[House Report 106-1029]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
106th Congress Rept. 106-1029
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session Part 1
======================================================================
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION REGARDING DAMS ON THE COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER
SYSTEM
_______
December 14, 2000.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H. Con. Res. 63]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 63) expressing the sense of
the Congress opposing removal of dams on the Columbia and Snake
Rivers for fishery restoration purposes, having considered the
same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend
that the concurrent resolution be agreed to.
purpose of the bill
The purpose of House Concurrent Resolution 63 is to express
the sense of the Congress in opposing removal of dams on the
Columbia and Snake Rivers for fishery restoration purposes.
background and need for legislation
At the time this Resolution was introduced, as part of the
ongoing efforts to recover runs of endangered salmon and
steelhead trout, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was studying the feasibility of
removing a number of federal dams on the lower Snake River to
enhance fish runs. These dams include the Ice Harbor Dam, the
Lower Monument Dam, the Little Goose Dam and the Lower Granite
Dam. The study was to consider several courses of action,
including breaching the dams or extreme draw down of the
operating pools behind them.
House Concurrent Resolution 63 notes that hydropower from
dams on the Columbia and Snake River system provide 75 percent
of the electricity available in the northwestern United States.
Flood control benefits provided by these dams in 1996 and 1997
are estimated to be $4.6 billion. Barge transportation on the
Columbia and Snake River system transports 43 percent of all
U.S. wheat exports in 1997 and saved $38 million per year over
land-based operations. Over half the irrigated farmland in
Oregon, Washington and Idaho are irrigated with River system
water. Recent studies by the National Marine Fisheries Service
indicate that survival rates of salmon and steelhead migrating
down the system have remained the same or increased since 1961,
even as four dams were added to the Snake River. A federal
interagency group concluded that removing four dams on the
lower Snake River could not guarantee meeting fish restoration
targets. Improved fish hatchery processes have resulted in the
first successful run of coho salmon on the Yakima River in
three decades.
House Concurrent Resolution 63 will express the sense of
Congress in opposing removal of dams on the Columbia and Snake
Rivers for fishery restoration purposes. The Resolution
indicates that: (1) the dams on the Columbia and Snake River
system provide tremendous economic and environmental benefits
to the United States that should be retained; (2) plans for the
recovery of federally-protected fish species in the Columbia
and Snake River system should not rely on dam removal schemes;
(3) efforts to maintain healthy and sustainable populations of
resident and anadromous fish in the Columbia and Snake Rivers
must address all the factors impacting species population and
health, including ocean conditions, harvest levels, predation,
and passage around and through hydroelectric projects; and (4)
any comprehensive fish recovery plan for the Columbia and Snake
River system must be based on sound data and consider the
economic and social costs associated with changes to the
management and use of the River system infrastructure.
committee action
Congressman Doc Hastings introduced House Concurrent
Resolution 63 on March 18, 1999. The resolution was referred to
the Committee on Resources and additionally to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure. Within the Committee on
Resources, the resolution was referred to the Subcommittee on
Water and Power and the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation,
Wildlife and Oceans. The two Subcommittees held a joint hearing
on the resolution on May 27, 1999. On July 21, 1999, the
Resources Committee met to consider the resolution. The
Subcommittees were discharged from further consideration of the
measure by unanimous consent. No amendments were offered and
the resolution was ordered reported to the House of
Representatives by voice vote.
committee oversight findings and recommendations
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Resources' oversight findings and recommendations
are reflected in the body of this report.
constitutional authority statement
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United
States grants Congress the authority to enact this resolution.
compliance with house rule xiii
1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the
Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and
a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be
incurred in carrying out this resolution. However, clause
3(d)(3)(B) of that rule provides that this requirement does not
apply when the Committee has included in its report a timely
submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of
the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2)
of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this
resolution does not contain any new budget authority, spending
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in
revenues or tax expenditures.
3. Government Reform Oversight Findings. Under clause
3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Committee has received no report of
oversight findings and recommendations from the Committee on
Government Reform on this resolution.
4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause
3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives and section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate
for this resolution from the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, July 26, 1999.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
reviewed H. Con. Res. 63, expressing the sense of the Congress
opposing the removal of dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers
for fishery restoration purposes, as ordered reported by the
Committee on Resources on July 21, 1999. CBO estimates that
approval of this resolution would have no impact on the federal
budget. Because the resolution would not affect direct spending
or receipts, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis.
Sincerely,
Barry A. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
compliance with public law 104-4
This resolution contains no unfunded mandates.
preemption of state, local or tribal law
This resolution is not intended to preempt any State, local
or tribal law.
changes in existing law
If passed, this resolution would make no changes in
existing law.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
H. Con. Res. 63 would have the Congress conclude--prior to
receiving all the facts and without regard to science--that
removal of four dams on the lower Snake River should not even
be considered as an option to aid salmon recovery. There is no
question that dams in the Columbia River region provide
economic benefits, and it is my view that any fish recovery
plan should be based on sound data and thoroughly consider
economic and social costs associated with changes to river
management and infrastructure. However, because this resolution
seeks to eliminate dam removal from consideration before
scientific and economic evaluations are complete, I oppose it.
