Mr. LEAVY. Any such proposal would virtually make two States out of the State of Washington and would tie up resources of great value. Now, let me ask you one more question: Have there been any employees of the Park Service in the last year in that region, engaged in a further study, and do you have any man there now? Mr. DEMARAY. No, sir; to my own knowledge there has been no one there, since the Washington State Planning Council's report came out. CIVILIAN CONSERVATION CORPS CAMPS IN NATIONAL PARK AREAS Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. Now, I would like to ask you a few questions about the park C. C. C. camps. How many park camps do you have in the United States? Mr. DEMARAY. I do not have that information. Mr. DRURY. Two hundred and eighty-two, I think. Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. Can you supply that for the record? Mr. DEMARAY. We will supply that. Mr. DRURY. I believe that is correct. Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. Now, these park camps were placed in areas, as I understand the situation, largely upon the recommendation of the various State park authorities; is that not true? Mr. DEMARAY. That is correct. Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. I understand under the proposed reduction, in case Congress does not make sufficient appropriations to keep all of the present C. C. C. camps open, that you will lose a few camps. Can you advise the committee how many camps it is proposed for you to lose? Mr. DRURY. That is the reduced figure, after the reduction of 9 percent of last year. Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. After the reduction of 9 percent? Mr. DEMARAY. I am not as familiar with the C. C. C. set-up, because that is handled by Mr. Wirth; but we can answer any question and put it in the record. There are two types of camps which the Park Service operates one in their own areas and one in State parks, and of the State camps I have always understood that those were located at the request of the State park authorities. List of Civilian Conservation Corps camps as of Mar. 31, 1941 A reduction of 21 camps from the present schedule of 308 camps will be effected by June 30, so that only 287camps will be in operation under the 1942 program. Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. That has been my understanding and I assumed, of course, in case it was necessary to reduce any camps and move any camps, that also would be done on the recommendation of the local authorities, that is, the State park authorities. Mr. DEMARAY. I think that is true, with one exception, and that is where the Park Service has felt that the work was completed. Sometimes a State, despite the fact that most of the work that the C. C. C. was authorized to do was completed, would rather retain that camp because, perhaps, they have lacked necessary maintenance funds to keep it up, and we have felt, in a few instances, that those camps ought to come out and perhaps it has not fully met the approval of the State park authorities. Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. I will say I have just been advised by another member of the delegation in Congress from Oklahoma that you are proposing to move a park camp in Oklahoma without the consent or recommendation of the State park authority. Mr. SCRUGHAM. If there are no further questions, we thank you gentlemen for your most thorough and excellent presentation. I especially compliment you on the completeness of your knowledge of the most minute detail. This is one of the most thorough presentations that has been made by any department. Mr. DRURY. I would like to add my word complimenting Mr. Demaray on the way he has presented it. Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. We appreciate that and I desire to say I coincide with everything the Governor [Mr. Scrugham] has said; we feel that Park Service is rendering a real service to the people of the country. Mr. DRURY. Thank you, sir. Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. And we hope that the new Director enjoys the next hundred years as Director of the Park Service. Mr. DRURY. Thank you, sir. QUESTIONS BY CONGRESSMAN JONES OF OHIO, AND REPLIES THERETO 1. Give the percentage of profit allowed to each national park concessionaire, and the amount of percentage the Government is receiving from each park concessionaire. (Give this in detail for each park.) List of concessionaires now operating under regular concession contracts in national park areas, showing percentage of net profit accruing to the Government and the concessionaire in excess of the allowable priority Concessionaire Percentage of net profit in excess of allowable priority accruing to Govern- Concesment sionaire 222 7714 (a) Acadia National Park: Acadia Corporation. Rich, Charles H. and Mary L. Boulder Dam National Recreational Area: Grand Canyon-Boulder Dam Tours, Bryce Canyon National Park: Utah Parks Co. Carlsbad Caverns National Park: Cavern Supply Co. Colonial National Park: Colonial Park Co., Inc. Crater Lake National Park: Crater Lake National Park Co. Miller, Dr. Fred N Kings Canyon National Park: Sequoia & General Grant National Parks Co... Glacier National Park: Glacier Park Boat Co. Glacier Park Hotel Co. Glacier Park Transport Co. Park Saddle Horse Co. Grand Canyon National Park: Babbitt Bros. Trading Co. Carson, Dr. Basil G Harvey, Fred (South Rim). Kolb, Emery C. Utah Parks Co. (North Rim). Verkamp, John G. Grand Teton National Park: Crandall. Harrison R. Hawaii National Park: Lycurgus, George.. Hot Springs National Park: Alhambra Bath House, Inc. Arlington Hotel Co Buckstaff Bath House Co. Eastman Co Fordyce Baths, Inc. Hale Bathhouse. Knights of Pythias. Lamar Bath House Co. Leo N. Levi Memorial Hospital Association. Majestic Hotel Co., Inc. Maurice Bath House Co. New Moody Hotel Co. Ozark Bath House Co.. 7712 2212 7732 2212 Mount McKinley National Park: Mount McKinley Tourist & Transportation Co. (a) Mount Rainer National Park: List of concessionaires now operating under regular concession contracts in national park areas, showing percentage of net profit accruing to the Government and the consessionaire in excess of the allowable priority—Continued Concessionaire Percentage of net profit in excess of allowable priority accruing to Govern- Concesment sionaire Rocky Mountain National Park: Bishop, Mrs. Edna B.. Reed & Sons, C. L., Inc. Rocky Mountain Motor