show the short tons of coal consumed in 1952 for the production of electricity in the four TVA States, the United States as a whole, New England and New York State, compared with consumption in the same areas for this purpose in 1929, as follows:

In brief, consumption of coal for production of electricity has increased about 15 times over in the 4 TVA States, as compared with somewhat more than doubling for the United States as a whole and increases of only one-sixth and two-thirds for New England and New York, respectively.

Putting the matter another way, the TVA States used only about one-tenth as much coal as New England for electric generation at the peak of the Hoover era, but had passed New England consumption by about a million and a half tons, or 40 percent, by the end of the Roosevelt-Truman era.

It may be recalled that New England had no Federal hydro development.

In 1952 TVA alone purchased 2,815,472 million tons of coal for its power operations in 1952 and 5,100,223 tons in 1953. Its consumption of coal when powerplants now under construction are in operation is estimated at about 18 million tons per year.

Such figures provide an interesting commentary on the National Coal Association's 1934 diatribe on The Menace to the Coal Industry of the TVA and Similar Projects. And the consumption of coal for the generation of electric power in the Tennessee Valley is still climbing.

In expressing our interest in continued multiple-purpose development of the rivers in our region, I want to emphasize that we include recreational uses of resources, including preservation and enhancement of fish and wildlife values, in our picture of sound programs. And we feel, on the basis of our investigations, that careful planning can harmonize these interests with development of flood-control storage, navigation, and hydroelectric power.

With the increasing pressures of city and industrial living and the compensating shortening of the workday and the workweek, as well as provision for annual vacations, ample provision for recreation is a modern necessity. We are convinced that this can be included in multiple-purpose programs of the kind I have been talking about, if the Federal water resources and power policy of the last 20 years is not drastically altered, as proposed by the Hoover Commisison.

We call attention to certain points made by the President's Water Resources Policy Commission in its discussion of this aspect of the Ohio River Basin program.

The Commission recognized that water-development projects may affect fish and wildlife favorably or adversely, depending upon the particular circumstances. It states that

in most cases losses can be minimized and benefits maximized without adversely affecting other purposes, if the relation of fish and wildlife values to other resources values is investigated in the early stages of planning a comprehensive basinwide development.

The Commission calls attention to the amended Coordination Act of 1946, which required the Department of the Interior to recommend ways for mitigating losses to fish and wildlife and provides that the costs of installing and maintaining the necessary means and measures shall constitute part of the project costs. It says:

In general, substantial benefits accrue to fishery resources from multiplepurpose reservoirs in this basin.

This general conclusion has been amply borne out by the experience of the Tennessee Valley Authority.

In regard to recreational use of such reservoirs, the Commission

says:

The heavy concentrations of population and the relative scarcity of natural lakes in the Ohio Basin are factors making the recreation use of reservoirs certain unless conditions are unusually adverse.

In this connection, the Commission has pointed out that, using reports submitted by the National Park Service and other recreational interests, the Corps of Engineers has prepared master recreation plans on each reservoir offering possibilities for boating, fishing, picnicking, and swimming, with camping also included in certain instances.

1

Altogether, we feel that such a broad multiple-purpose approach to river-basin development offers greater public advantages than would be possible with the more limited and essentially single-purpose approach which would be encouraged by the Hoover Commission recommendation.

Other river basins: Although I have summarized the hydroelectric resources of Pennsylvania and more generally in the Northeast in terms of all river basins, my specific discussion has been related chiefly to the Ohio River multiplepurpose water-resources program. But the general program which we support and which we feel would be seriously endangered by adoption of the Hoover Commission recommendations, applies equally to the Susquehanna and Delaware River Basins. And my statements can, in general, be taken as applying to them and to the authorized and studied projects in those basins. Of particular importance to sound future development of these rivers and to our efforts to secure lower electric rates, is the Raystown Reservoir projects on a tributary of the Susquehanna River. This project would be operated for flood control, hydroelectric power, and stream regulation, providing downstream benefits. It would include a powerhouse with 189,000 kilowatts of installed capacity. As I have suggested in my brief discussion of the interest of the coal industry, it would be operated to carry peak loads, leaving the longhour base-load operation to the fuel-burning steam stations.

So far as the Delaware River Basin is concerned, Federal planning has not gone forward as fully as in connection with the other

rivers because in 1935 the States of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, by compact, established the Interstate Commission on the Delaware River to plan its development. This was widely recognized as a scheme to avoid Federal development and the entire setup practically ignored development of the 1 million kilowatts of undeveloped hydroelectric power which the Federal Power Commission estimates as its potential. The whole experience with this particular approach points clearly to the importance of Federal programs for interstate streams. Although created within 2 years of the establishment of the Tennessee Valley Authority, INCODEL has yet to obtain approval of its plan, while the TVA has nearly completed the comprehensive development of the water resources of the Tennessee Basin.

So the Delaware River Basin is still without a flood-control program.

Hoover Commission recommendations are destructive: As the basis of these comments on specific aspects of Federal water-resources policy and programs as affecting the people of our State, I will conclude by reiterating our conviction that the Hoover Commission recommendations would be destructive of the outstanding contributions which such programs have proved capable of offering the people. And by the people, I mean the farms, the city homes, the small businesses, and the industrial workers of the region.

I have mentioned briefly the emphasis placed on more non-Federal contribution to flood control and user charges on inland waterways as tending to cramp the prompt undertaking of necessary projects in these important fields. But we are convinced that the most serious and calculated blow at the whole idea of Federal multiple-purpose river basin programs is found in the Hoover Commission recommendations on power policy.

