t"r. r"i!JhLs will not be iml•••ril<l'd ur delivery of wAtl'!r impeded !o1~ 

bul.h pu•ticipantw and n•>u pt.ot·t.J.()lpccnts to tbi11 pt'o,ie<·L. How doea 
268 

one get redress 1 and at who '• l'OI!It "hen thesr suarant~rN a-re not. met} (reference ~·g~ 22, line 16 thru pa1e 29}, 

11. I have g-rave ec.nc ... riHI thAt. 1200 m!.ll ion and the p1uu;a~c 

of ten to fifteen ye~cs "ill find this basin still ~hurt of w~ter. 

lt. wllJ. not lle> due tu th~t lock of total available wo.tcr, but rather 

the lack of tttorall:l! fot· t.he 1~aLer wu have, 

'fhank ,vou ConsresamBn ins.leoe tor uccept.ina m:r com~nenta. l am 

not alone in my feelina:o about lhia l~•i•lation. l know ot many 

c.1:her irri11atora her~ that havu oonoerna about thia ~rojeet. and 

would appre(.!jate the oyportunic.y to co!lllllellt about this lll&jor piecr 

of J.egialat.ion. Wi t.h ·t.hh in mind, I would like to request. a field 

bearinl in the ElleuHburc ill' ea concernina this le11lalation. 

liithout. thi11 opportun:lt.y 1 J. am tearful that Jaany water ua1u·s 1d.ll 

be unable to liUPV<Jrt to HR 1690 tu oul:'l:'ent.ly wr.ittltn. 

!:lincere.l;r 1 

Karen Poulaen 

Rt 2, 11o~t 1360 

Ellenaburc, Wa 98926 Phon~t: ( 509)9215-6357 

cc: 

Senator Slade Gorton 

l>arrell l'urnar, Preaident Wa~thincton State r'an11 Blu"eau 
STAN c;un CHAIJ,.AH 

,...., ... 

I•YL"N~ 

...... aoMI1C .. ItiS...n lk 

~ ... 

269 

NOR~STPO~RP~GCOUNOL 

851 S.W. SIX1H A VENUE, SUITE 1100 

PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-1337 

Phone: 503-222-5161 

Toll Free: 1-800-222-3355 

FAX: 503-795-3370 

September 23, 1993 

Testimony ot the Northwest Power Plalllling Council 

Before the Subcommittee 011 Oversiebt and Investigations 

Committee on Natural Rerioun:es 

UDited States House of Representatives 

A. TaJ IOTTlCOO 

VICl CHAIIIIr-44N 

Wulala&t•• 

Good morning, Mr. Chainnan, and thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My 

name is Stan Grace. and I am Chairman of the Northwest Power Planning Council. I am here 

to support H.R. 1690. The Council supports the emphasis on water conservation in this 

legislation. and we believe it would provide benefits for salmon and steelhead in the Yakima 

River and its tributaries and help the ongoing effort to rebuild those fish populations. 

The Northwest Power l'lannio& Council 

The O;aancil is an agency of the states of Idaho, Oregon, Montana and Washington. 

The states created the Council in April1981 under the authority of the Pacific Northwest 

Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980. The Act directed the Council to 

prepare a long-range electric power plan to assure the Pacific Northwest of an adequate, 

efficient. economical and reliable power supply. The Act directed the Council to prepare a 

program to protect, mitigate and enhance fish and wildlife, including related spawning 

grounds and habitat, located on the Columbia River and its tributaries. The Act also directed 

the Council to involve the public in its decision-making processes. When preparing or 

amending the fish and wildlife program, the Council is directed to request recommendations 

for program measures from tbe federal and the region's state fish and wildlife agencies and 

from the region's appropriate Indian tribes. The Act says the program shall consist of 

measures to protect, mitigate and enhance fish and wildlife affected by the development. 

operation and management of hydroelectric facilities while assuring the Pacific Northwest an 

adequate, efficient, economical and reliable power supply. Under the Act, customers of 

hydropower pay for measures designed to mitigate the impact of hydropower dams. 

Since the Northwest Power Planning Council approved its first Columbia River Basin 

Fish and Wildlife Program in 1982, significant efforts and money have been directed toward 

protecting and rebuilding salmon and steclhead populations. 

The Council and the Yakima River Basin 
270 

The Yakima Basin bas been of special interest to the Council since the first fish and 

wildlife program in 1982. At that time, the Council identified the Yakima Basin as having 

broad areas of undenltilized but largely intact salmon and steelhead habitat. The prognun 

identified the Yakima Basin as an area with perhaps the greatest potential in the Columbia 

River Basin for production of salmon and steelhead Valuable agricultural crops are grown in 

the basin. thanks to a series of irrigation diversion dams, canals and ditches. Three irrigation 

dams also divert water for hydroelectric generation. However, in low-water years the 

demand for irrigation water for farming and ranching still exceeds the water supply. 

Available water must be allocated among competing uses, and the provision of streamflows 

sufficient to support anadromous and resident fish historically has received a lower priority. 

The Council recognizes that the water needs of the Yakima Basin, including provision 

of adequate flows for fish, cannot be satisfied without additional storage, changes in existing 

storage operations and/or modification of water management practices. The Council 

encourages more efficient use of water in the basin and greater flexibility in water 

management. 

Since 1982, Bonneville Power Administration ratepeyers have made significant 

investments in passage and habitat improvements in the Yakima Basin, and the anadromous 

fish runs have seen importsnt increases. The Council is continuing to explore a $31.9 

million Yakima Production Project, which could increase salmon and steelhead production in 

the basin even more. 

The importance al water cooservation in salmoo rebuildin& efforts 

In September 1992, we amended into the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife 

Program our Strategy for Salmon, which is a long-range plan to improve salmon survival at 

every stage of the salmon life cycle. The strategy includes measures to amend river 

operations. increase salmon productivity, repair salmon habitat and refine salmon harvests. It 

is designed to balance competing river uses while strengthening and rebuilding salmon and 

steelhead runs throughout the basin. The Council's aim is to make future Endangered Species 

Act petitions unnecessary, and ultimately to produce healthy and harvestable populations of 

fish. 

Among the many measures in the Strategy that aim to improve river conditions for 

salmon are several concerning water conservation. Salmon and steelhead need adequate 

river flows for spawning, rearing and migration. With growing development pressures on 

streams. there is a need to find innovative ways to leave more water in streams. More 

efficient out-of-stream water use may be a fruitful strategy. 

Water conservation should play a role in the salmon recovery effort in the Yakima 

Basin. We see H.R 1690 as an important test of the idea that water conservation measures 

can increase flows for salmon and steelhead The bill would be a landmark in the region's 

2 
271 

efforts to rebuild salmon aDd steelhead runs, if the link between conservation and instream 

floWll can be establiltJed 

To help establilh that link. our Strategy called on the federal Bureau of Reclamation 

to initiate a cooperative effort with the states ofldaho, Oregon and Washington, IU\d with 

irrigaton, to select and design at least four demonstration water conservation projects to 

provide additional in-stream flow and enhanced water quality for production of weak salmon 

and steelhead stocks. In Washington, the Bureau initiated a project in the Yakima River 

Basin. The project area includes about 13 miles of the river between the confluence of the 

Naches River and Sunnyside Dam. At times there is oo flow in the river below the dam, and 

the divenion to Sunnyside is oot met. The proposed conservation project will consist of a 

regulating reservoir adjacent to the Yakima River immediately downstream of Union Gap, 

and a leasing program to obtain water for streamfloWll, according to the Bureau. A second 

phase will consist primarily of developing water-leasing procedures. 

While that project is designed specifically to improve river conditions for salmon, the 

Bureau also has undertaken a separate water enhancement project in the Yakima Basin. The 

Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project is designed to improve water availability 

for agriculture while protecting fish and wildlife. In the first phase of the project, fish 

passage facilities are being installed at smaller water divenioos. In the second phase, the 

emphasis is on water management changes and on structural improvements to reduce the 

amount of water diverted 

H.R. 1690 addresses the second phase of the project. The legislation would create the 

"Basin Consel"iii.iion Program," which would coordinate decision-making among state, 

federal. tribal and local water managen. The Council supports this approach as a creative 

way to improve the often~ntentious water allocation process. 

In a related effort, in 199lthe Yakima Indian Nation, along with state and federal 

fishery agencies, called for establishment of a water leasing procedure to protect salmon and 

steeUtead in the lower Yakima River from fluctuating flows. Recently, the Environmental 

Defense Fund, a partner in this effort, completed a draft report on procedures that would be 

necessary to lease or transfer water in dry years to enhance flows for fish. The Council's 

Srraregyfor Sa/morr calls for such leases to begin in 1996, and we are hopeful that the policy 

concerns and mechanics of dry-year leasing in the Yakima Basin can be developed in time to 

meet the Council's goal. 

The impor1imce of H.R. 1690 

As I mentioned, H.R. 1690 is part of the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement 

Project, developed by a group oflocal, tribal, state and federal entities. The project generally 

is supported by the State ofWashington, the Yakima Indian Nation and local irrigation 

districts. 

3 
272 

Certain appropriations that would be made under the legislation are of interest to the 

Council. particularly those that aim to improve river flows to aid salmon and steelhead 

through water conservation and dry-year water leases. We aJao support the proposed 

allocation of about $20 million for projects on tribal land to conserve water, improve water 

management practices and integrate the management of agriculture, fish, wildlife and cultural 

resources. We support the proposed appropriation of about $2.9 million to increase water 

storage capacity at Lake Cle Elum, provide for shcmline protection and construct juvenile 

fish passage facilities. Coincidentally, our fish and wildlife program includes a project to 

determine the feasibility of re-establishing sockeye salmon in the Jake. Results to date have 

been promising, but permanent passage facilities are needed. 

The Yakima project is important to the .Council for other reasons, as well. First, it 

should lead to improved water quantity and quality in the Yakima Basin. Second, if 

conserved water is used as intended, it would improve streamflows for salmon and steelhead 

in the Yakima. The legislation could increase the benefits of a seplll'llle program that is 

intended to improve fisheries in the Yakima Basin. Fmally, the legislation could serve as a 

model for other watersheds with similar problems. 

Mr. Chairman. H.R. 1690 brings together a broad coalition of state. local and tribal 

interests. The Council is pleased to be a part of that coalition. On behalf of the Council, I 

urge you to support the bill. 

4 
STANGMCE. 

CHAIJ>WI 

Joba.N'.ndwt -

JayL.W_.. -..... 

273 

NORTHWEST POWER PLANNING COUNCIL 851 S.W. SIXTH AVENUE, SU1TI! 1100 

PORTI.AND, OREGON 97204-1337 

Phone: 503-222-5161 

Toll Pree: 1-800-222-3355 

PAX: 503-795-3370 

September 3. 1993 

The Honorable George Miller, Chainnan 

House Conunittee on Natural Resources 

Room 1328. Longworth House Office Building 

Washington. D.C. 20515 

Dear Chainnan Miller: 

I write to express the Council's support for H.R. 1690. the Yakima River 

Basin Water bill. 

The Yakima Basin has been of special interest to the Council since the first 

fish and wildlife program in 1982. At that time, the Council identified the Yakima 

Basin as having broad areas of underutllized but largely intact salmon and 

steelhead habitat. Since then, ratepayers have made significant investments in 

passage and llabitat improvements, and the runs have seen important increases. 

The Council is continuing to explore a $31.9 million Yakima Production Project, 

which could increase salmon and steelhead production in the basin even more. 

Water conservation should play a role in the recovery effort. We see the 

Yakima River Basin Water bill as an important test of the idea that water 

conservation measures can increase flows for salmon and steelhead. The water 

conservation bill would be a landmark in the region's efforts to rebuild salmon and 

steelhead runs, if the link between conservation and instream flows can be 

established. 

The bill has brought together a broad coalition of state, local, and tribal 

interests. The Council is pleased to be a part of that coalition. We urge you to 

give favorable consideration to H.R. 1690. 

Chairman 

cc: The Honorable Jay lnslee 
274 

American 'Ri!:!rs 

. STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD 

OF F. LORRAINE BODI 

AND KATHERINE ~SEL 

CO-DIRECTORS, NORTHWEST OFFICE 

AMERICAN RIVERS,. INC. 

ON H.R. 1690 

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

HO.USE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

OCTOBER 7, 1993 

NOR'IliWEST REGIONAL Oma 

4518 UNIVERSI'IYWAY.N.E. Sum 312 . 

SEATIU. WA 98105 

2()6.545-7133 . 

206-545·7144 (FAX) 
~5 

American Rivers is a national, non-profit organization dedicated 

to the protection and restoration of America's rivers. American 

Rivers was founded in 1973, and has its national office in 

Washington, D.C. and two regional offices in Seattle, Washington, 

and Phoenix, Arizona. It fosters watershed and river 

organizations all over America and is the nation's leading river 

conservation organization. 

The Northwest regional office of American Rivers houses the 

organization's Endangered Salmon Project. The purpose of 

American Rivers' Endangered Salmon Project is to protect and 

restore the wild salmon runs of the Pacific Northwest. One of 

the rivers of particular concern to American Rivers' Endangered 

Salmon Project is the Yakima River, which is the focus of H.R. 

1690. 

Earlier this year, American Rivers named the Columbia-Snake 

system as the second most endangered river in North America. It 

featured the Yakima as one of the system's most troubled 

tributaries. 

The Yakima River basin is the largest drainage within Washington 

state. After the Snake River, the Yakima was the largest 

contributor of salmon and steelhead to the once great ColumbiaSnake watershed. The Columbia basin, which encompasses an area as large as France, is the nation's second largest drainage and once was home to the largest wild salmon runs in the world. That 

fishery, with fewer than two percent of its historical wild fish, 

is now on the verge of collapse. 

Dams and diversions in the Columbia system, both for irrigation 

and hydropower, have wreaked havoc on the life cycle of this once plentiful renewable resource. In the false dilemma that has been 

posed in the debate about jobs and the environment, the salmon 

crisis serves as the prime example of their interdependence. 

Even in their fragile condition, salmon contribute over $1 

billion and 60,000 jobs annually to the regional economy. 

What has happened in the Yakima basin is, unfortunately, typical 

of many other drainages of the once mighty Columbia-Snake system. 

It is time to find our way back to naturally renewable resources and economies in the Northwest, and in the nation as a whole. 

We thus welcome the opportunity to submit this statement in 

support of the purposes and intent of H.R. 1690. This bill 

presents the committee with a critical opportunity to correct 

what can only be described as a tragic situation for the 

anadromous fishery of the Yakima River and the Yakima Indian 

Nation. 

-- 1 --
~6 

We commend Congressman Inslee on his initiative to resolve the 

longstanding resource conflicts in the Yakima River basin. 

Unfortunately, the bill, as currently written, falls short of its 

water conservation and fish enhancement missions. 

American Rivers supports the bill's provisions on water sales and 

leasing, and its provisions authorizing on-reservation programs 

for the Yakima Indian Nation. American Rivers believes the bill 

should be substantially amended, however, to include specific 

provisions to guarantee that the laudable goals of water 

conservation and fish enhancement -- the fulfillment of which has 

eluded the Yakima River basin for decades -- will finally be 

realized. 

The Present Situation on the Yakima Must Be Changed. 

For thousands of years, the Yakima River Basin's most spectacular 

feature was its abundance of salm~n and steelhead estimated at 

between 600,000 and 960,000 fish. Every creek, tributary and 

lake supported at least one stock or chinook, coho, sockeye or steelhead. For the indigenous people of the region, salmon was the mainstay of not only their diet, but also their economy, 

culture and religion. 

Development over the past century, however, has shriveled and 

polluted the river, decimating wild salmon and steelhead runs. In particular, irrigation has exacted a lethal toll. The Yakima 

River basin today is one of the most heavily irrigated areas in 

the United States, due, in part, to water development projects sponsored by the Bureau or Reclamation. The basin contains six 

storage reservoirs, fourteen major diversion dams and more than 

1 , 900 miles of diversion canals. Dams and diversion built with 

inadequate fish passage or none at all have caused a drastic drop 

in fish populations, as have the effects or Bureau or Reclamation-sponsored irrigation withdrawals. 

Intensive irrigation has lett the river vastly overappropriated. 

So little flow is round in certain reaches or the river's 

tributaries that they are completely dry in the summer. Low 

flows exacerbate other problems. Low water volume causes summer water temperatures to be at bathwater level, which cannot sustain a healthy fishery. Agricultural return flows contain a panoply 

of organochlorines, heavy metals and other toxins which are concentrated in what little water remains in the river. 

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Yakima/Klickitat 

Production Project Preliminary Design Report and Appendices (1990). 

-- 2 --
2:77 

As a result, anadromous fish in the Yakima now average about 

9,100 adylts, fewer than two percent of their historical 

numbers. Indeed, the effects of water and agricultural 

development have already led to the extinction of threj Yakima 

River stocks: summer chinook, coho and sockeye salmon. 

The remaining runs are imperiled. There is simply insufficient 

free-flowing water in the Yakima River and its tributaries to 

support the remaining stocks. This is especially the case in the 

critical months from March through October, when federally subsidized irrigation withdrawals directly conflict with fish 

migration flow needs. 

At particular risk are three Yakima River wild, native stocks: 4 

spring and fall chinook and summer steelhead. 5 We have prepared 

an assessment of the status of these stocks that shows that these 

populations may qualify for listing under the Endangered Species 

Act, 16 u.s.c. S1531 ~· We would be happy to share that 

assessment with the Committee. 

Sprini chinook, for example, historically numbered about 200,000 

fish. Present populations, however, are severely depressed: 

from 1957 to 1992, the number of returning adult fish ranged from 

between 166 to ~,072. The average annual return from 1981 to 

1989 was 3,839. Fewer than four percent of their historical 

numbers survive. 

Fall chinook fare no better. The average number of fall chinook 

in the Yakima River basin ranged from 757 to 4,440 fish from 1983 

z 

(BPA) , Impact 

"DEIS") 

3 

u.s. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration 

Yakima River Basin Fisheries Project: Draft Environmental 

Statement, Portland, Oregon (October, 1992) (hereinafter 

at 1. 6. 

DEIS at 1. 7. 

A stock is a genetically distinct group of fish that 

spawns in a particular location in a particular season and which 

do not interbreed with other fish. Washington Departments of 

Fisheries and Wildlife, 1992 Washington State Salmon and Steelhead 

Stock Inventory (hereinafter "SASSI") at 83. 

5 SASSI at Table 11, Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead 

Stock List at 65. 

6 DEIS at 3.15. 

BPA, Yakima Spring Chinook Enhancement Study (1991). 

