Let's take a quick look at the Flint River in Georgia:

In 1836 the Georgia General Assembly appropriated $10,000 as an aid to navigation.

In 1872 the Federal Government authorized a survey of the Flint River from Albany, Ga., to Chattahoochee, Fla.

In 1908, 1909, and 1913 land was acquired on the Flint River by the Flint River Power Co., Central Georgia Power Co., and Georgia Construction Co. for the purpose of building dams now under consideration by your august committee Land has since been acquired by the Georgia Power Co.

In 1939 the Corps of Engineers recommended a general plan "for full development of the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint River systems, in the combined interest of navigation, flood control, and power."

On October 27, 1961, the Corps of Engineers announced that they were planning studies of several hydro sites on the upper reaches of the Flint and which is under consideration at this time.

On August 31, 1962, the Corps of Engineers recommended the development of three dams at the fall line and two below for navigation purposes, the latter two to be developed by 1980.

In 1963 the Spewrell Bluff project on the Flint was authorized by the Congress for Federal development. In the 1966 budget there is an item calling for an appropriation of $150,000 for planning on this dam.

For more than 50 years the Georgia Power Co. or their predecessors have sat idly by and done nothing about the Flint River until faced with impending Federal developments.

This was true on the Savannah River at Clark's Hill.

It was true on the Coosawattee River in north-central Georgia.

We oppose vigorously the proposed "partnership" arrangement submitted by the Georgia Power Co.

While the Georgia Power Co. makes quite a point that "partnership" will reduce the Government's initial investment in the three Flint projects by some $45 to $50 million it overlooks four overriding considerations:

(1) The entire expenditure for the power facilities, if made by the Government, will be returned to the Treasury from power revenues within 50 years with interest, together with all operating, maintenance, and marketing expenses.

(2) In addition to making the Treasury whole, the taxpayers will own a valuable facility having a useful life of at least another 50 years.

(3) Public bodies and cooperatives, preferred customers under section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944, will be denied during the payout period direct savings of some $15 million, assuming the power is not federally generated.

(4) Should Georgia Power Co. install the power facilities, and be allowed 6.25 percent return on investment after taxes, the company's consumers will be required to pay substantially in excess of $100 million more for the power during the payout period that would be necessary if produced at an all Federal development.

The five Federal hydroelectric dams now built and in operation in Georgia have, in the matter of production of power and power sales, exceeded our fondest expectations. We quote from the fiscal year 1964 report as follows:

NOTE. Some of these projects have just come into production within the past 2 or 3

years.

NOTE.-Contract between Southeastern Power Administration and the Georgia Power Co., dated October 11, 1957, and amended June 19, 1962, contained this subsection:

Subsection 7.2: "The parties anticipate that all or part of the capacity and energy from other Federal Reservoir projects constructed in or upon the periphery of the company's service area will be marketed in the service area of the company under agreements between the Government and the company similar to the one herein set forth. The charge for transmission service specified in subsection 7.1 was determined in accordance with the criteria and procedure set forth in exhibit AA attached hereto and made a part hereof, and it is agreed that when power from additional projects is involved, the charge so specified will be redetermined on the basis of the criteria and procedure specified in said exhibit AA to cover delivery of capacity and energy to preference customers of the Government from all projects then marketed in the service area of the company." [Emphasis added.]

We believe that the present arrangement of Federal development of feasible reservoir projects, marketed through the Southeastern Power Administration, providing preference to the cooperatives and self-owned municipalities with wheeling over the Georgia Power Co.'s lines for a fee and the disposition of the surplus power to the company or others, is the best method thus far devised to develop the natural water resources of the State and/or States, and will inure to the benefit of the greatest number of citizens of our State and the Nation.

We respectfully request that you authorize the Federal development of the Lazer Creek and Lower Auchumpkee Creek projects on the Flint.

The continued development of our water resources will be double insurance for the continuance of low rates for rural electrification and will be for the general welfare of our country, in our opinion.

Mr. JONES. Our next witness is Mr. Hays Arnold, who is chairman of the County Commission, Upson, Ga.

Mr. Arnold, we are glad to have you here. your statement.

You may proceed with

STATEMENT OF HAYS ARNOLD, CHAIRMAN, COUNTY COMMISSION OF UPSON COUNTY, GA.

