32 



ing the stimulated experimentation with renewables, geothermal, 

 wind, solar, tidal, so forth, and then possibly at the end of the line 

 might come some industrial reshuffling. 



Right now the direct service industries utilize a third of the Fed- 

 eral hydro load. It is possible that 10, 20, 30 years from now that 

 formula won't work commensurate with saving the fish and other 

 demands for electricity. 



Parenthetically I think you asked about cost. I hope you did. The 

 cost of the program we are advocating can't be shouldered entirely 

 by the ratepayer. We look at the Columbia Basin as something 

 which the taxpayers of the United States, these being inland navi- 

 gable waterways owned by the people of the United States should 

 be equally responsible for, so user fees won't go on the whole thing 

 either. That is why so many Federal agencies are relying on the 

 general fund, their budgets are going to be involved. 



Mr. Turner. Congressman, my response is that many of these 

 choices are short-term. The toughest choice of all is the long-term 

 one. That is that we don't have the water we thought we had 

 almost throughout the Northwest, a place where everybody believe 

 it rains all the time. We do not have the water to meet all of the 

 demands that people want to place on our water resources. 



Mr. Lowe. In terms of the habitat, especially Federal lands, a lot 

 of our tough choices have already been made to some extent in the 

 President's plan. The things that lie ahead of us are to set prior- 

 ities on how fast do we want to move in habitat. 



Habitat, in answer to an earlier question, is not something that 

 you turn around overnight, but I think the kinds of decisions we 

 have to make is how fast and how much investment are we willing 

 to make in some of the habitat restoration programs. I think cou- 

 pled with that, we have to make some tough decisions: do we want 

 to put our money in processes or do we want to put our money on 

 the ground. 



I think when you get into that arena there are some questions 

 relative to how agencies are financed, not in terms of the total 

 numbers of dollars, but we have talked a lot here today about eco- 

 systems, and a lot of the budget process that now exists are really 

 not conducive to that. I think some of those are the kinds of choices 

 to get at the end product of really managing ecosystems, moving 

 ahead with not only salmon but all the other issues is an impor- 

 tant place to start. 

 Mr. Andrews. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Plenert. I would like to make one comment, if I could. In all 

 these deliberations, I would ask let's not forget California. 



We have the same problems there on a different magnitude, but 

 it is there, and the Central Valley, what I talked about in my testi- 

 mony, the Central Valley Improvement Act, its allocation of water 

 versus farmers versus fish and wildlife versus municipalities and 

 some tough decisions and tough choices have to be made over the 

 allocation of that short supply of water as well, so we mustn t 

 forget the whole entire coast. 



Chairman Studds. Even if we attempted to forget California, Mr. 

 Hamburg won't let us. 



The gentleman from California. 



