U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

31–587 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

THE FEDERAL COLUMBIA 

RIVER POWER SYSTEM: THE 

ECONOMIC LIFEBLOOD AND 

WAY OF LIFE FOR THE 

PACIFIC NORTHWEST 

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Monday, September 10, 2018, in Pasco, Washington 

Serial No. 115–53 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov 

or 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Chairman Emeritus 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Vice Chairman 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Stevan Pearce, NM 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Paul Cook, CA 

Bruce Westerman, AR 

Garret Graves, LA 

Jody B. Hice, GA 

Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS 

Daniel Webster, FL 

Jack Bergman, MI 

Liz Cheney, WY 

Mike Johnson, LA 

Jenniffer Gonza ́lez-Colo ́n, PR 

Greg Gianforte, MT 

John R. Curtis, UT 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Vice Ranking Member 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA 

Ruben Gallego, AZ 

Colleen Hanabusa, HI 

Nanette Diaz Barraga ́n, CA 

Darren Soto, FL 

A. Donald McEachin, VA 

Anthony G. Brown, MD 

Wm. Lacy Clay, MO 

Jimmy Gomez, CA 

Nydia M. Vela ́zquez, NY 

Cody Stewart, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Monday, September 10, 2018 ..................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Lamborn, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 2 

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

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

State of Washington ..................................................................................... 5 

Newhouse, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Washington .................................................................................................... 3 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Flores, Terry, Executive Director, Northwest RiverPartners, Portland, 

Oregon ............................................................................................................ 14 

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

Green, Marci, President, Washington Association of Wheat Growers, 

Ritzville, Washington ................................................................................... 45 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 46 

Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Former Representative in Congress, Pasco, 

Washington .................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9 

Heffling Jack, President, United Power Trades Organization, West 

Richland, Washington ................................................................................... 39 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 40 

James, Daniel, Deputy Administrator, Bonneville Power Administration, 

Portland, Oregon ........................................................................................... 11 

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

Johnson, Kris, President & CEO, Association of Washington Business, 

Olympia, Washington ................................................................................... 19 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 21 

Oatman, Hon. McCoy, Vice Chairman, Nez Perce Tribe, Lapwai, Idaho .... 35 

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

Rich, Rob, Vice President, Marine Services, Shaver Transportation 

Company, Portland, Oregon ......................................................................... 32 

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

Spain, Glen, Northwest Regional Director, Pacific Coast Federation of 

Fishermen’s Associations, Eugene, Oregon ................................................ 22 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 24 

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record: 

List of documents submitted for the record retained in the Committee’s 

official files .................................................................................................... 62 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING ON THE 

FEDERAL COLUMBIA RIVER POWER SYSTEM: THE ECONOMIC LIFEBLOOD AND WAY 

OF LIFE FOR THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST 

Monday, September 10, 2018 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Pasco, Washington 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., at Pasco 

City Hall Council Chambers, Pasco, Washington, Hon. Doug 

Lamborn presiding. 

Present: Representative Lamborn. 

Also present: Representatives Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Dan 

Newhouse. 

Mr. LAMBORN. The hearing will come to order. The House 

Natural Resources Committee meets today to hear testimony on an 

oversight hearing entitled ‘‘The Federal Columbia River Power 

System: The Economic Lifeblood and Way of Life for the Pacific 

Northwest.’’ 

By way of introduction, I am Doug Lamborn, the Chairman of 

the House Natural Resources Committee’s Subcommittee on Water, 

Power and Oceans. I also represent the 5th District of Colorado. 

I am grateful to be joined by two former members of the 

Committee who represent this region and are extremely familiar 

with these issues, Representatives Dan Newhouse and Cathy 

McMorris Rodgers, both from Washington. 

To begin today’s hearing, I will now defer to my distinguished 

colleague, Dan Newhouse, who represents Tri-Cities, for a brief 

statement and a few introductions. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Good morning. I want to say welcome to central 

Washington, particularly to Chairman Lamborn and to Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers. Thank you. 

It is truly a beautiful day here in the Tri-Cities in Pasco, 

Washington. I am very proud that this is my district, the 4th 

Congressional District. I am also very happy to see so many 

members of the community here who are truly engaged in a very, 

very important issue not only for our community but for our state, 

really for the whole Pacific Northwest, and I would even venture 

to say for our Nation. 

As you know, many of you were with us outside just before the 

hearing began. A lot of community members besides yourselves 

were together, and we were serenaded by a group of young 

members of our community. You probably know this, but it was the 

state folk song, Washington State’s folk song, that Woody Guthrie 

gem, ‘‘Roll On, Columbia.’’ And what a perfect, perfect song for today’s hearing, a great way to kick off the morning’s proceedings as 

well. 

2 

So, I simply want to say thank you, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. 

Chairman, for being here today, agreeing to chair and host this important meeting. 

And now, since this is an official congressional hearing, we are 

going to begin, as we do every session of the House of Representatives, with a prayer and a posting of the Colors and the Pledge of 

Allegiance. 

First I would like to recognize Mr. Wes Hershberger of the 

Grandview Church of the Nazarene to lead us in prayer. 

Pastor. 

[Prayer.] 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. If you will remain standing, I am now proud to 

recognize Pasco Boy Scout Troop 159 to post the Colors and to lead 

us in the Pledge of Allegiance. 

[Colors.] 

[Pledge of Allegiance.] 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Representative Newhouse. 

We will now begin with brief opening statements, as is our 

tradition, starting with myself. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUG LAMBORN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Mr. LAMBORN. The Committee meets today to conduct an oversight hearing entitled ‘‘The Federal Columbia River Power System: 

The Economic Lifeblood and Way of Life for the Pacific Northwest.’’ 

What often gets lost in the conversations inside the Beltway is 

the impact that this Federal infrastructure has on the lives of real 

people and the immense value the Federal Columbia River Power 

System creates for the region. 

Only since the early 1990s has the system become a partisan 

issue. The construction of Bonneville and Grand Coulee Dams was 

a centerpiece of President Franklin Roosevelt’s ‘‘New Deal.’’ When 

President Roosevelt dedicated the Bonneville Dam in September 

1937, he stated that, ‘‘in the construction of this dam we have had 

our eyes on the future of the Nation. Its cost will be returned to 

the people of the United States many times over in the improvement of navigation and transportation, the cheapening of electric 

power, and the distribution of this power to hundreds of small communities within a great radius. As I look upon Bonneville Dam 

today, I cannot help the thought that [. . .] we in America are 

wiser in using our wealth on projects like this which will give us 

more wealth, better living, and greater happiness for our children.’’ 

Eleven years later, speaking about the role that hydroelectric 

dams in the Pacific Northwest played in the United States’ War 

World II efforts, Republican President Harry Truman stated that, 

‘‘had we not had that power source, it would have been almost impossible to win this war.’’ 

From the days of early settlers in the region, to the exploration 

of Lewis and Clark, through World War II, and into the modern 

day, the story of the Pacific Northwest and the Columbia-Snake 

River System is uniquely American. Those of us in Congress owe 

it to you all here today to make good on the promises of the past 

and to do everything we can to protect this critical infrastructure 

that makes possible the way of life in the Pacific Northwest. 

3 

Before I conclude my statement, I want to give a special thanks 

to Representatives Dan Newhouse and Cathy McMorris Rodgers, 

who have been passionate and effective advocates for you back in 

Washington, DC. They work tirelessly to defend your livelihoods 

and the critical infrastructure that promotes a strong regional 

economy and way of life. 

In fact, we are having this hearing today at their urging so 

Congress can be better informed on the critical issues facing the 

Pacific Northwest. 

I also want to thank our witnesses here, all nine of them, for taking time out of their busy schedules to be here with us today. I look 

forward to your testimony on all sides of the critical issues facing 

the Federal Columbia River Power System. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lamborn follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUG LAMBORN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

The Committee meets today to conduct an oversight hearing entitled ‘‘The Federal 

Columbia River Power System: The Economic Lifeblood and Way of Life for the 

Pacific Northwest.’’ 

What often gets lost in the conversations inside the beltway is the impact that 

this Federal infrastructure has on the lives of real people and the immense value 

the Federal Columbia River Power System creates for the region. 

Only since the early 1990s has the System become a partisan issue. Construction 

of Bonneville and Grand Coulee Dams was a centerpiece of President Franklin 

Roosevelt’s ‘‘New Deal.’’ When President Roosevelt dedicated the Bonneville Dam in 

September 1937, he stated that ‘‘in the construction of this dam we have had our 

eyes on the future of the Nation. Its cost will be returned to the people of the United 

States many times over in the improvement of navigation and transportation, the 

cheapening of electric power, and the distribution of this power to hundreds of small 

communities within a great radius. As I look upon Bonneville Dam today, I cannot 

help the thought that . . . we in America are wiser in using our wealth on projects 

like this which will give us more wealth, better living and greater happiness for our 

children.’’ 

Eleven years later, speaking about the role that hydroelectric dams in the Pacific 

Northwest played in the United States’ World War II efforts, Republican President 

Harry Truman stated that ‘‘had we not had that power source, it would have been 

almost impossible to win this war.’’ 

From the days of early settlers in the region to the exploration of Lewis and Clark 

through World War II and into the modern day, the story of the Pacific Northwest 

and the Columbia-Snake River System is uniquely American. Those of us in 

Congress owe it to you all here today to make good on the promises of the past and 

do everything we can to protect this critical infrastructure that makes possible the 

way of life in the Pacific Northwest. 

Before I conclude my statement, I want to give a special thanks to Representatives Newhouse and McMorris Rodgers who have been fierce advocates for you back 

in Washington, DC. They work tirelessly to defend your livelihoods and the critical 

infrastructure that promotes a strong regional economy. 

Mr. LAMBORN. I now recognize, because we are in his district, 

Representative Dan Newhouse, for his opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAN NEWHOUSE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman Lamborn. 

Again, thank you to all of you who are here today. 

Over the past few days, members of our community from 

throughout central and eastern Washington gathered to participate 

in what we call the ‘‘RiverFest: Our Rivers, Our Way of Life.’’ It 

4 

has been an important opportunity to celebrate all the benefits our 

communities receive from the Snake and Columbia Rivers, as well 

as to educate the general public on all of these benefits. 

This past Saturday, I, along with thousands of community members, visited dozens of booths and exhibits with community partners and organizations highlighting all of the gifts that our rivers 

provide. I requested this hearing of the House Natural Resources 

Committee, to coincide with these community events, because I believe it is important that Congress is educated about how vital our 

Federal River Power System is to the Pacific Northwest. 

The Columbia and Snake Rivers and the Federal Columbia River 

Power System provide irrigation for Washington’s agricultural industry, navigational routes for our export-driven economy, and 

flood control for our local communities. The system provides clean, 

renewable, affordable power, and provides for thriving recreational, 

manufacturing, and technology industries. These rivers truly are 

the economic lifeblood of the Pacific Northwest. 

Unfortunately, in my opinion, misguided movements continue to 

push for the destruction or the degradation of our river power system. Along with my colleague, Representative McMorris Rodgers, 

and other Pacific Northwest bipartisan colleagues, I have been 

working on legislative efforts to protect this system and our hydroelectric dams. 

As you know, a single Federal judge in 2016 overturned the plan 

which governs the operations and salmon protection management 

plans for the river system. This plan was the product of painstaking negotiations conducted by both the Bush and the Obama 

administrations, scientists and engineering experts at Federal 

agencies in affected states, as well as sovereign Northwest tribes 

and many local stakeholders. 

The judge not only mandated that the breaching of the dams be 

considered as an option, but he has even stepped in to over-ride the 

scientists and the engineers who run the system and is now singularly dictating how the dams are managed, including going 

against the scientific analysis and ordering spill to maximum level, 

known as the gas caps. 

Spilling at these gas caps not only threatens the reliability of the 

Federal power and transmission system and causes detrimental impacts to transportation and barging, to flood control and irrigation, 

there are also scientific studies warning that the increased gas levels harm the very fish species that we are trying to protect. 

Six months ago, I sent a request to Washington’s Senators, both 

Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, warning of the $40 million bill 

that was estimated to fall on the backs of our constituents due to 

this spill order and asked them to join us in our efforts to save our 

dams. Unfortunately, that action did not take place, and in the end 

a $38.6 million bill landed on the backs of Washington ratepayers. 

Ratepayers could be facing the exact same bill this coming year if 

the Senators do not join our efforts. 

So, I am doing everything in my power to protect ratepayers in 

Central Washington, from introducing legislation to protect the 

dams, which I am proud to say has now passed the House and 

awaits action by the Senate, to drafting an appropriations provision 

5 

that stops the reckless spill order, to requesting today’s hearing, 

and I will not stop working on behalf of this vital system. 

It is my hope for this hearing today that a national audience will 

learn more about the myriad benefits our river system provides 

and how our rivers truly do provide for our way of life. I look forward very much to hearing all of your testimony, and I yield back, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

I now recognize Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers for her 

opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

WASHINGTON 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Thank you, Chairman Lamborn. 

It is great to be with my colleague, Representative Dan 

Newhouse. We are delighted to have everyone here today, and I appreciate the opportunity to join in celebrating the river system. 

Congress created the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) in 

1937 on the heels of the Great Depression to distribute power generated from the development of two federally authorized dams, 

Bonneville and Grand Coulee. These marvels of engineering provided the Pacific Northwest with the Nation’s most affordable and 

most reliable energy. 

In 1945, Congress authorized the construction of four large dams 

along the Snake River—Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little 

Goose, and Lower Granite—to grow what we call the Federal 

Columbia River Power System. These four dams can power nearly 

2 million homes, or a city the size of Seattle, and provide reliable 

base load, important energy to meet BPA’s peak loads during the 

hottest days in the summer, when the wind doesn’t blow, or the 

coldest part of winter, when the sun doesn’t shine. 

We have a positive story to tell about how our dams bring incredible benefits and have transformed a dry, barren region of sagebrush into one of the most productive in the country. 

In Washington State, hydropower provides almost 70 percent of 

our electricity needs, and it is clean and renewable. 

Our dams also provide barging and irrigation benefits for our 

Number one industry, agriculture; flood control for our communities; and recreational opportunities. 

Washington State is the most trade-dependent state in the 

country. An estimated 40 percent of our jobs are tied to trade, responsible for nearly $80 billion worth of exports. Our river system 

functions as a superhighway, employing 40,000 people in various 

capacities throughout our system of dams and locks. 

It would take 174,000 semi-trucks to move the goods which 

travel by barge each year. One barge equals 134 trucks. Barging 

provides efficient, cost-effective, and low-carbon flow of commerce. 

Despite all these benefits, we face significant challenges. Some 

argue that the four Lower Snake River dams in particular have 

negatively impacted migratory fish, yet the data show average fish 

survival rates of 97 percent. It is also important to note that of the 

13 fish listed under the ESA, only 4 species pass these dams. These 

record fish survival rates are a significant result of Federal 

6 

research and investments in new technologies like fish-friendly 

turbines, new passage technologies, and modified operations. 

In addition, we have implemented with Northwest states and 

tribes massive habitat restoration. 

All of this comes at a cost. Around one-third of BPA’s wholesale 

power costs go to fish and wildlife projects, $621 million on fish operations and fish and wildlife projects in 2016. 

Now, due to a judge’s decision in Portland, the region is spilling 

even more water over the dams, a mandate that will cost ratepayers an estimated $38 million. Why is this judge ignoring 

science? Why is this judge ignoring years of work on a Biological 

Opinion to satisfy the court demands, collaboration among Federal 

agencies, tribes, states, utilities, river users from the Pacific 

Northwest? 

This over-reach by the courts is why I sponsored the bipartisan 

bill, H.R. 3144, that passed this Committee to stop senseless spills. 

In eastern Washington, we understand the benefits of healthy 

salmon runs. That is why we have invested in research and new 

technologies and habitat restoration. 

We were all saddened to see the recent death of a newborn baby 

orca whale off the coast of Washington. However, the four Lower 

Snake River dams did not cause the whale to die. 

In fact, the Army Corps estimates that the dams would have a 

potential 2 percent impact on orca recovery. The larger impacts are 

ocean conditions and pollution. In order to protect orca whales and 

get them the salmon that they need, 50 percent of their diet, let’s 

focus on what is actually going to get results. 

In addition, we should also consider the impact of hatchery fish. 

Orcas cannot tell the difference between hatchery and wild salmon, 

and yet we have reduced hatchery production. 

A recent NOAA and Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife report stated that recovering 12 western Washington 

rivers are more important to orca whales, and they provide the majority of the chinook they need to eat, not the Snake River. Another 

NOAA report states, and I quote, ‘‘While chinook salmon population in places such as the Columbia River are surging, other populations like Puget Sound chinook and Sacramento River winter 

run chinook are struggling.’’ 

Last year, the Ninth Circuit mandated an experimental spill operation to test their theory that it would improve fish passage. This 

experiment is not based on science. In fact, science shows that too 

much spill will actually kill fish through increased gas bubbles in 

the water. 

Through the decades, the delegation from the Pacific Northwest 

has come together to protect and promote the value of the 

Columbia-Snake River System to our region. I appeal to my colleagues, House and Senate, Democrat and Republican, that we 

come together now and stop the courts from mandating theories 

not based on science that only add additional cost to ratepayers in 

our communities. 

The House of Representatives has passed three significant bills 

to support our dams. This includes legislation to support the collaborative BiOp, a proposal to stop the costly spill requirement, 

7 

and Representative Herrera Beutler and Senator Risch’s Sea Lion 

Predation bill. We have a lot to consider. 

I stand ready to listen to my colleagues’ ideas, and everyone here 

today, to help fish, orcas, recreation, clean power and low rates, 

transportation, agriculture, our economy, and our environment. 

The fact of the matter is that dams and fish co-exist. Let’s keep 

looking forward to a future that builds upon our economy and our 

environment and a great quality of life. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

Before we hear from our invited witnesses, I want to take a moment to urge the audience to submit written comments that will 

be printed in the hearing record and will become part of the official 

hearing record. We want to include as many comments as possible. 

So, there are comment forms at the room entrance, and you can 

also submit comments at our website, which is 

www.naturalresources.house.gov, under ‘‘Contact Us.’’ We want to 

hear from you, and if you have any questions on how to do this, 

please see one of our staff members who are with us here today. 

I will now introduce today’s witnesses. Our first witness is the 

former Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, the Honorable Doc Hastings from Pasco, Washington; our second witness is 

Mr. Dan James, Deputy Administrator for the Bonneville Power 

Administration, from Portland, Oregon; our third witness is Ms. 

Terry Flores, Executive Director of Northwest RiverPartners from 

Portland, Oregon; our fourth witness is Mr. Kris Johnson, 

President and CEO of the Association of Washington Business, 

from Olympia, Washington; our fifth witness is Glen H. Spain, 

Northwest Regional Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of 

Fishermen’s Associations from Eugene, Oregon; our sixth witness 

is Mr. Rob Rich, Vice President of Marine Services for Shaver 

Transportation, from Portland, Oregon; our seventh witness is the 

Honorable McCoy Oatman, Vice Chairman of the Nez Perce Tribe 

from Lapwai, Idaho—excuse me for mangling that; our eighth witness is Mr. Jack Heffling, President of the United Power Trades 

Organization from West Richland, Washington; and our final witness is Ms. Marci Green, President of the Washington Association 

of Wheat Growers, from Ritzville, Washington. 

Each witness’ written testimony will appear in full in the hearing 

record, so I ask that witnesses keep their oral statements to 5 minutes as outlined in our invitation letter to you and under 

Committee Rule 4(a). 

I also want to explain how our timing lights work. When you 

begin to speak, our Clerk will start the timer and a green light will 

appear. After 4 minutes, a yellow light will appear, and at that 

time you should speed up and begin to conclude your remarks. And 

at 5 minutes, the red light will come on and I will ask that you 

conclude at that time. 

Congressman Hastings, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

8 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOC HASTINGS, A FORMER 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS, PASCO, WASHINGTON 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I may, before we 

start the official clock, just let me give you a bit of history here. 

You mentioned that I am from Pasco. As a matter of fact, I spent 

my childhood about six blocks from here, and the building that you 

are in right here used to be the high school. But when I was going 

to junior high, it was the junior high. This room right here is where 

the old gym was. Just a little bit of background. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you, and it is nice 

to see my former colleague, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers here, and my 

Congressman, Dan Newhouse. I thank you for having this hearing 

today. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify about the importance of 

protecting the Northwest hydropower dams and the economic and 

environmental benefits that they produce for our region and our 

Nation. 

Six years ago, when I chaired this Committee, we had a similar 

hearing to discuss my legislation on these dams, and I am pleased 

that the Committee continued focus on this issue. 

BPA’s unsustainable financial situation requires a legislative solution aimed at putting a halt to ongoing litigation and shoring up 

the value of our region’s greatest carbon-free hydropower resource. 

My testimony focuses on two basic points: (1) the need to advance the House-passed bipartisan legislation that uses best available Federal science to effectively stop an unelected Federal judge 

from running the river and halt edicts by extreme groups intent on 

misusing the ESA to remove dams; and (2) to highlight the hypocrisy of those that downgrade hatchery salmon as inferior to wild 

salmon. 

First, I commend and strongly support your efforts to pass 

H.R. 3144 to codify the 2014 BiOp, an opinion that is supported by 

scientists, three different administrations, states, tribes, courts, 

and many more. The Senate needs to take up this legislation. And 

if they don’t, I would encourage you to find a vehicle to attach it 

to before the end of this Congress. 

Let me set aside for the moment the role of the dams, because 

that will be well-documented by the other witnesses. A continuing 

irony is that a vast majority of returning salmon to most areas of 

the Columbia and Snake Rivers come from hatcheries. Hatcheries 

have been used for more than a century, decades longer than dams 

have been around. Yet, some extreme groups say that there is a 

difference between so-called ‘‘wild’’ and hatchery-bred salmon. They 

claim hatchery salmon are inferior and negatively impact wild 

salmon. They file ESA-related lawsuits to shut down tribal and 

state hatcheries, which actually would help recover salmon. 

This flies in the face of a number of scientific studies and the 

ESA itself. For example, a 2012 peer-reviewed scientific study conducted by the Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission and 

Nez Perce tribal scientists found that hatchery fish did not negatively impact the fitness of wild fish and that hatchery fish can successfully boost populations with little, if any, negative impacts. And 

over a decade ago, 10 independent fishery scientists representing 

a range of educational institutions and agencies found that 

9 

hatchery fish successfully reproduce in the wild and found no evidence that they negatively impact wild salmon. In fact, they found 

that hatchery fish are indistinguishable when interbred with wild 

populations. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask consent to make those part 

of the record, if I may. 

Mr. LAMBORN. No objection, so ordered. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Many groups also focus on the declines of wild 

salmon, while primarily faulting dams for salmon declines, and 

they look the other way as huge numbers of wild salmon, ESAlisted salmon, are harvested. In a recent report to the Northwest 

Power Council, NOAA acknowledged that as much as 19 percent of 

Snake River steelhead; 43 percent, nearly half, of Snake River fall 

chinook; and 53 percent, over half, of Lower Columbia fall chinook 

are now harvested in the ocean or the river. These staggering numbers run contrary to the intent of ESA. We are, in fact, harvesting 

an ESA-listed species. 

So, now it is time for Congress to step up and offer solutions 

such as H.R. 3144 that you alluded to. And let me suggest, too, 

that there is a model for this, and the model is the American 

buffalo. We all know how iconic the American buffalo was and how 

it roamed the Great Plains. We knew that the Native Americans 

used buffalo as a food source, and also as a clothing source. And 

we know that when we settled the West, the buffalo became a 

source of food for our settlers that settled the West, and they 

roamed the Great Plains. 

