My name is Scott Faber, and I am Director of Floodplain Programs for American Rivers. For the past six years, I have worked daily with my colleagues at the Corps of Engineers to reform our management of the Missouri River, the nation's longest river, and the Mississippi River from the Twin Cities to Saint Louis. Many of the lessons we have learned could be applied to the Columbia and Snake.
The parallels to the Snake and Columbia Rivers are striking. The Missouri, Mississippi, Columbia and Snake Rivers all support commercial barge traffic, generate hydroelectric power, and serve as important recreational resources. Changes made to support barge traffic on each river have placed native species on state and federal watch lists. On the Missouri, more than 100 species are in trouble; on the Mississippi, more than 50 species are in trouble, and, of course, Snake River salmon are on the verge of extinction.
Like my colleagues in the Northwest, we were frustrated by the Corps' decision-making process. Rather than working with stakeholders to develop consensus about the management of our natural resources, the Corps conducted studies and developed management alternatives in isolation and, after spending years and tens of millions of dollars, mechanically sought our input through public hearings which provide wonderful theater but little more.
It seems to me that this is exactly the opposite of what the Corps should do - and, indeed, the opposite of what Congress sought when you passed the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. In the Midwest, we persuaded the Corps that agencies must do more than simply consider the impacts of proposed actions - they must "use all practicable means', to balance our human needs with the needs of our natural resources.\1\ Instead, the Corps should develop science-based management alternatives and ask the public to decide the fate of our natural resources.
\1\ 42 U.S.C. 433
On the Upper Mississippi River, for example, the Corps worked with American Rivers and MARC 2000, a navigation industry trade association, to create the Upper Mississippi River Summit, which brings farmers, conservation groups, waterway users together to set management goals for the river. On the Missouri River, the Corps has held public workshops that provided information on a wide range of management alternatives for the Missouri's dams, and then asked the stakeholders, led by basin states, to seek consensus.
In both cases, the Corps provided sound, science-based information and asked river stakeholders to make the tough calls. It's not easy. But, it has dramatically changed river management for the better, and brought the river's economic and environmental interests together.
This model could be applied to the Columbia and Snake Rivers as well. But, the Corps has not developed the right information, and has not shown a willingness to let the public decide the fate of our public resources. The Corps is rushing headlong into making a decision without anticipating or preparing to mitigate the social and economic impacts of this decision - the human impacts of dam removal. Rather than simply measuring the likely effects of dam removal, the Corps should also anticipate social and economic impacts and propose measures that could offset these impacts.
This committee can fix this problem, I believe, by the doing the following:
1) First, the Committee should direct the Corps to develop a wide range of transportation mitigation alternatives.
Whether we should remove four dams from the Snake River will force the nation to make a difficult choice. But, in reality, the Corps' current decision-making process will not allow us to make a choice at all - because they have not developed a plan to mitigate the impacts of dam removal on waterway users. There is no question that removing dams and doing nothing more - will increase transportation costs. If we are going to be able to make a real choice, the Corps must help stakeholders develop a transportation mitigation plan that would accompany dam removal. Directing the Corps to develop transportation mitigation alternatives is not the same as directing the Corps to remove dams. Rather, directing the Corps to develop transportation mitigation alternatives will help all river stakeholders make better decisions. The committee should instruct the Corps to work with the U.S. Department of Transportation and state and local of finials to quickly develop a variety of transportation mitigation alternatives.
Wheat farmers and other waterway users must not shoulder the burden of salmon recovery alone. That's why American Rivers recently hired Dr. Edward Dickey, former Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works under the Bush Administration and an expert on transport of commodities like wheat, to develop a transportation mitigation plan for the Snake River. Although Dr. Dickey's proposal is not yet complete, options might include enhanced rail and road infrastructure, additional rail cars, additional facilities to store or transfer grain, and other investments designed to reduce transportation costs. In addition to current waterway users, these investments will benefit other businesses that rely upon transportation.
2) Second, the Committee should hold field hearings on transportation mitigation alternatives.
Building consensus about the future of the Snake River will not be easy. Right now, river interests are polarized, unwilling to consider management alternatives that save salmon and meet the needs of current waterway users. Following the development of transportation mitigation alternatives, the Committee should hold field hearings to encourage debate and discussion, and direct the Corps to hold workshops designed to build consensus between groups like American Rivers and the American Farm Bureau Federation.
3) Third, the Committee should direct the Corps to use sound science and credible economic analyses.
It is absolutely critical that decisions be based on the best available scientific and economic information. Currently, the Corps' is relying upon documents that are incomplete, insufficient or analytically flawed.
Let me give you two examples. Currently, the Corps' DEIS is disproportionately based upon the life histories on two of the five types of Snake River salmon listed as endangered species. Of course, salmon have very different life histories, and management decisions must reflect these differences. Or consider another example - after creating economic workgroups to review economic studies, the Corps has not allowed members of these workgroups to review and comment on preliminary reports.
Perhaps the best example is the Corps' failure to properly measure the potential value of recreation following dam removal. The Corps has conducted surveys in California to gauge public interest in Snake River fishing and recreation. However, the Corps does not want to include infonnation about the reported economic value of vacationing and fishing Californians in its study. So the Corps released its own report, without consulting the workgroups, which questioned the validity of the California numbers and offers an analysis excluding Californians. The Corps also ignored the relatively greater economic value of tourists who originate from cities and counties that do not border the Snake, and assumed that local communities would not build new boat ramps and other facilities to capture the economic benefits of increased tourism and recreation. This sort of unjustifiable, ad hoc action calls the Corps' entire study into question.
4) Finally, the Committee should direct the Corps to craft a citizen-led, consensusbuilding process.
Holding field hearings on transportation mitigation alternatives could jump-start a citizen-led process to build a consensus vision for the Snake River. Six years ago, no one believed that Mississippi River stakeholders could put aside long-held antagonisms and develop a vision for the river that meets our economic and environmental needs. But, we did, and now we are working together, farmers and environmentalists, to implement our vision.
This sort of vision could also be developed for the Snake. But, unless the Corps develops the information necessary to support this process, I expect that the future of the Snake will be no less polarized than it is today. The Committee should direct the Corps to support this process by using sound science and economics to support a range of management alternatives, including transportation mitigation alternatives. The Corps should also clarify the roles of current workgroups and forums, and work with their federal partners to make certain that these workgroups and forums support informed decision-making by the public.
Right now, few local residents understand how the myriad workgroups, forums, studies and other processes fit together, or whether they fit together at all. It would be too complicated to simply collapse these existing processes, given the number of agencies involved and their conflicting mandates. What is needed is better coordination, including an interagency communication and public involvement plan. We are anxious to work with the Committee to ensure that the federal agencies provide a sensible and timely roadmap to their decision-making processes.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.