So this report today is to fill out those gaps of information and to nail them down.

Now, is that roughly an accurate summary of the history of this project?

Secretary UDALL. I think that this is accurate in every respect so far as we are concerned, Senator. This is a very good thumbnail

sketch.

Senator MUSKIE. Now, questions, of course, have been raised about this project over the past year, ever since the favorable report of the Department, and I think it would be useful for the record, Mr. Secretary, if you could give us some indication of the competence of the people who have worked on the report of a year ago and this report.

Secretary UDALL. Well, Senator, we were asked to study it because my Department markets and transmits through our various agencies nearly all of the power generated at Federal dams, most of them, of course, hydroelectric dams. Mr. Dubrow and Mr. Guidry are the top electrical experts in my Department, and I think they are among the top experts in the country. We had the most competent people in the Department work on it. The reason we were asked to get into the picture was that electric power marketing and electric power technology were the question marks that were left from the 1961 report. The truth of the matter is that-just as this Pacific Northwest-Southwest intertie which is now possible and which is moving forward, involving expenditures of nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars in both public and private funds-new developments in technology really have made this now economically feasible whereas the project when Franklin Roosevelt started it 30 years ago, considering the technology available at that time, seriously limited its feasibility.

And, so I think I can say to you that we have had top experts on this team that worked the past 3 years. We also have had experts from the Corps of Engineers, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Federal Power Commission, and other agencies participate in the final studies which further strengthened the economic and engineering feasibility of the project.

I think I can say to you that it has had some of the ablest minds in the Federal Government working on it.

Senator MUSKIE. What experience have the people who have worked on this report had in the building of dams and the operation of power systems, and so on?

Secretary UDALL. The Department's Bureau of Reclamation which for over 60 years has worked to develop the water resources of the western United States made vital contributions.

This agency has built 223 multipurpose dams, 136 diversion dams, 12,160 circuit miles of transmission lines, 50 powerplants with an installed capacity of nearly 7 million kilowatts which generate 29.3 billion kilowatt-hours annually, providing an annual income of $74.3 million.

The Bureau operates one of the Nation's largest engineering centers located in Denver, Colo. The highly trained staff performed the hydrologic studies and computer studies which proved the feasibility of the Passamaquoddy project. The Bureau of Reclamation's technical personnel has given assistance to almost every country in the free world. This Denver Engineering Center is so competent that

engineers from all countries of the free world come there to work for periods of up to a year to be trained in the latest technical developments related to water resource development.

I think I can say to you that these two reports will stand up under the closest scrutiny of any type of experts that the committee might want to consult with regard to their soundness.

Senator MUSKIE. In other words, there has been available during the development of this report, its conclusions, and its recommendations, the professional engineering skills which have been developed in the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, and Army Engineers, over the period of their work for several decades, and indeed longer than that.

Secretary UDALL. Yes.

Senator MUSKIE. These are not amateurs who put this report together. These are professionals.

Secretary UDALL. I think as I said before, in our own Department we have put some of our ablest, most experienced people on this.

(Technical biographies of members of the Advisory Board are printed in appendix I. See pp. 149–156.)

Senator MUSKIE. I think at this point I would like to invite my colleagues on the committee to ask such questions as they may have. I know their time is pressing, and they may not be able to stay with us throughout the hearing this morning. The rest of us have been exposed to this project for so long we may not focus on questions that would occur to those who are only recently exposed to it.

Senator Randolph, I know you were a Member of the Congress in the thirties and you developed an interest in Passamaquoddy at that early time.

Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, I was exposed to it earlier perhaps than some who sit at this table. It was in the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935 that the funds were initially appropriated for the carrying forward of at least one stage of this program. Only for the record, I asked to be supplied with the rollcall. That measure passed by-it was a joint resolution-by 329 to 78, and I was one of those that voted "aye," and so I can be identified perhaps with the project from that early period.

