is a copy of my letter, similar to this, to Senator Hayden. I am sending copies of this letter to Senator Hayden and others who may be interested.

Respectfully yours,

J. KENNARD CHEADLE.

Senator CAIN. Mr. Chairman, so that all viewpoints may be examined in conection with the cordinated Bureau of Reclamation-Army engineers plan for development of the Columbia Basin, I ask that a letter, addressed by the master of the Washington State Grange to me and other members of the Washington State delegation, be included in the record, along with a letter from Representative Walt Horan to' Mr. Henry P. Carstensen, the grange master.

Senator HARRY P. CAIN,

WASHINGTON STATE GRANGE,
Seattle 1, Wash., July 15, 1949.

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR: We are alarmed here over the apparent imminence of passage of a bill to enact the Weaver-Newell (Army-Reclamation) plan into law and thus establish the policy for development of the Columbia River region.

This bill was placed before Congress with practically no opportunity by the people of the Northwest to learn of its contents and purpose, and with no hearings except those at which the organized opposition to a Columbia Valley Administration testified. We understand that the testimony at the hearing on the WeaverNewell plan was conducted under the auspices of the so-called Development Association group headed by E. W. Rising, a prominent spokesman for private utility interests.

Aside from that, the Weaver-Newell plan, in my opinion, contains provisions which if enacted would mean the permanent destruction of any possibility of building a balanced economy in the Northwest. I refer to the provision which would pool all power revenues from Federal projects for the purpose of subsidizing irrigation costs whenever and wherever the Bureau of Reclamation sets up a project.

As you know, Bonneville Administrator Paul Raver has on many ocasions called attention to the fact that the $17.50 per kilowatt-year power rate will have to be increased eventually if power is to be burdened with more and more irrigation charges. A raise in the rate for electricity would preclude the establishment of many new industries here, if not to put the light metals and some other existing industries out of business. This we must object to with all the power at our command. There is no justification in opening vast new acreages of land to production if you do not at the same time create new markets near at hand for the products of those acreages. It has long been a major source of difficulty to the Pacific Northwest that it had to depend upon distant markets for its raw materials and agricultural products. Because of this, generation after generation of farmers has had to "go broke" on irrigated land.

Some of our people have fallen into the trap set up by the Weaver-Newell plan because they are interested in some specific irrigation project which they hope to make feasible by subsidization from Federal power revenues. They fail to recognize that if this policy is blanketed upon all Federal power projects, they will have economic collapse due to the lack of markets in which to sell the products of this irrigated land.

We cannot see any logical reason why the major cost of irrigation should be saddled upon power alone. Irrigation is supposed to be for the benefit of all food consumers; why should power users alone be forced to bear the subsidy cost? If the taxpayers of these United States desire to have more land reclaimed, let them pay the necessary cost of it as they pay the cost of flood control, navigation, timber conservation, and other nonreimbursable investments of the Federal Government. It is highly unfair to the power users of the Northwest to have to bear this whole burden alone. Such a policy can only benefit dog-in-the-manger interests who want to see power rates high and industrial competition stifled in the Northwest. That is exactly what will happen under the Weaver-Newell plan.

It is true that this irrigation subsidy has been established with apparent permanence in the case of the Grand Coulee project. However, we do not feel it necessary to blanket that policy upon the whole Northwest and we feel resentful

of the quiet manner in which it has been incorporated in the Weaver-Newell plan. Presumably, under the wording of certain sections of the plan, the cost of irrigation anywhere in the 11 Western States could be charged against Northwest power projects. But the ceiling is the limit as to costs of construction and there is no defense of the Northwest power user against a steady, inexorable rise in Federal power rates. In that event, of course, the Federal Government would quickly find itself with a power surplus instead of a shortage and it might even be possible that the taxpayers eventually would have to pay for the irrigation projects anyway.

If the Weaver-Newell plan must be enacted, we see no necessity for including in it the objectionable irrigation subsidy policy. If the subsidy be practicable and necessary in some instances, let those projects stand individually on their merits and be so judged by Congress when considering authorizations and appropriations for them.

We respectfully urge you to give serious consideration to the consequences of blanketing that policy, however, over all future multipurpose projects in the Northwest. We feel that adoption of that policy would "sell the people down the river" more effectively than any attempt by the opposition to the Northwest projects has been able to do.

Sincerely yours,

HENRY P. CARSTENSEN,

Master, Washington State Grange.

Mr. HENRY P. CARSTENSEN,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., July 21, 1949.

