13. Illinois Smith-Hurd Annotated Statutes, 48:831-847. Illinois Industrial Development Authority Act. 85:891-898 (Supp.) Industrial Development Assistance Law. 127:42a 3-7 Rural rehabilitation. 127:46, to 47.23. 14. Indiana Burn's Statutes, 48:8701 to 8725 Municipal Economic Development. 60:2401 to 2412 The 1965 Indiana Economic Development Authority Act. 15:2201 to 2205 Rural rehabilitation. 15. Iowa Code, 419.1 to 419.15 Municipal support of industrial projects. 234.15 to 234.20 Rural rehabilitation. 16. Kansas Statutes Annotated, 12-1740 to 12-1749 General economic and agricultural development. 13-1441, 1442 Levy for securing industries in or near cities. 74-5001 to 74-5009 Kansas Economic Development Act. 17. Kentucky Baldwin's Revised Statutes, 154.001 to 154.170 Industrial Development Finance Authority 246.270 to 290. 18. Louisiana Revised Statutes, 51:1151 to 1165 Municipal and Parish Industrial Development Boards. 51:1201 Industrial Development Generally. 19. Maine Revised Statutes, 30:5325 to 5344 (Supp.) 10:701 to 852. 20. Maryland Code, 45A, 1-3. 27. Nebraska Revised Statutes, 2-2101 to 2107 Rural Rehabilitation Corporation. Constitution, Art. XV, Sec. 16 Industrial Development; powers of counties and municipalities. Statutes, 18-1614 to 1623. 19-2501 to 2508 Industrial Areas (except metropolitan cities). 81-1201 to 1213 (Supp.) 28. Nevada Revised Statute, 231.010 to 231.130 Department of Economic Development. 561.425 to 561.465 Rural Rehabilitation. 29. New Hampshire Revised Statutes, 12A, 1 to 12A: 16 Department of Resources and Economic Development. 162-A: 1 to 16 Industrial Development Authority. 162-D: 1 to 8 Acquisition and Disposal of Industrial Facilities. 30. New Jersey Statutes Annotated. 40:190-1 to 40:190-12 Industrial Commission (for industrial development of all cities). 40.55B-1 to 40:55B-10 Industrial Commission (for industrial development of all municipalities). 52:27C-1 to 52:57C-18 (Department of Economic Development). 4:18A-1 to 4:18A-10 Rural Rehabilitation. 31. New Mexico Statutes, 4-17-1 to 4-17-9 Department of Development. 14-59-1,2 Economic Development Promotion Act. 14-31-1 to 14-31-13 Industrial Revenue Bond Act. 32. New York McKinney's Consolidated Laws, General Municipal Law, 850-888. Unconsolidated Laws, 6301-6325 New York State Urban Development and Research Corporation Act. (NOTE. The text of the laws cited above are on file with the Subcommittee on Rural Development.) APRIL 12, 1971 To: Walter W. Wilcox, Senior Specialist Division. Enclosed is a duplicated copy of a Council of Planning Librarians Exchange Bibliography, Optimum City-Size and Municipal Efficiency. In addition, a few additional references on the same subject are listed below. Phoebus J. Dhrymes and Mordecai Kurz. Technology and scale in electricity generation, Econometrica, v. 32, No. 3, July 1964, pp. 287-315. Nels W. Hanson. Economy of scale as a cost factor in financing public schools, National tax journal, v. 17, No. 1, March 1966; 92–95. Werner Z. Hirsch. About the supply of urban services (Los Angeles, California, University of California, Institute of Public Affairs, 1967). Werner Z. Hirsch. Cost functions of an urban government service: refuse collection, The Review of economics and statistics, v. 47, No. 1, February 1965: 87– 92. Werner Z. Hirsch. Expenditures implications of metropolitan growth and consolidation, The Review of economics and statistics, v. 41, No. 3, August 1959: 234-235. Warren Y. Kimball. Population density and fire company distribution, Fire journal, March 1965: 39-41. C. D. Laidlaw. Utilities in and out of planning, Urban Problems and techniques (Lexington, Mass. Chandler-Davis Publishing Co., 1959). Julius Margolis, editor. The public economy of urban communities. Baltimore, Md., The Johns Hopkins Press, 1965. Marc Nerlove. Returns to scale in electricity supply. Stanford, Calif., Institute for Mathematical Studies in the Social Sciences, Stanford University, 1961: p. 11. Clarence E. Ridley and Herbert A. Simon. Measuring municipal activities, Chicago, International City Managers Association, 1938. Henry J. Schmandt and G. Ross Stephens. Measuring municipal output, National tax journal, v. 13, No. 4, December 1960: 369–375. Henry B. Schechter. Cost-push of urban growth, Land economics, February 1961. Stanley Scott and Edward Feder. Factors associated with variations in municipal expenditure levels. Berkeley, Calif., Bureau of Public Administration, University of California, 1957. 52 p. Harvey Shapiro. Economies of scale and local government finance. Land economics, v. 34, No. 2, May 1963: 175–186. William C. Wheaton and Morton J. Schussheim. The cost of municipal services in residential areas. Washington, U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technical Services, 1955. MARION SCHLEFER, Analyst in Housing and Urban Affairs. (NOTE. The following letter was sent to the Governors of the States and territories and their replies are as follows:) U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY, Hon. PATRICK J. LUCEY, Governor of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis. DEAR GOVERNOR LUCEY: In 1970 the Congress adopted a special amendment to H.R. 18546, the Agricultural Act of 1970, which sets the stage for increased Congressional activity on behalf of the people of rural America. This amendment, known as Title IX of the Agricultural Act of 1970, commits the Congress to a sound balance between rural and urban America. The amend prosperity, and welfare of all citizens that the highest priority must be given to the revitalization and development of rural areas." In addition, the amendment requires reports from the Executive Branch in five different areas which will be helpful to Congress in devising legislation and rural development. I was honored to be appointed Chairman of the Rural Development Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. This subcommitteewas established to carry out the mandate of Title IX. Under the terms of Senate Resolution 76, this subcommittee is given the authority to examine, investigate, and make a complete study of any and all matters pertaining to the development of the rural areas of the United States. In carrying out our mandate, the Subcommittee is attempting to obtain the benefit of the State Governor's experiences in rural community development. No one is more familiar with the problems of the economic development and the social improvement of rural areas than are the State Governors. I would greatly appreciate your providing the following information: 1. Your views and opinions as to what the problems of rural America are. 4. Your experience in dealing with Federal programs aimed at the development and improvement of the rural areas of your State. 