110 



power shall bear the cost of measures designed to deal with adverse impacts 

 caused by the development and operation of electric power facilities and programs 

 only ." 16 U.S.C. § 839b(h)(8)(B) (emphasis added). 



Another principle is that " [m]onetary costs and electric power losses resulting from 

 the implementation of the Program shall be allocated by the Administrator 

 consistent v^th individual project impacts and system-wide objectives of this 

 subsection." 16 U.S.C. § 839b(h)(8)(D) (emphasis added), see also H R. Rep. No. 

 976, 96th Cong , 2d Sess., pt. 11, at 45 (1980) While these principles are directed 

 to the Council, they are flilly consistent with and support BPA's interpretation of 

 its obligation under section 4(h)(10)(C) that it must allocate its replacement power 

 costs for fish flow measures among all project purposes. 



The monetary costs incurred in implementing flow and spill measures are BPA's 

 replacement power costs. These are fish mitigation costs which meet the same 

 factual and legal tests as BPA's expenditures for hatcheries, habitat restoration^ 

 fisheries research, and other Program measures. Therefore, section 4(h)(10)(C) of 

 the Act requires BPA to allocate replacement power costs for fish flow measures 

 among all project purposes to the same extent it allocates its other expenditures for 

 the protection, mitigation, and enhancement offish affected by development and 

 operation of the FCRPS. 



The floor debate statements of Representative Lujan do not alter BPA's statutory 

 duties under section 4(h)(10)(C). Representative Lujan's statements were broad 

 descriptions of the overall effects of the Act. To take his statements as absolutist 

 and technically precise would be at odds with some of the major purposes of the 

 Act. It would also conflict with numerous specific, unambiguous provisions of the 

 Act, all of which ensure that ratepayers shall have a reliable economic power 

 supply and bear the costs only of mitigation of the Federal hydroelectric impacts 

 on fish and wildlife See, e_g., 16 U.S.C. §§ 839(2), b(h)(5) and b(h)(8)(B) The 

 House Interior Committee report specifically states that section 4(h) will provide a 

 system for ensuring "fish and wildlife obligations are fijlfilled while simultaneously 

 assuring the region an economical and reliable power supply" H.R Rep No 976, 

 96th Cong., 2d Sess., pt. II, at 37 (1980). 



BPA's interpretation of section 4(h)(10)(C) is consistent with past interpretations 

 of cost allocation law. The Corps' Digest of Water Resources Policies and 

 Authorities . EP 1165-2-1 (Feb. 15, 1989), and the Interagency Agreement on Cost 

 Allocation (March 12, 1954) between the Department of the Interior, the 

 Department of the Army, and the Federal Power Commission, state that joint 

 project costs shall be allocated among all project purposes, and separable project 

 costs shall be allocated to the purposes they serve. The agreements do not state or 

 imply that the cost of a flow measure benefiting fish to the detriment of power 

 cannot be shared jointly To the contrary, the Corps decided that until benefits 

 gained and benefits foregone could be determined from experience, it would 



