boating? How will coal barges be unloaded and cleaned and with what effects on water resources?

3. Does the tax and payroll benefit outweigh other "costs" to the local community?

4. What are the benefits and costs of each alternative? Presumably, an industry in a monopoly position will adjust rates in such a way that there will be an equitable return to investors. If costs are higher by selection of one alternative over another, the purchaser of electrical energy in the Twin Cities area will share in this increased cost and will, as a consequence, have other values preserved for him. Whether he makes use of these values is his decision.

5. In what manner can steam generating plants be designed and operated so as to minimize the impact on esthetics, recreation, fish, wildlife, and other biological resources? Do cooling towers or lagoons offer potential solutions to thermal pollution and if so, at what eventual costs to the consumer of electrical energy? Can the engineer working together with the landscape architect and the designer plan a building that is both economically efficient and a pleasing part of the environment?

6. The U.S. Public Health Service at the request of Governors Rolvaag and Reynolds have started an intensive study of the Mississippi River from Anoka to the dam at Lake Pepin. The results of their investigations should be brought to bear on this problem. The Public Health Service evaluation of the present contribution of the St. Croix River to clean waters in the Mississippi below the mouth of the St. Croix should be made known. Although the Public Health Service does not enter into the problem of pollution of interstate waters or of the atmosphere until a problem develops, their technical expertise could contribute materially to an analysis of alternatives.

7. An evaluation should be made of the potential impact on existing land use of locating a steamplant, whether at the proposed site, or at another. Obviously the county and the local unit of government will have to zone lands to permit the construction of the plant and, although there is no particular advantage for industry to locate immediately adjacent a powerplant, the zoning precedent may encourage other types of industrial expansion which may or may not conform to sound land use principles.

Our Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, at the request of numerous citizens and elected officials has already started investigations into the possible effects of the proposed steamplant. In general, the Department's responsibility with regard to protecting fish, wildlife, and recreation values of rivers such as the St. Croix are contained in the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act which requires developers to consult the Fish and Wildlife Service whenever waters are authorized to be impounded, diverted, or otherwise controlled for any purpose under Federal permit. Since the proposed project is not a hydroelectric plant, the company is not required by law to obtain a permit or license from the Federal Power Commission. However, should the Northern States Power Co. request a permit from the Corps of Engineers for dock facilities, intake and discharge structures, channel dredging or similar works affecting the river, the Fish and Wildlife Service would be consulted, as required by the act, prior to the corps' decision to issue a permit. However, our advice is not binding on the corps.

The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife will assist local and State organizations in their fact-gathering studies on fish and wildlife habitat and resources in Lake St. Croix. If the studies conclude that the proposed project operation will be harmful to the natural resources of the river, then every effort will be made within the Bureau's existing authorities to encourage Northern States Power to relocate their plant or modify their facility and operation in the interest of protecting aquatic resources. I might add that this Bureau is presently scheduling meetings with other State and Federal agencies on this matter. An even broader role is assumed by the Department on protecting natural resources. In a recent meeting of the President's Science Advisory Committee, it was noted that the Department is dedicated to sound development, conservation, and management of natural resources. The Department adopts a broad definition of natural resources and includes in its conservation programs, protection of esthetic values in addition to optimum utilization of mineral, water, land, and living resources. We have responsibility to the general public and Congress in its efforts to conserve and develop natural resources and in the process of discharging these responsibilities, we work with a wide variety of conservation organizations and many specialized industries.

Despite the lack of extensive legal involvement for pollution control, the success of Department programs cannot be attained unless environmental pollution is

minimized. Health, aquatic, and land and air environments are essential to the welfare of living resources and to the development of pleasing esthetic environments which we all seek. Thus, the Department is often placed in an advisory capacity to State and other local conservation agencies, State compacts and industrial groups through which the results of research and field management operations are brought to bear on pollution.