-- 3 --
278 

through 1991, a shadow of the former estimated run size of 

132,000 fish. 8 

Likewise, Yakima Basin summer steelhead are estimated to have once numbered between 80,000 and 100,000 fish. The current 

population has fluctuated from 64 to 2,198 between 1981 and 1989, 

with the average number of summer steelhead for the same period 

at 852 fish. Thus, only appioximately one percent of the 

historical run has survived. 

The Yakiaa Basin Xrriqation system Is a Xajor cause of sa1mon 

Decline. 

The Yakima basin irrigation system harms salmon in at least two 

very basic ways: First, the system diverts so much water from 

the Yakima River that stream flows are simply inadequate to 

&ustain their spawning, rearing and migration cycles. Second, 

water pollution in the Yakima is exacerbated by low flows. 

Since the· turn of the century, the Yakima River basin has been an oasis for agriculture; for almost as long, however, the Yakima 

has been overappropriated, that is, more rights to divert water 

have been granted than there is water available in the basin . 

Beginning in 1905, the Bureau of Reclamation sought to end the 

conflicts between irrigators due to over-appropriation of the 

Yakima's natural flows by creating "new water" through massive 

water development projects. As part of the Bureau project, fifty 

appropriators signed agreements voluntarily limiting their 

respective diversions to certain maximum monthly quantities--

those quantfties were then, and are still today, considered non- proratable. 0 

With these agreements in hand, the Bureau proceeded to build, 

from 1909 to 1933, six major water storage dams in the Yakima 

basin: Keechelus, Kachess , Cle Elum, Bumping, Clear Creek and 

Tieton . During this same period, the Bureau of Reclamation 

constructed the water works for the five primary irrigation 

8 SASSI at 173; confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima 

Indian Nation, et al., Yakima River Subbasin : Salmon and Steelhead 

Producti on Plan, Toppenish, Washington (September 1, 1990) 

(hereinafter "YIN") at 55-56, 178. 

DEIS at 3.22; YIN at 55-56; SASSI at 178. 

10 United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Reclamation, C.R. Lentz Review Yakima Proiect Water Rights & 

Related Qata, Preliminary Record (Pacific Northwest Region, Yakima 

Project, washington, December, 1974) (hereinafter "Lentz") at 2-3. 

-- 4 --
279 

districts in the basin. 11 see Attachment A, a map of the Yakima 

basin. 

Despite this massive infusion of federal money into the basin to 

create "new" water, legal battles ensured over the competing claims of proratable and non-proratable water rights 

appropriators. A 1945 federal court consent decree set out the 

respective allotments of all users in the valley, and assigned 

the highest priority to non-proratable entitlements. In years of 

water shortages, non-proratable users receive their full 

entitlement, while the remaining water is rationed between the 

proratable users. The water supply for two of the larger 

irrigation districts, the Sunnyside and Yakima-Tieton, rre respectively 69 percent and 67 percent non-proratable. 1 

While the decree brought some temporary peace among junior and 

senior appropriators, it did not bring any relief to the Yakima 

River fishery. Indeed, it merely cast into judicial decree past 

Bureau policy regarding nati ve salmon and steelhead: the fish 

receive whatever is left over after proratable and non-proratable 

needs are met. 

Nor is this dismal situation likely to improve once the sixteenyear-old general adjudication of water rights in the Yakima River 

Basin, Department of Ecology y. Acquavella , No. 77-2-01484-5 

(Yakima County Superior Court) is finally resolved. The court in 

that case has determined that beneficial use of Yakima River 

water is synonymous with the allotments which water rights users receive under Bureau contracts. This cements the status quo ~: the biological requirements of anadromous fish are met 

only after the needs of non-proratable and proratable users are satisfied. 

Critical Low Flows 

As a direct result of the legal relationship of the non- proratable and proratable users, water supply in the Yakima is 

severely overtaxed. Subject to only a few, paltry except1ons, 13 

11 Lentz at 3. 

12 YIN at 52. 

13 The Bureau of Reclamation's Yakima Project has agreed 

with the u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service to provide minimum flows 

each year below Prosser Dam as follows: 200 cfs from ·March 1 to 

July 10 (smolt out-migration and spring chinook and steelhead 

spawning run), · and 200 cfs from September 1 to November 30 (fall 

chinook , coho and steelhead spawning run). All other times of 

year, the agreement only calls for 50 cfs to be maintained below 

-- 5 --
280 

the water left for instream flows to foster anadromous fish 

represents the difference between available water--reservoir 

storage capacity plus runoff--and irrigation and other demands. 

In an oversubscribed system like the Yakima, this means that 

instream flows are rarely as high as the fish require anywhere in 

the basin, and, worse still, during low watff years, instream 

flows are catastrophic for fish production. 

Irrigation diversions also account for critical low flows in many 

of the Yakima's tributaries, which are worse even than in the 

mainstem. Indeed, the lower reaches of the Teanaway River and 

Taneum, Mamstash, Big, Wenas, Swauk, and Ahtanum Creeks are . virtually or actually dewatered by late spring or early summer. 15 

Plainly, this situation cannot sustain the anadromous fishery, for which a Bureau-sponsored report recommended flows ranging from a low of 100 cfs to a high of (400 cfs, depending on the 

river reach and month in question. 1 See Attacbment B hereto. 

The majority of the flow recommendations range from 600 to 1000 

cfs. 

Moreover, the u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS) conducted an IFIM study to determine instream flow requirements needed to 

sustain the fishery in the Yakima River basin, the results of 

which were submitted to the court in the Acquayella adjudication. The chart submitted by USF&WS in that proceeding with recommended 

flows for the reaches of the river below Prosser, Sunnyside, Roza 

and Easton dams is Attachment C hereto. ·Those recommendations 

range from 250 cfs to 11,150 cfs, depending on river reach and 

month of the year. Most range from 900 to 1000 cfs. 

Prosser Dam. 

An additional court-ordered minimum flow exists for egg incubation in the Yakima between Easton Dam and the Teanaway. YIN 

at 8, 46-47. 

14 YIN at 8. 

15 YIN at 9. 

16 Parametrix, Inc., for the u.s. Department of Interior, 

Bureau of Reclamation, Initial Flow Recommendations. Yakima River 

Basin. Final Report (October 1984) at 21, Table 6, Attacbment B 

hereto). 

-- 6 --
281 

Critical Water Pollution 

Irrigation has also caused serious and perhaps deadly water 

pollution in the Yakima River basin. At least three sources of 

pollution affect the Yakima and its salmon runs: 

• The first is chemical pollution from pesticide contamination 

of the river in concentrations above levels considered safe 

for chronic exposure to fish. The Washington Department of 

Ecology has identified over fifteen organochlorine compounds 

and metabolites, including DDT, ODE, dieldrin and PCB-1260, as well as mercury, in concentrations above those considered 

safe for aquatic life in the Yakima and some of its 

tributaries . 17 

It is possible that the high levels of pesticides contribute 

to the very low egg-to-smolt survival rates of fall chinook 

spawning in two locations: above Prosser Dam, especially 

those in and jur~ downstream of Marion Drain, and downstream 

of Prosser Dam. 

• Second, low water volumes contribute to high water 

temperatures and cause thermal pollution in the river. 19 

High water temperatures pose a serious threat to migrating 

adults and ju¥enile salmon. Temperatures in the river have 

reached lethal levels during the spring migration as recently as May of 1992, when tens of thousands of migrating 

chinook were lost. 

• Sedimentation resulting from a combination of irrigation 

return flows, low instream flows and logging in the 

Wenatchee National Forest create a third factor afflicting 

the fishery. In particular, low instream flows in the 

Yakima from Union Gap to Kiona during the irrigation season cause deposition of fine sediments on fall chinook spawning 

beds in the lower Yakima.l0 

17 See also generally U.s. Geological Survey, Open-File 

Report 91-453, surface water Quality Assessment of the Yakima Riyer 

Basin. Washington: Analysis of Ayailable Water Quality pata 

through 1985 Water Year (1992) (hereinafter "USGS") and p. 173-

174. 

18 YIN at 7-8. 

19 USGS at 17 4 . 

lO zg. at 173. 

-- 7 --
282 

over-appropriation and pollution of the Yakima River Basin have 

given rise in the past two decades to new rounds of legal battles 

and a series of well-meaning, but ineffective attempts at legislative "quick fixes." Unfortunately, none has solved the 

problems we describe. 

As presently drafted, this bill, we fear, will only follow suit. 

With some key changes, however, it could decisively enhance water 

conservation and improve the viability of salmon and steelhead in 

the Basin, rescuing this once plentiful renewable resource from 

endangered species status and upgrading the health of the river 

generally. 

H.R. 1190 sbould Be Modified to Provide Clear commitments for 

Water conservation and •isb Bnbancement. 

American Rivers urges the Committee to amend H.R. 1690 so that it can accomplish its stated goals. We believe the bill's goals can only be realized through amendments that would: 

• require a comprehensive water management plan for the 

Yakima; 

• require the adoption and implementation of effective water 

conservation measures; and 

• guarantee that water conserved at federal expense will 

remain in the river to protect and enhance the river's 

dwindling stocks of wild salmon and steelhead and improve 

water quality of the river generally. 

Adoption of a Comprehensive Plan to Guide Improved Water 

Management in the Yakima Basin 

The Yakima River Enhancement Project, enacted by the Congress in 

1979, authorized development of a comprehensive plan to enable 

efficient management of the basin's water supply. Unfortunately, 

the Yakima Basin still lacks such a plan today. 

The need for such a plan is both obvious and critical. The resource conflicts in the Yakima simply cannot be allowed to 

continue. A comprehensive plan which addresses both irrigation and fish flow needs, using creative approaches to encourage and 

mandate water efficiencies, must be developed as soon as possible. Absent such a plan, it is impossible to assess whether 

the expenditures authorized by H.R. 1690 will resolve water use conflicts in the basin. 

American Rivers recommends that H.R. 1690 be amended to require 

the secretary to develop a comprehensive water management plan 

-- 8 --
283 

for the Yakima basin within 12 months of enactment. At a minimum, the plan should address: 

• the average annual water delivery of the river; 

• the amount of water beneficially used by individual 

irrigation districts, irrigators and municipalities; 

• the amount of waste in the system; 

• the amount of conserved water that could be made available 

through the implementation of conservation measures; 

• the types of conservation measures that will be most 

effective in the Yakima Basin, including agricultural 

programs, such as crop rotation, fallowing and switching, 

which would be effective to conserve water; 

• efforts by the Bureau and the Department of Agriculture to 

discourage production of surplus crops and to encourage the 

above kinds of agricultural programs (e.g., a shift to lowwater crops in the basin); 

• the circumstances under which the Bureau and irrigation 

districts may adopt incremental pricing of water to 

encourage conservation; 

• the programs, rules, and incentives that could be developed 

to encourage voluntary water transfers; the identification 

of any inhibitions to such transfers, and recommendations 

for their modification or elimination; 

• adjustments to the water allocation system that could be 

made to ensure that junior appropriators receive a pro-rata 

share of water during droughts. 

Committing Conseryed Water to Fish Flows 

One of the primary purposes of H.R. 1690 is "to protect mitigate, 

and enhance fish and wildlife through improved water management, 

improved instream flows, improved water quality, protection, creation and enhancement of wetlands, and by other appropriate means of habitat improvement." 

Instead ot setting out a path that leads to the fulfillment of 

this goal, however, the present legislation merely authorizes the 

Secretary to propose guidelines for the development and 

implementation of voluntary conservation plans by Yakima basin 

irrigators. Moreover, despite the fact that these plans are only 

voluntary, a million dollars of federal funds are authorized to 

support their development. 

-- 9 --

7H~O-~-ro 
284 

We recommend that the bill be redrafted as follows: 

• First, the conservation guidelines suggested in section 3 of 

the bill should be developed as part of the comprehensive 

water management plan. They should then be adopted as regulations rather than guidelines. 

• Second, federal funding of conservation improvements should 

be conditioned on the prior development of conservation 

plans by Yakima basin irrigators. Moreover, deadlines 

should be set for the adoption of conservation plans for 

funding under the new law. That such plans should be 

required, rather than voluntary, and that deadlines ought to 

be set for their submission is critical. 

The Reclamation Reform Act of 1982, 43 u.s.c. S 390aa ~ 

~ is instructive. Section 390jj of the Act and its 

implementing regulations call for irrigation districts 

Bureau contracts to prepare water conservation plans. 

with 

The 

Act specified neither the contents of the conservation plans nor deadlines for their development, however, and 

consequently the conservation planning requirement has been 

virtually ignored. 

• Third, H.R. 1690 should explicitly dedicate water conserved 

by the implementation of federally funded conservation measures to instream flows for fisheries, wildlife, and 

other uses. The state of Washington's Trust Water Rights 

program allows for the dedication of conserved water to 

instream flows with the retention of the original priority 

date of the water right from which such conserved water is 

derived. By tying water conserved by federally funded 

conservation measures to the Washington Trust Water Rights 

Program, the Congress can be assured that it will remain in 

stream for the benefit of fish, wildlife, and other 

downstream uses (if those instream rights are properly 

enforced by the State of Washington) . 

• Finally, the bill should authorize all water made available 

by virtue of this legislation to be used to satisfy biologically based instream flows for the fishery. The bill 

should not limit the source of fishery flows to any particular source, such as limiting outmigration flows to 

water obtained from the sale or lease of water rights, as it 

appears section 5(a)(3) does. 

Minimum Instream Flows for the Fishery 

H.R. 1690 fails to establish clear commitments for minimum flows 

for fish in the Yakima. It is particularly essential that such 

-- 10 --
285 

flows be established for the period from March through october, 

the critical migratory and reproductive period for spring chinook, summer steelhead and fall chinook. 

First, the suggested "target" flows in section 5(a}(l} are inadequate. As we noted above, both a Bureau-sponsored report 

and the u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service have identified 

substantially higher flows for the threatened stocks of the 

Yakima. These recommendations are at least purportedly based on the biological requirements of the fish at critical lite stag!P• determined by use of the state-of-the-art "IFIM" methodology. 

By comparison, the "target" flows suggested in section S(a}(l) do 

not appear to be biologically-based. Indeed, they appear simply 

to be a restatement of the status quo in the river, which is 

demonstrated by the figures in the minimum flow table in section 

S(a)(l} of the currently proposed bill. These figures throw into 

serious question whether enactment of H.R. 1690 would result in 

any change in current river conditions and provide the fishery 

with its basic biological needs. 

A second, equally serious shortcoming of H.R. 1690 is the absence 

of language dedicating conserved water permanently to 

biologically based instream flows. As now proposed, all 

conserved water simply re-enters the total water supply of the 

basin. The present version of the bill only permits the 

Secretary to increase instream flows when necessary during April 

through October to assist fish migration with water obtained 

through voluntary sale and leasing programs with irrigators, not 

with "new" water attributable to conservation (Section 5(a) (3)}. 

And, indeed, if the total water supply falls below 2.65 acre feet, the bill permits the Bureau to drop instream flows to a target of 300 cfs. Even the 300 cfs is not guaranteed, however. 

Section 5(a} (2} emphasizes that the allotments to instream flows are merely "targets" from which "reasonable fluctuations . are anticipated in the [Bureau's] operation of the Yakima 

Project." 

In short, Section 5(a} (2} weakens even the inadequate standard of 

flows purportedly reserved to the fish in Section 5(a) (1} by defining them as mere "targets" and permitting "reasonable 

fluctuations" from them. In other words, the discretion granted 

to the Bureau by this bill in the operation of the Yakima project 

is so broad that there is absolutely no assurance of improved 

water conditions for fish as a result of expenditures under the 

bill. 

21 "IFIM" means instream flow incremental methodology. 

-- 11 
286 

There are, however, remedies for both of these deficiencies. 

First, section 5(a) (1) should be revised to establish a biologically-based flows in the Yakima River. Although the 

Parametrix report and the u.s. Fish and Wildlife recommendations 

differ, we note that the Parametrix report noted severe data 

limitations in its work. Moreover, one thing is obvious from 

both recommendations: the "target" flows in the bill are far 

below what scientists have recommended. 

The comprehensive plan that we urge for the river should thus 

also require an up-to-date, state-of-the-art determination of the 

biological needs of the fishery. While it certainly may build on the prior studies we have mentioned and any others that exist, it 

should be conducted taking into account the current conditions of 

the fishery. 

second, section 5(a) (2) should be deleted. Until the needs of 

the fishery are met, water conserved by federally funded 

conservation measures under this legislation should be dedicated 

to meeting the biologically-based flow needs of the fishery. 

Moreover, water conserved under the bill should be in addition 

to, and not in lieu of~ the inadequate flows currently being 

provided in the river. 2 

The conservation Advisory Group Provisions Should be Amended 

Section 3(c) of H.R. 1690 authorizes the Secretary to appoint a conservation advisory group comprised of the following members: 

two representatives of Yakima Basin irrigators; one representative of the Yakima Nation; one representative of 

counties and cities in the Yakima River basin; and one representative of environmental interests. American Rivers seeks 

two changes to the membership of the group. 

First, we question why more than one representative of non- tribal irrigators should belong to the group. The interests of 

irrigators in the water of the Yakima basin are not greater than 

other interests in the basin, which have only one representative. 

Thus, we recommend that the non-tribal irrigators have the same representation as others in the advisory group. 

Second, the membership of the group as presently conceived is 

incomplete. To serve the secretary properly, it is critical that 

the group reflect the interests of all parties involved in and 

affected by how the Yakima River is operated. crucial interests 

22 See footnote 13, ID.!12n· Other agreements between the 

Bureau and the fish managers set flow targets (not minimum flows, 

but "goals") of 200 cfs below Sunnyside Dam and 100 cfs below 

Easton Dam. YIN at 46-47. 

-- 12 --
~7 

not represented in the current group are the region's fisheries 

agencies, the Washington Department of Ecology, and non-tribal 

fishery interests. 

The state and federal fisheries agencies should be represented on the advisory group. This includes the Washington Departments of 

Fisheries and Wildlife; the u.s. Fish and Wildlife service; and 

the National Marine Fisheries Service. Because H.R. 1690 is 

designed to protect and enhance the Yakima River fishery, it is 

essential to have the necessary expertise to quide the 

implementation of that goal. One representative should be 

appointed to represent the interests of those agencies. 

Likewise, the Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) has plenary 

authority to "requlate and control the diversion of water in 

accordance with the rights thereto". RCW 23.21A.064(3). DOE 

issues all water rights permits and regulates the exercise of 

those rights. In that capacity, DOE instigated and actively 

participates in the Acguavella adjudication. 

