587 



Mr. Stegner. I do not know either. First of all, I said that is a 

 perception, but it is not being dispelled in any way. 



Let me get this straight, you said the transportation option? 



Mr. DeFazio, You said transportation was the solution, and what 

 I am saying is transportation will not be paid for disproportionately 

 by anybody in Idaho; in fact, it will have minimal impact in Idaho 

 and have more impact on an aggregate basis, although not per cap- 

 ita, on Washington State with the largest population, Oregon with 

 the second largest population, Idaho with the third largest popu- 

 lation, because it will be spread throughout the region, 



Mr. Stegner. Are you talking about transportation of smolts? 



Mr. DeFazio. Yes. 



Mr. Stegner. Okay, and your question to me is. Why does the 

 State of Idaho not adopt that as its primary focus? 



Mr. DeFazio. Well, you said that that is the solution, that these 

 other solutions are, as you said, they were false solutions, they 

 were politically motivated, they were of dubious scientific benefit, 

 they were quick fix. I mean you went on with quite a few adjec- 

 tives, deri(hng the Council's proposals and the flow-based or 

 drawdown-based solution, and said quite simply all we need to do 

 is transport them. 



What I am saying is, if quite simply all we need to do is trans- 

 port them and that was scientifically credible and I was fi*om 

 Idaho, I would be fighting to the death for that, as opposed to say- 

 ing well we will sacrifice part of our State just for the heck of it. 



Mr. Stegner. Well, that is my position. You have just restated 

 my position exactly. Now to ask me why I think the State of Idaho 

 has adopted that position, I cannot speak for them. But you have 

 just restated my position exactly. When we are being sacrificed, 

 what else are we going to turn to? This is not something about 

 making just a little sacrifice. Lewiston, Idaho, and Clarkston, 

 Washington, is bearing the brunt of the entire drawdown sacrifice. 

 And so when we are going to fight and we are going to try to put 

 up some kind of defense, we are going to look for alternatives. We 

 are going to try to point to things that are not going to be this det- 

 rimental to our area. I do not see anybody paying any kind of sac- 

 rifice to the degree that we are, when you are talking about 

 drawdowns of the lower Snake River system. 



Mr. DeFazio. Okay, well I guess here is the logical disconnect. 

 The point I am trying to make is I do not think you have got a leg 

 to stand on scientifically, biologically and to make those assertions 

 you did because if you did, I am certain that your State and your 

 representatives on the Coimcil would stand up and fight and say, 

 hey, we do not need to be doing any drawdowns, all we need to do 

 is put all the fish in barges and deliver them to the ocean. 



Mr. Stegntir. Again, you have restated my position. 



Mr. DeFazio. I know, and what I am saying is I am not fi-om 

 your State, but I have got problems with my State government and 

 the way they seem to be oriented toward Portland versus 

 downstate, and I can understand that djniamic and that tension. 

 But they would not ever go to the point of saying, gee, here is a 

 burden we could spread to four States equitably, but we would 

 rather make Eugene and Springfield pay for all of this because we 



