162 



Mr. Chairman, you began this hearing, I believe, on a very auspi- 

 cious note, by reminding us of something that is easy to forget in 

 these times, we in the Northwest are the beneficiaries of an ex- 

 traordinarily bountiful and productive Columbia River system. 



And in the midst of allocating fish costs, I think there is a temp- 

 tation to look at BPA as a heavily loaded financial camel, as it 

 were, that is about to have one more straw added. 



We believe it is time to step back from the financial issue of the 

 moment and look at the system in historical perspective. This sys- 

 tem was originally designed, if you will, to produce abundant anad- 

 romous fisheries. It is imminently well suited to that task. 



It was subsequently engineered by human beings to become a re- 

 newable energy dynamo for the Northwest economy. It is immi- 

 nently well suited to that task as well, and it can do both. 



It also generates revenues that support prudent investments in 

 maximizing the economic and biological productivity of that system 

 over time. It can do that as well. 



And it can also, while doing the aforementioned things, produce 

 ample sustainable revenue that will allow BPA to fulfill its finan- 

 cial obligations reliably. 



The good news here again is we do not need to pit these core 

 Northwest values, these functions of the river system, against each 

 other. The Columbia River system is bountiful enough to do them 

 all. 



What it cannot do, what it was never designed to do, is to act 

 as the vehicle onto which the region unloads its staggering nuclear 

 debt, and delivers that obligation back to the Federal Treasury. 



This function, which BPA is, in effect, performing now, has abso- 

 lutely nothing to do with Bonneville's mission, unlike the other 

 functions that I mentioned, nor with the natural or human engi- 

 neered capabilities of the river system. 



We raise this issue not to divert attention from fish costs, but to 

 focus attention on how we can put the costly WPPSS chapter of our 

 energy history behind us, so that we can move on with a more 

 promising mission for Bonneville. 



We cannot put it behind us until we allocate these costs fairly. 

 Presently, we are not doing so. We are allowing these costs to be 

 shifted, on an ad hoc basis, from customers who have options to 

 customers who do not, and ultimately we are exposing the Federal 

 Treasury to those costs, because pretty soon the customers who do 

 not have options, as they absorb larger proportions of these obliga- 

 tions, are going to work real hard to find options, and the only 

 backup in the end is the Federal Treasury. 



The consequences of this unfair allocation of these obligations are 

 hard to overstate. I think two general forms of outcomes are pos- 

 sible if we continue in this way. 



As some customers allude these financial obligations, others will 

 follow suit, again, inevitably exposing the Federal Treasury to 

 these costs. 



In the unlikely -event that we succeed in hoisting this responsibil- 

 ity on to the taxpayers, I find it highly improbable that we will con- 

 tinue to enjoy any legitimate claim to preferential access to the 

 fruits of the system. We will, to put it bluntly, lose the system. 



