24 



Ms. Unsoeld. In 1983? 



Mr. Bevan. 1985. 



Ms. Unsoeld. 1985. 



Mr. Bevan. Yes. That is relatively inexpensive. I receive a foot 

 of faxes almost in a month these days on Columbia River data. I 

 can't analyze that unless I enter into my computer bit by bit. That 

 could be put on an electronic network available through Internet 

 for almost the cost of sending out the faxes. 



We are in a modern world where we need to have public deci- 

 sions be based on public data so that an informed public can under- 

 stand the reasons for the decisions. That is very difficult to do 

 today. 



Another example of the need for information. Much has been said 

 of flushing the fish to the river. My good friend and colleague, Pro- 

 fessor Percy, of Oregon State spent a lot of time on the ocean a dec- 

 ade ago and so did my colleague, Alan C. Hart. 



They developed quite a bit of information on where the salmon 

 were in the North Pacific, how they went out through the plume 

 of the Columbia and where are Professor Percy and Mr. Hart 

 today? They are not out there working anymore. And what is 

 worse, nobody else is. 



We have really taken our focus away from the river. That is so 

 important. Professor Percy has a hypothesis. It is not important to 

 flush the fish down the river, what is important is to flush them ■ 

 from the estuary out into the ocean through a band of very dan- 

 gerous conditions. 



Is he right? I don't know, although I suspect he has some evi- 

 dence that indicates to me that he may be, but the important ques- 

 tion is he has posed a hypothesis. We contest it. We can go out and 

 measure whether that is an important part of the life cycle and see 

 what happens when you speed up fish going through the initial 

 parts of the ocean. 



Ms. Unsoeld. Ted, my time is running out but do you want to 

 add anything about studies, data that need to be gathered? 



Mr. Bottiger. Well, there are two problems. One is, you have a 

 whole series of conflicting scientific opinion and the stack of — I 

 mean it is almost easier to weigh it than it is read it and it comes 

 in pretty even, so what is a policymaker supposed to do in a deci- 

 sion like that? 



That is where both the Council and the Recovery Team agree 

 there has got to be a Scientific Oversight Committee that directs 

 the study, the hypothesis the doctor mentioned. We have two under 

 consideration now. One is transportation and one is the benefit of 

 flows. 



Directing that science to solve these questions is, I think, awfully 

 important. 



Mr. Dicks. Would you elaborate on that point? 



Ms. Unsoeld. Well, my time is up. If the gentlewoman from Or- 

 egon will delay taking her set of questions we will let you pursue 

 that one just as a follow-up. 



Mr. Dicks. As I understand it, we asked Bonneville to fund a cer- 

 tain amount of work on the system. Have we asked that this kind 

 of science be funded? 



Mr. Bottiger. Yes. 



