scorn because they were so far off on their figure on Eklutna they say that is just proof now they do not know what they are talking about and there is not such a thing up here as any cheap power project. We feel, however, that these projects are very much worth while, even though it costs you 11 mills. That is a lot better than 33 mills that you are paying here for your power and certainly it is going to be of help. Whether it can get down to a point where power is in the Northwest, 2 or 3 mills, to attract aluminum industries and that sort of thing, that is something else again that has got to be gone into very carefully. It is not quite as simple as it might appear on the surface.

I made the suggestion down at Anchorage that even though you have all these water possibilities if you could bring a little package of atomic energy up here and set it down in a community where you had only costs for the generators and machinery, it might even be cheaper than some of the hydro power by the time you got through figuring transmission lines to bring it into isolated communities. That is just a thought. I have not thought it through. But I certainly did agree with you, however, that it is the key to your future. Something has got to be done to develop this power and by talking out loud and thinking these things through we may come up with something that might be the answer to your problems.

Mrs. PFOST. You do believe, however, do you not, Mr. Dawson, that atomic energy is a few years in the future, yet, before it can be used for areas like this?

Mr. DAWSON. I do. I think it is a good many years in the future. On our projects in the States, particularly the upper Colorado, we have been fighting so hard for, they contended there even though we can develop power for 4 mills they say you cannot go ahead because you may get atomic energy. But our need is for the water, not just power. We need the water for irrigation and culinary uses. Certainly we cannot drink atomic energy. The power is incidental to the other uses. Here the problem is different. It is power you are interested in. Therefore, the possibility of atomic energy plants which are power producers alone should certainly be gone into. They are making some rapid advances on these powerplants. It seems a shame to waste all of your hydro power when you have got so much around here. But on the other hand, when you get to the comparison of costs it might be worth looking into.

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Utt?

Mr. UTT. Would the 1,000 kilowatts take care of the town?
Mr. RASH. It would for our immediate future.

Mr. UTT. Is that the maximum amount that could be developed on that flow of the river?

Mr. RASH. That is the firm power, roughly, of the river run. I believe about 9 months of the year or possibly 7 months of the year there would be in the neighborhood of 10,000 kilowatts that would be available, just river run.

Mr. UTT. Would the flow at the low season come at a time when industry would have a heavy demand?

Mr. RASH. Mr. Utt, with our present fishing industry here our peak loads are in the summertime when we would have plenty of

water. However, I believe if we had a diversified industry here that would tend toward a more of a winter peak, we would need more power in the wintertime than in the summer.

Mr. UTT. How far is this site located from the town?

Mr. RASH. About 8 miles from Cordova.

Mr. UTT. And you figure you could develop it for 7 or 8 or 9 miles? Mr. RASH. Yes.

Mr. UTT. And wheel it for that distance too?

Mr. RASH. Yes.

Mr. UTT. Because a flow of the river installation is certainly not expensive in comparison with our multipurpose dams and such small projects as that, even though they might be pilot plants would be something that it seems to me this committee could foster wherever it can in these outlying districts and the investment is not so great that if atomic energy is available within the next few years there would be no salvage loss in the matter.

I presume you all know that England has launched on a 10-year program of atomic energy development for electricity and that in our laboratories at the present time they are making electricity for 6 mills at the load center. And I am optimistic enough to think in 5 or 6 years they can place those units in various places and give you electricity at a millage under 10.

That is all.

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. McFarland?

Mr. MCFARLAND. If I may, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rash, this proposed 1,000-kilowatt plant, that would be built by the city?

Mr. RASH. That is right.

Mr. MCFARLAND. Financed by the city.

Mr. RASH. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCFARLAND. What means, at the present time, do you use in generating the electricity?

Mr. RASH. Diesel generation.

Mr. MCFARLAND. What capacity do you have?

Mr. RASH. We have about 1,000 kilowatts.

Mr. MCFARLAND. About 1,000 kilowatts.

Mr. RASH. That is not our peak load but that is 100 percent of our plant.

Mr. MCFARLAND. That is owned by the city.

