small plant; I have forgotten the company that operates it. I think they have an installed capacity of some 16,000 kilowatts. The CHAIRMAN. Is that a dam across the White River? The CHAIRMAN. What is the name of that dam, or project? General ROBINS. The Ozark Beach Hydroelectric Station of the Empire District Electric Co. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other power projects presently along the White River? General ROBINS. Not that I know of. The CHAIRMAN. How do the power possibilities on the White River compare with other rivers west of the Mississippi River and east of the Rocky Mountains? General ROBINS. I would say very favorably. The CHAIRMAN. Is there any other river in that area that has power possibilities that the White River and its tributaries has, in the area west of the Mississippi River? General ROBINS. I should say not. Of course the Red River, considering all of its tributaries, can develop a considerable power, but I think more power can be developed economically on the White River system than on any other. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any rivers between the Colorado and the Mississippi that have the power possibilities that the White River has? General ROBINS. I should say not. The CHAIRMAN. What other rivers in the United States, east of the Rocky Mountains, or what other rivers, would you say, had the power possibilities that the White River has? General ROBINS. The Susquehanna. The CHAIRMAN. That is one. General ROBINS. And the Potomac has quite a bit, but it has never been developed. The CHAIRMAN. What else; what about the little river down here. called the Tennessee? General ROBINS. There are some rivers down in Georgia and South Carolina that have good power possibilities. The CHAIRMAN. And, of course, the Tennessee? General ROBINS. I was getting around to that [laughter]. Tennessee is outstanding east of the Rockies. The The CHAIRMAN. And, as you stated, in the area west of the Mississippi, the White River has outstanding possibilities for power development? General ROBINS. Yes, I would certainly say so. The CHAIRMAN. Now, we will be glad to recall you later, General, and members of the committee will have the right to ask the general questions later on. I just wanted to get the general picture before we took up the individual witnesses who are going to appear here. I have the names of two witnesses-Mr. Thomas Fitzhugh and Mr. L. A. Henry. I will call Mr. Fitzhugh first. Give your name to the reporter. STATEMENT OF THOMAS FITZHUGH, LITTLE ROCK, ARK. Mr. FITZHUGH. Thomas Fitzhugh, Little Rock, Ark. Mr. FITZHUGH. I am 31 years old and my position now and for the past 3 years has been chairman of the Arkansas Department of Public Utilities? The CHAIRMAN. What is your profession, sir? Mr. FITZHUGH. I am an attorney. The CHAIRMAN. Where are you located? Mr. FITZHUGH. At Little Rock, Ark. The CHAIRMAN. And you are chairman of the Utility Commission of what? Mr. FITZHUGH. Of the Arkansas State Utility Commission. Mr. FITZHUGH. Among other things, we have jurisdiction to regulate rates and service of electric, gas, telephone, telegraph, water, and other utilities. The CHAIRMAN. Have you any projects under your supervision? Mr. FITZHUGH. No. Our department does not have authority to develop projects. The CHAIRMAN. You are supervisory-regulatory? Mr. FITZHUGH. We do grant certificates of convenience and necessity for the construction of projects, but we are strictly a regulatory commission. The CHAIRMAN. We have under consideration here the matter of the authorization, primarily for flood control, of additional or probable additional projects along the White River and its tributaries, and we will be glad to have any general statement you care to submit with respect to the matter, keeping in mind the primary function of this committee is to provide for flood control. Mr. FITZHUGH. My general statement will be in line with the report that was furnished to the War Department on the White River development, in February 1939. At the request of Governor Bailey of Arkansas, I served as coordinator for this report. My duties were to call together the various departments and State agencies that were in a position to present factual information, and to supervise the compilation of this information and the report that was made to the War Department. Copies of this report have also been furnished to the Federal Power Commission. The report, necessarily, deals more with the attitudes of the various State agencies, and presents as much factual data as the State agencies are in a position to present. I think it probably could be termed the most articulate presentation of the views of the respective State agencies of Arkansas, as well, in some cases, as expressions from mayors and from civic organizations and county officials in the area affected by the proposed White River development. Briefly, I would like to read the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report. The CHAIRMAN. Will you identify the report, please? You say it was furnished to the War Department; give us the date of it, to whom it was submitted, and so on, and identify the