192 



pete on an international market. They cannot pass along additional 

 costs to their customers. 



The money to make up the non-Bonneville share from the Power 

 Act, let alone the increased costs in the 1995 to 1998 biological 

 opinion, simply is not available in the region. It will be self-defeat- 

 ing to think that other regional interests can absorb more fish re- 

 covery costs. 



If more dollars are needed to fund the Endangered Species Act 

 and the Northwest Power Act implementation, there is really only 

 one place to turn, and that is the Federal Government. And by 

 that, I mean, federally appropriated funds. 



This makes sense to us for two reasons. The first, the region is 

 already paying more than any other region in the world for endan- 

 gered species protection. We cannot pay more to implement these 

 Federal programs. 



We believe that in this case the Endangered Species Act has re- 

 sulted in unaffordable Federal mandate. It is only right that the 

 Federal Government should share in the cost of implementing Fed- 

 eral legislation. 



Second, and perhaps even more importantly, the way we are op- 

 erating today, there are no checks and balances on the Federal 

 agencies or the power planning council. They simply demand more 

 each year. 



Without biological monitoring and without scientific justification, 

 the region's costs have increased at an explosive rate. You saw the 

 chart that Randy Hardy described, and the growth is truly the fast- 

 est growing cost in the region. 



One way to ensure that the Federal agencies employ biologically 

 sound and cost-effective measures is to make them responsible for 

 a significant portion of the cost. Federal Government participation 

 and paying for recovery measures would bring far greater account- 

 ability to the agencies. 



The benefits would increase and the costs would go down. The 

 administration and the Congress would have far greater oppor- 

 tunity to make sure that the agencies provide maximum benefit at 

 the lowest possible cost. 



We believe that with such accountability and oversight that the 

 region would already have a recovery plan in place for less than 

 was spent in 1994. 



The regions could increase the number of barges, improve the 

 smolt transportation program, install surface collectors, improve 

 bypass at the dams, reduce harvest of wild stocks, improve hatch- 

 ery practices, improve rearing habitat, and increase survival of the 

 salmon. 



Randy Hardy described three tools available to solve his financial 

 problems. Implementing a more cost-effective recovery program, 

 such as this, should be added as a fourth tool. 



We believe there are scientific support for these actions from the 

 recovery team, from National Marine Fisheries Service, and Uni- 

 versity of Washington scientists, from Harza Northwest, and oth- 

 ers. Those actions will contribute to recovery. 



The alternatives of massive flows and drawdowns not only cost 

 the region hundreds of millions of dollars, but they offer little hope 