Moreover, the state of Washington has a further interest in 

conservation advisory group membership to fulfill its 

responsibilities under the public trust doctrine and state law 

implementing that doctrine. For instance, DOE is required to 

establish minimum instream flows to preserve the public interest 

in productive fisheries. RCW 90.22.010. See also Orion Corp. 

y. state, 747 P.2d 1062 (1987); Wilbour y. Gallaher, 462 P.2d 232 

(1969) (discussing the state's public trust obligation, including 

the public's rights to fishing, boating, swimming). 

Both state law and the state's longstanding participation in the 

Yakima water rights general adjudication, therefore, make 

necessary the state's participation in the group. 

Finally, non-tribal fishing interests should also be represented 

in the group. The Yakima River was once one of the most fertile 

fish-producing tributaries of the Columbia. Maintenance and 

restoration of the Yakima River basin fishery is of critical 

economic importance to the Columbia river fishery, which is worth 

millions of dollars a year to the regional economy. 

These interests should be added to the Conservation Advisory 

Group. 

-- 13 --
A Comprehensive Plan Must ~e Adopted Before Raisinq Lake Cle 

Elua. 

Section 6 of the bill allots approximately 3 million dollars to 

modify the radial gates at Cle Elum Dam to add 14,600 acre-feet 

of storage capacity in Lake Cle Elum. In plain terms, the 

Secretary is authorized to raise the dam to create new storage 

capacity, even though new storage is not a purpose of the bill 

stated in Section 1. 

Although section 1 deems conservation of water and enhancement of 

fish and wildlife among the bill's primary purposes, the new water supply created from raising Cle Elum Dam is not dedicated 

to these purposes. Instead, the additional 14,600 acre-feet of 

water is, pursuant to 5(b), put back into the Yakima and is 

subject to appropriation under state law. 

While the demands on the Yakima River basin water supply system, 

both for raising instream flows to biologically-sustainable 

levels for fish, and for satisfying junior appropriators' needs 

during droughts, may require creating new capacity by raising Cle 

Elum Dam, that action is premature until it is first determined 

whether conservation and reallocation of existing capacity will 

satisfy those demands. 

Before authorizing the raising of Cle Elum Dam, the congress 

should direct the Bureau to devise a comprehensive plan for the 

Yakima River basin, as required by the Yakima Basin Enhancement 

Project Act of 1979. Adding additional capacity to the Yakima 

system is premature until the Bureau conducts ~ comprehensive 

study of the basin that answers basic questions about how the 

Yakima River basin irriqation system operates. 

conclusion 

American Rivers supports the basic intent of H.R. 1690 to conserve water in the Yakima River basin and to resolve 

longstanding resource conflicts between irrigation and other 

consumptive uses of the Yakima River and the biological needs of 

its economically and culturally significant anadromous fish runs and water quality. 

We stand ready to assist the Subcommittee and the full Committee 

in any way that we can to realize the goals of Mr. Inslee's bill. 

-- 14 --
289 

! 

; fi 

~ 

~ ., .. ~ ;.J I 

., 

~H .., 

z! ·l ~ ;i ... i g~ 2 0 0' ~ 

~ ~i 

l;~ :;• = ~~ 

~ '~~ 

. ,. 

;! 0.. 

il 

~ ii ~ § . ~~ 

ri. !: 

~~ < 

:e 0 !i ::;:: .. , .! -f;j 

i~ i~; 

. ,I 

; ; .i .. ! ~ !§ ~ if• . :.: j l < 

>-

I I 
,., 

{ d 1_: 

!" N REGION ; :: :·:~···. :;::.~ :·· I 

: 1 If: ro .~ ~ 1('! '11'>10N ] 

.... 1\, 

r;: :: ~~~ -~ l I I 

I ' r ! J I 

'(::·---,, ) I 

I \I\ ' ;- \ 

\~><"~':i~' :, ·li;. 

y f• 

I 

··.,_ 

f 

\,. __ } 

)I 

( 

\ 

i 

. 

tl 

\1 j• \,. f~~,~~~f[~ j 

/ 

I 

'\ COLU MBIA 

~··o 

Lll : 

···"' (~ · , .. , ,\'@ 

-~~ 

\ 

\ 

,J 

j 

/ 
291 

·Initial Flow Recommendations 

Yakima River Basin 

Final Report 

U.S. Department of Interior 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Parametrlx, Inc. 13020 Northup Way. Su1te 8 

Bellovue, Washingcon 98005 

Attachment B 
292 

Table 6. SUmmary of flow recommendations for the Yakima Basin. Each cell 

contains three numbers: top= recommended flow, middle= optimum flow, 

bottom = low target flow. 

YAKIMA RIVER 

Reach ~ ..Q£_ Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar ~ May Jun .l!!.L _a 

Keeche!us Dam - 125 125 100 100 100 125 125 125 125 100 100 100 

Easton Dam 125 125 100 100 75 150 150 125 125 75 75 75 

85 85 70 70 70 105 105 105 105 70 70 70 

Easton Dam - 400 400 350 350 275 275 275 275 275 225 225 225 

Cle Elum R. 250 400 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 225 225 250 

225 225 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 175 175 175 

Cle Elum River* 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 225 225 150 150 150 

150 150 150 150 150 250 250 200 200 150 150 150 

120 120 120 !20 120 175 175 175 175 100 100 100 

Cle Elum R.- 650 650 600 600 n5 525 500 500 500 600 600 600 

Teanaway R. 600 550 800 800 800 600 600 800 800 800 800 800 

300 300 300 300 300 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 

Wilson Ck.- 750 1000 1000 750 750 900 900 750 750 750 750 750 

Roza Dam 750 900 900 750 750 900 900 750 750 750 750 750 

500 750 750 500 500 750 700 600 600 500 500 500 

Roza Dam - 1000 800 800 1000 1000 900 900 1000 1000 1300 1300 1300 

Naches R. 1200 800 800 1200 1200 800 1100 1200 1200 1300 !300 1300 

750 550 550 550 500 600 750 900 900 900 900 900 

Sunnyside Dam - 800 700 700 700 700 600 700 800 800 800 800 800 

Marion Dr. 900 800 800 900 900 600 800 800 800 900 900 900 

500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 

Prosser Dam - 800 1000 1000 800 800 800 800 700 700 800 800 800 

Chandler PH 750 1000 1000 1400 1400 1400 1400 750 750 750 750 750 

500 450 450 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 

Horn Rapids Dam- 900 !300 1300 900 900 900 900 - 800 800 800 800 800 

Columbia R. 1000 1500 1500 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 

400 850 850 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 

*Recommended flow is based on SOAC agreement and is subject to change 

based on the results of the new transect added to the study site. 

21 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

293 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

IN AND FOR YAXIMA COUNTY 

IN THE MATTER OF THE DETERMINATION 

OF THE RIGHTS TO THE USE OF THE 

SURFACJ: WATERS OF THE YAKIMA RIVER 

DRAINAGE BASIN, IN ACCORDANCE WITH 

THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 90.03 

REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON, 

THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, 

DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JAMES J. ACQUAVELLA, at al., 

Defendants. 

No. 77-2-01484-5 

AFFIDAVIT OF 

DELL SIMMONS 

15 I, c. Dell Simmons baing first duly sworn on oath, 

16 depose and say that I have been employed as a fishery biologist 

11 with the u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Fisheries 

18 Assistance Office in Vancouver, Washington, since 1978. I have 

19 been assigned since 1981 to conduct an Instream Flow Incremental 

20 Methodology (hereinafter referred to as •IFIM•) study to 

21 determine instream flow requirements needed to sustain the treaty 

22 reserved fishing rights of the Yakima tribe in the Yakima River 

23 basin. It is my understanding that I will be called on to 

24 testify on the above matter in this litigation. 

25 The Yakima River system currently supports very small 

26 runs of spring chinook, fall chinook, and staelhead. All of 

these fish rely on the Yakima system to provide habitat for both 

adult and juvenile fish. Adult fish require water adequate to 

Attachment c 
li 

2 I 

3 I 

I 

4 I 

I 

5 I 

I 

I 

6 I 

7 ., 

8 

9 I 

!I 

10 I[ 

11 ~I 12 

'I 

13 

14 

15 II 

16 ! 

17 I 

i 

.i 

18 

19 

20 

21 i

1 

22 :I 

1: 

23 " 

:i 

24 : 

Jl 25 ,, 

26 

294 

attacnment 1. My recommendations take into consideration tne 

life nistories of anadromous fisn and their locations in the 

basin at various times of the year. Tne recommendations ensure 

tnat lower river water temperatures remain sub-letnal, and that 

enough water remains in tne rive·r to stop tne buildup of 

sediments on the river bottom. 

My recommend instream flows below Prosser Dam, 

sunnyside Dam, Roza Dam, and Easton Dam are as follows: 

Below Prosser Below Sunnyside Below Bon Below Easton 

Oct 1,500 cfs 1,455 cfs 900 cfs 375 cfs 

Nov 1,500 1,420 900 375 

Dec 1,000 920 1,000 375 

.Jan 1,000 920 1,000 300 

Feb 1,000 820 900 275 

Mar 1,000 820 900 275 

Apr 5,800 5,900 4,100 845 

May 9,800 11,150 7,000 1,465 

.Jun 7,900 8,510 5,400 1,215 

.Jul 1,000 955 1,000 250 

Aug 1,000 955 900 250 

Sep 1,000 965 825 220 

Tnese recommended flows are based on the biological 

requirements of anadromous fisn at various times and various 

locations in the Yakima River basin. 

I have reviewed tne Partial Summary .Judgment that has 

been entered in tnis proceeding concerning water rights for the 

maintenance of fish and aquatic life in tne Yakima River basin. 

It is my opinion that the minimum flows over Prosser Dam as 

described in part IV 3c. (2) would most certainly not maintain 

fisn and aquatic life in the basin. During summer, 50 cfs of 

water over 'Prosser will cause average daily water temperatures 

- 10 -
295 
,-, -....__ _ 

-~ 

--- ~--~~~ .... 

/ 

~· '---

cd: ::,-- \. 

l _........--"""'\.~ 

... . ~ ... ·--

;' 

ot,.., ... 
297 

BURKE & SONs· HEREFORDS .. 

HC 61 BOX 1<110 • CU! BLIJM, WASIUNV"ION 98922 

~09) 85H"I 

~ .... 

iiATUi! .. \L, lti;.:SOUZiCJ:;S COblii:U£:; 

3Q~SE 07 ?a&S~TA!Ivid 

~·~T~~Ji~ 

s.:::r:r.;:·iili;;.i 2; ... 9"'3 

MI !lAME IS !A:..Y BUi\.K.:E, I tti::SIDJ; Itl Tlili: Yil:O.I•·•A ;n~.;i1. .i:lA;:l!,,, li.Ir1l:tA.:i 

CUU.r1TY. AT T:i~ ABIJ\"~ l\.DDet.:;.-58.. l ~UCii Ai?J.~(;I.a'l~ '1.G! 5 VP:;un.Ilh•I'L'Y 1\) 

?i\ESO:.iT COi-.. •iEJ.i! O•i nit • .1.69u, UU>~J~i.;il..tA.s I;;;:;w;.,; 1 :; Ll>G!.:Su1 IUJ.>i. 

BO'!:d I, .LID :r.a:.; ASSOCIATIO;IS OF .Iii!Cn I A.·l a ~i.:> :· :l:l.i:ii, !.d.O: d'!Ili"'A"" 

CATTUl·i::lli 1 S ASSOCIATIO;i A.ID X:.L:; . .1/t.SA.!il..XO.i CATTi..l:iili>oi 1 S .!lS.>OC utru .. s .tiAV .; · Pi!ES"TLD TO liOT.<i Tdb :!OiJS.c. .iW]) So:JAl'.:> Sli.:;;:;..,~:~:rru.,s bJi1. ..A.t .. Ua,.t. :;:-. -r.wvr.,- io!Ji:liT AiiD COJollol:i:iiT Iii ?itEVIutiS lt:Ad.S 0:11'1 :i.~I.SLA:UOh TO l'OSl'u .SOJ..IiTI04iS 

TO T:d-" .L.ACK 01 WAl'U Ii~ :r.a:.; YAKI•1A iiA5r,;. I Tiili:!T IOU r/Il..i.o A.:i.ti.I•i ,;i:.;Arl 

}'rtOi.; Tli£SE Oii.:iAiilz.AT!OriS &.]) Cih•SIDt;rt T®In i1..iSCOi-il1i:..,DATIO:cS. 

I Ai1 Ar·l'J.C.tiiliQ TO TliiS TJ::STii'iO,IY :r,iiS :p,i:O:VlOiJS Cu<i;,,:.:;,;:r .. lUr iiJUl.D CA~ ... 

YOUJ\ PA.cTIC\Jl.Aii AT!i:::i'l'IO>i TO TiiE n:::;co,,D OF CO;ii.O.,.t:SShlHi JO;;.:;s I 4< l9u5, 

Tlit Y.ElAR Iii li&ICii TiiiS FED:EliAL ?..tUJ:t:C·r iAS fO B:.O i'UT lil l'LACi>. n!S 

n:i>riMKS Oll Tcil:. ii~S'SITY OF C:E<tTA:WXY OF TITL:.; AJD c;;;SS.ILTIJ;. Oi :O.. ITluA'l'!OiO AR~ ?ll.OBABLY MCi(.i:: ?W!TiiitilT TODAY T:.i&l n; liiS T:rr;;,; .um I J'iCJST :::At<iii:;ST:UI 

ASlC YOU TO CO;iSID£ll. TiiEli. . 

IT WOUl.D S.O:i!:i·l TO Mi: bAT T.ci!S ~iiiSLAT!OiJ S.dOULD COtiTAiii A ~'Il\ST SJ:<CTlll!i 

n;a:::,;.y UJ'liOLDJl.i(i Tli£ COl.iT.I\ACT Oi' Trl:i; i!tiiT1D STATi;S TO ;:;ECO\.i)>IZ:.; T.ciOS.a; 

RI.'"i:!TS Q)' Tii.&::)r:O:rtt!ITOi!IAL SETTLERS, TiiOS:i: TO 'l'liiOH IT ASK:£D TO .F Al\H AliD 

i!..uiC::i T:iiE Bu.aZAU OF .UCI.AMAT! ON LA.iiDS, AliD TO ?rlOV!DE .i'U;lTli!:)n. STOi\A;jE 

TO MEET .THESZ i:OZED5 li ;.'EC:i:SSA.iY On TO ;;iil' :i:ri05:0: i•i:;l.DS .i>Oil AP?AA.:..JT. ~..:.... ··.u.: .. :.:~~-..:1; -··· . 

il-n''sroii.AG£ ucrti:rns Jio\~ m PLACE ril rlii: YAKIJu BASiii A:U; li'O.il. IJtaruArroN 1J.¥Ll~Jl:SI~': ,. IF COlfGUSS iilSi:iES 'l'O PAOVIDE liSii iLO\jS Ti:!Ei:l !lEW STOrtAGB ... .. . l'O~TBES~:·ADDITIONAL "!lUDS NEEDS TO . BE' IliCLUDJ;D": ;.·c· .. : . , : . •• : :;. :. •'' . . . ··..::.:l"' '•:.:..--:'· ... ·..... . . . ,:.:. · :_ .•. ... · . . . . . . : . . . • . : .. .. . .. :·: ;. 'I·"' !S BEEN SAID 'l'HA1 . CONSERVATIOii PaOVISIONS_~WILt' ALLEVIATE tHE lil!ED TO .. . f!~~· ~ALMO~ AS AN ~lmA~GEREJ;J: SPECIE~ !- P'piDdiO ._ LAN~UAGE; IN THIS BILL':·-;:_:_- . I!';lt •. UEI. IMl'LI~.AI:it..- SUQB:~ACjiQB . , .,TBOSE •. oy,.tqs;,WR.O.,HAV.J; LIY:Ell lii:ra, THE• •. ,, :SP.PTTED O'wL· TBREA'l.':TO OUR ' TREE J'.lRMS i'IHD' TBI.!F{)MM!SSIO'll UliACCEPTABU; · ·· . IF IOU CAlf Iii'CLUDE. SUCl! . LAiiGUAGE IT IIOUU> BS iiEALLl liELI'?'UL Ili R1SOLVIliu 

.+HIS DILEMJIA AHD I WOULD SUPPORT YOtr:l D'i'OB.TS • . ;....~ ···, . : 

.CUl! COllTRACT W!Tii THE llua!l\U CALLS £011 DELIYE.U 0F WATE" u,;Til.. TiiE F!FTEE:ITli OU OCTOBER! TliiS \-lATER WIL:i:. a:s S:illn OFF 'l'.b.IS ;/UK GIV!liG US T:dnEJ); 

iiEEKS LESS OF PASTUitE &>D li.I.TF.rl DEL:l:VEi\Y. ·;.;:g THii;~ T.iiiS CORTii.ACTUAL OB!.I~AriOl; SJiOU:i.D :O:i. I.U a:.:;?:,a.i:. ,,z;;1 U,s:.;s Ai\i> COl!&fJii-;:l>:...i.T;.;:D, 

I WOU:.D B:S: o.l?PY .!l'O .uiS\i'£ii Alii OF !L'ii.E CO~;J<Il'!L'EE 1 S ~IJ"EST!OiiS \l,( ::ro Su?? ... :l CO :URESS i-iA ~ Ii\S~i h!T:O AHY .1U:{T..iE! • . l.itFO.<i-i!TIOi:f . TU.R.-I K IU~ it'u i .--.L:...Owi••U 

US Ili TilE S1'ATE 1'0 B.£ ABLK TO COMMi:i;t. 
298 

~·-;· ....... ·'.:·~ ·:':.! .. . OJ.1~ .tram 'I1:e hk1ma . ,. ..-· 

· · :; · . ; ·. . raU,- lepuhllc .. . • : ~~S.'.,:~.:': · .. ·.:.;:.' .. ~:~: . .. . ~· ,:-':'!-·~ .,··::: r~:· .. tccUlber 1s,1~os _ 

Setuemcnt :of. \tater !U.£,ht8 Dw. sure· " · '· • . i, .. :J ~Y~ .. ~ .· . . . . . . . :~··: :~·:: ··.. . . . . ~ .~.: ., :_.:~:~·· ·~··:: .. ·OiUJ' a ·teu II!Orll' /n~ be obtd:led bY the oOI:Eiitteo <:,:;./':'.• · .. , ., ·::· '· · · : ··<' be!'ore .• t.ho .. oiate. 'iii clean tor. the . .. · • •. · ··~ · .. :;:- ~ .. : 

. :·;:', .', . ::., . :. -~·:· .· :,' ~.!'r~Ject . ~. . · ... ~ · . . ; .. .. ' ., · :. :~ ., ;; ~~ : :·:· 

~~re ;. is ~o · ~~n~~ tl:e ~ or the ~~nt ··~~\~/: cc.rO or 81.11 e:-..cc~s. A8 .. . ~:~~~.tter ot tact ,it· .. is the u-.,· of'.,'tl:e: ~epertme:rl; tbet 'thbt Will recoinite:tl:e. c1U:-.s' or,' our;J!eopl.e to"'.Veritll:PIB . ...... t.'l:.t ill' iiFt,he'.l'iver end ~ ~~ and' our. pO!)le lllllat. ~J~tbia'l'CIQI1S 

the:lSelvasi·· It"w · ihculch;e~ it town to~' CQ;"3Q ~bio teat·.reo JIOt .: · :c:noW vl:e~er the CO'f'emt:eut ·t.tol!ld: co .Uad .or 110ti~"' We .=at 't!Ot~· ·an!. :. 

ca=ict as=e ~ that the · iO'f'e~nt .. wtil 'taka aare · or· a. 'foot. ·=·.It ia ~ · notn~ tO our ~eoPl• to ~ ~t.hinli e.nd ·. ~:r bor,e ·· e-.r.t'.tb7.''· ·. ldll lo it.• ._ 'd'& 'L• 'ii'Cilcia. ,·r. ' ··:·. · . . ' ·. "'~ , · ... · •. ' . ·:..,.. ·'" .. 

