STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. MCCABE, PROFESSOR OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT, UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

Mr. MCCABE. Senator Nelson, Mr. Chairman, Senator Metcalf, I would like to make this observation to your panel

Senator NELSON (interrupting). Would you, for purposes of the record, identify your professional field?

Mr. MCCABE. I consider myself a professional conservationist, and in this role am employed by the University of Wisconsin as the professor of wildlife management.

This morning we have heard some very brilliant testimony by largely Minnesota people, and I would suggest we might extend our time to the opponents in this case to allow for a few extended, in quotation, "remarks," of Wisconsin interests which are mine today. I would like to preface my remarks in saying, in addition to my own statement, I have resolutions from seven Wisconsin organizations and conservation groups. And while it was the hope of each that their particular resolution be read aloud at this meeting, this obviously is not possible, but I would like to tell the committee who these people are.

Senator NELSON. If you can recite, Professor, what the organizations are, and we will accept the resolutions for inclusion into the record.

Mr. MCCABE. Thank you.

The first is the Wisconsin State Division of the Izaak Walton League; the Daniel Boone Hunters League of Wisconsin; the Badger Fishermen's League of Milwaukee; the John Muir Chapter of the Sierra Club; the Citizens Natural Resources Association of Wisconsin; the Milwaukee County Conservation Alliance; and the Dane County Conservation League.

(The resolutions referred to appear in the appendix.)

Senator NELSON. You are here in behalf of all of these organizations?

Mr. MCCABE. I act as their representative or their courier. I also will say I was directed to put in vigorous opposition to the proposed operation. Vigorous is not my word. This is what was asked of me. Now, my own statement.

I would like to preface my remarks by quoting from a book entitled "Water, Land, and People" by Bernard Frank and Anthony Netboy:1 "The United States, in fact, has never faced up squarely to its water problems. Our policies, whether administered by Federal, State, or municipal agencies, have been, to a large extent, a potpourri of conflicting measures. One community often strives to obtain benefits that prove harmful to other communities, or even to an entire region. "Our water problems, like the land problems to which they are intimately related, are the result of civilized man's constant efforts to adapt his physical environment to his economic and social needs. In other words, they are due to our lack of foresight, and often to greed and indifference to the welfare of our fellows. They are also, to a large extent, the result of ignorance of the laws of nature, as well as a reluctance to adjust our methods of land use and our ideas about property rights to these natural laws." These words were published in 1951.

1 Bernard, Frank, and Anthony Netboy, 1951, "Water, Land, and People," Alfred A. Knopf, New York, pp. 331.

In any advanced society, particularly in a democracy which we here concede to be the acme among societies, there will occur conflicts of social values. When such conflicts as the one that brings us together today involve bilateral State equities, economic versus recreational interests, small community advantages versus broad benefits to State citizenry, a degrading use of a resource versus nondegrading uses, et cetera-someone or some group somewhere in our social structure must make a value judgment.

I submit that in a country like ours with its superb standards of living, and where we act as the mother hen feeding, teaching, and protecting half of the world's people, we cannot afford to foul our resource base which makes up a substantial part of our living standard. And further that such judgments as must be made should favor the integrity of the resource as opposed to the benefits which accrue to the exploiter.

If we were an underdeveloped nation, there might be economic justification or harnessing some rivers and making open sewers of others. Only those who knew the Potomac, the Des Plaines, the Ohio, the San Antonio, the Detroit, or any other rivers in the days before they were burdened with industrial and municipal pollution know the degree to which these bodies of water have lost their identity as rivers of note.

In the case of the St. Croix, the judgments to be made will be affected by two major lines of reasoning:

The first concerns the scientific data on the relationship of the industrial pollution to the biological, physical, and recreational aspects of the river; the second concerns the credo or conservation philosophy which must govern the attitudes of the public and government and which should precede ruling or legislation.

I will address myself not to the matter of thermal pollution of the river and the attendant deleterious effect on plants, animals and aquatic habitat, nor to the engineering, economic or hydrologic feasibility of the proposal in question, nor to the projecting of potential pollution by satellite industries that may be attracted to this area, but will instead attempt to develop the basic tenets both esthetic and recreational-that give meaning to value judgments in conservation. In December 1960, a National Conference on Water Pollution presented a series of recommendations to the Department of Health. Education, and Welfare. Most appropriate among them was (No. 7) :

That public policy formally recognize the recreation value of our water resources as a full partner with domestic, industrial and agricultural values in water quality management policies and programs.