Mr. ARNOLD. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I thank you for this opportunity to appear before you.

I am Hays Arnold of Thomaston, Ga. I am chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Upson County, Ga., and of the Water

Resources Committee of the Thomaston-Upson County Chamber of Commerce.

I am accompanied by Judge James R. Davis, Jr., judge of the small claims court of Upson County, president of the Thomaston Federal Savings & Loan Association, and a prominent attorney; Mr. Robert Cravey, executive vice president of the Bank of Upson and a former president of both the chamber of commerce and board of education, and Mr. Charles Williams, trucking executive and president of the chamber of commerce. Each of these gentlemen with me are members of the water resources committee. There are two other members, Mr. Leon Smith, editor of the Free Press and the Thomaston Times,. and Mr. John Edenfield, mayor of the city of Thomaston and president of two large corporations operating in this area, who join with us as the authors of this statement.

I speak for a group of Thomaston and Upson County, Ga., community leaders, elected officials and the citizenry at large in appearing here to ask for early authorization of Lazer Creek and lower Auchumpkee dams on Flint River near the headwaters. The people of Thomaston and Upson County have designated our group to speak

for them.

Our appeals for early authorization of Lazer Creek and lower Auchumpkee Creek dams are based, first, on the fact that these projects are economically feasible with a benefit-cost ratio of 1.2 each. Secondly, we would point out that these are multipurpose dams for flood control, hydroelectric power, navigation, general recreation and conservation.

The lower reaches of the Flint, particularly in the areas of Montezuma, Albany, and Newton, need the flood control protection now of the upper dam complex comprised of Spewrell Bluff, Lazer Creek and lower Auchumpkee Creek projects.

On navigation, we would point out that together with the Spewrell Bluff, Lazer Creek and lower Auchumpkee Creek reservoirs, two others are a part of the comprehensive Flint River report. The other two are both navigation projects eliminated for consideration by the U.S. Corps of Engineers until 1980 or later.

However, Racoon Creek and lower Vada navigational projects in the Albany and Bainbridge, Ga., areas cannot be considered until the three headwater projects are on the way to completion. However, navigation is tied to the future growth of the south Georgia area. The people of Albany, Ga., have put 20 years of work and study into the Flint River project and we believe in your consideration of the headwater projects, you will want to weigh the future plans for economic growth in the Albany, Ga., area, which is downstream.

The general recreation and conservation-fishing-to be made possible by these three dams, when authorized, are closely linked to the economy of the general area involved. In all of the counties touched by this project, the mechanization of farmland has resulted in loss of hundreds of jobs. In Upson County, the number of fulltime farms has dropped to only 252 in a county of 252,000 acres of land and nearly 25,000 people.

The economy of Upson County was established on a base of cotton; but in 1964, the total cotton acreage was only 1,200 acres. In the 1955 Agriculture Census, Upson was one of the 100 leading peach

producing counties in the United States; but in 1965, only 4 major growers shipped peaches, and the future of the peach crop, which once provided full-time and seasonal employment for several hundreds, and now gives full-time work to only 75, is dark.

The Georgia counties to be directly affected by authorization of Lazer Creek and lower Auchumpkee Creek dams are Upson, Pike, Meriwether, Talbot, Taylor, and Crawford-all of which lost in population from 1950 to 1960. Now the existence of the counties as separate governmental units, the continuation of individual county schools and other programs are in jeopardy as a result of declining population.

It has been a matter of great importance that we ask for authorization of Lazer Creek and lower Auchumpkee Creek dams in order that these counties be able to pull themselves up again.

Located in the near center of a triangle formed by the cities of Macon, Atlanta, and Columbus comprising the mass of the population of Georgia, it is believed that the reservoirs of these projects will provide a new industry to cater to the city dwellers who will be seeking water recreation. The reservoirs will be within 40 miles of each of these cities and as near as 30 to Macon and Columbus.

That brings us to the hydroelectric aspect of these multipurpose dams. Already the U.S. Corps of Engineers has given 1.2 benefit-tocost ratio on both Lazer and lower Auchumpkee Creek dams.