V··: .. . ·· ·:· .., .. ~:-::·: '" :>·~ ':' f~ '"l·t . • ' .. ·· :··~.\· ~ ... ~ .·:~· .. ....: ... ,.':. : ! • · · :ka \12.t~r (\\leet!.oo 1

ia =i ,et·aettl.sd; .'Jitit .it !,a, beliG9fld:" :·,, 

tbnt· it v1ll be •.ettled to tlia ·sldiate.ct1C!1;1 or t.h~;~~etL7 ~.'Itt .:.: ".: 

1nter:tcr.·\ ne ·aec!rfltery. ib ,....i1f'~oat* la:lt"";.week::to·eenur•.S&CIJli ionct~ U..-:'3 that··tJ:e ~opl.e "of' 'the ··Yo!dt:a "ral.l.rJ ilma.t· p:.,cant ·e; Clem:~ .. · 

:sio.ta: bG.f'oro: he·v:1J.l.: ~= a ~l;tcz: '!'er ·~ticm \lal')c ·:: r.~~.: ·~ ":·~· · · : ':p. ~ :· •.••. ··~ ~ .~': . .... :· ,•• . . . ., . } ... . .••.. •• .. • ••.•..• 1 ..... ~ 

· -· , '1'1-.a •slate 1ls a.ll:ost oleonJ' but'· 'tta lut =rk' tmt bo .. 'l.'i!:ad •. out ~!'~l!' 'U:e people ha.ve dona ·their ;:mot. · ~bre' is· Dov ·,_ r~~ · · 

of \.11\t'er 50 cu.bic teet· in ~· uhol.e ":alle)" !rot~ tl:e Coll:Zb!a. r!.v•r:':'.t.o . tl:.e Ce :e~e motmttUns. · rue shortaf;e 'Cilat'·be: :a&i: up •. :, · : .· .: t 't ·: . • · . .. .... I", .. , ... . . ~ .- . ~: ·' ~ , .: .... ~·~· ;"'' . .(· 

· 'l'l-.e·. s!'.orta,se ' is all below ~l:e lhdon · Oap. The ·.wtc !ra:L . . 

t!:J:t ro!.nt ·up streaft is olaar.-· ·ru.tutt.s OOWlty hal: tcDe her !=at' i:1 ". 

r.v~r-1 ~tt.rtieUl.u. •t·'rhe poopl.e ·llbove Onion Ge;: in tal:i:.c cou:t; !::.•:a :- 'o~a ~:air put. :heir tas!: is l!Ot. !:!niabK, bowver 1 tc:r tr.o:r, z:a.u.t,· I ,.__ ""'...+ • .,. ' . 1 ' be1 ' . ' ' ' r.::-.:0 \1? ....., II ·~ .._G !~ ~ ~~ -CV~ .. . , . . " V'·' ' 

. . . ~he couci+.ing ooaaittaa eu=oc! up tl:eir f~aa :c.t a ~~u; .. .:at-..u c:~ · evenir.a ~ tl:ia IJIOriWo.a ·tvo t4 tile DSiabere sot· tc:-e~cr: i : ~ :. 

c.'"tl.!.nt to r~· aura th\t· tl:irJ w:-e r1t~t. ~11th the . "'tr.:.l:t. 11.11 !:~,'is .:. : 

tC:..o ' o!' tlle OGnl!.ls · ab=.• the ga"O are . a:~t~ .teo t!UOh water, :-.cr~o . t!;.rn· ~;:C~ tive!rted last ~. · · -·· ·.' · · · .. ·· · ..• .,.· -~ ·~'· ·.' · 0 0 H • 0 ,• ... : .,:·· : : tt~: . Oo 0 t: \' ·~ 0 0 0 ... :··;\0 0 

· : It iii' belin'ed. b7' IIOt'.o or. tl~e ~'.!:el!'l tl~~:.t tbe c;Overr-:en~. ' · ~!.l:t '!IClttle 'on this bu!a, but-U:a. IS(C~"C~ O! t::o hltf.ricr l:u ~~ ~. · !.~t~~~ed ~tr be VouU. 'Cont:'ci-:nr..·.::.n .~:~r.&IU ~ tl:.:l.t .he u~ll ~t { o .• . · 

~:\".rtl'i .. 'l.;. tmt11 •a ~li!i'!l slz.te i:~ ~or.nt~c1.. The above latter !':-:~: :::-. · 

: <'!".c s · c:i thi:i ~ots.on to 1Teo14nt La:-~ .of the . Col.-:=erc!::J. ~l\~' . . ·:.~~or c:.te ot ·tcectlber 13;·· is pldrt onO\I&h. E'"17 ·reot · o!' ~Lo c!tc*-:;e ~:\\rt bo tti;Cl~ out. ne J:ool:].e ecn..~ot t~ at tU 50 t'c:ot r.:a:t.- .• Z!'. ::::··· 

".!:.e !0 i'c:ot tl-.o.t is ahbrl bolou ~ot ·:.o zeoured t::.ora it ::~:.~ 'l:o ·: ~ .... . 

te::cn f:o:r.:: t::e ttsers c:.t tl-.u er.t! • . n:e :::-Uc1t1nc oc::-:.'dttoe i' s'~!.!l ' ·:. ct 1:or!t t:d =re hq:etul tbl.t · '- rC.tb!.'r.c:';-:.~· aettler.cnt ull). ~~nt.::J t, '· · 

t~ reec!:.ed this veok. · 
299 

·· , : . ::· ·. : letter.· i'.t'OIII !·i-• · J~• to tb · cot:td. ttee ia u !ollowe"t · ·. : 

_:'.> :~· :· ._:: ~t~~-:;_::_":)~,.· .. ~> . ···<·· ... :::·~r;:: _. ... ·· :·· ~~~~:J._t ;.,_~~:~ ~¥(t~: ·.; · · ,;.,, ·:.• 'file; trrisc.t!cm Cor:n:l.t~e~ -lTorllll':ll::IJ:IA; lluhl ·.centlet!an. ... .'·.·., ·., II; vaa a , Cl'ea.t:pleuure . ~ ~.a .. to: .,.nc!_- Joll a. telaer~~Z~, todai not.i...~~ ,' ... · 

~ tl'.c.t •.tb8 · sec:t'et:.ey. ot · ~ interior.lwi llr-!'1'0\fed tbe·!'icton pro3eot . 4nd ht.d allotted. .theraf'ore one·.mUion· dol.lars and .the · ~tmn,iell .J=ro- . 

Ject e.nd .. buJ! aUotted tl-.erei'or; ~SO~ooo· : ··~ .· -: ,_:\>-·. : ,.·.,· ·. ' .' . ·.· .. ' .. .. .' .. ... :: :c ~ ~ -~ '. . . . . : . '. . . . :: . . · ·.. . .It l::t.s u.i:u~ ~d-. \lgl')do ~•<;Ure ~so;ooo more than the : ·. 

lll!OtUlt ·in· OUt' . r~etriated· tl:zldJn!-·IH••. bt..ve ~ ecine , 1 t. ·.I breW::. th !'..and . you & ··C0?7 of' .. tl:ti '1otter-;rroc·tl:e:i'tecretaey- or the ·hter:!.or \lhich vUl: . shov Vl:.:!.t l:as >\;0 . be ...•• · . .,The··r1Mtt'· seCO!Id and sixth conl!ti~ are rraciiully the : sm::a. 'fi'.ase . an ---~, tl-.at. \111.1 haYe to be toce by . ; 

0\U' ~a~ .... '1~·SW~n,-.tfe ~.ibr lnl!ian reoerva.ti,on prot:os~t1C111 are r:atters w~ tb&1i ar•~;tif.be ad.fusted !:ere end I f'eel .tl-.at 1t·will ·. be ver:; auy.- to~teke •con:at both of-thue it our J:ao$l].e t.o ;their .. r.art.. It WcuU iileeD tl-.a~ . S.t · ~t no~ to be dii'fic:ult to aec:ure & · .. ,_ . 

s&tialaotor,> ac!jt1St.i:ent af'!.tha. fourth propos!.tion.- I · llhauld th1J!l: . · 

thc.t our atatai ~rtioiale t' wan tM;r. are COirli.12ced thilt .. the secretarJ- ., ce~ -buiinct:!l :and inteM.s to beein. llork in our valley ·and ste.te ii' · . · · · ti\Ut!!S ·: L.oe :, ~ustetl v'..ll not ataJ:Id .. 1,D tl:e l.:ey' ot thie· great· entert=ril!e •. · I lo c.ot .:- ll:li.t!ci~te i: any trouble .. :!.n this resr-eot llnd ·.vould 111£~ect-:,1;.bo.t '· · cUr ~o!)le ·:- taJ:e , .. tbis:·utter' Up .with· tl!e state oi'ficiala1 tnd -esr,eciill:r: uith -:ilnlto!sJ!::ttr.onu. 'J'he: secret~UT of the intet'icn" ·e:uneed c.o ~; •. 

ec;uivoe~~ll~r the.ii ' ha .. vouU. to eveeyt.l-.ing-!n Us· J:O'olar bei'e to l:elp us · elong·to tct ~· thilnrork !mlier Vf:1• 'l'h1s 1 in li!;'J juC:gment1· 1J18'1l1'8S ' the e•tisi'c.c~ry ~justant ot the I~an reserva.tion so tl1.11.t ,t!:e· clai=s 

oi' tlw ~d!es \J'lll· never· ciisturb'the ri(hts or pre!lel1t irri~tors 

r.ne a.JJ!o insures· the bX'i.hgiJI.g :unt'.e.r irri~lltion or I:Uiny tl'..QU.tanc!e .-Qr ~·es . ct: l=nci_ v'.:ich· otherwiee ~o-ocl.l. lle iclle. .... , .. 

'Thie· ~avea ror c:ettle~t a.t ho:-.o by-· ow p.~l.e · tlle cWl:a 

~t those v:1o are now :lrrtso.tlng ~ ~ .. r~ver IU'Id i.te tribute.r1u &nd . ~J: tho~e v:·o e.:-e-U:Jine'· tl:.e water· ot tl:& r1vvr for pa.tCT ·. pur;ocee. · ~he 

cc-VItl':l:':"~r.t wi:l not atjust the oldl:a et !01.'81' as it \12.1 11\lcgected. in· t~e :.er.nblic a rev lays t~-r;o, '!he.t is a. clait! t!:o.t \:e .. vill l:ATa to · · ce~tle just·the iw:!a ~ tl-.e · olJJ.::a o! all:·otber privato .ll::e:-s ·et tl:e : • :~tc:":s · ot· the ; cstrea;ll.. '!ne DAttcr ie . nell sc;.noral.y up to ~'"• !'aratoto~c.- -.!..-e l!ll.ve, not· bed tl~ a.~ovel at tho 11ccroUr:,·. lie notr ~ve bia . · :::-tTt~Val and .his tSaGUrtmce tt.at 1i' ;th c'i!1'ietlltioD in the '-~r ~~re 

:te":tled' co!l.:rt.rl!etion .llill· be ~cun; · .':J;e ~:cttleamt of· ttesc t'U'~ .;. _, ... 

!ic:\~tin cl.ono·vill be of inoclculable bltnorit to .our-r.eOJ!le cnt! to .. _. · et!!' v:>::.le1· It Wll:ea the 1:&t.er· rl.chts c.haolutely !1\!l"e fer ell t!:.e. ·, · 

to ·co:-.eJ avoic'!s-·law wits t'.nc wUl pror.ouq;ood feeling thrc:::~t .· . -::he ·wi:.ole·.veller:. • Tlle cocr:encencnt ef·t.'le ·.vork r.eon11 not .on!;r·the ·. ;. • , : ~ • ·~ • ' • • ,-i '••t •' ', , :• . ·,. I • • • ' •' ,. •, ".1 

.. .... · 

;,:: •. I• ·' · 
300 

llleolamt.tiol( oi' tAe." J.&nda ·uDder:tba ''lietcm aJid s--i.Ge· -•eota l:ft1t' :~ ~ 

.ul. t*t.lit"am 'U' :rap1d:lt .'as ~:tbi.-vo1'k 'i;U" FQP'-;;, "!'aid tb;" moi~Q-('-ia '"'Y. .aY&il@lll, t.M' r4clam&tion ·e4 60,000''ureis 1n 'Yle ·littitu;·l.ll4 'mi , ·-:- : 200,000 ure! l.ltlat .'ia ·· ~;m a., the Lead'be:tter F,OJect JLt ' a total'~: .... ·· oost .. ot eisht, ·teu··or·t.wlve ·DilJ.iou dol.la1'a. The expeaditure ot -.., 1~ 

thiS lDOtley alOne . VUl be vorth. lllillioDa ill . baeineas &lid' 'the ~e . 

in ·our popul.At!Gavot ~~ 'ot people. '·TU ftold&tioa · ot ~ · ··· · · ludalu~ ~a ot·nttJ.ers &114'\boUII&Dile ot'peopl.e ill the · ··. · · tovns Qd oitiee ... \11th' tbeae thoua&Jida ot people vUJ. oou lDADU• · · ·•. 

!acturihg · eai&blhtmenta ot \lbich we have 110t hantotore ch-elllll!d. '<. • :: 

It ia aliiiO·at: ~t~eaiT&bl .. that a:tl!f. ~ vill:· be umrilliq to concede · : 

illuch' in order that this ·areat '\oloi'k caa io oc.·· 'ra evvyoue·vho oVJia . · Jlropertt it' ..... ·a daubl.hli ill valpe. It'tbia #.& true, IUid I · belie'fl ~t 1st w can coDOede ~111.t1-tiva or even !itt)r per cant . &lid atill be ahlad ti.!uUio4UJ' '· aJid othimliae. · ' ' · · · · ·~~ ... , 

... ::~ ·._<:; ·· (· ~: ~ ~~;~;·· .~ .. -~ .. pl~ed illt4 ~- . 

eDdle•aiUld: e:cpeui:W• lit1P.t1on'llhJ.ah: v1u· eithe~ ci1rect17 o1" illcU.reotJi in:vol~• ·~ wter .ua•r i'l'OII' ltalilwvick to· Clo ZllDl. At ,the end, .. the,:·court ·.;.. ·one Jlall .. vUl dia'tfii:Rlte·tba . water that 1a 

.ill tbe river .. (UidJw o&Dbot ~trib\\te 1.111more) ·to ·thoae llhoa 

ha. !inda entlt.i4id to uae .it. In tbia diatribllt1oll lul•llill apread ; . 

out tbnr'-te:t' Jbe~ ·.a ~ aa possible. Be villllllka it so just :. ·.: : 

aa far as he·:.ou1

~ 

. the 110at ecODom'cal uae. will be NqUind ~very ;~·. : eacili JiU" vUl be told· Just when bl can uae hia 'llatar - lUi : \1&11 ·"· .;. 

doM 'in the VeAU• · ·It aeeDltl. · to. 11118 that the people ·~elvee olisht'.;;·'';•: 

to be &bl.e to lll&ke a better cliatributioll than aJJ:T own, aDd eapec1all,y \/han so liiUCh vill accrue floola u i.llllllabl.ll aettlelleilt. Ve abollld .... , ·' .... etiU.lat.e out Mew in litt.itu co=t7. \U.tbout balt the taeent1n ':1 · ·,'; 

that ve"bave; they have cOM 11111Ch lllal'v'the ·proper aettle~~At, tor. .,··.- with t.heir lll'OJect Jlbt yet 1peoitically approm, 'the7 lla'fe ll&de " "''-!- . 

co110eseio~ vhieh, ·u tolloved by our people, \oloulA .aoon solve one·:·: .. ,. ot our 111oat di!.tioult probliiiU • . · I u slad that 'that a.n so dtuat.d ~-_.:.. . 

that theT vUl pt a &l'l&t benet!t !roll the •xpeDditure ot auc:h ot :·, ·.· ttda JDoney ~ tbe eoilatruetion ·or l'eeanoirll vithout A&viq to vait ; 

for actual vork· on tbeil' pro~ect. · Pl'ivate capital aanaot 001111 :Ulto > our terri tort· \11th the · \later ri&hta Uad,lu.ted oven U' t11a proJects .~·i· 

c:oul4 be toUJII:l Wioli it coUld 'huAJ.e, Therefore, ve C&DIIOt. expect ::·::. liUCh turlher clnelo~nt. 'lhia · ia the t1Jae \rben the 'Wbole valley '·· .. , . should aet. taaetber ux1 vark. It. ia 110v tbat. our btlllineaa •n abo~· "· 

vslce up to tbt haJlo2'talloa of thia matter. It il not the tiJle tor ... : sharp practice Ol" for ·attelapta to &•t the. 'beat ot sOM one OJ' ot the_ 

t:ovenllllerit • . '1'lut aovenlaent II&)'B juat vhat it. will do and w know · . . : just \!bat vo JDUt do. our part real.l;y needa to be dou firat bec.use 

1.he Sunnyside option 0am10t be carecl tor \litbout the edjustmeDt ot · ·: 

OU2' matters r.or can the lJidian reaerva~!oD 11at.te:r be take11 up vitbout 

this. The1"etore, 1t 1a very Dpol'taDt that our people sllould pro- · coed at once . 'fhe !Jwln7aide option expiJ'es Jamary 1 &ad, unless an extension ot tille 1W\ be secured w auat a4juat CIUl" ri&hts by . that 

t.De. I \10\lld .ugeet that our people take up the Mttar ot the · 

extensioc vitb Mr. Blaine at once. 'l'bll secretary ia vil.l1Dg to ... aive : 

J 
301 

ua.. . , &1i. ~·th.t : tJme . .. ·,'Mi; ~ e'1blio '' ha.t . -tiili"·:~ioil . :~... . the .o }'....._Cift ... • .' n ·· .. .... ,_.: ~ IT.Litll. .... ..:. :.!iP:'.~!J;!: ".lf~'l' n·•·· 

M&-~~·11:11Uhe,''·"'. : ~ii'bUt'' 'belie'f':a· ihat. ·1d.th the·· i.ppt"OYal·'ot · th•tf·:; } .~. 

