My concern and the point that I want to make clear is that those 

 who would focus on a purely flush type solution or a solution which 

 would assume that we can by putting more water in the upstream 

 part of the river simply make the trip of the salmon faster to the 

 ocean, are ignoring many other parts of the problem. 



We must have a solution which focuses on all aspects of the prob- 

 lem and which does not devastate any particular group of people 

 or industries. The farmers in Idaho are very willing to play their 

 part. In fact, on a willing buyer/seller basis they have already come 

 up with an ability to provide hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of 

 water to assist in the solution for salmon runs. 



The point that I want to make is that there are other parts of 

 the problem. Dams on the lower Snake and the Columbia are rec- 

 ognized, I think, to be one of the most significant parts of the prob- 

 lem and the manner in which we help the fish survive going 

 around the dams and make it to the ocean is critical. 



A recent study completed by Bookman Edmunston Engineering 

 Firm, funded by Bonneville Power contends that to shift 1 million 

 acre-feet of water from agricultural uses would take 450,000 to 

 590,000 acres of Idaho agricultural land out of production. 



The direct and indirect income losses in southern Idaho would be 

 estimated to be between $500 to $670 million in income and be- 

 tween 10,000 and 14,000 jobs. That is the kind of impact that we 

 could be facing if we just look at one piece of the solution and ig- 

 nore other pieces of the solution. 



Although there are no easy answers, I don't believe it is prac- 

 tical, realistic or scientifically achievable or economically sensible 

 for the region to expect that sufficient water will be available in 

 the upper reaches of the Snake River to simply flush the fish past 

 the dam. 



We have got to have a more broad approach. It is my contention 

 that we need to continue to pursue the facts and the arguments to 

 find honest, unbiased, scientific answers to these questions and I 

 hope that all parties involved will work together to craft a solution 

 to this issue. 



All possible solutions should be thoroughly studied and tested 

 and we must all work together if we are to avoid the serious eco- 

 nomic damage to the Pacific Northwest which will not necessarily 

 be that beneficial to the salmon. 



Therefore, I urge accelerated focus on using our resources to 

 come up with a consensus among all parties involved including the 

 Indian tribes and the State Government and I would be glad to 

 submit to your questions. 



[Statement of Hon. Michael Crapo follows:] 



Statement of Hon. Michael D. Cr.\po, a U.S. Represkntativk from Idaho 



Mr. Chairman, thank, you for allowing me to testify before the Subcommittee. Due 

 to the aggressive schedule of the Subcommittee, I will keep my remarks brief 



Few would disagree that we must restore and preserve the salmon; salmon are 

 a rich part of Idaho's heritage. As I held wilderness town meetings across the second 

 congressional district, people from almost every perspective agreed that we must 

 take steps to restore the wild salmon runs. The heartfelt fervor of the testimony was 

 particularly meaningful when it came from those who could recall earlier days when 

 salmon runs were strong and plentiful. These people, many of whom have logged 

 timber, grazed livestock, and raised crops for generations, stated their willingness 

 to do their part in salmon restoration. 



