« AnteriorContinuar »
It is my considered professional opinion
1. That the laws governing commitment of mental patients are in need of
2. That provision for care of the mentally ill of Alaska in hospital facilities
3. That it is further important to furnish the Territory authority and means
For these reasons I wish to urge your committee to use its resources toward the passage of this bill.
I have been asked if I think it would be possible to obtain professional staff for hospital facilities and the carrying out of a mental health program in Alaska. Given the hospitals in which to care for their patients and adequate funds for salaries which this bill provides it is my opinion that the staff could be obtained.
Mr. ABBOTT. I have one other question of Mr. Stewart and Mr. Boyko. The memorandum, the subject of which is "Wholesale Power Supply of the Central Alaska Area," and a memorandum "Problems of Public Utility Relocation Incident to Highway Improvements in Alaska," was it your desire that they be placed in the record following your testimony?
Mr. BOYKO. Yes.
(The statements referred to follow:)
manager, Central Alaska Power Association, Inc.
The history of local and area power, while comparatively short, is nonetheless poignant, and is to all practical purposes unique in some important particulars; for instance, there exists today in the minds of a great many people the feeling that this is still a construction camp, with attendant boom and bust complexes.
The real upsurge of power needs reflected today stem from 1948 At that time the military commands started a program of reactivating, modernization and expansion of certain bases to meet changing world conditions. Perhaps the greatest deficiency in the utility setup was electric power and a brief summary of the situation found at that time may be helpful:
1. The United States Air Force had acquired the former United States Army Air Corps bases in Alaska and the Alaskan Command was under an Air Force general officer.
2. Criteria were required for rapid build up of Alaska defenses on both an interim and continuing basis until a level yet to be determined was reached.
3. Reconnaisance of all possible logistical support on the bases themselves, as well as communities contiguous thereto, was made at high priority by specialized personnel of the several services and their reports evaluated and forwarded to the joint chiefs of staff for use in overall planning.
The findings in (3) above should be of interest to your committee in connection with power and utilities. Some excerpts from that report submitted in 1949 to the Alaskan Air Command are quoted in part below:
(a). "There is no surplus power available in the Anchorage area-brownouts and, indeed, complete failures of the city's and other small electrical systems are not uncommon--the city of Anchorage has no desire to serve areas outside the incorporated city limits with power—a 2,000 kilovolt-ampere emergency tie line exists between the Elmendorf base and APU, but, its practical worth, except in actual emergencies is very low-there is no projected new construction” etc.
At about this same time the Inlet Power & Light Co, who were organized by a real-estate firm to supply power to properties outside the city corporate limits being promoted by them, decided to expand and offer service to anyone contiguous to their system. Concurrently the rural areas who were unable to obtain power from either the city of Anchorage or other power companies of the area, decided to attempt the formation of an REA cooperative and were successful in completion of the first phase in 1949. For the next 3 years (1950 to 1953, inclusive) there was a most vigorous campaign of power expansion in the Anchorage area at large, including the military bases. Also during this time the Bureau of Reclamation started the Eklutna project which was activated (the first unit) in January 1955. It can be truthfully said that, at the time of the completion of Eklutna, the Anchorage and Palmer areas for the first time in many years had enough electric power to satisfy their immediate needs. In the interim other changes were taking place--as an example--several small power companies were purchased by CEA and other expensive sources of power, such as the CEA and city of Anchorage's diesel plants were placed on standby status.
In order that the Eklutna power supply might be firmed up the CEA board of directors decided to proceed with the completion of the Knik Arm steam plant which had been pending since 1953. This new addition consisting of a 5,000kilowatt thermoelectric generating unit would bring the total nameplate capacity up to 14,500 kilowatts.
Conservative estimates show that generating capacity represented by the Bureau of Reclamation's Eklutna hydro project and the CEA knik Arm steam plant will be completely utilized by 1958. High-cost power, power shortages and future requirements of other cooperatives in the Matanuska Valley and on the Kenai Peninsula brought concerted action by them all and the Central Alaska Power Association was formed for the purpose of providing an organization for the generation and transmission of wholesale power to its members. The first action of this association was to initiate an engineering study to produce a definite project report for a 12,000-kilowatt hydroelectric installation on Cooper Lake on the Kenai Peninsula. This report will be complete in December of this year and it is hoped that REA financing for its construction can be arranged for immediately thereafter. If this proves feasible it is hoped to have the plant in operation not later than 1958.