Mr. RASH. That is right.

Mr. MCFARLAND. Do you know, Mr. Rash, if the Bureau of Reclamation in their studies have included the potential in this vicinity? Mr. RASH. I believe they have. I am not too well versed on that but the Reclamation has made, or Bureau of Land Management jointly with the Reclamation, made some studies on this Power Creek, rather comprehensive studies, and I believe they would have been carried through only that this program-there has been a slackening down of the Reclamation program for power.

Mr. MCFARLAND. You might know that through the efforts of your Delegate, Mr. Bartlett, the Congress passed last session a bill which authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to make studies in Alaska on a permanent basis. And I frankly think there will be a speedup in their activities along that line.

I believe the studies they have made are for larger plants. Is that right?

Mr. RASH. That is right.

Mr. MCFARLAND. Mr. Rash, you mentioned industrial possibilities. Do you have in mind certain types of industry that might be interested in coming into Cordova if the energy were available?

Mr. RASH. If this particular power site could be developed, the coal industry, I believe, could be revised and possibly oil, and to what extent the aluminum industry would come in, I do not know whether it would be enough power there to be developed to do much production of aluminum. There are other sites that have been discussed by some of the larger aluminum companies, private dams that have indicated a big power potential, and of course, that would develop this area too.

Mrs. Prost. Would you sell most of the coal here in Alaska or would a great amount of it be shipped out?

Mr. RASH. I am not an authority on that. I believe there are others here that could answer that question better than I.

Mrs. ProST. One other question. Do you have any idea what this project would cost?

Mr. RASH. You mean the one the town is applying for?
Mrs. ProST. The one you are speaking of building.

Mr. RASH. We have an engineer who is now making the study and will come up with these figures shortly and possibly within the next couple of months. Any figure I might give would be purely a wild guess right now. We could give you that a little later. It would be not less than a million dollars.

Mr. MCFARLAND. Mr. Rash, did you not express the opinion that the energy would cost somewhere in the neighborhood of 8 or 9 or 10 mills?

Mr. RASH. I believe it would here in Alaska. I do not believe we could get the 31⁄2 mills I spoke of. There would be a differential, yes. Mr. MCFARLAND. Did you have in mind your 1,000-kilowatt plant when you mentioned the 8 or 9 mills?

Mr. RASH. That is right.

Mr. MCFARLAND. I just have one other question, Mr. Chairman. You mentioned the high cost of money. Do you know what interest rates for this type of construction would run? Do you have any experience along that line that might indicate that?

Mr. RASH. In financing of municipal revenue bonds for Cordova, a recent acquisition a few years ago, it is close to 5 percent. Around 42 and 434 percent. And we may have to go to 5 or more on some of these other projects.

Mr. MCFARLAND. Of course, your problem, Mr. Rash, is a market for the energy.

Mr. RASH. That is right.

Mr. MCFARLAND. And unless it is extremely low-cost energy it is not going to attract big industry like aluminum.

Mr. RASH. That is right.

Mr. MCFARLAND. I believe that is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BARTLETT. Dr. Taylor?

Mr. TAYLOR. Is the channel such that the shipping facilities could be increased to any extent?

Mr. RASH. Water transportation in my opinion in Alaska here is just tops. We have one of the finest harbors, deep water, it is open the year around and I think that is only just touched now.

Mr. TAYLOR. I am thinking particularly here in the Cordova area. Mr. RASH. Yes; wonderful possibilities. The best port, I believe,

in Alaska.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you.

up

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Rash, I am consumed by curiosity, which you might not be able to satisfy. Attached to the very interesting relief map of this area which has been made available for the committee members is a memorandum and it states, among many other things, that Woods Canyon might produce up to 7 million kilowatt-hours of annual energy at a cost of 3.1 mills. I was wondering if you possibly knew how that compared with the prospective production of power from Hells Canyon. If you do not know, maybe Mrs. Pfost would. I am just curious which might be the largest. Do you know, Mr. Rash?

Mr. RASH. I am not too familiar with Hells Canyon here lately, but in comparison to Bonneville power that is quite comparable.

