About much of the program there need be no rush, as we see it. It could be, and probably will be spread over several generations as economic conditions justify. But as to phase B projects particularly, the most rapid feasible development is of utmost importance to the area, and through the area to the city of Tacoma. These projects are those which will most speedily serve to supply hydro power now in critical shortage to maintain the region's economic growth and to sustain even its present economy. This is important not only to our area, but to the Nation as a whole. Electric power supply is inadequate for national needs in all sections of the country. It can be most rapidly and economically developed in bulk capacity within the scope of the Columbia and along the lines laid out by this report.

The report itself provides no direction as to priorities of the various projects nor as to the time of their construction. Accordingly, we suggest that it does not solve our immediate Northwest power shortage problem. Time and order of development are essential, both in authorization and financing, to implement the most needed elements of the report applicable to our immediate consideration. Since provision of power for pressing immediate demands is constructive, and since floods are a constant threat and are destructive, it is our hope that, from the multiple-purpose viewpoint, first consideration should be given those projects which induce control of flood run-offs, storage of water usable for power, and power installations themselves. It is important that early authorization be given to certain phase B projects not already approved.

However, not even with maximum appropriations can Federal power development in the Columbia be provided in time to avert a long-continued shortage which will act as an effective brake upon industrial growth; even the industry we have may be seriously retarded by midwinter shortages when the Columbia's waters are commonly impounded in ice in the upper feeder streams, seriously cutting power output.

Last winter Tacoma, in common with other load centers of the Northwest, was obliged to reduce service to industrial accounts, although pay-roll damage was held to the lowest minimum possible by all utilities. We merged our resources through the power pool and held on for grim life to keep our industrial wheels spinning.

Because of the difference in characteristics of stream flow in the Columbia and the streams draining the west slope of the Cascades and Olympic range from which Tacoma obtains its own hydro power, Tacoma was able to make important contributions to the region's power supply at the most critical period-December, January.

This brings us back to our principal gripe about this 308 report. The Cowlitz River, like other western Cascade streams, flows generously when the Columbia is choked back by ice. If we had been permitted to construct our plants on the Cowlitz, Tacoma's capacity there would have been ample last winter to have offset the Columbia's drop and consequent reduced output of the Federal plants.

In preparing its report, the Corps of Engineers, we realize, was bound by law to take into its review, without modification, the reports of other affected agencies. One of these appears as appendix P. It is the report of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service pertaining to the fisheries problem involved in construction of multiple-purpose dams upon the Columbia and its tributaries.

This report, contained in the appendix, and references in the text of the main report disregard entirely the city of Tacoma's historically sound vested rights for power development on the Cowlitz.

In the general proposal of the lower Columbia River fishery plan, all streams entering the Columbia below the Yakima River in central Washington were to be reserved into a sanctuary for salmonoid species and cleared of debris, obstructions, and pollution to improve runs of fish of these types.

While the Corps of Engineers in the main text list 11 potential projects for power, flood control, and irrigation on the Cowlitz and its tributaries, naming the city of Tacoma's two dam sites and 7 more above, the Fish and Wildlife report reserves the entire Cowlitz for fisheries. This adverse action definitely was taken after the city of Tacoma had negotiated its power-site purchase and after the city had committed itself to great expense in preliminary engineering tests and design of its hydro plants.

Further, it was used to inspire perhaps fatally adverse action by State of Washington officials last year in administrative channels and early this year in the State legislature.

Although there was expert testimony that our proposed dams on the Cowlitz, 52 miles above its mouth, would damage not to exceed 2 percent of the Columbia River salmon run, easily replaceable by hatcheries and rearing ponds, the city of Tacoma was made a whipping boy for all fisheries interests in the lower Columbia. Commercial and sports fishermen charged us with planning complete destruction of all migrant fish values and forced through the legislature into law an act which on the face of it forever prohibits us from developing power on our own present dam sites.

This 308 report, including appendix P, was used repeatedly in the compaign against us; the text, further, was supported at public hearings by oral testimony of United States Fish and Wildlife Service spokesmen.

Of course, the Washington law applies only to Columbia tributaries on the Washington side of the river: Oregon legislators, so far as I know now, have not gone along fully with the sanctuary idea as to their side of the Columbia.

To clarify, I should like to point out that our plans and designs for both dams at Mayfield and Mossyrock on the Cowlitz took their potential fisheries damage into full consideration. We only asked our State fisheries department and game department to tell us exactly what they expected us to do, and to designate competent engineers with whom we might work.

Our case for Cowlitz development had been placed before the Columbia InterAgency Committee meeting at Walla Walla 2 years ago, before the committee took action adverse to accepting a 10-year delay as part of the lower Columbia fishery plan. A fuller case history was laid before the same committee at Portland on January 12 of this year; and on February 1 at Seattle we made a statement of criticism of the 308 review report before the board of Army engineers in public hearings there.

