At the present time laws found in 20 jurisdictions specifically provide that certain designated public utilities occupying the public highway rights-of-way must be moved and at the expense of the utilities themselves, when necessitated by highway betterment. These States are California, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, the District of Columbia, and Hawaii. The statutes of five other States, Florida, Oregon, Pennsyl ania, South Dakota, and Virginia, require all or specified utilities to move their facilities incident to a highway improvement, but no reference is made in the statutes as to who is to pay the cost thereof. However, court decisions, Attorney General opinions, or an obvious construction of the statutes themselves in these five States indicate that the utility must pay if its facilities are located within the highway right-of-way. In four jurisdictions, New York, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Hawaii, statutory distinctions are made between publicly owned and privately owned utilities with respect to who shall bear the cost of the facility relocation; in these instances the statute provides that the highway department must pay all or part of the cost when publicly owned utilities are to be relocated, under designated circumstances. Special statutory provisions of 19 States make some provision for the payment of cost of the relocation of utilities in the case of toll roads. Most of these laws seem to direct the toll-road authority to pay the cost of relocation of utility facilities; but it is not too clear from some of the laws whether this applies to utilities located on their own private right-of-way, which must relocate to accommodate a toll-road improvement, or to utility facilities located on the toll-road right-of-way. It should be noted that court decisions have not aided in this problem, but have upheld relocation at the utility's expense, except where there has been unreasonable discrimination against one utility, or when a utility's relocation has been designed for the benefit of another utility or for the benefit of a municipality acting in its proprietary capacity. The only exceptions occurred where public utilities are located entirely on their own private rights-of-way and where a proposed highway improvement will engulf the utility facilities acquiring their relocation or removal. In those cases utilities have been treated in the same manner as have private landowners, and the courts have held that their property must be acquired by purchase or condemnation.

The following States now provide, through statutory enactments, judicial decisions or accepted administrative practice for the reimbursement, in whole or in part, of the cost of public utility relocation: California, in certain designated special cases; Colorado, where prior property rights exist; Connecticut, cost shared by highwav department and utilities for designated utilities on controlledaccess highways; Delaware, public-owned utilities; Florida, on municipal connecting link State roads; Illinois, municipally owned utilities; Iowa, if provided in franchise or ordinance provision; Massachusetts, publicly owned utilities; Michigan, publicly owned electric and power and transit utilities; Minnesota, municipally owned utilities; Nebraska, publicly or cooperatively owned irrigation and drainage ditches; Nevada, telephone utilities; others by amicable settlement between State and utility company; New Hampshire, poles and wires placed on right-of-way prior to 1939; New Jersey, publicly owned utility, any utility facility disrupted due to grade separations or those located in a highway that is vacated or wiped out due to radical grade changes, publicly or privately owned facilities located on freeways or parkways; New York, publicly owned water, sewer, and other facilities maintained for public use; Oklahoma, if provided for by State highway commission; Oregon, privately or publicly owned utilities located within municipalities; South Carolina, State reimburses for actual cost of moving utility unless utility is occupying right-of-way by permit; South Dakota, municipally owned utilities by agreement at time project is set up; Utah, costs determined by agreement between parties; Washington, utilities inside municipalities if franchise agreement so provides: District of Columbia, publicly owned utilities and privately owned utilities, District reimburses for poles, lights, and other installations but not for underground conduits; Hawaii, privately owned utilities, shared cost, publicly owned utilities at expense of Territorial government; Puerto Rico, publicly owned electric and power and other utilities as well as federally owned utilities.

In addition, some contribution to the cost of relocation of certain specified utilities is made in the following States: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New

York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, District of Columbia, Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Some of the foregoing are quite restrictive and apply only to selected cases.

The problem has reached such proportions in the United States that as a result of representations made to the Congress of the United States in connection with the 1952 and 1954 Federal aid to highways hearing, the Congress directed that a study be made of the problem, in section 11 of the Federal Aid to Highways Act of 1954. Such an investigation was made under the supervision of the Secretary of Commerce and a detailed report on the findings is contained in House Document No. 127, 84th Congress, 1st session.

It is the recommendation of Chugach Electric Association, that appropriate Federal legislation be considered and funds be appropriated to the agencies engaged in the construction of highways and roads in the Territory of Alaska, for the purpose of fair and equitable contributions to the cost of relocation of the cooperative's facilities, where such are necessitated by highway improvements. Similar Territorial legislation will be sought and should be encouraged to apply equally inside and outside of incorporated areas. Failure to do so could very well stifle the development of electrification in the Territory of Alaska, without which the finest highways to be built would only lead from one ghost town to another.

