Mr. TIBBOTT. What portion of this program are we to have? Mr. DAY. All of this rehabilitation program; the other program, carrying funds for the operation and maintenance of fish hatcheries, and fisheries studies generally, and things of that kind, are in the regular bill. But this is a separate program.

DISCUSSION OF METHOD OF APPROPRIATION FOR PROGRAM

Mr. CASE. Have you ever thought of the possibility of having this money appropriated to the Corps of Engineers and allocated to you? Mr. DAY. That is this program.

Mr. CASE. Is that all of this.

Mr. DAY. This is an appropriation to the Corps of Engineers to be transferred.

Mr. CASE. And you are merely defending it here for the Corps of Engineers.

Mr. DAY. Yes.

Mr. CASE. That makes it a little bit different.

Mr. DAY. The Corps of Engineers agreed, with the Bureau of the Budget and the Interior Department to place it here as a part of the over-all construction program.

Mr. CASE. And whatever we should appropriate here would really go to the Corps of Engineers.

Mr. DAY. It would.

Mr. CASE. As a part of the total costs of the project but they would make the allocation of that to you.

Mr. DAY. That would be transferred to Fish and Wildlife from the Corps of Engineers.

Mr. CASE. Will it stand as an independent item or will it be a part of the cost of the new project?

AUTHORITY FOR APPROPRIATION AND TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

If it is a part of the total cost of the project and is so presented then I think the question of jurisdiction becomes a little clearer, and the matter of authorization, that the Engineer Corps is authorized to use as the total cost of the project, within the limitation authorized, and what you are here doing is simply to defend it for the Corps of Engineers. The Corps of Engineers is granted authority to make arrangements with other Federal agencies to handle various parts of the program.

Mr. DAY. Yes.

Mr. CASE. They can do it with the Bureau of Reclamation.

Mr. DAY. That is correct. As to whether it is a part of the cost

of the McNary Dam I cannot answer.

Mr. CASE. Suppose you give us a little statement for the record, when you get your transcript, on that point, so we may proceed with the hearing.

(The information requested follows:)

STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY FOR THE APPROPRIATION AND THE Transfer oF FUNDS TO THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Section 2 of the act of August 14, 1946 (60 Stat. 1080), requires, in connection with certain types of construction, that the Department of the Army, as well as other Federal agencies, give appropriate consideration to the preservation of such

fishery resources and a determination by the Department of the Army and the Fish and Wildlife Service of the means and measures that should be adopted to preserve the resource. Next, the section provides that the cost of planning for and the construction or installation and maintenance of any such means and measures shall be included in and shall constitute an integral part of the costs of such projects. Thus, the item for preservation of the fishery resources is properly included in the estimates of the cost of the projects proposed to be constructed by the Department of the Army.

With respect to the transfer of the proposed amount to the Fish and Wildlife Service, it should be noted that transfers for similar purposes have been made on a number of occasions in accordance with the basic authorization contained in section 601 of the act of June 30, 1932 (47 Stat. 417; 31 U. S. C. 686), as amended. With respect to fishery problems in the Columbia River Basin, section 2 of the act of May 11, 1938, as amended August 8, 1946 (60 Stat. 932), rather clearly indicates that in connection with the construction of navigation, flood control, and irrigation projects many of the activities directly related to the preservation of the fishery resources are to be performed by or under the supervision of the Secretary of the Interior. In any event, transfers of the nature herein contemplated have been effectuated for many years in accordance with provisions of section 601 of the act of June 30, 1932, and the acts of August 8 and 14, 1946, simply clarify and substantiate the administrative determination to the effect that certain duties related to the preservation of the fishery resources of the Columbia River Basin shall be carried out through the facilities of the Fish and Wildlife Service.

With respect to the transfer to the Fish and Wildlife Service of $100,000 from the estimate of $395,940,000 for "Flood control, general," there can be no question but that the last sentence of section 2 of Public, 732 both contemplates and authorizes the transfer as such funds are to be used to conduct the investigations required by the act to be made by the Fish and Wildlife Service.

EFFECT OF ERECTION OF DAMS ON COLUMBIA RIVER, ETC., ON
SALMON INDUSTRY

Mr. MAHON. Mr. Day, I have been interested in this discussion. I think we would all like to prevent the destruction of a great industry which may mean billions of dollars to our economy in the hundreds of years ahead.

