Bpa Boasting Called Fishy By Salmon Advocates Agency Bragging To Lawmakers About Its Efforts To Save Species

The Bonneville Power Administration, historically cast as a villain in the fight over dwindling Northwest salmon stocks, has taken to boasting on Capitol Hill about the money it spends to save threatened fish and wildlife.

Critics in Congress and the conservation community say the big federal power-marketing agency is exaggerating its direct expenditures on salmon.

But they agree Bonneville’s ratepayers are probably spending more than anyone else in the country to protect species.

The regional power wholesaler, which provides about half the region’s electricity, says it’s spending $435 million a year on fish and wildlife.

“This is the most money being spent on fish and wildlife, we believe, in the world,” Jack Robertson, BPA’s deputy chief executive officer, told lawmakers last week.

Local watchdogs say that total includes some fishy numbers, including estimates of money BPA thinks it would have received if it used more Columbia River water for hydropower instead of flushing migrating fish to the sea.

“It’s an absurd number on its face,” said Oregon Rep. Peter DeFazio, ranking Democrat on the House Resources subcommittee on power and water.

“If you look at … how much they are spending now on a discretionary basis on salmon, that number is well below $100 million,” said DeFazio, former chairman of a congressional BPA task force.

“But that is still a big number. It probably exceeds any other federal agency directly,” he said.

Testimony before the full House Resources Committee last month supports that assessment.

The chairman, Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, called the hearing to draw attention to federal outlays for the Endangered Species Act. Young, who wants to rewrite the 1973 law, has a running battle with Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt over ESA budgets.

Agency heads came forward to report their annual endangered-species spending: National Marine Fisheries Service, $23.5 million; Forest Service, $22 million; Fish and Wildlife Service, $39.7 million.

“It became clear that we spend more than just about everybody else combined,” Robertson said.

He proudly reported to the subcommittee on water and power last week that BPA will spend $435 million annually on fish and wildlife over the next six years. That includes $200 million to $250 million in direct expenditures, Robertson said, and approximately $185 million in the form of replacement-power costs and the so-called “forgone power.”

DeFazio said the “forgone power” costs BPA includes in its estimate are a sham because it doesn’t calculate similar costs when water is used for irrigation and other purposes.

“That number disregards the benefits for navigation or for flood control or anything else,” he said.

The Northwest Conservation Act Coalition, a Seattle-based advocate for salmon and hydropower consumers, keeps close tabs on BPA budget matters.

Coalition spokesman Jim DiPeso said BPA can legitimately claim about $200 million in general expenditures toward promotion of fish and wildlife.

But a large part of that - an estimated $73 million - goes to repay debt for past protection efforts such as fish ladders, barges and irrigation screens, he said.

Another $40 million reimburses the Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation for fish and wildlife-related expenses, including the salaries of corps workers involved in fish-related planning, he said.

About $90 million is actually spent each year on new fish programs, including habitat projects, research and tribal hatcheries, DiPeso said.