Sunn;,S:I.de !Z'(iject.' bf· the se4ret.al7 ·!ft-. U&ine will 'be perfao~ · · · , .. ;,~:· • .. :·:. 1ll1l.llng to ~azxfhiS opt.iozs poesi.l;)~ oae cr two montha lone-r. · 'rhis:. ia ' a matter that our people .shGuld take up at occe it they want more tw. · · · · I oGNlOt ~~~ 11101'8 t.h.m &l.re4111' hail· been said or. the importance. or · thia m&tter to out' people. : ~ cert.a:!..n4-: &Ppl'aciataa .. it. As · 

70'i1' re~naentr.tiw I han d0!18 rq part acapt. as I mq 'be abla to · hel.p in the &eljuat~Da!lt or Ja&ttms ldlich can be adjueted here and ·1n . 

this I o~ sball. not relax lilt at!Ol'tl that mq be neces1U7 . · -i ~· . tor· eocceaa. . 'lhe respons:lllillty ·rests 11011 with the people at heme~ .. : '· .. It .there it ra.uurs in tbil :t· oazu!Ct De 'bl.aale<l. . . . :• . .. . . . 

. ' : Scme haw. cdticilleci .me· ·ill. thl!l pa.at tar not ha~...nc dona I.IQ"":!.· · 

thing tar our secti=. I .teal. now' that I ha.ve dane IIIDl'a torr this .. . ::' 

section than t·.have dono1 or. ever .. cum do, · tor artY othar section o£ .. . the state. ·. The. peopl.. o! Bell ill&bam IIX'8 clatarminad to raise · · · • Cl-;4001 000 ill., ardor. to secure a rall:'oad. U the spirit · that.· ·. · · IZWaates·th• could pm:~Ata our 1dlole v&llq this aat.tar wuld be 

settled "'a'l7 short;~•·· : leDnewiok, Iicaa, · Ploosaer aocl. ~ide · . . ,;:; 

should uni1B ali.• cme ·illal1.td.th Nortll Talc::!.ma in emeavot:iDg ~ secure · .- ·<· 

the be&rtyc~~~~ ~ ~ cnzr .people. :. : · ... ~ · . .. : . · . i·:$~r: '•, . . - . ~ ..• :4- ·;·~ :..: ... ~ .. ·. . . . 4 ~ • . . ' ., •·• • . • . . . • ... ,. . 

\:._,.f~;. ~·-·~tion ott1cials.v.l.ll be .1!-t Ubert,:v ~ aiw TOU·':t.: ;~_ ::.~ auch ::l.ntlll'izlat.ioai· u . tbq u;r have wbioh will. assist ,-ou in. :rour 'MOrke .:, 

~ ···-~·· ··., .. ( . ~~·· ... ·;:iit . ·;,.I . :.. . : .. . '. ·' :-··~. . ·:· .. ,.· .. ·~:- . ·': ·.·.: · · ·. · ... ~-to receive ·a t.ei.eg~:~ in. the neu- fllture that ~· : t10rk il .. tloner :J;. azzC ,. · · ": :.-: · · · · .. · · ... , 

· w. ·L. Joceil • ... 
NATIONAL 

CATTLEMEN'S 

ASSOCIATION 

302 

before the 

tlrl.tecl States Senate 

Cc:ad.ttee Cl'l Qmqy ' Natunl. 1luam:es 

&ilCartlittee en !'later ' PoMar 

JUne 28, 1988 
303 

'I'llank yoo for this cpportunity to testify about s. 2322, Yakima River Basin 

water EnhancBIIent Project Authorization. I am heJ:e testifyinq an behalf of 

the National catt.J.emen' s Association and. also the wash:ington state 

cat:tJ.emen' s AssoCiation. 

we understarxi that thl.s bill was :tiled with the im:ention that substant1a1 

changeS .in its language would be made. We are also advised that d!.sc:u.5sion 

~ are b6inq provided to our people in the eountcy. In oorusequenoe, 

our earmants he.re today will necessarily be of ll general .natun:1. 

The !IrA holds that existing individual water rights ll1.lSt be preserved in all 

circumstances. Traditional individual water rights are fully private 

property rights and so recognized and protected by the Constitution. o.xr 

cattleren II'Sii:le.rs possess water ri9htS of many Jd.ncls .in many ~cal 

circ:urtStances-.' It is of paraiOOUtlt in{:lortanoe that all of these individUal 

rights be fully reeogn1%ed; protected, and given certainty. We st!R'Ort the 

efforts of this Slixxmnittee and t:hEI Congress to give certainty to its 

p!:eVious act:ions whether it lliWIS the 1877 Desart Land .1\ct with its. water 

and land patents, the recognitioo of its 'l'erritorial Governnents,. Enablinq 

Acts af statehood, or 9Jrea1l of Feclamation contracts with water users. We 

look forward to .lArlquaQe in this bill that will ao:::Q~plish this. 

Water rights are a ~Y riQht and so recognized by states, Congress, and 

the courts. In &rid arld SBDi-arid aections of our oountry, the ~llcation 

of water to· the land is what made possible settlement and econanic 

developtent. In some areas of the west both private and~ 

i:rrigation develq:ment and expeditirus use of water is, at this very time, 

avoiding the dr:ought disaster =izlq in the farm belt. 
304 

'lhe availability of agricultural Mater, aa we a:e sure you are awue. baa 

fortmately limited tbe federal assi.ttanee requi.«d in aclver8e 

eirc\nstanees. BaooeYer, the ttater zauet be avail.Bble withcut legal tmeats 

or az:bitraxy di'YI'Jr8ions to other lli!U. 

One of the most wb!alent c11acusaiona in water short anu c:cri08I:n8 wter 

"bblnnc.ing." '1bJre are aa many pnlPOSill.a alXlut bow to oo this as there are 

clefinitiona ot ltbat "banJdng" really l!llilll$. 1l1ate9er IJB8 :bll propOeed. the 

first neoesaity is ggtainty of th8 water right entit:lel8lt before "!lanldng" 

or ether uses can be di110JSM:i at all. If this bill will provide abeolute ·' 

certainty of axist:ing water rights to ueers, this ll\lbcxunittee will haw 

taken a gEUt and necestaxy step in future ~ J:el.atianshipe in liUC:b of 

the l.hited States. 

Of Eqlal. ~ ia the pootitication of Indian clail1ls arr;1 t:ha1r 

sett:leme!lt. 'l1le responsibility of meeting Traaty claial i.e a Federal 

.responsil:dl:ity and we WOUld ~ lan9ua9e in SID!acpnt drafts of s. 2322 

that: will ~e this mspalSibUity. BcM!IIer, the Fedez:al ~ 

cannot use tle private~ of individual. d.tizaoa to aeet fedllral 

~CNI. 'l!rt!ll'ederal. eettlel!ll!nt of Incli.an e1aiml for orr-~ 

priVIIt:ely Ollll8d and stata adjudicated water rights. Any :nlllf W8tU 

allocated, incll.lding ~flows llllSt deriue :0:01 ncn-pnviOWily 

allocated acaxcH. 
305 

Our National cattlemen's 1\Ssociation policy provides that "agreements 

involving individual. private land and water rights shall :be solely a 

decision ot. illdividual private property owners." We ~ that language be 

irlcorporated. in this bill to E!!lSUre that individuals rights are pmtected, 

tl'lat contracts are not abrogated, that future agreements are between· only 

willinq persons and any agency, that any neasures for increased efficiency 

or ccmexvation are funded. by goveuraent appropriation up front, that· all 

entitlenents of water are legally and physically served, and that no land or 

water uses are .inpacted incluclirtq fUture managesnent options. 

We also support the continued sovereignty of the states in water rights 

all=tiOn. we have sane coocem that the present language inS. 2322 is 

deficient in this regard and further confuses the issues in the Norl:hwest 

states by :z:ei'et'ences to "No:r:t:h>oest Power Planninq COuncil." We hope these 

probl.sns are con:ectad in the next draft. 

We have previously txesented testim:my at several hearings oo Yakima 

EnllarlcerN!tlt legislation; these are inclmed. for the record today. We 

appnciate this qlpOrtUrlity to testify and look forward to discussions 

concem:inq furthar language. We will be haw./ to provide yoo with speclfic 

written c:anuents following the review of the ·l:edraft by our mel!tlers in the 

West, :but l'le strongly q:pose any movement of this Bill until the problems to 

which this testiJrony refers are resolved in a:mnittee. 
306 

NATIONAL. CATTLEMEN'S AsSOCIATION 

QII~-/UI • --• --Ot:-• tiii'IJ-

-........- IQG&a&-..81. •I!Cl,_SfG • ~COIIIISII • 13113J-

. ~ 

lE STIIIOIIT 

on behalf of 

~TIOIW. CAffiD£N' S ASSOCIATION 

114!fore the 

United suus Senlte 

Energy a Natural lesovrcea c-ttte Water 1nd Power Subc-1ttee 

OCtober 19, 1987 

011 

hktu Rhtr Bastn 

111 

ltll')' Burke 

Chlll'llllll, Vater Rights a Resources SUIM:-Ittee 

The ll&ttonal Cattl-n's Assoctatt011 ts tile ntlonal spokesaan for all seg~~ents of the beef c:atth tndustr;y--fncludfng cattle br...S.r, producers 

Mid feedlll'l. The IICA reprn111u appraxta1tel1 230,000 elttl-•. 

Mlllbers111p 1Kludes 1nd1Ytduel atllbers u wll 11 ol9 afftltated state cattle 

assoctatfOM and 23 national brHd assochtfons. 
307 

Tile Nat foul Cattleooen' 5 Auociatlon app~ltCI&tes the oppor-t.unity to COIIIHnt on s. 1435, 1\Y na•e h Klry Burke, Chatman of the IICA Water Rights and Resources subCCIIIIfttee on whose bothal f I pt'llsent these c-nts. 

We support your 1 ntroductory stateent to the Senate on .June 25, 1987 

that 11tg1slat1on 1s sorely needed, Since you noted on that date the 

flnlnen'e of pro-ration we have experienced a shortfall of sfx wee~s of water delivery In 50118 districts, 

We feel S. 1435 is fonproved over ear11or versions, particularly In the 

Inclusion of storage CCidponents. lie. would urge you to also Include in this 

authorization, at the least, feasibility 1110nfes for the construction of 

Stnplng Lake and II,Y1118r In addition to Cabin Creek. 

You and congressman Harrison have repeatedly urged the water users of 

th1s basin to agree with the Yakl .. a Hatton on storage sftes, ancl solutions 

and you wl II now ff nd agreeraent between the TMbe and 1 rrt gators ofr the 

conslclerition of Buonping Lake, Cabin Creek, and II.YIIer u reflected In the 

Off-Reservation Site Selection llork Group report to the Poli'Y Group. we ask you to IIIOVe forward on these sites by Including the.n in S. 1435. 

Although there have been SOllie language changer froon s. 2519, we would 

sublltt the rt,?pnments on that bill for expediency's sake today. 

lie would call top your attention two other recent proposals affecting 

this basin that must be nDif addressed fn S.l435. Fii'St Is the Northwest 

Power Phnning Council proposal to build an outplanting hat,hery to plant 

audrCIIIOn fish 1n the Yakima tributaries. Tllfus wtll expand the prollle~~s, 

controvei'Sies, and water shorta.9es you have an opportunity to solve on the 11alnste~a by Federal legfslUion, 110re than 60 fol4 into that 11any 

tributarle5. lie therefore ask that In Se,, 1, (a) the refarenc:e to the 

IIOrthwest Power Planning Act be deleted, 

Second, the Bureau of Recluatlotl has announced a pl.n to change . t ts Cllllllresstonal charge and direction, llh11ke the IICA hiS nat fo!'lllllated a response to the Bureau, we feel It is lmensell' tllj)Ortant that the sol uti on to the Ultl111 proJect probl•s not preclude ·fnclustoa In the Bureau's future 

plans and operations ancl that existing right of usei'S and contractual 

obligations of the Bureau be specifically defined In s. 1435 so that water rights holders are not assessed adclltlonal 11011111 for waters already all outed ·and that new assesSIIents apply only to new watei'S. 
308 

P~ge Tvo 

We would suggest that Sec. 1. (3) (b) referring ·to con&ervation pbns for •rec:lple~~ts of Irrigation water, • be rephrased to reflect the · undersundlng that this refers to only new waters over and above present 

Bureau obligations. lie would refar you to the Conseryatlon llork Group 

report whlc:h Is considering •system l111prov11111ents• and perhaps thfs language 

c:ould be substituted. 

Tllere Is also a co11fuslng cross reference In Sec: . 2 as to now the 

"Yakima Enhance~~ent• operation and 111lntenance will be coordinated with the 

ulttlng Yak! .. ProJect and whether that Includes Buruu built districts, 

only proratables, or all to 'Wholl vater Is delherad, Because of the riew 

Bureau propouls and the Aquavella adjudication we suggest th1s be clarified 

to specHieally eniJIIerate and recognize existing Bureau contracts, stHe and 

Territorial water rlghu. We 110uld wtsh to nold a technical solution that 

would cause a bookkftplng or legal !•possibility. • 

Mr. ,Jones, Congres$111an, was quoted In a lettllr to the Yakl•a Daily ~. Decmb"r 18, 190~ when he announced approval by the seei'ttary Of 

TritiMOl' of the Tieton and SUnn.Yslde proJects and urged the 1111edlate 

c0111pletlon of the signing of the ltaltlng agret!lllents so that the Yakllla 

Project could 9et undervay: 

.. ·- ~ 

"The secretar.Y or the Interior assured ae unequivocally that 

he wuld so do ever.Ythlng In his power here to help us along 

to get this work under w1y. This, In •Y judg-nt, Insures 

the sat Is factory adjust11ent of the Jadhn reservation so that 

the chl•s of the lndhns will nevtr disturb the rights of 

present Irrigators and also Insures the bringing under 

Irrigation of aany thouund of ;ac:ras of hnd which otheNise 

would lie Idle. 

This leaves for settlettent at b0111e b.Y our people the clal11s of those 

who are nov I rrl gat lng fr0111 the river and Its tributaries and of those who are using the w;ater of the river for paver purposes. The gover11111ent will 

not adjust the clall1s of JIQWer u It was su~sted In tile Betlublle a fn 

days ago. That Is 1 clal11 that we will han to settle justtlii"'S- u the 

c:lalu of all other private users of the waters or the str••· The utter 

Is now squarel.Y up to us, Herttofore we have not had the approval of the 

sec:retar.Y•· We now hne his approval and his assurance that 1f the 

difficulties In the way are settled construction wn 1 be begun. The 

settlenent of these difficulties alone wn 1 be an lnculab1e benefit to our .,.ople .,.cl to our valle.Y• The c-encenent of the work •eans not only the rec: l .. at1on of the hnds under the Tieton and Sunnyside projects but 

ultlute1y, and u rapldl.Y as the work can progress and tbe 110ney Is 

11nilable, the rec:lautlo11 of 60,000 acres In the Klttlas and over 200,000 acres h what Is kno11111 as the Leadbetter project at a total cost of eight, 

ten, or twelve 1111111011 dollars.• 
309 

Page Three 

Congress 1nd the Depart.Rient of lnur·lpr In bu11dlng the Yatfm Project 

stgned agree~~ents to prennt the controversies wa are now Cltscusstng--the ll•iilng agre~~~~ents with prior wttar rights owners and contracts wtth those 

under the new Bureau prQjects. To the extent an1 problss ·exist or litigations Is pending. the United States has the obligation to see neither 

affects these prior agresents or state water laws. lie feel J'OU have an opportunlt¥ In s. 1435 to solve these proble~~s b1 raatff,..ing the l'ederal 

obltsattons and rec:ognl:ze extstlng rights. provide storage for irrigation and fisher¥ needs, both to citizens and the Yaki•a Nation, and raove eny reason for further litigation. 

Thenk J'OU 'tor this opportuni t1 to testt fJ'. 
310 

NA"t''ONAL. CATri.SME/1. 'S ASSOCIATION 

SdO~~-·P.O.aoa~·~ ~IOIU•I303tNo0305 

1 

.July ... 198& 

Honorable Se~tor ·D&ftie1 J. Evans 

702 Hart Bu11cttns 

Was!lington, D. c. 20510 

Our Sellatol' Evans: 

The llatfonal Cattl-'s Association appreciatas tilt opportunf ~ to tes'tffy on s. 2519. ·I\' nue f s Mary llurke, Cllail'lliln of Ule II:A Subc-i ttee on llatel' Rights and Resources on whose behalf I u presenting these ca..ents. 

We llave three general ca.ments: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

s. 2519 gaYe congress tile opportuni1;Y to quam1fy reserved water 

rights and we are dfuppo1nted :you have avoided that 1ssue. 

The language does not adequately protect and reco~1ze ex1 sting 

water rights and adds confusion. 

lbe C051$ are not berM by tile beneficiaries. .~ . 

SPK1fically, in ·s.e. 1, we flnd the first sent-e ucr-1y collfusfng. 