As civilization moved, we know that the buffalo population declined. Somebody, or several people, decided well before ESA was 

put in place, that the buffalo needed to be preserved. So, they set 

up taking buffalo, reproduced them on farms, and so forth. Nobody 

to my knowledge suggested that we should wipe out the Great 

Plains and have the buffalo run the Great Plains. 

So, we now have buffalo, which is a commercial product. You can 

buy that virtually any place in the country. 

Let me suggest to you that the reason why that is done is 

because we have hatchery buffalo. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HASTINGS. So, what I would suggest, if we simply take the 

adjective ‘‘wild’’ out of salmon and put all salmon together as the 

number of salmon coming back, I think we will go a long way to 

solving our problem, because there is a great deal of hypocrisy in 

that. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and members of the 

Committee, for inviting me to testify. I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DOC HASTINGS, FORMER REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Newhouse and McMorris Rodgers for 

holding this important hearing today. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify about the importance of protecting the 

Northwest’s hydropower dams and the economic and environmental benefits they 

produce for our region and the Nation. About 6 years ago, as Chairman of the House 

Natural Resources Committee, I convened a similar hearing to discuss my legislation to protect the dams. 

10 

I am pleased with the Committee’s continued focus on this critical issue. SPA’s 

unsustainable financial situation requires a legislative solution aimed at putting a 

halt to ongoing litigation and shoring up the value of our region’s greatest carbon 

free hydropower resource. In addition, the Trump administration can provide immediate policy leadership in the form of agency guidance and regulation that ensures 

dams and fish can co-exist. 

My testimony focuses on two basic points: (1) the need to advance House-passed, 

bipartisan legislation that uses best available Federal science to effectively stop an 

unelected Federal judge from running the river and halt edicts by extreme groups 

intent on misusing the ESA to remove dams; and (2) highlight the hypocrisy of 

those that downgrade hatchery salmon as inferior to so-called ‘‘wild’’ salmon. This 

is an issue that could really benefit from high-level Administration scrutiny. 

THE IMPORTANCE OF A LEGISLATIVE SOLUTION

First, I commend and strongly support your efforts to pass H.R. 3144 to ‘‘codify’’ 

the 2014 FCRPS biological opinion—supported by scientists, three administrations, 

states, tribes, utilities, ports and many more. This bill is critical, not just to protect 

our region’s clean, reliable, renewable power generation and economic viability, but 

also to make clear that Congress plays an important role regarding the authorization of the multi-purpose dams and their legacy. The Senate needs to take this 

legislation up, pass it, and the Administration needs to sign it into law to end the 

uncertainty, get out of the courtroom, and allow the plan to protect the dams and 

salmon. 

ADMINISTRATION POLICY LEADERSHIP—‘‘HATCHERY’’ V. ‘‘WILD’’ ESA SALMON

Setting aside for a moment the role of dams, a continuing, troubling irony is that 

the vast majority of returning salmon to most areas of the Columbia and Snake 

Rivers come from hatcheries. Hatcheries have been used for more than a century— 

decades longer than dams have been around—to mitigate and supplement salmon. 

Yet, some extreme groups that distinguish between so-called ‘‘wild’’ and ‘‘hatchery’’- 

bred salmon, claim hatchery salmon are ‘‘inferior’’ or negatively impact ‘‘wild’’ 

salmon. They’ve filed ESA-related lawsuits to shut down successful tribal and state 

hatchery programs, which actually help recover salmon. 

This flies in the face of a number of scientific studies and the ESA itself. For 

example, a 2012 peer-reviewed scientific study conducted by Columbia River 

Intertribal Fish Commission and Nez Perce tribal scientists in Johnson Creek near 

Idaho’s south fork of the Snake River, found that hatchery fish did not negatively 

impact the fitness of ‘‘wild’’ fish, and that hatchery fish can successfully boost 

salmon populations with little, if any, negative impacts. I have attached a full copy 

of that study to my testimony for the record. 

Over a decade ago, 10 independent fisheries scientists representing a range of 

educational institutions and agencies found hatchery fish successfully reproduce in 

the wild, and found no evidence that they negatively impact ‘‘wild’’ salmon. In fact, 

they found that hatchery fish are indistinguishable when interbred with wild populations. I have also attached these findings, which cite more than two dozen 

scientific studies. 

With technology such as DNA that wasn’t used when salmon were first listed, the 

Trump administration would be wise to revisit and update its ESA policies and 

agency findings to ensure hatchery and ‘‘wild’’ salmon are treated the same for ESA 

listing and delisting purposes and recovery. A similar review of NOAA’s policies 

sanctioning harvest of ESA-listed salmon should also be conducted. 

Many groups focus on declines of ‘‘wild’’ salmon, while primarily faulting dams for 

salmon declines, and look the other way as huge numbers of ‘‘wild,’’ ESA-listed 

salmon are harvested. In a recent report to the Northwest Power Council, NOAA 

acknowledged that as much as 19 percent of Snake River steelhead, 43 percent of 

Snake River fall chinook and 53 percent of Lower Columbia fall chinook are now 

harvested in the ocean or in the river. These staggering numbers run contrary to 

the intent of the ESA. Hatchery salmon simply cannot be ignored when counting 

and recovering salmon. 

Now is the time for Congress to step up and offer solutions such as H.R. 3144 

that seek to protect a clean, reliable energy resource that continues to drive our 

region’s economy. It is also time for the Administration to provide policy leadership 

and put forth innovative solutions that ensure salmon and dams can continue to coexist. 

11 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you for being here, thank you for your 

testimony, and thank you for your service to our country. 

Let’s see, Mr. James, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL JAMES, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, 

BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION, PORTLAND, OREGON 

Mr. JAMES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Dan James. 

I am the Deputy Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration, and I am really pleased to be here today to discuss the continuing contributions of Federal hydroelectric power to the economy 

and the environment of the Pacific Northwest. 

As Mr. Newhouse and Mrs. McMorris Rodgers have so eloquently 

stated, as has Mr. Hastings, BPA was created in 1937 to carry out 

Franklin Roosevelt’s vision for harnessing the power of the 

Columbia River. In successive generations, the value of the river 

has been expressed in ways that met the challenges of the times: 

bringing electricity to rural homes and farms—I have met people 

in my life who can say I remember when the lights came on; 

powering the factories that built the ships and planes that won 

World War II; developing the inter-regional power exchanges between the Pacific Northwest and California; delivering the benefits 

of the Columbia River Treaty; enabling the development of additional renewable resources; and restoring the fisheries and wildlife 

so prized by the people of the Northwest. 

Today, hydropower generation, along with the other authorized 

purposes of the Columbia River power system, remains the workhorse that powers the economy of the Pacific Northwest. 

I would like to call our attention to three key attributes of hydropower that make it especially valuable in the evolving western 

electricity market. 

First, hydropower is reliable and dispatchable. Columbia River 

hydropower provides dependable electricity generation around the 

clock and through every season of the year. 

Second, here in the Northwest, our coldest weather can last for 

many days as high pressure systems hold over the region. Also, 

heat waves, including those we experienced this summer, drive 

peak demand for electricity, requiring sustained generation for 

many days. The hydro system is capable of, and in fact is planned 

for, meeting sustained periods of high demand. 

The Columbia River Power System delivers carbon-free peaking 

capacity that is difficult to replace with alternative renewable resources. There is no comparable source of firm, reliable power 

available that delivers the same value at anywhere near the cost 

of the Federal Columbia River hydroelectricity system. 

And not far from here, the four Lower Snake River dams supply 

up to one-quarter of BPA’s operating reserves. Without the flexibility and operating reserves that these dams supply, the region 

would lose a substantial amount of its ability to deliver reliable 

energy, including the balancing of variable energy resources. 

Second, hydropower is fundamental to the regional economy. As 

I mentioned in my opening remarks, low-cost hydroelectric power 

has been a major asset for this region’s economy since the Great 

Depression and the days of World War II. Today, Federal power 

continues to serve many remote rural communities across the 

12 

Northwest that have few other economic advantages to offer 

industry and business. 

And third, hydropower contributes to the clean energy economy. 

Responding to state mandates, Federal incentives, and the declining cost of technology, much of the West is attempting to meet 

clean electricity goals through other renewable resources such as 

wind and solar. As these variable resources grow in the Western 

Interconnection, hydro offers adaptable operational capability to integrate them reliably and at low cost. 

Now I would like to turn to the success of fish and wildlife 

investments. The Federal hydro system is also unique in the extensive modifications and operational changes made for the protection 

and enhancement of fish and wildlife. BPA’s ratepayers invested 

billions of dollars to improve design and operation of the dams. The 

trend of salmon and steelhead survival is on the rise. We continue 

to post returns that by some measures are near the numbers seen 

before Bonneville Dam was built. 

Still, Federal hydropower operations are subject to ongoing litigation and environmental review. In 2018, court-ordered spill above 

the levels specified in the current Biological Opinion was valued at 

$40 million in lost revenue. It resulted in BPA implementing program funding reductions and a $10 million surcharge in its power 

rates. 

Now I will conclude. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to participate in this hearing. The Columbia River hydropower system continues to deliver on President Roosevelt’s original 

vision to benefit the people of the Pacific Northwest, while also 

driving our modern economy and contributing to the quality of life 

that we so greatly value here in the Northwest. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. James follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANIEL M. JAMES, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, BONNEVILLE

POWER ADMINISTRATION

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Dan James. I am Deputy Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) headquartered in Portland, 

Oregon. I am pleased to be here today to discuss the continuing contributions of 

Federal hydroelectric power to the economy and environment of the Pacific 

Northwest. 

BPA markets the hydropower from 31 Federal dams in the Columbia River Basin. 

These dams are operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) and the 

Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). Bonneville also markets the output of the 

Columbia Generating Station, a 1,100 megawatt nuclear power plant near Richland, 

Washington. Connecting all of these resources with the rest of the Western electric 

grid are the 15,000 miles of high-voltage transmission lines that Bonneville owns 

and operates. 

BPA was created in 1937 to carry out President Franklin Roosevelt’s vision for 

harnessing the power of the Columbia River. In successive generations, the value 

of the river has been expressed in ways that met the challenges of the times: bringing electricity to rural homes and farms; powering the factories that built the ships 

and planes that helped win World War II; developing inter-regional power exchanges between the Pacific Northwest and California; delivering the benefits of the 

Columbia River Treaty; enabling the development of additional renewable resources; 

and restoring the fisheries and wildlife so prized by the people of the Northwest. 

Today, hydropower generation, along with the multiple other purposes of the 

Columbia River power system, remains the workhorse that powers the economy of 

the Pacific Northwest. 

13 

VALUE OF HYDRO

I’d like to call attention to three particular attributes of hydropower that make 

it especially valuable in the evolving Western electricity market. 

• Hydropower is highly reliable and dispatchable: Columbia River hydropower 

provides dependable electricity generation around the clock and through every 

season of the year. For example, here in the Pacific Northwest, our coldest 

weather can last for many days as high pressure systems stagnate over the 

region. Similarly, heat waves such as what our region experienced this 

summer drive peak electrical demand requiring sustained generation for days. 

The hydro system is capable of, and in fact is planned for, meeting sustained 

periods of high demand. As the region has developed large amounts of wind 

generation, the Federal hydropower system has been able to compensate for 

the variable nature of wind and preserve reliability during periods of low 

wind generation. The dams of the Federal Columbia River Power System had 

a sustained peaking capacity in January of nearly 10,000 megawatts for 120 

hours. 

• The Federal Columbia River Power System delivers carbon-free peaking 

capacity that is difficult to replace with alternative renewable resources. 

There is no comparable source of firm, reliable power available that delivers 

the same value at anywhere near the cost of Federal Columbia River 

hydroelectricity. 

Not far from here, the four lower Snake River dams supply up to one-quarter 

of BPA’s operating reserves. Reserves are the capacity that utilities are required to have available to meet unexpected changes in generation or 

electrical demand. Without the flexibility and operating reserves that these 

dams supply, the region could lose a substantial amount of its ability to 

deliver reliable energy, including the balancing of variable energy resources. 

• Hydropower is fundamental to the regional economy: As I mentioned in my 

opening remarks, low-cost hydroelectric power has been a major asset for this 

region’s economy since the Great Depression and the days of World War II. 

Today, Federal power continues to serve many remote rural communities 

across the Northwest that have few other economic advantages to offer 

industry and businesses. The new manufacturing economy in much of the 

Northwest is more technologically advanced than ever, and these manufacturers depend on reliable electricity with stable voltage and near-zero 

interruptions. 

• Hydropower contributes clean energy: Responding to state mandates, Federal 

incentives and the declining cost of technology, much of the West is attempting to meet clean electricity goals through other renewable resources, particularly wind and solar. As these variable resources grow in the Western 

Interconnection, hydro offers adaptable operational capability to integrate 

them reliably and at low cost. 

IMPORTANCE OF MAINTAINING HYDRO ASSETS

Preserving these valuable attributes requires constant reinvestment to replace 

and upgrade aging equipment. BPA is adopting a more rigorous approach for hydropower asset management that leads to the most efficient use of resources, recognizing that our assets do not all deliver the same value. Achieving these objectives 

for power requires collaborative, long-term planning with the Corps and Reclamation, our Federal partners. Through the Asset Investment Excellence Initiative, the 

three agencies have established prioritized goals to drive aligned investment 

decisions and improve contracting and project-management practices. We are already seeing the cost reductions and operational efficiencies from this effort. Longer 

term, this approach will produce the highest economic benefit and derive maximum 

value from the system, while meeting non-power purposes and environmental 

requirements. 

SUBSTANTIAL FISH AND WILDLIFE INVESTMENTS

The Federal Columbia River hydro system is also unique in the extensive modifications and operational changes made for the protection and enhancement of fish 

and wildlife. Since the 1980 Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation 

Act, BPA has invested billions of dollars in improved design and operation of the 

dams, as well as in off-site restoration efforts for the benefit of fish and wildlife 

sponsored by tribes, states, and rural communities. The trend of salmon and 

14 

steelhead survival is on the rise—we continue to post returns that by some 

measures are near the numbers seen before Bonneville Dam was built. 

Nonetheless, hydropower operations are subject to ongoing litigation and environmental review. In 2018, court-ordered spill above the levels specified in current 

Biological Opinions was valued by BPA at $40 million in lost revenue. It resulted 

in BPA implementing program funding reductions and a $10 million surcharge in 

its power rates. Also, BPA, the Corps, and Reclamation are undertaking a major environmental review of the Federal Columbia River hydro system through the 

Columbia River Systems Operation environmental impact statement. 

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY

The Columbia River Treaty is an agreement between the United States and 

Canada that jointly coordinates operations for flood risk management, hydropower 

generation, and other benefits. The Treaty went into effect in 1964 and has been 

a model of transboundary water resource cooperation ever since. 

We are nearing an important date for the Treaty. In 2024, 60 years of prepaid 

flood control space from Canada will end, and the Treaty will shift to a different 

flood-risk management regime. Also, either country may terminate the agreement 

at any point after September 2024 with at least 10 years advance notice. These 

milestones present the opportunity for both countries to reconsider whether aspects 

of the Treaty’s implementation can be modernized post-2024 to better reflect today’s 

realities and continue to provide appropriate benefits to the region. 

The United States has begun negotiations with the Canadian government on the 

future of the Treaty. BPA is the chair of the United States Entity and is a member 

of the negotiation team. The Department of State, with the United States negotiation team, holds regular meetings to inform the region and sovereigns of the status 

of the discussions. 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would again like to express my appreciation for 

the opportunity to participate in this hearing. The Federal Columbia River hydropower system continues to benefit the people of the Pacific Northwest, while also 

powering our modern economy and contributing to the quality of life that people so 

greatly value in our region today. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

Ms. Flores, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF TERRY FLORES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NORTHWEST RIVERPARTNERS, PORTLAND, OREGON 

Ms. FLORES. Thank you, Chairman Lamborn, Representative 

Newhouse, and Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers. I really 

appreciate the opportunity to come this morning and talk to you 

about not just the benefits that the Federal hydropower system 

provides but some of the issues that it is facing, particularly in the 

courtroom. 

RiverPartners supports salmon restoration policies and actions 

that are based in sound science to ensure that the measures being 

taken will provide demonstrable benefits to the salmon and wildlife 

we are trying to protect and to ensure that they are a good investment of ratepayer dollars. Sadly, I am here today to tell you that 

decisions surrounding the operation of the Federal hydropower 

system and endangered salmon that affect every person in the 

Northwest are currently not being made based in sound science or 

cost-effectiveness, but by a District Court judge in Portland, 

Oregon; and anti-dam forces are once again trying to make the 

Snake River dams a scapegoat in salmon and now orca restoration 

efforts. So, I appreciate the opportunity to share some of the actual 

facts surrounding these issues with you this morning. 

15 

I would like to tailor my remarks to two issues: spill operations 

at the Federal hydro projects, and then dam removal. When I talk 

about spill operations, I want to emphasize that the spill levels 

that are out right now are absolutely a case of diminished returns 

for both the endangered salmon we are trying to protect, as well 

as Bonneville’s customers. 

Today, the Federal hydro system is at great risk, driven by over 

20 years of ESA litigation and court rulings which have de-rated 

the system already by over 1,000 megawatts, increased Bonneville’s 

rates roughly 30 percent in just the last few years, and have created huge uncertainty over how the Federal hydro system will be 

operated and at what cost to customers, even next year. That is because the Federal hydro system, as I mentioned, is being run from 

the bench in the Oregon District Court based on spill injunction 

motions that are being brought by national and local fish advocate 

and anti-dam groups. 

Even this year, the Oregon District Court, as Dan mentioned, 

granted a motion that forced the Federal agencies to operate the 

Federal hydro system to maximum spill levels allowed by law on 

a 24/7 basis for 6 weeks during the spring run. 

What is spill? Spill involves raising large gates at the dams 

which allow water and young fish to shoot out over the spillways. 

The theory is that spill will hasten juvenile salmon migration 

downstream to the ocean and result in more returning adults. 

However, spill also adds dissolved gas to the water, which can give 

young fish the bends, like divers, harming or even killing them. 

So, spill is like medicine. The right amount can help you, and already we are spilling 30 to 40 percent of the Columbia and Snake 

Rivers. But too much can hurt or even kill you. 

Here’s the rub: as Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers 

noted in her statement, there is no proof that more spill will be 

better for salmon. NOAA Fisheries Science Center modeling of this 

year’s court-ordered experimental spill operations showed there 

would be little to no impact on salmon survival. The Corps also 

found it nearly impossible to operate the system at maximum spill 

and routinely exceeded the state total dissolved gas standards that 

are in place to protect endangered fish. 

Dan has already covered the cost of the spill and the spill surcharge. I would also note that the added experimental spill operations added 840,000 metric tons of carbon to our skies, which is 

a 1.7 percent increase in Northwest electricity sector emissions. 

Now, let me quickly turn to Snake dam removal. Anti-dam 

groups continue to present Snake dam removal as a silver bullet 

that will save the Northwest’s endangered salmon and now orcas. 

It is a false premise but a powerful fundraising tool for some of 

these organizations. There is no science that supports removal of 

the dams as the best means for salmon recovery. 

Don’t take my word for it. I am obviously here because I support 

those dams. But last fall, Dr. Peter Kareiva co-authored a paper 

with a UCLA graduate student, Valeri Carranza, entitled ‘‘Fealty 

to Symbolism Is No Way to Save Salmon,’’ and I would submit, by 

extension, orcas. With your permission, Chairman Lamborn, I 

would like to enter that paper into the record. 

Mr. LAMBORN. With no objection, so ordered. 

16 

Ms. FLORES. Here are some key points from Dr. Kareiva’s paper: 

‘‘There is no doubt that dams have caused salmon declines, but 

the operators of the dams have spent billions of dollars to improve 

the safety of their dams for salmon, and it is not certain that dams 

now cause higher mortality than would arise in a free-flowing 

river.’’ 

That is right. Where we are at now, based on NOAA Science 

Center analysis, is all of the improvements that have been made 

to the dams means that salmon are surviving at levels that are 

similar to rivers like the Fraser that are undammed. 

He also said, ‘‘The problem is that a complex species and river 

management issue has been reduced to a simple symbolic battle— 

a battle involving a choice between evil dams and the certain loss 

of an iconic species.’’ 

And he also says, ‘‘. . . it has become clear that salmon conservation is being used as a ‘‘means to an end’’ (dam removal) as 

opposed to an ‘‘end’’ of its own accord.’’ 

Dan has already covered—— 

Mr. LAMBORN. I am afraid we will have to conclude at this point, 

because the time is up. 

Ms. FLORES. OK, thank you very much. 

Mr. LAMBORN. I am sure you will have some questions, or at 

least I anticipate that you can finish up those thoughts. 

Ms. FLORES. OK. Thank you. Sorry for going over. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Flores follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TERRY FLORES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NORTHWEST RIVERPARTNERS

INTRODUCTION

Thank you Chairman Lamborn, members of the Committee and Representative 

Newhouse for the opportunity to appear before you this morning to talk about the 

myriad benefits the Northwest’s Federal hydrosystem provides to the environment, 

economy and our quality of life in the Northwest. I am Terry Flores, Executive 

Director of Northwest RiverPartners, an alliance of public utilities, ports, farmers 

and businesses joined together in the Pacific Northwest dedicated to the proposition 

that salmon and dams are and must continue to co-exist—and thrive. RiverPartners 

member organizations represent more than 4 million electric utility customers, 

40,000 farmers, ports with thousands of employees and large and small businesses 

that provide hundreds of thousands Northwest jobs. 

We support salmon restoration policies and actions that are based in sound 

science to ensure the measures being taken will deliver real benefits to endangered 

salmon and wildlife and are a good investment of ratepayers’ dollars. Sadly, I am 

here today to tell you that decisions surrounding operation of the Federal hydropower system and endangered salmon that affect every person in the Northwest are 

currently not being made based in sound science or cost-effectiveness but by a 

District Court judge in Portland, Oregon. And, that anti-dam forces are again trying 

to make the Snake River dams a scape goat in salmon and orca restoration efforts. 

I appreciate the opportunity to share some of the facts surrounding these issues 

with you today. 

THE FEDERAL HYDROPOWER SYSTEM: MYRIAD AND IRREPLACEABLE—BENEFITS

The Northwest is unique—and blessed—with an abundance of clean, carbon free 

hydroelectricity, nearly 60 percent of it supplied by the Federal dams on the 

Columbia and Snake Rivers. When President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the 

Bonneville Project Act in 1937, 81 years ago, he spoke of how the massive benefits 

of the Columbia River hydropower system would benefit the Northwest by providing 

power at cost to rich and poor alike, turn the desert into an agricultural oasis, and 

power industrialization. That vision came true and, along the way, the Federal 

hydrosystem helped win World War II. 

17 

The Federal hydropower system provides carbon-free, at cost, reliable power val- ued at more than $3 billion annually to the Pacific Northwest. The system is made 

up of 31 dams with a capacity to produce over 22,000 megawatts of energy and in 

an average year the system generates 8,700 megawatts of clean, reliable energy. 

The four Snake River dams alone produce 5 percent of the Northwest’s total hydro 

energy, enough to power a city the size of Seattle or the cities of Boise, Tri-Cities 

and Spokane, every year. 

Those calling for removal of these dams would have you believe that amount of 

power is insignificant, or can be replaced by intermittent wind or solar resources. 

The truth is this is a lot of carbon free energy that would be replaced largely by 

natural gas, adding 2–3 million tons of added carbon to our skies. 

