94 



of ideas that have been expressed. I should emphasize the adminis- 

 tration has not formulated a view one way or the other. 



I think Dr. Rivlin, in her statement, indicated an openness to 

 working with the delegation toward a long-term solution. 



There have been a variety of ideas, cost caps. Senator Bacaus has 

 introduced 



Senator Kempthorne. But from your perspective, Mr. Hardy, 

 what is your recommendation of a long-term solution? 



Mr. Hardy. My perspective is that you need to have some ability 

 to look at both a way to deal with the lack of certainty involved 

 with the fish costs, and maybe some other mix of alternatives that 

 deal with some of the marketing restrictions that we currently 

 have placed on us. While these restrictions may have been appro- 

 priate for a former time, they may not be appropriate now. 



Senator Kempthorne. Mr. Hardy, as you know, because we have 

 had conversations in the past, you know that I am a strong advo- 

 cate for technological innovation to help us with this issue of the 

 salmon recovery, and different private hydropower entities in the 

 Pacific Northwest are engaged in new technology efforts to modify 

 the bypass systems, or the new turbine designs, fish-friendly tur- 

 bines term that we have heard used. 



How can the Federal Government better tap into these efforts to 

 help salmon and avoid the huge costs that are contemplated by 

 some of the recovery proposals? 



Mr. Hardy. I think that the Federal Government can be helpful 

 and I appreciate, Senator Kempthorne, your interest in some of 

 those technologies. Bonneville and the National Marine Fisheries 

 Services are actively working with the Corps of Engineers to inves- 

 tigate some of those alternatives. 



I would say the most promising ones are baffled spillways and 

 surface collectors. In the midst of almost no agreement on almost 

 anything in the fish area, that is the one technology that seems to 

 have a fairly universal acceptance as offering real potential for get- 

 ting fish past the dams. 



There are two problems: First, is how fast the fish get down the 

 river, but the other is how they get past each of the structures. 

 Baffled spillways and surface collectors appear to offer some real 

 promise. 



We are engaged in working with the Corps right now to try to 

 identify a 3- to 4-year prototype testing program for that tech- 

 nology. My assumption is that fish-friendly turbines and other 

 things may help but the surface collector, and baffled spillways 

 technology appear to be the most promising tools that we can see 

 on the immediate horizon to solve the dam bypass problem. 



Senator Kempthorne. What efforts are underway toward that 

 end? What sort of funding is available? 



Mr. Hardy. The Corps is actively seeking funding to implement 

 a 4-year prototype program, as I understand it, that will test baf- 

 fled spillways and surface collectors at The Dalles, at lower Gran- 

 ite, and at a number of other dams. 



We have this authority, by virtue of the Energy Policy Act of 

 1992, to directly fund activities that we and the Corps may mutu- 

 ally agree on. We have indicated an openness to direct funds for, 

 at least, some portion of these facilities — for example, pit tag detec- 



