177 



at hand. The Act contains sound provisions. It calls for protecting the treaty rights 

 of the tribes, 4(h)(6)(C), improving salmon survival at hydroelectric projects 

 4(H)(6)(E)(i), and providing flows of sufficient quality and quantity between aams 

 to improve salmon production, migration, and survival 4(h)(6)(E)(ii). The Act speaks 

 directly to the issue of allocating costs. Consumers of electric power are intended 

 to bear the costs of measures designed to deal with the adverse impacts caused by 

 development and operation of electric power facilities, 4(H)(8)(B), monetary costs 

 and power losses shall be allocated by the Administrator consistent with individual 

 project impacts, 4(H)(8)(D), and amounts shall be allocated to project purposes in 

 accordance with existing accounting procedures for the FCRPS, 4(h)(10)(C). Impor- 

 tantly, 4(h)(10)(A) provides that BPA shall use its fund and authorities to protect, 

 mitigate and enhance fish and wildlife to the extent affected by the development 

 and operation of any hydroelectric project of the basin. 



BPA has not asked the tribes for their interpretation of the cost allocation provi- 

 sions of the Northwest Power Act. Yet, a debate is ongoing within the administra- 

 tion on cost allocations and the outcome of this debate will significantly affect the 

 salmon, the Indian people, and tribal salmon restoration programs undertaken pur- 

 suant to the Northwest Power Act. I ask that the administration and Congress seek 

 the tribes' views on cost allocation procedures before adopting any permanent 

 changes. For 1995, however, the matter is clear. Congress and the administration 

 must do whatever is necessary to ensure the protection of this year's juvenile salm- 

 on migration. 



While protecting the juvenile migration is vital, it is not the only salmon measure 

 that must be taken in 1995. For years, the tribes have had salmon restoration 

 projects ready for implementation throughout the watersheds of the Columbia River 

 Basin above Bonneville Dam. Had these measures been implemented in a timely 

 fashion, the consequences of the measures now needed to protect the salmon would 

 not be so severe. The tribes have long advocated habitat protection, restoration, and 

 the careful use of artificial propagation to restore salmon to our watersheds and 

 usual and accustomed fishing places. As you know, we were successful in the 

 Umatilla Basin, but much work remains to be done. In this regard, we were pleased 

 with the addition of $5 million to the administration's budget in fiscal year 1995 

 that is allowing Snake River fall chinook supplementation to move forward. Timely 

 completion of this measure will benefit interests from Alaska to Idaho. Yet, tribal 

 projects in the Grande Ronde, Clearwater, Yakama, Hood River, and Klickitat, to 

 mention a few, are languishing for lack of federal support. 



Unfortunately, BPA management of fish and wildlife expenditures has hindered 

 effective implementation of the many measures in the Council's program. For in- 

 stance, the Nez Perce and Yakama tribal hatcheries are still on BPA's drawing 

 boards. These measures were adopted in the Council's 1982 fish program. More 

 money has been spent on planning these facilities than it would have cost to build 

 them. As a result, BPA is pushing a "bow wave" of unfunded fish and wildlife meas- 

 ures that is roughly equal (approximately $80 million in fiscal year 1996) to its cur- 

 rent fish and wildlife funding commitments (approximately $83 million in fiscal year 

 1996). 



The tribes and the region must have accountability for the investment of taxpayer 

 and ratepayer funds. The best accountability measures are completed projects and 

 increased salmon runs. BPA's processes for moving the money "to the ground" must 

 be simplified to reduce costly delays. For instance, we have learned that it takes 

 significantly longer and costs nearly twice as much to use BPA administered funds 

 to screen an irrigation diversion compared to using Mitchell Act funds to screen a 

 similar diversion. Although Congress did not intend to make BPA a super fish and 

 wildlife agency, BPA has acquired one of the largest staffs of fishery laiologists in 

 the Columbia Basin. In contrast, the success of the Dingle/Johnson, PittmanvTlobert- 

 son programs administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service demonstrates effi- 

 cient procedures are available for administering major funding programs. For sev- 

 eral years we have questioned whether another federal agency, under the Economy 

 in Government Act, might more efficiently administer BPA's fish and wildlife fund- 

 ing responsibilities consistent with the Northwest Power Act. We urge your support 

 in this regard. 



The next months are critical to the salmon and my people. Utmost care must be 

 taken to protect the 1995 migration of juvenile salmon. This means the region and 

 the nation cannot afford to quibble over costs of providing flows and spills in 1995. 

 We must provide the water the salmon need this spring and summer. Structural 

 solutions, like drawdown and new surface bypass systems will not be available in 

 1995. Regardless of which set of structural measures is chosen, all four tribes are 

 deeply committed to the restoration of harvestable salmon runs to all of the tribes' 

 usual and accustomed fishing places. The tribes' salmon restoration measures, in- 