The Federal hydrosystem does much more than just provide clean energy. The 

system of Federal dams protect rural communities and big cities alike from devastating floods, creates a river highway that links the Northwest to the rest of the 

Nation producing over $20 billion in economic opportunity and wealth; provides recreational opportunities and irrigation for over 7 million acres of farmland producing 

$8 billion in agricultural income. There is no question that the Federal hydrosystem 

is the backbone of the region’s carbon free energy supply and the lifeblood of its 

economy. 

THE LARGEST SPECIES RESTORATION PROGRAM IN THE NATION

All this bounty came at a cost to the region’s indigenous people, fish and wildlife 

resources and the land and water they occupy. As a result, the Northwest is home 

to the largest fish and wildlife restoration program anywhere in the Nation, and 

likely the world. Over $16 billion has been spent to mitigate for the impacts of the 

dams on fish and wildlife since the late 1970s. It is important to point out that the 

Northwest is unique in this respect too: almost all these costs are borne by Northwest families and businesses through their electric bills—not U.S. taxpayers. 

Without these costs, BPA’s wholesale power rate would be about a third lower. 

Investments in salmon restoration include a complete overhaul of the Federal 

dams to make them more fish friendly in the early 2000s, at a cost of nearly $2 

billion. For example, every one of the Federal mainstem dams on the Columbia and 

Snake Rivers have been retrofitted with state-of-the-art downstream fish passage 

technologies. These ‘‘fish slides’’ and other technologies are helping young fish 

migrate downstream safely and swiftly with survival levels ranging from 96 percent 

to nearly 100 percent. Due to the success of improved passage and dam operations, 

NOAA Fisheries and other scientists have stated that these survival levels are similar 

to those seen in undammed rivers such as the Fraser River in British Columbia. The 

dams also provide for safe upstream passage for adult salmon which utilize fish ladders installed when the dams were built to access their natal spawning grounds. 

The Northwest also is home to one of the largest habitat restoration efforts in the 

Nation. In the last 10 years, nearly $1 billion has been spent by Northwest states 

and tribes to restore degraded habitat, remove culverts and increase water flows as 

a result of BPA’s Fish Accord agreements. Nearly 1 million acres, the size of Rhode 

Island, have been protected or restored to provide quality habitat for fish and wildlife (See: www.critfc.org/blog/2018/08/14/fish-accords-10-year-summary/). 

Fortunately, the work being done by the states and tribes and paid for by Northwest utility customers are paying dividends. Overall, salmon returns are trending 

upwards over the last 12 years with some years seeing record returns. While scientists agree that ocean conditions, where salmon spend 3 or 4 years of their lives 

(as compared to 15–20 days migrating through the hydrosystem) have the most impact on salmon survival, it’s clear all the salmon restoration measures being taken 

are helping too. Unfortunately, these positive results for salmon have not put an 

end to the ongoing court battles. 

FOCUS ON SPILL IS A CASE OF ‘‘DIMINISHED RETURNS’’ 

Today, the Federal hydrosystem is at great risk driven by over 20 years of 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) litigation and court rulings which have de-rated the 

system by over 1,000 megawatts, increased BPA’s rates roughly 30 percent in just 

the last few years, and created huge uncertainty over how the Federal hydrosystem 

will be operated and at what cost to customers, even next year. That is because the 

Federal hydrosystem is being run by an Oregon District court judge from the bench, 

based on spill injunction motions brought by national and local fish advocate and 

anti-dam groups. 

This year, the Oregon District court granted a motion that forced the U.S. Army 

Corps (Corps) to operate the Federal hydro system to the maximum spill levels allowed by law on a 24/7 basis for a 6-week period this spring. Spill involves raising 

18 

large gates at the dams which allow water—and young fish—to shoot out and over 

the spillways. The theory is that spill will hasten juvenile salmon migration downstream to the ocean and result in more returning adults. However, spill adds dissolved gas to the water which can give young fish the ‘‘bends,’’ like divers, harming 

or even killing them. 

Spill is like medicine: the right amount can help you, too much can hurt or even 

kill you. Already, 30 to 40 percent of the Columbia and Snake Rivers are spilled 

for fish instead of generating clean energy to power our economy and protect our 

environment. 

Here’s the rub: there is no proof that more spill will be better for salmon. NOAA 

Fisheries Science Center modeling of this year’s court ordered experimental spill 

operations showed there would be little to no impact on salmon survival. The Corps 

also found it nearly impossible to operate the system at maximum spill, routinely 

exceeding the state Total Dissolved Gas (TDG) standards designed to protect fish 

and aquatic species. 

The added court-ordered spill cost BPA and its customers $38.6 million which 

BPA managed to whittle down to $10 million this year—by cutting other fish and 

wildlife projects. And, it added 840,000 metric tons of carbon to our skies, a 1.7 

percent increase in Northwest electricity sector emissions. 

It’s also important to point out another little known fact about Federal 

hydrosystem spill: the Army Corps has to obtain ‘‘waivers’’ from Oregon and 

Washington to exceed the state TDG standards that apply to hydro projects. Other 

hydro projects must be operated to meet a 110 percent TDG standard; the waivers 

for the Federal projects allows the Corps to go up to 120 percent. The states set 

the TDG standard at 110 percent because it is most protective of salmon and other 

aquatic species, based on their own review of the science. Years ago, some of the 

same plaintiffs that are now suing to increase spill, sued to keep TDG standards 

for hydro project at 110 percent. 

Now, plaintiffs in the litigation, the Federal agencies and state of Washington are 

discussing increasing spill and TDG levels even further. To what end? Added spill 

puts young salmon in the danger zone, increases BPA and customers’ costs, and the 

benefits to endangered salmon, based on NOAA Science Center analysis, are decimal dust. This is a poor use of public dollars in salmon restoration. It does however 

keep the focus on the dams and dam removal instead of other measures that can 

and should be taken: habitat restoration, hatchery and harvest reforms. 

SNAKE DAM REMOVAL: SYMBOLIC BUT NO WAY TO SAVE SALMON OR ORCAS

Anti-dam groups continue to present Snake dam removal as a ‘‘silver bullet’’ that 

will save the Northwest’s endangered salmon and orcas. It is a false premise, but 

a powerful fundraising tool. There is no science that supports removal of the dams 

as a means for salmon recovery. 

Last fall, Dr. Peter Kareiva co-authored a paper with a UCLA graduate student 

Valeri Carranza entitled: ‘‘Fealty to Symbolism No Way to Save Salmon’’ (and I submit, by extension, orca whales in Puget Sound). Dr. Kareiva has an impeccable 

science vita: Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and National 

Academy of Sciences, former Chief Scientist at The Nature Conservancy, current 

Director of UCLA’s Institute of the Environment and Sustainability. He analyzed 

the Northwest’s endangered salmon issues directly as Director of Conservation 

Biology at NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center from 1999 to 2002. 

Here are some key points from his and Ms. Carranza’s paper: 

• ‘‘There is no doubt that dams have caused salmon declines, but the operators 

of the dams have spent billions of dollars to improve the safety of their dams 

for salmon, and it is not certain that dams now cause higher mortality than 

would arise in a free-flowing river.’’ 

• ‘‘The problem is that a complex species and river management issue had been 

reduced to a simple symbolic battle—a battle involving a choice between evil 

dams and the certain loss of an iconic species.’’ 

• ‘‘. . . it has become clear that salmon conservation is being used as a ‘‘means 

to an end’’ (dam removal) as opposed to an ‘‘end’’ of its own accord.’’ 

The paper also describes how, in 1999, environmental groups supporting Snake 

dam removal ran a full-page ad in the New York Times, stating that if the dams 

were not promptly removed ‘‘wild Snake River spring chinook salmon, once the largest run of its kind in the world, will be extinct by 2017.’’ 

Dr. Kareiva and Carranza point out: ‘‘As we write this, it is 2017, the dams remain, and spring/summer chinook numbers are much higher than they were when 

19 

that confident prophesy of extinction was printed.’’ Yet the drum beat for dam removal continues despite any science indicating it would actually help, and not harm, 

endangered salmon and other species, and despite the enormous costs, increased 

carbon emissions, and damage it would cause the economy. 

BPA’S FUTURE IS IN PERIL

The uncertainty of ongoing litigation regarding future operations of the Federal 

hydropower system has put the agency at grave risk. In 2017, BPA announced a 

5.4 percent increase in its wholesale power rate for Fiscal Year 2018 and 2019. This 

follows four sequential rate periods with rate increases averaging nearly 8 percent, 

meaning BPA’s rates have risen roughly 30 percent in the last few years. Rising fish 

and wildlife costs have been a key driver in these rate increases. And, this year, 

BPA issued a $10 million ‘‘surcharge’’ on customers to pay for the costs of court 

ordered spill this spring. 

Even more concerning is the potential for future rate increases. Customers’ 

contracts with BPA expire in 2028, however, they will be making decisions on their 

future power supplies well before that. Should BPA’s rates continue to climb at their 

current trajectory, they likely will not be cost-competitive with other alternative 

market supply choices available to customers. And, if that happens, if BPA loses a 

few large customers or many small customers or some combination, it will not have 

sufficient customers or revenues to cover its costs including the costs of the fish and 

wildlife program. This also could jeopardize its ability to make its annual payment 

to the U.S. Treasury, which also affects the Nation’s taxpayers. 

That is why RiverPartners thanks you, Chairman Lamborn, and Committee members who supported H.R. 3144, a bipartisan, common-sense bill that would have put 

science first and stopped judicial efforts to run the hydrosystem until a comprehensive environmental review of the system’s impacts on listed fish was completed. I 

also thank and applaud Congressman Newhouse, Congresswomen McMorris 

Rodgers and Jaime Herrera-Beutler, and Congressmen Greg Walden and Kurt 

Schrader, among others, for their sponsorship and unflagging support of this legislation and other actions to help bring more certainty to the operations of the Federal 

hydropower system and BPA’s future financial health and security. 

As you recognize, as stewards of this great asset, it is imperative to identify practical and bipartisan solutions to these tough challenges. As stated, there is no silver 

bullet when it comes to restoring our iconic salmon, orcas or other species and the 

answer certainly won’t be found in a court room. It requires following sound science, 

fostering collaboration, and providing strong leadership, as you have shown. 

It is hard, but it is worth it. Every day millions of people depend on the electricity 

that hums over BPA’s 15,000 miles of transmission lines. New challenges await, 

from climate change to the energy demands of internet servers, but the agency 

remains at the very center of the economy and the environment of the Pacific 

Northwest. 

Thank you for holding this hearing today and for the opportunity to testify. I am 

happy to respond to any questions you may have. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Johnson, you are now recognized for 5 

minutes. 

STATEMENT OF KRIS JOHNSON, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

ASSOCIATION OF WASHINGTON BUSINESS, OLYMPIA, 

WASHINGTON 

Mr. JOHNSON. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of 

Congress. Welcome to the 4th Congressional District. It is my privilege and honor to speak before you this morning on a critically 

important tool. 

My name is Kris Johnson. It is my privilege to serve as President 

of the Association of Washington Business (AWB), the state’s largest employer association, representing nearly 7,000 employers— 

small, medium, and large—throughout the state of Washington. 

Those employers employ just over 1 million Washingtonians. 

20 

I have a couple of thoughts that I think are vitally important to 

our discussion today at the Columbia and Snake River dams, and 

they come from two perspectives. First, as a former Tri-Citian, I 

know how important the dams are, not only to this community, but 

they really serve as the lifeblood of this region. 

Second, as the President of AWB, Washington’s oldest and largest statewide business association, I can tell you that these dams 

play not only a critical role for the Columbia, for the state, but for 

the entire Pacific Northwest. These dams have fundamentally 

transformed our state’s economy, opening new opportunities not 

only to agriculture but also manufacturing and high-tech. And I believe we all share the same goals: clean energy, a healthy environment, a sustainable future, and a strong economy, and that is what 

we enjoy right here. 

Washington’s employers and families have taken great care to 

protect the air, water, and land for the generations. It is something 

we hold seriously. It is not an either/or issue. We can have healthy 

rivers and a healthy economy. 

Construction of these dams required a great deal of forethought 

and hard work from those before us. Investments in the dams laid 

the foundations for a strong and robust state economy. Low-cost 

power has been a key competitive advantage, attracting high-tech 

and manufacturing jobs throughout our state. 

In fact, Washington’s manufacturing sector employs over 286,000 Washingtonians, with an average compensation of $87,000 a year. 

These are great family wage jobs that we enjoy. In fact, the total output from this sector was $58 billion in 2016, 

and the high-tech sector employs just over a half-million Washingtonians, again statewide. As you came into Pasco today, you happened to see that we are surrounded by rich, vibrant farmland, 

vineyards, and food processing industries, all made possible because of the dams. 

In fact, Washington farmers are proud that they feed the world, 

whether it is potatoes, wheat, apples, milk, and so many other key 

important products. We are proud that we are a part of feeding the 

global economy. 

This is also the heart of Washington wine country. I know when 

you choose to have a glass of wine at the end of the day, I am sure 

you are choosing a Washington-based wine. We are the secondlargest producer of wine in the country. In fact, today there are 900 

wineries here in Washington State, with 55,000 acres of grapes. 

The wine industry is critically dependent on two things, irrigation 

and dependable water. They have both of those here. 

The dams provide low-cost, clean, renewable energy. In fact, 

nearly 70 percent of Washington’s electricity comes from reliable, 

clean, renewable hydropower, which accounts for 40 percent of the 

hydroelectric generation in the entire United States. 

As we have heard today, Washington is a trade-driven economy. 

In fact, trade represents 40 percent of all jobs in Washington and 

is the largest single driver of the state’s economy. The dams are a 

critical component for trade. They serve our growers, our seaports, 

moving Washington products to market with a limited carbon footprint. In fact, 60 percent of Washington’s wheat harvest, which is 

just finished, is worth billions to the economy and moves by river 

21 

to the West Coast ports, where it is sent around the world, and the 

dams provide a valuable recreation opportunity. It provides a quality of life, and we enjoy that in this state. Families enjoy boating, 

fishing, and other recreational activities that all drive local economies. 

So, for those reasons we support H.R. 3144 to protect the 

Columbia and Snake River dams, and I want to thank Representatives McMorris Rodgers and Newhouse for your hard work and 

your leadership on this specific issue that passed the House on a 

bipartisan vote earlier this year. 

We also vigorously support your appropriations provision to stop 

the spill order and hope our Senators will accept this compromise 

language to provide certainty for our river system. 

It took strong, visionary leaders to build the Columbia and Snake 

River dams, the results of which we enjoy today. They have proved 

hugely successful, producing powerful results for our state and our 

region. They have been transformative, they have been a catalyst, 

and they have been dynamic to our state’s economy. They are 

powering our homes, our communities, and our economy. 

On behalf of Washington’s employers and the employer community, we urge you to continue to support the Columbia and Snake 

River system. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KRISTOFER JOHNSON, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ASSOCIATION

OF WASHINGTON BUSINESS

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the U.S. House of Representatives’ 

Committee on Natural Resources, it is an honor to have the opportunity appear before you today at this oversight hearing on the Federal Columbia River Power 

System and its economic impact to the Pacific Northwest. 

As the president and CEO of the Association of Washington Business, which represents nearly 7,000 small, medium and large businesses across Washington State, 

I appreciate the opportunity to share with you today the vital importance of the 

Columbia and Snake River dam hydroelectric power system to Washington State’s 

economy. 

As a former resident of the Tri-Cities, the dams are vitally important to the community and the Mid-Columbia region. And, as the president of the state’s oldest and 

largest statewide business association, our members rely on the Columbia River 

Power System to power their operations in an environmentally friendly and costeffective manner. Simply put, the energy system is the lifeblood of Washington State 

and the entire Pacific Northwest region. 

The Columbia-Snake River dam system transformed Washington State’s economy, 

opening new opportunities for our agriculture community to access markets around 

the world, but to also support a sustainable future and strong economy. 

The hydroelectric dam system aligns with our values—clean water, clean air and 

healthy land and waterways today and for generations to come. Our members—from 

the smallest businesses in rural communities to our large urban manufacturers— 

have proven it’s not an either-or; we can have both healthy rivers and a healthy 

economy. 

Construction of the dams required a great deal of forethought and hard work by 

those who came before us. Those investments laid the foundation for a strong state 

and regional economy. They knew then what we know today: Low-cost power is a 

key competitive advantage, attracting high-tech and manufacturing jobs to 

Washington State. 

The numbers bear that out: Washington’s manufacturing sector employs more 

than 282,000 people today and generated a total economic output of $58.4 billion 

in 2016. The growing high-tech sector today employs more than 503,000 people 

across the state. 

And, the dam system allows for robust and productive farm land where potatoes, 

wheat, apples and hundreds of other products are grown and harvested, then 

22 

packaged by our vital food processing industry, powered by clean hydropower from 

the dams. Washington’s agricultural land literally feeds people around the world. 

This is also the heart of wine country. Washington State is the 2nd largest 

premium wine producer in the country with more than 940 wineries and 55,000-plus 

acres of wine grapes. This industry, like the other agricultural land, is critically dependent on the dams’ water infrastructure for crop irrigation. 

The Columbia River dam system provides low-cost, clean, renewable energy. In 

fact, nearly 70 percent of Washington’s electricity comes from reliable, clean and renewable hydropower, which accounts for 40 percent of the hydroelectric generation 

in the United States. 

Per capita, Washington is the most trade-driven state in the Nation. International 

trade today accounts for 40 percent of all jobs in Washington State and is the largest driver of the economy. And, the dams are a critical component of trade. They 

serve growers and our seaports, moving products to market with a limited carbon 

footprint. Sixty percent of Washington’s wheat harvest, worth billions to the economy, travels to West Coast ports via barge on the Columbia River to where it is 

shipped around the world. 

And, the dams are key to the quality of life in this region. Families enjoy boating, 

fishing and recreation, activities encourage tourism and drive local economies. 

For all these reasons, the Association also supported H.R. 3144 to protect the 

Columbia and Snake River dams. Thank you to Washington’s U.S. Reps. Cathy 

McMorris Rodgers and Dan Newhouse for their hard work on the legislation, which 

passed the House this year on a bipartisan vote. We also vigorously support your 

Appropriations provision to stop the spill order, and we hope Washington’s U.S. 

Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell will accept the compromise language that 

will provide certainty for the river system. 

It took strong, visionary leaders to build the dams that make up the ColumbiaSnake River Power System. They have proved hugely successful, producing power 

for Washington State, the Pacific Northwest region and the Nation. And, the investments made—and continue to make—have transformed the region and its economy. 

On behalf of Washington’s employer community, we urge you to continue to 

support the Columbia and Snake River dams. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

Mr. Spain, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF GLEN SPAIN, NORTHWEST REGIONAL 

DIRECTOR, PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN’S 

ASSOCIATIONS, EUGENE, OREGON 

Mr. SPAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

Committee. I have the honor to represent much of the West Coast 

commercial fishing industry, and I want to talk a little bit about 

the salmon fisheries. The Columbia River is our lifeblood as well, 

so I think the name of the panel here is quite appropriate to our 

interest as well. 

A little bit of background. Salmon is a powerhouse in our commercial fishing industry, but not just here. Keep in mind that when 

salmon migrate out, the juvenile salmon go north and south, so we 

are talking about an impact—the Columbia River essentially has 

an impact through its salmon runs all the way up into southeast 

Alaska and all the way down to central California. 

In fact, about 58 percent of the salmon that are harvested in 

Alaska come from the Columbia. It is still and once was the first 

largest salmon producing river in the world. So, we have that to 

look forward to. 

In the last few years, our industry has been on the order between 

$500 and $600 million in terms of just the wholesale value of the 

salmon landed in all of our three states and Alaska, and that 

amounts to more than $1.25 billion in economic benefits. That, 

23 

however, is only a fraction of what is the potential productivity for 

salmon in the river. As you probably know, the original estimates 

are that between 10 and 16 million salmon return to the Columbia 

River historically. We are down to about between 1.5 and 2.5 

million now. So, we have lost more than 80 percent of the productivity of the river system. 

The question is not the benefits of the dams or the benefits of 

other values in the river. We all know those have great benefits to 

society. The question which you have raised and everyone has 

raised is how can we make those co-exist truly with salmon runs. 

There are a multitude of things that are being tried, and there are 

a number of things that need to be tried in the future. 

We cannot stop the clock, go back in time, and rely on old 

science. It is pretty clear now and increasingly clear, for instance, 

that spill is a substantial benefit. I noted some recent studies, and 

I want to read into the record a paragraph from a letter from 47 

of Pacific Northwest’s most prominent regional fishery scientists 

which I referenced. It is an August 2017 letter I referenced in my 

comments. 

‘‘In this letter, the undersigned scientists and fishery managers 

reaffirm the benefits of spill for salmon and steelhead of the SnakeColumbia River Basin as an essential interim measure awaiting a 

legally valid, scientifically credible, long-term plan. Specifically, we 

support an immediate increase in spill levels to benefit Snake and 

Columbia fish for reasons described more fully below,’’ a reference 

to the comments themselves. ‘‘Increased spill allows more juvenile 

salmon to pass dams safely via spillways rather than passing 

through powerhouses or bypass plumbing. With existing dams in 

place, spill offers the best potential to improve life-cycle survival.’’ 

That is the consensus right now of the scientific community. 

Given that fact, to jettison spill as a tool and return to a discredited, essentially scientifically obsolete plan is not good policy. I respectfully have to object to the kind of policy work that has been 

proposed in the past in that way. 

What we have is potential unexpected consequences from eliminating spill. Number one, keep in mind that the Pacific salmon 

treaty with Canada is an important element of Columbia River restoration, and the restoration elements in that treaty, provided for 

by international law with Canada, are being essentially abrogated 

by not using spill as a tool. It means a reduction in survival rates, 

which means we could go backwards. There have been very modest 

improvements in the runs because of a lot of the efforts, but we 

could easily slip backwards, particularly in adverse environmental 

conditions such as we are facing this year. That means we could 

potentially be wasting literally billions of dollars of ratepayer 

efforts for the past several years by going backwards in terms of 

our recovery efforts. 

Another thing is that it is likely to require more water if we are 

not using the water at the spillways wisely. The science is fairly 

clear that it will require more water from the Upper Basin to go 

through this system in order to improve those survival rates the 

equivalent of what spill could produce. So, you are potentially, once 

again, pitting lower river versus upper river interests in a water 

fight that has no end in sight. 

24 

1 Available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/fisheries-economics-united-states2015. 2 13 major wild salmon and steelhead stocks native to the Columbia Basin are faced with 

potential extinction and protected under the Federal ESA. None have yet to meet basic recovery 

goals. 

We can do better than that. We need a collaborative approach. 

We need to look realistically at all the science. We need to realistically look at all the policy decisions that are out there for us, and 

that are in the works now. To interfere with that with the legislative process would, in my view, be a serious mistake. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Spain follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GLEN H. SPAIN, ON BEHALF OF THE PACIFIC COAST

FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATIONS (PCFFA) 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am the Northwest Regional Director 

for the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations (PCFFA), which is the 

largest trade organization of commercial fishing families in the western United 

States. PCFFA represents thousands of working men and women in the U.S. Pacific 

commercial fishing industry, and has member fishermen’s associations and/or 

individual members in every U.S. West Coast seaport from San Diego to Alaska. 

PART 1—THE IMPORTANCE OF COLUMBIA RIVER SALMON TO THE WHOLE

REGIONAL ECONOMY

Commercial salmon fishing is indeed the life-blood of a major U.S. industry, 

generating many billions of dollars annually to this region’s economy, and supporting hundreds of thousands of family wage jobs in this region as well as 

providing high quality seafood for America’s tables and for export. 

