Page images
PDF
EPUB

in the metropolitan area. These studies have not been completed and the water pollution commission has not yet determined the reasonable limits of temperature increases allowable. The water pollution control commission has established zones in the Mississippi through the metropolitan area and the Newport plant site is in the most critical zone. This is because the location is below the Twin Cities, it is directly below the metropolitan sewage disposal plant, and it is directly above the city of South St. Paul. Although our preliminary studies indicate that this generating unit would cause a very reasonable temperature rise, it is not clear at this stage whether such a temperature rise would be considered acceptable at this site by the water pollution control commission.

This planning and engineering of our new plant additions is a continuing process and we are installing new generating units constantly. For example, we installed a large generator at the High Bridge Station in St. Paul in 1962. We installed another large unit at the Riverside plant in Minneapolis in 1964, and there will be additional units installed from time to time after the 1968 installation. The electrical requirements of the system and the development of the transmission have been modified in recent years because of our proposed interconnection with Chicago, and need for large blocks of power to the Eau Claire area, and the future potential of a large interconnection to the north in Canada. The electrical considerations of power distribution and strategic location of power sources around the metropolitan area indicate the desirability at this time of installing a large unit of capacity on the east side of the metropolitan area at the Bayport site.

It was the coincidence of these developments which led us to our decision to locate the plant at Bayport. It was obvious to us that the airport problem was one that would require time for its solution. It was also obvious that the cooling water problem was critical and that a definite answer on that would not be available until further results of our studies were available. These factors together with the electrical operationg considerations made it clearly desirable to install the 1968 unit at Bayport and delay the development of the Newport site until the other problems had been resolved.

Other economic considerations, such as plant construction costs, taxes, and fuel costs, were not decisive in the selection of the Bayport site as compared to the Newport site.

We feel that our decision is soundly based upon careful consideration of the overall welfare of the metropolitan area. It places the new capacity where it will do the best electrical job of supplying the load. It avoids any possibility of air pollution or cooling water problems or interference with air transportation and the corollary hazard to the powerplant. With a high stack at Bayport there will be no difficulty from air pollution because the gases will be adequately dispersed. Water conditions on the St. Croix are excellent and the small temperature increase for a few hundred yards of the river will cause no harmful effects.

Because of the time considerations we must begin construction on this new plant in a very few months. Under no circumstances could we consider locating the unit at the Newport site since there is obviously not time to resolve the potential problems. The project involves a capital expenditure of over $60 million and it is absolutely essential for the operation of our power supply system that it be completed and in service in the early months of 1968.

I have indicated that we installed a large generating unit at the High Bridge plant in 1962. We now have installed in the city limits of St. Paul a total of 505,000 kilowatts of generating capacity which is over twice the total of the peakload which we supply in the city of St. Paul. Because the Mississippi River provides favorable barge transportation for coal and makes available adequate circulating water, we have always maintained, over the years, substantially more generating capacity in the St. Paul area than the load requirements of that area would require.

Our guiding philosophy is that we will be a good corporate citizen wherever we serve, and the application of this philosophy is clearly evident in St. Paul. We have a capital investment in the area of more than $175 million; NSP is the largest taxpayer in Ramsey County; we are paying more than $4.8 million in property taxes in the county in 1963 and our gross revenue taxes to the city of St. Paul in that year totaled over $2 million. There are 1,000 NSP employees in the St. Paul area and we are very proud of the civic contributions which they make from our manager, Mr. Owens, on down. Every year NSP employees are among the strongest workers and supporters in charitable fund drives and civic activities of all types.

The location of this 1968 generator unit has been very carefully planned taking into consideration the best interests of the entire metropolitan area. This careful, competent, engineering planning has brought NSP to a position of leadership in the utility industry in the United States and it is an important factor in our having been able to reduce rates eight times since 1961, bringing to our customers savings in excess of $13 million per year.

Mr. THUET. We are taking these somewhat out of order, so that we can try to get as much information before you as we can in the time left. We would like to call Mr. Sigurd Olson of Ely, Minn., at this time. Senator NELSON. We are pleased to have you here, Mr. Olson. I think everyone across the Nation who has had a concern in the area of conservation is well aware of your distinguished reputation as a conservationist, ecologist, and author. We are pleased to have you

with us.

STATEMENT OF SIGURD F. OLSON, ELY, MINN., ECOLOGIST, AUTHOR, AND CONSERVATIONIST

Mr. OLSON. Senator and members of your committee.

I was very pleased to be asked to appear before you because this to me is a vital issue, not purely a local issue, but a national one.