The word •enllanc-t• h •nnecessary, tile preposft1ona1 piii'&HS can apply 

to one noun or several, and t!le prf•I'Y reaponsibfli~ of tile bureau of recla~~&tfon to delher irrigation water •-to be 1egfslathely lou. We 

would prefer tllat tills section ·read •tt~e Secretary of Interior 1s author121d 

to design, constnlct, operate and Pinta1n pursuant to Federal Reduatioft 

Law and Washington State vaur Laws•. People of t!le Pacific NDrthwst hava 

been repeatedly assured that the Pacific Northwest Electric Pc.er P1aM1ng 

and Conservation Act (94 Stlt. 2'971 hu only pliMirat .,thorl1:1 and we obJect to giving it regulatory power. Ve believe the Bureau of Recla111tioft 

should reaffil'll fts priaery responsibflf~ of delfwrfng frrfg~~t1on water fn 

references to the operation of fish pauase hcflitfes. Ve would sugsest the deletion of the tertii "wfldlffe" 1n tllh act as there are no facilities 

proposed to th1s purpose and ft further caaplfcatal the manageaent of waters 

by the bureau. In order tocorrect the gra~~~~~atfcal awkwardnen of the first 

sentence we would suggest it read "t!lat lal fo'l' purposes of JU'ot•c:t.ion of 

frrfgatioft, fhh life, and systa 111"'0vtllleftts, the secretary• delete 

"IM:PPCA" and substitute "llash1ngton State !later LilW". The tel'll -water 

conservatt on• is not an accurate descr1ptf on of the projects proposed and 

there are preseatly so -~ probleas with the loss of water rights caused by the 1985 Fal'll 8i11 using the •conservation• we find tt a confusint and 

unacceptable tel'll. 
Honorable Senator Evans 

July 9, 1986 

Page two 

311 

In sec. 2 the first sentence should either be deleted until storage is built or state plainly that no waters from any existing rights will ever be used 

for fish passage facilities. v~ does the word 'valid• appear at all and 

only before 'contract rights of irrigation users'? This can only be v11Wed u a bias. In the last sentence we would suggest the inclusion of the words 

'Territorial Rights', recognizing those rights vested during the various 

homestead acts. This 1s beeoafng particularly important since· these rights can be threatened by the increasing fish plantings in both th~ .ainstraaa 

and the tributar1 es. · 

We found Sec. 3 and 4 very confusing. In Sec. J·Rosa (a) and lbl . wapato, the waters •shall be available'. Does this llll!an these waters will 

supercede the 1946 decree and bee01e 'non~profitable'? Where will th~ be 

stored1 The waters fn (c) Sunll)'s1de 'shall be allocated'. The waters in · sec. 4, Cle Elum cam and the Lakes Pipeline, 'shall· become features of the 

existing Yakima P;-.>ject'. It has been the understa~ding of the people of 

Kittitas Coun~ that the Lakes Pipeline ~as for thQ purpose of ~ing the 

fish passag.e._facilities at Lake Eaton pos$ible. Tbis section does not 

proovide th\t"the cost be borne by fisheries interests. The NCA strongly 

opposes confusion of water rights allocations as appears in this section. 

Our IH!IIbership has IIAIIY of the oldest rights in this nation, as well as new water development, and we urge precise definitions of all rights and 

responsibilities. We also oppose land and water rights owners being 

burdened with costs accruing to other beneficiaries. If rights and costs are spelled out now we eliminate legal problet11s later. 

Sec. 7 and 8 also indicated funding requirements from irrigators. We can find no additional water available through th1s bill. It also does not 

address the return of "Quabnbush Flows' which are in fact the proper~ of 

existing water rights holders used now 1nstream. 

Sec. 9 should state specifically that only this section and not the entire 

act gf ves priori t;y to fish. 

ve would ask that these sections be explicit in funding requin!llents and 

that onlY new waters, ad41t1onal to bureau ·delfvery contracts; be subject to 

irrigation repllYliM!nt; thh b111 would require that irrigators pa,y twice for 

the same dalfvery. The bill fs also silent about the necessft;y ot Zlllll!nding 

i ~rfgation contracts as required by the 1982 Reclamation Refom act. 

Sec. 10, unleu you do plan to quantity federal reserved rights or build . storage and alleviate the need for an adjudication; "'" question t he wisdoca 

of including "ground water• (3) at thi$ tiM. We have no probletn with this n a sensible practical project, but the inclusion of gt"ound waters into a surface water issue compounds ·our legal problears. 
Honorable Senator Eva111 

July 9, 1986 

Page tllree 

312 

Tile last Sec. 11, 11 f~~proved over sou proposals but we do not ur~darsuncl 

lllhat Jurfsd1etfon tile YakfM llldfUI ll.ltion has -r 11\Y waters or atreus or groundwater outside tile menatfon boundaries. Pleue c1ar11"y or delete 

this. 

In conclusion, we •ust oppose tilt bill as written but are disappointed tllat 

ft was not used 11 111 opportunity to resolve ancl clar1f:Y probl•s• Ve feel 

ft fs furtller co11fusf~~g 111d eo.p'lfcatfllg til• fnues h tllfs basfll and would 

be a 110st regrenable precedent for otller stetes, partfcularl)' as 1rr1gat1on ud and"*l!ls fish fssues are &dclressed fn Oregon; ldallo; and Montana. 

'!hank you very 110Cb for tilts opportllllfV to tntify, 

MB:lc: ~ -~ 

cc; Senator S1acl1 Gorton 

CongressMn Sid Morrfson 

Sfneerel:y~ 

Mary 

~~ Burke; Chifrun 

NCA Vater Rfgttl SUbca.f\tH 
10 

II 

12 

313 

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

AFFIDAVIT OF KENT D. RICHARDS, Ph.D. 

IN SUPPORT OF TESTIMONY BY REPRESENTATIVES 

OF YAKIMA RIVER BASIN IRRIGATION DISTRICTS 

RE: HR-1690 AND S-1411 

STATE OF WASHINGTON 

ss. 

County of Kittitas 

KENT D. RICHARDS, on oath, states: 

I am a history professor at Central Washington University, 

Ellensburg, Washington, over legal age, competeht to testify in 

13 this proceeding, and submit this "Affidavit" based on my 

14 personal knowledge of the following facts. 

15 A wvitae• containing information about my present and past 

16 academic •arid professional activities, experience, service , 

t7 awards, research, publications, papers, grants and assignments 

18 is attached as Exhibit "A" and incorporated in this 

19 •Affidavit". 

20 I have conducted extensive research and written about 

21 Isaac I. Stevens, who conducted the negotiations which 

22 culminated in execution of the 1855 "Yakima Indian Treaty". 

23 One of my publications, Isaac I. Stevens: Young Man in a Hurry, 

24 is attached as Exhibit •s• and, to the extent Exhibit •s• 

~ relates to the historical background, contemporary circumu stances and understanding as well as events occurring before 

27 and after execution of the 1855 "Yakima Indian Treaty", Exhibit 

~ •s• is also incorporated in this "Affidavit". 

29 AFFIDAVIT -

30 

31 

L/IIN OFFICE OF 

R.OWER a -EOTTl SOfT£ t, YAKIMA lEGAL CENTER 303 EAST "'0" STREET 

YAKIMA, WASHINGTON _,, 

(!OitHI-... 
1 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

I~ 

IS 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

2S 

28 

'1:1 

28 

29 

30 

31 

314 

At the request of attorneys for a number of Yakima Basin 

irrigation district attorneys, I conducted research, examined 

numerous historic documents and prepared a copyrighted report 

to them which is entitled "The Yakima Indians and United States 

Indian Policy to 1914" which is also attached as Exhibit •c•, 

incorporated in this "Affidavit", and is submitted to the u.s. 

Congress for consideration with the irrigation districts' 

testimony re: HR-1690 and S-1411 . 

kENT D. RICHARDS 

. (\. 

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ..fL._ day of 

October, 1993. 

AFFIDAVIT - 2 

State of Washington. 

My commission expires: 7/ N / f Y 

L.J1W OfFICI Of 

1'\.- I MOIIIOTTI &I.JJ'n 1, YAKIMA L.8W. c:::erT'D' SD lAST 'V' STMET YAKIMA. ........,.ON -.o1 

--
10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

315 

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

AFFIDAVIT OF CHARLES C. FLOWER 

IN SUPPORT OF TESTIMONY BY REPRESENTATIVES 

OF YAKIMA RIVER BASIN IRRIGATION DISTRICTS 

RE: HR-1690 AND S-1411 

STATE OF WASHINGTON 

ss. 

County of Yakima 

CHARLES FLOWER, on oath, states: 

I am a member of the Washington State Bar Association, 

No. 143, member in good standing, and admitted to practice in 

the Courts of Washington State as well as various Federal 

(U.S.) Courts including the United States Supreme Court, over 

legal age. ·-..ompetent to testify in this proceeding, and submit 

this "Affidavit" based on my personal knowledge of the following facts. 

I have participated in Department of Ecology vs. 

~ Acquavella, et al . , ("Acquavella"), Yakima County 

21 No. 77-2-01484-5, since its filing in 1977 and submit for 

~ consideration by the United States ~ongress with the irrigation 

23 districts' testimony re: HR-1690 and S-1411, correct, accurate 

24 copies of the following Acquavella documents attached as 

~ Exhibits "A" - "D" to this "Affidavit" and incorporated herein: 

26 1. Exhibit "A" - 11 / 29/90 "Amended Partial Summary 

Z1 Judgment Entered as Final Judgment Pursuant to Civil Rule 

28 54 (b) • affirmed by the Washington State Supreme Court in 

29 

30 

31 

AFFIDAVIT OF CHARLES FLOWER - 1 

76-655 0 - 94 0 11 

LMOFFu;fOF 

FLOWER a ~OTTI 

SUITE 1, YAKtMA LEGAL CENTER 

303 EAST RD"' STREET 

YAKIMA. ¥MSHtNQTON MSI01 

f!IOII 241-1014 ,: - i 
316 

Department of Ecology, et al. vs. Yakima Reservation Irrigation 

District, et al., 121 Wn.2d 257; 850 P.2d 1306 (1993), from 

which there was no appeal, 

2. Exhibit •a• - 5/22/90 "Memorandum Opinion Re: Motions 

for Partial Summary Judgment•, 

3. Exhibit •c• - 10/22/90 "Amendment to Memorandum 

9 Opinion Re: Motions for Partial Summary Judgment Dated May 22, 

10 1990", and, 

II 

12 

13 

14 

IS 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

2S 

26 

27 

28 

29 

:II 

31 

4. Exhibit "D" - 1/31/45 "Judgment• in Kittitas Reclamation District, et al. vs. Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District, 

~ Federal Eastern District of Washington No. 21. 

. ·--:; 

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 6th day of OCtober, 

1993. 

NO'I'ARY PUBLIC in and for the 

State of Washington. _ My CODIIIission expires: '5·1') q~ 

AFFIDAVIT OF CHARLES PLOWER - 2 I.MI OfFte:l 01 

I'LOiftll • -.om UTE t, YAKIMA LEGAL CINTIJt 3Cll EAST V SntiEET YAIOMA. ......aT'ON _.1 

·--
317 

Summary and Estimation of the Historic Run-Sizes of 

Anadromous Salmonids in the Columbia and 

Yakima Rivers 

by Karen E. Kreeger 

William J. McNeil, Ph.D. 

for the Yakima River Basin Coalition 

October 1, 1993 
318 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

1. Estimates of historic runs of anadromous salmonids range from about four to 

35 million adults entering the Columbia Basin and from about 300,000 to 

800,000 entering the Yakima Subbasin. 

2. Even though estimates of historic Columbia River runs vary nearly nine-fold, 

most estimates lie in the range of 7 to 8 million adults. We accept this range as 

the most likely representation of historic abundance. 

3. Estimates of historic runs into the Yakima River are more speculative than 

those for the entire Columbia Basin since there are no early statistics on catch 

and/or escapement. We calculate our estimates of 300,000 adults in the historic 

run to the Yakima River as a percentage (4%) of the total Columbia River run. 

Four percent is the approximate ratio of the Yakima watershed to the total 

Columbia Basin watershed available to anadromous salmonids before dams. 

4. Declining abundance of anadromous salmonid spawners in Columbia Basin 

streams, including the Yakima River, began well before the development of 

large-scale irrigation of agricultural crop lands. An intensive commercial fishery 

was the primary factor responsible for historic declines in abundance of 

spawners in the Yakima and other subbasins of the Columbia River. 

I. INTRODUCTION 

We have compiled agency reports and journal articles to summarize estimates 

of historic run-size of anadromous salmonids in the Columbia and Yakima River 

basins. The documents we reviewed date from the 1880s to the present, -

providing a view of present run-sizes in light of past harvest records. This report 

is divided into two principal sections. The first section summarizes run-size 

estimates for the Columbia River. We present a detailed account of the history 

of catch statistics, critique the methods used by previous authors to estimate 

abundance, and calculate a range of historic run-sizes based on five year 

running-averages. The second section discusses previous estimates for the 

Yakima River, and compares these estimates to our calculations of historic 

abundance in the Yakima Subbasin. We assume that historic runs into the 

Yakima Subbasin were proportional to watershed areas which were historically 

available to anadromous salmonids. 

II. Estimates for the Columbia River 

A. History of Catch Statistics 

There are no statistics on catches by Native Americans prior to the colonization 

of the Columbia Basin by Europeans. Catches by Native Americans are 

reported to have decreased precipitously after settlement of the Columbia Basin 

by European immigrants, largely due to the decimation of the indigenous 

population of humans from introduced diseases (Chapman, 1986). 

2 
319 

Small amounts of commercial harvesting by non-native Americans occurred in 

the Columbia Basin from about 1820 to the early 1860s. Spranger and 

Anderson (1988) describe the increase in salmon canneries in the mid-1860s: 

In the 1860s, the process of canning salmon was perfected, permitting 

the fish to be transported over long distances, stored for extended 

periods, and kept palatable for consumers. The first cannery on the 

Columbia River appeared in 1866 and produced 272,000 pounds of 

canned salmon in its first year. As Eastern markets developed an 

insatiable demand for canned salmon, the fishing and canning industry 

expanded rapidly. Canneries arose on both banks of the river and less 

than 20 years later, 55 canneries were operating on or near the 

Columbia. (Spranger and Anderson, 1988, p. 4). 

Richards (1989} provides additional information concerning the intensity of 

effort during early phases of the Columbia River commercial fishery as follows: 

By 1888, the Corps of Engineers reported there were 1,600 fish nets in 

use, averaging 1800 feet in length; this amounted to about 2,888,000 feet 

or 545 miles of net. There were also 136 fish traps on the lower 

Columbia and an unknown number of seines. The first fish wheel had 

been put into use at The Dalles in 1878 and ten years later there were a 

total of seven at that place or the Cascades. Critics denounced the 

wheels as murderous devices that took all fish regardless of size or 

species. An 1894 report on Columbia River fishing said, 'it is indeed, a 

matter of surprise that any salmon have been able to elude the labyrinth 

of nets which bar their course to the upper Columbia'. A few years later 

Bill Charley, a Wishram, apparently financed by salmon packers, 

constructed two fish wheels at the Tum Water fishery, and a lengthy 

dispute ensued with those who used the traditional methods of dip nets 

and spears. (Richards, 1989, p. 78). 

Figure 1 depicts the five-year running average of the commercial catch of all 

anadromous salmonids combined, from 1866-1936 prior to construction of 

dams on the mainstem Columbia and Snake rivers. Most fish were entangled 

in gillnets from sail-powered boats; trap nets and purse seines were also used 

on the lower Columbia. Between 1879 and 1926, fishwheels, situated in areas 

of swift current and heavy concentrations of fish, added to the increasing 

commercial catch. By 1883, there were more than 1700 boats contributing to 

the commercial catch on the Columbia, pulling in a maximum annual catch of 

43 million pounds. In 1883, the catch was composed entirely of chinook, 

predominantly summer-returning races. Fishery biologists visiting the Pacific 

Northwest in the late 1800s described declining runs of salmon returning to the 

Columbia and of salmon canneries switching to less desirable fall chinook and 

other species of anadromous salmonids (Stone 1878, 1883; McDonald, t 895; 

Evermann, 1 896). In one of many accounts of the declining runs, Livingston 

Stone quotes: 

3 
320 

Fewer chinook salmon now make their appearance in the upper rivers, 

but this sufficiently accounted for by the fact that such a vast quantity are 

now netted in the main river on their way up. On the Willamette River, the 

fishermen claim that the salmon have very much diminished, and that 

they caught only twenty or thirty now where they used to catch a hundred 

(Stone 1878, p. 803). 

Cannery records and catch statistics from individual types of fishing gear 

provide an idea of the fluctuation in salmon abundance (McDonald, 1894; Craig 

and Hacker, 1940); however, the most complete record of commercial catch 

statistics is in a 1976 report by Kurt Beiningen. Beiningen tabulates catch 

statistics by species and year from 1866, the start of the salmon cannery 

industry on the Columbia, to 1976. Catch statistics from cannery records and 

individual gear-types closely agree with those reported by Beiningen (1967); 

therefore, we used the values in Beiningen's report for our calculations and 

representations of historic run-size. 

B. Summary and Critique of Previous Run-Size Estimates 

The abundance of anadromous salmon returning to the Columbia Basin prior to 

heavy development by Europeans is estimated using two approaches: habitatbased and catch-based (Northwest Power Planning Council 1986). 

1. Habjtat-Based Approach. Historic abundance is calculated from the miles of 

stream formerly available to rearing, migrating, and spawning fish (Pacific 

Fishery Management Council1979). "Formerly" is defined as the time before 

dams blocked access to streams and before habitat was altered. This approach 

estimates about 5.2 million adult anadromous salmonids were produced in the 

Columbia River Basin -- 3.4 million chinook, 1.2 million coho, and 650,000 

sockeye. (Chum salmon have been excluded since their historic distribution was confined mostly to Columbia Basin tributaries downstream from the Yakima 

River confluence). This estimate by the Pacific Fisheries Management Council 

(PFMC) fails to include an estimate for steelhead. Using Fulton's (1970) ratio of 

1. 7 to 1 steel head to coho habitat, the Northwest Power Planning Council 

(NWPPC) calculated potential steelhead production to be just over 2 million. 

Adding the habitat-based estimate to the steelhead figure, the estimated salmon 

and steelhead abundance in the mid-1800s was about 7.3 million adults, 

excluding chum salmon. The NWPPC considers the habitat-based estimate to 

be a conservative calculation of abundance; however, we do not know whether 

the number is thought to be low because of how it was calculated or because it 

happens to be on the lower end of the range of estimates summarized by the 

NWPPC (1986). 

