We do not believe this is equitable or fair to those of us who want a r evaluation of all the benefits that may be derived from the river. In eft report as it is now proposed ignores about as many purposes and benefit, includes. For these reasons, we ask that the full budget request of $400,000 te fiscal year 1961 costs of the Potomac River study be approved, but that th committee provide in its report that these funds shall be expended on prehensive type of study rather than upon a wasteful incomplete undertak UNBUDGETED ITEMS 1. Colorado River storage project transmission facilties: The rural cooperatives and other preference customers in the States of Wyoming, Col New Mexico, Utah, and Arizona have organized a nonprofit corporation, Cc River Basin Consumer Power, Inc., for the purpose of having prepared a on the transmission facilities necessary to best deliver Colorado River s project power in accordance with law, and for the purpose of negotiatin the Bureau of Reclamation for the purchase of such power and its alle among the preference customers of the basin States. To date the Bureau of Reclamation has expended $1.2 million on prelir investigations of transmission facilities to be associated with the Colorado storage project. An additional $0.5 million has been requested to continue studies during the fiscal year 1961. No funds have been requested for tra sion facility construction. The first power producing unit of the Colorado River Storage Projec 108,000-kilowatt Flaming Gorge unit, will begin producing power in Ju 1963. And in June of 1964, the 800,000-kilowatt Glen Canyon unit will to produce power. It is, therefore, essential that some transmission fac for the marketing of this power be placed under construction during fiscal On October 1, 1959, the major investor owned power companies servir Colorado River storage project area published a report advocating delive project power to preferece customers over investor owned utility company mission facilities. The company report concedes, however, that the major bone transmission facilities, necessary to interconnect the Federal powerp should be constructed by the Federal Government. Of recent weeks Mr. Harvey McPhail, formerly Assistant Commission Reclamation and currently Chief of the Hydroelectric Division of the K Corp. of Philadalphia, Pa., has completed a report for the rural electric coo tives and other perference customers of the Colorado Basin States concernin type of transmission system that will be necessary to deliver Colorado Basin project power in accordance with law. The McPhail reaches several important conclusions among which are: (1) The preference customers in the Colorado River Basin States absorb all of the firm power available from the project. (2) No firm power will be available to private utilities from the Cold River storage project. (3) The transmission proposal of the private utilities is not in ke with the spirit and intent of the Colorado River storage project autho tion act. Based on these conclusions, Mr. McPhail recommends that because of the time remaining before the initial availability of Colorado River storage pr power, construction must begin in fiscal year 1961, on the initial phases o Federal transmission system. For these reasons we urge the subcommitee tot include in the public w appropriation bill for fiscal 1961, $5 million to begin construction of the Canyon to Curecanti and the Flaming Gorge to Oak Creek 230-kilovolt tran sion lines. The construction of these particular lines is not in controversy because the investor owned company plan for Colorado River storage project tran sion anticipates that these two lines will be built by the United States view of the fact that preference customer loads will absorb the entire power available from the project, there would seem little reason for the u companies undertaking major transmission expenditures. However, in a priating initial funds for these two particular lines, Congress will not be judging whether the Federal transmission system or the combined Federal private transmission system as proposed by the companies should be ultima adopted. CONCLUSION This year the Congress is being asked to approve a budget of $80 billion. Of this, $46 billion, more than 57 percent of the total, is earmarked for major national security-for machines of death and destruction. Only some $2 billion, 2.5 percent of our total budget is