Senator NELSON (interrupting). May I make a comment at this stage.

I don't know of any board of health or any agency in any city in America which has positively come up and put its stamp of approval upon the pollution of the air, but the fact is our cities are horribly polluted.

Mr. WILSON. That is certainly a very regrettable situation, but I think it should be borne in mind that our board of health has been moving on this air pollution problem here in Minnesota. As pointed out before, the situation has not become acute in this State.

Senator NELSON. I hope not.

Mr. WILSON. We are in a much better position to do what I said before, apply the ounce of prevention, than they have been in other States where the air pollution problem is already acute. If anybody thinks a serious air pollution problem of long standing cannot be licked, let them take a look at what has been done in Pittsburgh.

Now I want to say that I cannot too strongly concur with the views expressed here by my longtime friend and coworker in the conservation field, Sigurd Olson. He and I were on the firing line in many a battle, notably the establishment of the boundary waters in the canoe country. If Sig were here, he would say, I am sure, that that canoe country would not be established under Federal authority as it is today if I had not done what I did when I was commissioner of conservation. I would like to assure Sig that there is no danger that the water pollution control commission is going to allow any pollution of this river out here that would interfere with the accomplishment of the aims. It would have to be done, I think, practically over the dead body of Malcolm Hargraves, who is a longtime associate in the Izaak Walton League of both Sigurd Olson and myself. All three of us are longtime members of the Izaak Walton League and hard workers in the furtherance of this program.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, and particularly in view of some of the other comments that were made here, the threat to the public use of Lake St. Croix is not in danger of water pollution or air pollution, if we may assume, as I think we can, that the authorities will do their duty with respect to those matters. The threat to the use of Lake St. Croix by the general public of this great metropolitan area and all the area in the valley in both States does not lie in water pollution or air pollution, it is in the creeping segregation of the shores of Lake St. Croix, a large part of which, as someone has already mentioned, is in private ownership and posted with no trespassing signs. The general public, who has to depend on the use of water, buy the little boats that they carry on their car tops or trailers, or who has to depend on going into a boat livery to rent a small boat to get out on the lake to fish, must have two things in order to enjoy a great recreational asset like Lake St. Croix. They must have unlimited points of access, places to get to the river, to park their cars and trailers.

Senator NELSON. Does the Minnesota commission have condemnation purchases for access to public waters?

Mr. WILSON. May I finish with what I was about to say?
Senator NELSON. Go ahead.

Mr. WILSON. They must have two things: points of access where they can either park their cars or trailers or else rent boats; they must

also have ample shorelines where they can land and have picnics and let their kids wade in the water and generally enjoy the lake. We are very, very short of that in both States on Lake St. Croix.

Now as to what can be done about it. Our State conservation department does have certain limited authority and very limited funds to acquire access on public waters, which is nowhere nearly adequate to deal with Lake St. Croix. Our counties are now under a bill, which I drew myself and which was passed by the recent legislature, which gives them very ample authority to carry on county park programs, including full power of condemnation. We are in the process here of trying to develop a program for that with the help that we hope to get under the Landrum Water Conservation Act recently passed by Congress. The trouble is, it is a race against time. There won't be much money available under that act next year. Every year, in fact, every month, the property is being split up, subdivided, expensive homes are being built on it, and unless that program can be very greatly expedited it is going to be too late. As I said before, unless that program is greatly expedited, the use of Lake St. Croix is very largely going to be limited to those fortunate people who own waterfront on Lake St. Croix and the people in the higher income brackets who can afford to keep their boats at marinas.

Thank you very much.

Senator NELSON. May I ask a question? I have no notion what the capacity of Lake St. Croix is, but in your testimony you assert you have no worry whatsoever about the pollution of that lake by the heating of it. You have no worry about the damage that might come as a consequence. Could you answer this: Supposing when this plant is completed and you have a low flow for 3 solid months and the plant uses the total capacity of that stream for that period, can you tell us what would be the consequence to that lake in terms of fish, algae, all aquatic aspects?