When you propose a policy which has as its main purpose the ultimate elimination of Federal development of power as one of the purposes of these multiple-purpose programs, you propose to strike out what the important Mississippi Valley Committee, chairmaned by Morris Llewellyn Cooke of Philadelphia, in 1934 referred to as the key to comprehensive river-basin development.

Although the Hoover Commission report has toned down somewhat the more violent recommendations of its utility-biased task force on water resources and power, the net result is merely a more delicate insertion of the knife.

The Hoover Commission recommends Federal Power Commission fixing of rates for Government power sales, with specifications which would substantially deny the people the advantages of using their own credit to finance development of power from their own waterpower resources. This would be a reversal of all public power policy since central station electricity was born.

The Hoover Commission recommends that the Government cease building steam plants, thereby practically requiring the Government to go into partnership with private enterprise in order to make the most advantageous use of its waterpower resources. It would also limit the Government's ability to meet the expanding power supply requirements of communities which had exercised their American

right to choose public or cooperative electric service. It would force these community enterprises back on high-cost power supply from private monopolies.

The Hoover Commission recommends steps which would compel the country's great river-basin power programs to substitute the private financial market for Federal financing to meet their future requirements, thereby again denying the people the advantage of using their own credit.

And finally, not to go into too much detail, the Hoover Commission recommends that private enterprise be offered the opportunity to provide the capital for the power developments at Federal multiple-purpose dams and to dispose of the power through their own systems. This would not only deny the people the right to use their own credit for developing the power created by their own investment in dams, a clean-cut give-away, but would spell the approaching end of public power yardsticks which have been so influential in keeping the rates charged by private companies down to more reasonable levels than would otherwise have prevailed.

I can safely predict that adoption of the changes in Federal power policy recommended by this Hoover Commission report, with the propaganda report of its water resources and power task force to mislead the people, would cost the people of the United States increases in electric rates measured in hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars added to a national electric bill now running at about $7 billion. And, in the process, it will reduce the other values which the people can get out of proper development of their water resources, including flood control, water supply, navigation, and recreation.

That is why we urge this committee of Congress to report unfavorably on the basic proposals of the latest Hoover Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government.

Mr. JONES. Thank you very much, Mr. Boyer.

Any questions?

Mr. LIPSCOMB. No:

Mr. JONES. Your statement is quite complete. We appreciate the effort that you have given to the preparation and the observations that you have made in your report and are glad to have you, Mr. Boyer.

Mr. BOYER. Thank you.

Mr. JONES. Our next witness is Mr. Paul Krebs, president of the New Jersey State Industrial Union Council.

Mr. KREBS. Mr. Chairman, before I start, I would like to apologize to the members of the committee, but circumstances beyond my control made it impossible to have my statement mimeographed. However, it is not as long as the previous

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Is it basically the same?

Mr. KREBS. It is not essentially the same, and since it is short, I would like the permission of the committee to read it into the record. Mr. JONES. Fine.

Mr. KREBS. If there is need of any copies, I would be glad to send them to the committee.

STATEMENT OF PAUL KREBS, PRESIDENT, NEW JERSEY CIO COUNCIL

Mr. KREBS. Mr. Chairman, my name is Paul Krebs. I am president of the New Jersey State CIO, which represents nearly 250,000 CIO members in 400 locals throughout the State of New Jersey.

The destructive floods which recently swept through this area and the entire Northeastern and Middle Atlantic regions clearly demonstrated that our flood control measures have been too little and too late and that we must pitch in with renewed vigor to construct new and greater flood control works to protect our homes, our industries, and our very lives.

The magnitude of the tragedy in lives and property starkly warned us that the problem is too vast for individuals and small groups to cope with alone. People throughout the Nation generously contributed their funds to help meet our emergency, but we believe that the lesson for them as well as ourselves in the region is that we must have a full-scale Federal flood control plan developed and constructed for the Delaware River Basin and other Middle Atlantic and New England river basins. This has proved a wise investment in other areas and regions, and we have learned the hard way that it is needed here.

To read the report on Water Resources and Power of the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government-the second Hoover Commission-in the light of the disaster which we have experienced so recently is a shocking and terrifying experience. Viewed as a whole or reviewed item for item, the recommendations of this Commission spell out a program for less flood control less effectively developed and administered.

Although the Commission did not formalize it into a recommendation, the final chapter of the Water Resources and Power report seems to be summarizing what the report really means. It says:

What is fundamentally needed is for the States concerned in each of these Federal power regions to reassert their own vigor and independence.

Then the report suggests an interstate compact scheme based perhaps on the organization of the Port of New York Authority. Mr. Chairman, we in this area have had for some years such a compact. We have had our Interstate Commission on the Delaware River, known as INCODEL. We have heard a great deal about flood control but we have seen precious little construction. And I need not tell you that we have had floods.

The Hoover Commission concludes its report by declaring that an interstate compact organization "would check the rise of centralized government and bureaucratic control." It has been our experience, however, that it will not check rising flood waters.

An interstate compact has been characterized as "a formula for civil war." It invites dissension, rivalry, and distrust when experience has shown that only unified effort can cope with the tremendous problem of taming a long and powerful river.

A recent authoritative study by two scientists entitled "Floods," by William G. Hoyt, United States Geological Survey, retired, and Walter B. Langbein, United States Geological Survey, Princeton