In Washington State alone, our seafood industry supports more than 58,000 

family wage jobs. Salmon fishing is one of the most important components of our 

commercial fishing industry west coast-wide, in 2014 generating more than $688 

million in direct landings sales at the docks, and in 2015 more than $509 million, 

which in turn each year supports more than $1.25 billion/year in related economic 

impacts to this region’s economy (see Fisheries Economics of the United States, 

2015).1

The valuable Pacific salmon fishery—and tens of thousands of jobs in our industry 

that salmon support—is also greatly influenced by the health of the remaining 

salmon stocks in the Columbia River, which even in its greatly diminished state 

from its historic productivity (originally with runs estimated by the Northwest 

Power and Conservation Council of between 10 to 16 million salmonids/year) still 

remains the single most productive salmon-producing river in the lower 48 states. 

Even so, current salmon numbers today are only at best about 10 percent of what 

a restored Columbia River could potentially generate, even including hatchery 

production which is now the vast majority of fish in the river.2

Columbia River salmon abundances influence harvest allocations all the way from 

central California to well into Alaska (see Figure 1). In fact, approximately 58 

percent of all salmon harvested commercially in Southeast Alaska come 

originally from the Columbia. Thus, the declines of salmon in the Columbia have 

impacted coastal economies all the way from central California to Southeast Alaska, 

including in British Columbia. Maintaining and recovering Columbia River salmon 

runs is also a key obligation of the United States under international law as 

embodied in the U.S.-Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty. 

25 

3This is an estimate from the NW Power and Conservation Council, based on the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers inventory of ‘‘significant dams.’’ However, no universally agreed upon census 

of dams in the Columbia Basin seems to exist. 

Figure 1: Geographical Influence of Columbia River—Origin Salmon Fisheries from 

Central California to SE Alaska 

The major alternation of the Columbia River system by dams is relatively recent, 

but has had devastating effects on the run size and species makeup of salmon resources throughout the basin. With more than 400 dams 3 in the Columbia River 

Basin, more than half of them dedicated (fully or partly) to generating hydropower, 

fish passage at dams has long been a major concern. Of these, only 31 Federal 

hydropower dams comprise the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS), but 

these are the larger dams and 8 of these large dams are ‘‘mainstem dams’’ which 


31587.001.eps
26 

4Dam inventory data from Oregon and Washington state inventories. Because Federal 

inventory and inspection is only required for the larger dams and those with downstream hazard potential, and because state inventories are fragmentary, the total number of smaller water 

storage dams is likely larger. 5 Available at: http://www.pcffa.org/CDNReport-Columbia.pdf. 

6See: http://asafishing.org/facts-figures/sales-and-economics. 

7See Report to Congress on Columbia River Basin Hatchery Reform, Hatchery Scientific 

Review Group (Feb. 2009), available at: http://hatcheryreform.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ 

HSRG-2009-Report-to-Congress.pdf. 8See for instance these charts of Snake River Salmon and Steelhead Returns—1950s—2017: 

https://tinyurl.com/ycvm8j69. 9Gordon Gislason & Gunnar Knapp, Economic Impacts of Pacific Salmon Fisheries, Pacific 

Salmon Comm’n (2017), available for download at http://www.psc.org/download/333/ 

specialreports/9337/economic-impacts-of-pacific-salmonfisheries.pdf. 10See Wash. State Recreation and Conservation Office, Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office, 

State of Salmon in Watershed 2016 at 2 (showing declining trend in non-tribal chinook and coho 

harvests from the 1970s through 2015), https://stateofsalmon.wa.gov/governors-report-2016/. 

affect all salmon runs above their locations starting from the Bonneville Dam (near 

Portland). The FCRPS dams’ operations are also coordinated with three major 

power dams on the Canadian side of the border through the U.S.-Canada Columbia 

River Treaty. 

Additionally, there are thousands of smaller water storage dams, including at 

least 2,972 dams in the Interior Columbia Basin, with 1,239 of those involving over 

50 acre-feet of water. Only 4 percent of these smaller storage dams are also used 

for power generation.4 However, even small dams can block important fish passage 

routes and prevent spawning. 

Severe salmon run declines in the Columbia over the past several decades have 

had devastating impacts on the economies of many western states. In an economic 

study by the Institute for Fisheries Resources (The Cost of Doing Nothing: The 

Economic Burden of Salmon Declines in the Columbia River Basin (Oct. 1996)), that 

study concluded that up to $500 million/year in regional economic benefits are being 

lost each year from salmon declines in the Columbia Basin, together with approximately 25,000 lost family wage jobs.5 The economic cost of the current highly 

depleted salmon status quo on the Columbia is, in fact, huge. 

Our sister industry, the recreational fishing industry, itself is also a multi-billion 

industry supporting tens of thousands of additional jobs in the Pacific Northwest, 

according to the American Sportfishing Association.6 That industry too, like the 

commercial salmon fishing industry and the jobs they both support, is almost entirely dependent on healthy rivers for its existence, including salmon and steelhead 

production from the Columbia Basin. 

Today, the current salmonid runs of the Columbia number only about 2.5 million 

(20 year annual average), which is less than 20 percent of historic numbers, and 

these are almost entirely hatchery fish in origin (95 percent coho, 60 percent fall 

Chinook and 80 percent spring Chinook are hatchery stock). There are an estimated 

178 hatcheries active in the Columbia Basin with their production intended to mitigate for past wild salmon losses due to the dams, or for supplementation to replace 

otherwise lost salmon production.7 Unfortunately, this basin-wide hatchery mitigation program has only been partially successful, and wild salmon production losses 

still greatly exceed successful hatchery production. 

There is a persistent myth that efforts to restore salmon runs in the Columbia 

are seeing ‘‘record returns,’’ supposedly to justify those efforts as successful. 

Unfortunately, this is a fabrication based on a ‘‘statistical trick’’ of comparing very 

recent modest successes in some rebuilding efforts with near-extinction levels in the 

recent past. The truth is that we are not doing more than buying some time by 

postponing extinction, but still need to figure out how to meet even minimum 

recovery goals, which for nearly every ESA-listed stock have never yet been met.8

Salmon throughout the Columbia are in deep trouble, and so are the fishing 

families who depend upon them. When fewer salmon return from the ocean to 

Washington’s rivers, this translates directly to lower catch limits, shorter seasons, 

and a reduced ability for commercial fishing families to earn a living. Salmon harvests fluctuate from year to year, but the overall trend, especially in the Columbia, 

has been one of sharp decline. Chinook (king) salmon and coho salmon are the most 

commercially valuable of western Washington’s salmon species,9 and these are the 

species that have seen some of the steepest declines.10 From 1950 to 1955 in 

Washington, commercial landings of Chinook salmon averaged 10,248,683 pounds 

and coho averaged 11,779,067 pounds, but from 2011 to 2016, chinook landings 

27 

11 Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., Annual Commercial Landing Statistics (searchable by state, 

species, and year), https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/commercial-landings/ 

annual-landings/index. 12See Wash. Dep’t of Fish and Wildlife, Species Info, https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/washington/ 

Species/9009/ (pink salmon runs only occur in Washington in odd-numbered years); Kraig & 

Scalini, supra n.31, at 3 (nearly 40 percent of the total recreational salmon catch in Washington 

in 2015 were pink salmon); Gislason & Knapp, supra n.6, at 12 Exh. 2 (compare weight landed 

with exvessel value). 13See Kraig & Scalini, supra n.31, at 14 tbl. 4 (average of total sport catch in even numbered 

years—2010, 2012, and 2014—is 539,584). 14Species numbers and quote from introductory Abstract in Cederholm, C.J., D.H. Johnson, 

R.E. Bilby, L.G. Dominguez, A.M. Garrett, W.H. Graeber, E.L. Greda, M.D. Kunze, B.G. Marcot, 

J.F. Palmisano, R.W. Plotnikoff, W.G. Pearcy, C.A. Simenstad, and P.C. Trotter. 2000. Pacific 

Salmon and Wildlife—Ecological Contexts, Relationship, and Implications for Management. 

Special Edition Technical Report, Prepared for D.H. Johnson and T.A. O’Neil (Managing 

directors), Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. WA Dept. of Fish & 

Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 15 70 Fed. Reg. 69,903 (November 18, 2005). 

averaged only 5,866,870 pounds, a reduction of about 43 percent, and coho landings 

averaged only 3,102,894 pounds, a reduction of about 74 percent.11

Washington’s salmon sport fisheries have also been declining for decades. From 

1971 to 1974, the annual sport salmon catch in Washington averaged 1,224,881 

salmon, but from 2010 to 2015, it dropped to an average of only 783,185 salmon, 

a reduction of about 36 percent. As with the commercial fisheries, the more valuable 

fisheries have seen the steepest declines. Excluding pink salmon (a numerous but 

less valuable species 12), the sport catch in Washington dropped during 2010 to 2015 

to an average of only 539,584 salmon, a decline of 56 percent from the 1971 to 1974 

average.13

Make no mistake, decades of gradually lost western states’ salmon-river 

productivity has meant tens of thousands of lost jobs for our industry, nearly bankrupted many coastal communities, and caused widespread economic and social 

disruption in many rural communities and towns. On the flip side, however, more 

recent river restoration efforts—including the removal of salmon-killing dams when 

those dams no longer are cost-effective to keep, or where they were foolishly located—are helping to restore many thousands of local fishing and river-related jobs, 

providing economic lifeblood to once-dying coastal fishing-dependent communities, 

and restoring many billions of dollars to the U.S. economy. In short, more salmon 

means more jobs and stronger economies throughout the coastal western states. 

And while PCFFA does not represent, and cannot speak for, the many salmondependent West Coast tribes who also depend upon Columbia River salmon for their 

livelihoods, sustenance fisheries and cultures, it should be kept in mind that the 

continuing decline of salmon runs in the Columbia have also greatly impacted those 

tribes and their salmon-based economies as well. 

PART 2—COLUMBIA RIVER SALMON ALSO SUPPORT THE ENTIRE REGIONAL ECOSYSTEM

The once-great salmon runs of the Northwest never existed in an ecological 

vacuum, but were instead an integral part of an entire food-web that still supports 

many other species. Salmon are a major or important food source not just for 

humans, but for at least 138 species of birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles 

native to the Pacific Northwest that have been identified by scientists as predators 

or scavengers of salmon at one or more stages of the salmon lifecycle. Of this group 

of 138 species, 9 species have a strong-consistent relationship with salmon, and another 58 have a recurrent relationship with salmon. Yet another 25 species have 

indirect relationships that depend upon healthy salmon runs to support their direct 

prey base.14

The Plight of Southern Resident Orcas: As just one current example of the 

intimate food-web dependency of many species on healthy Northwest salmon runs, 

consider the plight of endangered Southern Resident killer whales (Orcinus orca), 

or orcas. In 2005, due to their small population size and significant threats to survival, NOAA Fisheries issued a final rule designating Southern Resident orcas as 

endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.15 Scientific studies have since 

shown that this whale population is food-limited, with their main food source 

Chinook salmon which are becoming increasingly scarce. 

The 2008 NOAA Fisheries Southern Resident Killer Whale Recovery Plan states, 

‘‘Perhaps the single greatest change in food availability for resident killer whales 

28 

16 National Marine Fisheries Service (2008) Recovery Plan for Southern Resident Killer 

Whales (Orcinus orca). National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, Seattle, 

Washington. At: II-82. 17That report is available at: www.damsafety.org/media/Documents/DownloadableDocuments/ 

RehabilitationCosts2009.pdf. 18Maclin E., Sicchio M. (1999, 16). Dam removal success stories: Restoring rivers through 

selective removal of dams that don’t make sense. American Rivers, Friends of the Earth, & 

Trout Unlimited, December 1999. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/damsuccess_513764_ 

7.pdf. See also Army Corps of Engineers National Inventory of Dams (NID) http://nid.usace. 

army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=838:1:0::NO::APP_ORGANIZATION_TYPE,P12_ORGANIZATION:2. 

since the late 1800s has been the decline of salmon in the Columbia River basin.’’ 16

Salmon restoration efforts on a region-wide basis are necessary to help achieve 

Southern Resident Orca recovery goals. Yet given the potential for substantial 

salmon recovery in the Columbia River basin, conservation efforts made there can 

contribute significantly to adequate and abundant prey for Southern Resident 

Orcas. 

PART 3—THINKING ABOUT DAM REMOVAL—AGING DAMS AS A NATIONAL

INFRASTRUCTURE DISASTER

First off, to see why in many cases dam removal makes good sense, we should 

consider the current state of the Nation’s aging dams. There are, according to the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ National Inventory of Dams, approximately 84,000 

dams in the Nation providing a range of benefits and built for a wide array of purposes. This is a staggering number—almost one dam built in the United States for 

every day since the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. Yet no dam can exist forever. All have engineered life spans, after which their 

reservoirs silt up, their concrete structures crack and deteriorate, and they can catastrophically fail—endangering the lives, property and natural resources (including 

drinking water supplies) of those who live far below and around them. 

An increasing number of the Nation’s 84,000 dams are now economically obsolete, 

many are near or past their engineered life span, and quite a few no longer function 

to provide the benefits they were intended to produce. According to a January 2009 

report by the Task Committee of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, The 

Cost of Rehabilitating Our Nation’s Dams, over 4,400 (at that time) of these 84,000 

dams are now considered to be physically unsafe by state dam safety inspectors. 

From 2005 to 2008, their report notes, the states reported 566 dam incidents, including 132 dam failures—and that number is likely under-reported.17 The Nation’s 

dam failure rate is also expected to accelerate. That report also noted that: 

‘‘Without proper maintenance, repairs, and rehabilitation, a dam may 

become unable to serve its intended purpose and could be at risk for failure. 

State and Federal dam inspection programs can identify deficiencies in 

dams, but inspections alone will not address safety concern posed by inadequately maintained or outdated dams. For most dam owners, finding the 

funds to finance needed repairs or upgrades is nearly impossible. The lack 

of reliable funding to resolve dam safety issue poses a threat to public 

safety nationwide.’’ 

That important 2009 study also concluded that the cost of rehabilitation up to 

current safety standards of just the Nation’s non-federally owned dams would be 

$51.46 billion (even more in today’s 2018 dollars). To address just the most critical 

of these dams over the next 12 years, the cost was estimated to be at least $16 

billion. 

Congressional efforts to help provide those funds, the study noted, have been few 

and paltry compared to the urgent need. The report also notes that, at least at the 

time written, there was only one Federal program available for rehabilitation of 

non-federally owned dams (the Watershed Rehabilitation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106–472, 

Sec. 313)), and its funding was orders of magnitude smaller than what is actually 

going to be required. 

According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the average life expectancy of a 

dam is 50 years, with 25 percent of the dams in the Army Corps of Engineers 

National Inventory of Dams now more than 50 years old. This number is projected 

to increase to 85 percent by the year 2020.18 A number of these aging dams are 

in the Columbia Basin. New energy technologies are also making many of these 

dams increasingly obsolete. 

In short, an increasing number of the Nation’s dams are aging, increasingly obsolete, and becoming an infrastructure nightmare with serious repercussions for the 

Nation’s public health and safety. This is just as true for the Columbia Basin dams 

29 

19See: https://www.americanrivers.org/conservation-resource/american-rivers-dam-removaldatabase-now-available-public/. 

as it is elsewhere in the Nation. Over the next 100 years, virtually all the dams in 

the Columbia Basin will have to be either retrofitted at substantial cost, or removed 

and/or replaced. 

EACH DAM REMOVAL PROPOSAL MUST BE JUDGED ON ITS OWN MERITS

It is just as illogical to say ‘‘all dams are good’’ and should be kept as they are, 

as to say ‘‘all dams are bad’’ and should be removed. The fact is, each dam was originally designed and constructed to provide certain public benefits and engineered 

only to last for a specific life span. No dam can last forever—eventually it will either 

come down by human design or by catastrophic failure. 

Dams also can have a serious economic downside: they can block valuable rivers, 

destroying other valuable natural resource industries (including commercial or recreational fisheries), which in turn destroys jobs, and can have devastating impacts 

on water quality and disrupt natural hydrological flows that cause other societal 

problems such as greatly increasing the costs of providing clean drinking water to 

communities downstream. 

Any rational analysis must therefore conclude that dams that no longer provide 

sufficient public benefits to justify their existence, or which are reaching the end 

of their engineered life-span and becoming safety hazards, or which are creating 

other problems for society (such as destroying valuable fisheries) which push their 

economic value to society into the negative, are potential candidates for removal. 

Thus each dam removal project must be evaluated and judged on its own merits, 

always on a case-by-case basis. 

Dam removals are, in fact, nothing new—and by necessity, as many dams exceed 

their engineered life span, are accelerating in number. Information on 1,403 dams 

that were removed from rivers in the United States over the past century is now 

available to the public, compiled by American Rivers.19

As more Columbia Basin dams age, many more are becoming candidates for removal. Other dams can still be upgraded, their hydropower output improved with 

new technologies, and can remain in place longer—but always at an economic cost. 

If that cost to upgrade or retrofit a dam to modern relicensing and safety standards 

surpasses or outweighs the economic value of any benefits that dam can provide, 

then that dam becomes economically obsolete, and it should be considered for removal. But again, this is a case-by-case judgment that must be made for each dam. 

Recent hydropower dam removals in the Pacific Northwest that made good 

economic sense, and which also greatly benefited blocked salmon runs, include the 

removal of the Condit Dam and the Elwha/Glines Dam removal projects. In both 

cases, the salmon runs that those dams previously blocked are now returning in 

abundance. 

Summary of Part 3: Some hydropower dams still make economic sense, but in 

a growing number of instances it is dam removal that makes the most economic 

sense, and is increasingly the common sense as well as least-cost option. 

Not all dams are created equal. Many of the Nation’s dams today, including a 

growing number of the 3,036 major hydropower-producing dams FERC currently 

regulates, simply no longer make economic sense. Many of these aging dams use old 

technologies and are thus functionally obsolete; some are orphaned or now abandoned; and others would be cost-prohibitive to retrofit or rehabilitate, and so are 

economically obsolete. But if left in place they will ultimately fail catastrophically. 

The same analysis also applies to a growing number of federally owned dams. 

The only sensible option in such cases is simply to remove those obsolete dams 

entirely and replace their renewable power through more cost-effective (i.e., cheaper) 

sources, which can be done now from nearly anywhere else in the Nation’s vast 

power grid. Recent dramatic increases in solar, wind, geo-thermal and other nondam renewable energy sources increasingly make it possible to cost-effectively 

replace hydropower when necessary to do so. 

PART 4—MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH H.R. 3144

One of many bad ideas on the current congressional table that would damage 

salmon runs in the Columbia and throughout the U.S. West Coast (as well as 

jeopardize the international U.S.-Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty) is Rep. McMorrisRodgers’ bill, H.R. 3144 (‘‘To provide for operations of the Federal Columbia River 

Power System pursuant to a certain operation plan for a specified period of time, 

and for other purposes.’’). 

30 

20See: CSS (Comparative Survival Study Oversight Committee) 2017. Documentation of 

experimental spill management: models, hypotheses, study design, and response to ISAB. May 

8, 2017. 138 p., http://www.fpc.org/documents/CSS/30-17.pdf. 21Scientists’ Letter to NW Policymakers, Re: Importance of ‘‘spill’’ to salmon protections (08- 

16-17) at: https://tinyurl.com/y8x5z2om. 

This badly conceived bill passed in the House on April 25, 2018, and is now pending in the Senate. However, portions of this bill also are now appearing in the form 

of a ‘‘partial rider’’ to other bills, including the draft Conference Energy & Water 

Appropriations bill (H.R. 5895) currently at Division A, Title V (General 

Provisions), Sec. 506, but which may now be wrapped into a proposed appropriations 

‘‘minibus’’ package currently under Conference discussion in the Senate. 

Passing any part of H.R. 3144 into law (whether by regular bill or by 

partial ‘‘rider’’ on the ‘‘minibus’’ or other appropriations vehicles) would be 

disastrous for the entire West Coast salmon-dependent economy, destroying fishing jobs from Southern California to Southeast Alaska! It would 

also abrogate U.S. responsibilities under the U.S.-Canada Pacific Salmon 

Treaty to recover damaged Columbia River salmon stocks, potentially 

triggering another ‘‘fish war’’ with Canada such as we saw prior to the 

current Pacific Salmon Treaty. 

PCFFA and many other fishing industry and recreational fishing industry businesses, fishermen, conservationists, scientists, and citizens oppose H.R. 3144 

because it would significantly weaken Columbia Basin salmon restoration efforts, 

just at the time when they need to be substantially strengthened, by: 

• Congressionally overturning and invalidating a May, 2016, U.S. Federal 

Court decision finding that the old 2014 Federal Columbia River Power 

System (FCRPS) salmon Biological Opinion was arbitrary and capricious and 

not in accordance with the best available science, and instead legislatively 

requiring all Federal agencies to return to that obsolete and illegal 2014 

plan—in other words, legislatively mandating that the agencies must operate 

on the basis only of pre-2014 obsolete and discredited science. 

This is fundamentally anti-science. 

• Blocking a related April, 2017, Court decision that provides much-needed 

protective measures like ‘‘spill’’ for guiding fragile juvenile salmon and 

steelhead migrating past the turbines of the Federal dams on the lower Snake 

River and lower Columbia River—a mitigation measure that actually, provably works. Current Sec. 506 of H.R. 5895 (or its equivalent if in the 

‘‘minibus’’ bill) tries to turn the clock back to 2014 to prohibit ‘‘spill’’ of water 

through the Columbia River dams to help young migrating salmon survive by 

guiding them around and out of the way of turbines at the dams. 

This is fundamentally anti-salmon and anti-jobs. 

This legislative end-run around both law and science simply seeks to congressionally ‘‘lock in’’ a failed 2014 status quo that was harming our region’s iconic and 

economically valuable salmon and steelhead populations and the communities that 

rely upon them. These past flawed salmon policies have already wasted more than 

$15 billion on a series of insufficient measures that have failed to recover a single 

one of the 13 protected wild populations of salmon and steelhead in the Columbia 

Basin. That status quo is not working for anyone today, and a different approach 

was clearly necessary. An accelerated ‘‘spill’’ program was part of that new 

approach. 

In point of fact, the current Court-mandated ‘‘spill’’ program has proven to be far 

more successful at increasing overall salmon survival through the Columbia River 

dams than anyone had predicted.20 As a result, 47 of the Pacific Northwest’s most 

prominent regional fisheries scientists wrote to congressional policy makers on 

August 16, 2017, and stated: 

‘‘In this letter, the undersigned scientists and fishery managers reaffirm the 

benefits of spill for salmon and steelhead of the Snake/Columbia River 

Basin, as an essential interim measure awaiting a legally valid, scientifically credible long-term plan. Specifically, we support an immediate 

increase in spill levels to benefit Snake/Columbia fish, for reasons described 

more fully below. Increased spill allows more juvenile salmon to pass dams 

safely via spillways, rather than passing through powerhouses or bypass 

plumbing. With existing dams in place, spill offers the best potential to 

improve life cycle survival.’’ 21

31 

22 American Fisheries Society Statement on H.R. 3144: https://tinyurl.com/yd6t7po3. 23 Available from: http://www.rmecon.com/examples/BonnevillePower%20May%202018.pdf. 

Ending this important, and now proven effective, mitigation practice by legislative 

fiat just throws one of our best salmon mitigation tools out the window. This would 

just promote more mitigation failures and puts that much more pressure on the 

other aspects of the Columbia River hydropower system to provide equivalent survival benefits they cannot easily provide. This provision is clearly bad for salmon 

and salmon jobs. 

