179 



corporating WPPSS debt and other costs into BPA transmission 

 rates. 



Reason No. 3, there are other lost revenues to BPA over and 

 above fish flows, such as irrigation withdrawals and navigation 

 lockages, which, in fairness, and for BPA's competitiveness, need to 

 be recovered or addressed. Exercise of Section 4(h)(10)(c) of the 

 Northwest Power Planning Act, as in the administration's proposal 

 today, is a good start. 



Reason No. 4, the cost of salmon extinctions would run much, 

 much higher. While I would like to talk at some length about all 

 four points, I will devote the balance of my testimony this evening 

 to this last one. 



The debate in this hearing and in the public, generally, has con- 

 centrated on the cost of salmon recovery under the Endangered 

 Species Act and the Northwest Power Planning Act. 



The Northwest conducts such a narrow debate at great peril, be- 

 cause the stakes are much higher. Already, salmon declines have 

 shut down harvest of chinook and coho off of Washington and 

 northern Oregon, crippling the salmon fishing industry, sport, com- 

 mercial, and tribal, that used to generate $1 billion annually, and 

 used to maintain 60,000 jobs directly in the Northwest economy. 



Commercial boats and sport anglers have headed north, either 

 exporting income to Canada, or competing with Alaskan operators, 

 and in any case, putting greater and greater pressure on North Pa- 

 cific fisheries, due to the collapse of Northwest salmon runs, par- 

 ticularly in the critical Columbia/Snake watershed. 



The Pacific Salmon Treaty with Canada has also collapsed, set- 

 ting of an international fishing war with no end in sight. Last year, 

 Canada charged those Northwest fishing boats bound for Alaska 

 $2,000 per round trip through British Columbia waters. This year 

 the fee will probably go up to $10,000. 



Finally, salmon extinctions would cause the United States to ab- 

 rogate its treaty signed in 1855 with the sovereign American In- 

 dian tribes. 



In the still pending United States v. Oregon case, three consecu- 

 tive judges. Bolt, Bellini, and Marsh, in three consecutive decades, 

 have now ruled that by guaranteeing salmon fishing to the tribes 

 in perpetuity, the 1855 treaties place an affirmative obligation on 

 the United States to put actual fish in the river for the tribes to 

 catch. 



Now, Mr. Chairman, I cannot and I do not speak for the tribes; 

 however, given the consistency of these rulings, it seems a fair and 

 reasonable conclusion that following salmon extinctions, the courts 

 would order reparations paid to the tribes in amounts that would 

 be substantial, annual, and forever, because extinctions are forever. 



How substantial? In a settlement last year with the BPA over 

 hydropower rights, the Paulville tribe, in Washington State, re- 

 ceived $50 million, lump sum, plus $15 million annually, indexed 

 to BPA power rates, in perpetuity. 



If that is the price for an out-of-court settlement over hydropower 

 rights, then salmon extinctions and reparations for breaking the 

 1855 treaties would surely pull down a far heavier chunk of 

 change. 