I understand you were requested to appear here, at the request of the Army engineers, to defend a sum of money which they requested be appropriated, but you are actually going to spend the money because you are in this fish business.

Mr. DAY. That is right.

Mr. MAHON. In view of some of the testimony, in regard to the salmon industry I have been looking at the hearings of last year as to what we were told then. I do not think the matter was made as clear then as it might have been made to us. I find a statement on page 972 of the hearings of last year-this is a statement by James H. Cellars, public relations and personnel, Columbia River Packers Association of Astoria, Oreg., apparently speaking for the fisheries industry. He stated:

The Columbia River salmon fishery, which has been seriously damaged by the erection of high dams on the Columbia River and its principal tributaries, and which faces extinction if the program of building additional multiple-purpose dams on main thread of the Columbia below the Foster Creek site or on the main thread of the Snake River is advanced, has a long and productive history.

This man is expressing great concern about the future of the salmon. industry if these dams are to be constructed, and he left the impression that it might mean the destruction of the salmon industry.

I would like to have your comment on what I have just read. Mr. DAY. There was a great fear, a great doubt, in the minds of the people who are interested in salmon, that even Bonneville was going

to seriously impair the salmon run. Last year the run of that particular cycle came back in excellent shape.

Mr. MAHON. Yes.

Mr. DAY. So that situation has changed somewhat even in the past 12 months over what it was a year ago.

Mr. MAHON. It really is not as serious, then, as they thought it would be?

Mr. DAY. That is right, as far as Bonneville is concerned. Originally it was felt that the industry would be badly damaged. Last year the run was in pretty good shape. The value of the pack out there this year, I think, is greater than a year ago.

Mr. MAHON. He goes on to say:

The principal subsistence factor for thousands of Indians for untold years before the arrival of the white man in the Pacific Northwest, this resource continues to hold this position in relation to the remaining tribesmen living in the vicinity of the river, and, in addition, provides a livelihood for thousands of white residents, and an enjoyable recreation for many more thousands from all parts of the Nation who come to the Columbia for the annual sports fishery.

It is estimated that in the 80 years of the white man's fishery that the returns from the commercial fishery alone have exceeded $1,000,000,000.

Throughout the testimony here there appeared to be cause for alarm expressed to the committee last year in regard to the dams on the Columbia River and the tributaries and related streams. And in relation to the position, or rather to the location of the McNary Dam, he says:

And which faces extinction if the program of building additional multiplepurpose dams on the main thread of the Columbia below the Foster Creek site or on the main thread of the Snake River is advanced.

Does that include the McNary Dam area?

Mr. DAY. Yes; this is Foster Creek [indicating]. Foster Creek is slightly below the Grand Coulee Dam.

Mr. MAHON. And where is it with reference to McNary Dam? Mr. DAY. McNary Dam is down near Umatilla. The dams that he is referring to are the McNary, Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose, Lower Granite, Clarkston, Lime Mountain, Nez Perce, and this area back in here. That is on the main stem above the McNary.

Mr. MAHON. Now with regard to the gentleman who expressed this concern last year, what is there about the salmon industry to justify the statement which he made, in your opinion?

Mr. DAY. I think he was justified in the statement that they feared that these dams would wipe out the salmon run above this point, McNary Dam.

Mr. MAHON. Do you think by this program you are now espousing that the salmon will be destroyed above those dams?

Mr. DAY. We are fearful that they will be above the McNary Dam. We are attempting to improve the area below McNary.

Mr. MAHON. Yes.

Mr. DAY. By cleaning out certain streams, operating hatcheries so we can get production of a fishery which we hope will be as much as 50 percent of the existing fishery.

Mr. MAHON. Am I to understand that really what you are doing is because of what will happen to the fish above McNary?

Mr. DAY. Because of what we fear will happen to the fish above McNary.

Mr. MAHON. Is it a conclusion as well as a fear?

Mr. DAY. I would not say that, but we are very fearful of what will happen.

Mr. MAHON. Regardless of whether or not this program you are talking about is put into operation?

Mr. DAY. Yes; we are fearful that McNary and the dams above will eliminate a good portion of the fishery industry.

Mr. MAHON. Now I have not checked over the hearings in full, but I did find testimony that seemed somewhat contrary to the testimony to which I have referred; that testimony is on page 576, and that is the testimony of General Robins, formerly with the United States engineers and I would like to quote from General Robins' statement, in which he said:

I do not think the McNary Dam will have any more effect on it than the Bonneville Dam

referring to the fish industry

and we have had more fish over the Bonneville Dam this year than they have ever have had, and my own personal opinion is that the fish will still be there as far as the dams are concerned.

