we are capable of reading ourselves, or even better that you discuss 

 the concerns raised by other panel members as we go through this. 

 I like to see a little bit of exchange among panel members, even 

 between panels, if someone raises some points that you think war- 

 rant rebuttal or warrant ftirther development then please do so, 

 feel free to do so, do what you wish with your time. If you want 

 to just read through something I have already read, I do not think 

 it is the best use of your time, but that is your right, it is your 

 time. 



STATEMENT OF HON. PETER A. DeFAZIO 



Mr. DeFazio. Today, the Bonneville Power Administration Task 

 Force considers the status of efforts to rebuild declining Columbia 

 River salmon stocks. 



The 1980 Northwest Power Act, written in good part by my pred- 

 ecessor Jim Weaver, for the first time placed anadromous fish on 

 a par with power production. The Northwest Power Planning Coim- 

 cil was formed and charged with developing a program "to protect, 

 mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife affected by the develop- 

 ment, operation, and management" of the Columbia basin hydro- 

 electric system, while "assuring the Pacific Northwest an adequate, 

 efficient, economical and reliable power supply." 



When you put those two charges together, I might say that 

 Moses might have had an easier task aJhead of him when he led 

 the Jews out of Egypt. Those are seemingly contradictory charges, 

 but I think we will make the case today that they are not, and we 

 can achieve a high degree of compatibility. 



The Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration is 

 supposed to act consistent with the Coxmcil's plan. Other federal 

 agencies are required to do the same. The Act creates a dynamic 

 tension between the Council and the federal agencies involved in 

 this complex and tangled web of interests and jurisdictions. The 

 tensions have been more than dynamic, as many have noticed, dur- 

 ing the last month or two. 



For those of us who have lived through the spotted owl disaster, 

 the growing salmon crisis presents both disturbing parallels and 

 reason to be optimistic. Turf battles, lack of coordination and a gen- 

 uine unwillingness on the part of some players in the region to 

 take the steps necessary to rebuild salmon stocks threaten to cre- 

 ate another Endangered Species Act train wreck in the Pacific 

 Northwest. I think everyone in this room will agree that that is not 

 a desirable outcome. 



If there is a bright spot, it is that we have not gotten there yet, 

 though the clock is ticking. 



We have a comprehensive salmon plan — developed within the re- 

 gion. It is the Northwest Power Planning Council's Strategy for 

 Salmon. I have asked witnesses at this hearing to comment on the 

 plan's strengths and weaknesses. Clearly one of the plan's 

 strengths is that it asks all river users to contribute to salmon re- 

 covery. It aims at ecosystem-wide improvements in the areas of 

 habitat, hydropower, hatcheries and harvests. One of its weak- 

 nesses — and a weakness of any salmon strategy, given the state of 

 our knowledge — is the state of our knowledge. But we simply can- 