2. Catch-Based Approaches. Estimates of historic run-size have been derived 

from the record of harvest by Native and non-Native Americans. Most of the 

catch-based estimates from non-Native fisheries are based on peak harvest 

statistics, not potential production (as in the habitat-based approach) or average 

4 
321 

run-size, an alternative approach we will suggest later. Four catch-based 

methods are explained below. 

a) Calculated harvest by Native Americans before colonization by European 

immigrants. The NWPPC (1987) summarized the assumed magnitude of 

aboriginal catch in the Columbia Basin before 1850. Craig and Hacker (1940) 

estimated 18 million pounds of salmon were harvested per year (50,000 Indians 

eating an average of 1 pound of salmon per day). Hewes (1947, 1973), using 

revised population numbers and caloric content per pound of salmon estimated 

that "the total annual aboriginal catch for the Columbia in pre-contact times 

would be more than 22 million pounds". A NWPPC (1987} report makes three 

adjustments to the Hewes estimate: 1) revision of per capita consumption by 

some groups, 2) inclusion of a caloric loss in the salmon's flesh due to fasting 

during upstream migration, and 3) inclusion of a waste factor to account for 

uneaten salmon. After making adjustments to account for these changes, the 

NWPPC estimates about 41' million pounds (4.5 to 5.6 million salmonids) were 

caught by Native Americans prior to settlement by Europeans. The Craig and 

Hacker (1940) and Hewes (1973) estimates are about one-half the NWPPC 

estimate. 

Chapman (1986) asserted that Native Americans harvested about one-third of 

the adult salmon returning to the Columbia River prior to colonization by 

Europeans. Total calculated run-sizes, based on an assumed 33% harvest rate 

and an average weight of 11 pounds across all species, range from a minimum 

of 5 million (Craig and Hacker, 1940) to a maximum of 17 million (NWPPC, 

1986) adults. 

b) Maximum chinook catch in 1883 (NWPPC, 1986). This method (NWPPC -

1986) computes that the Columbia River has a total capability to produce 9.6 to 

16.3 million salmon, an estimate 1.2 to 8 million fish greater than the habitatbased figure. The estimate is based on 3 assumptions: 1) the maximum 

chinook catch in 1883 is an accurate measure of potential production, and an 

accurate indicator of the general condition of the Columbia River prior to major 

development, 2) the ratio of summer to fall chinook is the same in the 1880s as 

in 1920 (2:1 ), and 3) the ratio of spring to fall chinook is 1 :1. This method 

calculates total run-size by summing the maximum number of fish caught in 

each species/race and dividing by a range of likely proportions of the run 

caught (0.85, 0.67, and 0.50). For example, if the number of salmon caught 

totals 8,161 ,000 and 85% of the total run was caught, the total run-size would 

equal 9,601 ,000 (8, 161 ,000 I 0.85). 

Authors of the NWPPC report state that this is a less conservative estimate than 

obtained from the habitat-based approach. We feel that basing an estimate on 

the maximum recorded catch over-estimates a more typical, sustainable runsize. It is not clear whether increased catch is due to increased effort by 

commercial fishers or truly due to increased production. 

The ratio of summer : fall chinook is probably not the same from the 1880s to 

1920 (and may be under estimated) since many historic accounts state that 

5 
322 

summer chinook were overfished and depleted by the mid-late 1880s (Stone, 

1878; McDonald, 1984; Smith 1895). We are unable to determine the basis of 

the proportions of summer : fall: spring chinook from the available literature, so 

we cannot adequately critique this assumption. 

c) Catch by fjsh wheels. The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA 1984) 

calculated that the annual Columbia Basin salmon and steelhead run was as 

large as 35 million fish. This estimate is based on an assumption that fish 

wheels operating on the Columbia between 1889-1934 took about 5% of the 

total run (Donaldson and Cramer 1979). The basis tor this exploitation rate is 

not clearly explained. However, using actual catch data from fish wheels (Craig 

and Hacker, 1940) to calculate our own run-size estimate, we believe this figure 

is a gross over-estimate. For example, the average annual biomass of 

salmonids caught by fish wheels for 1889-1892 and 1895 was 3,856,000 

pounds. Assuming an average weight of 11 pounds per fish, all species and 

races combined (Chapman 1986), we calculated an average 350,545 salmon 

and steelhead caught in wheels for 1889-1892 and 1895. If this catch number 

represents 5% of the total run-size, as suggested by BPA, the total run equals 

7,010,900 fish, not 35 million. This discrepancy represents a fiye-fold overestimate of abundance. 

d) Five-year mean peak harvest. Chapman (1986) estimated the peak catch by 

"averaging the harvest tor the five consecutive years that yielded the highest 

combined total harvest". For example, the maximum average five-year catch for 

fall chinook, 1.1 million fish, occurred between 1915-1919. He calculated the 

maximum number of anadromous salmonids caught for each species/race by 

this method: spring chinook-- 400,000, summer chinook-- 1,700,000, fall 

chinook-- 1,100,000, sockeye-- 1,905,000, coho-- 605,000, and steelhead ---

382,000, totalling 6,092,000 adults. (Chum salmon have been excluded from 

our evaluation since their historic distribution was limited largely to the 

Columbia River below Bonneville Dam.) Assuming an 85% harvest rate, the 

total run-size would equal about 7.2 million (6,092,000 I 0.85). 

The assumption of an 85% catch efficiency may be realistic. Early fish 

biologists agree that overfishing caused declines in abundance of anadromous 

salmonids in the 1880s (McDonald, 1895; Smith, 1895). This estimate also 

agrees with the revised fish wheel estimate of about 7 million fish. We feel that 

Chapman's method provides the most realistic estimate thus tar, since it uses 

an average peak catch and provides well-documented assumptions for harvest 

rate; however, it is still based on maximum catch only. 

C. Our Estimate of Historic Run-Size Based on a Five Year Running-Average 

(1866-1936) 

Our estimate of historic abundance of anadromous salmonids is based on five 

year running-averages of annual catches from Table 1 in Beiningen (1976). For 

example, in Figure 1, each point on the trend line for five year running-averages 

represents the average of all salmon caught on the Columbia River for five 

years. The first data point is the average catch from 1866-1870, the second 

6 
323 

point is the average catch from 1867-1871, and so forth. This method of 

successively averaging in each new year "smooths" out the maximum and 

minimum catch figures on the trend line for actual catch data. Our method is 

similar to Chapman's maximum five-year mean peak harvest estimates except 

that we provide a range of abundance estimates based on these five-year 

means. The period included in this assessment begins with the first commercial 

catch statistics (1866) and ends with the completion of Rock Island Dam (1835), 

the first dam on the Columbia River mainstem. 

Harvest rates associated with catch statistics from the late 1800s cannot be 

directly calculated. Surveys to measure the number of fish escaping harvest to 

spawn were not conducted until1938. Rich (1942) reports data on the adult 

anadromous salmonid runs of 1938, the first year that salmon and steelhead 

were counted at Bonneville Dam. Based on his counts, the harvest rates for 

salmonids were calculated as follows: chinook -- 71%, sockeye -- 77%, and 

steelhead -- 67%. Prior to 1938, all species of salmonids already showed 

declines in harvest (Figure 1 ), and we believe that exploitation rates were 

probably higher, possibly as high as 90%, during periods of declining 

abundance. Chapman (1986) used harvest rates as high as 88% in his 

calculation of run-size. 

Figures 2,3,4, and 5 show the five year running-averages of catch of chinook, 

coho, sockeye, and steelhead, respectively, from 1866 to 1936. These four 

species either use the Yakima River subbasin currently or were found there 

historically. Chum salmon were not included in these calculations because 

there is no documentation that they used the Yakima River subbasin. 

Table 1 provides estimates of run-size assuming the 70% and 90% harvest 

rates during the period of heaviest fishing pressure for each species or race. 

The "period of maximum exploitation" was gleaned from the historical fisheries 

literature and Figures 2 through 5. Figure 2 shows the combined catch for all 

races of chinook. Summer chinook were fished exclusively until the late 1880s 

when fishers began to harvest the less desirable fall and spring races in the 

1890s. We have divided the chinook harvest by assuming that summer-run fish 

were harvested largely before 1890 and spring/fall-run fish largely after 1890. 

Other salmon species became more important in the total catch after the turn of 

the century. The last two columns in Table 1 compare our estimates to those in 

Chapman (1986). The harvest rates he used range from 69-88% and the most 

probable harvest rates were 80-85%. 

Chapman believes that his estimates of pre-development runs were 

conservatively high. His estimates of run-size using probable harvest rates 

closely agree with our estimates derived from assumed 70% and 90% harvest 

rates and five-year running averages of catch. 

We feel that our calculations and those of Chapman (1986) reflect historic runsize more realistically than the NWPPC (1986). We provide a range of runsizes, based on assumed high and low exploitation rates and high and low 

catch statistics, instead of just a single figure of maximum catch. 

7 
Table 1. 

Species or 

~ 

324 

Estimated abundance in thousands of Columbia River salmon 

and steelhead based on five year running-averages (see 

figures 2 through 5) compared to mean catches in the five 

consecutive years of maximum total harvest used by Chapman 

(1986). 

Period of QJr Estimates CllaQIDiiD Esli!DillllS 

Maxirrum 

Exg!Oilalion W:l .L.afl ti:tJ Wit 

Summer Chinook 1876-1886 3031 2358 2500 2000 

Fall & Spring 

Chinook 1890-1920 2263 1760 1838 1750 

Coho 1906-1930 1133 881 618 560 

Sockeye 1906-1922 580 451 2623 2253 

Steelhead 1912-1930 617 480 554 449 

Total 7624 5930 8133 7012 

8 
325 

Ill. Estimate for the Yakima River Subbasin 

A Historical Information 

According to Richards, salmon were first used for food by humans on the 

Southern Plateau of Washington about 8,000 years ago. SheiHish, wild game, 

and wild, edible plants were also consumed. Regarding the Yakima region, 

Richards states: 

It is uncertain when the first prehistoric settlers appeared in the Yakima 

River basin, but sites have been excavated near Goldendale and on the 

Palouse River that are about 7,000 and 1 0,000 years old, respectively, ... 

As at other sites throughout the Plateau, hunting preceded fishing as the 

major subsistence activity with reliance on deer, mountain sheep, and 

elk. . .. At one site near present Selah, it is estimated that ninety percent 

of the subsistence came from shellfish and hunting. Around 3,000 B.C., 

the people on the Yakima and Columbia Rivers shifted to roots and fish 

to supplement game and shellfish (Richards, 1989, p. 2). 

During this time, for some groups of Native Americans, salmon and other fish 

were not as much of a staple as other sources of food. Richards further states: 

The bands of the Columbia Plateau relied on roots and plants for onethird to one-half of their diet, for they were one resource that never failed . 

... It is estimated that sixty percent of caloric needs came from roots and 

plants. . .. Salmon and other fish comprised one-third to one-half the diet 

for Plateau people, although for groups such as the Wishram and Wasco 

it could be as high as ninety percent and for others, including the Yakima, 

it could be less than one-third (Richards, 1989, p. 6). 

More specifically, Richards states that the Yakima people relied more on 

hunting and gathering than fishing, as compared to the bands closer to the 

Columbia: 

For the Yakima, fish were not as dependable as roots, because the 

salmon runs varied greatly from season to season and year to year. 

Hunting was equally variable due to the ecological cycle and was in a 

general decline by about 1840. Before this time, the Kittitas and Yakima 

Valley Indians relied more than others on hunting for their areas were 

rich in deer, elk, antelope, mountain sheep, and mountain goats. The 

Yakima controlled prime hunting areas, but were willing to give 

permission to others to enter; the same was true of those bands with 

good fishing and gathering locations. The Yakimas did not have 

sufficient fishing areas in their locality, but could trade hunting rights for 

use of fishing areas. . .. They compensated for the decline of the local 

habitat by using the horse to ride long distances to hunt buffalo 

(Richards, 1989, p. 6-8). 

9 
326 

Most subsistence fishing by Native Americans of the Columbia Plateau was on 

the mainstem of the Columbia River, at sites between The Dalles and Celilo 

Falls, for chinook. The local bands controlled the prime locations, but in years 

with abundant runs, there was enough salmon for families from outside who 

traveled to the Columbia sites. 

Angelo Anastassio's population estimates, as stated in Richards (1989, p. 10-

11), for the Yakima people are: 3000 in 1805, 2500 in 1845, and 2000 in 1853. 

Records of historic salmon runs are anecdotal. Thompson (1976) claims that, 

prior to 1880, about 160,000 salmon were caught by 4,000 members of the 

Yakima, Klickitat, and Priest Rapids tribes. The Priest Rapids people historically 

lived near the mainstem Columbia; they were "river people tied more closely to 

the Columbia River fisheries than the Yakima-Kittitas-Klickitat groups" 

(Richards, 1989, p. 12). There are questions about not only which bands to 

logically group together but also about how to estimate how many salmon were 

caught by them. 

The anthropological and historical evidence amassed by Richards indicates 

that prime fishing locations for the Yakimas were on the mainstem Columbia 

River, not on the Yakima River: 

A.J. Splawn fixed the principal fishing places in eastern Washington at 

Wishram, Priest Rapids, and Kettle Falls (the latter used by natives in the 

northern and eastern portion of the region). In 1888-1889, Special Agent 

George Gordan made an investigation of fishing sites used by tribes in 

the Northwest. For the Yakima bands named in the 1855 Treaty, he 

found twelve sites along the Columbia and Snake Rivers from Cascades 

to Priest Rapids. Most of these sites were occupied or used by bands 

named in the Treaty who had never moved to the Reservation. Those 

living on the Reservation made the most use of the locations at Celilo 

and Tum Water (at Wishram about four miles from Celilo). Another 

Special Agent reported that everyone familiar with the history of the 

Yakima Reservation knew "for the purposes of fishing, their fishery is at 

Celilo on the Columbia and between there and the Dalles" (Richards 

1989, p. 77). 

In 1883, Robert Milroy the Yakima agent noted . 

.. . About 3,000 Indians were assigned to the Agency, but that one-half 

were habitually absent as they move about from one locality to another 

as thei.r necessity for supply of fish, game, roots, or berries may demand . 

... Even salmon are in short supply. A special agent was told by Indians 

living at the Celilo Falls fishery, 'the salmon are running in very much 

less numbers than formerly" (Richards, 1989, p. 59). 

10 
327 

Richards further notes: 

Fish from the Yakima River and its tributaries did not constitute a major 

portion of the Yakimas' total diet or of the percentage that came from fish. 

The fishing that had taken place on streams within the Reservation or on 

the Yakima River declined by the 1880s due to the large number of fish 

taken from the Columbia. A report of the United States Commissioner of 

Fish and Fisheries found in 1894 that there were no artificial obstructions 

to spawning salmon on the Yakima River and ample spawning beds 

were available. The fact that 'very few [salmon] make their appearance' 

was attributed to overfishing on the lower Columbia. When Lynch 

expressed concern about the Sunnyside diversion dam in 1891, he said, 

'I don't think the dam, if built on the plan submitted and described in letter 

of the chief engineer, will seriously interfere with the right of the Indians 

guaranteed by treaty of 1855 in regard to fishing'. He added, 'the Indians 

do not obtain but a small portion of their food from the Yakima River'. 

References tp fishing after this time usually refer to nonanadromous fish 

particularly trout. Lynch complained of whites interfering with Yakima 

trout fishing at the juncture of Ahtanum Creek and the Yakima River. One 

of his successors said that the western portion of the Reservation, 'is the 

mountainous part, covered by timber, and which contains practically all 

the fishing streams'. He indicated these streams were noted for 'large 

quantities of trout' (Richards, 1989, p. 79). 

Fishery biologists visiting the Yakima River in the 1880s-90s and Indian agents 

living near the Yakima River had observed declining runs of salmon due to the 

burgeoning commercial fishery on the lower Columbia River. In an 1894 report 

to the U.S. Commission on Fish and Fisheries about the decrease of salmon -

escaping to the head waters of the Columbia, Dr. O.P. Jenkins, an assistant of 

Professor Evermann, makes the following report about the Naches River, a 

tributary of the Yakima: 

Those acquainted with the facts state that formerly, up to about 1885, 

salmon of three or four kinds, including the quinnat, ran up the stream to 

this valley and spawned in the river in great numbers; at present very few 

make their appearance (McDonald, 1895, p.155). 

Europeans began settling in the Yakima River basin about 1860. According to 

Lavier (1976 a), most of the irrigation development in the Yakima occurred after 

1900 well after declines in abundance were reported due to overfishing in the 

mainstem of the Columbia. Lavier goes on to state: 

One of the first reported attempts to irrigate in this area was by an Indian 

named Kamiakin , who diverted water from Ahtanum Creek in 1852 to 

grow a vegetable garden. In 1872 a white man, Joseph Scannon, dug a 

canal from the Naches River to the original site of the city of Yakima at 

Union Gap. In 1881 the Konewock Canal was dug, and was later 

enlarged until by 1891 it had been developed into a great canal system. 

1 1 
328 

In 1880 a Federal land office was opened in the area and homestead 

filing increased. The Northern Pacific Railroad reached Yakima in 1886 

and was completed through the basin in 1888, providing a means of 

marketing the produce from irrigated lands. Despite this early start, 

irrigation development was slow during the next 25 years. For the most 

part it was limited to small individual ventures (Lavier, 1976 a, p. 1-2). 

Irrigation development cannot be solely or primarily blamed for the decrease in 

runs of anadromous salmonids to the Yakima, especially when substantial run 

declines were first reported in 1883-1885 (McDonald, 1885; Richards, 1989). 

Commercial overfishing from the 1860s to the early 1900s clearly was the major 

contributor to declining abundance of anadromous salmonids in the Yakima 

River. Lavier (1976 a) asserts that salmon and steelhead populations had 

declined to about 10% of their former abundance by 1905. Lavier (1976 a) also 

states that the irrigated areas expanded from 125,000 acres in 1905 to about 

460,000 acres in 1953. This major expansion in irrigation occurred, therefore, 

after salmon and steelhead escapements had declined precipitously. 

B. Run Size. 

It is frequently claimed that "as many as" 800,000 anadromous salmonids 

returned to the Yakima River prior to European settlement (Lavier 1976 a; Tuck 

1989; NWPPC 1990, Anon 1990). Methods for estimating historic runs of 

800,000 adults are described in Anon 1990. Since there are no historic 

estimates of catch and/or escapement of Yakima River anadromous salmonids, 

it is difficult to verify accuracy of claims concerning historic runs to the Yakima 

River. 

Area of the Yakima watershed is 6,155 square miles (Anon 1990). Total area of 

Columbia Basin watersheds historically available to anadromous salmonids is 

addressed by Thompson (1976): 

... prior to modern man's influence, some 163,200 square miles of 

watershed contained habitat ideal for salmon and trout. 