Mr. WILSON. Obviously the answer to that question is a matter for expert determination, but I think I can speak with assurance for both the commissioner of conservation, who has the responsibility for granting the water use permit, and the water pollution control commission, who has the responsibility for imposing amount of pollution. requirements. Speaking on the history of past cases, especially the establishment of these Mississippi River standards, both those authorities give full consideration to the low flow. Standards and conditions are always based upon an assumption that at times the low flow will be reached.

I already pointed out in my previous testimony that the water consumption of the metropolitan area is very close to the low flow of the Mississippi River already, and these standards that were adopted by the commission the year before last on the Mississippi River take that

fact into consideration.

Senator NELSON. To get back to answering my question-if we accept the statistics that have been presented that the plant will use the total flow of the river during some periods and that it will heat the water by 10° to 17°, what effect will this have on the river and the lake if this should occur over a period of 3 months? You have asserted here it will have no damage. Since you have asserted that, I assume it is based on some knowledge you have as a conservationist.

That is my question. On what basis do you make that assertion, assuming my set of facts?

Mr. WILSON. I certainly would not say that on the assumption of the facts stated here this morning there would be no damage to the river. All I have to say about that is that, like any lawsuit, the evidence is not all in yet. I don't think anybody is in a position to express a conclusion just based on the testimony we heard here this morning. Both of the State agencies have sought the aid of the U.S. Public Health Service, the water pollution control commission has also, I am sure, enlisted the aid of other witnesses from the conservation department and the university, and the State board of health has employed a very high-grade private consulting firm. Their report is not before you. And for that reason, the fact that there is still much testimony to be submitted, I think it is utterly premature to express any positive conclusions. I would like to call your attention to the fact that Dr. Carswell expressed none whatever so far as this particular project is concerned.

Senator NELSON. He testified as to the effects of thermal pollution. Mr. WILSON. Yes; he testified to that. As I say, everything that has been said here about this is highly pertinent, it should be consid ered. I hope that these gentlemen who were here this morning will appear before the water pollution control commission and give their testimony there. I think I can assure them that it will be given the very most careful consideration.

Senator NELSON. I want the record to be accurate. You quoted the Public Health Service; let me quote it to you.

The company testifies that they will use in the first unit 660 cubic feet of water per second with one unit. It will be approximately twice that with two units, so we are talking about 660 feet per one unit. Public Health Service's survey says once in 30 years the flow of that stream will be 550 cubic feet per second, that is the low flow; once in 20 years it will be 700 feet per second; once in 10 years it will be 1,000 feet per second; once in 5 years it will be 1,400 feet per second; once each year it will be to a low of 3,930 feet.

When the first plant is built you are going to have an occasion of once every 20 years when the plant will be using the total capacity of the stream. Once in every 30 years one unit of the plant would use 110 feet per second more than the total flow of the stream. If you put two units in, once in every 30 years the plant is going to be using better than two times the total flow of the stream. Once in 20 years there is 700 feet per second, so once in 20 years when two units are in there it would again be using twice as much as the total flow. Once every 5 years it will go to 1,400 feet per cubic second, which is about the total flow of the stream, when used by two units. My question is, what will happen to that lake under those circumstances?

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, all I have to say about that is that I don't think those circumstances will ever be reached because I cannot conceive of the commissioner of conservation, who is responsible, and I know he is responsible, to the needs of the people of this State and most notably to the recreational issues of the State, ever granting any permit for water use that would reach those proportions.

Senator NELSON. Are they going to issue an order that the streamflow shall not get that low?

Mr. WILSON. No, but they take land on the Northern States Power Co. They can't use that much money.

Senator NELSON. You would agree if they should use that total amount of stream, they shouldn't have the permit to construct on the river, is that correct?

Mr. WILSON. They should have no permit that is going to interfere materially with the public interests in that river for recreation or any other purpose. I would not assume here to apply that general proposition to a particular state of facts until all the evidence is in.

Senator NELSON. My understanding is that the commission isn't going to permit the circumstance to occur.

Mr. WILSON. I didn't say that. The commission can't stop natural circumstances but they certainly can stop the company from using so much of that river or discharging so much heat into the river that it would do any material harm to the public interests. They can do that at any time, and from past history I think they can be depended upon to do so.