On June 18. 2018, the president of the Western Division of the American 

Fisheries Society (AFS), the Nation’s most prestigious scientific society for fisheries 

scientists and managers, wrote to members of the U.S. Senate considering 

H.R. 3144, and voicing AFS’s concerns about the suppression of science that 

H.R. 3144 would mandate, stating: 

‘‘We write to express concern with H.R. 3144 which was introduced by Rep. 

Cathy McMorris Rogers (R-WA), passed in the House in April, and referred 

to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. The bill seeks 

to overturn science-based judicial decisions associated with recovery, and 

would likely imperil, several important Columbia River Basin anadromous 

fish populations. H.R. 3144 would also unduly suppress the evaluation of 

the full range of alternatives available to recover these fish stocks based on 

the best available scientific information.’’ 22

This legislative over-ride is all the more troubling when the need—and 

opportunity—for durable, better solutions is so urgent. The provisions of H.R. 3144 

further divide us when we need to come together. 

Coastal salmon, fishing, and orca advocates are well aware how connected our 

communities are with those in the Columbia Basin. That means both our problems 

and our solutions are also shared. We stand ready to work with people in the TriCities, and throughout the Inland Northwest, to craft shared solutions that help us 

make tough decisions to solve tough problems but in a manner that assures just 

transitions and leads all our communities forward. Fishing communities (whether 

commercial, recreational, or tribal) know what this is like. We have already made 

big sacrifices, have lost many thousands of salmon-based jobs, have experienced increased substance abuse and other problems that come with reduced opportunities 

and economic devastation. We know what that is like—and we don’t wish it on 

anyone. 

It is wrong to pit honest, hard-working food producers—salmon fishermen and 

farmers—against each other. We all deserve a fair shake and opportunity to make 

a living and to pass on our trades to our children and the next generation. We need 

policies that bring people together, solve problems and create opportunity—not close 

out options. 

PART 5—DEALING WITH LOOMING BPA INSOLVENCY: THE NEED FOR A NEW

BUSINESS MODEL

There is no doubt that the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) is in financial 

trouble. The problem, however, is that they are still acting out of an increasingly 

obsolete, hydropower-only business model. The organization must rethink its position in the midst of a glut of energy in the Northwest and the continued emergence 

of wind, solar and other non-hydro renewable energy sources that will inevitably 

play a far bigger role in the region’s future as they become more cost-competitive 

and as fossil fuel powerplants are finally phased out. 

A very insightful analysis of BPA’s current financial crisis is contained in a recent 

study by Rocky Mountain Econometrics titled: The Bonneville Power Administration 

2018: Threatened, Endangered, or on the Brink of Extinction? 23 The authors of that 

study also point out that one of the biggest drains on BPA’s coffers are the four 

Lower Snake River dams (LSRD), which today can run only at a substantial 

economic loss. Since 2009, BPA has not needed a single kilowatt of LSRD energy 

to meet contracted customer demand. Wind energy alone has already replaced all 

LSRD hydropower three times over. 

There is much misinformation (and considerable mythology) about the economic 

importance of the four Lower Snake River Dams (LSRD’s). These are the actual 

facts: 

It is often stated incorrectly that removing them would mean the supposed ‘‘loss 

of 3,000 megawatts of power production.’’ While it is true that the combined maximum ‘‘nameplate capacity’’ of the four LSRDs is 3033 MW, to actually produce that 

32 

24 Available from: http://www.rmecon.com/examples/BPA%20&%20LSRDs%206-5-18.pdf. 25Lower Snake River Dams Power Replacement Study: Assessing the Technical Feasibility 

and Costs of Clean Energy Replacement Portfolios. NW Energy Coalition (March 201). Available 

at: https://nwenergy.org/featured/lsrdstudy. 

amount of power would require all 24 turbines operating continuously every hour 

of every day for the entire year, which even under ideal conditions is an impossibility. In practical operation, their actual average power production over the past 

17 years has only been 943 MW per year, or just 31 percent of capacity, most of 

which is produced during spring run-off when both demand and prices for power are 

at their lowest. 

As far as the Lower Snake Dams benefits in terms of river transportation (none 

of which benefits BPA), over the past 20 years, total Lower Snake River freight 

volume declined nearly 70 percent. Lower Snake River reservoirs no longer transport logs, lumber, paper, pulp, pulse or petroleum. Container shipping is zero. Grain 

volume has declined 45 percent. The last dredging needed to keep open the Port of 

Lewiston cost taxpayers over $10 million. Finally, barge traffic on the LSR 

reservoirs has been declining for over 20 years, and every barge that leaves the Port 

of Lewiston now carries a taxpayer subsidy of at least $25,000. 

This analysis is explained in more detail in a separate economics monograph from 

Rocky Mountain Econometrics, titled: Bonneville Power Administration and the 

Lower Snake River Dams: The Folly of Conventional Wisdom.24 We commend your 

attention to that report and other citations in this testimony. 

While some claim that the dams provide stability for the grid for a few days every 

year, a recent study has demonstrated that we could have a far more stable grid 

(and even replace all the power the dams generate) with reliable and clean renewable energy, for just over a $1.00/month for Northwest ratepayers. The cost is likely 

to be even lower as prices for wind, solar, and storage technologies continue to drop 

below the conservative cost assumptions in the study.25

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. Rich, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ROB RICH, VICE PRESIDENT, MARINE 

SERVICES, SHAVER TRANSPORATION COMPANY, PORTLAND, 

OREGON 

Mr. RICH. Chairman Lamborn, Representative McMorris 

Rodgers, and Representative Newhouse, thank you very much for 

this rare opportunity to get to be in-district here and to have a 

panel such as this get to share the expertise and the background 

of the operational views of the river, some incredible information 

shared. 

I work for Shaver Transportation Company. We are one of the 

many barge lines that work the Columbia-Snake River System 

from Astoria, Oregon all the way to Lewiston, Idaho, a 465-mile 

deep draft system up to Vancouver, Washington, a shallow draft 

barge system all the way to Lewiston. As we are all aware, they 

transit through eight navigation locks at the Federal facilities, four 

on the Columbia River system and four on the Lower Snake River 

system. 

I am also fortunate enough to be the current president of the 

Pacific Northwest Waterways Association, and we represent a wide 

variety of transportation, agricultural, and port interests along our 

coast and up our Columbia-Snake River System. Again, very 

thankful to be able to be here today. 

We are now a sixth-generation, family-owned company. When I 

think of how our company, amongst many others here on the river, 

relate to the agricultural interior, Representative McMorris 

Rodgers, you mentioned you are a fifth-generation family, and that 

33 

goes back a long way. In other words, there has been a lot of 

change. There has been a lot of adjustment made in the work that 

your family has done, if they have had the exposure to agriculture, 

as our family has had, in marine transportation on the river. 

I think of the 1,500 ships a year that cull the Columbia River 

system. For many of us in the upper reaches here, we don’t get to 

see those ships, but we get to see the benefit of those ships culling 

the lower river, and that is the export of agriculture from this area. 

There are 27 river elevators that receive wheat by truck from the 

inland to load barges between the Dalles and the port of Lewiston/ 

Clarkston. So, there is a lot of barging activity that goes on on the 

river, in any given year 1,200 to 1,500 commercial barge tows a 

year transiting the river. And as I mention that number, it sounds 

like a pretty big number, but you are running about three, four, 

maybe five a day, going up and down the river. That is departing 

from Vancouver, kind of a silent service that sees an incredible 

amount of cargo moved on the river. 

We are a dual-feed barge and rail system. When I mentioned the 

ships that cull the lower river, the majority of them are taking exported agricultural products out of our region here, also receiving 

those products by rail. Forty percent of the wheat that is exported 

out of the Number one wheat export terminal in the United 

States—terminal meaning the Columbia River export terminals 

down-river—of that, 40 percent is moved by barge from the inland, 

60 percent by rail. Where you have barge and rail, you have 

competition. Where you have competition, you have competition for 

work that creates a better balance for shippers and gives 

opportunities. 

Though opportunities in the Snake River Basin as far as wheat 

exports go, not so much. If you are a wheat producer in Whitman 

County, if you are a wheat producer in Columbia County, you are 

shipping by barge. That is your option. There is not a short-line 

railroad for you to go to. You are not going to be moving to trucking. If trucking was more efficient than rail, if it was more efficient 

than barging, it would be trucked all the way to the elevator down 

in Portland, a 600- or 700-mile round trip. That is not what we see. 

When it comes to trucking, you are looking at 149 miles for a gallon of diesel to move a ton of fuel. For marine transportation, inland marine transportation for barging interests, you are looking at 

576 miles. I can’t find a more valued reason for keeping barging 

in effect. If we are concerned about the volume of fuel that is used, 

the volume of emissions that are going into our air, inland barging 

is certainly the most environmentally responsible way to go. 

I am going to end with a little written piece here that I put together. I have given you a lot of facts and figures, but I just want 

to leave you with a little piece of heart. As a multi-generational, 

family-owned company, we directly relate to the family farm producers and shippers that we serve here in the inland Northwest. 

These families, our company, and the river system we know today 

have grown steadily and sustainably into the primary economic 

driver of our trade-dependent economy. From the family farm producers of eastern Washington and Idaho who have no other access 

to the Pacific Rim markets but through barging, to our crews that 

34 

depend on our jobs for their livelihood, it is with great respect and 

pride that we serve the Columbia River system. 

Again, I thank you for this opportunity to share, and I look 

forward to questions later on. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rich follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT D. RICH, VICE PRESIDENT OF MARINE SERVICES, SHAVER TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, good morning. My name is Rob 

Rich, and I am the Vice President of Marine Services for Shaver Transportation. I 

have spent 39 years working on the Columbia Snake River System since 1979. 

I also serve the current president of the Pacific Northwest Waterways Association, 

or PNWA. PNWA is a non-profit trade association that advocates for Federal policies and funding in support of regional economic development. Our membership includes over 130 public ports, navigation, transportation, trade, tourism, agriculture, 

forest products, energy and local government interests in Washington, Oregon and 

Idaho. I represent both Shaver and PNWA here today, and appreciate the opportunity to provide the perspective of the navigation community in the Northwest as 

it relates to the importance of the Columbia Snake River System. 

BACKGROUND ON SHAVER TRANSPORTATION

Shaver is now a 6th generation, 138-year-old, family-owned tug and barge line. 

We are the oldest continuously operating tug and barge line on the West Coast. 

With a staff and crew of 110 employees, we operate a fleet of 15 tugs and 20 grain barges on the Columbia Snake River System, with over $9M in payroll. Shaver handles 40 percent of all barged wheat from the 27 river elevators serving the inland 

empire from The Dalles, Oregon to Lewiston, Idaho. This represents approximately 

500 barge loads of wheat at 120,000 bushels per barge shipped. 

Shaver has built 10 of the last 12 new grain barges added to the river system since 1996, all told a $35M investment. We also have increased our upriver barging 

tug fleet by 40 percent since then, going from three to five tugs with an investment 

of $10M. 

BACKGROUND ON THE COLUMBIA SNAKE RIVER SYSTEM

The Columbia Snake River System is essentially a river highway. It includes our 

105-mile deep draft Columbia River channel from Astoria at the mouth of the river 

at the Pacific Ocean all the way to Portland, Oregon. From there, a 360-mile inland 

barging channel stretches from Portland to Lewiston, Idaho, with a series of eight 

locks along the way. Those dams are why we are here today, and I could not be 

more proud to talk about the benefits they provide to our region and the Nation. 

The Columbia Snake River System as a whole moves over 50 million tons of cargo 

worth over $24 billion. The inland portion of the system helps to feed our deep draft 

export gateway, with over 9 million tons of cargo moving through the Columbia and 

Snake River dams. 

This river system is the Nation’s Number one wheat export gateway. Over 50 

percent of the Nation’s wheat exports moves through our river system. Barge lines 

operating on these rivers support over 1,200 barge tows annually, with the standard 

grain tow consisting of four barges, totaling 15,000 tons of wheat. Each four-barge 

grain tow represents over $3M in Inland Empire wheat producer income. Adding to 

this, a rail to barge transfer station is being constructed at Boardman, Oregon to 

shortstop wheat railed from the Midwest, adding to our system’s value to producers 

located many states away. 

Barging through the four Snake River dams is a particularly critical transportation link for our region. Nearly 10 percent of all U.S. wheat exports moves 

through just those four projects, destined for overseas markets. In 2014 alone, over 

4.3 million tons of cargo was barged on the Snake River. It would have taken 43,610 

rail cars to carry this cargo, or over 167,000 semi-trucks, with increased emissions 

and increased safety risks, all at a higher cost to the farmer and shipper. 

Our barging system also safely and responsibly transports millions of gallons of 

refined petroleum products from Portland to the Tri-Cities, thousands of tons of 

wood products to downriver mills, as well as containerized solid waste, aggregates 

for concrete and asphalt plants, and scrap steel from Burbank, Washington to 

Portland, Oregon for export. In fact, a large portion of the diesel and gasoline used 

right here in the Tri-Cities is barged to Pasco and trucked out to our local gas stations. At certain times of the year, this can be up to 50 percent of the fuel this area 

35 

puts in our vehicles. In addition, Top of Form fertilizer is barged into this area to 

grow potatoes, apples, grapes and the many other crops prized in our Nation and 

overseas. 

As you may be aware, there continues to be a small but vocal minority in our region who advocate for removing the four Lower Snake River dams. These four dams 

are among the most advanced, fish-friendly projects in the entire country, and do 

not block access for endangered salmon runs. In fact, juvenile fish survival rates 

past each of these dams is between 95 percent and 97 percent, which is higher than 

what is seen in some undammed rivers. Major improvements in fish ladders, dam 

design, optimized river flow, and habitat restoration (all paid for by revenues from 

the Snake and Columbia River dams) have resulted in improvements to salmon returns. The time it takes fish to pass through the dams is also the quickest it has 

been since the dams were installed and continues to decrease with each new 

improvement. 

Northwest ports and navigation interests have always strongly supported robust 

salmon recovery efforts that preserve the multiple uses of the river system. We believe, like most in the scientific community, that salmon runs have been affected 

by a variety of factors. A commitment to improving all factors affecting the fish, 

including hydropower, habitat, harvest, and hatcheries, is necessary for listed 

species to recover. Extreme measures like dam breaching have been studied and rejected numerous times over the last 20 years. Mother Nature will always throw us 

some curve balls, but the trend lines for our listed fish species over the last 10 years 

demonstrates the success of regional collaboration on fish passage, habitat, and 

other river improvements. 

I’ve given you a lot of facts and figures, but this is what I want to leave you with. 

As a multi-generational family-owned company, we directly relate to the family farm 

producers and shippers we serve here in the Inland Northwest. These families, our 

company, and the river system we know today has grown steadily and sustainably 

into the primary economic driver of our trade dependent economy. From the family 

farm producers of eastern Washington and Idaho who have no other access to the 

Pacific Rim markets but through barging, to our crews that depend on our jobs for 

their livelihood, it is with great respect and pride that we serve the Columbia Snake 

River System. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I welcome any questions you may have. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

Vice Chairman Oatman, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MCCOY OATMAN, VICE CHAIRMAN, 

NEZ PERCE TRIBE, LAPWAI, IDAHO 

Mr. OATMAN. Thank you. It is an honor and a privilege to be before you here, Chairman and Committee members. My name is 

McCoy Tamoody Oatman, and I serve as the Vice Chairman for the 

Nez Perce Tribe. I have served on Council for 10 years now. 

You guys have my written testimony, but the Nez Perce people 

are a people of the heart. So, being here today, I have to speak 

from my heart. I come from a treaty signer, Old Chief Looking 

Glass. In 1877, he signed the treaty, and he actually rode all the 

way back from buffalo country to Walla Walla to ensure that the 

treaty was adequate. 

I come from seven generations from him, and during the treaty 

time he said that I am looking out for those that are not yet here, 

those that are unborn, so I would like to think that his foresight 

and knowledge, and that of the other treaty signers as well, were 

looking out for me and the future generations. 

I understand what you guys are trying to do for your constituents and for those that are here today, and I am here to speak for 

those that are not here yet, those that are yet unborn, and to ensure that they have a way of life past the time that I am here. 

36 

There are only 3,500 or so Nez Perce that walk this earth. So, 

if we ourselves were a fish species, we would be considered endangered. We deal with a high rate of diabetes, heart disease, and a 

lot of that goes back to our diet, a lot of processed food and things 

that our bodies were not able to handle. 

Salmon play an integral part in that, in how we live. Traditionally, Nez Perce, we used to bury just right off the streams, up on 

the hillsides, and we would bury in rock. And the reason we would 

bury ourselves in the rock is so that when the water came through 

and it washed our bodies back into the river system, and as well 

know how to fish, know how to get home. Well, it is by their scent. 

So, we would provide ourselves—we would be part of that life 

cycle and be nutrients for the salmon, and also provide them a way 

of how do they get home. 

There have been mentions of other tribes. There are the accords 

that the other tribes signed. Well, the other tribes don’t live above 

all these dams, and the Nez Perce do, so it is about that we have 

to continue to fight. When Lewis and Clark came through, Old 

Looking Glass’ father’s name was Wyakaikt, and he gave Lewis 

and Clark a token that they would be able to pass through the 

Columbia system. And then when he passed, Old Looking Glass’ 

son was born. But he got his name because Lewis and Clark gave 

him a medallion. After that, he wore that medallion and he became 

known as Looking Glass. 

His son, Young Looking Glass, was the one that was in the war 

of 1877, and I am a descendant of his brother, who made it all the 

way into Canada when we were chased by the cavalry, and then 

they come back to Idaho, and that is why I am able to be here 

today. 

So, this hearing is really important. It is really important to hear 

from all parties, but also in particular from the Nez Perce, the ones 

that have been here for tens of thousands of years that have been 

recorded. I want to continue that future for my people, for my children. I have three young daughters—6, 3, and 1. It is my battle 

here today to ensure that they have a future, that there will be fish 

in the waters for them. 

We have our own scientists. We have our own biologists that 

have been part of this process, that have been part of the meetings 

that deal with spill. We want to continue in that collaborative fashion. We have had our day in court, and so we understand what others have been saying about the courts running the system. Well, 

sometimes there is no other place for us to go, if people aren’t going 

to listen to us as a people that have been here for so long, that understand these systems. 

As Mr. Hastings mentioned earlier about buffalo, I serve on the 

interagency buffalo management plan, and those are the last pure 

genetic species of buffalo in Yellowstone. The other buffalo have 

been bred with cows, and so it is not really a fair comparison. We 

call those ‘‘beefalo.’’ They are not actually referenced as buffalo 

where we come from. 

I thank you for allowing me this time to come and talk to you, 

and to talk to the public as well, and hopefully nationally people 

will understand where we are coming from as Nez Perce people. 

We are just trying to ensure that we have a river system that is 

37 

going to support those salmon and that will also support the future 

generations. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Oatman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VICE-CHAIRMAN MCCOY OATMAN, NEZ PERCE TRIBAL

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Honorable Chairman and members of the Committee, as Vice-Chairman of the 

Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of the Nez Perce Tribe (Tribe) for this 

oversight hearing by the Committee on Natural Resources (Committee) regarding 

the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) and its impact in the Pacific 

Northwest. The Tribe understands the premise of the hearing is an appreciation for 

the current system and the economy that has grown around it. The Tribe, however, 

challenges the Committee to look beyond memorializing the status quo, and instead 

conduct an honest examination of all ideas and concepts that can restore the health 

of the Columbia Basin such as providing spill, addressing impacts of climate change, 

examining dam removal, restoring habitat, decreasing carbon emissions, and furthering scientific study. 

The Nez Perce Tribe is a federally-recognized Indian tribe with treaty-reserved 

fishing, hunting, gathering, and pasturing rights throughout the Columbia River 

Basin. The Tribe’s traditional lands and waters encompass what are today northeast 

Oregon, southeast Washington, north-central Idaho, and western Montana. The 

Tribe engages in fishing, hunting, gathering, pasturing, and associated activities, 

and in the co-management of resources, within much of this area. The FCRPS 

system has had, and continues to have, a uniquely harmful impact on the Nez Perce 

people. The Tribe’s fishermen fish in the mainstem Columbia River where four of 

the dams are located while the Tribe’s Reservation and many of the Tribe’s other 

usual and accustomed fishing places lie above the four dams on the lower Snake 

River. 

Despite the impacts from the current operation of the FCRPS, the Tribe’s treatyreserved fishing right and fisheries within the Columbia Basin continue to be critically important to the Tribe in maintaining and practicing its culture, economy, and 

ways of life as it has done for thousands of years. In addition, implementation of 

treaty fisheries is consistent with the Tribe’s legally enforceable treaty-reserved 

fishing right and resources and with the United States’ treaty and trust obligations 

and responsibilities to the Tribe. 

The importance of salmon and steelhead to the Tribe and to the Pacific Northwest 

cannot be overstated. The Tribe is deeply committed to restoring salmon and 

steelhead in the Columbia and Snake Rivers to healthy, harvestable levels for all 

citizens of the Northwest and to fairly sharing the conservation burden. 

The Tribe has long advocated before Congress and through the Federal court 

system for the FCRPS to be managed in a way that minimizes adverse impacts on 

fish and the Basin. As a result, the Tribe disagrees with proposed legislation or any 

language that would restrict the use of Federal funds for dam removal or studies 

related to dam removal, or that would circumvent Federal court orders related to 

the operation of the FCRPS. 

For example, H.R. 3144 attempts to short-circuit the Federal judiciary and 

Federal appellate process with respect to providing additional spill to protect fish. 

The Federal District Court for the District of Oregon has issued rulings on the dams 

that make up the FCRPS only after reviewing thorough and voluminous briefing 

and expert scientific information presented by the Federal Government, the states 

of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana, tribal sovereigns including the Tribe, 

and fishing, utility, conservation, and irrigation interests. 

The District Court’s May 4, 2016 decision held that the 2014 Biological Opinion 

on the operation of the FCRPS was arbitrary and capricious under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA), and that the Federal action agencies’ failure to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) on the implementation of that Biological Opinion 

violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Court observed that 

‘‘Perhaps following the processes that Congress has established in the National 

Environmental Policy Act and in the Endangered Species Act finally may illuminate 

a path that will bring these endangered and threatened [salmon and steelhead] 

species out of peril.’’ None of the parties pursued an appeal of the District Court’s 

ruling. In contrast to H.R. 3144, the Federal agencies are indeed actively assuming 

their responsibilities under NEPA, engaging with the public, and with the region’s 

sovereigns. 

38 

After the Federal agencies refused to implement any additional protective actions 

for salmon and steelhead during the ordered ESA and NEPA processes, the state 

of Oregon, supported by the Tribe and several fishing and conservation groups in 

the Pacific Northwest, requested interim protection for salmon and steelhead in the 

form of spill in the springtime that would be implemented only in those years where 

such levels of spill would not naturally occur simply as a result of runoff. The 

Oregon District Court did not order spill to begin until the spring 2018 migration 

season, ensuring that ‘‘the parties and experts in the region ha[d] sufficient time 

to consider an appropriate protocol and methodology for spill at each dam, incorporating the most beneficial spill patterns.’’ Tribal Fisheries Department staff were 

among those experts in the region and were instrumental in helping craft spill operations that were feasible and met the intent of the Court’s direction. The District 

Court’s March 27, 2017 order went on to state that it expects that ‘‘the parties, 

amici, and other regional experts will work together to reach consensus.’’ No party 

sought a stay pending appeal or an expedited appeal of the order. And again, the 

Federal action agencies and the region’s state and tribal sovereigns have been 

actively engaged in, and are making considerable progress in, developing spill implementation plans. 