The Bureau of Reclamation has started studies on Caribou Creck during 1955 and their present estimate is that the report on same will be out in 1958. Presumably, a definite project report could be available in 1959 and preassuming favorable action before the Congress construction could start in 1960.
The Corps of Engineers, Alaska district, have done a considerable amount of preliminary work at Lake George and Bradley Lake both of which appears to be attractive potential sites, The Lake George project should be considered a multipurpose flood control and power development-with ultimate installed capacity in the order of 200,000 kilowatts or more. The Bradley Lake project may be considered a power project with an ultimate installed capacity of greater than 46,000 kilowatts. This work should be continued and supplemented by other project studies.
It has been reported that there may be a proposal forthcoming to set aside the Lake George area of the Knik Watershed as a national monument. Such use of this area could preclude the further study of the hydroelectric potential and floodcontrol possibilities of this remarkable natural dam site. The CAPA will oppose the establishment of such a monument at Lake George until sufficient studies are made to show the true hydroelectric potential and flood-control value of this site. At such time as the various benefits to the area can be properly evaluated in the light of such studies, then the CAPA contends would be the more logical time to consider the merits of the lake as a national monument.
Members of the CAPA have continuously worked through their Territorywide Alaska Rural Electric Co-operative Association and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association for the adoption of principles and the endorsement of projects for a comprehensive power program for Alaska. The following excerpts from resolutions made by the NRECA at its meeting held in Kodiak, Alaska, on August 11, 12, and 13, of this year:
**(1) As a general statement of objective we recommend to our systems the adoption of the following motto:
"To provide the best possible electric service at the lowest possible cost consistent with sound business principles."
(2) We endorse the harnessing of Alaska water resources by means of multiplepurpose dams and projects looking toward comprehensive development of river basins.
(3) We endorse the principle of power pooling whereby generating plants and the various load centers and interconnected by means of a transmission grid.
(4) We request the Bureau of Reclamation to resume its study of waterpower of the Susitna River Basin and specifically the Devil Canyon project including transmission lines to the Fairbanks and Anchorage areas.
(5) We endorse continued study of the Bureau of Reclamation of the Caribou Creek project with a view to earliest possible construction assuming the engineering report shows economic feasibility.
(6) We endorse the Cooper Lake project study by the Central Alaska Power Association with a view to earliest possible construction assuming the engineering report shows economic feasibility.
(7) We express interest in the proposed Crescent Lake project of the city of Seward and we endorse its construction if economic feasibility can be established, perhaps through constructing transmission lines to interconnect the various utilities of the lower rail belt area.
(8) We urge the Corps of Engineers to study the Lake George flood control and power project, of the Bradley Lake project, and that the corps continue its work on the Alaska 308 Report for comprehensive development of water resources.
(9) We urge an early detailed study of the waterpower resources of Kodiak Island.
(10) As a general principle we wish to support power development everywhere in Alaska. Specifically we endorse the construction of the Blue Lake project near Sitka, Swan Lake project near Ketchikan, and Lake Dorcthy project near Juneau as required by the load growth in these areas.
To further enhance the effectiveness of any hydroelectric studies made in Alaska it is the strong feeling of the CAPA that the program of stream-gaging being carried on by the United States Geological Survey must be expanded to include many more streams than now being gaged and that in particular, the program of water measurements on the large rivers of the Territory such as the Yukon, the Copper, and the Susitna be greatly expanded. These large rivers hold untold millions of undeveloped horsepower-some of it is estimated to be very low cost. The CAPA feels that the label of “untold” must be removed as rapidly as possible for the good of Alaska. Also, it must be remembered that some of Alaska's large streams have their origin in Canada and it certainly behooves us all to know what we are talking about when we sit down with our industrious neighbors and talk about joint hydro developments or discuss water rights of Alaska and Canada.
Finally, the CAPA desires to make it clearly known that its present board of directors, its articles of incorporation and its bylaws encourage participation of all persons and agencies who need electric power and are interested in increasing the power supply and economic growth of the central Alaska region through the operation of this nonprofit corporation. The CEA and CAPA feel that CAPA can perform a greatly needed function of providing for the integration of areawide power facilities and markets on a cooperative, locally controlled basis. MEMORANDUM FROM CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC., ANCHORAGE, ALASKA PROBLEMS OF PUBLIC UTILITY RELOCATION INCIDENT TO HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS
Chugach Electric Association, Inc., although not a public utility, but a private membership corporation furnishing electrical light and power to its members only by means of a wonprofit cooperative generation, transmission and distribution system, owned and operated by the members and financed through loans from the Rural Flectrification Administration, United States Department of Agriculture, is increasingly faced, together with other public ard private agencies in the Territory, with the problem generally referred to as that of public utility relocation in.cident to highway improvement.