Mr. BARTLETT. Maybe we had better make the comparison with Bonneville because I think there are several different proposals for Hells Canyon. It is about the same as Bonneville; is that right?

Mr. RASH. Actually, Mr. Bartlett, the municipalities in Oregon and Washington were getting their wholesale power at 32 mills per kilowatt-hour delivered.

Mr. BARTLETT. I mean the full production of Bonneville is about the same as the total production from Woods Canyon would be. Mr. RASH. No, I understood you to say the production costs would be 32 mills.

Mr. BARTLETT. For the purposes of the question, let us skip the production cost entirely for a moment. We are concerned only with the total production of power. Would Woods Canyon be as big as Booneville?

Mr. RASH. It would compare with some of the larger dams. It would not be as big as Grand Coulee. It would compare with Chief Joseph and The Dalles and McNary.

Mr. BARTLETT. It would be then one of the big hydro projects on the continent. It would be a very major dam.

Mrs. PrOST. Mr. Chairman, the high dam at Hells Canyon would produce approximately 688,000 kilowatts of power, and the benefits downstream would raise production to approximately 1,200,000. This maximum production would result when McNary, The Dalles, and other downstream dams are ready to utilize the stored water. Of course Bonneville could utilize it now, and McNary has 1 or 2 turbines already installed. In other words, Hells Canyon will produce approximately 1,200,000. Is this the information you desire, Mr. Bartlett?

Mr. BARTLETT. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Rash, for your contribution.

The next witness is Mr. Harold Hansen. Will you come forward, Mr. Hansen, and identify yourself.

STATEMENT OF HAROLD Z. HANSEN, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, CORDOVA DISTRICT FISHERIES UNION

Mr. HANSEN. My name is Harold Hansen. I represent the Cordova District Fisheries Union.

Mr. BARTLETT. In what capacity?

Mr. HANSEN. Secretary.

Mr. BARTLETT. Your subject, as I see, is fisheries.

Mr. HANSEN. Yes, I have a few remarks here I would like to make. May I say that I see several representative Cordova fishermen in the audience and I hope they may be allowed to supplement any remarks I have to make here.

I intend to be somewhat brief and factual concerning the woes of the fishermen in this area and Alaska. I will, however, confine my remarks and reasoning probably to how these facts concern us in this particular area.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am here this afternoon to speak on behalf of the Cordova District Fisheries Union, the largest independent union of Alaskan fishermen, operating within the Territory, with headquarters at Cordova, Alaska.

I intend to be brief and factual. Volumes of facts, figures, and reasonings have been submitted to Congress concerning our fisheries problems, and they remain unsolved.

First, fish traps: Due to the depletion of fisheries on Prince William Sound, that area has been closed during 1954 and 1955. This depletion of fish brought the seed-fish level of Prince William Sound down to less than one-fifth of the number necessary to produce an abundant crop. Prince William Sound has produced as many as 600,000 cases of salmon during a season. A pack of this size, at today's prices would be worth about $11 million. The average pack over the years would be worth about $6 million. How unfortunate for the economy of this area that 1954 and 1955 did not produce a dollar from Prince William Sound.

We believe that the depletion has been caused by overfishing. Our interpretation of overfishing is the taking of fish that should have been allowed to spawn.

Mrs. ProST. Is that what you term "seed fish"?

Mr. HANSEN. Seed fish are those fish that go up and spawn. They have to plant the seed before you get the return, one of the fundamental laws of nature, of course.

There appears to be a definite relation between traps and overfishing. Areas in which there are no company-owned traps and large numbers of company-owned boats, there is no problem of conservation. You can see the trouble you had with Bristol Bay, large numbers of company-owned boats, overfishing, and so forth, fish have been depleted there also.

The susceptibility of the Department of Interior to the requests of the trap operators has been quite apparent to us. The extension of the fishing season granted the Prince William Sound fisheries in 1953 over the protests of the fishermen certainly located the reason for the closure of Prince William Sound during the 2 following years of 1954-55.

Mr. BARTLETT. Would you explain that a bit more, Mr. Hansen?