Instead, the more responsible approach is to encourage the
Administration to analyze all options with equal rigor so that
federal, state, local, tribal, and other stakeholders have
access to the very best information when making difficult
decisions.
H. Con. Res. 63--while superfically reassuring to economic
interests vested in the status quo--is counterproductive and
would assure only that selective facts and science are used
during the difficult process of determining how best to improve
the conditions for salmon in the Pacific Northwest. This type
of approach is fundamentally flawed and should be rejected by
the House.
Peter DeFazio.
DISSENTING VIEWS
H. Con. Res. 63 would have the Congress conclude--prior to
receiving all the facts and without regard to science--that
removal of four dams on the lower Snake River should not even
be considered as an option to aid salmon recovery. There is no
question that dams in the Columbia River region provide
economic benefits, and it is our view that any fish recovery
plan should be based on sound data and thoroughly consider
economic and social costs associated with changes to river
management and infrastructure. However, because this resolution
seeks to eliminate dam removal from consideration before
scientific and economic evaluations are complete, we strongly
oppose it. Instead, the more responsible approach is to
encourage the Administration to analyze all options with equal
rigor so that federal, state, local, tribal, and other
stakeholders have access to the very best information when
making difficult decisions.
The Columbia River system once contained the largest
chinook salmon population in the world. The Snake River, the
largest tributary of the Columbia River, provides a vital
migration route for salmon traveling between the Pacific Ocean
and rivers in central Idaho to complete their life cycle. These
fish require riverine habitat for spawning, ocean habitat for
growth to sexual maturity, and the means to travel in between
the two. Snake River salmon populations have experienced such
dramatic declines that every one (sockeye, spring/summer
chinook, fall chinook, and steelhead) is listed under the
Endangered Species Act. Coho have been declared extinct.
Although the resolution states that survival rates of salmon
and steelhead migrating down the Columbia and Snake River
system have stayed the same or increased since 1961, the
critical variable--numbers of adult fish that return to
reproduce--has declined to a level far below what is required
even to maintain the depleted populations.
Plummeting salmon numbers in the Columbia River region have
been attributed by scientists to several causes: dams that
impede migration, loss or degradation of habitat (including
losses due to reservoirs of still, warm water associated with
dams), predation, fishing, and climatic conditions. In addition
to supplementing natural populations with hatchery-reared fish,
other methods such as fish ladders, spillage of juveniles over
dams, and trucking/barging of juveniles currently are used to
try to maintain viable salmon populations. These efforts,
however, have failed miserably.
The Administration is in the process of analyzing
alternatives available to facilitate recovery of endangered and
threatened salmon populations along the Snake River in
Washington. A decision that reflects analysis consequences and
salmon recovery benefits is due in late 1999. One option under
consideration involves breaching four dams on the lower Snake
River (Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose, and Lower
Granite Dams); these are 4 of the 29 federal dams in the
Pacific Northwest. It is important to recognize that some of
the assertions made in H. Con. Res. 63 address dams throughout
the entire Columbia River basin rather than the four dams being
considered for breaching. These four dams produce approximately
5% of the total electricity in the Pacific Northwest, provide
no flood control, and irrigate a minute fraction of the
farmland in the region. And while the dams effectively
subsidize barge transportation, other modes of commercial
transport are placed at a disadvantage.
Underlying H. Con. Res. 63 is the ``slippery slope'' fear
that the entire Pacific Northwest hydropower system could be at
risk. But among a number of alternatives, the Administration is
only evaluating the removal of four dams on the Snake River,
and neither the final recommendation nor the scientific or
economic analyses have yet been completed. Moreover, the
Administration has not yet released the documents--a draft
biological opinion on operation of the Columbia/Snake federal
dams; a draft recovery plan for Snake River salmon; and an
environmental impact statement on future management of the
lower Snake River dams--upon which it will base its December
1999 decision. Although the Administration has not submitted a
formal position on this resolution, the U.S. Army Corps
testified on May 27, 1999, before the Subcommittees on Power
and Water and Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans,
that current studies of all options should be allowed to be
completed before deciding on the best course of action
regarding the Snake River dams.
If restoring salmon populations were the only goal, the
vast majority of independent scientists agree that the best
available recovery plan would include removal of the four lower
Snake River dams. However, removing four dams in the lower
Snake River will also have an economic impact on the region,
affecting some stakeholders more than others. These impacts
should be and are being considered during the decisionmaking
process. However, it is important to acknowledge that there are
also substantial costs to maintaining the current system,
including the demise of recreational and commercial fishing
industries, potential lawsuits by Canada and the Tribes for
broken treaty agreements, and increased expenses related to
fish restoration practices. For example, estimates of current
expenditures related to salmon recovery in the region--
expenditures which are currently failing to produce needed
results--are on the order of $1 billion per year.
H. Con. Res. 63--while superfically reassuring to economic
interests vested in the status quo--is counterproductive and
would assure only that selective facts and science are used
during the difficult process of determining how best to improve
the conditions for salmon in the Pacific Northwest. This type
of approach is fundamentally flawed and should be rejected by
the House.
George Miller.
Grace Napolitano.
Bruce Vento.
Mark Udall.
Neil Abercrombie.
Rush Holt.