63 



Like people throughout the Pacific Northwest, I want more salm- 

 on in our river system. This is a goal we all share. Differences 

 emerge, however, as we decide how to reach the goal. 



The administration determined in its final biological opinion that 

 Bonneville will pay upward of $500 million, that's half a billion dol- 

 lars a year, in fish-related costs. Roughly 1 week from today, the 

 administration will put forward its draft recovery plan for the en- 

 dangered runs of Snake River salmon, a plan I suspect would im- 

 pose even more costs on our regional economy. 



Mr. Chairman, although I am not a biologist, I do believe that 

 there has to be a less expensive way for us to achieve our mutual 

 goal of more fish in the entire river system. This is where our dif- 

 ferences begin. 



I cannot, however, entirely fault the administration for its costly 

 biological opinion or its soon to be released draft recovery plan for 

 salmon, because the administration's actions are driven by the En- 

 dangered Species Act. I believe that in order to fundamentally 

 change the situation we face today, we must change the Endan- 

 gered Species Act itself. 



As each of us in our Northwest congressional delegation fights to 

 find ways to keep Bonneville competitive, saddled under these 

 heavy fish costs, it is crystal clear that each of us now is struggling 

 with the fundamental flaw in the act and in related acts, the con- 

 sideration of the economic and social impacts of species protection 

 on people, their families, local and regional economies. 



I will be working this year to correct this fundamental flaw in 

 the Endangered Species Act, and hope to work with my Northwest 

 colleagues in this effort. 



The critical question before us today is whether or not Bonneville 

 can remain competitive in the region, while paying upward of $500 

 million a year in fish costs. Other questions include: Will cus- 

 tomers, as many have expressed to me over the past year, continue 

 to look for other power sources, leaving Bonneville even more vul- 

 nerable? 



Working together, how do we craft a short-term solution to cap 

 Bonneville's fish-related costs without passing these costs off to 

 other users of the system? 



Bonneville, obviously, is not the only producer of power on the 

 Columbia River system. Does the administration intend to make 

 additional requests of the appropriations committee to fund costs 

 associated with this opinion? 



Mr. Chairman, we are going to find some of the answers to these 

 questions from the witnesses who are before us today, and working 

 together, I hope we can come up with an equitable and effective so- 

 lution. 



Senator Hatfield. Thank you. Senator Gorton. 



Senator Murray. 



STATEMENT OF HON. PATTY MURRAY 



Senator MURRAY. Well, thank you. Chairman Hatfield. 



Thank you for calling this hearing today and working us through 

 this process. Perhaps the ides of March is a most appropriate day 

 to be focusing on this issue. 