The problem may be briefly stated as follows: Traditionally, public utilities of various kinds ha é established themselı es along, and more frequently within, public highway rights-of-way.
This has been dore gererally pursuant to constitutional or statutory authority to do so. Such permission, to make use of public highways, has most often been subject to restrictions in the public interest, the general tenor of these revolving around the protection of the traveling public and the preservation of the highway facility as an artery of trai el. In most jurisdictions, too, such authority to use the public roads håre been accompanied by either an express statutory proviso or an administrative determination by an executive agency, to the effect that, as the necessities of highway improvement
require it, the public utility facilities are to be removed from one location within the highway rights-of-way to another, and at the expense of the utilities themselves.
As highway improvement and modernization have gone forward e erywhere throughout the Nation, utilities hare seen their resources subjected to a greater and greater burden, arising out of the need to relocate more and more of their facilities at their own expense, incident to hjøhwav hetterment.
According to figures established by the United States Department of Commerce, during the survey year 1953, the total dollar value of all highway projects completed in that year within the 48 States amounted to approximately $1.7 billion and involved 40,027 miles of highway and 10,245 highway projects. The public utilities which furnished data to the Department of Commerce reported that they could identify 5,422 utility relocations in connection with 3,836 of these highway projects. The dollar value of construction amounted to approximately $1.1 billion, involving 13,868 miles of highway. According to these reports the utilities indicated that these relocations cost the amount of $35.5 million during the survey year. The bulk of this relocation cost involved utilities located within the highway right-of-way, namely, $29.1 million or 82 percent of the reported utility relocation cost. The remaining $6.4 million, or 18 percent, involved utilities located on their own private rights-of-way; in this case, the utilities reported that they were reimbursed $4.6 million of their $6.4 million cost. It is believed that the remaining $1.8 million represents betterments which normally would not be reimbursed as well as claims for which reimbursements were still pending at the time of the survey.
Here in Alaska highway improvements on the public domain, other than the national forests, are under the jurisdiction of the Alaska Road Commission, an agency of the United States Department of the Interior. Jurisdiction over highways within national forests is vested with the Bureau of Public Roads. In addition, numerous local government units, such as municipalities and publicutility districts exercise jurisdiction over increasing mileages of highways and roads within the Territory. Public utilities, such as electricity and telephones are presently being furnished throughout the Territory by a number of agencies, both public and private. Among these are municipalities, Rural Electrification Cooperatives and private power and telephone companies. All these, in varying degrees, utilize increasing mileages of public highway rights-of-way, along with easements on privately owned land.
In the case of Chugach Electric Association, there is involved an investment of approximately $4.7 million in transmission and distribution lines and facilities, spanning approximately 390 miles of rights-of-way, better than half of which are public in nature and thus susceptible to the occurrence of the relocation problem. Since the total capitalization of this cooperative is presently in the neighborhood of about $12 million, the possible replacement of close to one-fourth of this value represents a crushing burden for which no provision is made in the operation of this nonprofit utility.
Inasmuch as electrification of the rural and suburban areas of Alaska is a relatively new development which has run well ahead of roadbuilding and improvement activities in the Territory, relocation problems to date have been negligible, dollarwise. However, with increasing urbanization of the area served by this and other cooperatives and modernization of highways and roads, the time will come when this problem mav become one of grave importance presenting a Hobson's choice between retarding road improvement and destroying the progress of electrification, which alone can open up the Alaskan countryside to industrial and agricultural development. To meet this problem when it becomes pressing, lexislation is urgently needed. At the present time neither Federal nor Territorial legislation exists relating to the reimbursement of public utility relocation costs arising out of highway improvements. In the continental United States, under the Federal-aid laws and regulations issued thereunder, the Bureau of Public Roads, in the administration of the regular Federalaid highway program, makes reimbursement to the States for utilitv relocation costs to the extent that the States involved are required under their own laws and procedures to pay for such costs. In addition, the Federal-aid highway laws contain certain provisions under which Federal funds may participate up to 100 percent in the cost of projects for the elimination of hazards of railwayhighway crossings and a 10 percent contribution by the railroad is required for certain classes of these projects. Since the Territory of Alaska does not participate under the Federal Aid to Highways program, but appropriations are made directly out of the general treasury toward the construction of highways and roads in the Territory of Alaska, no such funds can be made available, except under specific enabling statutes yet to be enacted.