Although I had a general idea of the governmental agencies which might be involved or which could contribute to a resource problem of this type, I was amazed at the actual number when I listed them. There were 14 and I probably have missed several:

1. Village of Oak Park Heights.

2. Stillwater School District.

3. Minnesota Conservation Department.

4. Minnesota Water Pollution Control Commission.

5. Twin Cities Metropolitan Planning Commission.

6. St. Paul Planning Commission.

7. Wisconsin Conservation Department.

8. Wisconsin Committee on Water Pollution.

9. Wisconsin Public Service Commission.

10. Department of the Interior agencies as follows: Bureau of Mines, Fish and Wildlife Service, Geological Survey, Office of Water and Power Development, and Bureau of Outdoor Recreation.

11. Federal Power Commission.

12. U.S. Corps of Engineers.

13. U.S. Coast Guard.

14. U.S. Public Health Service.

I submit that if the professional knowledge lodged in these groups could be brought to bear on this problem through a joint effort with Northern States Power Co., a solution of maximum value to society could be found. Whether or not the numerous questions which, in my opinion, require answers will be answered remains to be seen.

President Johnson's Portland speech in September is appropriate for the discussion tonight and I quote from it as follows:

"*** three changing forces are bringing a new era to conservation. "The first is growing population * * *.

"The second is the triumph of technology. The bright success of science also has a darker side. The poisons and chemicals, the junked automobiles, and the waste products of progress, may be one of the deadliest threats to the destruction of nature we have ever known.

"The third is urbanization *** access to beauty is denied and ancient values are destroyed.

"All of this requires a new conservation.

"It is not just the classic conservation of protection and development, but a creative conservation of restoration and innovation."

The President complimented the people of the Pacific Northwest and said: "You have acted in our highest traditions. For this country was built by government and people-public interest and private enterprise-working together in harmony."

If we can treat the St. Croix River Valley "with reverence and regard for the values of nature," while at the same time recognizing and meeting the electrical energy needs of a great metropolitan area, we can-public interest and private enterprise-working together in harmony, achieve a great goal.

Senator NELSON. We now have the representatives, I believe, from the conservation department of the State of Minnesota, whose spokesman is the deputy commissioner, Mr. Robert Brown.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT BROWN, ST. PAUL, MINN., DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION

Mr. BROWN. Senator Nelson and Senator Muskie, members of the subcommittee, I am representing today Commissioner of Conservation Wayne Olson, who is, in addition to being commissioner of conservation, also a member of the Minnesota Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission.

The statement is given in response to your request for a statement by the commissioner regarding the application of Northern States Power Co. for a permit to appropriate water from the St. Croix River to be used in cooling condensers in the proposed plant and returned to

the river.

A copy of the permit has been submitted to your committee for the record.

(There follows the referenced permit :)

MINNESOTA CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT
Division of Waters

APPLICATION POR PERMIT TO APPROPRIATE, WATER

RECEIVED map attrshed to G.W.
application.

AUG 6 1964

ا اللون

I.

A.

D.

C.

D.

DIVISION OF WATERS

To: Commissioner of Conservation, State Office Building, St. Paul 1, Minnesota

us

The undersigned applies herewith for a permit to appropriate or unr ground surface water for
industrial purposes from wells Maurface water sources upon which the undersigned has rights by
all in accordance with the data which follows (and is attached hereto).

SOURCE:

فن ف

irrigation fee title

Fract. Sec. or Govt. ERE, Sec. 2 Twp. 29, Range_20, County. Washington

SW-NE

Fract. Sec. or Govt. Lot_2, Sec.__2__, Twp. 29, Range 20, County Washington

The applicant declares that the information submitted herewith and the statements made herein are true and correct representation of the facts, and that the filing of this application and information with the Commissioner of Con servation is prima facie evidence of the correctness thereof.

who being first duly sworn and to me known to be the person who executed the foregoing application, acknowledges that the statements, maps, plans, documents, and other supporting date are true and correct according to his beat knowledge and relief and the executed the be of his

Mr. BROWN. I thought I might just abstract from it a summary of what the application is, and then go on to discuss what generally is the commissioner's authority under the statute. Hopefully, gentlemen, I would like to restrict our testimony to really what is the commissioner's authority, rather than getting into any discussion of the benefits of the application itself, since the commissioner is in a quasijudicial situation, having to make a determination regarding the application itself.

The application is for a permit to appropriate 175,000 gallons per minute of water for two pumps, a total of 361,000 acre-feet per year. Senator NELSON. I didn't hear how much per minute.

Mr. BROWN. It is 175,000 gallons per minute for each of two pumps, a total of 361,000 acre-feet per year.

The authority of the commissioner of conservation of the State of Minnesota to consider the application is set forth in Minnesota Statutes, 1961, chapter 105, which also prescribes the procedure to be followed, and matters to be considered in reaching a decision as to whether or not a permit should be granted. The portions of the statutes which apply have been submitted to the committee for the record.

I think here again I would like to abstract from the seven pages of

statutes.

Senator NELSON. You go ahead and abstract from the pages, and we will include the full statement.

Mr. BROWN. Fine, very well.

In chapter 105.45 under "Permits and Orders of Commissioner," paragraph 2, it outlines what, I think, is basically the commissioner's authority in this matter.

If the commissioner concludes that the plans of the applicant provide for the most practical use of the waters of the State and will adequately protect public safety and promote the public welfare, he shall grant the permit, and, if that be in issue, fix the control levels of public waters accordingly. If the commissioner concludes that the proposed appropriation or use of State waters or the proposed construction is inadequate, wasteful, dangerous, impractical, or detrimental to the public interest, he shall eject the application or he may require such modification of the plan as he deems proper to protect the public interest.

Mr. Chairman, in addition to making this statement, and this is the limit of the commissioner's statement, we also have with us representatives of the State health department, Mr. Frank Woodward, director, division of environmental health, and Mr. Lyle H. Smith, executive engineer, water supply and pollution control commission, who also have statements.

I would like to make that the final statement of the commissioner. I am open for questions now. Then we may go on to the other Minnesota representatives.

Senator NELSON. Under that standard or guidance for the Commissioner, has there been any case in the State of Minnesota in which the Commissioner rejected an application on the grounds of the public welfare, the public welfare in that instance being a case of recreation values?

Mr. BROWN. Yes, we have.

Senator NELSON. Am I correct? Are there two cases that went to your Supreme Court on that issue, or did they get to the Supreme Court?

Mr. BROWN. Not involving recreation before the Supreme Court. Those cases did not involve recreation, to my recollection.

Senator NELSON. But there have been cases in which the Commissioner administratively in his capacity has rejected applications based upon grounds of recreational views in the public welfare?

Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir.

Senator NELSON. Would you submit to us those citations for inclusion in the record?

Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir.

(Subsequently, the following documents were submitted:)

STATE OF MINNESOTA, DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF PULASKI LAKE SHORES ASSOCIATION, BY MILES A. CHADWICK, PRESIDENT, FOR A PERMIT TO EXCAVATE A CHANNEL, FOR NAVIGATION AND OTHER PURPOSES, BETWEEN LAKE PULASKI AND LITTLE PULASKI LAKE, ALSO KNOWN AS NORTH BAY, IN WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA (P.A. 64– 557)

NOTICE OF ORDER

Pursuant to M.S.A., Chapter 105, notice is given that on the 9th day of October, 1964, the Commissioner of Conservation of the State of Minnesota, made and entered Findings of Fact herein, and pursuant thereto made the following Conclusions and Order:

CONCLUSIONS
I

That Pulaski Lake is a meandered public body of water in Wright County, Minnesota.

II

That Little Pulaski Lake and Pulaski Lake were surveyed and meandered as one body of water by the original Government Land Office Survey.

III

That Pulaski Lake is a land-locked lake, having neither inlet nor outlet, with underwater springs providing its main source of water supply.

IV

That the levels of Pulaski Lake are subject to periodic fluctuation resulting from scarcity or plenitude in its water supply.

V

That at periods of high water levels, Pulaski and Little Pulaski Lake are connected to form a continuous body of water.

VI

That at lower water stages, Pulaski Lake and Little Pulaski Lake are separated by a sand bar.

VII

That the applicant proposes to dig a ditch between Pulaski Lake and Little Pulaski Lake of sufficient width and depth to provide a permanent boating channel between them.

VIII

That the applicant's plans provide for a channel from Pulaski Lake to Little Pulaski Lake that is much deeper than any natural channel that may have previously existed between them.

IX

That Pulaski Lake is an exceptionally good fish lake, differing in quality from the other lakes in its locality, and has good populations of walleye pike and large and small mouth bass.