Senator NELSON. May I ask, before you start, Mr. Olson, are you representing only yourself or are you representing any organizations? Mr. OLSON. I represent a number of organizations. I am consultant to the Secretary of the Interior and to the Director of the National Park Service, on the preservation of natural areas and wildlife all over the United States and Alaska. I am also consultant to the President's Quetico-Superior Committee, which has to do with the country along the border. I am also consultant on the same matters to the Izaak Walton League of America, and I do represent the entire organization of some 40,000 members when I give my testimony. They are all in agreement. I also represent as consultant the Wilderness Society of America with another 40,000 members.

As far as the Department of the Interior is concerned, I cannot speak for the Department, naturally, but I can say that the Department is tremendously concerned about this issue and is following this proceeding with a great deal of interest. And when it is called upon to participate in the final decisions, which I hope it will be, I know that all that has been said today, and all that will be said in the future in other hearings, will be seriously considered and heavily weighed.

I come to you, not as a stranger in this country. I was born in Wisconsin, lived most of my boyhood there, knew the headwaters of the St. Croix as a boy very intimately, especially the Nemakagon River and all the little trout streams which poured its cold, clear waters into that river and ultimately into the St. Croix.

When I was a student at the University of Wisconsin, I worked with the Wisconsin Geological Survey. I surveyed some of the tributaries: among them, the Yellow River which runs, also, into the St. Croix. Later on as a young man, when I was a guide on canoe trips up to the border country and other places, I guided a canoe party down from the headwaters of the Kettle River down into the St. Croix and clear down the St. Croix to the Mississippi. Since then I have enjoyed and known the St. Croix all during my life. So, what I say, I say with real depth of feeling, with a great deal, I think, of personal knowledge and experience in this area.

I was very pleased, and you had been informed before, that the St. Croix was 1 of the 12 rivers in the United States out of a total of 640 considered as worthy of inclusion in which we hope will be called the national rivers system of the United States. That was a conclusion that both Wisconsin and Minnesota should take pride in. It proves that the St. Croix is an unusually beautiful river with unique recreational natural values and should be preserved.

I will admit that the wild river section of the St. Croix may never cover the part of the St. Croix which we call Lake St. Croix todaythe widening of the St. Croix between here and the Mississippi. But I want to speak about it just the same because this St. Croix River pours its clean, unpolluted waters into this widening-into this lake-and gives it the quality and the character that it has today.

This morning, I drove along the widening. I looked at the site of the proposed steamplant. I noticed the number of fishhouses out on the ice-people already enjoying ice fishing. I looked over the shores with new interest because of this controversy. And, again, I was impressed that so close to the metropolitan area of the Twin Cities of almost 2 million people, is this beautiful recreational region. I left the Lowry Hotel this morning and, within half an hour, we were here, an amazingly short distance for people in that area to reach a relatively natural region such as this.

A question of what to do with the St. Croix as far as Northern States Power Co.'s proposed concern, is a vital one. It is a philosophical one and, I might say, an ethical one. And by ethical I might mean a matter of right and wrong. When we talk about the ethics of conservation and land utilization, we are dealing with what is right as far as our total enjoyment is concerned. Whether we have the right to destroy for future generations, by a decision we might make is a matter of ethics, morality, and responsibility.

now,

The Twin Cities are blessed by their beautiful lakes which, through foresight almost half a century ago, were saved from the ordinary type of development and have made the Twin Cities world famous as one of the most delightful places in the world to live. This area here, I predict, if the population growth continues, will be engulfed by the metropolitan complex, instead of 2 million, there may be 3 or 4 million people in here, and this region, if it is preserved, will have much more significance than it has now-important though it is today. I was in Ottawa, Canada, a month ago, looking over their "green deal." The metropolitan city of Ottawa decided a few years back that, the way it was growing, it would lose its character entirely unless the city bought a belt of green open countryside around it. They did this at a cost of $20 million. And, I might say, that Ottawa is prouder now of that move than almost anything else they have done. In a hundred years from now, people will laud their vision in doing that sort of thing.

My work, as you can gather, is largely the preservation of natural areas but, inevitably, we begin to talk about not only natural areas but the total environment and the total environment means towns, suburbs, and metropolitan regions. The problems of our cities have been manifold and increasingly so in the future.

I will not attempt to talk about the changes that will come if such a plan is put up here in the ecology of the waters. I was pleased to see this morning how carefully they have been worked out by many

witnesses. I do know, as an ecologist myself-I could elaborate but, because of shortness of time, I will not add to testimony which has already been given, but there is no doubt in my mind but what such a plant will change drastically the ancient ecology of the St. Croix Valley and, particularly, this region, just as it is commonsense to know what is involved in environmental changes brought about by pollution of various kinds-thermal changes, and so on-as to what is going to happen.

