Page images
PDF
EPUB

ment and other facilities of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare for research and investigation, and now, as I say, the Clean Air Act, one provision in a-3, that the Secretary has the power, if he believes the situation warrants it, he may come in and investigate it without the request of a local government unit. This is in the air act.

It is felt that the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare should have the same power in interstate situations where water pollution is concerned. We, therefore, propose the following as a suggestive change. The suggested change there is exactly the same as you find in the air act. We propose to update section 466c(b) of the Water Pollution Act so that the Secretary may, upon request of any State water pollution control agency, or interstate agency, or if in the Secretary's judgment such problem may affect any community or communities in a state other than that in which the source of the matter causing or contributing to the pollution is located. And then the statute goes on as is now stated. In other words, the whole problem here is to bring in or update, rather, the research facilities so they are compatible, so that the water act is compatible with the Clean Air Act, insofar as the research power of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Those are some specific suggestions that we have to the present statutes in the Water Pollution Control Act and the Air Pollution Control Act.

I would now like to discuss in very brief general terms some areas that might be further in need of Federal legislation. Although they relate to pollution of water and air, they are not specifically covered by the existing Federal acts.

First of all, there appears to be a very vexing problem on interstate boundaries relative to water and air pollution. Often industrial or community growth will take place in one State along its borders with its sister States. Similar development in the second State may often be nonexistent or at present will be at a slower rate. As a result, the communities in the developing State will receive all the economic benefits such as the property tax deduction, increased employment opportunities, but the only benefits to the communities in the developing State, the only benefits that they receive are to stand by helplessly and watch pollution of their air or their interstate waters. Eventually, however, as a usual course, the communities will be called in to pay the expense of cleaning up resultant pollution.

To rebalance, interstate control of air and water pollution is necessary. Since it is desirable to keep control measures on a local level, compacts between States for the purpose of interstate control of pollution have been developed. As you probably know, both the Federal Air and Water Pollution Acts recognize this and encourage the establishment of interstate commerce. Section 1857a of the air act, and section 466a of the water act provides that interstate compacts will be created with the consent of Congress. However, there is a problem here because the development of interstate compacts or contract agreements among States to control water and air pollution has been disap pointingly slow. Because of such slow development, it is felt that further measures are needed at the Federal level to encourage formation of interstate compacts between States for the control of air and water pollution. The legislative study as to possible incentives to

encourage a more rapid growth in compacts between States is suggested. Further, it appears that development of interstate compact arrangements are badly needed in a particular distressed area, along State borders, but if such compact arrangements cannot or are not agreed upon within a reasonable time, then the possibility of preempting State control in favor of Federal control should be considered.

There is another important area and this relates to desirable locations of what I might call "heavy river users" types of industry. Heavy river user industries might be defined as those industries which utilize the waters of interstate waterways for manufacturing processes or for transportation purposes. These include the Federal chemical industry, electric generating plants fueled by coal, gas, or atomic energy, chemical industries, mining industries, grain and oil storage and shipping, fertilizer facilities, and the like. All of these industries use interstate waters for shipping or for discharge of industrial waste. At present, there are no restrictive measures either at the State or Federal level relative to the location of such industry along interstate rivers. There are, of course, no zoning controls at these levels that simultaneously encompass the problem of locating industry along the borders of two adjoining States. In fact, there is a total lack of any controls except at a strictly local governmental level.

Now, the location of these industries in and around the metropolitan areas is today a vital question because of vast increase of recreational areas, municipal and residential, adjacent to or on the water levels. Historically, the matter of commercial and industrial zoning has been traditionally left to local governmental units. This, however, leaves no overall perspective of the question or the control over the matter

. For example, the instant controversy which is on the location of the powerplant on the St. Croix, there are no overall zoning or other restrictions as to industrial use of the river that consider both people in the interested States of Minnesota and Wisconsin. It would appear, then, that it would be advantageous to require the so-called "heavy river user" types of industry to locate in specific areas such as industrial parks, industrial complexes or specified industrial sites of one kind or another.