Watershed area of the Yakima River subbasin comprises 3.8% of the Columbia 

Basin watershed area [ (6,155 sq. mi) (163,200 sq. mi)·1]. If it is assumed that 

the potential of a subbasin to produce anadromous salmonids is proportional to 

watershed area, we can approximate the total abundance of adult anadromous 

salmonids returning to the Columbia River. For example, if we assume that the 

Yakima River subbasin has an average capacity to produce salmon and 

steelhead per unit watershed area and historically produced 790,000 adults 

(see Table 6 in Anon 1990), the total Columbia Basin run (all species) would 

number 20,800,000 [ (790,000) (0.038)·1]. On the other hand, if one assumes 

that anadromous salmonids returning to the Columbia River historically 

numbered 7 million (see Tables 1 and 2 of this report) and those returning to the 

Yakima River subbasin 790,000, the Yakima River would contribute three times 

as many fish per unit of watershed area (11.3% versus 3.8%) than the average 

of all subbasins within the Columbia Basin. 

12 
329 

Table 2. Summary of historic run-size estimates (excluding chum salmon) 

and their method of calculation. 

BPA 

NWPPC 

NWPPC 

Craig & Hacker (1940) 

Hewes (1972) 

PFMC & NWPPC 

Chapman (1986) 

This report 

Catch Analysis 

Catch Analysis 

Pre-immigration Harvest 

by Native Americans 

Pre-immigration Harvest 

by Native Americans 

Habitat Assessment 

Catch Analysis 

Catch Analysis 

Historic Run Size 

(millions) 

35 

10-16 

14-17 

(33% harvest) 

5-6 

(33% harvest) 

7 

7-8 

6-7 

1 3 
330 

We will base our provisional estimate of historic abundance of anadromous 

salmonids in the Yakima River subbasin on our highest estimate of run size to 

the Columbia Basin (7.6 million ·• Table 1) and an assumption that the capacity 

of the Yakima River subbasin to reproduce salmon and steelhead per unit 

watershed area is about average. By this method we estimate that the historic 

average run size was 289,000 [ (7.6 million) (0.038)·1 ]. Our estimate is only 

37% of that given in Anon 1990. 

Run size of anadromous salmonids to the Yakima River subbasin is much 

reduced over historic levels. Wild populations of three species/races •• coho, 

sockeye, and summer chinook·· are presently functionally extinct in the Yakima 

River subbasin. 

• Wild coho are functionally extinct throughout the Columbia Basin. 

Existing populations are sustained by hatcheries. Overfishing in the 

ocean and in the Columbia River is largely responsible for virtual 

extinction of wild coho salmon (Johnson et al 1991 ). 

• Wjld anadromous sockeye are functionally extinct in the Yakima River. 

Declining abundance was probably initiated by intense commercial 

harvesting in the late 1800s. However, construction of dams without 

adult fishways at Lake Kachess (1904), Lake Cle Elum (1905), Lake 

Keechelus (1906) and Bumping Lake (191 0) has prevented reproduction 

of anadromous forms of sockeye salmon. Fresh water forms possibly 

remain in the four lakes that historically produced anadromous runs. 

• Wild summer chinook are seriously depressed throughout the mid· 

Columbia Basin and are functionally extinct in the Yakima Subbasin. 

These fish were historically more abundant in the Columbia Basin than 

either spring or fall chinook. They were targeted by intensive river 

fisheries beginning in the 1870s and continuing through 1973. 

Protective regulations have attempted to prevent river harvest beginning 

in 197 4. Harvest undoubtedly continues today in the mixed stock ocean 

fisheries from California into Alaska. 

The three extinct species/races probably contributed more adults to historic runs 

into the Yakima River subbasin than the three surviving species/races -- spring 

chinook, fall chinook, and steel head. The extinction of three species/races by 

overfishing (coho and summer chinook) and dams (sockeye) has contributed 

inordinately to the current depression of salmon runs to the Yakima River 

subbasin. 

It is generally assumed, though not proved, that harvest rates of Columbia 

Basin spring chinook and steelhead by combined ocean and river fisheries are 

currently low to moderate. Combined ocean and river harvest rates on 

Columbia Basin fall chinook, on the other hand, have ranged upwards of 70 

percent in recent years (See for example the biological opinion on 1993 

operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System prepared by NMFS, 

Washington, D.C., May 26, 1993). Any weakness in survivorship of Yakima 

14 
331 

River fall chinook from natural and man-induced mortality could place them in 

jeopardy by mixed stock ocean and river fisheries on stronger populations. 

IV. Conclusions 

Table 2 summarizes seven estimates of run-size to the Columbia River, 

including our own. It is interesting to note that there is a five-fold difference in 

run-size among the seven estimates. It is generally assumed that the BPA 

estimate is too high. On the other hand, the estimates generated by Chapman 

(1986) and this report are typically lower than catch-based estimates provided 

by the NWPPC. 

The PFMC estimate from habitat assessment (7 million fish) agrees with 

estimates from catch analyses by Chapman (7-8 million fish) and by this report 

(6-7 million fish). Estimates (10-16 million fish) based on catch analyses by the 

NWPPC are about twice as high as from other sources (excluding BPA 

estimates). We believe that an estimate of 6 to 8 million fish returning to the 

Columbia Basin is the best available, given the limitation of the data base. 

Our estimate of historic run-size to the Yakima River subbasin is about 300,000 

for all species combined. This estimate is considerably lower than estimates 

from other sources. We base our estimate of historic Yakima run-size on an 

assumed direct proportionality between run size and watershed area. 

Declining abundance of anadromous salmonid spawners in Columbia Basin 

streams, including the Yakima River, began well before the development of 

large-scale irrigation of agricultural crop lands. An intensive commercial fishery 

was the primary factor responsible for historic declines in abundance of 

spawners in the Yakima and other subbasins of the Columbia River. 

1 5 
332 

Literature Cited 

Anon. 1990. Yakima River subbasin salmon and steelhead production plan. 

Columbia Basin System Planning. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the 

Yakima Indian Nation (Toppenish, WA) and Washington Department of 

Fisheries (Olympia, WA). 

Beiningen, K.T. 1976. Fish runs. Pages E1-E651n Investigative Reports of 

Columbia River Fisheries Project. Pacific Northwest Regional Commission, 

Vancouver, Washington. 

Bonneville Power Administration. 1984. Issue backgrounder: enhancing our 

fish and wildlife resources. Division of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon. 

Bryant, F. G. and Z.E. Parkhurst. 1950. Survey of the Columbia River and its 

Tributaries- Part IV. Special Scientific Report: Fisheries No. 37. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

Chapman, D.W. 1986. Salmon and steelhead abundance in the Columbia 

River in the nineteenth century. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 115: 662-670. 

Craig, J.A. and R.L. Hacker. 1940. The history and development of the fisheries 

of the Columbia River. U.S. Bureau of Fisheries Bulletin 49 (32): 133-215. 

Donaldson, I.J . and F.K. Cramer. 1979. Fishwheels of the Columbia. Binsford 

and Mort. Portland, Oregon. 

Evermann, B.W. 1896. A preliminary report upon salmon investigations in 

Idaho in 1894. U.S. Rsh. Comm. Bull. 15:253-284. 

Fulton, L.A. 1970. Spawning areas and abundance of steelhead trout and 

coho, sockeye, and chum salmon in the Columbia River basin -past and 

present. Special Scientific Report- Fisheries No 618. NOAA. National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

Hewes, G.W. 1947. Aboriginal use of fishery resources in northwestern North 

America. PhD dissertation. University of California, Berkeley. 

Hewes, G.W. 1973. Indian fisheries productivity in precontact times in the 

Pacific salmon area. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes. 7 (2); 133-

155. 

Johnson, O.W., T.A. Flagg, D.J. Maynard, G.B. Milner, and F.W. Waknitz. 1991 . 

Status review for lower Columbia River coho salmon. NMFS/NWFC. Seattle, 

WA. June 1991 . 

Lavier, D.C. 1976 a. Production of wild fish. Yakima Basin. Pages It -I 25. !!l 

Investigative Reports of Columbia River Fisheries Project. Pacific Northwest. 

Regional Commission, Vancouver, Washington. 

l 6 
333 

Lavier, D.C. 1976 b. Action needed to preserve and enhance wild populations. 

Pages L 1 - L 13. 

McDonald, M. 1895. The salmon fisheries of the Columbia River Basin , 

together with a report upon the physical and natural history investigations in the 

region by C.H. Gilbert and B.W. Evermann. U.S. Fish. Comm. Bull. 14: 153-

2007. 

Northwest Power Planning Council (NWPPC). 1986. Compilation of 

information on salmon and steelhead losses in the Columbia River basin. 

Appendix D of the 1987 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. 

NWPPC, Portland, OR. 

Northwest Power Planning Council (NWPPC). 1990. Yakima production 

project: review of preliminary design report. Staff Issue Paper 90-9. Portland, 

Oregon. 

Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC). 1979. Freshwater habitat, 

salmon produced, and escapement for natural spawning along the Pacific 

Coast of the United States. Report of the Anadromous Salmonid Environmental 

Task Force of the PFMC. Portland, Oregon. 

Rich , W.H. 1942. The salmon runs of the Columbia River. Fishery Bulletin of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 50: 103-147. 

Richards, K.D. 1989. Yakima Indians and United States Indian policy to 1914. 

MS. 163 p. 

Spranger, M.S. and R.S. Anderson. 1988. Columbia river salmon. WSG-AS 

88-3. Columbia River Series. Washington Sea Grant. 2716 Brooklyn Ave. 

N.E., Seattle , WA 98105. 

Stone, L. 1878. The salmon fisheries of the Columbia River. Report U.S. 

Bureau of Fisheries, 1875-1876. Appendix B: 801-823. 

Stone , L. 1883. Scarcity of salmon the Little Spokane and other streams on the 

Pacific coast. Bull. U.S. Fish Comm. 3: 476-477. 

Thompson, K. 1976. Columbia basin fisheries : past, present and future. 

Pages A 1-A41 l.D. Investigative Reports of Columbia River Fisheries Project. 

Pacific Northwest Regional Commission, Vancouver, Washington. 

Tuck, R. 1989. Wild fish in a tame river: the Yakima story. ill (D. Guthrie, ed.) 

Proc. of Wild Trout, Steelhead, and Salmon in the 21st Century (pp. 87-92. 

Oregon Sea Grant No. ORESU-W-86-002. Oregon State University. 

1 7 
1 8 

Figures 1 through 5 
Ul 

c 

~ 

~ 

~ 

Q) 

..0 

E 

:::J 

z 

3 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1870 

0 

0 

0 

00 

co 

335 

1890 1910 

Figure 1. Five-year moving average of catch of anadromous salmonids 

in the Columbia River, 1866-1936. 

~ 0 

0 

1930 
3 

u;-

c: 

~ 

~ 2 

Q; 

.0 

E 

::J 

z 

§Go 

C? o o 0:0~ 

& 0~ l{9J

00 

0 

0 

0 

0 

00 

1870 

Figure 2. 

1890 1

Five-year moving average of catch of chino

Columbia River, 1866-1936. 
1.0 

0.8 tIii' 

c 

~ 0.6 

~ 

(ii 

.0 

E 0.4 :;) 

z 

0.2 1-

1870 

Figure 3. 

0~ 0 0 oc:

0 

0 OCJ ~ 

1890 

Five-year moving average of catch of coho 

Columbia River, 1866-1936. 
338 

§0 0 

(") 

m 

0 ~ 0 CD 

~ -5 .!: 

(9 c 

0 

0 E 

~~ ro 

(/) 

0 CD ..- >. m CD 

.:.:: 

u 

0 

(/) 

0 oB .<= 

u 

00 ro 

u 

I ow 

CD(") 

0>0> 

0 rn~ 

~ (i)<b 

><D 0 .. 

rnro 

0 

· en 

0 <0 g>~ ·:;: ~ 0 .- EO: 

~rn 

«!·- CD.c 

>-E 

Q)':J _ 

~ 0 lL() 

..; 

0 ~ 1'- :J <0 Cl 

u:: 

<0 ~ '<t N 

0 0 ci 0 

(SUO!JI!Vol) JeqWnN 
o.6 I 

Vi 

c: 

~ 

! 0.4 

(ij 

.0 

E 

::I 

z 

o.z L 

1870 

Figure 5. 

0 

c9o 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 

cP~ 

1890 

Five-year moving average of catch of 

Columbia River, 1866-1936. 

APPENDIX 

CANYON FERRY RECREATIONAL AREA 

September 23, 1993 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD 

Sept. 9, 1993 

Rep. Pat Williams 

2457 Rayburn 

House Office Building 

Washington, D.C., 205!5 

Dear Rep. Williams: 

',,J ~ -<).:.' 

Townsend Area CJi'qlflber~j·Commerce "«7:</' -1;1' /' -~ :;:-' ~ 

First City fi,P/Jie Mi?souri River (~;-, P. 0. Box 947 

Towtise11d, MT 59644-0947 

The Townsend~Area Chamber of Commerce fully supports continuation of the three--way Canyon 

Ferry management plan between the Bureaus of Reclamation and Land Management and the Montana 

Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. The union of the three agencies, with the BLM in the lead role, 

is too far along ~~-change. . . Though we understand and appreciate Reclamation's willingness to assume the lead role, any 

stipulation that includes a 50·50 sharing of the financial burden between the federal agency and the 

MDFWP is not only impossible in Montana's dire financial condition, we feel a shift in the plan at this 

time will only further delay action on desperately needed improvements along Canyon Ferry. The needs 

are immediate, and if the Bureau of Reclamation had a better plan, it needed to be voiced earlier than 

this. We are confused over Reclamation's reversal of stance after the agency agreed to the three-way 

plan in a memorandum of understanding. 

The Oct. 1 deadline is near. The potential for massive tourism growth at Canyon Ferry has always been 

imminent. In tenns of visitor hours, it is Montana's most popular, and, unfortunately, most underdeveloped, recreation area. Major infrastructural and safety improvements arc needed before that 

potential is realized, and even more enhancements can be made by adding recreational facilities along 

the 76-mile shoreline. 

Since Canyon Ferry Dam was built in 1954, the people of Broadwater County have been waiting for 

promised economic recovery for the land flooded by the reservoir. Now that a plan for that repayment 

has come so dose to reality, we do not want to sec it changed or progress delayed. 

Sincerely, 

Townsend Area Chamber of Commerce 

Charles Holling, President 

Mary Alice Upton, Secretary 

jeff Stoffer, Sandy Montague, Kathy McNulty, SharonJlbrigcwitch, Dalycc Aynn, Bill Keams, AI 

McMilin, Steve Ward, Steve McCullough, Nancy Dundas, Barb Shaffer, and Paul Winslow, Directors 

(341J 
342 

CANYON FERRY llEC llEAT ION ASSOCIATION 

~-P~••~.tiv• ~-t Willi.-. 

2487 ~-ybu~n He~• OPPloe Building 

w .. hingtcn, •• c. 20818 

A•o H.A. 1477 - c.n~cn P•r~~ ~-~ation 

Tau~1••• & e:ccnoroic O•velap .. nt M•nea•-~ Act 

0••~ Ccn;~••-n Wl.lUa,.a 

We •re w~itln; thl.a letter' in bahelf' of' the 283 Nlllbere at' the Can~an Fer~~ A•cr••tian A•scc1•ticn ta ~•inPc~c• ou~ auppa~t at' 1111 H. 1'1. 1477. 

Whil• ws .,... c•rt•1n ~au hav• ~•c•iv•d •t l••t two 1•-ct•~• f'~am 

our ",.eaid•nt, Con J ......... al'l 1 .. ra nc-c c•,.tain the Ch81~mal'l of' the 

Hau•• of' N•tu,.el llll•aure•• Ccmllltt"C Aap,., llacra- 14111.,. ) hall 

••• our lett..... n .. ~,. .... e I - WCIUld ~...-•t that you ",. ... ,. th1• 

lettar ta the ccmmlttae •t the he.,.ing Sept. 23 1 1183 and •k 

that it be -c:p...,pa,.t aP tha ~card. 

At tna Augu•t 28, 1993 meeting cf' the Canyon ,..,.,.~ Aaa .. aetian 

Bc.,.d, the Bc.rd vat•d to epp~v• and auppa~-c 8111 H.A. 1477 •• ·it ••• a~iglnal1y 1n-craducad by you. A• the 1111 •p•cl.Pi••• the 

Bu,.eaw cP Lwnd Mwne;aman-c wauld ba the l•ad aganay in th• thre•-••Y manw;ame~ pl•n ,..,,. thia ....... Wa real -cnl.e would ba a pcel.tlv• •tep 

Pa,.ward in th• d•velop .. ~ aP th1• er.a. w .. incaraly hop• the athar two a;anci••• Bur••u of ~ ... l ... tiol'l al'ld tna Mont. ltaia Cap-c. or Fi•n, NildliF• & P.,.ka Will Support H. A. 1477. Biven acnaid•r•~1an 

to the amaul'lt or tiN, .anay and af'f'art put into tnla plan by the thraa 

arcup• it wculd w•ll advl••d to h•v• ~h•m aantlnue in tnla arro,.,.. 

aca Aapraaantwtiv• llaarga Millar 

Cheirmen, Hauaa N.tural ~-cure. Ca11mitte• 

U.S. Ho~• at' Aepre••~ativ .. w .. nl.n;ton c.c. 20111-at507 
3318 East Shore D•· ive 

Helena, MT 59601 

September 13, 1993 

343 

Representative George Miller, Chairman 

Cammittee on Natural Resources 

Room 1324, Longworth Building 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Representative Miller, 

We would like to have the following included in the official 

,·ecord of the hear·ing of H.B. 1477: 

At its August 28 meeting, the Board of Directors of the 

Canyon Fen·_y_ Recr·eation Association went on record in support 

of H.B. 1lf'77. 

The Association feels, however, that all ownership and 

management responsibilities at Canyon Ferry be vested in the 

Bureau of Land Management. 

We feel the BLM is THE agency most qualified to manage 

C:.a11yo,, Fen· y . Its e xpertise is management. It krlo••s and 

understands wo rk ing with groups such as ours. In short, the 

needs of Canyon Ferry will be better served by the BLM than 

by the Bureau of Reclamation. 

The BLM, wor-king in conjunction wit~ the Montana Department 

of Fish Wildlife and Parks, can create a unique, fiscally 

sound Canyon Ferry .... an arrangement beneficial tu everyone. 

S ~/'f7rel y, 

~~- Johnson, 

Canyon Ferr y Recreation Association 

0 

76-655 0 - 94 (352) 


ISBN 0-16-043693-1 

90000