report for the purposes of the record. Mr. FITZHUGH. The letter of transmittal is signed by Gov. Carl E. Bailey, and is addressed to Lt. Col. F. L. Scott, Corps of Engineers, War Department, Little Rock, Ark., dated February 15, 1939. The CHAIRMAN. Proceed with your statement. Mr. FITZHUGH. The conclusions and recommendations are: This report represents the findings of all the State Departments and local agencies which would be affected by the proposed multiple use development of the White River Basin. These departments and agencies are unanimously in accord with the Governor and the General Assembly in recommending that the development proceed along lines and in the manner indicated by the findings. It is believed that the project is economically justifiable because of the preventable nature and extent of flood damages now suffered in the valleys below the proposed site; because of the certain and great enhancement of property values that would result; because of the potentially large market for hydroelectric power that would be generated, and because of such other benefits as navigation opportunities, irrigation possibilities, and recreational use of the impounded waters. Evidence in support of this belief is summarized in the following pages. Now, I am not familiar with the practice of this committee, but I doubt whether you would want to introduce as an exhibit a voluminous report like this. However, if you do have some procedure whereby the report can be made available to the committee, either as an exhibit or through some other process, I would like to tender this report. The CHAIRMAN. You may file it with the clerk of the committee, and you have made reference to it for the purposes of the record. Mr. FITZHUGH. I appreciate your time is limited and you do not want to hear at great length any particular witness. I would like to refer very briefly, however, to the power situation in Arkansas, and I will do that also by reference to the report, at page 55, which data was compiled by the Department of Public Utilities, of which I am chairman: In 1932, there were 103,252 utility consumers in Arkansas. The number of consumers in 1943 is estimated at 178,521. This represents an increase of 75,269 customers between 1932 and 1943. The number of kilowatt-hours used and unaccounted for in 1932 was 333,205,106. In 1938, the total kilowatt-hours used were 519,766,374. The estimate for total kilowatt-hours used for 1943 is 774,683,229 kilowatt-hours. This represents an increase since 1932 of 444,470,123 kilowatt-hours. These figures do not take into account consumptions in municipally owned utility systems which, in 1932, amounted to 11,853,077 kilowatthours. Neither do these figures take into account the 11 rural cooperatives which have organized in the State during the past 2 years. Let me say parenthetically that has been increased to 13 rural cooperatives that are now operating in the State. The report continues: A * * * It is estimated that these cooperatives will be serving approximately 50,000 farmers on or before 1943. These farm customers will increase the consumption of electric energy by at least 50,000,000 kilowatt-hours per year. conservative estimate of the total consumption of electric energy in Arkansas by 1943, including energy lost and unaccounted for, will be one billion kilowatthours annually. This estimate does not take into consideration the possibility of industrial development in the State between now and 1943. I would like to deal very briefly with the problem of Arkansas' generation of electricity in relation to its total consumption. The CHAIRMAN. How much do you generate and how much do you consume, presently? Mr. FITZHUGH. In 1937 there was a net importation of 290,062,825 kilowatt-hours; in 1936, 354,798,207 and, in 1935, 184,453,884. The percentage of energy used, imported from other States, was 54.4 percent in 1937; 73.6 percent in 1936, and 45.3 percent in 1935. Since approximately 50 percent of the installed generator capacity in the State is installed in the hydroelectric plants at Carpenter and Remmel Dams (and those dams are on the Ouachita River and those are owned by the Arkansas Power & Light Co.) the energy produced in the State each year depends to a great extent upon the amount of water passing through those plants. In years of heavy rainfall, the output of these plants is increased and, consequently, the necessity for importation is decreased. Now, the committee might be interested in knowing the exact generated capacity of the private companies in Arkansas. In 1932, it was 139,810 kilowatts; in 1935, 131,193 kilowatts; in 1936, 129,351 kilowatts; and in 1937, 140,528 kilowatts. I would like now, if it is permissible, to supply this committee, within the next 2 weeks, figures for the last year, so that you will have that information in both importations into Arkansas and installed capacity in Arkansas of generated power. The CHAIRMAN. You will have the privilege, if you will get it in this week. Mr. FITZHUGH. All right. I can say now there has been no substantial increase in the installed generating capacity in Arkansas. As a department, I think our position, of