As a local example, there are areas available today and presently used for this purpose on both the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers However, there are presently no incentives to encourage industry to choose these areas over others. The sites are chosen at random solely on the basis of economic reasons. Now, the confinement of location to industrial parks or complexes would obviously preserve greater portions of interstate waterways as a sort of water supply, as preferred recreational and residential areas. Perhaps more important, such confinement would present a more expeditious avenue of administering air and water pollution controls. The controlled facilities would be concentrated in a given area. Also, there is a definite advantage to industries located in such complexes or parks. Facilities to remove pollutants from industrial wastes and discharges could be pooled by the various participants at less expense to the industries than comparable costs where such industry was separately located. Also, the industries expenses for research and development for facilities to remove noxious air pollutants, and other things of that nature, in a specific industrial area could also be pooled.

It is therefore felt that studies leading to legislation for the purpose of urging and encouraging these heavy types of industry that utilize the river to locate in well-defined industrial areas and complexes. It should be contemplated by the subcommittee. This should be done for the ultimate purpose of (1) better control of water and air pollution, and (2) for the preservation of rapidly diminishing recreational, wildlife, and residential areas along interstate waterways.

In summation, it is asked first that the Federal Air and Water Pollution Control Acts be changed to include anticipatory for future air pollution problems. Second, the Water Pollution Control Act be changed so that it is compatible with the Air Pollution Control Act with respect to the secretary's authority to come in and conduct research investigations and surveys. Third, that the possibility of better incentives studied to encourage the creation of compacts between States for interstate air and water pollution control agencies. And fourth, studies be made to encourage heavy industry so they locate within well-defined areas along interstate waterways in order to have air and water pollution control.

That, gentlemen, is the substance of the report of the legal section. I thank you for your audience. Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Burns.

. Any questions, Senator? Senator METCALF. No, I have no questions, but I want to thank the witness for supplying us with suggested language because that is always helpful when we try to draw up this legislation. Mr. BURNS. Thank you. Mr. THUET. I would like to say to your witnesses, unless we are confined pretty much to 5 minutes, we will just not finish, and I wish you would keep that in mind.

I would like to call Mr. George Richter. STATEMENT OF GEORGE RICHTER, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA,

B.B.A. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Mr. RICHTER. My name is George Richter. I, like most of the witnesses today, cannot qualify as an expert.

I would like to give, with your permission, a background history of some Northern States Power Co.'s actions and statements leading up to and including their decision in proposing the steam-generating plant at Oak Park Heights. We quote from some of the company's

annual reports.

The company considers its reputation for fairness and fine service as one of its most valuable assets and continually endeavors to keep its customers, employees, and shareholders informed of its activities.

Incidentally, each annual report contains corporate information for plans of the future. Reviewing NSP's report to its stockholders from early 1950, we find the first mention made of proposed steam-generating plants was on the inside cover of the 1956 annual report. There

it said:

The company has already acquired the land for two steamplants that will be built along the Mississippi River within the next 10 to 12 years. Eventually these may total over 1 million kilowatts each. One is near Red Wing, Minn., and the other one at Newport, Minn.

40-957--15----11

This was a full-page statement with a map showing these locations. There was also a newspaper story in the November 19, 1958, St. Paul Dispatch, headlined: "I'wo Hundred Million Dollar NSP Plant Planned," and a second, dated November 20, 1958, St. Paul Pioneer Press :

A million kilowatt steam-electric generating station is planned by Northern States Power Co. in the Prairie Island area between Red Wing and Hastings. Arrow shows the approximate location 8 miles northwest of Red Wing. Construction will begin in the late 1960's or the early 1970's.

Nowhere do we find any evidence of any sort that Northern States Power has ever planned a steam-generating plant on Lake St. Croix.

I have been informed, and I believe, that Oak Park Heights was purchased and used for a substation and transmission lines. as in May of 1964, Northern States Power was negotiating with the St. Paul City Council on the Red Rock site. Out of the clear sky, on May 6 and 7, all Twin City papers carried press releases about NSP building a steam-generating plant at Oak Park Heights.

