so to speak, in the State of Minnesota financially to keep our schools and school aids. That is not even adding 10 cents to the investigative moneys that are going to be due to the board of health, the water pollution control commission or the commissioner of conservation, so they have no funds on a State basis. If the Federal Government doesn't help us, we are dead. We don't have this amount of money, we haven't the facilities. Then picture, if you can, the sense of frustration of our members in the State of Wisconsin. Here they stand on the river bank in Wisconsin and what can they do about this? There is no adequate remedy, except all they can do is come in and testify. So the result is going to be this. The city of Hudson sits over there and we are all concerned with it, all right. The city of Stillwater, you are polluting the St. Croix River. Certainly they can't say it is our St. Croix on the Minnesota side, a molecule of water on one side or the other. So Hudson is going to say, you polluted the river so therefore we are going to get a tax base now. The river is going down the drain, so to speak. So then in retaliation or in self-protection all of a sudden we have another sewer, so to speak, because once she goes you are going to go all the way and you will get an industrial concentration. There is one other thing I would like to say, and that is about this matter we have adequate remedies if and when the plant is built. This is poppycock, absolute raw poppycock. As the courts do, and we all know, when somebody comes in and says, there is a public nuisance and you stop him, the court says, you must take into consideration the investment, the service granted. And you can't conceivably tell me the court is going to close down a $60 million plant after it is built. Then we are hooked. How much can we do? We feel we have no adequate remedy at law, that Senate bill 649 is almost a must, particularly in interstate cooperation, and to set some sort of standards so we can get some protection. I want to say this in closing, so far as the commissions are concerned I have no objection; I think they do a fine job, but I don't think we can just close our eyes and everything is going to come out by Christmas. They won't do it, they don't have the authority nor the funds. Another thing, our people have been accused that we don't like power companies. I would like to say of our witnesses, we are stockholders, I am and I am sure half of our people are stockholders, but we do say there is a time and the time is now when the stockholders' interest and the profit interest has got to be weighed against what is good for all the people in this St. Croix Valley, and I suggest the whole United States. I do think it is important that we have a law such as you are looking into, that we implement what we presently have and give protection to the citizens of both States. I want to thank you very much for your courtesy. Judge MCDONOUGH (rising in audience). We are for S. 649. I wish it were a law now. If it were, I am quite certain we could start constructing that plant next week. Senator NELSON (addressing Judge McDonough). Your remarks are in the record. (Addressing Mr. Thuet.) Would you submit for questioning? Mr. THUET. Yes, sir. Senator METCALF. I think I want to underscore this statement that present remedies are inadequate and insufficient. It really isn't a remedy to say that you can prosecute your public nuisances, especially when you have a power company supplying power to schools and hospitals and other agencies. If a time came and it was a question of keeping power in the hospitals and a question of fish, I think any court would say, "Well, we just have to let the fish die." The time to establish adequate standards is in advance, to anticipate such situations. That is why we are here. I welcome this statement that S. 649, the standards section, should be the law. If it were the law, we would have some Federal power to keep this river and other rivers all over the country clean and to prevent pollution. In my State, as someone pointed out, we have some landmark cases in air pollution. We found that when a huge corporation with a lot of employment was involved, the public nuisance law just wasn't adequate to control the dumping of sulfur dioxide into the air. That is the purpose of this hearing, to ascertain whether or not the present remedies, even in such a State as Minnesota, are adequate and whether we have to have Federal standards. I think the statement that you made is as important a statement as has been made in this hearing. Mr. THUET. One other comment along this line. When these people came to me and said, what do we do to stop this, we think it is bad, we had to wait until Northern States Power filed a little old permit application before we could even get a forum in which we could be heard. There is just no forum available in any State to take care of the anticipatory breaches or anticipatory dates. This is one reason we are very strongly in sympathy with your proposed legislation. Senator NELSON. I want to endorse what Senator Metcalf said. I hope that it is clear that this subcommittee does not have the power nor does the parent Committee on Public Works have the power to do anything except gather information in hearings such as this and prepare and propose legislation in Congress. No power is vested in this subcommittee to take any action respecting any pollution of any kind anyplace in this country. This is a legislative body. I want to thank Judge McDonough and the representatives of the Northern States Power Co. and those who appeared with them on the side of their position. I want to thank Mr. Warren, who is the chairman of the Save the St. Croix Committee and the others who worked with him on their side. I want to thank those who have come here to present testimony, some of them, such as Mr. Olson, coming all the way from Washington, D.C. I think this has been a very orderly, a very useful, a very constructive hearing. I recognize, as everybody does here, that there are strong feelings about the location of this plant on both sides. We can make no decision about that. But I certainly want to commend all of you, the audience as well as those who appeared on both sides, for the informative presentations you made, for your graciousness to each other, and to the members of this committee. I think this is the finest audience and the finest group of witnesses that have appeared before any committee on air and water pollution that it has been my privilege to serve on. I suppose that is because all of us who were born and raised up in this part of the country are just very good people. Thank you very much. (Whereupon, at 1:45 p.m., the committee adjourned.) APPENDIX PROPONENTS STATE OF MINNESOTA, Hon. GAYLORD