38 



provisions scattered throughout that recognize this. It is a fun- 

 damental fact that isn't going to go away. 



Now I would like to address the claim that we don't have enough 

 science to support moving forward and to support specific actions 

 such as flow augmentation, flow targets, reservoir drawdown. 



As someone who has worked on these issues for a number of 

 years, I think this claim is misleading at best. We have volumes 

 and libraries of studies monitoring information, information on the 

 biological needs of the fish, and there are two inescapable conclu- 

 sions that underlie all of this. 



First, the fish need better, faster flows for recovery, and, second, 

 while barging may be an emergency measure, it has not and will 

 not lead to full recovery of these fish. So we need to get on with 

 action that moves us past the barging, past the interim measures. 



Like the tobacco industry claiming there is no scientific proof of 

 the link between smoking and lung cancer, I am concerned that 

 dam operators are claiming that we have insufficient proof that 

 fish need flows. 



By their measure I am afraid we will have proof that fish are ex- 

 tinct before we have proof that they need flows. As Mr. Holt indi- 

 cated, we are quite literally studying the fish to death. 



My third point today is that, and it seems obvious, but a recovery 

 plan has to be implemented in full. It cannot be a cafeteria menu 

 where we do the easy stuff and skip the hard stuff. Yet if the past 

 is any indication we have cause for grave concern. 



The water budget first developed by the Power Council in 1982 

 was not fully implemented until 1990, after we had petitions to list 

 Snake River salmon. Even today, John Day drawdown and Lower 

 Granite Dam modifications to study drawdown — which have been 

 endorsed by the Power Council, the three governors and the Na- 

 tional Marine Fisheries Service — have difficulty getting appropria- 

 tions. 



And if you look at the time tables for implementation and eval- 

 uation that the Corps of Engineers is proposing, we have an eval- 

 uation that is going to extend over a decade or more. If we are seri- 

 ous, we have to focus on fast and complete implementation. The 

 fish simply don't have a decade or more to spare. 



Finally, I would like to make a comment about the fact that 

 when I sat back and looked at my main comments I thought, well, 

 these are obvious points. We need action, we need implementation, 

 which seem fairly obvious. But so far the Northwest has been un- 

 able to move forward with a real action plan. 



We have lacked the political will to move forward. Perhaps it is 

 a leadership issue, perhaps it is a question of who is in charge, but 

 it hasn't worked so far. In the next few years our legacy to our fu- 

 ture generations lies in the balance. 



We do not have another two decades or 15 years to try to get it 

 right. We are either going to be known as the generation that 

 saved the salmon or the generation that let them go extinct on our 

 watch. 



If we develop a good and true and detailed recovery plan now, 

 it is not too late and we can still choose the legacy of the salmon. 

 I hope we do. Thank you very much. 



