production of more power at lower cost through the utilization of water reTheir deliberate sources; the other field is production of electric power from atomic energy. The shortsightedness of the utility giants is staggering. action in denying New England the advantages of low-cost hydroelectric and atomic power sources can be explained in only one way. They obviously consider Little comfort is afforded themselves better off as monopolists in a waning New England economy than as sharers in a vital, expanding regional economy. by the realization that, in the long run, the utility interests are harming themselves at the same time they are handicapping the rest of us. Atomic energy represents a potential source of power which could prove the golden key to New England's resurgence as a thriving economic entity. The United States Government has invested well over $14 billion in atomic energy, of which more than $8 billion has gone into the development of nonmilitary atomic energy installations and projects. The tragic fact is that New England has been prevented from sharing in this rapidly expanding industry. In the atomic field, New England has been led down a blind alley. The Yankee Atomic Power Co. was formed in September 1954 by the private utilities which produce approximately 90 per cent of New England's electric power supply. Its The form of ownership proposed for Yankee Atomic was barred by the Security and Exchange Commission as a violation of the Holding Company Act. backers have to date done nothing to put Yankee Atomic back into existence, except to make a crass attempt to repeal the Holding Company Act as it relates to atomic energy. Whether by accident or by design, the collapse of Yankee Atomic has prevented any other effort to bring part of the atomic energy industry into New England. To the end, therefore, that the state of economic stagnation now threatening New England may be checked, and in order that the region may be restored to the position of economic leadership it once enjoyed, this convention Resolves, That a forceful, farseeing, and imaginative program for the economic revival of New England be undertaken immediately through— (1) Reactivation of a regional planning and development committee along the lines followed in formation of the committee of New England of the National Planning Association in 1949. The proposed planning and development committee must include representatives of all interests, so that it will not fall victim to the heavy hand of the same financial interests which destroyed the energy and the creative urge which characterized formation of its successor committee. (2) Forging of a unity of spirit and purpose between the planning and development committee and the New England congressional delegation so that the region will have a strong, united voice in making known its aspirations and its needs in the Nation's Capital. (3) Seizure of the opportunity presented-ironically, by the worst natural disasters in New England's modern history-for construction of a system of multipurpose dams which will protect life and property and, at the same time, produce hydroelectric power. It will not be feasible, of course, to erect multipurpose dams at all sites where barriers must be built to prevent floods; many of the dams will of necessity be of the so-called dry type which will perform only one service, that of preventing floods. But the construction of the maximum feasible number of multipurpose dams must be undertaken, for revenues provided by the dual-purpose dams probably will be essential to erection and maintenance of the dam system this region must have to guard against further destruction by floods. (4) Construction by the Federal Government of a joint publicly owned atomic This atomic plant would be operated in reactor for the New England States. conjunction with hydroelectric power stations constructed as part of the floodcontrol program. (5) Education of the private utility interests on the fundamental economic point that, while exploitation undoubtedly is financially rewarding on a shortterm basis, their own basic, long-term security is inextricably linked with that of the region they share with their customers. Driven home with sufficient force and clarity, this point could do much to enhance New England's chances for economic redevelopment by bringing about the elimination of the private-utility-erected roadblocks to production of electric power through water resources and atomic energy. (6) Revision of State tax structures so that they will raise the bulk of their revenue from graduated income taxes, which place the heaviest burden on those best able to pay. As a corollary, sales taxes in all forms should be drastically reduced or eliminated altogether, since they place the heaviest burden on those least able to pay. (7) Provision at the earliest possible date of low-cost insurance against losses from disasters, both natural and manmade. New England's flood-vulnerable areas cannot be made attractive to new industries until and unless such an insurance program is established as a vitally important supplement to a comprehensive flood-control program. (8) Improvement of the lagging wage structure in New England by obtaining legislation to raise the Federal minimum wage, now $1 an hour, to at least $1.25, followed by enactment of legislation in the several New England States to make the States' minimum wages equal to the Federal standard; and be it further Resolved; That this convention goes on record as dedicating the Connecticut Industrial Union Council's skills, energies, and resources to an untiring, unceasing drive for regional betterment so that all New Englanders may once again be able to pride themselves on being part of a regional community which offers forward-looking leadership in all fields-a community which