The Bureau of Land Management has had control over that resource for a great number of years, and we have never had the kind of data that is needed in order to sell it. The Bureau of Land Management says the reason for that is that they have not had the money to conduct their affairs in Alaska. Their forester assures me it would take $20,000 to do the job. That timber cruise has never been completed. They are working on a preliminary reconnaissance basis this year, but we still don't have the kind of information that we need on it. I wanted to touch on transportation, funds for the Alaska road program. Mr. Chenoweth complimented Mr. Ghiglione on the fine job the Alaska Road Commission is doing. They are doing a fine job. They are doing a wonderful job with the amounts of money that they have had in order to work. But you should take into consideration that Alaska today has about 4,000 miles of roads in all areas of Alaska including the national forests. Alaska became a Territory in 1912. That means we have had about 80 miles of road per year. That doesn't seem like a very impressive record to me, and it is certainly not the kind of a roadbuilding program that will develop this great land-80 miles a year. That is what has been built.

I would also like to bring out some facts concerning hydroelectric power to the committee.

Mr. Sisk had asked what the position of the United States was with reference to negotiation with Canada. I agree with him that the United States is clearly behind the eight ball insofar as information on the Rampart site is concerned. We don't have the kind of information that we need. If our International Commission were to meet with the Canadians and we were to sit down and talk facts with them. we just don't have the information. A recording station at Rampart or Eagle is a must.

The Taiya project is of the greatest interest to us. It would develop over a million kilowatts of firm power at a cost of 3 mills or less. and the most intriguing thing about it is that we do know where the money would come from to build that project. One of the largest aluminum companies, the Aluminum Company of America, has expressed its willingness to go ahead and develop that project. That project is in close conflict with the proposed development at the headwaters of the Yukon through Lake Atlin and Lake Sloko. The Canadians have maintained steadfastly that is a unilateral matter, that the downstream owners, which in this case happen to be Alaskars have no rights.

We maintain that this is not a unilateral matter, that what they do at Sloko and Atlin will adversely affect potential developments at Rampart. We do not know what it would do to the Taku. We also know, however, that they must get permission from the United States Government to get access for the utilization of that power

resource.

Mr. CHENOWETH. Has there ever been any talk of a compact or negotiations of any kind between Alaska and Canada for the use of

that water?

Mr. ANDERSON. There has been, sir, and at one time the two govern ments, Canada and the United States, started to make a joint study. For some reason or other which has never been clearly publicized. the Canadians decided to sever that connection. So the project stopped

that time, although frequent and constant attempts have been made discuss water and road problems with the Canadians and efforts ve been made to get some kind of a commission for joint studies, that these problems could be worked out.

Mr. CHENOWETH. This water rises in Canada?

Mr. ANDERSON. At the Taiya site, the water is in the Yukon Terriry, and it was proposed to build a hydroelectric dam near Whiteorse to reverse the flow of the Yukon and drop it into Taiya Inlet ear Skagway, and there is a drop there of approximately 2,000 feet. Mr. CHENOWETH. If Canada wants to use the water that rises in anada, there is nothing we can do to prevent them using it, is there? Mr. ANDERSON. I think there is, sir.

Mr. CHENOWETH. What is it?

Mr. ANDERSON. I believe they must give some consideration to the ghts of the downstream owners.

Mr. CHENOWETH. Why do they have to?

Mr. ANDERSON. Because those lands belong to us. The doctrine of parian rights should, and I believe does, stipulate that the upstream wner may not do things without consultation which would injure the llow downstream.

Mr. CHENOWETH. The riparian doctrine is that the upstream user n use all of the water he can beneficially; is it not?

Mr. ANDERSON. I don't think so, not without consultation with the wnstream owners.

Mr. CHENOWETH. I never heard of that consultation before.

Mr. BARTLETT. Is it not true that the treaty written about 1870 vered in a general way this very subject?

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes, there is a treaty. As a matter of fact, there ve been several of them, including the treaty of 1911. There have en a whole series of them which dealt with this problem, and I lieve the treaty of 1872 dealt with it specifically.

Mr. BARTLETT. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. CHENOWETH. Is there anything in the way of a treaty that otects you from the Canadians in the use of this water?

