70 



result, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and other federal agencies 

 need to realize that BPA is not really a deep pocket. 



Yes, hydropower should be required to pick up and pay for the external environ- 

 mental costs of its activities. Other power producers have been asked to do this. But 

 it is not appropriate to interpret every mitigation or recovery option as something 

 that should be bankrolled by hydropower and its ratepayers. 



The costs absorbed by hydropower should be directly related to its contribution 

 to the salmon's endangerment, and what they are asked to do should be well- 

 grounded in science or specifically designed to fill gaps in our scientific knowledge 

 about what recovery methods will work. Unfortunately, the federal government is 

 inclined to experiment with Idaho water, spill regimes, and drawdowns in a way 

 that prevents us from learning from these experiments. It does this with little re- 

 gard for the costs of these experiments to the people of the Northwest and while 

 shutting the door on meaningful information that points us in other directions. I 

 speak here of various efforts to "deep six" the Iwamoto studies on smolt survival 

 through the reservoirs and to ignore what happens to salmon during the ocean 

 phase of their life cycle. 



Second, we sometimes forget in Washington the effect that federal policies have 

 on real people. Time and again, I have heard discussions that dismiss a rate-in- 

 crease driving policy because it allegedly only results in a single digit percentage 

 increase for the average household, or so many dollars a month. 



I recently received a letter from the General Manager of the Raft River Rural 

 Electric Cooperative and President of the Idaho Coops Council. He was distressed 

 about the effect on Bonneville Power rates of this Administration's Biological Opin- 

 ion covering hydropower operations. His coop serves an area that has never been 

 home to spawning anadromous fish. 



Based on the current BPA fish and wildlife budget of $350 million, augmented by 

 the additional Administration request of $148 million, he projected the cost to indi- 

 viduals and to irrigators. Remember, irrigated agriculture is the economic mainstay 

 of the communities in the counties served by Raft River. If there is no irrigated agri- 

 culture, these communities may become the ghost towns of the 21st century. 



While a person with a power bill of $1,000, is paying $132 a year for salmon re- 

 covery under the new biological opinion, the cost to an irrigator is substantially 

 rreater. Bud Tracy's irrigation customers, who have an annual power bill of 

 100,000, will pay $13,200 per year for salmon recovery efforts, or $2,200 per month 

 during their six month irrigation season. This is an increase from $9,324.00 pres- 

 ently, or $1,864.00 a month. 



Agricultural production is not one of the most certain occupations. So, we are add- 

 ing almost $4,000 to the annual production costs of Idaho farmers, without any as- 

 surance that these costs will benefit salmon, and when drought conditions have 

 been present for seven years. 



Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Bud Tracy be in- 

 cluded in the hearing record. It outlines the likely economic effect on customers of 

 different types and size. 



Finally, I would like to suggest to this Committee that we must become more cre- 

 ative in our approach to helping the salmon. Technological innovation has been a 

 time-tested method that Americans have used to help us solve our problems. We 

 should do so here. A number of hydropower engineers across the country are con- 

 vinced that the time is ripe for breakthroughs in turbine design that can produce 

 a turbine more friendly to fish that inadvertently pass through them. New ideas for 

 surface collection and bypass, for light and sound guidance, and improved transpor- 

 tation are within our reach. 



While it is politically correct to speak of tearing down the dams and returning 

 to natural river conditions, the real solution to benefit salmon is one that will aid 

 salmon recovery while recognizing the genuine needs of the people in the Pacific 

 Northwest to earn an income and raise their families. Technological innovation can 

 be our ally in achieving these twin objectives, which at times seem so incompatible. 

 I urge this Committee to pursue this course with all due speed and offer my commit- 

 ment to work with you towards this objective. 