5. The State laws and State programs aimed at the development of the rural areas of your State. 6. Your experience in the planning of the economic development of your State. I believe that it is extremely important that the Members of the Rural Development Subcommittee get out into the countryside and examine the problems firsthand. For this reason, I am planning ten field trips around the country. I want to assure you that, should it be possible to schedule a regional hearing in or near your State, you will be kept fully informed. I look forward to working with our Governors. Your help and cooperation are needed. Hon. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, Chairman, Rural Development Subcommittee. Chairman, Rural Development Subcommittee, STATE OF ALASKA, DEAR SENATOR HUMPHREY: My congratulations to you on your appointment as Chairman of the Rural Development Subcommittee, and I assure you the full cooperation of my office in developing programs designed to assist the people in rural areas of America. Officials in Washington are probably weary of hearing Alaskans talk about the unique problems of the rural areas of the State, but there is no better way to describe them. Problems in Alaska are compounded by tremendous distances, topography which makes surface transportation difficult, and ethnic groups which are disadvantaged educationally, culturally and economically. Thousands of Alaska natives-Indians, Aleuts and Eskimos-residing in remote and isolated areas of Alaska are living under poverty conditions worse than Appalachia. Approximately one-fifth of Alaska's population is made up of these ethnic groups. Most of the native villages are situated on the Arctic and sub-Arctic coast, or on interior rivers, where they have historically existed on a subsistence economy, with fishing and hunting as the only means of support. The transition from a subsistence economy to a cash economy is extremely difficult, since in most instances there is little or no industrial development feasible in the areas, principally due to the lack of transportation facilities. The people living in these villages cannot be readily assimilated into the urban centers because of educational and cultural disadvantages, yet they are not happy living under existing conditions. 1 There are other villages along the coast where the population is a mixture of native and non-natives, but the economy is based upon a single resource, such as fishing, which has an employment season of only two or three months and fluctuates with the annual run of fish. The people of most of these communities must depend entirely upon welfare assistance during seasonal unemployment and all year when the fishing is poor. These people are not proud to be welfare recipients, and our hope is that the resources of Alaska can be developed to the point that all Alaskans, whether native or non-native, who wish gainful employment can be employed. The potential to accomplish this exists in Alaska. We have the minerals, forest products, seafood products, and petroleum, which during the next few decades will be desperately needed by the citizens of the United States and other countries, but financial assistance will be needed to develop transportation and other facilities to make these resources accessible. Officials of the Bureau of Indian Affairs have estimated the average annual unemployment rate for all Alaska natives, in both urban and rural communities, to be around sixty percent. We could expect that the average unemployment rate for natives living in rural communities to be around ninety percent. We recognize the need to provide programs of basic, cultural, and vocational education to assist the natives to make this transition, but both Federal and State funds have been inadequate to make much progress. Available funds have been well spent, and a limited number of the natives have been in training programs. However, the delay in settlement of the Native Land Claims and the issuance of the pipeline permit have slowed Alaska's economy to the point that jobs for these people after training are not available in urban areas. The Alaska State Department of Economic Development is placing increasing emphasis on services to the rural areas. These services include assistance in preparing applications for project funding, evaluation of the feasibility of private and public projects, and regional resource surveys to assist new and existing businesses and village councils in the rural areas. The State has recognized that there is a vacillating awareness among some Federal officials and National policy makers concerning the needs of the state of Alaska. Nevertheless, most Federal programs in Alaska involved in the development and improvement of rural Alaska are showing substantial progress in correcting many of the problems that exist here. It is recommended that existing programs be reviewed for possible consolidation and simplification. The present programs should be reappraised, not from the standpoint of how they best serve a Federal department, but how they can be made to better serve the people in rural America to face their problems. The programs should be based on the best way to carry out a National policy of