All of these statements are matters of Federal record. The record will also show that we appeared and submitted a written statement before a hearing conducted by the War Department at Toledo, Wash., a small town in the Cowlitz Basin below our dam sites, in March 1947. We called attention then to the power shortage then confronting the city of Tacoma and the Northwest generally--a shortage of which all operating utilities were acutely conscious. We called attention to our rights for power-dam development on the Cowlitz and indicated then our early intention to proceed.

The city of Tacoma has moved in good faith throughout, from the start, and has a clear, clean record of procedure according to State and Federal law, right up to the apparently fatal collision with Federal, State, and private fish people before our own legislature this year.

Over the years, the city of Tacoma commonly has enjoyed the friendliest terms of cooperation with Federal agencies. Whenever conflicts of interest have caused friction, these have invariably been ironed out amicably.

We are anxious that no interpretation be placed upon this statement to indicate that we are opposed to the program of development of the Columbia River as generally outlined in this report. But, if, as a municipal corporation acting according to law, we have any rights, now is our opportunity and our duty to assert them.

We feel that in its acceptance of the Fish and Wildlife Service attitude toward the lower Columbia tributaries in general and the Cowlitz in particular, this report tramples on our rights and has, in a measure, seriously discredited the city of Tacoma as a public-power utility among other areas of the State. The damage to us as an operating utility can only be measured in growing millions of dollars in years ahead; since Cowlitz would have given us a substantial surplus for a few years, all other areas dependent upon the Northwest power pool will accordingly suffer.

Although we had expended close to half a million dollars in engineering tests and designs on the Cowlitz sites under our State permits, the city of Tacoma has not been reimbursed in any fraction of its legitimate expense. Our formal application for Federal permit from the Federal Power Commission was submitted last December 28, and is still pending.

We were encouraged to proceed largely because of the regional power shortage, the desperate situation in which some of the other utilities found themselves because of dependence upon Federal supply, and by the attitude of the National Security Resources Board which advised our city council "the earliest possible completion of this project would clearly be in the interests of national security." While some agencies of the Federal administration have been urging public and private power utilities to expedite their local developments of additional

generating capacity for economic and security reasons, here in the 308 report you find another agency effectively blocking such development in the interests of fish, regardless of whether such uses would, in fact, adversely affect the fisheries.

We have publicly branded it as double talk; and, in all fairness, I believe the Corps of Engineers agrees with us. Reference is made in the text to the possibility that at some future time, economic growth may show a need for revision of fish sanctuary restrictions to permit power, flood control, and irrigation uses of the available tributary waters. We suggest that as to the Cowlitz, that time has now come. Factual approach assures us the economic need for power great, the damage to fisheries virtually nil at 52 miles above the Columbia.

Since the hands of the city of Tacoma and many other utilities are now tried by the influence of 308's appendix P, further responsibility for speeding power generation falls upon the Federal Government.

The blunt fact is that the Federal system operating through the Bonneville Power Administration is quite incapable of fulfilling its obligations to serve, even with all interlocking utilities pulling together. This situation clearly will persist over several years into the future until area generation of power catches up with area consumption of power. Even if all public and private agencies had clear sailing today, they alone could not finance and construct plants fast enough to keep pace with load growth in the area.

Successive Federal administrations and Congresses have set the pattern and preempted the available sites for development in the Columbia Basin, and have encouraged the growth of those obligations which they cannot today fulfill.

The engineers by this report provide the plan for construction, but that construction can only be brought to reality by action of Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness I have on this list is Mr. Kirby Billingsley, of Wenatchee, Wash. Do you have a statement about this matter? That is a fine town, great apple country. Are you for or against this dam up there in Idaho!

STATEMENT OF KIRBY BILLINGSLEY, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO COLUMBIA BASIN COMMISSION, STATE OF WASHINGTON

Mr. BILLINGSLEY. For it. And I only wish to add that the Columbia Basin Commission of the State of Washington, of which I am administrative assistant, has taken formal action urging the development of that dam, and urging the immediate development of Albeni Falls Dam, and urging the immediate authorization by Congress of the comprehensive plan as amended and coordinated with the Bureau plan.

The CHAIRMAN. That statement is hard to beat. You can pass it by, but you will never improve on it.

(Mr. Billingsley's prepared statement follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KIRBY BILLINGSLEY OF WENATCHEE, WASH.

The future of the State of Washington and the entire Northwest depends to a great extent upon the sound development and use of the waters of the Columbia River.

It is the main source of both water and power, water for the irrigation of our arid lands, and power for homes and industries. Most natural resources become exhausted as they are used, but this running water is wasted only when it is not used.

During the past year we have had disastrous floods and also an acute power shortage, and in other years we have had devasting droughts, all of which can be alleviated or prevented by building dams to harness the waters of the Columbia.

We in the Northwest need a blueprint which can be studied and followed as we carry out the orderly development of the resources of the Columbia River Valley.