Master, Washington State Grange, Seattle 1. DEAR HENRY: This will acknowledge your letter of July 15, questioning the advisability of enactment of S. 2180 (by Senator Magnuson) and proposed House companion bills to authorize the policies and projects included in the accord of April 11 between the Bureau of Reclamation and Army engineers. As you know, I called Kirby Billingsley at Seattle immediately upon receipt of your letter, because I had been under the impression that all interested persons and groups were agreed this accord should be put into law as soon as possible. At the outset, let me assure you that it has been and always will be my aim to work first and foremost for those constructive things upon which most of us who are interested in development of the Columbia region's resources can agree. I do not believe in postponing action on legislation which is admittedly necessary in order to force action on something else which is highly controversial. I think each proposal should stand on its own feet and be considered on its own merits.

After long study and a series of meetings both here and in the Northwest, representatives of the Interior Department, Congress, and State and local agencies have long since come to the conclusion that the future of Columbia resource development, and reclamation in particular, depended on some form of basinwide financing. The "cheap" projects have all been built. So also have those which are so conveniently situated that a highly profitable power source could be connected to a feasible irrigation project within the same sector. Further integrated development now depends upon pooling of revenues, a principle which has been advocated for years in the original CVA bills, in the Interior Department's "Blue Book" of 1947, and other subsequent proposals. It is, therefore, not a new proposal. A form of this plan is contained in section 12 of the Administration's CVA bill now before Congress, as well as in my own bill for a Columbia Interstate Commission.

In supporting a basin-wide repayment program, I know of none of those with whom I have worked on this who favors any application of the principle which would result in throwing the cost-revenue ratio so far out of balance as to require raising the basic Bonneville power rate. Certainly, no such action should be taken which is not first approved by all the local agencies, including the Washington State Columbia Basin Commission. I agree with you that some projects have been advocated which simply will not stand up against a feasibility test and that to burden the power system and the revenue pool with too any of these would have serious consequences. In that respect, the Grange itself will have to use caution against encouraging support of some projects advocated by local groups but which prove to have an indefensible benefit-cost ratio.

The second fact which has been difficult to face has been the enormous increase in construction costs since the war. If we could still build at Grand Coulee prices, many projects would be feasible which today are not. Since there is little hope of reducing those costs, we are faced with a choice between abandoning many worthwhile projects or enacting legislation to apply a basin-wide repayment plan, together with use of the 3 percent interest subsidy from Army dams, to the repayment of reclamation costs. Again, this must be held to such limits as will not unbalance the power-rate situation sufficiently to drive out the industries which must locate in and thrive in the Northwest if we are to have a market for the products of reclamation.

The third consideration which must not be overlooked is the contention, which apparently has some merit, that irrigation is the constitutional hook upon which Federal development of power must be hung. We have done very well over the years, in the field of multiple-purpose development of water projects, through which the power potentialities of the Columbia have been unlocked. Important as that power is, however, it would be most unfortunate if too great a concentration on power should give to the enemies of our development the very weapon they seek to bring it to a standstill.

While it is not really pertinent to the subject, I should comment on the hearings held before the House Committee on Public Works, which you mentioned. It is true that it was somewhat irreular, as the committee did, to hold hearings on a "spook" plan which was not officially before it. However, that hearing was open and all who were interested in the subject were invited to testify. Some witnesses who appeared opposed the plan, others merely opposed consideration of it outside the framework of the CVA bill. But all who came were heard. Since, by courtesy of Chairman Whittington and by selection at a caucus of Northwest witnesses held before the hearing, to which all witnesses scheduled to appear were invited, I personally conducted the introduction and scheduling of witnesses at the hearing, I must contradict the unfounded rumor that any private utility lobbyist was in charge of the witnesses (although one obviously would have liked to be).

If there is any doubt in the minds of farm leaders or others interested in the State of Washington that this program should be enacted, I think they should call an immediate meeting of all concerned to reach an agreement, one way or the other. Up to now, I have been assured by those who should know that there was virtually unanimous support for S. 2180, with some minor amendments, and have been working here on what has definitely been a bipartisan basis with others in the Washington delegation to that end. We must soon reach agreement among ourselves on some of these problems or we shall never get them solved. Sincerely,

Senator SPARKMAN. Senator Taylor?

WALT HORAN, M. C.

STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN H. TAYLOR, A SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Senator TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I have a very brief statement here.

First, I want again to call the attention of the committee to the request made by Senators of both political parties from the Northwest States urging that the bill now under consideration be amended by authorizing the entire joint program of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers for construction of projects in the Columbia Basin. As the members of this committee know, there is no conflict between this program and the proposed the proposed Columbia Valley Administration.

I think it is very important to bear down on that point, to clear it up in the minds of people out in the Northwest.

We urgently need construction of these dams, reservoirs, transmission lines, and other facilities as soon as possible. I am strongly in favor of any program that will enable us to start building the physical structures right away, and authorization of the Reclamation-Engineers plan, with necessary appropriations, would get actual construc

tion under way. We believe that a CVA should subsequently be established to provide the over-all resource development planning and coordinated administration necessary to achieve a balanced development efficiently and economically.

