diversion and comsumptive use. It is 

 expected that within 20 years, there 

 will be a 25 to 40 percent increase 

 in irrigated land within this region. 

 Already competition between the hy- 

 droelectric generation and irrigation 

 is intense. The amount of hydroelec- 

 tricity generated depends on the vol- 

 ume of water passed through a given 

 generating facility. Reduction in 

 volume means less potential for 

 electric generation, not only at the 

 first structure but at each of the 

 dams that are downstream. In other 

 words, the loss is multiplied by the 

 number of dams downstream of the di- 

 version site. Furthermore, electric- 

 ity is used to pump the water inland 

 for irrigation, thus placing addi- 

 tional demands on existing generating 

 capacity. Meanwhile, hydropower and 

 irrigation demands are putting pres- 

 sure on a third use of the Columbia's 

 waters, the fish runs. 



For maintaining fish runs, water 

 must be available in adequate quan- 

 tity and quality for the fish to 

 survive and at the proper time to 

 provide for both the upstream and 

 downstream passage of the juvenile 

 fish, the amount of water available 

 to generate electricity is reduced 

 and you can see that all of these are 

 interrelated and tend to compound 

 each other. Power generation, irri- 

 gated agriculture, anadromous fish 

 runs are all vital to the Pacific 

 Northwest region but, in varying 

 degrees, are at odds with each other. 

 It is clearly evident that the de- 

 velopment of any one of these uses 

 to their full potential can only be 

 at the expense of others. Already 

 you can see how difficult these con- 

 flicts are to settle, and I have not 

 even mentioned instream flow needs 

 for navigation, recreation, water 

 quality protection, and preservation 

 of the natural environment. And 

 there are others. 



But, competing uses are only 

 half the problem. The other side of 

 the puzzle is that of jurisdiction. 

 The Columbia River system waters 

 within the United States are con- 

 trolled by seven states, at least 

 nine Federal agencies, several state 

 organizations, and a multitude of 

 public entities, local jurisdictions, 

 and under permit, private individu- 

 als. Each of these entities has only 

 limited authority over the responsi- 

 bility for the management of the 

 Columbia's water. Its flow is stored 

 or diverted and consumed as a result 

 of numerous decisions that are usual- 

 ly uncoordinated and made with little 

 regard for other demands. The riv- 

 er's management is influenced by cit- 

 izens' groups, municipalities, users 

 from other states, local Indian 

 tribes, and a host of these entities 

 involved has overall or even broad 

 responsibility for the uses of the 

 Columbia River water. All too often, 

 the result is a variety of piecemeal 

 and conflicting policies that fall 

 short of everyone's desire for wise 

 management of the river. So, having 

 explained that there are competing 

 uses and numerous jurisdictions in- 

 volved in water resource decisions 

 before the water reaches the estuary, 

 we can now address the question of 

 how choices are made, or to put it 

 another way, who gets what and why 

 and how these impact the Columbia 

 River estuary. 



It would be naive to suggest the 

 water allocation decisions are based 

 on what is best for all. Money 

 influences decisions and managing the 

 Columbia River is no different. 

 Those uses which are economically 

 most profitable, are the ones which 

 receive the greatest consideration by 

 the decisionmakers. In the case of 

 the Columbia, hydropower is the most 

 important. Irrigation is next, 

 followed by transportation, and a 



80 



