University Press, 1955, describes the flood control situation in the Middle Atlantic States this way:

The history of floods in the Hudson, Delaware, Susquehanna, Potomac, Rappahannock, and James River Basins and in the Passaic and other streams flowing into the Atlantic Ocean extends back to colonial days. Even so, surprisingly little had been done locally toward providing flood protection before the adoption of a policy of flood control as a Federal responsibility.

Please note the judgment of these scientists that in this regionsurprisingly little had been done locally toward providing flood protection before the adoption of a policy of flood control as a Federal responsibility.

This contrasts sharply with the clear implication of the Hoover Commission recommendations that the Federal Government should, in effect, do as little as possible.

It was clearly half a century ago that President Theodore Roosevelt declared:

Each river system, from its headwaters in the forest to its mouth on the coast, is a single unit and should be treated as such.

Conservationists, scientists, and great national leaders since that time have echoed this view.

The outstanding effort to develop this thesis into a strong and effective plan for harnessing our rivers to produce the maximum benefits for the people was the report published in 1950 by the President's Water Resources Policy Commission.

I want to read to the committee the three recommendations of the President's Water Resources Policy Commission relating to flood control:

1. Flood control should be considered as an important part of water resources management. Conservation storage of flood waters in the soil, underground, and in surface reservoirs on tributaries and upper reaches of rivers should be a principal factor in the planning and development of river basin programs.

2. Consistent with other aspects of the basin program, flood storage should be located and designed to assure the greatest possible use and reuse of floodwaters for domestic water supply, recharge of ground water, irrigation, industrial water supply, navigation improvement, hydroelectric power, improvement of stream flow, pollution control, and recreation.

3. Congress should authorize the responsible Federal agencies, in reviewing river-basin programs, to consider all of the possibilities of flood protection, flood storage, and utilization of floodwaters. They should consided such measures as local flood-protection works, flood plain zoning, flood forecasting, design of levees, and related works to release sediment-laden water on the land where this would contribute to fertility of the soil. They should also consider all types and combinations of resevoirs designed to meet the Nation's requirements in all fields of water utilization.

Mr. Chairman, I submit that the report of President Truman's Water Resources Policy Commission and its recommendations provide a standard against which we can measure and evaluate the later water resources and power report of the second Hoover Commission. Although the Hoover report makes token acknowledgement of the need for some Federal responsibility, it stresses means to shift the burden to local interests.

I want to call your attention particularly to recommendation No. 2 of the President's Water Resources Policy Commission and invite you to contrast it with the Hoover Commission's recommendations. The Water Resources Policy Commission urges every effort to achieve multiple-purpose development consistent with effective flood control.

The Hoover Commission not only seeks to minimize Federal floodcontrol programs, but proposes diluting the other benefits from such projects.

Hydroelectric energy developed in conjunction with flood-control projects in many areas has been of great value to the regions in which the projects were located as well as to the national welfare. This has been achieved not only through maximum development but also by wise policies which have directed that such publicly produced energy be sold in such a manner as to most directly benefit the people. It is a fact that low retail electric rates, by stimulating consumption of electricity, become an indirect means to the expansion of business which results in full employment for the men and women we repre

sent.

There is no question as to the increased use of electricity which is promoted by low residential electric rates. The reports of the Federal Power Commission on typical electric bills show average annual residential consumption in 1950 at 6,659 kilowatt-hours in Tacoma, Wash., where a long-established municipal system has for many years shown the way to lower electric rates. This contrasts with an average residental consumption of 1,058 kilowatt-hours in New York City and 1,016 kilowatt-hours in Boston, Mass., where rates are high. Across the border in Canada, we find average residential consumption ranging as high as 6,000 kilowatt-hours per year in Ottawa and 4,400 kilowatt-hours in Toronto. For all 367 muncipalities distributing Ontario Hydroelectric Power System energy, 1952 residential use of electricity averaged 4,212 kilowatt-hours.

Here in the United States the Tennessee Valey Authority enterprise has shown the way to similar growth in average home use of electricity where electric rates are low enough to encourage such use. When the TVA started business in 1933, average residential use of electricity in the TVA region was about 600 kilowatt-hours per year, or almost precisely the average for the country as a whole. But by 1953, average residential use in the region had outstripped that in the United States by 2 to 1 and the average annual rate of use was about double that for the country as a whole.

