291 



sufficient for recovery, whereas the Strategy for Salmon is not. 



Even if the Strategy for Salmon were adequate, BPA's ability and willingness to 

 implement the Council's measures lends little confidence for rebuilding salmon. It is one thing 

 to say that BPA has funded a project addressing a Council measure. It is wholly different to say 

 that such a project has produced fish benefits. For example, the Nez Perce and Yakima tribal 

 hatcheries have been on BPA's drawing boards for more than a decade following the Council's 

 1982 fish program. They are still paper plans. BPA has not proven capable of implementing 

 significant fish mitigation projects. Nor, has BPA shown support for tribal cultural priorities, 

 such as lamprey protection. 



Thus, the Commission recently suggested that the Administrator eliminate BPA's fish and 

 wildlife division and transfer its responsibility for administering fish and wildlife funding to an 

 entity whose central mission is stewardship of fish and wildlife, and which has formally 

 demonstrated its trusteeship to the tribes. Simply moving these duties to another agency is not 

 enough. The processes for moving the money "to the ground" must be simplified to reduce 

 costly delays. The tribes and the region must have accountability for the investment of taxpayer 

 and ratepayer funds. The best accountability measures are completed projects and increased 

 salmon runs. Moving the funding duty to another agency also provides an opportunity to revisit 

 the financing mechanisms for fish and wildlife investments. The Commission hopes to explore 

 these issues with BPA in the near future. 



You have also asked a number of questions related to the current system for managing 

 operations of the Columbia Basin's hydroelectric system. Let me say at the outset, the tribes 

 are extremely frustrated with the way BPA, the Corps, and the Bureau of Reclamation have 

 attempted to deal with these issues through the System Operation Review. These federal 

 agencies "just don't get it." They have paid only belated attention to tribal concerns. I wish 

 these agencies would quit sending letters that imply that the tribes are involved in that process. 

 I question whether making BPA a government corporation would improve this situation. I 

 respectfully ask this Committee: Would BPA, as a government corporation, be subject to the 

 federal government's trust obligation to the tribes? 



When the United States and Canada entered into the Columbia River Treaty, salmon were 

 not part of the bargain. Today, we are witnesses to failures to deal with the system as a whole. 

 Letting BPA and the Corps represent the tribes' interest in Columbia River salmon to Canada 

 makes us very uncomfortable. Likewise, letting the Bureau of Reclamation, Corps of Engineers, 

 and BPA represent our interests in salmon to the region's utilities through the Pacific Northwest 

 Coordination Agreement is unacceptable. Management of the Columbia Basin's water resources 

 must fully respect salmon needs and the tribes' interest in the salmon. The tribes are best able 

 to represent their own interests and existing processes must be restructured accordingly. 



In conclusion, I again thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee. I wish 

 I could say that the salmon's problems are solved, but I cannot. I welcome your attention to 

 these important issues and look forward to addressing these matters with you in the future. 