course, is to make available to consumers of Arkansas the lowest possible electric rates. There may be instances when it would not be feasible to have generating capacity in each particular State; that is, State lines and State borders do not necessarily mean a great deal in getting low electricity costs. However, our feeling in Arkansas is that we do have enormous generating possibilities and it is really a reflection sometimes, speaking frankly, on our own initiative that we do have to import so much electricity. I would like to point out, in addition to the first statement made by Congressman Ellis that, in the immediate White River area, no fuels are available. However, south of that area, along the Arkansas River, from Russellville, Ark., to Fort Smith, on the Arkansas side, there are available practically unlimited supplies of coal and, of course, this coal supply is immediately adjacent to the Arkansas River. And also, in this same area, there are available somewhat limited supplies of natural gas. The important point, as I see it, is that with a hydroelectric development it will be possible to tie that development in with steam plants located on the Arkansas River and thereby give you primary power for 12 months in the year, so that you would not run the risk which unfortunately you do run when you rely solely on waterfall or rainfall generating for energy. In addition to that, in South Arkansas, during the past year, there have been discovered enormous reserves of oil and of natural gas, but the natural gas in south Arkansas is what is termed "sour" gas. By that, I am advised they mean it has hydrogen sulphide in the gas, so that they cannot use it in its present condition. However, experiments are now going on to determine if they can remove the hydrogen sulphide and then have sweet or marketable gas. In addition to that, just below the Arkansas border, there are enormous supplies of natural gas in northern Louisiana and more down in Texas, and again it occurs to me there is, in the long run, the possibility of tying in the White River development with the great system of Arkansas River coal fields and gas fields and the south Arkansas and northern Louisiana natural-gas fields. So that, from our point of view, this sort of backlog, you might say, for the river development, enhances the feasibility for the White River construction. Now, our department has not made an attempt to analyze each particular project. We, frankly, could not do it; we do not have the facilities in the way of engineers, nor appropriation, nor do we think it is proper that we should have an appropriation to attempt to make an analysis of each particular dam site. That information, of course, is being furnished by the War Department, and the Federal Power Commission. So that our general recommendation is not limited here to the Norfork Dam, nor the Bull Shoals Dam, or the Table Rock Dam, but it is an attempt to be helpful in the over-all picture in demonstrating that Arkansas is crying for cheap electricity; that we have immense natural resources in the State that cannot be developed without cheap electric supply. The CHAIRMAN. Now, let us see: Your present supply, so far as your State is concerned, consists of the operations of the Arkansas Power Co.? Mr. FITZHUGH. On the Ouachita River. The CHAIRMAN. What other power utilities have you that operate? Mr. FITZHUGH. At times when the water from the Arkansas is pretty low, the Southwestern Gas & Electric Co., which operates in the extreme southwestern part of the State, and in southern Arkansas; they operate in the midwestern part of the State and in what are termed the Huntington and Hartford areas, and operate in the extreme northwestern part of the State, in Congressman Elllis' district in Washington, Benton, and Carroll Counties; the Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co., which operates in Fort Smith, and down the Arkansas River, east of Fort Smith, to about as far as Russellville; the Arkansas River & Power Corporation, which operates in the northeastern part of the State, including the counties of Mississippi, Craighead, Lawrence, Clay and Randolph-those are the major counties. Then there is the Citizens' Electric Co., which operates in Hot Springs only, and the Arkansas Utilities which operates at Helena, Ark., and Marianna, Ark., in competition with the municipally owned plant. The CHAIRMAN. What hydroelectric dams generally are in Arkansas outside of those operated as you stated, on the Ouachita River, in the vicinity of Hot Springs, and those dams consist of the Glenwood Dam and the Carpenter Dam. Mr. FITZHUGH. That is correct. The CHAIRMAN. What other hydroelectric dams are there in your State and where are they located? Mr. FITZHUGH. Arkansas-Missouri Power Corporation has two small dams near Mammouth Springs. The CHAIRMAN. And where is Mammouth Springs? Mr. FITZHUGH. In the extreme northern part of the State-in the central, northern part of Arkansas. The CHAIRMAN. Well, how far from Bull Shoals or Table Rock? Mr. FITZHUGH. I imagine, a rough estimate, I would say about 80 miles. The CHAIRMAN. Is that between Bull Shoals and Table Rock? |