We wish to proceed in an orderly, businesslike manner with these projects, making certain as we go that maximum benefits are obtained.

The Columbia River itself flows fast, carries a tremendous volume of water, and, fortunately, is confined through much of its course in a channel deep enough to permit complete control if dams are properly placed and constructed.

There is no other river of such size where the waters can be so completely controlled, and if controlled can be put to so many uses-power, irrigation, navigation, flood control, and others.

For over a hundred years the people living in that valley have planned and worked for development of the river.

We have long felt the need for a comprehensive plan-a thorough study of the resources and a blueprint for their development.

Two years ago the United States Bureau of Reclamation completed their survey and came out with a remarkable document, but no action was taken on it because the Army engineers were carrying on a more exhaustive study which was only recently completed.

The Columbia Basin Commission of the State of Washington considered both and requested coordination and integration of the two.

This has now been done, and the commission urges that the reports be approved and adopted by this session of the Congress of the United States. Following is the text of the commission's recent resolution addressed to the President and to Congress :

RESOLUTION

Whereas comprehensive plans for the development of the water resources of the Columbia Basin areas have been developed by the United States Bureau of Reclamation of the Department of Interior and by the Corps of Engineers of the War Department; and

Whereas coordination and integration of these plans is of fundamental importance and primary interest to the State of Washington and the Pacific Northwest; and

Whereas coordination and integration of said plans has already been accomplished to a considerable degree, and no obstacle stands in the way of final and complete coordination; and

Whereas such final and complete coordination and integration will result in efficiency, harmony, and continued orderly development of the region without delay: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Columbia Basin Commission of the State of Washington, That said plans represented by the "Blue Book" report of the Bureau of Reclamation and by the revised 308 report of the Corps of Engineers be finally integrated and coordinated and presented for adoption by the Congress of the United States; and be it further

Resolved, That copies of this resolution be sent to the Executive Office of the President of the United States, Washington, D. C. Done at Ephrata, Wash., this 16th day of April 1949.

Attest:

J. V. ROGERS, Chairman, Columbia Basin Commission.

KIRBY BILLINGSLEY, Administrative Assistant.

The Columbia Basin Commission has also formally requested congressional authorization of the Albeni Falls project, and urged the earliest possible construction, thus firming-up the river flow and increasing power production at all dams downstream.

The commission also supported appropriation of local and State participation funds in connection with the Green River-Duwamish waterway project, and urges congressional authorization and early construction by the Corps of Engineers, United States Army.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. De Groot, of Washington. Do you have a statement that you would like to file?

STATEMENT OF THEODORE DE GROOT, WOODLAND, WASH.

Mr. DE GROOT. I have just an oral statement, Mr. Chairman. I am a grower in the State of Washington. Last year the floods took all of our possessions away. We have in this section 9,000 of the most beautiful acres in the world. What we need there is a better and bigger dike at approximately a cost of $20 an acre.

All over the Nation we are reclaiming more and more land. This additional or better dike will provide this section of the country protection. You know, for prosperity we need all these acres, and if we could only get a little better dike down there the people of Woodland, Wash., would be thankful.

That is all I have to say.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. De Groot.

Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee: I would like to present Mr. Sterrett. Mr. Sterrett devotes all of his time to matters of this sort and is very well informed on this project and is on the staff of the chamber of commerce of Portland, Oreg.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sterrett, do you have a written statement? STATEMENT OF C. E. STERRETT, VICE CHAIRMAN, MAYOR'S FLOOD CONTROL COMMITTEE, PORTLAND, OREG.

Mr. STERRETT. I have two official statements here to present. One is the official statement of the Portland Chamber of Commerce, and the other is the statement of the mayor's flood-control committee, of which I am vice chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. May I ask here, is the Portland Chamber of Commerce and the people generally of Portland in favor of this 308 development?

Mr. STERRETT. We are in favor of the 308 report in general.
The CHAIRMAN. And also the Albeni Falls development?

Mr. STERRETT. Particularly the Albeni Falls development because it will help us out on our power supply situation at the present time. The CHAIRMAN. Do you concur in the statements of the Army engineers and others that were given to the committee that Albeni Falls presents, perhaps, the best project which could be brought into production for increasing the hydroelectric power in the area? Mr. STERRETT. I do.

As vice chairman of the mayor's flood protection committee I would like to bring out the point that Portland, being the largest major city in the lower Columbia River area, is faced with flood danger from two sources. Last year our flood came from the backwater of the Columbia River. In addition we are faced with the possibility of flood from the Willamette River. Portland is on the Willamette River near the confluence with the Columbia.

When I left Portland the other morning the backwater of the Columbia River had reached an elevation of 23 feet at Portland. Our major flood last year was an elevation of 30 feet.

We are not anticipating great floods from the Columbia, but if something should happen and we have a tremendous rainstorm in the Willamette Valley, it would bring up the Willamette River and it would cause us considerable damage even this year.