use sprinkler systems or other sys- 

 tems that require electricity to 

 pump the water. So not only is ir- 

 rigation reducing the potential for 

 energy generation by withdrawing 

 water, it is also a tremendous con- 

 sumer of electricity. This energy, 

 that is lost, plus the necessary 

 power to run the irrigation pumps, 

 when valued at the replacement costs 

 of the additional generation facili- 

 ties that must be developed, results 

 in a continuous and increasing ex- 

 pense to power consumers in the 

 northwest as irrigation grows. 



As I said earlier, the next use 

 of the river, in terms of economics, 

 would be transportation. Recent 

 dollar figures are not available. 

 Tonnages shipped are used as a mea- 

 sure of water-borne commerce signi- 

 ficance. In 1975, nearly 65 million 

 tons of commerce were moved through 

 the Columbia River system. This 

 total comprised approximately 17 

 million tons of foreign imports and 

 exports and 44 million tons of in- 

 ternal and local movement. The 

 system provides a principal water- 

 borne outlet for a large portion of 

 Oregon, Washington, and Idaho crops. 

 Export grains and shipment of forest 

 products are among the principal out- 

 bound items of commerce. Much of 

 the petroleum products used in the 

 area are brought into the Columbia 

 by deep draft tankers and then are 

 distributed by barge and truck into 

 the interior. Fortunately, naviga- 

 tion on the river does not conflict 

 with many other uses. Dams are 

 built with locks, and water volumes 

 for their operation are usually 

 less than is needed for the fish- 

 eries. There was no question as to 

 whether the money should be spent 

 to dredge the Columbia River chan- 

 nel after the May 18 eruption of 

 Mt. St. Helens. Millions of dollars 

 to the region are lost every day 

 that the navigation channel was 



closed. By the way, I believe the 



recent cost figure for that total 



dredging project was around 53 

 million dollars . 



In a distant fourth come the 

 fisheries and the estuary. Cur- 

 rently, the value of the fisheries 

 to the region is about 20 million 

 dollars. Obviously, that is pretty 

 small when compared to the value of 

 hydropower, irrigation, or trans- 

 portation. It is this disparity in 

 value that is the base of the issue 

 of water use priorities. Fish re- 

 quire adequate flows and assistance 

 to negotiate dams and other water 

 intakes. This water represents po- 

 tential economic losses to other 

 uses and the monetary returns from 

 the fish do not amount to much re- 

 gionally. Here is a quote from a 

 big energy official in the north- 

 west that I think captures the es- 

 sence of the issue: "If the amount 

 of water that must be spilled is as 

 large as some fish interests request, 

 the loss of energy could be substan- 

 tial and possibly disproportionate 

 to the value of the additional adult 

 salmon that will return to the Col- 

 umbia as a result." What he is say- 

 ing, I gather, is that money is the 

 scale on which we should weigh the 

 worth of protecting the fisheries. 

 I think that is a point that could 

 well be argued. Having determined 

 that economic reasoning seems to be 

 carrying the greatest weight in de- 

 cision priorities between the riv- 

 er's competing uses, I would sug- 

 gest that social concerns would 

 follow, and finally, environmental 

 protection. 



Obviously all of the current 

 uses of the Columbia River are of 

 value to the region. I am in no 

 way saying that any one of them 

 should be precluded. But, I am 

 sounding a warning that must not be 

 ignored. On the Columbia River, the 



82 