This and other recommendations would have been given stature and power were it not for the statement tucked away between recommendations 11 and 12. It reads:

No agreement was reached among the conferees as to extension of authority of the Federal Government in the area of water pollution.

Nonetheless the idea of equal consideration for the recreational values of our resources was now abroad. With increased population. with increased time to devote to recreation, with increased where

2 Anon., 1961, "Clean Water-A Challenge to the Nation," U.S. Department of Health Education, and Welfare, pp. 41.

withal to pursue recreation and with increased mobility, such activity has become big business.

3

One study made 4 years ago in Wisconsin showed that $581,295,311 was spent in a 12-month period on vacation-recreation activities; slightly more than 50 percent of this revenue came from nonresidents; and more than 30 percent was paid to businesses not ordinarily considered as catering to tourists. If these figures are even reasonably accurate, the tourist-vacation industry is the third largest in the State. The Wisconsin Department of Resource Development predicts that in 1980 Wisconsin will, if it can maintain its competitive position, receive 123 million recreational visits from nonresidents alone.

I quote these data not to impress you with the economics, however important these may be, but to indicate urgency for protecting every aspect of the resource base on which future resident and nonresident recreation will be dependent.

St. Croix, Polk, and Burnett are three of the five Wisconsin counties having the highest use by Twin City boaters. In addition, Burnett County draws heavily from the Chicago area. Over and above the obvious financial return to this area from increased use by Twin City people is the need for maintaining recreational waters to meet the demands of an increasing population in the coming decades.

The polluted Wisconsin River is consoled by being called the hardest working river in the Midwest or the United States, and perhaps satisfaction should stop here. I remember, as a boy in Milwaukee, my old neighbor saying as he pointed to a "ragman's" horse drawing a cart down Muskego Avenue, "Robert, there goes the hardest working horse in Milwaukee." And to see the load that the beast pulled one could only concur. Let me describe that horse to you. It was a chestnut gelding of once fine proportions but was now swaybacked, poorly groomed, harness-sore, pitifully thin, constantly functioning at maximum effort, its eyes reflecting no spirit and its life span shortened with each day's load.

It would be an exaggeration to refer to the hard-working Wisconsin River in this context, but the St. Croix need not share the Wisconsin's distinction. It can work best as the generator of man's spirit through recreation and yet need not be ashamed of its economic justification. The recent ORRRC 5 report expresses itself on this point as follows:

Thus, while recreation is and should be considered one of that order of services which must be provided for its benefit to the public without a dollar-and-cents accounting of immediate benefits, it does make sound fiscal sense. In urban areas, recreation is often a wise economic use of land, increasing values beyond its cost; in some underdeveloped areas, it may be a means of economic rebirth; and throughout the Nation it provides a major market for goods and services. The upshot of this issue is simply this: It is economically unwise and recreationally unsound for one person, one group, or one locality to expend, alter or destroy the natural features of an environment that are part of a broader resource base important to a regional or national public.

Fine, I. V., and E. E. Werner, 1961, "The Tourist-Vacation Industry in Wisconsin,” vol. II, No. 4, Wisconsin Commission papers.

* Carley, David (director), 1962, "Recreation in Wisconsin," Wisconsin Department of Resources Development, p. 97.

Rockefeller, Laurance S., et al., 1962, "Outdoor Recreation for America," Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D.C., p. 245.

The credos of conservation which I believe are germane to this hearing are three. First, that a major effort should always be made by persons and governments concerned to avert pollution before it occurs, before resources are defiled, and before control measures become necessary.

I will not belabor this tenet for, if it were not considered vital by some of us, half of this hearing would be unnecessary.

Second, that natural resources belong to all the people, and that the right to use these resources for private or public gain should not include the inherent right to pollute.

While this philosophy should be a truism, it is not. We tend to default on resource jeopardy when the resource is distant, and those with vision and of immediate concern are often overwhelmed by economic pressures. It is difficult to resist the proposition that says "let me exploit your natural resources, and I'll share the profits." Sharing" frequently tells you nothing about the degree to which the resource is altered by use or the degree to which other resources are affected or for that matter how the benefits are shared.

Lastly, that the burden of proof on whether a change through use (real or anticipated) is detrimental to a resource, and hence adverse to the public interest shall be the obligation of the exploiter.

If this basic conservation philosophy has been stated by others, I yield, but if not, I claim pride of authorship. The role of the oppositionist falls to those who propose the safeguarding of a major national heritage; namely, our natural resources. The merit of the exploiters' case it seems to me should be judged on the opposition to safeguards of public interest.