That was the statement given by General Robins in response to a question by Mr. Scrivner. Mr. Scrivner had stated:

I think you and Mr. Case covered the situation pretty well, but I have one question to ask: What effects are these new developments going to have on your fisheries industry out on the Columbia River?

That was Mr. Scrivner's question.

Mr. SCRIVNER. Will you pardon an interruption?

Mr. MAHON. Yes.

Mr. SCRIVNER. That was the testimony to which I have referred yesterday and today. In other words, I too, have been concerned about the salmon industry, and the effect the dams would have, and that is why I pointed out that testimony in view of Mr. Day's statement this morning and the statement made by the engineers yesterday. I was calling attention to the varied testimony which we now have in the record, if you had not inserted General Robin's statement in the record I was going to do so.

Mr. MAHON. I would like to reread to you that statement of General Robins and ask you what you think about the statement.

(The statement of General Robins previously read was reread.) Mr. DAY. I wish I could agree with the general's statement, and feel confident that no great losses will happen. The fisheries people in the States of Washington and Oregon, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the fisheries industry are not that confident. We are very fearful that the McNary Dam, plus the other dams that are authorized above, will have a serious effect upon the fisheries. Bonneville, as I stated, has worked out very well. There was a large run of fish last year. Bonneville is lower than McNary. McNary and the other dams above there are higher than the Bonneville Dam.

Mr. MAHON. Is his statement correct when he said "over the Bonneville Dam this year" they have had more fish than they ever had before? That is a pretty strong statement, and that is past; that is not a conjecture as to the future; that is past.

Mr. DAY. That is correct insofar as the fish passing Bonneville Dam was concerned, but nobody knows how many fish went through

the Columbia River before Bonneville was constructed, because no counts or checks were kept.

Mr. MAHON. In other words, I misunderstood what he said. I take it that when he said more fish went over than ever before he merely meant more than had gone over Bonneville Dam during the history of Bonneville Dam?

Mr. DAY. I think that must have been what he had in mind, because nobody could have had information as to the number of fish that went through the Columbia River before Bonneville Dam was constructed. Since that time we have had fish ladders, counting wiers, and the engineers have maintained people there day and night-well, I should say they have shut the gates at night so the fish could not get through, but they open the gates during the day. People count the fish by the different species that go through and we do have a very good check on the migration of fish over Bonneville Dam. We feel certain there are some of the small fish lost that go down through the turbines on their seaward migration.

Mr. MAHON. AS I understand it McNary Dam is going to be higher?

Mr. DAY. McNary Dam is going to be higher than Bonneville and if the fish get through McNary there will then be higher dams above to negotiate.

Salmon have a limited time in which to spawn. After they spawn they die. We have found in other places, on the Fraser River in Canada, for instance, that if salmon are obstructed by low water over difficult rapids for a certain period of time, they will die below the obstruction before reaching the spawning beds in the upper river.

Again salmon have a peculiar habit; they fight obstructions until they injure themselves, then they develop a fungus growth which weakens and kills them. If there are too many obstructions, even though they get over the first one, if there are too many, you will find that for each succeeding dam the fish losses will be progressively heavier.

Mr. MAHON. That sounds logical.

I do not want to take up too much time. As I say, I have not checked the hearings in full, and maybe in time we will learn more about this. But at any rate I want to protect the fishing industry in any way we can.

Mr. DAY. I think that we have the best possible program for that protection. I wish we could categorically predict what will happen, but nobody can do that.

Mr. CASE. Mr. Day, I notice on that map that you have there above the dams you have discussed a dam apparently 600 feet high. Mr. DAY. Yes, Nez Percé.

Mr. CASE. According to the representation, on the map, the areas which have been shown in green run clear back to the Snake River, and that must contemplate about one-fourth to one-third of the entire area that is to be lost, that is to be absolutely lost; is that right?

Mr. DAY. Yes. Grand Coulee is some 350 feet high, and ladders were not installed there. The same will be true of Nez Percé.

Mr. MAHON. The question in my mind, Mr. Case, is the destruction of these fish which in time, as a national resource, would equal a billion dollars, that is, if the country continues to survive, and