As I recall, there were various estimates of money and the way the project should proceed, but finally the Corps of Engineers went forward and some $7 million were spent-I believe my memory is correct on that point.

Now, this background is of no particular value except I use it for purposes of questioning. What was accomplished with that $7 million spent? What is now there from that expenditure which in any way has value as we think in terms of this larger and newer development?

Secretary UDALL. I would like Mr. Dubrow to answer that, Senator. Mr. DUBROW. Senator, that $7 million which was expended back in the middle thirties was spent to build

Senator RANDOLPH. That went on until 1936.

Mr. DUBROW. Yes, the Army Engineers went up there and built Quoddy Village. They set up a construction organization, and they actually built one of the dikes which will be a part of the project when it is completed. That dike is still in existence, and it demon

strated in a small way that this project from an engineering point of view can be built and should be built. It also demonstrates that this dike has withstood the tides for nearly 30 years without any harmful effects.

Senator RANDOLPH. Then the work done then in degrees still has value as an installation which could be incorporated in the proposal now before the committee.

Mr. DUBROW. Yes, sir.

Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, I think that would supply me with the one question that I felt was important today, to just evaluate the efforts which had been made and its possible use in the project pending.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you, Senator Randolph.

Senator Gruening? Senator Gruening is an old "Maniac."

Senator GRUENING. AS Senator Muskie knows, I have been interested in this project I think longer than anyone here present, approximately 35 years, and when I was a newspaper editor in Maine, and then subsequently not out of any desire on my part, I became involved in a political controversy on the Hill and proved to be a key witness in the controversy between the late Senator Owen Brewster and a representative of the White House, Mr. Thomas G. Cochran. I think it is a wonderful project. I hope we proceed with it. I hope we can move just as rapidly as the Federal Government is able to complete its studies and bring it up to the Hill for authorization and appropriations. I look forward to supporting it.

Senator MUSKIE. I think it would be appropriate for the record to indicate that Senator Gruening and I, together with Senator Moss of Utah, spent 30 days together in the Soviet Union 5 years ago looking over their hydroelectric projects, and I think that visit and that exposure to what the Russians have done in advancing the technology of this science in their own country stimulated our interest in the development of hydroelectric projects in this country. I know of Senator Gruening's enthusiasm for Quoddy and welcome it.

Senator GRUENING. And then subsequently, Assistant Secretary Holum visited the Scandinavian countries and saw what magnificent use they made there of hydoelectric power.

Senator MUSKIE. Senator Jordan?

Senator JORDAN. I am sorry I am late; I have had one meeting and started another one 30 minutes ago which I am supposed to be presiding over. I know mighty little about this project. I have read something. I want to know more about it, and I will read this testimony with a great deal of interest because it is a fascinating project to me, and one I want to learn a lot more about. I am sorry I have got to go to this other meeting and leave you but I did want to show my interest by coming by and at least being seen and let you know I am for this project.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you, Senator Jordan. I appreciate the attendance of all of my colleagues who have come this morning. Senator Fong, I owe you an apology. I concentrated on this side of the aisle.

Senator FONG. I do not mind. I only know Quoddy by name, but after viewing the documentary and noting your technical studies I hope that you will at the next Congress expand the hearings. I hope

that this project will prove feasible. I hope that the cost-benefit ratio will prove such that we will be able to vote on it favorably.

I feel that this project challenges the imagination, and if it is feasible I will vote for it.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you, Senator Fong.

I think it is particularly appropriate that we should give some exposure to this project to a Senator who has just embarked upon his senatorial career. At the very outset we want to be sure that this is high on his list of priorities for attention in the next session of the Congress.

Senator Salinger?

Senator SALINGER. Senator Muskie, as you will recall, my interest in this project goes back to a trip that we made along with President Kennedy in a helicopter when we went over the area of the project. I think it was in 1963. And of course, he was interested in the project, and my knowledge of his interest came from almost the time that I started to work for him in 1959, and that interest was so large it has become infectious to those who were around him.