What I want to talk about particularly, and that is my major point, is that as long as there is an alternative site in the metropolitan area where there are already industrial complexes, wouldn't it be the thing to do to put such a plant there? One of the previous speakers spoke of the need of zoning-industrial zoning and putting big complexes into industrial zones where they can be better controlled; where they can be planned for; and where the effluence will not be as objectionable. Very well, I thought, but part of the solution of this problem would be exactly that.

This area, it seems to me, illustrates what an old Greek philosopher said some 2,000 years ago. He said, "Life is a gift of nature, but a beautiful life is a gift of wisdom." In order to live a beautiful life, we have to use wisdom. If we are forced to use wisdom in our expanding technological civilization, and with our expanding population, the big question is: Are we wise enough to control an environment so that America will always be a beautiful place in which to live? I believe we have that wisdom if we want to use it. I believe we can do this thing if we use the information we have now.

I

No one is against industry; no one is against this company. happen to own a little stock-I like this company and their dividends have been good-so I can speak as a stockholder, too, and hope that the company will prosper but that the company will not, in the process of prospering, sacrifice great intangible values involved with the welfare of our people, when there are alternatives to their expansion.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that summarizes pretty well what I had to say. I merely want to add this further thought. This is not purely a local issue. This is a national issue. We are concerned with city problems and recreational areas all over the country. There have been editorials in many great newspapers all over the land about the St. Croix. There was one in the Washington Post the other morning, stating the problem. Why were these people interested elsewhere? Simply because the issue of preserving open space in America, space which is rapidly decreasing, is one of the vital issues facing us of this generation. One of the greatest challenges we have is keeping America beautiful, planning so that there will always be open space, and so that we can always say that this is the land we love because it gives us opportunities, not only to make a living, but the opportunity of a good life.

Thank you. [Applause.]

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Olson.

So that your testimony may be statistically accurate, you referred to the St. Croix as having been selected to be included in 1 of the 12 wild rivers. I believe that list has been expanded, has it not?

Mr. OLSEN. It has been expanded, as I recall, 22, now. They are surveying the Suwanee down in Florida, Wolf River in Wisconsin, that

you and I know very well; the Buffalo River in Arkansas; they have been going around and picking out another dozen or so. The surveys are going on rapidly. What the final number will be, I don't know, but each one of these rivers will have to have congressional action. They will have to be set up like the current river in Arkansas and Missouri. I have been in favor of this thing for a long time because I think the rivers of America have been neglected. They have been a very important part of our history.

Last night I spoke at the annual meeting of the Fort Snelling Park Association here at the Sheraton-Ritz, and what this community, I am talking about the metropolitan community, has done in setting up that State park, recognizing the park of Minnesota and Mississippi River here, plainly and historically, to have another beautiful area of that set aside, most of the work was done about 5 years by such dedicated souls as Sam Morgan and Tom Samson, the former Governor of Minnesota, and so on. It is really a miracle. And in Minnesota, too, they have studied many rivers that will not be included in the national system, but rivers are becoming important as they are declining in wildness. I think of all the rivers in Minnesota, maybe some less than 10,000, they figure now only 700 miles of free flowing

Senator NELSON (interrupting). You mean 10,000 miles of river? Mr. OLSON. Yes, sir; 10,000 miles.

And you well remember the battle to save the Nemakagon, considered the last river of its size in Wisconsin.

Senator NELSON. I think your testimony as to the recreation value is significant testimony and should be considered in judging this matter. I am not aware of any other metropolitan area this size that has a river in as good a natural state as this one, are you?

Mr. OLSON. No; I think I will agree with you on that. I can't think of any other large river where you can still catch bass and walleye, and picnic and paddle a canoe, or use a motorboat this close to a great metropolitan area. That makes it doubly valuable and doubly significant to me.

Senator NELSON. I want to thank you very much, Mr. Olson, for coming here to give us your testimony. We appreciate your taking the time to come.

Mr. OLSON. Thank you.

Senator NELSON. In looking at the time, I would like to suggest that we just continue until we complete without an interruption for lunch. So if you have some remarks, either side, in rebuttal, we will just take them at the conclusion of the testimony. If you prefer, we will accept them in writing in Washington by the 18th of December. Otherwise I fear we may not make the other commitments we have.

Mr. THUET. Senator, we have two or three people who I am sure their testimony will be very short, have come a considerable distance, and perhaps, with this in mind, I would certainly be willing to submit any remarks I have in writing.

Prof. Robert McCabe is here from the University of Wisconsin. We would like to call on him for a few minutes. He is here now.

Senator NELSON. Mr. McCabe, we welcome you to the committee. Professor McCabe is a very distinguished professor at our university and an old friend of mine. We are pleased you have taken the time to come from Madison and make your appearance.

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »