< back		 Rick Applegate, Trout Unlimited

Applegate is the West Coast conservation director for Trout Unlimited. Prior to that he spent 11 years at the Northwest Power Planning Council, eight as director of fish and wildlife. He has also worked for the Montana State Legislature, the Montana Constitutional Convention and the Environmental Quality Council. Applegate served as senior legislative assistant and chief of staff for two U.S. Senators and a member of the House of Representatives; he also was minority staff director of a subcommittee of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. Rick has a bachelor of arts degree in political science and history and a master’s in environmental policy from the University of Montana.
1. What is the best thing about the recommendations? The recommendations acknowledge that additional investments for fish restoration will be undertaken in the Columbia Basin. That is helpful. But the best part is that the recommendations are a draft -- not a consensus yet and not a final set of recommendations.

The steering committee has conducted accelerated discussions on some of the region’s most important power and fish issues. Now it is time to hear from -- and genuinely listen to -- the views of key groups and the general public to see what they think. Some people say we are late in the fourth quarter of this regional review. Not even close -- we have a lot of heavy lifting before we submit our recommendations to the Governors and before the Congress can act on them.

We need to keep in mind that we will not achieve consensus in the region or in the Congress unless we fairly reflect the views of the power and fish stakeholders. If we do not achieve a working consensus, we will not be able to write the Northwest section of the energy industry restructuring legislation that will come up in the next Congress. The good news is that we still have time to seek that consensus.
2. What is the most challenging thing about the recommendations? The recommendations have serious implications for fish restoration in the Columbia River Basin -- not all of which have been analyzed. The recommendations do not start with the commitment to restore the biological productivity of the river system required by the fish runs and the economically and culturally valuable harvests that go along with them.

The recommendations do not deal with the claims of the Northwest tribes who have suffered more than any other segment of society as the runs have declined; nor do they answer the concerns of the families and businesses that have lost their boats, homes and their livelihoods. My greatest fear is that we will fail to achieve consensus on the fish-related issues in this review.

As I have said at the review, we will not be remembered for our lowest-in-the-nation power rates or for our eventual repayment of the WPPSS debt. We will have affordable power in the 21st century and the WPPSS debt will be repaid. Our real legacy will be our repayment of the fishery debts of the hydrosystem--the effectiveness of our response to the plight of the Columbia River salmon, steelhead and trout.
3. Why should people care about the recommendations? Not since the adoption of the Northwest Power Act has the region’s energy and fish restoration future been so much at issue. If we restructure the Northwest power industry in the right way, we will be able to enjoy the public benefits of the system well into the 21st century. These include restored salmon, steelhead and trout in the Columbia, vigorous energy conservation and renewables programs and an effective means to provide affordable power to low income citizens. If we fail to get it right, we will suffer the gridlock and failed promise of salmon restoration and will enter the 21st century without benefits of the public purposes that the hydrosystem could serve.