Mr. ANDERSON. I believe that the treaty of 1872 stipulates

Mr. CHENOWETH. But you are not sure of that?

Mr. ANDERSON. No, I am not, sir.

Mr. CHENOWETH. It has never been interpreted? Does it specifilly mention water?

Mr. BARTLETT. Will my colleague yield?

Mr. CHENOWETH. Yes.

Mr. BARTLETT. Is it true that the treaty does cover at least in a genal way this subject?

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes.

Mr. BARTLETT. It is true it has been interpreted to the point where e State Department believes it does and has initiated conversations th the Canadian Government based on the treaty in respect to the ven situation.

Mr. CHENOWETH. I was going to say, in the absence of some such eaty you certainly haven't any protection that I can see. I don't e how you can criticize the Canadians for using this water in any ay they want to. It is their water. Unless you have some treaty, ey are not going to consider the lower stream users.

in not furnishing a written statement promptly. The following statement is therefore submitted:

In answer to allegations that Anchorage has been discriminated against in allocation of Alaska public works funds, examination of the records reveals that allotments to the city of Anchorage have totaled $4,591,616.33 on 12 projects, to the Anchorage Independent School District $3,812,886.48 on 5 projects, and to Alaska Housing Authority $296,650 on 1 project within the Anchorage area, making a total of $8,701,152.81 allotted on 18 projects within the Anchorage area. This amount is 16.2 percent of the total allotments made under the entire Alaska public works program.

Comparison of allotments made to date for construction in the principal Alaskan areas is shown in the following summary:

I have heard comment from city management officials of Anchorage to the effect that allotments to that city should more greatly exceed those made to the Anchorage Independent School District. This argument is not taken with credence in this office, in consideration of the extremely critical shortage of school facilities in the school district as compared to the need for municipal utilities projects in the city. Expressions have also been made by the Anchorage officials to the effect that Alaska public works allotments should be made in direct proportion to the area populations. This is a wholly selfish viewpoint, inasmuch as the allotments are made by the Congress through the Secretary of the Interior on recommendation of the Office of Territories and in consideration of many factors, principal of which are the comparative need of the assistance and whether the particular project allotments are who y within the word and intent of the Alaska Public Works Act. To date the per capita benefit of Alaska public works assistance in towns of less than 1,000 population is three times greater than that in cities of over 5,000 population, so it is apparent, from the standpoint of per capita benefit, that Alaska public works assistance has been allotted inversely proportional to the size of population centers.

Mr. HUSTON. I shall do that.

JAMES W. HUSTON, Director.

Mr. BARTLETT. One final question. What are the administrative costs of the APW? How many cents out of every appropriated dollar do you spend for administration?

Mr. HUSTON. The money is withheld for administration costs. It averages 5 percent. That includes my office, my field personnel, ard the people in Washington who are working on this.

Mr. BARTLETT. How many do you have in Alaska altogether! Mr. HUSTON. How many people?

Mr. BARTLETT. Yes.

Mr. HUSTON. Fifty-three.

Mr. BARTLETT. How many people are employed in Washington! Mr. HUSTON. I understand there are around 13.

Mr. BARTLETT. Why are so many of the employees of APW :: Washington, D. C.?

Mr. HUSTON. I don't know, sir.

Mr. BARTLETT. I have never known from the start of the program either.

Mr. HUSTON. I don't know either.

Mr. BARTLETT. Are you convinced that all of those APW employees in Washington, 50 percent of whose salaries are paid by Alaska taxpayers, are engaged full time on APW activities?

Mr. HUSTON. From my observation they are.

When I am back

there I see them working on APW work. I don't ask too many questions.

Mr. BARTLETT. I trust they do throughout the year. I don't know. I make no accusation.

Dr. Taylor, do you have any questions?

Mr. TAYLOR. I was going to ask this of Mr. Dafoe, commissioner of education, but I will ask you instead.

When the request for appropriations was cut from 10 to 3 million, how many school buildings suffered as a result of that cut? Mr. HUSTON. I don't have that information with me.

Mr. TAYLOR. Were there several? Let's put it that way.

Mr. HUSTON. We will say several were left off the list, but the projects which were not put in the 1956 list were put in the 1957 list.