H.R. 3144 would short-circuit and subvert Federal judiciary and Federal appellate processes and would undermine collaborative efforts that the region’s 

sovereigns and the Federal Government are presently engaged in. 

Second, H.R. 3144 attempts to short-circuit the full consideration of all alternatives to redress the impacts of the Federal FCRPS dams on salmon and 

steelhead—including breaching the four lower Snake River dams. The bill, in 

Section 4, would prohibit the identified agencies from even studying removal of the 

four lower Snake River dams through any EIS process without additional congressional authorization. This would undermine the existing EIS process proceeding now 

under existing NEPA law that the Court has ordered and that the Federal agencies 

are presently engaged in with the public and the region’s sovereigns. 

Again, as the District Court observed, ‘‘Perhaps following the processes that 

Congress has established in the National Environmental Policy Act and in the 

Endangered Species Act finally may illuminate a path that will bring these endangered and threatened [salmon and steelhead] species out of peril.’’ 

The Tribe has also opposed similar language proposed in the Fiscal Year 2019 

appropriations package for Energy and Water Development, legislative branch, and 

Military Construction and Veterans Affairs. Section 506 of General Provisions of 

H.R. 5895 limits the use of Fiscal Year 2019 funds to operate the FCRPS hydroelectric dams in a manner that is inconsistent with the Army Corps of Engineers’ 

2017 Fish Operations Plan. The Tribe opposes this provision because it will prevent 

implementation of District Judge Simon’s March 27, 2017 spill injunction order that 

the Tribe advocated for to limit the impacts of the current system operations on fish. 

These legislative ‘‘fixes’’ are not solutions to the current issues but instead are 

roadblocks to ultimately finding answers to the issues created by the operation of 

the FCRPS that will work for everyone. They also cause unnecessary division 

between stakeholders and distract from productive conversations. 

The current history of the FCRPS in the Pacific Northwest is dwarfed by the 

ancient history and existence of the Columbia River Basin prior to the FCRPS’ 

construction. The current dynamic between the economy and the FCRPS is not 

natural, nor is it the only path forward. It is based on assumptions that should be 

challenged and explored. 

There are ways for all people in the Pacific Northwest to thrive and be successful 

beyond an unexamined status quo. Pre-FCRPS history shows a thriving and prosperous economy and way of life for both Nez Perce and non-Nez Perce. The Nez 

Perce have had to adjust their way of life to accommodate the modern status quo. 

However, that is no reason to stop questioning and studying and then implementing 

better ways. The legislative actions proposed to Congress are attempts to end examination and exploration of better ways. They are a head-in-the-sand approach at an 

exact moment in time when we should all be fearlessly looking for better solutions. 

We encourage you to demonstrate your leadership by helping to support current efforts to find better solutions, not hide from them. The Tribe would be happy to continue dialogue with members of this Committee and the Northwest Congressional 

Delegation to search for those new solutions. 

Thank you for your time today. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Vice Chairman. 

39 

We will now hear from Mr. Heffling for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JACK HEFFLING, PRESIDENT, UNITED POWER 

TRADES ORGANIZATION, WEST RICHLAND, WASHINGTON 

Mr. HEFFLING. Chairman Lamborn, Congressman Newhouse, 

and Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers, thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

The United Power Trades Organization represents the trades 

and crafts non-supervisory employees at the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers hydroelectric projects in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and 

Montana. These hydroelectric projects make up a portion of the 

Northwest Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and are 

divided up into the Portland, Seattle, and Walla Walla Districts. 

The Walla Walla District includes four hydroelectric projects on the 

Lower Snake River that seem to be the target of most dam removal 

proponents. 

The Northwest Division of the Corps of Engineers is a major 

employer and a huge contributor to the economy of the Pacific 

Northwest, with an annual budget of over $3 billion and a professional workforce of nearly 4,800. The members of the United Power 

Trades Organization include the men and women who maintain 

and operate the equipment at the hydroelectric projects and number over 600. But this number doesn’t include the engineers, administrators, biologists, park rangers, and the hundreds of others 

whose jobs are directly connected to the dams, nor does it include 

the many private companies who, by contract, also rely on the existence and operation of the dams for their employment. 

High-technology firms such as Apple, Amazon, Intel, Google, and 

Facebook have located facilities in the Northwest because of the 

availability of reliable, clean hydropower creating jobs and boosting 

economies. 

The dams of the Columbia-Snake River System are multipurpose in that they provide hydropower, flood control, navigation, 

irrigated agriculture, and recreation. The benefits of the dams 

cannot be measured by megawatts alone but in the overall value 

they provide the region. 

Hydropower is clean, renewable, and plays a significant role in 

Pacific Northwest power production. Hydropower supports wind 

and other renewables by providing the peaking power necessary to 

meet demand. Hydropower turbines are capable of converting 90 

percent of available energy into electricity, which is more efficient 

than any other form of generation. 

The cost to operate the Snake River dams is about $65 million 

per year, which is relatively inexpensive considering the return on 

this investment is over $200 million annually. 

Hydropower is not only measured by the total energy produced. 

It also stabilizes the transmission system and keeps it reliable. 

High-voltage transmission lines require a steady back-and-forth 

electrical flow, and flexible hydro generation meets the changing 

conditions to ensure reliability. 

Navigation is a major benefit of the Columbia-Snake River 

system of dams. They provide 365 miles of navigable water from 

Portland/Vancouver to Lewiston. Every year, more than 50 million 

40 

tons of commercial cargo moves up and down the Columbia and 

Snake Rivers between Astoria, Oregon and Lewiston, Idaho. 

A study by the Columbia River ports identified 40,000 portrelated Northwest jobs. Firms that ship cargo via the Columbia 

River employ an additional 59,000 workers annually. Cruise ships 

carry 15,000 passengers a year on 5- to 7-day tours on the river, 

bringing an estimated $15 million to $20 million in revenue to local 

economies. 

Irrigated agriculture is the economic powerhouse of the West, with annual revenues of $17 billion and more than 100,000 employees. It is the dams that provide the water for irrigation and, as a 

direct result, helps sustain the economy of the Northwest. 

The Walla Walla District employs over 1,100 people, with over 

400 working at the hydroelectric projects. In addition to being a 

major employer, the District pumps millions of dollars into the 

local economies. The Fiscal Year 2017 budget for the District was 

about $240 million. 

Removal of the Snake River dams would be detrimental to a 

large amount of irrigated agriculture, would eliminate barging from 

Pasco to Lewiston, Idaho, and would damage the electrical infrastructure. Removal of the dams would cost thousands of jobs. Jobs 

at the dams themselves would be lost, contracting jobs would be 

lost, farm jobs would be lost, and jobs related to the barging of 

commodities would be lost. The impact on the region would be 

devastating. 

As president and spokesman for the United Power Trades 

Organization, I can say our organization overwhelmingly supports 

H.R. 3144, hydropower, and the dams of the Lower Snake River. 

But I am not just a dam employee representative. I am a senior 

power plant operator and have been working at one of the Lower 

Snake River dams since 1986. As a power plant operator for over 

30 years, I actually understand how the new technologies installed 

have benefited fish. The dams have been upgraded extensively, at 

great cost, and the improvements work. Since removal of the dams 

would provide no benefit to fish survival, it makes absolutely no 

sense to continue studying or considering a non-solution. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Heffling follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JACK W. HEFFLING, PRESIDENT, UNITED POWER

TRADES ORGANIZATION

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. The United Power Trades Organization 

represents the Trades and Crafts non-supervisory employees at U.S. Army Corp of 

Engineers hydroelectric projects in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana. These 

hydroelectric projects make up a portion of the Northwest Division of the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers and are divided up into the Portland, Seattle and Walla Walla 

Districts. The Walla Walla District includes four hydroelectric projects on the lower 

Snake River that seem to be the target of most dam removal proponents. 

The Northwest Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a major employer 

and a huge contributor to the economy of the Pacific Northwest with an annual 

budget of over $3 billion and a professional workforce of nearly 4,800. The members 

of the United Power Trades Organization include the men and women who maintain 

and operate the equipment at the hydroelectric projects and number over 600. But 

this number doesn’t include the engineers, administrators, biologists, park rangers 

and the hundreds of others whose jobs are directly connected to the dams, associated lands and reservoirs. Nor does it include the many private companies who by 

contract, also rely on the existence and operation of the dams for their employment. 

41 

High technology firms such as Apple, Amazon, Intel, Google and Facebook have 

located facilities in the Northwest because of the availability of reliable, clean 

hydropower, creating jobs and boosting local economies. Traditional energy-intensive 

industries, such as timber, paper, chemical, food processing, aluminum and manufacturing all representing hundreds of thousands of Northwest jobs, continue to rely 

on low-cost hydro to stay in business and prosper. 

The dams of the Columbia-Snake River System are multi-purpose in that they 

provide hydropower, flood control, navigation, irrigated agriculture and recreation. 

The benefits of the dams cannot be measured by megawatts alone but in the overall 

value they provide the region. 

Hydropower is clean, renewable and plays a significant role in Pacific Northwest 

power production. Northwest residents and businesses enjoy lower power bills when 

compared to other regions of the United States which is directly attributable to 

hydropower. The dams of the Columbia-Snake River System alone produce enough 

power to meet the needs of more than 13 million homes with the surplus exported, 

providing additional economic importance to the Northwest. Only hydropower has 

the instantaneous capability to meet peak demands and provide power for heat 

when temperatures are frigid or sustain power for cooling on exceptionally hot days. 

Hydropower costs much less to produce than any other source such as nuclear, coal 

or natural gas and is pollution free, with zero emissions. The firm power alone provided by the dams of the Columbia-Snake River System keeps close to 30 metric 

tons of CO2 out of the air. This is similar to taking nearly 6 million cars off the 

road. 

Hydropower is clean, carbon-free, renewable and reliable. Hydro supports wind 

and other renewables by providing the peaking power necessary to meet demand. 

Hydropower turbines are capable of converting 90 percent of available energy into 

electricity, which is more efficient than any other form of generation. Even the best 

fossil fuel power plant is only about 50 percent efficient. Wind has about 30 percent 

efficiency. After hydropower, 83 percent of the region’s energy production is from 

fossil fuels coal or natural gas. 

Considering the four Lower Snake River dams alone, it would take 2 nuclear, 3 

coal-fired, or 6 gas-fired power plants to replace their annual power production. It 

would take 3 nuclear, 6 coal-fired, or 14 gas-fired power plants to provide the peaking capacity of these four dams. It has been estimated that the cost to replace these 

dams with natural gas-fired generation would be $444 million to $501 million a 

year. It has also been estimated that it would cost $759 million to $837 million a 

year if these dams were replaced with a combination of wind, natural gas and 

energy efficiency. Electricity from the Northwest hydropower facilities typically cost 

3 to 10 times less (per megawatt hour) than nuclear, coal and natural gas. It is also 

cheaper than wind and solar. The cost to operate the Snake River dams is about 

$65 million per year which is relatively inexpensive considering the return on this 

investment is over $200 million annually. 

Hydropower is not only measured by the total energy produced. It also stabilizes 

the transmission system and keeps it reliable. High-voltage transmission lines require a steady back and forth electric flow, and flexible hydro generation meets the 

changing conditions to ensure reliability. 

Navigation is a major benefit of the Columbia-Snake River system of dams. They 

provide 365 miles of navigable water from Portland/Vancouver to Lewiston, Idaho. 

Barging is the lowest cost, most fuel efficient and least polluting transportation 

mode. Each year, barging keeps 700,000 trucks off the highways through the 

Columbia River Gorge. The facts speak for themselves. The Columbia-Snake River 

System is the Number one wheat export gateway in the United States and the third 

largest grain export gateway in the world, with over 10 million tons of wheat exported annually through Columbia River ports. It is the Number one barley export 

gateway in the United States. It is Number one in West Coast paper and paper 

products exports. It is Number one in West Coast mineral bulk exports and Number 

two in West Coast auto imports. Every year, more than 50 million tons of commercial cargo moves up and down the Columbia and Snake Rivers between Astoria, 

Oregon and Lewiston, Idaho. The Snake River averages 3.5 million tons of cargo per 

year valued at an average of over $1.5 billion. 

Navigation through the Columbia-Snake River System provides a vital transportation link for the states of Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington. The economies 

of these four states rely on the trade and commerce that flows up and down the 

most important commercial waterway of the Northwest. Navigation is fuel efficient. 

A ton of commodity goods can move 524 miles by barge on 1 gallon of fuel, compared 

to 202 miles by rail and 59 miles by truck. The average barge can transport 3,500 

tons of wheat which would require 35 jumbo rail cars or 134 trucks. The economic 

benefit of the Columbia-Snake River System cannot be doubted. A study by the 

42 

Columbia River ports identified 40,000 port-related Northwest jobs. Firms that ship 

cargo via the Columbia River employ an additional 59,000 workers annually. Cruise 

ships carry 15,000 passengers a year on 5- to 7-day tours on the river, bringing an 

estimated $15 million to $20 million in revenue to local economies. A total volume 

of waterborne trade is expected to expand at an average annual rate of 1.7 percent 

per year through 2030. 

Irrigated Agriculture is the economic powerhouse of the West. The net value of irrigated agriculture to all western states is over $60 billion. Net earned income 

from agricultural production in the three Northwest states exceeds $8 billion annually. Northwest states are the leading U.S. producers of apples, potatoes, raspberries, blackberries, asparagus, currants, hops, lentils, concord grapes, sweet 

cherries, spearmint and peppermint oil, pears, sweet corn, and frozen peas. All of 

these crops are grown on irrigated land. Northwest exports of irrigated agricultural 

products exceed $1.4 billion annually. Food processing in the Northwest adds another $6 billion in sales value just for fruit, vegetables and specialty products. Food 

processing is the largest manufacturing employment sector in the state of Idaho and 

the second largest in both Washington and Oregon. The net direct value to the economy of 1-acre foot of water, when used for irrigation is over $60 per acre-foot. The 

Columbia Basin Project alone supplies about 2.6 million acre-feet per year. It is the 

dams that provide the water for irrigation and as a direct result help sustain the 

economy of the Northwest. 

Annual net earned income from agricultural production in the Northwest states exceeds $8 billion and Pacific Northwest food processing is the third-largest manufacturing sector, with annual revenues of $17 billion and more than 100,000 

employees. 

The Walla Walla District employs over 1,100 people, with over 400 working at the 

hydroelectric projects McNary, Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose, Lower 

Granite and Dworshak. In addition to being a major employer, the District pumps 

millions of dollars into the local economies. The Fiscal Year 2017 budget for the 

District was $240 million with about 60 percent of this funding coming directly from 

the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). The power produced by the District 

dams, like other projects in the Northwest, is sold by BPA who, in turn, direct funds 

the operation and maintenance of the dams, plus provides additional funding for 

major work. This means that over $100 million annually is provided the area economy as a result of the power sales of these District hydroelectric projects. 

Removal of the Snake River dams would be a detriment to a large amount of irrigated agriculture, would eliminate barging from Pasco to Lewiston, Idaho, and 

would damage the electrical infrastructure that relies on these generating units not 

only for power production, but for reactive support that helps to stabilize the electrical grid of the Northwest. While BPA markets power from 31 Federal dams, only 

the 10 largest dams keep the Federal power system operating reliably through 

Automatic Generation Control (AGC) which includes the four Lower Snake River 

projects. Under AGC, when total generation in the power system differs from the 

total load being consumed, automatic signals go to these few dams to increase or 

decrease generation. This is especially critical when generating facilities are suddenly added or dropped from the system. Removal of the dams would cost hundreds 

if not thousands of jobs. Jobs at the dams themselves would be lost, contracting jobs 

would be lost, farm jobs would be lost as a result of a large decrease in the amount 

of irrigated agricultural lands, and jobs related to the barging of commodities would 

be lost. The impact on the region would be devastating. 

The fact is that science does not support the position that the lower Snake River 

dams need to be removed in order to aid in fish survival. Scientists using special 

acoustic tags planted in fish found that the survival rate of Idaho juvenile salmon 

reaching the ocean identical to migrating salmon that originate in the Yakima 

drainage in Washington. In other words, juvenile salmon passing through the four 

Snake River dams suffered no higher mortality rate than those that did not. Even 

more surprising is findings that show the survival rate of both Yakima and 

Clearwater fish was the same as survival measured in the Fraser River in British 

Columbia, a river with no dams. In addition, another finding from the research revealed that juvenile salmon transported by fish barges survived from Lower Granite 

Dam to the northern tip of Vancouver Island at five times the rate of fish that were 

not barged. This information strongly contradicts any claims by environmental 

groups that the removal of the dams is necessary for fish to survive and that 

barging juvenile salmon through the dams is ineffective. 

It is time to eliminate dam removal from the discussion on the best way to support migrating fish. Studies have shown that adult fish have no problem passing 

through the dams at extremely high survival rates. Studies have also shown that 

the vast majority of juvenile fish migrating downstream are near the surface, so 

43 

screens at the intakes of generators are positioned to direct them into bypass channels where they are collected for barge transport or bypassed back to the river. 

Weirs are in place on the spillways that allow for spilling water directly from the 

surface, thus providing another effective bypass for juvenile fish traveling downstream. It is the existence of these spillway weirs that make any additional spilling 

unnecessary and, in fact, can have an adverse effect on fish due to the increase in 

dissolved gases that result when spilling from bays that don’t have the spillway 

weir. Fish passage plans are in place at each facility and overseen by Federal and 

state biologists to assure that hydro plants are operated in criteria most advantageous to fish passage. 

‘‘The utter disappearance of the salmon fishery of the Columbia is only a question 

of a few years.’’ That prediction was made by Hollister McQuire, Oregon Fish and 

Game Protector in ’94. What makes this quote newsworthy is that it was made in 

1894, long before the first dam was constructed on the Columbia-Snake River 

System. The decline of Columbia River salmon began in the 1800s and was originally attributed to two factors: overfishing and environmental degradation from 

such human activities as mining and logging. Millions of dollars have been spent 

during the last couple of decades studying the problem and millions more have been 

spent on making hydroelectric facilities as fish friendly as possible, even though 

studies have shown very little difference, if at all, between the decline of salmon 

runs on rivers with and without dams. Too much blame has been placed on the 

dams when it is obvious that no single factor caused the salmon decline. 

And no single factor will solve the problem. Solutions must look at all factors impacting salmon decline, including dam operations, fish harvest levels, hatchery practices, degradation of habitat where salmon lay their eggs and the impact of ocean 

conditions. R. Hilborn from the University of Washington was quoted as saying 

‘‘Any attempts to understand the impact of in-river action on survival will be confounded by changes in ocean conditions. The poor returns of Chinook salmon in the 

early 1990s are to a large extent almost certainly due to poor ocean survival, whether or not they encounter dams.’’ My point here is that increasing and maintaining 

fish runs is a multi-faceted problem that requires solutions to many different factors. Since studies have shown that the survival rate of migrating fish is the same 

on rivers with dams as they are without, the focus should be on ocean conditions 

and their impact rather than dam removal which would provide no benefit. 

The dams have been upgraded extensively at great cost and the improvements 

work. Dam operation now maximizes attraction water for adult fish and improves 

downstream migration due to flow augmentation that also serves to cool the reservoirs during low water months. Rotating screens at the turbine intakes direct fish 

to bypass channels where they are collected for barging or bypassed back to the 

river. And spillway weirs are strategically placed to provide a gentle ‘‘slide’’ for 

juvenile fish to travel downstream unharmed. Since removal of the dams would provide no benefit to fish survival, it makes absolutely no sense to continue studying 

or considering a non-solution. 

The residents of the Northwest have made their opinion clear. The results of a 

poll administered in 2015 shows that three-quarters of the people recognize that 

hydropower generated by the Northwest dams is a renewable energy source. Fortyfive percent agree hydropower is the region’s most practical source for meeting 

energy needs, with wind trailing at 17 percent and solar at 9 percent. Two-thirds 

favor hydropower being declared a renewable resource by state legislatures and 

Congress, similar to wind and solar energy. A large and increasing majority (70 

percent) agree that the dams on the Lower Snake River are critical to the Northwest’s energy picture and 77 percent agree that it is critical that dams and salmon 

co-exist. 

As president and spokesman for the United Power Trades Organization, I can say 

our organization overwhelmingly supports hydropower and the dams of the Lower 

Snake River. But I am not only just dam employee representative. I am a Senior 

Power Plant Operator and have been working at one of the Lower Snake River 

dams, Lower Monumental, since 1986. As a power plant operator, I run the turbine 

generator units, the spill gates, plus the adult and juvenile fish passage equipment. 

As a power plant operator for over 30 years, I have personally seen all of the improvements made at our facility to increase fish survival and been the recipient of 

instructions to operate the dam in accordance with the fish passage plan or 

Biological Opinion (BiOp). Unlike most outside interests, I actually understand how 

the new technologies installed have benefited fish passage and how the BiOp works 

to maximize fish survival. Almost every operation performed requires adherence to 

the fish passage plan, including which generating units to run, at what power load 

they are operated at, what spill pattern to use and how much spill to release 

through those spill gates. 

44 

It is troublesome to those of us that know what works to receive operating instructions that are not beneficial to fish and may even be detrimental. For example, 

it is a scientific fact that migrating juvenile fish travel close to the surface of the 

river. That is why the fish slides installed are so successful in providing a means 

that allow the fish a gentler transition from the pool at the top of the dam to that 

below. Rotating screens are installed in the intakes of all of the turbine generators 

that direct the fish into a collection channel where ultimately they can be loaded 

onto barges for transport or bypassed back to the river far below the dam. However, 

because of pressure from outside interests, additional spill is ordered that requires 

spill through spill gates that don’t have the fish slides installed. This forces the fish 

down through restricted openings at the bottom of the spill gates which is not only 

harmful to fish in the transition but causes significant increases in supersaturation 

of nitrogen in the water resulting in gas bubble trauma. 

In addition, when fish are transitioned via spill, less are collected at each dam’s 

fish facility for transport via the barge transport program which has proved highly 

successful. Fish transported by barge survive at five times the rate as those that 

traverse the river. Additional water spilled not only is detrimental to the fish because of the non-fish slide transition but this results in less water available for generation, less generating units running and less fish collected for transport via fish 

barge. Spilled fish are also more susceptible to predatory birds and fish that congregate below the spillway areas. More spill does not make sense economically in 

that generating revenues are lost, it doesn’t help the fish, and may even have a negative effect on fish survival. 

The BiOp is working despite faulty non-scientific reports given by outside interests. The radical changes proposed make absolutely no sense. Fish returns are higher than what they were prior to the first dam built on the Columbia-Snake River 

System and although hatchery fish are returning in large numbers, natural fish return is increasing as well. Fish survival through the Columbia-Snake River dams 

are at levels that meet or exceed those on rivers that don’t have dams. 

The current BiOp is the most science-based, comprehensive and expensive effort 

to restore and endangered species in the Nation. $1.6 billion have been invested in 

new technologies and the eight Federal dams on the Columbia-Snake System and 

operational changes are helping young salmon survive at very high rates and helping adult fish return to their spawning grounds. This unprecedented and massive 

program has also restored more than 10,000 acres of habitat in the Columbia Basin 

that has been providing incredible results. 

Despite the plan’s demonstrated success, environmental and commercial fishing 

groups continue to challenge the plan in court, as they have done for over two decades. These groups thrive on lawsuits and they will continue to sue, no matter what 

the facts say. They continue to press for extreme changes in dam operations, including requiring more spill which would increase Northwest energy costs and provide 

no additional benefit to fish. 

