61 



$18 million you are going to pick up from Bonneville's appropria- 

 tions as well. I'm not really sure how much you are making as a 

 contribution. 



Ms. RiVLlN. Your arithmetic is correct, Mr. Chairman. The action 

 with respect to the Mitchell Act is part of a broader view of trans- 

 ferring responsibilities to power authorities, hatcheries, and other 

 people. 



Senator Hatfield. Thank you, I think. [Laughter.l 



Ms. Rivlin, there is a second question. 



Ms. Rivlin. That was already there. We are talking about the in- 

 cremental costs of the new biological opinion. So I think if we are 

 talking about that 



Senator Hatfield. Yes. 



Ms. Rivlin [continuing]. It is a question of how to share that. 



Senator Hatfield. Well, let me put that into context, too. Since 

 1980, Bonneville ratepayers have ponced up under rate schedules 

 $1.5 billion for fish mitigation. 



In 1996, the administration has cranked into their budget re- 

 quest $300 million. Now, the biological opinion and NMFS is say- 

 ing add another $130 million to $170 million. So let's bear in mind 

 that ratepayers are still picking up $100 million of that incremen- 

 tal increase, as well as now being burdened with funding the 

 Mitchell Act. 



Do not forget, the Mitchell Act came with the generic legislation 

 creating Bonneville. It was a Federal Government contract to help 

 mitigate fish in that whole project. 



Let me ask you a question. Let us turn to some language of the 

 Northwest Power Act, section 4(h)(10)(c). 



It says, in effect, that to the extent that Bonneville's annual 

 Treasury payments have covered costs actually attributable to 

 other beneficiaries of the Federal hydro system, that Bonneville is 

 entitled to be reimbursed by the Treasury for these costs. 



Now, that was adopted in 1980. How often has Bonneville been 

 reimbused since 1980? The answer is never. 



So I will propound the question for the record and give you the 

 answer. I would not expect you to know that answer, because you 

 are the budget director and I know you know a great deal of detail, 

 but there are some details that would not be expected. 



Are you now considering, from the standpoint of the long term, 

 not for the next 2 years, although I think there would be reason 

 to do so, beginning to credit Bonneville prospectively for these costs 

 under section 4(h)(10)(c)? 



Ms. Rivlin. Well, it certainly is a fair question and one that 

 should be addressed as we reexamine this whole question. Part of 

 the costs are now being shared by the public at large, including the 

 people in the region. 



Senator Hatfield. Would you also agree that the section 

 4(h)(10)(c) credit does permit reimbursement to Bonneville now 

 from previous years' payment? 



Ms. Rivlin. I am not an expert on this section of the law. We 

 can certainly look into it. 



Senator Hatfield. Do you have someone who would like to af- 

 firm that? 



26-104 - 96 - 3 