But we have gone to the agency that would have the responsibility of selling this power, assuming the dams are authorized as public power projects, and quote the following from a letter of February 21, 1963, to Mr. Hays Arnold from Mr. Charles W. Leavy, administrator of the Southeastern Power Administration in Elberton, Ga., and I quote:

Subsequent to preparing our revenue estimates for the Flint River projects' we have examined the revenue potentials from the system of Federal hydroelectric projects within or upon the boundary of the State of Georgia, including all existing projects as well as those under construction and the proposed Flint River projects. Specifically, the projects are: Allatoona, Buford, Clark Hill, Jim Woodruff, Hartwell, Walter F. George, Carters, Spewrell Bluff, Lazer Creek, and Lower Auchumpkee Creek. Based upon a completely coordinated power operation of these projects such that they are integrated hydraulically, electrically, and financially, we are assured that we can obtain power revenue sufficient to repay all costs associated with the production and transmission of the power produced by the system, including the amortization of the capital investment allocated to power within 50 years from the time that each increment of power investment becomes revenue producing. This, in our opinion, clearly establishes for power the financial integrity of the complete Georgia system, including the proposed Flint River projects.

Further, to substantiate a need for the hydroelectric power, we cite the testimony of Mr. John W. Lastinger, executive vice president, Georgia Power Co., Atlanta, Ga., before the Subcommittee on Flood Control of the House Committee on Public Works on February 28, 1963. Mr. Lastinger pointed out that the Georgia Power Co.furnished electric service to approximately 750,000 consumers in 155 of the 159 counties in Georgia

And the purpose of his testimony was to ask for congressional support to his company's position of seeking to develop the hydroelectric power at Spewrell Bluff, Lazer Creek, and lower Auchumpkee

Creek sites. His position can be interpreted as further citing a need in Georgia for more hydroelectric power.

In still further support of the need of the hydroelectric power from the two projects we now ask you to authorize, we cite testimony of Mr. Walter Harrison, executive manager, Georgia Electric Membership Corp., before the subcommittee of the House Public Works Committee on February 28, 1963. I quote in part:

* * * the 39 cooperatives in Georgia purchased 1,252,346,000 kilowatt-hours in 1960. It is predicted that our purchase in 1970 will total 2,200 million kilowatthours, and in 1980 should total 3,200 million kilowatt-hours.

This clearly establishes the need for hydroelectric power in Georgia, where industry is replacing agriculture, to hold our area's head above the waters of poverty and eliminating the necessity of any such expensive Federal project as in Appalachia.

Finally, we would cite to you the great potential in natural resources yet untapped on the Flint River which would in no way have any adverse effect on the river.

The letter of transmittal from the Secretary of the Army, dated September 21, 1962, points out that the three headwater sites-which are Spewrell Bluff, Lazer Creek, and lower Auchumpkee Creek—all in the fall line reach, would develop the full potential of this reach and would be in a continuous series. It also calls attention to the fact that in addition to the conventional types of power possibilities, there is the possibility of the including of pumped-storage power with pools downstream at both Lazer Creek and lower Auchumpkee Creek projects.

The Flint River is undeveloped except for three electric plants downstream, which, according to the U.S. Corps of Engineers, would benefit by the regulation of the Flint River at Spewrell Bluff, Lazer Creek, and lower Auchumpkee Creek projects. It is our understanding that the Flint River is among the few remaining major rivers undeveloped on the fall line, possibly the only one. The dam at Spewrell Bluff and the two proposed now are in the fall line area.

Areas of land over which Lazer Creek and lower Auchumpkee Creek Dams would back water are now primarily in timber or wild land and the sparsely settled area would result in a bare minimum of of displacement of homes, businesses, and farm property.

Gentlemen, we submit to you that by every rule of measure, Lazer Creek and lower Auchumpkee Creek projects are economically feasible good business propositions for the Government-and they are sorely needed and desired by the people in the area, as evidenced by the fact that there has not been one scintilla of opposition voiced by the people in the headwater area involved.

We respectfully ask you to give serious consideration to the evidence and we trust you will reach a decision to give immediate authorization to Lazer Creek and lower Auchumpkee Creek projects. Thank you.

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Arnold.

Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Arnold, I certainly want to welcome you to the committee, because, as I said before, I feel that I am a part of the fraternity of local officials.

I am very much inclined to lean toward a system, wherever I can, of local government. You presented your problems very well. Mr. ARNOLD. Thank you.