Those of us who appear in defense of the St. Croix are not opposed to progress, free enterprise, or comforts and economic well-being of even this small area of the north-central region. We contend that the site of the alleged commercial bonanza be located elsewhere. A condenser, dynamo, or turbine does not care if the hydroenergy or coolant is already polluted, but we as conservationists are acutely aware of the consequences if the clean water of the St. Croix is used.

Those of you in public office who today sit in judgment know that whatever your decision, complete satisfaction will not be achieved and the ramifications are apt to linger. To judge in favor of a speechless, unarmed resource may only honor your stand as a profile in courage. [Applause.]

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Professor McCabe.

Mr. THUET. We have one other witness we would like to call from Wisconsin, Martin Hanson, president of the Wisconsin Resource Conservation Council.

Before calling him, however, we have read into the record, I believe, the statement of Dr. Martin Laakso, and we would like to put in the record also the oral testimony will not be necessary-the statement of Kathryn C. Setzer, so our last witness will be Martin Hanson of the Wisconsin Resource Conservation Council.

STATEMENT OF MARTIN LAAKSO, PH. D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF BIOLOGY, WISCONSIN STATE UNIVERSITY, RIVER FALLS, WIS.

The Northern States Power Co. proposal to use water from the St. Croix River to absorb exhaust heat from the powerplant will, if carried out, change the

40-957-65--12

environment in an area which provides a recreational and esthetic resource of considerable magnitude as attested by the evident popular interest. The available data on volume and temperature of the river water particularly during the summer months, suggests that the added heat may cause drastic changes in plant and animal populations in the affected areas. The extent to which these temperature changes will alter the environment can be assessed only after completion of current studies on mixing which will provide a partial basis for estimating probable consequences on biota. Previous studies on heat damage in rivers were carried on at Lehigh University yielding information which undoubtedly can also be applied to the present situation to determine probable consequences to be expected from the proposed installation.

An evaluation taking into account the limited available data must incorporate various untested assumptions thereby incurring danger of possible error. Judgments based on anything less than a rigorous analysis of all known facts would obviously be less reliable, amounting to mere conjecture.

STATEMENT OF KATHRYN C. SETZER, HUDSON, WIS., ON RECREATION AND FAMILY LIFE ON THE ST. CROIX

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am Mrs. Robert J. Setzer. My technical knowledge is limited. However, I am grateful for this opportunity to express not only my own views on the subject of the proposed powerplant on the St. Croix River, but also the views of many of my neighbors.

We are relative newcomers to the valley. We built our home on the Wisconsin shore of Lake St. Croix because of the beauty of the valley. I do not think this plant would add beauty. No matter how nicely the building and stack would be landscaped and floodlighted, I feel that the plant will become an objectionable and prominent feature of the landscape. I would like to show you a chart showing the relative size of this plant in comparison to other wellknown buildings. If we wanted to look at tall buildings and smokestacks, we would have built our home in downtown St. Paul or Minneapolis. We prefer wooded river banks.

We also considered the recreational opportunities offered by Lake St. Croix when we built our home. This valley is near enough to my husband's place of business so that our family can enjoy these recreational opportunities as a complete family unit. This is a distinct advantage over owning a home in a more remote lake area where it would be likely that my husband would be able to be home only on weekends. As my husband and I both feel that we have benefited from outdoor experiences in our childhood, we want our children to enjoy these same benefits.

Our children are still quite young, but as we have watched youngsters in our neighborhood gain outdoor skills and water skills, we anticipate the days when our children will become swimmers and boaters instead of waders and sand diggers. We feel that a healthy outdoor life helps children become healthy adults. The future of our country depends upon the youth of our country; we feel we should try to preserve some of the beauty of our country for them to enjoy.

As a mother, I am concerned with providing for my children as healthy an environment as possible. This begins in infanthood when much of a mother's time is spent in sterilizing bottles, doing baby laundry, and getting inoculations and vaccinations. As infants become toddlers, most mothers try to remove as many hazards as possible from their homes. However, we can control only part of a child's environment. We have no control over the air our children breathe. They breathe the air that's available. If the air that's available is laden with sulfur, I think I would be derelict in my duty to my children if I did not try in some way to control the sources of pollution.

If the river becomes polluted, I would also be neglecting my responsibilities as a mother if I let my children swim in the river.

If the river becomes unsafe for small boats, I would also be derelict in my responsibilities if I let my children learn boating skills on the river. When I refer to boat safety now, I am thinking about the probable increase in barge traffic. We teach our children basic water safety rules, but even experienced boaters can have difficulties in rivers shared by commercial and pleasure craft. I have read a paper entitled "Safe Boating and Locking Procedures" which was