Mr. O'BRIEN. Is there anyone else present who would be satisfied to place their statement in the record who does not particularly want to testify beyond the written statement?

(No response.)

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. O'BRIEN. The plan will be for Mr. Abbott and Delegate Bartlett to stay here during the lunch hour and also to stay here while the other members of the committee visit the airbase briefly this afternoon. We will return after that visit, as I understand it. The committee as a whole is very grateful to the two gentlemen for their endurance.

Mr. ABBOTT. Mr. Fischer. Do you have a prepared statement, Mr. Fischer?

Mr. FISCHER. No; I do not.

Mr. ABBOTT. Would you be seated and give your full name and occupation and so on?

STATEMENT OF VICTOR FISCHER, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,

LEAGUE OF ALASKAN CITIES

Mr. FISCHER. My name is Victor Fischer. I am the executive secretary of the League of Alaskan Cities.

I would only like to make a very brief statement since the committee in its travels through the Territory will hear plenty about the problems of the individual communities.

As you have traveled around, you probably have noticed already the progress that has been made in Alaska in recent years, and also the need for additional facilities in the communities of Alaska as well as in the country as a whole.

Now, the League of Alaskan Cities generally represents the municipalities insofar as a congressional committee like this is concerned, through the presentation of facts and bases for legislation that will be of assistance to municipalities in providing the basic facilities.

You, of course, are familiar with the Alaska public-works program, in which case the League of Alaskan Cities submitted one such report for the extension of the program. Therefore, I do not feel we should go into too much detail, since when further legislation comes up we will do so again.

I would just like to point out that the APW program has been of tremendous assistance to Alaskan communities, municipalities, and school districts in providing for the basic necessities. The program will now extend to 1959, and we hope that in the interim sufficient appropriations will be made to keep up the progress that has already been made.

Now yesterday there was a substantial amount of testimony given by the city of Anchorage about the matter of bonding and the general financial problems facing Alaska and the municipalities. What I would like to point out is that Anchorage is in a fortunate position when it comes to bonds, because most of the Alaskan communities are of a population of less than 3,000. There are only 4 communities that have more than 5,000 population. Their bonding position is such that they, in effect, are unable to issue any bonds and sell them at any kind of a reasonable rate on the open market.

On this particular subject we would be glad to submit in the future, or I could give you some facts now, the figures in bonds actually issued by Alaska municipalities in relation to their bond authorization. Mr. BARTLETT. Before you proceed, might I ask you to tell us a little bit about the League of Alaskan Cities?

Mr. FISCHER. The League of Alaskan Cities is an association of municipalities. At this time we represent the eight largest municipalities in the third and fourth divisions and a new member is joining us in southeastern Alaska.

The league is set up on the basis exactly similar to those more or less similar to those in the 43 States that currently have municipal leagues, and the basic functions are coordination of effort among municipalities, exchange of information, and education of municipal officials themselves to do a better job and, finally, work upon legislation that would be of benefit to municipalities both on the Territorial and Federal levels.

Mr. BARTLETT. And how long has the league been in existence? Mr. FISCHER. Since 1950. I have been its executive secretary since July of 1953.

Mr. BARTLETT. Would you recall the names of the various communities that belong?

Mr. FISCHER. The communities that belong at the present time are Anchorage, Cordova, Fairbanks, Kodiak, Palmer, Seldovia, Seward, and Valdez.

Mr. BARTLETT. What is the town that is joining?

Mr. FISCHER. Ketchikan is joining the League of Alaskan Cities effective October 2.

Mr. BARTLETT. Now will you proceed.

Mr. FISCHER. The one thing I would like to stress, in addition, is that the league feels that the position of Alaskan communities can be improved only through the general development of Alaska as a whole. Toward that purpose the league has during past conventions adopted various resolutions, most of which are designed to benefit the Territory and not just the municipal corporations.

Among the things that the league feels are basic to the development of Alaska are improved highways. The league has over the years studied this problem and worked upon it, and it is felt that communities like Cordova and others will never really develop unless they can be tied into an efficient highway system that fully opens up the remainder of the hinterland to proper development.

In this connection we have analyzed various forms that such highway aid can take. We have in the past tried to lobby, you might say, for increased appropriations for the Alaska Road Commission. However, these have been declining, and it is our position now that further effort should be made to bring Alaska in under the Federal highway program. We realize, of course, the problems involved in that through the need for Alaskan participation. In that connection, the Congress in its deliberations upon Alaska statehood during recent years has always been fully cognizant of this problem of joining the Federal-aid highway program and has, therefore, in the bills that were considered during the current and last sessions included provisions for special grants for initial construction and maintenance of roads during, I believe, a 7- or 8-year period.