The April 1964 shareholders bulletin is the first reference to anything at Bayport. The report goes on and tells about the midcontinent area planners program.

We call your attention to this report of May 1964, the first reference of any sort to its stockholders for NSP at Oak Park Heights. Why this sudden change in plans? Northern States did not give a ready answer, and on July 10, Mayor Vavoulis and the St. Paul City Council asked the president of NSP to meet with them to reconsider their decision.

We quote from the paper: During the information session Mayor George Vavoulis asked NSP officials why a new $63 million generating plant would not be located at Red Rock, a site on the St. Paul-Newport border.

He, Mayor Vavoulis, criticized the company's public relations, saying he has heard much rumored information about NSP's proposal to locate the plant on the St. Croix River.

Mr. Ewald, at that time and I would be glad to submit this to the committee, you don't have it-gave a formal statement there and I quote parts of it:

Because the construction of a major generating plant requires 4 years' time for engineering and construction, it is essential that the plans be firmly established about 5 years in advance.

He also said, "In preliminary studies of the site at Newport we have worked" with the aviation authorities and received conditional approval for a stack of about 400 feet high. “A need for 800 fert high,” to shorten this, he said that, it made it apparent that the location at this plant site was impossible if Holman Airport were to be developed.

We have checked with the offices of the Federal Aviation Authority, Metropolitan Airports Commission, and the State aeronautical commission and find no record of a formal application for such a smokestack. In the words of the aviation officials, they tell me that the contacts were cursory and no determination was asked for or arrived at.

Also, to shorten this, the same thing was true of any reference made to water studies on the Mississippi. The only thing they tell me, there, that instead of talking about a 500,000-kilowatt-generating plant, they asked about a 2,000,000-kilowatt plant at Red Rock. This is four times as large as the proposed unit on the St. Crois. Until this, there was no reference to any studies of water conditions at any time on the St. Croix River.

Nowhere in any statement has Northern States said it considered other locations in its consideration for the plant site. We have been unable to document where it was talked about the possibilities of other sources of fuel; such as, gas, lignite, or atomic energy. I ask the question : Are we,

as consumers, stockholders, and citizens not entitled to know what considerations, if any, have been given to alternate sites and fuel?

Now, we submit the press release, September 21, page 108, “Electrical World," and, in short, it says by 1980 there will be five new generating plants in the Twin City metropolitan area. Of these, four are coal burning

Now, do we as consumers, stockholders, and citizens have to give up other natural resources and put up with all the disadvantages of coalfired plants in the metropolitan area just because Northern States Power is going to make a decision?

Again, I humbly ask, who can help us? We started in the beginning—who can ask these questions; who can answer them? We asked Northern States Power a question and they say it will be settled in a quote, “orderly procedure." The only thing we can find in the orderly procedure is asking for a permit to use the water. Gentlemen, we need your help. We ask who is there to evaluate the need, economic feasibility, and the impact upon recreational and esthetic aspects of these plants in our two States? Now to get back to the St. Croix controversy: Northern States, in three public sessions, has always said they welcome all inquiries about all aspects about the steam-electric plant it plans to build at Oak Park Heights on the Minnesota side of the St. Croix River.

Gentlemen, we know of numerous organizations who, in their search for information, have contacted Northern States Power to have them present their side at a public meeting. They were all turned down with Northern States giving the excuse that it is not an issue for public discussion; that it is in the hands of commissions and should be settled, and I quote again, "in an orderly fashion."

Gentlemen, I know we are pressed for time. I do want to say that 1

am not here to impugn the motives and actions of Northern States Power. However, it is noted under existing authority in the State of Minnesota-I don't know to whom this company is accountable there is no State regulatory body in Minnesota that has any control over power companies. We are one of four States that do not have any public commissions of any sort. We do not have a public service commission in Minnesota. The other four States are Alaska, South Dakota, Texas, and Nebraska, und Nebraska has no private power company. Likewise, I feel there is no State, Federal, or local authority to whom anyone can appeal regarding the overall impact and etl'ects of this plant on the surounding area.

Thank you.

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »