49 



for example. It puts a lot of baggage on salmon recovery that 

 doesn't belong there. 



For example. 50 percent of the Power Council's budget is put in 

 as a salmon recovery cost as part of the $350 million. It is com- 

 pletely inconsistent with how other users of the system are treated. 



Navigation is not accounted for as a foregone power generation. 

 Irrigation is not accounted for as a foregone power generation. 

 Flood control is not accounted for in the same way. It is inequitable 

 treatment. So I just wanted to respond because I couldn't let it go 

 by without some kind of response. 



Ms. Unsoeld. My time has really expired but did anyone else 

 want to — Mr. Wright. 



Mr. Wright. I guess I have to now. Two points I think. In your 

 question you asked the Bonneville Power Administration or others 

 not implementing the Council's fish and wildlife program because 

 the Council doesn't have the authority. 



The fact is— at least in the form of those things that Bonneville 

 and the other river operators respond to, and remember Bonneville 

 is not the sole river operator, the Corps and the Bureau are in- 

 volved, and the National Marine Fisheries Service is involved 

 now — every single recommendation that the Power Planning Coun- 

 cil has ever adopted into its fish and wildlife program have been 

 implemented by those agencies. Every single recommendation on 

 river operations put into the Council's fish and wildlife program 

 has been implemented by those agencies. 



Ms. Unsoeld. I bet we could have a debate on that if there were 

 other panel members but they are not on this panel. 



Mr. Wright. But the second part is of the $350 million that we 

 talk about, Bonneville does not have the authority to spend that 

 money. Lorri is right, $80 to $90 million comes out as direct reve- 

 nues but it is basically mandated by the Power Planning Council 

 and monitored by the Power Planning Council. 



The power impacts, the cost of replacement energ>' for the river 

 operations are the sole discretion of the National Marine Fisheries 

 Ser\'ice, at least since the adoption of the Endangered Species Act 

 so Bonneville does not have any say in what it has to do either in 

 the way of foregone revenues and replacement energy. 



Ms. Unsoeld. My time has expired but I would observ^e that the 

 decisionmaking, the implementation directing alludes this panel 

 much as it does many of us who are also involved. We don't have 

 the answer and we ver>' much need not only a time for the decision 

 to be made but the body to make the decision and it requires more 

 than just consensus into putting it into a document. 



Ms. Furse. 



Ms. FuRSE. Thank you. Madam Chairman. I wanted to ask Lorri 

 Bodi but if others want to comment too, Judge Marsh spoke of 

 major overhauls necessary in the hydro system. In your opinion, 

 was he referring to the water scheme that the Recovery Team al- 

 ludes to and what do you think would constitute the sort of over- 

 haul that the judge was referring to? 



Ms. BODI. You are asking me to read Judge Marsh's mind, but 

 I will do my best to do that. I think that basically the judge heard 

 testimony from scientists and experts from all sides. 