So I have shared that interest and the challenge that is posed by this project and would count myself as a supporter of the project. And I am hopeful that these hearings will develop the information and the background which will enable the Congress to move ahead with this project. I might say to the Secretary also that I do agree very much that this concept, the use of the tides in hydroelectric power, in addition to the desalting of water by atomic methods are two of the most important areas that we are moving into the next 10 years. So I am happy to have him state that in his statement this morning. Senator MUSKIE. Thank you, Senator.

I have several more questions I would like to ask, but I think it would be appropriate now to give my colleagues on the Maine congressional delegation an opportunity to ask some questions. I do not know what the pressure on their time is. Congressman McIntire, would you like to ask any questions?

Mr. McINTIRE. I have some questions, but I will let Congressman Tupper go first.

Mr. TUPPER. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions, but I want to thank you for inviting me to participate at this hearing and commend Secretary Udall for his very fine presentation. I think it is most helpful at this point.

Mr. McINTIRE. On February 7, each of us of the Maine delegation introduced legislation. My own bill was H.R. 10179. I would draw. and I think appropriately draw, a conclusion that this hearing is related to a report on some technical aspects, and might I ask of the Secretary-this is not in lieu or will this replace or will there be a subsequent legislative report to the Congress in response to the requests which have been made of your Department and others for the usual legislative report?

Secretary UDALL. I think this is a very good question, Congressman, and I think I should review for the record what we consider the posture of this to be.

Our report of a year ago left several very important unanswered questions. For example, the Corps of Engineers embarked on a project to determine whether the Dickey site was a feasible site. They had to core drill it, et cetera. This had to be established.

There were also several other questions raised, that the report itself raised, with regard to the powerplants and the manner in which the projects would be integrated together. So we and the corps undertook parts of the study together. We put a team together to inquire into all of these problems that had been raised by the 1963 report so that we could answer all the major questions.

These

This new study which has taken us nearly a year to put together has come up with some very interesting changes, as you see. improve the feasibility of the project. But we are dutybound, of course, to follow the usual procedure on any project, to submit this to the Federal agencies, to submit it to the States for comments. We also intend to submit it to the Canadian Government for information. And when those comments are in later in the fall, we should be able next year, the corps and my Department working together, to put together a final report. We would hope at that time to have the regular legislative report sometime next year available for the committee. But, we still have got to go through the regular process.

Mr. McINTIRE. And this has not constituted a part of the usual legislative report which you will be sending up in response to

Secretary UDALL. That is correct. This is a regular hearing to bring the committee up to date on our studies at this point. May I add one other thing, because I do not think we should lose sight of this, that is the fact that this project as it is conceived is an international project. Part of the works will be built in Canada and although this is not true so much of the Saint John River phase of it, because almost the entire area is located within the United States, but when you get to the Quoddy project itself, we are going to have to have some kind of agreement reached with the Canadians with regard to this. And I think this new report takes us one step further down the road toward that government.

The only serious question that has been raised that I see in the picture, and I discussed this with some of my Canadian Cabinet counterparts in the spring in Ottawa, is the fact that some of the people in New Brunswick have raised the question as to whether this project would do damage to the fishery resources in the Passamaquoddy Bay region. We have had Don McKernan, the Director of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, with his Canadian counterpart, working on this problem.

The result of their investigations appear on page 31 of the report released yesterday. The 1961 IJC report found these would have very little effect on the important sardine fishery and only a minor effect on other fisheries. Although the new report has already been submitted for the record, I would like to quote its conclusions

that the previous predictions contained in the IJC report concerning the effect of the project on the fisheries of the area are generally valid.

I do not foresee any insurmountable obstacles to our reaching an understanding with the Canadian Government on this matter.

Mr. McINTIRE. Mr. Chairman, could I make a further inquiry of the Secretary?

Senator MUSKIE. Yes.

Mr. McINTIRE. Have there been to date any formal conferences held with the appropriate Canadian and American officials related to the basis of agreement?