Mr. TAYLOR. Were they put right on top?

Mr. HUSTON. Yes. So a delay of 1 year is what it amounted to. Mr. TAYLOR. This is no criticism, because Mr. Dafoe says the working relationship between his office and your office has been very fine and he has been very pleased with it. But I was curious to know how many of those projects suffered from that cut. Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you, Mr. Huston, very much.

So far as my list shows, that concludes the Federal witnesses, and now we turn at long last to those representing the Territory of Alaska, with Mr. Al Anderson, general manager of the Alaska Resources Development Board as the first witness. Identify yourself for the record, Mr. Anderson.

STATEMENT OF AL ANDERSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT BOARD, JUNEAU, ALASKA

Mr. ANDERSON. My name is Al Anderson. I am the executive director of the Alaska Resources Development Board, which is an agency of the Territorial government.

Mr. BARTLETT. Do you have a written statement, Mr. Anderson? Mr. ANDERSON. I do, sir.

Mr. BARTLETT. Do you care to read it or present it and comment on it verbally? Is it long?

Mr. ANDERSON. It is long, sir, so that I should like to present orally the first 6 pages of the written statement, enumerate about 10 things that are particularly interesting and discuss them at the pleasure of the committee.

Mr. BARTLETT. We shall be pleased to hear you.

Mr. ANDERSON. I should like to make a general statement to the committee on various phases of Alaska development, the problems which hinder this development, and steps which Congress should take to eliminate or ease obstacles to development.

I know that the committee now has some idea of the tremendous size of this Territory-that it contains 586,400 square miles and that 71196-56-pt. 4- -15

its land area is 571,000 square miles or approximately 365 million acres. Alaska is one-fifth the size of the United States, has twice the land area of the State of Texas and probably 10 times as many problems.

Alaska's civilian population amounted to about 160,000 persons in 1954 and of these, about 30,000 were Eskimos, Indians, and Aleuts. These 160,000 people produced approximately $117 million worth of materials from the natural resources of Alaska. This production is measured by the fishing industry whose products were valued at $77,879,446 in 1954, a mining industry producing $24,328,000, raw furs valued at $1,440,706-exclusive of fur seals-timber products valued at $10,158,830, and agriculture products valued at $2,877,925. Alaskans' principal source of income is derived from the production of these natural resources, from military construction payrolls, Federal Government workers who number approximately 15,000, and from sales and service industries supporting both Government activities and private industrial development.

The total estimated labor force in Alaska for 1954 in all categories amounts to approximately 56,500-calculated on basis of school-tax returns. These workers contributed approximately $15 million per year toward the support of Territorial government and an additional $47 million in income taxes to the Treasury of the United States. This last figure includes only those income taxes which were filed from the Territory of Alaska and does not include those wage earners who worked only a portion of the year in the Territory and filed their returns elsewhere. This agency estimates that the total income taxes paid by Alaska workers of all classes to the Federal Government amounts to approximately $75 million per year. This indicates that the people of Alaska contribute at least $90 million a year toward the support of Federal and Territorial governments, and includes the amounts paid for a host of Federal excise taxes.

Mr. BARTLETT. Will you permit an interruption there?

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. BARTLETT. Would that include companies such as the United States Smelting, Refining & Mining Co., which derives income from gold-mining operations at Fairbanks and Nome and make their returns elsewhere?

Mr. ANDERSON. No, sir.

Mr. BARTLETT. Exclusive of such companies you count the income tax paid as $75 million?

Mr. ANDERSON. $75 million; that is correct.

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you.

Mr. ANDERSON. This indicates that the people of Alaska contribute at least $90 million a year toward the support of Federal and Territorial governments, exclusive of the amounts paid for a host of Federal excise taxes.

The latest information this office has indicates that about 32,000 Alaskans are covered by employment security laws. Of these 32,000 28.2 percent are employed in the construction industry; 5.3 percent in mining; 17 percent in manufacturing; 14.3 percent in transportation, communications and utilities; 33.3 percent in retail, wholesale and service industries; and all others, 1.9 percent. These 32,000 workers are exclusive of those employed by Federal, Territorial, and local governments, as well as those employed in the fishing industry.