earmarked for natural resource development. Military security is most certainly deserving of the highest priority in the allocation of budget expenditures. But, we wonder whether those who describe our natural resource development program as "pork barrel" and demand that the Government stop its capital investment in river basin development-we wonder how far below 2.5 percent of our total budget these people would cut resource development investment; 2.5 percent of the total pie is a pretty small slice. And whereas our immediate future most certainly depends on the 57 percent of budget dedicated to military security, yet our long range future rides almost as certainly on the 2.5 percent committed to resource development. Mr. ROBINSON. Thank you very much. POTOMAC RIVER SURVEY Mr. PILLION. I am just wondering what is the function of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association? Is not recommending recreation a little far afield from the original purpose of rural cooperatives? Now, you are coming in here and recommending recreation and flood control. Is that not a bit far afield from the original purpose of your association? Mr. ROBINSON. Mr. Pillion, I take it that your question is directed to my testimony with regard to the Potomac River Basin? Mr. PILLION. I am referring to the Potomac River Basin. Mr. ROBINSON. Let me put it in as few words as I can, and if I do not answer your question clearly, you can ask it again. With regard to the Potomac River Basin, our people are interested in determining whether or not the installation of hydroelectric features at such dams as may be developed on the Potomac River is feasible can we get Federal power in Potomac River dams? The study, as originally contemplated by the 1956 resolution of the Senate Public Works Committee contemplated, a multipurpose survey-flood control, navigation, hydroelectric power, recreation, and water supply and pollution abatement, but the study has now been narrowed so that it is limited to pollution abatement, water supply, and such flood control as can be achieved through levees and channelization. No flood-control reservoirs can be studied under the Senate public works resolution as interpreted by the Corps of Engineers and under the report of the Senate Appropriations Committee for the last 2 years. This means that flood control reservoirs, hydroelectric power, navigation and recreation are excluded from the study. Certainly we are primarily interested in having restored to that study the hydroelectric features. When I say that flood control and recreation have been eliminated, I am merely trying to emphasize the point that, under the study as it is now being undertaken, as many benefits and as many features are being ignored as are being studied, which does not seem to make sense to me. Mr. PILLION. In other words, you want to use recreation here to justify the feasibility of hydroelectric facilities; is that the purpose? Mr. ROBINSON. No, sir; that is not the purpose. I am merely trying to say that recreation and flood control, J with hydroelectric power are being ignored. Mr. PILLION. Is this your interest? Is recreation an intere rural cooperatives? Mr. ROBINSON. We have no position on recreation. Mr. PILLION. You have a very definite position. You recom it. You recommend that a study be made. You say it is not dental to hydroelectric facilities. Mr. ROBINSON. Let me say that we are primarily interested i droelectric facilities as they may be feasible in connection with n purpose developments. Mr. PILLION. How much would the cost be for a comprehe. survey over and above present costs? Do you have any estima Mr. ROBINSON. Well, sir, the original study for a comprehe development survey was estimated at about $1.5 million. The C of Engineers has already spent about $800,000 on that and ha quested another $400,000 for fiscal year 1961. Yet, they are not st. ing anything but pollution abatement and water supply. Mr. PILLION. Could you assure this committee that a hydroele project on the Potomac standing by itself without flood control l fits and without recreation benefits, would be a feasible project upon this ratio? Mr. ROBINSON. No, sir, I could not assure the committee of th Mr. PILLION. Why should we spend a couple of million dollars. is probably not going to be feasible? Mr. ROBINSON. We are not asking for a study of the river would include a project solely for the purpose of