Co. Stopher, Edgar. Woods, Jack-Cottages, Inc. Sequoia National Park: Sequoia and General Grant National Parks Co. Shenandoah National Park: Virginia Sky-Line Co., Inc.. Wind Cave National Park: Gideon, C. C. Yellowstone National Park: Hamilton, C. A. Hamilton Stores, Inc. Pryor and Trischman Yosemite National Park: Dewey, Dr. Hartley G Yosemite Park and Curry Co. Zion National Park: Utah Parks Co. Bandelier National Monument: Frey, Mrs. Evelyn C. Muir Woods National Monument: Montgomery, C. H. Petrified Forest National Monument: Standard Concessions, Inc. Island Amusement Co., Inc.. Johnson, Drake & Piper, Inc. Statue of Liberty National Monument: Sutton Lines, Inc. • Franchise fee to the Government based on percentage of revenue, or fixed annual fee. No fee. 265 75 2. (a) Referring to a Supreme Court decision holding an agreement between the city of San Francisco and a private utility company to distribute power from the Hetch-Hetchy project, by virtue of that decision has all rights reverted to the United States? The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States rendered April 22, 1940, in the litigation between the United States and the city and county of San Francisco with respect to the Hetch-Hetchy project, affirmed the judgment of the Federal district court which enjoined further performance under the contract of July 1, 1925, between the city of San Francisco and the Pacific Gas & Electric Co. and also restrained the city, if it continued to perform under that contract, from using for development and transmission of electric energy any of the lands, rights, and privileges granted to it under the Raker Act. In order to afford the city a reasonable time for compliance with the requirements of the Raker Act, as construed by the Supreme Court, on August 26, 1940, on the recommendation of the Department of the Interior, a stipulation was executed by the representatives of the Department of Justice and the city of San Francisco whereby the United States consented to a stay, until June 30, 1941, of the effective date of the injunction entered in the pending litigation between the parties. (b) Is additional legislation needed to determine how the respective rights of the city of San Francisco and the United States shall be exercised in the future? No. (c) Are there further contracts contemplated with reference to these projects? With the view toward complying with the Raker Act, the city of San Francisco has submitted to the Department of the Interior, for approval, a proposed lease of the distribution facilities of the Pacific Gas & Electric Co. in San Francisco. The proposed lease is now under consideration in the Department of the Interior. 311522-41-pt. 1--37 THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 1941. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION STATEMENTS OF JOHN C. PAGE, COMMISSIONER; H. W. BASHORE, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER; AND WILLIAM F. KUBACH, CHIEF ACCOUNTANT We Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. The committee will be in order. have with us this morning Commissioner Page, of the Bureau of Reclamation. After Mr. Page has made his statement Judge Leavy will conduct the examination. Mr. Commissioner, will you proceed with any statement you desire to make for the record? Mr. PAGE. I have only a few words in addition to the statement which has been furnished with the justifications. (The statement referred to is as follows:) JUSTIFICATION OF ESTIMATES BUREAU OF RECLAMATION ESTIMATES OF APPROPRIATION, FISCAL YEAR 1942 GENERAL STATEMENT The march of events emphasizes the urgency of the construction program of the Bureau of Reclamation. The provision of settlement opportunities in the West through irrigation and of hydroelectric power for national defense are primary objectives of this program. The population of the 11 Mountain and Pacific States is increasing at a rate twice that of the Nation at large. This adds emphasis to the fact that the stability and puchasing power of a substantial proportion of the nearly 14,000,000 western residents depend on the conservation of the scanty water resources of the region. The pressure of population on the areas now irrigated is far too great to permit them to provide for the settlement and support of more than a few of the many thousands of migrant families who have fled westward from the Great Plains and other areas. The rehabilitation of the Great Plains, through water conservation insofar as there are unused supplies remaining, will assist in halting further migrations and in supporting the population that has weathered in the area the droughts of the last decade. The conservation of the waters of international streams, and the economic utilization of such waters on soil within the United States protect the interests of this country and its citizens. Hydroelectric power to aid national defense and to meet growing normal demands in the West can be provided through the development of multi-purpose public projects which include among their objectives the reclamation of land by irrigation. Projects under construction in California and Idaho will meet imminent deficiencies of power in those states. Other reclamation developments have already averted serious shortages. Since the areas in which it is proposed to advance irrigation and power plant construction are distant from the larger existing national-defense industries, these Reclamation projects will tend to balance the economy of the West. They will provide employment, as a means of bringing about permanent reductions in Federal relief outlays, and will support additional families in nearby cities and towns. Plentiful staple food supplies will be absorbed by an increasing population without adding to burdensome surpluses that beset the agriculture of other sections of the country, and an expanding home market will be provided for American manufacturers. Reasons for expansion summarized.-Cogent reasons for a general speed-up of the completion of reclamation projects under construction and for the initiation of worthy new undertakings are revealed by the reports of the Bureau of the Census, covering the 1930-40 decade, and other official sources These may be summarized as follows: 1. Drought, with agricultural and economic maladjustments, were largely responsible for the migration westward of around 350,000 families in the 10-year period. About half of these, or 175,000 families, were from the Great Plains. |