Recent misinformation provided by outside interests blame the dams for excessive 

water temperatures on the Snake River and claim the dams must be removed to 

restore acceptable conditions. In fact, the opposite is true. Snake River water temperature data from 1952–1957 shows the average high water temperature to be over 

74 degrees. High water temperature is actually better controlled by reservoir regulation and supplemental discharge of cooler water upstream. 

It is true that record high temperatures in 2015 created a thermal barrier at the 

Lower Granite Dam fish ladder that impeded adult fish migration. This problem 

was fixed in 2016 with an ‘‘intake chimney’’ that provided cool water to the adult 

fish ladder. 

It has been proven that the dams and fish can co-exist. Historical data shows fish 

counts for all species has increased dramatically since counts on the Snake River 

began in 1975. For example, the 1975 fish count showed a total of 209 Sockeye passing through Lower Granite Dam in 1975. In 2014, that count was 3,219. In 1975, 

28,460 Chinook passed through Lower Granite. The count was 195,167 in 2014. In 

1975, 17,311 Steelhead were counted passing through Lower Granite Dam. The 

count was 164,106 in 2014. 

Yes, the last couple of years has shown a decline in returning fish. However, due 

to ocean conditions, there have been declines in numbers of fish everywhere on the 

Pacific Coast including Alaska. A warming trend in the Pacific has been the culprit 

and can’t be blamed on the dams. Recent data shows that warming trend may be 

reversing so runs will again return to historic numbers as ocean conditions improve. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify before the Committee. 

45 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

Ms. Green, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MARCI GREEN, PRESIDENT, WASHINGTON 

ASSOCIATION OF WHEAT GROWERS, RITZVILLE, WASHINGTON 

Ms. GREEN. Thank you, Chairman Lamborn, Congressman 

Newhouse, and Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers. I am a sixthgeneration farmer from Fairfield, Washington. My sons are 

seventh-generation wheat farmers. On our farm we grow wheat, 

blue grass seed, dry peas, lentils, and garbanzo beans. 

I am also president of the Washington Association of Wheat 

Growers, a non-profit trade association that is comprised of 1,700 

members. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify about the importance of 

the Columbia-Snake River System, which provides significant 

transportation and navigation benefits to our region. The river system is a 465-mile river highway that provides farmers and other 

producers as far as the Midwest access to international markets. 

The Columbia-Snake River System is the top wheat export gateway in the United States, transporting over 50 percent of all U.S. 

wheat to markets overseas. Eleven states export through our 

rivers, which moved over 12 million tons of wheat in 2016. Over 

$500 million has been invested into Columbia River grain export 

terminals, and barge unloading capacity has been expanded by over 

21 percent in expectation of increased sales in Asian markets. 

Besides grain, nearly $3 billion worth of commercial cargo is moved 

across the river system. 

As wheat farmers, we are dependent upon the barging system to 

transport our products to export. Barging is one of the lowest cost, 

most environmentally friendly modes of transportation we have to 

get our wheat to major grain elevators in Portland, which is the 

gateway to world markets. A typical four-barge tow moves the 

same amount of cargo as 140 rail cars or 538 trucks using just a 

fraction of the fuel. 

Personally, transporting my crop to the market is a notable cost. 

Currently, I pay 80 cents a bushel to transport my wheat to ports. 

Even if wheat is at $6, that is a significant expense. Without a navigable river system, barging would not be an option. Farmers would 

have to substitute rail transportation or trucks to get their wheat 

to ports, which would be more expensive and less efficient. Having 

three different transportation options also keeps costs more competitive and reasonable. 

As price takers who compete in a global economy, we are very 

sensitive to increased costs to get our products to market. To move 

the same amount of wheat currently barged on the river system 

would require 137,000 semi-trucks or 23,900 rail cars, leading to 

increased fuel consumption, increased emissions, and increased 

wear and tear on our transportation infrastructure. The current 

rail capacity in the Pacific Northwest is insufficient to meet current 

as well as projected wheat transportation needs, and barging remains the most efficient way to move wheat to export terminals. 

The river system is vital to the entire agricultural industry by 

providing multiple benefits in addition to navigation and transportation, including irrigation and flood control. Agriculture is the 

46 

second largest contributor to our state’s economy and represents a 

significant component of our agricultural industry nationally. Six 

percent of the Columbia River Basin’s yearly runoff is used to irrigate about 7.8 million acres of Northwest farmland. Greater irrigation efficiency in the Columbia River Basin has decreased water 

use by 10 to 25 percent per acre over the last decade. Several very 

large storage dams in the Columbia Basin also provide critical flood 

control benefits. 

In addition to providing businesses with affordable, reliable 

transportation to move our goods to market, the dams provide the 

region’s largest source of carbon-free, renewable electricity. The 

majority of the Northwest’s renewable energy comes from hydropower dams which not only is clean, reliable power, but affordable 

electricity that attracts business to our region. 

The Washington Association of Wheat Growers was proud to support H.R. 3144, legislation introduced by Representatives 

McMorris Rodgers and Newhouse, with other Pacific Northwest 

Members of Congress, to preserve the current operations plan for 

the eight Lower Snake and Lower Columbia River dams. The current court order forcing these dams to spill more water threatens 

the river power system and could be detrimental to the infrastructure of our dams and the reliability of navigation on our rivers. We 

also support Representatives Newhouse and McMorris Rodgers’ appropriations provision to stop the spill order and thank them for 

their continued advocacy in support of the system. 

In closing, thank you for the opportunity to testify about the 

multiple benefits the Columbia-Snake River System provides to the 

agriculture sector. It literally is the economic lifeblood and way of 

life for the Pacific Northwest. Our region is blessed to have it. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Green follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARCI GREEN, PRESIDENT, WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF

WHEAT GROWERS

Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and the esteemed members of the 

House Natural Resources Committee, for the record my name is Marci Green. I am 

a sixth-generation farmer from Fairfield, Washington. My sons are seventhgeneration wheat farmers. On our farm, we grow wheat, blue grass seed, dry peas, 

lentils and garbanzo beans. 

I am also the president of the Washington Association of Wheat Growers, a nonprofit trade association that is comprised of 1,700 members which includes wheat 

farming families and industry supporters. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify about the importance of the Columbia 

Snake River System which provides significant transportation and navigation benefits to our region. The Columbia Snake River System is a 465-mile river highway 

that provides farmers and other producers as far as the Midwest access to 

international markets. 

The Columbia Snake River System is the top wheat export gateway in the United 

States, transporting over 50 percent of all U.S. wheat to markets overseas. Eleven 

states export through our rivers which moved over 12 million tons of wheat in 2016. 

Over 50 percent of Idaho’s wheat is exported through the Columbia Snake River 

System. Over $500 million has been invested into Columbia River grain export 

terminals, and barge unloading capacity has been expanded by over 21 percent in 

expectation of increased sales in Asian markets. Besides grain, nearly $3 billion 

worth of commercial cargo is moved across the river system. 

As wheat farmers, we are dependent upon the barging system to transport our 

products to export. Barging is one of the lowest cost, most environmentally friendly 

modes of transportation we have to get our wheat to major grain elevators in 

Portland, which is the gateway to world markets. A typical four-barge tow moves 

47 

the same amount of cargo as 140 rail cars or 538 trucks using just a fraction of the 

fuel. 

As a wheat farmer, transporting my crop to the market is a notable cost. 

Currently, I pay 80 cents a bushel to transport my wheat to ports. Even if wheat 

is at $6, that is a significant expense and clearly not my only one. 

Without a navigable river system, barging would not be an option. Farmers would 

have to substitute rail transportation or trucks to get their wheat to ports which 

would be more expensive and less efficient. Having three different transportation 

options also keeps transportation costs more competitive and reasonable. 

As price takers who compete in a global economy, we are very sensitive to increased costs to get our products to market. The price farmers ultimately pocket 

after factoring in all their expenses makes the ultimate difference whether they can 

stay in business. 

To move the same amount of wheat currently barged on the river system would 

require 137,000 semi-trucks or 23,900 railcars, leading to increased fuel consumption, increased emissions and increased wear and tear on our transportation infrastructure. The current rail capacity in the Pacific Northwest is insufficient to meet 

current as well as projected wheat transportation needs, and barging remains the 

most efficient way to move wheat to export terminals. 

The river system is vital to the entire agricultural industry by providing multiple 

benefits in addition to navigation and transportation, including irrigation and flood 

control. Agriculture is the second largest contributor to our state’s economy and represents a significant component of our agricultural industry nationally. Six percent 

of the Columbia River Basin’s yearly runoff is used to irrigate about 7.8 million 

acres of Northwest farmland. Greater irrigation efficiency in the Columbia River 

Basin has decreased water use by 10 to 25 percent per acre over the last decade. 

Several very large storage dams in the Columbia Basin also provide critical flood 

control benefits. 

In addition to providing businesses with affordable, reliable transportation to 

move our goods to market, the dams provide the region’s largest source of carbonfree, renewable electricity. The majority (90 percent) of the Northwest’s renewable 

energy comes from hydropower dams which not only is clean, reliable power, but 

affordable electricity that attracts business to our region. 

In closing, thank you for the opportunity to testify about the multiple benefits the 

Columbia Snake River System plays to the agriculture sector. It literally is the economic lifeblood and way of life for the Pacific Northwest. Our region is blessed to 

have it. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Ms. Green. 

I want to thank all of you for your very informative and helpful 

testimony. We really appreciate that. 

We will now begin questions for the witnesses. We will have at 

least two rounds of questions. To allow all of our Members to participate and to ensure that we can hear from everybody, Members 

are limited to 5 minutes for their questions. 

I now recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Ms. Flores, I have a question for you. And, Mr. James, I am 

going to ask you to tag on and also respond to it. 

There has been some discussion about how all of the stakeholders had previously agreed to a spill program that was 

optimized for salmon health, and getting the latest court order 

from an Oregon District Court judge, according to your testimony, 

has upset that balance. What are your views? 

Ms. FLORES. Thank you, Chairman Lamborn. I am happy to 

respond. 

In 2014, a Biological Opinion was issued that included, among 

many other things, spill operations that were agreed to by states, 

the vast majority of the Northwest states and tribes, and those 

spill operations were developed in a collaborative process with 

those states and tribes. But what we have seen was the District 

48 

Court rejected that Biological Opinion yet again and instead has 

been granting spill injunction orders brought by the plaintiffs, and 

I mentioned the one that was implemented this year, which was 

24/7 spill to the maximum Gas Caps. 

So, we literally do have a situation now where, since the BiOp 

is being re-done, operations are kind of up in the air and we are 

waiting to see if another injunction is brought this year. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

Mr. James? 

Mr. JAMES. Sure. As a Federal agency, of course, we work with 

the other Federal agencies to follow the law, and the judge gave 

us the order, so we operate the river that way. 

While we certainly seek consensus on current and future spill operations, we also know that as an agency we are under risk of 

being uncompetitive in the future in terms of the cost of power that 

we sell. So, at the same time that we were implementing new spill 

orders, we have also been reducing our investments in fish and 

wildlife projects, and we have, in fact, been reducing our agency 

budget across the board to become more competitive, but that included reducing investments in fish and wildlife in order to meet 

these new spill orders. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK, thank you. 

And also for the two of you, Ms. Flores, you mentioned that the 

recent controversial spill order has actually led to an increase in 

the emission of carbon dioxide. Can you explain that in a little 

more detail, please? 

Ms. FLORES. Yes, back to what spill is. When you are spilling 

water to move young fish more swiftly downstream in their downstream migration, you are obviously not generating power. So, 

because you are not generating carbon-free power, you have to replace it. And if you replace it today, you are replacing it with 

natural gas and perhaps other thermal resources, and natural gas 

and other thermal resources add to carbon emissions. So, if you are 

spilling, you are automatically increasing carbon emissions. 

Mr. LAMBORN. And, Mr. James, as BPA Deputy Administrator, 

can you explain that in a little more detail? 

Mr. JAMES. In order to continue to operate the system, loads and 

generation must always balance. You have to have as much coming 

off the system as you have coming on the system. So, the way that 

markets work is that you have to put the exact amount onto the 

system that you need. If we need to buy replacement power at certain times, we need to buy it when we need it. And as has been 

pointed out, that is likely to come in terms of cost and availability 

from a carbon-generating resource, most likely gas. 

Mr. LAMBORN. And, specifically, where have some of those purchases come from in terms of power coming into the system from 

elsewhere? 

Mr. JAMES. I can’t say specifically what generators they are coming from, but I know that just in general they are likely to have 

come from gas. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK, I understand. Thank you. 

Mr. Newhouse, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

49 

I would also like to thank all of you for providing your testimony 

this morning. It was very informative, and it was also interesting 

to find out how quickly 5 minutes goes by. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. First of all, Mr. James, thanks for being here. 

Last week, I was able to speak with your boss, Mr. Mainzer, the 

Administrator of the BPA. He told me that he was working with 

our governor, at least for the last several months, on coming up 

with ways to negotiate a compromise, so to speak, to manage the 

river that could actually increase or provide higher rates of dissolved gases by managing the higher spill rates. 

I just had a couple of questions about this whole thing. At least 

a lot of this centers around this increased spill. I like Ms. Flores’ 

comparison to medicine: a little is good, maybe too much not so 

good. So, just a couple of quick questions. 

Isn’t it true that some of our Federal agencies have stated that 

110 percent saturation of total dissolved gases could have detrimental effects on fish? 

Mr. JAMES. I would have to defer that to the Environmental 

Protection Agency, which sets those gas standards and which, of 

course, the states then have to abide by. The states, as you know, 

then implement those standards and can, in fact, grant waivers on 

those gas levels. That is what is being considered. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. It is also true that the current spill order mandated by a judge has raised those levels up to 120 percent, correct? 

Mr. JAMES. Yes. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Your boss stated to me that our governor is now 

advocating to raise those levels even higher, up to 125 percent. And 

like you said, every state has their own water quality standards to 

determine what the safe level is. I fully understand the pressure 

the governor is under, as well as BPA, but certainly the recent 

news reports of the orcas and the challenges that they are finding 

for food right now, I certainly find it incredible that we are calling 

for more spills supposedly to help the fish, and yet that places 

what seems to be a high level, a toxic level of gas in the water. So, 

at the same time we are trying to help one species, we are harming 

another, and this just doesn’t seem to be based on sound science 

to me. 

So, this is, to me, the crux of the question here. Ms. Flores, do 

you have any comments on all of this? If the level of gas at 110 

percent is dangerous, tell me more about 125 percent. 

Ms. FLORES. I can shed a little bit more light on that. Unfortunately, I didn’t do it when I was speaking. It is in my testimony. 

But the Washington Department of Ecology for dams in the state 

of Washington sets TDG levels, total dissolved gas levels, at 110 

percent gas saturation to be protective of salmon and other aquatic 

species—lamprey, sturgeon, all the aquatic species in the rivers. 

The Federal system is somewhat unique in that the Army Corps 

gets waivers from those standards of 110 to be able to spill up to 

120. The Federal hydro system, with the exception of the mid-seas, 

which have temporary waivers to exceed the standards now and 

again—but the Federal hydro system is the only dam system that 

is actually spilling as much as it does. 

50 

So, with respect to the discussions, there are discussions going 

on, as I understand it, with Governor Inslee and Bonneville, and 

we do know that part of the discussions are intended to perhaps 

be able to spill less than we do now, but then the exchange would 

be maybe spilling at higher levels. We are concerned about going 

up to the 125 because we are concerned about the science, as you 

heard me discuss, and what the impacts might be on fish. We want 

to make sure that the ratepayers that are spending hundreds of 

millions of dollars every year don’t undermine those investments by 

unintended consequences of spilling to an even higher level. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Thank you. 

I know my time is almost up, Mr. Chairman, but I just wanted 

to say that I was at McNary Dam this spring, and the operators 

at the dam, and that was right after the spill order began, were 

already seeing fish with symptoms of gas poisoning at that point, 

and that apparently was at the 120 level. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

Representative McMorris Rodgers. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Thank you, Chairman. 

I, too, want to thank everyone for being here and sharing your 

testimony with the Committee. It is very helpful. 

I have a few questions of just about everybody, but we will get 

started with Ms. Flores. 

I wanted to go to the example of the Elwha Dam that was 

authorized by Congress for removal in 1992. It wasn’t until 

September 2011 that the dam actually came down. As we think 

about this call to remove the Lower Snake River dams for the purpose of saving the orca or somehow benefiting salmon—I was 

recently in Walla Walla, sat down with the Army Corps again and 

they said they don’t believe it is going to benefit, it wouldn’t have 

a positive impact on salmon returns beyond what we are doing 

today—I just wanted you to shed some light on how long you think 

it would actually take to remove the dams and how much it would 

cost, and what is your sense as far as how we replace the energy 

from those dams? 

Ms. FLORES. Thank you, Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers. 

You are obviously correct, the removal of the Elwha Dam took 

about 25 years, and I would note that Elwha Dam is in no way, 

shape, or form similar to the Snake River dams. Those dams provided very, very little power output, which went to a local paper 

mill. There is no navigation. There is no trade. There is no commerce. There just is no comparison. And even so, removal of those 

dams took congressional authorization, and it took 25 years, and 

appropriations. 

I find it very discouraging and sad that people are again, when 

they talk about removing the Snake dam, saying we can do this 

without congressional authorization, we can get it done by the end 

of this year. Truthfully, there are people submitting comments into 

the orca record and so on and so forth saying we can get this done 

swiftly. That is just not true. 

Obviously, Congress has been appropriating dollars to maintain 

these Snake dams and the other dams in the Federal system for 

years, decades. I don’t see that coming to a stop. I do believe that 

51 

members of the delegation fully appreciate the value of the Snake 

dams. So, to get an authorization and appropriations I think would 

take decades. I think that whole argument that it be done swiftly 

just undermines efforts to try to take reasonable measures to help 

endangered salmon in the Northwest. 

With respect to replacement power, you will hear that we can 

easily and swiftly replace the output of the Snake dams with wind 

and solar resources, and that is just not true right now. We don’t 

have the ability to store those resources on a large scale. We may, 

but we don’t right now, and it may be decades before we have the 

ability to store those resources. 

So, again, right now, should those dams be removed, it would 

likely be with natural gas replacement. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Very good. Thank you. 

I would like to move to Dan James, Deputy Administrator. 

Would you also give me your thoughts on how easy it would be to 

replace the energy that is generated at the Lower Snake River 

dams with resources like wind and solar? Do you think that is possible? What do you think is the most likely replacement? 

Mr. JAMES. Sure. I think that currently we don’t believe that it 

is possible on a 24/7 basis because the system has to operate all 

the time, and the system always needs to balance. So, the question 

is, how do you meet the needs at any given time, the hottest day 

of the year, the coldest day of the year? 

Clearly, what would be the energy source that would most likely 

replace these dams? If we are talking about cost and 

dispatchability—in other words, what could be there all the time— 

the answer is most likely natural gas. On the other hand, does the 

system—we have lots of generation onto the system at given times. 

The question is when do you have capacity? How do you actually 

keep the lights on? How do you meet needs 24/7? So, capacity is 

one of the issues that we must deal with. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Do you believe that we could see 

blackouts? 

Mr. JAMES. I would have to dive into that question a little more, 

and I would be happy to give you more of a substantive answer. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. OK. Thank you. 

I will yield back. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. We will have another round of 

questions here. 

Ms. Flores, I am going to ask you one question, and then I am 

going to broaden it to some of you who haven’t responded to a 

question yet. 

We had a bill recently in our Subcommittee and in the Full 

House on sea lion predation. To me, it was a no-brainer. If a sea 

lion is killing literally thousands of salmon, sometimes just biting 

a chunk out of it and then letting it go, or devouring the whole 

thing, when you balance that—and sea lions are not an endangered 

or threatened species, but they are protected under the Marine 

Mammal Act, but the salmon are threatened and endangered. So, 

it is pitting one against the other, which is unfortunate. 

We had a bill to say if a sea lion cannot be removed because if 

you do that and it comes back, you don’t solve the problem, that 

in some cases, some extreme cases, lethal force could be authorized. 

52 

But we had people, even though they professed to support and love 

the salmon, who voted against that. I did not understand how, if 

you want to preserve the salmon, you wouldn’t want to preserve 

them in that case as well. But we had a whole number—I don’t 

know, 100, 150 people in Congress—who did not support that legislation that Representative Jamie Herrera Beutler, to her credit, did 

introduce, and we did pass it from the House to the Senate. 

What is your comment on that? 

Ms. FLORES. Well, I think it is understandable that it is very 

challenging and difficult for people to wrap their brains around the 

need to lethally remove sea lions. But if you look at the information 

and the data, it is overwhelming, and it is not just in Astoria or 

on the Columbia. It is up in Puget Sound. I am hearing that the 

sea lions up there are taking as much or more than commercial 

sport and tribal fishing combined of our endangered salmon. We 

know on the Willamette River that there is a 90 percent chance 

that steelhead will go extinct due to sea lion predation. 

So, I can understand from an emotional perspective, but at the 

end of the day we need to take tough measures, and we are really 

happy and very supportive of the sea lion bill because we think 

that is one of those tough measures that needs to be taken. 

Mr. LAMBORN. I was just amazed. Some people say that they 

want to protect the salmon, but when it came time to vote to protect the salmon, they abandoned the salmon, in my opinion. 

Doc Hastings and Kris Johnson, I want to ask you about irrigation. One of the benefits of the Lower Snake River dams is the benefit to agriculture through irrigation. What would happen to the 

economy of this part of the country, Washington or even other 

neighboring states, if those dams were to go away? 

Mr. HASTINGS. Let me first respond to the sea lion question here. 

I remember when I was in Congress, I toured Bonneville Dam and 

saw the sea lions, and the first thing to remember is that the sea 

lions in question at the Bonneville Dam at that time were not indigenous. They are California sea lions, and because they proliferated so much in California because they are protected, they 

had to go someplace to find their food. 

So, these are not indigenous sea lions on the Columbia River, 

and that needs to be taken into account. 

Let me broaden your question by simply saying that the Snake 

River, I forget how many acres the Snake River irrigates, but it is 

quite a bit. An analogy to that would be the reservoir behind 

Grand Coulee Dam, Lake Roosevelt. That irrigates 500,000-plus 

acres. 

A case in point: without irrigation, we wouldn’t have an agriculture economy of any sort. Last year, our average rainfall I 

believe was around 7 inches, which is lower than normal here in 

this part of the country. I think to date, the average rainfall to date 

is less than 4 inches here in the Tri-Cities, and I could be off by 

a half-inch. But still, the point is you have to have water in order 

to irrigate our diverse agriculture economy. If you take that away, 

that would have a huge, huge impact on our economy, no question 

about it. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Johnson? 

53 

Mr. JOHNSON. I think a couple of things to have some perspective 

on. When the dams were first opened in 1962, the state had about 

2.9 million population. Today, it is 7.4 million. The mid-Columbia, 

where you are sitting, had 50,000 residents. Today, it has 300,000 

residents. Those 300,000 residents in this region help produce 600 

million pounds of French fries to go across the country and across 

the world, right? So, that is how transformative base load power 

has been to this region and to this state’s economy. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

Representative Newhouse. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. I was just told recently that there was a meeting 

last week in Seattle, that the gist of the meeting was that there 

is a direct correlation between the dams and the plight that the 

orcas find themselves in at Puget Sound. I was going to ask Ms. 

Flores, could you speak to the nature of the Columbia River’s fish 

species as being a source for food for the orcas? I think you brought 

that up in your testimony. My understanding is that they play a 

very small role, but I want to be sure about that. 