developing hy electric power. Mr. PILLION. I know, but these other projects are very marg and are used to bolster up the cost of hydroelectric power. Mr. ROBINSON. Sir; I do not know that to be fact, and th the basis on which we are asking for this comprehensive study determine these facts. Mr. PILLION. And the costs that you recite here were estimate the early 1940's. Mr. ROBINSON. No, sir; the $1.5 million study estimate was b on 1956 figures at the time the study was authorized by the Ser Public Works Committee. Mr. PILLION. Was not a comprehensive study made by the Corp Engineers in the early 1940's? Mr. ROBINSON. Yes, sir; there was. Mr. RABAUT. The committee will stand adjourned until 2 o'cl this afternoon. AFTERNOON SESSION PROJECTS IN KANSAS, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA WITNESSES HON. W. R. HULL, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM T STATE OF MISSOURI HON. WINT SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM TI STATE OF KANSAS HON. RICHARD BOLLING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI HON. MORGAN M. MOULDER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI HON. CHARLES H. BROWN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI HON. NEWELL A. GEORGE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS HON. WILLIAM H. AVERY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS HON. J. FLOYD BREEDING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS HON. EDWARD H. REES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS HON. JOHN KYL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA WILLIAM G. (MIKE) CALVERT, PRESIDENT, MISSOURI-ARKANSAS BASINS FLOOD CONTROL ASSOCIATION, EXECUTIVE BOARD, MISSISSIPPI VALLEY ASSOCIATION, LEXINGTON, MO. A BASEY VANLANDINGHAM, SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE, MISSOURI ASSEMBLY, REPRESENTING GOV. JAMES T. BLAIR, JEFFERSON CITY, MO. KEITH SEBELIUS, ATTORNEY, NORTON, KANS. P. P. GWALPNEY, FARMER AND BOARD MEMBER, NORTON, KANS. E. CAPSTICH, FARMER AND BOARD MEMBER, ALMENA, KANS. CLARENCE COX, FARMER AND BOARD MEMBER, LONG ISLAND, KANS. GERALD VAN PELT, FARMER, PRESIDENT, SOLOMON VALLEY WATER CONSERVATION & FLOOD CONTROL ASSOCIATION, BELOIT, KANS. HARLEY LUCAS, CITY MANAGER, HAYS, KANS. D. B. MARSHALL, JR., BANKER, CHAIRMAN, BANKS AND BANKING COMMITTEE KANSAS LEGISLATURE, LINCOLN, KANS. RALPH EXLINE, FORMER MAYOR, SALINA, KANS. FRED BRAMLAGE, BUSINESSMAN, JUNCTION CITY, KANS. BUS LAMER, BUSINESSMAN, JUNCTION CITY, KANS. CECIL HUNTER, CITY COMMISSIONER, MANHATTAN, KANS. WILLIAM COLVIN, EDITOR, MANHATTAN MERCURY, MANHATTAN, KANS. HENRY BAYER, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, MANHATTAN, KANS. FLOYD CONWELL, COUNTY COMMISSIONER, MANHATTAN, KANS. JOE HAINES, COUNTY COMMISSIONER, MANHATTAN, KANS. SCOTT KELSEY, FARMER, ROSSVILLE, KANS. T. M. MURRELL, MAJORITY FLOOR LEADER, KANSAS LEGISLATURE, TOPEKA, KANS. CARL ZIMMERMAN, CITY ATTORNEY, TOPEKA, KANS. JOHN FERNSTROM, TOPEKA FLOOD CONTROL & CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION, TOPEKA, KANS. DON TAYLOR, COUNTY COMMISSIONER, TOPEKA, KANS. KELLY LEWIS, PRESIDENT, NORTH TOPEKA DRAINAGE I TOPEKA, KANS. EMIL HECK, FARMER AND PRESIDENT, KAW BASIN WATER AGEMENT ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTING CITY OF LAWR LAWRENCE, KANS. WILLARD J. BREIDENTHAL, CHAIRMAN, GREATER KANSAS FLOOD PLANNING COMMITTEE, KANSAS CITY, KANS. CYRUS W. LONG, KAW VALLEY DRAINAGE BOARD, KANSAS KANS. R. D. WHITE, KAW VALLEY DRAINAGE BOARD, KANSAS KANS. 0. F. (JACK) SMITH, KAW VALLEY DRAINAGE BOARD, K CITY, KANS. JOSEPH P. REGAN, COMMISSIONER OF BOULEVARDS, PARKS STREETS, KANSAS CITY, KANS. LAMAR PHILLIPS, NEWSPAPERMAN, OTTAWA HERALD, OTË GEORGE LISTER, BANKER, IMMEDIATE PAST CHAIRMAN, KA RUSSELL CRITES, BUSINESSMAN, OTTAWA, KANS. BILL BLAND, BUSINESSMAN, STOCKTON, MO. CLARENCE CAVENDER, STOCKTON, MO. ART SINDT, PRESIDENT, OSAGE VALLEY FLOOD CONTROL & W CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION, WARSAW, MO. CRUMP TAYLOR, BUSINESSMAN, CLINTON, MO. JIM WILSON, ATTORNEY, WINDSOR, MO. HARRY HIXON, CITY COMMISSIONER, ATCHISON, KANS. J. MONROE RUSK, MISSOURI VICE PRESIDENT, MO-ARK BÁ M. MONROE RUSK, MISSOURI-ARKANSAS BASIN FLOOD CONTR CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION WALTER ANDREWS, SOUTH ST. JOSEPH LEVEE BOARD, ST. JOS MO. N. RAY CARMICHAEL, SECRETARY-TREASURER, ATHERTON LI JOHN WRIGHT, FARMER AND BUSINESSMAN, HARDIN, MO. |