In figures, the 1953 averages were 4,314 kilowatt-hours for homes in the TVA region, as aginst only 2,257 kilowatt-hours for homes throughout the United States. During the year the increase in average residential use was 387 kilowatt-hours for the TVA region, as compared with 166 kilowatt-hours for the Nation.

Now, it will mean a lot to the homes throughout the Northeast to be able to afford such expanded use of electricity. This possibility is of great interest to the members of the CIO. And they are interested in seeing the opportunities provided by low-cost power opened up to all the homes of the region and to the farms which provide them with dairy and other agricultural products, and, in turn, afford an important market for the products of industry.

But this consumer interest does not provide the full measure of our interest in bringing down the excessive electric rates in the region. As I have already indicated, the expanded use of electricity which would follow would mean an expanded market for electric appliances and farm equipment. This would mean more jobs for wage earners in the electric equipment industry as well as for those employed

in producing all the materials used in the manufacture of such equipment.

To make my point clear, I need only quote a paragraph on electric appliance purchases from the TVA 1953 Annual Report. It says:

The fact that residential use of electricity has grown more than twice as fast in the TVA area than in the Nation in the past 20 years reflects another fact that the region is an outstanding market for electric appliances, most of which are manufactured in other parts of the country. According to Electrical Merchandising, a trade magazine which annually compiles statistics on appliance sales, the State of Tennessee, with only 1.95 percent of the United States consumers of electricity, purchased 2.66 percent of the electric refrigerators, 3.44 percent of the electric water heaters, and 5.53 percent of all the electric ranges sold in the United States in 1952. Tennessee is typical of the TVA power-service area as a whole; in that area, according to conservative estimates, resident consumers have purchased more than $1 billion worth of electric appliances since the end of the war.

I have secured up-to-date figures on sales of appliances by States from the January 1954 issue of Electrical Merchandising, the trade paper referred to in the TVA report. These figures show that in 1953, measured in terms of sales per thousand residential and rural customers, the State of Tennessee exceeded the average for the United States as a whole for the following electrical appliances: Refrigerators, ranges, water heaters, home freezers, room conditioners, automatic washers, conventional washers, ironers, vacuum cleaners, dishwashers, radio sets, and television sets.

For 1954 the same source shows the following purchases of electric appliances per thousand customers: Electric refrigerators, United States, 74; Tennessee, 77; New Jersey, 59; electric ranges, United States, 27; Tennessee, 49; New Jersey, 32; home freezers, United States, 15; Tennessee, 25; New Jersey, 10; air conditioners, United States, 27; Tennessee, 91; New Jersey, 9; television sets, United States, 114; Tennessee, 228; New Jersey, 79; vacuum cleaners, United States, 44; Tennessee, 45; New Jersey, 30.

The State of Washington, which also enjoys low electric rates as the result of a great Federal power program and leading municipal electric systems, shows the same increased sales of electrical appliances as Tennessee in every instance except room conditioners. The lower sales of such air conditioners may be due to the climate enjoyed by the State.

In contrast, the New England and Middle Atlantic States fell consistently below the United States average for practically all of these appliances except vacuum cleaners, radio and television sets.

A few figures will show what these comparisons mean in terms of possible expansion in employment in the electrical equipment industry, where many members of the CIO find their livelihood.

For instance, if residential and rural electric customers throughout the country had purchased as many electric appliances per thousand as those in Tennessee, the year 1953 would have seen a market for about 590,000 more electric refrigerators, 970,000 more ranges, 590,000 more electric water heaters, 70,000 more home-freezing units, 1,900,000 more room conditioners, 870,000 more washers, 100,000 more ironers, and 380,000 more vacuum cleaners.

According to the Federal Power Commission publication, Hydroelectric Power Resources of the United States, Developed and Undeveloped, 1953, the Delaware River has 1 million kilowatts of unde

veloped hydroelectric power. This waterpower developed as part of flood-control developments could make a valuable contribution to our region and its people. We do not believe that the benefits of this resource will ever be realized if we do not undertake a strong, positive program of Federal development of the Delaware Basin. We do not believe these benefits ever will be realized amid the interstate dissensions of INCODEL debate. Nor do we believe that these benefits ever will be realized under the retrogressive program spelled out in the Hoover Commission's report on water resources and power.

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

Do you have any questions?

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Yes. I would like to ask what recommendations you are referring to specifically when you said that the Hoover Commission recommendation would minimize Federal flood-control projects?