Senator NELSON. Would you agree, then, if the facts are that they will use the total flow of the stream that they should not have the permit to construct then?

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I don't think I care to amplify my comments. I think my previous comments covered that point completely.

Judge MCDONOUGH. May I answer part of that. Drawing conditions

Senator NELSON (interrupting). You can testify, if you wish. I think probably it would be more orderly if you want to respond, Judge, when we have completed here.

Mr. WILSON. All I am saying is that it is the duty of the public authorities to be continually on guard and if any condition should occur at any future time such that the public interests would be impaired by letting that company use the total flow or less at any time, it should be stopped, and I am confident that it would be stopped. The Corps of Engineers isn't going to let them use the total flow. There has to be a minimum flow going downriver to support navigation. It is inconceivable they could get a permit

Senator NELSON. If they would be using the total flow, they would be taking it out of the river and returning it. My question still is, then, if you don't wish to comment on whether or not a permit should be issued if they use the total flow, would you again comment on what would happen to the aquatic conditions in that lake, if for a 3-month period you had a low flow of 550 feet and you are using it all and heating it by 15° ?

Mr. WILSON. That possibility is certainly a very big point that should be weighed and the effects of it considered. You have to bear in mind that there is a difference between an industry that is going to use water for a consumptive purpose and one that returns water to the stream. If you have a sufficient body of water, even though the flow is low, it may be large enough to counteract the adverse effects of temperature for a short period of time, if not for a long time. I am sure that all of those possible conditions will be considered and weighed by the water pollution control commission, and if they grant a permit in this case, of which there is no certainty whatever at this time, that it will be upon such conditions that will amply safeguard the public interests and all other public interests in that water.

Senator NELSON. You don't know what will happen to that lake is the answer to my question, is that not correct?

Mr. WILSON. I am not a hydraulic nor pollution expert, and I would be going outside of my field as a lawyer if I attempted to answer that question.

Senator NELSON. If the permit is granted and the unit is built and it turns out that the company is using the total flow, that it is having an adverse effect on that lake, does the commission have the power to order the plant to shut down?

Mr. WILSON. Definitely-wait a minute. You said shut down?
Senator NELSON. Yes, they couldn't use the water.

Mr. WILSON. They could stop the water use, and if they would shut it down, that would be the result.

Senator NELSON. Has that ever happened in your State?

Mr. WILSON. No, fortunately not.

Senator NELSON. But you are confident if it had an adverse effect they would shut the plant down?

Mr. WILSON. Yes, I don't think they would hesitate to do so, from what I know about the present application.

A VOICE. Oh, Henry.

Senator NELSON. We will only have one witness testifying.

Mr. WILSON. The Northern States Power Co., as has been testified here, is a part of a great network and they could find temporary substitutes for that power if it were necessary to shut the plant down in order to protect that water. They could and should be required to switch in power from other stations until they could remedy the difficulty. They had better anticipate that because I, for one, if I am still alive at that time, would certainly be among the leaders of a movement to require them to comply with those conditions.

Senator NELSON. If the facts are as they appear on the usage of the water, is there any reason you can think of why the plant shouldn't be placed on the Mississippi?

Mr. WILSON. I haven't analyzed that proposition. I mentioned a couple of considerations here yesterday, that is, from the standpoint of good industrial engineering of not having too much concentration of industry in the large centers.

Senator NELSON. I am talking about down the Mississippi from the cities, out of the cities.

Mr. WILSON. You mean downriver?

Senator NELSON. Yes.

Mr. WILSON. From the standpoint of water use, I can't think of any. But you might run into a similar problem down there. As I mentioned yesterday, I think that we folks who are so proud of the St. Croix would have to admit that Lake Pepin is just as fine a body of water as the St. Croix. If somebody were going to put a plant down there that would do harm to Lake Pepin, I don't think we would be very good citizens in getting rid of the problem by shoving it off on them. I don't think the plant should be located anywhere on the Mississippi or anywhere else where it would do any serious harm to the public interest.

Senator NELSON. You see, that body of water, as you are well aware, has a much larger capacity, it is already polluted, and if you fly over it, you can even see it from the air when you pass the two rivers.