described in detail, this figure should be increased by 262.5 percent, making the figure $104,574,000. The estimate submitted to this committee for the 17 harbors, if improved to 30-foot project depth, was $86,921,000. Based on a sample of three harbors as described in detail, this figure should be increased by 250.1 percent, making the figure $304,310,000. The estimate submitted to this committee for 17 harbors, if improved to 35foot project depth, was $205,624,000. Based on a sample of three harbors as described in detail, this figure should be increased by 180.9 percent, making the figure $577,598,000. Permit me to emphasize that these large sums of Federal money represent estimates of costs of improving either 10 or 17 Great Lakes harbors only 1 of which requires no Federal expenditures, according to the estimates submitted by the Corps of Engineers.) There are now 89 harbors on the Great Lakes in the United States on which Federal funds have been and, so far as can be determined, are being expended; that is, which are now Federal responsibilities. All may demand equal opportunity. If all harbors are improved to the project depths selected for the St. Lawrence seaway, if constructed, the expenditure becomes much greater. There can be no question that Lake harbors are an integral and essential part of the proposed project. Without harbors on the Great Lakes, usable by the traffic on the project, there can, of course, be no benefits. Although this is clearly the case, the costs of harbors on the Great Lakes have not been included in the cost of the project. These costs must be included in order to give you a true picture of the total cost of the project. As we have shown, the cost of making adequate improvements to United States harbors on the Great Lakes would be enormous. Mr. KALIJARVI. Mr. Chairman, as a result of our discussion off the record, I have two statements which the respective witnesses desire to file for the record. They are Mr. Fichtner, executive vice presi dent of the Buffalo Chamber of Commerce; and Mr. Spalinski of the Public Power & Water Corp. of Trenton, N. J. There, no doubt, will be others. Senator MCMAHON. Very well, they will be made a part of the record. (The two statements referred to above are as follows:) SUMMARY OF STATEMENT BY H. A. SPALINSKI, PRESIDENT, AND R. M. JAYNE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE PUBLIC POWER & WATER CORP. OF TRENTON, N. J. The Public Power & Water Corp. of Trenton, N. J., is chartered under the statutes of the State of New Jersey and have obtained a certificate from the State of New York as a foreign corporation to conduct and operate a business in the State of New York for the purpose of developing the St. Lawrence seaway and power project, for the best interest of the people of the United States and Canada. The Public Power & Water Corp. is a private company able to design and build the St. Lawrence seaway and power project through an underwriting syndicate, that is willing and able to finance the project as a private enterprise. The Public Power & Water Corp. filed an application on August 23, 1948, supplemented on April 29, 1949, for a license under the Federal Power Act for a power project in the International Rapids section of the St. Lawrence River near Massena, N. Y., and a seaway development including a 30-foot navigation charnel extending between Lake Superior and Montreal, Canada. Simultaneously, an application was filed with the Secretary of External Affairs in Canada. Apparently, the Commission has taken no action on or with respect to the above-mentioned application of our corporation; and we are informed and be lieve that the notice with respect thereto required by the section and subdivisions of the Federal Power Act, which are more commonly known and designated as section 797, subdivisions E and F of title 16, United States Code Annotated, has not been published. It is our concept that this notice should be published within 30 days, and that the purpose of the requirement of the publication of notice of pending applications is that opportunity shall be given to the public or at least that part of the public more or less to be immediately involved in the development proposed to be made; and as part of such concept that the public be advised of any and all proposals for such development. It is obviously contemplated by the Federal Power Act in the light of this requirement and otherwise that all proposals for or affecting a given development shall receive full publicity to the end there shall be afforded opportunity for complete and mature consideration of every proposal submitted to the Commission with respect to a given development. On December 23, 1949, a notice of our application for license was published as follows: United States of America, Federal Power Commission. In the Matter of Public Power and Water Corporation, Project No. 2006 NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR LICENSE DECEMBER 23, 1949. Public notice is hereby given that Public Power & Water Corp., of Trenton, N. J., has made application for a license pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Power Act (16 U. S. C. 791-825r) for a hydroelectric development in the International Rapids section of the St. Lawrence River near Massena, N. Y., and a seaway development, including a 30-foot channel extending between Lake Superior and Montreal, Canada. The proposed hydroelectric development would consist of a concrete dam (designated as Long Sault Dam) extending from the United States shore of the river in St. Lawrence County, N. Y., to the upstream end of Barnhart Island; a powerhouse (designated as Barnhart Island powerhouse) with installation of about 2,200,000 horsepower forming a dam extending from the downstream end of Barnhart Island to the Canadian shore; numerous dikes for protection of lands along the river; a concrete control dam (designated as Iroquois Dam) extending from the mainland near Rockway Point, N. Y., to Iroquois Point, Canada; Massena Canal intake control works; and appurtenant facilities. The maximum normal high-way elevation of the pool created by the powerhouse and Long Sault Dam would be 242 feet above mean sea level at those structures. Any protest against the approval of this application or request for any action thereon, with reasons for such protest or request, and the name and address of the party or parties so protesting or requesting must be submitted on or before January 31, 1950, to the Federal Power Commission at Washington 25, D. C. LEON M. FUQUAY, Secretary. Under Federal Power Act, section 7 (as amended August 26, 1935) (a) “In issuing preliminary permits hereunder, or licenses where no preliminary permit has been issued, and issuing licenses to new licensees under section 15 hereof, the Commission shall give preference to applications therefor by States and municipalities, provided the plans for the same are deemed by the Commission equally well adapted, or shall within a reasonable time to be fixed by the Commission be made equally well adapted, to conserve and utilize in the public interest the water resources of the region; and as between other applicants, the Commission may give preference to the applicant, the plans of which it finds and determines are best adapted to develop, conserve, and utilize in the public interest the water resources of the region, if it be satisfied as to the ability of the applicant to carry out such plans." The Commission under this section 7 (a), has transmitted our application, project No. 2006, to the Congress of the United States for consideration to develop this as a Federal project. The Public Works Committee of the House of Representatives held hearings and on July 26, 1951, voted 15 to 12 against a Federal project, therefore, under Federal Power Act. section 7 (a), quoted above, this corporation has the priority to obtain a Federal license to construct this project. It is our understanding that we are the only ones to file an application for both the seaway and power project. The Congress of the United States for the past 60 years had the opportunity to develop the St. Lawrence seaway and power project. The Congress has done nothing to pass legislation to develop the St. Lawrence seaway for the best interest of the American people and for Canada. This is not a reflection on the Congress, but let us look into the facts. It is presumed that there have been numerous bills filed before the Senate of the United States and hearings upon hearings have been held, but nothing definite has ever been concluded. Today we are conducting a war, and our taxpayers cannot stand any more burdens and approve of our Government engaging in more unnecessary businesses, especially when there is a private concern willing, able, and ready to undertake the project, without any additional tax burden upon the people. The seaway power project will bring in, through State and Federal taxes, the sum of $12 million annually. This corporation is asking nothing but the simple permission to develop the project. This has been denied for no apparent reason. With due respect for the committee, it seems that a person usually gets placed on the Washington merry-go-round when he wants to do something that would be to the best interest of this country. We seem to, however, be able to decide, finance all kinds of hydroelectric power all over the world but not here in America. Let us look into the record and quote the Engineering-News-Record dated February 14, 1952: "In France, $696 million of Marshall plan and ECA funds have been utilized on dams and public power projects. "In Austria, allocations of counterpart funds for the completion of power projects and for the equipment of power plants totaled the equivalent of $55,000,000 as of June 30, 1951. "In Italy ECA has contributed $66 million. "In Denmark $5 million of Marshall plan funds are being used. Gentlemen, we are calling your attention, and that of the Senate of the United States, that in our opinion the American people are being misled if Congress can legislate and provide funds for foreign country power development and not for its own country which is endangered by its shortage. If the Senate of the United States has sufficient time to consider or is able to be a contributor to the world's power projects, why does it not do this job federally, and have it done with? If not, let an American corporation, its officers, directors, and financial houses, who are willing, able, and ready, supply the necessary funds to develop the St. Lawrence seaway and power project for the best interest of the American people without any cost to the United States. What is stopping quick and direct action? Under Federal Power Act, the Federal Power Commission must publish any application received within 30 days from the date received, they must hold hearings and also inform the applicant if the application is conformative to its law. It has failed to do this. The Commission has never held hearings, and we were never informed that the application was incomplete or otherwise defective. From August 23, 1948, until now we have been trying to open the door of our Government and to receive a reasonably quick and courteous consideration. Unfortunately, we find that the Congress and the Commission have failed to promptly serve not only us, but its own country and the American people, with respect to the seaway. We hereby request the Senate Foreign Relations Committee of the United States to take immediate action on the S. J. Res. 27 and include that a private corporation should receive immediate consideration and have the right to build, operate, and finance the St. Lawrence seaway and power project with our neighbor, the Dominion of Canada and that it be empowered to charge tolls recommended in the application and supplement thereto, of the Public Power & Water Corp. for the seaway in order to repay the investment cost in the event that it is not to be done as a Federal project immediately. ever. We, however, hereby place ourselves on record to oppose the Federal Government to engage in and to spend any taxpayers' money for any project whatsoWe are fortunate to have in the United States private citizens in the past and today who take an interest in this project, as it will assist that area comprised of approximately 17 States and at least 50,000,000 people. We hope that the Senate of the United States will consider doing this project now, after having tried to get approval of it for the past 60 years, or let private industry do it, as it usually has been eager to do in all matters most vital to the well-being and safety of this grand United States. Under our system of government, where free enterprise is qualified, it should have not only the sanction but the blessing of Congress in an undertaking of this scope. Therefore, we do not feel that the proposed Aiken bill should be considered except as an alternative in the event a private corporation, completely independent of Government, is unable to develop this project. T THE WHITE HOUSE, Washington, February 4, 1952. Mr. H. A. SPALINSKI, Trenton, N. J. DEAR MR. SPALINSKI: Thank you very much for sending me a copy of the report prepared by the United States Engineering Corp. on water supply in the Delaware River Basin. I read the report with interest and am returning it with this letter. I have mentioned to the President your conversation with me about the St. Lawrence seaway and power project. The President hopes very much that the Congress will soon authorize the construction of the project under the 1941 agreement between the United States and Canada. He strongly recommended this course in a message to the Congress on January 28, 1952, a copy of which I am attaching to this letter. The question of granting a license for construction on the St. Lawrence, if the Congress does not approve the 1941 agreement, will, of course, be a matter for consideration by the Federal Power Commission. Accordingly I suggest that you may wish to discuss your proposal with Chairman Buchanan, of that Commission. I am sending him a copy of this letter. Very truly yours, DAVID E. BELL. Possible range of toll charges and annual toll revenue on the proposed PRO FORMA EARNINGS STATEMENT Power to be sold at the busbar to existing utilities or any State or States where it is mostly needed. Operating revenue: 12,200,000 kilowatts, hours at 31⁄2 mills----- Cost of revenue: $42, 700,000 Interest on bonds: 275,000,000 at 34 percent--- $10, 312, 500 percent Total Revenue from management-- Less: Depreciation (50 years). Net taxable revenue_ Less: State and Federal income taxes__. Net revenue. Distribution of revenue For retirement bonds payable (50 years) For common stock dividends, reserves, and surplus_- Total.. PRO FORMA BALANCE SHEET The Congress of the United States is hereby requested to authorize and empower the Public Power & Water Corp. to charge tolls on commodities as per schedule attached to this report. Estimates based on the May 1947 Construction Cost Index published by Engineering-News Record of New York. |