59 



a day through that reservoir and apparently may incur much lower 

 costs than some attempt to flush from higher points on the system. 

 Is this something that the BPA is going to be looking at as a poten- 

 tial option? 



Mr. Hardy. Yes, we have had a meeting with fishery public in- 

 terest group leaders about three weeks ago. I committed to do that. 

 Since it is a Corps project, it has been more in the Corps' court. 

 The same people in my staff that will be looking at that I presently 

 have got fully occupied right now with the current biologic opinion 

 and some of the ongoing river operations, but we will take a look 

 at that. It does offer some interesting potential. It has some risks 

 associated with it that we have to evaluate. I believe that part of 

 this is, you have got capacity losses and other things that we have 

 to evaluate. 



All that being said, if it does offer those kinds of improvements 

 in travel time for something around that kind of cost, it is some- 

 thing that we ought to give some consideration to. I think the real 

 trick here is getting a good evaluation of just what are all the costs, 

 and it is not just power costs. We have issues with the Umatilla 

 hatchery and wildlife preservation and other kinds of things that 

 are affected by the water table and water level as you vary that 

 reservoir. So we need to be confident that we can address those 

 questions satisfactorily, and we are committed to taking a look at 

 that. 



I would say the other issue is this: If you did something like the 

 John Day drawdown, is that in lieu of providing additional flows 

 in that part of the Lower Columbia or in addition to? If it is in lieu 

 of, that becomes a much more attractive proposition. If it is simply 

 one more measure that is in addition to amount of flows that you 

 will have to provide, that is much less attractive. So we need to 

 look at all of those issues. 



Mr. DeFazio. In response again to the interests of the Member 

 fi-om Idaho, I would expect that later this year, probably after we 

 have the recovery team proposal, we will devote an entire session 

 to our finned ftiends and related issues. So we will have more op- 

 portunity to explore this then. 



I would like to ask another question. This one just sticks out. 

 You know, once when I was a county commissioner I got a hostile 

 editorial written by a local paper sajdng that I was counting pencils 

 at Lane County. Of course, this was at a time when the entire staff 

 of the county was on two-thirds time and we had major revenue 

 problems because of a downturn in the industry, and I thought, in 

 fact, it behooved us to look everywhere and anywhere to save 

 money. I think it is also an example to the organization. If there 

 is something that sticks out like some of the earlier questions 

 about the A^PSS board of directors either to the ratepayers or to 

 the internal organization as a sore point, it sends a message, and 

 it sends the wrong message. 



I am a little puzzled and concerned at the numbers I see on this 

 squavs^sh program, and I just wonder where all the money is 

 going. I see a total figure of around $8,000,000 and I see $700,000 

 in bounties, and I wonder where the other 90 percent of the money 

 went. Could you illuminate that issue for me a little bit? 



