194 



These increasing salmon costs are not only driving up Bonneville's power rates, 

 they are forcing utility customers to look elsewhere for their power. Public utilities 

 in Washington's Clark and Snohomish Counties have already contracted with inde- 

 pendent producers to provide energy at rates competitive to BPA's. The Canby Util- 

 ity Board and Western Electric Cooperative are looking to do the same. 



While Bonneville's costs are increasing, the cost of alternative power production 

 is declining. Further increases in BPA rates will drive more customers off the Bon- 

 neville system. More rate hikes will diminish, not increase, the capability of BPA 

 to fund the fish programs. Bonneville is at the limit in terms of its ability to pay. 



Randy Hardy, BPA administrator, has been to Washington, DC seeking assistance 

 for $250 million in past expenses and about $70 million per year in current fish 

 costs, as provided by the Northwest Power Act. He is right to seek relief 



Neither the Bonneville ratepayers nor others in the region have the ability to pay 

 more for continually growing salmon programs. The majority of the ports are sup- 

 ported, in part, by local taxpayers. We estimate the gross revenues, not profits, from 

 tug and barge operations above Bonneville to be less than Bonneville is seeking in 

 annual relief through the Power Act. The grain elevators operate on profit margins 

 of less than a penny a bushel. The grain growers compete on an international mar- 

 ket and cannot pass along additional costs to their customers. And, we should not 

 forget that their prices are already supported by the federal taxpayer. The money 

 to make up the non-Bonneville share from the Power Act, let alone the increased 

 costs of the 1995-98 Biological Opinion, simply is not available in the region. 



If more dollars are needed to fund the federal Endangered Species Act and the 

 Northwest Power Act, there is only one place to turn — the federal government. This 

 makes sense to us for two reasons. The first is that the region is already pajang 

 more than any other region in the world for endangered species protection. We can- 

 not pay more to implement these federal programs. We believe that, in this case, 

 the Endangered Species Act has resulted in an unaffordable federal mandate. It is 

 only right that the federal government should share in the cost of implementing fed- 

 eral legislation. 



Secondly, there are no checks and balances on the federal agencies or the Power 

 Planning Council. They simply demand more each year. Without biological monitor- 

 ing and without scientific justification, the region's costs have increased at an explo- 

 sive rate. 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 in paying for recovery measures would bring 

 far greater accountability to the agencies. The benefits would increase and the costs 

 would go down. The Administration and Congress would have a far greater oppor- 

 tunity to make sure that the agencies provide maximum benefit at the lowest pos- 

 sible cost. 



COST-EFFECTIVE RECOVERY PLAN IS A BETTER ALTERNATIVE 



We believe that with such accountability and oversight, the region would already 

 have an effective recovery plan in place. For less than was spent in 1994, the agen- 

 cies could increase the number of barges, improve the smolt transportation program, 

 install surface collectors, improve bypass at the dams, reduce the harvest of wild 

 stocks, improve hatchery practices, improve rearing habitat and increase survival of 

 the salmon. 



There is scientific support for these actions from the Recovery Team, NMS and 

 University of Washington scientists, Harza Northwest and others. They will contrib- 

 ute to recovery. The alternatives of massive flows and drawdowns not only cost the 

 region hundreds of millions of dollars, but they offer little hope for increasing sur- 

 vival. One University of Washington researcher says the flows and spills will de- 

 crease survival. 



The appropriate source of relief from high salmon recovery costs is a biologically 

 sound, cost-effective recovery plan, not more dollars from river users. The best way 

 to ensure that will occur is to require accountability on the part of the federal agen- 

 cies. That accountability will only come if the agencies are responsible for a signifi- 

 cant portion of the cost of their measures. 



North Side Canal Co., Jerome, ID 



STATEMENT OF DeWITT MOSS, DIRECTOR 



Senator GORTON. Our final witness will be Mr. Moss. 



