The New England Council, which is to be recorded in favor of Senate 253, subject to one suggestion which I will mention later. We believe that this study will produce additional factual and economic data pertaining to the important decisions which must be made regarding the development of power in New England.

The construction of hydroelectric power projects and the related subjects of flood control, conservation storage, navigation, and so forth, by their very nature involve the flooding of land and, in many cases, improvements on the land such as factories, roads, and railroads which may be vital to the local economy. Therefore, we feel that it is important that State and local interests be given an opportunity to participate in the preparation of this report since they frequently are in a better position to evaluate the effect of possible dislocations and damages to the local economy in the immediate vicinity of a given project.

In New England there has recently been formed, at the direction of the New England Governors, a body made up of the public-utility commissions of all the States, known as the New England Conference of Public Utility Commissioners.

We would suggest that provision be made in Senate 253 for participation by the New England Conference of Public Utility Commissioners. Thus, the two Federal agencies charged with the preparation of the report may have the benefit of the knowledge of those living in the regions which may be affected by the projects studied. Senator MCCLELLAN. Thank you.

Senator LODGE. Mr. Seymour.

Senator MCCLELLAN. You may proceed, Mr. Seymour.

STATEMENT OF PAUL E. SEYMOUR, PRESIDENT, DISTRICT 2, UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO, AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, BOSTON, MASS.

Mr. SEYMOUR. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am here today as the representative of 80,000 workers in the electrical, radio, and machine manufacturing industry of New England who are members of my union.

First of all, we wish to congratulate Senator Lodge for his initiative and imagination in introducing the bill which is before you today. Senate 253. We fully support such a survey. In fact, our union has urged a Connecticut and Merrimack Valley Authority for several

years.

There has never been a more suitable time to undertake such a survey. Many manufacturing concerns have left New England. There are now some 200,000 industrial workers unemployed in Massachusetts, 100,000 in Connecticut, 60,000 in Rhode Island. If this survey resulted in congressional authorization of New England River Valley projects, thousands of jobs would be created both directly and indirectly.

Our union has a particular interest in these projects, especially at this time. There are already more than 15,000 New England workers

in the electrical and machine manufacturing industries who have been laid off within the last year. The authorization of work on river valley projects would mean that these men and women would be rehired to make turbines, dynamos, wire, switches, machines, and many other products needed.

Cheap power means greatly increased power consumption, greater use of electric home appliances. The establishment of multiple-purpose river valley projects throughout New England would greatly Stimulate the electrical manufacturing business, thus creating thousands of new jobs and benefiting the whole community through the increased purchasing power of gainfully employed workers.

Aside from these reasons, which pertain especially to the industry in which our members are engaged, there are many other strong and cogent reasons why such a survey as Senator Lodge proposes, is urgently needed at this time.

The most important and startling reason for this survey is the astounding fact that although 149 public power projects are in operation, under construction, or authorized, in the South, Southwest, Rocky Mountain, and the Pacific Coast, not one single project is in the New England States.

New England has the highest over-all electric rates of any region in the United States. The reduction of private company rates in the Northeast has not kept pace with the reduction of rates in the other three-quarters of the Nation although the Eastern States supposedly have the oldest and most efficient regulatory commissions.

This is due to the fact that the low rates established by TVA and other projects have forced the private companies to reduce their rates, and incidentally, also forced them to make more money. New England electric rates are 60 percent higher than private company rates in the TVA area.

New England has the lowest average residential use of power in the country, with one exception (west south central region). New Englanders used an average of only 1,160 kilowatt-hours per year for household purposes in 1947, while the average for the Nation was 1.400 kilowatt-hours.

The average cost of the monthly bill for 100 kilowatt-hours for residential use in New England was $4.32 in 1947. In the United States as a whole it was $3.74. It goes down to $3.01 in the Pacific Northwest, but the highest on the list is New England. New Englanders used an average of 1,160 kilowatt-hours per year for household purposes in 1947, while the average for the Nation was 1,400 kilowatthours.

If we rank the Nation's cities of more than 50,000 population in the order of average annual consumption per residential customer, we find that Massachusetts cities, with two exceptions, rank in the bottom half of the list, and the eight cities of lowest rank are in New England. Their average bill is not so low, however.

1946 average annual kilowatt-hour consumption per residential customer-cities of 50,000 or more-rank from high to low

If we compare these positions with the top five, the results are startling. Householders in Tacoma, Wash., for instance, use eight times as much power on the average as in Lawrence, Mass., and pay only about twice as much for the total.

The high rates in New England have naturally resulted in a low per capita rate of industrial power consumption. The New England average per capita use of power for industrial purposes amounted to 1,067 kilowatt hours per year in 1947. The United States average is 2.000 kilowatt hours per year; in the State of Tennessee it is 2,150 kilowatt hours and in Alabama 1,890 kilowatt hours.