NELSON, U.S. Senator, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR NELSON: Please include this statement in the official record of the committee hearings on air and water pollution control which you chaired at Stillwater on December 10 and 11, 1964. Even though the States of Minnestota and Wisconsin are in the forefront on regulations pertaining to air and water pollution control there is a need for Federal legislation establishing minimum standards in this field where interstate questions are involved. I have lived in the St. Croix Valley all of my life. My grandfather settled in Stillwater before 1890 and worked as a lumberjack and in the various sawmills on this river. The idea that the lower St. Croix River is primarily for recreational use is entirely a new concept because the lower St. Croix has been used for industrial and commercial purposes for years. Of course, the lower St. Croix is being also used for recreational purposes but apparently by relatively few. The shoreline on both sides is privately owned with "no trespassing" signs predominating. The only exceptions are the few municipally owned boat launching sites and bathing beaches. The so-called Save the St. Croix, Inc., seeks to save this body of water, but for whom? Our community encourages industry just as does St. Croix County of your State. Public officials of this county and Hudson, Wis., admit they wish this plant were located in Wisconsin. I suggest that the best way to eliminate opposition to the proposed NSP plant on the St. Croix River from Wisconsin, would be to erect the plant in Wisconsin. I'm sure that Wisconsin residents would not be voicing objections if their tax basic could be so affected. However, I am pleased that the plant will be located in my district in Minnesota. We of the St. Croix Valley are in the metropolitan area. The so-called wild river part of the St. Croix has no application to the lower St. Croix, but begins several miles north at St. Croix Falls, Wis. Unless the Federal Government wishes to subsidize Washington County, I feel we have as much right to our fair share of industry and a consequent balanced economy as has any other community. We resent being relegated to the role of tax burdened unpaid custodians of the private playground for luxury boatowners and luxury shoreline property owners. I hope my community will not become a battleground in the war on poverty. The poverty stricken people of West Virginia have beautiful scenery, but with no jobs and industry, I doubt that much happiness prevails. Any Federal laws or regulations pertaining to water pollution should also consider the damage done to our boundary waters by the luxury boat owners. I hope your committee will return in the summer to view on Monday morning the picnic garbage, waste, pop tops from beer cans, oil slicks and human feces which pollutes our water and litters our islands much more than could a responsible conservation minded concern such as the Northern States Power Co. I was pleased to attend your committee hearing on Thursday, December 10, 1964, and intended to make a statement at that time as a proponent of the NSP plant project. I favor the plant unless the requirements of the State agencies concerned cannot be met. Incidentally, a representative of the U.S. 191 40-957-65--14 Public Health Service stated at a public meeting 2 months ago that the public interest was being well protected by the Minnesota State agencies. The Minnesota legislative committee of which I am chairman met on December 11, 1961, and, hence, I was unable to attend the hearing of your committee on that date. My committee was holding a hearing pertaining to strengthening the air pollution control laws of Minnesota. With best personal regards, I am, Yours truly, HOWARD R. ALBERTSON. STATE OF MINNESOTA, SENATE, December 11, 1964. Hon. GAYLORD NELSON, Chairman, U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, let me say, first of all, that I want to thank you for the privilege of testifying before the committee. I will leave the technical and mechanical testimony to the experts in that field and express some views generally shared as they reflect the sentiments of the people in my area. Needless to say, most of the people in Washington County who have written or contacted me, are overwhelmingly in favor of the NSP location here. As far as I have been able to analyze the NSP plant location controversy, it resolves itself down for the most part as to who is going to get the tax base as a result of the location selection, and the controversy, for the most part, is motivated strictly by economics. We in the area feel that we have made our contribution to the wild river program by having the northern part of the St. Croix so designated. Now there are about 12,000 lakes in Minnesota and about 30 rivers in our beautiful State and a similar situation in Wisconsin, so why should certain forces want to single out for recreation only, that portion of the St. Croix River that has traditionally been commercial and is located in a county that has been recently designated by the Federal Government agency as a metropolitan county? When we adopt policies affecting the economy of specific areas, we should weigh heavily the needs and desires of the people who live in the respective immediate areas. For example, in the case of the NSP location, should it cause the water temperature to rise a little and should it cause a little more barge traffic on the river and the pollution affects upon the water are nullified and controlled, then our policies should be moulded to help the economy of the people in that area-especially when the people are so solidly for a plant location here such as NSP. Let me say as a real estate broker operating in the St. Croix Valley, that the location of the NSP plant here is not going to devaluate property along the St. Croix River. In fact, I predict that property values will go higher and higher. I have already noticed the trend in my business of a stimulated interest in people to locate in this area by the fact that NSP will be locating here. As for the temperature of the water rising a little in the river, let me say that I am sure that this event would be most welcomed by the swimmers and water skiers who will appreciate a little warmer water in our Minnesota climate. In conclusion, if any governmental agency adopts a policy to deny or restrict a metropolitan county economic growth and prosperity, so that it can be used as a public playground only, then I suggest that the Government take steps to lessen the impact of loss of industry, loss of employment, and loss of tax base by subsidizing that area to compensate the people in the area who have to pay the bill for everybody. Very truly yours, RAPHAEL SALMORE, State Senator, 50 District, Washington County. |