I would also like to testify briefly on one of the seven major multipurpose dams included in the main control plan of the Corps of Engineers. This is referred to in the report as the Libby project, but is now called Truman Dam. It is located on the Kootenai River, near Jennings, Mont., and would provide irrigation, navigation, floodcontrol, and power benefits. The total cost of the project based on 1948 prices would be $239,077,000, but the power benefits alone are one and three-quarters times the total costs, including repayment of the entire investment, with 3-percent interest, in 50 years. This means that the power revenue alone will pay back the Government, and the flood-control and other benefits would be obtained free.

Committee members are all familiar with the present power shortage in the Pacific Northwest. Truman Dam would add 821.000 kilowatts to the system, about 11 percent of the additional capacity needed in the whole basin to meet the estimated peak load between 1960 and

1970.

As important as the power feature is shown to be, it still does not outrank the tremendous flood-control job that Truman Dam will achieve. This reservoir will take care of nearly 4,000,000 acre-feet of water in time of floods, providing one-fifth of the entire storage needed to prevent any flood-control damage on the entire Columbia.

In addition, it would completely eliminate the problem of floods on the entire Kootenai River. Since Kootenai River floods always occur within a short period in the spring, floodwaters impounded in Truman Dam can be released in a regular flow throughout the entire year, providing continuous maximum power production.

In conclusion, I want to quote Col. L. H. Hewitt, of the Corps of Engineers:

Of all the major storage possibilities available on the headwaters in this district, Truman Dam is the most important and the most favored by the public in this country.

Our region is also vitally interested in the Albeni Falls Dam in north Idaho, but since this project is already in H. R. 5472, I will not take the committee's time to go into it. I am certain that the testimony upon which the House committee based its favorable action will be sufficient evidence as to the need and economic benefits of this important project.

I would also like to call the committee's attention to S. 599, to authorize the construction of dikes for flood protection at Lewiston, Idaho, and Clarkston, Wash. These dikes are a part of the over-all navigation program that includes the construction of four dams.

This program was authorized in 1945, but, unfortunately, the dikes are connected with the uppermost dam, Lower Granite, and it prob ably will be years before funds are appropriated for this project. Serious flood damage has already occurred at Lewiston, so it is extremely urgent that the dikes be constructed now instead of delaying them until Lower Granite Dam is built. The only way this can be accomplished is to add this small project to the omnibus authorization bill.

Under date of July 14, 1949, the Secretary of the Army transmitted a favorable report on this project to Senator Chavez, with the approval of the Budget Bureau. The project, as recommended by the Corps of Engineers, is estimated to cost $3,035,000. The expenditure of this sum will eliminate the ever-present danger to life and property now confronting residents of Lewiston and Clarkston. This will not be an additional authorization, but merely allows immediate construction, rather than a forced delay for an indefinite period.

Senator CAIN. Senator Taylor, is there an estimated beginning date for construction of the Libby Dam? I think you said that dam would preserve the function of providing your power needs during the decade 1950 to 1960, or was it 1960 to 1970?

Senator TAYLOR. Of course, I predicated that on the possibility and hope that the dam would be built.

Senator CAIN. I wonder if Colonel Gee would answer.

Colonel GEE. In the main control plan, the Libby Dam has first priority on those major structures which contribute flood-control storage.

Senator MAGNUSON. I might say for the record I am glad Senator Taylor brought up this Libby project for this reason: We have a serious water shortage in order to adequately support the firm power in all these dams.

For instance, unless we have some storage back up near the Canadian border in Canada on the main Columbia River, even though we are now putting in three generators a year with a capacity of about 110,000 kilowatts to each generator, we cannot be assured of the complete full power unless we have that storage.

Mr. McWhorter and I had hoped at one time we might do something with the Arrow Lakes up in Canada, but that looks a little bit further in the future than we anticipated.

However, I understand this Libby project is one which pretty near everyone has agreed is feasible for water storage and combines all these other features.

Mr. McWHORTER. A very fine substitute.

Senator MAGNUSON. A very fine substitute; and in the meantime, of course, we can work on the Arrow Lakes.

Senator SPARKMAN. Senator Miller?

STATEMENT OF HON. BERT H. MILLER, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Senator MILLER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appear before you today in support of the proposed amendment to H. R. 5472 which would authorize the entire coordinated plan of the Army engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation for the control and use of the waters of the Columbia River Basin. This amendment has been presented in the form of a bill numbered S. 2180 and is now pending before your committee.

The plan to which this bill has reference is concisely outlined in the letter of April 11, 1949, to the President, and signed by the Commissioner of Reclamation, the Secretary of the Interior, the Chief of Engineers, and the Secretary of the Army. It is, in my opinion simply the next logical step for the Federal Government to take in