The average rate for industrial use of electrical power per kilowatthour in New England was 1.54 cents in 1947. In the United States as a whole, it was 0.98 cent; in Alabama 0.60 cent; Georgia 0.93 cent; and in Tennesse 0.44 cent.

Taking the figure of 100,000 kilowatt-hours per month for industrial use, a manufacturer would pay in:

City:

Boston.

New Haven__

Springfield.

Worcester

Cost per 100,000 kilowatts

per month
$1.912

2,100

1.900

1,800

Looking at some other cities, we find the following:

A comparison of industrial rates per kilowatt-hour in Chattanooga, which has a municipally owned utility distributing power from TVA sources, and typical New England cities, shows that Chattanooga rates are from 0.62 to 1.29 cents per kilowatt-hours lower in the small industrial user group; 0.75 to 1.06 cents per kilowatt-hour lower in the medium industrial group; and 0.62 to 0.97 cent lower in the large user

group.

The cold facts are that New England rates, both industrial and residential, are too high.

The United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America unequivocally favors the development of multipurpose projects in New England. Interested as we are in the development of cheap public power with its job-creating opportunities and low rates to consumers, we are equally interested in the flood-control and river-pollution aspects, with the collateral improvement of recreation areas and soil

Conservation.

The Federal Power Commission has estimated that there is a power potential of 2,500,000 kilowatt capacity to be developed from New England rivers. The New England council, a business organization, estimates only 420,000. This discrepancy arises from the fact that the council does not consider the development of a river as an entire unit. It considered only separate, unconnected, self-liquidating projects. It studied the sites from the point of view of power development alone. The council's estimate was made on the basis of privately financed projects which would have to earn double the amount of public projects.

The over-all approach, of course, is the one which should be taken, not only because it would result in a greater development of power, but also because of its flood-control aspects (for example, Connecticut River floods caused an estimated $80,000,000 in damages from 1927 to 1947: the 1936 flood alone on the Merrimack River caused an estimated $36,000,000 in damages); the development of recreation areas; evention of pollution, currently receiving much attention in New England because of a prolonged drought; and conservation of the

land.

The fact is that we have a lower per capita use of electricity in New England for both industrial and residential purposes. The level of onomic well-being is closely related to the use of power. New England needs more power. New England has many unemployed. Iney must be given work. Public power development can provide hat work, both directly and indirectly.

The Federal Power Commission, in a recent memorandum (to Senator Saltonstall) stated:

Comprehensive basin-wide investigation should be made for all of the major iver systems of New England to determine more fully and definitely the possiles for their further development for production of hydroelectric power. led control, navigation, and other purposes. It is suggested that this can be

accomplished through the present cooperative procedures of the Corps of Engi neers and the Federal Power Commission in river-basin investigations, as provided by the various flood-control acts and river-and-harbor acts since 1933. Legislation and appropriations specifically authorizing the necessary investigations in New England are however, needed, before this work can be undertaken.

I would prefer to be before this committee in support of the authorization of action projects. Failing that, however, I believe Senator Lodge's bill carries out the practical recommendation of the Commission. It is sound and valuable legislation. I sincerely trust that your committee, Mr. Chairman, will give it a unanimously fa vorable report.

I think the introduction of this bill by Senator Lodge is commendable, and it has the complete support not only of my organization but the membership in the organization, and several other labor unions in New England...

Senator MCCLELLAN. I may say to you that this is the usual procedure. This is the proper procedure, first, to have a survey made so as to establish, if we can, the economic justification for the project. This is the usual procedure. All projects that have been authorized have taken this course.

Mr. SEYMOUR. I am aware of that, Mr. Chairman. What I am perhaps trying to read into this is an acceleration, hoping it will be favorably reported and the action we are proposing will be given the greatest consideration.

So I want to thank you as chairman of the committee, and the members, and Senator Lodge for inviting me to appear before this committee.

Senator MCCLELLAN. AS I interpret your statement, you do not necessarily agree with all these editorial writers who refer to these projects as pork barrel legislation, do you?

Mr. SEYMOUR. I do not.

Senator MCCLELLAN. They really do provide many jobs, and as rule there may be some exceptions when such projects are completel they really add to the development of the communities, the State, and the Nation as a whole, as I see it.

Mr. SEYMOUR. I see it the same way.

Senator MCCLELLAN. So I do not agree that these improvements are of the pork barrel variety.

Mr. SEYMOUR. I support your contention, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Thank you. We appreciate very much your

statement.

Mr. SEYMOUR. Thank you, sir.

Senator MCCLELLAN. You have another witness or two, Senator' Senator LODGE. Yes, I have some witnesses on this bill here for the deepening Sesuit Harbor. I have Mr. MacKinnon who is with the division of waterways of the Massachusetts department of public works.

This is Mr. Nickerson, one of the selectmen of the town of Dentis and this is Mr. Davidson, and this is Mr. Eldridge over here. Senator MCCLELLAN. You gentlemen all represent the same interest and are interested in the same project?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Yes, sir.