offers ever-increasing opportunities for economic security and a better way of life which can be realized only through a buoyant, vital, expanding economy. Senator LEHMAN. I have a statement from Congressman Bennett, a letter and a telegram for the record. (The material referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF CHARLES E. BENNETT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to testify on bills to establish national-disaster insurance which are now pending before your committee. I am particularly interested in these proposals from the standpoint of Florida's peculiar problems. S. 2768 which is now before this committee is fair and equitable in covering our Florida problems. Unfortunately, S. 2862 is not sufficiently broad to cover our peculiar problems in Florida due, I am sure, to no intent upon the parts of its sponsors to discriminate against the State which I represent. As stated above, S. 2768, in providing national-disaster insurance, defines disasters broadly enough to cover property damage or loss resulting from beach and shore erosion due to hurricanes, storms, and the like, disasters to which Florida, with its long coastline, is vulnerable. If a feasible bill for nationaldisaster insurance can be worked out, and I think and hope it can, then I hope that it will include broad language as S. 2768, covering Florida's problems. S. 2862 would provide for disaster insurance on a much more limited basis and would definitely exclude the possibility of obtaining insurance against loss or damage to property resulting from beach erosion. I hope that if this bill is reported favorably, it may be first amended to remove the discrimination against the State of which I am one of the Representatives. For some time I have been cooperating with a large number of my colleagues in the House in an effort to obtain a liberalization of beach erosion legislation to make possible more and better preventive measures against beach floods. I have been cooperating in particular with my distinguished colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Auchincloss, on his bill, H. R. 4470, which is now pending before the House Public Works Committee. Enactment of that bill would help considerably in preventing ocean floods along the shores of the United States. However, even if that bill is enacted, it will be some time before the necessary beach erosion construction can be completed. In the meantime, there will be a continuing danger from floods caused by occasional abnormal conditions of winds, waves, and tides along the seacoast of the United States. The beaches of Duval County, which is in the district which I represent, have recently been through two emergencies arising out of heavy windstorms and the onslaught of resulting waves against the high ground and seawalls. On these occasions, there was considerable economic loss. It is not certain that it would be possible to avert greater loss in the future. I believe the authors of S. 2862 were so concerned over protecting against fresh-water floods that they forgot to include beach floods in their bill. I do not think this exclusion was intentional. However, I submit that salt-water floods can damage just as much as fresh-water floods, and that there is no reason for excluding the victims of salt-water floods from the protection which is con templated for fresh-water flood victims. Since these bills propose an insurance system, it is my understanding that the more types of disasters which can be covered, the wider the risk will be spread, and the less chance there will be of loss to the Government due to unexpected disasters of a particular kind. For this reason, it is my understanding that enacting legislation broad enough to cover these peculiar Florida problems will increase the stability and safety of the insurance given. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for permitting me to appear here today to testify on these proposals. SPRINGFIELD, MASS., February 24, 1956. CHAIRMAN, SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON BANKING, Washington, D. C. Urge comprehensive flood-protection measures which should include power generation and navigation where feasible. Federal flood insurance will ultimately exceed cost of building adequate flood projects and offers no remedy from future damage or protection of life. Recommend Federal grant or Federal contributions to communities, firms, or individuals for purpose of rehabilitating property damaged by floods. JULIUS MELTZGER, Chairman, Connecticut Valley Development Association, Hon. WILLIAM A. PURTELL, GREATER NEW LONDON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR PURTELL: After careful study and consideration of various proposals to provide insurance for persons to reimburse them for damage to a loss of property as a result of floods, the board of directors of the Greater New London Chamber of Commerce has reached the following opinions which they are sure reflect the opinion of the entire business community. We are certain no form or plan of Federal insurance or reinsurance attacks the real problem of recurring flood damage and could very well be the beginning of a new, costly bureau of the Federal Government and lull persons in areas subject to floods into a state of complacency and inaction on the cure for this problem-flood control. We believe the paramount responsibility of the Federal Government is to assist States and areas in planning and constructing adequate flood-control projects and thereby eliminate flood damage or at least minimize this damage and obviate any need for federally subsidized insurance or reinsurance programs. If some form of Federal indemnity is adopted, we suggest there be incorporated in the legislation means of encouraging or compelling adequate flood-control measures by all States participating before Federal subsidy be granted. Sincerely, CARL C. GRAVES, President. Senator LEHMAN. We have no other witnesses for today, so far as I know. I am going to tentatively set a hearing for Monday afternoon at 2:30, but I do want to make it clear that it is tentative. (Whereupon, at 3:50 p. m., the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 2:30 p. m. Monday, February 27, 1956.) FEDERAL DISASTER INSURANCE MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1956 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SECURITIES, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, in room 301, Senate Office Building, at 2:45 p. m., Senator Herbert H. Lehman, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding. Present: Senators Lehman and Bush. Senator LEHMAN. The hearing will come to order. I have a statement from Senator Neuberger for the record. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF RICHARD L. NEUBERGER A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed legislation to provide a measure of protection against the material losses caused by floods and other natural disasters. This is a matter of keen concern to me because twice within the last 3 months, areas of my home State of Oregon have been stricken by disastrous storms which brought floods, landslides, and other havoc wrought by natural disasters. My interest in this legislation would be none the less if there were assurance that the worst was over. But that is not the case. Reports of governmental agencies such as the United States Weather Bureau and the Geological Survey indicate that a continuing threat hovers over much of the Columbia River Basin, portions of which are only now digging out from the floods of the recent past. Reports that the water content of our region's snow-covered ranges is about 150 percent of average adds to the urgent need for action on this bill. I do not mean to pose as a weather prophet or a forecaster of doom, but the recognizable elements of potential flood conditions are apparent in many parts of the Northwest. And these threats will continue to grow as the makeup of our watersheds is changed by more intensive logging, and as inaction reigns as the administration's chief contribution to new flood-control undertakings. Although S. 3137 is referred to as a flood-insurance program, I am pleased that the definition is broad enough to cover abnormally high tidal waves, hurricanes, rainstorms, and deluges, and landslides caused by excessive moisture. As members of the committee are aware, much of the flood area in Oregon is surrounded by precipitous hills and mountains. Landslides from water-logged soil are often as much threat to lives and property as the rise of swirling flood waters in the lower elevations. The Christmas holiday season was late in coming to many parts of southeastern Oregon. For some, it did not come at all. From the 22d of December until after New Year's Day, rainstorms, floods, and slides created widespread damage in the basins of the Willamette, Rogue, Umpqua, and Coquille Rivers and other areas. Several lives were lost and the damage to both public and private property was heavy. Total valuation of the loss even yet has not been determined, although unofficial estimates have ranged up to $14 million. Statistics are useful in demonstrating the justification for needed flood-control measures and in assessing the economics of a program of disaster indemnity. Yet such statistics mean little to the individual family who has lost to the flood its home and personal belongings which might represent the material wealth it can show for a lifetime of hard work. Their loss is as tragic and, under present conditions, as final whether the total losses run into the thousands or into the 1197 1198 millions of dollars. The proposed insurance program is aimed at alleviating these tragedies. I have received scores of letters from constituents who suffered loss in the It is a tribute to their courage and patience that the tone of recent floods. their letters is not a despairing one. They reflect a desire to work and rebuild and replace the losses, but surely their painstaking efforts and desire to advance their lot should not continue to be clouded by the specter of irrecoverable losses in the future. I urge the favorable consideration of S. 3137 as a means of providing a necessary disaster insurance program this year. I would like to append to my remarks a consolidated flood and storm report for December 1955 and January 1956, which was prepared by the Oregon State Civil Defense Agency. This report details the dollar losses involved in the yearend floods in Oregon, but does not cover the most recent damage. The Corps of Engineers also is preparing a report on flood damage in the various areas, along with recommendations for remedial works to control the waters. It is apparent that the Corps' report will require action by other congressional committees, not only to repair the damage to flood prevention works already in existence but to provide additional control faciilties. CONSOLIDATED FLOOD AND STORM REPORT FOR DECEMBER 1955 AND JANUARY 1956 PREPARED BY OREGON STATE CIVIL DEFENSE AGENCY, SALEM, OREG. This report is a consolidation of flood and storm damage reports received from cities and counties included in the disaster area by Presidential proclaThe counties with totals are as follows: mation of December 29, 1955. Disaster Counties $36, 030. 00 347, 013. 39 106,000.00 204, 100. 00 1, 601, 138. 25 40, 000. 00 Jackson_. Josephine Washington__. Grand Total___ 444, 186. 50 934, 270.00 781, 765.00 290, 500, 00 80, 050.00 64, 695. 00 44,990.00 185,000.00 857, 650. 05 476, 568. 00 563, 255.00 7,057, 211. 19 An estimated damage, just reported, of $48,400 to roads in Yamhill County is not included in the above totals. Flood and storm damage |