Ms. FLORES. Yes, thank you. Again, back to the science. According to NOAA Science Center analysis, the Columbia and Snake 

chinook stocks in particular do provide food for orcas, but they are 

just one of many, many sources. And contrary to what you may be 

hearing, they are actually a bright spot in terms of providing 

chinook salmon for orca consumption. 

Again, you have to go back and look at the actual data and information. Do salmon from Columbia and Snake provide a food 

source? Absolutely. But they are one of many. Right now in the 

summer, 90 percent of the orcas in Puget Sound, their food source 

is salmon from the Fraser River. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Ninety percent? 

Ms. FLORES. Ninety percent in the summer. So, yes, they do provide a source of prey, but, in fact, they are kind of a bright spot 

in terms of providing salmon for orca consumption. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. So, just to prove that these hearings, people do 

look at the Congressional Record, I know that 6 years ago when 

Chairman Hastings had a field hearing on similar issues, Mr. 

Heffling, both you and Mr. Spain—is that how you pronounce your 

name?—were in attendance at that hearing, and you were both 

asked whether it was a good thing to have a judge dictating the 

management of the river system. You both answered no, and I 

think in your testimony this morning, Mr. Spain, you talked about 

a collaborative approach. 

What I find strange is that the years of painstaking negotiations 

that were conducted by both the Bush and the Obama administrations in coming up with the Biological Opinion which was worked 

on by scientists, engineers, Northwest tribes, all the stakeholders 

involved, doesn’t equate to such an effort of collaboration. 

So, I guess I would ask your opinion, Mr. Heffling. Do you think 

it does? Do you think it does demonstrate a concerted effort to 

manage the system in the best way possible for both fish and 

hydropower and all the other uses of the river? 

Mr. HEFFLING. Of course we support the BiOp, and the BiOp 

works. It has been working for many years. I mean, we were returning to record numbers of returning fish. The additional spill 

54 

ordered by the judge, it makes me wonder what the purpose of the 

outside interest groups are, if they are really trying to recover 

salmon or if they want to make it worse on them so they have a 

reason to remove the dams. 

For one thing, all the water spilled, fish passing through those 

spill gates have less chance to survive than when they are collected 

at the projects and transferred downriver by barge, five times more 

likely to survive. 

So, I have to wonder why additional spill would do any good, not 

to mention the additional dissolved gas. I mean, for those of us who 

work at the dams, it is a no-brainer. You see all the spill and you 

look out there and downstream of the spill gates you see all these 

birds which are feasting on smelts that have been killed by dissolved gas or just the trauma of passing through spill gates. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. And real quickly—I know my time is short. Mr. 

Rich, I think it bears more focus that you talked about the number 

of trucks it would take to replace the barges that move freight up 

and down the river. Could you expand on that for just a second? 

Mr. RICH. Sure. Of course, it will depend a little bit on the size 

of the truck. But your basic semi, where you are 26 to 32 tons, with 

a 3,600-ton barge, I was looking at some numbers this morning, 

you are between 120,000 and 160,000 trucks. Now, the reason I am 

saying 120 to 160 is because you have varying volumes of wheat 

that are produced each year. But rather than just the number of 

trucks, we think of the drivers, we think of all that it takes to 

produce those trucks, and we get back to the ton-mile-per-gallon of 

trucking. 

Trucking is very efficient. I mentioned earlier there are 149 miles 

to move a ton of cargo on a gallon of diesel. That has come up 

tremendously in the last several years. Again, in marine transportation, 576. When we just look at the fuel consumed itself, adding 

the trucks to the freeways at a minimum of 120,000, I actually 

can’t imagine what that would do to congestion. 

When you say the word ‘‘congestion,’’ that means different things 

to different people, but at some point you end up with gridlock. Is 

it a good goal to have 120,000 semis transiting from the ColumbiaSnake River Basin to the seven export elevators in the Portland/ 

Long View/Vancouver/Kalama market? I cannot believe that that 

would be in the best interest of anyone who is interested in supporting our environment. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Thank you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Representative McMorris Rodgers. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to go back to BPA and spend a little more time on 

the Biological Opinion and the work that was done to put that together in 2014. The legislation that we introduced that is known 

as H.R. 3144 would have preserved the current Biological Opinion 

until the current NEPA process could be finalized. 

I would like you to address some of the steps the region took to 

come up with that Biological Opinion and speak to the support of 

the stakeholders. 

Mr. JAMES. Sure. It was a collaborative process with elements 

that were reviewed by a number of constituencies and independent 

55 

science advisors. It was supported by most, if not all, constituencies, including most of the states and most of the tribes, to 

develop the 2014 Biological Opinion. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Does BPA support the legislation? 

Mr. JAMES. I can’t say I support the bill until the Administration 

takes a position. BPA and the other action agencies do support concepts of the bill. We believe that there is a thorough need to 

analyze the alternatives that could be beneficial to threatened and 

endangered fish. We are standing behind and are directly involved 

in helping the Corps and the Bureau complete an EIS, which is 

part of the Columbia River System operation, which will tell us a 

lot about the future of the Columbia River System. The bill would 

provide us the time necessary to develop a scientifically sound interim, experimental spring operation and continue to analyze it 

through the CRSO. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Would you speak to the path forward? 

Because right now, we have a pretty significant dispute over the 

science, and the science that was used—you spoke to the independent science advisors, whether it is the Corps, BPA, NOAA— 

the science is suggesting that this additional spill is not benefiting 

salmon, and yet that argument is out there and we are being forced 

by a judge in Portland now to test this theory. 

I know that if BPA is to cut a deal with the states of Oregon, 

Washington, and others, to try to avoid further litigation, I guess 

I would like you to speak to the possibility of us being able to come 

together as a region to reach some kind of an agreement to move 

forward that will avoid litigation moving forward. 

Mr. JAMES. Administrator Mainzer and others are deeply committed to a collaborative regional process that intersects with 

Columbia River System operation that we are conducting with the 

other agencies. I truly believe that for there to be consensus, we 

will need a very robust collaborative effort amongst the agencies 

and the sovereigns, the tribes, the states, and others. 

So, while we negotiate an interim spill operation potentially, 

there is no agreement on what that might look like because there 

are unanswered scientific, operational, and economic questions as 

a result of that. 

We also are committed to a robust EIS process with the other 

agencies. That is a public process that many people in this room 

are involved with. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Glen Spain, could you speak to the 

possibility of us being able to negotiate this? 

Mr. SPAIN. There are already some collaborative efforts that the 

Columbia Basin Partnership, which I am a member in, and several 

other people have representatives there as well. The Columbia 

Basin Partnership is an ongoing process to try to work around this 

and envision a 100-year restoration effort, what do we want the 

basin to look like after we fix it, what will it look like fixed. So, 

there are those efforts. 

I want to correct one thing that I think needs correction, and 

that is the judge threw out the 2014 BiOp because it was based on 

an illegal standard. But also, the science continually moves forward. We had no anticipation that spill would be as useful or as 

effective a tool as it turns out the recent studies have shown that 

56 

it is. That was not factored into the original BiOp. That will be 

factored into the next BiOp. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Why do you think the NOAA science, 

the Corps science does not back that up? 

Mr. SPAIN. Well, actually, it does, and I would refer you to Note 

20 and 21 of the two recent studies where it is fairly conclusive, 

with broad scientific consensus, including the agencies, that spill is 

an effective mitigation measure. That was not known back then. 

Keep in mind that the—— 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Are you speaking to the additional 

spill? Because we are not saying go backwards, but we are saying 

let’s make decisions based upon science and what is best for the 

fish moving forward. 

Mr. SPAIN. There we very much agree, but the old BiOp was 

based on old science. Science moves forward. We need to incorporate, and the judge required us to incorporate the best available 

science. That is what we are working on. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. OK, thank you. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. We are going to start our last and concluding 

round of questions. I will begin. 

I want to thank Representative Newhouse. This morning you 

helped me, you led a tour of the Ice Harbor Dam east of the city 

here, and that was very informative. The Army Corps of Engineers 

is there. The dam administrator and other people were there. We 

heard a lot about the science and engineering that goes into not 

just the dam itself but the efforts to make sure that the fish going 

upstream and the juvenile fish going downstream have as easy a 

road as possible. So, it was very informative and fascinating, and 

was very helpful to this whole topic. 

I want to ask Ms. Green a question, and, Mr. Rich, feel free to 

jump in as well. Without dams on the Lower Snake River, transportation would be devastated. There would be no barge traffic. 

What does that do for the agricultural producers, and are there 

some areas of production that don’t even have access to other 

transportation at this point in time? 

Ms. GREEN. I would say there are areas that don’t have access 

to rail transportation. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. 

Ms. GREEN. I think we all have access to trucks. But as we have 

stated, the increase in the amount of trucks it would take to transport the wheat that is currently transported on barges would probably be devastating to our infrastructure. I don’t believe we have 

the highway system to support that. 

And as far as a farmer, as a producer, economically, it would significantly increase our cost of production, our cost to transport our 

crop to the market. Having the three different modes of transportation, which is barge, rail, and truck, they tend to keep each other 

in check. We are not subject to a monopoly. So, I am sure that our 

transportation costs would significantly increase. We already operate on very tight margins, so that would be devastating. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. Rich, real briefly, and then I am going to finish up with 

someone else. 

57 

Mr. RICH. The barge industry, when I take a look at this, I see 

the 13 elevators between the Tri-Cities and Lewiston, and if those 

elevators had another way to go that made more sense for them 

economically, they would take it. I look back at the extended lot 

closure that occurred here on this river, the first one back in 2010– 

2011, there was quite a concern that the barge wouldn’t be able to 

get to market. Through a series of efforts to educate the wheat 

availability, the long and short of it is that over the 3-month period 

that there was not barging available, that wheat came down the 

river afterwards. It was rather amazing to our industry to see that 

when given the choice between paying higher rail or incredibly 

high truck prices—and, by the way, this isn’t a comment about 

high prices with trucking, it is just a cost of transport. So, to be 

able to see that the people who had a choice for 3 months to choose 

to hold their product and ship it by barge shows how incredibly important it is to those shippers. And those shippers aren’t just companies, those are people and farmers. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

My last question is for Ms. Flores. One of the phrases that 

caught my attention this morning is from one of the administrators 

of the dam. He said that their goal was to make the dams transparent to the fish so that going downstream, as well as coming upstream, it was as if the dam wasn’t there. In other words, to make 

their course both ways just as if it was natural conditions in terms 

of survivability. I think you pointed out it is not 100 percent, even 

in the wild it isn’t 100 percent. 

Was the old agreement better to achieve that goal, which I think 

is a goal we all share, than the new spill order from the Oregon 

judge? 

Ms. FLORES. In my opinion, yes. And the reason for that is, 

again, back to more spill isn’t always better. One of the things that 

more spill also does is it pulls young fish migrating downstream 

away from the fish slides that have been installed at the dams, or 

their equivalent, and we have Army Corps data that show the 

highest route of passage at the dams is over those fish slides. So, 

when you spill more, you are literally pulling the fish away from 

the highest route of passage. 

When the dams were overhauled and $2 billion was spent on fish 

slides and other bypass means, they actually worked. They are providing very high survivals on the level, as stated by Dr. Kareiva, 

as undammed rivers. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. It was kind of amazing to see the 

movable apparatus. What was that called? 

Ms. FLORES. Movable spillway wares. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Yes, movable spillway wares, a marvelous piece of 

technology that helped the fish survive going downstream in higher 

percentages, which I think is a goal that we all advocate for. 

Representative Newhouse. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have a letter here from the Tri-Cities Legislative Council, writing with their support for H.R. 3144, as well as for the passage of 

some of the critical measures to return stability and certainty to 

our river power system. I just want you to know the Legislative 

58 

Council is made up of local businesses and Chambers of Commerce, 

public utility districts, and economic development organizations. 

Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to submit this for 

the record. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Thank you. 

Just a couple more questions. And, again, thank you to all the 

panelists for being here today. 

Mr. James, I have worked very hard in my short time in 

Congress to support the Bonneville Power Administration and public power as a whole. Mr. Mainzer testified in front of this very 

Committee in our Nation’s capital that H.R. 3144, the legislation 

introduced by Representative McMorris Rodgers and I to provide 

certainty and reliability for the Federal river power system, would 

help BPA better manage the transmission system in a more effective and constructive manner. I am sure you know word for word 

his testimony. Would you agree with that testimony? 

Mr. JAMES. Yes. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. OK. Let me just share with you that while working on your behalf, I need your help as well. You have to be an advocate for yourself by helping to push for this legislation to be 

signed into law. Frankly, I have not always found BPA’s support 

for this legislation to be shared as strongly and directly with those 

who need to hear it most. You guys are the experts, and people 

need to hear from you. 

So, just a simple question, Mr. James—can I count on you to be 

a more vocal, steadfast partner in this effort? 

Mr. JAMES. We will absolutely provide all the information that 

is asked of us, absolutely. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Thank you, appreciate that. We desperately 

need you. 

Just one other question, Mr. Heffling. Your knowledge and expertise is a testament to over 30 years of experience in working this 

river system. It was more than 30, wasn’t it? Thirty-seven? Did I 

hear that? 

Mr. HEFFLING. Thirty-three. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Thirty-three. Don’t want to age you too soon. 

My humble opinion is that one judge in Portland doesn’t know 

how to manage this river system better than the experts and the 

professionals, the workforce who work day and night to keep the 

lights on for the entire Pacific Northwest. Did you have any 

thoughts on that? 

Mr. HEFFLING. Just that a judge or outside interests cannot 

know how all of the improvements that have been put into place 

work and how they actually benefit fish. Those of us that are there 

every day operate this equipment, maintain this equipment. We see 

the results. We see how it works. We see how the fish pass. 

I would just say we see it work, so I would think we have a better idea of what works, what we should be doing, and besides that 

we have the fish passage plan that we always follow when doing 

anything, what units we run, what load we run, what spill gates 

we operate. It is all part of the fish passage plan, and when we 

move outside of that, I don’t see how anybody can determine what 

59 

is working if you are not using an established plan and finding out 

what the results of that plan are. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Yes. It is a complex system, to say the least. 

Thank you very much, and thank you for your years of service in 

that effort. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

We will have the final questions from Representative McMorris 

Rodgers. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think in 

my final question I would just like to reflect a little bit on the importance of that established plan. Since the salmon were first listed, and we have reflected this morning a lot on the ColumbiaSnake River System and all that it means to us, the lifeblood of 

our economy. It is the foundation of our economy, whether it is agricultural, manufacturing, technology. We have reflected on billions 

of dollars of investment in research and in technology to improve 

the fish runs. We have highlighted that fish runs are improving 

across the board, and that we have actually seen fish runs that exceed when the dams were actually built. 

Why I believe it is so important that we get the Biological Opinion in place is the certainty that we need. For me, the question is 

who is going to be the one putting this plan in place? We have been 

in the court now for a couple of decades trying to get a plan in 

place, and we continue to run up against a judge who thinks that 

they know better as far as how to manage the Columbia-Snake 

River System. 

I want to start with Ms. Flores and ask you—and I want to ask 

others too, as time allows. Would you speak to the financial impact 

on BPA that is passed on to the Pacific Northwest ratepayers due 

to the litigation, and what is the potential risk if litigation and unpredictable court rulings—what is the impact of that continued litigation on our hydropower generation and BPA’s solvency? 

Ms. FLORES. Yes. As I noted in my comments, Bonneville, in 

part, fish and wildlife is a prime driver of recent Bonneville rate 

increases. Over the last few years, they have had to increase their 

rates by 30 percent. There was a 5.4 percent rate increase for 

2018–2019, and then we had the spill surcharge. And all of this is 

adding to Bonneville’s current financial woes. 

What I would say is of even more concern is the possibility for 

future rate increases. Can you imagine not knowing how the 

Federal hydro system is going to be run next year? That is amazing 

to me. We don’t know exactly how much more that might cost, if 

anything, but we are very concerned about the prospects for future 

rate increases, which then contribute more to Bonneville’s financial 

woes. 

Contracts with the customers expire in 2028. Customers that 

purchase all or most of their power from Bonneville, they will be 

looking for options many years before that, and they want 

Bonneville to be solid and stable and a preferred choice. But they 

are obligated, if there are market choices, to go out to the market 

and get the most cost-effective power they can for their customers. 

60 

So, I think we are all in agreement that we want Bonneville to 

stay healthy and stable, but where this fish issue is going with respect to the BiOp and litigation, we are very, very concerned about 

how that will translate into future rate increases and what that 

means for Bonneville. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Bonneville, do you want to 

address this? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. JAMES. What Ms. Flores raised, we describe as our efforts 

manifested in the strategic plan that we released in January of 

2018. The thesis statement is, for BPA to continue to meet its 

public purposes, it must be a commercially viable business. That 

means that we have to have customers. And that means when our 

20-year contracts expire in 2028, that our desire is to be fully 

subscribed. 

But, as Ms. Flores stated, our customers will have choices, so we 

are working very hard to drive our costs down. I mentioned that 

one of the things that we have done is to cut agency spending 

across the board, including in fish and wildlife spending, to meet 

our obligations. One of those obligations was additional spill. 

So, back to something Chairman Lamborn asked me earlier, 

where does that replacement power come from? That manifests 

itself both in revenue foregone, power that you cannot generate and 

cannot sell, and it also means replacement power. That ends up 

being a cost. I said it could come from natural gas, that replacement power could come from any variety of places. It could come 

from wind or solar or other hydro, other renewables. 

But at the end of the day, we know that it drives our costs. So, 

while we drive our costs down across the agency, we have to carefully manage our fish and wildlife portfolio. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Coal and nuclear, too. 

Mr. JAMES. I’m sorry? 

Mr. LAMBORN. Coal and nuclear, too. 

Mr. JAMES. Oh, exactly, it could come from any number of 

sources. BPA also integrates the power from the Columbia generating station, which is just a few miles from here in the 4th 

Congressional District. 

So, you are right, it could come from any number of sources, but 

it is a cost driver for us. 

While we manage our costs across the board, we have cut departments. We are selling an airplane. We have done things across the 

board to do exactly what our customers are doing, which is to tighten their belts. We must also do that with fish and wildlife, which 

means that when we are not able to sell electricity, or when we 

have to buy it, then that comes at a cost. We have to manage that 

like we do everything else. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. That concludes our questions. 

I am going to ask unanimous consent to enter three reports into 

the record: something from the Washington Policy Center, a report 

from NOAA, and an article from the Seattle Times. These talk 

about the adverse impacts of spill, the relationship between dams 

and orcas, and the cost of replacing power with wind and solar. 

Without any objection, so ordered. 

61 

Mr. SPAIN. Mr. Chairman, something came to my attention. 

There was a letter submitted by the American Sport Fishing 

Association. I would like that entered into the record too, if I may. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. Without any objection, so ordered. 

Now I am going to ask Representative Newhouse to make any 

concluding remarks, and then I am going to wrap things up. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman Lamborn. Thank you, 

Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers, both of you, for being here 

today. 

I am going to also thank our witnesses for providing their expert 

testimony, helping us to better understand this complex system we 

have here called the Snake and Columbia Rivers. I think this has 

been a truly valuable opportunity to help analyze some of the benefits that we have that we receive from the power system. 

I think there was something I picked up on in Ms. Flores’ 

comments, and I can’t pronounce his name, Dr. Peter—— 

Ms. FLORES. Kareiva. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE [continuing]. Kareiva. If you didn’t catch his credentials, he is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and 

Sciences and the National Academy of Sciences. He is a former 

Chief Scientist at the Nature Conservancy. He is the current 

Director of UCLA’s Institute of the Environment and Sustainability. And perhaps most pertinent, he is the former Director of 

Conservation of Biology for NOAA at their Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center, where he analyzed the Northwest endangered 

salmon, and he wrote this just last year, and I think this is what 

you referenced, Ms. Flores. 

I quote, ‘‘It is not certain that dams now cause higher mortality 

than would arise in a free-flowing river. The problem is that a complex species and river management issue has been reduced to a 

simple symbolic battle, a battle involving the choice between evil 

dams and the certain loss of an iconic species. It has become clear 

that salmon conservation is being used as a means to an end, as 

opposed to an end of its own accord.’’ I end the quote there. 

While some interests will continue to try to claim that we must 

pick one or the other, fish or dams, we know that that does not 

have to be the case. We can indeed balance economic prosperity as 

well as the environmental stewardship. Fish and dams can co-exist. 

We see that happening every day. The Snake and Columbia River 

system is a great example of that. 

So, I have an ask. I am encouraging all the members of this community to use their voices to be heard. I will continue to implore 

our Senators Cantwell and Murray to help stop the spill orders, to 

protect and to save our dams, and to recognize the magnitude of 

the benefits that are received by both rural and urban communities 

on both sides of the Cascade Mountains that we get from our 

rivers. They really do provide for our way of life, and I would ask 

you to do the same thing. 

I want to thank all of you, our witnesses, everyone in the audience that has been here this whole morning. I certainly want to 

thank the Pasco City Council for allowing us to utilize this beautiful facility. Thank you, Doc, for letting us be in your old gymnasium. It has been a pleasure to be here, and I truly express my 

appreciation to you, Chairman Lamborn, for being here. And as 

62 

always, to my good colleague and friend, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, 

thank you for being here as well. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. Thank you for your hospitality and 

leadership. 

Cathy, I appreciate what you offered as well. 

Doc, did you start representing Congress in this area before the 

dams were built? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LAMBORN. I know it was a long, long, long time ago, a long 

time ago. 

Mr. HASTINGS. No, but the arguments that you hear today are 

exactly the same as they were 25 years ago. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. Well, I thank all the witnesses for their testimony, and I want to thank the audience for your interest. Please 

submit any last comments that you might have. 

If there is no further business, the Committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:11 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE

COMMITTEE’S OFFICIAL FILES]

Rep. Lamborn Submissions 

— Article titled ‘‘Errors and Arbitrary Assumptions Plague 

Study on Replacing Energy From Snake River Dams,’’ 

Washington Policy Center, by Todd Myers, dated April 6, 

2018. 

— NOAA Handout titled ‘‘Southern Resident Killer Whales and 

Snake River Dams,’’ 2016. 

— Article titled ‘‘Dam spills extra water; tons of fish are 

killed,’’ Seattle Times, by Craig Welch, dated May 26, 2011. 

— Public Comments Submitted at the Field Hearing. 

Rep. Grijalva Submissions 

— Statement for the Record from Shoshone-Bannock Tribe, by 

Nathan Small, Chairman, dated September 19, 2018. 

— Letter addressed to Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member 

Grijalva from the American Sportfishing Association, dated 

September 7, 2018. 

— Letter addressed to Members of the Committee from Norm 

Cimon, InfoSynchronicity LLC, dated September 8, 2018. 

Rep. Newhouse Submission 

— Letter addressed to Reps. McMorris Rodgers, Herrera 

Beutler, and Newhouse supporting H.R. 3144 from Tri-Cities 

Legislative Council dated September 5, 2018. 

63 

Mr. Flores Submission 

— Article titled ‘‘Fealty to symbolism is no way to save 

salmon,’’ Oxford University Press, by Peter Kareiva and 

Valerie Carranza, 2018. 

Mr. Hastings Submissions 

— Article titled ‘‘Supportive breeding boosts natural population 

abundance with minimal negative impacts on fitness of a 

wild population of Chinook salmon,’’ Journal of Molecular 

Ecology, by Maureen A. Hess, et al. 2012. 

— Proposed National Marine Fisheries Service Listing Policy 

for Hatchery Fish Under the Endangered Species Act, dated 

February 2003. 

Æ