social and economic advancement. Present programs should further encourage sufficient private investment, or private initiative in rebuilding rural America. In some respects we consider that the proliferation of Federal programs within separate agencies does contribute to an ineffectiveness which could be eliminated through more thorough coordination and planning. It is suggested that personnel of the Federal agencies be encouraged to suggest improvements to their programs, with emphasis on improving the agency's ability to respond to the intent of Federal legislation and their more effective utilization of funds allotted to achieve their goals. As a specific example, Indian, Eskimo and Aleut villages of Alaska do not qualify under the Indian Program of the Economic Development Administration. Essentially, every professional employee of the Economic Development Administration aware of the Alaskan situation contends this situation is unfair, and is discriminatory to the Alaska native people. However, year after year there is no improvement in the situation and it continues to exist. The officials closest to the programs can best recommend improvements. These recommendations merit expeditious consideration and a procedure for their implementation should be adopted. The recently appointed Alaska Rural Affairs Commission includes representation from all facets of rural Alaska. This group will consider various avenues of development, and future State policies will be largely based on recommendations of this Council. The State Rural Development Agency has grant funds available for direct input into projects in the communities, grants of up to $10,000 have been made available annually to villages and small communities on a project-by-project basis. All of rural America is plagued with serious housing deficiencies. However, in Alaska these conditions are compounded by the remoteness, the harsh climate, and cultural dislocation. A recent report by the Bureau of Indian Affairs estimated that of the 10,344 housing units of the Alaska native population, 8,714 are substandard. Of these, 8,437 need to be replaced, and the remaining 281 need renovation. Additionally, 1,008 families have no housing. The need for houses for Alaska's low income native population alone comes to 9,445 units. The lack of land titles, conventional bank financing, and building contractors compound the problem. The homes that are built are constructed by the individuals for their own use. Public housing programs are the only source of new housing stock for the low-income people of Alaska. Occupied dwellings in the villages are overcrowded and insufficiently ventilated, which further aggravates the health hazards. The high Alaska mortality and morbidity of infants and preschool children is directly related to a deficient diet. Rural Alaskans today depend less on a subsistence economy of hunting, fishing, and berries, and have now increased their dependence on processed foods. The nutrition problem is thus compounded by the low income of the rural population, which allows only meager purchases of store foods. The Food Stamp Program initiated on a statewide basis in January, 1969, has improved this situation and has increased thte buying power of the lowincome sector. The rural Alaska population lives in the most extreme and hazardous health conditions in the Nation. Water supplies are polluted in many situations and waste disposal systems are inadequate or do not exist in many villages. These conditions are not necessarily a part of the Alaska environment, nor are they part of the native culture, but are caused by poverty conditions. The result has been that the rural Alaska people have suffered epidemics of tuberculosis, pneumonia, influenza, meningitis, infectious hepatitis, and other diseases. Approximately 8,000 residents of rural Alaska obtain water from unprotected wells, streams, tundra ponds or are forced to melt ice. I have attempted to indicate only a few of the problems which confront the people living in the rural areas of Alaska. We feel that because of the seriousness and uniqueness of problems existing here, your subcommittee should hold adequate hearings in Alaska to gain a thorough understanding of these problems. Members of my staff would be made available to do the necessary work related to the hearings. Sincerely, WILLIAM A. EGAN, Governor. Hon. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, GOVERNMENT OF AMERICAN SAMOA, Pago Pago, American Samoa, May 19, 1971. Chairman, Rural Development Subcommittee, Committee on Agriculture Forestry, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR HUMPHREY: Thank you very much for your inquiry about rural development problems in American Samoa. It is nice to have your letter and you may recall our previous meetings, one when I sat next to you as chairman of the Oceanographic Commission of Washington when you addressed various oceanographic interests in, if memory serves me correctly, 1969. We also had an opportunity to chat in Washington, D.C. at a reception in the new Senate Office Building hosted by Senator Warren Magnuson. I am attaching material on environmental and ecological problems in American Samoa, which I believe, will answer your questions in whole or in part. Our former Director of Agriculture, High Chief A. U. Fuimaono, was elected last November as American Samoa's Delegate-at-Large to Washington, D.C. I am sending your letter to him as he is completely familiar with agricultural problems here in American Samoa. I am asking him to contact you or the proper members of your staff to provide verbal answers in depth and to work with your committee on behalf of American Samoa. Should you wish to convene one of your hearings in American Samoa, despite its smallness and distance, we would be most pleased to have you. Best personal regards. Sincerely yours, JOHN M. HAYDON, Governor. (Note. The material referred to above is on file with the Subcommittee on Rural Development.) |