We believe that further study should be given to this particular problem and the possibility of enacting legislation to bring Alaska in under the Federal-aid highway program with this provision as included in the recent statehood bills, such as H. R. 2535.

These should be given further study, and we would favor enactment, if possible.

The next and last major topic that I would like to bring out is that the League of Alaskan Cities is very much in favor of statehood for Alaska. This, again, ties into the need for development and the municipalities have become convinced that development of Alaska is vital to the development and growth of its communities.

I would also like to make one more remark. Yesterday the chairman asked one of the witnesses a question about the enactment of some of the provisions of the statehood bill as a preliminary to statehood. In other words, trying to further the development and prepare Alaska for statehood.

The league has in the past always worked for legislation that has materially contributed to development or could materially contribute. We feel that the highway program is such a program. However, it is certainly no substitute for statehood, because under statehood, under the existing proposed bills, we would have an opportunity to share on this basis.

These are sort of intrameasures. We don't feel we should give up the fight for statehood, and we certainly don't want to compromise. It is just like this committee not very long ago approved a bill which was enacted to authorize the Alaska Road Commission to construct highways through incorporated municipalities. That is something that would have come with statehood and participation in the Federal-aid highway program. This will benefit-Alaska benefits only for a 1- or 2-year period. So that it is not really an either-or proposition. We are for statehood first. In the meantime we want to do everything we can to further the development of Alaska.

Mr. ABBOTT. Well, is what you are saying, Mr. Fischer, under the various grants provided for in H. R. 2535, during the session of Congress just ended, that with or without statehood you feel that some of those grants should be made to the Territory so that they might proceed, and if statehood accompanies them, all the better?

Mr. FISCHER. That is right. We don't feel it should be an either-or proposition. We would like to see an approved highway program started immediately in Alaska even if it only goes on for 6 months, and then 6 months or later the State, if the statehood bill is enacted, we haven't lost anything.

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Fischer, you feel, as I gather, that if the committee were willing to give these special highway benefits in the statehood bill, then a committee-it wouldn't be this particular committee from my viewpoint, ought to be willing to translate those same benefits into a bill to include Alaska in the Federal-aid system? Mr. FISCHER. It would certainly seem reasonable in view of all the statements that have been made about developing Alaska and preparing it.

Mr. BARTLETT. And that would ease, of course, the burden upon the Territory during the transition period, which was the intention in the statehood bill?

Mr. FISCHER. That is right. I think everyone here is fully cognizant of the burden that immediate and general formula participation the Federal-aid highway program would put upon Alaska, and this would certainly help in the transitional period. I might add that it would help alleviate some of the problems created through a tremendously long period of neglect of highways in Alaska by the Federal Government.

Mr. BARTLETT. If I interpret your remarks correctly, however, you do not believe a single bill, a package bill, or a series of separate bills would constitute a substitute for statehood.

Mr. FISCHER. No; definitely not.

Mr. BARTLETT. You believe then that the resources of Alaska can come to their true potential only with the grant of statehood? Mr. FISCHER. Yes.

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Utt?

Mr. UTT. With reference to bond issues, there was evidence given yesterday here that the city of Anchorage had never defaulted in any bond issue. Have any of these eight cities who are members of the league ever defaulted in any bond issue?

Mr. FISCHER. No, sir.

Mr. UTT. To your knowledge, have any other cities in Alaska outside of the league ever defaulted?

Mr. FISCHER. I would like to put it this way: All bonds issued by any municipality in Alaska have always been repaid. In other words, all creditors have been satisfied.

To explain my remarks, quite a few years ago I don't know exactly when. I think it was during the early part of the depressionone small Alaskan community couldn't meet its obligations, and the Territorial government made the necessary appropriation to cover that. I think that subsequently the municipality repaid the Territorial government.

Mr. BARTLETT. And I believe, if I may so inform Mr. Utt, that the amount was on the order of $40,000.

Mr. FISCHER. Yes; but otherwise there has been no default at all. Even in this case the payments were made.

Mr. UTT. You made reference to the Alaska Road Commission. Now is that Commission headed by Mr. Ghiglione?

Mr. FISCHER. Yes; he is the Commissioner of Roads.

Mr. UTT. And have the league members found him cooperative in his administration of that office?

Mr. FISCHER. I would like to put it this way: The league has worked with Mr. Ghiglione primarily upon the enactment of the bill to which we previously referred to authorize construction of highways