Mr. KREBS. Well, for one thing, the recommendation of the Commission that we subscribe to the theory of single-purpose dams, I think, would certainly restrict the positive achievement possible under a multiple-purpose development program.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Have you had the opportunity to read and study the Hoover Commission report?

Mr. KREBS. I have read it. To say that I have studied and assimilated every last detail would be telling an untruth; I have not, but I read it.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. They made two recommendations pertaining to flood control, No. 6 and No. 1.

Do you want to specifically tell us how those recommendations would harm flood control?

Mr. KREBS. If you will let me reread them and refresh my memory, I will. I want to say generally, without referring to any specific points you raised, that the whole theory apparently embodied in the Hoover report, that this be done on a local level, has been borne out very dramatically to be completely ineffective, in the case of the Delaware Valley, for example. You heard reference made to the INCODEL project which, I believe, has been in existence since somewhere around 1937 or 1938, and the INCODEL, which was a State responsibility, has done nothing to eliminate any devastation and hardship brought on the people of the Delaware Valley in the last flood. Mr. LIPSCOMB. In reading recommendation No. 1 (c), do you feel that it is possible that this Delaware River Basin project may come under that?

Mr. KREBS. Well, I say again, Mr. Congressman, that this is the reason we feel a comprehensive federally designed and administrated program is needed, because we have had the local program on the statute books since 1937, and nothing has been done to make any progress toward eliminating the dangers of flood and the actual hardship brought on our people by these floods.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. The Hoover Commission recommendation will not minimize flood control

Mr. JONES. Will the gentleman yield?

When you are talking about recommendation No. 1 and recommendation No. 2, recommendation No. 4, and on through, if you consider them severally and not conjunctively, then you might reach that conclusion. But you are talking about a comprehensive program that might involve the multiple-purpose dam; and then you run into the

situation of the other recommendation on the treatment of the sale and disposal of power, so I do not see where

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Basically, we can say that you and your members are against the entire Hoover Commission report, the same as the other man.

Mr. KREBS. I might say that, but I am not saying this. I first of all want you to know very distinctly that I do not consider myself an authority on the entire Hoover report. I am saying that generally the philosophy embodied in the Hoover report is a philosophy designed to achieve for the big power-private power interests-the resource earnings, the wealth of the resources of the country that belong to the entire citizenry of the United States. It is this kind of philosophy that urges in other parts of the recommendations that the Congress enact legislation compelling low-cost power projects to raise their rates to be consistent with the minimum rates of the private power companies, and this is the thing we object to. This is the basic fundamental of the Hoover report that the CIO does not subscribe to.

If you want to go through the Hoover recommendations paragraph by paragraph, I dare say there are paragraphs in there we might agree with, but the essential philosophy is something we cannot subscribe to, Mr. Congressman.

Mr. JONES. Send us about a dozen copies of it.

Mr. KREBS. All right.

Mr. JONES. Our next witness is Mr. Joseph Rader, of the textile workers.

A VOICE. I do not believe he is here, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. JONES. Then our next witness is Mr. John Crandall.

Mr. WISE. He cannot come in right now.

Mr. JONES. Miss Rebecca Gross, editor of the Lock Haven Express, of Lock Haven, Pa.

This is a very anxious moment for the committee, because you are the first lady we have had before the committee.

Miss GROSS. The first lady you have had? Well, a lot of ladies are interested.

Mr. JONES. Yesterday, a little bit before you were scheduled, we were hoping that we would have you both yesterday and today. Miss GROSS. Thank you.

I was sorry I could not come over yesterday. I am also sorry that since I was invited to be a witness here the day before yesterday I did not have time to prepare a statement to submit to your committee, so I hope you will forgive me if I do this freehand, and I will be glad to write it out and submit it to you later, if you would like. Mr. JONES. You may proceed, Miss Gross.

STATEMENT OF MISS REBECCA GROSS, EDITOR, LOCK HAVEN EXPRESS, LOCK HAVEN, PA.

Miss GROSS. My name is Rebecca Gross, and I am the editor of the Lock Haven Express, in Lock Haven, Pa., on the West Branch Valley. Mr. JONES. What size is Lock Haven?

Miss GROSS. Lock Haven has a population of around 12,000, and it is 1 of 8 or 10 communities in the West Branch Valley which have

70818-56-pt. 1-15