653 



Members of the BPA Task Force 

 October 8. 1993 

 Page 4 



releasing water to meet salmon mitigation obligations be treated differently? Cost estimates 

 are appropriate as a means of comparing alternative ways to meet biological objectives, not 

 as a means of undermining the validity of the objectives. 



3. Recommendations 



I'd like to reiterate and expand several recommendations contained in my earlier testimony. 

 First, ongoing Congressional oversight of BPA is needed to ensure compliance with the 

 Power Act and effective implementation of any corrective steps you recommend now. That 

 oversight should continue in some form at least until the federal agencies have made 

 substantial progress on the Council's long-term program. If the Task Force cannot be 

 made a standing committee, perhaps it could be reconvened after a year or some other 

 suitable time interval. 



Second, 1 want to underscore the importance of putting teeth into the implementation of the 

 Council's Salmon Strategy. The most important step the Task Force could take is to 

 compel the agencies to move forward quickly on reservoir drawdowns (or their biological 

 equivalent). A transfer of management responsibility for fish and wildlife funds could 

 eliminate duplication and increase the effectiveness of the Program, but the projects fiinded 

 under that program in no way substitute for safe in-river passage. A new coordinating 

 body is unlikely to improve conditions for salmon unless Congress also makes the Power 

 Act's mandate to provide adequate flow (or travel time) more specific. 



The Task Force could recommend any of several options to speed progress toward safe 

 mainstem passage. The Natural Resources Committee could use its authority and influence 

 to restria appropriations for Columbia River navigation, hydropower and irrigation 

 facilities until implementation of drawdowns is back on track. Alternatively, the Task 

 Force could recommend legislation to establish binding flow or travel time objectives in the 

 mainstem Columbia and Snake Rivers, perhaps as pan of a bill that sets up a new 

 coordinatmg body.* 



Third, I urge the Task Force to promote water management institutions that provide a level 

 playing field for fisheries. The Bureau should not allow its water supplies to be transferred 

 under water bank rules that discriminate against fish. Federal funds should not be used to 

 support conservation without guarantees that saved water will benefit fish. The Natural 

 Resources Committee could ensure that such provisions are a precondition of any new 

 projects involving irrigation in the Northwest, and ask the Bureau to provide a legal 

 opinion on water bank rules. 



* Objectives should be based on the recommendations of the Fish Agencies and Tribes, and 

 phased in on a schedule consistent with timely drawdown implementation. A sliding scale 

 could accommodate hydrologic variation. The objectives should be set as hard constraints 

 in the Pacific Northwest Coordination Agreement. 



